Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Costs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter says Lincoln Memorial-area project would cost far more than claimed and use public land
Summary
A public commenter at an unspecified meeting disputed cost estimates for a proposed Lincoln Memorial–area project, citing figures ranging from millions to more than $1 billion and warning that 50 acres of public land, including a cherry-tree grove and a bike trail, would be repurposed for a golf course.
A public commenter at an unspecified meeting challenged widely reported cost estimates for a proposed project near the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, saying the price had ballooned far beyond initial figures and warning the development would consume public land and historic trees.
The commenter asked the audience, "What did Trump say it would cost? Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool," and recited a series of figures recorded in the transcript, including an unclear early figure the speaker rendered as "1.5 to 1,800,000," then saying "$16,000,000," a ballroom at "$200,000,000," and later that costs were "exceeding $1,000,000,000." The speaker added that the initial estimate for a "200 foot tall arc" was being reported at "$100,000,000," and that "experts say it's gonna cost a lot more."
The commenter also argued the plan would appropriate "50 acres of public land," including "a bike trail, [a] historic grove of cherry trees," to install a golf course, calling the project "waste." Those characterizations appeared as assertions by the commenter and were not confirmed or countered within the provided transcript.
The transcript does not identify the speaker by name or official role; the speaker is described here as a public commenter. No formal motions, votes, authorities, or officials appear in the recorded excerpt.
The speaker's numerical claims are recorded verbatim from the transcript; some figures were unclear in the recording (for example, the phrase transcribed as "1.5 to 1,800,000"). Where the transcript is ambiguous, the article notes that uncertainty rather than asserting exact figures.
The commenter concluded by urging the public to understand the scale of the proposal and by calling it waste. The record provided ends with those remarks; no response or subsequent action appears in the excerpt.
