Last night's public meeting about the proposed park started out with three park board members and the consultant expressing their desire to listen to the neighborhood. I appreciate their efforts, but my impression is that there needs to be more discussion to figure out what the neighborhood wants.
I like the proposed plan in general. It leaves space for prairie, trees and natural areas that won't be over-manicured, along with bike trails and open play fields. There are two changes I'd like to see discussed.
The only way to reach the park is by going through the Franklin Park subdivision. Apparently, this was done in response to people at the first meeting who think it should be a neighborhood park that doesn't attract people from the rest of the community. I believe it's completely unrealistic to think that making the park more difficult to access is going to keep people from visiting. The park's existence isn't going to be kept a secret. If people have to drive through the subdivision to access it then that's what they'll do.
The plan will likely increase traffic through the subdivision, which is exactly what I heard people say they don't want. I don't think the design will reach the goals of people who want less neighborhood traffic, but the meeting ended before I had the chance to make that point.
Several other people had their hands raised when the meeting ended, but public comments are still being taken. The latest proposal isn't on the website yet, but we're told it will be soon.
On another road issue, there was no discussion about the fact that all three plans block off the possibility of the subdivision extending certain roads to West Lake Shore Drive or 11th Street. Maybe most residents are happy with the congested and dangerous Hazel Dell Rd being the only way in and out of the area, but if we're going to have a park that permanently limits our options for a back way out, then we should at least discuss the issue first.
My other suggestion was in the SJR coverage of the meeting. The proposal calls for a shelter with benches that's surrounded by trees on three sides and borders the parking lot. That's good to have but it limits how the park can be used if that's the only structure. I'd like to see a small, multipurpose pavilion or gazebo added. One person made a similar suggestion and a few others told me they agree after the meeting.
No one in the crowd disagreed with me but it's hard to tell if that's because: a) they like the idea, b) they think it's going nowhere anyway since the planners responded negatively, c) most people in the room don't like to speak in public, or d) they just don't care. There was no discussion of it by residents, along with several ideas presented by others.
That's one of the limitations of this type of meeting format where everyone speaks to an official at the front of the room instead of having a discussion with each other. Unfortunately, this is what 90% of public input meetings by any unit of government in the Springfield area consist of.
Besides the limitations inherent in the meeting format, the public wasn't provided with a summary of input from the previous meetings. I'm left wondering if the plan represents what a majority of the neighborhood wants or what a majority of people who get loud in public meetings want.
Because there's so much interest, I'd like to see the park district encourage people to have house party/coffee discussions with invited neighbors. The consulting firm could provide a guide that allows small groups to consider ideas and have a thoughtful discussion with friends in their home about what they want in a park. Results of the small-group discussions could be compiled, summarized and released to the public. This would take public engagement up a notch for the Springfield area.