Last edited on Feb 26th, 2006 01:45 pm by JStogdale

Last edited on Feb 27th, 2006 05:05 pm by JStogdale

• Don't make personal attacks; flame ideas, not people

Last edited on Mar 19th, 2006 08:13 pm by DToney

Last edited on Jan 28th, 2007 11:28 pm by Jim Flynt

Last edited on Jan 29th, 2007 12:00 am by Jim Flynt

I tried so hard not to jump in here...... Darn it. Y'all can run me back over to SF if you want to.  

I see Jim's point that Stokesdale isn't OBLIGATED to provide ballfields for Summerfield's (or any other town's kids), however, I'm not clear if he feels that the town is obligated to pay for ballfields for Stokesdale's kids.

As for paying more, I can't pay more than I'm paying.  We're not talking 5-10 bucks here Jim.  We're talking (In Summerfield anyway) a minimum of $100.00 per kid per sport.  Lots more if they need equipment or if you want pictures or trophys.  Gone are the days when kids hit the ballfields in their KMart tennis shoes and Jeans.....

 Speaking as a SF kid who grew up next to Greensboro,  If it hadn't been for Greensboro's Rec Centers, parks, Libraries and other amenities paid for by their taxpayers, Lots of kids wouldn't have had all of the wonderful opportunities that we had when we were growing up.  

It's not like macca's proposing that you provide ballfields exclusively for SF and surrounding towns.  Greensboro provided the above listed amenities for their children and we were fortunate enough to be able to take advantage of them as well. Often times were were offered different opportunities than were offered out here. I don't know about Stokesdale, but in Summerfield, we don't have soccer or football.  Kids have to go to neighboring towns to play these sports. 

I just think it's a good thing.

Crackah, I will try and answer your question and share my thoughts on your other comments.

As you can no doubt tell from most if not all of my posts, I subscribe to the school of thought and political philosophy that we should only look to government for those things we cannot do for ourselves. I believe that government should be our resource and solution of last resort, not first resort. Where and while others see government as the solution to problems, I generally see government as the core of our problems.

Having said that, my earlier questions to Macca were an attempt to understand the scope of what the problem is in Stokesdale with regard to a scarcity of playing fields? It is difficult to address solutions until we can quantify that scope of need versus demand.

As I have further stated in several threads, I fully support the creation of more parks in Stokesdale and throughout the Northwest. I further support the preservation of more open space, woodland and agrarian lands for the benefit of future generations. I for one, am willing to help pay for those additional parks as well as roll up my sleeves and help to find innovative ways to achieve those goals. I believe even more intensely that a 'park' should be more than playing fields. Especially single use playing fields. As someone mentioned, there are no soccer or football fields available here in Stokesdale or Summerfield, and that simply ought to be unacceptable.

If you will recall, a week or so ago, I suggested in one of the Forum threads that the three communities of Oak Ridge, Summerfield and Stokesdale should have discussions about regional planning issues as well as discussions about a regional park which could provide greater resources for all of the Northwest communities. Through economies of scale, much more in the way of offerings could be made available to our Northwest youth than would likely be available only through the efforts of any one town. A larger consortium might well provide those football fields, soccer fields, and various and sundry other opportunities which would otherwise be lost. My line of thinking would be that such a regional park might also increase the possibilities for more county and state funding than the smaller grant programs offer, which would result in a greater net benefit for all.

If you will carefully read my earlier comments, my criticism of the Stokesdale Town Council was not in the purchase of the acreage or their concept for a park at that location. I fully support that concept. My criticism was and is that the relocation to that site for the construction of a new town hall sends the wrong signal for the historic and vital town core, and it will further lack the central access and visibility that a town hall should have. With the possible exception of Oak Ridge which Sandra points out, most of us would be extremely hard pressed to name more than a handful of towns which do not have their town halls or government centers in the central business district of those communities.

Recall that several writers here a week or so ago were saying how prescient were the visionaries who envisioned and then planned and constructed Central Park in New York City were. But those visionaries did not build that park in the middle of Queens or the Bronx or Brooklyn and that is in fact, why it is today called CENTRAL PARK. I doubt many here and even most in New York could name even one or two parks located in those other boroughs.

Like Crackah, I too grew up enjoying the benefits of some of the offerings which Greensboro provided to those of us who were country bumpkins living outside of the city.

Last edited on Jan 29th, 2007 07:06 pm by Jim Flynt

Last edited on Jan 29th, 2007 07:54 pm by Jim Flynt