New Search
My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
New Search
Friendly Park, 2007
COE
>
PW
>
POS_PWM
>
Parks
>
Specific Parks
>
Friendly Park, 2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/19/2014 4:23:15 PM
Creation date
8/19/2014 4:23:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PW_Operating
PW_Document_Type_ Operating
Correspondence
PW_Division
Parks and Open Space
Identification_Number
Friendly Park
External_View
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
> want and it is tending to alienate them. <br /> > Sincerely, <br /> > David Strom <br /> > On Oct 7, 2007, at 3:59 AM, Nancy Ellen Locke wrote: <br /> » Dear J -M, NO telephone votes. You have to be present or write a <br /> » note of support to be added to the minutes. <br /> » Friendly Park Brief Outline of Events... <br /> » City of Eugene announced that it would be up- grading Friendly Park. <br /> » Flyers were sent out - postcards to everyone who lived within a <br /> » 1/4 mile of the park. <br /> » Meetings were held at Adams /Hillside School - they were well <br /> » attended. <br /> » Philip Richardson (City of Eugene park's Department) helped the group <br /> » work out a park design. <br /> » The park designed approved by the group - everyone didn't like <br /> » everything but everyone had something that they could get behind and <br /> » support. <br /> » Group was told that there probably wouldn't be enough money for <br /> » everything in the park design. <br /> » All of the elements of the NMG (Neighborhood Matching Grant) were in <br /> » the approved park design. <br /> » Greg and I put together the NMG to cover the elements that we though <br /> » most important for the finishing touches of the park - also, things <br /> » that we could do. <br /> » Wrote NMG, it went through the C of E selection process and was <br /> » chosen as a worthwhile project. <br /> » Project work was delayed, delayed, and delayed... <br /> » Project started, C of E moved ahead and didn't follow the plan voted <br /> » on seems our plan morphed into a "concept" plan but the neighbors <br /> » were not told this. <br /> » Example: the path change, neighborhood protest, etc... <br /> » Many other changes took place too, but not so noticeable - however, <br /> » Greg and I saw them. I am limiting this e -mail to only the "adult <br /> » stretch equipment" discussion. <br /> » Meeting to finalize placement of the adult stretch equipment - <br /> » location changed = farther from the children's play area /less <br /> » convenient for parents with small children to use (Greg & I <br /> » consented); that cut access to both sides of the path because of tree <br /> » roots = placement design change & pressure for small space (Greg & I <br /> » consented); rejection of the Horizontal Ladder = surprise /shock (Greg <br /> » & I balked); <br /> » Told to find replacement equipment, started the replacement search = <br /> » found two much smaller pieces that could be combined into one piece <br /> » if needs be or they could stand separately; new equipment choice <br /> » takes less space than the original combo. <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.