Mooney's Bay
 

I am sorry if this issue has been placed somewhere else.

This has got to be one of most laughable issues that I have heard in a long time.

The best quote was from a young boy who asked his father "Why are they protesting a playground?"

But every 'save the children' cliché is coming out the woodwork.

An early one was that the playground was dangerously close to the water and every child was going to fall into river. Do parents not supervise their children? Or at least teach them common sense safety. Don't run and fall into river.

Today, another priceless quote. "It is all about process, I don't care if we lose the playground" . Where have we heard this before?

I would like to know how many people are actually complaining about this project or is it a miniscule bunch of chronic complainers who have nothing else better to do with their time.

It reminds me of the 'Disneyland in the Experimental Farm' Botanical Gardens and (maybe its the same handful of people) who complained the Dutch windmill out of existence at Mooney's Bay because the tiny number of cars that needed to park next to it would kill every child in neighbourhood.

Is there some kind of psychosis that makes people complain against things that are overwhelmingly beneficial to the community?

Agreed. It's ridiculous.

My favourite quote was, "Mooney's Bay Park is like an extended backyard"

This show goes all over Ontario to help build new parks and give kids a chance to get involved in community projects
http://voiceoftoronto.com/wp/2015/04...their-sleeves/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2642134/

Welcome to Ottawa :lynchmob:

Which explains why there is no firm plan. The kids in the neighbourhood will help develop the playground concept. All the more reason to like the proposal, which will improve a poorly used portion of the park.

Well, the news from the weekend would prove otherwise. Parents seem to be unable to keep children out of animal enclosures at the zoo. I can only imagine how many children would fall into the river considering it doesn't even have a fence!

But in all seriousness. I believe that this playground needs to happen, people need to STFU. Being NIMBY about a building or freeway, sure, but a playground? It is beyond outrageous.

We have to realize that we can't protect everybody from their own stupidity. Fencing all our waterways will be a sad day indeed.

Not a fan of what's going to be essentially 13 small and probably boring (what else can you get if you divide 2 Million by 13?) separate playgrounds crammed in one place.

Would rather have either 13 new playgrounds in various parts of the city or ONE great playground. I was in Chicago last September and was blown away by Maggie Daley park. That's really something.

http://varlamov.me/2015/usadetpl/28.jpg

Of all the things in the world to protest about, honestly....

This reminds me of the time that the Netherlands tried to give Ottawa a traditional-style windmill as a gift and city council debated for months about whee to put it and then it never happened.

This I agree with. The ends don't justify the means. If process isn't followed then residents lose their say or have clue about what will be built in their neighbourhoods (any hood, not just specific to this story)

This is clearly not a neighbourhood park, it is a city-wide facility that already hosts large events. There are several neighbourhood parks nearby that would be unaffected by this proposal. I agree that the after-the-fact consultation is not a best practice, although almost any outside partner would expect confidentiality in negotiations.

Too bad the Lebretton negotiations are not far enough along, this might be a good fit there.

Ugh, tell me about it.

Jennifer Keesmatt, the chief planner of the City of Toronto, wrote a opinion piece in the Toronto Star, advocating for the apparently revolutionary idea of getting your kids to walk to school... alone. She made her 9 year old walk to school alone after spending about a year accompanying her and lets her take the TTC alone. The number of people who wrote in accusing her of abusing her child and saying she shouldn't be a mother was faith-in-humanity crushing.

I think that was proposed by a private group, not by the Govt of Netherlands.

Nope, it was proposed by the Gov't of Netherlands. This is going back a few decades, actually. It's possible another group tried something similar since.

The one from The Netherlands was originally intended to be located on the greenspace at Dow's Lake, near the Experimental Farm. It would have been beautiful. But remember, Ottawa is the place where ingenuity and creativity come to die.

Um, maybe my memory is imperfect, but I only remember on one occasion my mother picking me up from school. I didn't have far to walk, but it was routine for kids to walk over 1 km to school when they were quite little. In those days, there were lots of kids and the bigger kids accompanied the little ones. We taught each other how to be safe on the streets. Those were the days when families mostly only had one car so being driven was out of the question. I remember in later years, school buses were picking up more and more kids closer to the school. A time when we were willing to spend more for this and the safety issue was becoming more of an issue. It is now extreme.

I just read that it is considered child abuse to leave a child home alone for a short time even at age 15. Wow! Have times changed.

Wow that must be new. I was born in 1993 and I was allowed to be home alone during the day at 10ish and alone overnight at 13. Most of the kids I knew were the same or similar.

Hogwash, that's certainly not the case in Ontario, as a 2 second Google search plainly shows (check the link from any CAS, who you would have to worry about if you you were running afoul of any childcare rules)
https://www.google.ca/search?q=leavi..._AUIBygA&dpr=1

Youre right, according to this link:http://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/p...ns/en/144e.pdf

In Ontario, children aren't allowed to be left alone at home until 16.

edit

That is not what the article says. Parental responsibility extends to age 16. If you go to Hawaii for two weeks, leaving your 15 year old at home with no supervisory arrangement, you could in theory have a problem. A 15 year old "latch-key kid" is not a legal or child abuse issue.

exactly.

On a related note, I recently learned they actually explain what NIMBY and PIMFY means in English as a second language classes in South Korea ;)

Phew!

That's a relief. We leave our kids with a 14 year-old babysitter quite regularly. Good to know that the CAS won't be swooping in anytime soon.

The playground issue is the stupidest piece of news since those old people in Orleans tried to stop school buses from going down their street. If your input to the public process is that a kids' playground will detract from the tranquility of your local park (which also includes a track stadium, beach and multiple volleyball courts), I'm pretty comfortable with a process that doesn't give you much of a say.

I believe the child age was brought up in a local news television poll relating to a child abuse or neglect news story. It may not be the law, but this sort of thing is swaying public understanding of what is child abuse and what should be reported. That has to be a concern.

It was alarming to see the number of people who were that concerned that they needed to attend a public meeting regarding the playground which is being promoted by certain residents in the neighbourhood who are against this project.

The question is what makes these complainers experts in playground design? Also, why does it become such a big issue when free money and design assistance is being offered?

It also seems to negatively affect the children's participation in the project. If the project is successful, this may be a positive influence for many of the children's future. Look at what I did and how I changed my neighbourhood. It is something that many will remember for the rest of their lives.

Yeah, you are right about the origin of that story. There is certainly some debate as to when kids can be left alone. For instance, my neighbours let their 7 year-old walk to school alone. That's a little young in my opinion, but certainly not child abuse. That said, it would be ridiculous to have a law stating that a 15-year old can't stay home alone, or even a 12-year old for that matter.

It is disappointing that this protest by what is surely a small minority is overshadowing the positive aspect of the story. I don't think any of the protesters have given much thought to the kids that would really benefit from this project. But it's their right to protest and get injunctions, so hey...

Another good one I read a couple days ago, not sure which city councillor it was, but he was saying how he is disappointed that this playground will aim to beat the world record for longest monkey bars, all while him and the city have been advocating to NOT include monkey bars in new playground developments in Ottawa as its a huge safety issue.

If these people could only see they type of playgrounds I was used to in 80s communist Poland, monkey bars were probably the safest feature of all in the playgrounds. hahaha How times have changed!

Injunctions to stop a playground? A new low. Who cares about the taxpayer's money?

The NIMBY crowd is drowning out the legitimate criticism that this project should be getting. I have nothing against building a big park. Heck, it might turn out to be a really cool facility. What pisses me off though it the secrecy behind the project. Just comes out of nowhere, and benefits a TV show? It just screams of backroom shenanigans.

Its NCC, what do u expect?

Come on, backroom shenanigans, seriously. I’m guessing the TV show producer does not have the time or patience, image before a decision is made and people to be consulted, it might have taken months and would have missed the timeline for filming. I’m also guessing that the other cities that got the same deal, they did not consult, just a guess unless someone can disprove me. Incredible, the city is getting half of the park paid for, $1M less for taxpayers and this will benefit the whole city and people are complaining, the park was at end of life, it would have been torn down. I would be interested to see the demographics on the individuals complaining.

I think there are circumstances where confidential negotiations are warranted. What are these people asking for, an RFP to see what other proponents are out there who want to give the city $1 million to build a playground? The right to participate in the negotiations for the TV show?

In this case, I think it is fine to consult the neighbourhood after the fact to identify any major, legitimate issues with the proposal (emphasis on "legitimate"). This is a playground in the middle of a large city park, for crying out loud. It's not really even in the neighbourhood. How much consultation with not-so-nearby residents is required? Should their opinions be given more weight than the city at large, when this will hardly affect them in any real way?

Process and endless consultations can be a much bigger waste of money than the projects themselves in some cases. If this is really such a big deal, this is a democracy and your ultimate recourse is to vote out the councillor and mayor who foisted this terrible playground on an unsuspecting community.

What if I told you NCC has nothing to do with it?

I honestly don't give a fuck about the TV producers timelines or pocket books. If the city is gonna spend $1M, I god damn want to know on what, and my elected representative should have a say, preferably via a vote.

Sometimes confidentiality and secrecy is warranted in government. I don't think building a park is one of those times.

The NIMBYs though... Ugh... Many of them are just barking up the wrong tree.

This is all Ottawa. Municipal park.

You want to know the details of every $1 million expenditure in a $3 billion budget? That's ambitious.

The City regularly spends that amount of money and more without any of the attention that this playground is getting. Council delegates the authority to staff under various programs. This project actually got an extra level of approval, as Council voted on Brockington's motion to send it to Committee for further study. That vote confirmed staff authority to proceed. Your elected representative did have a say.

Incidentally, confidentiality does not equal secrecy. If we want our governments to leverage private sector expertise by entering into these types of public-private arrangements, the trade-off is that the negotiation process will be confidential. Even when the City goes through a public RFP, the negotiations that follow are confidential, and the politicians vote on the final deal. There really isn't any way to avoid some element confidentiality in the process, unless you want to pay a whole lot more for your goods and services.

Here's a quote from a CBC article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...ment-1.3597426

More here showing NCC was consulted:

http://bulldogottawa.com/city-staff-...internal-memo/

I stand corrected.

Edit: The city doesn't yet have permission from the NCC? So will this turn into another Ottawa vs NCC pissing match?

The city didn't follow it's own procurement rules. The negotiation details can be confidential but the city could at a minimum have stated they are planning to build something at Mooney's Bay. Announcing it as a fait accomplis just looks odd. I'm not against the park, just hate the fishy BS around the process.

My old schoolyard playground got a safety audit about ten years ago.

Everything was removed. Monkey bars, slide, cool-ass wooden clambering structure, climbing "dome" thingie, seesaws. (The merry-go-round had already long since been removed; as little kids, the big kids would spin us around until someone barfed; as big kids, we passed the tradition on to little kids.)

Don't know what the kids do now... Go down to the river and skip rocks, I suppose.

Exactly, those merry go rounds were awesome, it was probably children's first exposure to some sort of adrenaline rush, ahaha, sure kids would fly off, but I never saw anyone get hurt seriously. See-saws were fun too, also tested to the limit by kids, some would fly off, never seriously hurt. Even swings, you can fly off for fun. Monkey bars are quite tame in comparison, and usually not too high off the ground. There is such an exaggerated fetish with safety nowadays, its sad. How can children learn to gauge risk, and gauge their limits when everything at the playground is 100% safe? For example if you bruised or scraped yourself as a kid because you pushed the merry go round too fast and flew off, you will learn and not do it again. Parents are also there usually to supervise. Plus, back in my times, playgrounds were FULL of kids, now, almost always deserted. Partly because the playground features are boring, also partly because kids prefer to sit at home playing videogames. Here's a thought, build an exciting playground, and the kids will drop their videogames to go have fun at this innovative playground, and this is what this will be. Its just retarded that people are making an issue out of this due to the secrecy of the process, I mean come on, get a new hobby and see this for the good impact it can have on the city's children population!

I suppose that they could have stated that they were going to build something, but I'm not sure how an announcement that they were going to build something would be helpful information.

If you look at the City memo on the process, it clearly explains why this is not a procurement, and isn't subject to these rules. The City didn't just decide that it was going to flout rules - it did an analysis and determined that other rules apply.

In my professional life, I deal with and enforce process on a daily basis, and appreciate the importance of following process as a general rule. That said, I find that this city has an unhealthy obsession with process to the point that it hinders progress in many cases. The attention that this playground is getting is massively disproportionate to the expenditure and any negative impacts that it might have.

Some people in Ottawa seem to forget that process is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is there to protect the public interest. By demanding endless and comprehensive process for every expenditure the City makes, we divert resources from the actual projects. If you went to the Janette Sadik-Khan talk, she made the point that in many cases New York had to cut off debate in order to actually get things done - all objections are not made equal, and if the City was to entertain endless debate with dissenters on city-building projects, that ends up being to the public's detriment.

To the extent possible, the process needs to be proportionate to the value of the project and the impact on nearby residents. Spending a relatively small amount of money on a playground in an existing park is a circumstance where the City was right to have a mechanism in place to use a streamlined and expedited process.

I wonder how many of the public had their say about the $8M expansion of Millenium Park in Orleans?
http://www.stephenblais.ca/en/news/i...illennium-park

(The pirate-themed splash pad opens this Saturday, June 4, 2016.)

Forget about fun, this is all being driven by liability. That is why school buses don't run when there is the least little threat of freezing rain. The safety audits and playground removals is also about liability.

All it takes is a few parents suing the city over Johnny spraining his ankle on some playground equipment and it has to go.

Just watch television or listen to the radio. The lawyers want you to sue so they get their cut of the settlement. Liability is high profit and is driving parts of the legal profession.

We are falling into the American trap of being litigious about everything and this is the consequence. Playgrounds have to be tamed down to the point that they look pretty to the passerby but they are no longer any fun for kids.

It is a wonder we weren't all killed as children given what we played on. And I am of the generation that had celebrated 'firecracker day', the second most fun day of the year after Christmas.

How is spending $1M on a new park not a form of procurement? Does this get a free pass because the private sector is promising to pay a chunk of it? I just can't follow that logic... :shrug:

Because the City isn't hiring the contractors, Sinking Ship is.

From the above-mentioned memo:
"The Supply Branch review confirmed that, given this was a funding agreement and not a purchase under the purchasing by-law.."

Full memo:
Link: http://bulldogottawa.com/city-staff-...internal-memo/

Exactly, this is not procurement. I am a procurement specialist for a living, and I can attest to that. No contract is being signed here. The city is contributing to someone else's project. So the right term here would be, a grant, or contribution, but certainly not a contract and thus its not procurement. The Federal Government and its many departments, hand out billions of dollars of grants and contributions. Often these are not competed and can amount to millions of $ for just one grant, or contribution. Key is that there should be no profit involved. At least that's how it works with the feds. I am guessing its similar here, in that Sinking Ship is not profiting from this $1M. But that $ will help them fund the project and pay some overhead costs.

I too am not against the playground. But I do have some serious issues as to how this came about. We are seeing this type of "democracy" at City Hall all to often now under Watsons watch.

To me that memo says "we found a loophole that lets us spend money to build a park without having to go though procurement", hence why it looks fishy. If I tried to do smething like that for a federal IT contract, I'd get crucified...

The city hasn't really gone out of ts way in explaining it that way.