The letter delivers a strong argument, and I agree with Derek's improvement, however, there is one sentence that I am concerned about that may contribute to a leaky argument:

Two major stumbling blocks to seeing the Connector a reality have always been obtaining adequate right-of-way from private land owners and the actual cost of the construction.

If you are reading the sentence in this fashion, it works fine:

Two major stumbling blocks to seeing the Connector a reality have always been obtaining adequate right-of-way from private land owners and obtaining the actual cost of the construction.

About ten years ago when the City first visited this request the second argument become the reason for not pursuing the project.  The costs were determined on the basis of a hand drawn map taking into consideration elevation and ADA requirements.  Because there was never a formal study performed, the project was not given a fair opportunity.  I would hate to see that happen again.  At our CC meetings we targeted several methods that could provide funding, but none of that mattered in the absence of an actual route without any property barriers.   Our purpose of this letter is not to make a vague statement establishing how costs are one of the major stumbling blocks of which we have no hard data about, but rather to ask the City to formally establish where the CC route can exist in regards to private properties that the CC would have to cross.  So I would like to see the word "obtaining" added to the concerned sentence above or even better have the sentence reworded as below:
The major stumbling block to seeing the Connector a reality has always been obtaining adequate right-of-way from private land owners.
Finally, when considering what the real costs of the CC are,  listen to what Bill Reger-Nash said in regards to the net gains it will have on human health:  "The CC will have an unaccountable influence."

-Jonathan
 

Frank Gmeindl wrote:
Bicycle Board Members,

Thanks to Hugh for promptly writing subject letter.  Thanks to Don D., Paul, Jake, Chet, Derek, Chip and Don S. for their concurrence or recommended improvements. 

As we agreed at the November meeting, I will deliver the letter to the Traffic Commission after everyone concurs.  Following is a table that lists the responses.  Derek's, Chip's and Don Spencer's comments can be addressed without BB discussion. 

In case it comes through illegible on your end, Betsy, gunnar, Marilyn, Jonathan, Jim, Alice, Janel, I'm waiting for your concurrence or comments.

Member Response date Comments
1. Donald Dickerson 11-Nov the letter sounds good to me
2. Paul Becker 11-Nov Concur.
3. Hugh Kierig 10-Nov  Created the letter
4. Jacob Brown 11-Nov Looking good, I'm in concurrence as well!
5. Elizabeth Shogren    
6. Gunnar Shogren    
7. Frank Gmeindl
 11-Nov  Concur.
8. Marilyn Newcome    
9. Jonathan Rosenbaum    
10. Don Spencer 19-Nov I think that it would be stronger to make this a joint effort with the Pedestrian Safety Board. They are fully on board with this project and even have it listed in their Pedestrian Safety Plan which has been approved by the Traffic Commission and will be going to Council soon.
11. Chet Parsons 11-Nov Very well done!
12. Jim Rye    
13. Derek Springston 11-Nov Change Bicycle Board hope to Bicycle Board's hope
14. Chip Wamsley 11-Nov Change Bicycle Board hope to Bicycle Board's hope
15. Alice Vernon    
16. Janel Bedard    

Frank
Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles

_______________________________________________
Bikeboard mailing list
Bikeboard@cheat.org
http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard