A new Brattleboro Skatepark Site Selection Committee is taking applications. The Brattleboro Selectboard voted Tuesday evening to form the committee at the request of the town skatepark committee, BASIC, but not before ample discussion.
The board announced that Brattleboro faces budget challenges to keep tax increases to a minimum. Expect cuts to services and more discussion of a 1% sales tax as possible solutions being offered.
Brattleboro has new restaurants downtown and in West Brattleboro (with liquor licenses), ALDI opens in January (selling beer and wine), and the town bought a backhoe.
All this in more below the fold.
Preliminaries
Chair David Gartenstein welcomed everyone to the meeting, noting that they would cover a range of topics and that he was glad to have so many attending.
Gartenstein thanked the Fire Department and others for responding to the fire on Elliot Street. He said he lived in that building 31 years ago, and that plans called for it to be demolished.
Finally, he said that the agenda would be rearranged so that the attending crowd could hear about budget issues and that his scheduled update on the search for a new Town Manager would be taken off the agenda for the evening.
Interim Town Manager Patrick Moreland had no comments.
David Schoales offered the only Selectboard comments and committee reports. He said that Vermont Energy and Climate Action chose the Brattleboro Energy Committee as the Best Energy Committee for the year. They got the award for numerous successful, local projects, education and outreach, and partnerships in the community.
Public Participation
“Use the mics, it’s hard to hear,” said Bill Knowles.
“They are just for TV, not for the room,” said John Allen.
“Maybe I’ll go home and watch it,” said Knowles.
“We will speak up,” said Donna Macomber.
Budget Meeting Scheduling
David Gartenstein took advantage of the large turnout to move the discussion of the town budget up in the agenda, guaranteeing that the maximum number of people would hear what he had to say about the upcoming FY2015 budget process.
He said Patrick Moreland and town staff have been gathering information for the board, and that “significant challenges” were ahead.
Last year, Gartenstein explained, the town budget was about $15.6 million. “If we were to do that (in FY15), with exactly the same services plus known increases in health care, salary, insurance, and bond costs, we’d spend $16.7 million,” he said. “If adopted, that would be about a 15 cent tax increase.”
He said the board had significant work to do to get to a budget that was more manageable, and that there were a series of options they were considering.
Top of the list is potential cuts to services, and department heads have been asked where to make the cuts. There could be reductions in capital expenses.
“We’ve considered the local option tax,” said Gartenstein,” and we’ll talk about asking all voters about this.”
He also suggested that the budget process would be more open this year. “I’m going to propose we try to have an extra Selectboard meeting before Thanksgiving, at night, televised, to get wide coverage and ability to attend.”
He said the board would also have a meeting to go line by line through the budget with department heads and have a draft ready for printing in January.
“We have to dive into it,” said John Allen.
John Wilmerding asked that the board send their budget cut ideas to the Finance Committee as soon as possible so the committee could offer input. Gartenstein said everyone would get to weigh in.
Liquor Commissioners
The Brattleboro Selectboard voted unanimously in favor of three new liquor licenses at Tuesday’s meeting.
Panda West at 911 Western Avenue (the old Gillies) received a first class liquor license. The owner, Mr. Wang, is closing Sakura on Putney Road to focus on this new restaurant. Wang was previously denied a license by the State of Vermont for failing to have English-speaking staff at Sakura, but he assured the board the situation is remedied. “I don’t speak too much, but I can speak a little bit.” He said the new restaurant would serve both Chinese food and sushi.
“I have a question but don’t know how to phrase it,” said John Allen.
“Is the restaurant affiliated with Panda North?” asked David Gartenstein.
“No” said Wang.
…
ALDI, the new supermarket at 762 Putney Road (formerly Kipling Cinema) received a second class liquor license. Samantha Bechtold, District Manager for the store, said the new store will open on Jan 9, 2014. She called it a “select assortment private label” style grocery store, offering “high quality at low prices” for brands that “aren’t available anywhere else.”
She said it was smaller than a traditional supermarket, and was only distantly related to Trader Joes (ALDI owner’s brother bought Trader Joes).
Patrick Moreland took this as an opportunity to explain the difference between a first and second class license. A first class license, he explained, was for restaurants serving drinks. The second class is for stores selling beer and wine.
…
Milagros Mexican Kitchen received a first class liquor license for their new downtown restaurant in the former Rocky Top/Barnaby’s location at 97 Main Street. Matthew Blau, current owner of Fireworks Restaurant, will be running the show and said that the lunch and dinner taqueria will be opening in late January. He suggested that fish tacos might be on the menu.
Water and Sewer Commissioners – Backhoe
The Brattleboro Selectboard bought a backhoe Tuesday evening. They approved a bid of $155,745 for a John Deere 710 backhoe.
Department of Public Works Director Steve Barrett said that there was a lower bid for a Caterpillar machine, but the vendor had been unable to provide a demonstration of its lifting capacity.
“This is a large capacity backhoe, used for water main breaks around town,” he explained.
Barrett said that some vehicles are rated for certain capacities, “but don’t perform in practice” so they put a request for a demonstration into the request for bids. He explained that they gave the lower cost vendor every opportunity to show them a working model in New England or at the factory.
David Schoales and John Allen, sensitive to the upcoming budget talks, pressed Barrett to see if there was any way they could accept the lower bid.
Barrett said that it wasn’t just price. They failed to provide the required demo, and hadn’t been terribly cooperative. He felt this didn’t bode well if there were any issues with the backhoe. “There’s an unwillingness that concerns me before the purchase.” He added it wasn’t a light decision.
Interim Town Manager Patrick Moreland backed him up. He said the town tries to be as transparent as possible and conduct business openly and honestly. He said it was unfair to those meeting all requirements if others could not respond. “If we put it in the bid, we need to adhere to it in the future.”
“Caterpillar was just unwilling (to show one), or they don’t have any around?”
“They’ve sold some, but they have been reluctant to demonstrate it,” said Barrett. “We asked for a name of a recent sale. If I could save us money I would. But if they don’t comply with the bid… We’ve tried since July.”
“If they are that unwilling…” said Allen.
“…and don’t want the sale.” added Schoales.
5-0 to get the John Deere.
Unfinished Business – The Brattleboro Skatepark
Gartenstein began the latest skatepark discussion by reminding everyone that the agenda issue was John Allen’s motion to agree to BASIC’s suggestion to reconsider the size and scope of the skatepark at the Crowell location. This motion was tabled at their previous meeting.
BASIC, however, had a new suggestion since the last Selectboard meeting: to form a site selection committee, rank locations by agreeable criteria, and have an approved location as soon as possible.
“Before I do anything with my motion, I want to hear from BASIC,” said Allen. “I’m blown away, and a little disappointed, and want to hear their side of it.”
Gartenstein said the discussion would focus on whether “to go forward with John’s motion, and what our process will be if we follow BASIC’s (new) suggestion.”
The Chair of BASIC, Jeff Clarke, said that the committee had met, reflected on the work of the last three and a half years, considered the ultimate mission, and looked at where things stood.
He said BASIC voted on October 15 to recommend that a site selection committee be formed and tasked with evaluating a variety of locations using an agreed upon list of criteria. This task, they hope, would be completed so that design, fundraising, and installation can proceed in a timely manner.
Clarke emphasized that the group continues to feel Crowell is an excellent site, and said it and other sites should be considered.
He asked that the committee stay intact, to work on the park at whatever location is chosen by the site selection committee.
“We believe that an open site-selection process is the only way to combat the misinformation and contentiousness that has developed over what will be an attractive town resource,” he said to the board.
This bothered John Allen, who said it was disappointing to have their hard work “pushed aside by a small vocal group that has raised enough concern you can’t move forward.”
Allen said that whether the site was vetted properly “we can argue forever. I feel it was. It was an open process. “
“Because of how you phrased it, I’d like to leave my motion intact and see how the voting goes,” he said.
“I did have a huge spiel I was going to say,” said Allen. “I have a hard time with vocal minorities controlling how things happen in this town. It was pushed away at Living Memorial Park. It was pushed away at West River Park.” (The State of Vermont ruled that a paved skatepark couldn’t be that close to the West River.)
“This much contentiousness bothers me. I respect your decision, but I hope people respect my decision to get a vote.”
Kate O’Connor agreed with Mr. Allen. “I voted to table it to think things through. I spent a lot of time looking at the history and John is right that there will always be a difference of opinion. I did take time looking at everything. I’m going to vote in favor of John’s motion. I appreciate that you came forward with this.”
David Schoales saw things differently. He felt that going forward with a smaller plan at Crowell would fail at fundraising. He also felt that if the Living Memorial Park objectors and West River Park objectors could get their way, why couldn’t the Crowell Park objectors. He said the new suggestion to have a site selection committee gets things back on track.
Allen worried that the next chosen site would face objections, too. Schoales countered that this would be the right process this time.
Donna Macomber agreed that a site selection committee would be the best way forward. ”The town will rally behind this process.”
Allen didn’t back down. “Jeff, you feel the Crowell Lot is still a very good spot, so I want to leave the motion intact, because it is a good spot. It may not be the best. Who knows? But you’ve put your heart and soul into it.”
He said it made him nervous “and what if the committee comes back and says, yeah, Crowell. What will happen then? Will the small vocal group try to boycott it. I don’t have the confidence in that group. You can’t come in at the 11th hour and put the cabash on something.”
Gartenstein said there were many issues with the park at the current location, not including the town budget crisis. He said he didn’t agree that opposition was from a small vocal minority. He said the change in size, the lack of fundraising, and BASIC’s new request for a site selection committee were material differences that warranted a change of plans. He said the motion to resize the park at the current location as stated would also violate the lease with the schools for failing to move playground equipment.
John Allen’s motion to reduce the size of the park to 5,000 square feet failed, with O’Connor and Allen voting in favor and the others against.
This led to phase two of the skatepark discussion.
Interim Town Manager Patrick Moreland suggested to the board in a memo that if they were to have a site selection committee, it could have 5-7 people working with the Director of Recreation and Parks and other departments. Gartenstein said the committee would look at all appropriate sites, rank the sites, and present their findings.
He offered some suggested criteria. The location for the skatepark should be judged on whether it is accessible, skatepark friendly, safe, visible, with adequate parking and bathrooms, and having adequate oversight.
Gartenstein said the citizen committee should begin and get started as soon as possible. Anyone interested, he said, could apply to the Town Manager Secretary by 5 p.m. on the 14th of November. Appointments, he said, would happen after interviews on November 19th.
Kate O’Connor said that the board should set a deadline, such as May 1. “It won’t get done without a deadline.” Donna Macomber agreed, as did David Schoales, but he wanted a date “well before May.” He suggested a month to reach a decision.
Carol Lolatte said that a month would be difficult, with holidays and winter upon us. She thought May 1 would be a better deadline, and the committee could try to be done sooner.
Clarke said he hoped the Selectboard would check in to remove stumbling blocks if they arise. Schoales said he could alert them to stumbling blocks. Clarke said he might not be on the committee, and asked if failing to have one of the criteria, such as bathrooms, would rule out a location.
Gartenstein said the committee would decide, but that failing to have one item wouldn’t rule the location out. He said there were a couple of sites at Living Memorial Park and at the Elm Street lot that should be considered. “ There are all sorts of alternatives to look at.”
Adam Hubbard wanted to add some criteria for the committee to consider: walking distance to public schools, the number of adjacent public recreation areas, visibility to auto traffic, quantity of adjacent pedestrian activity, proximity to local businesses, town ownership of the land, proximity to public transportation, access via sidewalks, proximity to a residential core, and integration with long-term growth. These suggestions, he said, came from experts.
“I understand voting against the motion,” he said “but concerns about costs to the budget are small compared to the costs of a new backhoe. A skatepark is not an ongoing capital concern.”
Hubbard said it was circular logic to delay and confound, “and the Selectboard assists,” causing a project to start over for lack of support. “The toothpaste is out of the tube. Sites have already have been judged and have biases to them. I wish you luck.”
“I’d like to leave the criteria up to the committee, since that isn’t our specialty,” said O’Connor.
Gartenstein said he thought they could suggest minimum criteria.
John Webster, a local skater said he was confused over the problems this park has faced. “We want a place to skate. All ages, genders. You can move it but we’ll skate wherever we want. Well, you won’t stop people from skating.”
Andy Davis said he was, and has been, speaking on behalf of RESITE. He said the group supports the site selection proposal from BASIC. “Some might say it is moving backwards, but it can be the only way forward.” He said the best location is the goal of the process, but building the community through that process might also be a bonus. He felt fundraising will get a boost. “This project ca
be on a firm footing. RESITE supports BASIC’s proposal.”
Brenda Carr said a supportive community process was the only way a skatepark could be successful.
Nick Grubinger asked if fundraising was something that could happen through winter as the sites were being evaluated. Clarke said that fundraising cans around town and family support could continue, but big grants would be held up until the site and details were in place.
Grubinger asked if going back to the beginning would set the project back.
“That’s why we want to limit it to a specific time frame,” said O’Connor, “to get fundraising going sooner.”
John Wilmerding said he supported the site selection process, and that we should apologize to the youth of the community for it taking so long.
Francine Vallario offered a suggestion. “Since we are starting over and coming to a conclusion as a group, I’d feel better if RESITE signs could be taken down.”
“We can’t respond to that,” said Gartenstein.
Les Montgomery asked how the committee would be balanced regarding Crowell proponents and opponents.
David Gartenstein reiterated that anyone could apply, there would be interviews, and the traditional and unique appointment voting ritual would be invoked to determine who is on the committee.
Letters of interest, again, are due by November 14 at 5 p.m.. Seven people will be appointed. Work will be completed by May 1, 2014.
The board voted 4-1 for the site selection approach, with John Allen voting against.
New Business – River Garden Lien for Building a Better Brattleboro
Building a Better Brattleboro (BaBB) gave the town a lien on the River Garden, insuring repayment to the town of $150,000 should the property be sold to a for-profit entity.
Strolling of the Heifers, a non-profit, would like to use USDA funds to help purchase the building, and the lien would work against them in the process. They’d like the town to release BaBB from the prior agreement in order to get a mortgage.
Kate O’Connor recused herself, being on the BaBB board. Orly Munzing came from Strolling of the Heifers to answer questions. “The USDA will not let us close with a lien on the River Garden. The Town has a lien on it.”
David Gartenstein said that the original funding used public money from taxpayers that was paid from the State of Vermont through the Town to Babb, and the Town can recoup the taxpayer money if the building is ever sold to a for-profit entity in the future.
He said the Town tried to find a way to place a claim on the money if there is a future sale, but the USDA mortgage rules wouldn’t allow it. In the end, helping the transaction succeed was deemed to be more important.
John Wilmerding said he valued the place as a public space, and had been assured that the new stewards, Strolling of the Heifers, shared his view.
The lien was discharged by a vote of 3-0, with O’Connor (recused) and Macomber out of room.
Traffic Calming Plan
Hannah O’Connell, Highway and Utilities Superintendent, told the board that the proposed town-wide traffic calming plan was an attempt to outline a standardized process for responding to traffic safety concerns. It comes via the Traffic Safety Committee, and has received comment through the Town’s website.
The plan includes suggestions for evaluating requests, getting public involvement, reviewing options, funding, looking at impacts, monitoring results, and classifying streets and the primary routes used by emergency responders, education, implementation, and enforcement.
All of this, of course, subject to local, state, and federal regulations.
She said that if someone has a concern, there is a Safety Action Request form to fill out asking for the location and specific details and observations. The form goes to the Traffic Safety Committee, then a response will be contemplated by the Town.
Town options for addressing safety issues, the report says, could involve increased police enforcement, using portable radar units, traffic data collection, signs, pavement markings, median islands, changes in surface or texture, gateways, traffic circles, curb extensions, chicanes s-curve roads, flashing lights at crosswalks, speed humps, temporary signs or bollards, and re-engineering.
The document has been a year in the making, with multiple drafts, review by the town attorney, and a public comment period.
John Allen wondered if his concern about speeding at the fork of Maple and Fairview would go through this process. He was assured it could.
David Gartenstein said the plan came about after pedestrian fatalities, and that the Traffic Safety Committee hoped for $5,000 to purchase a portable radar enforcement device, similar to the one mounted at Green Street.
John Wilmerding asked about getting sidewalks from the West River bridge along Putney Road north. Gartenstein and Barrett said it was a state owned and maintained road, and that sidewalks were part of the long term plan for re-doing it.
“It’s too urgent a matter of public safety to wait,” said Wilmerding. “The risk is unacceptable. How about an elevated walkway to get pedestrians away from the road?” he suggested.
“We don’t own the road,” said Gartenstein.
“We bring these issues up with the state,” added Barrett. “Traffic Safety writing a letter to the state to address these issues is the right method. We could take over that section of the infrastructure, but we don’t own it.”
“We’re talking about safety and I have an issue,” said Bill Knowles. “When I jaywalk, people are upset, but no one does anything about bikes and skateboards on the sidewalks. That’s my concern. Everyday.”
The calming plan was adopted, 5-0.
Western Ave Safety Scoping Study
A VTrans Local Transportation Facilities grant will fund a safety scoping study by RSG, Inc. of White River Junction. The company will look at Western Avenue from Academy School to Greenleaf Street for $32,975.
Public Works Director Steve Barrett said that the bidding process had been dictated by the grant, and had them evaluate criteria, rank choices, and make a choice before opening the bids.
David Schoales asked what the engineers would do. Barrett said they’d identify bike and pedestrian facilities, plan for sidewalks and paths, have public hearings, collect information, and suggest projects.
Michael Bosworth of the West Brattleboro Association approved of the scoping study and hoped that it would be an opportunity to look at narrowing the road, too.
Stewart McDermott agreed and said that West Brattleboro residents and businesses were looking forward to working on this. ”We are an active community looking forward to bringing this to fruition.”
Safe Streets Grant
$500 was accepted from the American Association of Retired Persons to help fund participation in the Safe Streets program with Local Motion. The program aims to make Brattleboro streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists, such as the reflective bands that have been distributed. Some stenciling will be added in the coming year. too.
Terry Carter thanked the board and Traffic Safety Committee on behalf of Susan Press, who died in one of the pedestrian accidents that led to recent pedestrian safety efforts. “She’d be happy with this outcome. Thanks from the bottom of my heart.”
Bagel Works Reinstated Priority Agreement
Bagel Works is refinancing a loan with Brattleboro Savings & Loan, and needed the Selectboard to execute a Restated Priority Agreement for the Small Business Assistance Program loan.
For loan detail lovers, the first position loan is now reduced from $260,000 to $141,831, the Town’s position moves from 3rd to 2nd place on the Brattleboro Project Business Assets, and Bagel Works has always been current on their payments for the loan.
Finance Director John O’Connor said “we’re in a better position if we approve it.”
The Selectboard voted to execute the agreement.
Swift Water Boat Operations Grant
The Brattleboro Fire Department received just over $3,100 for swiftwater boat operations training from the Vermont Department of Public safety.
Brooks House – Vermont Community Development Program
Another formality for the Brooks House. This time, a relatively big one. The Selectboard voted to adopt a resolution between the Agency of Commerce and Community Development to support the redevelopment project.
Moreland said it was a long time coming to have the grant agreement, and it’s in great shape.
Just So Lane
A private drive off of Kipling Road, leading to properties owned by Moss Kahler, Karen Duggan, Mark and Debra Loevy-Reyes, and Peter Vandertuin, will henceforth be known as Just So Lane.
Patrick Moreland didn’t know if the Town paid for their sign.
Ridiculous!
To go back to square one in the quest for a skatepark is joke. This merely neighbors prevailing in keeping the park out of their neighborhood out of misplaced and misinformed fear. I guess we’re not as progressive as we thought.
Since we have no choice but to play the hand we are dealt, here is a starting point for the site selection study:
[From Peter Whitley, program director at the Tony Hawk Foundation, Author of “The Public Skatepark Development Guide”]
Specific measurable site characteristics for a successful skatepark:
• Walking distance from local school
• Number of adjacent public recreational attractions
• Visibility to automobile traffic
• Quantity of adjacent pedestrian activity
• Proximity to local businesses
• City ownership with recreational designation
• Proximity to public transportation
• Access via sidewalks
• Proximity to residential core
• Integration with long-term growth plan
I would add:
-approved lease
-approved design
-existing construction documents and specifications ($16,000)
I recommend disqualifying any property that is a single use park, is remote or is not highly visible.
And here is a list of possible properties [feel free to offer suggestions]
-Crowell Lot
-Memorial Park
-Elm Street Lot
-Union Station
-Esteyville Common
-High School Kettle Hole
-West River Park
-Elliot Street Playground
-Chestnut Hill Resevoir
-Top of the Transportation Center
-Morningside Cemetery
Please Remember that private land would have to be purchased by the town (public skatepark on private land is uninsurable), adding a difficult financial premium:
-Home Depot
-Cersosimo Birge St. Lot
-Flat St Vacant Lot
-NEYT
-Harris Hill Cornfield
-Shriners Parking Lot
Good Luck!
If you do not take into
If you do not take into account and try to avoid proximity to residential housing you will end up with exactly the same problems as far as neighborhood concerns. Using only recommendations by the Tony Hawk Foundation when it does not include avoiding such close proximity to residential housing as the Crowell site will only be a case of history repeating itself. And to denigrate those who are concerned when you want to site a skatepark so close to homes will only again cause the skateboard community to again lose support.
It is not silly or foolishness or an indication of hatred of children, as has been charged in many local forums, to be concerned about noise levels and property values when a skatepark is proposed so close to houses. While the Tony Hawk Foundation or any other skateboard organization can assure people that noise levels will be low, once the place is built and if that proves not to be accurate, then any residences near this place, will have lost levels of quality of life. To argue that the neighborhood was noisy to begin with is nonsensical, those living in noisier neighborhoods have even greater concern about increasing those levels, and have a right to be concerned.
I have seen no discussion about proximity to homes in this relooking discussion. Unless you take that into account you will only end up with Re-Site signs in another location. It’s not meanness or nonsense, well, perhaps NIMBY-ness but in this case for many it’s a logical NIMBY-ness because of noise concerns. It’s only common sense that unless you want to avoid what you’ve been dealing with you find a location that is a distance from homes. Just common sense.
Case history proves otherwise
There is a long track record of nearby residents having great concern over noise and property values, and those fears unrealized upon completion.
Really. Could you provide
Really. Could you provide some links to that information because this is the sort track record I’m finding.
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/03/mount-rainier-skate-park-noise-draws-ire-of-local-residents-73312.html
http://courantblogs.com/sound-check/rob-zombie-says-he-doesnt-hate-skaters-issue-has-become-witch-hunt/
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2010/09/stoner_skatepark_a_big_buzzkill_for_some_west_la_residents.php
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Skate-park-site-raises-hackles-1194467.php
It seems that noise is a common concern and it is really up to those proposing the park to take this into consideration when locating a site. And that includes providing links that indicate that parks are found to be not noisy by a majority of residents nearby where the houses are as close by as at Crowell.
But even with first hand accounts that claim skateparks aren’t noisy one cannot overlook the huge number of complaints easily located online when one is put too close to residences. The online list is endless.
And one cannot overlook the common reaction similar to what has happened here in Brattleboro when one is proposed to be sited so close to homes. This is human nature, you can’t avoid it. To be successful you need to acknowledge that this will happen and find a spot where it won’t be an issue.
It seems logical that we have a perfect solution here in Brattleboro with Living Memorial Park in the center of town. You can’t just wish away these concerns, they seem to happen everywhere a skatepark has been proposed and I can’t find much evidence of the track record you claim. Provide some solid evidence, links please.
http://www.oregonlive.com/nor
http://www.oregonlive.com/north-of-26/index.ssf/2010/06/noise_complaints_and_insurance_concerns_shut_down_new_skate_park_in_north_plains.html
http://www.ourcoloradonews.com/archives/cushing-skate-park-opposed-by-residents/article_f0a085c0-53d8-536a-ac60-0b36de917dea.html
http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2013/09/26/man-sues-avon-lake-to-get-skate-park-closed/
http://www.durhamregion.com/news-story/3468523-neighbours-say-courtice-skatepark-causing-them-grief/
These are links I found when search for the following “residents say skatepark isn’t noisy”
I found NO articles that actually said that it wasn’t noisy, instead it was what I’ve provided, noisy noisy noisy.
Now I do believe that good design can abate the noise but as I said we have LIving Memorial Park, it’s a great solution so that even when noise levels can be lessened with good building there won’t be any homes nearby that will be affected. Those with re-site signs in their yards are only pretty typical of people across this country and apparently Canada who find the constant sounds from a skatepark will affect their quality of life. Like I said, it’s common sense. I don’t think any of these people hate children or are unfair voicing their concerns.
But please do direct me towards some links that show that long track record you spoke of. I really did try to find such information to no avail. Thanks
Careful Eye
Perhaps ‘long track record’ is an overstatement. But during the course of this torturous campaign i did come across many cases of opponents fears being misplaced.
I urge you to read the articles you cite with an eye towards whether the park is proposed or existing and what the park materials are. Also study the context. it’s important to know what parts of these articles relate to our situation.
What is clear, is that google can provide evidence for either side of the issue and we all tend to filter it to fit our own lens, myself included;
Here’s what a quick search turned up for me:
“after having worked on hundreds of skatepark development cases never have I heard of a skatepark opponent continue on to bring skatepark issues to the public’s attention. In other words, “the people that elevate skatepark fears before the facility is built rarely, if ever, see those fears realized.”
http://cms.wiltshire.gov.uk/(S(wm5gga55b130f045qoanjja5))/documents/s63382/Skatepark%20Task%20Group%20Report%20-%20Appendix%204.pdf
Have you received complaints about noise?
Not since the park opened, but there were concerns
when it was being proposed
17 parks, noise complaints non existent.
http://www.spausa.org/noise-skateparks.html
A recent study has shown that
skateparks do not generate any more
noise than the vehicular traffic typically
heard on collector roadways.11
According to the Skatepark Association
of the United States of America
(SPAUSA), communities request noise
studies when a skatepark is being
planned, but rarely have a problem with
it after the skatepark is built.
http://www.miamiskaters.com/testimonials/
Tim Gordon, Attorney and Father:
I live across the street from a concrete neighborhood skatepark, and I’m happy that I do. The skatepark is also adjacent to a grade school. The park’s location has never been a problem for me or for the school. And the noise from the school playground is much louder than the noise from the skatepark. In fact, the noise from the public pool a block away is louder.
Skateboarding also gives my an opportunity to bond with my ten-year-old son. I’m not alone. There are several dads in my area who like to skateboard with their kids. It’s as common, if not more common, today to see a dad skating with his kid as it is seeing a dad play catch with his kid. The generation that first fell in love with skateboarding has grown up and is having children. We don’t play basketball with our kids. We skate with them.
I’m saddened to see opposition from a temple. Opposing the skatepark shows a lack of understanding of skateboarders, and a lack of care for kids. I’ve seen several examples where other religious organizations embrace skateboarding as a way to reach out to children. Some churches have in fact build and maintain skateboarding facilities on their own property (“pray to play” skateparks), and even use skateboarding as a way of ministry to young followers. In light of this, it’s surprising that a religious organization would take the complete opposite approach, and try to prevent a skateboard park from being built in their neighborhood
http://www.humankinetics.com/excerpts/excerpts/communities-must-ask-right-questions-when-planning-skatepark
http://tonyhawkfoundation.org/faq/
http://www.portagewi.com/pdf/The%20Benefits%20of%20Public%20Skateparks.pdf
http://www.pitcherpark.com/patch.html
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=151156
.
As I said before you might
As I said before you might find one or two residents who aren’t bothered by noise but that doesn’t mean that others in the community aren’t. As for this “after having worked on hundreds of skatepark development cases never have I heard of a skatepark opponent continue” then this person isn’t really looking into the issue. Maybe that’s the case with the parks he or she has worked on but it’s really hard to believe. Unless the people who were still bothered moved as has happened in a lot of case, see some of my cites.
The pitcher park article is talking about skateparks located in areas like our Memorial Living Park not Crowell. They are not adjacent to homes, I am familiar with Portland, that park also is quite large, more like siting this at Memorial LIving Park. Articles by Tony Hawk foundation or human kinetics are too involved in a pro stance for their assurances to be taken at face value.
But I think you’re missing my point which is that a skatepark is a great idea but if you continue to try to place it in a residential area you will still have to deal with the same issues, signs and concerns you’ve had at Crowell. Fair or not, that is simply what will happen so I suggest that you look for a site like Memorial Park that is not adjacent to homes.
Assurances of materials, other people’s not being bothered by the noise of their personal skatepark etc etc are not going to be reassuring because once it is built, if it turns out to be one of those hundreds of other parks that are noisy and problematic, the neighborhood is stuck. It’s a permanent fixture. It’s not mean-spirited or child hating to be concerned. So all I’m saying is why not make it easier for yourselves, easier for everyone and find a site that isn’t right next to homes. What happened before when Memorial Park was proposed? I wasn’t around at that time.
Skateboard noise
I often walk from my house to the CO-OP, which takes me past the bus stops on Flat Street.
It’s common to see folks tooling around on skateboards and practicing stunts.
It’s indisputable: They DO make noise!
(Less than motorcycles, more than buses and cars)
self fulfilling prophecy
Skateboarders make noise
Put them where they won’t bother anybody (isolated corner of town)
Skatepark becomes dark and nasty place
See, skateparks are dark and nasty, don’t put them in our neighborhood.
or,
Skateparks make the same noise as basketball, playgrounds
Let’s put it next to the court and playstructure
Kids of all ages have a great place to hang out.
Successful Skatepark!
–
–
Every failed skatepark can be tied to dis-integrating it, shunning the skaters to a place where they won’t be a nuisance.
That’s just my opinion, and it probably won’t change….just like the opponents…You’ve developed an opinion and it probably won’t change. you can find all the evidence you need to put the park in a far off corner.
If you think the Tony Hawk Foundation and Skateparks USA are not intent on building successful parks, but intent on forcing them into places that make people miserable, what hope do we have of getting it right?
Here’s a plan: Disregard expert advocates and use the criteria developed by the progressive, enlightened elders of Brattleboro:
Must have bathrooms
Must be away from residences
Must be away from businesses
Must be away from young children
Must be away from trees
Must not displace any existing use
Must have supervision
Must be away from steep hills
Must be graffiti proof
Must not cost the town any money
Must not be noisy
Must not be a liability
Sounds fun, can’t wait
As I said, this may not seem
As I said, this may not seem fair to you but actually that’s a pretty comprehensive list.
Bathrooms: Otherwise where will the kids go to the bathroom if there are not facilities available
Away from business and residences: Quality of life, ability to sell and run a business should not be inhibited by noise from a new/proposed facility that wasn’t there when investment was made. It’s not unrealistic to think that property owners who pay taxes have a right to keep their property values up as much as possible as well as an expectation that new projects won’t change the character/quality of life in the neighborhood they’ve made an investment in.
Away from Young Children: Skateboards, just like bicycles, at high speeds are dangerous to pedestrians. I can totally get why parents of young children would be nervous about this.
Away from trees: Yes, laying a large amount of concrete over nearby tree roots is not a good idea
If the existing use is advantageous and enjoyed by townspeople why replace it?
Away from steep hills: You forgot the “if steep hills that are major traffic avenues to downtown” part
Must not cost the town any money or liabilities: Welcome to the real world, yes, considering the financial state of this town and the constant uptick in taxes placed on residents, this town cannot, IMHO, afford any more expenses or liabilities.
It’s not mean or trying to inhibit your fun to require that a new facility meet certain standards. This is the way things should work in a community. While the kids who want to skateboard deserve respect and a place to skate, the taxpaying residents of neighborhoods and business owners also equally deserve respect and a right to operate their businesses and have a certain quality of life in their neighborhoods. I think less resentment and little more willingness to recognize obstacles would be helpful in your goals.
“Sounds fun, can’t wait.” As I said, welcome to the real world. This is exactly the sort of attitude that will guarantee difficulty in finding a site that works for everyone, which should be the goal in my opinion.
the real world
Sorry if I sound resentful.
I’ve studied the topic for years, and just sharing my views.
My agenda is simple: To build a safe, fun place for kids to skate.
It’s much harder than I thought.
Thanks for welcoming me to the real world. Or do you mean Brattleboro? Thanks for welcoming me to Brattleboro.
Well if you look at the cites
Well if you look at the cites you have a lot of good company. It appears that many across the country have exactly the same problems and issues to deal with you as you have had. Nothing that BASIC has run up against is unusual. I’d like to see a safe, fun place for kids to skate in town also. Except that I’d like to see a fun, safe place for kids to skate that isn’t disruptive to adjacent residents or businesses or affects already existing use of the proposed site. Then everyone can feel good about the skatepark.
Just the facts, Ma’am; just the facts.
“Put them where they won’t bother anybody (isolated corner of town)”
I don’t think ANY of the proposed alternative sites could be considered “Isolated”. Certainly not LMP, which has the greatest concentration of recreational activity in Southeast Vermont.
“Skateparks make the same noise as basketball, playgrounds”
Not so. They make significantly more noise. It’s not the rolling of the wheels, it’s the loud bang they make when practicing maneuvers. And practicing means doing it over and over.
Bottom line: If this desirable project is to be funded by contributions, it has to be less controversial.
Facts
Fact#1 Three Go Skateboarding Days at the Crowell Lot. 20-25 skaters, no skateboarding sounds could be heard at any neighboring residences.
Fact#2 While measuring skateboard noise at Crowell Lot, noise from basketball and playground measured higher.
“Isolated” can also mean single use. Every site other than Crowell Lot and Memorial park would have skateboarding as an isolated recreational use.
as long as a skatepark is considered ‘disruptive’ and not suitable to be adjacent to residences or businesses or affects existing uses it will not likely end up on the list of success stories.
In my opinion, and in the opinion of experts in the field, the key ingredients are high visibility, high traffic, and mixed, active use.
If those ingredients are unacceptable to the townspeople, then I would rather have no park than a failed park. I want a place where I can drop the kids off and feel good about it. Not like Keene or Rosa’s citations.
Memorial Park does not have land available that will not displace an existing use or is not adjacent to residences, other than at the top of the hill. I would rather have no park than one at the top of the hill…I simply would not leave my kids there.
/so tired