Deaf ears root cause of pocket park confusion

To the Editor:



The intent of this letter is to hopefully explain why there appears to be a certain level of frustration within the majority of Bonavista residents.

From the beginning, residents opposed to the designated park location have taken concerns to the Council, Mayor and PARC members. To-date, these questions haven’t been answered, nor have the concerns addressed by the aforementioned parties.



Alternate park locations

First and foremost, a park/play area should be intended for the children, not necessarily a community gathering spot or a place for adults to congregate. There were proposals inclusive of cost comparisons suggesting potential alternate locations submitted to town, but no discussion/debate has occurred regarding this.

It would be more beneficial for all the families of Bonavista Estates to find a collective solution to enjoy a park in a more visible, accessible location, and without a negative impact to those on the boundaries of the green space. If the Bonavista residents want to build a sense of community then there must be regard for all, including those living on the perimeter of the proposed park location.

Alternate locations were provided because the designated green space area is secluded and poses risks such as “fire�, which has been verified by the Fire Chief. As well, this information has been passed on to the pertinent Town officials for their consideration, but to no avail.

In many articles over the past few months it was demonstrated that crimes such as arson and vandalism were committed in closed park/playground areas. This cannot be disputed or stated to be “misinformation�. As a result, and reminder of realistic possibilities, the seclusion of this proposed park location is a major concern for many residents.



Level of support

A recent survey of the residents of Bonavista Estates provides the following results:

40 homes not supporting the park location

18 not polled/assumed for the park location

16 conflict of interest

3 unavailable

This has been submitted to Town Council and would indicate discussion/debate is required, but there hasn’t been a response nor an offer to discuss anything about this proposed park location. It was requested for the signatures to remain confidential from the public and media for obvious personal reasons: protection of privacy, respect and courtesy to all neighbours, not just those who signed.



Parks and Recreation meeting, Sept. 21, 2006

The Parks and Recreation Committee was addressed by a representative from Palmeter Subdivision who has been pursuing a park for quite some time. Palmeter is one of the oldest subdivisions that offer an open location next to the road, yet it’s being denied for reasons such as “lack of funds�.

The town should realize that there are many other older subdivisions in a similar situation without a park. We live in one of the newest subdivisions and it was demonstrated that the majority don’t want this park in the designated location. But there’s a very slim possibility it may be forced anyway.



Presentations to council and Advertiser articles

Those who oppose the park location have been granted a few 10-minute opportunities to present concerns to the Parks and Recreation Committee and Town Council since the inaugural meeting April 13, 2006, but to-date there have been no responses, or discussions.

Many of us don’t understand why councillors refuse to engage openly in this controversial topic and respond to the numerous concerns brought to their attention over the past six months. This apparent unwillingness to discuss the issues such as pathway width regulations (as per the Town of Kentville Subdivision By-Law), seclusion and safety regulations has left no alternative but to turn to the press to air these concerns.

The Town of Kentville has yet to develop many designated “park areas� in subdivisions and it’s apparent these questions/concerns will increasingly continue to appear on Council agendas.



Conclusion

In conclusion, as stated, the primary concern is the safety of our children. This secluded area is unreasonable due to reasons such as the inaccessible entrances for emergency vehicles, no visibility from the streets, and so on.

Many people are only too happy to have a park within our subdivision, but in a location that will provide compliance with all safety guidelines and bylaw criteria as set forth by the Town of Kentville, the CSA “Playground Safety Guidelines� and Recreation Nova Scotia.

It’s important that the “we� and “they� positions be eliminated. When a mindset capable of compromise is achieved then collectively the concerns should be considered; everyone could work toward the betterment of our community.

All residents should have a look at or revisit the location that has caused so much unnecessary controversy and take a councillor or committee member with you. Then have a look around the subdivision for an alternate site and keep an open mind when doing so.

At the end of the day, we must believe that we have made every possible effort to secure a park in the best possible location for our kids. I would hate to see this community lose the opportunity to obtain a park for our kids because residents and councillors weren’t prepared to discuss and debate the numerous concerns or entertain other options. It should be all about the kids!

Please voice your concerns against this proposed park location. Thank you.



Sincerely

Greg Baldwin

Bonavista Resident