Letters to the Editor

SUNDAY, FEB. 28, 2010

Claims for Y on shaky footing

“Y site best for treasury” (Feb. 25)? Explain how that works when the “upscale occupants” get a free pass from property taxes for 10 years. Also, show us a financial plan that doesn’t backfire like River Park Square.

Y site best for security? First, there isn’t any “public safety” problem at the YMCA site. Second, slapping night lights on that dysfunctional building won’t chase away phantom bad guys. The office tenants will take their “eyes on the street” home after dark. The residential “upscale occupants” will be aiming their privileged eyes at views of the falls.

Best for civic activity? In your office/residential formula, the YMCA will attract a trickle of people – most of whom won’t set foot in the main park. That’s not a teeming mass of civic activity. It’s a dead zone. Furthermore, those upscale residents will complain about Pig Out music, fireworks, Pow Wow and Hoopfest in their backyard.

River access? Baloney. The only way you get “ample public access” to this riverbank is by tearing down the north third of the building. Otherwise you have a token shoreline alleyway that no one uses now and no one will ever use.

You’re wrong on this issue. Open space for all is the best answer.

Steve McNutt


Want to respond? Submit your own letter to the editor »

There is one comment on this story »