Re: Petition And Rhetoric Misses Mark (link)
We take issue with Mr. William’s letter and in particular his statement that the Mesa Meadow Community possessed a “complete lack of understanding” regarding what was being proposed.
Several years ago the exact same project was proposed in Mesa Meadow. The county dismissed the project when we pointed out that the project, as proposed, would be built not on county land but on land owned by Mesa Meadow Pool. During that meeting numerous Western Area residents voiced their opposition to the project with similar objections we heard Dec. 20: Loss of open space used for XC skiing, sledding, bike riding, dog walking, cutting of several mature trees, amongst others.
Fast forward to 2016 and the exact same proposal is again on the table, except moved to the north a few feet. Again, the Western Area community objected to the proposal and at this point the petition was drafted and signatures secured. Around this time the county and the consultants moved the proposed courts to school land next to the JFK memorial and we saw no need for going forward with the petition.
During the Nov. 29 county council meeting, issues with this location were raised and County Manager Harry Burgess made the statement that Mesa Meadow may again need to be considered. Soon after this meeting we submitted the petition to the county. The purpose of the petition was simply to eliminate once and for all the consideration of Mesa Meadow for an additional four or five tennis courts.
The reason we submitted the petition, even though the county was considering Mesa Field and not Mesa Meadow, was explained when the petition was presented to the council. If Mr. Williams had not left the meeting prior to the presentation of the petition he would “have an understanding of what was being proposed.” Also recall that one of the proposed versions of the bond discussed would fund the courts but leave the location to be determined.
We are not heaping “nay saying galore,” nor do we consider the tennis community to be “BAD” neighbors or undeserving of consideration by the Council. We do understand what is being proposed and we do understand the difference between Mesa Field and Mesa Meadow. We strongly feel that Mesa Meadow is not an appropriate place for a total of eight or nine tennis courts and would prefer not to fight this battle a third time in the future; hence the petition. We agree with Mr. Williams that additional tennis courts should not be placed in Western Area Park.