Comments on: The Sign, again

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:23:23 +0000

To address the question: No, nothing is removed from this site. When discussions run their natural course, topics fade into the background, but we don’t actively delete things at some arbitrary point.

By: New to Area

New to Area — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:29:56 +0000

To richmond citizen:

Check bored about the sign’s message again. They’re aware that it’s old news. They wanted to know if anything is ever removed from this website. You didn’t address the question that was posed; however, readdressing that it’s old news, as bored about the sign stated, is redundancy at its finest. Well done.

By: richmond citizen

richmond citizen — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:43:49 +0000

To Bored about the sign:
Check the date of the last submission to the blog…it was dated January 4th. We’re aware that the issue about the sign over; you’re just 6 months behind on the news. And before you report to us on more news, we know that O’Toole’s is expanding.

By: bored about the sign

bored about the sign — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:38:49 +0000

Does Hills and Heights ever take anything off its web site? The whole issue about the Forest Hill Park sign is over. Has been ever since the “new” old sign went up in December 2007–and doesn’t it look fine!

By: david

david — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:12:14 +0000

Implying that FoFHP was somehow fiscally irresponsible during the process (when in fact no funds at all had changed hands until the product was completed as specified), was misleading at best. After all, FoFHP declined to pay for the sign until it was completed as originally specified. IMHO they conducted themselves in a very appropriate manner.

Custom Ornamental is the party who should be held accountable for the errors: it is inappropriate to fault a client if the contractor providing the product is the one that doesn’t return calls. And that client (FoFHP) shouldn’t have been maligned for wanting to have errors corrected when faulty goods were delivered. FHNA was in favor of keeping the first version.

The end result is this: the sign that is in place now is what FoFHP had originally requested. Custom Ornamental did a great job once they improved communication at their end.

The sign looks great. All parties got what they paid for. Happy ending.

By: Phil Licking

Phil Licking — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:35:00 +0000

Wil: That’s what I was attempting to do. The fact of the matter is that the sign project had two groups working together to achieve a goal. That sometimes is a recipe for human beings to disagree, which happened in this case. Again, I focus on the end result, which was a good one (IMHO.) I also encourage more folks to get involved in these types of projects as the BEST way of being informed on the issues.

By: Wil

Wil — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:17:03 +0000

Why don’t those, who have had direct impact on the sign, step up and post the facts of the issue so that the “my association/your association” bs stops?

By: Phil Licking

Phil Licking — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:14:23 +0000

Replying to David: What you call “manufactured controvery”, I call accountability.
The “ridiculous first version” of the sign was the direct result of poor project oversight by Friends of Forest Hill Park.
They’ve admitted the error and have worked very hard to deliver the sign as originally promised (on budget, I might add.)
I think they’ve done a great job, as I’ve previously stated.
My goal has always been to ensure that the hard-earned $4,600 donation from the Forest Hill Neighborhood Association was put to its best use. I think the proof is in the pudding: the sign looks fabulous. AND it was installed per the original estimate, leaving about $1,100 available for other improvements to the park (like maybe fixing up those nasty bathrooms or installing new trash cans, benches, etc.)
If the “manufactured controversy” helped to make that happen (which I think is the case), then kudos to all the folks who were involved in this project to see it through (from both the FHNA and FoFHP.)

By: Caitlin

Caitlin — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:43:21 +0000

Avast! I’ll believe the dredging when I see it! Moby Lake!

By: Jennifer C.

Jennifer C. — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:04:18 +0000

Well, if they did want to leave it, period, then I don’t agree – the original sign did have obvious flaws. Of course, I don’t like the sign, period. I much prefer the way the columns looked without the arch.

By: david

david — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:56:00 +0000

Not a member of FoFHP, by the way…don’t know how you arrived at that conclusion, but I guess it was a handy tactic to get in another dig at FoFHP. Have a nice day.

By: david

david — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:47:31 +0000

No, FHNA favored leaving it, period.

FoFHP insisted on having it done correctly, and the sign company made good at no extra cost to anyone but themselves. FoFHP picked up the cost of the re-design plans that were done by a different company for a nominal fee.

By: Jennifer C.

Jennifer C. — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:56:27 +0000

I thought they favored leaving it until the sign company agreed to pay for the replacement, or am I remembering wrong?

Incidentally, I’ve been watching this from the outside, and from what I *have* seen in print and in meetings, the FOFHP leadership can’t hold a candle to the FHNA in tact or class (see above comment for example). It’s everyone’s park, and the efforts FOFHP has made regarding the property doesn’t make their opinions more important, or give them the right to denigrate others’ ideas.

By: david

david — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:48:05 +0000

What a non-issue…considering that the so-called controversy was manufactured by Mr. Licking and others within the neighborhood association, who (unbelievably)favored leaving that ridiculous first version in place.

Kudos to Friends of Forest Hill Park for insisting that the sign be corrected, and be re-manufactured to more exacting standards. The result is something we can all be proud of.