I read Councilman Mike Kennedy’s letter to the editor with interest. I appreciate the spirit of compromise that he details, and I am pleased to think that the plan for the redevelopment of McEuen Field is being scaled back, that the Third Street Boat Launch will remain at its current location, and that there will be no street closures.

However, I do not think that these modifications go far enough. It becomes more apparent as time goes by that the plan to reconfigure McEuen Field is more about creating parking than creating parkland. By far the biggest remaining segment of the development budget is for a parking structure that many people feel to be an unwise, unnecessary and extravagant expenditure of public funds. Yes, this will reclaim five acres of green space, but there are 15 acres of under-utilized green space at McEuen right now. Work with this land first, and please leave it green in the process — don’t “scrape” it at the beginning, mistakenly guided by the wisdom of the “blank slate” approach.

Surface parking is much more economical than multi-story parking, and it does not necessarily have to be considered an eyesore. With a new layout, some creative regrading, and the addition of some attractive tree islands, the parking areas could be integrated into the park and not be considered a problem or a waste of valuable land. Furthermore, if boat trailer parking is made less convenient for boaters by moving it to the south of City Hall, then the overall value of the boat launch is diminished, and this is not in keeping with the equal-or-better doctrine. Therefore, the boat-trailer parking should spruced up and left right where it is, for users’ maximum convenience.

Up until now, the city has spent approximately $185,000 on the study, design and public-relations efforts of Team McEuen, and I think that this is probably a reasonable amount of money for such a detailed study and proposal. However, having approved the resulting conceptual plan amid considerable opposition, the city has now authorized the expenditure of $1,900,000 for Team McEuen to produce working drawings and then to build a $15,000,000 parking structure. Many people feel that this is a wrong-headed approach, and that it is committing the city to the expenditure of way too much money for a plan of very questionable merit. Better for the taxpayers to absorb $185,000 as the cost of another study, learn from the effort and move on. There are better, less expensive and more popular plans for McEuen Field yet to be devised.

It is not too late to reverse the decision to spend $1,900,000 on working drawings and stop this forced march of “progress.” Please use some common sense and see which way the wind is blowing. The proposed parking structure is not the right choice for this small town by the lake.

JEFF CONNAWAY

Coeur d’Alene