It is tempting to crack that nothing could be worse than the decision-making system that has been guiding InsolvenCity affairs -- as Bill Peduto aptly observes, however, "P
eople get the government they elect, and this is what they wanted" -- but this controversy might have stumbled on something to top Ravenstahl, Zober & Regan's Traveling Three-Clown Circus.Most of the people sending messages to councilor Shields have no idea whether placement of a treehouse at a particular Frick Park location would be good, bad or inconsequential, and this is so no matter how many times they type "awesome" or "amazing" or "freakin' jagoff" or "effin' loser," even if they use all caps, underlines and emoticons.
Long-term public judgments should not be controlled by the number of people a blog or two can incite to emotional lather.
Councilor Shields: Please follow standard procedures, along a normal schedule. Consider differing views, regardless of whether they include "OMG!!!" and "amazing!!!!" and other indicia of 14-year-olds' excitement. Ascribe appropriate weight to expert (or, at least, informed) opinion. Use judgment, not an electron-weighing device. Do not ignore flaming pitchforks -- dodge, not catch, seems the better course -- but don't let them control you.
Infinonytune: Minority, Green Day (child-friendly version)
18 comments:
Long-term public judgments should not be controlled by the number of people a blog or two can incite to emotional lather.
Sure, but I wouldn't worry too much. First, emotional lather is a step up from whatever controls long-term public judgments now. Second, it is (apparently) easier to get a blog than the right last name or enough money to play the game.
Doug Shields has always talked out of both sides of his mouth.
"If you have a treehouse, what better place to hide the drugs" http://is.gd/cszo5
A publicly accessible attraction where young and old are invited to crawl around? Yes. That's where I like to store my illicit valuables.
If this community can't muster a member that can speak sense soon, I'm going to jump on the treehouse bandwagon purely out of spite.
Look, I fixed it for you:
If the comments on the blogs are accurate, most of the people sending messages to councilor Shields are not city residents and have no horse in this race, let alone have any idea whether placement of a treehouse at a particular Frick Park location would be good, bad or inconsequential. Honestly - how many of them could even find Frick Park.
Yet more misplaced priorities in Pittsburgh. Did anyone suggest a barrage of emails/phone calls to Luke's office when he appointed his brother to Alcosan? How many people showed up at Council hearings to protest the City's snow response in February?
I guess that tree houses are more touchy-feely than Luke. Or something.
I can't speak for anyone else, and I'm not a city resident so maybe my opinion doesn't count, but the issue people had objection to and what prompted the call for contacting Doug Shields was the idea that the plan for the playground wasn't even going to be considered...that it was going to be shot down unilaterally by Shields due to pressure he felt by some residents without an actual discussion of the matter.
What's wrong with asking an elected official to ensure that both sides are heard in a public forum?
Anon,
As I understand it, some few people didn't want a tree house because, basically, it might attract children to the park. And Giant Eagle should stop selling food because it creates traffic problems when people go to buy food. I live within walking distance of Frick (though the other side of Frick) and frequently bring a child there and this strikes me as absurd and vicious.
Anyway, I never write to the mayor about anything, even this. I have written to Shields about many things over the years, including past letters about the condition of the play areas in the parks.
The underlying problem here is that Frick Park does not have a parking garage, like most of Pittsburgh's other public amenities. How the heck are people from the suburbs supposed to visit the tree house and honor the memory of Ms. Ambrusko's children if they can't find a place to put their vehicle? And if I remember correctly, Henry Clay Frick really liked cars and he even has a whole museum behind his house filled with cars. So obviously, he wouldn't be opposed to providing a place for other people to park their cars in his park. There are so many trees and places where you never see people walking in Frick Park that I'm sure we could find a good place for a parking garage. Please Doug, either show us your love and build a parking garage in Frick Park, or get out of the way and let us raise money to build one ourselves.
Please Doug, either show us your love and build a parking garage in Frick Park, or get out of the way and let us raise money to build one ourselves.
I can't tell if that is trolling or not. If so, bravo.
If you build that parking garage Mrs. Stabile, Ravenstahl will lease it through Morgan Stanley for pennies on the dollar.
Blue Number 2, my apologies for seeming to have written off all suburbanites - as that was not my goal.
However, if you follow along at That's Church, many of the commenters are not only claiming to be from outside the city, many are claiming to be from outside the metro area. Even other states.
That's not cool. Honestly, I'm not thrilled with the idea that folks from the suburbs would come to the meeting on the 7th. It really isn't their place to speak for the residents.
And I agree, there is nothing wrong with telling an elected official you want to hear both sides.
But again, the rallying cry at That's Church wasn't to let both sides speak (though, funny enough, it was on Amy's blog - you know, the actual mom who lost her kids).
That just seems to be Ginny's thing, you know, yelling "think of the children" into a crowded internet. Eh, to each his own.
No offense taken, I was just qualifying my remarks.
FWIW, though not a city resident anymore, I do play on a softball team that represents a Regent Square establishment and plays at one of the Frick Park fields.
So I am intimately aware of the parking and, probably more importantly, the traffic problems surrounding the park. There are definitely valid concerns regarding these issues and an optimal plan should be worked out. But isn't a playground like this, regardless of how it's initiated, precisely what the park is for? And given the city's financial difficulties, I would think city residents would be thrilled to receive a brand spanking new upgrade to their local facilities that didn't cost them a penny (assuming all $200k is acquired through donations).
Mrs. Stabile:
I would trade 100 of PittGirl's torch-wielding commenters for one of you.
Welcome.
Inficommenters:
Every comment in this thread makes sense. (The e-mails do, too.)
And, unless it was overlooked, not an "awesome" or "amazing" or a flaming pitchfork to be found.
Thank you.
Blue Number 2 - I appreciate that you can see how the residents' POV on this too. And jumping off from your comment...
As a financially distressed city, shouldn't we be asking just how will this be paid for? Not just the building of it, but the upkeep too.
From what I understand, Amy has raised about half of the $200,000 - will the rest becoming from donations or from some other source?
And as far as upkeep - this is supposed to be a pretty modern fancy playground - what kind of costs will be associated with upkeep and where will those funds come from?
I just think that these are some of the questions that need answered before proceeding.
I'm not thrilled with the idea that folks from the suburbs would come to the meeting on the 7th. It really isn't their place to speak for the residents.
Perhaps some of us "don't count" suburbanites are/were considering coming to show some support for Amy after what she reported was said about herself and her children. She ok'd the entry on the That's Church blog after all so it is hardly fictional.
That said, the entry was a bit high strung but there was a reason behind that - she was being pressured to drop the proposal. Now it will get a fair hearing.
I like seeing people stand up to 'gov't at usual' so good on both sides for wanting to be heard, but neither should be pressured into silence the way the Shields' staffer attempted to do to Ms. Ambrusko. Sometime being a good little girl or boy doesn't get one anywhere against the machine.
From what I heard, Ms. Ambrusko was never pressured to drop the tree house idea, she was merely asked to consider the opposition's side and consider putting it in a different location where more parking was available.
I looked at the Parks Conservancy website -- they have over ten other locations where they could put a tree house. Why not place it in a location where local residents aren't impacted so greatly?
Impugn Ms. Ambrusko's tale if you wish but she was asked to withdraw the proposal. The proposal includes the site where she would like the playground to be situated (the setting is linked to her children) and that seems to be the sticking point. A change of the site means pulling the proposal from the community meeting.
The residents have every right to additional information and will now be able to get it at the previously planned forum. The Conservancy and Ms. Ambrusko will present the concept and hear the views, support or grievances of the residents. There are actually people in that community that support the idea and want to hear more.
If the proposal is voted down, at least it was heard and not pushed off the table because some important people pulled some important strings. That little ugly kernel gets lost among the 3 days of insults between and about local bloggers, mothers & children, Regent Square residents, suburban dwellers and city dwellers as well as the political double talk.
Post a Comment