Imagine, if you will, a special interest group meeting with members of Alameda City Staff. Let’s also imagine that during this meeting it’s proposed that the group will not insist on getting something that they need at a very specific location at a very specific time and in return they want support from the City to get what they want somewhere else at a time to be determined.
Sounds pretty shady eh?
I believe when you work out a deal like this outside of the public process, it’s generally referred to as being done in a back room, no?
But I guess it’s not too shady and instead it’s a “win-win” when it comes to the Alameda Beltline and Youth Sports.
At the meeting last week about the Beltine Visioning meeting, the Rec and Park director mentioned this part during her presentation:
Excerpt of the key part for those that don’t want to bother with the video:
…I met recently, we were having our regular spring field allocation meeting with all of our youth athletic groups who use our athletic fields and Pat Bail in particular had brought up the concept I was talking about about upcoming opportunities and she had brought up the concept of, well, Jean Sweeney was her friend, she really wanted to respect Jean’s wishes and so the group started to talk about it more and we had a vote and a consensus of the entire group which was representatives from all of our athletic field users saying that they wanted to support more passive uses at the Beltline and put their support toward that and not push for athletic fields there in turn they’re asking for support from everybody who wants passive use there to then support them to find funding and have City support for Estuary Park and renovating that.
So let me clarify this for you. A plot of land directly under the landing path for planes at Oakland International Airport was perfect for hundreds of Alameda kids and families to use on a daily basis meaning that people who lives on the main Alameda island would have to schlep all the way over to Bay Farm, mainly by car. Also, a plot of land way on the West End of Alameda (parcel 1A on the map) also would be a perfect place to put athletic fields which can really only be accessed by car for the large majority of folks in Alameda that would be using it. But a piece of land right smack near the center of Alameda which could be accessed via bike, bus, on foot, and had the added bonus of seas of unused parking spaces on weekends and evenings because of the business park nearby, that should be passive space which may be used by a small fraction of the users of athletic fields. Got it.
Essentially it sounds like without push back from the kids sports coalition, it’s a done deal that the Beltline will end up being a passive park, but we’ll see how much support the kids sports coalition will get from the passive park supporters when they start needing financial and City support. I’m not really sure where the win for the kids sports side in this is, because Estuary Park was always supposed to be sports fields.
Personally, making the Estuary Park and the North Loop properties passive and the Beltline an active park would be a much stronger planning decision particularly given the usage patterns.
I don’t personally think a passive use park (depending on what’s being discussed) is a bad idea, but I find the lack of conversation about how it fits into the overall mix, and which locations are better for what uses a little disappointing. Little league uses the fields at Wood Middle School. A number of kids ride their bikes to practices/games/events at the fields from all parts of the island. It would be nice to at least hear a conversation about how pushing new fileds solely to the Point and extreme west end will impact active transportation use. It seems that a decision is being made that our kids will mostly all be driven to practice/games. I’m unclear why a blended solution wouldn’t make for a better use. Oddly, both NYC’s Central Park and SF’s Golden Gate Park are held up as shining examples, both combine faux-nature passivity with more active uses.
That said, I think a uniquely envisioned park on the Beltline could meet other goals of the city, like supporting west end economic vitatily. PUtting a swim center at the western edge, creating a large-form sculpture garden throughout (a la Storm King” and partnering with the Oakland Museum of CA or socrates sculpture park in Queens, could provide passive space that is unique and draws people to Webster/Marina Village area and starts to support the economic goals of our city as well. It would be passive and our partner might help with the upkeep.
Alameda Point is going to have 150 acres of passive walking space, with likely more on the seaplane lagoon. Alamedan’s needs for passive walking space will be met no matter what, which should encourage to the city to look to create something “different.”
Comment by JKW — February 27, 2013 @ 6:57 am
Speaking as someone who did her share of schlepping around the soccer fields and basketball courts of the Island City, anyone whose kids participate in sports will find that they will be logging a lot of time in the car. The kids practice and play wherever the schedule permits and facilities are all over the place. A single season of soccer for an eight-year old will have you crisscrossing Alameda like mad. If your child excels in a sport, you’ll be spending a lot of time out of town as well, playing against kids in other communities. A centrally located sports field wouldn’t change that a whit. I also wouldn’t be so sure that the parking will be ample around a passive use Beltline, either. Alamedans use their parks. I would also argue that people who have neither need nor inclination to use the sports fields are in greater number and need of recreation and fresh air. Many elderly and lower income people can benefit from having a tranquil, green place to walk and ponder the mysteries of the universe that they can get to by foot or bus. As for the “backroom deal” nature of the request, unless money has changed hands, there’s no harm in asking. And let’s not forget, “Askin’ ain’t gettin’.”
Comment by Denise Shelton — February 27, 2013 @ 7:00 am
Turning Estuary Park (the former Coast Guard park) into a passive park would be senseless. It already is a sports complex. It has soccer fields with goal posts ready to use. It has a baseball field that need grooming and a new backstop. It has a basketball court that needs a net. It has a paved jogging/walking path. The place could be ready to go with bake sale funding. This place is a gem.
Want support for active sports from a passive park supporter? Here it is. Don’t waste limited funds turning an old rail yard into sports fields. The city is expected to get Estuary Park some time this year. Put up a sign and encourage people to start using it.
Comment by Richard Bangert — February 27, 2013 @ 8:06 am
#2 — Parents with kids in sports drive “all over the place” only if they have cars. Other parents/kids have to rely on public transportation, walking, or bicycling. As such, having centrally located playing fields could change things more than “a whit.” They might make it possible for some families to participate in youth sports that couldn’t otherwise.
Comment by Susan Davis — February 27, 2013 @ 8:23 am
@ Susan: You’re missing the point. You don’t get to choose where the team practices and plays, it’s always in several different locations. A team might practice one week at Alameda Point, and another week on Harbor Bay. In the same way, various game locations are scheduled for all teams throughout the season. As long as teams and games are organized this way rather than by neighborhood, those without access to a car will continue to be at a disadvantage.
Comment by Denise Shelton — February 27, 2013 @ 8:47 am
I think what Susan is saying is that having a centrally located field would allow for folks who don’t have access to cars and must rely on public transportation to, at least, in some instances have less far to schlep. If all the sports fields are located only by car then the likelihood of families with limited car access to participate in youth sports is pretty much nil. Expand the opportunities by expanding where fields are located within walking, biking, or bus distance then it becomes much more inclusive.
Simply shrugging out shoulders and saying: well, it doesn’t matter anyway because there are already fields out of walking, biking, bus riding distance means that we don’t value kids of limited means participating in youth sports.
And here’s the thing, the Beltline is fricken huge, nothing precludes the plot from having both a passive use and active fields as JKW suggested above.
Comment by Lauren Do — February 27, 2013 @ 9:26 am
Passive and tranquil, that’s what the Beltline park should be. Maybe with a large Japanese garden and pathways with flowers and trees and a reflecting pool. Something like St James or Regent’s park in London or the botanical gardens in Rio. Not a bunch of noisy kids yelling and adults cheering then all pealing away in their cars after the game.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 27, 2013 @ 9:31 am
Nope, not missing the point at all. If there are more fields located centrally, it will be easier for families without cars to get to them.
And in my experience, practices are held at the same fields week after week, as are “home” games.
Comment by Susan Davis — February 27, 2013 @ 9:34 am
Sometimes this city just seems obsessed with “gotta have more sports fields”. There is a limit! Once you grow up, you appreciate non-sports field uses much more. As usual, I didn’t see many of the above writers at either of the above public meetings. Passive park doesn’t have to mean “boring” or “generic” park. There were many small group conversations about an historical walk with markers, a railroad museum/memorabilia, a Victorian music stand/gazebo…Many possibilities were raised that aren’t listed on the City’s canned survey, which was based on the 2011 workshops.
U guys really should attend them, sometime.
Comment by vigi — February 27, 2013 @ 9:59 am
Do we even know that the lack of access to fields is a problem for many? Most kids are able to catch a ride with friends if they need to. I suspect that the cost of fees and uniforms more than geographical access is what prevents many kids from participating. The bigger issue for me is that the City already has ample resources allocated to team sports for youth, and very little to the health and well being of the rest of the population. The motivation behind the effort to secure the Beltline for the City was in the hopes it would be passive open space. I think they should stick to the original idea, although the botanical or Japanese garden would be lovely. The conduct of many of our college and professional athletes and their coaches today should more than demonstrate that team sports is not a sure-fire character builder for everyone. A little less rah, rah, in kids lives might not be a bad thing.
Comment by Denise Shelton — February 27, 2013 @ 11:25 am
I would like to see somewhere in Alameda a track that could be used by both student-athletes (none of the high schools have a usable track for meets) but by the whole community – a place where people of all ages could walk or run safely on a smooth surface. I think this would be an extremely valuable community asset. The only one in town currently is at the College of Alameda; it is not open to the public and they charge a high fee for rental.
Comment by Vicki Sedlack — February 27, 2013 @ 1:01 pm
The very good work done at Blogging BayPort is diminished by accusations of ‘shady’. Such a thing is a distraction, at best, from a more significant matter. That being Alameda is way, way behind in too many attributes that matter to families when they consider making the critical decision on where to raise their children. Take a look at Encinal HS, where my kids go to school, or Alameda High. Take a hard look. And not just there. Playing fields are in short supply as are parks of all kinds. Where are the bike paths and trails common-place in other communities. The fact of the matter is that Alameda will take decades of remedial work (that will cost $$) to recover from very, very poor decisions made in the 1950′s, 1960′s, 1970′s etc. etc. The new library and theater are moments of success and a new park at Alameda Beltline will be too. Focus on the things that need to get done, that the land at the base can help Alameda achieve, and not on distractions. You’ll be doing us all a great service.
Comment by Randy Rentschler — February 27, 2013 @ 3:28 pm
“The fact of the matter is that Alameda will take decades of remedial work (that will cost $$) to recover from very, very poor decisions made in the 1950′s, 1960′s, 1970′s etc. etc. ”
Mind sharing a few of the not just very but very, very poor decisions made in last half of the last century?
Comment by Jack Richard — February 27, 2013 @ 5:25 pm
My understanding is that the proposed sports complex will be a great destination for all things sports. I can’t wait to see what’s being planned.
For the Beltline property, I was leaning towards community gardens and a botanical garden. I’ve been to the Filoli Gardens in Woodside and the Sarah P Duke Gardens in North Carolina – both very beautiful gardens. I’ve heard the Elizabeth F Gamble Gardens in Palo Alto, and the Berkeley Botanical Gardens are wonderful too, and I’m planning to visit the SF Japanese Tea Garden sometime soon. Like the theater, a beautifully designed botanical garden will be a great asset to Alameda and most likely become a tourist attraction.
I’m not sure if the Beltline site is the right site for this type of garden — but I’m hopeful that whatever gets developed is something we can all enjoy.
Comment by Karen Bey — February 27, 2013 @ 5:47 pm
For those of us who would like to see “lovely gardens, pathways, trees, benches, etc.” do you have in mind how these will be funded and what it will cost to maintain them? I am curious as to the proposals for funding new parks; the cost is not insubstantial. Grading, installing watering systems, paths, and infrastructure, as well as acquisition of the plantings and maintaining all of it is going to be big bucks, which I don’t see in the current City budget, which is struggling to maintain our existing parks. What are your ideas for the money?
Comment by Kate Quick,. — February 28, 2013 @ 7:24 am
@Kate: It’s precisely for this reason that I’ve been in favor of a passive use, natural parkland approach, at least for the time being. If money can be raised (and it will no doubt take the form of a non-profit being established for the purpose and years of effort on the part of dedicated volunteers) perhaps a formal garden aspect might be incorporated at a later date. The maintenance, lighting, etc. required for sports fields and the like are too big a budgetary burden at the moment as well. We certainly can’t expect the City to foot the bill in the current economic climate.
Comment by Denise Shelton — February 28, 2013 @ 9:09 am
15, 16: ARPD readily admits Beltline is an unfunded project. They will be looking for grants. If particular themes are explored, specific grants may be available.
Comment by vigi — February 28, 2013 @ 9:17 am
On the other hand, field use, as opposed to passive uses, has a cost recovery component with usage fees.
Comment by Lauren Do — February 28, 2013 @ 9:18 am
It will be decades before the Beltline Park could be used for oraginized sports, but a couple of years for Estuary Park.
And then, if we’re talking about kids having fun, there is considerable support for a space at the Beltline for a field for pickup games of various kinds.
Comment by S. Horn — February 28, 2013 @ 5:28 pm
As I soccer parent, I don’t recall being asked by Pat Bail if she could make this quid pro quo on behalf of the kid sports coalition.
Comment by Alan — March 4, 2013 @ 4:40 pm