I just got back from a trip to Person Field. You know, that City park that didn’t and never will cost the public $39,000,000? Here are a few photos from the two Coeur d’Alene Junior Tackle football games that were being played at the time. Tell me again, Mayor Bloem, why the people who were there encouraging and uplifting the kids playing ball would be better off if this lot was covered with houses.
Just a very small part of the crowd there to encourage the kids.
More of the folks who love Person Field and want all of it to remain a City park!
Sportsmanship, character, physical fitness, respect on display. Please don’t try to tell the folks this is not worth saving. This is less expensive than a new jail.
The “sumptuous” Person Field press box.
The neighbors who love Person Field know the “Score”.
Save Person Field!
Is it because they would be able to avoid such a violent sport, and better spend their time smelling the red geraniums planted for the tourists?
Comment by up river — October 20, 2012 @ 12:34 pm
Nobody goes to Person Field to buy jewelery, have a pita sandwich or get a hotel room. Why then should the city put any money into this park?
Comment by mary — October 20, 2012 @ 1:00 pm
Mary,
The answer to your questions is: Because the City does not realize the real value of that neighborhood park. Its value doesn’t show up in one of Tymesen’s “fungible” financial plans or budgets or on any balance sheets. When the City’s only measuring stick for value is the dollar bill, then the City reveals its lack of understanding of and empathy with the people in the community. How do you put a dollar value on the desirable traits being developed and demonstrated there today? What’s the dollar value of the parent-child bonds that were cemented there?
To look at it from another perspective, if Person Field was to go away, how many kids would not have indelible memories of Dad and Mom being there to watch them and cheer them on? Or help them learn to fly a kite? Or play catch with them? Or just walk and talk with them?
Comment by Bill — October 20, 2012 @ 1:30 pm
up river,
The cynical side of me says it’s all about money. My concern is that someone might have gone to the City and made the City an offer for its half of Person Field contingent upon the School District’s half becoming available. If that were to have happened, the City might have been induced to turn its municipal head the other way so the School District would put its half out for bid. Remember, too, that if one or more bids don’t reach the appraised value, the law permits the School District to sell it for less.
The School District informed the Mayor and City Administrator months ago about its intentions and its relative timetable. At least three members of the City Council (Gookin, Adams, and Edinger) were evidently not informed until last Monday night or early Tuesday morning. It struck me as odd that they seemed to be the only ones at Tuesday night’s Council meeting who appeared genuinely and sincerely upset about the potential loss of Person Field.
Goodlander and McEvers appeared to me to be more upset that Dan and Steve and Ron had voted against approving the budget but were now saying the City should spend more money to buy out the School District’s interest in Person Field. Maybe if the Mayor and Gabriel had told the Council months ago when they learned of it, it could have been timely handled by the Council. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? Was information intentionally withheld from Dan, Steve and Ron while being selectively provided to Kennedy, Goodlander, and McEvers?
Comment by Bill — October 20, 2012 @ 1:54 pm
I would take your concern about a possible offer from a developer for half or all of Person Field one step further, Bill. We know there are “favored” developers around here who know how to work the system of Federal, State and local grants to build “low income” housing. I would not be surprised to hear that they were lined up ready to propose very high-density, low income or subsidized housing on that piece of parkland.
What a shame that would be for this neighborhood.
Comment by mary — October 20, 2012 @ 2:19 pm
What a shame it would be for all city residents.
Comment by up river — October 20, 2012 @ 8:08 pm
up river,
It really will be a shame. Given the Seattleization mindset of the Mullan Avenue Gang, the day may not be far off when neighbors won’t be able to take their lawn chairs and ice chests and walk through open gates at City parks. Instead, they’ll have to first read and agree to follow a long list of regulations (which will be selectively enforced, of course, through searches at tightly controlled gates), then they’ll have to make appointments and perhaps pay fees, and then they’ll have to buy concessions from City-approved stands.
Comment by Bill — October 21, 2012 @ 6:38 am
Bill wrote “How do you put a dollar value on the desirable traits being developed and demonstrated there today? What’s the dollar value of the parent-child bonds that were cemented there?”
The only bond these people care about is one that has ties to a stakeholders pockets.
Comment by concerned citizen — October 21, 2012 @ 7:48 am
I have always wondered who decides who are the ‘stakeholders’?
Comment by up river — October 21, 2012 @ 8:42 am
Interesting tidbit…our (less than) esteemed mayor was spotted yesterday at Person field watching, what must be assumed, one of her descendants participating in a sport. Had Bloem not pushed the obscene expenditure of public monies on the destruction of McEuen, there may have been money to save Person. Hey there Sandi, if you use it, shouldn’t you save it?
Comment by rochereau — October 21, 2012 @ 10:21 am
rochereau,
I didn’t see her there, but then, there were hundreds of people coming and going, and I was there in the morning. I don’t know if there were afternoon games as well.
As buildable lots get smaller, there is less and less residential yard space for kids to play in. That makes open spaces like Person Field even more important and certainly more valuable as a community asset.
Comment by Bill — October 21, 2012 @ 12:14 pm
I hope the mayor saw the Save Person Field sign.
A number of years ago I was contacted by someone who wanted to develop the school district’s portion. I told him I would contact people who were active in saving the field and would ask their opinion. The response was a resounding no development. I forwarded their message which the person graciously accepted. Another suitable site was selected.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — October 21, 2012 @ 12:21 pm
I was there most of the day on Saturday as I have been for the last 6-7 years for Jr Tackle. As far as Jr Tackle goes it’s the only place for them to play. Occasionally they get to play at the High Schools, usually the 8th grade teams but it’s rare.
Indeed there were lots of people coming and going but to say, like in the caption, “More folks who love Person field and want it to remain a park” is a bit miss leading. Like mentioned I’ve been going there for at least 6 years and while it’s a nice “open space” its far from ideal. The field is dangerous to the players as it’s condition is poor. I like many others live across town and are indifferent to Person as far as going there otherwise than for Jr Tackle. There’s nothing there, a scar of a softball field and a scar of a dirt track.
Now, that’s not to say that those living BY Person like the open space and that’s fine if I lived there I would like it. However using Jr Tackle as a measure is unfair because people would flock to where ever they schedule the games. I expect that some neighbors would like Jr Tackle to move as parking is non-existent. However it’s only for one day a week for a short few weeks. That said what kind of action does that park get otherwise throughout the year? Other than people disregarding the no dogs sign and letting them use it for relief I don’t see much action there. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be a park though, just saying it’s dis-ingenuous to use Jr Tackle as a measure of desire.
Without a doubt, Person is a neighborhood issue and I wish them well on what they decide. That area and location could use a good facelift and a park, a quality park might help. In reality though that location adds some risk as far as parks go and lets not kid anyone, it could be a magnet for vandalism and some neighbors might not want that potential. However it could make the homes around there more desirable and increase and grow quality and pride of the area.
Jr Tackle would love to have a better location. When Jr Tackle started it was small and over the years has grown to over 500 plus young fellas, thanks to a dedicated group of folks, and have out grown Person.
Comment by Eric — October 22, 2012 @ 8:42 am
Where do you suggest Jr Tackle go to find a better field Eric? That being said, you make valid points and Person should remain a park. The irony here of course is the 39 million being spent on McEuen and I can guarantee that Jr Tackle won’t be invited to play there. And to preclude arguments,as totally invalid as they may be, even just the 14 million being currently spent (on one park project), is an obscenity in this or any economy.
Comment by rochereau — October 22, 2012 @ 9:46 am
Eric,
Thanks for commenting.
I’m relying on several years of input from residents in that area who love Person Field and want it to remain a City park.
I, too, live across town but have immense respect and admiration for the people who live in that area and who have fought against a complacent at best City government for years to try and get the City to deliver on the funding to improve what you’ve subjectively characterized as its poor condition. In grade school and high school I played on fields much worse than Person Field.
The answer to your question about what kind of action Person Field gets when it isn’t being used for Junior Tackle Football was answered eloquently and articulately by Jody Teeter at the City Council meeting on Tuesday. Unlike you, who lives across town, Jody lives across the alley from Person Field. She and several other people in the area have offered to volunteer time and labor to perform maintenance on the field, but their offers have been ignored.
Your statement that parking is nonexistent is wrong. On-street parking is still parking. I was there in the morning and had no difficulty finding a place to park on Garden next to the field. Just about seven blocks north at Lakes Middle School there is a parking lot that the public could use and then walk to Person Field. Walking is good exercise.
The people who rely on Person Field are not asking for much. Mayor Bloem, City Administrator Gabriel, City Parks Director Doug Eastwood, Council President Mike Kennedy, and Councilmen Goodlander and Bloem have done everything they can do deliver not much, closer to nothing. One might reasonably suspect that the aforementioned City officials might have ulterior motives in wanting Person Field to no longer be available as a City park to the people in that area.
You said, “However it could make the homes around there more desirable and increase and grow quality and pride of the area.” Your remark was offensive and an insult to many of the people who live around Person Field and who have been begging the City for even minimal maintenance. You implied that the people who live in that area have no pride in the area. By what standard do you measure the pride the residents have in their neighborhood? For whom would you make the “homes around there more desirable…”? That’s a determination to be made by the people who own and live in the homes, no one else. If the people who own and live in the homes find them desirable, then they are desirable, and neither you nor I nor any cronies of the Mayor have a right to tell them otherwise. It’s their homes, not ours. If you believe that the homes represent a threat to the health and safety of the neighborhood, file a complaint with the City Code Enforcement Officer. Under such conditions, the City would gleefully declare those places to be a nuisance.
Comment by Bill — October 22, 2012 @ 9:52 am
It’s true that Person Field is not in great shape. The city has neglected to do anything there for years. The neighbors have offered to help the city plant some trees and flowers; they’ve even offered to help care for them. But Person Field seems to be on the bottom of the priority list.
Eric, you live near several nicer parks and fields on the west side of town. You’re also fairly close to the Kroc Center. The kids in the Person Field area have only their park.
Comment by mary — October 22, 2012 @ 10:29 am
“Ou’ils mangent de la brioche”. A comment supposedly spoken by a ‘great princess’ [e.g.Queen of the City] upon learning that the peasants had no bread to eat, and translated as “Let them eat cake”. (according to Wikipedia)
Comment by up river — October 22, 2012 @ 12:55 pm
I say this with a smile up river…as with so many, you have misinterpreted what the Queen never said. Marie Antoinette never uttered those words. Had this quote been acurately accredited however, the meaning intended no arrogance. The aristocracy of that time was (sadly) unaware that the peasants didn’t have cake as well as bread. The whole no bread mess came from the wheat famine. However, I do understand your commentary. 🙂 Never depend on Wikipedia! Somehow whenever we must discuss the selfishness of Bloem and Co., I find it depressing. Therefore a tad bit of history to lighten the subject.
Comment by rochereau — October 22, 2012 @ 1:59 pm
Actually, and I too say this with a smile, I never attributed the quote to Marie Antoinette. (e.g. “supposedly spoken by a ‘great princess'” which was a quote on Wickipedia which makes it clear that there is no basis to attribute it to her). I also did not infer any arrogance on the part of anyone. I would say, with a smile also, that one shouldn’t trash Wikipedia without first checking to see what is stated on it.
Comment by up river — October 22, 2012 @ 2:42 pm
Wickipedia aside…The city has a history of neglecting city properties, i.e. the Rotary Tennis Courts at Mc Euen field, the Third Street concrete boat launch – both of which had maintenance funding. Frankly, I thought the degradation an excuse to permanently remove each facility. Person Field has also been neglected for years despite the inclusion in the city parks master plan. The city spent one million to improve dedicated parkland at a new subdivision, The Landings, but nothing for Person Field.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — October 22, 2012 @ 2:59 pm
Susie, I agree “history of neglecting city properties” and firmly believe that’s what happened with the tennis courts, let them rot and say no one uses them so get them out. Same with the Legion field, only used by a select few? Hogwash I know for a fact that there were many that wanted to use it and the city made it difficult thus perpetuating “no one uses it.”
Rochereau, You ask, where to go to find better? Honestly and sadly, the state that Person is in now, any open field would be better. Oh, and no they’ll never make accommodations for Jr Tackle at the “multi-purpose” open space that will be McEuen IF that’s what it will be called once done.
Consider that Jr Tackle is not just CdA kids. This year there were 32 teams from 5th grade to 8th grade, about 700 kids. That doesn’t include the Fitz league of younger players that had 170 kids last year. Almost 900 kids. And they come from ALL over the city and are set in district type areas so the kids can stay together and practice near their homes. Also there are teams made up of Hayden and Dalton, 11 teams from Post Falls, and 4 from the Silver Valley. That’s pretty darn extensive and Person is just not good for such a transition of so many people in one day of games. Sure street parking is fine if you have the first game but with concurrent games and coaches having the team be there an hour prior, well, it’s quite congested. Look that’s not the issue though. Clearly Jr Tackle has matured and I expect they will find a better place to play.
Bill, I didn’t imply anything about anyone’s pride. I said a nice park would help increase growth and pride and it would. However and if you’re going to accuse me, I’ll not shy from the obvious that clearly some in that area don’t and a walk down the surrounding blocks speaks for itself. That’s not to say there aren’t some real nice places. I’ve always liked the downtown neighbor hoods just that for those who do live there and put a lot of effort into their surroundings it must be difficult when others let their place go. Granted, I understand that not everyone has the income to do anything extraordinary and that’s not what I mean and I don’t mean someone that might be eclectic in their style that’s fine as well. I’m not calling that neglect but every neighborhood has it’s “spots”. That’s a reality and I don’t have to like it but, I can choose to live someplace else where the spots are less.
I truly hope that park stays and is improved.
Comment by Eric — October 22, 2012 @ 4:25 pm
up river I was teasing….not to be taken seriously. I thought I made that clear.
I believe Mary said that the neighbors had volunteered to improve Person Field, both material and labor. I wonder why they just don’t go ahead and do so. Who is going to object? There is a good field in Hayden, Finucane, (sp?) where soccer is played. Could not Jr. Tackle go there as well?
Comment by rochereau — October 23, 2012 @ 9:35 am
rochereau, yeah the Finucane is nice and when I was coaching we tried it and lets just say that the soccer folks claim to have built it even though that field is open to the “public” and they are quite covetous about it and made it very unwelcoming for only two teams to just practice there.
Good idea though.
Another great place would be by Skyway grade school, but alas, the soccer folks claim that one as well and are equally unwelcoming.
Odd isn’t it as Jr Tackle is only a 10 week max program, for games that is, as teams practice is location specific. Anyway something will come along sooner or later.
Comment by Eric — October 23, 2012 @ 10:07 am
Rochereau, you did and so was I. No harm, no foul. No offense taken and none intended.
On the subject of Finucane and Skyway. I feel that both should be multipurpose fields and scheduled accordingly. Having said that, I can understand why the soccer folks lay a claim on them…because I picked buckets and buckets of rocks at both those fields when they were being developed and my kids were playing soccer. However, I wasn’t doing it just so soccer could be played on them.
Comment by up river — October 23, 2012 @ 10:39 am
up riv, agree completely and same here. As a legion parent and little league parent I am glad to maintain for the good and use of all. You are on to something as well in scheduling.
Comment by Eric — October 23, 2012 @ 11:00 am
There is power in numbers gentlemen. Finucane should be open to all youth sports. I’m NOT kidding when I say the soccer community is showing very poor sportsmanship by claiming sole ownership of a public park. So how do we make it happen?
Comment by rochereau — October 23, 2012 @ 1:47 pm
Rochereau…first since we are being polite, I will presume that you were rhetorically speaking when you referenced ‘gentlemen’ above. I would take umbrage if I felt that I was included in that group…so no harm no foul. I guess the gentlemen, and I, would need to start by learning which public entity owns Finucane and Skyway. I assume, and we know what that means, that the school district owns at least Skyway, and maybe Finucane too. But I don’t know for sure. That information was above my pay grade as a rock picker.
Comment by up river — October 24, 2012 @ 7:07 am
rochereau and up river,
From this Hayden City website:
It sounds from that as if the City of Hayden owns Finucane Park, but then again, the City of Coeur d’Alene Parks (Person Field) webpage would lead one to believe the City owns all of Person Field, too.
Comment by Bill — October 24, 2012 @ 7:48 am
Gentlemen is a generic courtesy when one cannot be gender specific. Persons (not the field) seems to be just too too…and believe it, I’m not PC, something I consider absurd to the max. Perhaps I should have said, “my lords and ladies”. Or hey you all….but thats just not me.
I also believe that Finucane is owned by the city of Hayden and therefore should be open to all.
Comment by rochereau — October 24, 2012 @ 8:58 am