Prepared Statement to South Side Planning Forum on Feb 23, 1999
From Mark Rauterkus, South Side Market House Association, and Convener's Chair of the sports and recreation coalition.The following was submitted to the Planning Forum Chair a day following the evening meeting on February 23. A prepared statement memo was utilized so as to be a part of the minutes, but to not occupy the time of those present at the meeting. Furthermore, because a seat at the FORUM table is not designated to the Market House Association, nor the new Nonprofit Coalition, nor any other agency with a primary mission for the sports, fitness or recreation industry, there isn't a suitable representative to pass along these messages. Hence, Mark Rauterkus, a frequent visitor to the South Side Planning Forum Meetings since at least the time of the announced plans of UPMC Sports Performance Compound, submits the following:Update after the fact: To the best of my knowledge, this information was not made available to the various members of the South Side Forum. The approval of the reading of the minutes at those meetings occur without reading, postings or handouts.
Thanks for the Invite
The LTV Steering Committee extended an invitation to Mark Rauterkus, concerned citizen, for a January 1999 meeting with officials from UPMC, Oxford and the U.R.A. Thank you.In my opinion, access to the closed steering committee meeting was granted after repeated one-to-one requests for additional information and additional meetings were made to each committee member, the URA and UPMC. Attendance at the meeting was a gesture, as a number of specific requests were not forthcoming before, then or since.For example, as of Feb 23, a map or site plan has not been forthcoming after repeated requests since November.
Nebbier Than Others
Since November, 1998, investigation, talking and side-line planning has occurred, including the formation of a new coalition for sports, fitness and recreation. Listening comes first as the UPMC plans are revealed, however, it is fair to say that red flags are being waved for the UPMC Plan.It is disheartening that we all are not on the same page and working for the best interest of the community in these matters. I feel that UPMC, the Pitt Athletic Department, Oxford Development, the URA, the Steelers, our City Councilman, the South Side Planning Forum (perhaps the Mayor) and grass-roots sports and recreation participants are NOT in harmony. Obviously the bigger players can team together and overpower the citizens.Improved collaboration to enhance every one's position and relationship sounds fine, but serious dialog and effort is necessary. The powers that be are not interested in slowing down their development process to engage.
Disgruntled Nonmember
The South Side Planning folks have much different opinions from myself and those who I'm representing.Mark Rauterkus does not have a seat at the table with the forum. The fact that I am an outsider to these groups with no official role or capacity granted herein makes a small hurdle compared with the roadblocks of idea input opportunities. The most staggering disappointment to me comes from the Chair of the Planning Forum who wants to distance myself from the process, and sums it up when he said, "Mark, you are being too global!"
Now Swimming Uphill
In Mark's opinion, opposition appears justified for selected aspects of the proposed UPMC Sports Performance compound. Furthermore, opposition to the planning process and its integrity of a dynamic forum to champion a free-flow of ideas is certain.Global Sticking Points
The biggest sticking point is community access opportunities.- Many concerns exist.
- The UPMC plans do not fit into the associated sporting communities:
- the NCAA,
- student-athletes in the area, and
- everyday participants.
- The UPMC plans are not fair:
- unjust allocation of resources/assets, and
- decisions grossly favor mega institutions
- The UPMC plans are substandard in that better-integrated solutions that stretch our imaginations are possible.
- Living with these decisions for days on end in the future is not wise nor prudent when viewed in light of alternatives and additional ramifications.
Quotes:
- Mentions to Mark:
- Carrie Harris, South Side Local Development Committee, Forum Member, Steering Commitee, said about the NCAA rule restrictions for member institutions that prohibits professional and college athletes from sharing the same facility at the same time, "That is Their Problem."
- Hugh Brannon said at a LTV Site Steering Committee Meeting, "Mark, You're Being Too Global."
Petitions Circulating South Side as of Feb 23
Petition A
Request for a public hearing on the URA's sale of land on the LTV site to UPMC for a Football Compound.Petition B
City Pool Fees for Adults, Kids and Pending Policies - or lack thereof.Update: This petition was not submitted to the City Clerk's office. No public hearing is needed as there is no pending legislation and a new aquatics planning process is slated to being with the Parks Department.
Petition C
Save Our Stadium, Univ. of Pittsburgh Student Government to save Pitt Stadium. To sign that petition, go to the sixth-floor of the Wm. Pitt Student Union and go to the reception desk at the Student Goverment office.
Coalition Meeting Where Everyone is Welcomed
The Market House's convened coalition for Sports, Fitness and Recreation welcomes anyone interested to a gathering on Tuesday, March 9, 7:30 pm, and/or 9:00 pm. The meeting will include a presentation and discussion of "The Position Paper for Developments in Pittsburgh and the South Side -- Logical Happenings in the Shadows of PLAN B."See the Web Site or Send Email for Specifics
Closing Frustrations
It seems that a grant offer from UPMC is climbing in its total amount. UPMC started by offering to build a new ballfield. The ballfield could have been built, so said UPMC officials, on space other than the space slated to be purchased by UPMC. That offer was bogus, and was shot-down on the spot as there is not enough room on the LTV site for a ballfield. The space does not exist. If the space did exist, why would UPMC need to build non-regulation sized fields?Then UPMC said that the donation of a ballfield could be made in other parts of the South Side. Perhaps an existing ballfield could get an upgrade. Ballfield donations, such as that being considered here would cost about $30K. So, a $30K grant for any fitness and sports location was mentioned by UPMC officials.
Then on Feb 23, 1999, the $30K grant grew to an amount of $75K. This money, seems to me, to be a way to sway the opinions of the concerned citizens.
The offers of "community access opportunities" at the planned UPMC compound are slim and tiny. UPMC knows it, and UPMC can try to buy support with an offer of a grant.
The offer from UPMC can be listened to, for now.
However, the gall of the South Side Planning Forum to even discuss the notion of a role with that grant as some type of funding agent, or even to brokering some type of transactions along with a needs review issick.
Get this: All money for community-based sports and recreation for local citizens needs to go directly from UPMC to the Market House Athletic Association, if not its convened coalition.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment