ktcxyz at cox.net
Thu May 18 12:42:51 CDT 2017
i so agree Anne, i think people are neglecting our p.o.v. because we haven’t been chiming in. we’ve been hearing from people who want a place for kids to splash around in and i don’t think those two things need be mutually exclusive.
I’d be fine with Lippitt Park hosting a water feature that humans could use, but not at the expense of the fountain.
> On May 18, 2017, at 1:35 PM, Anne Holland <aholland at gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, as a fountain fan for reasons of history, beauty and community, I am startled to hear anyone say this should be destroyed. Fountains like all public art and parks do require upkeep. That doesn't mean they are not valuable.
> Sent from my iPhone
>> On May 18, 2017, at 11:21 AM, <e2shatter2 at cox.net> <e2shatter2 at cox.net> wrote:
>> It has become obvious to me that the neighborhood does not want the fountain. How about having it removed and replaced with a child-friendly water feature. If the city doesn't want to pay for this it might be a good idea to establish a Lippit Park conservancy which would be a public-private organization. Why not use the conservancy to design the kind of park that the neighborhood wants. This could be done in conjunction with the city. Ellen Shatter
>> Summit mailing list
>> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
> Summit mailing list
> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Summit