BRATTLEBORO — Months of openly offering a very clear and solid basis for our opposition to the proposed plan and location of the Brattleboro skatepark (not a skatepark itself) in a tiny 2.1-acre public green space in a residential neighborhood have made no headway in advancing a discussion beyond allegations of simple evildoing by evildoers.
Two highly experienced and credentialed arborists from two states, and a comprehensive analysis of how harm will likely kill the healthiest of the old growth trees that the Save Our Playground Coalition (SOPC) is concerned about, did not matter. (See: SaveOurPlayground.net and on.fb.me/save_our_playground.)
Peter Whitley's Public Skatepark Development Guide (2nd edition) also makes clear the holes in the proposed plan in Brattleboro (no public toilets, for one example), as well as the inappropriateness of the proposed location (under trees, which present a challenge to maintaining the skatepark and associated liabilities).
For the record, I did not organize SOPC, and it is not my organization. Others were participating in the public discussions long before I joined the group. I was invited to join SOPC late and, after a cursory look into the issues that others were concerned about, I did so because I saw the validity of its members' concerns.
For me, this debate is not about a skateboard park. It is about an inappropriate plan at an inappropriate location in a residential neighborhood. It is also about the quality of life for the residents of the neighborhood, including those who enjoy the playground there, as well as the residents of the town of Brattleboro (as discussed in Chapter 10 of the Brattleboro Town Plan).
Also for the record, I did not cancel the mediation, the mediator did. I worked diligently for weeks with her in an effort to make sure mediation did occur and would go as smoothly as possible, without surprises.
This was not about Brattleboro Town Manager Barb Sondag; it was about facilitating a mediation that considered the history of the conflict and the perceptions of some of the participants about what has sustained it, as opposed to any effort by the town's leaders to build bridges.
The town did not want to mediate from the onset and so informed Judge Durkin on Nov. 1. This could have been a deliberate effort to thwart mediation by the town itself, as I have recently been informed by the mediator that the town did not respond to her efforts, over weeks, to establish with them just who would be representing the town at the mediation. This is Mediation 101.