Too Urban?
It’s seeming that the Elm Street parking lot is quickly becoming the favorite choice for the location of the Brattleboro skatepark. It’s an odd turn of events considering this location is not supported by BASIC or the larger skateboarding community. It’s a little bit confusing because when the new Selectboard pulled the $50,000 dollar designer rug out from under BASIC and roped everyone back to the start line it was to “ensure due public process and identify the most ideal location for a skatepark.” Is the Elm street lot the best location for a skatepark?
I’m gonna take a pretty big leap here; let’s assume that the Selectboard and the oppositional neighbors from Crowell and Memorial Park have minimal to no experience with building, using, or living near a skatepark. If any part of that assumption is true then in order for an ideal location to be chosen the experts, the experienced, and the clientele should have an equal or greater say in what constitutes an ideal location. The Reformer stated the skateboard community did not support this location because it was “too urban.” The Reformers support for BASIC and the (supposedly) legally binding votes by previous selectboards is undeniable, but the discontent over this location is much more specific and numerous than a vague and meaningless phrase such as “too urban.” If you have the time, I’d like to go over with you some very specific reasons why we reject the Elm Street Lot as a viable location for a skatepark. Prop up your feet and pop open a spritzer, make yourself at home!
The obvious arguments against the Elm Street lot are safety concerns. Considering the skatepark is going to be playground used by children, the skatepark and surrounding areas needs to be as safe as possible. The largest safety concerns are traffic concerns, drug and alcohol use, and abandoned toxic buildings.
The neighbors at the Crowell lot had a lot to say about the surrounding traffic. The Crowell Lot, with all its hedge buffers and cliff /embankment buffers. sits near an apocalyptic intersection straight out of a Mad Max movie. Although the children who already use the park are completely immune to this clusterflick, skateboarders, with their inherent absence of common sense, would forget every bit of traffic safety and would throw themselves into the chaos and down that completely unskateable hill by the thousands in such a way that would make lemmings seem like noobs.
So what is it about the traffic situation surrounding the Elm Street lot that makes it a more ideal location? It’s not because it is at the bottom of an actual skateable hill, it’s not because across the location is an equally terrifying intersection, and it’s not because the skatepark would literally be directly touching the street. It’s because…well…actually I don’t know why. There are no natural barriers, and the area lends itself to more realistic foot/skateboard traffic on an already taxed area of town. The only plan in place is to construct a giant chain link fence around the entirety of the skatepark. Aesthetically speaking it should do wonders for the area. Enough with traffic though, let’s head to the real party.
Drugs and alcohol! Adults can have a great time with both, so why wouldn’t we want to put something like a skatepark in one of the largest drug and alcohol dealing/ using areas in town! Some people reading this may not know what I’m talking about here. Let’s just say if you really want to find a used “insulin” needle, a super drunk homeless camp, or possibly get mugged at dusk then look no further than underneath the Elm hill bridge or behind the abandoned, poisoned filled buildings near the proposed site. Seriously, go look around. Wear shoes and watch out for glass. Maybe bring a baseball bat. While you’re looking around remember that people are seriously considering putting a park right next door. Luckily the traffic situation in the area is so poor that the whole skatepark will be fenced in, thus protecting the users from the surrounding lifestyles.
Lastly, what is going on with those buildings next door? Some of you may not know this, but those giant buildings on elm street, the ones directly across the street from where the skatepark may be, are so contaminated with lead and petro-based chemicals that not only can they not be used for anything but also the owners and the town have no plan or idea on how to safely demolish them. Would you want your kids, or yourself playing next door to this location? Enough on the crumbling real estate, let’s talk about the future plans of this area of town.
There are some people in town that have some really amazing plans for this area of town. These people have been vocal about their support for a skatepark at this location because they feel it can be a catalyst for these ambitious plans. Let me lay this out as simply as I can. The skatepark is not habitats for humanity, or a youth mentoring center. It’s not a magical revenue generating facility that will spur development or clean up a troubled neighborhood. It’s a concrete playground, plain and simple. It’s appalling that so much time, effort, and broken promises can be rewarded with the burden and responsibility of carrying such an ambitious project. This is especially insulting considering there are no immediate plans or funds ready for this kind of urban renewal. The idea being proposed is a “build it and they will come” mindset. Putting a skatepark in this area will not lead to new development, it will simply lead to a skatepark being set up to fail. If the park is built, and the same problems continue to plague this area of town it will be the skatepark that shoulders the blame.
So let’s say you’re someone with some power with this issue. Let’s say you’re David Gartenstein at a recent skatepark site visit and you hear all of these very negative arguments against a playground being located at this Elm Street Lot. You might ask yourself and the group (as he really did, in real life) “Are there ANY good reasons for having a skatepark here?” Can anyone guess what the applause winning answer was? “It’s not near any people!” “Oh I guess that’s a pretty big positive huh?”
That’s the big kicker. It’s not that the opposing neighbors are against a skatepark, they are against a skatepark located near them. This sentiment was heard loud and clear when Les Montgomery and other SOPC members argued for the skatepark to be located at Memorial Park or the much smaller Elliot street park, despite neighbors to those locations having the exact same living situation and unfounded fears of living near a skatepark. Considering both sides can yell equally loud, the only solution seems to be to place the skatepark at the Elm street lot, away from neighbors and recreational parks and playgrounds.
If anyone has been following this debate, you might have noticed BASIC released a sound study that confirmed a concrete skatepark is no louder than any other thing you would find at a recreational park, including basketball courts, traffic, children playing, and babies crying. This study replicated the findings of dozens of other similar sound studies. You may have also noticed a study on injuries sustained during sports that concluded skateboarding is as safe as other accepted recreational sports. You may also fondly look back on the time BASIC disproved the oppositional neighbors’ claims that there would be a massive dieing off of trees in the Crowell Lot. David Gartenstein recently stated that there needs to be a re-assessment of potential skatepark locations that focuses on the neighbors’ perception of what a skatepark means for their neighborhood. I completely reject this idea in favor of factual evidence over speculation. Brattleboro isn’t trying anything new, there are currently over 4,000 skateparks in the country, with most of them being located in areas like the Crowell Lot or Memorial Park. Noise complaints are rare, trees stay intact and property values do not go down. I understand that with their lack of experience the Selectboard is scared that the oppositional neighbors’ fears may come to fruition, however if they review the factual evidence that BASIC has provided them they will see that these arguments are baseless and founded on an irrational fear of the unknown. These fears will not come to fruition, and all of the yelling will finally be quieted.
Ultimately the Selectboard will put the skatepark where they feel it belongs. That location will either be alongside other healthy recreational activities in an open and accessible location, or it will be tucked away alone in a dusty corner of town, caged in and left to fend for itself. It might seem like a hard decision but let me give you some advice: only one of these locations will produce a negative outcome after the project is completed.. To the neighbors of Crowell and LMP, next time you see a kid skateboarding make sure to let them know how much you support a skatepark in Brattleboro, I’m sure they’d really appreciate all the work you’ve done.
– Scotty “Baby Feet” Dixon
When Scott is not practicing psychiatric nursing he spends his time in his backyard building onto his personal skatepark, which to date has resulted in 0 noise complaints, 0 hospitalizations, 0 acts of vandalism and 2 really stoked elderly neighbors who enjoys watching the falls.
Thank you
WOW! Scott, thank you very much for that insightful look into this very important community issue. It is encouraging to actually hear from the user group that will occupy this ‘Brattleboro Skatepark’…
BASIC & Their Conclusive Studies
Sorry Scott, You have not lived at the Intersection of Western and Union for 16 yrs. and it appears you do not have the experience or insight here to back up what you’ re presumptively seem to contrive as far as it concerns the inherent traffic hazards that exist at this location, deducing the same kind of logic and validity behind your, amateur, superficial sound studies (not to be confused with comprehensive impact studies affecting the neighborhood which never happened.
Kids (especially young ones with less skill than yourself) aren’t presently coming and going to the park on skateboards, kids using the play set are mostly supervised by their parents or the Green Street School itself, basketball players are in the park playing basketball, not on the fringes.
Any traffic hazard at Elm Street could be remedied as it is a side road with speeds usually not exceeding 25 mph, ie. there could be speed bumps utilized. There is another parking lot strip, so the park would not be right off the road. However, in my opinion, you raise important concerns with Elm street’s proximity to sketchy behavior lingering about, but can this be dealt with heightened police presence, that is needed anyway?, couldn’t this in fact be a crucial step to change the future dynamic of that area with a greater positive presence for downtown Brattleboro?!
Well I’m missing my lunch break to address this assertion but anyway;
” You may fondly look back on the time BASIC disproved the oppositional neighbors claims that there would be a massive dieing (sp) off of trees in Crowell Lot”.
Scott, Please post your sources and ISA certified arborists reports(2) conducted at Crowell Lot by a professionals with vast experience and indisputable reputations in the field, construction plan and access, funds set aside for tree replacement costs which are significant, consultation with the Tree Advisory Committee over the past 4yrs all conducted at the Crowell Lot and present them here for public viewing, well let’s just begin with that much.
Conclusive
Sorry Les,Your assumption that skaters are more at risk at the Union Hill Intersection than children at a playground, school children or basketball player appears that you do not have the experience or insight to back up your claim.
And to clarify your understanding; BASIC hired a professional consultant to evaluate noise impacts, with the conclusion that noise levels over 70db will not be heard across Union Hill and Western Avenue. Further there a numerous professional sounds studies confirming that concrete skateparks do not generate nuisance noise levels.
Regarding the arborists reports, it is quite unfortunate how you portray their findings, which were clearly not as dire as you claim. It is also unfortunate that they did not coordinate their investigation with actual planning of the skatepark, for if they had, they would have understood that the proposed park was designed outside the Critical Root Zones of all the specimen trees.
Since we’ve been over this a hundred times, we don’t expect you to change your view or your propensity to make baseless or inflated claims. We also understand that the campaign of the Crowell Lot neighbors was effective enough to persuade the Selectboard to undo all of their previous commitments and the efforts of BASIC over the past 5 years. It is unlikely they will select the Crowell Lot.
At this point, I would ask that you understand that if this park is ever going to happen, it will need the support of the skaters and the community. Your constant railing against their efforts and opinions is just recreating the toxic environment fostered by SOPC and the re-site committee. If you’re interested in finding a solution, you will need to listen to them and take part in a collaborative process. If you cannot do that, please let them try to make progress somewhere else, without the ‘you v. them’ mentality.
You’ve accomplished your goals, now please let the skaters move forward.
If it's just me you have a
If it’s just me you have a disagreement with (I’m the toxic one no doubt trying to save park trees and present alternatives) then it should really not matter in the scheme of things how skate park developers come up with their own brand of conveniently skewed, self- supportive results void of any possible conflict of interest, readily dismiss concerns to fortify broader acceptance and mislead the community at large to make a thing happen.
Go ahead, go mess with/up/down the trees at Crowell Park just make sure you set aside a $60,000 dollar compensation retainer held by the town for five years to put your money where your mouth is in good faith if you are sure of their fate and set aside additional costs to make trees are safe over the relocated playground ( buying and moving another cost in itself), pluck out the flowering crab apples, put a drainage trench through the roots of the prime example of a Hickory reaching maturity already excavated on one side for a water supply recently, ruin a valued green area, reduce the already pitiful buffer to residences, and all the other behind the scenes excavation, compacting, and construction activity most will never witness ( or were you going to air lift the skate park in), add the price tag for the tree replacement costs for the town to incur upwards towards $7,200 for the over 40 in. in diameter Norway Spruce alone not to mention the cost to cut it down in the thousands to make conditions at the park safe and expect others that will follow gradually dying off.
These trees are old, fragile established trees that require expansive root systems for stability at 50-70 ft. high with roots up to 3″ in diameter out from base to 12 ft. or more that will not regenerate ( I have flagged out CRZ’s perimeters considerably overlapping the skate park design and what’s left for space is waste for our skaters but deprives open ground trees need for absorption), they are not young vigorous saplings grown at a nursery with balled up roots systems ready for transport that can be tossed around and take a few knocks, but you know that and you know the actual implications of the arborist findings you did your best to dispel or manipulate, that’s is why they are not on board.
I guess the arborists and myself are just idiots, can’t do basic math, are corrupt and do not have a solitary clue where the cut off for critical root zones are, or any of the other harmful factors at the expense and consequence of development that will completely diminish these magnificent shade trees chances for survival, we really have no idea in comparison!.
“And to clarify your understanding: BASIC hired a professional consultant to evaluate impacts… (who?, was a virtual simulation skate park holowgramed on site ?) with the conclusion that 70db will not be heard across Union Hill and Western Ave”. (was BASIC’s money spent on any study to determine the survival risks at stake for the surrounding park trees?)
Is this during peak traffic hours or during the lull during dinner time and early evening or even Sunday morning at an unsupervised skate park? What one person considers noise, is exactly that by definition, noise to that person. I have always said, noise is not my major concern, but is a concern , so please don’t derogatorily NIMBIZE the facts. I’ve gotten involved because there are skaters in my family and I have concerns about location and public process neglected, an imperative to stand up to what I and others see as tactics of intimidation, condescension and mere conjecture used early on to push out and overide affected citizens valid grievances, so is this going to be community skate park yet or just a BASIC skate park?
” It is also unfortunate that they(arborist) did not coordinate their investigation with actual planning of the skate park, for if they had, they would have understood that the proposed park was designed outside the Critical Root Zone of all specimen trees”. (the arborists based their conclusions using your plan as reference)
…. Something you just happen to overlook from the beginning by not conducting such a study members of the community had to instead step in and pay for out of pocket as part of crucial fact finding. Your given allowances certainly did not favor or preference the necessary/adequate room required for park trees and any adjustments thereafter were a meager measure to stifle public outcry, because such restriction associated with development are less restrictive here in Brattleboro, this became my job to question and advocate for proper consideration for park tree health and longevity. I just can’t believe you just said that after all we’ve been through, just no acknowledgement over the past four years at all ceases to amaze me, others always in the wrong. I think we are just relapsing so no further comment on this from me, thank goodness!
Well Said Scott
I really like what you had to say, and agree with all of your points.
I totally agree that opinions and desires of the actual users must be weighed accordingly and heavily, for many reasons: to find the location that skaters want to be, that is functional from a skateboarding point of view and relates to the surroundings. If it achieves those things, it will improve the ability to generate excitement, build support and raise money.
If the Selectboard chooses Elm Street or Upper Living Memorial Park, i’m not sure it will achieve the goals of the skateboarding community, other than to appease opponents, which is not a very strong formula for success.
Thanks for the post,
Adam
..meaning it will just have
..meaning it will just have to go back to Crowell Lot I suppose considering the Lower Memorial Park has to many complications….how predictable.
please adam
Adam, I have found your posts to be well informed and from what I have read, you the most articulate leader of the BASIC crowd. Further, you are bright man with an excellent backgrown in LD and an excellent knowledge of arboriculture. But honestly, your last few posts have been a downer. I like what baby feet wrote but it is way too long and rambles. Granted, it might have been cathartic, but it does’t advance the ball.
Now before you say I am anti-skate, the reason i am addressing you is that folks like “root” are incorrigible and have zero to lose here in this forum. I am not giving him any money or support. And he isn’t looking for it either.
.
You, on the other hand, I will support and give money. I know you are disappointed with all the work you have done to date and moneys spent to date and have to go back to the drawing board. But the upside is, you are still in the game and should regard your journey as moving to a new level. You have to stay positive and start looking to the future instead of getting down, don’t make this a self fulfilling prophecy. Remember, this for the kids, dont lose focus!
You are not the only one in this town that gets knocked around by critics. You are in good company. My advise, post only things at this forum that advance your mission. What baby feet has post, while a valid opinion, does not do that. You are a smart person, stay smart. I sincerely wish you and your group the best in the future.
right you are
must. stay. focused.
I regret letting my frustration show. apologies to all.
How ironic would it be if the
How ironic would it be if the skate park project returned to Crowell only to die another gradual death once again from lack of support just as the trees threatened there symbolically would have been upon it’s construction.
Sound Study
Adam, I am aware that the company you work for conducted a sound study as an in-kind donation to Basic. However, sound studies are usually conducted in a like environment. The study was conducted with 6 or so children skating on the basketball court at the Crowell Playground. There weren’t any jumps, stairs or railings skated on. It was not conducted at an actual skate park, therefore it can’t be concerned a legitimate study.
Also I was stunned to read Peter Whitley’s response to complaints offered by Basic supporters about the Elm Street site. He stated that he wasn’t concerned about the rehab program located nearby, nor the contaminated building nearby. The building is boarded up. If it is such risk for kids, they close the youth theater right away. He did express concern for activity under the bridge, which can be resolved with fencing off access. Also people fail to mention that the Boys and Girls Club, which has an indoor make-shift skatepark is about a block away from the Elm Street site. What a great resource it good be for the after school programs.
Elm St.
The sounds study was paid for with donated funds and conducted by RAMSEY, McLAREN, LLC – Planning + Engineering.
I’ve tried very hard not to involve the company i work for in the skatepark project.
re: Elm Street
Elm street could work, it just would not be the type of park that BASIC had originally envisioned: a park for young and old, part of a bigger park. The challenges that location poses are pretty significant (think Keene, NH). Personally, i’m not confident the community support would be strong enough to overcome the negatives….which would be a real bummer.
Even just a low cost paved area at Lower Living Memorial Park would be good. Trying to raise enough money to change the landscape at Elm Street is daunting and uncertain. That’s why i think there’s hesitation from the skate community.
DB measurements for "jumps, stairs, or railings."
“The noise study conducted by the City of Portland found the noise levels for popping and ollieing to be at 65 to 71 decibels (at a distance of 50 feet [15.2 m]) and found the levels for grinds or slides to be at 54 to 63 decibels. According to Van Orden, a typical conversation occurs at 59 to 63 decibels, and background noise can usually mask the majority of the sound produced by skateparks.”
http://www.humankinetics.com/excerpts/excerpts/communities-must-ask-right-questions-when-planning-skatepark
It would be nice to stop seeing the “skateparks produce excessive noise” arguments. There is ample evidence disproving this.
Interesting information in
Interesting information in this citation. Like the Whitley guide, many of the recommendations made here were not part of the original “plan.”
I recall much of the concern over noise vs. sound was the noise that comes from a 15,000 sq ft recreational facility described as going to be “world class” that draws people from “around the region” and hosts “events”. That was how it was described before the DRB when I attended the first meeting and I think a lot of the concern was related to the possibilities of such a big vision in such a small residential green space on a busy accident prone street.
It’s pretty clear “how” critical a public skatepark plan is rolled out. If you Google “skatepark noise complaints” you will see that, while the measurements of sound are assuaging, complaints about noise (and other issues) associated with skateparks continue make the news. Planning for these concerns in advance seems the most successful strategy for success.
I think it's fair to assume
I think it’s fair to assume BASIC overshot its ambition (unfortunately).However, shoot for the moon and then enjoy the view from your roof, right? We are no longer talking about a “world class” skatepark(Which at 12000 ft that’s more than a stretch). We are now down to 5,000 to 6500 sq. ft. Also, any events that would have happened there should be considered no different than a bleacher filled baseball game or a basketball game.
Also I did google “skatepark noise complaints” and would encourage everyone else to as well. The three largest types of noise complaints that feeded into the search results were 1. non-concrete parks 2. After hour skateboarding at the new Central Freeway park in San Fransisco, and 3. Rob Zombie complaining about noise (also from a non-concrete pre-fab skatepark). There were definitely a few articles on concrete, day parks though. Honorable mention goes out to the guy who brought a handgun from across the street cause he was so angry about noise.
It’s very important to note that there are over 4000 skateparks in the country, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that there are problems at some of them. However, this search of “skatepark noise complaints” suggests that complaints are rare, and non-concrete skateparks have a higher percentage of complaints. For the record the Brattleboro skatepark will be concrete.
I know that people would still be worried about skateboarding after dark, and that’s fair. However it should not be any more of a concern than people playing basketball, baseball, sledding, or playing on a playground after dark. There is no evidence whatsoever that suggests people who skateboard are more likely to break that kind of rule.
My two cents
Next to the Youth Theater never seemed like a bad location to me; it compliments it well. It’s a short hop from the place skateboarders congregate in town. All four of the locations seem suitable to me.
The way to get rid of a “bad area” is to develop it, not retreat and ignore.
Parks are meant for park-like activities – skateboards, roller skates, pools, ball fields, courts, playgrounds, and so on.
Any land given by the Town/taxpayers should be viewed as a gift, not an insult. There is still time to for the board to say no to any site, and to force it to become a private, expensive project.
Elm Street got top ratings by the site Selection committee, far and above the other locations.
The Selection committee made a mistake by offering four locations instead of one. The Selectboard has made a mistake by becoming a second-guessing site selection committee.
I was just in Brooklyn. About one minute after first parking, two teenage girls walked by carrying their longboards. After that, I saw a healthy mix of pedestrians, bikers, skateboarders, scooter-riders, and so on riding in ample bike lanes, down the sidewalk, and in the streets. It wasn’t a problem. It was very nice. The place seemed alive with activity and energy. Everyone was looking out for everyone else. Chaotic at times, but it worked.
I think Elm is needed for the downtown skaters. I think one of the other locations would be good for a more family-oriented approach.
It is not up to me. : )
As soon as there is a site selected and a place to send donations, I’m donating a free ad here to help raise funds.
2₵ + 2₵ = ?
I think Scott very well describes some of the attending issues that many skaters see, and certainly BASIC et al shouldn’t be chastised for voicing concerns. I’m going to limit my comments here to the Elm St lot, fleshing things out, and adding a few items.
1. The hill. There will be carnage. The hill is inviting enough to seem skatable, but steep enough, with a turn before the bottom, and a rapidly approaching intersection, which does create issues even for experienced skaters. For less experienced skaters, they simply may not know the dynamics. Look up ‘speed wobbles’ if you need embellishment. This is wholly unlike Union Hill, which is clearly a death wish hill. We’ve been over this. Also, with the heavy Cersosimo logging truck traffic, I’m not sure speed bumps will be a viable solution.
(I’d guess, depending on wheel and board size, the hill might yield 20-25 mph speeds. Once a skater exceeds the speed in which they can ‘run out’ a bail, they are hitting the ground if they leave the board. There are no soft spots in this zone.)
2. Due diligence. Have the various town committees visited other skateparks? Have they as a deciding body even watched films like Tony Hawk’s skatepark tour, or Dogtown and Z-Boys, to glean the dynamics of a successful park? It seems this amount of information should be minimally expected to constitute an informed opinion.
2a. When I was scouting Elm for the skate sculptures I was told in no uncertain terms the town had a contract with VT Trans to be able to park and idle the busses between runs. Has this fact been verified, and if so, renegotiated in anticipation of making an offer. Also the offset of costs of parking permits, and offerings to businesses for permits, has this been cleared? It’d be cruel to again approve a spot only to have mitigating circumstances dash the deal.
3. I am all in favor of urban renewal, but this is one of the sketchiest of corners of town. It seems an investment in overall development and infrastructure is needed, not just policing. Rest assured, skaters will be grateful for a ‘gift’ of space, but it has to make sense.
My three common cents
The very sketchy process that led to the Crowell problem to begin with aside, Crowell MIGHT have still worked had the most obvious choice for locating a skatepark there been emphasized; that is, the open field that is very rarely utilized. The trees would not have been threatened, the child’s play area would not have needed to be relocated to accommodate such a major project, Union Hill may have been viewed as less of a potential risk, and the family-oriented advantages could have been better emphasized. Noise in a residential neighborhood and parking still might have been an issue that tossed a wrench in “the plan”. I suspect that, before a skatepark was planned next to a public school, the town would not have accepted such a questionable sound study as convincing evidence.
If folks are going to revisit the history of the Crowell Park debacle (seems valuable to other communities considering a public skatepark), the original environmental court appeal brief should be looked at again (to see how the “plan” was inconsistent with and in violation of town development planning guidelines and expertise, as well as codified zoning issues), along with the Whitely Public Skatepark Development Guide recommendations.
I don’t believe the original issues raised in the court appeal have yet ever been explained to the public as to how such egregious “process” (e.g., the Brattleboro DRB) was moved forward for so long, and unchecked? That is, except by citizens who dared to question it. Today we see how a Selectboard can easily choose to examine more closely a designated town committee’s work and decision making. This makes the former Selectboard’s refusal to consider solid evidence that held implications for both the “plan” and the residential neighborhood that refused to accept, it even more reprehensible.
The arborists’ reports, and the issue of domination and social meaning of public space in residential neighborhoods, also need a revisit, if this history is ever to be examined and recorded. The complete lack of accountability for such a flawed choice, plan, and public process, in the face of all the unassailable supporting evidence that was presented to the town leaders, is what convinced the public and has led to “incorrigible” positions, even today.
Redirect
Reprehensible! Incorrigible!
OR, you could take that energy and direct it towards constructing a healthy youth alternative. Not tearing down something not yet built.
...from far out in left
…from far out in left field, near peanut gallery.
I always thought that field
I always thought that field would have been the perfect compromise as well. Thank you for all the work you put in towards bringing about that kind of solution.
Thank you, Scott. I
Thank you, Scott. I questioned that from the very start and again during mediation. As a possible alternative site WITHIN Crowell Park, it could not be explored further because the, then, Brattleboro School Board declined to sit and participate in finding a solution at the mediation table (where all SOPC members present sought to explore that as a possibility). Barb Sondag and the town lawyer present squashed it immediately saying it was not an option, as the Brattleboro Schoolboard had made its immutable decision and there were legal contractual limitations as to what could be negotiated. There was also the limitation of some BASIC members screaming that we (“opponents” of “the plan”) had no right to any input at that point, because we had not been involved from the very beginning, even though the record shows that some indeed had. They were shouted down then, too.
But I did try again to bring up the open field anyway. I was also among those who agreed to settle the appeal at mediation and Kevin and I also both wrote a letter in full support of BASIC (Adam Hubbard specifically) meeting with Dave Hawkins (the licensed arborist) who authored the report regarding the threat to the trees in Crowell Park so that we could put the issue of risk to tree root systems off the table (or not, depending on that discussion and Hawkin’s review of the conceptual design) and then proceed to focus on the reprehensible and irresponsible leadership of the town Selectboard and Brattleboro Schoolboard seated at that time, who completely ignored language of the Brattleboro Town Plan, zoning ordinance language,development review and planning process, project impact, and the expertise and concerns of two credentialed and respected arborists, the Brattleboro Planning Department, and the town Tree Committee (not to mention the tax paying citizens of a residential neighborhood). That the town of Brattleboro leadership had recently paid to bring a consultant into town and talk with about 100 members of Brattleboro boards and committees on HOW to conduct legitimate planning process which included extensively examining the issues related toPIA (Potential Impact to Abuters) when planning public development projects serves as a peculiar context to it all, even today. Had there been effective and persuasive leadership back then, the issue would not be what it still is today. Because effective leadership does not court, or produce, mayhem and chaos.
Thankfully, that is not the current tone and example being set by the leadership in town today, as frustrating as it may still be at times.
wat?
I was being completely sarcastic. If you had put half the energy into constructive dialogue as you put into total obstruction we would have a skatepark by now. That’s as far into that debate as I’m getting.
charming guy
Sarcasm? I suggest you develop skills that will get you where you want to go; skills that will help you achieve your goal.
Tonight's the night!
Don’t forget, come to the Municipal Center in the Select Board meeting room at 6:15 pm to show your support for the Brattleboro Skatepark! What will YOU DO to contribute to this invaluable project once the location has been chosen?