Comments on: City of Rollingwood to improve water system

By: anonymous

anonymous — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 00:56:15 +0000

If a shade structiure is really wanted by most of the citizens for their park (a vote perhaps?) then funding it through different groups and individuals seems fine. If most citizens do NOT want it in the park, don’t do it. I commend the council for their decision. The ridiculous $95,000 amount was frightening. The concern here is once again that the citizens for the most part have many other significant priorities that need attention. We CAN’T do it all like some keep telling us. That do it all notion is foolish, wasteful, and short-sighted. Our park may also end up overdeveloped and LESS attractive. Stop and think and plan and enjoy what we have. Maybe a few large shade trees will be more attractive and smarter in the long run.

By: Catherine

Catherine — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:20:02 +0000

As a volunteer and Park Commission member, I would like it to be known that we are working with some donated funds- RWC $10k and the RGK Foundation $10k(the generous Scott Family in RW).

We are hoping to get a shade structure for under $40k-if possible- for the smaller playground. The shade structure decreases temperature under the covered area, protects from the sun and decreases the surface temp on slides and areas where children sit and touch. There are many young families in the neighborhood who do see this as a worthwhile project and will benefit from the shade.

Council has cut the requested shade structure number down to $10k which we knew would more than likely be the case. The remaining funds will need to be raised and many have already come forward to express interest in helping to fundraise and/or donate time and funds. Hopefully, the project will be completed the same way the Field House was done- with some funds coming from the RCDC and some funds through private donations and fundraisers.

By: woohoo!

woohoo! — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 18:17:26 +0000

Is it an approved project for the city? Another consideration for future reference is that maybe the women volunteers who understand how hard they have to work to help bring in a few thousand dollars a year that is then spent so quickly will start thinking twice about volunteering.. $10,000 of RWC money is HARD EARNED money. 4B tax money is also valuable taxpayer money that shouldn’t be wasted on overpriced park projects such as this $95,000 canopy.
I think the nice shady pavilion should suffice.

By: RWC

RWC — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:46:19 +0000

The RWC donated $10,000 to the City to go towards a shade structure at the Park.

By: drunkblogging

drunkblogging — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 03:53:17 +0000

This is even better than the hard copy of the Picayune.

Furious, did you say we all want a big tent in our park? Hmmm, let me think about that a minute here. I used to just tell my kids to stay out of the sun at high noon in August. Generally, we found shade, or the neighobrhood pool, or the library, or home. A few years ago we got that nice pavilion that was built for shade in the park. Who thought of this project? I sure hope the women’s club isn’t planning on donating any of its hard earned money on that thing. That would amount to at least 30 years of July 4th earnings. Seems a little excessive in this recession. It seems a little excessive just about anytime. Is someone’s brother in law in the playground tent business? In this recession, these businesses seem to thrive in Rollingwood: the asphalt paving business, or playground tent business, or where to park now sign making business, or $6,000 stone monuments to former mayors making business. Everyone else needs to pay for it all.

By: Chaps fan

Chaps fan — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 03:17:31 +0000

$95,000 (ninety five THOUSAND dollars) for a shade tent over the playscape is WASTEFUL SPENDING and not a priority for most citizens. It is not a park improvement. It is a mistake of enormous plastic and steel proportions; a boondoggle. The people of Rollingwood won’t allow that to clutter up our nice park and further empty our city coffers. (The RCDC budget is part of city coffers). Rollingwood is smarter than that. Who is “furious” speaking for when she states that the tent is valuable to the city? The questions SHOULD NOT be how can we do them all, i.e SPEND it all. That is what is called PORK BARREL spending. The questions is what should be done and how can the city be smart with the citizens’ money.

Maybe the citizens like the current playscape area with all the new landscaping and the shade trees and a nice Pavilion that was built in part to provide shade. Maybe kids like looking at the SKY and the TREES when on an OUTDOOR playscape. Next there will be the “need” to fill the area with tiny plastic balls and padding until nothing natural is left.

Save the money for maintenance and upkeep of the park and new fieldhouse and landscaping. Those needs have already skyrocketed. PLAN for them. Add a few more large trees if more shade is so urgently needed. There are also other needs even for the park before a $95,000 permanent tent to further clutter up what is left of our park. We don’t even have sidewalks to get the citizens to the park. That sure is a safety issue!! But apparently the safety of CITIZENS getting to the park really isn’t a concern. Our real needs don’t seem to matter to this strange small group trying to force their will on the public. “Furious” talks about asking the council to get a loan and not deplete the city reserves?? “Furious” did not mind depleting the city reserves on foolish projects. “Now lets get a loan and spend, spend, spend on stupid projects and raise taxes, too!” The irony is laughable, the stupidity frightening.

I believe this point has been made many times: the city did not have to spend outrageous sums on attorneys. It was told to comply with the wishes of the PEOPLE it is supposed to serve. The PEOPLE wanted to decide. The previous self-serving council refused and wanted to control the people. That is not democracy. It is a game to be won with other people’s money at stake. That game needs to end.

By: Furious

Furious — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:08:25 +0000

Park improvements are not wasteful spending.

The last Council had every intention of doing water system improvements but were stopped by residents who wanted a no debt style fix. The parking lot was not wasteful spending- it should have been RCDC money spent but someone sued the city and to stop the legal finanical bleed the city chose to complete the project on their own. Not their original intent.

What people fail to realize is that all projects cane be done amd all projects are valuable to the city whether it is tents for the playground, water lines, a buy Rollingwood program, website upgrades, newsletters, etc.. Instead of focusing on one over the other- the question should be asked- how can we do them all??

Also- I urge the Council to not spend down the reserves and to apply for low interest loans to fully complete the water system and streets. Just do it and be done.

By: Chaps fan

Chaps fan — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:58:55 +0000

What is important is that the city is finally prioritizing water line repair issues in Rollingwood. Even so, the RCDC is pressing onward to spend its 4B tax money as quickly as possible on ludicrous $95,000 shade tents in the park and other park nonessentials. If the money isn’t there for needed infrastructure improvements in the city budget because of previous wasteful spending, then the 4B tax should be partially reapportioned in the next election. Our park will continue to be well taken care of and the taxpayers will also see sensible improvements throughout the city.
A simple, logical, economically sound solution to the 4B tax dilemma.