A Critic’s View: Plummer Park

West Hollywood Plummer Park
A view of a play area in the new park design. (Photo courtesy of City of West Hollywood)

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]n 2007, the city of West Hollywood began to prepare plans for the renovation and redesign of Plummer Park, one of the final steps in a design process that started in the mid-1990s. Last year these plans became a point of major conflict between the city and a group of residents. With complaints focusing on the planned removal of buildings and trees, new additions to the park that are out of context and a design process that they see as having had a minimum of community input.

The contentious design for Plummer Park, prepared by the architecture firm Brooks + Scarpa and landscape architects OLIN, is part of the series of projects intended to celebrate the city of West Hollywood’s 25th anniversary—these also include the West Hollywood Library and City Hall parking structure. Plummer Park, funded through bonds that are now in limbo after the recent dissolution of redevelopment agencies throughout California, is currently stalled (as well as tabled by the city council) until the state can figure out how it will handle projects for which bonds have already been issued and ground ready to be broken.

Despite the current standstill, the project will inevitably pick back up. For this reason, a serious look at the realities of the current state of the park and its new design is in order.

The current animosity is a result of two drastically different conceptions of what Plummer Park is. For city hall, Plummer Park is a city resource, the largest park in West Hollywood and a public space for the entire city to utilize. In contrast, some park neighbors see it as a personal backyard, an everyday meeting spot and a place specifically for the population on the East side of the city.

These two views must find a medium, because both are, to some extent, true.

Plummer Park Today

Today, Plummer Park is shaded by numerous trees, populated by a variety of buildings and is filled, most importantly, with people—lots of them. The park provides diverse uses for a diverse cross section of West Hollywood residents. It is loved and integral to the surrounding community, but also has its share of problems.

Security is a serious issue, and park users have called for safety improvements. Transients lounge in blind spots near the preschool, giving parents a reason to be concerned, and in the evening dark corners between buildings and unclear pathways remain poorly lit. A shooting in July also raised questions of park security.

The beautiful trees of Plummer Park provide excellent shade, but some are unhealthy, according to an arborist’s study that preceded the design work. The community center aside, the park’s buildings are old and not in particularly good condition. The preschool is housed in a temporary building made permanent, the performance space at Fiesta Hall is woefully inadequate and Great Hall/Long Hall have been subjected to numerous ad-hoc additions and changes over the years. Little of the modest beauty they had remains amongst a tangle of wires, ducts, window bars and poorly constructed add-ons.

In short, Plummer Park is charming, but is in need of repair and upgrades on nearly all fronts if it is to retain its charm, beauty and utility for generations to come.

Enter the design for the new Plummer Park, which consists of a number of large components, some fantastic solutions to real problems and others in need of a second look.

Underground Parking

Without a doubt, the underground parking structure has drawn the most pushback.
Some area residents are concerned over removal of the large trees and Great Hall/Long Hall, while other question whether additional parking is even necessary.

It comes down to the highly divergent views of the park. In the city’s opinion, an improved Fiesta Hall needs additional parking. Some residents don’t see Fiesta Hall as being that busy.

In the current design, the underground lot that cuts across most of the park is a compromise and balance between a number of difficult issues. For example, it allows users of the preschool, Fiesta Hall and community center, in particular seniors and disabled members of the community, to easily access any point in the park—something not possible if the parking is concentrated at one end. At the same time, it is certainly not ideal due to the loss of some older trees and the amount of park closure.
Ultimately, the city and the users of Plummer Park are between a rock and a hard place. Each option will please one group, while causing problems for another.

The balance the city decided upon takes a long-term view of the park’s needs, but is unfortunately highly invasive.

Plan and Planting

West Hollywood Plummer Park
The plans highlight the lush planting that will provide shade and scale to the new park. (Photo courtesy of City of West Hollywood)
West Hollywood Plummer Park
This view, of the same area shown in the plan above may explain some of the resident’s concern—sterile wasteland indeed. (Photo courtesy of City of West Hollywood)

Large areas of planting and paths make up a large portion of the new design and are one of its best features. The design successfully provides variety in terms of intimacy, shade and use between park areas—an explicit desire of many area residents—while reusing a large number of the existing trees.

Calls that the park will be reduced to a sterile wasteland are unfounded, however, concerns are understandable considering the poor quality of images and materials used to present the designs. In computer renderings, trees almost always look sterile, depictions of use are unconvincing and areas of planting that create intricate variations of scale are unintelligible.

The vertical fin screens designed to block the view of the elevators also suffer from the severity of the presented images, as does the fountain, which will be a fantastic addition. Children will love the fountain in the summer (don’t forget a towel) and the cool air down wind on summer days will be much appreciated by those sitting nearby.

Great Hall/Long Hall

Much has been said about the decision to remove the Great Hall/Long Hall structure. Opponents to the idea say they are charming buildings, that it doesn’t make sense to tear down a building that could be repaired and that WPA buildings are a historic resource.

Unfortunately, Great Hall/Long Hall is in the worst possible location, from the standpoint of increasing safety, circulation and the usable area in the park. Smack in the middle, these buildings block views and walkways through the park’s center, create blind corners and take up prime area for additional trees and shady seating. Safety in a park is a matter of vision, clarity of paths and lighting. The removal of Great Hall/Long Hall would make the park a safer place almost immediately.

From a preservation perspective, there is a dose of irony in the argument that Great Hall/Long Hall should be granted historic status and preserved considering the park lost its original historic status.

The California Historic Landmark No. 160 designation for Plummer Park was revoked because the original historic structures and features of the park have long since been removed (such as Captain Eugenio Plummer’s home) and other structures, such as Great Hall/Long Hall, put in. Additionally, the Great Hall/Long Hall structures have been changed significantly from their original state, arguably to an extent that makes them no longer representative of their original era and thus not eligible for historic designation; though that is for the California Office of Historic Preservation to decide.

This is an important sequence of events to acknowledge. History is a highly fluid thing and historic importance highly subjective. The balancing act between what constitutes a cultural resource or an aged burden is often decided by what a structure would uniquely provide for future generations. At the cost of the park’s safety and vitality, Great Hall/Long Hall provides little more than local nostalgia.


The preschool is another of the current buildings in dire need of replacement, though it is by far the least contentious. The current building was intended to be temporary and is far past its intended lifespan. The concerns about the new design should be noted, but it is a generally sound, if elaborate structure. Though it would be well served by a reevaluation of its exterior color palette.

Fiesta Hall

West Hollywood Plummer Park
The elevation on Vista maintains the scale of the neighborhood without pretending to be original to Fiesta Hall. (Photo courtesy of City of West Hollywood)

Fiesta Hall is certainly the most precious of the buildings in Plummer Park and I whole-heartedly agree with the decision to renovate and add to it.

But again, the outrage surrounding the new design stems from divergent views of how the park should be used. For the city, Fiesta Hall should be a high-quality performance space for all and thus calls for a “flashy” design. Some neighbors don’t want it to be nearly that busy, or they have called instead for the new addition to match the current Spanish architecture. Unfortunately, were the Spanish style to be used, the original architecture of Fiesta Hall would loose its identity—one would not be able to tell it and the addition apart—making a contemporary style addition clearly preferable. A contrast between old and new would allow both to shine.

With the current design, even if one agrees with the city’s logic, the community’s issues are not entirely unfounded. The new Fiesta Hall is a building that wishes it fronted a main street like Santa Monica, yet it does not. Nestled in a small-scale, tree-lined neighborhood, the addition is, at the very least, over-scaled. Smartly, however, the design turns the main entry to face the park, as opposed to Vista, attempting to maintain the scale along that side.

Getting To Work

The design for Plummer Park suffers from poor presentation materials and a tricky issue in its underground parking, but it will provide a vast improvement for nearly all points on which the park currently suffers.

The underground parking should probably be revisited, but there is unlikely to be a solution that pleases everyone. Something will have to give to find some balance, and it will likely be either a few large shade trees or the ease of access to the park’s buildings.

Check out the plan for Plummer Park here.

Check out the Protect Plummer Park efforts here.

  1. The best plan for Great Hall/Long Hall is for the city to wait until the president is here for a fundraiser, then screen it off with a police and fire department staging area and surreptitiously knock it all down with a bulldozer. It can become a Weho tradition.

  2. I will first resort to restating what I said to the Park La Brea News:
    “Why would the city continue this course of action?
    There are many more cost effective and restorative alternatives than to simply uproot and demolish what is
    essentially the heart and soul of this park.This seems like an enormous waste of money and resources and I have no idea why more community
    residents are not banging down the doors of city hall and asking for the entire plan to be reworked.
    More community involvement is needed. Those elected officials work for you, not the other way around.”

    Let me also point out that Stephanie and her group, if not for their involvement and passionate to do whatever it takes to preserve Plummer Park, it would surely be gone by now. This commitment alone should send a message to residents and non-residents to show support for the cause. Remember, once it’s gone it’s gone forever.

    Also, this article…was this an Op-Ed piece or an unbiased report of the state of affairs concerning the park? It’s enough of a concern to be fighting City Hall but when a “reporter” decides to involve his or her own points of view to favor one side of the story or the other well, he or she immediately loses all credibility. Stick to the facts and let the readers determine an opinion. Just some token advice for future reference. Otherwise just call it an editorial piece and leave it at that!

    Sorry Stephanie, it had to be said. Keep fighting the good fight.

  3. Thanks, Steve or Rob, or whomever, for your opinions under DM. Interesting comments even if totally misled. I hope you will reveal yourself so we can all sit down and talk without spewing venom like you do in these blogs under various pseudonyms; it is so declasse. Infact, why don’t you take “friend” up on the offer to walk through Great Hall/Long Hall with the original plans and have an actual conversation about historic preservation of things years before 1984. Come on. Let’s be civil. You get nowhere being so vile. You are correct in saying that there are people from all over interested in Plummer Park. Many people outside of weho are interested in saving the history and the 54 magnificent old growth trees that would be slaughtered to put in underground parking. Your thinking is extremely provincial if you think this park, or, indeed any park is just for Weho residents. People from all over use Plummer Park, each and everyone one is, by the City’s definition a ” stakeholder.” So, please DM and E get your facts straight before spouting off. Come on, let’s all meet in the park! And PLEASE bring the vast majority of people who have ben bullied and who want this design. How would this weekend be?

  4. E, you are so very correct in your observations. Thank you. You’ve found the proponents of ‘Protect Plummer Park’ are selfish, self=serving, narrow minded in their attempts at halting any and all improvements to Plummer Park. They have claimed a majority of residents are against the redevelopment of Plummer Park. They site time-and-time again, that they have amassed over 1700 signatures.from the online petition at ‘Change.org” but the total is actually 1234 signatures. The important aspect to point out is that this petition is on a national site, ‘Change.org’ and the overwhelming majority of signatures are from out-of-state. A very few are actually city residents.and most probably don’t even know where Plummer Park is nor what the approved master plan is about.

    Now you have probably heard that they collected signatures as well and they love to throw that around but fail to mention that most signed the paper petition thinking the City of West Hollywood was taking the park away and putting a parking structure in its place. Simply not true. The Master Plan calls for the beautification, remodeled and enhanced new PARK grounds. Yes with a subterranean parking structure but more green space and improved facilities.

    Great Hall/Long Hall is an old, antiquated structure that has outlived its original purpose and use and only severs an and obstruction within the park. The WPA is an historical period and is duly noted but this structure is not historic. Most buildings from the WPA era are not “historic” but the era itself is. The ‘Protect Plummer Park’ faction are grasping at anything to halt progress and giving all residents/visitors and landmark park that will be a Jewel for the City. No matter what, the one aspect of Plummer Park improvements is the removal of Great Hall/Long Hall and open up the parks green space and enhance the public facility’s safety by opening up the park.

    The small faction of people that do not want Plummer Park improved think they have a right to impose there selfish desires on all of West Hollywood’s residents. They’re position form the start has always been “not-in-my-backyard’ mentality. I too look forward to a new Plummer Park we can all enjoy.

    ‘Protect Plummer Park’ movement is not about having the best park possible for our city and all its residents. I am at Plummer Park daily and have thought for the past 26 years of my residence that this park needs and should be remodeled. It is for all of us not just a few.

  5. Unfortunately comments that those against the renovations represent the “vast majority” of the neighbors are not true. they simply represent the bullies w/ the loudest voices. I was practically verbally assulted by someone collecting names for a petition when I told him I thought Plummer Park was in desperate need of renovation and even tho I don’t like everything about the plan, i think it will be a great improvement over what is there now. There’s a saying that some things are classic, some are just old. The Great Hall is just old. The renovation isn’t perfect, but its so much better than what is there now. I wholeheartedly hope the renovation money isn’t lost and West Hollywood can move into the future, rather than decay with the past. People have managed to convince themselves that they represent the overwhelming majority of neighbors because they’ve bullied every local in favor of it to being afraid to respond. I live 4 blocks from the park, I look forward to the day when it is clean, well-lit, well designed, and something that can be used by everyone, not a small group of people who have put a stake in it and claim it as their own personal property.

  6. Redevelopment has a long and odorous history in California, typically as a way to line the pockets of developers while sliding money at city officials who toady to redevelopment agendas. It’s been the ugly secret of “liberal” government until recently, but those days are gone now – though apparently we’ll still have to drive a stake through its heart. Unlike the “design critic” who authored this rather condescending pro-redevelopment assessment of Plummer Park, I in fact have attended a number of council and committee meetings as well as community meetings over the past year to discuss the so-called ‘improvement’ plan that proposes to rip down dozens of huge, ancient shade trees to build underground parking for local businesses. Nothing can justify that, and certainly sending in a “design critic” to do the job of offscreen developers is a seedy tactic. Plummer Park needs no improvement, no redevelopment, no millions of redevelopment dollars – in fact, it needs no action at all. It works beautifully just as it is, and I, for one, will join with hundreds of our friends and neighbors to demand that it remain as it is if the so-called plan is revived at any level. The self-important comments of a self-styled middle-brow “critic” won’t change that – if you do open your eyes, you’ll see what is obvious to everyone who uses the park, as I have every week for the past ten years: it works fine. Politicians take note: all efforts to change it will raise another firestorm of protest. Redevelopment has gone away and it won’t be coming back.


  7. The driving (literally) force in this plan is a vast underground parking garage with 170 spaces to run beneath the park from the Santa Monica side all the way to the Fountain side. I have not yet heard a good reason for this, or who will benefit or who will even own it, only that (huge grins) the city will acquire 69 new spaces.

    Parking spaces are not exactly diamond mines. The WPA buildings will be demolished, the pre-school will be razed, and the facade of Fiesta Hall is to be some sort of space-age upgrade. This will allow for more “green space.”

    It will reduce shade (and thus cleaner air); it will cause increased carbon emissions, create a pre-school that resembles a big slice of cheese, and children will not play in the park – they will play on the roof of the cheese right across from the parking garage vents.

    Fiesta Hall has some fantasy belief it is going to become a “world class performance space.” Lincoln Center and the Disney fit those descriptions – Fiesta Hall doesn’t. Its hideous facade is just that – hideous and has no relation to the Spanish architecture of the hall itself.

    Plummer Park sits in a very tightly knit and tightly built residential area. The disruption to the quiet enjoyment of the resident’s homes will disappear. And this is just the nuts and bolts.

    No project of this size and cost makes any sense – any way you look at it. Furthermore, projects of this size and cost are subject to the general economy and rarely come in on time or under budget – even when the Almighty is the project manager.

    It must benefit someone. I have not yet figured out who and how I have is from public papers and their own contradictory sops.

    In terms of public trust – that is off the table. So too should be this odious project. They say they have already spent $3 million on it. Trust me, they should cut their losses and restore the park to its former glory and find another place to put a garage (known in the current parlance of branding, product creation and doublespeak as a “revenue stream”. Who exactly is underwriting this anyway?

  8. I have attended many many meetings over the past year about the renovation of Plummer Park and I have also become much more involved in the workings of our City as a result of the “Plan” for this Park. There are so many horses in this race that one could never be sure what horse is the lead. I was originally attracted to the idea of “Protecting Plummer Park” due to the huge price tag that is associated with this update. Now I am certain that $41.3 million dollars is more than we should spend and I am convinced that this is about providing parking for the new buildings being built on the Eastside with no thought given to the actual needs of this community. Gustave, I hope we will be seeing you at the City Meetings in the future.

  9. I would like to point out the City is only gaining 7 additional parking spots with the expensive and wasteful money being spent on it. Also, the writer does not make clear there are currently two parking lots to accommodate elderly and disabled: one on the North end and one on the South end.

    The WPA buildings that are currently there have been strategically neglected by those at City Hall. It makes their dire need to improve the park and buildings even more of a case. If they continued to upkeep the park throughout the years, we would not be in a position to complain about the inappropriate conditions of the building and park. The City’s government is actually under the Community in the hierarchy, not above the Community. If the writer had attended several meetings with the Community on this particular issue, he would know it is not just the surrounding neighbors, but many from the whole Community that are speaking out against this extravagant nonsense of bureaucracy being thrown down the throats of the citizens.

    The silly and inappropriate designs created by one of the country’s leading firms of GREEN design, Brooks + Scarpa, do not include ONE green element of design. That’s plain silly to not utilize their strengths in designing something with merit, instead of a space ship ready to take anyone opposed to the City into outer space to rid of them.

    The Daycare facility currently has the play area on the roof, just so the kids can bake in the sun without any ventilation due to the high walls for safety needed. I’m a huge fan of Larry Scarpa’s design work, but they failed with this design of Plummer Park. There isn’t any common sense involved with the design. Instead, they are working off of comments made back in the early 90’s. A lot has changed since then and folks are much more aware of preservation, especially since the City loves to tear things down to make way for parking lots, i.e. The Garage Library in West Hollywood Park.

    The only side that should win is the people, not the government forcing their “Vision” or lack thereof. Hasn’t the 25th Anniversary come and gone anyway? Do people really care about the park? You betcha! They like things the way it stands, but would also like the City to start taking care of it properly. That’s the real issue, not the state of affairs over the bonds that were hastily offered.

    Let the City mop up it’s bond mess in a creative way instead of trying to get creative with a park that the Community seems to love as is.

    The issue is more about poor management of the City’s finances than seven additional parking spaces to facilitate spending ungodly amounts of money. When the Country has tightened their boot laces, it is odd WeHo believes they are untouchable in this respect of financials. Without the redevelopment agency feeding the hands of City folks and developers, maybe a more modest approach should be examined, such as restoring the cultural resources that provide history to a Village that is no longer. Too much “keeping up with the Jones'” if you ask me and less about financial responsibility being made by the City.

    The only two issues here are leaving the park alone and improving what is there, and the City’s Bond mess they are going to put onto the shoulders of the Community. I bet some in office or hired will be displeased if they cannot get their developer pals in there to destroy the dignity and heritage of Plummer Park, as well as not receiving their fat checks for campaigns. The City seems to get away with bullying the Community into doing things the Community does not want. Again, comments from 2002 aren’t really relevant today. TO have the City ignore any new thought on the project is once again a sign the folks just don’t care about the people. It is “Their Agenda or No Agenda”.

    And as for Mr. Heully, the writer, it would be nice to see him attend some of these meetings in order to gauge a truer perspective of matters relating to PP. Do the homework before writing. That’s what I was taught, instead of being spoon fed ‘media’ by the City…

  10. The underground parking was never really just for a renovated Fiesta Hall. It was part of a parking credits program that I do not fully understand myself. When “Phase 2” for Plummer Park was complete there would have been underground parking all the way to Fountain, with above ground parking in the present north parking lot. Plummer Park was just a land bank for the developers.
    When the community learned about the plans for Plummer Park they signed petitions, attended hundreds of hours of meetings and made their opinions known to city hall.

  11. I love the comments by “Friend” about Great Hall / Long Hall. Its poor state is due to neglect only. It is structurally sound (the City never conducted a structural analysis, just a “walkaround”) and absolutely eligible for historic designation.
About the “interactive water feature” (which you hail as a fantastic addition that children will love): Recent revisions to the California Building Code and the California Code of Regulations prohibit pools of standing water in fountains that encourage public interaction with the water. It is too costly and difficult to keep them sanitary.

    I agree that much about this plan appears sound on first look. I too was almost sold initially until all of a sudden the underground parking moved into the center of the park: who wouldn’t want “more green space”, “more trees” or “better security” or exciting new features such as this one? But (much like a Romney/Ryan tax plan) as soon as you dig a little deeper it all falls apart.

    I do agree with Gustave that the idea of opening up a renovated Fiesta Hall toward the park (and integrating its courtyard into the park) is a great idea.

  12. Gustave, thanks for re-opening the dialogue on Plummer Park on this new platform. You clearly seem to favor the currently stalled plan and you make some good points about possible alterations to it. However, I do not agree with your conclusion that there is no solution that pleases everyone. There certainly is, if we are the “creative city” we want to be.

    I would add to your piece that the “group of residents” (Protect Plummer Park) that opposes the current plan has overwhelming public support (over 1,500 signatures) and does not oppose renovation of the park nor any of the stated goals of the plan as seems implied here. At least 50 old growth trees would be destroyed under the current plan, not “a few”. None of them are sick. According to the planners it would take at least 15 years to “hopefully” reach the current level of canopy cover again. I find that unacceptable. We would also like to see the historic nature of the park honored in the renovation process as you correctly point out.

    There are also serious safety concerns connected to the underground parking (ask any sheriff off the record) as well as hygiene and maintenance concerns about the “interactive water feature” (the county won’t give permits for those anymore).

    I believe the City acted wisely in putting this plan on hold.

    Now that we have put the process on hold I believe that this plan can and will be changed to a plan that actually achieves it’s stated goal (to honor the park’s history and to improve and expand it).
    -To a plan that creates more green space without destroying its quality green space.
    -To a plan that better considers the needs of the large russian community.
    -To a plan that renovates Fiesta Hall into a state of the art theatre while keeping it’s facade compatible with the neighborhood and the historic vista district.
    -To a plan that provides more than adequate parking which doesn’t blow its exhaust air into the middle of the park (through the preschool nonetheless!!).
    -To a plan that creates a bigger & better preschool where the children don’t have to play on a roof.
    -To a plan that the residents of West Hollywood can be excited about.

    And a less intrusive renovation can also be done for less money. And (other than developers) who would be unhappy about that?

  13. Gustave,
    I have to disagree with your statements and conclusions regarding Great Hall/Long Hall:
    1. The fact that Great Hall/ Long Hall is seeking designation as a historic structure is unrelated to the fact that yes, the park as a whole, was once designated and is now no longer considered a landmark due the significant changes made to the parkland. The park’s lack of landmark status does not contribute to the land-marking of Great Hall/ Long Hall.

    2. Great Hall/ Long Hall has NOT been severely altered from its original state. The only addition to the building is a mechanical/ electrical room, which while less than appealing in its current location, does not constitute a significant alteration. It could be relocated without significant impact to the original building. I’d love to walk you through the building with my copy of the original drawings sometime so that you could see this, as well as some simple yet beautiful details, for yourself. Some windows have been replaced over the years. However, the shape and size of the openings was never altered. If anything, the building suffers from deferred maintenance.

    3. Let’s talk about its location “smack in the middle” of the park. This building was designed as a community center for its neighboring residents. Did you know that this building was CONTINUOUSLY used by community groups, not to mention the Audubon Society and the Russian Library, until the city closed the building to start this project? Rather than tearing it down because the park has been altered around it throughout the years, why couldn’t the design plan come up with a solution that stimulated under-utilized spaces around the building in such a way that the blind corners were no longer a problem? Here’s why: because it’s easier to design a space when there’s nothing there.
    4. You make the argument that Great Hall Long Hall takes up “prime area for additional trees and shady seating.” The park ALREADY has that. Any new trees added to site will not provide a similar level of substantial shade for a good ten to fifteen years. I recommend you check out all the new trees that were added at West Hollywood Park and see how many people are sitting beneath them on a sunny day.
    5. And finally, I think your last paragraph on this topic is the most disturbing of all. You argue that “History is a highly fluid thing and historic importance highly subjective,” however, you fail to recognize that history is also a continuum of time. And that continuum is most often marked by objects and structures that help us to connect to our past. You may tritely think this is “little more than local nostalgia”, but I think that is naïve, shallow, and dismissive view of a building that was built as a celebration of its time and place in Los Angeles County.

    While I appreciate your attempts to grapple with a design critique of the plans for Plummer Park, I find your write-off of the historic preservation aspect of Great Hall/ Long Hall to be unfortunate.

  14. Bravo Gustave, well balanced and thoughtful piece. Fair and insightful. I particularly agree with you comments regarding Great Hall/Long Hall. Their removal would open up the park immeasurably. Instantly, the park would be a safer place to be and much easier to navigate. I fully support the expansion of green space. Time will tell what is to come but clearly Plummer Park is a city park and NOT just the extension of living space for the neighbors that border the park. Thank you for being factual and fair.

  15. I am reading this on the way to work and will have to comment on this article when there is ample time to respond point by tedious point. But my first reaction is Mr. Heully has only a cursory understanding of the plan and the facts. This is an opinion piece at best and should not be misconstrued as factual.

Comments are closed.