|
Re: [millcreekpark] Cutting Trees in Mill Creek Park
Jayintown has sent the following question: FYI - This article outlines the controversy surrounding the cutting of trees in Mill Creek Park.
http://www.vindicator.net/local_news/281759107613654.shtml
What is your opinion about the way in which this project was
undertaken?
The article, I thought, was less a representation of community concern or of well-informed action than a vehicle to generate sales of the newspaper. It seems to me that a total of four people are up in arms over this project. I use the park for recreational bicycling and walking, and I agree with the stated need for a safer route. Which of us wants to be in the path of an oncoming 2-ton steel missile? Ask those girls from Hubbard who were recently plowed into by a reckless motorist how they would feel about the path and bridge. Come to think of it, why didn't the article's writer ask Kyrsten Studer's family and friends for their thoughts? Why did the paper choose to place the footbridge story with several color photos and black-and-white portraits over almost all of page B1 and part of B2, while Studer and her friends were figuratively buried at the unmarked bottom of the front page and within the folds of the paper, with only one small photo (of part of an inanimate object, on page A5) to recognize their loss? Please don't misunderstand me--I don't think The Vindicator intentionally undervalues the lives of these young women or the harm done to them and their families, but such subtleties of presentation should be included in any evaluation of the news.
As for Volney Rogers' intentions, historical record refutes Chuey's assertion that Rogers did not intend the park as a place for recreation. Documents and news stories from his time prove unequivocally Rogers' advocacy of the construction of roads, lakes, pavilions, playgrounds, the Lily Pond, and Idora Park and the trolley line that ended at its Parkview Avenue entrance--because it all would bring people to the park for healthful recreation. See Bridgett Williams' book, The Legacy of Mill Creek Park: The Biography of Volney Rogers, Chapter IV and bibliography.
As for Diggins' assertion that this is "the most ill-conceived and obtrusive park improvement project" he has ever seen, I wonder how many he has, in fact, seen and evaluated, and using what objective criteria; if this is the worst of them, taking up only part of one acre, I would guess his experience is limited.
Kaiser calls the area "a very unique wetland and wildflower area." Each wetland is unique. In fact, that's one reason why the park has preserved several other wetlands in the county and restored 50 acres of wetlands at the south end of Lake Newport. Do Kaiser and the others named in the article know about those acres of preserved and restored wetlands? It wouldn't seem so, when they appear to be opposing visitor safety for the sake of less than an acre of land. Does the article's writer know about them? He should, since his byline is often seen on articles covering the park's board meetings, at which such preservation efforts are proposed and discussed; he would have ample opportunity to pay attention when these achievements are announced.
On to alternative suggestions made by the protesters: widening the Shields Road bridge only addresses traffic on the bridge; it does not address the curve onto Sheban which is the source of concern in the first place. Drivers traveling west on Shields who turn north onto Sheban (after crossing the bridge) often take this curve without appreciably slowing, even if their traffic light is red; I've seen it, and have nearly been hit by motorists who aren't paying attention. Beefing up speed limit enforcement would be ideal, but with a limited number of police officers and a large and growing township for them to cover, this might not be as feasible as we all might wish. As for Kaiser's suggested construction of a bike path along Sheban Drive, wouldn't that require widening the road? And wouldn't that widening have to extend the length of the road, from Shields to Truesdale? Wouldn't this require the removal of even more habitat than the part of a single acre needed for the trail and footbridge? Call me crazy, but I think the park's method is more conservative and less intrusive.
Kaiser and the others should furnish not bald assertions, but conclusive correlative evidence that the trail and footbridge would cause healthy native trees to die or blow over (and that fallen trees have been lost due to no other causes), or that frogs and salamanders would be unable to flee before the onslaught of walkers and bicyclists, or that no plants would be able to thrive as before, once the trail and bridge are completed. My gut feeling is that they've leapt onto a thrilling arc of hyperbole for which there is no real support, hence their arguments collapse. I would expect, too, that they should prove beyond doubt that the park has simply jumped at the chance, Andy Hardy style, to build a trail and bridge for "the fun of it" without having carefully and at great length done the research to ensure that the least damage is inflicted on the area. In addition to the need to meet state and federal regulations regarding such projects and wetlands, it is reasonable to assume that this group's concerns would have had to be addressed during the grant application in order to be eligible for consideration.
I apologize for the length of my response, but since you asked for opinions....
Pandora
|
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
Send Email
