Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/1/2017 Item 1, Monge Christian, Kevin From:rmonge4surf@gmail.com on behalf of Roberto Monge <rmonge@pobox.com> Sent: To:E-mail Council Website Cc:Mila Vujovich-LaBarre; cc mc lean; Kit Gould-Himelblau; Sandra Rowley; Sandra Lakeman; Lydia Mourenza; Allan Cooper; Kathie Walker; Richard Schmidt; carolyn smith; jamie lopes; betdehaan@gmail.com; racouillat@charter.net; Roberto Monge; Camille Small; Mike Dia Hurd; John B. Ashbaugh Subject:Please do not take funding away from acquiring a park site for the North Broad Neighborhood Attachments:cerro_san_luis_parks.jpg Honorable Mayor and City Council, I am emailing you regarding the city park fund that our neighborhood had gained through community organizing and public engagement. I have heard that the $900,000 is at risk and this makes me realize why people get fed up with public engagement and politics. This taking back of what we thought was given to is was the third big arrow in the back after 22 Chorro and 71 Palomar approvals. Here are my concerns: 1) Our Neighborhood is being burdened with more high density housing for students (22 Chorro and 71 Palomar) in addition to the Valencia. This will bring even more traffic to the streets which will make it even harder for people to walk to a park safely. Not having access to parks also has negative mental wellness effects. This means civility and health and happiness will go down in our neighborhood as density and conflict increases. We do not have to place to meet our new neighbors and create relationships. 2) We want safe routes to parks for our kids. I just realized that in the 10 years I've been in this neighborhood, I have NOT sent my kids down to a park on their own. My kids, 10 and 13, are extremely free range and capable kids -- but the distance and crossing major intersections ( Foothill or Santa Rosa) don't feel safe. I have great sadness about this reflection. We used to live off Broad & South and we regularly walked down to meadow park and talked to families and friends. We had birthday parties there and learned to slack line under the shadow of the trees. 3) I was recently in Paris and I walked around this metropolis but you could still get a sense of these small villages every 2-3 blocks. I was struck by the number of small pocket parks. There was high density housing but you can bet that there was a park nearby to meet the needs of those people. After 3pm you could see families, young couples and elderly playing chess at a park. It was beautiful to see how integrated the neighborhoods were due to having this small gathering place. 4) Our only recourse when we want to gather the neighborhood is to take over a street. If we go through proper channels this takes months and about $600 in permit and road barriers. If you aren't going to help us get a park I ask that you permanently waive any street closure fees, provide free traffic plans, and provide us with the barriers so that we can setup a pocket park when we need one. 5) My friend and mentor Mark Lakeman talks about how the US has the least number of public gathering places of all developed nations. We also have the highest violence and crime rates. There's a correlation 1 there. He brings it back to our colonial past and our westward expansion using the Land Ordinance of 1785 for fort/town developments. We are still living in the grid of based on the Land Ordinance of 1785 is still in play. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2013/11/12/fixing_broken_neighborhoods_happy_city_by_charles_montgo mery.html The grid was the fastest, simplest way to divide land so that it could be commodified. Rectangular units were easy to survey, buy, sell, and tax. They made it easier to provide services. The grid was a spectacular success as an economic tool, but it created some seriously unbalanced cities. The Land Ordinance of 1785 did not have provisions for parks or open space. Its cities comprised private lots and public roads, as though the city existed purely for commerce rather than for the people that commerce was thought to enrich. In town after town, planners subdivided, overlooked, or avoided public parks and plazas. Cities that wanted parks actually had to buy the land from private holders. The result was that in most neighborhoods, the streets themselves became the only shared public space. As they came to be dominated by cars, the public living room—and the village that might have been born within it—disappeared. I know a park can be seen as frivolous in times of climate change and other pressing issues, but I consider public gathering spaces the heart of democracy and of our villages. It's there that we meet people of different political ideas. It's when our families play together that we are open to the fact that we are all human and we can set ideologies aside. There's a reason you all like to travel to far of places to visit these old villages, and it has a lot to do with how the town is laid out. Maybe we won't need to travel to Italy or a remote village in mexico if we feel like we live in a village. Please help us create a park on this side of town. We need it. Thanks, Roberto Monge 89 La Entrada Ave. Co-founder City Repair SLO https://cityrepairslo.org/ 2 i Al {