Archives - Peter Kleeman Comments on the Proposed Mall Crossing
May 2005
Letters to the Editor: Peter Kleeman Comments on the Proposed Mall Crossing
Search for:

Home

Dear City Council,

I am surprised to see on the May 16 council agenda a public hearing on a mall crossing at 4th or 5th street. In the background material itself it is indicated that staff recommends that "this project not be pursued until the East End Construction and the construction of the 5th and Water lot is complete. Only at that time, will we know the true impacts of the closure of 7th Street."

I just received this notice and will attempt to acquire the report, Atty. Brown memo and 1994 minutes to review. But, I think this public hearing should be held at a future date - not May 16. Given the long lead time for any action to be taken, I recommend you allow the public to review the background material and understand the proposal prior to asking for public input. Having this only public hearing option on such short notice with none of the background material available online (it appears) indicates that council is not that eager to have public input on this matter.

I will be unable to attend the council meeting on May 16, but want you to know that I am generally opposed to another mall crossing at 4th or 5th street. This whole idea is counter to councils position that the east end development on the mall would be an extension of the pedestrian mall. If such a crossing is put in place the net result will be in fact a shortening of the pedestrian space on the mall - counter to your previous position.

Ample opportunity for delivery of goods to mall businesses exists through the side streets without crossing the mall at 4th or 5th street. The benefit of that to merchants would be of direct benefit to a very few shop owners - but at the expense of many pedestrians - both city residents, shoppers, and visitors. This action will result in a less pedestrian friendly mall area and a significant reduction in the quality of life in the downtown mall area.

I urge you to remove this item from the May 16 agenda to allow all stakeholders to become familiar with the proposal, provide meaningful input, and provided the courtesy of ample lead time to understand whatever benefits and costs are potentially associated with this project.

Sincerely,
Peter Kleeman (electronic mail, May 11, 2005)


Comments? Questions? Write me at george@loper.org.