Article Contributed on: 7/7/2009 3:45:20 PM
Through my recent studies of local politics, I have realized there were a few major controversial issues that were considered in the last 4 years and will most likely be made as issues in this year's city council race. One that I have yet to find an understanding of the opposition, is the development of Coyote Gulch Park baseball fields. In questioning the candidates I have decided to include this issue but have yet to really come to my own understanding of "the correct answer."
Close to thirty years ago, my father, Tim Randle,moved to Colorado. A strong believer in conservation, he worked within different groups to fight Lakewood city council on the development of certain areas within Lakewood, including the current Union Square Park. Thanks to his, and others' activism and hard work,they were able to designate this and two other areas as park space. Playgrounds currently stand at Union Square and Right Parks. When he tells me the story, he compares his side to the more recent side that fought against the development of Baseball fields at Coyote Gulch.
However, he has never stated any opposition to this development, and I wonder why anyone would. The group from decades ago secured land as parks and developed playgrounds in the area. Now, the city decided to develop another piece of land to develop another type of recreational area. One that can be used for both recreational, and organized sports. I fail to see the side the opposition came down on in this case.
I reviewed a youtube video about this issue where a back and forth set of carefully edited clips which make the council out to be these vicious people. While I agree, the attitude taken on by certain members of council hardly seems appropriate, some of the complaints of the opposition hardly seem valid. I will pose certain points, and I hope those who were against this development can start discussion so I can better understand the issue, and base my vote for city council with a more informed opinion on it.
1. "The Baseball field is for a limited number of people."
-I have always thought that baseball was a major american pastime. When I was growing up, everyone played baseball, t-ball, softball, etc. This type of area can even be used to play kickball, a personal favorite. How is this limited? Aside from families who allow their children to stay lazy, I think this is a development that can be used by anyone.
2. "The large amount of parking spaces required"
-This is a little bit more about the nitpicking of reasons. The person said a typical field requires about 20 spaces. As those who have ever driven by Beech park when a baseball game is going on know, twenty spaces is a very limited amount and requires quite a bit of road side parking, which in the end sounds a lot more dangerous due to limited visibility.
3. "By putting non-neighborhood boys ages 14-16 in the area, you are taking away a safe place for [my daugter] to work out."
-A huge assumption must be made to make this argument even close to accurate: That the 14-16 year boys will be their without guardians. For non neighborhood boys 14 and 15 years old it would be relatively difficult to get to this field without the help of older drivers.
-Aside from this it sounds like a very alarmist point of view, grasping at straws if you will. By working out, I am assuming that this woman means running, since as it was, there wasn't any other type of working out available. To assume that any teenage boy, guarded by adults, is going to somehow attack someone else, seems very alarmist.
One of the 4 candidates who aren't currently on city council has made their position clear. I assume we will learn more about the position of other candidates. Coupling this with a healthy discussion of opposition to this development, as well as other issues brought before council recently, I hope we can bring in a new class of council that does care about the people, but which doesn't chain itself to alarmist opinions.
Thomas