His Stalinist dream is that we all pay to destroy the very things we all need the most: quiet, restful times in our small vestiges of natural environments - our parks.
His plan is simple: if it has beauty and lives and breaths, kill it.
Cover it with concrete. Cover it with cancer-causing artificial turf. Then sell it all off to mega developers for prison-like structures for the millions of slave-class illegal aliens.
The Commissar? Oh, he'll be long gone, jetting to his hideaway in the islands. He certainly doesn't want to be anywhere near the destruction.
I have not been to this area to see what it currently looks like, but from the face of things, using 2/3 of the area as a nature preserve and the other 1/3 for additional recreational use doesn't seem like a bad thing. The plan is to keep the majority of the area as a nature preserve and develop a part of the area into the something the community can use for sports and other activities. What is so wrong with that?
The plan is to keep the majority of the area as a nature preserve and develop a part of the area into the something the community can use for sports and other activities. What is so wrong with that?
Maybe its the fact that they already have sports fields there in decrepit condition. I don't see the point in taking a natural space and turning it into more sports fields they won't take care of.
"So you think that cutting down 22 acres of forest is a good thing?"
I haven't been there, which is why I am asking, but if there is a dense community around this area and a lack of active recreational spaces, then yes, converting a portion of the area while maintaining a majority of it as a "forest" could be a good thing.
There is no lack of recreational spaces, there is a low-rise community bordering the park on both sides, the current fields remain unused much of the time because of their poor condition, there is a terrible asthma problem in this area and the entire 22 acres is scheduled to be mowed down.
Why doesn't the city spend money fixing up the other parts of the park in disrepair, or focus on making the unused buildings on the property useful for something instead of messing with Mother Nature?
Highland Park, Queens: 141.28 Acres Highland Park, Brooklyn: 43.69 Acres Total acreage: 184.97
I think they can afford to leave 22 acres alone, like they have at Forest or Central Parks. Unless they don't think black and hispanic kids deserve to grow up with access to nature, which is quite possible.
"That's right, the other basins are a lake and a swamp. The only dry land is a forest and the city wants to cut it down."
So in other words the only reason that the city will be "preserving" that 2/3's is because it would be too much trouble and expense to convert it into fields. By keeping this fact secret they're able to make it look like they're doing us all a big favor by "creating" this preserve.
Click on the graphic from PlaNYC to see the Parks Department's B.S. decoded in red.
13 comments:
I think you hit the nail on the head.
Isn't our Commissar just so precious?
His Stalinist dream is that we all pay to destroy the very things we all need the most: quiet, restful times in our small vestiges of natural environments - our parks.
His plan is simple: if it has beauty and lives and breaths, kill it.
Cover it with concrete. Cover it with cancer-causing artificial turf. Then sell it all off to mega developers for prison-like structures for the millions of slave-class illegal aliens.
The Commissar? Oh, he'll be long gone, jetting to his hideaway in the islands. He certainly doesn't want to be anywhere near the destruction.
I have not been to this area to see what it currently looks like, but from the face of things, using 2/3 of the area as a nature preserve and the other 1/3 for additional recreational use doesn't seem like a bad thing. The plan is to keep the majority of the area as a nature preserve and develop a part of the area into the something the community can use for sports and other activities. What is so wrong with that?
"I have not been to this area to see what it currently looks like"
Then maybe you should and then write about your findings. You won't think it's such a hot idea after you do. No one has thus far.
"using 2/3 of the area as a nature preserve and the other 1/3 for additional recreational use doesn't seem like a bad thing."
So you think that cutting down 22 acres of forest is a good thing?
The plan is to keep the majority of the area as a nature preserve and develop a part of the area into the something the community can use for sports and other activities. What is so wrong with that?
Maybe its the fact that they already have sports fields there in decrepit condition. I don't see the point in taking a natural space and turning it into more sports fields they won't take care of.
"So you think that cutting down 22 acres of forest is a good thing?"
I haven't been there, which is why I am asking, but if there is a dense community around this area and a lack of active recreational spaces, then yes, converting a portion of the area while maintaining a majority of it as a "forest" could be a good thing.
There is no lack of recreational spaces, there is a low-rise community bordering the park on both sides, the current fields remain unused much of the time because of their poor condition, there is a terrible asthma problem in this area and the entire 22 acres is scheduled to be mowed down.
That's right, the other basins are a lake and a swamp. The only dry land is a forest and the city wants to cut it down.
Why doesn't the city spend money fixing up the other parts of the park in disrepair, or focus on making the unused buildings on the property useful for something instead of messing with Mother Nature?
Highland Park, Queens: 141.28 Acres
Highland Park, Brooklyn: 43.69 Acres
Total acreage: 184.97
I think they can afford to leave 22 acres alone, like they have at Forest or Central Parks. Unless they don't think black and hispanic kids deserve to grow up with access to nature, which is quite possible.
"That's right, the other basins are a lake and a swamp. The only dry land is a forest and the city wants to cut it down."
So in other words the only reason that the city will be "preserving" that 2/3's is because it would be too much trouble and expense to convert it into fields. By keeping this fact secret they're able to make it look like they're doing us all a big favor by "creating" this preserve.
What a joke.
I don't think Henry Stern would have done something this short-sighted and stupid.
Post a Comment