 |
| The Hart Park House |
CONSIDERATION OF CONVERTING THE MEMORIAL PARK WOMEN’S RESTROOM INTO STORAGE:
1) In March of 2011, the Community Services Commission voted to use CRA monies to install a Kodiak restroom in Memorial Park and to restore the restrooms adjacent to the Hart Park House.
2) In reviewing the tape of April 12, 2011 the City Council voted for the Kodiak and for “staff to develop plans for renovating current restrooms and an alternative storage plan for the seniors for a later date.” Councilmember Moran remarked that “the more bathrooms in that park the better” and it would be good to be able to get rid of the portable toilets. . . .
3) In May of 2013 a staff report was brought to the CSC from the Senior Services Commission requesting to replace the women’s restroom with storage for the seniors and to convert the men’s room into a family restroom. The Commissioners asked staff to bring back more information including alternatives to the conversion of the rest rooms, and asked that the Senior Commission look into alternative storage options, something that was asked of them in April, 2011.
4) For the CSC regular meeting in September a joint meeting was scheduled by staff to discuss this issue. Senior Services Commissioners did not have any alternatives to suggest and firmly held the position that the conversion was necessary.
5) At that meeting Mayor Walsh spoke and declared that the CSC was disingenuous in our discussions because we were previously in favor of storage and a unisex restroom. This is not true as evidenced in minutes of the CSC as well as reviewing the City Council April 2011 tape. We never considered a conversion to storage.
6) The majority of the CSC members object to converting to storage for the following reasons:
a - The restrooms are Community restrooms, not senior restrooms. They are used by the community using Memorial Park.
b - The CSC is responsible for parks and facilities and must consider what is best for the community as a whole, not just one segment of the community.
c - Turning a restroom into storage does not make any sense as park facilities are needed for park use and there would be a loss of three fixtures: a men’s urinal and commode, and two women’s commodes, to be replaced with one commode in the proposed unisex restroom.
d - One facility would not be practical in that area because it would be used by day workers as well as children and families using an area designated for children ages two to five. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against day workers. However there are many who stay in the park for extended periods of time, and the men’s restroom is heavily used by them. - Pat Alcorn
Mod: Pat's Community Services Commission colleague David Crochetiere had a work obligation and could not attend Tuesday evening. Instead David sent the following letter to the City Council, which was read aloud at the meeting by Councilmember John Capoccia. Here is what he had to say:
Council Members:
I regret that I cannot be at the meeting of the City Council tonight because of work demands, but I wanted to offer my opinion as a member of the Community Services Commission on the proposed conversion of the restrooms in Memorial Park into a partial storage unit. I appreciate the time you take to read my thoughts on this matter.
As I hope you realize, I try to come before you only on issues about which I feel strongly. While the conversion of a restroom would not at first blush seem like an issue to be passionate about, when the issue came before our Commission on two separate occasions the more I looked into the proposal, the more ill-conceived it appeared. Indeed, even as I write this I remain surprised that it seems to anyone a good idea to eliminate one of the few bathrooms in a park well used by our community, and often used by crowds, to gain a little storage space for tables and chairs. I urge you to reject this proposal and look into other ways to meet the storage needs of the Senior Center without such a counter-intuitive and permanent impact on the resources we already have in the park.
So let me state the obvious:
1. It is unwise, and unprecedented, to take a space that is fully plumbed and useful as a bathroom, and turn it into a closet. Closets are improved to become bathrooms in your house, not the other way around. There are so many other options for storage space (the lowest possible use for a space) that improved areas like a bathroom simply should not be used.
2. The balance of competing interests here clearly weighs in favor of keeping the restroom as is. There are already too few restrooms in a large park. The plan eliminates three fixtures (two commodes and a urinal) and replaces them with one commode in a unisex restroom. On the other side of the scale, though I looked hard for it, I could not see a desperate need for storage in the Hart House. The pictures we were shown showed some tables against the wall, and we have been told that some people would rather not have to cart items back and forth each week for their projects. When a member of the Senior Commission suggested at our joint meeting that a small game room be used for storage, the response was that people like to play games in there. No doubt true, but not a reason to destroy a functioning bathroom.
3. The fact that the Senior Commission will pay for the renovation is generous, but self-interested. Senior groups advocate for the interests of Seniors, and I get that. But your Council and our Commission have a broader mandate - to look out for the interests of the community as a whole. Tennis enthusiasts might pay to pave the park to put up more courts, but we need to strike the balance we cannot expect them to strike.
4. The idea that we will get a brand new updated restroom (albeit with one stall) and save on the cost of renovations of the existing restrooms is nice, but too costly in other ways. Many of our facilities need renovations, and outside money is nice, but renovation of the park restrooms now is not an emergency. We can wait until we have the money to maximize the value of what we have already invested in, not sell off more than half of it to improve what is left.
5. It became apparent when I started asking questions at our meetings discussing this project that it had not been thought through carefully. Some examples:
- Men would use the unisex bathroom along with women and families. No one had considered how the new unisex restroom will look, and how attractive it will really be to families after a few months of use. I know what men rooms in parks can look like.
- The door of a unisex restroom will have to be locked to avoid the other sex coming in. If you are parent at the play structure with a little girl, do you trust her to use a bathroom that a man can walk in if she fails to lock the door? In other words, would you feel safer sending her off to a women's only bathroom? Interestingly, with all the discussion of how desirable a unisex bathroom would be to parents with small children, no one seems to have consulted them on the project.
- No one had really studied how much these bathrooms are actually used, and whether one fixture instead of four would really suffice. How about concerts in the park? The problem is the renovation proposed is permanent, destroying the existing fixtures, and it unlikely we will have money anytime soon to rebuild them after a mistake.
6. There is apparently a political history behind this proposal which came up at our joint meeting and which, frankly, I am not interested in. The issue is whether this project makes sense today, and it does not.
I have spent a lot of time over the past few years on the Commission taking stock of what resources we have in our parks, and how we can maximize the benefit of them with the budget restraints we have. Severely reducing the number of bathrooms in our main park so that a few tables and chairs can be stored is, frankly, foolish and a decision we will regret almost immediately.
So please ask the Senior Commission to really think about storage alternatives, not just pay lip service to the issue. Ask them if they would generously spend their money on a storage shed, or shelving in the building, or renovation of the game room. You, and we on the Commission, are charged with balancing interests for the benefit if everyone in the community, and this proposal fails that test. Its not even close. It benefits the users of the Hart House and no one else. That's why they are willing to pay for it.
- David P. Crochetiere
Mod: The City Council vote was a 2 to 2 tie. The 5th City Councilmember, Chris Koerber, was absent because of a flu. Josh Moran, who was expected to vote with the Mayor, in the end declined to support her position. It was both a telling moment and a significant defeat for Nancy. The entire matter was then sent back to the drawing board. Expect this to return to the City Council at a future date.
http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com