Resilient, revitalized, and accessible coastlines for all communities.

Reader Cites Errors in Pier 5 Coverage

To the Editor, To be open about my biases, let me first inform you that I am a member of Restore Pier 5. I am writing to express my view that either this news piece was very poorly researched or (and I hope this was not the case) intentionally misleading.  There are two factual errors. First, there is no organization named Save Pier 5, although this might have been confused with Restore Pier 5. Second, while it is implied that the present housing proposals being considered would significantly benefit veterans, I am not aware of any preferential treatment being offered to veterans.   The title of the piece is “Decorated Veterans Join Charlestown Residents in Opposition to a Park on Pier 5.”  And yet, there are no residents of Charlestown cited let alone quoted.  Where were they?  Given the estimated expense to repair Pier 5, the group Restore Pier 5 was organized to initiate an effort to obtain public funding from the Federal Government in order to make it financially possible to preserve this unique asset for public use and to keep it in public ownership.  Pier 5 is a rare opportunity to preserve a significant space open for public use. Given the Infrastructure and other spending bills being considered in Washington, we believe we are in a unique to get adequate funding to do the necessary repairs to retain Pier 5 for many and not just benefit developers and others through private and restrictive ownership. Stephen O’Brien

Letters to the Editor

To the Editor, To be open about my biases, let me first inform you that I am a member of Restore Pier 5. I am writing to express my view that either this news piece was very poorly researched or (and I hope this was not the case) intentionally misleading.  There are two factual errors. First, there is no organization named Save Pier 5, although this might have been confused with Restore Pier 5. Second, while it is implied that the present housing proposals being considered would significantly benefit veterans, I am not aware of any preferential treatment being offered to veterans.   The title of the piece is “Decorated Veterans Join Charlestown Residents in Opposition to a Park on Pier 5.”  And yet, there are no residents of Charlestown cited let alone quoted.  Where were they?  Given the estimated expense to repair Pier 5, the group Restore Pier 5 was organized to initiate an effort to obtain public funding from the Federal Government in order to make it financially possible to preserve this unique asset for public use and to keep it in public ownership.  Pier 5 is a rare opportunity to preserve a significant space open for public use. Given the Infrastructure and other spending bills being considered in Washington, we believe we are in a unique to get adequate funding to do the necessary repairs to retain Pier 5 for many and not just benefit developers and others through private and restrictive ownership. Stephen O’Brien

Letters to the Editor

To the Editor, To be open about my biases, let me first inform you that I am a member of Restore Pier 5. I am writing to express my view that either this news piece was very poorly researched or (and I hope this was not the case) intentionally misleading.  There are two factual errors. First, there is no organization named Save Pier 5, although this might have been confused with Restore Pier 5. Second, while it is implied that the present housing proposals being considered would significantly benefit veterans, I am not aware of any preferential treatment being offered to veterans.   The title of the piece is “Decorated Veterans Join Charlestown Residents in Opposition to a Park on Pier 5.”  And yet, there are no residents of Charlestown cited let alone quoted.  Where were they?  Given the estimated expense to repair Pier 5, the group Restore Pier 5 was organized to initiate an effort to obtain public funding from the Federal Government in order to make it financially possible to preserve this unique asset for public use and to keep it in public ownership.  Pier 5 is a rare opportunity to preserve a significant space open for public use. Given the Infrastructure and other spending bills being considered in Washington, we believe we are in a unique to get adequate funding to do the necessary repairs to retain Pier 5 for many and not just benefit developers and others through private and restrictive ownership. Stephen O’Brien

Letters to the Editor

To the Editor, To be open about my biases, let me first inform you that I am a member of Restore Pier 5. I am writing to express my view that either this news piece was very poorly researched or (and I hope this was not the case) intentionally misleading.  There are two factual errors. First, there is no organization named Save Pier 5, although this might have been confused with Restore Pier 5. Second, while it is implied that the present housing proposals being considered would significantly benefit veterans, I am not aware of any preferential treatment being offered to veterans.   The title of the piece is “Decorated Veterans Join Charlestown Residents in Opposition to a Park on Pier 5.”  And yet, there are no residents of Charlestown cited let alone quoted.  Where were they?  Given the estimated expense to repair Pier 5, the group Restore Pier 5 was organized to initiate an effort to obtain public funding from the Federal Government in order to make it financially possible to preserve this unique asset for public use and to keep it in public ownership.  Pier 5 is a rare opportunity to preserve a significant space open for public use. Given the Infrastructure and other spending bills being considered in Washington, we believe we are in a unique to get adequate funding to do the necessary repairs to retain Pier 5 for many and not just benefit developers and others through private and restrictive ownership. Stephen O’Brien

Letters to the Editor