[Summit] Room to grow

Sun Apr 2 00:17:33 UTC 2017

It seems to me that this is just precisely the sort of discussion that the Summit Neighborhood Association Board could handle, and perhaps come up with a solution that is acceptable to all parties (or at least the majority). Such consultation is better, in my opinion, than a free-for-all with the possibility of hurtful side-taking. This is actually a very small park, with limited capacity. A few rules could make it a better experience for all. The recent establishment of a garden plot within its boundaries by the SNA (with city help) will be a very positive development, including especially for the young ones who may learn from it.

Paul G Smith
54 Summit Ave, Providence, RI  02906
Cell: 802-343-0978 
E-mail: paul.slvrwngs at gmail.com
_____________________________________________________________________

"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens"
                        - Baha'u'llah             http://www.bahai.org <http://www.bahai.org/> 
"Nothing is too much trouble when one loves, and there is always time."
                        - Abdu'l-Baha

From: Summit [mailto:summit-bounces at sna.providence.ri.us] On Behalf Of Emlyn Addison
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2017 5:09 PM
To: summit at sna.providence.ri.us
Subject: Re: [Summit] Room to grow

I think few here have disagreed that there are too many toys and, as others have said several times, anything dangerous should be removed (yes, even by parents). But these words "dumped" and "discarded" I think are off-target. The little kids LOVE these play things; hasn't this been communicated? 

Truthfully, I can't imagine a scenario where 11-year-olds are walloping soccer balls with 2-year-olds running around; or is a case being made that toddlers should stay in the sand box? That would hardly seem fair. Maybe the park was named--and the name stuck--because it found a niche among parents of young children. 

Any parent can attest that the Lippett playground area can often get crazy with bigger kids (read: 6 and up) and so this little park serves the other community. Maybe this practical consideration is being lost here, but the Tot Lot is a good place to let toddlers roam without us all turning into helicopter parents. For my part, this fenced-in lot I remember being the go-to place for letting my daughter run around and explore by herself, where she wasn't going to get clocked by a ball or a cyclist.

But hey, it's a neighborhood and if the neighborhood doesn't like this function of the park then they're free to make a case against it. My sense is that there'll be some vocal pushback by those parents, for the reasons above.

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 2:50 PM, mdubose1 mdubose1 <mdubose1 at cox.net> wrote:

I don’t want to reignite the “Tot Lot” debate that occurred when a parent acting sua sponte decided to “name” the park a few years ago.  My point is simply that the park was never the exclusive domain of 4 year olds. Our boys now 13 and 16 used the park with other neighborhood kids from 0 to about 11 and it wasn’t until the space was reduced by discarded structures that fewer and fewer elementary school aged kids were using it. I have no doubt that all of the Petit Princes and Princesses will not feel any less so without their plastic castles. Rolleth the Royal Ball, they will kick.

_______________________________________________
Summit mailing list
Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachments/20170401/fd8db353/attachment.htm>