Splash Pad or Crash Pad?

[XLFD]

On April 5th, a local citizen, Dianne Seelhoff, sent off a letter to the mayor. likely an E-mail, with her thoughts on the proposed splash pad park and its proposed location in Copeyon Park.  It is included as an FYI to the councilors at the back of the April 10, 2017 city council packet.  She raises quite a few points that haven't really been considered by all the parties involved in making this a reality.  Some of them, I haven't even considered. 

Rather than rigorously support or critique her analysis, I offer it up here in it's entirety for your appraisal.  Ms. Seelhoff has lived in the Fourth Ward for several years on South Washington, not very far from the entrance to Copeyon Park, so it is likely her observations are firsthand.  Please comment on what you think of her views and concerns, and submit any thoughts you may have.

The next day she rechecked her figures and sent the mayor and councilors a corrected cost memo:

[jfc123]

This is great! It is very informative and well thought out, bottom line a terrible place for it as it proves. I have an idea, how about purchasing the lots at the corner of Water/Madison and putting it there? The runoff could go directly into the Pere Marquette Bayou and maybe the chlorine would help clean some of the weeds in the bayou that you can almost walk across. Also the families could walk a few blocks and get some treats from the new 4th ward market.

[XLFD]

In the Splash Pad Committee's initial request to use Copeyon, they stated they would use no chemicals in the water as the water would not recirculate, rather it would flow into the sewer system.  Councilor Castonia had it right for once at that meeting when he thought it was premature in the infant stage of development to commit a city park to such usage. 

I agree with him, but I agree with Dianne Seelhoff that diversion of public use for a park should be incumbent on a vote by the electors, a more deliberative process, not a mere quorum of city councilors seeing an underutilized section of park to exploit for a perceived payback.  As Dianne's analysis shows, there are a lot of factors in consideration for just about wherever you want to put a splash pad. 

One thing she leaves out is that the cost for sewer must also be figured in.  By 2018, sewer rates will be 1.5 times the water rate, so any water used needs to be multiplied by 2.5 to determine the cost to our infrastructure.  So if her revised figure of $916,000 is correct, you're actually looking at around $2.3 million per year.  Not good numbers.

I personally like your idea on first blush, simply because it would not impinge on any city parkland, and the city owns part of that area already leading to the two piers.  It's unshaded, protected from chill breezes, and adjacent to existing water and sewer lines.  I see a couple of concerns in that there would be limited parking as is, and the City would be obliged to clean up some of their own mess in the PM Bayou, because you know the kids would want to go into the dangerous waters of the bayou to swim.  We both know that latter is not going to happen anytime soon. 

[AQUAMAN]

I praise Dianne Seelhoff for such a well researched and informative letter to the Mayor. Will she, (Mayor Holman), talk about it tonight and share with the other council members and public at the CC Mtg.? (It is only a fyi at the back of the agenda packet, so they could ignore it again). I rather doubt it, because it now has the sanction of Heather Tykoski and John Shay, her favorite people at city hall. I hope she, (Seelhoff), now shares her letter with the LDN/MCP to give all citizens a chance to think about this first, and also demand a vote on it. But, as seen before, that too isn't a viable option to those that seek and defend their power to make those decisions, right or wrong, for all us locals.

[jfc123]

They have no idea what they own there. I do have the papers!

[XLFD]

Dianne,

You may want to go to the library downtown and check out the little room with a lot of documents related to local history.  You may be able to find out a bit more about the Fourth Ward's history and figure out what may lie beyond the shoreline (as per your 1st concern).  In my recollection, when the Ludington Yacht Club and/or Pier Point were dredging for their harbors early this millennium they had some special issues regarding the environmental contamination in that section of the PM Lake. 

[Brad]

There's nothing in MC property search of city owning anything on Water St....

[Willy]

Good thought out letter. I agree with most of her statements except her last paragraph regarding alternate locations. She's right on the money when she points out the problems with the hilly drive into the park especially handicap accessibility. Walking down or up that hill would prove impossible for many people including wheel chair users. If I lived near a water park I would not want to hear all of that noise everyday all summer long. Put the darned thing on the lawn at Stearns Beach. There is plenty of room available.

[shinblind]

Damnit Willy don't give them any ideas,  Chainsaw Shay will want to clear cut Stearns Park next.

[Brad]

No matter the calculation or mis-calculation... very well thought-out and heart-felt words. Thank you for your insight. It is appreciated.

[AQUAMAN]

Dianne, don't feel humiliated, like many at city hall want all of us wanting fair and legal governing seem to pursue nowadays in Ludington. Esp. the city mgr., whose roots are in Boston, and Detroit, not Ludington at all. Thank you for your valued input and determination to make Ludington a better place to live and heart-felt words as Brad also states.

[XLFD]

Thanks for joining, Dianne, welcome to the Ludington Torch.

I didn't double check your math on your first two estimates of costs, but I did notice that you were using a unit, cubic foot, other than what the water department uses, ccf, which is 100 cubic foot, which explains the inconsistency.  I was patently surprised that the city had not caught your error by the time they included it in Monday's council packet, to refute the cost being as high as you figured.  If I had had my own figures challenged like the city/and Splash Pad Committee did, I would have immediately given you that feedback, and I would have provided it as soon as possible.

We appreciate the input from those like you who put a lot of thinking into their comments and hope you become a regular here in the future to talk about what happens in Ludington, even if we aren't always able to be in agreement. 

As you, I am highly offended with the denudation of forest that happened at Copeyon.  If you caught last night's meeting, the city manager had answers effectively foisting his responsibility to the DPW superintendent.  As I reviewed it the day they came down, three of the 17 trees taken down may have deserved it due to deterioration, disease, infestation, or damage.  

 I have pointed to the same charter provision as you did, through the years, to belay other alterations of uses they do to our parks (specifically, the dog park in Cartier Park and the West End projects in Stearns Park). 

If less than a handful of councilors, or even just an ambitious city manager, can dramatically change a park without any say by the 8000+ citizens who pay their salaries and bear the ultimate costs for the alteration, they will see the undeveloped parks as something to exploit to bring in more revenue-- if you hadn't noticed that's already happening.

As someone who has attended and spoke at most every city council meeting since 2012, and one who regularly filters through other city meetings minutes, I can tell you I haven't seen anything about a splash pad before that June 2016 meeting, however, I do believe the genesis of the idea originated around the time about four-five years back when they asked for ideas to make Ludington more interesting.  If I recall, restoring the fountain at City (Rotary) Park won out, while beach bonfires and a splash pad concept placed and showed. 

The vote in June 2016 was odd, but that's what you get with our current leadership.  I think it was a precursor for getting the trees cleared and extra funding, but don't expect the city to make any written/public records about that.

[jfc123]

Dianne if you are on facebook I welcome you to check out/join a group there called concerned locals Ludington. You would be an asset to that page as well as here! Your well thought out letter has changed many minds.