Town Square

Post a New Topic

Neighbors offer compromise for McKelvey fields

Original post made on Nov 24, 2010

Neighbors of McKelvey Park say they have a "win-win" solution to the controversy about how to revamp their neighborhood park, but youth baseball leagues aren't entirely happy about it.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, November 24, 2010, 11:49 AM

Comments (10)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by John the Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 24, 2010 at 2:15 pm

How about no change at all and just let the neighborhood flood instead? I mean... c'mon.... if everyone is against any change, then guess what should happen? No change.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by AgnosticAl
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 24, 2010 at 2:15 pm

Funny that the proposer calls it "Win-Win" When that happens, its usually just "Win"(for the proposer)
The point about the families with different aged kids is very valid. In all common sense, though, anyone who moved into that neighborhood in the past 50 year did so with full knowledge of the fields and their usage. Just because things are up for review doesn't mean that its time to grab something away from the traditional users. Is Eagle park that far away?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by AgnosticAl
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 24, 2010 at 2:19 pm

@John the Man: "if everyone is against any change,"
Actually, EVERYONE isn't against ANY change. What this issue is comprised of is one group _wanting_ some changes and one group wanting to keep traditional usage. If the issue was as you stated it, though, then yes your statement would be valid.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Laura
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on Nov 24, 2010 at 2:30 pm

This is no "win-win" for youth baseball or for those facing the potential of a flood down stream. It is only a win for a few selfish St. Francis Acres neighbors headed up by Mr. Yu enforcing their will upon the people of Mountain View in order to eliminate the lights, which they knew of when the purchased their homes, for their own self enrichment.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ron
a resident of Waverly Park
on Nov 24, 2010 at 2:40 pm

John, the issue is not having no change and letting the area flood. The flood basin is being built regardless. It is either going to be built with the same baseball fields, no baseball fields, or some modified arrangement. So it is not that being afraid of change will lead to floods, it is making sure the facility meets the city's needs (which does not necessarily mean just the local neighborhood.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by C'mon Voice
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 24, 2010 at 3:52 pm

Do some homework and stop with the inflammatory stories pitting baseball vs neighbors. Public meetings were held on this a year ago. PRC approved a plan in January. Council approved the plan in March. The plan replaces the two existing fields with two new fields. Fairly simple. All of this is documented in PRC and Council minutes. At this point, meetings should be to tweak diagrams.

City & Water District: We'd like to lower the fields by 15 feet to save a bunch of residents from a 100 year flood. OK with you, Baseball folks? The new fields will be improved over what's there now.

Baseball Orgs: OK sure. We'll just need an interim place to play.

City & Water: All right...we'll move forward (note PRC & Council minutes)

Done deal.

This is replacing what's there now...nothing new. If the Water District hadn't come along with the request, everyone would happily be playing baseball. And unless the City and the Council don't intend to stand by their original agreements/stance, someone should stand up and say it's time to move on.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Political Insider
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 24, 2010 at 4:39 pm

I agree C'mon Voice. Council and PRC were very clear. There is no new direction unless council offers new direction and no one from council has stepped forward. When this goes to council it will be too late to start over and say lets try a new idea. Of course there are always a few who will be afraid to stick with their original stance.

The article is way too biased toward the neighborhood. If the offer to get rid of the larger field is a win-win, then everyone should agree. The fact that the field groups are rejecting the offer tells you it does not work for them. My reading of the WD plan suggests the BB group is the one that has offered the sacrifice/compromise, by reducing field size and allowing a large mini park


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Matt Raschke
a resident of The Crossings
on Nov 25, 2010 at 10:54 am

The big field at McKelvey is an exciting thing for the little leaguers. It gives them something to look towards as they get bigger. Losing it would be harsh. I support the current Water District plan that replaces the existing fields in kind and adds the mini park.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MVNative
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 26, 2010 at 4:40 pm

I agree, what the Water District has proposed is wonderful! They did a great job. With their plan, we are fortunate to have big McKelvey and little McKelvey, while gaining extra play areas. The playground they have on their current drawing board is the perfect size. Plus, it's not like the field's lights are on all night, and there's noise constantly blaring out of the speakers.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Another concerned neighbor
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on Nov 29, 2010 at 12:47 pm

First, Mr. Yu has only a few people that support him. Most of the neighborhood wants to keep the baseball there. Many of our kids USE IT..

Secondly, selfish? Really? There are over 300 small children that have not had a place to play in 50 years. The baseball fields have had 100% of the park for that time. The neighbors can not even have a picnic there, we have to close a street. The "park" either has a game or is closed for field renovation.

Thirdly, the teams are not getting smaller fields. Obviously you have not been going to any of the meetings. They are not giving up ANYTHING, except field time during construction. What about the neighborhood that has to deal with that 24/7.

Finally, the neighborhood are asking for no lights or loudspeakers. Not unreasonable.. and move the parking lot to Miramonte, more parking, less traffic.

The water district plan is great. We would just like the city council to have an opportunity to look at an alternative plan that benefits the ENTIRE city, not just the water district.

ANOTHER SFA NEIGHBOR


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Cho's, beloved dim sum spot, to reopen in Los Altos
By Elena Kadvany | 8 comments | 6,018 views

Why I Became Active in Palo Alto Forward
By Steve Levy | 12 comments | 2,344 views

Early Decision Blues
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 2,004 views

With a Perspective....
By Ms. Jenson | 0 comments | 412 views

10 Tried and True Ways to Increase Happiness
By Caroline Fleck | 0 comments | 96 views