Mr. Dunkel's witty letter ("Avon Calling," Aug. 13) in response to my suggestion about the stagnant pond problem at the football field seemed aimed mainly at my lack of creativity in finding a solution to the problem, and I found his disparaging remarks uncalled for. However, he offered no creative feedback except for the application of Avon's "Skin So Soft" which stinks and doesn't work, according to a former user.
What I was suggesting was not borne of a Band-Aid mentality, but an attempt to find a solution to the root of the problem. The company "with lots of equipment" Mr. Dunkel alluded to does not need to point out problems around town in order to make a buck; in fact, the owner of the company (who has already donated thousands upon thousands of dollars to this city) would happily drain and fill the pond at no cost in order to remedy the multifaceted problem.
An intelligent response to my suggestion would be to ask oneself: What is the purpose of the pond? Is it habitat for fowl? Do people swim there? Boat there? Are there any fish? Evidently it was at one time intended for some enjoyment because two fancy docks were installed. Since then it has become not only an eyesore but dangerous looking with a half-hearted attempt at a fence to keep people from falling into it. Should we hire a crew to clean up the tennis shoes, plastic bottles, discarded lumber and metal pipes that pollute it? Perhaps an aeration system, so it would no longer be stagnant?
Maybe it could be connected in some way to another stream in the area to provide natural aeration.
I've seen many unsupervised children playing around the pond. Granted, the pond is not very deep, but if a kid drowns there, will it still be an "innocent little pond?"