Dear Editor:
At the July 17 City Council meeting, after sitting through hours of testimony mostly by users of the golf course, I was surprised, and happy to hear Mayor Faber encouraging the …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you had an active account on our previous website, then you have an account here. Simply reset your password to regain access to your account.
If you did not have an account on our previous website, but are a current print subscriber, click here to set up your website account.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
* Having trouble? Call our circulation department at 360-385-2900, or email our support.
Please log in to continue |
|
Dear Editor:
At the July 17 City Council meeting, after sitting through hours of testimony mostly by users of the golf course, I was surprised, and happy to hear Mayor Faber encouraging the council to look to the future and to come up with priorities for the property now occupied by the golf course that would serve the community at large.
The Engage PT stakeholder process working with Groundswell seemed to be a good idea, but in the end at the public open house number three it was obvious that there was no consensus, and a tiny amount of public support for either a golf course with a few amenities for the general public replacing the driving range, or a central park with nothing for golfers.
Citing affordable housing on the property (not for the wealthy as one reader previously imagined) truly benefits all of us providing places to live for those who are willing and able to fill critical positions in our community.
I encourage all readers to go on the city website council meeting page, archived videos and agendas, July 17 meeting toward the end at time stamp 8:56, and decide for yourself.
