http://rutlandherald.com/article/20141210/NEWS02/712109961
ublished December 10, 2014 in the Rutland Herald Springfield board weighs park project By SUSAN SMALLHEER Staff Writer SPRINGFIELD — A group of residents in the Union and Park streets area have petitioned the Springfield Select Board to create a small park at the site of a recently demolished town-owned house. The “pocket park” proposal met with a mixed response from the board, but the board voted ultimately to have the Springfield Planning Commission review the concept of a park in that neighborhood by the board’s meeting in January. At the same time, the board agreed to hold off accepting bids for the lot at 21 Cottage Ave. The town wants at least $30,000 for the lot, which is served by water and sewer. The town had become the reluctant owner of the dilapidated house, and earlier this year had it torn down, rather than try and fix it up and sell it. The town received the house and lot via a tax sale. Lori Claffee of the Union-Park Street Neighborhood Alliance said she and others had gone door-to-door collecting signatures, and she gave the Select Board a list of 40 people who supported the park idea. A few kids also signed the petition, she told the board. “They’re in red crayon.” But Claffee and others from the residential neighborhood ran into tough questions from the Select Board and the Budget Committee, with some people questioning why people couldn’t use the “new and expensive” playground at Union Street School. Claffee said the lot at 21 Cottage Ave. would result in a “tiny little park” and she noted that the west side of town did not have a park to call their own, compared to other neighborhoods. The board finally voted to accept the petition but to do some research on the project. Claffee and another resident, Dick Andrews, said that both houses on either side of the now-vacant lot were vacant. While there was some opposition in the neighborhood, Claffee said, they were not residents of the Cottage Avenue block. Claffee said the park would give the kids in the neighborhood a place to “shoot a few hoops and throw a ball around.” Voting against the proposal was Selectman David Yesman, who lives on Union Street. He called it a “waste of time” and a loss of potential tax revenue. Selectman George McNaughton said that the town plan was largely silent on the issue of siting a new town park, and he said he wanted the planning commission to review the concept. “I urge you to give it serious consideration,” Andrews said. He said making the neighborhood attractive to families with young children would benefit the town greatly. One student, Lyric Emerson, said kids needed something to do and someplace to go. “It would be really beneficial if there was a park; there isn’t a lot to do,” she said. She told the board that a lot of her friends “use,” because they are bored. A park would help counter that boredom, she said. “When they’re bored, they do stupid things,” she said.
I'm a tax payer, I just wish I had time to be bored, but no, I'm out busting my butt to earn my property tax money. I'm not looking for anything else to pay for!!! Sell the lot - put it back on the tax rolls to help support the long list of recreational activities the town already supports.
ReplyDeleteGood idea this mini-park. And to make up for the tax losses everyone that is bored on Cottage Ave will have 1,000 dollars added to their tax bill, I believe you have 40 names right now. This will cover the cost cutting grass and throwing a few benches on the lot. Will the homeless be welcome to sleep there?
ReplyDeleteSpringfield is all about "area beautification" and other placebos - state parks, town parks, bike paths, rec centers, slogans, and logos. It's the old "any port in a storm" mentality. The problem is that years of poor captaining has driven the SS Springfield onto the reefs and instead of damage control parties to address the gaping holes in the hull, the command group is ignoring the flooding and still sending the stewards out on deck with trays of tropical cocktails adorned with cute little parasols.
ReplyDeleteTake a look around folks. The existing municipal properties ain't exactly maintained in a pristine manner. And you want to add another unkempt "park" to the list? I guess none of you worked on Von Braun's team to help get us to the moon!
By the way, what do those union employees do to aid with the upkeep of said properties anyway?
Cottage has 3 vacant buildings. If we spend a little money to make money it could be positive thing to our neighborhood. We need to turn our neighborhood around. Also nationally these pocket parks add value to homes surrounding them. The con nationally was a couple of parks were built where they got no use. Believe me this would get more use than you could keep track of.
ReplyDeleteWhile I commend this group of people for trying to do something positive, I agree with commenters 1 and 3; the town's "to do" list is already too long for lack of funding. With respect to Commentor 4, I couldn't disagree more; there is going to be no "added value" until the existing vacant properties are dealt with.
ReplyDeleteThe kids use because they have nowhere to go and nothing to do...yeah, and you know where they use? The existing parks!
ReplyDelete