My son and I were invited to attend the festivities in Carnegie Park on Forsythe Road, the new home of Pitcher Park Memorial Skatepark. Since Joe designed the logo for Pitcher Park, he was presented an autographed poster from Tony Hawk. There will be skate decks made with his logo, but in the meantime, shirts were passed out to all the attendees of the event. What a thrill for Mom!
We were hoping Mary Pitcher would choose Mt. Lebanon, but as it turns out, the enthusiasm from the residents of all ages, the council and mayor of Carnegie was overwhelming. It is a sweet deal. 85% of the $600,000 cost of the skatepark will be donated. 15% has to be raised initially in order to receive the donation. Here in Mt. Lebanon, Dave Brumfield said at the Pitcher presentation that it should come here because we're Mt. Lebanon. As soon as Mary heard that, she crossed her legs and turned her back to him and said,"Here we go." It is that kind of attitude in Mt. Lebanon that gives us a bad name. You know, that sense of entitlement and arrogance that I have been writing about here on the blog.
Carnegie deserves this park. I am so thrilled that Pitcher Park will be built there. In this town, it is all about turf and forget about anything else.
Here is the press release:
The Ken and Carol Shultz Family Foundation challenged Pitcher Park to reach out to the communities surrounding Dormont to see if there was interest and offered to donate 85 percent of the cost of the approximately $600,000 skatepark. Mt. Lebanon, Scott Township and Carnegie were approached with the idea. All three communities were asked to discuss and then approve the skatepark. Open meetings were held in each community to give residents a chance to voice their opinions. Every community approached approved and welcomed the project.
The lead designer, Micah Shapiro from Grindline Skateparks of Seattle Washington then came to Pittsburgh to view each site allotted by the various communities. Mt. Lebanon offered land in the Main Park above the basketball courts. Scott Township offered two tennis courts on the lower level of the park by their baseball fields. Carnegie offered about six different locations within their park.
Many factors came into play while making a decision between the three communities.. Among them were: Topography of the sites, location and accessibility, "at-risk" youth factors, ability to patrol and maintain the park and enthusiasm from the communities for the project.
Pitcher Park found that Carnegie made the grade in all these aspects.
The designer came to the conclusion that topographically Carnegie Park land would make for the most interesting design and flow to the skatepark.
The accessibility of Carnegie Park right off the Parkway, close to 79, close to the communities of Dormont, Greentree, the City of Pittsburgh, Crafton, Scott Township, Heidleberg and Mt. Lebanon would allow many different people to use the skatepark.
The skatepark being placed in Carnegie will assist many "at risk" youth and this coincides with the Tony Hawk Foundations Mission Statement.
The Police Chief there is very much in favor of "getting the children off the streets and sidewalks" and we have been assured that they will patrol the skatepark diligently.
The clincher of our decision was the enthusiasm of the "kid & family friendly" Council, the residents themselves and especially Mayor Jack Kobistek, who even requested that Pitcher Park holds competitions there yearly.
It has been a long haul for this organization just trying to donate a skatepark but the people of Carnegie have made the organization and project feel "AT HOME" and because of that we are confident that this location is the "right place" to erect a skatepark to honor Vincent and Stephen Pitcher.
Carnegie is the future site of Pitcher Park Memorial Skatepark and we will be announcing the location and holding a brief unveiling of a sign on Thursday August 23 at 7:00 PM with much over due....EXCITEMENT! :)
For more information, visit http://www.pitcherpark.com/index.html
49 comments:
85% will be donated? Surely you're mistaken. There has to be an agreement between the skate park and the school district, right? Or are you serious? You mean to tell me a recreation project will be almost all funded through private donations?? Ha, fools. They should just follow our model, have sneaky back-door arrangements, lie to the public and then make taxpayers pick up the tab. It's sooooo much easier. After all, we're Mt. Lebanon.
They just wouldn't accept the notion that the Soccer Association would donate their $125,000 several times through the YSA to make the 15% match via a JMA, on the condition that the Muni would have to turf Wildcat, because we're Lebo and thats the way things are done here - take it or leave it !
Yes, now you know why I am so p.o'ed over this YSA crap with the turf and contributions. I loved the snide comment about asking if I would support such a project if it came here. I tried to make it happen, but we have to deal with the spoiled brats and their lousy attitude.
I want to thank Kelly Fraasch for her efforts to bring Pitcher Park to Mt. Lebanon.
Elaine
272 "spoiled brats" wanting turf on Franklin's petition. Maybe they can donate 85%.
Way to go, Carnegie!
The Carnegie parents who turned out to offer their fundraising help are to be commended.
Their actions not only demonstrate their love for their children, but also taught an important lesson---the value of working for something instead of having it handed to you.
Way to go Joe!
I agree with 11:37 PM: Joe did a great job on the skate park logo!
Hot logo Joey!
Apparently, skateboarding like bike riding on a designated county trail which was lobbied against a few years ago in The Manor, isn't an approved recreational activity in the bubble.
It is not an approved recreational activity. What is amazing is that one of the parents who signed Franklin's petition has a son who had to appear before Blaise three or four times for skateboarding here. You defend turf, but you couldn't push for the skate park? Your kid doesn't even play field sports. Shame on you!
Elaine
It's a great decision all around, Elaine. I didn't get the sense that it would have been as welcomed here as it seems it will be in Carnegie.
Congrats to your son on his efforts. You must be proud.
Good luck to Carnegie and congrats to them and the Pitcher family.
Elaine,
You can't go after the petition signers. I personally know a half dozen of them and they had NO idea that there was an alternative out there being pushed by other commissioners.
It's quite simply that Mr. Franklin and the YSA shoved a document in front of people and said, "This is it, take it or leave it". Of course, most people don't pay attention to commission meetings to know that an alternative to taxpayer funded turf was on the table as well and that this alternative would be better finacially and recreationally for the community.
If they had ALL the information, I bet half would fall off that petition in a heartbeat.
Remember your petition? How many people did you talk to that didn't realize there were alternatives? This is the Jo Posti method of life. Just talk to people who agree with you 100% of the time and then you don't have to get all educated about alternatives and stuff.
Let's hope we are on your blog congratulating Mrs. Fraasch and the commission on a new recreation investment plan soon!
Speaking of which, I hear your door-knocker friend has been forwarding an email around regarding his conversations with a certain commissioner regarding turf.
9:33 good point. I don't think most people here have nay idea what's happening under their noses. If our illustrious "official community magazine" would do its job instead of trying to garner business for Fox Chapel and Sewickley, the residents would actually be informed.
For the record, the petition was started well before Commssioner Fraasch's proposal was released. Keep in mind, the turf proposal was always intended to simply be the field component of a larger Rec bond. As for not providing complete information, I would offer the LeboFields blog and my posts on this website as strong evidence to the contrary.
Specifically, I published the Fraasch plan on that site the day she emailed it to me. I have promoted/supported every aspect of it, except the field component simply because I do not think that her proposal solves our field space issues. I have done nothing to hide her proposal, or my support for those aspects that will provide much needed upgrades to our Rec assets.
I would welcome a public forum (whether it be a town hall meeting or a Commissioners meeting) where everyone has an opportunity to discuss which field solution they prefer before the Commissioners decide how to proceed. I much prefer that method over blind assumptions as to which side has more support.
Dave Franklin
I'm sure if it were fully donated and Mt Lebanon wanted to have it this blog would find some reason not to support it. Money is not the issue with this blog, simply what we approve or disapprove!
How many town hall meetings and public forums do you want, Dave? I didn't see you or the Mrs. signing up to speak at the last meeting.
What I find odd is that you have never provided a link to your own petition over at Lebo Fields, never mind any acknowledgement of this blog over there. Don't tell me that you give both sides, because you don't. Don't tell me that you want a public forum on anything because you clam up when we talk about your NSF years both with the JMA as well as all the promises you have made to cough up some money for your precious turf, land purchases, or renovations.
How about you and your buddy Chip, ripping into Kelly at the coffee shop back in the spring? Or when Chippy came to my door and lied to my face? I really don't want to hear your whining. Show me the money, pal.
Elaine
Hey PPG Andy, are you frickin' kidding me?
Elaine
Why is this story even relevant to a blog about Mt. Lebanon?
I think it's wonderful to see Mr. Franklin chiming in.
Mr. Franklin, you might recall a post on this blog, "Recreation in Mt. Lebanon", started August 1st and ending August 7th. In the exchanges, I offered three times to meet and discuss your plan, Kelly's plan and any other plan. Your response was muted at best (and hostile toward the end). But I see you're now willing to engage in a public dicsussion. This is wonderful and refreshing news.
I think a public conversation with input from key parties would send a message to the entire community that we can, and should, have open, civil, and fact-based dialogue regarding issues that affect all residents.
While the school year is right around the corner, I'm reasonably certain the Mellon auditorium would provide enough room and a great central location for this type of engagement. I'd love to be a part of the panel but if not, I would enjoy just being in attendance. And in the true spirit of an open forum, there should be time for Q&A.
Not sure who would participate but I assume Commissioner Fraasch?
Dave,
I do agree with Elaine on this one, you are still getting signatures TODAY and that petition still has no mention of an alternative plan.
Plus, my goodness how many times does the commission have to talk about this? They actually HAD a public hearing already. They have had this on the agenda since at least May at every meeting.
vote.
Skateboarding promotes drug usage.
You're insane.
Elaine
Elaine, I really have no interest in debating with you. However, I'll respond because I feel compelled to defend myself at some point.
I did not speak at the last meeting because I attended the meeting solely to listen to the Fraasch proposal. There were no action items that I felt compelled to address and I certainly didn't believe it was the time to debate the field proposals. Oddly, I'm certain that if I had addressed the Commission you would have undoubtedly bashed me for doing so. Equally as confusing, no one (other than the meeting regulars) approached the podium to offer support for the Fraasch plan, yet you don't feel compelled to bash them for their silence. Why not?
If it makes you happy, I will put a link to the petition on the LeboFields site today.
I'm not a member of the YSA. I never have been. I actively participate in several associations that are part of and contribute to the YSA, but I have no formal position or voice within the YSA itself. In fact, assertions to the contrary only underscore the misconceptions and frankly the lies that have been published here, not only about me but about the YSA. It's obvious that most people who have added comments don't fully understand what the YSA is, how it operates, etc. Moreover, the assumption that the YSA is somehow duty bound to answer your questions or accusations is similarly laughable.
I think a lot of what this blog provides in meaningful and informative. I think the podcasts are fantastic. Unfortunately, it appears that in undertaking to provide these services, you and many of your readers have come to expect or believe that nothing goes on in our community unless it is vetted, approved or run past you first.
Further, to attack someone who signed the turf petition simply on the basis that this individual's kids don't play team sports or didn't support the skate park, sadly underscores the motto of this blog - if it's not your way, it's no way.
Lastly, I wholeheartedly agree with PPG Andy. For days you posted comments discussing all of the ills of turf. This blog and Mr. Cannon's presentation focused on the allegedly harmful chemicals, the perceived increase in injuries, the carbon foot print, the parking, the flooding and just about everything else. However, since that presentation, both of you have stated that if the youth sports groups paid for it, you wouldn't care if turf was installed. Consistent?
I have addressed the coffee shop meeting with Kelly personally. For the record, the meeting included another Commissioner and 4 or 5 other residents. I could share with you and your readers the exchange I have since had with Kelly, but frankly it's really none of your business. If she would like to share the substance of the exchange, that's her prerogative.
I think a public hearing is still necessary to discuss and approve any proposal. 11:51, did I miss the meeting where the Fraasch plan was to be approved, together with the bond? I didn't think so.
Mr. Cannon, you are welcome to put together such a forum. I will happily attend, but I think this is best addressed at the Commission level where the decision will ultimately be made. Either way, I will attend to offer my support for the turf proposal as what I believe to be the best solution to the field issues in our community.
Dave Franklin
PPG Andy why don't you try fully donating it. Several people here have argued just that. Give them a field and they can turf it, pave it, fill it with water to their hearts content. So knock off your divisive BS.
As for a community forum on the topic. I loved to see it, but to do it right, we need some verifiable number on current use, idle field time, number of participants etc., etc.
If all we're going to see is the usual foo foo, don't waste our time.
12:35 lacrosse promotes alcohol abuse as a big number of players getting cited for underage drinking the night before graduation.
Won't mention that will we!
Dave,
Let's take a moment to think about the last commission meeting. The Commission Discussion started at 6:30. Kelly gave part of her presentation. We had to stop at 7:45 for the IDA meeting. Then came citizens comments at the beginning of the commission meeting. It would have been premature for me to offer support for Kelly's plan since she had not given the second half of her proposal. You had the same presentation that I had. The second half of Kelly's presentation took place after the commission meeting ended and when the Discussion Session resumed.
To say that you are not a member of YSA is a bit disengenuous, wouldn't you say? You're in bed with the YSA president. Literally!
I think I have been pretty consistent. I am opposed to public money pay for turf. I was against it for the high school and continue to be opposed to it for any other field in Mt. Lebanon. If you want it, show me the money. And ask the Mrs. why a 990 for 2011 hasn't been filed. While you're at it, see if she can cough up the balance for YSA's unpaid "contributions."
Elaine
While we're reaffirming our positions I'll offer mine as I have in conversation to the commissioners in person and via mail.
I'm still not convinced of the need for either the artificial turf proposal or the Robb Hollow plan. Furthermore I think the bulk of Kelly's plan is realistic with some fine tweaking.
Looking at the fields there seems to be an awful lot of empty times and some pretty shoddy maintenance. Maybe a forum or in-depth discussion on the topic could change my opinion.
Even though I do not support artificial turf, I would begrudgingly get out of the way if say the YSA or done other entity wanted to pay for the option they felt they need or want.
That's why Pitcher Park is pertinent to the conversation on fields. Here's a group that felt they needed something and went to work to get it done with very little (if any?) taxpayer money. Do I care about skateboarding, not really. I did some as a kid, it was fun (and no I'm not a drug abuser, though I wonder if some Lebo residents could make the same claim after inspection of their medicine carbinet for prescription tranquilizers and pain killers).
If you really want and need turf find a way to get it without me paying for it!
Let's say the Ladies League or Seniors proposed an island green or church pews on the Lebo golf course. It might make the drab course a little more challenging, it might attract more players, but here today in this economy, I'd object to that proposal too even though I love golf.
Now if the ladies or the seniors showed up with a check for $1 million, I'd put aside my objections and maybe even donate a buck or two.
Mr. Franklin,
You're just slightly askew in your statements but I'm happy to correct your azimuth. The final decision as to whether or not any alteration to the fields will take place ultimately rests with the commission, as does the decision to spend or not spend public money. But the decision on whether or not the community wants artifical turf on baseball fields for children rests with the community itself. The commissioners serve to execute the will of their constituents, not determine their sentiment for them.
I would suggest holding a community-wide discussion on all recreation matters, followed by some sort of gauge of public opinion. Following that, then a commission meeting and discussion would be in order. But too often, we trust government to make decisions for us. I would venture to say most people don't know what's being discussed. And while it is incumbent upon residents to stay informed, a certain dose of reality is in order to realize people are busy working, raising kids, volunteering, etc. And I don't see any harm in bringing as much attention as possible to the sitiation regarding fields, maintenance, etc. In the end, it actually helps your cause more than anyone's by raising awareness.
Further, you state that most people don't know what YSA is or isn't. You would have a public platform in which to explain it. That said, are you in?
To 12:35 PM:
And apparently so does bicycling. See the latest news on Lance Armstrong.
You might want to check out some of the kids' parties, too.
11:28 AM---This story is relevant to Mt. Lebanon because Lebo was one of the three sites under consideration for the skate park.
However, the Carnegie site was the winner because of its location and the spirit and gratitude of its residents.
We could learn from them.
Mr. Cannon, you must have been too anxious to pontificate that you failed to notice that I already said yes. Tell me the date.
5:20, while we are handing out invoices should we ask the golfers to pay for their golf learning center?
Dave Franklin
I heard hangin' at the saloon, promotes alcoholism, gambling, driving under the influence snd adultery.
Perhaps Mr. Franklin that is the reason for a forum with accurate numbers.
Dave, is questioning the golf center really a legitimate concern - though I find it strange that it hasn't come up specifically until now?
Or does this illustrate your vindictive side? Is this a prime example of disagreeing AND being disagreeable?
Dave,
You are missing the point here and I think you are doing it purposely.
How much revenue will a turf field generate? It's a luxury item, right? Its is to be used up, spit out, thrown away and replaced. Therefore many believe it should not be funded by taxpayer money.
An investment in the golf course, which you know very well is a revenue source for the municipality, will generate even more revenue for the municipality.
Again, a case of you purposely not giving or thinking of the facts.
Mr. Franklin,
While I appreciate smarm and sarcasm as much as the next guy, I'm not sure it's neceessary in every post you make. Just something to consider in the future.
I will see what interest level exists with others in the community including the Commissioners.
To all the readers of this blog: if you have constructive ideas or input, or are willing to assist in arranging a public forum, please email me at jcannon1775@verizon.net.
I'm not missing the point at all. Please re-read 5:20's comment. That's why I asked my question about the teaching facility. A teaching facility at our golf course is also a luxury item - plain and simple. You're fooling yourself and ignoring the facts if you truly believe that our recreational assets are intended to generate real revenue. If you only believe in supporting those Rec assets that make money, then you should show up and oppose nearly every component of the Fraasch plan.
6:30, the pool loses on the order of $30,000 a year. Should we pull the plug on it based on your theory? Of course not. We don't have these facilities because they make us money. We have them because they make the community a better place to live.
11:47, I've asked questions about the teaching facility throughout. I've asked Comm. Fraasch if she is aware of similar publicly owned teaching facilities and if so how do they fare financially. Truth is, I suggested to her that if we are going to invest in the golf course (which I think we should), nearly every cent should be used on the golf course itself. Condition and pace of play are the number one criteria in generating revenue on a course like ours. As for being vindictive because Matt doesn't want turf or a bond, no. Matt understands my position on these issues, and has for awhile. We can disagree basically across the board on this issue and remain very good friends.
Nearly every university, school district, community that installs turf does it not because it's a luxury item, but because in the end it is cheaper to maintain and it offers a much lower cost per use. If you honestly think that our neighboring communities are electing to install turf because it's a cool luxury item, you're not being realistic. They are doing it because it offers them the greatest amount of playing time at the lowest cost over the long term. Use Bird Park for example. It's been and will continue to be a money pit, while remaining a substandard field. We don't have the resources to keep heavily used grass fields in good condition.
However, if the test (as you have suggested) really is revenue generation, please help me understand how two grass fields will generate one dime of revenue.
Dave Franklin
Mr. Franklin, I agree fields whether turf or grass do not generate revenue for the municipality. That is of course ignoring the recently passed field sign ordinance. Wouldn't two more fields increase income due to the increase in ad space to sell?
As to turf being cheaper per use. That maybe so, but the bottom line unless you can prove otherwise, turf is SUBSTANTIALLY more expensive than grass over 10-20 years.
And since the municipality seems to have to borrow money for essential infrastructure like street paving, this resident believes new fields or turf fields are a luxury we can't afford.
You claim we can, I claim we can't. Difference in the two positions, you want to take money out of my pocket and I'm asking nothing of you except make what you have do.
I am willing to get out of the way and let you use your own money on something you want though.
Take over Wildcat/Middle, turf it, maintain it, light it, advertise it to death... On your dime. That's all I'm going to concede. Anything else and I'll lobby my commissioners just as hard as you against spending taxpayer dollars on your turf idea.
Hey Dave, I have personally talked to or received emails from an equal amount of people in comparison to your petition, that opposed turfing fields. LOL
Ima Cubithead
"6:30, the pool loses on the order of $30,000 a year. Should we pull the plug on it based on your theory? Of course not. We don't have these facilities because they make us money. We have them because they make the community a better place to live."
The "we" in Mr. Franklin's sentence are, of course, the residents of Mt. Lebanon. The assumption here is that because the public "owns" the pool, the golf course, the Rec Center, and various parks and fields, that our community is a "better place to live." But I would like to present some alternate thoughts on the subject:
1. Ownership implies the right of sale. Do I have a right to "sell" my share of the pool? Of course not! And the reason is that I don't own it, or even the smallest part of it. Therefore "we" own nothing that is provided to us by the municipality, except the debt incurred to purchase and maintain these items. If one is really interested in "public ownership" then press our municipal fathers and mothers to create a Municipaity owned Non-Profit Corporation and offer shares to the residents, the proceeds going to all of the municipality's recreational facilities. As a model, the Green Bay Packers, Inc., has been a publicly owned, nonprofit corporation since Aug. 18, 1923. According to the Packers' web site, "One of the more remarkable business stories in American history, the Green Bay Packers organization has been kept viable by its shareholders — its unselfish fans." The benefits of owning such "municipal stock" might be free or discounted use of some facilities, or a reduction or rebate in one's property taxes. Perhaps this is too ambitious for little 'ol Mt. Lebanon, but it's an idea that is "ouside the box."
2. The statement that "We have them because they make the community a better place to live" is subjective; it only becomes objective if verifiable evidence is provided to back up that statement. Are there studies or data available to prove it?
3. That a pool, parks, a golf course, etc., are all nice things and serve the self-interest of many residents and their children is not disputed by this writer. However, why must they necessarily be owned by the municipality? If I am buying a house in Mt. Lebanon is it more important for me to know that recreational facilities exist for my use, or that there are recreational facilities that exist for my use and are owned by the municipality? And a more interesting question; why must they necessarily be sited within the borders of Mt. Lebanon? In other words, if I like to swim should I be more concerned that the pool I use is owned by the Municipality of Mt. Lebanon, or that there is a convenient pool available for my use, regardless of its political affiliation? My wife and I like to ride our bikes; should we be concerned that a bike trail exists within the borders of Mt. Lebanon, or that one exists at all?
I lose patience with the idea that residents must be presented with an "either / or" scenario when it comes to recreational venues in Mt. Lebanon. Out of a population of 33,176 people, there ought to be more than just a couple of ideas floating around that might be of benefit to the various self-interested sports groups (and there's nothing at all wrong with self-interest) and the residents at large.
Mr. Franklin writes:
"Nearly every university, school district, community that installs turf does it not because it's a luxury item, but because in the end it is cheaper to maintain and it offers a much lower cost per use. If you honestly think that our neighboring communities are electing to install turf because it's a cool luxury item, you're not being realistic. They are doing it because it offers them the greatest amount of playing time at the lowest cost over the long term. Use Bird Park for example. It's been and will continue to be a money pit, while remaining a substandard field. We don't have the resources to keep heavily used grass fields in good condition."
That's simply not true, Mr. Franklin. Artificial turf is a luxury item. Period. There is no advantage to it, playtime-wise, cost-wise or any other way. In fact, as pointed out in Cannon's presentation, it woulnd't take much for someone to adversely affect its condition. You're also forgetting the warranty being voided. What are we supposed to do if one of the fourth graders spills cherry kool-aid on the turf? Call Prizant's and ask for replacement swatches? Use your head.
And Bird Park is a mess because the drainage system there is inadequate. Personally I don't thnk a field should have been built there in the first place. And heavily used? Compared to what? I drove by Mellon today and it was ful of kids in football helmets. I thought that field was a disaster from overuse? Looked fine to me. But this is why a public meeting would be so helpful. You could sit up there and blow smoke and others could point it out.
I don't like it when people pull numbers out of thin air and present them as fact.
Mr. Franklin asserts that the pool loses $30,000 a year. That is simply untrue.
The pool is a profit center for the municipality. It breaks even by the 4th of July.
Those folks who are against YSA's proposal to "turf" Wildcat and Middle fields just got some unanticipated backup in the form of Ben Roethlisberger. Commenting on the ACL/MCL injury suffered by Steelers guard David DeCastro in last night's 38-7 win over the Bills, Big Ben said, "Well, I just saw him, (and his) spirits are high. ... I don't know what the official word is. This is a great field, but it's FieldTurf, and it's just killing guys because they can't get their feet out of the ground, and it's just another reason we should get rid of FieldTurf." (source: NFL.com) Click HERE for the full story.
7:09, please email the Municipal Manager and ask for yourself. I think the actual number for 2011 was $33,000 and he indicated that such a deficit was more or less the name in recent history.
Dave Franklin
Like Steinhauer over at the school district, Fellers probably doesn't Have a clue!
But he too probably "exceeds expectations" in his performance reviews.
Yep, we'll follow the advice of those nationally renown and highly paid professional athletes -- Mr. Franklin, the lacrosse guy and YSA dads regarding turf over the opinions of a highly paid Super Bowl winner that makes his living as an athlete.
"Dave, you write: ..was more or less the name in recent history."
Que Pasa ?
Elaine
SAME in recent history.
Hahaha, come on now, everyone. What would nfl players know about turf? This is Lebo. We know better than anyone. Yes, let's put turf down so little kids can start tearing tendons and ending their athletic aspirations before junior high.
Post a Comment