The existing playground equipment will be relocated to the city's park at Countryside.
Some plead for "a little fiscal responsibility please?" while others suggest that any further discussion is just a waste of time.
I wonder how many emails have been sent to the Mayor and council members?
27 comments:
Email from Mayor Randall:
I have called a special meeting for this thursday to consider and take action on Boundless playground.
Thks
T
This was in todays paper
Does anyone really want to fight this?
By Heber Taylor
The Daily News
Published August 3, 2010
We don’t think critics of the Boundless Playground in League City are trying to tack a sign on the freeway saying, “We don’t want handicapped children in our signature park.”
But we don’t buy the argument that putting the playground at historic League Park is going to create a drainage problem, either.
Boundless Playground is not a park for children with disabilities. It’s a park for all children, including those with disabilities.
League Park always has been a place where children could play.
Putting one kind of playground in the park, as opposed to another kind of playground, is not going to diminish the quality of life in League City.
It also is not going to appreciably affect drainage in a city that is notorious for drainage problems.
This is a small playground.
Essentially, one set of playground equipment is going to replace another. The idea that anyone needs to call in a platoon of engineers and hydrologists to evaluate the change is hogwash.
Also, the idea that a small playground with new equipment is going to destroy the historic character of the area, while the old playground area did not, is not believable.
If that level of historical accuracy is necessary, it’s time to pull up the pavement on Main Street to get back to the original dirt and to import a little yellow fever virus.
This playground, though small, has been thoroughly discussed for years. Donors were lined up. Plans were approved. In the bad old days when League City politics were a laughingstock, a small group of people could undo a project that had been thoroughly vetted for years just by screaming.
The city has made real progress in getting beyond that reputation. It shouldn’t go back to the old days.
This playground is a good thing for the city. It’s that simple.
Good. Next, we need to push Galco to put in a floating dock at Hall park. It's a great central location for kayaking on the creek.
BHL,
Phase one of the trails system may very well use the creek. Starting at Countryside park going to 270 boat ramp.
on another note, the previous diatribe on the other blog has mysteriously disappeared. I personally didn't think there was anything in it that could get someone in legal trouble. But it sure said a lot in volume about a certain individual's demeanor.
Oddly, I attempted to post twice to offer a different interpretation of the councilperson's comments. Neither of my posts were published.
OK, folks, unlike certain other city park issues, this one doesn't resonate with my life experience. So I think I can write objectively about it. The drainage criticism just doesn't seem to hold water on the surface. I mean, how BIG is the Boundless Playground? I've been up and down League Park, including the existing playground equipment area. Not exactly subdivision size. Furthermore, the terrain at League Park doesn't facilitate drainage now. It's either cement/asphalt, structure, or hard packed dirt/turf. Only retention ponds and pasture land retain water around here. Unlike other city parks, League Park has none of that. Therefore the drainage criticism of League Park is guilty until proven innocent.
The real issue of building the Boundless Playground at League Park vs. the Sportsplex is one of cost. Does the latter location entail substantial funds (i.e. 4B) to offset park fee and general fund money? What about ADA compliance costs location 1 vs. location 2? Why weren't these questions asked 6 months ago when the Boundless Playground was approved by City Council? Do I have to always be the bad guy that asks the difficult questions?
Chuck,
It seems to me that defining the problems associated with the League Park location is like seven blind men, each with hands on, and them trying to describe an elephant.
In most matters of real estate it’s about location-location. Before addressing the multitude of issues about cost, look at a map and then consider growth patterns and traffic-related problems along Main Street. Then consider if there is available land for future park expansion.
From a location standpoint, League Park is not well suited for a Boundless Playground. It might suit a few people but for the majority of the city’s population it is a poor choice.
That’s my 2 cent
From a real estate guy
I never thought League Park was the ideal location for three reasons: it is NOT centrally located, it is a difficult location for east-bound traffic to get to and I still think the train traffic is a terrible variable for sensory-sensitive children.
Paul,
You mentioned traffic as an issue about the Boundless Playground at League Park. Although it's a legitimate issue, it's the first time I've seen or heard about that criticism at that location. If one of my kids were only able to participate at a boundless playground, as a west side parent, I would much prefer a Sportsplex location. However, if 100 thousand dollars of 4B money were at stake, figuring into the reality of a Boundless Playground or not, as a decisionmaker I would seriously consider the costs of a given location regardless of convenience. My point is, I haven't seen or heard much before this week that speak to the real issues behind the project management of the Boundless Playground.
P.S. I'm a lot of things, some would consider negative, but blind isn't one of them.
Chuck,
The traffic problems relative to the League Park location was brought up many, many times on Marc's old blog. I for one recall saying I supported the Boundless Playground anywhere but League Park just for that reason.
As posted on city website
Special Workshop on
Boundless Playground Project
August 5th (Tonite)
Council Chambers
6:00 to 8:00 pm
Good arguments were made to support moving the playground to the Sportsplex.
I would like to thank everyone for taking the time coming to the meeting this evening. I would also like to thank the 5 council members who "listened to the people". Lastly, a big thank you to Mayor Randall for her outstanding leadership and the need to keep government transparent in League City.
Elaine Kosty
PS. Will the cost to repair the broken glass panel on the door of City Chambers be billed to the temper that broken it? Hmmm
"I would also like to thank the 5 council members who "listened to the people"."
In response, they did listen, just not to the people that the park is to be used by. The parents of special needs children specifically stated that the Sportsplex was not suitable at all for special needs children. And they are right, it is a hot, noisy place with the ping of aluminum bats and whistles and loud speakers. The parking is horrible. When little league is in full swing it is even worse. There are NO trees and the restrooms are at least a half mile from where they want to try to build the park. Between a football field and a beach volleyball court with whistles and screaming laughing people, not to mention that it is along side a very busy roadway, with no parking and NO TREES, additional hundreds of thousands of dollars to redraw the site plans and build sidewalks and ADA compliant facilities, yeah, they were listening, just not to the people it was all meant to serve.
The Boundless Playground is a noble idea that represents inclusion of all and the city councils vote last night was anything but noble or inclusive. It just left me shaking my head in frustration and confusion again and really feeling embarrassed by their actions. These things the council does, it makes League City look like a joke.
Barbara Graves
Sportsplex - Bad location for a playground that's supposed to be handicap accessible.
I fondly remember how fun it was trying to find parking for Saturday morning soccer games. I remember how fun it was when I coached as I waited for players to show up late as their parents were trying to find parking.
'nuff said
OK, folks, here we go again. City council (as a whole) and staff gets an "F" for project management on the Boundless Playground. Some other citizens also get an "F" for lame arguments. Last week at the city council meeting, I praised council and staff over proper handling of a land use issue. This week, I will endeavor to yank as many chains as possible. The words are deserved in both cases.
Neil Baron is right about jeopardizing the project by moving it so late in the game. The contract was let 2 months ago, and the equipment is going to arrive this month, for heaven’s sake! Epic fail! If this were private industry, people (i.e. managers) would be fired over shenanigans like this! The time to weigh the pros and cons of location was over in June. If 4B money was a make or break issue for the Boundless Playground -- and I haven't heard whether that's true or not -- smart people at City Hall would have figured that out long ago.
Now we have the imminent threat of wasted taxpayer money. Thousands down the drain with work already done, but maybe for nothing, at League Park. Now staff has to assess funding and cost issues about altering an already approved and planned project. Staff time is not free either; I will first hand guess $50 per hour wasted on park relocation work. They could be using their time to address other issues, such as the hike and bike trails, drainage problems, etc.
Abominable timing aside, the pros and cons of League Park vs. the Sportsplex are these: (1) League Park, pros: shade, nearby restrooms, parking, quiet neighborhood. (2) League Park, cons: train noise, traffic, vehicle access. The drainage criticism doesn't hold water. (3) Sportsplex, pros: vehicle access, 4B money. (4) Sportsplex, cons: frequent horrible parking (been there, done that), distance from anywhere to anywhere else in the park, lack of shade.
The good progress that League City has made in some areas, such as water pressure and drainage, is being offset by stalled or inappropriate traffic projects, and repeated park project fiascos.
reposted from my GDN comment:
The following is a "dumb" question which I challenge the Sportsplex advocates to answer; if traffic @518 is such a concern, then why is the same traffic not a concern when it comes to having other events at League Park?
It seems that other events induce a significant spike in traffic whereas the addition of a boundless playground would not result in a spike but an occasional extra vehicle or two here and there. As a result of the traffic concern, no event should ever be held at League Park.
A Starbucks gift card for anyone who can provide a rebuttal that holds water.
BHL
Let me try to clarify my comments regarding traffic. My concern was not the impact of any increased traffic, but rather the difficulty of access for the park users from west side of town. Because of its the more central location the Sportsplex seemed a better choice.
After last nights council meeting I am having second thoughts about a number of issues. The potential users of the park appear unanimous in their choice.
So if the park users are unanimous in their choice what credence is given to their wishes? If we are counting votes what weight is given to the park users vote versus the other opposing tax payers that will likely never use the facility?
Councilman Phalen’s display of photos needed little explanation. There is a BIG difference between a ball field and a park/playground.
Can the parks department present a plan that would attract visitors? Another thought – just what if you build the park at the Sportsplex and NOBODY comes?
BHL
This is not a rebuttal. I will let someone else try for the coffee.
Paul, Understood and thanks for the clarification. As you said "what if they build it and no one comes?"
I think another valid question that is not being asked is, "does it make sense to build such a playground at the Sportsplex?"
Ok, maybe there could be a bigger/better playground? But that's irrelevent if it doesn't make sense, and as you mentioned the users say it doesn't make sense.
I've learned to listen to the user community once a decision is made to provide for them. Council needs to do the same.
BHL - people in my subdivision do complain to each other about the gridlock that occurs during the Holiday in the Park, and other League Park events. It was brought up with some council members several years back and the response we received was "that's where it's always been."
To go one step further, there are a lot of folks who are unhappy about the parade routes for the very same reason. This isn't a small town any more and for people who commute 20+ miles and don't get to League City until late, they can't get home!
A blind eye is turned to the inconvenience these events create in the name of nostalgia.
I'll take that coffee card.
The park has been advertised as being for anywhere between 2000 and 5000 disabled citizens and the general population.How many speakers were there last night?
League Park provides for 6 handicapped parking spaces. The existing playground there,and the park as a whole, receive high usage and that high usage was used as one reason the park was selected (the other was it's "central" location. There is no room for expansion at League Park and insufficient funding to complete the project as planned.
The city has acknowledged that there are existing drainage issues in the immediate area and there is photographic proof. The surface of the existing play gound retains or absorbs water, while the new surface will be impervious.
The wooden portion of the playground that has been removed was past due for replacement. The electrical work also should be considered maintenance.
The point that was made last night was twofold if the facts presented are found true. 4b money can add significantly to the project's available resources and the League Park plan was not fully vetted during the years of planning.
There is significant disagreement over whether the area near the blue pavilion at the Plex is viable in spite of Mick Phalen's "demonstration". Remember the size designated for League Park.
There is also relevant discussion as to whether either location is the best.
At least now questions will be answered before a project is completed rather than afterward, which is a step in the right direction.
Usually, with proper due diligence, increased funding will produce a better project. Completing a project at a high level that serves the greatest number of citizens has been a problem for the city.
There is a significant concern that the west side is ending up on the short end of the stick once again with the League Park location.
The reason offered for the meeting was to save the City money in a downturn economy, that we must use the available money on the 4B table. Yet, after all of the backdoor manuevering, after months, years of evaluating the various park locations, the motion made was to spend more, not less City money. The 4B argument is specious for another reason - for the City to build this playground at League City Park they are spending city money. The "4B" is simply whether the money is from a different account. It is not "free" money, like the grants. The "free" money goes away if the park is moved, because of this wind 180 shift.
Who runs League City Now?
Well it sure as heck is not Jerry and the good old boys !! If that were the case this project would be at tuscan Lakes and the price would be enought to include the 8 millon dollar pool so that taxpayer funs could help his contributors sell homes !
Ok I had been all quiet and nice and now y'all have got me all fired up again !!!
Wee Haa !! as Jackie Gleason said " and away we go" !!!
Morgan,
I guess you win in that you have complained about the traffic. I would mail you the card 'cept that I didn't see your name in GCAD listing. Perhaps we can meet one morning at bucks where I will make official presentation.
That said, do you honestly believe that having a boundless playground in League Park will make any sort of noticeable increase in traffic problems?
BHL - Consider the card accepted in spirit. :)
As for the traffic to League Park - if the numbers of special needs users are accurate - in addition to it being a unique attraction for all children, yes, I think the 518 eastbound traffic will be negatively, noticeably impacted.
Good arguments were made to not support moving the playground to the Sportsplex.
I would like to thank everyone for taking the time coming to the meeting last night. I would also like to thank the 6 council members who "listened to the people". Lastly, a big thank you to Mayor Randall for her outstanding leadership and her efforts keep government transparent in League City.
Post a Comment