Deprecated: mb_convert_encoding(): Handling HTML entities via mbstring is deprecated; use htmlspecialchars, htmlentities, or mb_encode_numericentity/mb_decode_numericentity instead in /var/www/html/wp-content/plugins/super-cool-ad-inserter/inc/scaip-shortcode-inserter.php on line 37
So today’s Post-Gazette offers some clarity on the great treehouse dispute, and I’ll try to further flesh out matters below.
First off, it’s worth noting that city councilor Doug Shields is now acknowledging that a staffer said something “inappropriate” to Amy Ambrusko in a phone conversation — something he denied, sort of, in comments to me earlier this week. And while Shields was of the impression that the treehouse proposal was a “done deal,” a Parks Conservancy spokesperson tells the paper, “I’m not sure why there was a perception that there was a memorial ready to go …”The truth is that we’re so early in the process that there was very little to share.”
I spoke to that spokesperson, Michael Sexauer, this morning, and he stressed the preliminary nature of the treehouse proposal. In fact, he said, “Part of the confusion is using the word ‘treehouse.’
“That was a working title, and we felt it was a good one. We didn’t want to call it a ‘memorial,’ since that’s a word people associate with statues.” But for starters, he says, you shouldn’t be envisioning “a treehouse in the tradition of something several feet off the ground.” (Any proposal would have to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, after all.)
The RFP for the proposal does assert that “the primary vision … is that of a tree house, which both chilldren wished for before their deaths.” And designers were encouraged “to creatively interpret the notion of a tree house.” But there are months of discussions and planning ahead, and there’s no guarantee about what a final design might look like — or where it might end up.
The Conservancy is engaged in a broader attempt to add facilities throughout the park, an effort to replace the Frick Environmental Center that burned down several years back. It’s possible, in other words, that the treehouse-that-isn’t-a-treehouse could go in another location. A June 7 meeting on the proposal will begin to gather feeback, but that will be just the start of a series of discussions. It’s very much up for grabs.
And that’s what makes this all so “unfortunate,” Sexauer says. “”People are passionate on both sides, but it’s premature for anybody to pass judgment. The wonderful thing about the blogosphere is that it’s a great way for people to share their thoughts. But we’re seeing this week what can happen when there’s not much information out there.”
Indeed, there are some unedifying comments attached to my earlier post about this subject, in which Ms. Ambrusko is accused of “arrogance.” And the rhetoric on the other side hasn’t always been ennobling either. Witness, for example, Twittered accusations that Doug Shields suffers from a “hatred of dead children.” [Editor’s note: The author of that Tweet says he was being sarcastic. So it’s a bad example. Use this one instead: “I am still murderously furious at these horrible, insensitive excuses for people who had a problem with a mom honoring her children.”]
There’s no shortage of confusion and dissent in Regent Square either. Today’s P-G story, for example, certainly delivers on expectations that neighbors would have head-scratching reasons for opposing the park. Resident Barbara Hicks confirmed that while parking was a major concern, she was also worried “the playground might become a haven for drug users, noting that the site has drawn such activity in the past.” The paper quotes her asking “If you have a treehouse, what better place to hide the drugs.”
I can think of a LOT of better places to hide drugs … though of course I work at an alt-weekly, so maybe I have an advantage here.
In any case, I’ve already heard from other active members of the Regent Square community who say they are baffled by this claim. They aren’t aware of any criminal activity in the area to speak of.
But some of them also tell me that the online rhetoric from project supporters has been disheartening too. They fear the June 7 meeting — which was planned as an attempt to gather feedback and explain the (limited) progress made so far — will end up being a “shouting match.”
Seems like everybody involved deserves better than that.
This article appears in May 27 – Jun 2, 2010.
Two good comments in a roiling sea of lousy ones:
Michael Sexauer: “People are passionate on both sides, but it’s premature for anybody to pass judgment. The wonderful thing about the blogosphere is that it’s a great way for people to share their thoughts. But we’re seeing this week what can happen when there’s not much information out there.”
Chris Potter: “I can think of a LOT of better places to hide drugs [than a busy childrens’ park].”
Informed comments are better comments. Most of the people yelling loudest about the park proposal don’t know what they are talking about, and the person who fears a treehouse full of (poorly) secreted drugs obviously knows nothing about hiding doobies.
I would have said to give Barbara Hicks a break about her “hiding drugs” quote, since it was maybe delivered in the heat of the moment, or reported out of context. But then I found this from a 2007 Trib article:
“The (PPS) charter review team praised Imagine Schools’ community support, but criticized its plan for teacher training, inconsistencies in its governance and lack of an environmental curriculum. The team also noted that the company had a history of failed charter schools — at least 35 since 2002.
“We need to digest the comments and regroup,” said Barbara Hicks, a Regent Square resident and founding member of the charter school.
Imagine Schools bought the building from the district last year for $3 million.”
Hicks is certainly a player in the community. And didn’t the environmental charter school recently have its eye on expanding into the proposed “tree house”–or whatever it is–site? On the other hand, I understand that the school is actually pushing for the “tree house”, or at least lending major support to the Parks Conservancy plan to crap up–I mean, enhance–the park with learning stations.
BTW, this, from Wikipedia:
Worldwide it was estimated in 2004 that 1.2 million people were killed (2.2% of all deaths)… in motor vehicle collisions. This makes motor vehicle collisions the leading cause of death among children worldwide 10 – 19 years old (260,000 children die a year, 10 million are injured).”
That’s a lot of tree houses.
I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that anybody is poorly informed, or that being imperfectly informed is even important. Parts of this now remind me of the folks who wrote civic leaders and called in to news shows to demand, “WHATEVER IT TAKES to keep the Penguins in town, DO IT DO IT NOW!!!” A rational individual can be of the belief that there is no possible good excuse to decline to put a memorial treehouse in a public park, and nothing about the design, traffic, or trafficking situation can possibly change any of that. Treehouses are good and only good, it’s paid for, and grieving, civic-minded mothers deserve support and cooperation. Period case closed.
One may not agree with that, but is the difficulty a misunderstanding or not enough due research dilegence? No, that’s just their political position. Are these folks any worse informed than the average person who writes or phones a political official about anything, or for example the opposition in Regent Square? No, they have sufficient data to reach their conclusions given their political preferences. Is it worth somehow less than otherwise because it was motivated by a blogger? I think that’s what we’re dancing around.
We’re encountering the Phenomenon again, and the familiar Who-Does-She-Think-She-Is resentment of the fact that both A) she herself and B) the sorts of issues she obviously cares about motivates people far out of line with what anyone is used to seeing. So we need to discredit it and take it down a peg.
If you wanna disagree, then counterargue, but don’t be all “Tsk tsk tsk Internet”. These folks know what they’re doing and feel a stake in it. Good enough for me, let it shake out. The project, which was imperiled, is probably already saved already, and the proof as always will be found in the pudding.
“Is it worth somehow less than otherwise because it was motivated by a blogger? I think that’s what we’re dancing around.”
>>> For what it’s worth, Bram, I think you are completely mistaken about this. If this same public reaction had been motivated by a radio talker, or a politician with an axe to grind, I’m pretty sure the conservancy would be making EXACTLY the same plea for understanding and patience. Don’t you? So why am I, or infinonymous, or commenters elsewhere, at fault for thinking that’s worthy of discussion?
To say anyone’s trying to take bloggers “down a peg” seems like the absolute opposite of what’s going on here. (In part because infinonymous is, after all, a blogger.) If anybody is casting aspersions on the seriousness of online advocacy, it might be you.
I mean, I don’t think I’m doing too much of a disservice to your argument to say it boils down to, “If people have honestly-held views, then it doesn’t matter how well informed those views are.” I guess if THAT’s the argument, then pointing out to Tea Partiers that tax rates are down is just plain presumptuous.
I’m not saying this cause is silly the way I think Tea Party causes are. I’m just saying that when advocacy hits page A-1 of the Post-Gazette — no matter what the cause — its tactics and approach become fair game for discussion.
Oh, and finally — as I’ve tried to make it pretty clear from my very first post (“Montanez, as a contributor to a silent fundraising campaign, may have known more about the proposal than some of the Regent Square residents living a few doors down from it”) that I regard misinformation on ALL sides of this issue as a serious problem. It’s in that spirit that Sexauer was speaking, and that I quoted him. So when you say “[a]re these folks any worse informed than the average person who writes or phones a political official about anything, or for example the opposition in Regent Square?” The answer is “not necessarily.” But surely the level of information on all sides is germane to the discussion?
I just honestly don’t know where you’re going with this.
My comments were a little more directed toward Sexauer and his patronizing “The Internet can be great but” comment. I don’t think he’d have framed it remotely that way if this originated on a call-in radio show; it’s a subtle way to discredit, to say “What can you expect from these jokers”. And in truth I don’t except anyone, even other bloggers, from being immune to that prejudice, though I certainly admit I can be oversensitive due to my personal interest and stake. Point taken.
As to your Tea Party analogy, you can’t possibly compare the dissemination and swallowing of patent *misinformation* to what this is — different info being important for different purposes. My hunch is there is no REAL lack of SALIENT information here. If the treehouse is literally up a tree or next to one, if it’s an oak or a pine tree, if it is tended to by elves or owls, will that change the position of anyone on either side? It sounds like cries of “misinformation!” are more likely pleas to stall, adjust, and let people change their position while saving face — which would be normal and fine, but don’t confuse it with the real thing.
” We’re encountering the Phenomenon again, and the familiar Who-Does-She-Think-She-Is resentment of the fact that both A) she herself and B) the sorts of issues she obviously cares about motivates people far out of line with what anyone is used to seeing. So we need to discredit it and take it down a peg.”
Yes. This.
I’m not certain I understand the connection you’re making between the Conservancy’s response and what caused the motivation of the public reaction. I do apologize, but can you connect those dots for me?
@ Bram. Having spoken to Sexauer, I think you’re reading of his agenda is inaccurate. If the way I contextualized his remarks somehow led you to that reading, I’m sorry for it, but nothing here reads that way to me, and it wouldn’t be the reading I intended.
I agree the Tea Party analogy was imperfect. But so is your analogy that says the only mystery here are whether the trees involved are oaks or pines.
Clearly, some of the folks who oppose this proposal don’t know what they’re talking about. (You don’t have to worry about hiding drugs in a treehouse if it’s not actually a treehouse.) I tried to point out early on in my first post that some of the seemingly diehard opposition may be the result of cluelessness. (That goes for city councilors too.) So that’s playing a part too. (ADDED: Of course, bad faith, stubbornness, and intransigence are factors too. I’m not saying this is either/or.)
And in fairness, some of the supporters appear every bit as ill-informed. Here’s a comment posted online that was, apparently, e-mailed to Doug Shields as well:
“Amy Ambrusko deserves the opportunity to build the memorial treehouse in Frick Park that was ALREADY APPROVED BY YOUR DEPARTMENT!!! She has raised the funds,and began the designs based on your ok. It will not be an eyesore. IT’S A PLAYGROUND!! Tell the people that are complaining to build a fence. There are more important things going on in this world than giving a handful of cranky, selfish people what they want.”
Just for the record, of course, the treehouse hasn’t been approved by any department. It hasn’t even been approved by the Parks Conservancy. And obviously, this is someone who isn’t just requesting that the treehouse be considered … it’s someone demanding it be built. And insisting that anyone who opposes it is “cranky” and “selfish.”
Two concessions before I go any further, because I can already hear you warming up the keyboard. First, some Regent Square residents really ARE cranky — I can say that because a certain percentage of people everywhere are. Second, a lot of online commentary has NOT been cranky.
But a bunch of it has. And I think THAT is why the internet probably seems like a mixed blessing to the Conservancy right about now. The rage got amped up to 11 in a hurry, and so the Conservancy is stressing that all this is just in the very early stages, with plenty of room for discussion and debate.
The RFP does a good job of urging designers to take into account local concerns like respecting the neighbors, and a war memorial adjacent to the project site. While Sexauer didn’t say as much — this is just my speculation — ‘m sure the Conservancy is hoping that the June 7 meeting sends a similar message. There have gotta be some misgivings when a bunch of people — many of whom live outside the city — start talking online about how they’re gonna show up and tell these selfish dickheads that they need to take this park and LIKE it.
Would it be worthwhile for ALL sides to consider the fact that, hey, the Conservancy is looking at a variety of sites in Frick Park? I totally understand that the RFP envisions this particular site, and that I totally get why it’s optimal from the standpoint of charter school and the kids who use it. But at this point, it seems a bit early to say that if the park doesn’t go here, it’s doomed thanks to those jagoffs in Regent Square. It doesn’t have to be that way.
And that’s the one piece of information I think would benefit everyone going forward.
“We’re encountering the Phenomenon again, and the familiar Who-Does-She-Think-She-Is resentment of the fact that both A) she herself and B) the sorts of issues she obviously cares about motivates people far out of line with what anyone is used to seeing. So we need to discredit it and take it down a peg.”
Was that what the State Department was doing when it took custody of children from Haiti and attempted to determine whether the preceding episode of emotion-fueled, reason-deprived, mob-driven, for-the-children pushiness resulted in the kidnapping of those children? Or was it investigating what appeared to be a crime, attempting to defuse an international incident, and attempting to ensure that children wound up where they belonged?
Infin, I am totally unaware of any lingering issues in the disposition of those children. If the State Dept at one point involved itself in order to make sure they all got where they needed to go, then that’s just another win to chalk up for PittGirl isn’t it? If you know of any actual continuing outrages I’m sure Potter would appreciate the white-hot scoop.
Would it be reasonable to await determination of whether any children were kidnapped in a half-baked, PR-drenched operation before issuing congratulations for victory?
Here are some of the reports concerning the aftermath of the haphazard Haiti-to-Pittsburgh airlift:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/world/americas/24orphans.html?ref=world
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10055/1038068-54.stm
Couldn’t find more recent reports; sorting out what actually happened apparently makes for a less interesting story than did the original fairy tales.
I think it’s funny that the That’s Church lady attempted to backpedal on Friday by posting a comment to her own tree house post declaring that the dispute is over for the time being. After being called out on her attempt to disown the ugly fall out from her post, she has since removed that comment, but has now put up a post saying she won’t be posting again until Wednesday.
Seems to me that she may be concerned that her rabble rousing could lead to some legal complications, or at least it went too far. Guess I have to give her credit for exhibiting a shred of self-awareness.
infinonymous –
I’ve looked over all the information presented by you and the media both during and after the rescue of the Bresma orphans. I can’t seem to find anywhere that would suggest these children were “kidnapped”. I just don’t see where you’re getting any factual data to back up your allegations. Show me something that suggests any wrongdoing and I’ll definitely revue it. Bring forth something that shows these children are in a worse situation than they were prior to their arrival in Pittsburgh… Even the two articles you presented seem to go contrary to your perspective.
One who takes possession of a child without lawful authority — for example, where the child’s parents do not provide permission — and transports that child more than a thousand miles over water is a kidnapper. (The burden, naturally, is on the transporter to demonstrate entitlement to remove the children.)
At last report, the McMutrie sisters and their allies could not produce evidence of entitlement to transport more than 10 of the children they carried a thousand miles from home. That appears to be the reason the United States Department of State took the extraordinary step of relieving the McMutries of custody and placing the children into federal protection.
It is not your call, or mine, to determine whether the children are better off for having been grabbed, perhaps unlawfully, and carried a thousand miles from their home. This principle is applicable even if the best of intentions were involved, or even if the sisters believed they were on a mission from God, and even with the governor riding shotgun. (If I believe your children would be better off in my high-education, nice-neighborhood, all-the-toys, high-end home than they are in your home, should I be permitted to improve their lot by taking them from you?)
The McMutries were responsible for knowing and establishing the provenance of each child they took from Haiti. If they took advantage of chaos, or others’ trust, to remove children from Haiti without lawful authority do to so, their conduct was wrong and likely illegal under Haitian law.
Until the Department of State reports that it has concluded that the children were lawfully removed from Haiti, the term “kidnap” can not be dismissed. After showing a remarkable willingness and ability to use the media as a bullhorn, and after figuratively holding their breath more than once to get their way, the McMutrie sisters have gone strangely silent. If they possessed evidence that those children belonged with them rather than with family in Haiti (or in protective custody), does it not seem to go against type for them to be quiet about this for a couple of months? A reasonable inference is that they were wrong and they know it.
The jury is still out, however, so far as has been publicly disclosed.
Heh – Ok – I see no new information proffered to back up your rhetoric. You’re labeling them kidnappers on your own accord by your own definitions and not based on the facts. Thank you for clarifying that.
Oh well – carry on with whatever crackpot ideas you like.
No, Dog, I don’t think you see a thing.
Certainly not the State Department’s forcible removal of those children from the McMutries’ custody for several months and counting. Nor the decision of the Haitian and United States governments, in the wake of the experience with the McMutries, to forbid the removal of additional children from Haiti:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10053/1037662-82.stm
Another article indicates that the Pittsburgh flight left without the Haitian government’s permission, and that Haiti reacted to the Pittsburgh episode by outlawing overnight any adoption whose paperwork was not personally signed by the prime minister of Haiti: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/05/10/100510fa_fact_seabrook
Could those points be related to the United States government’s decision to take the children away from the McMutries? Or with the failures of the usually loud McMutries to issue a peep since the State Department took the children?
(Might be a story in there somewhere, Chris. Where are those children? Why? What has the sisters’ tongues? How did that expedition affect Haitian adoption procedures? Is Hillary Clinton still apologizing?)
Yeah I’m blind. If you’re going to cite an article – maybe you should read it first? You cite that the following article: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10053/1037662-82.stm
shows “the State Department’s forcible removal of those children from the McMutries’ custody”.
Um… no it doesn’t.
That article is about an additional 12 kids they tried to bring to the US. Those 12 children were never brought into the US. The Children were not removed, forcibly or otherwise, from the Sister’s “custody” as they were still at the Bresma orphanage in Haiti going through the painfully slow international adoption process. You obviously are either trying to bend facts to meet your conspiracies, or you truly don’t have a grasp of the facts of the issue.
Please – cease your rhetoric. It’s embarrassing for you!
Well – looking back it appears I made a mistake. You don’t necessarily quote that that particular article references the State taking the children.
Still… you’re connecting dots that aren’t there. It was always the understanding that once the kids were brought into the US they would go into the state’s custody. There was no “forcible removal”. If so, point me to that particular information. You keep citing this as a major pillar of your argument.
You are also failing to recognize that the children that were brought into the US had approval from both US and Haitian governments.
Sorry – but you’re still trying to bend facts to meet your theory… not look at the facts as they exist in the appropriate time references.
But that’s fine – I’m the blind one…
Here’s the real issue:
Why are we discussing Bresma Orphans on a blog about the Treehouse proposal? They’re mostly unrelated. Completely different issues involving completely different people. The issue is that they were brought to the larger media attention by the same blogger instead of traditional media.
Some people, apparently, feel there is an issue with this…