Re: Veterans Park... Let’s

christian — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:28:36 -0600

Re: Veterans Park...

Let’s not forget the ruling by the City Council on Nov. 19th regarding Veterans Park, and the reasons behind it. It says: Work on Veterans Memorial Park (except for the grading of the ball field area, which is in process and apparently does not affect the outcome) is suspended and referred back to the Park Board until the following conditions are met:

• The Park Board must reevaluate whether this is an appropriate location for a “community park” and for a lighted ball field.

• The Park Board must give written notice to all residents in the neighborhood, and hold a public hearing to which the residents are invited.

• As part of their process, the Park Board must consider how any perceived impacts of the facility on the neighborhood can be minimized.

• The Park Board cannot make a recommendation back to the City Council until a public hearing has taken place.

When reading this article, it seems that Mayor Van Eyll’s commitment to gathering and valuing input from the residents of this community comes with a selective listening clause. Given their quotes here regarding Veterans Park, Van Eyll, Redman and Aaberg clearly intend to simply recycle the existing plan through the process without making any major changes. No surprise, really, as many have come to expect this type of attitude from Mayor Van Eyll and Tom Redman.

Van Eyll is only partly right when he says, “It all comes down to communication…” Yes, but it needs to be 2-way communication. It is likely true that when the City Council first approved the project in May of 2007, nobody in city government can recall hearing any negative feedback regarding the proposed baseball field. But in order for these claims to have merit, you would first have to inform people of the project, and then ask for – and incorporate – their feedback into the plan prior to final approval. This was not done, and most residents became aware of the ball field for the first time in October of 2007 when asked for their signature on the petition to stop it.

Mayor Van Eyll states in the article, “We want as much input as possible.” Lip service. The Mayor has received all kinds of input from over 150 neighborhood residents in this matter, yet he has neither said nor done anything that would lead them to believe that he values their input, or is willing to change his pro-ball-field agenda. In fact, 95% of the 146 households that comprise the Points West neighborhood have signed a petition that says they don’t want a heavily used, lighted baseball park for teens and adults here, but propose a neighborhood park that will support a growing number of families with pre-teens. Many other reasons why a neighborhood park/playground is needed, and why this type of ball field would be detrimental to this densely populated neighborhood have been repeatedly brought to the Mayor and other city officials as well.

So, no, residents of Chaska should not simply “trust the process” because Tom Redman tells us to. Not when the City Council agrees, on record, that the park planning process is broken. Indeed, if the process worked, and if resident opinion was truly a priority in this city, Van Eyll, Redman and Aaberg should have expected and even welcomed the City Council to make this ruling. The fact they were “surprised” or “shocked” indicates they are individuals who are unaccustomed to being questioned, and have forgotten who they really work for, and why.

We are not giving up either.

For more information about the Veterans Park petition and the reasons behind it, please visit http://www.cebellah.com/ballpark

Parks under fire

Mollee Francisco — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:19:14 -0600

By Mollee Francisco

Chaska Herald - Parks under fire - Comments

Re: Veterans Park... Let’s

Parks under fire