I find it interesting that while we discuss the location of the playground very few wish to discuss the white elephant in the room. Who was the elected official who had staff members tell Councilmember Phalen they would spend what he wanted extra on the park if he changed his vote to move it to the sportsplex? Seems to me that elected official is a snake in the grass and needs to be exposed. Or do you think that is how it should be?
If the merits of moving the playground are so great then why the attempt to change the vote?
Let me get this straight..Some council members wish to move the playground from a specific location to an area in the sportsplex to be determined? How much time will that take? But of course they are not attempting to delay the project? A councilmember says there will be a savings to the taxpayer by moving the project but proposes, without hesitation, an increase to the spending cap set by city council by $ 100,000 ?
Give me a break. In my opinion this project is being delayed because it appears that some who have not been keeping up with current events, woke up and decided they did not want such a project in “their” part of town.
The east side, west side argument is nothing but an attempts to motivate people to their side. Divide and conquer is the old way of doing politics in League City. Will we continue to drink the kool aid?
HAS ANYONE GONE OUT THERE TO LOOK AT THE LOCATION ? If they have they will see many problems that could possibly occur at this location that would not possibly happen in League Park. It is time to do some homework council members. Go out there and have a definite location by Tuesday. Walk the area, look at the boundaries you are attempting to place on the boundless playground.
58 comments:
Chris, I wholly agree with your comments:
1. The issues with 518 congestion far exceed the the issues involving replacing playground equipment. Did I mention that the CCISD Special Ed PreK classes for those living west of I45 were at League City Elementary last year? Or that CCISD PPCD (which evaluates these younger special ed children is located in El Lago?
2. The old East vs West is unpersuasive since neighter location is west of I45.
3. Those who post about Sportsplex being accessible are talking about by car - not for those who use wheels for legs or have to be punched in wheeled mobility devices
4. No one has mentioned any measurable floodwaters which would ensue. League City drainage, like the traffic congestion is a larger League City issue, unrelated to this little playground
5. This isn't about saving money - since we will likely lose the CVS $50K grant - and have to spend more City moeny to boot.
6. The reasons given all indicate pretext.
7. So the Council moves the playground - where the able-boded children won't use it, because they are playing sports - and the other children won't use it, because it would not be user friendly and would take an Act of God to get to it.
Chris: Your noble, dastardly and diversionary tactic is duly noted.
Gone is any possibility that we can still discuss the REAL notion, which is ~IF~ we want the stinking half-million dollar playground for a handful of gimps at all. Instead, we now argue WHERE we want to stick it. Or should I say "be stuck with" it? White elephant indeed. Albatross is more like it. The "where" part is the easiest. Take your pick, the devil or the witch.
This must be our punishment for killing the dog people park.
July 31 - "I’ve always thought the playground was too expensive,” Dawson said.
August 6 - Councilwoman Joanna Sharp Dawson proposed moving the playground to the Sportsplex and raising the spending cap to $350,000.
Contradict much, Ms. Sharp?
Mr. Morratto,
My goodness. I notice you do not wish to discuss the white elephant. I can understand your willingness to let that go away. I will not let it. Your prospective on this project is of course your opinion. Your compassion for your fellow citizens is duly noted.
I was not a supporter of the dog park so, in my opinion, your last remark is incorrect.
“It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.”
Mark Twain
P. Moratto: "Gone is any possibility that we can still discuss the REAL notion, which is ~IF~ we want the stinking half-million dollar playground for a handful of gimps at all." Thank you for discussing both the white elephants in the room. Fist is the one Chris noted: who is engaging in the crony-ism for which this City has been made famous. Clearly you approve of such smoke-filled back-room "democracy"!! But your second issue, which no one until now has been politically incorrect so as to address: It is fine to have our young men go to war and come back crippled. Our military veteran amputees are fine if they stay in those donated houses in Tuscan Lakes. As for the physically defective children - who cares if they can access public playgrounds!! Certainly not you. Such compassion underwhelms me. So does this new math - 250,000 was not 1/2 million when I went to school.
and this is the vocal minority that runs League City. Did he really call these handicapped people "gimps" You Mister M. are a vulgar and distasteful person. This group that has come to lead our community have taken this town to a new low. I can't believe there is no public outcry, no rush to correct this. The serious lack of leadership is obvious. Allowing people like this band of miscreants to run League City is a shameful example of voter apathy and a system run a muck. I was hopeful that correcting our former bifurcated/hybrid system of local government would correct these issues from rearing their ugly head, but obviously the lack of strong leadership by mayor and council can overtake any changes for the better.
Jerry was a mayor
“You Mister M. are a vulgar and distasteful person.
Word choice is vulgar and distasteful. “
To suggest Mr. Morrato represents a group of citizens is not true.
He posts under his name and he takes responsibility.
Your suggestion that Mr. Morrata’s comments represents a group of citizens is absurd.
More absurd is the suggestion that “This group that has come to lead our community have taken this town to a new low.”
Let’s watch the process.
When you hit a bell, it rings every time. Example by Mr. Smith.
When you hit a bell, it rings and an incumbent mayor comes in last in a three person race.
Last Thursday’s vote by League City council to move the Boundless playground from League Park to the Sportsplex has left many people shaking their heads. In order to keep this in perspective, we should all remember that this is an existing playground whose equipment is be replaced to facilitate side by side use by persons with or without disabilities. This project was duly authorized by council with three resolutions one action item and four contracts that where executed. The work on the project was in progress. What is more baffling is the motion that was made by Joanna Sharp Dawson, who touted herself during last May’s election as a “Fiscal Conservative”, to increase the spending cap imposed during the original resolution by $100,000.00 in order to move the project to the Sportsplex. The rational used by the advocates of moving the Boundless playground project to support this action is equally as puzzling. The idea that replacing one kind of playground equipment with another will cause flooding or appreciably increase traffic problems is suspect. The site at League Park offers so many advantages over other existing sites, including easy access to parking, bathrooms close by, and shade from the trees that add to the charm of the surroundings for all its users. The Sportsplex location offers inadequate parking that is too far for persons with or without disabilities to easily access the site, no bathrooms within reasonable walking distance, constant and spurious noise that is adverse to persons with sensory issues and no relief from the sun. What could possibly be the real motivation behind this action? League City citizens should be quite upset with councilpersons who voted to move this project and take great pride in Councilmen Baron and Phalen. These two are men of integrity who would not bow to whatever political pressures were applied to cause this capricious action by our city council.
As I was driving past League Park yesterday it occurred to me - why wasn't an educational expert on children with special needs consulted about the location of this playground in the first place.
One would think after many expensive, blundered, controversial Council decisions, someone would have said "We really need to consult an expert about the best location for this playground." And no I don't mean a paid consultant from Idaho. We have a generous pool of educational experts right down Main Street in the building by the High School.
I have not supported the League Park location but I know there are specialists who know more than I do about the wide range of children this playground is designed to serve and what environmental factors are just not acceptable.
It's not too late Councilmen. Find an expert who can weigh the pros and cons of train tracks vs. ball fields, small inner city location vs. larger community park.
Morgen Campbell has suggested that the City Council should delay the project to hire a consultant on the prospective users of this park. Mr. Campbell, with all due respect, the parents of these children have had to educate themselves since their child's birth/diagnosis or from the time they were injured on what environments are best for their children. The State's early childhood intervention program helps educate parents. There are later state and school programs which do likewise. There are teams of doctors, psychologists, social workers, occupational therapists, speech therapists and teachers who work with parents to help teach them what works best for their children. These parents have been educated to be experts. They have participated in the planning process. These parents have spoken at the various public meetings as to what is best - a small and quieter environment where the child is not overstimulated by the juggernaut of noise, light and heat which would be present at the Sportsplex. They have testified - Is anyone listening?
By the way, freight trains run on a schedule. Like rush hour traffic, parents can plan around those schedules. As for the prospect of commuter train noise - Light rail (having ridden the DC Metro) doesn't sound at all like freight trains.
So here is the pros and cons you are looking for from a professional in the field of Applied Behavioral Analysis:
Pros of the train track is that the train does not present itself every minute of every day but instead a few times a day. When the train schedule is noted in a convenient place for parents to read then it is to their benefit if the need presents itself to remove their child who might have sensory overload by sounds of the train and its tracks. Another pro is that the park is available to each person with and without a disability as they can play with each other easily as it is accessible for all. The play ground will have an inviting feeling with it when parents bring their child with a disability to play.The word park will bring play into excitement to the brain of a child with a disability. The parking area is closer in the need of needing to leave abruptly.
Pros of the ball field is that people who have a family who participates in activities like softball or baseball is able to take their special needs child to play while they are in support of their child playing these games they are also able to focus on activities with their restless child who has a disability. After their child's game the family is able to play together in the middle of the fielded area. The area presented might be bigger.
Cons of the train track is that the train can be loud as also its tracks. Since the tracks are right there it can be overloading for the child for a moment but not for a long period of time.
Cons of the ball field is the the noises are constant all day long. The parking lot can pose as a bit of a walk with a child with a disability. A parent may need to push their child in a wheelchair and it may not be fitting to drive it through the grass. The over whelming element of sounds that will cause sensory overload to many not only on the Autism Spectrum Disorder but others with disabilities. Most parents will make the judge to seek a park that is well suited for them but this park in the middle of the ball field will appear to have caution signs signaling to parents with children who do have sensory overloading issues.
Just imagine being in Japan or other foreign area with no vocal skills but the availability to listen to all that is around you. You have no idea what is being said and what direction to turn to get back on to the plane that brought you there. Imagine that you hear many speakers and crowds grabbing their bags and passengers running to grab theirs first while you are being trampled on! Imagine that you can not say anything but you are able to communicate through yelling, screaming, and holding you hands over your ears to stop the world around you as you squint your eyes it seems to quiet for a moment but then you then open your eyes to a base ball field and there is constant yelling, cheering and noises that you are not able to clarify where they are from but you are in the middle of it... That tells me to RUN as hard as you can to your car and never come back as it is not inviting and unhealthy to subject myself to the unwanted noise and commotion. How exhausting will it be for a child with a disability to know that every time he hears the world "park" he thinks commotion instead of fun and playful!?!
I also know that parents have every right to communicate and effectively be their child's advocate as they know their child's abilities so listen and follow through on their interests and subject their child to a happier place in a park where it is inviting!
Having attended 3 presentations for the Commuter Rail, it was proposed by the Goodman Corporation that the Commuter rail would initially operate exclusively between 5AM - 8AM & 4PM - 7PM weekdays.
The commuter trains would operate during a 3 hour block of time in the morning and 3 hours in the evening, they were proposing trains running every 20 Minutes or about 10 trains during each block of time, 20 interruptions of Route 518 traffic in the morning and 20 interruptions again in the afternoons.
The freight traffic would operate during the other 18 hours throughout the day. As the economy recovers, freight traffic, will steadily increase from the 6 – 8 trains per day to a higher level, regardless if commuter trains become a reality.
The tracks would be upgraded, both the rail beds and the tracks presently bolted together would then be welded together and up to 5 stations would be placed along the tracks for passenger service.
The freight trains presently operate at various hours throughout the day, as they are the ones that own the tracks and their trains are the only ones that use the tracks. They presently operate at 25 - 35 MPH.
However, when the tracks are upgraded, the freight trains may operate up to 60 MPH while the Commuter Rail will operate up to 70 MPH. This will still be a single track. Traffic will back up many more times throughout the day on 518, since the trains will be moving faster. The backup will not last as long, but the east/west traffic flow will be inhibited more frequently, and as the vehicles wait for the trains to pass, the idling stopped vehicles at the train crossings will be spewing out many pollutants in the local area on a more frequent basis.
If you think the noise is loud now with the trains operating at the slower speeds, wait till the tracks are upgraded and the trains move at a faster pace. A 100+ car freight train operating at 60MPH right next to League Park will not be as quiet, with many more frequent train whistle/horns.
http://www.galvestonrailstudy.com/index.html
I hope the children with sensory problems will be able to deal with the potential of increased noise from added train traffic.
Goodman's projections are just that -- projections. They are more volatile than the stock market. The only government funding rapid transit is the federal government. Local and state governments simply do not have these type of funds. According to NPR (who unlike Goodman, is not paid to sell transit projects to the federal government - and vice versa), it will be at least a decade before any such funds are available in anywhere other than the two cities awarded shovel-ready light rail projects this last time. By the way, neither of those two areas were in Texas (LA being one of the 2). It will be, according to NPR, at least another ten years after that before anything is up and running.. IF approval is secured from Union Pacific (who owns the tracks) and IF all of the cities agree to provide funding, if, if if. You are at least (according to NPR) 20 years ahead in your conjectures. You have neglected to mention the foundation for Goodman's presentations - there are a lot of hypothetical projections, based on a prolific set of certain hypotheses. The situation you envision is not fact but is set of circumstances which must all somehow spontaneously generate into the numbers and conclusions you are stating as fact. That said - the playground is here, now. The grant funds are here, now. The children are children - now.
Just for the record, I did not suggest that the City hire a consultant on prospective users of this park or delay the project.
What I am suggesting is that someone pick up the phone Monday morning and call CCISD and ask for one of their Special Ed coordinators to offer an educated opinion on the best location for the park.
I have a child with a neuro-biological disorder and I know a whole lot about his diagnosis but I'm smart enough to know that doesn't make me an expert on playground location.
Morgan - I would hope that the Sportsplex proponents do exactly what you suggested. I do not profess to know the best location for the playground. I do profess to know enough about my children's disorders to know that between the two playground alternatives offered, the League City Park is a better location. I also profess to know enough to not subject my child to the stimulation of the Sprotsplex if this playground is built there. And, yes, I did speak with two special education teachers, as well as a CCISD Special Education coordinator. All agreed that the Sportsplex was the less desirable location.
I merely pointed out what one might expect if Commuter Rail were to become a reality. I agree it is a long way off.
However, just prior to the collapse of the economy in 2008, there were 10 - 12 trains daily, that is 5 - 6 round trips and as the economy improves, the trains will become more frequent.
If anyone should be able to identify an actual train schedule for the freight trains, please publish it here where it might be found. They run, when they are needed with no set schedule from information gathered from engineers I have met.
Edelman,
A better example of baffling might be your belief that Boundless is, or should be, political. The councilperson was, as her motion reflected, acknowledging the fact that to accept 4B funding for the relocated project, the spending cap would have to be raised.
The best reasons presented so far in favor of League Park (years of planning, work in progress, contracts) beg the question. Is this project being driven by reactive or proactive thinking?
Remember the 3 to 5 thousand very special people this project is rightfully targeting.
Forget for a moment the Plex.
Is the restricted footprint League Park affords the best we can do for a group of citizens larger than the one that typically votes in a local. election?
Really? It’s the best?
That’s not what a lot of people, many opposed to the Plex, are saying privately.
How much has the city spent on athletic facilities for the “normal” citizens?
And how much on facilities that include special needs citizens?
The motion was to raise the cap and raise the bar on the project as a way of saying to the entire disabled community that” we see you and want to make things better”.
And to you this is all about politics.
Serious advocates of the concept recognize that there are significantly more disabled citizens within the community than the recognized League Park advocates that have appeared before council and have expressed their respective views in other forums.
Maybe it’s time to take a deep breath and a little time to look at all of the options for making this project the one where people aren’t saying “could have been or would have been” a year or two down the road.
Incidentally, the lot your house sits on was ugly once too. Landscaping is a powerful thing.
Davis - Afraid I must agree with Edelman. This process was orderly until a Council member suggested that it would be more fiscally austere to save money by using 4B monies and moving it to the Sportsplex. That Council member is on record as having stated the project is too expensive in a downturn economy. I don't find that baffling. I do find perplexing that in the next breath, after a sudden Special (read unscheduled, irregular) Workshop is called, that the fiscally conservative approach becomes proliferate spending - not only in excess of the budgeted amount - but without without even knowing the cost of such a move.
Do you do landscaping without knowing what it will cost? I am sure there will be figures tossed about Tuesday - what any of them will mean is anyone's guess, given that the estimates will have been reached after only two days to even think about a potential site, let alone project additional contract costs for new amenities. Yet you consider this sudden change of direction as newly found compassion for the disabled - and the concomitant lack of foresight as proactive, not reactive?
As far as "The best reasons presented so far in favor of League Park (years of planning, work in progress, contracts)", thee were a few more: These children would not do well at the Sportsplex. Their parents have worked hard to secure a neighborhood park location. There are also grants - non-tax dollars involved which will not wait while the process is re-engineered and the costs escalate. Forgive me if I am unpersuaded by this newly exhibited concern. I would like this child to play in this playground -- during his childhood. Some League City folk have been waiting for that new swimming pool for about 20 years...
Not a bad idea to talk to someone at CCISD (as Mr. Campbell suggested) or contact Bill Shank with the "Be An Angel" group.
Be An Angel is a charitable organization that has been involved in the development of over 20 barrier free playgrounds in the Houston area since 1994.
http://www.beanangel.org/
Executive Committee
Bill Shank, Chairman
Phone: (281) 219-3313
The above website is loaded with information, photos, and links. This is probably old news but I don't recall hearing of this organization.
Andi, thanks for your post, the above link, and most of all thanks for your many years of service to the Autism Community.
"Remember the 3 to 5 thousand very special people this project is rightfully targeting.
Forget for a moment the Plex.
Is the restricted footprint League Park affords the best we can do for a group of citizens larger than the one that typically votes in a local. election?
Really? It’s the best?
That’s not what a lot of people, many opposed to the Plex, are saying privately.
How much has the city spent on athletic facilities for the “normal” citizens?
And how much on facilities that include special needs citizens?"
---------------
So here we have the accusation that there are "private" conversations, of course no name mentioned.
Then we also have the reference to "normal citizens", thereby insinuating its an "us" vs "them" situation.
My oh my how the ugly the NIMBY crowd can get. I can't help but wonder how many of these folks are actually able to walk into a church on Sunday morning and act all holy and righteous.
For some reason I feel like upturning a table at a council meeting.
Maybe all sides should attend the 4B Meeting tonight to see how this plays out.
http://tx-leaguecity.civicplus.com/Archive.aspx?ADID=2136
Deer Davis,
While clearly the main issue here is to build a side by side playground facility as authorized by three resolutions, one action item, and four executed contracts. It has most definitely become politicized. If you listen the the meeting on channel 16, you can hear Mick Phalen discuss the pressure that was put on him to change the location. He was offered an open ticket to move it. This whole thing bothers me on multiple levels.
first-Children and adults with disabilities are so often the last people to benefit from city programs. They are often ignored. The one time something special was done for them and in progress, this happens This is just a slap in the face to them.
This is almost as bad as sending a child to Disney land by car, but turning around and coming home because you don't know how to get there.
two-I am fed up with people who do not pay attention to what is going on in the city. Then if by chance something is impacting their neighborhood, they expect everything to stop while they get up to speed.
Political-Heck yeah this is political and what a shame. We should all be ashamed.
further, given the location this park being either at the League Park location or the Sportsplex, League Park is the obvious choice. I am afraid Mr. Davis, that no matter how many breaths I take, I do not believe that I or anyone else for that matter who is educated on this issue would select the Sportsplex in its present configuration as offered unless our arms were twisted behind our backs. I only speak for myself, but I think the project is a total waste if put at the sportsplex as its original intent and purpose will not be served. Having spent a lot of time at the Sportsplex with my three children in in baseball, softball, and soccer, It qualifies me as an expert on the sportsplex, I am painfully aware of the Sportsplex's short comings and why it is unsuitable to satisfy the original intent and purpose of this playground.
BHL
The playground area of barrier-free parks are typically small. If you consider a site with existing restrooms and adequate adjacent parking, the size requirement for actual equipment and special-surface playground is probably less than 4,000 square feet. I am guessing the League Park site is about 80 x 150 feet, or 12,000 square feet.
Until looking at the website for Be An Angel I had no idea of the type of equipment and required site size. The proposed League Park site may even be suitable for a multi-phase park.
Also interesting to note, many of the barrier-free playgrounds around Houston are built at elementary schools.
The public use facilities all appear to have adjacent or nearby parking and restrooms.
Again, much information is available from Be An Angel (beanangel.org).
Maybe the train noise is a project stopper. Is there a reasonable ($$) alternative site? I don't know.
Paul,
excellent information. Will the trains be an issue? That's up to the parents and it appears from comments posted within by the parents, that it will NOT be an issue.
Take Care.
Whenever and whereever the Side-by-Side equipment is located, will standard school buses be able to easily navigate into the area to bring school children to the playground?
When the playground equipment is established and word gets around that it is up and running, large groups of children from various locations, day care centers, special ed facilities, and CCISD that covers two Counties will want to transport children to the facility in standard school busses.
How will large 70 passanger busses be able to enter , park, & exit League Park if more than one is there at the same time?
CCISD coveres Harris & Galveston Counties and there are many other ISD's in the general area, that will probably access the Playground at the same time, with buss loads of students.
BHL,
In Andi's comments, she believes there is a greater noise impact at the Sportsplex rather than by an occasional train. She is familiar with barrier-free parks north of Houston.
Then I guess the next discussion is timing of sports activities vs. peak time periods for visitation at the barrier-free playground.
I wish a greater number of users had been vocal. Those I heard speak and post were for the League Park. It might be worth a couple weeks delay and let this issue cool and get more opinions.
I just don't know.
Fubar,
Perhaps you should note how much empty parking is available at League Park during normal school hours. Just ask anyone who works at the birdhouse.
You make it sound like there will be a mass migration to League Park as if it were Ramadan and the park was Mecca.
It's obvious you're only interested in presenting obstacles; bear to witness your statements about increased rail activity which have no merit based on economic realities.
BHL:
You should try and vision a West Bound School Bus wanting to make a right turn into League Park. The lane of traffic exiting League Park will need to be vacant for it to safely happen and the buss will need to make a wide turn blocking the next lane over traveling in the same direction.
East bound traffic will not be as bad, but making the left turn will back up traffic traveling west on 518 if it does not happen quickly.
Has LC Traffic Planners been involved what sort of impact that this playground with have on the traffic flow on 518? What popularity it will actually have on the traffic pattern throughout the day and evening?
Fubar,
I rode the bus in Jr high. I remember the turns in the neighborhood all so well. There's no reason why a bus driver can't turn into Michigan or Colorado where there'd be less traffic and proceed to the park from there via 3rd street, not that there's lots of traffic exiting from the park during normal school hours anyways.
Of course one has to ask, how many large buses are handicapped equipped? Don't the school districts use a smaller dedicated bus to pick up the special needs students within the school zone?
Do you even try to look for solutions to your perceived issues, or do you just live to be an obstacle?
BHL, I think that's what people are concerned about - through traffic on narrow roads that wasn't there before and left turns with no protection or left turn lane.
BHL:
LC Parks has many parks and much undeveloped land in its inventory.
I do not advocate that the Sports Complex is a better or the best place for this type of Playground, as it does not currently have natural shade trees, but, I think there are better places and certainly better locations that provide better access for this unique and very expensive type of park equipment.
Expedience is NOT the reason to place the Boundless Playground at League Park, if it may cause problems with accessibility for persons getting to/from or is a further cause of traffic on 518 just to expedite in building the playground at League Park.
How long ago was Jr. High for you as a passenger and were you or have you ever driven a long vehicle of 40 Feet in length, I have. CCISD has small and large Busses that have mechanical Lifts in the rear of the bus for wheelchair bound children. But if you are moving a large number of children at once, using small 24 passenger busses as opposed to 70 Passenger busses would require more vehicles with more drivers.
Was League Park chosen because it was convenient to place the equipment in a Park that already existed or was it chosen that it is the best place possible for this equipment in League City?
Item 11B on the LC City Council Agenda is for Boundless Playground this Tuesday. You can get a chance to voice your opinion then, where it will have more weight.
This is the Citizen Article talking about the pros & Cons
http://www.hcnonline.com/articles/2010/08/09/bay_area_citizen/news/8boundless12.txt
If the boundless playground is installed at League Park, will the city upgrade the sidewalk access to the park for pedestrian traffic? Many of the streets in the historical district do not have sidewalks and are bordered by open ditches. FM 518 definately does not have a sidewalk suitable for wheelchair access to the park. Unless access is upgraded, I hardly find League Park to be accessible for "wheeled mobility devices".
I confess that I am not an expert in special needs, so while I am a fan of the Sportsplex solution, maybe League Park is better for children with special needs. On the other hand, I don't anticipate many familes with non-handicapped children will be making a planned trip to League Park unless the playground facilities are better than what is already available in their neighborhoods. An example of a playground that I am willing to drive my kids to one at Challenger 7 Memorial park. It is what I consider to be a "destination playground".
BHL:
You will have an opportunity to voice your opinion at Council Meeting Tuesday before Item 11B is discussed.
http://leaguecity.legistar.com/calendar.aspx
Mark, I have read your post several times. I am a bit wperplexed that you think those with mobility issues would be accessing the playground by sidewalk -- rather than by car from the parking lot.
We personally have not been Webster's Challenger Park. But after your post, I looked at several images of their playground equipment there. It is beautiful. But none of it resembles anything a differently-abled child could access. Be glad your children can enjoy such a large landscaped park and playground features! However, there are those who cannot - for them, sometimes less is more.
RBC - I was addressing item number three in your original post.
"3. Those who post about Sportsplex being accessible are talking about by car - not for those who use wheels for legs or have to be punched in wheeled mobility devices"
Neither park is going to be ideal for several reasons. If people are being driven to the playground, it is unfortunate that it could not be located in a more peaceful setting like Walter Hall park where there is shade and few sensory distractions. (As long as you are away from the boat ramp and annual music festival) I do realize that WH park is a county park out of League City jurisdiction.
Putting traffic and rail noise issues aside, League Park may be the best location to serve the special need population. There are many city funded parks that do not serve children with special needs, so I agree that it is time to build something that can serve children with limited mobility.
My thoughts about the Sportsplex was that it would be a better location to serve a greater majority of the LC population, but now I realize that this project is not about serving the majority, but a population that is ofter overlooked and under served.
I appreciate this forum for providing an opportunity for people with differing views to debate issues in a "mostly" mature manner.
All proponents can voice their opinion tonight at City Council
at Item 5
PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ITEMS FROM PUBLIC HEARING
before the vote on item 11B
http://leaguecity.legistar.com/calendar.aspx
The question was "is League Park the best place?" Mr. Edelman.
Are we trying to help as many of the disabled citizens as possible, or not?
Incidentally, BHL, the Plex and most of the other facilities have fewer attendees when school is in session. Incidentally, I have two impaired children so your reaction to the word normal was inappropriate. The phrase "for the impaired and all of our citizens" has been used in various ways to "sell" this project. So again, I ask how much has been spent on facilities for the impaired as opposed to those without disabilities?
Is the goal here to simply replace one well used (by the non-impaired) playground with another, or is it to provide for the special needs of a growing segment of the population.
All I am asking is that we think outside the box that is League Park and recognize that the cap may be a hindrance to quality and quantity.
My feeling is that something other than compassion or concern for equal access is driving this one.
Mark, thank you for your kind and insightful thoughts. I agree, that a location such as Walter Park would be ideal. However, the time and consensus it would take to reach the interlocal agreements needed for construction, let alone maintenance are daunting.
In an ideal world the suggestions for alternate sites would have been made at the inception of the project - not at the eve of construction. Now, however, the equipment is ordered and designed for a specific location.
You are also correct that when a city provides public services and programs it must provide them to all. Hopefully the City Council will do that this evening.
@Davis said "The question was "is League Park the best place?" Mr. Edelman."
Dear Davis,
I do not agree that what you state above is the question. The real question is why is council moving the location this late in the game? After 3 resolutions, one action item, and 4 executed contracts that are specific to the League Park Location it is moved in a quickly called special meeting, does that sound right?
Even if there are other parks that are subsequently deemed "good locations" later,that is great. We can build more Boundless Playground in he future at those sites. Further, I don't think that any new playgrounds anywhere in League City should be built any other way.
and finally,
@Davis said "Are we trying to help as many of the disabled citizens as possible, or not?"
I don't believe that volume is the goal here but rather the quality in which all the users of League Park would recreate in side by side.
The truth is there should be boundless at every playground.
What is the cost difference between boundless and non-boundless? I realize that other physical issues would need to be addressed to retrofit other playgrounds down the road as existing non-compliant equipment wears out. If there is not a significant cost difference it would be nice to phase in additional boundless facilities.
Davis, How could I have possibly known that my interpretation of your use of "normal person" was inappropriate when you gave no indication of your situation or what you would like to achieve? I could only go by what was contained and expressed in your message and that it had the appearance of another NIMBY trying to make a case for moving the playground to the Sportsplex.
Now that you have offered that additional information, I can see your earlier post that perhaps the context is that you would prefer to have a larger playground in a more suitable area. But again that desire isn't clearly expresed, and it would be helpful if you could clearly and unambiguously state your goals in this discussion.
Thanks for understanding.
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.
Mission Accomplished as Council worked together and came to agreement on two important issues.
It is a shame that those at home could not hear half of what was being said.
My Observation:
Someone needs to monitor sound quality and live video feed. Not only for those at home but also for the folks in the chamber.
The mayor’s microphone did not work for the first hour and a half. After that is was still spotty. The same problem was occurring last Thursday.
Much of what was said in public comments was not heard.
During discussion of the gun range the cameras did not follow the presentation so those at home were unable to follow the discussion.
Finally, at the end of the meeting all the mikes were left on. Private conversations and comments were broadcast. Although entertaining, but maybe not always a good idea.
I am puzzled how the city can produce a good quality video (thanks to Kristi Wyatt) and not be able to broadcast a council meeting.
Let's give Joanna a mulligan and she whether she can make the most of the opportunity or turn it into a Tiger Woods performance.
Someone please explain to Mrs. Sanborn that when something becomes politicized, it has nothing to do with anyone being a Democrat or Republican. :-/
When something is politicized, it is about offering deals in order to achieve an individual or group's net result.
Paul thats because KW does our public info work (very good), and our IT dept does the Council Meetings,(enough said). And if our Chief of Staff don't stay out of the public info area it will look like our IT dept. That guy is a nutbag.
Morgan....Someone need to tell PS a lot. I have never seen a Council person who plays both sides so much. She will change her vote in a heartbeat if she thinks it will harm HER, her votes don't have anything to do with the City. Listen to her comments the other night, REALLY?
"The lot your house sits on was once ugly. Landscaping is a powerful thing." Indeed. The natural landscape that was there to begin with can seldom be matched by man.
Gee, where to begin? I had forgotten all about the comment I first made here, when the phone calls and e-mails about it started coming in. So I had another look just now, and am happy to see so much discourse.
ChrisM, RBC and Jerry was once a sour mayor: I was only paraphrasing what a typical street level person might call a "gimp." I am prone to impersonations, and apologize I'm no Dana Carvey. Please lighten up.
PaulS: The broadcast sound in council chambers has been no good from the start. I have talked to JimmyT about it, because it's not such a big deal to fix. But however chronic and ongoing, it is apparently not important to the city, so I give up. Maybe that issue needs a petition drive too.
FubarS, you got it right. But like BHL said, westbound buses can turn on a lot of other streets, as far east as 270, to reach League Park.
As for the 4B money, it was a good idea for saving the taxpayers here some cost, but federal 4B money most likely could not be spent on such a project as the playground.
Ms Dawson's intentions were in the right place, at least. Council as a whole ignores its own resolution placing a $250k spending cap on this albatross, and that is why it's going to cost us nearly a half-mill. Don't blame Joanna.
Davis, your 3 - 5 thousand impaired kids may be that many figments of your imagination, but not everybody else's. How crowded have you ever seen those inflated rubberized injury-retardant indoor playgrounds at many McDonald's locations?
MarkK, I'm sure the ADA and other "experts" can find things wrong with the McDonald's attractions, so the equipment we'll be paying for (through the nose) costs a lot more than you might guess. More than it should cost too, I think.
MarcE, you're so right about people falling off the turnip truck late in the game and wanting the rest of us to stop everything and explain. We've seen it with the dog people park, we've seen it with the 270 bypass, and on and on. I share your impatience with them.
BHL, your charge against Fubar should have been aimed at me. I live to be an obstacle to this playground. The city has no business trying to be a charity. The taxpayers have no obligation to special interests, only to treat them all equally. Those with special needs -- I repeat, special -- should bring their own gear with them. If they can get the schools or other groups to pitch in, fine. If we see enough interest, we the taxpayers might even throw in some public subsidy. But WE do not OWE them a special playground any moreso than we OWE them crutches, wheel chairs and crash helmets. Get it? I intend to push a petition drive to kill this blasted thing just as dead as the dog people park, and for the same reason. Nothing personal or political, it's just fiscal.
"The lot your house sits on was once ugly. Landscaping is a powerful thing." Indeed. The natural landscape that was there to begin with can seldom be matched by man.
Gee, where to begin? I had forgotten all about the comment I first made here, when the phone calls and e-mails about it started coming in. So I had another look just now, and am happy to see so much discourse.
ChrisM, RBC and Jerry the Sour EX Mayor: I was only paraphrasing what a typical street level person might call a "gimp." I am prone to impersonations, and apologize I'm no Dana Carvey. Please lighten up.
PaulS: The broadcast sound in council chambers has been no good from the start. I have talked to JimmyT about it, because it's not such a big deal to fix. But however chronic and ongoing, it is apparently not important to the city, so I give up. Maybe that issue needs a petition drive too.
FubarS, you got it right. But like BHL said, westbound buses can turn on a lot of other streets, as far east as 270, to reach League Park.
As for the 4B money, it was a good idea for saving the taxpayers here some cost, but federal 4B money most likely could not be spent on such a project as the playground.
Ms Dawson's intentions were in the right place, at least. Council as a whole ignores its own resolution placing a $250k spending cap on this albatross, and that is why it's going to cost us nearly a half-mill. Don't blame Joanna.
Google says this is too large, so the rest continues below...
Continued from above...
Davis, your 3 - 5 thousand impaired kids may be that many figments of your imagination, but not everybody else's. How crowded have you ever seen those inflated rubberized injury-retardant indoor playgrounds at many McDonald's locations?
MarkK, I'm sure the ADA and other "experts" can find things wrong with the McDonald's attractions, so the equipment we'll be paying for (through the nose) costs a lot more than you might guess. More than it should cost too, I think.
MarcE, you're so right about people falling off the turnip truck late in the game and wanting the rest of us to stop everything and explain. We've seen it with the dog people park, we've seen it with the 270 bypass, and on and on. I share your impatience with them.
BHL, your charge against Fubar should have been aimed at me. I live to be an obstacle to this playground. The city has no business trying to be a charity. The taxpayers have no obligation to special interests, only to treat them all equally. Those with special needs -- I repeat, special -- should bring their own gear with them. If they can get the schools or other groups to pitch in, fine. If we see enough interest, we the taxpayers might even throw in some public subsidy.
But WE do not OWE them a special playground any moreso than we OWE them crutches, wheel chairs and crash helmets. Get it?
I intend to push a petition drive to kill this blasted thing just as dead as the dog people park, and for the same reason. Nothing personal or political, it's just fiscal.
To All:
I still think that N. Park @ 518 will become a dangerous intersection when the Boundless Playground becomes a reality, that If and I mean If problems develop with that intersection that the following be a consideration.
N. Park be Exit only
Colorado Avenue and or N. Michigan Avenue become the designated entrance to League Park turning west (left) onto 3rd Ave to League Park.
I do not think that the realization that when the Boundless Playground becomes a reality, that League Park will become an abnormally active park throughout the day and evening, even if there are no special events held there.
To All: Please no more emails about the barrier-free playground. Good or bad, the process is complete. Sure, the road was too long and full of ruts and mud.
Paul and others,
Thanks for your extended comments and future projections. Time will tell. IF traffic problems are created then a new issue can be addressed.
IF this barrier free park is packed then I will bet six of you a steak dinner that contributions will be flowing in for a second location. Many of these parks are privately funded to be located on public (city / county parks and public schools).
Paul – Who is responsible for the terrible audio/broadcast? I vote to ask a local contractor (Jimmy T) if he would fix it and then monitor the solution. I would like to see the guy at the broadcast controls publish his email address and number for text purposes. Sadly, I got a call after the last council meeting by some dear friends that thought there was a conspiracy to alter the broadcast so that people could not hear what was going on.
My Dear Friends, there is no conspiracy. Somebody is doing a crappy job or someone is not given the proper tools/instructions to do their job.
Post a Comment