Who supports a plan for growth?

I have a response for Greg Jergeson’s Havre Daily News editorial of Tuesday, July 18.

Mr. Jergeson’s account of the Highway 2 Association’s mission, “Enhancing Economic Development in the Highway 2 Corridor by Constructing an Adequate Highway, 4 For 2, which is the Prerequisite to Economic Development,” is misleading.

Stating it bluntly, in the first place, Greg doesn’t support an adequate highway, which is essential in growing northern Montana’s stagnant economy. Mr. Jergeson is a political appointee by Gov. (Steve) Bullock and he represents the governor’s political agenda, which has never supported 4 For 2. Here it is in a nut shell, Upton Sinclair once famously stated some years ago in words that best describes the situation, “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on him not understanding it.”

The controversy in the logical termini, Havre to Fort Belknap, stems from a contrived, flawed environmental impact study wherein some of the conclusions were predetermined. The study recommended an improved two-lane highway only, meaning that unless the EIS is repealed or modified, the logical termini will have more like the Havre East Project design, described by many as “The worst highway design” they have ever seen. All this logical termini will have is a two-lane highway with centerline rumble strips “Into Perpetuity.”

We have asked for a revisit of the EIS wherein we would seek a repeal or modification of the study, so future highway designs would be afforded the normal design criteria. If the EIS remains as is, it will stifle economic development because the region will not be able to compete for business. It’s a fact, 80 percent of business locates in or near communities that have four lanes or better.

Polls show that the No. 1 consideration for businesses, when looking to locate or relocate, is “Is there an adequate transportation system?”

We fully recognize that any future projects have to be nominated for the MDT Five Year Construction Plan, that if a project makes the cut, then its prioritized as to a construction date. MDT supports and defends the EIS and has denied our request for a revisit, a decision that is supported by Greg. Greg posed a question — He says the proponents of four lanes have never answered the question, how to pay for the high cost of a four-lane design.

That’s just an excuse and it’s pure conjecture on Greg’s part, surely recognizes that funding is the second step in the process of which is out of his jurisdiction, thankfully. Highway projects are considered and prioritized based on need, funding becomes the second phase in the process. Most would agree, constructing 4 For 2 that stimulates local growth is an investment, not a cost.

My contention that Greg is anti-growth is backed by a question I have posed to Greg and other opponents: “If you won’t support an adequate highway in northern Montana, what then is your plan for growing the economy?”

Not a one have responded, “They don’t have a plan.” Folks, I have been striving to enhance the economic viability of our communities for six decades. I believe in the people and the opportunities that exist, the likes I have not, in my lifetime, seen.

Now I need your help. Please let me know if you stand with the Highway 2 Association’s mission. If not, then let’s be happy with the present no-growth status that Havre and the Hi-Line is experiencing. I would be interested. Do you support a review of the EIS.

Thanks, cordially

Bob Sivertsen

President, Highway 2 Association