pages: RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
RecreationandParkCommission | 2009-09-10 | 5 | we start doing this how are Alameda citizens going to feel about future bond issues for parks and that they cannot trust the fact that if they vote for the money to go to parks the money will be there. The Estuary Park and Alameda Beltline representatives look forward being able to have a bond issue to get money for Estuary Park and Alameda Beltline projects. Ms. Freeman would hate to see this idea put in jeopardy just because we want to give money that belongs to the people to a private organization. Joseph Woodard, Alameda resident, provided a copy of a letter that he sent to EBRPD protesting the monies being given to the Alameda Boys & Girls Club. For the record, at the Council Meeting on September 1, the number of speakers for and against the Boys & Girls Club receiving the money was about equal. The Alameda Boys & Girls Club managed to pack half of the Council chambers with employees and Board Members. The people speaking against the idea were not employees of anyone, but were private citizens. People who voted for the bond issue thought that it was to be used for parks. You have maintenance projects and certainly have new acquisitions that are very important. This opportunity is absolutely unprecedented with regard to the Alameda Beltline, where a large park space will be purchased for less than $1 million and now money is being proposed to be diverted to a private organization. This is unconscionable and hopes that the Recreation & Park Commission will do everything in their power to oppose it. Barbara Kerr, former Councilmember and Alameda resident, stated that a group went to EBRPD for a sub-committee meeting and after spoke to Mr. Rasmussen (grant manager). The committee was very sympathetic, but the grant manager was not. She expressed a criticism that this is something that needs to be remedied. Mr. Rasmussen was basing his decision on the Alameda Boys & Girls Club and only on what the Boys & Girls Club had told him. Ms. Kerr was surprised at his resistance. She recommends that the EBRPD, through whatever process, needs more cross communication from the City and citizens. Ms. Kerr stated that what bothered her at the last Council Meeting was the aggressive attempt to bypass the Recreation & Park Commission. She does not feel that any Board or Commission should ever be considered insignificant the way the Recreation & Park Commission was at the last Council Meeting. The Council needs to hear from staff and the public about all projects that are worth while and need to be heard together on an equal basis. We need to let the Council know how we feel about their just trying to bypass one of our Boards and Commissions, meaning the Recreation & Park Commission. Gretchen Lipow, Alameda resident, provided the Commission with the text/definition of Measure WW. Ms. Lipow stated that she was amazed at the galvanized Alameda Boys & Girls Club at the Council Meeting on September 1. When you look at the Measure WW language it talks about protecting creeks, wild life, purchase and save open space, wetlands, bay shorelines, acquire, develop and improve local and regional parks, trails and recreational facilities. She was trying to figure out what justified doing anything for the Boys & Girls Club, and the only thing that she could see that would apply was recreational facilities. When you look at the other needs, new parks - Estuary Park and Beltline, they cover so many other factors in the initiative itself. These projects would encompass improving local parks, trails, open space, etc. People went to the ballot box to vote, they did not vote to put money into the Alameda Boys & Girls Club. Ms. Lipow was really disappointed and thinks that this is an unfair process. She encouraged everyone to go to the next Council meeting and speak their mind. Recreation & Park Commission Special Mtg. 2 Minutes - Thursday, September 10, 2009 | RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf |