Below is an email that Matt Grubel requested that I forward to the listservs.
-----Original Message----- From: Mathew Grubel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 7:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: Friends of Clark Park and the Master Plan Dear Matthew Wolfe, As it appears that a letter you sent regarding the Clark Park Revitalization Plan has raised some questions on the community list serves, please do me the favor of posting the following for me. Sincerely, Mathew Grubel First. There have been very few changes to the plan subsequent to the petitions that you and I collected. Both your petion and mine did not include a place to date the signitures (a standard practice in both your profession and mine). This has led some to dismiss the validity of the petitions. Here are the facts. Last Meeting for Public Comment: June 21, 2001 Begin Collection of Signatures: July 6, 2001 Friends of Clark Park Board Meeting: July 17, 2001 Just over a hundred were collected by this board meeting where the proposal passed, (contingent on edits recommended by Paul Brooks). Several more pages were handed to by July 24, and two more pages by August 1 when I was asked to send them to the Recreation Commissioner. Second. People should be aware that the petitions do not call for "killing" the plan. They request the city to hold off until the design changes recommended are in line with actual conditions and uses. *petitions quoted fully at bottom. Third. The points of your concern are in fact contained in the plan. An illustration of the design is available on-line at the UCD web-site, but the document is not. Allow me to point to some of them. I encourage everyone to examine the documents themselves, and discuss them, and decide for themselves. Item 1. Concern that the discredited tree analysis was influential. "This preliminary report made it apparent that some trees may need to be removed and that a detailed study is needed to verify where those trees are." (p.53). Some of us would like to see the Friends take a position of principle which has been paraphrased as "We will fell no tree before its time." Item 2. Pathways. Illustration on page 54 shows most of the pathways in A Park to be relocated and maybe 1/3 of those in B & C park. This is most certainly a major change. "Concrete is recommended as the material of choice for new pathways and pathways to be resurfaced." (p.55) Item 3. Extent of new construction. "The tot lot is proposed for relocation to the central portion of the park and will be greatly expanded" (p.58) "The farmer's market will be retained with expansions to the paved area." Brick or concrete pavers "..between the existing sidewalk and curb...add six feet and width from the existing sidewalk towark the park," (p.59). There are also recommendations to create a formal plaza at Woodland Avenue, and on Kingsessing Ave, and a new plaza in the middle of A Park that would be filled with small flowering trees, along with fencing and shrubbery. *Main petition: "We the undersigned believe that there are serious flaws in the proposed Master Plan for Clark Park. We urge tge City of Philadelphia Recreaction Department to refrain from accepting the plan without additional study and substantial changes from the present draft." The other petition is a slight variation on the same theme, and was not as popular: "We the undersigned urge the City of Phildelphia to refrain from adopting the proposed Clark Park Revitalization Plan until (a) it reflects the additional study of actual conditions and uses, (b) the community is allowed to see and understand the impact of the proposed changes." ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. Archive is at <http://www.mail-archive.com/>.
