Comments on: Demo State Senator Opposes Bieter Park Bond

By: Kate Chopin

Kate Chopin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 03:11:11 +0000

How short-sighted Rep. Durst proves himself to be, again and again. Focusing on this one tiny tree (they won’t do what I want!) at the expense of the forest – an improved city park system.

Does he really expect the mayor to step in and override the decision because he threatens to withhold support for the bond? Is he seriously willing to risk the tiny bit of political pull he may still have on THIS? He has no political acumen whatsoever and, once again, is alienating himself from his party. If he doesn’t move to Seattle (which of course he will, does he think we are idiots?), he will have a credible primary candidate, mark my words. I will be among the first in line to be writing his opponent a check.

By: TJ

TJ — Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:39:37 +0000

Further, as someone who has been going to that park with my pet for many years now, rarely is anyone ever in the grassy area anyway. All of the comments people made about increased traffic, user conflicts, housing values, intended use, etc., are all BS. There has been no increased traffic, there are very few, if any, user conflicts, and no one’s property value is going to go down.

As I said, there is hardly anyone ever in the park. A lot of people play tennis on the other side of the park, and occasionally there is a rugby or soccer practice, and that’s it.

Don’t believe me… go down to the park and see for yourself. The complainers are being absolutely disingenuous on this.

By: TJ

TJ — Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:25:14 +0000

Londoner Commons is not the only neighborhood in the Williams Park area, nor the only neighborhood who filled out petitions, nor the only neighborhood that attended the park meeting on the 26th of June.

At the meeting, the only people who spoke out against the park were those who lived directly on the park; most others in the venue were for the park.

You can read the survey yourself.

By: Joe Menchkin

Joe Menchkin — Tue, 10 Sep 2013 04:11:15 +0000

Senator,

It sounds like you’re opposing this based off very little information.

Here’s some more info re: the local reaction to the proposal.

http://parks.cityofboise.org/BoardAgendas/Board2013/Exhibit-E-CompleteListOfSurveyComments-130718.pdf

By: Branden Durst

Branden Durst — Mon, 09 Sep 2013 20:41:00 +0000

TJ – I was told that petition was gathered in which nearly every resident of Londoner Commons had signed opposing the dog park. Do you live in Londoner Commons?

By: Sisyphus

Sisyphus — Mon, 09 Sep 2013 19:01:10 +0000

That is not a statement of non-support. Durst says “oppose” twice. And what he is opposing is a levy to acquire additional open space for Boise, something the majority of Boise has supported overwhelmingly on separate occasions. And he’s opposed to Boise acquiring additional open space unless he gets to allow these few neighbors to CLOSE this park to unleashed dogs to the rest of Boise. Durst doesn’t just disagree with the Park Board’s decision, he accuses them of being undemocratic and autocratic, implying that the Park Board denied these neighbors due process. And he’s actively opposing the levy unless these neighbors get their way, against all the other people that participated in the process, and who favor this leashless dog park. Maybe Durst needs to check his party affiliation, because his strong arm tactics are hardly democratic.

By: TJ

TJ — Mon, 09 Sep 2013 17:54:52 +0000

As someone who lives in the Williams Park neighborhood, Mr. Durst is absolutely wrong about his characterization of the Williams Park dog park pilot program.

MOST of those in the neighborhood were actually FOR the dog park, if for no other reason than the park was already primarily being used as a dog park anyway.

Those who were against the dog park pilot program were almost exclusively those neighbors who have property directly on the park. These neighbors used disingenuous reasons in their opposition for the dog park, which is ironic considering MOST of them used the park already to walk and exercise their own pets.

Those neighbors simply wanted to keep Williams Park as their own private backyard, and instead engineered a list of reasons that were untrue, ridiculous, selfish, or, at best, expressed their inconvenience.

Durst is completely off the mark with his comments, and it seems like a completely substanceless reason to oppose the Bond (when surely there are plenty of other legitimate criticisms of it).

By: TF Boy

TF Boy — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 04:59:32 +0000

Will he even be living here in 6 months?

By: rabula

rabula — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 04:24:17 +0000

“If the Mayor and Council choose to overrule the Parks Commission, I will reconsider my position on the park bond measure, if they don’t I won’t and I’ll also actively oppose it,” says the young former legislator on his way out of town.