--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "James Spengler"
To: "glenn eugster"
Cc: "Lance Mallamo"
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2009 4:14:47 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Fort Ward Observer, December 2009, Volume 1, Issue 3
Glenn I appreciate your interest in the park and look forward to continue to work with you. I do hope that with your professional background you realize that some of the information provided in the "Observer" is just not correct. This characterization of information seems aimed at keeping whatever community you are trying to reach upset about the park. This only adds to the tensions of various stakeholders and will lead to a less satisfactory conclusion for operation of the park. I suggest that you put your disclaimer from the end of your correspondance at the beginning.
Some specific examples:
1. Your reference to repeated contacts of city officials by various homeowners and residents is really just you in many cases.
2. The "Observer" in many parts is an editorial piece representing your sole point of view. I think you should let your readers know this and that you are presenting your opinions and not fact.
3. Your use of the term master plan is not correct. The Park Commission has the express authority by City Council to approve park master plans. This is done by official resolution and vote. Drawings, concepts, ideas may exist but the fact that they do does not make them into a master plan.
4. Your section F is all editorial. It is enough to say that previous city actions show a disregard for history. This is the case in many areas of the city and not just at Ft. Ward. As you know the street in front of the park was built on what was once part of the fort. I think current city actions are much more sensitive to our important history. Projects such as Freedmans Cemetary are possible now when a few years ago they were not. OHA has done a great job at bringing history into the forefront of many current decisions.
5. You may want to turn some of your research attention to what historical resources were destroyed or lost by the development of Marlboro Estates itself. It is conceivable that grave sites were located on your property since you are adjacent to the cemetery. Private development has probably destroyed more historical resouces that specific actions of city departments.
6. The Ad Hoc advisory group has a specific charge of work given by City Council. Most of your identified management issues are not within the charge of work.
7. Your comment about the beaver dam, stagnant water and mosquitos is way over the top. I walked the park myself and gave atttention to this area. There is no standing or stagnant water much less danger from West Nile. Your were copied on my correspondenc with Lt. Col. Lyon and know that he agreed with this assessment and suggested course of action. But you choose to still present this as an imminent danger not responded to by the city.
8. In your repeated comments about drainage in the park and the city's failure, you don't mention those homeowners from Marlboro Estates that continue to drain their roofs and yards into the park. Glenn you know that you did this with black drain pipe directly into the cemetery. If you wanted to give this subject fair treatment you would mention this outright.
Jim Spengler, Director
Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities
City of Alexandria
1108 Jefferson Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
office: (703) 746-5502
cell: (703) 258-4797
email: james.spengler@alexandriava.gov
No comments:
Post a Comment