Reply
or to participate
Ryan Duckett6 months ago
Petanque courts are such a niche use for such a valuable bit of land. 10k people within a 15 minute walk! Incredible how our neighborhood is larger than most towns. It is wild to me that 0.45% of the community convinced P&R to proceed with this project to double their amenities.
The worst part is, besides the existing courts, new petanque space can easily fit on the average private property in the area. Chimborazo Playground should be used for shared assets that cannot.
It's hard to compare the shallow rock dust pits/trip hazards that sit unused 95% of the time to what could be done with that acreage. Alternatives include more community garden space that draws in curious passersby, improves real estate values, and provides aesthetic/ environmental benefits. Or a squash court. Or a pickleball court. I don't even like pickleball, but it feels more appropriate than petanque.
lilacs doom6 months ago
Agree. Literally anything else would make more sense. Volleyball field, a complete soccer field, gardens, etc. Then again, this is why you don't let a tiny group with such narrow interests decide how a public park should be used.
Dave InfanteAuthor6 months ago
Yeah I've heard from several folks noting that the half soccer field with the weird metal goal/grate thing is hardly a proper soccer facility. Not to mention the lawn has never been properly tended to on that stretch, so there's a bunch of weird gravel in there. (Well, and now it's torn up from the machines, too.) Lotta different potential uses for that space.
lilacs doom6 months ago
I love playing soccer and yes the field is uneven and the cage (?) is not inviting, especially with all the "danger" signs on it. But I think the real problem is using these improvements as justifications to focus on the petanque group, which is what I am seeing when reading FOCP's responses. Not to mention that one of the "improvements" (the surprise hoop that no one uses) is a result of a failed patenque court. I mean, come on...
Dave InfanteAuthor6 months ago
One thing that has become clear in my reporting on this matter is that the Boulefrogs are a very well-organized group, and have been very effective at advocating for themselves and the sport they love when interacting with city officials. (As matter of course, I think it is good when people take an interest in maintaining and improving public spaces, and I don't think self-interest is disqualifying!)
That said, I still haven't been able to connect the dots on how Parks got from "wow these people are passionate and want more courts" to "send in the bulldozers." Without understanding how the department translates a small group's demand into a sweeping change that will affect everyone, it's impossible to say what happened here, or that it won't happen again.
lilacs doom6 months ago
Wait, the Boulefrogs president is treasurer of Friends of Chimborazo Playground? Isn't that a blatant conflict of interest? Very strong "are we the baddies?" energy after completely going rogue to satisfy their personal niche interest. And after all of that waste of space with the weird ceded court situation they have the gall to say how much they've contributed to the park. This is a comedy skit.
Dave InfanteAuthor6 months ago
That's according to Morris-Rankin herself. I haven't been able to locate a current list of officers involved in Friends of Chimborazo Playground, but I have no reason to believe it's untrue. (Though if you have any more information on the membership makeup of FOCP, I'm all ears: https://www.chlookout.com/submit-a-tip)
