January 17, 2003
Report from the First Rink Workshop, Part 3
I didn't take notes during the table discussion portion of the workshop, since I felt it would be somewhat rude to just sit and write about the conversation rather than actively participating in it. So I just have a few general comments and reflections to mention here.
The three questions posed for the table discussions were as follows:
What are the advantages and disadvantages of this proposal?
What suggestions do we have to modify the proposal that would minimize its disadvantages and maximize its advantages?
After reviewing our suggestions from Question 2, which, if any, do you support personally, and which, if any, do you oppose?
First, let me offer a slight warning to people who might be attending future workshop sessions. The process is at least a little bit, well, slimy. They insist that you offer up ways to "maximize the advantages" and "minimize the disadvantages" of the proposed ice rink -- even if you happen to personally oppose the project. In the end, although I initially insisted that I should recuse myself from these questions because I simply didn't want to do their work for them, I settled for explaining that the best way to maximize the advantages would be to site the rink somewhere other than Pioneer Courthouse Square.
It can be argued, I suppose, that you can be freewheeling with your responses to Question 2, because in your answers to Question 3 you can demarcate your personal opinions on each minimizing/maximizing suggestion. I'm skeptical that these personal opinions (given by placing either green or red dots next to each suggestion) will be utilized in future presentations. I find it much more likely that the rink's backers will focus instead on the list of things suggested that would allegedly improve the rink proposal.
So, I offer the warning again: Do not do their work for them. When pressed for ways to improve the plan, stick either to opposing any plan for a downtown ice rink altogether, or to supporting a rink that is sited somewhere other than Pioneer Courthouse Square. Don't get suckered into the trap of Question 2.
Present at my table was a man who apparently worked some of the construction when the Square was originally built, who expressed a fairly consistent concern that siting a rink in the Square would degrade the integrity of the Square's original and intentional design.
Also at my table was the downtown property owner I previously mentioned (the one who insisted he had never been notified of the process by which downtown property owners has "assessed themselves" $1 million to pay for the rink project). He was big on the issue of not steering the Square away from its proper public uses.
Much of the table discussion tended to revolve around many of the issues I've been writing about here, so I won't rehash them.
When all of the tables had dispensed with the three questions, each was asked to give a summary of opinions and suggestions. Most of those present appeared to oppose the proposed ice rink, although there were some clear supporters present. Surprisingly, some people liked the idea of siting the umbrellas at the Square, but without the rink.
Concern was expressed yet again that the rink would interfere with impromptu uses of the Square, and it was suggested that to help give people a real sense of the rink's impact, the area of the Square's floor which would be taken up by the rink should be fenced off for a short time. This idea received a great deal of support-via-applause from those present.
There wasn't much more to it than that. In the end, I'm skeptical about some of the methods used for this series of workshops, but there are ways to subvert them if you're paying attention and don't let yourself get trapped. It was also useful to hear, during the initial presentations, that there will be additional opportunities -- during the conditional use permit and design review processes -- to put a halt to this project.
If you can make any of the workshops, please do. Since this is the first real public discussion of this proposal, it's important that those opposed to the project pack themselves into these workshops to whatever extent they can.
Comments (1)
The One True b!X on 17 Jan 2003
One thing I forgot in the above post was my criticism of the misleading information that's provided by the rink's backers. Or, as I put it during the table discussion, the way the game board keeps being changed.
In other words, things such as the disingenuous 25% figure, or the sudden change from "there will be no interference with other events" to "only one of the four Winter events will be displaced."