Letter: Grass, trees good for north landing
I actually live in north Glenwood and am appalled by the suggestion that trees and grass should not be considered for the “north landing” undeveloped area. The heat created by all the new concrete and rising from the pool parking lot will be washing over north Glenwood along with the exhaust from the tens of thousands of cars that cross the bridge daily.
A bit of grass and nine trees sounds very reasonable. If you lined some trees up going north-south bordering the pedestrian bridge, there would be shade from the crucifying late-day sun on the bridge. Cutting them down would only be necessary if every inch of space in that area were taken, pushing up against the pedestrian bridge.
And, surely, there will be grass for the summer and not just bare soil while the city decides on a plan; and finds financing for the plan, which could take years.
Were Karl Hanlon’s remarks about the landing expressed in his capacity as the city attorney or as a private citizen? In either case, fear of the homeless should not drive the conversation. Children, dogs and tourists also enjoy gathering areas. Notice the park behind the old chamber site and next to a pot shop is not overrun with homeless.
North Glenwood could use a restaurant, or a gelato shop, but a pocket park would be a pleasant amenity our side of town does not have, one with trees and grass for heaven’s sake.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.