Lights at the ballfields approved by the Parks committee

[feistylady]

I can't see how you compare cable TV to lights at the park. Cable was installed out here when the community was developed because the powers to be didn't want antennas, and cable was the only other way to have TV for everyone. Obviously now there are choices so it is a want for those who have Dish or Direct TV, and certainly some would say that they didn't have a choice because cable was so bad. In my opinion these lights are an addition to what already is there, and not necessary to using the Park. If as Martha has described, all expenses for the maintenance and electricity would be included in fees paid by the clubs using the lights, that certainly would make it more appealing to me. I also like the idea of a timer, although I still feel strongly that those who live near the park should be included in any discussions relating to the lights because of not only the noise but the bright lights that will be disturbing them. This is not like people who buy their homes near the airport and then complain about the noise of the airplanes. These people were there first. Oh well Matt, I've said about enough, and this is something we will just have to agree to disagree!

[Matthew]

Originally Posted by feistylady

I can't see how you compare cable TV to lights at the park.

They are both wants and according to you we should not be spending money on things we want, only things we need. So when are you going to start fighting against all the other things this community wants?

[steepndeep]

Originally Posted by feistylady

I can't see how you compare cable TV to lights at the park. Cable was installed out here when the community was developed because the powers to be didn't want antennas, and cable was the only other way to have TV for everyone. Obviously now there are choices so it is a want for those who have Dish or Direct TV, and certainly some would say that they didn't have a choice because cable was so bad. In my opinion these lights are an addition to what already is there, and not necessary to using the Park. If as Martha has described, all expenses for the maintenance and electricity would be included in fees paid by the clubs using the lights, that certainly would make it more appealing to me. I also like the idea of a timer, although I still feel strongly that those who live near the park should be included in any discussions relating to the lights because of not only the noise but the bright lights that will be disturbing them. This is not like people who buy their homes near the airport and then complain about the noise of the airplanes. These people were there first. Oh well Matt, I've said about enough, and this is something we will just have to agree to disagree!

Correct, some people were probably have been there before the park, but I am prtty sure there has been a few houses sold that border the park since it was built.

People knew they were buying a house by the park. Hard to complain about noise/traffic since it is a park with many baseball diamonds/soccer fields. Games/practices are played there. Also, with the ever growing younger population out there, lights and extra lights are in the future. More kids & more teams need more fields for practice and time.

Lights would only be on during the later Fall for soccer once it starts getting darker earlier and then again in the early Spring for baseball.
Later in the Spring/Summer it stays daylight much longer into the night and then in Winter, there is nothing going on.

Geez, even adults are using the lights for softball. I was playing softball last night. The lights aren't just for the kids :-)

[Martha]

There is a "buffer" if you will, of vacant land between the park and the row of homes on Guadalupe. I'm not clear about who "owns" that. Not sure if it's common area (though I don't think so) or if PTF/Developers own that (which is who I think owns it), and then there is the patch of land currently owned by Tsakopoulos' son-in-law's magazine (formerly known as "the Escuela School Site). There are trees that were planted, I think last year, that will grow, and those trees were planted kind of along the east/west sides of the park. There isn't any reason I can think of to not plant MORE trees, maybe a different variety, but certainly something that will not only buffer the noise but help to filter the lights. And then, the homes proposed for the currently open areas will filter our Pera/Guadalupe neighbors from all things "Stonehouse Park." If, in fact, the opposition is fear of noise and lights. If the opposition is to be contrary just because that particular person doesn't want/need it for themselves, that's a whole 'nother rant that I can rail against another time!

I'd bet money that most directors, RMA staff, and folks considering a run next BOD election are looking at this topic. I'm hoping all are looking at what the solution is so EVERYONE can have not only what is wanted, but what is needed to give the users of that facility the amenities that will continue to make RM the great place that it is!

This is a completely do-able/workable deal! Let's not drag our heels again!

[Kevin]

Speaking of the next BOD election . . maybe we need to a write in candidate to make it more interesting.

Martha?

[MoonMan]

though still an unscientific poll...it is interesting, that the "yes" total is creeping up to even with the "no" total the longer this issue has been discussed.

[MoonMan]

interactive poll?

Is it possible, worth it, informative to have the capability of "changing" your own vote after reading the postings?

On this issue, it wouldn't matter to me, as I voted yes, and have maintained that view.

However, there have been polls that I voted one way, and then after reading postings for a few days, I got more information which changed my opinion.

one could wait to vote I suppose...but what fun is that?

[Martha]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Speaking of the next BOD election . . maybe we need to a write in candidate to make it more interesting.

Martha?

Great idea, Kevin!

O.K. For all of you that wish to write in a candidate, that's capital "K", "e", "v", "i", "n"...

Bwahahahahahaha!!!

Crack. Me. UP!!

[Zebra Top]

Originally Posted by MoonMan

though still an unscientific poll...it is interesting, that the "yes" total is creeping up to even with the "no" total the longer this issue has been discussed.

I think it is the Apathy vote that has crept up the longer this has been discussed.

[Wilbur]

Apathy's looking better every day.