What is really behind the battlelines over this park? Is any decision a good decision? Over time the amount of skatepark comments on iBrattleboro really overwhelmed its readership; it also exposed one of the deepest rifts seen in this microcosm of our community.
How could such a small community be so glaringly and bitterly divided for so long over what should have been a relatively simple matter?Two recent columns in the Reformer make the case for Elm Street as well as I’ve read anywhere on this topic of a skatepark site. Is it too late, or will we really putting this park out at Living Memorial?
I ask you, is the skatepark meant for out-of-towners or is it for the people of Brattleboro?
It seems to me that town people benefit the most from the obviously central location at Elm Street, where, out-of-towners, who are very welcome, are secondary. The off the central town path at Living Memorial seems to more benefit out-of-towners primarily and the town people come in second.
Like any good body politic, circulation of the living body is best when it is unrestricted.
If people feel strongly about Elm Street for the above reasons, should we pay a visit to the Selectboard ‘en mass’ as we did during the fire/police facility issue earlier this year? Is it too late?
When you have time, please read the two columns posted to the Reformer from Ricky Davidson and Jacob Roberts.
Full text:
To skate or to debate? That is the question – by Jacob Roberts
http://www.reformer.com/columnists/ci_26494038/skate-or-debate-that-is-question
A bad decision we will regret – by Ricky Davidson
http://www.reformer.com/opinion/ci_26509289/bad-decision-we-will-regret
Stirring Up the Muddy Waters – Or is it?
I’m not trying to stir up the muddy waters, but granted, the Selectboard are decision makers. They take a vote and that’s it.
Or is it?
I have always thought that the Elm Street site opposition was much more from fear (of the past) without enough common sense looking to the future.
Some of the reasons given in the Reformer columns (albeit, probably not new reasons) are how much visible Elm Street is by traffic and pedestrians, how close it is to the train station, that it is the youth oriented center of town with the Boys&Girls Club and the NYET nearby, and that it is easily within and accessible to walking, biking, skating distance to the lifeblood of the town.
I’m sorry for bringing this up again, but this is your last chance.
Or is it?
Not so sure
I doubt seriously that BASIC, the Rec Dept., or the Town would be interested in changing locations at this point. I think that train has left the station (unless the feasibility studies show otherwise, but even then, I think the top of LMP would be next in line.)
That said, Elm Street was by far the top location of the site selection committee. That should have some weight, one would think. They spent a lot of time and effort. Gartenstein said he saw the benefits. Perhaps it could be used for a second, future park site (on top of a police-fire facility, of course…).
Or, maybe the town could just lift the illegality of being a skateboarder along Flat St., and add a few skateboard specific elements.
Inclined to agree
If it wasn’t for the two persuasive Reformer columns, also after the train left, I would not have written this.
Write away...
There’s no harm in discussing things.
Often there is even a benefit.
the two persuasive ones
Vidda,
Can you please add a link here to the ‘two persuasive Reformer columns’?
As to the site quest, it’s not over until the last concrete truck is unloaded and gone!
Should we belay the action and decision of the Selectboard?
Joe,
These two links take you right to each article. I’d love to know your opinion about them, particularly if we should belay the action and decision of the Selectboard and revisit this as the two articles (I think) are recommending.
And, of course, I mean for all particpants, including the Select members should read these two article…and do proceed without doing so.
Full text:
To skate or to debate? That is the question – by Jacob Roberts
http://www.reformer.com/columnists/ci_26494038/skate-or-debate-that-is-q…
A bad decision we will regret – by Ricky Davidson
http://www.reformer.com/opinion/ci_26509289/bad-decision-we-will-regret
great articles
Thanks for sharing these. I had missed them. Davidson’s historical reference to being ignored, then told to “shut up” about his ideas by a Selectboard member, spoke clearly to me, and many others I assume.
Years ago, Mr. Zippy (Kevin Maloney, former Chair of the Brattleboro Planning Commission) noted to the town leadership at the time that inviting the people of the town to serve on official committees, then ignoring months of their hard work and time commitment, was demoralizing and not good leadership form. He was ignored too, as we see in the current situation with the skatepark committee.
Not long ago I read an article in The Commons by an “outsider” who offered his professional opinion of why Brattleboro often fails to move forward. Rather, it limps along year-after-year.
In the end, the value of a centrally located skatepark is understood and that piece should not be ignored. I hope by now the proponents of a skatepark in this town are able to see that their endless frustration is the result of town leaders, not their neighbors or Crowell abutters. The discussion that was forced as a result of the previous “plan” for Crowell has, ultimately, aided the public participation in this issue. A consequence that I believe will produce a better outcome than the narrow agenda of some past Selectboard members and their behind the scenes followers.
Value = centrally located park (Elm St) and articles not ignored
“In the end, the value of a centrally located skatepark is understood and that piece should not be ignored.”
Perhaps this can be revisited Zippy.
Who’s going to inform the Selectboard? :~)
Good conversation
I would like very much to see construction begin on a skatepark in this town. The site at Living Memorial may work out. However, the current chosen site has more tests to pass in terms of permitting and feasibility because of the nearby Whetstone Brook. If permitting problems are encountered then maybe Elm Street will suddenly be back on the table. We are still in a ‘siting’ mode because the recent Selectboard vote is to explore the Memorial Park location, not to actually begin the design/build phase.
I agree with everyone here that the recent columns in the Reformer on Elm Street are very well written, well thought out – and very positive in tone. In the best of all possible worlds we would have a downtown park, a Memorial Park park and a path along the Whetstone Brook connecting the two… Choices must be made, however.
I like Ricky Davidson’s idea that Elm could be a skatepark now with temporary structures. This could aid in fundraising and giving skateboarders a place sooner – rather than later – to ‘rally their troops’ AND the community to move forward. I am thinking there is a two part fundraising thing going on: contribute to the site feasibility work at Memorial Park and then the big push to actually build at the eventual approved location.
I see nothing wrong with the current conversation here. It is all very constructive.
Andy Davis
From the most recent article on this topic, in the Commons
This is from the last paragraphs in the Commons article. The rest of the article is available at this link.
http://www.commonsnews.org/site/site05/story.php?articleno=10594&page=1#.VBLFSfldXh4
“Under the heading of “least suitable,” BASIC listed the Elm Street Lot and an area in the upper part of Living Memorial Park.
In his letter, Clark said that BASIC members felt that Elm Street “is located in a ‘sketchy’ part of town and will most likely be a park targeting a majority teen age and older population.”
“Younger skaters and/or family and mix use park users will likely not be regular users,” he wrote of Elm Street Lot.
The upper part of Living Memorial Park, wrote Clark, was too remote from other family activities.
“We acknowledge that your decision will be made for the better of the overall community and we respect the final outcome,” concluded Clark’s letter.”
I am excited it landed in the Park
I personally am excited that after all the acrimony and delay, the skatepark has landed in the sports park, near family activities, with other sports, and bathroom and water facilities, where it belongs,and where it has the best chance to thrive.
Elm Street is among Basic’s list of LEAST favorable places. Let’s move on, come together and get to fundraising.
Not trying to open old wounds
I wasn’t trying to open old wounds, nor continue division. I wasn’t aware that Elm was Basic’s least favorite site. I respect any group to offer their views. But the two columns in the Reformer were potent, although I was not trying to cherry pick them or any other articles or public views. And maybe the starting gate has been closed.
I personally like LMP as it is. The fireworks alone make it worth having, not to mention the other reasons.
But the amenities there can easily be put on Elm. And the idea of two sites, perhaps starting with a teen/adult site, is a good thing because they represent the largest, most active group of skaters.
In any case, my gut instinct agrees with Davison and Jacob. Besides, we waited this long, what’s the rush?
Sorry Joe, but I've been out of sorts...
Now I know why maybe Joe hasn’t replied. Sorry about my ignorance Joe. Those two columns must have unexpectedly struck a chord with me.
I have been in ill health this year and I believe I must have missed some threads here and there and news elsewhere.
Some LMP advocates should know I also spent most of my life in NYC. I am not easily intimidated by “sketchy” locations and have seen wonderful turnarounds often enough over the years in different communities.
If LMP it must be, good luck with it all.
a stickler for historical details and facts
Contrary to The Commons article cited here, residents near Crowell did not “take the town to court”. We wrote a very factual appeal to the Vermont Environmental Court to consider the ironfisted top-down process (just like refusing to consider Elm Street lot) that was then approved by the town DRB and advanced a “plan” to build a skatepark in a specific location in Crowell Park.
Although I am convinced we would have won that appeal (based on the ample evidence and the historical record that informed the appeal) we SETTLED the appeal BEFORE it ever got to the environmental court, in order move forward and to cease the divisions that were created by “the town” leaders and a flawed process.
It in unfair to continue to blame this entire fiasco on the abutters and neighbors of Crowell Park. Please take the time to read the appeal and supporting evidence(I will send it to anyone who requests it) and you will see that the neighbors of Crowell had valid concerns which were well documented – AND that they were responsible citizens for challenging such an egregious process that was pushing to develop community property without considering the “community”.
Holy Crap!
I just realized what the core problem is here!
When I return from the doctor’s office I will spell it out.
Damn. Sometimes this boy is slooow!
Elm Street
I have to disagree with Jeff Clarke’s claim that young families would not use a skate park located on Elm Street. There are many young families in the immediate area of Elm Street, On any given day there kids everywhere, playing outside, walking downtown to shop with their parents, I find it difficult to believe that a park on Elm Street would be under utilized by young families. A skate park on Elm Street would also be a great resource for the after school and summer programs offered by The Boys and Girls Club, which houses and in-door makeshift skate park.
anti climatic decision for most
At the last Select Board meeting concerning the skate park location, I felt a definite disappointment coming on , a general frustration of leaving a contentious situation open ended again and an unfortunate let down and disservice of dismissing two viable sites readily available when the SB fell short of reaching some kind of common ground and compromise upon their recent decision to choose BASIC’s #1 preference for LLMP, a site/ area once eliminated by the SSSC for good reason considering the overall cost burden/ contingent on permitting and possessing many of the same detrimental flaws shared with the Crowell Park site such as park use displacement, tree and utilized green space removal and overcrowding affecting the community and prolonging the process.
In doing so the SB more or less was not going to recognize the conclusion/outcome of the long and thorough SSSC process supporting a more positive vision that selected by far the Elm Street location as the most viable site for Brattleboro’s new skate park. Remember it was not BASIC’s mission or purview to make such decisions by publically disabling the other top potential sites such as Elm and ULMP but took on this responsibility once established and designated to the SSSC by the Select Board themselves.
I believe this represents a lost opportunity to resolve this issue once and for all and fails to take advantage of the fund driving momentum that could have been for a site that was ready to go, overwhelmingly accepted, and could be used shortly if only a temporary set up at the Elm Street location where the need is the greatest and skate boarders aimlessly circle nearby waiting, most of all this is not fair to them.
core problem
I am not sure the core problem is an issue of concern about parental control? I suspect if we look deeper the core problem is about a lack of trust. The town SB’s don’t trust the products of the committees they convene to examine a problem and find a remedy. The people/groups in the town often don’t trust the decisions or ethics of SB’s, or the official decision making processes. For example, endless hours of meetings and committee work produce quagmires with little movement. The skatepark drama is only one example of a larger core problem, in my view.
Let's close old wounds
I can only hope that you read my full comment, not just the title.
There you will see my disclaimer in reference to the singularity of the “core problem.”
In the larger context about ‘boards’ not trusting their committees, I suspect that is more ancient than this current affair.
In that I stand with you.
Nevertheless, this “good conversation” as Andy called, really revolves around the Davidson and Roberts letters in the Reformer. To wit, in setting the past aside, is it viable to revisit this affair with Elm Street the focus?
Given all that has transpired, you might agree to close old wounds. They cannot heal if the patient rips off the dressing.
What say you Zippy, a new focus, eh what?
I agree it is best to heal
I agree it is best to heal old wounds. But wounds do not heal only with clean covers that remain in firmly in place. Nutrition, blood supply, and (particularly) the absence of underlying infection and co-morbidities are more critical in wound healing than a clean dressing covering festering wounds. Additionally, even with aggressive intervention and in the best of healing environments, deep wounds require time to heal. We see this throughout all of recorded history and still today around the world.
I did read your entire post, Vidda, and I suppose I focused my response on your comment that the bitter division over the skatepark puzzled you. I believe that the covert nature and silence of the Selectboard at the time, the DRB, the Brattleboro Schoolboard, and the town management decision making in the face of much blood letting fueled the bitter divisions. And, more so, the total lack of leadership accountability that continues to exist today makes it difficult to move on when all the critical questions on why and how decisions were made (see court appeal and evidence, and much much more) remain covered with a much cleaner dressing of silence and complacency.
I have moved on – and upward. But I continue to see the same dynamics (including trust interrupted) and resulting discontent play out over and over again in this town in different scenarios, as well as, in public opinion. Only some of the players change. So, I hope the new focus might be on leadership and the role it plays in festering old wounds, or in healing them.
.
Which way the wind blows
Trust is a big part for sure…I also believe vision and creativity, and openness to innovation is what’s lacking. Add to that institutional lethargy, and a topic that sparks emotions, and it’s no wonder the mess were in.
I read the Reformer letters, and considered well the proposal. There is merit absolutely.
I invite you to take a close look at these stories of former efforts, for this very spot.
http://bratskateartspots.wordpress.com
https://www.ibrattleboro.com/article.php/20110304082509394
Again I go back to the idea of creative courage. The willingness to step up. I don’t know if government’s are really capable of such bold largess.
John Allen made a move in that vein when he brought his amendment to kick-in a modest amount of public funding.
I appreciated that a lot. Also felt it didn’t go far enough. Why, after all these years , with all the professed good will, has there not been a temporary zone? Why no moratorium on the illegality? It may be lack of will or creative courage, or maybe there’s only so much energy to go around.
If another group wants to spearhead an Elm st spot there is a value, but I’d hope it wouldn’t divert funds or momentum for the Living Memorial piece– because the family friendly, full progression park, where it’s possible to go from grom to all out ripper, is the primary consensus and thrust that this process has arrived at.
LMP - where the accountability for all these years begins
The two recent letters from the Reformer reminded me that I like to think there are always possibilities and the notion of the revitalization of a part of town in need of a revival like a neglected play of Moliere.
That’s not something LMP, which is already established, is in need of.
I think it goes to say that LMP is where the process has arrived. Where and when the actuality it of begins is where the accountability for all these years also begins. I’ve often felt that if you were the one who directed this development with the necessary support, you’re ideas are worth more than all of the decision makers. I hope people really appreciate the length of time you’ve put into this.
I don’t see a diversion of funds or a spearhead for Elm St. I certainly did see it as a food for thought exercise with a light to shine on what, I admit, thought was a better focus (with help from the Davidson and Roberts letters).
love
Love the skate art park
Surprised that proposal didn’t fly here? Elm seems a great location for a skate art park, no?
Well we maybe back sooner
Well we maybe back sooner than we think to selecting another location considering the family who made donations to make the senior area at LMP possible in the first place had not been contacted at the time of select boards approval of it as far as I know, but represents an essential priliminary step to go forward in my opinion.
It seems odd this same area with all the hurdles and undeniable costs involved has made it to the finish line when so many other sites had been eliminated for far less significant reasons/constraints during the SSSC process including and starting with the other location above the hospice gardens that could have worked entertaining “creative” planning of an improved access with the same kind of expense that will be required at LLMP but without displacing a current use within the park itself, not to say it won’t have an impact.
I’m puzzled at the rationale of selecting a site at LLMP with so many unknowns and how they expect the community to get behind donating money to a particular site when the location may very well end up where many don’t want it by default. By the way John Allen did a good job at pretty much killing the Elm Street Lot by labeling it as “Setting up BASIC to Fail”, it’s hard to recover from that and Scott Dixons bashing article in the Commons.
The Core Problem – Parental Control
If I’m stating the obvious and previously said, then at least it bears repeating.
The bitter division over the skatepark site puzzled me as it should have been one of the easier community decisions.
By naming a core problem, I’m not saying it’s the only problem. However, clearly the current reality tree of pros and cons is majorly impacted by one main item.
It isn’t the site that’s the problem. It’s the children. The division is oft mentioned in terms of families with kids and families with parental control. But the largest majority of skateboarders in town are teens (mostly late teens) and adults, who require no heavy oversight of parental control
So much fear and concern to protect the children is a major stumbling block. When I pass Crowell Lot, I mostly see children at play on swings and slides, far more often than teens and adults playing basketball. In fact, Crowell Lot seems more of a kids playground than other uses. It also proximates the school grounds.
I’m unconvinced that most out-of-towners are going to be families. I am fully convinced that the sizeable contingent of local teens and adult skaters will be the ones using Elm Street or any other sites but it is clearly Elm Street where the central nature of the flow lies.
The park location decision should not be family and kids driven, it should be teen and adult driven. That doesn’t mean that family and kids will not use Elm Street, I think they will, it means that the final solution should be for the groups of greatest need.
Remove the fear and parental control elements from the driver’s seat and Elm Street is the logical conclusion.
As usual, though, Americans tend to start the race after the horse has left the barn.
Thank god I can feel good about the skate park site
In the summer I am at the park sometimes twice a day. It is a wonderful park and there is a huge site that was rarely used. I’m happy that it will be the skate park. The town is very congested by traffic and activities. We didn’t need more going on in that space, way too much noise already. I have often wondered who lives where: Vidda do you live on Elm or Elliot or Flat or Frost?
I am guessing we who live in the triangle are very happy that the skate park found a home away from our home. Peace, let the mud settle~
A good benefit and a fitting finale
When you write: “I am guessing we who live in the triangle (Elm or Elliot or Flat or Frost ) are very happy that the skate park found a home away from our home” —
You may, indeed, be guessing.
I have never seen a reliable consensus of who supports what where. I’m not sure that a specific neighborhood has been canvassed, polled or voted on the skatepark being located there.
And, you might very well be the one to speak for all in your neighborhood. Then again, how would we know that?
I’ll add that while a location was being decided on, I noticed that the “neighborhood” across from LM Park really only comprises a few houses. Because of that, I’m led to think it seemed be the path of least resistance, from that singular aspect.
As in many situations like this one, it’s those who speak up that can sway the day. Too many people don’t get involved for different reasons.
At LM Park, it simply is out of the way, out of people’s neighborhoods and will not necessarily revitalize the “unused” space in the park, the way it would have for the triangle.
When all is said and done, the Selectboard reserves for itself and has the lawful right to decide. After all these years and intensive divisional riffs, most people, vocal and silent, are probably just glad to get on with it, wherever the site will be.
I’m glad those two letters in the Reformer appeared when they did. This extra dialogue in those letters and here on iBrattleboro did not hurt one whit. As Chris Grotke wrote: “There’s no harm in discussing things. Often there is even a benefit.”
This time around this was a very civil discussion. That alone is a good benefit and a fitting finale. That’s something to be thankful for.
"I have never seen a reliable
“I have never seen a reliable consensus of who supports what where. I’m not sure that a specific neighborhood has been canvassed, polled or voted on the skatepark being located there.”
Yes, no one approached me. I am in the organization called F.E.E.T. This group meets monthly and is concerned with the Elm, Elliot, and Frost Triangle community. At a F.E.E.T. Green Up Day activity I was informed of the skate park interest in Elm. I was concerned about this site for many reasons.
When the host community is not consulted then there is a problem with communication. Seemed like that happened throughout the skate park process from the beginning. I’m glad that finally we got a park location in a park where there are lots of children’s activities. It’s a great site and I’m so happy for the resolution.
Vidda, you never said if you lived in the triangle.
Elyse Dupree
Yes, Robyn, I did not say.
I live in the Valley of the Twin Peaks of Eternity. As I stand there, so too do I hail in the nether Mists of Moiré Duchamp upon the plains Elyse Dupree.
Pax vobis
Our Kids are O.K.
The skatepark situated in Living Memorial Park continues to be an idea that hasn’t really arrived, despite the Selectboard’s decision. Why is that?
The Alex Wilson letter in today’s Reformer brings back the notion of vitality to the Town, in particular, Elm Street.
As an aside, I’d like to point that our kids don’t hang out, any more or less than adults do. But like adults, they have the same inherent rights to assemble.
Let’s stop trying to push our kids out the door.
Our Kids are O.K.
This one’s from Alex Wilson:
Still eying an Elm Street skatepark
Full text 09/23/14 http://www.reformer.com/letterstotheeditor/ci_26585690/letter-box