posted by Joe Polk at 10:16 PM /
UPDATE: The resolution was defeated during Monday night's meeting.
Dan Miller, the 5th Ward Commissioner, recently posted the following blog entry on his web site. It contains information about a resolution that he introduced at this evening's Commission meeting regarding the issuance of bonds to fund development of the McNeilly Road property as well as improvements to the pool, Main Park and Bird Park.
Read the full posting:
Dan Miller, the 5th Ward Commissioner, recently posted the following blog entry on his web site. It contains information about a resolution that he introduced at this evening's Commission meeting regarding the issuance of bonds to fund development of the McNeilly Road property as well as improvements to the pool, Main Park and Bird Park.
Read the full posting:
Labels: athletic fields, bird park, Dan Miller, mcneilly road property, municipal pool
6 Comments:
The proposal on the table seemingly satisfied a lot of different groups – those who wanted improvements to the pool, those who wanted improvements to the existing fields and even those who were for AND against McNeilly. McNeilly seemed to get the most publicity during this whole affair. However, the proposal on the table would have actually allowed the Commission to evaluate the true cost of a variety of field improvements not just at McNeilly, but also along Cedar Blvd (Dixon, Middle and Wildcat) and at Bird Park (Doctor Field), and then make a choice as to which one(s) were best to pursue - and then have the money to complete them. In other words, if it was ultimately decided that McNeilly was better left as a dog park and money should be spent on improving our existing fields, that could have happened. It did not mandate a particular field choice. And oh by the way, it would have required significant contributions from the youth sports associations and the other users of these facilities. A true compromise, in my opinion.
I believe the Commissioners who did not support this proposal walked away from an extremely fair and flexible deal. When this issue comes up again - and it will - I do not believe there will be a better option (at this price) than what Commissioners Miller and Brumfield put forward.
Dave Franklin
Mr. Franklin, are you telling me we're getting a dome stadium at McNeilly Park and a 100 meter indoor pool next time because the rec bond won't pass now? I just want to be prepared.
David Huston
Experience tells us that the price for the same or similar improvements will likely cost more in the future. That's just the reality of life (and inflation), with a few exceptions. In the meantime, the facilities will continue to decline, thus requiring more updates (and more money). We are currently watching this process unfold with the high school. The longer things are left undone, the harder it is to fix them.
Dave Franklin
Another perspective is that many residents, like myself, enjoy using our community parks and appreciate their natural beauty - but we've never promised $8,000,000.00 or any other sum of money for facilities and "walked on the check!"
(John Kendrick, it's off topic, but shoot me an email. I've got an interesting data set you might want to see. —Tom)
Commissioner Miller has earned my respect for this efforts to effect a resolution that contained workable solutions to the McNeilly, pool, and local fields issues. R-16-11 was a compromise, and a compromise is a little like an unhappy marriage where divorce is not an option due to the cost! Commissioner Kluck also has my respect because he made a principled vote based on his concerns over funding.
But it is Commissioner DeIuliis who owes this community an explanation. If he didn't like the legislation he should have voted against it. If there was some reason why he felt he could not vote at all then he should have explaind and abstained. At least he should have left word with someone as to why he was leaving.
Richard Gideon
Post a Comment
<< Home