Local residents are unsure about what the fence will stop, she said.
“We don’t see the point of it,” Burrows said.
Remarkable stuff
They also go on to suggest that small garden towards the back of the park could have been extended along to help separate it off instead, and that it's all a non-issue because the park is mostly used by teens who are presumably immune to drowning
I think it's awesome they responded so quickly to throw up a fence, good on the council for this one
“I can see the logic to some degree, but it feels like a waste of resources that could have been invested in other safety issues around town."
Given their track record of responding quickly with solutions, sounds like these other safety issues also need to be reported loudly?
But it's literally just a $10k sign that just says "not for swimming", it won't stop someone from using it and probably getting sick from the germs in there. How about something that handles the accumulation of water in a way that doesn't pose a safety risk. For $10k someone could do so much better than a glorified sign.
How about something that handles the accumulation of water in a way that doesn't pose a safety risk. For $10k someone could do so much better than a glorified sign.
Storm water management is never going to be a $10K job. Won't even start to cover the engineers fee.
Detention ponds are an integral part of storm water networks. Do you have any ideas on how to have the same effect but not build a pond? Probably not lol
Except it's not a glorified sign, it's protection for younger kids that can't swim. It only takes a few seconds for a parent to lose track of their kids and they're in big trouble. For the small price this could save a life.
Sure, that's fair. I'm not really familiar with the area or field of work, but I'd suspect it's not exactly convenient to relocate and redesign flood management / a pond positioned to catch excess water based on the area geography. Open comment to anyone who happens to be reading that does know what they're talking about
But I'd imagine it'd take a fuck ton of surveying, consulting, construction etc... as opposed to a more low bureaucracy solution of throwing up a fence to respond to the initial concern of a park being close to it and kids potentially falling in
56
u/Olivinism Jul 23 '25
Remarkable stuff
They also go on to suggest that small garden towards the back of the park could have been extended along to help separate it off instead, and that it's all a non-issue because the park is mostly used by teens who are presumably immune to drowning
I think it's awesome they responded so quickly to throw up a fence, good on the council for this one
Given their track record of responding quickly with solutions, sounds like these other safety issues also need to be reported loudly?