BEST Responds: Astwood Park Proposal
The Bermuda Environmental Sustainability Taskforce [BEST] has responded to the latest statement by Government about the proposal to use a section of Astwood Park for a youth scrambling programme.
“Bermuda’s parks are a scarce and precious community resource and the community must have a say if there’s a plan to change their use,” the statement from BEST said.
The Minister of Public Works Michael Weeks recently clarified the proposal, saying that plans for the area are still being formulated and currently in draft form. He also said that what has “been proposed is not a ‘scrambling track’ as such and would be better described as a small, circular and flat ‘kiddie track’ for peddle bikes and motorized bikes for 4-8 year olds.”
The full statement from BEST follows below:
BEST is encouraged to discover that there is widespread public concern and care for Bermuda’s public Parklands in general and Astwood Park in particular. More and more of our citizens are recognizing that Bermuda’s parks are a precious resource that belong to us all.
Our initial media release served its purposes, a) to alert the public to a potential environmental threat and b) to engage foresight on the problems that might arise if the scheme was followed through to worst-case conclusion.
We reject accusations of misinforming the public:
1) The claim is that our referring to the site as “Astwood Park” gave people the impression the site was the highly used coastal area of the park.
Response: The original purchase was of a single site occupying land on both sides of South Road, named Astwood Park. Also,the Bermuda Plan 2008 designates entire area as Astwood Park. Had we referred to it as anything else it could have been confusing. Our Press release specified “the northern segment of Astwood Park”, a technically correct designation that could be misunderstood but was clearly not misinformation.
2) A second claim was that the area proposed for the scheme was not, as we posited in our press release, farmland. The farmer who actually farmed that plot in the 70s and 80s confirmed to BEST that ALL that northern segment of the park was farmed. We restrict everyday developers from encroaching on farmland and there is every reason to protect public arable tracts.
3) The third claim was that by including the term “motocross” we exaggerated the scheme. Judging by the Minister’s latest description of the scheme, the word “motocross” may not fit, and it is good to know that no racing is intended. However, having been informed of the takeover by big boys and adults with big bikes who race at the scrambling track east of Palmetto Park in Devonshire, we feel justified in sharing that image.
Dealing now with the Works Ministry’s 7 points published in online media:
1. The park is being used [sic] for the mini scramblers for the younger kids – not the larger motocross cycles
BEST response: bigger boys and adults on bigger bikes have taken over other sites, and when authorities have been called, by the time they arrive the culprits have gone.2. The area MP canvassed the area and approached the Ministry on their behalf and the area residents had no objections to this area being used as a track
BEST response: Which area residents? 1) Minister Bean also said “nothing will be done without consent of the residents.” This needs clarification: Who is being included in “residents”? How many residents will have to consent? One? Some? All? Who will determine which residents’ consent is sought and tallied, and how will that be determined?3. The park will only be used from 4 to 6 pm/Monday to Friday
BEST response: Is the Parks Department really equipped to be the organisers/supervisors of the track? Who will monitor the inevitable unauthorised users who will want to get access before- or after-hours or on weekends?4. This will be on a one year trial basis with a view to assess the programme thereafter
BEST response: What criteria will be set up to assess the program me?5. The organizers have agreed to stop the programme at any point during the evening should the area residents express any concerns
BEST response: Who qualifies as “area residents”? And will they really stop it for “any” concerns? These undefined terms are likely to cause problems.6. The track for the actual programme has been designed by the Department of Parks technical personnel which takes up very little space in the park
BEST response: When will this “actual programme” be made public?7. The Ministry of Public Works is working with the youth in the area to offer a positive outlet.
BEST response: As the track is being designed for 4 – 8 year-olds, are these the youth the Ministry is working with? Or does this point refer to an older group and have no relevance to the kiddie track?There are also a number of questions we would like to hear the Ministers address:
1) Minister Bean said the project was necessary because the area had been neglected and was overgrown with “African Pepper” (he meant Mexican Pepper, I’m sure) and cane grass and was fouled with trash. Whose responsibility is/was it to prevent or remedy the neglect and overgrowth? Whose responsibility was it to enforce regulations prohibiting dumping of trash? Are they really saying that because the parkland was neglected that the penalty is the parkland is its destruction? Surely that can’t be right. The Parks Department is understaffed, otherwise they would have been able to keep that area as trimmed as the rest of Astwood Park. Parkland must not be given over to other uses simply because its upkeep was deficient.
2) If cycling by youth at the nearby Jones Village playground was a nuisance, as the Minister said, what is to prevent this same activity from becoming a nuisance at Astwood Park? What is to prevent this facility being taken over by bigger kids on bigger bikes as happened at the scrambling track east of Palmetto Park in Devonshire?
3) Does the Minister have the support of the Parks Commission and the Departments of the Environment and Conservation Services? We ask this because when the Warwick Long Bay decision was on the cards, the Parks Commission’s advice was suppressed: it wasn’t made available to the DAB nor the Independent Inspector brought in to advise the Minister. It only showed up a year or so later due to a Court Order. As a result, important advice was unavailable to inform an important decision.
Finally, we welcome Senator Fahy’s offer of assistance and are ready to take him up on it. However, there’d be no need if everyone played by the rules. According to the Parks legislation, a scrambling track is inappropriate use for Parkland. If the Minister wants to change the rules, that calls for procedures to be followed and consultation much wider than with BEST alone, and much wider than area residents. Bermuda’s parks are a scarce and precious community resource and the community must have a say if there’s a plan to change their use.
-
Read More About
Category: All, Environment, News
It upsets me that Best is complaining so much about a program that government is planning to do to help with youths/idle hands, which I think is positive, but offer no solutions of their own. But I get it Bermuudians love love love to complain about stuff but offer no solution to help a problem. Idle youths is a big problem and will be in the future, BEST get with program.
Hah! You’re complaining about Best complaining, yet you’re offering no solutions either!
what 4-8 yr old has idle hands, everything is a playground to them…
It’s about the fact that it is at Astwood park!! This is a nice green space of which we have few left. I am sure there is an area that would be better suited. Never mind the traffic congestion!
Great plan, wrong spot!
There is an area at Astwood Park that is better suited, and tha tis the one that is proposed to be used. The Northern side of Park I beleive which is across the street. No one uses this area anyway so why not use it?
Best doesn’t need to provide a solution, it is not their job! Their job is to protect open spaces!
There are other locations which could work for a minicross track, these places could be explored.
@CANBEANYWHERE – I agree with you. The idea itself is a good one as it provides another sorely needed activity for our youth, but Aswood Park is the wrong location. Is there a small plot of land on Morgan’s Point which could be used? I know that the future of that land is up in the air right now, but it makes sense to me that at least a small section of it could be spared for a bike track. Plus that way it would still be in the West End.
@ Bermudian: My understanding of the term “youth” is young males aged 8 or 9 to age about 13.
The Government says that this is a program for 4-6 year olds. These are not “youths with idle hands.” These are young children in need of close supervision, especially if we are talking about motorized cycles, even if the motors run on electricity.
I really wish people would understand the difference between complaining for complaining’s sake, and justifiable concern. We should query a scheme that proposes to circumvent the established guidelines without due process. There is a way to change a land-use designation that all of us are expected to follow. When a Government tries to ride rough-shod over laws, rules, regulations, and/or accepted practices, it sets a very bad precedent for the rest of the country. If a Government scoffs at or ignores its own laws, we should not be surprised if the people follow suit.
This is the bigger picture/issue for me. Yes,the planned desecration of Astwood Park is a problem, but it is the systemic disrespect for the laws, protocols and procedures of the land that is of grave concern.
@ Pastor Syl
EXACTLY!!! Right on and well said. Govt. circumventing its own laws (which they have done on TOO MANY occassions to mention and which not only involved land, but also huge financial transactions). This M.O. is an endemic problem with this govt. which has more than soured many of us on how they choose to operate. The other matter of course is the choice of land for this proposal. The idea may be worthy but the location is absolutely horrible and NOT the place to do it. Morgans Point would be good – it could even be something the tourist’s KIDDIES might enjoy watching and participating in when the new resort gets built there!!
AGAIN THANK YOU BEST. BERMUDA OWES YOU BIG TIME!!!
I really don’t know understand what the fuss is about.. Its a piece of land that is OURS and it will be utilized by OUR people, what is the problem… Who else should be able to utilize it, it is not a big deal, there are not many places for children to play if they are from condos also. As I listned to the Ministers Weeks and Bean they stressed it would be monitored by the residents for any disturbances which could be politely worked out like how we work out most of our neighbourhood issues… GAAAAAaaaaaawwwwwwwdddddd…..CHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeezzz its not effecting anyone right now, and it doesn’t appear harmful, these are our youngsters!!!!
Exactly!! But you know what else…..everyone is up in arms over this issue with both PLP and BEST. The thing that no one is acknowledging is the fact that a few “AREA RESIDENTS” are the ones who came up with the idea and approached government in the first place.
@ ABM – the “area residents” are not the SOLE OWNERS of this parkland, or any other parkland. IT BELONGS TO ALL BERMUDIANS and our visitors, not any one group.
BTW I am an AREA RESIDENT
to finsih this…………I am an AREA RESIDENT and I DO NOT WANT THIS in my area, I was never canvassed or asked. Again this land belongs TO ALL OF US, not just a few who live in the area. Bermuda’s land bank is too small for such subjective narrow minded thinking.
I follow and agree with you. What I was trying to say was that everyone is blamming government and pointing the finger at them for coming up with this hairbrain scheme when they should be questioning those area residents who came up with and want the idea implemented. The government is only doing what those few have asked and canvassed for. To what extent they went through to get government to go forward with it is unknown and another topic. But what is known is that your neighbors, be they near or far, want this ‘track’ so to speak put in place. Just how many of them are there is also unknown.
Also, to point out something you said concerning Bermuda’s land bank being too small. At some point in the future, as the population grows and overall living flurishes, this extra land will need to be used. Not saying that because of this we should build the track, no no, but that as our people grow, more and more land will need to be used in order to accomodate everyone. Yes, we can protect it for as long as we can, but reality is that the generation after us, and the one after that and so on will need that area and they may have a different view from both you and I.
ABM-
It seems you believe that somehow, it makes a difference that “area residents are the ones who came up with the idea and approached government”.
Government has processes in place covering use of public lands, including allowing public hearings. Regulations exist for what can and can’t be done with parkland. Assessing the impact of an idea on traffic flow and the environment is a requirement for projects. Identifying existing alternatives, especially given current Government finances, is critically important now.
Astwood Park is not part of the Warwick Park System; it’s part of the Bermuda National Parks System. All of Bermuda has a right to understand and express their views about proposed changes in usage.
None of these steps have been taken, nor have these requirements been met in this situation. No public notice was given; it was only after BEST raised concerns that it became visible.
But you’re fine with that, since it was the area residents that came up with the idea. Government’s actions and inaction handling their idea have no bearing, and voters across the Island should not be concerned about it.
Got it.
EW
Go you covered. The reason I am cool with this whole situation is because these area residents it is so claimed, that came up with this idea are trying to get the youth off of that standard one way to hell road that all our youths seem to be on. My whole thing is that everyone is up in arms over this and pointing and blaming everyone else whe nthe fact remains that us as Bermudians are as the usual assuming a whole heap of things with this matter. We are too busy implementing our opinions as facts. I like the Senator Fahy approach, wait till you hear all of the facts before you fully express yourself concerning the situation.
One such case is where you said and I quote, “None of these steps have been taken, nor have these requirements been met in this situation. No public notice was given; it was only after BEST raised concerns that it became visible.” The only problem with that statement of yours is that this whole situation is still in its infancy stage and it is only a proposal. To me that means that no real plans are in place, just a rough draft so to speak. And I would not go to press with a rough draft. I think thats where BEST went wrong, they heard about it and jumped the gun based off of some ‘government spokesperson’ who was not named. That in itself is a little questionable because it could be someone who has the inside track but is probably not even a govt employee but just want to throw a rock in the machine, if you get my meaning. Of course what I just said is speculation, but it does make one wonder.
@ Thoroughbred and ABM: Yes it is OUR land, and therefore should be available to all OUR people. Not all of us enjoy the sound of mini-bikes. In fact, there are quite a few of us that would like to get away from the sound of engines entirely. That is a pristine area of tranquillity in an increasingly noisy island. There are folks who go there to meditate or to practice Tai Chi or Qi Kong.
Just because an area doesn’t have a money making venture attached doesn’t mean it is under-utilized or wasted space.
If I want speed bumps in my neighbourhood, I have to canvas all my neighbours and get them to sign an agreement. This is for something that will benefit the safety of all of the children (including those who go to school in the area). Even more so then, don’t you think, those “area residents” who want to change the utilization of an area that has a particular designation, which normally would require some sort of planning permission, should have gotten buy-in from the other “area residents.” It is not just for Government to approve, there is a process that appears to have been circumvented.
Agreed. But, I beleive thats what Min. Weeks was saying, it is only a proposal and that the residents will be canvassed in the future before anything goes forward or any real plans are drawn up. I think BEST jumped the gun on this one outing gov’t the way they did, and it is reflected above in their press statement which they acknowledged. Key words I get from everything that is being said is that no real plans are in place and the area residents will be canvassed.
@ ABM
Unfortunately govt. has only itself to blame if people (myself included) “jumped the gun” on this issue as you put it. Govt.’s TRACK RECORD (excuse the pun) does them a huge disservice and again, they only have themselves to blame. They have mainly and consistently done underhanded dealings, backdoor dealings, suspect dealings, any kind of dealings but khosher dealings!!! Therefore since their 14 year history is riddled with some form or another of deceit, (DREB’s own words!!),including financial and the friends and family plan, most folk have had a belly full and are not prepared to listen anymore! I for one do not wish to follow Sen. Fahy’s advice as I do not plan nor do I desire to be lied to my face, YET AGAIN, yet one more time. When is enough enough? Sadly, this may be the one time that they are not lying, but at this point, who in their right minds is willing to give them the benefit of a doubt? Not me that’s for sure!
Reminds me of the boy who cried wolf!
just to clarify BTW – I dont for a moment believe that we did jump the gun on this issue AND I agree with E Wells – i also think it was more advanced than they have let on and it was “full steam ahead” as E.W. puts it – the presence of digging equipment on site more than backs up this conjecture. SHAME ON THEM – not once did they consider us, the Bermudian owners and voters of this land.
ABM-
I think we’re getting a bit circular here.
You believe it was an undeveloped idea, based on some casual conversations with area residents, and that it never intended to be made public at this juncture.
I believe it was far more advanced, that there was a reason why earth-moving equipment was on site; that the level of specifics (4-6pm, one-year trial, &c.) suggest that the plan was full steam ahead. I believe it to be typical of this Government, behaving the same way it has in other situations- “we don’t need to consult anybody”, and that if BEST had not raised the issue, work would have already begun. And again, this is not, and should not be, a decision for area residents. It is, as Astwood Park is within the National Parks System, a decision for all of Bermuda.
I doubt either of us will convince the other.
EW
Well what can I say, you do make it hard to argue against.