Browsing this Thread:
3 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
Joined:
2006/5/10 16:36 Last Login : 2023/7/18 1:45 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
981
 |
Annond - I agree with the thrust of that article. I posted earlier about this and how one of the unfortunate side affects of the renovation will be us losing the excellent old school Hamilton Park swings, which will undoutedly be replaced with modern swings like those in Van Vorst park. Has anyone used the swing in Van Vorst park? They are laughably pathetic.
On the subject of safety, do others share Althea's concern about the separation of children's play areas? It doesn't seem a big deal to me, you can watch the toddlers in the small area, and let the older ones do their thing next door. One of the good features of Hamilton park, which the vast majority voted to preserve in earlier ballots, is the open sight lines, so wherever the older ones run in the park you can still see them. In any case all the plans up for vote have the play areas very close to one another. Robin.
Posted on: 2007/5/29 16:05
Edited by tern on 2007/5/29 16:21:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/3/21 20:01 Last Login : 2020/9/5 14:18 From Exchange Place
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1397
|
The New York Times has an op-ed piece on playgrounds:
May 29, 2007 Op-Ed Contributor Danger: Playground Ahead By ALLISON ARIEFF San Francisco AMERICAN playgrounds often seem anything but playful. Their equipment is designed not so much to let children have fun as to make sure they don?t hurt themselves. Sure, a simple sandbox and climbing gym are enough to mesmerize toddlers. But what?s to lure older children? No wonder children aged 8 to 12 ? the ?tweens? ? have abandoned playgrounds en masse for instant messaging. Read the rest here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/opinion/29arieff.html
Posted on: 2007/5/29 15:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Put that way, I'm not at all willing to penalize dog owners. I think it is unacceptible. I think i would be least inclined to take away from the basketball court, but have no problem with either.
No matter which plan is picked at this point though, it will penalize one group or the other. Which ever group the plan penalizes, I am prepared to work hard for that compromise and not just say, well this plan won so you lose... oh well. So right now it is simply a vote and then after it is a fight. No matter which plan is picked this seems to be my future. And please note that even if I were not a dog owner I would feel this strongly. Althea Quote:
Posted on: 2007/5/29 14:48
|
|||
|
soshin: Mention guns and bd pops up through a hole in the ground like a heavily armed meercat
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/12/12 22:14 Last Login : 2013/9/9 13:46 From Intersection of Venerated @ Ensconced
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
152
|
Quote:
Are you willing to penalize dog owners with 29% of the space voted on without considering other options?... By other options to consider, I mean: - changing the 50%-50% active/passive split - why not a half-court basketball court without bleachers? Why not put basketball backboards in a tennis court so one asphalt court could be used for either activity? - Blurring the hub-spoke by coloring ?outside the lines?. Why is everyone convinced that a safe layout of children?s areas and a dog-run comprising a full segment are mutually exclusive of each other?... I get it that you feel Concept D gives you the safest layout out of the 4 presented. Is there no other layout you can envision (whether on the Concepts or off) that gives you that besides D?..
Posted on: 2007/5/29 14:28
|
|||
|
"Dogs are our link to paradise." - Milan Kundera
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
From the meeting I remember someone, probably yourself, proposing the play areas being beside each other. Very sensible if you have kids of different ages to supervise. I also heard the suggestion to provide separate large and dog run areas, and a separate suggestion to preserve the spokes. I believe it was a separate (male) individual that proposed re-siting everything to try to accomodate the above. However, most of us went into the meeting with the understanding that there would be no major changes to the designs and we'd be focusing on voting on the 3 options - I sort of filed that with the noise made at the start by the woman shouting about dog poo.
Posted on: 2007/5/29 14:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I'm not sure what you mean about by, "Are you willing to do that yet keep everything else ?off the table???" Can you explain?
Are you asking me to throw the dog run to the "dogs" for the sake of everything else? No way! The only way I can voice this is, this SUCKS! I advocate for a spoke to go. There is no way that a spoke is paramount to a safe children's space nor the really neccessary dog run. I hate that I will have to choose D for safety issues, but that means I am voting against the necessary dog sized run. This just seems unfair since personally, my two priorities happen to be a large dog run and a child safe area... how can I chose between either? Even if I did not have a dog, these would be my top priorities. I saw the dog run layout and it looks like the dog run would be plenty big, but it always looks really big until it is actually roped off and you can see the outline. I don't blame dog people for having their hackles up... VVP was a long fight often the dogrun suddenly shrinking on the plans. However, I think the current run is beautiful. I do have to say though, I love that no matter where the dog run is, there will be dogs traveling through the park at all times of the day thereby making the park a much safer place. Althea Quote:
Posted on: 2007/5/29 14:02
|
|||
|
soshin: Mention guns and bd pops up through a hole in the ground like a heavily armed meercat
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I think this may have been me. But i can't remember. I know this is important to a lot of parents that would be using the park. Althea
Posted on: 2007/5/29 13:51
|
|||
|
soshin: Mention guns and bd pops up through a hole in the ground like a heavily armed meercat
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/12/12 22:14 Last Login : 2013/9/9 13:46 From Intersection of Venerated @ Ensconced
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
152
|
Quote:
Something?s gotta give. There has to be compromise somewhere between: - 50%-50% split between active and passive park areas - Full-court basketball court and 1 (or more) other full-court surfaces - Preserving the hub-spoke architecture - A dog-run that?s actually usable and an incentive for legal off-leash activity. - A safe layout for children?s amenities. In balancing those 5 items, Concept D severely penalizes dog owners: 29% of the size voted on just doesn't cut it. Are you willing to do that yet keep everything else ?off the table???
Posted on: 2007/5/29 13:43
|
|||
|
"Dogs are our link to paradise." - Milan Kundera
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Is there anything we can do about this problem? It is really a safety issue to have the childrens playgrounds together. There is just no way around this. I almost wish this made the children's playground footage smaller to get people to realize that this is not a dog versus kid issue.
Is there anyway to get a bigger dog run and keep the kids playground together? The real problem here seems to be keeping the spokes. It you didn't have a spoke then it seems you could have both a larger dog run and keep the childrens playgrounds together.
Voting for any other plan than D essentially means that there are a lot of parents that won't be able to use the park, because they can't watch that their children are safe when one parent is watching two kids in separate play areas. I do worry about the chance of someone taking my child.... even though the chance of that happening is so extremely slim as to be non existent, I know this fear is horrifying and if a child were taken from the park under these circumstances, I would never be able to forgive myself if I didn't fight with all my heart for plan D.
Is there anyway to fight (meaning dog and kids people) for a larger dog run in plan D? Anyway? Because if we are able to get plan D that keeps the playground together, then I'm going to fight really hard to make sure the large dog run is as large as possible.
Althea
Quote:
nugnfutz wrote: We voted for 14k space and were raped in options AB&C to 7.7k. Thanks for the stats. Now were expected to beg and roll over further? Emmmm - two chances...SOME CHANCE AND NO CHANCE. Dogowners - your dog bites anyone in Hamilton Park, you have a simple defense....the City decided to ignore the original 2006 neighbourhood votes, recommended minimum dog run size, segregation of dogs and children, pushed a vote without proper consideration. Sweet to have someone to take liability for your dogs through a flawed process :) Vote option D and unleash the hounds :) << tongue-in-cheek for those who dont know me>>
Posted on: 2007/5/29 13:42
|
|||
|
soshin: Mention guns and bd pops up through a hole in the ground like a heavily armed meercat
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Here! Here! Wouldn't this finally solve everything? Hey, along this line of thinking... we should move all those parents that insist on using the public school system to please move out of JC, this will guarantee that our property taxes do not rise once the City is handed back the school system!
Down with te breeders! Oh wait, i'm a breeder, disregard what i just said. Althea Quote:
Posted on: 2007/5/29 13:23
|
|||
|
soshin: Mention guns and bd pops up through a hole in the ground like a heavily armed meercat
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/7/14 18:51 Last Login : 2018/12/12 21:42 From on van vorst park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
515
|
Quote:
Posted on: 2007/5/29 13:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
No, Option D is not about monitoring the kids in the spray pool, that's just a sweet option in my own personal opinion. It is to keep the two play grounds, one for older kids and one for younger kids, together.
I'm a parent and a dog owner, as well as a board member of Jersey City Family Initiative. I was at the meeting advocating for families needs. The designs A-C separate the actual play areas making it extremely difficult to monitor your children of various ages. JC Family has fought hard to put in a design option (D) in order to keep the playgrounds together. To me, having separate play areas is just not an option. For a parent with children of varying ages, plan A-C means essentially you keep the older child in the boring little kid's area or you risk letting your child play by themselves across a pathway. This to me is not about convience, it is about safety. I see that the dog area will be a little smaller... as a dog owner it still seems big enough for both the small and big dog run. But then again, as a dog owner I would be much happier if half the park were for the dogs... not too many people are going to join me on this though. I really hate that making the childrens play space safer means a smaller dog area. I don't know what to say about this. As a parent and a dog owner, it greatly pains me that these two groups are often at odds. Sincerely, Althea JC Family Initiative Quote:
Posted on: 2007/5/29 13:12
|
|||
|
soshin: Mention guns and bd pops up through a hole in the ground like a heavily armed meercat
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42 Last Login : 2022/2/28 7:31 From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
4192
|
I haven't seen these proposals for renovation, but could I guess that the area allocated for the dog run, is larger then the allocated space for the play area for children?
Hopeing I'm wrong and if not, is the community there saying that the priority and future lies with the dogs!
Posted on: 2007/5/29 12:12
|
|||
|
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
I understand the concerns that some have addressed both here and in personal e-mails to my council office. I feel confident that the end result will be satisfactory to everyone involved. I have included some notes below regarding the final ballot.
Steven Fulop Final Ballott Notes This ballot is intended to gather the community?s views on the four concept plans presented by Schoor DePalma to the City of Jersey City. Please keep in mind that these four designs are concept plans, intended to address amenity inclusion and general location only. Details such as the size and shape of any amenity are flexible and are subject to revision after the ballot when the final construction plans are drawn. Please consider the following when making your selection for the design of Hamilton Park: ? At least one tennis court in the final park design will be a multi-use court, despite the inconsistency in labeling as presented on these four designs options. ? The dog run(s) may change shape or be enlarged based on available space. Any dog run will be of a size and shape appropriate to the community?s needs. ? The configuration of children?s play equipment within the fenced playground areas is representative and will be finalized after the selection of a final park design. ? Appropriate irrigation and drainage will be installed in all landscaped areas.
Posted on: 2007/5/29 12:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I am not, though I do know who did. I don't see the origin as relevant, though they do have a dog as well. I'm probably the only vocal advocate because other people are being watched by their bosses, and I'm free to avoid all the work I need to do by pissing away time online. Which I did way too much last week and now have to jam. We've all had our say here, we'll vote soon, and have a new park. either way, I'm okay with it, even though I think D is better for the reasons I've said.
Posted on: 2007/5/28 20:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/12/12 22:14 Last Login : 2013/9/9 13:46 From Intersection of Venerated @ Ensconced
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
152
|
Quote:
This got me wondering where the dogjc folk are, so I took a look. Yahoo Groups doesn?t make it easy. You have to wade through multiple threads to get at the relevant info. My take on their position is that one poster (the one relaying the story of the unfortunate small dog in Arizona) endorsed ?D? because it?s the only Concept that explicitly says ?Small Dog Run? and ?Large Dog Run?. After that, there were multiple assurances that Concepts A, B, and C will all have small dog areas and consensus that Concept D is flawed. To date, there have been no subsequent posts from that single poster after his original endorsement of Concept D. Realizing the potential for the ballot to split-the-vote, the purpose of the dogjc poll appears to be for the members to come to some consensus on the remaining 3 concepts in order to defeat Concept D (hence, Concept D?s omission from their poll). That way they can urge the dogjc members to vote in a bloc with the goal of defeating Concept D. This is an interesting post from a dogjc member about the genesis of Concept D: Quote:
This doesn?t mean anything, but I?m curious... brewster ? are you the parent who originally suggested this at the meeting?... Here on jclist, you seem to be the only poster I see making a full-court-press for Concept D. If not, does anyone know the parent that that suggested this to the planners?...
Posted on: 2007/5/28 13:53
|
|||
|
"Dogs are our link to paradise." - Milan Kundera
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2004/3/11 23:46 Last Login : 2011/10/29 16:00 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
150
|
Quote:
Could the Hamilton Park Group / commitee and it's members be liable as well for the renovation design if something goes wrong with the close mix of dogs and kids? The answer to FAB's question as written is a flat out "no". If there is to be any legal responsibility for the design, that will lie entirely in the hands of the city, it's architect and outside contractor. That being said, it would be an upward swim to hold the city liable for design negligence even without having to jump the hurdle of the various governmental immunities that apply to municipalities, as noted by Lora. Failure to enforce safety rules, regulations and ordinances might have a better chance of making it through the courts. All the best. Geoff 
Posted on: 2007/5/27 14:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2005/10/7 15:05 Last Login : 2019/5/4 1:14 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
122
|
From that link, the only way that the city would be liable is if there were several complaints about a dog and the city did nothing about it.
I think it would be in the cities and communities best interest to make sure that there are proper rules and regulations posted in the park to protect themselves. Here is what the link says about suing the city: "The victim of a personal injury or injury to the victim's dog probably will not prevail on a claim against the local government entity that established the dog park. Generally, there are immunities that protect government entities from many claims; if the entity believed that it was doing something beneficial for the community, it is hard to get around the immunity. However, failure to enforce its own rules and regulations may result in governmental liability. Dog parks frequently are governed by special rules that are either posted or part of the local municipal code. If an irresponsible dog owner has a habit of breaking those rules, and the local animal control officers do nothing despite being informed, a person who sustains personal injuries or injuries to his or her dog may prevail against the municipality. " Doesn't sound to me like the owner of the biter can sue the city, but the victim can.
Posted on: 2007/5/27 13:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42 Last Login : 2022/2/28 7:31 From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
4192
|
Quote:
Could the Hamilton Park Group / commitee and it's members be liable as well for the renovation design if something goes wrong with the close mix of dogs and kids? I hope people in these groups that want the title of chairperson, commitee person etc are doing ALL their homework - with authority comes accountability.
Posted on: 2007/5/27 12:47
|
|||
|
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2005/10/7 15:05 Last Login : 2019/5/4 1:14 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
122
|
I had a dog. Of course she bit her chew toys and stuff. Didn't bite me unless I put my hand in her mouth.
From the link you posted: In every state, the owner or possessor of a dog having a dangerous propensity (i.e., the propensity to jump on people or bite people) is strictly liable for injuries that result from the dog's dangerous propensity. So, if a dog owner knows that his dog likes to jump on people and knock them down, and if that happens in a leash-optional area, the dog owner will be liable under state law. Also, most states have laws imposing strict liability on dog owners whose dogs actually bite someone, irrespective of whether the dog previously bit anyone. These laws still apply, even though the bite occurs in a dog recreation area where leashes are optional. If a dog owner knows that his dog has the dangerous tendency to attack and fight with other dogs, he should not bring that dog into a dog park. Doing so would be not only negligent but would constitute a reckless disregard for the safety of other dogs, the rights of other dog owners, and the safety of other dog owners. A dog owner should be held fully responsible for all resulting injuries to other people and their dogs. The doctrine of assumption of the risk should not apply because the victim cannot be regarded as accepting the risk of such negligent, reckless and possibly illegal conduct ------------------ And you don't have to walk your dog past the playground. You can walk to Pavonia and enter the park there.
Posted on: 2007/5/27 12:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Dont strike me as ever having owned a dog LJ. All dogs bite, period. As a responsible dog-ower, I make sure I manage their biting: they bite dog toys for example, not kids. And actually ur wrong on whether an injured person can sue the City. If a dog bites someone in Hamilton Park at the moment, it would be pretty easy to prove City negligence - given no-one enforces existing leash laws. http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/dog_park.html Similarly, it would be a cake-walk to prove City negligence if they site the dog run near the kids play areas and over-crowd the dog run. Heck ...if my kid gets bitten by a leased dog on the way to the dog run, and the owner has no assets...i'll go after the City. Totally irresponsible for the City to site the dog run en-route to the childrens play area, and overcrowd the run by ignoring the neighborhood vote. If they do so, they're just creating a City liability.
Posted on: 2007/5/27 6:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2005/10/7 15:05 Last Login : 2019/5/4 1:14 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
122
|
If your dog is a biter, you shouldn't even be bringing them to a public park, let alone a dog run. You can't sue the city because your dog bites people, whether you are on a city sidewalk or in a park. You'll be lucky of the victim doesn't insist on the dog being put to sleep (something I am against BTW but see it happen all of the time, mostly family pets who bite young children).
Posted on: 2007/5/26 20:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2004/3/11 23:46 Last Login : 2011/10/29 16:00 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
150
|
Lot's of good ideas and discussion on balance in this thread.
My suggestion at this point is to go vote what you think is best on June 9 at the HPNA ParkFest. Whatever the final choice, there is still room and a serious need for tweaking once everyone can review the actual final architectural plans, as opposed to the mere renderings we have at the moment. All the best. G
Posted on: 2007/5/26 9:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
What i personally hate about this process isnt the views expressed by the people on this forum. Its the divide and conquer tactics used by the City...and the Archictects that the City employs. Some of us continue to fight old battles...like how much space should be allocated to each interest. If we can all agree that the ballot last year was fair and representational...we should all be as a bloc challenging the deficiencies in the plans and demanding they fix it. As a dog owner I have to make a few choices...with conscience....i cant force my dogs into an overcrowded and unsafe dog exercise area less than 1/3 the space the neighbourhood recommeneded. I dont want my dogs to walk past kid's areas on the way to these exercise areas, not becuase i think my dogs are dangerous, but because i dont want kids beating up on my dogs and me being held liable, even if i have them leashed. If my dogs accidently bite anyone in the new Hamilton park under plan D, I will seriously sue the City's ass off for f*cking up the plan badly and ignoring the 2006 vote and i will have every reason to do so.
Posted on: 2007/5/26 8:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/11/7 17:04 Last Login : 2015/2/24 18:16 From "Pay for Play"
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1531
|
Yeah, I'm on the fence 4bailey.
 I think you and Brewster and Parkman have contributed a lot of good info, badinage and suggestions to make me step back and review my position.Also, my neighbor who started docjc says that the "consensus" of her group is that Option D is untenable for reasons you have pointed out and Parkman too as far as both sizes of dogs. My only problem with dogjc is that they are doing a poll that purposely leaves out Option D (some there support D)so the credibility of the poll is dubious as only A, B & C are your choices. They have over 150 members, most don't post or read here so I was hopeing for an honest representation of their members, over 150+, but should have realized that obviously their group is hardly neutral as their primary concern is the dog runs and my primary concern is a "big tent" approach, inclusive, open to all suggestions. The reality of this process is that your own personal agenda (not you specifically, 4bailey)will determine your priority in selection. If you're for tennis, basketball, more open space, child protective areas of play, gardens, et al, any of these will indeed affect your choice of the options you vote for relative to dog runs. Oh, and of course my bias against golf left off those golf folks looking for a putting green to go with Option A, a selection the local developers will indeed find useful as an amenity to sell more condos. I'll just continue to listen, read, look in HP and hopefully come to something resembling a reasoned approach to casting my vote as someone who loves dogs, hopes that both get the runs they need and satisfy the other constituencies as well who love other aspects of the park as do I. Maybe a few of these will help me reason through my vote as it seems to work for our Mayor!  Quote:
Posted on: 2007/5/25 21:52
|
|||
 Help US Sue Spectra! Join OR Donate! |
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/12/12 22:14 Last Login : 2013/9/9 13:46 From Intersection of Venerated @ Ensconced
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
152
|
Nothing on the overnight ? quick status check?
I?m going to pick on BrightMoment only because of his ?++1? during the performance art digression a few posts back and he seems like a representative neutral voter.  Quote:
Per brewster, we?re now only looking at Concept D in it?s unaltered form. The Pros/Cons List is growing, especially on the ?Cons? side. The one that?s most egregious to me and can?t be argued, bears repeating: For any dog over 23 pounds, Concept D gives owners only 29% of the dog-run voted on by the community. So,... BrightMoment: - are you still solidly backing Concept D?... - do we at least have you ?on the fence??.... - if you?re ?on the fence?, do you need to see more on the Pro/Cons list?... - whatever your current position, do you see why Concept D might be so loathed by dog-owners?... My only reason for asking is just to ?take the pulse? on community sentiment.
Posted on: 2007/5/25 12:33
|
|||
|
"Dogs are our link to paradise." - Milan Kundera
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/12/12 22:14 Last Login : 2013/9/9 13:46 From Intersection of Venerated @ Ensconced
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
152
|
Quote:
As I would consolidate these two redundant Pros: Quote:
Into, one bullet: - better convenience for guardians to monitor children in child amenities areas.. As you say,... your bullet, your target...
Posted on: 2007/5/24 22:35
|
|||
|
"Dogs are our link to paradise." - Milan Kundera
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
All fair, but I would have simply said " large dog run is too small relative to published standards and community survey results, with limited opportunity for expansion." But it's your bullet, hit your target.
Posted on: 2007/5/24 22:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/12/12 22:14 Last Login : 2013/9/9 13:46 From Intersection of Venerated @ Ensconced
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
152
|
Ok?, on a trial basis, here?s my version of the list using brewster's numbers with no tweaks for any of the concepts:
Pros: 1 ? Parkman believes that a fence divider is one factor that may encourage barking on occasions when dogs are present in both large dog and small dog areas. 2 - reopens the northeast spoke path, restoring the historic walkways. 3 - Retains 2 tennis courts, making one multiuse. 4 - creates bigger more consolidated playground, which makes it easier for parents (and preschool teachers) to watch kids of multiple ages. 5 - Playground area has larger trees well placed for shade in playground, a perennial complaint about the existing one. 6 -water play area is better placed for monitoring multiple kids there as well as in the playground. 7 - because of actually moving the playground there\'s a possibility of the new one being built before demo-ing the old one, thus not being without for many months. 8 - Brings the playground further away from the basketball court and it\'s loud, often foul voices. Cons: 1 ? Both dog runs combined comprise 49% of the HPNA survey target total vs. 51% in Concepts A, B, C. 2 - No putting green 3 - No community garden replacing ball court. 4 - Dogs must be walked past other active features to get to run, possibly leading to negative interactions. 5 - Introduces an unworkable 60:40 ratio between large and small dog runs. **** - enacts a ?Medium/Large Dog Penalty? for dog-owners on legal, off-leash park space ********o Small Dog (owner can elect to use either run) ? 7,324 sq. feet is available ? 49% of HPNA survey target total ********o All dogs over 23 lbs. - 4,391 sq. feet is available ? 29% of HPNA survey target total! ****- Ratio dictated by Schorr Depalma ? no input from community dog owners. ****- 60:40 Ratio set in stone (concrete form): In the future, the community could need *****to change the Large:small ratio. To do this in Concepts A, B, and C, you?d just need to reposition the divider fence. 6 - Traffic on 9th street is higher than that on McWilliams Place. For example, ice cream trucks will become a more regular feature on 9th. 7 - Even with the larger trees, the north side of the park is more exposed to direct sunlight than most other areas. It's also closer to the Holland tunnel traffic.
Posted on: 2007/5/24 20:55
|
|||
|
"Dogs are our link to paradise." - Milan Kundera
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Ultimately the short sightedness of a plan D is that failure to accommodate the dogs of Hamilton park could result in continued use of other areas of the park by unleashed dogs or a post-renovation renovation to build a larger dog park.
Or plan C could win the plurality because everyone else is divided over A,B, and D.
Posted on: 2007/5/24 13:02
|
|||
|
||||