voice of bainbridge

Decisions taken without any public participation? The case of the "Strawberry Plant" Park (to be)

Readers of the Bainbridge Islander can read today how the city (who at the city is not clear but for the city shorelines planner Mr Peter Namtvedt Best quoted in the article) will remove "100 creosote piling and about 250 feet of concrete and other shoreline armoring from the Strawberry plant property... that will eventually (?!) become a public park with a restored marshland and gravel beach."
The problem with this decision making process is that the community that has been asking for parks has not been consulted nor informed. While I was supposed to get information from Mr Namtvedt Best after I had inquired on October 31 about the fate of this very nice place, he never got back to me. Is he running the city? Is that acceptable? I don't think so :(

See copies of the email exchanges below

A letter from Debbi Lester about Ericksen Park

I post Debbi's email on the blog (below) as a pertinent contribution to this on going saga. I take note that she talks of Ericksen Park and that it is the right way to frame this issue: we are talking about destroying a park.
A very small park but how many are there in Winslow? And who would benefit?
Thank you Debbi for taking the time.

Earth Hour on saturday on Bainbridge

Turn off your lights for one hour 8 to 9 pm (or more). Here is the blog. And the invitation from the city to go to Battle Point Park and look at the stars (if it's not snowing).

Public Works and Transportation to look at Hildebrand on Monday 31 (3 to 5)

This meeting is "announced" by two small posters posted along Ericksen. Can that be considered sufficient information? I don't think so.At first I thought the city website did not  provide any additional info :( but in fact if you type the date of the meeting within the agenda, then click on the right item on the program for this day you get this "presentation" (pdf format) that is a version of the draft we had presented in June (see below).

I guess if you cannot attend you can still email the city counsellors in charge of public works: Kjell Stoknes, Kim Brackett and Chris Snow.

Who is going to defend the public interest? How can we know if we cannot attend?
I suggest this meeting be recorded (audio) and posted on line so that the people who cannot attend but are concerned could hear what is said.

A digital audio recorder costs $30 and all public meetings can be recorded.

See the previous postings on the saga of Ericksen and Hildebrand that refer (for instance) to the draft (an incredible reading) of this $75K  study.

The Chamber persists (and so does the community)

When I took this picture this morning the traffic was minimal, as it is most if not all the time contrary to what is sometimes claimed. The Hildebrand Lane is in no way a very busy arterial. Nonetheless the Chamber wants to erase the small pocket park and replace it by more pavement. Who would benefit from such a destruction? Are all the Chamber's members in favor of such a move? How much does such a banner cost? Is it a good use of the Chamber's money? Who decides such a campaign? Has it been discussed by the Chamber's membership?