Hello SPIFers, (2nd try to respond)
My husband, Jon Kerr, may want to speak for himself tomorrow when he can post
again under SPIF rules.
Yes, Jeanne, we served on the task force and voted for the Master Plan. Many
times we have publicly acknowledged our error in acting hastily at the pleading
of Parks' staff after just 3 meetings in 2 & 1/2 years. Our reservations were
overcome by staff's insistence that failure to provide them with task force
support at that moment would jeopardize funding opportunities for years. We
believed staff assurances there would be further, much needed Task Force
discussion of their "conceptual plan", along with a public process to come to
resolution about critical points of difference.
Parks' got our vote. But the trust was quickly broken when they announced there
would be no Task Force discussions for at least a year. We objected
strenuously. Subsequent Design Task Force meetings did finally occur, yet the
promised discussions about priorities and the big picture never took place,
despite out our requests time and again. Even Parks' own 2008 survey of public
priorities for Lilydale Park, which largely coincided with things our Friends'
group has heard over the years, was largely ignored.
We naively trusted, based on about 10 yrs of very positive experiences working
closely and collaboratively with Parks' leadership and staff. We were
accustomed to being able to trust the word of staff. We had a history of
working constructively through differences. But it turns out, that was 'back in
the day'. Somewhere, things had changed markedly - probably related to new
funding pressures and opportunities.
Additionally, new concerning information has come to light since staff
dismissed the Design Task Force in February. A few of the factors that were
never considered by the Task Force have significant implication for park plans,
including:
* Parks' staff's unilateral decision to only construct a new road to the west
of the railroad trestle in the middle of the park;
* Learning that Parks' has no easement rights under the Union Pacific rail
line, which will impact: a) getting utlilities to the proposed new buildings,
and b) road/trail safety without ability to widen the trestle (as originally
shown in Parks' design drawings);
* Engineering questions about building a road and buildings on a decomposing
landfill and related long-term maintenance and viability concerns (e.g., the
constant bubbling and buckling of pavement as occurs now on the bike path in
the same area the new road will be. This past summer those problems caused
safety issues on the trail w/ bike crashes and injuries. The trail had to be
closed for a time and repaired.)
* Last, but not least, environmental concerns related to building on the
decomposing landfill, plus the "discovery" of "low grade" wetlands in the path
of Parks' new road.
* The list could go on...
Yes, we made a bad decision, a grave mistake in 2009. Does that now mean a very
poorly conceived Lilydale Park plan should inevitably move forward? There's
still time for Parks' to make an in-course correction, to use the Legacy Funds
for part of the Master Plan which clearly has public support: fix the road from
the High Bridge to the RR trestle underpass, the related bluffside erosion
problems and trail improvements.
Grit Youngquist
West Side & Friends of Lilydale Park