| Author | Post |
|---|
summerfieldrd
Banned
| Joined: | Dec 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Jan 17th, 2007 01:00 pm |
|
| One thing I was wondering: If Armfield is going to give us their 'ballfield property' and we can also get (lease) the G'boro property (adjoining 50), why are we spending money on enviornmental studies, etc., when this property over here may pan out to be all we need? I would imagine the 20 or so acres from Armfield, plus the possible 50 from G'boro should fill the void. Am I missing something? Last edited on Jan 17th, 2007 01:02 pm by summerfieldrd
____________________
The only constant in the universe is change.
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Jan 17th, 2007 01:03 pm |
|
All large tracks of property in the area were looked at from the start. Several hours were spent looking, walking, planning, and the end result was about 9 properties were considered. Then contact was made and the elimination process started. Yes people Summerfield did their homework before this process was started. The piece of property on 158 was not considered at the time because we did not look out side of the Town limits. This is a much more desirable piece for Baseball Fields. Very flat and has very good access.
Jim has a good point. It would be nice to have a facility between all the Northwest Communities and this would make for one great league.
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
Cracker Jax
Member
| Joined: | Oct 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 4722 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Jan 17th, 2007 01:28 pm |
|
summerfieldrd wrote: One thing I was wondering: If Armfield is going to give us their 'ballfield property' and we can also get (lease) the G'boro property (adjoining 50), why are we spending money on enviornmental studies, etc., when this property over here may pan out to be all we need? I would imagine the 20 or so acres from Armfield, plus the possible 50 from G'boro should fill the void. Am I missing something?
I think what Jim Brady said at one of the council meetings was that the Armfield land (20 acre) parcel was not good for baseball fields (too wet maybe? Perhaps Baseball Buddy or Jane have more details on that) . It would be good for soccer fields though. I would assume the same would be true for the connecting Greensboro property.
The original 90 acres promised would have been good for nothing but open space. Horrific topography and all of that.
____________________
Opinions in this post are mine. Do not copy, distribute, mass mail or quote out of context without my consent.
|
Hairbrush
Member
| Joined: | Jan 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 120 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 17th, 2007 01:32 pm |
|
| The armfield property is not good for baseball but we would get some soccer fields. The other problem was that it can't have lights so would not be useable for practices and such after dark.
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Jan 17th, 2007 01:43 pm |
|
| Lights are needed in this day and time for any organized outdoor activity. With the amount of people interested in some sort of structured activities for their selves and their children there is not enough daylight to do it. Fields without light are only useful on weekends or Summertime when daylight savings time is in effect. These proposed fields fro Armfield will see limited use without lighting. The lay of the land will only be useful for soccer.
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
summerfieldrd
Banned
| Joined: | Dec 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 17th, 2007 04:00 pm |
|
| OKay, I see. Thanks for the enlightenment, Hairbrush, Cracker and Baseball Buddy.
____________________
The only constant in the universe is change.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1376 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 17th, 2007 05:36 pm |
|
Baseball Buddy wrote: Lights are needed in this day and time for any organized outdoor activity. With the amount of people interested in some sort of structured activities for their selves and their children there is not enough daylight to do it. Fields without light are only useful on weekends or Summertime when daylight savings time is in effect. These proposed fields fro Armfield will see limited use without lighting. The lay of the land will only be useful for soccer.
Probably one of the most if not the most used parks in all of Guilford County is the Battleground (Guilford Courthouse National Park) an adjacent Tannenbaum Park. The number of visitors and users on a daily basis and annual basis is staggering compared to other parks in the Triad. Yet they don't have one single baseball field, one single soccer field or any lighted areas. They don't have an outside amphitheater either. Yet people come in droves and come back again and again to simply enjoy nature, and open space, and picnics and bike rides and walking and Sunday concerts in the park. There are dozens of other such similar parks in this area and around the region and state which share the same common elements and the same public participation success.
Why all of this singular focus on limited one or two use parks which only cater to the needs of a very small minority while requiring funding by the majority?
Why not consider the funding of these singular use parks for limited uses such as baseball or soccer on a user tax or user fee basis rather than impose the costs on unwilling senior citizens, fixed income and lower income homeowners and disinteresred citizens who's needs are not served by their creation and ongoing maintenance costs?
Let's face it, the (growing) demand or need for new recreational outlets and parks is being driven by the unbridled demand which is in turn being created by the unchecked explosive development patterns which the local governments are encouraging and permitting. Shouldn't these large new infrastructural costs associated with this new demand for parks and recreation (and other new services for that matter) be borne by the very same people creating this new demand: real estate developers and/or the new homeowners coming into the community?
What I just don't understand is that none of the local communities (and many of the local citizens), just don't get that the infrastructure costs for this new sub-urban sprawl to the local communities is always and historically going to be far greater than any benefits financial gained from new development. (There are many well recognized studies (by economic and planning organizations) that have concluded the same and their research validates this position).
Last edited on Jan 17th, 2007 05:55 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
I Did It My Way (Frank Sinatra)
|
Hairbrush
Member
| Joined: | Jan 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 120 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 17th, 2007 06:39 pm |
|
Jim, doesn't that park attach to the country park which then attaches to the JayCee Park. I use the country park almost every day but as a high school student (too many years to think about ) we were always at the JayCee Park during baseball season and they do have lights on that park. I don't know when all these parks were built or how they were built (grants, taxes, bonds) but I think Greensboro has done a good job of joining these parks together.
I am not saying that the town and town council shouldn't be looking for multi-use for these parks. I think the problem is cost of land and space. Maybe if the whole northwest area decided on a park then we could have more buying power for more land. Even Oak Ridge is having difficulty incorporating everything they want in their park land.
I know that when this town first started (correct me if I am wrong Scuba Jane) that there was much talk about the town buying land to hold. At the time there was too much opposition to it. The conservation council had meetings with other towns and organizations that were very pro holding land. It was amazing what a town can do if it puts conserving land as a priority and writes it into the budget. Unfortunately, I think at the time too many people in Summerfield were worried about maintenance cost and liability (not that much has changed). I am sure back in the day when central park was started there were the same concerns. The people involved in the huge project just decided to go ahead and do it.
I would love to have a big park in Summerfield and I am willing to pay for with my taxes, because one day (as my husband who was born in Boston and then grew up in Dallas says) the land will be gone. The land is going fast and it isn't getting any cheaper.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1376 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 17th, 2007 07:05 pm |
|
Hairbrush wrote:
I think the problem is cost of land and space. Maybe if the whole northwest area decided on a park then we could have more buying power for more land.
I know that when this town first started (correct me if I am wrong Scuba Jane) that there was much talk about the town buying land to hold. At the time there was too much opposition to it. The conservation council had meetings with other towns and organizations that were very pro holding land. It was amazing what a town can do if it puts conserving land as a priority and writes it into the budget. Unfortunately, I think at the time too many people in Summerfield were worried about maintenance cost and liability (not that much has changed).
The land is going fast and it isn't getting any cheaper.
Hairbrush, one of the major public ways to protect land instead of purchasing it, is through innovative tools such as transfer of development rights and conservation easements. This allows the protection of far greater amounts of land through the use of leveraging of funds. Bill Gates has espoused and pioneered the wise use of leveraging of grant and seed monies to encourage public/private consortia for a wide range of social and philanthropic benefits. One of the most recent Nobel Prize winners won based on their concept of using microgrants to transform the lives on an entire nation. So it can be done and is being done.
So my question is: Wy aren't the three Northwest communities exploring and using development rights purchases/transfers and conservation easements to protect the very open spaces which are the hallmark of our communities and the magnets which are unfortunately drawing all of this new sprawled development?
You are certainly correct that open, wooded and farmland in the Northwest is not getting cheaper while it is fast becoming scarce. It really is a matter of now or never if we are to preserve and or protect our greatest community asset.
Last edited on Jan 17th, 2007 07:24 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
I Did It My Way (Frank Sinatra)
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1376 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 17th, 2007 07:22 pm |
|
Hairbrush wrote: I am sure back in the day when central park was started there were the same concerns. The people involved in the huge project just decided to go ahead and do it.
HISTORY OF CENTRAL PARK
Central Park was designed by Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux in 1858. They envisioned the park as a place where people of all social and ethnic backgrounds could have fun and do their activities . The place was a treeless, rocky one and stagnant swampland. However Olmstead and Vaux transformed it into a urban oasis. During the 19th century approximately 60000 people were living in New York City. In the 1830's a tremendous number of immigrants came in to the city increasing the number of people to 30000 by 1840 and in 1850 it increased to 500,000. Many people were looking for a place to relax and escape the press of bodies and the din of the city.
In 1857 the city commissioners sponsored a public competition to design the central park . The "Greensward Plan" by Frederick Law Olmsted, who became the superintendent of the park, and Calvert Vaux (partner of Andrew Jackson Downing). The plan exhibited both sweeping meadows and lakes of the pastoral landscape and the rocky irregularity of the land. Olmsted knew about the conditions of the terrain and based his design because of this, for example that the southern part was mostly a rolling section could be the tranquil, serene section. The rocky and wooded western and northern inspired him too.
The city commissioners paid more than $5 million for the undeveloped land from 59th street to 106th street, between Fifth and Eighth avenues. Central Park soil was inadequate to sustain the trees and shrubs that the plan included so 500,000 cubic feet of top soil was carted in from New Jersey. The land was manually dug up and huge boulders blasted out. All materials were carried in and out on horse-drawn carts. By 1873 more than 10 million cartloads of material had been hauled through the park. This material included more than 4 million trees, shrubs, and plants representing more than 1,400 species. The thirty-six bridges and archways that are in Central Park were built and four man-made water bodies, fed from the city's water supply, were created.
It took twenty years after the approval of the Greensward Plan for Central Park to be completed. Olmsted and Vaux officially resigned many times mostly because of political battles. A good part of the problems stemmed from Tammany Hall, the democrat machine that dominated New York politics from 1850 until 1933. In 1877 Olmsted finally decided to leave the park, however Vaux stayed until his death in 1895. Later on more pressure was on the Park because of the public demand for recreational space and the advent of automobiles. For decades after the death of Vaux there were only intermittent efforts to improve the lawns, replace dead trees and shrubs, or to end the littering and vandalism.
In 1934 Robert Moses was chose to continue the plan. He had built Long Island's first parkways and created Jones Beach. He cleaned up Central Park and other New York parks. Many flowers bloomed where there had been bare dirt, the park wall was sandblasted to its original dark cream color. Under Moses, Central Park gained 19 play grounds, 12 ball fields, hand ball courts and the Wollman Rink. Moses also raised money from wealthy people to create popular sites as the Hans Christian Andersen and Alice in Wonderland sculptures, the Chess and Checkers House, and the Carousel. A renovated Central Park Zoo and Tavern .
Once again in the 1960's it was a period of decline for Central Park because of peace rallies, protest marches, summer concerts and New Year's Eve. However there were some positive changes because "The Public Theatre's Shakespeare in the Park " debuted. And in 1964 Central Park was declared a National Historic Landmark and in 1974 it was named a New York City Landmark. The park today has more than 26,000 trees, 58 miles of scenic pathways and nearly 9,000 benches on 843 acres. More than 25 million people visit Central Park from all over the world.
SOURCE: http://www.tqnyc.org/NYC041147/history.html
NOTE: A secondary and complimentary weblink which parallels the earlier link can be found here:
http://www.centralpark.com/pages/history.html
Last edited on Jan 17th, 2007 07:42 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
I Did It My Way (Frank Sinatra)
|
Hairbrush
Member
| Joined: | Jan 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 120 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 17th, 2007 07:45 pm |
|
| Jim, I would love to see Summerfield get land through easements and transfer of development rights, but it takes two for that to happen, a town or government entity that is ready to jump on it and a land owner that is ready to transfer land without getting real money for it. I know that you could get a tax break and then not have to pay property taxes on it. But with development the way it is in this part of the county it would be hard to pass up the developers price, especially if the farm land, for example, could be re-zoned. I think that is the challenge of the town and town council. First, there needs to be a process in place to take land and have it deeded to say the town of Summerfield. And second it takes a lot of leg work to find these land owners to donate the land. It would seem that a lot of people would rather have the market price for their land.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1376 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 17th, 2007 10:20 pm |
|
Hairbrush wrote: (# 1) Jim, I would love to see Summerfield get land through easements and transfer of development rights, but it takes two for that to happen, a town or government entity that is ready to jump on it and a land owner that is ready to transfer land without getting real money for it. ( # 2) I know that you could get a tax break and then not have to pay property taxes on it. ( # 3) But with development the way it is in this part of the county it would be hard to pass up the developers price, especially if the farm land, for example, could be re-zoned. It would seem that a lot of people would rather have the market price for their land.
Hairbrush by no means was I suggesting nor expecting 'gifts' of property from land owners, although that does happen albeit on a very rare basis.
What I was suggesting was the purchase of the "development rights" to a parcel of land with the owner retaining ownership for farming, timber, truck farming and/or his own family's residence. Transfers of development rights where in the landowner is compensated for selling his present and any future right to develop his property, while retaining actual ownership for his and his family's limited private use.
As an example, let's say that a parcel of property today is worth 'X' based on a pure farm value but that nearby raw land property being sold for development is worth 'Y'. The Town or some land conservancy set up to protect land in it's natural state, would then purchase or acquire the development rights to the parcel at or about the difference between Value 'Y' minus Value 'X', or the value assigned specifically to the increase in value from a right or opportunity to develop. These transfers are generally valued and paid in cash or a cash equivalent to the landowner based on valuation of the real estate development right.
There are myriads of techniques and methods to accomplish this, and it has been said that there are thousands of ways to purchase land, with cash being only one of them. Some of these transactions can become quite complex and most certainly result from creative approaches to land preservation and purchase. Additionally, there are a great deal of sources of public and private grant and/or low interest funds available to assist in making these transactions viable and workable.
Development rights and conservation/purchases are by no means limited to just a town government or municipality, but might well involve several parties including 3rd party or even multiple parties where real estate exchanges might provide cash for the original landowner, a tax write off for a 3rd party willing to trade cash for assignable tax benefits, and a municipality or foundation desirous of protecting and preserving public lands for parks and/or environmentally sensitive lands or land of historic significance. The possibilities are endless.
Using examples again, the Piedmont Land Conservancy (http://www.piedmontland.org), the Haw River Assembly (http://www.hawriver.org), The Nature Conservancy (http://www.nature.org), and The Trust For Public Land (http://www.tpl.org) are just a few of the entities which are engaged in using these techniques to purchase, protect and preserve public and environmentally sensitive lands through a myriad of techniques including conservation easements and development rights transfers. There are dozens of others far too numerous to mention, and many of these would be willing I believe to assist a local group in the purchase of public land for protection and preservation of land for park purposes or to be kept in a natural state.
These transactions are not always easy or simple to accomplish, but they are used all over the country on a regular basis with great success for those willing to think outside of the box and act progressively and responsibily to protect our greatest natural resources.
I would also add, that the Piedmont Land Conservancy has the following event coming up next week, which might be of some interest and a starting point for understanding the wonderful opportunities available in land conservancy. I believe that PLC in explaining the basics of what they do and how they do it, would be instructive in helping you to see a potential path for exploring and expanding on similar opportunities we might have here in the three Northwest communities:
Thursday, January 25 – PLC Volunteer Workshop, Winston-Salem (5:00-6:30 pm). If you are interested in volunteering for PLC and would like to learn about how you can help, please join us as PLC staff from Education & Outreach and Land Protection present an overview of PLC and our volunteer opportunities. Please call the PLC office at 336-691-0088 for more information and to RSVP.
Last edited on Jan 17th, 2007 10:50 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
I Did It My Way (Frank Sinatra)
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 19th, 2007 11:54 am |
|
Well another Summerfield employee bites the dust. We now have less than 2 employees trying to run a town of over 8,000 people. That is disgraceful. We have no planning department and seem to have no plans to replace the 2 employees. The options are all more expensive than what we had. It seems Michael along with being Town Manager is also planner. How is it that the citizens of this Town have allowed a handful of people to dismantle our Town and there is no out cry?
We can't just say oh well we won't have a planning department. Somebody has to do it and that somebody should care, not be a hired company that charges at least twice as much as having out own employees.
Come on council lets don't let us slip back to where we were before we incorporated. Lets don't go back to the time when outsiders were administering our ordinances and not looking after our best interests.
After all if we lose the less than two employees we have, who will be there to fulfill the volume of Freedom of Information act requests that the Concerned Citzens are papering the Town with?
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Jan 19th, 2007 03:54 pm |
|
| Can the town limit the number of request to 1 per month per person or their affiliated party on the FOIA ? Just some food thought.
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
FatPappy
Member
| Joined: | Oct 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 3245 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 20th, 2007 02:29 am |
|
Jim Flynt wrote:
Probably one of the most if not the most used parks in all of Guilford County is the Battleground (Guilford Courthouse National Park) an adjacent Tannenbaum Park. The number of visitors and users on a daily basis and annual basis is staggering compared to other parks in the Triad. Yet they don't have one single baseball field, one single soccer field or any lighted areas. They don't have an outside amphitheater either. Yet people come in droves and come back again and again to simply enjoy nature, and open space, and picnics and bike rides and walking and Sunday concerts in the park.
All that enjoyin' nature and open space, and picnics and bike rides and walking and Sunday concerts (at an amphitheater, p'haps?) sounds like thangs people really enjoy. I reckon it must just be a lucky coincidence that accommodations fer all them kinds o' thangs ended up in the plans fer Summerfield's Community park.
It's a shame about them ballfields too. I wish the dang young'uns would just stay in their rooms an' play video games so the heathen minority wouldn't feel the need to ram ballfields down the he'pless majority's throat. Poor ol' majority, they never stood a chance with all the opportunities fer public input workin' ag'in 'em.
____________________
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
--Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
|
