Letter: Why would Richland taxpayers want to pay for less public river access?

This is in response to the March 25 Herald article about proposals to have Richland get more trees, narrow George Washington Way by one lane and pack the waterfront with condos and retail enterprises.

Trees already line a good part of G Way. In addition, Richland already has tree canopies, especially in Howard Amon Park. I also point out that the tourist attraction for the Tri-Cities is sunshine, not shade.

G Way is one of two main arterials serving Hanford workers. Eliminating one lane makes no sense at all, and will make a difficult traffic situation much worse.

Having retail outlets and upscale condos cover the waterfront will mean less public access. So why would taxpayers want to pay for such a thing? Private west side investors with a now-or-never ultimatum have no business deciding our best interests.

My overall impression is that Richland did not check the credentials of the consultants and that they came from the Donald Trump school of giving us the business.

This story was originally published April 12, 2016 at 4:10 PM with the headline "Letter: Why would Richland taxpayers want to pay for less public river access?."