I’m submitting this letter in response to your reader who wrote

last week about “Gravel pit isn’t the problem.” I share his strong sense of

support for a company (Weyerhaeuser) that has employed many like him

in our Valley. However, his perspective on where the problem is centered

is not a view many of our Valley residents share.

You see, I came to this Valley 12 years ago and have worked in

my home office in rural North Bend the whole time. I support local

businesses and have gotten involved with community groups that have searched

for non-confrontational solutions to land use. I, personally, tried to become

part of the solution, not someone who starts fires as many of my neighbors

have done.

While I respect the writer’s views on Weyerhaeuser, I must take this

opportunity to point out that Weyerhaeuser is the landowner

that sold all this beautiful property we live on. Had they decided to keep it in

forest use, we would not be here.

As for the need for gravel, this state has more gravel mines than

cities. What we who live in North Bend are suggesting is that a strong

economic reason for having one more mega-mine be fully understood. And if it

is concluded that we need one more mega-mine, why not allow the

current stewards at Exit 38 to continue to supply that need — or is Cadman’s

desire to use Exit 34 simply based on personal gain, greed and pride in

jamming a few hundred gravel trucks onto our roads with direct competition

to school buses and trucks at Exit 34?

Sal Passantino

North Bend