Was it only a couple of council meetings ago the council had to increase the GRT just to meet current obligations? Yet, here we are considering a plan that will start in motion a process to increase more spending. This is not an essential project.
A few compliments were received for the process and I agree. Yes, they did have 300 people respond but that is still just a tiny percentage of the counties population. People who attend these meetings usually have an agenda. I am certain you noticed the number of bike helmets in the pictures. If you are going to go forward the council should put this out for a public vote to see if residents really want to spend that amount of money on the park and live by the decision.
A couple of comments I gathered from the meeting. 1). The biking group mentioned this type of bike park was built for $500k, not $5 million as in the proposed plan. There is a factor of 10 difference. One of the estimates is way off. 2). The presenter mentioned there that there were volleyball courts nearby but they were not used. Why not repair those rather than build new ones?. 3). The plan calls for a large building with space for food trucks. There was no justification, as in real dollars, that would justify this expense. I understand the Derby Dames would rather not compete for indoor space and have potential tournaments but this not enough to justify the capital improvements. 5) If restroom changes , stormwater changes, and handicapped access are needed then set them as a priority . A large capital project may not be required, perhaps even falling under operational expense to maintain the park.
Please tighten the expenditure belt. The lab support is subject to change as administrations change.
Let me list five reasons to reconsider approving this plan as someone who actually lives directly next to this area.
There is one main road through this area of the North Mesa and it goes through a school zone. Increased traffic not only impacts those of us who live on this Mesa, but also increases the threats to the kids on their way to and from school.
We already have a lot of these facilities. There is a bike park on the Barranca Mesa. Why not spend the funds on improving that facility? Urban park has volleyball courts. The needs are already being met elsewhere in the town.
It’s a hassle to drive nearly 15 minutes just to go to Smith’s from where I live, which again is right next to the proposed zone. Will the Los Alamos residents truly drive that distance to visit some food trucks?
This plan displaces wildlife and disturbs the animals boarded at the stables nearby. Again, to the increase in traffic, imagine the increased number of collisions with the deer, coyotes, and other animals. The increased noise will significantly stress the horses, who have highly sensitive hearing.
The closest residents are largely people in manufactured homes. Are their needs being valued at the same level of the rest of the residents of Los Alamos? The loudest voices are not necessarily the majority voices or even the correct voices. My neighbors are hard-working, usually not the scientists or engineers who work at LANL, but the ones who keep everything operational. We do not have the time to attend these meetings where these plans are developed because we are too busy surviving. Instead of listening to the people who do have the luxury of letting their voices be heard, perhaps take the time to truly discover the needs of the people at North Mesa.
I have lived on the North Mesa for almost a full four years now, a mere 5 minute walk from the area that is proposed for the North Mesa Recreation plan and I oppose the entire plan. I remember signs going up near the playground last year about meetings but they were unclear, I thought it was about the tennis court situation and not an entire 26-acre development plan. The people who live on the North Mesa, the ones who already use this area, were not adequately surveyed for their opinion. The plan, developed for Los Alamos as a whole, does not take into consideration the people (and animals) who already use and love the space. Tsikumu village on the North Mesa is full of manufactured homes, the current name for what was once referred to as mobile homes, and across the way is the La Mesa Mobile Home Park.
There is no need to beat around the bush here, this development plan is gentrification. Utilizing a space that is deemed “free” or “unused” simply because the people who use it are not in the $3000/month one-bedroom apartments near downtown or the near 1 million dollar newly built townhomes. This development displaces an area already used by the people of the North Mesa, bringing traffic to the only road that leads to our homes, increasing noise levels, decreasing the amount of actual open space (i.e. nature) where animals thrive, negatively impacting the animals boarded at the local stables. It decreases the quality of life for the people of North Mesa just for the benefit of the people in Los Alamo who can actually afford to live in the larger homes that are not considered mobile, the ones who can afford to live closer to town, while not affecting them in the negative whatsoever. The people of the North Mesa need to be better incorporated into this plan, their needs and wants considered instead of just those who have the time to attend planning meetings.
Was it only a couple of council meetings ago the council had to increase the GRT just to meet current obligations? Yet, here we are considering a plan that will start in motion a process to increase more spending. This is not an essential project.
A few compliments were received for the process and I agree. Yes, they did have 300 people respond but that is still just a tiny percentage of the counties population. People who attend these meetings usually have an agenda. I am certain you noticed the number of bike helmets in the pictures. If you are going to go forward the council should put this out for a public vote to see if residents really want to spend that amount of money on the park and live by the decision.
A couple of comments I gathered from the meeting. 1). The biking group mentioned this type of bike park was built for $500k, not $5 million as in the proposed plan. There is a factor of 10 difference. One of the estimates is way off. 2). The presenter mentioned there that there were volleyball courts nearby but they were not used. Why not repair those rather than build new ones?. 3). The plan calls for a large building with space for food trucks. There was no justification, as in real dollars, that would justify this expense. I understand the Derby Dames would rather not compete for indoor space and have potential tournaments but this not enough to justify the capital improvements. 5) If restroom changes , stormwater changes, and handicapped access are needed then set them as a priority . A large capital project may not be required, perhaps even falling under operational expense to maintain the park.
Please tighten the expenditure belt. The lab support is subject to change as administrations change.
Let me list five reasons to reconsider approving this plan as someone who actually lives directly next to this area.
There is one main road through this area of the North Mesa and it goes through a school zone. Increased traffic not only impacts those of us who live on this Mesa, but also increases the threats to the kids on their way to and from school.
We already have a lot of these facilities. There is a bike park on the Barranca Mesa. Why not spend the funds on improving that facility? Urban park has volleyball courts. The needs are already being met elsewhere in the town.
It’s a hassle to drive nearly 15 minutes just to go to Smith’s from where I live, which again is right next to the proposed zone. Will the Los Alamos residents truly drive that distance to visit some food trucks?
This plan displaces wildlife and disturbs the animals boarded at the stables nearby. Again, to the increase in traffic, imagine the increased number of collisions with the deer, coyotes, and other animals. The increased noise will significantly stress the horses, who have highly sensitive hearing.
The closest residents are largely people in manufactured homes. Are their needs being valued at the same level of the rest of the residents of Los Alamos? The loudest voices are not necessarily the majority voices or even the correct voices. My neighbors are hard-working, usually not the scientists or engineers who work at LANL, but the ones who keep everything operational. We do not have the time to attend these meetings where these plans are developed because we are too busy surviving. Instead of listening to the people who do have the luxury of letting their voices be heard, perhaps take the time to truly discover the needs of the people at North Mesa.
I have lived on the North Mesa for almost a full four years now, a mere 5 minute walk from the area that is proposed for the North Mesa Recreation plan and I oppose the entire plan. I remember signs going up near the playground last year about meetings but they were unclear, I thought it was about the tennis court situation and not an entire 26-acre development plan. The people who live on the North Mesa, the ones who already use this area, were not adequately surveyed for their opinion. The plan, developed for Los Alamos as a whole, does not take into consideration the people (and animals) who already use and love the space. Tsikumu village on the North Mesa is full of manufactured homes, the current name for what was once referred to as mobile homes, and across the way is the La Mesa Mobile Home Park.
There is no need to beat around the bush here, this development plan is gentrification. Utilizing a space that is deemed “free” or “unused” simply because the people who use it are not in the $3000/month one-bedroom apartments near downtown or the near 1 million dollar newly built townhomes. This development displaces an area already used by the people of the North Mesa, bringing traffic to the only road that leads to our homes, increasing noise levels, decreasing the amount of actual open space (i.e. nature) where animals thrive, negatively impacting the animals boarded at the local stables. It decreases the quality of life for the people of North Mesa just for the benefit of the people in Los Alamo who can actually afford to live in the larger homes that are not considered mobile, the ones who can afford to live closer to town, while not affecting them in the negative whatsoever. The people of the North Mesa need to be better incorporated into this plan, their needs and wants considered instead of just those who have the time to attend planning meetings.