gopher wrote:
And I'll say this again... This is what happens when we have neglect and abuse of a park for nearly 40 years. That's what should be sad. That's what you should be angry about. That's what you should be fighting for in your own neighborhood... To prevent what has happened here from happening elsewhere. That's what you should be working to improve.
Personally, I believe one can both want to better the park and retain its trees.
Just because people criticize a decision to remove an existing tree canopy from the park does not necessarily mean they are angry only at your effort and not at the sorry state of the current park.
Also, I will not say anything else about the homelessness issue except this: when you're at all a public entity (such as an individual or a member of a group trying to convince others to renovate a public park), I would avoid the use of the word "bum". Why antagonize people? You might not like the effects of the presence of the homeless on property values/the image of the park/etc. But that doesn't mean you have to be derogatory.
As it stands now, if I were in St. Louis, I would not be a part of this effort simply because I now perceive it as an anti-homeless (to be differentiated from anti-homelessness) rally of sorts. Just my opinion.
