Reimagining the Civic Commons’ Post

Go, team, go!

Could the revitalization of brownfields unlock new possibilities for our communities? 🌍 Weston & Sampson's Cassie Bethoney, RLA, addresses this topic in her article, Chicopee’s Willimansett Brownfields Area-Wide Plan: How Brownfields Can Become Catalysts for Neighborhood Reinvestment. The piece highlights how Chicopee, Massachusetts is transforming its industrial past into a brighter future, turning underutilized spaces into thriving community assets. Learn more about the strategies driving reinvestment and renewal in the Willimansett neighborhood by reading the full article here: 🔗https://ow.ly/7iE050TOmas #BrownfieldRedevelopment #NeighborhoodReinvestment #UrbanDevelopment #Sustainability

If the he city is going to hold a meeting concerning thousands of residents… Why not have a notification system that alerts more than just the small group of people who monitor a Facebook page? Why not have notices at each of the main windsor Forest entrances? Why not send out postcards to each of the household? Why not hold it on a Saturday and not a work or school night? Why not hold it in a facility that’s large enough to accommodate the probable turnout if everyone in the Forest receives a notice? Why not hold it far enough in advance that people can schedule? The city has a TV channel. Why not have an electronic and a paper voting system that both informs everyone and allows their input? The prior meeting allowed people to write things down or put stickies on the wall, but that was for a multi district community center. This will be a city facility paid for by tax dollars citizens should have input. There’s a lot of subjects that have not been addressed. The city owns many properties they can accommodate a large group of people. This is a serious long-term and permanent decision. People should be a well informed, it should be a thought out decision and discussions regarding increased traffic, flooding, wildlife, trees, transportation, safety… For example,I still believe that the repair to the former oxidation pond was a poor decision, it cost too much and will involve future taxpayer money to continue to patch it when a new pond would’ve been cheaper and wouldn’t have required revisiting. the 2 1/2 million dollars could’ve gone a long way towards a community center and a new pond would’ve been much cheaper. a pond could’ve been put in for less than a half a million and instead of the 9 million we’ve been told they would have 11 million for a new community center. at one of the meetings we were told they had 5 million for community center and they were going to expand it to other districts to get more money. Now I’ve heard they have 9 million? why not take the 9 million and money from other districts and really put in a first class facility? of course I do not know that these numbers are accurate because we’ve been told different numbers for the community center and we were told 5 million to repair the pond. look up Tribble park on SAGIS / property tax card and the legal description is Oxidation pond. I do not doubt that Kurtis is working hard and all of this is very frustrating to him. But the community center is about the citizens. I believe that a community center in Windsor Forest involves all taxpayers and citizens, especially on the south side. What about Wilshire that has no Center, Paradise Park, Vernon berg , and the many other communities? I’m certain people will come to the facility from other areas besides Windsor forest. Should we change the name to just Windsor if they’re going to cut down the “forest”?

You may have heard that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has opened submissions on its Three-Year Plan (2024 – 2027) which proposes to cut its current funding of $120,000 per year to Te Mata Park Trust. This is a third of our annual funding, the loss of which could have very real consequences, including the possibility that health and safety issues (brought about by under-funded maintenance) could lead to Park closures.    Cutting a third of our operating budget could put Te Mata Park Trust in an untenable position; fail to protect the region’s most important recreational, historical and cultural taonga; and undermine all the investment and volunteer time that has gone into the Park in recent years.   We know that times are tough, and budgets are stretched, but if you believe that the Park should continue to be part-funded by HBRC, please have your say and make a submission. With the community’s support we hope to influence HBRC to continue to fund Te Mata Park Trust and ensure the Park is protected and enhanced for future generations.    If you would like to make a submission to HBRC to support the retention of Te Mata Park’s funding, please go to the Protect the Peak page on the Te Mata Park website where we have summarised some useful information to assist you. To make the process easier, we have prepared some text that you might like to use in your submission. Thank you for supporting Te Mata Park. #protectthepeak https://lnkd.in/gX57wYry

I’m currently in the UK to spend time with family, but I couldn’t help take interest in this article morning. Councils at home are currently announcing their intended rate rises, the topic of how local authorities manage their budgets has been front of mind. My family spent quite some time reading through our local Council draft budget for the year ahead and it really is a minefield, so to speak. I asked ChatGPT to give me some pros and cons of selling public assets. Here’s what I got… Pros: 1. Immediate Financial Relief: Selling public assets can provide a quick injection of cash, helping to address immediate financial pressures and avoid rate rises. 2. Debt Reduction: Proceeds from asset sales can be used to pay off existing debts, reducing financial burdens in the long term. 3. Focus on Core Services: By selling non-essential assets, local authorities can redirect resources towards core services such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure. 4. Efficiency Improvement: Consolidating assets can streamline operations and make the remaining assets more efficient to manage. Cons: 1. Loss of Public Ownership: Selling off public assets means relinquishing public ownership and control, potentially limiting access and decision-making power for local communities. 2. Long-Term Revenue Loss: Once sold, assets no longer generate revenue for the local authority, leading to potential future funding gaps and reliance on alternative sources. 3. Impact on Services: Depending on the assets sold, there may be a negative impact on essential services or community amenities, affecting quality of life for residents. 4. Limited Options for Future Generations: Selling off assets can limit options for future generations, who may not have access to the same resources or opportunities. In light of this, I have a few questions - 1. How can Councils effectively engage with communities to ensure their voices are heard in decisions regarding asset sales? Is there a strong case here for deliberative democracy? 2. What strategies can be implemented to balance the immediate need for financial relief with the long-term interests and well-being of the community? 3. Are there alternative solutions, such as revenue generation or cost-cutting measures, that can be explored before resorting to asset sales? My family would love to have the option to help maintain our own verges, or receive discounted rates in exchange for civic volunteering - is idea something that any Council anywhere in the world would entertain? I guess the volume of active citizens required for this to impact Council savings might be unrealistic?! 4.. How can Councils ensure transparency and accountability throughout the decision-making process to maintain public trust and confidence? Keen to hear thoughts on selling off assets as well as any exemplary models of public involvement in decision making on this kind of dilemma… https://lnkd.in/gvz2sSkR

We have to stop criminalizing people who are experiencing homelessness. We also have to stop this narrative that people experiencing homelessness are struggling with mental instability. The majority of them are not - or were not until they lost stable shelter. If the state isn’t going to actually address the issues underlying homelessness it sure as heck shouldn’t be criminalizing people’s efforts to seek shelter via tents on government property. Come on, y’all. I have to believe we are better than this.

More access to our green and blue spaces is essential if we are to mend our relationship with Nature and the countryside. It's useful to remember that access to our open spaces has always been hard fought for - from decades of graft from campaigners like Kate Ashbrook at Open Spaces Society, and Ramblers Scotland spearheading the Land Reform Act that legalised a right to responsible roaming across all of Scotland (yes, you can walk/bike/swim/camp off the path anywhere in Scotland! As long as you do it responsibly). Then there's Right to Roam and The British Mountaineering Council's well-reasoned rationale for change, passionately argued by campaigners like Eben Myrddin Muse. Even back in the 1930s campaigners trying to establish National Parks and National Trails faced hefty, well-funded, scaremongering opposition. For example: the Pennine Way - the long distance route that tracks the high land running north-south from Edale in Derbyshire to Kirk Yetholm in the Scottish Borders - was viciously resisted. Why? In part because wealthy landowners wanted to keep their degraded grouse moors as private bloodsports playgrounds - they didn't want walkers stumbling across the corpses of all those birds of prey they poisoned and trapped. People were a pain and why should they let them access 'their' land, anyway? There were also land-owning companies that didn't want the hassle. Keep it simple - keep 'em out. Water companies got creative - they said they were worried walkers would do poos on the hillsides near reservoirs, and some might have typhoid and that would contaminate the water. They were so desperate to keep the barbed wire up and the public out, that they took their poison poo rationale to a public enquiry. Unsurprisingly, the reasoning was thrown out (because it's nonsense) and we got our first national trail... The Peninne Way route was first proposed in 1935. It was officially approved in 1951. It actually opened in 1965. Yes, that's a long time. And a lot of taxpayer money. And a lot of tireless campaigning hours to get the right result. With a new government, I have new optimism that it's possible to achieve much-needed change to create Nature access that's fit for the 21st Century: where the public's health and wellbeing is prioritised, where we acknowledge that a thriving countryside is one with people in it, where we see ourselves as part of healthy economic systems and healthy ecosystems that both nurture and feed us. History suggests it won't be a stoll in the park...but it's both urgent and important.

Homelessness as it currently stands is a construct of available affordable housing stock and the human health condition. The narratives have been politically structured such that the issue of housing stock is juxtaposed against addressing the human health conditions of homelessness. This misalignment distracts us from addressing how structural racism is the linchpin barrier for both issues. Reducing homelessness requires addressing both components to ensure access and sustainability. We cannot let this redirection undermine the specific and relevant goals that will actually achieve reducing homelessness.

I care about school funding and I vote! 🟢 Toowoomba North - vote for Thom. But interestingly I've spent most of my life disengaged with politics. The lies, the schmoozing, the media games just get under my skin. We hold our political leaders up as examples yet in many instances they behave to the contrary. We need humility, authenticity and integrity in our elected officials, focused on bringing people together, not segregating or excluding. So I'm sorry for talking politics to those of you who agree, or are similarly disengaged, but I've realised that equity & funding in our school system can't improve without the support of our elected officials. So unless we get the right people in the seats, children will suffer. In another part of Qld? Be sure to pop LNP/Labor last in your voting preferences. One of the factors in my mind as I get around the neighbourhood is 'how much money does Trevor Watts and the LNP - Liberal National Party spend on election signage / campaigning?' With the intent on winning as opposed to directing that money toward an issue that will actually make a difference like funding public schools, homelessness, or violence prevention? The more signs I see of someone generally the less I want to vote for them. I'd like to nudge culture in Australia toward helping out the little guy who might not have as much money or a voice as loud, but truly represents what I thought was 'the Australian spirit' of equity, inclusion & everyone getting a fair go. Neither LNP or Australian Labor Party have shown the interest or ability to create a school system based on equity & inclusion, despite having many many years of opportunity, power & influence to do so. Change is needed. We need to give The Australian Greens an opportunity to represent the voices that otherwise will go unheard, but to do so, they need our support. Voting for a party that takes donations from big business to influence policy that favours those businesses feels unethical & unAustralian. I'm completely over the 2-horse rhetoric played out in mainstream media around Australian politics. Or at least shouldn't it be? https://lnkd.in/gehMYXug Thomas Roker #election2024 #election #auspol #greens #vote #politics

Don the Con (conman, not convict ... yet) donated junk land to New York for a "park." He paid $2.75M but couldn't build a golf course as he intended. He donated it and claimed it was worth $26M to $100M. What does the "park" offer? A gravel parking lot. That's it. There isn't even a trash can. This fraud was approved by the New York parks commissioner, a friend of Trump's. _________ "I visited Donald Trump’s state park and it’s not a park" Excerpts We’ve just learned Donald Trump paid virtually no income tax in 10 of the last 15 years. While the fragments of Trump’s finances are still being investigated, there’s one unusually large relic of his dealings just an hour’s drive north of New York City. Last week, I went to Donald J Trump state park, which few people know exists, because it’s not really a park. In fact, it’s two tracts of muddy, overgrown land between New York’s Putnam and Westchester counties that Trump purchased in 1998 for $2.75m, hoping to build a golf course. Neighborhood officials halted the plan, citing environmental concerns, and the land was abandoned. In an alternate timeline, the story would just end here. But we’re living in Trump’s universe. In 2006, the reality TV mogul donated the undeveloped land to New York state, claiming it was worth $100m – an amount that, if claimed as a qualified conservation contribution, could have saved him a fortune in income tax, potentially carried forward for years. (Confusingly, Trump’s 2016 campaign valued the land at $26.1m in his public list of charitable contributions.) The lucrative donation deal was approved by Bernadette Castro, a friend of Trump’s and former CEO of Castro Convertibles, a pullout sofa company, who was appointed New York parks commissioner by the then Republican governor, George Pataki. At an elaborate ceremony that year – reportedly complete with a catering tent, bottles of Trump-branded ice water, and TV crew – Castro lavished praise on Trump’s “magnificent donation”, and Pataki boasted the park would “provide recreational opportunities for families and visitors”. Trump declared: “I hope that these 436 acres of property will turn into one of the most beautiful parks anywhere in the world.” Having visited the park, it all feels like a big joke. The site is surprisingly hard to find – beyond a garish sign on the nearby Taconic State Parkway, there are no clear markers to guide potential visitors – as if the state hopes you won’t actually go. It’s not listed on New York parks’ website, either, although it is labelled a “passive park”, which means it is not maintained and has no amenities. Upon arrival, you are greeted with nothing. The “parking lot” is an empty gravel patch with a noticeboard that warns visitors to beware of ticks. There are no restrooms, trash cans, or places to sit. The remainder is basically bramble bushes and an empty field with bits of trash. This, I guess, is what $100m looks like under late capitalism.