The Observation Deck

First, remember the first two rules of local politics:

1. Your idea sucks and mine doesn't.

2. No matter what you do 50% of the people will be mad at you.

Here's my idea:

A small park between the Christian Science building and the Masonic Temple. A mixed use development in the current Kaufman Park. The development should be as large as can be financed.

Replace the lost Kaufman Park with a new park across from Rockport taking Drug Mart Plaza, the apartment building buildings and everything else all the way to the tracks. New development could frame the park leaving a lot of space for outdoor concerts.

Beware!!!

The City was taken for a ride with the Marc's Plaza, the Beck Center and the Hospital lease. Don't let it happen again.!

For the record: I would be willing to support an income tax increase dedicated solely to that type of development. Why do anything? Because if you stand still you get run over.

Bill,

From your posting above, I would infer that you too, get tired of the endless "King or Queen of the Mountain" game that seems to permeate too many political discussions today. I'm glad that you don't give up though. We all have a right to freely express our opinion without being rudely ripped apart.

For once, (well, OK, maybe more than once) I find much to agree with in your posting, particularly with the word BEWARE)

Everyone:

Remember the old joke about the camel being a horse designed by a committee? I feel that money; BIG money, often drives committee-based development, and that the BOTTOM LINE may get priority over what's best for a community. The end plans may little resemble the proposed dreams.

Here in Lakewood, we need to factor in the sports equation, as well. Many folks have missed the Little Links facility, and if we take away yet another ballfield, that takes away a lot of fun for a lot of people.

In my opinion, some redevelopment can be good, but with society's rush to build out to the streets and cover every large open green spot with more and more retail, concrete, and small token green postage stamp parks? This concerns me deeply.

We need to take our big green spaces off our back burners, and give them higher priority. Just because they don't produce optimal income streams, does not mean that they are not of significant importance to our quality of life.

At least, that's how I see it.

Ms. Kinsella misquoted me earlier in the thread.

At no point have I suggested that the five major parks be sold off for redevelopment. Please see my platform plank on recreation at www.ryandemro.com

and if we take away yet another ballfield, that takes away a lot of fun for a lot of people

Gary, this might well be true, but shouldn't we also ask whether those whose fun is lost are Lakewood residents and taxpayers. To whatever degree this could be redevloped impacting the exurbanites who like to use this park, and our other facilities, it gives me no pause. Maintain green space in any projected development and avoid the huge mistake that is Marc's Plaza, by all means, but this huge area being maintained for a very few ballplayers doesn't represent the best use of the area or the best use for the residents and taxpayers.

Jeff

Ryan Patrick Demro wrote:Ms. Kinsella misquoted me earlier in the thread.

At no point have I suggested that the five major parks be sold off for redevelopment. Please see my platform plank on recreation at www.ryandemro.com

Thanks for the clarification...

Demro Recreation (clicky here)

Jeff Endress wrote:.......degree this could be redeveloped impacting the exurbanites who like to use this park, and our other facilities, it gives me no pause. Maintain green space in any projected development and avoid the huge mistake that is Marc's Plaza, by all means, but this huge area being maintained for a very few ballplayers doesn't represent the best use of the area or the best use for the residents and taxpayers.
Jeff

Somewhere in this infinite universe pigs are flying!

How do I know this? I find I agree with Jeff, Dave Anderson and Gary Rice on some of their recent posts.

I personally think it is important to replace park land with park land but not necessarily to replace a ball park with a ball park.

Ryan Patrick Demro wrote:Ms. Kinsella misquoted me earlier in the thread.

At no point have I suggested that the five major parks be sold off for redevelopment. Please see my platform plank on recreation at www.ryandemro.com

Ryan

I be to differ. I was at the parks meeting where you mentioned selling off 5 parks. I think you used the term micro parks.

You also mentioned that you did not want to reduce the square foot of green space in the city so that possibly other parks could be added to.

Maybe this is where the confusion started.


.

Patrick Ryan Demro -

Here's the answer I got from your spokesperson Suzanne Metelko when I asked about what had been said by you at the meeting, to clarify information I had been getting.

This is dirctly from the post:

"As for closing the parks, Councilman Demro was asked a question and gave a clear and honest answer. He did not advocate closing the parks, instead he provided the bones of a plan to consolidate green space in an effort to provide the same acreage to citizens in fewer places as a means of helping the parks department manage time, material and resources."

Now that might not say that you advocate closing the parks but that you had the bones of a plan to have fewer places to help out the parks department.

Fewer places with no parks closed - how is that a clear statement?

If that is not what you said, why are you just weighing in now?

sharon kinsella wrote:I know that when Patrick Ryan Demro had his parks meeting, he proposed that 5 of the city parks be turned over for development. I think Kaufman was one of the parks proposed for development. It's all on one of the threads on the forum.

This is when I started thinking of the Joni Mitchell song Yellow Taxi that states "Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got til it's gone, they paved over paradise and put in a parking lot." Originally I messed up the words, but it is the thought that counts.

"As for closing the parks, Councilman Demro was asked a question and gave a clear and honest answer. He did not advocate closing the parks, instead he provided the bones of a plan to consolidate green space in an effort to provide the same acreage to citizens in fewer places as a means of helping the parks department manage time, material and resources.

Now that might not say that you advocate closing the parks but that you had the bones of a plan to have fewer places to help out the parks department.

In my opinion, the two bold statements are completely different. Turning over the parks for development means that the parks would be completely gone. Some one would come in and develop a shopping center or etc.. (please correct me if I am wrong)

He did not advocate closing the parks means he wanted the parks to stay open in some capacity. (see the green statement) Having the same acerage but fewer places does not sound like we are going to lose park space??? It sounds like a consolidation plan to save on expenses.

What is the cost yearly to maintain all 5 parks in Lakewood? Would expanding Lakewood Park and closing let say Edwards Park save the city money??? Anyone have any fact and figures??? Thanks



PS But how would the clsoing of a park impact that neighborhood?

Stephen -

Once again - here you are.

Explain the logical conclusion one should draw from the statement "fewer places". Does not mean fewer places, or is their language here that I'm not aware of.

This semantic game playing is ludicrous - when someone is making a CLEAR statement - it should mean that everyone with an IQ over 80 should understand it.

Are you saying that I'm lacking? Or that my reading comprehension is faulty?

Keep in mind that I understand many, many things. I also know when I'm being double talked.

Clarification is needed from the source - not interpreters. I'm sure that Patrick Demro can speak for himself.

sharon kinsella wrote:Stephen -

Once again - here you are.

Explain the logical conclusion one should draw from the statement "fewer places". Does not mean fewer places, or is their language here that I'm not aware of.

This semantic game playing is ludicrous - when someone is making a CLEAR statement - it should mean that everyone with an IQ over 80 should understand it.

Are you saying that I'm lacking? Or that my reading comprehension is faulty?

Keep in mind that I understand many, many things. I also know when I'm being double talked.

Clarification is needed from the source - not interpreters. I'm sure that Patrick Demro can speak for himself.

Can you please not make everything about you.. Thanks You will note that I asked several question in my post. I am asking questions do I can get some clarification on this subject. If the acreage remains the same and the number of parks are decreased then it seem like a wash... The statement from his rep He did not advocate the closing parks is a bit different from your statement that he proposed that 5 of the city parks be turned over for development.

So sorry - It's really all about you.

I concede, sincerely.

By the way - my original post today, once again, was not addressed to you.

If the acreage remains the same and the number of parks are decreased then it seem like a wash.

True. But I wonder exactly how we could ADD acreage to Lakewood park (short of the peninsula)......It's landlocked, unless you take LCA or neighboring houses.....

Same with Edwards. Same with SInagra. Same with Madison. Jeez, I don't think there's a vacant piece of property next to ANY park in the city. So, Is RPD advocating buying houses to demolish for park space? How about use of eminent domain to accomplish this ?

Jeff

Council voted to fund a study of greenspace in Lakewood that Director Jordan brought to them. I can't find the information on the docket (yet) but it was a couple of months ago.

I don't think the study has been completed, but I'm sure we'll all be interested in it when it's finished.