To the Journal editor:
The principal concern, at present, would appear to be the haul route for the Rio Tinto mine near Big Bay.
While we are all concerned about the environment, clearly this mine has met the requirements to operate and deserves to do so unless and until they should in any way fail to meet the existing criteria.
Obviously then, they need to get their product through the various processes and on to market. We are told though that environmental concerns preclude the construction of a new road, which the company is willing to pay for.
Where are we then? Have we now saddled ourselves with regulations that in effect prescribe more concern for the "critters" in our woodlands as opposed to our own health and safety?
Surely, if all this truck traffic is allowed to come down the existing road from Big Bay and through Marquette and on up an already busy highway, through Negaunee and Ishpeming as well, we are going to have problems including the strong likelihood of accidents, injuries and perhaps even deaths!
How can we allow this, when, first of all, throughout the Upper Peninsula we have an abundance of woodlands and wetlands and further, one would ask from a constitutional standpoint, how is it that some bureaucrats in Washington have anything to say about a rural road in Marquette County?
Another current concern would be the city of Marquette's intention to continue with their plans to relocate a portion of Lake Shore Boulevard near the old Cliffs Dow property.
Why is this necessary in that surely we have an abundance of views of Lake Superior all along the lake shore including a good portion of the road proposed to be relocated? Who is really pushing for this and why? Further, one would wonder if this is the best use of limited funds given the condition of other city streets.
Lastly, what about the still existing concerns as to contamination along the new proposed route?