BRATTLEBORO — I would like to clarify my position and a few comments made in The Commons' Sept. 21 article, “Brattleboro skatepark plans in legal limbo,” which discussed my filing an appeal of the decision by the Brattleboro Development Review Board (DRB) to approve installation of a skateboard park in Crowell Park.
I filed the required “Notice of Appeal” regarding the DRB's decision in order to ask the Vermont Environmental Court to consider particular questions regarding the DRB decision, not in an effort to “overturn town approval.”
I also did not file a lawsuit against anyone, as was also stated in the article. The appeal process allows only a narrow line of questioning to be presented and considered by the Court regarding the DRB decision. It is in no way an indictment of the DRB. I have not yet submitted the questions that comprise the basis of the appeal.
Some comments in the article seemed to suggest a level of contentiousness between me and BASIC (Brattleboro Area Skatepark is Coming) that does not exist, at least in my mind.
As the article accurately pointed out, there have been numerous public discussions regarding the skatepark on iBrattleboro.com. However, if consulted, those discussions will show that I am not “a vocal critic of the skatepark.” Rather, I am a vocal critic of the proposed plan.
I, like many others, have numerous reasonable questions that have been asked yet remain unanswered. In fact, the town administration has yet to even acknowledge my request one week ago for a list of “interested” parties that the Court requires I obtain and that the town provide to me in a timely manner.
I have openly acknowledged my regret that I came late to the discussion and, therefore, I realize some of my own questions might have been answered in previous discussions.
I gladly accepted an offer to meet with BASIC's skatepark plan designer, Adam Hubbard, to discuss our different perspectives and have communicated with him several times in an effort to do so. However, due to conflicting schedules on both our parts, and extenuating personal circumstances for me, that has not happened.
Additionally, I have acknowledged openly on iBrattleboro my sincere respect for the long, hard work of BASIC members and their endurance over 30 years of repeated defeat in a town that has rigidly regulated and prohibited skateboarding.
I also openly recognized at a video-recorded public DRB hearing the potential value a skateboard park might produce for Brattleboro.
The article also reported on concerns over noise that many rightly believe will be generated from a skateboard park. However, noise, although a legitimate concern for any residential neighborhood, is not, and never has been, my primary concern, nor for many in the neighborhood group I belong to that also opposes the skatepark in Crowell Park.
Many who oppose this plan do not live on the perimeter of the park, making noise a non-issue. Unfortunately, despite being provided a press release and an information sheet that detailed our concerns in a completely transparent gesture to The Commons, the article failed to note any of the information and perspectives contained in them.
In the name of accuracy, contrary to the article's statement that “Noise tests done by BASIC in July found noise from skateboarders” met acceptable standards set by the town, “noise” cannot be measured. Noise is subjective. Sounds can be measured. According to the Sound Impact Study prepared for the Brattleboro Department of Recreation and Parks:
“Noise is a qualitative distinction...” and “Noise is defined as loud, unexpected, or annoying sound....generally unexpected and possessing unpleasant aesthetic characteristics...fingernails on a blackboard, a heavy truck's engine brake, etc.”
The loud, unexpected, or annoying noise that might result from a skateboard park is not related to the sound generated by the action of skateboarding on a smooth surface itself. It is the frequency of repetitive and consistent noise levels that result from the sound of wheels in direct contact with concrete and metal after performing skateboard skills like jumping and landing.
The park's very design is intended for this purpose. Loud, annoying noise would also include screaming, hollering, clapping, cheering, and music, all of which is commonly known to be part of skateboard park activities.
This concern remains unaddressed by the town in the technical measurements of sound contained in the report. So it is reasonable for some to hold noise as one of many relevant concerns.
Despite those issues, I have stated over and again that my primary concern is to protect a small public park and consider its old-growth trees, located on a major scenic byway into downtown, from the installation of 12,000 square feet of concrete that will benefit a small minority within the community, although I totally agree with the group's larger mission. This was the main point of my letter to the Reformer that was referenced in the article.
Like noise, other issues like traffic and on-street parking are also related to “quality-of-life” issues. These issues are, indeed, inherently subjective. However, the larger quality-of-life issue that is the focus of my objection to a skateboard park in Crowell Park is summarized very clearly in Chapter 10 of the Brattleboro Town Plan, which states:
“...scenic resources...are...significant factors in the quality of life experienced in Brattleboro. Often times those qualities which contribute to the designation of a scenic corridor may be diminished through a lack of proper up-keep or through insensitive 'improvements.'”
Thank you for allowing me to clarify my position.