VISION: Include rural resident views

My husband and I live in rural Kootenai County. We attended one of the CDA 2030 “workshops” last week. Out of approximately 20 attendees, my husband and I were the only rural property owners in the room.

I was very worried when the presenters kept talking about “visioning” for “greater Coeur d’Alene.” Several times I tried to pin them down to define “greater Coeur d’Alene,” but they would not. Finally the researcher from the University of Idaho admitted that the telephone survey included ALL of Kootenai County, and several times the presenters referenced Plummer as part of “greater Coeur d’Alene.” I tried to make it clear that rural property owners have much different needs, wants and goals than people who choose to live in cities, but I am not sure that my concerns were heard. I also tried to pin the presenters down on what outreach they had done to get meaningful input from rural citizens, and it appears that their efforts have been minimal (a booth at the fair and a poster at a grocery store).

I believe that it is very misleading to call this project CDA 2030 when its borders extend well beyond Coeur d’Alene city limits. If this group is envisioning a future for Kootenai County, it should be presented as such so all interested parties are well represented.

My concern is that, at some point in the future, this “vision” will transform into a county plan for Kootenai County without meaningful input from rural citizens. Some of the workshop attendees’ vision for “greater CDA” violated private property rights. I believe that CDA 2030 should limit its scope of visioning to Coeur d’Alene city limits, and if not, fair rural representation at these meetings is essential.

Kootenai County already has a contentious, expensive debacle in the ULUC. I foresee another debacle if CDA 2030 is allowed to develop a “vision” for rural Kootenai County without fair rural representation.

JODY GEHLKER

Kootenai County