Commission Impossible

If I were a Friend of Bidwell Park I would be planning my next lawsuit, whatever that is.....

The picture is of the handy-man Schneider in that sitcom One day at a time that had Valerie Bertinelli in it.

I am really tried of the FOBP's tactics.. I wish someone would try to ban them from the Park....

If I were a Friend of Bidwell Park I would guess that the CI challenge is handy-man Dwayne Schneider....

Mark B.

If I were a Friend of Bidwell Park I would take it out for cocktails on its birthday. Oh wait, alcohol isn't allowed in the park.

Nice guess, and you're correct the CI Challenge is the consumate maintenance guy Dwayne F. Schneider. He could take care of Children's Park and keep Valerie Bertinelli out of trouble at the same time.

Lon

Mark S.,

If I were a Friend of Bidwell Park I'd invite it over to watch the movie 300. Then we'd re-enact the battle scenes in my front yard with broomsticks and trashcan lids.

Great guess, but you were beat by 2 minutes by yet another Mark. I could say you missed the Mark by 2 minutes.

Lon

If I were a Friend of Bidwell Park, I'd cite your photoshop illustration as Exhibit A: Admission that every other possible, potential and/or hypothetical alternative disc golf course site location outside of Bidwell Park had NOT been thoroughly and adequately considered and explored during the Master Management planning process as required by CEQA.

Gregg,

If I were a Friend of Bidwell Park I'd contact the police about Lost Park, because being lost for so long can be scary, even for something as big as a park.

Good point, I should probably take the image down. There's no need to fan the litigation flames.

Lon

If I were a Friend of Bidwell Park I would sue the city for trying to displace the homeless from Children's Playground. How does the city plan to mitigate the displacement?

I consider myself a huge proponent of parks for people, but seriously, couldn't that RDA money be spent more wisely? I rarely see small children in Children's Playground (I know, I know, the bums scare regular folk away). There has got to be another location in Chico with a greater need for a kids playground.

Sincerely, #5

Sean,

If I were a Friend of Bidwell Park I'd see if it's family wanted to go on a camping trip with my family. Because being outdoors is fun for kids, and I'm pretty sure Bidwell Park would be comfortable spending a few nights in the woods.

I'll apologize beforehand for the length of this comment, but there is some history here that deserves going into.

You are correct that the RDA money could be spent more appropriately on other projects. I was on the short lived RDA citizen committee that made some spending recommendations for the agency. I did, and do, support using RDA money for Children's Playground for a couple of reasons.

The first was that of the many park facilities considered for RDA funds this was the closest to "blighted" in my opinion. It was becoming unusable as a playground. I often took my son to this playground and found it vandalized with broken glass, burn marks, and gobs of spit on the play equipment (this is likely where the increased maintenance costs come from). I quit going there for those reasons. Other experiences I've had with local parks lead me to believe that if you give reasons for people to be in the park, the bad element moves away.

The second reason I supported it was that an original purpose of RDAs was to cure blight where other funding methods (private) were unavailable. The Chico Mothers Club once appeared ready to raise money to improve this park but it never materialized. When we approached the City about building the Nico Project they asked if we'd consider doing it there. We said "No Way!". We did not want to see our hard effort wrecked by vandals. So I think the options for private funding are limited.

When the RDA citizen committee looked at all projects listed Children's Playground was in the top 10 or 15, and was behind many more appropriate high-dollar infrastructure projects. It was also ahead of a lot of desirable park related projects because of its condition and the problems it was introducing to the downtown area.

I think the RDA is overspent not because of this project, but because the City has failed to identify priorities and limit spending. The City Council did not follow our priority list, and the committee was disbanded by the Council after Councilor Gruendl questioned our purpose. I don't want to imply we had all the answers on this topic, but I think we were asking the right questions.

That being said, there is a very good argument that can be made that this is not the best use of RDA money. Additional valid concerns are that even with the improvements there is not adequate parking for people with young kids to make good use of the site. I recognize all of that. I still feel that given the history of the site and the importance of giving kids a place to play, we should give Children's Park another chance.

Had the city included a play structure in the downtown plaza design I might feel differently.

Lon

If I were a Friend of Bidwell Park I would see if it wanted to come over for dinner and maybe go swimming before the summer ended. We don't keep in touch like we used to.

I just reviewed the RDA committee's recomendations to the Council and Children's Playground was listed as #5 and the animal shelter renovation as #6 out of 30+ projects, so it came in higher than I remembered.

Our list of projects and how we prioritized them can be seen here...

http://www.longlazner.com/LonGlazner/rda%20projects.pdf

We also requested that the City Council fund the first five projects which would have spent $8.5 million, but defer all future funding until a more detailed discussion involving the general public occurred.

Lon

If I were a friend of Bidwell Park, I'd ask "Don't taxpayers have any say about this?"

If I were a friend of Bidwell Park, I would tell her that "my space" friends don't count as real friends.
Then I would change the subject quickly before she asked me which one I was.

Lon I also have to disagree with you.

I am not sure if I see how the new design or putting new playground equipment is going to stop the vandalism or get rid of the bad behavior. I wonder if the current design of the park is not the problem as much as just where it is located and how it is controlled.

It is a good place to party. It is dark and undercover of the trees, isolated so cops don't bother, lots of nooks and crannys to creep into, plenty of directions to run away. I don't get how that goes away from this new park.

This project did not have enough money budgeted to make major changes or do any work on the creek, but that is where the problem is, from my perspective.

Kudos to the Mothers of Friends of Childrens Park, you got to love that spirit, but I vote for the animal shelter.

I think the lack of parking is minor compared to the lack of enforcement. If we had a downtown that was more family oriented (slower speeds, safer parking, cleaner sidewalk, etc.) that used the park more frequently, maybe I would feel different about throwing more money at it before the animal shelter.

I might be biased toward the downtown, but it seems like that park is more about something you do while you are downtown or in addition to going downtown. I guess I am not convinced that the new design is going to attract more families to it without the downtown being more friendly to the families first.

In this case, the downtown is the infrastructure that supports that park, at least for access and parking anyway. I don't see the downtown going in that direction soon enough to keep new playground equipment from getting beat up again before the families get used to using the park on a regular basis.

We are about to get a new museum next to that park that attracts school children from all around the north state and the "actual" Indian village portrayed in the diorama at the museum is going to be right next to them at that creek and they will never see it or appreciate their connection to it. That park project should be bigger budget and involve a broader scope. A cosmetic improvement to that park is cool, but the animal shelter is a public health and safety issue, without even mentioning the animal rights and decency issue.

Maybe we should all take a field trip to both the animal shelter and then the playground and see which has more priority.

Actually, now that I think of it. A couple guard dogs would help the vandalism.

Chico could be the first place in the world with a Children's Dog Park Shelter Village.

TJ,

If I were a Friend of Bidwell Park I would feel really bad about running him over with my mountain bike back when I was in college.

I don't mind the disagreement. You and Sean make good points, and I'm not convinced Children's Playground will succeed. But the user's of the park complained about it's failure, and the city has stepped up to try and fix it.

I would point out that there have been numerous public discussions involving the police and lots of other organizations, including CARD, that have led us to this point. Those talks included using security cameras, increased lighting, and landscaping changes to make the area more visible/safe during the day and night. CARD said they might move some of their programs there to make use of the park, but cited bathrooms/parking as problems. Still, they felt they could get some more people in that park. In fact there were almost as many city departments involved in "how to fix Children's Playground" as I've seen in the recent budget meetings.

During all that time no other user groups showed up and nobody suggested a different use for the park.

That shows you the power of a local mom holding a syringe she found in a playground on the local TV news. I should have tried that in my City Manager campaign.

I can't guarantee the success of our police in Children's Playground, but they've said they can fix the problems. The playground design came after the assurances of law enforcement, and was the result of a public process that produced no alternative ideas.

If anyone is interested I posted a number of times on this topic in the past when there were public meetings.

Future of Children's Playground - April 2006
http://www.norcalblogs.com/commission/archives/2006/04/in_progress.html

Big Brother Meets Big Bird - April 2006
http://www.norcalblogs.com/commission/archives/2006/04/big_brother_or.html

Chico 5-0 - June 2006
http://www.norcalblogs.com/commission/archives/2006/06/chico_five-o.html

Lon

Lawn, er, Lon--

If I were a Friend of Bidwell Park I'd redesign the FOBP bumper sticker. I must be a Friend, since I did just that. http://www.norcalblogs.com/dog/2007/08/whose_park_is_it_anyway.html

As for Children's Playground, I think the Sherwin Williams overhaul is probably less important than the lack of specific programs to socialize its value. Kids these days get enrolled in various programs (soccer, gymnastics, music, dance, skating, what have you), and their parents then haul them around from one thing to the other. If the city, perhaps through a partnership with the Boys and Girls Club or Big Brothers Big Sisters or the scouts etc., were to schedule programmed recreational and skills events in the playground throughout the summer and on seasonable weekends, more kids and their parents would become more familiar with the resource, and perhaps more politically friendly to its funding. In the process, they'd also become increasingly familiar with and supportive of the downtown.

--Ax

Alan,

If I were a Friend of Bidwell Park I'd take him out to sushi at the Raw Bar. It would be really cool if he brought his own salmon to be sliced and wrapped.

I think that the city did address some of the suggestions you made. CARD was brought in specifically to do programming at the site. While I didn't hear it mentioned CSU Chico also has day care that could do some programming there.

And while the Chico Mother's Club is not well organized it does have a fairly large revolving membership. They might want to ask local moms invloved in their club to plan activities at the park.

The design and construction of the renovation is already funded*. At question is whether or not the City wants to pay to maintain it at $15K-$20K / year.

Nice bumper sticker. I'll buy 20.

Lon

*Note: The RDA has allocated the money for this project, but the Bidwell Park and Playground Commission and City Council still need to approve the design and cost before it can be built.

If I were a friend of Bidwell Park I would ask her if she would mind if I started calling her "Ole Biddy".

Lon,

I agree, that syringe cost us $250k and what if it simply fell out of a diabetics purse?

I must have missed those notices about the "public process" and my concern is not about the new design, except that there is not enough money there to make enough of an impact. I think the designer was held back by not having enough funding. It seems to me that the animal shelter can make that $250k go a lot further.

RDA "blighted" to me, has a priority towards infrastructure that is lacking or needs substantial improvement so as not to inhibit private investors from improving their ownership possibilities. Neither one of these projects fit well under that definition, but if we are going to blur the definition of "blighted" to take on depreciated public facilities then we should at least try to get the most bang for our buck. I realize that "blighted" is a vague term and my definition is not necessarily the same as someone else's. Certainly a good argument can be made that improving a park can have better investor opportunity than an animal shelter, but not if that park doesn't fix it's original problem. I guess you have more faith than I do about the limited staff, police dept. taking on more work to control that park. I only have a 7 pg. pdf downloaded from your site and not the city's. Maybe there is more going on behind the scenes than I know about.

I still don't see how the current "budgeted" improvements will do much for the neglected infrastructure that attracts the negative element causing the problems at that park. If broken playground equipment was the reason the negative element went there and we were improving that, then it would make more sense to me. I just don't think that is the reason the bad members of our community collect there. I also realize that kids are discouraged, like investors, from going to a park with broken toys, but what have we done to keep it from happening again in the near future, except spruced it up a bit. In fact, if I were a pessimist I would say, all we are really doing is adding more stuff to wreck.

I think finding ways for more kids to use the park is great, but I don't think the real problem occurs during the times that children and mothers are using the park. However, more "good" people taking ownership of that park is definitely a good thing, it just needs to happen more times throughout the day and night too. Any increase is good and maybe that will happen with CARD influence. Do the improvements have to be only about the kids that the park is named after or can it be about areas that surround it too (the mansion and museum, the downtown, the bike path, university, the church)? I can see how those users can occupy that space after kids bedtime.

I have downloaded the 6mb file you link and when I look at the sheet for "estimated construction costs", there are more items pulled out of phase I than are going in. That includes lighting, and picnic tables being moved to phase II. Do you know if we have started budgeting for phase II or have a date for that part of the project? I don't see security cameras on any of the sheets. Perhaps that is being taken care of by another city department that has more money.

It sure feels like this project is already over-budget before it gets started and is that a smart thing to do in light of the last park we tried to budget for? It seems that there is a lot showing on the plans that are not in any budget and that makes me nervous, not to mention the negative public perception and blowback that might result from the existing budgeted items going over the top. I am sure this is on Tom Gascoyne's target list.

You can argue that the public had there opportunity to speak and I am fine to live with those consequences, but that does not mean that we should be committed to now doing something that we can only afford to do halfway, disregard a bigger opportunity and continue to neglect our animal friends.

When I look at the items that did make it in the budget, it looks like cosmetic improvements to me and I disagree that that is really going to make a lasting improvement. Show me the money and timeline for phase II or give it up to the dogs, Dawg.

TJ,

If I were a Friend of Bidwell Park I would suggest he not allow so many people to party around his bear hole, because that is risky behavior.

Hmmmm... I find myself defending promises that the city made.

First, you've raised a very good point and one that I was considering last night. The original meetings discussed spending $125K on changes to improve "security" for lack of a better word. But you're right in pointing out that the park design is coming in at around $220K and may not include some of the items the police said they would accomplish.

At the council meeting that followed the Internal Affairs Committee meeting on 4-12-06 I spoke in support of making the improvements to the park. But my main suggestion was that at least half the money be spent on park improvements. This was after the police had said they needed $125K to do their thing.

Below are the minutes for the 4-12-06 meeting that list the Police recomendations. The Chico PD also provided a lengthy report on their proposal but I can't find it online. In reviewing the RDA fund summary the budgeted amount for this project is $275,000 with $28,500 occuring this year and the remainder next year.

I'll email the GSD to ask where funding is coming from for the PD recommendations.

COMMITTEE MATTERS REQUIRING COUNCIL ACTION
A. Review and Consideration of Policies Pertaining to Management of Children’s Playground, Ringel Park, and City Plaza.

The Committee discussed the possible development of a policy addressing safety concerns for Children’s Playground, Ringel Park and City Plaza, including types of uses available for children, uses that might detract from family uses, signs, lighting and other items. The Chief of Police and General Services Director recommended that consideration be given to establishing a curfew for Children’s Playground
and establishing a no loitering area within 50 feet of the restrooms at Ringel Park and City Plaza.

Nicole Jones and Ed McLaughlin addressed the Committee on this issue.

Monya Jameson, Recreation Superintendent, Chico Area Recreation District (CARD) noted that CARD has many programs they could transfer to Children’s Park, for example; summer camps, intramural drop-in sports programs, and sports camps. The only areas of concern would be restroom facilities and parking. Staff
suggested CARD partner with the University for restrooms facilities.

Staff indicated that a cost analysis had been done on the Police Department recommendations and many of the designs were low cost, adding there is capital project money available in the budget to fund these renovations.

Chair Herbert made a motion to accept the recommendations provided in the Police Department’s “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design evaluation” which includes:

(1) Post proper signs at all entrances to Park. Increase frequency of signs and size.

(2) Install partitions on benches to prevent sleeping.

(3) Prune all trees and tree type shrubs to 7' to the first branch. Prune all bushes 12" from ground and no higher than 36".

(4) Utilize more frequent placement of lighting and change to halide type lighting in order to identify faces at 25'.

(5) On the east side of Presbyterian Church - Install motion sensor lights and/or halide type lighting. Also prune the Juniper trees to 7'.

(6) Remodel the playground equipment to a style that allows for natural surveillance. Increase lighting to halide type in order to clearly identify faces at 25'.

(7) Install skate stop devices on all curbs.

(8) Install halide type lights to prevent sleeping at night and for identification purposes. Install sitting partitions to prevent sleeping. Install surveillance cameras to monitor activity. Increase patrol during
the high school lunch time and other high crime times of the day or night.

(9) Prune all bushes 12" from the ground and to a height no greater than 36" along the creek bank.

(10) Install bollards from creek bank to creek alongside the bridge to maintain proper access control.

(11) Increase lighting on bridge between Bidwell Mansion and Children’s Playground.

(12) Provide adequate maintenance to all areas of the park.

(13) Install halide lighting on the northeast creek bank, prune all shrubs to 36" in height and 12" up from ground level. Install low barrier type fencing to properly define public space.

(14) East end of Physical Science Building - Install barrier plants, high fencing, etc. to reinforce this as being nonpublic space.

(15) South side of Physical Science Building - Install unclimbable 10' fence and increase the intensity of corner light as well as the lighting pattern.

(16) Northwest entrance from University - Increase lighting and install panic duress button and surveillance cameras.

Taking down the walls to the amphitheater was discussed, but not recommended at this time.

Chair Herbert amended his motion to include a 10:00 p.m. to sunrise curfew for Children’s Playground. Councilmember Holcombe seconded the motion.

Other options mentioned to improve the area were:
(1) adoption of the “Park Project” by Chico High School; and (2) installation of a bike path near the Bidwell Park bridge.

Chair Herbert made a motion to forward a recommendation to the Council to direct the City
Attorney’s Office and the Police Department to work on an ordinance to supplement the state loitering law to allow the City to protect the entrance ways and path ways to all public restrooms. Councilmember Schwab seconded the
motion.

Recommendation: The Committee accepted (3-0) the recommendations as provided by the Police Department and the 10:00 p.m. to sunrise curfew for Children’s Park. The Committee also directed
staff (3-0) to work on an ordinance to supplement the state loitering law to allow the City to protect the entrance ways and path ways to all public restrooms.

Note: These suggestions appear to have been adopted unanimously at the following May 06 Council Meeting, including not endorsing removing the low wall at the amphitheater.