My first kid adored visiting the local playground so intensely that I leaped at the chance to purchase a rundown triplex about 25 yards from a pair of playgrounds in 1998.
I was daily visitor with my kids for about 12 years and still hear joyous "Whee!" "Ahhh!" as I sit in my office. It's sonic sunshine usual urban din of disc brakes and industrial hums.
But a playground comes with perils. My then four-year-old son spent a summer in a clunky cast after breaking a wing attempting to climb the underside of a set of steps (I was compensated $300 by after noting the inadequate layer of wood chips below the structure.)
I once moved a kid away from a rocking horse swinging back perilously close to his temple. However only once have I seen emergency staff at the playground, and that was to dislodge an oversized kid from a baby swing.
But the value the playground has provided is inestimable. For families playgrounds are an urban Costner cornfield.
Family bonding accompanies the play. One of my favourite memories: my youngest daughter displayed incredible perseverance as a toddler making it all the way to the end of the monkey bars.
However no parent and child can relive that same magic moment: those monkey bars have since been removed, surely for safety purposes. (She went on to become a champion gymnast until forced into childhood retirement by the closure of the Snowdon Theatre, yet another unfortunately local political decision)
So where to draw the line for safety in playgrounds?
Logically we should eradicate all potential health perils, but with that logic motorists would wear helmets and our clothes made of kevlar and bubble wrap.
This all brings me to the bizarre case of Jessie Maxwell Park which was rebuilt with a donation of $140,000 and some great work by a couple of hundreds of volunteers in September 2012. After the fix, organized by a U.S.-based park charity group called KaBoom and Foresters International, inner city kids could suddenly once again play in the abandoned park just west of Guy and St. Antoine.
But hold the phone: the borough - which presumably oversaw and gave permits for the volunteer work - then came in and ordered all of the work redone for safety reasons.
The playground? Closed for two years.
The volunteer effort? Wasted.
The cash? Down the drain.
To their credit the borough distracted reporters from this story by turning it into a feelgood tale of renaming a park for a popular local figure. Fine PR spinning, I admit.
I will repeat: the second playground remake forced the playground closed for 22 months.
And who suffered? The small children who enjoy running about and playing in playgrounds.
I'd love to help you son, but you're too young to vote.
Why would a borough greenlight a playground rebuild only to order it unsafe?
My attempts to get the report detailing the supposed safety violations have yet to bear fruit but hopefully I'll get to the bottom of this.
The Playground / Michael Rosen
In the playground
At the back of our house
There have been some changes.
They said the climbing frame was
NOT SAFE
So they drained it dry.
They said the paddling pool was
NOT SAFE
So they drained it dry.
They said the see-saw was
NOT SAFE
So they took it away.
They said the sandpit was
NOT SAFE
So they fenced it in.
They said the playground was
NOT SAFE
So they locked it up.
Sawn down
Drained dry
Taken away
Locked up
How do you feel?
Safe?
I was daily visitor with my kids for about 12 years and still hear joyous "Whee!" "Ahhh!" as I sit in my office. It's sonic sunshine usual urban din of disc brakes and industrial hums.
But a playground comes with perils. My then four-year-old son spent a summer in a clunky cast after breaking a wing attempting to climb the underside of a set of steps (I was compensated $300 by after noting the inadequate layer of wood chips below the structure.)
I once moved a kid away from a rocking horse swinging back perilously close to his temple. However only once have I seen emergency staff at the playground, and that was to dislodge an oversized kid from a baby swing.
 |
| Jessie Maxwell Park 2007 |
Family bonding accompanies the play. One of my favourite memories: my youngest daughter displayed incredible perseverance as a toddler making it all the way to the end of the monkey bars.
However no parent and child can relive that same magic moment: those monkey bars have since been removed, surely for safety purposes. (She went on to become a champion gymnast until forced into childhood retirement by the closure of the Snowdon Theatre, yet another unfortunately local political decision)
So where to draw the line for safety in playgrounds?
Logically we should eradicate all potential health perils, but with that logic motorists would wear helmets and our clothes made of kevlar and bubble wrap.
This all brings me to the bizarre case of Jessie Maxwell Park which was rebuilt with a donation of $140,000 and some great work by a couple of hundreds of volunteers in September 2012. After the fix, organized by a U.S.-based park charity group called KaBoom and Foresters International, inner city kids could suddenly once again play in the abandoned park just west of Guy and St. Antoine.
 |
| Jessie Maxwell Park 2014 |
The playground? Closed for two years.
The volunteer effort? Wasted.
The cash? Down the drain.
To their credit the borough distracted reporters from this story by turning it into a feelgood tale of renaming a park for a popular local figure. Fine PR spinning, I admit.
I will repeat: the second playground remake forced the playground closed for 22 months.
And who suffered? The small children who enjoy running about and playing in playgrounds.
I'd love to help you son, but you're too young to vote.
Why would a borough greenlight a playground rebuild only to order it unsafe?
My attempts to get the report detailing the supposed safety violations have yet to bear fruit but hopefully I'll get to the bottom of this.
The Playground / Michael Rosen
In the playground
At the back of our house
There have been some changes.
They said the climbing frame was
NOT SAFE
So they drained it dry.
They said the paddling pool was
NOT SAFE
So they drained it dry.
They said the see-saw was
NOT SAFE
So they took it away.
They said the sandpit was
NOT SAFE
So they fenced it in.
They said the playground was
NOT SAFE
So they locked it up.
Sawn down
Drained dry
Taken away
Locked up
How do you feel?
Safe?
We must close all of the ocean's beaches! After all, people may drown, rip currents can happen, sharks may prowl and attack, increasing insurance rates discourage development.
ReplyDeleteNowhere outside is safe.
Stay at home, avoid exercise, become obese, argue with your neighbours, buy a gun for "protection", become self-centered and territorial, suspect "enemies" whom you believe are persecuting you, lose your marbles and go on a rampage making the news headlines.
Sound familiar?
Seriously: park planning can easily follow a national or international safety standard. Cut the bureaucracy. End of story.
Probably the city union. The Quebec unions hate charities that do any sort of work for people. The construction union shut down Habitat for Humanity's inaugural project the moment they got wind that volunteers would be doing the work. They allowed it to continue as a result of public pressure over their overzealous use of the courts... but only if volunteers participated in a very limited manner. I don't think Habitat for Humanity did anything more beyond that immensely unpleasant and difficult first project here in Quebec. Maybe I am mistaken. I was considering joining up with them at the time and so I was disappointed when it blew up in everyone's faces.
ReplyDeleteALL city construction work has to be done by city union members, period. The fact it was a charity was irrelevant. The city had a park renovated by volunteers. The union couldn't stop it without looking like a**holes... like they did with the Habitat for Humanity incident... So they waited until it was done and then pressured the city whereupon (as usual) they gave in, made up an excuse and had them re-do everything so that the Union employees would get paid like they would have if it had been done by them in the first place.
I'm pro-union but the Quebec unions have turned into greedy self-serving cabals that even consider charitable work as a direct threat to their lining their pockets. It really makes me sick and makes a mockery of what trade unions are supposed to do. Here they harm people not help them.
All of this "anti-volunteerism" and blatant inference by the unions reeks of corruption, of course, and should be dealt with by the Charbonneau Commission. But will it?
ReplyDeleteThe notion that such union thuggery (which is exactly what it is) can apparently legitimately intimidate and bully well-meaning volunteer groups is a threat to everything our children are being taught in school. Is it any wonder then that every generation becomes more cynical than the next?
What next? Will our annual Clean Up Mount Royal teams of volunteering students become threatened by union goon squads fearful that their union jobs could be "in jeopardy"? And where ARE those city-employed cleanup crews anyway? Are they continuing to goof off and doing as little work as possible because of lingering, decades-old conflicts with the city over wages, not to mention luddite opposition to planned GPS-tracking of city vehicles the way other progressive cities do?
Sadly, "I don't care what Smartville is doing to improve services. We do things differently here in Dumbville.", seems to be the motto of those determined to maintain the status quo no matter how out-of-date it may be.
I've actually overheard public works people whining to each other about how they hate picking up park trash, cleaning the toilets, etc. Is job security the only reason they applied for that kind of work in the first place? What did they expect to be doing all day? Sitting around playing cards? Someone has to do the dirty work and no one forced them into it.
We may end up like some countries overseas who must increasingly import foreign workers to perform all of those so-called "undesirable" jobs.