What Would George Washington Do?
What people don’t seem to understand is this is not a plan to remove the Cherry Trees per say, it’s a plan to remove the Mill River dam and concrete walls lining the bank. The trees, which line the walls are an unfortunate causality of that plan.
Why remove the damn and walls?
It creates an unhealthy stagnate pond of water that:
- Looks ugly.
- Backs up with silt needing constant dredging.
- Is an unnatural state that stops fish & other wildlife from interacting with the water.
- Increases the chances of upstream flooding and property damage (last year anyone?)
Converting the pond back to the stream:
- Will be aesthetically pleasing with its natural slope and native plantings.
- Eliminates all future need to pay for dredging.
- All but eliminates the chance of the stream causing serious flooding.
- Returns the stream to a natural, environmentally friendly state.
- Provides added square footage for trails and other park amenities.
Who came to this conclusion? The Army Corp of Engineers. Their study looks more substantial the observation of the Letters to the Editor page so far.
The thing that’s tied all these letters to the editor together is the observation that the trees look nice driving by. I’d agree with that, but wouldn’t it also be nice to have a park that you would want to spend time in outside of your car?
3 comments :
Based on my years covering local PnZ, working for a national homebuilding and just what you see in the news (for example, http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2006/05/15/3/), I wouldn't assume that just b/c the Army Corp OKs a project means that it is necessarily a good thing.
That said, yes, it would be nice to have a park you can actually use. But I just wonder about all the time, effort and money (even if it is the feds) going to the Mill River folly. Why don't they give some attention to updating the facilities at Cove and Cummings, which get much more use by the public. The soccer fields my 5-year-old plays on at Cummings, for example, are a landmine of holes, valleys and goose poop. The one portapotty is overflowing half the time.
A.H.A.U.: I hear what you're saying about the need for better maintenance at Cove, Cummings, etc., but Mill River Park has been in a steady state of decay for at least twenty years and has become all but unusable. At least the other parks have had fairly decent maintenance over the years.
That said, the key will be to keep up the state of ALL of the city parks. It's not just an expenditure; it's an investment. Parks are a huge draw for new residents and businesses, especially in a dense urban area like downtown.
Since the public at large can't find my blog, I bit the bullet and wrote a letter to the Advocate today in defense of the project. Let's see if they print it.
I think the outrage is misplaced here. I think its part of the whole suburban very vs city struggle Stamford has on a whole. The suburbs don't care about parks or see the need because they have yards. I read in the paper that the Shippan residents compromised on the turf fields at West Beach as long as it eliminated other additions like a stone entrance, walking paths, etc. What’s the rationale there? JR hit the nail on the head, parks meanwhile are a major amenity to people who live and work in cities.
Post a Comment