Other
Voices
A collection of comments
and writings about the proposal to build
homes, townhouses, flats and retail space in Allan Witt Park. Click here
Comments from
project
proponents, business and property owners, commissioners, planners,
committee members, residents, park visitors and anyone with something
to say...
We now have a weblog
page where you can
read and post comments online too!
Please contact Brad Smith for the Friends of Allan Witt Park.
Include your name and city of residence,
and state whether you wish to have your comments posted, and whether
you wish to have your name included.
You can also send
comments to
the Project Manager with the City of Fairfield or others
listed on the Contacts page.
|
Opinion Column by Jim DeKloe - August 22, 2005
Clean up, don't tear up Allan Witt
By Jim DeKloe
I opened up my copy of the Fairfield
Observer to
find an article on the Allan Witt Park proposal; the picture of the
current proposal took my breath away. The new plan for the park
appalled me, even though this small city-sponsored pamphlet tried to
contain a positive spin: "The proposed conceptual plan for the Allan
Witt Park Project has evolved reflecting community feedback. The amount
of park space has increased and the amount of residential and
commercial development has decreased."
To me the conceptual map of the new plan seemed to contain mostly
houses and almost no park. My wife, looking over my shoulder, said,
"how nice, they left a little lawn." Actually, I was thinking of
designing a new game based on "Where's Waldo," by taking this diagram
and saying, "Find the Park!" I rejected this idea since I discovered
that finding the remnant of Allan Witt Park in the new plan was so much
more difficult than finding the striped shirt of the old alliterative
character.
OK, let's admit it. Allan Witt Park fell on hard times in the last
decade. But, it's a great park. New York City didn't bulldoze Central
Park in the 1970s and erect skyscrapers when that grand old park had
crime problems: The city worked hard to clean it up and now they still
have a beautiful and large park in the center of their city for their
residents to continue to enjoy. Once a valuable park area like this is
lost, it is lost forever. Fairfield should clean up Allan Witt Park,
not give up on it.
The proposal hopes to anchor the revitalization of the West Texas
Street corridor. But to me, replacing open vistas, grassy expanses and
mature shade trees with yet more retail and 434 ugly housing units
diminishes the area. As a matter of fact, Allan Witt Park is one of the
only attractive spots in this entire region of the city, unless you are
a fan of World War II era Quonset hut and cinder block architecture.
Solano County already destroyed the beautiful Spanish-style buildings
that included the old agriculture extension office and replaced these
with an unremarkable apartment complex. Ironically the complex is named
"Park Crossing" and I suppose that if the Allan Witt proposal goes
through they will have to change the name to "The Complex Formerly
Known as Park Crossing." I might support a proposal for the West Texas
Corridor that would involve keeping Allan Witt Park and bulldozing and
replacing most everything between the park and Pennsylvania Avenue.
In the plan, the money gained from the
development
of most of Allan Witt Park would pay for a sports facility on the edge
of the city near the marsh. Yet again, we would be moving facilities
away from the city core and onto the fringes, the opposite of the goal
of "smart growth." Fairfield is way below the standard for the number
of parks that it's set for itself. Why don't we keep Allan Witt Park
and add more parkland elsewhere.
Luckily, a sophisticated opposition to this horrifying proposal has
formed and is growing. Under the leadership of Brad Smith, the Friends
of Allan Witt Park have attended all of the meetings and are preparing
for the apparent showdown. Their well-designed Web site
(www.allanwittpark.org) lays out their case very well. The city's case
can be gained from their Web site (www.ci.fairfield..ca.us). I have to
say that I've encountered very little support for this proposal outside
of the planning department in city hall. "That's crazy" and "what are
they thinking?" are the most common comments.
Consultants are now preparing the Environmental Impact Report for this
proposal so nothing will go before the City Council until next year.
But it is appropriate to make this a campaign issue for City Council
candidates in the November election.
Also, it's time to start the preparation for a referendum that would
send any decision on this to the voters. A fast-talking developer
shouldn't be allowed to develop a beautiful park and privatize a public
asset by only convincing three members of the City Council; if this
park is to be destroyed, it should require an election where all of
Fairfield would be given the opportunity to participate in the decision.
Email from a Fairfield Resident - July 21, 2005
I went to the meeting, to get
a feel for where this thing is at now.
It is important to start from
point zero - identify what the problem(s) is.
"We the people" have two
problems, it appears (well, aside from developer/city employee greed):
1) insufficient sports
facilities
2) a problem of
crime/vagrancy in Alan Witt Park.
The responsible approach (and
all the more compelling if there is a general shortage of funds) is to
try to identify ALL the various ways a serious problem can be solved
and then wisely - on the basis of well-considered criteria - select from
among them. Profoundly irresponsible is to grab at a straw
offered without analysis of the alternatives.
And there is fundamentally no
reason the solutions to these problems have to be linked.
Note that the CEQA/EPA
does NOT perform this all-important duty. Its function is
entirely different - to address the problem(s) of a specific project not
the problems of the citizens! Of course, it has to be used,
for it is one of the tools available to us, but everyone should
understand this fundamental inadequacy and, yes, irrelevance of it.
I came to Fairfield 10 years
ago BECAUSE of the open space. I couldn't bear the congestedness of the
core Bay Area. It is bitter to hear expressed the motivations for
manic development of Fairfield. I heard someone at the hearing,
speaking in favor of the development, say that people like to come from
the South Bay because they are/feel safer in Fairfield. I heard someone
say that it would be great to have local construction people work on
projects locally. But their presence/activities here (and my
own, I do perceive) are exactly the things that make Fairfield ever
more and all too quickly like the core Bay Area.
I almost never drive up North
Texas Street because it is so ugly. I drive down West Texas (and get in
the habit orf using the businesses there) because it is comparatively
scenic, a quality which is largely imparted by Alan Witt Park. Note
that being physically in the park isn't the only way it is used. Having
it in one's visual field is a valuable form of use. For me having
open space in my visual field is critical to my sense of well-being.
Development will happen, yes,
but do not go too fast and DO NOT TAKE THE CENTRAL LARGE PARK
AWAY. San Francisco and New York are considerably saved by
their Golden Gate Park and Central Park.
Frankly idiotic is the glib
concept that the park is "old", hence right for discard. Folks,
the air we breathe is eons old and planet earth is eons old, but of
course we're going to still keep using them. (Albeit at
times we need to change the WAY we're using them.)
If you have the email
addresses of Community Services Commissioners, please give them to me
so I can forward to them this email - or forward this email to them
(and anyone else you deem appropriate) yourself.
Thanks,
Jennifer Winkler
Fairfield
CONCERNS: EIR SCOPING SESSION 20 July 2005
Allan Witt Park is both a community and a neighborhood park (serving
the district from Hwy 12 to Travis Blvd). It also serves the larger
community. It was wisely planned as the Crown Jewel of Fairfield Parks,
with space to accommodate big venue events, swimming facilities, sports
activities, picnics, and many other family activities.
It’s only present major defect is the inoperable state of the swimming
facilities, in spite of having at least $5 million in funds dedicated
to repair or rebuilding of these facilities. It would be nice if the
new facilities were situated in the same, convenient location as they
have been for the past 50 years. It would also be good if they could be
designed for year-round use. $1.7 million of the existing funding comes
from bonds dedicated for use in repair or replacement of existing
facilities--not redevelopment. What would be the cost, in today’s
dollars to build what is already there?
Its ball fields are as large and functional as ever. Promises were made
in the past to add at least another field. It makes no sense to throw
away the existing ones, and come out after redevelopment with the same
number or fewer--which is the stated plan. Nor is it acceptable to
scatter facilities all over town, as is proposed with the tennis
courts, and come out with less facilities. How can tennis tournaments
be held if the tennis courts are sprinkled all over town? Sports groups
mention past promises of funding--what happened to these funds? There
should be audits to see if funding (as with the pool situation) is
available to improve the present park and fund improvement of the
existing sports facilities without the drastic step of selling the park.
The park trees are large, provide shade and habitat for birds and
animals, and families having picnics. This wide green urban area can
only benefit the community in helping to keep its air clean.
Replacement trees would take another 30 years to do the job as well as
the ones that would be removed with this project. When I drive around
the park, its scale is impressive. This can’t be duplicated in the
future. Access into it is easy because of the traffic signal on W.
Texas. Woolner Ave., which borders it on the back, works well for
access to the ball fields, but it is a rather narrow street, with
housing, a school, and business/industrial activities. It is not a good
street for adding the traffic congestion that will go with the planned
redevelopment project.
W. Texas St. is already terribly congested in the area where the new
apartments are being built on the old hospital grounds. All traffic
feeds onto I-80--already terribly congested--or Hwy 12, which is also
congested.
The proposed sports complex on Cordelia will cater to the perceived
needs of the modern team sports culture, in which children spend all of
their time being driven from one organized sports activity to another.
This is actually a small minority of families, and it is wrong to
indulge this practice to the point of excluding the needs of less
affluent children. There are far more families who have neither the
time or means to drive their children way out to this proposed
facility, or pay its additional costs, such as gas and fees. These
famil
ies continue to require and benefit from the current facilities at
Allan Witt Park. People in the neighboring area have expressed the
thought to me that this is another example of “the have’s taking away
from the have nots.”
The concept of putting a sports stadium type facility way out on
Cordelia Rd, (too far away and hazardous for children to access by
bicycle), in an area in close proximity to a brewery, industrial and
business facilities, and a sewage facility (known for its unpleasant
odors) gives a strange new definition of parks and fresh air.
Artificial grass and pea gravel do not contribute to cleaning the air.
Just a few of the hazards of that particular site include narrow
country roads, railroad lines (including the one famous for a white
phosphorus spill), and the potential for other chemical spills at the
sewage plant. Why choose this particular site? Are there plans to
develop housing in this area on remaining farm lands? How would
worsening the congestion on I-80 and Hwy 12 be mitigated?
The city has gotten a great deal of mileage out of the concept of
needing to replace or redevelop areas because of the problems created
by the presence of some members of the homeless population. So far that
has been the excuse for “revitalizing” the downtown, redeveloping the
old Wonder World Shopping center, and probably will be a convenient
excuse to install Wall Mart in Mission Village between two schools
(putting KMart and others out of business in the process). These
projects have not met their stated objectives, and the city management
should be ashamed.
The stories about encounters between the public and some members of the
homeless population are of concern, but they tend to create a life of
their own, and have amplified the public’s perception of security and
safety issues within the park. The city management has exploited these
fears to promote this proposed project. There are creative ways to
resolve those issues without throwing away the present public asset.
There are alternatives to selling Allan Witt Park to this developer.
Take steps to make the site more secure. Fencing and video surveilance
are good steps in that direction. Replace signs. Use the available
funds to replace the swimming facilities. That would increase park
usage by all age groups. Improve rest room facilities. Work with
community groups on improvement projects. The problems with the pool,
some planted areas, and maintenance issues give the appearance of
willful neglect. Increase the maintenance budget. Schedule more commun
ity events. Actively promote usage of the park. For that matter, why
are there maintenance issues? What is the budget for keeping the
present park in a “jewel like” state?
If there is enough backing to support a sports stadium, find a safer
location, and approach financing it in some way that doesn’t involve
taking away the present Allan Witt Park from those who value and use
it--or cost the taxpayers. There are many bitter experiences of
communities getting stuck paying for the enthusiasm of proponents of
sports venues. Some as close to home as Vacaville. Consider the
complicated ownership history of Travis Credit Union Park. Consider the
financial history of the Vacaville Ice Skating Rink. Also to be
considered is the fickle nature of sports enthusiasts for particular
venues, resulting in their short life spans. ARCO Arena is not that old
a facility, and there is already a movement to try to replace it. Many
questions should be asked about potential management and policies.
This is a very large, complex, and involved project that is being
proposed. It seems to change directions and plans constantly. There was
a water feature mentioned. There was a teen center mentioned. Both are
now absent. Then there is the matter of the proposed move of the Cal
Trans department to Red Top Road. That idea merits some intensive EIR
studies and reports. This is an area noted for severe traffic
congestion on I-80. It’s known for dangerous, severe traffic congestion
on Jameson Canyon Road. It’s just down the hill from a geologically
unstable patch of land and freeway on I-80 that has cost millions to
constantly repair. It is possible that the instability could include
this patch of land. Close to a creek known to be an environmentally
sensitive area--rare red-legged frogs and salamanders are recognized
inhabitants of this area. There are regular slides on Jameson Canyon
Road and even more regular automobile accidents that shut the road down
frequently. This is a questionable place to locate such an important
agency, which stores and uses toxic substances. It is also very far
from its currently served locale, thus increasing fuel costs. Is it
possible to forego this move, and find some esthetically pleasing means
of making the present site more attractive, or concealing it in some
way?
It is of particular concern that this project originated in secret
negotiations between Triad and the City Manager. While it is easier to
put across projects which are apt to be unpopular without the public
being aware of the planning, it is appropriate to question the secret
nature of these plans. Citizens elect officials to represent us, and
commissions are appointed to serve the public interest. It is
difficult, if not impossible for them to do their jobs if access to the
planning processes is subverted. It is made even more difficult when
the complexities of the process is used by invested parties to prevent
the public from fully understanding the proposed project. It should be
difficult for a city to sell its public assets.
The city should open this process to the public in all stages, from
proposal to planning to bidding. A proposal to do anything with the
park was not made until the planning of this project was essentially
completed. There was no significant public input to any of this. There
was not even a cursory attempt to go through the motions of a public
project. This is not the standard in California and every point in the
process should be discussed publicly and honestly. Triad’s and the
City’s actions in this matter totally disregard the spirit, if not the
letter, of the law. We need more community park space--it is a
violation of public trust to sell off this park.
The proposed park redesign would create a situation which limits the
use of the greatly reduced park to primarily those who would live in
the new housing area instead of the greater surrounding area it now
serves. The present park is an attractive vista on the route to the
downtown area. Since the city is deficient in park space, why not
increase the size of the present Allan Witt Park by incorporating the
old water treatment plant property into it? Nothing about the original
planning and implementation of this park is obsolete. It was a wise
investment of public funds, and is a more valuable public asset today
than ever, when more populous and crowded urban situations are eased by
access to a spacious park with beautiful, mature landscaping.
Virginia Ewing
Fairfield
From the
Daily
Republic
Letters: Friday, June 10, 2005
Please
don't change Allan Witt Park
I am against the proposed redevelopment of Allan Witt
Park that would remove the ball fields, sell off several acres to
developers, and surround a smaller, reconfigured park with apartments.
I believe if Allan Witt Park is surrounded by buildings,
it will not be seen as a large city park, but will become a
neighborhood park for the new residents. Why is this city council,
which seems to place great value on open space, now willing to destroy
the open space character of Allan Witt Park by surrounding it with
buildings that will hide the park from the citizens of Fairfield?
I do agree that Allan Witt Park and the surrounding area
needs improvement. The plans to redevelop the old water treatment site
are reasonable, except we should build apartments instead of houses.
The money from selling that site should be used to improve the park.
The Caltrans yard next to the park should also be redeveloped. Build an
apartment complex like the new Park Crossing apartments. Let it
overlook the park to give us the desired "eyes on the park" without
giving up an inch of park land.
The excuses of crime and the chronically homeless that
are being used as justification for the proposed project could be
applied to any park in Fairfield. Will the city someday use the
homeless and crime as an excuse to sell off parts of Laurel Creek Park
or Rockville Hills Park to build houses and businesses? Where will it
end?
Crime and the problems associated with the chronically
homeless will not be fixed by redevelopment. These problems respond
only to more aggressive policing, consistent enforcement of existing
laws, and the good work of organizations like Mission Solano. We
shouldn't give up an inch of our parks just because we aren't doing a
good job in preventing crime and managing the homeless.
What happened to the proposed teen center at the old
bowling alley site? One of the big selling points for the Allan Witt
redevelopment project was the proposed teen center at the old bowling
alley site. The center would have basketball courts, an indoor elevated
running track, etc. Is a teen center at the bowling alley still in the
plans or is this a classic case of bait and switch? Better yet, why not
use the existing gym in Allan Witt Park for a teen center? Let's sell
the bowling alley site and use the money to improve Allan Witt Park.
Allan Witt Park is great park. When school is out it is
full of kids and families playing ball and having picnics and just
enjoying the park. Let's tell the city council not to give up one inch
of our park. Tell them to find the money to police it, finish the pool,
and make other needed repairs.
Edward S. Houdashelt
Fairfield
Which
road is Fairfield going to
journey down?
Daily Republic Editorial,11/14/2004
Downtown Fairfield is at a crossroads. Go one way and I
can see a revitalized city core, anchored by the new government center
and lots of new, trendy shops and restaurants - a vibrant area that
citizens find safe and fun to visit, day or night.
Go another and I see a new government center surrounded
by a few new businesses that lock up at night, numerous empty store
fronts and an after-dark environment that keeps citizens fearful of
traveling downtown.
Which way will it be?
If it's going to be the former, some things must change.
Just because Starbucks and Quiznos announced they plan
to open retail businesses downtown doesn't guarantee the floodgates
will open and dozens of high-end retailers will open shop soon.
There's a problem downtown and other parts of Fairfield
that the city needs to eradicate. Soon.
It was perfectly clear when the city released a report
from its Sept. 11 crime summit. It surprised no one. Fairfield citizens
are scared. To head out onto the streets. Go to parks. Or the mall.
The summit was attended by about 100 people who
confessed fear because of increases in robberies and mayhem. They
identified lots of other issues as well: gangs, drugs, weapons,
homelessness, juvenile delinquency and importation of crime from other
cities.
It was only coincidental that state Attorney General
Bill Lockyer released a report about the same time that highlighted
that Fairfield was bucking a statewide trend among cities larger than
100,000 that saw violent crime diminish the first six months of 2004
(by 3.8 percent).
Fairfield's rate of violent crime, which included
homicide, aggravated assault, robbery and rape, spiked nearly 55
percent, one of only a handful of cities and counties to experience
those kinds of numbers.
A consultant, hired by the city to conduct the crime
summit and offer solutions, scratched the surface with his suggestions.
Focus on crime centers - poorly run apartment complexes that become
magnets for criminal types.
Establish "crime-free multi-housing programs" with the
city, he said. He also suggested improving communication between police
and citizens.
And to take back the parks, overrun with gangs and the
homeless, he suggested adjusting the sprinklers to discourage them from
using the park.
This is why cities pay the big bucks for consultants? To
generate these kinds of textbook ideas?
We have pizza delivery people accosted and beat up for
food. An entertainer at Pepper Belly's was mugged outside the showplace
between sets last week. A few months ago, one of our reporters was
mugged and her purse stolen shortly after dark, just a few blocks from
the office.
Why not just put an all-out assault on the problem?
If Rudy Giuliani could clean up New York City during his
tenure as mayor (1994-2001), then certainly our crop of councilpersons
should be able to handle Fairfield in 2004.
Under his leadership, Giuliani reduced overall crime 57
percent in New York City. Its once infamous streets became some of the
safest in America.
In New York, police statistically monitored criminal
activity on street corners as well as citywide. They held precinct
commanders accountable for criminal activity within their neighborhoods.
Giuliani didn't suggest building apartments and houses
throughout Central Park to cut down on crime. Nor should we start
chopping up a perfectly good park - Allan Witt - to discourage criminal
activity and panhandling.
How about some foot or bicycle patrols downtown? Get
officers out of their patrol units and mingling with citizens. That's
community policing. Their physical presence will do more to discourage
gang activity than 20 more police cars skirting around town. And make
them accountable for the city's crime.
Our City Council needs to forget all other issues in
Fairfield and make crime it's only issue. Make our streets - including
downtown - safe and everything else will fall into place.
You want to see a thriving downtown? Fix it and they
will come.
Bill James is editor/assistant publisher of the Daily
Republic. Reach him at 427-6983 or bjames@dailyrepublic.net.
Park redesign is
questionable
From the Daily
Republic
Letters
to the Editor, 11/21/2004:
The redesigned Allan Witt Park depicted on the front page in the Oct.
31 Daily Republic does not present a gateway to Fairfield but instead a
welcome mat to the city.
Instead, we, and the visiting public, will be greeted by infill
housing, upscale apartments, condos, townhouses, whatever, on both
sides of West Texas Street.
Regardless of the architecture, let's round off 698 units to 700, or
somewhere between 1,400 to 2,100 people and who knows what live/work
complexes would generate.
Will this be affordable housing and to whom? Beck Avenue and West Texas
is already a very busy intersection and peak-period stacking lanes are
not enough to handle the additional traffic both complexes will
generate.
So, some of the dwellings will be fronting West Texas with an entrance
and Woolner the other. I assume the private and guest parking will be
under or around the complex not on the street, which is not depicted in
the drawing.
Then, as Mr. Martin, and Mr. Coss expressed, was open space offered the
Hispanic and other residents a place to gather with their families to
celebrate their cultural events, or just walk, or picnic as a group.
When I did business in Mexico, I was always impressed by the activities
in the parks, their use with bandstands or other entertainment venues.
As our Youth Commission points out, there are not many places in
Fairfield you can go without experiencing some personal dollar costs.
Here we often see family picnics, pick up ball games, as well as soccer
not associated with any of the established fields, just a few shirts,
or cones marking off the field of play.
I remember reserving space within this park for company picnics often
associated with competitive ball games, horseshoes or other activities.
There will obviously be some fences associated with separation of park
facilities, and housing either for the errant ball or foot traffic that
may be undesirable to the residents, and businesses.
I welcome progress and growth as long as the planning, both present and
future, has some vision and not just for the revenue it generates. As
for future parks and open space - as with businesses - the important
issue is location, location, location. This piece of land is as unique
as Golden Gate Park or Central Park and must be preserved.
Keep in mind the NIMBY issues after the fact when the home/business
associations exercise their clout about the park area and its use.
Poof! Allan Witt will be gone!
Remember location, location. How about 60 plus acres on North Texas or
West Texas or Armijo High School? Bad location for a high school but an
ideal place for this type development, and even a new post office.
Across the street is ideal for a transit mini hub for buses and train
connection station in lieu of Peabody or Suisun. Do a property swap
development for a new high school more associated with growth.
Armijo Commons and Park retains history in name and a vision for the
future.
D.S. Hall
Fairfield
More Observations
Email from Sharon Wellins, Community Services
Commissioner
City of Fairfield (11/19/2004)
Things I find interesting in my reading
1. The citizen's committee is now referred to as the Allan Witt
Park Working Committee by David White.
2. The timeline on the website-- citizen input
ends in January?
3. The park would be closed or under
construction for 3 years-- according to the timeline.
4. Our citizen's meetings are filled with
"informational" presentations and there does not seem to be any time
for the members to talk and disucss as one would think a citizen's
committee would be able to do.
5. Instead of asking questions in public
meetings as I understood was the intent, all the questions have been
submitted for carefully crafted answers by city staff.
6. Splintering off committee members to private
meetings with city staff also defeats the purpose and spirit of having
a citizen's committee. It feels to me that secrecy and division
is the real purpose of these separate meetings. Or am I just
paranoid?
Sharon Wellins
The
"Homeless"
From Councilman
Jack Batson
on the
Goals
and Objectives page
(Note: the wording of the goals regarding the
homeless has since been changed slightly):
Brad and Committee:
EEECCCCHHH! "Provide a place for homeless and other park users who have
nowhere else to go...." Now, homeless can't be given the bums' rush, I
know, but I don't think we should "provide a [special] place" for them,
either. Would we offer shelter for them? Should they be fed there on a
regular basis? No! Parks are for people who wish to recreate which
includes walking in a nice environment, playing games and having
contests,
flying kites; barbecueing or picnicing; having family or company or
union or
neighborhood gatherings where those uses can be combined, listening to
public music (or quiet private music), and similar activities. We don't
make parks to house the homeless. They should not sleep there. They
should
not be regularly fed there. Those actions are contrary to what I
believe we
build parks for. Your reaction?
"The park is for everyone who obeys regulations." Exactly. What should
we
do about drinking and drug use?
"Ignoring the issue will not solve the problem [of homeless people in
the
park, I assume], and will adversely impact the success of other project
objectives." Could I have a clearer understanding of the meaning of
this
statement?
Thanks,
Jack Batson
Reply from
Brad Smith:
Jack - Thanks for your questions and comments.
Let me try to explain what I'm suggesting and why I stated those goals.
I think we have a couple of issues here, and I'll try to express my
thoughts. First is the question of definition. Who are we talking about
when we say "homeless"? Perhaps we have different concepts of who that
is. It's kind of like saying the "middle class", because it covers a
broad range of circumstances and capabilities.
My comments are not about all homeless, and certainly I'm not condoning
alcohol, drugs, sleeping in the park or other violations of ordinances.
I am trying to address the group of users who spend time in the park
because they have few options for places to go during the day. They
might be day laborers, temporarily unemployed migrant workers, or maybe
they just aren't allowed to stay in a shelter during the day.
There is definitely an expectation that if the Allan Witt Park
development happens, these people even though they obey the
regulations, will not be seen in the park anymore. Magically they be
gone - out of sight, not a problem any longer!
That may or may not be realistic. If people are uncomfortable sharing
the park with them, then sooner or later they'll be forced to leave. I
have a real problem with pushing the disadvantaged out and expecting
them to fend for themselves somewhere else. I will not support
something that puts legitimate users out without providing some
consideration of an alternative.
Now, exactly what that alternative should be, I haven't a clue! I'm
really ignorant when it comes to the homeless. And perhaps I'm naive
too! I wasn't proposing that we house and feed the homeless in the park.
At every meeting during which the issue of the "homeless" was
discussed, including private meetings with city officials, the
"homeless" are made out to be the enemy - to be driven out of our sight
and hounded out of our fair city. Our fair city, which is the County
Seat, which is supposed to be the hub of social services for Solano.
Well, I'm getting pretty disgusted with that kind of attitude. Maybe
I've taken an extreme position as a result, but I cannot just sit
silently and let it happen.
What might occur is that both the legitimate and non-compliant park
users will move to another area - perhaps along linear Park, perhaps
Lee Bell. Pushing them out of Allan Witt solves nothing. Like air
bubbles in a waterbed, if you push down on one spot the bubbles just
roll a short distance away but they're still there.
It also may be that the proposed Mission Solano shelter addresses this
need. I don't know that either, but have heard various comments
indicating that its focus is transitional single parent families. I've
spoken to a few advocates for the homeless, but it seems an enormously
broad problem and nobody really knows what to do about it. I'm trying
to understand the issue, but I'm not a sociologist or psychologist, or
a social worker.
Most people say nothing can be done. I'm not willing to just accept
that, give up and pretend the problem doesn't exist. I believe we owe
those we propose to displace some consideration.
Let me know if you have thoughts on how to phrase those goals better. I
may be able to improve the wording somewhat. This has helped to clarify
my thoughts a bit.
Brad
Keep
baseball
downtown
From the Daily
Republic
Letters
to the Editor, 10/25/2004:
Concerning the new plan for Allan Witt Park: I
understand the city is considering building apartments there and moving
all of the baseball diamonds closer to Cordelia.
I think that is a poor idea because you're not only
diminishing our park, you're going to lose money because who is going
to drive all the way out of the downtown just to play a little
baseball? Please don't carry through with this because you're hurting
your budget and your community.
Logan Wooden
Fairfield
