Well, I guess we have another development controversy on our hands. How is it possible that the [county] could have sold the parkland that was given only for use as a park. How is it possible that it would be sold for a little over half of its appraised value? How is it possible that we can legally take it back?
Mr. Coleman certainly has a right to develop land that he purchased to develop, but maybe he might have some sensitivity to how his profitable venture would affect the aesthetic quality of our downtown park. Parks are about aesthetics, aren’t they?
This is an absurd situation—that someone would [plan to] build an 11-story building right smack on the park, blocking all the winter sunlight from the park. Mr. Coleman, would you please reconsider? Thanks.
— Gary Schwartz