[Summit] tot lot

Sat Sep 22 15:37:30 UTC 2012

The discussion started with concerns about all the junk at the tot lot. All topics pertaining to this tiny block of land should be discussed. Bottom line: all those junky, discarded toys are an eyesore and the parents who use the lot should keep it tidy.
Craig Borges

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 22, 2012, at 8:37 AM, summit-request at sna.providence.ri.us wrote:

> Send Summit mailing list submissions to
>    summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
> 
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    summit-request at sna.providence.ri.us
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    summit-owner at sna.providence.ri.us
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Summit digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: Tot Lot redesign backstory (Emlyn Addison)
>   2. Re: tot lot (Emlyn Addison)
>   3. tot lot and community gardens (Martha Fraenkel)
>   4. Re: tot lot and community gardens (Greg Gerritt)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 07:48:40 -0400
> From: Emlyn Addison <noisyblocks at gmail.com>
> To: John Bazik <jsb at cs.brown.edu>
> Cc: summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> Subject: Re: [Summit] Tot Lot redesign backstory
> Message-ID:
>    <CAEAT3MG8v9XNzBNYPmRb=xL7c44hqcsgs3e_3DiMauizRY-6+Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> The farmer's market model still applies; why does their exclusive use of
> plots twice a week then not also have residents up in arms?
> 
> I don't--and haven't--discounted that it is still the effective
> privatization of public land, but if one use is OK, then why not the other?
> A double standard. Or is it time to boot out the farmer's markets and we
> can all just shop at Shaws?
> 
> I stand with Greg Gerritt et al on this one; however it's accomplished, and
> whoever needs to be satisfied, community gardens are important in so many
> ways.
> 
> And it's far preferable than states and municipalities just building more
> casinos, if we're talking about trends.
> 
> Emlyn
> 
> 
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 12:25 AM, John Bazik <jsb at cs.brown.edu> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 07:38:06PM -0400, Emlyn Addison wrote:
>>> By this logic, every park would, by law, have to cater to every
>> conceivable
>>> end-user type, or no park at all.
>> 
>> I don't think anyone has suggested that, and you are missing the point.
>> 
>>> I understand that these would be "private" plots of land on otherwise
>>> public land (as beautiful as any landscaping, John), but I don't see
>>> residents rushing to fill the spaces left by departing farmers' market
>>> stalls at Lippitt each week.
>> 
>> Oh, so that makes it okay.  No one wants that land anyway.  I heard that.
>> The 10% of the Ninth St lot is the part no one uses anyway - so who
>> could object?
>> 
>> Okay.  Why don't we charge $1 an hour to use public basketball courts?
>> The Hope High tennis courts seem really popular - I think the city could
>> make a few bucks there.  Gee, all this public land that people want to
>> use, why not monetize it?  Suppose I want the slide on Ninth St for my
>> kids, and my kids alone?  If I have enough money, can I "rent" it?  Hmm,
>> if I rent it, can I charge admission?
>> 
>> What about my street?  Can I rent a parking space on my street?  Oh,
>> actually, I guess I can, now.  $100/yr.
>> 
>> I think a garden is a perfectly fine use for public land.  My concern is
>> the privatization of the public common.  Have you heard of HOT lanes?
>> They are HOV lanes that, for a price, you can drive in with no passengers.
>> It's the latest trend in highway management.  Highways, streets, parks...
>> 
>> John
>> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachments/20120922/5ed2a763/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 07:54:45 -0400
> From: Emlyn Addison <noisyblocks at gmail.com>
> To: summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> Subject: Re: [Summit] tot lot
> Message-ID:
>    <CAEAT3MHh5pfDvr7JqDkVOPD_+XJWZzpONoirvA1cjGpwxP7Gmw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
>> 
>> I understand everyone's arguments here. Ideally the park would be used by
>> all -- urban gardeners, dog walkers, toddlers -- but 9th Street is rather
>> tiny. My beef is that up until a few years ago, it was not filled with so
>> many toys.
> 
> 
> This proposal had nothing to do with the toys at this park in the first
> place; it was and still is a discussion about introducing a community
> garden model. That's it.
> 
> The toys issue is a topic for another thread.
> 
> Emlyn
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachments/20120922/e89a61e9/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 08:22:59 -0400
> From: Martha Fraenkel <mfraenkel at gmail.com>
> To: summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> Subject: [Summit] tot lot and community gardens
> Message-ID: <505DADA3.8040301 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
> 
> I agree with Emlyn's well-reasoned and patient comments.  Thank you, Emlyn.
> 
> 
>  I wonder if someone can explain the history of the objection to using 
> a portion of Lippitt Park?   I can guess, but ???
> 
> 
> Martha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/22/2012 7:54 AM, Emlyn Addison wrote:
>> 
>>    I understand everyone's arguments here. Ideally the park would be
>>    used by all -- urban gardeners, dog walkers, toddlers -- but 9th
>>    Street is rather tiny. My beef is that up until a few years ago,
>>    it was not filled with so many toys. 
>> 
>> This proposal had nothing to do with the toys at this park in the 
>> first place; it was and still is a discussion about introducing a 
>> community garden model. That's it.
>> 
>> The toys issue is a topic for another thread.
>> 
>> Emlyn
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Summit mailing list
>> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>> http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
>> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachments/20120922/d7693a1a/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 08:37:36 -0400
> From: Greg Gerritt <gerritt at mindspring.com>
> To: Martha Fraenkel <mfraenkel at gmail.com>,    Summit Neighborhood
>    <summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
> Subject: Re: [Summit] tot lot and community gardens
> Message-ID: <CC83290F.15056%gerritt at mindspring.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> I hope to hear from the objector's at Lippitt park, and i wonder if their
> views have changed give the state of global agriculture.  greg
> 
> From:  Martha Fraenkel <mfraenkel at gmail.com>
> Date:  Sat, 22 Sep 2012 08:22:59 -0400
> To:  Summit Neighborhood <summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
> Subject:  [Summit] tot lot and community gardens
> 
> 
> I agree with Emlyn's well-reasoned and patient comments.  Thank you, Emlyn.
> 
> 
>  I wonder if someone can explain the history of the objection to using a
> portion of Lippitt Park?   I can guess, but ???
> 
> 
> Martha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/22/2012 7:54 AM, Emlyn Addison wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> I understand everyone's arguments here. Ideally the park would be used by all
>>> -- urban gardeners, dog walkers, toddlers -- but 9th Street is rather tiny.
>>> My beef is that up until a few years ago, it was not filled with so many
>>> toys. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This proposal had nothing to do with the toys at this park in the first place;
>> it was and still is a discussion about introducing a community garden model.
>> That's it.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The toys issue is a topic for another thread.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Emlyn
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Summit mailing list
>> Summit at sna.providence.ri.ushttp://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit
>> _sna.providence.ri.us
>> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Summit mailing list
> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us SNA
> Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachments/20120922/2e2d6b6b/attachment.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Summit mailing list
> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
> 
> 
> End of Summit Digest, Vol 90, Issue 46
> **************************************