The Observation Deck

I replied to the email and asked them how they got my email address - still waiting for my answer....

Usually you can ask your email program to show you the long or raw headers of any email you receive.

Sometimes it's obvious at that point.

Jimmy, I get you and that's someone and a group I wouldn't support in a million years.

Signed - Sharon

dl meckes wrote:Usually you can ask your email program to show you the long or raw headers of any email you receive.

Sometimes it's obvious at that point.

Yeah this was sent through Gmail, so unfortunately there's not a direct way to know who the person was. I reported it to Gmail, I'll let them handle it. I also sent a copy to the FTC Spam reporting address.

My point was WHO? benefits. Nothing more. As far as everyone I have spoken with is this
is dead in the water. The name of the group is a hybrid to make it look like "Friends
of Kaufman Park" who have no idea about it, and "Green."

So the question is, who benefits?

Not the city, not the hospital, not any politician running for office.

Who or what?

.

I have learned that there is a group organizing to discuss this issue but they were not responsible for the e-mail flyer sent out earlier this week. They are distributing their own flyer that includes this info;

JOIN KAUFFMAN PARK FRIENDS
Want to be part of the future of Kauffman Park? Join Kauffman Park Friends on
Saturday, July 11 at 10 a.m. at the community garden (behind right field) for
breakfast in the park to explore ways to beautify the park, especially the Little Links
area, strategies for saving it from developers, and next steps to make our vision a
reality. Questions? Call 216.226.7012 or e-mail kauffmanparkfriends@yahoo.com.

I am starting a Kauffman Park Friends group. I don't know who sent the e-mail that you are referring to (though I tried to find out), but the information in it is true.

The City is still in talks with the owners of the Discount Drug Mart Building to sell them Kauffman Park for development. I have talked with Nate Kelly of the City's planning department and, while he is unsure that the developers will be able to pull it off, he supports the plan.

I had thought that, after Mayor Fitzgerald came in and stopped the previous Mayor George's scheme to sell the park, that Kauffman park was safe. It appears that this isn't true. The administration has told community gardeners in Kauffman Park that it is possible that development will start before harvest this year.

I, and several other like minded people, are organizing a Kauffman Park friends group. We would like to see something done with Little Links besides chaining it up and leaving it to deteriorate. We also believe that if the community comes out to support the park, showing that we value it, the City will be less likely to continue to want to sell it.

We are having a public breakfast meeting on Saturday July 11, 2009 at 10:00 A.M. in Kauffman park near the community gardens. Please come if you have any questions about the park.

You can also e-mail me at kauffmanparkfriends@yahoo.com if you would like more information.

The information being put out regarding this topic is simply not correct. The previous administration had talks with this developer which entailed selling all of Kauffman Park, and also included a city subsidy of the project. When I took office, we took that proposal off the table, and there have been several proposals made by the developer since. At our insistence, none of them include either a city subsidy or destruction of the park.

Some residents are being told that Kauffman Park is in imminent danger of being bulldozed. That's irresponsible and simply not true.

It doesn't make alot of sense to start talking about plans when the developer:

a. doesn't control the parcels in question;
b. doesn't have financing for the project;
c. hasn't reached a deal with the city;
d. hasn't presented any final drawings to the city;
e. has not reached a deal with any proposed medical facility;
f. is nowhere close to beginning any approval process.

If we "announced" tentative plans like these, we would have done so about a dozen times in the last two years regarding proposed projects all over the city. Until these plans reach a point of critical mass, it's premature to either get too excited about them, or start rallying opposition to them.

The statement regarding LEAF is incorrect, as well. The organizers of LEAF can testify about how well the city has worked with them- by providing land, as well as city materials and labor. We haven't signed any long-term leases with LEAF for use of park land, but we are open to one at Madison Park because our planning process at that park is particularly advanced. As you may know, earlier this year, we began a master plan process for our whole park system, and until that is finished, it isn't logical to sign long term leases tying up property. We certainly let LEAF know that Kauffman Park might be redesigned, and that might be part of a development. We've also talked about just reconfiguring it on our own. At this point, we're still discussing options.

There is absolutely zero chance that any park space at Kauffman Park would be affected before harvest season. And to to scare people with that kind of misinformation is just wrong.

We are interested in options for upgrading, not destroying the park, and for looking for ways to reconfigure the park to improve it. We are a long way off from making any decision on that issue, and citizen involvement is a key component of that. The Friends of Madison Park is a great example of how the community can positively work together on a vision of our park space.

Because of the spreading of various conspiracy theories, we'll be holding a community meeting regarding this topic very soon. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if people would withhold their judgments until actual plans are actually proposed.

In response to Mayor Fitzgerald's post, I am very happy to hear that any plans for selling or developing Kauffman Park will not happen this year. I am also happy to hear that plans the City has provided to me are nowhere close to the approval process. I am a supporter of Mayor Fitzgerald and am optimistic that he will continue to protect Lakewood’s public park space, will work with Lakewood citizens to help us all to renovate Kauffman Park, and will help find a better use for the deteriorating Lakewood Little Links.

I am taken aback at the Mayor's charge about spreading conspiracy theories. I have spoken directly to Lakewood's Planning Director, Nate Kelly, about these plans. I have made a public records request to see the latest plan. I have not said anything about the plans to develop Kauffman Park that has not come directly from the Mayor’s administration.

I am also concerned about two things the Mayor has said in his post.

First, the mayor represents that none of the proposals concern destruction of the park. The proposal that the City gave me in response to a public-records request places a large building and parking lot on the north-west side of Kauffman Park, where Lakewood Little Links, the playground, and the sledding hill currently exist. The community gardens on the eastern side of the park would also be demolished. I don't know how this does not constitute destruction of the park.

Second, the mayor has not said that Kauffman park will not be sold and developed. He has only said that, while there is zero chance that the Park will be developed this year, the City is still exploring its options concerning Kauffman Park.

While I am glad that the Mayor is now saying that Kauffman park will not be sold or developed this year, this is not what the City was telling community-garden plot holders earlier this year.

I believe that the time to become involved in Kauffman park's future is now, before any developer has purchased property in the hopes that it will be able to develop Kauffman park, and before the City and developer have finalized plans. Right now is the time when the citizens who love Kauffman park can make the greatest difference. For those people who want to be a part of Kauffman park's future, we are creating a Kauffman Park Friends group modeled on Friends of Madison Park.

We would like to work together with the City in a positive manner to protect green space and make Kauffman a more beautiful, more safe, and better-utilized park. Mayor Fitzgerald has been a great supporter of parks and of other green initiatives. I believe that Kauffman Park Friends, Mayor Fitzgerald, and the City will have a positive working relationship that benefits Kauffman Park.

If you have any questions about Kauffman park, or want to be a part of Kauffman’s future, please come to our community meeting on July 11, 2009 at 10:00 A.M. for breakfast. Or please e-mail kauffmanparkfriends@yahoo.com.

With all due respect, Mr. Mayor, isn't it self-defeating to wait until a development plan reaches the "critical mass" of having the parcels sold and financing in place to start voicing opposition to it? Isn't it easiest to have a voice in the process before the money starts flowing?

I'd expect there would be several public forums, including but not limited to reviews in front of the Planning Commission, where the voice of the citizenry could be heard on any plan that had a reasonable chance of coming to fruition.

If the city is looking for green space to reclaim to replace what would be lost at Kaufmann Park, it could consider buying back a parcel from the Rockport Square project, which seems to have gone back into dormancy.

Brian-

I understand your point. Timing is everything. For instance, we could have had a huge public debate a few years ago about a major proposed project centered around the church at 117th and Lake Avenue. Residents and business owners could have become agitated about the effect on their property, we could have debated the effect on local traffic patterns, how much it would really help our tax base, would it undermine existing projects and businesses...and it all would have been a colossal waste of time, because it was still speculative, and, in fact, it never materialized.

That's exactly where this project stands.

The key is to have a public dialogue when a project clears certain basic hurdles, and when the public's opinions and suggestions, including whether to proceed at all, can still be taken into account.

It's worth noting that this spring I spoke about this at one of our Listening to Lakewood community meetings. I mentioned that proposals had been made, and described them in general terms, but also said that it was premature to begin a public airing of a developer's proposal.

Because of the proliferation of rumors, however they started, we'll have to start that public process now, even though the developer has not cleared those basic hurdles. I will go over the entire history of the discussions surrounding this property at an upcoming community meeting, and will post the time and location shortly.