It seems strange that an article reminding drivers to reduce speed on busy city streets be devoted to only one street, when the problem occurs on multiple streets across the state. (July 17)
Then there was an article praising the parents in a congested section of Lewiston for succeeding in getting approval for a park to be rebuilt in their neighborhood. (July 18)
There needs to be more public parks for children to play in, but I do not understand the logic of placing a park less than 300 yards from a much larger park.
A warning that kids should not be playing in city streets seems rather catty, when the city does not offer children in the vicinity of Summer Street a park in which they can play. There is only one public playground in the area from Main Street to Avon Street and spanning from Chapel Street to Riverside Street. That is Sunnyside Park.
That park has been almost completely neglected by the city. There are three basketball hoops, so only one full court game can be played. The swing set has one swing that is unusable due to the overgrown trees that hang well below the mounting bar. And there is a sandbox that has filled in with grass.
Is that all the children in the area deserve?
Would city officials please explain the logic of building a new public park less than 1,000 feet from the city’s largest public park when several neighborhoods don’t have access to one decent park?
Laura Jean Mayes, Lewiston