Mooney's Bay Playground. Would you please save the children?

[canabiz]

On a related note, I recently learned they actually explain what NIMBY and PIMFY means in English as a second language classes in South Korea

[TheGoods]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

That is not what the article says. Parental responsibility extends to age 16. If you go to Hawaii for two weeks, leaving your 15 year old at home with no supervisory arrangement, you could in theory have a problem. A 15 year old "latch-key kid" is not a legal or child abuse issue.

Phew!

[phil235]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

That is not what the article says. Parental responsibility extends to age 16. If you go to Hawaii for two weeks, leaving your 15 year old at home with no supervisory arrangement, you could in theory have a problem. A 15 year old "latch-key kid" is not a legal or child abuse issue.

That's a relief. We leave our kids with a 14 year-old babysitter quite regularly. Good to know that the CAS won't be swooping in anytime soon.

The playground issue is the stupidest piece of news since those old people in Orleans tried to stop school buses from going down their street. If your input to the public process is that a kids' playground will detract from the tranquility of your local park (which also includes a track stadium, beach and multiple volleyball courts), I'm pretty comfortable with a process that doesn't give you much of a say.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

That's a relief. We leave our kids with a 14 year-old babysitter quite regularly. Good to know that the CAS won't be swooping in anytime soon.

The playground issue is the stupidest piece of news since those old people in Orleans tried to stop school buses from going down their street. If your input to the public process is that a kids' playground will detract from the tranquility of your local park (which also includes a track stadium, beach and multiple volleyball courts), I'm pretty comfortable with a process that doesn't give you much of a say.

I believe the child age was brought up in a local news television poll relating to a child abuse or neglect news story. It may not be the law, but this sort of thing is swaying public understanding of what is child abuse and what should be reported. That has to be a concern.

It was alarming to see the number of people who were that concerned that they needed to attend a public meeting regarding the playground which is being promoted by certain residents in the neighbourhood who are against this project.

The question is what makes these complainers experts in playground design? Also, why does it become such a big issue when free money and design assistance is being offered?

It also seems to negatively affect the children's participation in the project. If the project is successful, this may be a positive influence for many of the children's future. Look at what I did and how I changed my neighbourhood. It is something that many will remember for the rest of their lives.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I believe the child age was brought up in a local news television poll relating to a child abuse or neglect news story. It may not be the law, but this sort of thing is swaying public understanding of what is child abuse and what should be reported. That has to be a concern.

It was alarming to see the number of people who were that concerned that they needed to attend a public meeting regarding the playground which is being promoted by certain residents in the neighbourhood who are against this project.

The question is what makes these complainers experts in playground design? Also, why does it become such a big issue when free money and design assistance is being offered?

It also seems to negatively affect the children's participation in the project. If the project is successful, this may be a positive influence for many of the children's future. Look at what I did and how I changed my neighbourhood. It is something that many will remember for the rest of their lives.

Yeah, you are right about the origin of that story. There is certainly some debate as to when kids can be left alone. For instance, my neighbours let their 7 year-old walk to school alone. That's a little young in my opinion, but certainly not child abuse. That said, it would be ridiculous to have a law stating that a 15-year old can't stay home alone, or even a 12-year old for that matter.

It is disappointing that this protest by what is surely a small minority is overshadowing the positive aspect of the story. I don't think any of the protesters have given much thought to the kids that would really benefit from this project. But it's their right to protest and get injunctions, so hey...

[Radster]

Another good one I read a couple days ago, not sure which city councillor it was, but he was saying how he is disappointed that this playground will aim to beat the world record for longest monkey bars, all while him and the city have been advocating to NOT include monkey bars in new playground developments in Ottawa as its a huge safety issue.

If these people could only see they type of playgrounds I was used to in 80s communist Poland, monkey bars were probably the safest feature of all in the playgrounds. hahaha How times have changed!

[lrt's friend]

Injunctions to stop a playground? A new low. Who cares about the taxpayer's money?

[Capital Shaun]

The NIMBY crowd is drowning out the legitimate criticism that this project should be getting. I have nothing against building a big park. Heck, it might turn out to be a really cool facility. What pisses me off though it the secrecy behind the project. Just comes out of nowhere, and benefits a TV show? It just screams of backroom shenanigans.

[Radster]

Its NCC, what do u expect?

[TheGoods]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

The NIMBY crowd is drowning out the legitimate criticism that this project should be getting. I have nothing against building a big park. Heck, it might turn out to be a really cool facility. What pisses me off though it the secrecy behind the project. Just comes out of nowhere, and benefits a TV show? It just screams of backroom shenanigans.

Come on, backroom shenanigans, seriously. I’m guessing the TV show producer does not have the time or patience, image before a decision is made and people to be consulted, it might have taken months and would have missed the timeline for filming. I’m also guessing that the other cities that got the same deal, they did not consult, just a guess unless someone can disprove me. Incredible, the city is getting half of the park paid for, $1M less for taxpayers and this will benefit the whole city and people are complaining, the park was at end of life, it would have been torn down. I would be interested to see the demographics on the individuals complaining.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

The NIMBY crowd is drowning out the legitimate criticism that this project should be getting. I have nothing against building a big park. Heck, it might turn out to be a really cool facility. What pisses me off though it the secrecy behind the project. Just comes out of nowhere, and benefits a TV show? It just screams of backroom shenanigans.

I think there are circumstances where confidential negotiations are warranted. What are these people asking for, an RFP to see what other proponents are out there who want to give the city $1 million to build a playground? The right to participate in the negotiations for the TV show?

In this case, I think it is fine to consult the neighbourhood after the fact to identify any major, legitimate issues with the proposal (emphasis on "legitimate"). This is a playground in the middle of a large city park, for crying out loud. It's not really even in the neighbourhood. How much consultation with not-so-nearby residents is required? Should their opinions be given more weight than the city at large, when this will hardly affect them in any real way?

Process and endless consultations can be a much bigger waste of money than the projects themselves in some cases. If this is really such a big deal, this is a democracy and your ultimate recourse is to vote out the councillor and mayor who foisted this terrible playground on an unsuspecting community.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by Radster

Its NCC, what do u expect?

What if I told you NCC has nothing to do with it?

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by TheGoods

Come on, backroom shenanigans, seriously. I’m guessing the TV show producer does not have the time or patience, image before a decision is made and people to be consulted, it might have taken months and would have missed the timeline for filming. I’m also guessing that the other cities that got the same deal, they did not consult, just a guess unless someone can disprove me. Incredible, the city is getting half of the park paid for, $1M less for taxpayers and this will benefit the whole city and people are complaining, the park was at end of life, it would have been torn down. I would be interested to see the demographics on the individuals complaining.

I honestly don't give a fuck about the TV producers timelines or pocket books. If the city is gonna spend $1M, I god damn want to know on what, and my elected representative should have a say, preferably via a vote.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by phil235

I think there are circumstances where confidential negotiations are warranted. What are these people asking for, an RFP to see what other proponents are out there who want to give the city $1 million to build a playground? The right to participate in the negotiations for the TV show?

In this case, I think it is fine to consult the neighbourhood after the fact to identify any major, legitimate issues with the proposal (emphasis on "legitimate"). This is a playground in the middle of a large city park, for crying out loud. It's not really even in the neighbourhood. How much consultation with not-so-nearby residents is required? Should their opinions be given more weight than the city at large, when this will hardly affect them in any real way?

Process and endless consultations can be a much bigger waste of money than the projects themselves in some cases. If this is really such a big deal, this is a democracy and your ultimate recourse is to vote out the councillor and mayor who foisted this terrible playground on an unsuspecting community.

Sometimes confidentiality and secrecy is warranted in government. I don't think building a park is one of those times.

The NIMBYs though... Ugh... Many of them are just barking up the wrong tree.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Radster

Its NCC, what do u expect?

This is all Ottawa. Municipal park.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

I honestly don't give a fuck about the TV producers timelines or pocket books. If the city is gonna spend $1M, I god damn want to know on what, and my elected representative should have a say, preferably via a vote.

You want to know the details of every $1 million expenditure in a $3 billion budget? That's ambitious.

The City regularly spends that amount of money and more without any of the attention that this playground is getting. Council delegates the authority to staff under various programs. This project actually got an extra level of approval, as Council voted on Brockington's motion to send it to Committee for further study. That vote confirmed staff authority to proceed. Your elected representative did have a say.

Incidentally, confidentiality does not equal secrecy. If we want our governments to leverage private sector expertise by entering into these types of public-private arrangements, the trade-off is that the negotiation process will be confidential. Even when the City goes through a public RFP, the negotiations that follow are confidential, and the politicians vote on the final deal. There really isn't any way to avoid some element confidentiality in the process, unless you want to pay a whole lot more for your goods and services.

[Radster]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

This is all Ottawa. Municipal park.

Here's a quote from a CBC article:

Mooney's Bay actually belongs to the National Capital Commission and is leased by the city.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...ment-1.3597426

More here showing NCC was consulted:

Both parties agreed with the Mooney’s Bay Park location and Sinking Ship Entertainment agreed to proceed with their investment in Ottawa. Subsequently, staff negotiated a detailed project agreement with Sinking Ship Entertainment, and initiated discussions with the National Capital Commission (NCC) and Parks Canada to secure the required approvals, as the City currently leases the lands for recreational purposes from the NCC and Parks Canada owns adjacent lands.

Negotiations are ongoing with the NCC as the landowner for permission to build on the site.

http://bulldogottawa.com/city-staff-...internal-memo/

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Radster

Here's a quote from a CBC article:



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...ment-1.3597426

More here showing NCC was consulted:





http://bulldogottawa.com/city-staff-...internal-memo/

I stand corrected.

Edit: The city doesn't yet have permission from the NCC? So will this turn into another Ottawa vs NCC pissing match?

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by phil235

You want to know the details of every $1 million expenditure in a $3 billion budget? That's ambitious.

The City regularly spends that amount of money and more without any of the attention that this playground is getting. Council delegates the authority to staff under various programs. This project actually got an extra level of approval, as Council voted on Brockington's motion to send it to Committee for further study. That vote confirmed staff authority to proceed. Your elected representative did have a say.

Incidentally, confidentiality does not equal secrecy. If we want our governments to leverage private sector expertise by entering into these types of public-private arrangements, the trade-off is that the negotiation process will be confidential. Even when the City goes through a public RFP, the negotiations that follow are confidential, and the politicians vote on the final deal. There really isn't any way to avoid some element confidentiality in the process, unless you want to pay a whole lot more for your goods and services.

The city didn't follow it's own procurement rules. The negotiation details can be confidential but the city could at a minimum have stated they are planning to build something at Mooney's Bay. Announcing it as a fait accomplis just looks odd. I'm not against the park, just hate the fishy BS around the process.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Radster

Another good one I read a couple days ago, not sure which city councillor it was, but he was saying how he is disappointed that this playground will aim to beat the world record for longest monkey bars, all while him and the city have been advocating to NOT include monkey bars in new playground developments in Ottawa as its a huge safety issue.

If these people could only see they type of playgrounds I was used to in 80s communist Poland, monkey bars were probably the safest feature of all in the playgrounds. hahaha How times have changed!

My old schoolyard playground got a safety audit about ten years ago.

Everything was removed. Monkey bars, slide, cool-ass wooden clambering structure, climbing "dome" thingie, seesaws. (The merry-go-round had already long since been removed; as little kids, the big kids would spin us around until someone barfed; as big kids, we passed the tradition on to little kids.)

Don't know what the kids do now... Go down to the river and skip rocks, I suppose.