Board of Aldermen 12-28-2021 Page 23
to request this and verified by legal. | would say maybe this is a practice for some of us to aspire to in connecting with our
residents and addressing these needs instead of talking about addressing these needs now where they haven't all been
given the same amount of attention, or airing, or Support over the past terms.
| would also point out that with regards to how the space is used and whatever quadrant systems that study used - this is
a very weirdly shaped group of wards so | don't know how you can divide into quadrants that don't include multiple wards.
While Ward 3 and Ward 4 have a disproportionate amount of acreage, we also have a disproportionate amount of
population density. | know Greeley Park isn't just in Ward 4. It's also abuts Ward 5 and is used by the entire city. Many
of the Aldermen who have objected to specific local areas have also in the past stated that they use Greeley Park. So
Greeley Park is a shared amenity for the entire city. If we would like to equally distance locations for parks, | would submit
that that is a much, much less efficient and effective way to allow access to parks to give each ward its own 100 plus acre
park. That is probably not a serious suggestion. What is serious is we have an opportunity to preserve a chunk of
Greeley Park which it was correctly pointed out it is not in Greeley Park. It’s only surrounded on three sides by it. There's
a point where you're using parsimony to claim that people are misrepresenting things.
Functionally speaking, it is an important element of Greeley Park. | have pointed out in the past that parts of Mine Falls
which were thought to be part of the park were developed and then people realized exactly how close the abutting
properties were. | would also point out that this Board actually voted to obtain a piece of property because they recognize
the opportunity, and the value, and hopefully recognized the public concern that would arise if that parcel had been
developed, and it was thought to be part of Greeley Park. So these are opportunities that don't come back. Once a
parcel is developed, it at best takes years to recover. Keeping spaces natural, keeping spaces green, taking conservation
seriously is more than a want. It may not be on the same level of need as a fire station, but | would also argue that adding
a whole bunch more houses when we still haven't addressed that situation isn't necessarily the way to go either. We
should be addressing the city's needs as well as those opportunities in between that will become needs if we don't have
the foresight to recognize them as they are today because for all of those Aldermen who've mentioned that they go to
Greeley Park, previous boards had the foresight to identify and protect that and with Mine Falls. If you're lacking that
foresight, then maybe you don't understand the difference between a need and a want.
Alderman Klee
Thank you Madam President and for my colleague to the left, I'm going to put on my big boy pants and I'm going to speak
to this. First of all, need versus want. The bottom line is we can say that and it really sounds good. Do we need it? Do
we want it? But the bottom line is if we don't go forth, we don't get a second chance. | believe the Mayor brought up the
Pennichuck property when that whole sale was happening. | remember | was just a citizen and when it hit the headlines
that this property was going to be developed and the city had kind of lost out on it and the previous Mayor was
scrambling, | remember how irate | was with how did how did this slip by? How did we miss this? Why did this happen?
The truth is, it did happen. Camp Doucette happened. Other things have happened.
Alderman Lopez brought up the point about the property alongside Mine Falls. | walk through Mine Falls a lot. | walk on
the paved path where you get a lot of the bikers. As you walked through Mine Falls through there, you see a lot of those
factories and parking lots. It's not as pleasant as walking at the lower end where | can walk by where the swans are or the
soccer fields. You get a completely different experience. So, to develop that part of Greeley Park will do a disservice and
it will take away from the beauty of the park, the park that we all love.
Now | looked at that same spreadsheet and as Alderman Lopez pointed out, Ward 3 and Ward 4 have a very high density.
So if | were to pull out Greeley Park, | could look at things like the Salem Street tot lot or | could look at the Shattuck
Street tot lot. Those are important and very high density areas. Part of one of the things that's brought up in there is
something called “foster square” and if anybody knows where Lock and Orange Street is, to call that a park yes itis. It's
got two benches in it and it's got a statue. It's not really a park. Actually, | call it poopville because that's what people do is
just let their dogs out and poop in that area.
To answer something that Alderman O'Brien had mentioned that no one contacted the Public Works, that's wrong. | did
send an e-mail. | did ask a question and | did speak to Lauren. She did call me. | did talk to her. She said because |
asked her question, what is the stance of Public Works? She said they're not taking a stance. They're not against it.
They're not for it. They were just staying neutral on it. | said, okay, | could understand that. | could respect that. She
said that they weren't really sure. They had no conclusive evidence that the reduction of those trees could hurt the park.
It might hurt the park, but it might be something that would happen 9, 10 later years. It wouldn't happen immediately. It's
something that would be awaiting.
| believe that ex-Alderman Richardson had sent us something from a previous Board of Aldermen when they talked about
selling off little bits and pieces of the park. That Board sent that on to not a no vote, but basically | think was indefinitely
