There was one item on yesterday's Finance Committee meeting, the resolution to fund a study to advise regarding possible locations for a universally accessible playground.
There were three Aldermen in attendance who aren't on the committee who helped us make good use of our time exchanging ideas. There were about twenty people from the audience who spoke for and against the resolution.
My summary:
The Board of Aldermen is being asked to over-ride the twenty year moratorium on development in Greeley Park to allow the Legacy Playground be located there.
In my mind the decision comes down to two questions: does the Legacy Playground belong in Greeley Park? And, Is there no other location that is equally suitable? Because of the moratorium I feel that both of those questions must be answered "yes" to allow the project to proceed.
To answer the first question we must bear in mind that the problem is not necessarily with the playground itself but with the infrastructure, such as a parking lot, that is needed to support the playground. Simply, I don't believe a parking lot should be built over Greeley Park. A less ambitious playground should suffice.
Regarding the second question I believe that there is more than one location in this city suitable for such a playground. However it is fair for an aldermen to feel the need to have qualified and accurate data to help them draw a conclusion and then to use as a basis to defend their decision. Because this is such a significant issue it warrants the city spending a moderate fee for a study.
I feel the need to dispel the mischaracterization that the playground issue has been over-studied. To the contrary the closest thing resembling a study so far is the survey performed by the Leadership Greater Nashua group who have decided that the playground must be in Greeley Park. There are several specifics about that study which I find flawed. This sheds doubt on the validity of their survey. So, as I said at the meeting, just as when you purchase a car or a house you hire your own inspector.
Besides each of the aldermen drawing their own conclusion, it will be helpful to the city as a whole to have a third party's input - just as is often the case when two disagreeing parties enlist the help of a mediator. The Infrastructure Committee was proceeding at a good pace toward a consensus and discovered the need to have an outside professional's input.
There were three Aldermen in attendance who aren't on the committee who helped us make good use of our time exchanging ideas. There were about twenty people from the audience who spoke for and against the resolution.
My summary:
The Board of Aldermen is being asked to over-ride the twenty year moratorium on development in Greeley Park to allow the Legacy Playground be located there.
In my mind the decision comes down to two questions: does the Legacy Playground belong in Greeley Park? And, Is there no other location that is equally suitable? Because of the moratorium I feel that both of those questions must be answered "yes" to allow the project to proceed.
To answer the first question we must bear in mind that the problem is not necessarily with the playground itself but with the infrastructure, such as a parking lot, that is needed to support the playground. Simply, I don't believe a parking lot should be built over Greeley Park. A less ambitious playground should suffice.
Regarding the second question I believe that there is more than one location in this city suitable for such a playground. However it is fair for an aldermen to feel the need to have qualified and accurate data to help them draw a conclusion and then to use as a basis to defend their decision. Because this is such a significant issue it warrants the city spending a moderate fee for a study.
I feel the need to dispel the mischaracterization that the playground issue has been over-studied. To the contrary the closest thing resembling a study so far is the survey performed by the Leadership Greater Nashua group who have decided that the playground must be in Greeley Park. There are several specifics about that study which I find flawed. This sheds doubt on the validity of their survey. So, as I said at the meeting, just as when you purchase a car or a house you hire your own inspector.
Besides each of the aldermen drawing their own conclusion, it will be helpful to the city as a whole to have a third party's input - just as is often the case when two disagreeing parties enlist the help of a mediator. The Infrastructure Committee was proceeding at a good pace toward a consensus and discovered the need to have an outside professional's input.
No comments:
Post a Comment