New Search
HAMMITT Bob <br /> From: NORRIS Linda H <br /> To: HAMMITT Bob; WHITLOW Dave A; HILL Jim R; BRETT Tom A; ANDERSEN Chris F; <br /> LYLE Les A <br /> Cc: RIKHOFF Greg S; CHOUINARD Lauren D; MORGAN Dick A <br /> Subject: RE: Scobert Park <br /> Date: Tuesday, September 10, 1996 1:40PM <br /> Would you all decide whether we should rescind the admin rule to close the park until Friday, and do <br /> another one at that time? Thanks, and good luck! Linda <br /> From: LYLE Les A <br /> To: NORRIS Linda H; HAMMITT Bob; WHITLOW Dave A; HILL Jim R; BRETT Tom A; <br /> ANDERSEN Chris F <br /> Cc: RIKHOFF Greg S; CHOUINARD Lauren D; MORGAN Dick A <br /> Subject: Scobert Park <br /> Date: Tuesday, September 10, 1996 1:16PM <br /> Except for several fundamental issues being unclear such as <br /> why were we here; what is consensus; who made the decision to <br /> close the park and was it truly by consensus; who represents <br /> the Ikkys group; etc, the meeting went well. Scott Meisner, <br /> Dick Morgan, two CSS officers, and I had the pleasure from <br /> 7:00 until 9:30 to hear the banter back and fourth between the <br /> two sides about where we are at this point and what is going <br /> to happen next. We all got pulled into the discussion from <br /> time to time but for the most part the discussion was between <br /> neighborhood residents. We discussed why a PS solution was <br /> not likely under normal enforcement strategies; the <br /> relationship of the administrative order to future <br /> discussions; that we had use the community organization <br /> request to close the park since they represent the <br /> neighborhood; there was clearly a division of opinion on how <br /> to best address the short and long term issues in the park (a <br /> number felt it should be closed because of the drug use while <br /> others felt it should be closed because of the damage to the <br /> vegetation, while others felt it should be left open because <br /> that was becoming the focal point for the civil disobedience <br /> and was not allowing constructive discussion to occur). <br /> So, to make a long story short, we ended with the following actions: <br /> 1. The City will not install the signs for one week to give <br /> the group a chance to address as best they can what the <br /> options are and if closer is still on the table. <br /> 2. I've asked Lauren to see if he can line up a couple of <br /> facilitators to assist the process. He has done an excellent <br /> job in the last half an hour and we are looking at a couple <br /> individuals from the UO or other resources to assist (Greg <br /> Rikoff has a couple of names he's pursuing). Mediators to <br /> facilitate the discussion. <br /> 3. A meeting is currently scheduled for Weds at 6:30 in the <br /> community center with the intial goals being to establish <br /> ground rules, representation, etc. and then I'm assuming <br /> follow -up meetings will occur for the balance of the week <br /> allotted to see if they can narrow down the options and decide <br /> how closure fits in. <br /> 4. We agreed that if no decision is made within the one week <br /> period or the process breaks down that we will move foreword <br /> Page 1 <br />