Friends of Forest Hill Park Receive a Golden Hammer
Last night The Alliance to Conserve Old Richmond Neighborhoods held their 11th Annual Golden Hammer Awards ceremony. The Hammer honors “individuals or groups for their persistence in working to improve our neighborhoods”.
Image from A.C.O.R.N. Golden Hammer Nominee page.
The Alliance to Conserve Old Richmond Neighborhoods selected the Friends of Forest Hill Park as the winner of the Best Neighborhood Design Project for the Friends work around Forest Hill Park. FFHP was honored for its work in tree and garden plantings, the removal of invasive species, and the creation of a long term work plan for volunteers in the park.
FFHP Board Member David Hathcock praised the leadership of outgoing president Curry Nelms for the award. “During the two years that Ms. Nelms has been president, the Friends group has been revitalized, undertaking ambitious and successful projects to replace hardwoods near the Roanoke Street entrance to the park, coordinating and organizing volunteer and community service cleanup programs, and coordinating with the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities for programs to increase neighborhood outreach and cooperation.”
“We also should give credit to the DPR staff and management, who has made the renovation of Forest Hill Park a priority for several years,’ Hathcock said.
Friends of Forest Hill Park is a 501 C 3, tax exempt organization, with a goal of supporting the health and safety of the park and its users. FFHP can be reached at friendsofforesthill@rrpfoundation.org. Membership is open to all.
Friends of Forest Hill Park were not the only nominee from the H&H area.
All images below came from the A.C.O.R.N. Golden Hammer Nominee page where you can check out the other nominees as well.
Tricycle Gardens Urban Farm ~ Manchester Tricycle Gardens - FIRST RUNNER UP NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN
1000 Porter Street ~ Manchester Urban Development Associates - BEST INFILL RENOVATION NOMINEE
Perry Place Apartments, 815 Perry Street ~ Manchester Watson Brothers LLC - SECOND RUNNER UP BEST COMMERCIAL RENOVATION
Manchester Pie Factory, 612 Hull Street ~ Manchester Jeremy Connell, 612 Hull LLC - BEST COMMERCIAL RENOVATION NOMINEE
5506 Riverside Drive ~ Westover Hills Carrie D. & Mark A. Larson - BEST RESIDENTIAL RENOVATION NOMINEE
Let’s not forget the work that countless volunteers and Richmond MORE put into making sustainable, multi-use paths throughout the park.
It doesn’t sound like they’d qualify for nomination, given the criteria.
Let’s also not forget that Richmond MORE had originally made a royal hash of the trails, when left to their own devices, before they were made to FIX them by Parks & Rec.
In the end it doesn’t matter…the trails are sustainable now, after Nathan Burrell of JRPS redesigned the system.
FFHP volunteered MANY hours on that project too, as well as many other aspects of restoration of the Park so that it is a welcome place for ALL users.
Richmond MORE did NOT design or build the original trails (that have since been revamped). Get your facts straight. Yep, FFHP could have gotten a mention as well as they do great work.
Sorry Wil, but I do have my facts straight…you should follow your own advice.
I think that you may be referring to the mish-mash of trails that existed pre-2003, before RA MORE came in to being. On the other hand, I refer to the system that was created in the wake of Hurricane Isabel (post 2003)
I actually met the Richmond MORE members who very vocally took credit for the trail system that they put in place in 2004…the dozens of switchbacks, loop-de-loops, bridges, luge, steep climbs, and so forth. I remember when they were hard at work on it, asking me to join MORE and come volunteer.
They were VERY proud of their accomplishment. It had taken a ton of effort.
When it was pointed out to them (in great detail, BTW, in a FFHP report) that the trail system that they had created (ostensibly as an improvement over what existed previously) was also unsustainable, MORE changed their tune and tried to muddy the waters.
They apparently were successful in some quarters, as is witnessed by your take on events.
Mr. Burrell, thankfully, took his job seriously and followed widely accepted guidelines for creating sustainable trails, so now we all can enjoy a trail system that will not require constant work in the wake of erosion.
From what I understand FFHP is very pleased with the outcome, as the trail system adheres very, very closely to the outline that they had proposed years ago during the MOU kerfuffle. The same outline, BTW, that MORE had rejected at the time.
All’s well that ends well! FFHP got their well deserved Golden Hammer!
Your confusion around the so-called “muddying” stems from the idea that the members acted on MORE’s behalf vs. on their own. I know which people you are talking about and they will tell you that the trail work they did was not MORE backed/sanctioned/blessed, etc.
I had forgotten to mention that Richmond MORE didn’t even exist until 2005, AFTER the trails (immediately prior to their current iteration) were formed.
You are clearly mistaken. Thanks.
Third paragraph down. http://richmond-more.org/about-us
I am aware of that…what you are not aware of, apparently, are some of the facts.
RA MORE not only embraced, but took ownership of, and vigorously defended, the trail system that was created by its members in the wake of Hurricane Isabel. Vince and every RA MORE president after him did this.
It was only after FFHP thoroughly researched the issue and submitted their report, that Parks and Rec held RA MORE accountable. Both FFHP and RA MORE submitted plans for a sustainable system: RA MORE’s added to what was already there but did not advocate making any other substantial changes. The FFHP plan advocated extensive changes to bring the trails up to standards. RA MORE protested quite vehemently the changes proposed by FFHP, with the current president going so far as to state that they were too fast, dangerous and mostly down hill.
I have had the opportunity to revue not only the FFHP report but all of the trail revision maps that had been submitted during the MOU process. Have you?
Of course the irony of all of this is that the new trail system is almost EXACTLY what FFHP advocated in the first place…
Backing away from it may have been the only way for RA MORE to save face when confronted with the reality that it was a terribly flawed trail system. Spinning the issue may well have been the only way RA MORE could round up volunteers to fix what they had screwed up.
So, it helps to know the facts before forming opinions, rather than relying on spin and revisionist history supplied by only one of the interested parties.
For those of you interested in the facts: http://foresthillpark.rrpfoundation.org/FHP%20Trail%20Redevelopment%20plan.pdf
Son, that’s revisionist history, designed to smooth things over and stroke egos, and to move forward.
You have obviously not looked at the paperwork from the 2006 MOU meetings. But I guess it is in RA MORE’s best interest to keep those documents under wraps.
The ‘well meaning individuals’ who created the intestinal trail in 2004-2005 (even AFTER RA MORE broke off from MORE) were in fact MORE/RA MORE members who, during the MOU process in 2006 with the City, FFHP, and RA MORE, took credit for building the trail system.
RA MORE were FOR the trails before they were against them. LOL!
Thanks anyway! The end result is the right one: RA MORE is no longer allowed to create trails unsupervised and was persuaded to fix their mistake, FFHP wins awards for their park stewardship efforts, Nathan Burrell is in charge of trails.
Stuffa, We’re all entitled to our opinions. You have yours and I’m right. “So, it helps to know the facts before forming opinions, rather than relying on spin and revisionist history supplied by only one of the interested parties.” You should take your own advice before posting false and/or skewed information. You obviously are sitting on one side of the fence and throwing rocks into your neighbor’s yard. Not only are you miss-informed but making a great effort to stay that way. I would have thought that someone of your age would have learned that every story has at least two sides with neither being 100% correct. My fault for having such high expectations.
LOL.
You persist in ignoring some of the facts, which invalidates your conclusions.
Or maybe you are simply not aware of what transpired in 2005-2006 (research, findings, reports, trail outlines, discussions, arguments and so forth) and are basing your own opinions on incomplete information.
Hence your *version* of how you think things unfolded. Your expectations of yourself appear to be pretty low: you only looked at one point of view.
On the other hand, I have indeed reviewed ALL of the facts (mentioned above). Have you?
The irony of your assertion that I’m sitting on one side of the fence throwing rocks is not lost. Your habit of projecting is mildly endearing.
Thanks for the entertainment.
:)
Stuffa, I’ve had enough of your foolishness and unwarranted attacks. Post away because I’m done with you. You’re dismissed.
Alright Stuffa and Wil. I think this off-topic conversation has run it’s course. I’m closing the comments.