Mark Leger wrote:
> > Hey, > > New Yorkers for Prks said: > >> The review process specified in the settlement lacks teeth, according to > >> NY4P. The review process fails to identify what agencies will be included > >> and / or the extent of gardener involvement. > > I'm glad to see that NY4P are bring up the issue of gardener involvement. > The were the group that engineered changes to Intro 206 that not only > disinvolved gardeners, but also some of the original sponsoring non-profits. > All in all, I will go out on a limb and say that the final deal is better > than the one proposed by NY4P, and it's all because a critical mass of > gardeners opposed their proposal. Let's hope in the future that they take > this to heart, and not continue to seek to undercut the grassroots by more > backroom shenanigans. > > New Yorkers for Prks said: > NY4P commends the settlement for continuing the Green Thumb Program; > >> however, it would like to see a greater commitment by the city to ensure > >> the existence of this valuable program. The settlement states that the > >> Green Thumb Program, which cares for many gardens, will remain in > >> existence as long as there are city funds for the Program. The Program can > >> be given notice and closed within 60 days. > > I agree that the future of GT needs to be addressed in city council > legislation. GT is all in all a great program. Besides city funding, I would > hope the legislation would provide for a board of advisors to GreenThumb, > made up primarily of community gardeners. > > Cheers, > > Mark > > --- CYBERGARDENS >
