Thanks, gritty's, and in case anybody missed it, here is the extremely shortened and somewhat modified version that made into print:
Replace civic center by building arena in Bayside
Portland must replace the Cumberland County Civic Center; anything less won't suffice.
It was, therefore, with confusion that I read Edward D. Murphy's article, "Consensus still eluding parties on civic center" (Oct. 24).
It characterized a meeting among civic center decision makers by discord. Issues of controversy included renovation versus new construction, and the arena's current location versus somewhere new.
But estimates claim the cost of renovating may approach the price of a new arena. Investing in a new complex, though, would for a marginally higher price provide much better amenities.
The best choice, therefore, is clear.
But some still favor renovation. Civic center trustees, however, have endorsed a new arena. We should embrace their vision. Some fear fans may not visit surrounding businesses if the civic center abandons its current location.
But Bayside represents a chance for us to build a new arena elsewhere while at the same time retaining the spin-off benefits associated with event traffic.
Building in Bayside would kill two birds with one stone. Relocating our arena there would aide a depressed part of the city without hurting the self-sufficient area it would leave.
Without the civic center, people will still visit the Old Port. Can we say the same about Bayside?
Arguably not. A plan for a new arena must soon arise for our own economic health, and it would be wisest to build it in Bayside so as to create a catalyst for continued growth in that area.
Patrick Venne
Portland
Here is another stupid letter...
East End development needs different approach
Regarding "Council delays vote on East End condos" (Oct. 17), I attended the City Council meeting and following council workshop (Oct. 23).
Three important issues emerged:
1) Boston-based developers proposed a zoning change to increase current limits on the height of buildings from 45 feet to 75 feet, a 66 percent increase;
2) The incompatibility between the developer's zoning change request and the existing neighborhood was stressed by several councilors, who noted that the developers continued to ignore this issue; and
3) The developers' projected outlandish financial benefits that would come to the city from their project.
None of the developers' comments addressed the 75-foot height requested in the zoning change.
Neighborhood residents who want continuation of the current 45-foot height limit strongly favor developing the area and increasing the housing supply on that site. We believe that compatibility with the character of the neighborhood, increasing housing density and economic development can occur together.
It requires a different approach to planning, an approach that is centered in the Portland community and its neighborhoods.
Several city councilors at both meetings emphasized community consciousness and responsiveness to constituents' needs as the baseline for moving ahead with site-development plans. Letting them know how much this action was appreciated is important.
Community residents would do well to follow this issue, as a spot zoning change can have harmful impact on any of our neighborhoods where future development looms large.
Stephen M. Rose
Portland
These complaining types are doing nothing but contributing to sprawl, and since portland is an inelastic city, it wont capture any of the growth that occurs outside its boundaries (unlike a city like anchorage, which encompasses all of its suburbs). some people!
