Hello all-
>
> I'm not on the Board, but I did take take a few minutes to walk the
> park this evening. Just an estimate, not an exhaustive survey, but I
> saw about 25 trees that could or should be removed. It was pretty
> obvious the trees that were either clearly in decline or completed
> denuded of branches by splitting, breakage and trimming.
>
> This does not count the locations where trees used to be along McKemy
> or around the childrens sandbox area or along the various walks. I
> think that could easily add up to 50 more trees. So we're up to 75
> trees we need immediately, more or less.
>
> This seems to be an issue of parks maintenance. I think that if one
> dies or you remove it, some consideration should be given to replacing
> it in a speedy manner. The recent storm that severely damaged or
> knocked down about a dozen trees seems to have focused a little more
> attention on the condition of Mitchell Park that has slowly, but
> surely been slipping into disrepair. Mitchell Park is the principal
> public amenity for about 500 households. (MPWNA, MPENA, MANA)
>
> And while looking over the tree list and locations proposed, as
> supplied by Denise and Craig, some questions came to mind.
>
> Why are we not planting more trees along the east side of the dog
> park? It might even involve cutting some concrete, not really that big
> a deal, and there are already a bunch of benches there, i presume for
> people to use, not just dogs. Even if the dog park moves to another
> location, the trees could remain to shade the sidewalk, lots and lots
> of people walk around here. The benches could remain too, kind of an
> 'urban design' thing.
>
> And the suggestion to plant more Chin. elm along the north end of the
> park to 'obscure the buildings' really doesn't mean much to the users,
> does anyone really care about that? (yeah, maybe later, it's a design
> thing again) Besides the mature elm you mention appears to be on
> Child's play property anyway. i should think that new park trees be planted in the park. But Child's play may want to buy a few elm to plant along the south side of their building to match the existing elm. I'm not so sure it would make much difference in terms of shading the buildings, but it would look nice and still provide more shade. I not aware of any plans to erect a fence along the north edge of the park between it and Child's play but things change.
>
> I would think that If shade and use are to be optimized, trees would
> be placed where people are likely to use them. I understand that
> adding things changes use, it's called the principle of 'affordance
> and accommodation'; or 'if you build it they will come'. Maybe that
> place is ok, but does anyone actually know, or who actually has had
> any input on it?
>
> Several trees around the children's sandbox area have been removed
> over the last 5 years. Most were not replaced. Putting a 'specimen
> tree' at the east entry 'Y' in the sidewalk or in the island in the
> concrete, may seem like a nice design idea, and that kind of
> consideration should be done soon, but children playing in the sun for
> a large part of the year, doesnt sound like all that much fun. You all
> may not have noticed, but i've been seeing quite a few baby strollers
> lately.
>
> I've been getting conflicting information about the status of the
> Parks renovation and restoration evaluation list and order of priority
> for over 2 years. In 2006 i remember Mitchell Park being somewhere
> around 15 on the list, a categorical and enumerated list as approved
> by the Parks commission (volunteers - residents). And that 3 parks a
> year were to be renovated, Ben Arredondo wanted that to be 6. At least
> 6 parks have been renovated or are in master planning, see city
> records of meetings. I was told in 06 (and recently in 08) that there
> was and then was not and then was.... budget for the parks renovation,
> including Clark Park, oh well. But i do know that the bond election
> for parks was passed in November and the renovation is to continue in
> 09. I certainly feel that neighborhood parks renovation should not be
> placed behind some project on the Town Lake.
>
> So, to wrap up, trees in the Park is good! and a plan that locates
> them in a more thoughtful manner, and takes into account the imminent
> master plan would be reasonable. MPWNA and MPENA and even MANA could
> combine neighborhood grants, as others have done, to get the master
> planning going. Looking at things in plan may seem kind of arcane, but
> the actual act seems to bring more thoughtfulness to the process, one
> doesn't necessarily see the forest for the trees otherwise.
>
> After all, it takes a few years for a tree to actually be useful for
> shade, generally at least 5 years for a 15 gal. That's about the
> optimum time for a child to get some fun in the sandbox isnt' it? To
> cut them down, based on a comprehensive planning process that is
> developed thru extensive neighborhood participation seems wasteful of
> the cities funds, residents time and ecologically unsound. I can tell
> you that the process for master planning Clark Park was excellent and
> i think the final installation will be very successful.
>
> I read an african proverb on a starbucks coffee cup recently: 'The
> best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the second best time is
> now.' It's the 20 years part I'd like to call your attention to here.
> Yes, plant 40 trees, then it seems to me, we're only about 110 shy of
> where it should/could/will be soon!
