A recent article, “Coast Guard Museum Association working to cultivate next donor base,” (April 11), about the Coast Guard Museum has me looking at this project from a donor's perspective.

Having chaired a corporate contributions committee for nearly two decades, a number of questions come to mind:

[naviga:ul]

[naviga:li]Why build on a flood plain, at sea level?[/naviga:li]

[naviga:li]Why select a site having little room for future expansion?[/naviga:li]

[naviga:li]Why utilize $20 million just to erect a bridge to access the venue?[/naviga:li]

[naviga:li]Why place the building out of sight from the street?[/naviga:li]

[/naviga:ul]

When first proposed, the museum was to be located at Fort Trumbull, a location offering plenty of space; parking, and one having a grand view of New London Harbor. We're told that $35 million of the required $100 million to build the museum has been pledged or raised. How can earmarking $20 million, just for access, be justified when it wouldn't be required at the Trumbull site?

I also question showing the Barque Eagle as an "attraction" in waterside renderings; considering her training and maintenance requirements. Eagle is at sea through the tourist season.

I find little "buzz" for the current configuration among friends and colleagues, many of whom have a Coast Guard background.

This project needs a fresh look.

Neil Ruenzel

East Lyme

Editor’s note: The author is a former director of communications for Electric Boat in Groton.