At the moment, in my neighborhood, the front steps of the U.C.C. are a skatepark element, as are the steps of All Saints Episcopal. I don’t think we can realistically ever stop kids from saying, “Oh, look, steps! Let’s skate down them!” All of Northfield is treated as a skatepark. Betsey’s idea at least gives some structure to that reality.

If we don’t respect master plans, why not put it in Way Park? It would not have many of the problems placing it in Ames, Babcock or Riverside parks. Presently, the south half is undeveloped. I can hear the very devoted Friends of Way Park neighbors who have worked long and hard to create (and secure approval from the council) grumble when I suggest this, which I do, not because I like the idea, but to underscore the master plan dilemma.

I don’t think we should criticize the PRAB for bypassing Old Memorial Park. Their job is to recommend park plans and development to the council. Furthermore, based on their recommendation, a previous council made a decision as to how that land should be developed. I suspect they never gave Way Park a second thought because the council had approved the (PRAB recommended) plan a year ago.

On the other hand, perhaps new circumstances call into question whether master plans are set in concrete.

Rob -- what was it Robert Burns said about plans?

On your other question… Neighborhood input should be considered, but not decisive. They also need to be weighed with or against the interests of the community as a whole.

And a second question , which I also posed to Rob : How much control should be exerted by neighborhood input?

Ye Gods and little fishes! if it could have been there all along , when that was the kids’ first choice, then it is more of a disaster than even I thought!

Could be. But perhaps now we can get it right.

Why did Memorial Park fall off the site selection process so early? I don’t know, but I am intending to find out. I do know that one of the PRAB members who lives in that neighborhood originally voted FOR that site, and was very vocal about it.

As to funding priorities, there is currently quite a bit of money in the Park Fund … depending who you ask between 400 and 585 thousand… BUT they will not be getting any more while the city is in deep financial doodoo due to LGA cuts, so they must figure out how to spend those $$ wisely.

Completion of the walks in Memorial park have been on their to-do list, as it is bad to never complete projects/master plans, for obvious reasons, although some must be ‘phased’ for cost reasons. Depending on how many lengths of walks they do, it could be between 40-100 K for those , but that still leaves a good balance for other uses.

Since you live on that side of town,why don’t you talk to a bunch of your neighbors and see how they feel about MP as a skateboard plaza location? It has been generally assumed that their was a STRONG ‘nimby’ reaction which swayed both council and park board, but that may not be true if you actually polled the neighborhood, rather than just listened to the loudest voices. (then of course, there’s always the question of how much control should be exerted by the neighborhood input).

Ye Gods and little fishes! if it could have been there all along , when that was the kids’ first choice, then it is more of a disaster than even I thought!

Talk to your neighbors, Rob… let us know…

Why is the PRAB choosing trails in Memorial Park as its funding priority instead of choosing to help move the skatepark forward? It seems as if, by funding trails, they’re trying to paint the skatepark out of the picture at Memorial Park.

Rob,
That’s a mightily suspicious mind you have there. If we were talking Israel/Palestine, we’d be calling that “creating facts on the ground.”

Does the PRAB have spending authority to actually build these things on its own?

(Note: The master plan for Memorial Park also talks about “hardcourt areas (for shuffleboard, etc.).” Pardon me for wondering why hardcourt areas for stereotypically elderly recreational opportunities like shuffleboard are acceptable to the PRAB and Memorial Park neighbors, but not a youth-oriented skateboard park.)

The fact that the Park Board reaffirmed their earlier decision as to which was the best site, after going through the process for a second time , at the council’s request, in no way means they did not understand their role. They complied with every direction that the council gave them. Does the editorial writer think they did not comply with the council’s direction?

If the Board only takes direction from the council, rather than acting on its own expertise, what use is their existence? There are enough rubber stamps in the world; that is not the expected use of these citizen boards.

This was a disagreement about the best site between the Board and the Council; nothing more.

There was no “political decision” by the Park Board; it was in their judgement the correct decision, and they never viewed it as anything but their asked-for recommendation.

It is difficult to credit the News with a valid perspective when they have not attended the meetings where the discussion occurred, and, well … how do they gain an informed perspective? Especially without hearing the Park Board’s deliberations; only looking and listening to the council side seems to not provide a fully informed view on which to base an editorial, especially if you are inclined to slam the citizen volunteers.

Amidst the angst-ridden dialogue at the Park Board last night (Joel Walinski was present; Councilor Pokorney made an honest, but emptily repetitive, attempt to explain his and the council’s position) one rather humorous, maybe bittersweet, exchange occurred: C. Pokorney asked if the Park Board was able to move on , or was going to”hold a grudge”. A board member replied, “Oh, I’m a multi-tasker; I can hold a grudge and move on at the same time”.

Skatepark siting process begins anew.

Once a site is chosen, councilor Jim Pokorney suggested, the council should then ask the parks board to take over the project, fine-tuning the exact location on the chosen property and helping guide its planning.

Editorial: Council had to step in on skate park site.

The board’s decision to again recommend a site the council made clear wasn’t feasible shows a lack of understanding of its role, which is to be an advisory body, not a decision-making one. The decision also calls into question whether the Parks Board’s ultimate goal wasn’t political instead of community-oriented. It was apparent the council would not support a park at Ames, so why waste the community’s time by continuing to push for it?

I thought it might be helpful to update everyone on where we are in the skate park discussion after our work session last night.  First of all let me say publicly that I am very proud of the entire council for being able to have a hard discussion with such thoughtfulness.  At this point we are trying very hard to establish a road map that will get us to the desired outcomes—making a decision on a site and then establishing a funding strategy.   

Because the council decided to take on and own this decision we need to proceed with care to make this model of process.  As I stated back in January, we can’t afford to fail.  The consensus of the council is that the decision making process needs to remain public, should have a public input component and should involve input from both the Skateboard Coalition and the PRAB.  Deciding when and where in the process this all happens has not yet been determined. 

However we did establish our list of criteria to include in the decision-making matrix.   Councilors are next responsible for identifying sites that should be put on the table.  So if you have a suggestion of a site that you would like us to look at now is the time to contact your councilperson!  We will then put the matrix together and grade all the possible sites on our established criteria.  The object to have all the sites graded, objectively and simultaneously, so that we can transparently present the merits and shortcomings of each one.  Hopefully, like gently shaking a jar full of gravel, the most viable sites will rise to the top. 

I had been thinking that this matrix might be a method that we would also use to gather public input—asking people to fill it out themselves and then compiling the results, but councilperson Pokorney proposed an interesting alternative.  He suggested that as a council we come to a consensus and fill out the matrix together, then present our findings to the public so that they could react to our findings.  The wisdom here is that it shows our reasoning instead of taking public input and then it not being clear what we did with that input.   

As I mentioned above, there are more steps in the process to establish but we will address theses at a work session in July.  In the mean time, give us your input on sites that should be thrown into the mix!  One interesting side bar was Councilperson Buckheit’s suggestion that we might look at multiple smaller sites that would be integrated into neighborhood parks instead of only looking at one large facility that would require a larger parcel of land.  It raises some new fundamental questions that will have to be discussed with the Skateboard Coalition.  More to come! 

FYI, I am listing the criteria below based on my notes from last night—in no particular order.  Exact wording may change, but this is a good start.  If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me. 

Integration into the community (not isolated)

Density of other activities

Close to where people either are or are going

Location compatible with the energy inherent in a skate park

Visibility (not hidden)

Concerns from neighbors (needs to be defined)

Public Access for multi-modal transportation

Staff Access fro maintenance and garbage, etc

Parking—multi-modal

Cost restrictions

Amenities—water, shelter, shade, restrooms

Is this the best use of the site?

Safety of the kids

Site circulation and connectivity with the rest of the community

Security of the facility (prone to vandalism)

Informal place—to encourage creativity and lively youth oriented sport

Room for expansion

Room for spectators

Coalition buy-in

Central location (not fringe)

Skate park plaza enhances the space in which it is located

Possibilities for multi-use of facility