Tonight, the Commissioners will be voting to adopt Resolution R-16-11, the recreation bond issue. No need to bring the kiddies dressed in their uniforms because it is going to be adopted. Here is the resolution on Dan Miller's blog. http://danmillerward5.com/pool-and-fields-resolution The Commission has researched this project thoroughly and are content to build the fields at McNeilly Park. I think it is a waste of money, but I am just one person. Chalk another one up for the sports groups. Son, still zero places for skateboarders.
Please, no anonymous comments on this.
10 comments:
Okay maybe I haven't kept up on this like you Elaine- but if I read this correct doesn't seem to say that if McNeilly Park improvements come back too high they will not do them? Perhaps your summary is based on something else?
By the way- the fields along Cedar seem to drain horribly. I go through there often. I can't comment on McNeilly but those seem to lack proper infrastructure/support.
Just wondering for your skate park idea- where would you like to see that go and who would you like to see pay for that?
Charles Jones
Hi Charles,
Yes, you are correct. If the bids come back too high, they would not build the fields, but there will be money spent to build access roads to McNeilly Park. I agree with you that the municipal fields are a mess. That is why I keep asking for money to be spent on what we already use. As far as a skate park, my son had gone to a meeting with fellow skaters and were told to raise the money themselves for a skate park. Ask the campaign manager for your favorite candidate all about how kids get cited for skateboarding on Mt. Lebanon streets. There are ZERO places for our kids to skate legally. It is a shame, but maybe one day, one of those kids will be famous and let the world know that skateboarding was illegal in their home town. ;>)
Elaine
I'm sorry Elaine forgot to ask: Are you saying the pool project is a waste of money as well?
Several years ago I complained to my former Commissioner about the changing area and lack of a family changing room. I felt that there was no privacy in it and given the age groups that walked through I thought it was odd. I remember the pictures in the magazine about the expanse of the previous designs- which personally I thought were pretty attractive but admittedly costly.
From what I can tell all of that is stripped away and we are left with just making "structural" improvements to the pool and the bath house. I do believe the "zero beach" entry to be a tremendous thing to add though.
If you consider this smaller pool plan a waste of money then what would you prefer the town to do? I saw that you were a commission candidate yourself so I would be interested to know your ideas.
Thanks,
Charles Jones
No Charles, I am not saying that. I don't think anyone has given an resistance to pool improvements. The whole Rec Center is a mess. At the coffee with the manager, I heard how there were much needed updates in other areas of our recreation department. As I said, we need to take care of what we have. I have never said that the pool plans are a waste of money.
Yes, I do remember our conversation at Foster during the Primary. Thanks.
Elaine
Thanks for the response Elaine- I am just struggling with your brief synopsis of the issue. You know I do appreciate your efforts on this site overall.
But just so I get it- isn’t the access road to McNeilly also just an option? As a walker in Bird Park I would love to have better access to that property- if the town is stuck with it.
If you are asking for money to be spent on existing fields, doesn’t this allow for that as a possibility? I thought I read on here at some point that someone felt that the cost of McNeilly will far exceed what the town thinks- doesn’t this lead people to your direction then? Or am I missing something?
I am not necessarily opposed to a skate park if that is what the kids are doing these days- I would just want to know where and whether that would be an increase liability for the town with insurance.
Charles Jones
Thanks for clarifying your thoughts with me Elaine. I admit I was confused by your initial statement. I will fade away again for a bit. I appreciate your efforts to discuss these issues.
Best,
Charles
facilities (fields, parks, etc) along with our School district are the essential reasons people move to Mt. Lebanon in addition to proximity to Downtown Pittsburgh. Given our lack of available land for any development, recreational facilities as this are essential to maintaining property values and vitality of Mt. Lebanon. You are being very short sighted in your perspectives by not recognizing this opportunity and the value it brings.
Andy Gans
Give it up, Andy. It is going through. Fortunately for you, I am in the minority.
Elaine
Mr. Miller's proposed legislation is a compromise, and by definition it will, in total, satisfy nobody. With respect to the McNeilly property, how the Municipality could allow itself to be possessed of a piece of property that it can neither sell (without buying a similarly sized property) nor use for anything other than “recreation” is the stuff of situation comedies. There are, however, certain provisions in this ordinance that, to my way of thinking, are moves in the proper direction.
I am a supporter of the concept of “user pays, user benefits,” and I've been told that the pool is a classic example of this, in that in some years it pays for itself or operates at a profit. Putting money into facilities that have that kind of potential, at the least, makes sense in a community that is reluctant to apply free-market principles to its entertainment venues.
As to McNeilly; I agree with Elaine that the sports cartels will get the fields, but there is at least a “put up or shut up” proviso contained in the ordinance, giving pre-existing fields possible priority.
Lastly, I support the idea of setting up a web site to permit civic minded residents the chance to make voluntary contributions to capital improvement projects, such as the pool. This is similar to the U.S. Treasury Department's “PAY.GOV” web site, where people like Warren Buffet and Michael Moore, who wish to be taxed more, can make up the difference on their own (they won't, of course). If the sports cartels really want to improve municipal recreational holdings they won't wait to be taxed; they can put their money where their mouths are right away. In fact, I will make a contribution myself – because it's a free choice option, which is a very Libertarian way of doing things.
Richard Gideon
Let me see if I heard this right!
We have a property that was a mistake to purchase. Proven by the fact that the commissioners tried desperately to unload it, but legally can't.
We have a multitude of current recreation areas that residents think should be updated and refurbished. But need to float a bond to do so. (Didn't anyone plan/budget for this kind of maintenance?)
And so no one forgets, commissioners floated a bond for street repairs they couldn't afford that weren't really a surprise. Nor will the road maintenance needed next year or the years after that.
So the commission in its infinite wisdom is going to add another park, on property no one wants thereby adding to the infrastructure it can't maintain in budget now.
I can see future commission meeting topics.
Grafitti and vandalism is a problem at McNeilly Park... we need another police office/squad car for patrols to keep kids safe.
Lighting fixtures and the pavillion have deteriorated. We need more maintenance employees and another truck/plow due to parks expansion.
Youth sports would like artificial turf at McNeilly.
Oh joy, the taxes we have to look forward too.
Giffen Good
Post a Comment