E. Boyer
I wonder, was Mr. Keating's letter in last week's Post, (Calling Upon 1990's Study For Fields) meant as comedy to compete with the suggestion of public housing in Moraga Canyon? I can't imagine that, given the FOMC's willingness to die on the cross for the preservation of those pine trees in Moraga Canyon, they would support a parking lot and corporation yard on the beloved dirt strip. Mr. Keating is a city council member..did he not get the memo that even though the project was being served up to the city on a silver platter with private donations, it still didn't fly? Is he also not aware that the city had more money in 1992 when, the study he refers to was conducted, than it does now? I confess that I'm completely puzzled by Mr. Keating's proposal. I appreciate his suggestion that we "continue the dialogue," but shouldn't the dialogue at least make sense? The NIMBYS squashed doing just one project..the sports field. Why would they support doing two..a sports field and re-locating the corporation yard? What part of this six-year process would make anyone believe that a parking lot and a corporation yard would be more appealing than a sports field? Heck, why stop there? Why not add to this plan, a clover-leaf on Moraga Avenue and a 7-Eleven? Or, how 'bout if we permanently move Havens to Emeryville and use the current Havens site for a play-field/casino combo? The casino would provide much needed tax revenue. You know, Piedmont would be the darling of the East Bay if we threw in a pit bull rescue center..maybe on one of the middle school basketball courts. And, a Larry Flynt's Hustler Club Revue at the Center for The Arts would be the perfect fundraiser to top it all off.
For Pete's sake, guys. According to the standard for the State of California, Piedmont is deficient in sports fields and has been for more than 25 years. In response, groups with good intentions volunteer to spend years trying to find solutions only to have them whittled down or eliminated. For a city council member to offer up such a suggestion is offensive to all those who worked so hard toward a real solution to this particular issue for the past six years. Good Lord.
It's lazy to complain about an idea without offering an alternative and I figure mine can't be any more cuckoo-pants than the one proposed by Mr. Keating. My thought? Go up! Berkeley City College is a great example of what can be done in a small space on six floors. The design of Piedmont's middle school is a sprawling disaster and the high school isn't much better. Little doubt that between Messrs. Becker and Ball, a thoughtful and efficient "upward" design exists that would free-up the much needed space for more sports fields, etc. Imagine that..adequate facilities right on school property. What a novelty. C'mon, guys..that'd be way better than the 7-Eleven-Casino-Cloverleaf combo...
