Feb 2 as of 10:21PM via Google Docs revision
2 posters
*~Mission Citizen Involvement~* :: Group Administration :: Draft Revisions :: Final Paragraph Revisions
Page 1 of 1
Feb 2 as of 10:21PM via Google Docs revision
by Laura Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:23 am
| What Remains We don’t believe there are any outstanding issues so far. However, there is much of the project that is still vague to us. What have the partners done to involve the local high school and or elementary school in the project? We know that David Douglas has come out to pull invasive plants but we do not know of any other efforts. Our group feels that if it is a place for young adults then as many as possible should be involved. We saw that there was a walk-through done to show neighbors what the 20 acres looks like. How did they advertise the walk-through, how successful was it? Was information sent out in different languages? Is there a need for multi-language flyers and if yes, what languages would reach many of the residents? It seems to us that there are many seniors in the neighborhood, so how will the park accommodate? What does the rough draft of the plan look like? Have there been any objections to the park? If yes, what are the objections and how have the partners answered them thus far? How was the decision made to add a cement pathway through the park? Have there been any objections or alternate suggestions? What data does PP&R need from the neighborhood? We would like specific questions. What exactly do they need to start building the park? How many opinions, how long do they want our group to be gathering data, how much is enough data and what kind variety of data do they want? Another area that is vague to us is the question of park access. There has been some discussion about extending Fremont through the park, which would displease neighbors who are already unhappy about the project. Just how much can be done with a four to five acre lot is yet to be determined, and it will be quite a consensus exercise to ensure that the desires of the community are met adequately. NEW INFO- What will the topography allow? What opportunities can we discuss with residents, or rather what is in the field of possibility? i.e. soccer field on lumpy land? KS |
Laura- Admin
- Posts : 32
Join date : 2013-01-28 -
monica's re-write of part 5 (most of original doesn't work after friday's meeting)
by monicamsilva Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:55 pm
Part 5
While our second stakeholder meeting on 2/1 answered a lot of questions, it has become clear that there is a slight disconnect regarding expectations of WCG and PP&R. Our first meeting with Ley left us with the impression that garnering input from traditionally excluded/disengaged residents was at the core of our project. It now seems that we’ve gotten ahead of ourselves, and PP&R doesn’t want us talking to anybody until a much more thorough analysis has been done of the land, the surrounding amenities, as well as socioeconomic and cultural demographics of the Wilkes neighborhood. PP&R is approaching the park plan with caution, aware of the many limitations that can occur with expensive city projects. Specifically, they are hesitant to send us out into the community making promises we can’t keep and answering questions before we know all the facts. WCG seems more idealistic about future possibilities, and is more open to alternative methods. There was no discussion of things like “sweat equity” from PP&R, though it’s been made clear that WCG would like to engage the public in this less-expensive, ownership-building method.
Our biggest concern is currently the site analysis. While we are all enthusiastic to dive into any project they give us, at the meeting we expressed that none of us have any background in topographical analysis or park design. As it’s been made clear that all the work we do must produce “defendable outcomes,” it seems somewhat risky, if not inefficient, to be taking on such technical work. PP&R offered to mentor us through this process, so we remain optimistic. Barlow agreed to take us on a more comprehensive tour of the site next week, and English sent us past Master Plans from Willamette Park and Werbin Property so we have a better grasp of what’s expected. How can we reconcile the varying expectations of all stakeholders in a way that is inclusive, transparent and efficient? While Ley from WCG is our primary contact with the project, is it possible that public involvement will fall more into “phase 2” of our project, most likely taking place over Spring term?
While our second stakeholder meeting on 2/1 answered a lot of questions, it has become clear that there is a slight disconnect regarding expectations of WCG and PP&R. Our first meeting with Ley left us with the impression that garnering input from traditionally excluded/disengaged residents was at the core of our project. It now seems that we’ve gotten ahead of ourselves, and PP&R doesn’t want us talking to anybody until a much more thorough analysis has been done of the land, the surrounding amenities, as well as socioeconomic and cultural demographics of the Wilkes neighborhood. PP&R is approaching the park plan with caution, aware of the many limitations that can occur with expensive city projects. Specifically, they are hesitant to send us out into the community making promises we can’t keep and answering questions before we know all the facts. WCG seems more idealistic about future possibilities, and is more open to alternative methods. There was no discussion of things like “sweat equity” from PP&R, though it’s been made clear that WCG would like to engage the public in this less-expensive, ownership-building method.
Our biggest concern is currently the site analysis. While we are all enthusiastic to dive into any project they give us, at the meeting we expressed that none of us have any background in topographical analysis or park design. As it’s been made clear that all the work we do must produce “defendable outcomes,” it seems somewhat risky, if not inefficient, to be taking on such technical work. PP&R offered to mentor us through this process, so we remain optimistic. Barlow agreed to take us on a more comprehensive tour of the site next week, and English sent us past Master Plans from Willamette Park and Werbin Property so we have a better grasp of what’s expected. How can we reconcile the varying expectations of all stakeholders in a way that is inclusive, transparent and efficient? While Ley from WCG is our primary contact with the project, is it possible that public involvement will fall more into “phase 2” of our project, most likely taking place over Spring term?
monicamsilva- Moderator
- Posts : 10
Join date : 2013-02-02
*~Mission Citizen Involvement~* :: Group Administration :: Draft Revisions :: Final Paragraph Revisions
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum|
|
|