Advertisement

bigpicture

Follow

Comment history

Contentious issue of lighted tennis courts near LHS to be discussed again by city commissioners

There are a lot of blustery comments that can be made about this issue, but the fact is the lights can't conform to city code. The USD, when building the courts, didn't verify a LOT of details pertinent to city code and had to make many after-the-fact changes to the construction to conform (on our tax $ I'll add). If the lights can't conform, then they shouldn't be erected, no matter how much kicking and screaming a small private tennis club engages in. It comes down to one small group of people who can't bring themselves to drive an extra 7 minutes West to tennis courts vs another small group of people who have permanently invested in the neighborhood. If the commission sides with the LTA, what kind of precedent does THAT set for city development priorities? The USD pushed through a shoddy development plan that penalized tennis players, the neighbors, and - I would argue - the kids. The facilities are new, but they are really poorly designed and shoddily implemented. They deserved a future-oriented multipurpose sports complex and what they got was piecemeal and sub-par.

May 8, 2013 at 1:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tennis compromise

k’s remarks do bring up a good point. This process (also known as due diligence) is expensive, in terms of man-hours. However, it is much less expensive than retrofitting, re-doing, and un-doing mistakes stemming from a poorly planned and shoddily implemented construction project.

Just think, if the USD, by their own initiative or as directed by the then-City Commission, had taken another year or two to plan an athletic complex, we could have saved 100s of 1000s, if not millions, in interest rates and construction costs, since the economy has been so poor of late. Independent of that, we would also have a facility so well-designed (and, presumably, well-vetted) as to rival the best of the Sunflower League. (Meanwhile, for those interested parties, the previous tennis complex would have remained intact, and perhaps still would be.)

We should be able to feel proud of these facilities. Instead, they must be defended at every turn. City codes must be changed to accommodate the sloppiness. It is a shame. Too little, too fast, for too much money.

As an aside, I still wonder what the big rush was to push these facilities into being in 2008-09. The only answer I can come up with is that someone needed a payday from the project. LJW, you have shown some recent interest and talent in digging up fiscal responsibility scandals - see Purple Heart Veterans Foundation. How about it?

March 27, 2012 at 10:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

New tennis courts on Greever Terrace

This statement betrays fundamental misunderstanding regarding the role of neighborhood associations. Neighborhood associations are the essential backbone of a stable and well-maintained neighborhood. Property values are better maintained as a result. Individuals are safer and better connected to their community. Positive change is easier to affect. When making such a large investment of money and years, homebuyers would be wise to choose neighborhoods with an existing association.

February 3, 2011 at 10:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

New tennis courts on Greever Terrace

Ditto overthemoon. Simply put the neighbors , AND tennis players, taxpayers all, deserve better.

The facilities built by the USD were not made with an eye to future needs. They were poorly planned and designed, and a colossal waste of financial resources. And they are still not "done".

I wonder about the structural integrity of the new courts. Heavy concrete slab supported by drainage tubing several feet in diameter and an a narrow retaining wall? How much time before the cracks start to show up and the slab is no longer level?

It's a shame is what is all is.

February 3, 2011 at 9:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Neighbors volley concerns about lighted tennis courts near Lawrence High School

Exactly. Why throw good money after bad? Why insist on following through with the USDs facility development plan that was poorly conceived, fiscally irresponsible, shoddily implemented, and dishonestly managed?

Why does the City insist on presenting this issue as an either/or, with the interests of one side prevailing over the other?

If they must collaborate with the USD, why not consider expanded and lighted facilities at Free State in addition to unlighted courts in the Centennial neighborhood?

If we must do a money dump why not invest in facilities that everyone can enjoy for many years to come?

January 28, 2011 at 9:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence voters approve $18 million library expansion

It's reasons like this some of us DO live within the city limits. Proud to be a part of this community.

November 3, 2010 at 9:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

City has concerns on new fields at LHS

Well said.

June 28, 2010 at 7 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mother feels unfairly singled out at local drinking establishment

Man you people are judgy. I read this "article" this morning and can't stop thinking about it.

Why does any sort of morality enter this argument (and, at bottom, is this even a story)? The Pig is a private establishment and clearly they don't want their primary nighttime clientele to be scared off by the sense that it is becoming a mother/baby hangout. It's a business decision. 'nuf said. I guess the Pig would rather these parents rendezvous at Perkins than patronize a local business that also serves coffee and non-alcoholic drinks late into the night.

As lame as THAT may be, drop the holier than thou attitude. If you think this behaviour is questionable than stop by the Replay at any Sunday afternoon (kid-friendly hours!) and watch the highly mobile young children frolicking amongst unquestionably drunk parents.

Small babies can be asleep or awake at anytime of night or day. Breastfeeding in public is a non-issue. Stop being so parochial - and think about actually living the "diversity" and "community" that we claim to be so proud of. The reality is so far from the lip service.

As for safety, Maybe this woman should take her baby on an afternoon walk on the bike trail near the Clinton Lake sports complex some afternoon in broad daylight, and at an "appropriate" children's hour. What harm could befall them there?

June 18, 2010 at 4:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )