Guest opinion: Supporting the wind phone while questioning the pocket park

I live adjacent to the proposed pocket park, and I first learned of the project when I received a request for public comment on a floodplain development permit in April. I submitted comments by the deadline, but shortly afterward construction paint appeared for the sidewalk expansion. I was later told that the main opportunity for meaningful input on the pocket park occurred at earlier Parks Board and City Council meetings. 

My concern with the current proposal is that the primary justification for removing the pedestrian bridge is the unchecked erosion at the site. That bridge has long been a well‑used crossing. There are natural river design approaches that could help stabilize the eroding cutbank, such as creating a floodplain bench. The creek has naturally achieved this just downstream of the crossing. 

I am also concerned that adding roughly 220 square feet of new impervious surface directly adjacent to Cow Creek may unintentionally increase erosion rather than reduce it. Additionally, relocating the trash bin from Second Street to this dead‑end pocket park on the opposite side of the creek seems less practical for people who currently rely on that amenity on the well-established route. 

In an ideal scenario, the city would prioritize planning and funding for a replacement pedestrian bridge with a longer span and rehabilitation of the eroding creek bank. This would maintain the nature‑based experience that residents and visitors have enjoyed there for years. 

Taylor Greenup, Whitefish