The Brattleboro Selectboard showed signs of revisiting the location of the skatepark, but no firm decision was made. Tuesday evening’s meeting saw opponents of the Crowell location pledging fundraising support for a different location, while BASIC petitioned to make the Crowell skatepark smaller and more in line with their expected funds.
The board also heard of changes in plans for the West Brattleboro Fire Station. It turns out that building a new wooden structure in line with the surrounding area would give the Fire Department a brand new station at a lower cost than repairing the current one. This and other money-saving ideas will be explored.
The town got an update on the solar installation planned for Technology Drive, and considered options for encouraging public hearings on the matter before the Public Service Board.
All this and more in an animated Selectboard meeting in Brattleboro.
Preliminaries
Chair David Gartenstein had little to say at the start of the evening, other than to expect a lot of traffic coming through town for leaf peeping, the Literary Festival, and Gallery Walk. He predicted, accurately, a busy meeting ahead.
Interim Town Manager Patrick Moreland had no opening remarks.
For Selectboard comments and committee reports, David Schoales mentioned a new plan for employees of the Waste Management District, Donna Macomber thanked everyone who applied for the Town Manager search committee, Kate O’Conner invited everyone to help clean Pliny Park Wednesday at 5:30 p.m., and David Gartenstein said that a new traffic calming plan has been drafted and will be coming before the board at a future meeting.
The only public participation came in the form of an invitation to the 6th annual White Cane Day Awareness Walk, starting at the library on October 15th at noon.
Liquor Commissioners
The Brattleboro Selectboard as Liquor Commissioners voted in favor of granting an Educational Sampling Event Permit to the Brattleboro Food Coop for their third annual Holiday Wine and Beer Tasting. The event will be held at the Brattleboro Museum and Art Center on December 13 from 5:30 to 8 p.m.
Jeffrey Houle said the sampling would include 50 varieties of red, white, and sparkling wines as well as craft beers.
David Schoales noted some unusual beer names on the Coop-supplied list, such as Clown Shoes Lubrication and Dogfish Head Hellhound.
Firefighters Grant
The Brattleboro Fire Department received permission from the Selectboard to apply for a FEMA “Assistance to Firefighters” grant in an amount just over $315,300.
If funds are granted the department will be able to purchase 34 air paks and 35 radios to replace all of their currently-obsolete air paks (and heavily-used, old radios.)
Fire Chief Buccossi said that this is one of the few grants for firefighters and is highly competitive. If successful, this will allow him to remove the expensive ($276,000) air paks request from the Town’s capital budget. He said the current air pak equipment doesn’t meet national standards.
The grant requires a 5% match of about $16,500, which Buccossi said will come from Fire Department requests in the FY15 capital budget.
Interim Town Manager Patrick Moreland said it could save about $100,000 per year for the next three years.
John Allen asked what our chances were for getting the grant. Buccossi thought Brattleboro had a good chance. “We’re put into a category with towns our size.”
Gartenstein asked about the grant process. Moreland said the application is developed within the Fire Department. It then goes to John O’Connor in the Finance Department, then to the Town Manager. The Town Manager brings the grant application to the Selectboard, and off it goes to Washington. If we get the funding, the Selectboard will accept and appropriate the money, and the Town will monitor the grant implementation to ensure compliance and generate reports per grant requirements.
Decisions about who gets the grant money should be announced before this time next year, but the application period is this October and may be delayed by the government shutdown, said Buccossi.
Police-Fire Facility Project Update
Patrick Moreland said he invited Steve Horton, PFFP Project Manager, to give the board an update on recent issues with the Police Fire Facility Project.
Horton said the preliminary news is good. The new construction manager firm DEW has provided an independent estimate that is $200,000 lower than the previous estimate from Black River.
Recent discussions have centered around the West Brattleboro Fire Station Two. Relocation costs would be required while renovations take place, and these costs have little tangible benefit for their expense, said Horton.
Horton told the board that tearing down the current station instead of renovating it could save about $220,000 (in addition to the savings mentioned above). He called this a “shift in thinking” that could require the Selectboard to act.
“The expectations of the public are a concern,” said Moreland. “There were three subprojects described to representatives. At station 2 it was a renovation and addition but this is a knock-down and new construction. There is an opportunity to save some money, but it changes the plan a little bit.” He said the committee likes this approach and wants to see if the Selectboard agrees.
“It was a no-brainer,” said John Allen, who attends the PFFP meetings. “Dave Emory brought up that the building is old and things are in the way.” He said a new building would mitigate some issues. “Can we mention the…” he started to say.
“Of course we can,” said Moreland. “It’s one of the issues. It seems like a no brainer, but begs the question: if we tear down Station 2 and build a new one, what do we do with the Fire Department to keep relocation expenses down?” He said it was suggested that they build a new building next to the current building.
Moreland said there was interest in the idea, but there was a catch. “It isn’t ours,” he explained. “The gravel lot. It’s owned by the school district.” He said the school superintendent said the school board would consider a proposal sent to them.
John Allen really liked the idea. “It’s a perfect piece of property.” He said it was a perfect location to build a new station, then tear down the old one after the Fire Department moves into the new building.
Steve Horton said he was pretty confident of the numbers and savings. He also thought it would be a better location for fire trucks to back in. He called it a “ win-win for everyone.”
Donna Macomber asked if there were any potential downsides to tearing down the building, or unintended consequences as a result of a change of plans?
Horton said there was: the historical use . “Volunteers built that building, and that respect must be paid.” Other than that, he said he saw “no physical or tangible problems.”
“The other neat thing about this way, we can now make one that fits into the neighborhood,” added Allen. “There are nice things we can do out there.” Horton said that the $220,000 in savings was based on a masonry building. “If we do wood framing to fit in with the character of the neighborhood, we could save even more.”
David Schoales said it was important to emphasize it will be cheaper not to relocate fuel tanks and towers. “When construction starts, these numbers won’t be rough?” he asked. Horton said yes, and reiterated his confidence that a new building would cost less. He said estimates would be continually updated and monitored nonetheless.
Kate O’Connor asked what they were being asked to do.
David Gartenstein said the committee was looking for cost savings. He asked about the location of the gravel lot property, and if it was closer to Western Ave. and where the recycle bins had been located. Horton and Allen disagreed a bit about whether the move would be to the north or the east, and Allen wanted to emphasize that the trucks would continue to come out on South Street.
Gartenstein suggested further investigation of building a new building on the school property. Allen reminded him it could be built new on the existing property, and suggested they look into both options.
O’Connor wanted to know if they were endorsing the idea of building a new station right now. If not, when would the decision be made?
Moreland said the board was deciding if they were open to considering other options. Horton said the sooner they decide, the better, since architects are getting started and need instruction about what the Town wants them to do. “I’d ask if you could decide if it is OK to pursue the new building option, then if there’s a possibility to do something on their property.”
“Can we decide tonight to permit building new and to exploring the school option?” asked Donna Macomber. “If we approve it tonight, it can be built one way or the other regardless of the school ground. It could be expensive to delay it.”
“We can, but it might be premature. Designs will come back to us, so continued investigation could be enough for now,” replied Gartenstein.
“We are under a time crunch. I’d love to see it voted on,” said Allen. “I agree with Donna on this. I don’t see a downside to this. It’s doing everything we’ve asked the committee to do.”
“The conceptual design was just an addition and some fixes downstairs,” said Chief Buccossi, “with nothing upstairs. Here we’d get a new facility for less money.”
Dick Guthrie supported the idea of building new. He said he’s watched renovations at the Municipal Center for 40 years, “and it never solves the problem.” He said he remembered the Chief of Police promising in 1961 that their stay in a Municipal Center classroom wouldn’t last long, and they are still there today.
“We are looking at options for the Police, too,” volunteered Horton. He said they are thinking about whether the Police will need a basement, or if they could put those rooms upstairs and save money. He said decoupling the buildings would also save money, and they were looking at all options and consulting with the Police Chief.
Gartenstein reiterated that this is new information for most people. “We need to meet needs and save money, but this just arose today,” he said, and suggested the board endorse further investigation rather than outright approval.
John Allen was skeptical that they could meet tight deadlines, but with the promise of a special meeting if needed, the board decided to investigate the option of building new and to look into what possibilities exist between the Town and schools for using the gravel lot.
Fric Spruyt asked if the committee looked into pared down versions of the project. Horton said yes, and that every room had a purpose.
Spruyt suggested they reduce the scope and look for “creative and minimalist options, as in our lives. The town needs to follow suit.”
WE 90 Technology Drive Solar Generation Facility
The Public Service Board has started the process for issuing a Certificate of Public Good for the new solar generation facility being planned near Technology Drive. The PSB will use an expedited process and may or may not schedule a public hearing.
The proposed facility will have over 1,000 vertical, post-mounted displays spread over 15 acres in east-west rows.
To that end, they’ve notified the Town and other parties, and Brattleboro got to decide how to respond.
Rod Francis, Planning Director, told the board of four options. There could be no response, the Town could be an “interested person,” we could request a hearing, or enter as an “intervenor.” Each options has pros and cons to it, Francis informed the board. Costs, time, impact and expectations of holding public hearings should be balanced, he said.
“I’ve attended meetings on this,” said David Schoales. “The only concern is mitigating visual impacts of the project. That’s enough. I’d prefer we do the “interested person” approach.” He said Win Stanley is a good corporate citizen and that it is unnecessary to stand in the way of the project as it benefits the town.
John Allen wasn’t so sure. “I’m not as confident about it not being seen from I-91. They don’t need to be in our face. I think it will be very visible. I’d like the Town to be more involved. We are the host town.”
“I’m all for solar, but the aesthetics are an issue,” added Kate O’Connor. “It’s also the principle of having a hearing about a big project. We should request a hearing at least.”
“I agree with Kate,” said Donna Macomber. “A hearing is an important step.” She said she’d like to see solar panels from I-91, saying it will “show we’re moving forward.”
“I’d like a hearing request, too.” said David Gartenstein. He said the Agency of Natural Resources and the Public Service Department are asking for an independent aesthetic impact report. “It’s an important factor for us. It will be totally visible from the highway, for 30-40 years.”
David Schoales disagreed. “We had that public forum here. We did it. The PSB needs to decide, and others are doing aesthetic reports. The public expressed their views.”
“No one is against solar power,” said Allen. “To me it is the location. I don’t think it is a progressive view to see solar panels. We don’t have billboards. It’s an eyesore. Like the old, large satellite dishes.” He said solar panels today are big and ugly. “They are not pretty. They cover a lot of ground and good green grass.”
Francis suggested they take the interested person approach and advocate for the Public Service Board to call for a hearing. He also disagreed with Schoales. “We didn’t have a hearing, we had an agenda item. It doesn’t conform to a hearing.”
Dora Bouboulis said she’d like to advocate for a more public process, and said the town should be an interested party. She cautioned that the Selectboard doesn’t know for certain if there will be a hearing or what any independent reports might find. “The town is sometimes afraid to go in and take a stand, and it is important. The town has more weight than individual citizens.”
“We hope you get it right,” said a resident named Bill. “It’s a small project and I hope there will be more discussions of solar energy.”
“Another project at that location was turned down 20 years ago for visual impact issues,” said William McCarty. “This board recognizes it’s responsibility to protect the town and prepare for the future.”
It wasn’t entirely clear but it appeared the Selectboard voted to be interested party, and to draft a letter.
UPDATE: I checked with the Town and the board voted to become an interested person and to request a hearing.
The vote was 4-1, with Schoales against.
BASIC Request to Downsize
The Brattleboro Skatepark Subcommittee made a formal request to the Selectboard Tuesday evening to reduce the size of the proposed installation at the Crowell location.
Specifically, they proposed making a “smaller, wheel-friendly park” of 5,000 square feet. This is a reduction from the previously proposed 11,000 square foot park.
Spencer Crispe and Joe Bushey presented the idea to the board. “We request your permission to adjust the project to downsize,” said Crispe.
The park would retain the same footprint, aesthetics and safety of the previous design, but the more expensive features would be eliminated. There would be no $100,000 bowl, for example. Crispe said they hope to be breaking ground next year.
He added that with the smaller size, the current play structure could remain where it is and would be a safe distance from the skatepark, according to the consulting engineers, Stantec.
David Schoales asked how that would work, which prompted Crispe to draw a map, showing that reducing the size would move the skatepark away from the structure. “It’s like cropping a photo,” he explained.
David Gartenstein gave a bit of background to the project, and suggested that this request was a change of size and scope.
Andy Davis rose to say that his organization was called “resite,” not “not-have” the skatepark. he said the project was at a critical point. “It hasn’t achieved support, and some support has been withdrawn. The request to reduce the size and cost is a significant change of project.” He suggested they table the issue and look for more creative, successful opportunities.
Davis said the new, smaller size opens up many more opportunities for locations around town, including sites such as Living Memorial Park where the skatepark could have room to expand, or the Preston Lot downtown. “It’s time to turn the committee into a group free to consider other locations with this new size, and time to find a site that has full support. I’m convinced funding will follow.”
Brenda Carr cautioned that this design could lead to failure if many skill levels aren’t accommodated. She said few people show up for Go Skateboarding Day, too, and questioned the need for the skatepark.
Fric Spruyt said that he supports having a park, but “that’s a lousy location.” He felt Preston Lot or Living Memorial Park would be better. He also pointed out that the board was just praising the need for public hearings over solar panels. “We should have one. If you approve this, you are moving the goal posts on something that hasn’t had a fair hearing to begin with,” he said, and suggested the board look into other options. With the right location, he said, “I’d help with fundraising.”
Jeff Clark, Chair of BASIC, disputed the characterization of the Go Skateboarding days as unpopular. “We have fun and many ages attend.” He promised that if they design something for skateboarding (as opposed to using the basketball court) it will get a lot of use. “You’ll be proud of what we install.”
Bill said he supports having a skatepark, then listed reasons why he didn’t support having one. “It’s not a small space. It’s the size of 3 or 4 ranch houses.” He asked about the lease agreement and the money for maintenance over time, and who would remove the cement when the park failed. He said he heard an NPR program that discussed violence, crime, vandalism, and drug use at a skatepark in New Hampshire. “We have lockdown in the schools, but no supervision here. Kids will do what kids do. There is not a compelling reason to do this from a social point of view.”
Stephanie Keep said she, too, isn’t opposed to having a skatepark, but was concerned that no girls would use it and the nature of the park would change to one that was dominated by male use. “I’m concerned about taking something used by everyone and giving it to a particular group. Parks with women are safer parks. Who are we catering to?” She added that it was school property, and equal access issues apply. “We’ve been given no opportunity to oppose the location. There was never a hearing.”
John Allen disagreed. “I was on the board, and I think we can document this. There were plenty of meetings. Dora is shaking her head. There was open meeting after open meetings. There were plenty of chances for people to weigh in on this.”
“I don’t think this is a small adjustment. This is a significant change to what was discussed previously,” said William McCarty. “It was never really discussed by the general public. Never really vetted. No independent group decided on this location.”
He said the park belongs to young children and young mothers, and to Green Street School. “The skatepark will change the entire use. Mr. Crispe says it is a minor issue. It will be a legal issue. They don’t want to move the playground. The swings must be moved. Multiple issues haven’t been vetted. This board can’t merely rubber stamp something they don’t know anything about. There is no plan, just a reduction. How can you vote on something you don’t understand. It has to be studied, and not be a seat of the pants decision.”
“The location was vetted and decided before. We just want to make it smaller,” answered Crispe.
Andrea Watkins said many parents use the park. “We were promised that the playspace would be moved away and that’s changing. We don’t have time to read the Selectboard agenda. The parents need time to read this in the news before you make a decision.” She predicted that kids might fall down from climbing up the slide ladder due to being distracted by skateboard activity.
Fritz Angstrom said that regardless of previous meetings, people have woken up to what a bad idea it is. ”A former board member called me NIMBY. This is a park. I like living next to parks. The fundraising fell apart. The most legitimate donor backed out. People are opposed to the location. Let’s put it somewhere logical, near toilets and where there won’t be security concerns. The Selectboard can reverse this. I have a son who wants it, but somewhere else.”
Melissa Clark, Treasurer for BASIC, clarified fundraising efforts, saying support had been tremendous. “Stantec said they had never seen a committee raise so much without grants.” She said one grant was taken back due to other issues, not politics.
Wendy Baxter said she has a young son and is desperate for a skatepark. “They aren’t all criminals. My kids are avid skateboarders. We travel hours every weekend to get to skateparks. We meet wonderful people. Older kids help younger kids learn.” He conceded that it is often a lot of boys, but thought the way to get girls involved is to make it accessible. “It’s my kid’s passion. Instead of birthday presents, they ask for donations to the park instead.”
Patty Fitzgerald asked if there was a dollar figure for the downsized park. Crispe answered that the rate was roughly $30 a square foot. Joe Bushey said that they hope to bring it in under $150,000.
Wendy Creager said she “couldn’t believe this group will settle for such a small space.” She said that everyone wants a skatepark, and everyone will help fundraise for a different location. “There is money in this community for a better park in town.”
Crispe was asked by John Allen for his thoughts. “Most of what was said has nothing to do with why we are here. You might as well talk about the salmon population in Alaska. It was tried at Living Memorial Park years ago and the Brookside residents shut us down. We already tried that. It’s like arguing if the earth is flat. We tried for Living Memorial Park. We tried the West River. We moved on. People support the skatepark, but just “not near me.” That’s not generous or tolerant.
The he got mad. “It’s an aging county because of attitudes like you, saying “kids are going to do what kids do… “ The crowd reacted. “Let me speak…”
“Spencer,” Gartenstein interupted, “I’m asking you to direct comments to the board. It’s necessary.”
Crispe told the Selectboard that attitudes like the one expressed were incredibly destructive. “It’s prejudicial and intolerant. I was at many hearings. They happened. There were too may meetings. We’ve had four Go Skateboarding Days with over 100 attending one of them. There will be no lighting.”
“It’s hard to raise money while we’ve had to endure a callous contingent in town, talking funders out of helping us,” he said. “Other sites have been vetted. As a skateboarder, this will still be a wonderful facility to serve needs of bikes, scooters, roller skates, longboards, and skateboards. We have a lot of support. I’d like to break ground next year.”
“I love your passion, Spencer,” said John Allen. “What do we have to do tonight? This goes before the DRB, right?”
“The item before us is a request to authorize a new direction for the skatepark, a reduction of size. It’s fair to say, that inquiry opens up the public comment we’ve received, and we need to make a decision of how to proceed. There are many options available,” said Gartenstein.
John Allen said there had been false statements made. “This is a NIMBY issue. It was supposed to be at Living Memorial Park, a wonderful location. The people in that neighborhood didn’t want it in 2005. The board caved. So they tried to have it at West River, they tried other locations that were shut down, so the board decided to find a location, and Crowell Lot came up.” Allen thought that the town had bought the property, but was corrected and told that the land was being leased. “I agree that this should go through.”
“Can we talk about what our options are?” asked Kate O’Connor. “Everyone is emotional.”
“I think our alternatives are broad,” responded Gartenstein. “This is a different board. We could vote to build it at a smaller size. We could say don’t build it at all. We could say look at locations.”
“Hypothetically, if we said make it smaller, do they have to go to the DRB?” asked O’Connor. Gartenstein said their permit expired and they have to return anyway, but the DRB won’t evaluate the site location.
“It is polarizing and emotional issue. It’s a tough one,” said O’Connor. “What’s the right decision for tonight?”
Donna Macomber praised Resite for reaching across the table and offering to help fundraise for a new location. “It isn’t just NIMBY, and we can’t be child or teen phobic. Amazing things can happen. I’d like to think of that location being beautifully supervised. I charge us with thinking deeply about what we’ve heard tonight, and not rushing for a decision. I trust that previous boards heard what people said about the site. If this is to move forward, we must create a space that is accessible, carefully thought out, safe, and amazing. I don’t care where that happens. I hope it is a place that dignifies the kids in town, not ostracizes them.”
“I was in the school board and we had hearings,” said David Schoales. “The process went forward. People have good concerns, and we should reconsider all the options. If we free up BASIC to look at other locations, others will complain that it is near them, but I think we need to go through that process.”
“I’m not in favor of looking at new locations,” said Allen. “This poor committee. What, do they start over again? We’ll run into the same problems over again. All they want is a park for the kids. They’ve been pushed too much. That’s my opinion. It’s not the best location, but it is a location, and they’ve fought for a location for so long.”
Gartenstein said it was interesting to see how the debate has played out over the last two years. “Tonight there are more opposed than in favor. I continue to believe there wasn’t a site selection process, just meetings about designs. This is a different board now, and my position is that the circumstances have changed. If the inability to raise funds tells me anything, the support isn’t there. Economic boycotts are the way of the world. The Land Trust pulled their grant and cited lack of buy-in in the surrounding community. I believe having such a divisive attitude toward this park is not healthy. Part of me says table it. I also think we should broaden the decision of where to have a park. It’s a different board now.”
“I’m grappling with it,” said O’Connor. “I support the skatepark and have no problems with it being there, but I’m not wedded to that location. I’m torn.”
“To me, it would be making them start over,” said Allen.
“Anything worth doing is worth doing well, even if it takes a little more time,” said Macomber. “I’m a community organizer, and if Resite folks help with fundraising there would be results. It would be profound cooperation.”
Gartenstein asked if anyone wanted to make a motion, and was looking for a motion to table.
John Allen jumped in saying yes, he wanted to make a motion to approve the reduction in size.
“Don’t “so move” yet,” pleaded O’Connor. “do what you want to do, but I’m conflicted. I don’t want to vote against it.”
“I can see where this is heading and I don’t want to go down that road,” said Allen.
“I don’t want to do something that messes up things down the road,” cautioned O’Connor.
“If you vote against me you are saying you want them to start over. They are asking for one or the other,” said Allen.
Macomber made a motion to table Allen’s motion until November 5th. The vote was 3-2 in favor, with Allen and Schoales against.
Town Manager Search Ad Hoc Citizen Committee Appointments
Rhonda Calhoun, Lisa Lorimer, Jeff Lewis, Spoon Agave, and Jerry Goldberg will serve as the ad hoc citizen committee to assist with interviews of candidates to be our next Town Manager. They will be able to submit questions, due Friday, for second round interviews that should be starting soon according to Chair David Gartenstein.
Gartenstein said they had interviewed five candidates with a range of experiences on Monday.
Other applicants included Steve Cormier, Kate Anderson, Patrick Kiernan, and Ian Kiehle.
Gartenstein thanked everyone who applied to serve on the committee and praised the high quality of candidates.
First Reading – Parking on Linden Street
The Brattleboro Selectboard took the first step toward removing the temporary parking meters set up during the renovations to the State Building with an ordinance change first reading.
They will rinse and repeat at the next meeting, and the parking meters will be removed shortly thereafter.
First Reading – Parking on Elliot Street
Businesses at 154 and 148 Elliot Street have asked that restrictions on parking be changed to better suit their operations. The Selectboard held a first reading of an ordinance change to remedy the situation. There will be a second reading, discussion, and likely adoption at a future Selectboard meeting.
With that, our local government shut down – for the evening.
Skateboard Park Meeting Attendance
If the population of Brattleboro is 12,000, then how can anyone claim that attendance of over 100 people at meetings about placing a skatepark in such a visible site means the word got out sufficiently?. Obviously something is missing here, are people in town that apathetic or was word really out about the park, time and place of meetings, impact on neighborhood, etc. What amounts to a 1% turnout of town residents is not, as was suggested, indicative of a real good turnout of people. At least not in my world.
I'm referencing this comment
The above refers to this statement at the meeting
Crispe told the Selectboard that attitudes like the one expressed were incredibly destructive. “It’s prejudicial and intolerant. I was at many hearings. They happened. There were too may meetings. We’ve had four Go Skateboarding Days with over 100 attending one of them.
And thanks Chris & Lise again for posting these minutes. It’s always very informative
Not a meeting
That 100 is turnout at a Go Skateboarding Day event, not a meeting. Spencer was disagreeing with the earlier comment that hardly anyone shows up at the event. Hope this helps.
Thanks. Seemed awfully low
Thanks. Seemed awfully low for a meeting about whether it was going to be put in place or not. Was the turnout at meetings re putting this in place larger? I sure hope so.
a review
There was no committee formed to do any siting for this project. The current location was chosen by former Selectboard members Degray and Corum without public input after the West River location fell through due to environmental issues.
Once Crowell was selected, the School Board began holding meetings (low turnout; few or no objections voiced) and decided to lease the property to the Town for the purpose of a skatepark.
BASIC was formed to build a skatepark in that location – they had no choice in the matter and it was the only spot in town officially offered to the committee to work with. They’ve worked hard to do as they were told.
Once BASIC got going and people realized plans were underway via DRB hearings and Selectboard meetings, Resite got going to argue for a new location for the skatepark.
BASIC got a design done and started fundraising. They came to the meeting Tuesday to request a smaller, less expensive skatepark. Resite responded by suggesting a larger park in a different location.
Long before Crowell and West River, there was an attempt to site a skatepark at Living Memorial Park, but residents at Brookside objected at the time. BASIC feels this was part of the site vetting process and that site was rejected, and therefore off the table. Others feel Living Memorial Park is a good location worthy of reconsideration in a full site selection process.
After Tuesday’s meeting, it seems that relocation is again on the table. Whether they decide to have a site selection committee remains to be decided, but more than one Selectboard member was leaning in that direction.
There were additional reasons
There were additional reasons why Memorial Park was not as preferable as Crowell Lot:
There’s limited space between the eroding Whetstone stream bank and the pond.
There is also a right of way through this area.
It would require tearing up the Basketball and volleyball courts.
And now there the Fluvial Erosion Hazard Area impacts the space (though the town has not adopted it into the zoning code)
The upper site, I believe, was not considered originally. My personal opinion about the upper site is that it is too remote. I would not leave my 10 year old there alone. I would at Crowell Lot.
...with a skill intensive
…with skill intensive sports such as hockey, football (contact sports) or skateboarding(contact with hard surfaces) where high risks are often the name of the game with a varying mix of interacting skill levels, it would be a good idea and more user friendly to have a supervised park requiring passes to keep people responsible and accounted for at the same time creating revenue for the park’s up keep by charging a minimal annual fee and/or daily visitor fee for non residents vs. the self monitoring or unsupported neighborhood policed/watchdog approach.
Rec. park officials seem to be reluctant to take on this additional responsibility of a supervised skate park many in the the community have expressed as a necessity and safety issue they desire to implement and realize for Brattleboro’s future skate park.
The distance from hockey rink and tennis court activities to the possible ULMP skate park within a currently under utilized 68 open acre recreation park would not be an issue as the activity and popularity increase, that is, if skate parks are as well attended as implied. There is another possible location closer to the road above LMP garden area.
If supervised, a skate park at ULMP would be a place one could be somewhat comfortable leaving kids unattended by parents for a period instead of relying on a supposed self monitored- self regulated park such as Crowell as some sort of safe haven it won’t be.
The appeal of existing features and accommodations present out weigh this sole reason (remoteness which translates to under utilized) to reject ULMP without first injecting a little imagination and elbow room for attainable solutions. In contrast, it is highly unlikely the inherent threat of the Union Hill temptation for risk takers combined with a very busy intersection with car/truck traffic speeds often exceeding 40-50 mph out front on Western Ave will be eliminated any time soon or before proposed construction begins, that much is a given. ULMP is already set back away from any dangerous road traffic with more than ample parking and park employees ( watch documentary on BCTV on the subject).
Insisting on the skate park location at the Crowell Lot site undoubtedly ignores the increased hazards for skateboarders entering and exiting the skate park. The fact the DRB permit has expired for the skate park at Crowell Lot as of August 15th without the completion of funding goals reached qualifies this issue for review by the public.
Let's not lose sight
With all the protracted turmoil about recognizing what constitutes a suitable skate park location and those valuable assets and perspectives within the community left out of the process, let’s not lose sight (site) in the apparent scuffle of our main objective together of what can be the best, most satisfying, non destructive but constructive and safest outcome for the very people using the skate park in the long run so it can be built finally in a short run.
I will add
I will add that while Degray and Corum may have suggested the Crowell Lot, the full selectboard supported location, unanimously.
That selectboard, and successive selectboards continued to support the location through numerous approvals and votes. The whole board appointed a committee, signed a lease, accepted donations, accepted the terms of mediation, and hired a designer.
In fact, the board, in a split decision, decided NOT to open up discussion about alternative sites.
The fact that they now have trouble accepting a very modest proposal of a smaller park speaks to a lack of leadership, even a lack of understanding how town government is intended to work. They simply cannot look their neighbors in the eye and say: Yes, the decision was made and we’re moving forward. It’s much easier for them to turn their back on BASIC and the skaters.
and all of this for what? for a safe place to skate. It’s sad situation indeed.
Skate Park Location Issue
I’m hoping a brighter more genuine stream of compromise is flowing in the air this morning about considering alternative options to the skate park location. It is apparent now “Brattleboro’s skate park needs to be accommodated, have room for expansion, and fresh support from both sides of the issue to succeed and heal frayed emotions stirred by this ongoing controversy. It is not too late to embrace and recognize the entire community for valid input of their concerns and suggestions.
Spencer, if your out there, I admire your passion,dedication and determination (thank you for publically acknowledging Andy’s letter) and think you could, with a little effort by all of us dropping the guard a bit you, yourself, may become as equally excited about a better site that offers more for skaters and a better chance for survival with a revitalized funding effort gathering many more contributors in the process. We would all benefit to seize this opportunity while it exists without a doubt. Les
Okay I have to weigh in here..
First- Thank you Chris, for posting these minutes, I read them religiously, as the meetings currently take place somewhere between Goodnight Moon, and a “I am not tired I swear” nightly meltdown with our 10.5 month old son. (Oy vey..)
The skate park: reading through the minutes to the part where Spencer expressed frustration regarding certain expressed attitudes, made me feel quite upset myself—with those same attitudes. This argument is destructive, and it makes people feel bad. It makes me feel bad for the people at BASIC and those that they represent. We need a skate park. Crowell Lot may not be the perfect spot, but from what I have been following on the topic it is the spot we have and BASIC has found a way to make it work. The design looks beautiful! Why can’t we just give it a chance? Argh… Such negativity…
I have tried to be a quiet supporter of BASIC as to not add to the flurry of comments, but I am starting to feel anxious and frustrated myself, as I can imagine how it must feel to be someone who is waiting to use a skate park, and how it must make them feel to hear some of the comments made regarding the assumed atmosphere and culture at skate parks. I will add that I grew up a ward of the State of Vermont, and there are not a lot of places where you can go and participate in structured activities free of charge. I will also add that those who think girls will not use the skate park obviously never met my two sisters, and their group of snowboarding/ skateboarding friends.
I am sure I might now be pelted with “you don’t understands” and possibly worse, but the main reason for my comment is that when I read that section of the minutes I felt incredibly defensive of Spencer, BASIC, and those waiting to use the park. I wish we could just move forward on this topic and give it a chance to flourish at Crowell Lot—where it has landed after unsuccessful tries elsewhere—before we shoot the whole thing down.
weight felt
It is never too late to find a better solution that suites Brattleboro as a whole, please try and keep an open mind and try to listen to what others may have to offer, put on the table, give us that chance.
A tough spot
BASIC and Resite have been put in difficult positions by poor planning of previous Selectboards, in my view. If they had taken the time to do a site selection committee, there would be consent about the location. They cut corners, probably in good faith to try to solve a problem quickly, but created problems by doing so.
Both sides are right. It is the chosen, approved location and the committee has been charged with building a skatepark there and only there. And, there are better locations. Those two elements are at odds.
The problems with this project are mostly a result of other people’s early decisions, not the members of these groups, or members of the public expressing their views, or entities that allow people to express their views.
It seems clear to me that this town really wants a skatepark somewhere. It will happen.
(ps. I have an opposite meltdown: “I’m tired!” I whine as the meeting ends and I start going through all the notes again to write up the story. Maybe your son and I can change places sometime.)
Brattleboro is growing old
Brattleboro is an old person’s town. The message is clear: WE DO NOT WANT TEENAGERS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, IT’S OURS NOT YOURS.
The only way to build a skatepark is put it where nobody goes, where nobody wants to be. Destined to fail.
“Keep the young people away from us.”
the toddlers are fine, but youth should go away.
Why would the neighbors fight so vehemently, for this long? …is it for the trees?
What a ridiculous statement.
“Brattleboro is an old person’s town. The message is clear: WE DO NOT WANT TEENAGERS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, IT’S OURS NOT YOURS.”
It’s not about age nor is it about NIMBY.
I am a certified Geezer.
I would not object if it were in the Spring Street lot which is where I now park my car.
I would not object if it were in the Elm Street lot, which is a block from my home.
I would not object if it were located in the lovely little park on Elliot, a block and a half from my home, which, unfortunately no one ever seems to use.
All of these are in my neighborhood. Crowell lot is not.
My principal objection is SAFETY. My secondary objections are PARKING (or lack thereof) and traffic issues.
Crowell is next to a very attractive nuisance called Union Hill.
One of the commenters above stated ” it is highly unlikely the inherent threat of the Union Hill temptation for risk takers combined with a very busy intersection with car/truck traffic speeds often exceeding 40-50 mph out front on Western Ave will be eliminated any time soon, that much is a given.”
It is a certainty that some people will attempt to skate or board that hill. It is, in fact happening now, albeit rarely. That frequency will go up if the park is located there.
That being the case, it is not a matter of “if”, but rather “when” someone is seriously injured or killed doing something stupid on that hill.
That being the case, it is not a matter of “if”, but rather “when” someone is seriously injured or killed doing something stupid on that hill.
That being the case, it is not a matter of “if”, but rather “when” someone is seriously injured or killed doing something stupid on that hill.
I rest my case.
BTW, I am not endorsing the 3 abovementioned locations. Living Memorial is a big park, nearly 70 acres. As has been stated, “ULMP is already set back away from any dangerous road traffic with more than ample parking.” It has access to sanitary facilities. It is far enough from residents at Brookside to object based upon any realistic considerations. Yes, there is a hill, but traffic on it is limited, and could be restricted at times when the skatepark is in operation. And there are always people there, in case of emergencies.
And ULMP isn’t the only viable location within the park. I suggested one here last May: https://www.ibrattleboro.com/sections/oped/living-memorial-park-skateboard-site
Another BTW: It would be prudent for the park, no matter where, to have at least a modicum of supervision. Can you visualize the LMP ski area without supervision?
And a little bit of revenue wouldn’t hurt. Using the ski area as an example, a $5.00 day pass is very reasonable. I volunteer there. I know some kids can’t afford the $5, but they perform volunteer service for privileges. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Wages of Fear
The worst of what I saw last night was the thinly veiled hostility, mistrust, misunderstanding, and scapegoating of the skater population. There were accompanying caveats–“yes, we’re for the park”– then the barrage of what I see as a form of hate speech.
Whatever the outcome, whatever side of the siting issue people are on, the disparaging towards youth needs to stop. Espcially as re-site seems so well organized and in overdrive- surely they can parse the negative sterotyping out of their message.
Here for your consideration, Jerry Seinfeld offers what I believe to be the essential truth of this matter.
http://youtu.be/Rub-lW-9MXw
cherry picking remarks out of "all" that was said
Statements were repeatedly given during last night’s SB meeting by those representing RESITE that certainly do support Brattleboro’s youth of all ages and gender in searching for the best skate park outcome possible on our youth’s behalf, obviously. But neither of the comments you refer to from either side are all one sided or deal with the actual suitability of the park’s location, rather convey certain individual opinions about negative influences or exclusionary trends skate parks could appear to have in general that those attending in opposition to the Crowell Park site may or may not agree with the relevancy of as a whole.
But those showing up to speak have a right to participate and publicly express their concerns, maybe you could have set them straight about the misconceptions out there and why they are mistaken about what they observe firsthand in their own experience. As far as “hate speech”, you really need to be more specific to be taken seriously.
Skateboard park
Being against the Crowell Lot location for the skatepark is not being “against youth.” This charge has been exploited and overused. I have never been at a Resite meeting when the agenda had anything to do with trying to keep youth away from anyone. Resite has no control over what members of the general public say at selectboard meetings.
Resite would like to see a skatepark site that is not at the Crowell Lot for a whole list of reasons that have been articulated elsewhere. Being “against youth” is not part of the Resite mission. It pains me to see this charge leveled – and I think it is done purposely to argue against Resite without responding to our stated objections to the use of the Crowell Lot for this project.
I think the selectboard should consider initiating an actual site selection process while leaving BASIC to continue raising funds. The softball players continued raising funds even while the location of their fields – now at West River Park – was still being determined. BASIC is back near the beginning of the process not because of Resite, but because the project has not found financial support in the town. Money is a major obstacle. Once you have funds and community support the project will follow quickly.
The way Memorial Park was looked at in the past and rejected is in no way a model of public process. Where are the minutes of those meetings and decisions? They don’t exist because the discussion was held off the record. Why should the threat of a lawsuit by an individual keep the town from using it’s primary recreational facility for a recreational facility? Only a full site selection process with bipartisan support will clear away the divisions and give this project the fresh start it needs.
Thank you to iBrattleboro for posting an accurate view of the selectboard meeting and providing this forum. One of our local papers seems confused about the difference between editorializing and reporting. Misquoting people and picking and choosing what to report undermines the public process even further and makes a resolution even more difficult.
Exploited, and overused...don't get me started
If it’s irksome to hear the charge of anti-youth, consider what it’s like to be pegged at every turn with the smear of drug dealer, vandal, reckless moron, foul mouthed, piss-in-the woods, kamikaze toddler distracters, and generally crazed recidivists.
With all due respect, Re-site wants to flaunt its anti-anti youth cred, yet every chance they get, some members file to the mic and seem to feel no remorse referring to the above mentioned associations. And it’s disingenuous to have “members of the general public” state their opinion in support of your claims, then disavow association with them
Then adding insult to injury, Re-site goes on to suggest to skaters, and the town at-large, not only where their facility needs to not be, and how to arrive and egress properly, but also how to manage and use the terrain in the most idealized way.
I maintain if it’s troubling to hear the anti-youth label, then perhaps examine the motives of bringing the multi-headed hydra into the room any time this subject comes up. You can’t have it both way. “We love skating, just that we find skaters horrific- but lovable, the little devils, bless their hearts, but, for the love-of God, in a temple across town.”
So, yes, people are free to say what they like. Some skaters are jerks, and some haters are too. But, when “some people” continually focus on a few troubling cases that DO exist, in an otherwise healthy and wholesome population, and allow all the darkness, even by innuendo, to be “the shadow that would darken “your otherwise bucolic park”, that’s why the anti-youth notion persists. Despite wishing it were otherwise.
Where are these words coming from?
“drug dealer, vandal, reckless moron, foul mouthed, piss-in-the woods, kamikaze toddler distracters, and generally crazed recidivists”
I don’t see anything like this on this site.
Look at the tape
These charges were brought out at the SB meeting, that’s what made many members of BASIC so upset.
Against Youth
Of course Re-site is not against youth, just against youth in your neighborhood.
Of course Re-site supports a skatepark, just as long as it’s not in your neighborhood.
Of course fundraising and community support is waning, you don’t really expect a group of 8-14 year-olds to overcome a well organized, determined, educated, wealthy, old, intellectual neighbors, do you?
The long list of false claims, perpetuated fears and exaggerated statements of the Re-site neighbors, over a mere concrete plaza, is the most pathetic, slimy campaign Brattleboro has known. The neighbors exhausted every legal channel possible, tried to convince every board they were right. And when all else failed they took to bleeding the project dry…Now they can’t even accept a 5000 square foot park.
A Re-site sign in your yard is badge of dishonor. It identifies you as narrow minded, old, and hostile toward youth….no matter what you claim.
Daredevil Hill
Will you be able to maintain your youthful, broadminded approach after the first young person loses his/her life on Union Street?
Even nihilists shun Death Wishes
I know this is your particular bugaboo. And it would of course be tragic for a skater to die or otherwise mangle on that hill. All I can say is that having a park at Crowell, though it does facilitate proximity, does not make for temptation for any sound-minded individual of any age.
Never-mind self regulating, which does happen in a skate population, and self-preservation, which is intact in even the most thrill seeking of individual- the lure of a death defying hill with a multiple road intersection is not what the average or even amped skater is after. The thrill of skating is control under challenge, not obliteration.
Yes, the location is gnarly–BUT THERE’S A SCHOOL THERE NOW. Anybody could take the hill if they so desired.
I know you are well meaning, but this argument is a bit of a strawman. Nobody can say with absolute assurance that nobody would bomb that hill, but the likelihood is close to nil. As to the claim that people are doing it now, well, there are plenty of maniacs on the loose, but to shut down the whole deal because of them does not make sense either.
Attractive nuisance
People ARE doing it now. That’s an established fact. I’m not advocating shutting down the whole deal, simply moving it to another location that eliminates this attractive but dangerous feature, thus lessening the odds.
One doesn’t have to be a stupid person to do a stupid thing.
I don’t think the guys I saw bombing the hill had a death wish. Luckily, they survived. Somebody else with fewer skills might not be so lucky.
When I was a kid, a neighbor boy lost his life on a similar hill.
Close the town down
I am more concerned by drivers talking on cell phones. Or for Skaters and Bikers who have to take refuge in a pot-holed tiny shoulder to ditch the big trucks. Or speeding idiots on neighborhood streets.
There are perils. Fact of Life.
To say it as personally as I can…I have the skills to take that hill. I have trained with some of the best sliders and free-stylists in the world. They would not attempt such a hill, unless there were a spotter. And even so, it’s daunting.
Anyone who does, is wacked.
?
Seems “well organized, determined, educated, wealthy, old, intellectual” people and “narrow minded, old, and hostile neighbors” who are also being accused of constraining successful fundraising efforts might have been who Peter Whitely was thinking about when he recognized a fundamental point in successful advocacy for a public skatepark? He advises broad public outreach targeting “the whole community” including the neighbors and surrounding community of the proposed location of the skatepark. “Most importantly” he recommends that advocates for a skatepark “listen” to the community as “The best people to assess a community’s needs are members of that community.”
“Old people” with various types of potentially useful resources are part of the Brattleboro community. Some are arguing that “old people” are the largest segment of the community. And many have offered to assist you. Seems at this particular juncture in this project’s history, with an expired permit, lack of sufficient private funding, and the need for the plan to go before more committees mostly comprised of “old people”, you might want to pause and reconsider what “old” people have to offer the cause?
ReSite and fundraising
And you really don’t think ReSite has had anything to do with the lack of financial support? Seriously…