������Ƶ

I’m writing regarding your Nov. 20 editorial “Children’s Playground A Bad Fit For Ala Moana Park.”

While I’m personally in favor of the proposed playground, I sincerely welcome opposing views to both better understand other points of view and to potentially influence my own opinion.

However, I was disappointed by the lack of strong arguments presented in your editorial.

Regarding the park’s history, you write that “its development was guided by The Outdoor Circle, an organization of generally affluent women, many the wives of leading business and political figures … of the day.”

The Outdoor Circle originating the park invites a direct comparison with the Paani Kakou wanting to originate the playground. If it was good enough for a group of the wealthy and powerful to build the park, isn’t it good enough for a group of the wealthy and powerful to build a playground in that park?

The history mentions that the beach was not present until the 1950s. I would definitely call its addition, and its new activities of swimming, sunbathing, beach volleyball, etc, as a “change to the local character” of the park.

Magic Island is a man-made peninsula, for crying out loud! How would these additions have ever happened if they ran into the opposition of them “changing the local character” of the park?

I agree with the editorial’s opinion that the park should be revitalized. However, the editorial fails to describe how building the playground would detract from this revitalization.

Building the playground would in no way extinguish the fireworks, sink the lanterns or slow down the boat racing; nor would it reduce the tree count below 1,000 or the bird species below 20. (Side note: the majority of which consists of invasive species).

Perhaps the maintenance of the playground would cause other aspects of the park to take a financial hit, but your editorial does not address this topic.