Josh, I've sent email to the person handling our website, asking if we can set up a better-organized page about the Park A project. I'll bring it up at our next board meeting later this month.
The fact is that the FOCP's a volunteer organization, and we're only as good as our free time and energies permit. We've done a lot to publicize the project. We've had public meetings, made videos of those meetings available on the site, run articles in our newsletter, had articles in the UC Review, and we've tried to be out in the park every Summer Saturday with a map of the park plan. We've even made the full Revitalization Plan available as a PDF on our website. As for the plans and your questions, I'll try to answer as best I can. About two years ago, I took a break from the FOCP, so my info may be a little outdated. We did a _lot_ of groundwork on this. We consulted with the major stakeholder groups (the chess players, the Farmer's Market, the Uhuru flea markets) about park use. We conducted surveys of what people wanted in the park-- people wanted more green space, for example. We ran designs past the community in those public meetings. There was a _major_ revision requested by the city's Arts Council-- and it was a revision that really improved the plan, IMO. But working with Bryan Haines, we developed a plan that reflected the use of the park, made some changes that were needed, and seemed to satisfy the neighbors who attended the public meetings about this plan. Now, I know that this may not be as much information as you desire. But you're asking for about four years' worth of work that's pretty much _done_. At this point, the plan was out of _our_ hands, and became a project between Bryan Haines and the Department of Recreation, who are the real owners of the park. Now, the city has its own concerns-- they wanted changes in the electrical system, for example, and they have certain requirements about things like handicapped accessibility and the distances between trees and paths, and the project had to be within a certain budget, and... I have not seen the "final plans." I have seen an overall map that the city provided to prospective contractors when the job went out to bid. I can say that the plans that the city developed were not appreciably different from what we developed with Bryan Haines-- the very map we've had on display at the Farmer's Market and on our website. The paths were the same, the trees chosen for removal were the same (maybe some changes there). Bryan's going to be involved with the contractors as they work as well. In summary: The plans were developed by the community through the FOCP; the architect is a member of the community, and will continue to supervise the project; and even though the city could override _all_ of our work, because it's their park, they didn't change the plans that much. I may have to apologize for Tony's intemperate comment about "Johnny come latelies." He really shouldn't have said that. But I can understand his frustration on this point. As I've described above, we've spent years working on this and engaging the community as best we can. As any activist knows, peoples' interest in an issue comes and goes. (For example, people wanted more membership meetings. So we held them... until attendance dwindled. So we have fewer membership meetings.) But when a major event happens, suddenly people need to know _everything_, right _now_. If we can't satisfy this need, we're accused of bad faith or unprofessionalism. Obviously, we can't simply decide to _not_ make up for lost opportunities... but it's hard to avoid thinking, "If these people care so much, and are telling us how to do things, then why haven't they gotten involved _before_?" On 9/8/2010 12:48 AM, Josh Marcus wrote: Tony, I totally agree that there are risks and unknowns when a contractor is given a scope of work and a limited budget. Of course! But that's not what I was asking. I was trying to respond to your statement that we should look at the website if we want to know a) the specifics of what is being done, and b) what the process was that led to that scope of work. I tried to repeat my specific questions a number of times to emphasize that I think that it's fair to ask for specific answers to these questions. But instead of responding, it seems like you changed your stance from "you're not paying attention" to "it's impossible to know what is actually going to be done". I've never seen any public statement from you or FoCP that would lead me to believe that there isn't a public plan or that it is unreasonable to expect that there would be a public plan -- I only brought up the website as a source of information because you directed the author of a previous message to the website, and criticized him for not "paying attention" to the details that had been posted. I repeated my questions a number of times to try and emphasize them, and to emphasize that these specific questions deserve answers. You didn't answer them. I am disappointed -- do you recognize that you didn't answer my questions, and instead just asserted that it is an "inherently fluid" process? I am honestly not trying to argue here, just trying to clarify what are the pieces of information that neighbors are missing and try and clarify why that missing information might lead people to concern. I'm not looking for a rhetorical argument, but was instead looking for the basic facts of the situation. I'm glad to hear that you trust the contractor. Here are my questions, repeated: 1) If FoCP has not reviewed or commented on the plans being implemented, please let us know. If it is a mistake to think that the FoCP is not very involved in the process, or if you're not free to speak freely about what's going on, that would be a good thing to make clear. 2) Have you have seen the plans being implemented? Specifically, are the specific plans being implemented by the contractor public or have they been reviewed by anyone outside of the city? If the contractor has broad free-reign over the implementation and priority (as you seem to suggest), does the community or FoCP have any input into the process? If not, are you concerned? 3) Are those plans public? If not, why not? If so, where can we see them? 4) How do the plans being implemented differ from the plans that have been discussed in public in the past? 5) What is the process that led to the current plan? What role did the public process play? --j
