East Hills Park..some pictures...

[DonnaReed]

Originally Posted by OhBeeHave

I believe the OP is upset because NYS taxpayer money went to the ANG to help purchase this facility for parkland, only to learn that the general public (whose tax dollars helped defray expenses) can not use the park they helped save.

If that is the case, then why shouldn't the poster be peeved?

Hell, folks with long money aren't called "privileged" for nothing.

These extra "perks" don't seem quite fair to me.

Also, as used here, terms like "riff raff", "bad elements" and such seem to imply that folks who can afford to live there, or higher income folk in general, are necessarily good and moral as opposed to lower-income folk and immigrants (I don't use the term "aliens" as I associate that moreso with some outerspace movie type stuff.)

I'v seen this faulty "income/good character" implication on other threads throughout this site.

The truth of the matter is that income and finances do not determine character and/or sound mind.

I've a background in mental health and I've counseled children, teens and adults from various economic backgrounds, from the lowest to the highest, from shelters to luxurious living, and as someone who has also lived various lifestyles myself, I have news for some of you -

although there may be more street crime (open drug dealing, crimes associated with drug use, muggings and and such) in lower-income areas,

there are some very sad stories and horrendous crimes taking place behind big pillars and within the walls of beautiful, luxurious homes.

Some folks on this board DO come off snooty, pretentious

and in some threads prejudiced as well.

Instead of anybody being offended, sometimes we need to check our thinking and see if we're prejudging and embracing stereotypes and all.

[OhBeeHave]

Originally Posted by DonnaReed

If that is the case, then why shouldn't the poster be peeved?

Hell, folks with long money aren't called "privileged" for nothing.

These extra "perks" don't seem quite fair to me.

Also, as used here, terms like "riff raff", "bad elements" and such seem to imply that folks who can afford to live there, or higher income folk in general, are necessarily good and moral as opposed to lower-income folk and immigrants (I don't use the term "aliens" as I associate that moreso with some outerspace movie type stuff.)

I'v seen this faulty "income/good character" implication on other threads throughout this site.

The truth of the matter is that income and finances do not determine character and/or sound mind.

I've a background in mental health and I've counseled children, teens and adults from various economic backgrounds, from the lowest to the highest, from shelters to luxurious living, and as someone who has also lived various lifestyles myself, I have news for some of you -

although there may be more street crime (open drug dealing, crimes associated with drug use, muggings and and such) in lower-income areas,

there are some very sad stories and horrendous crimes taking place behind big pillars and within the walls of beautiful, luxurious homes.

Some folks on this board DO come off snooty, pretentious

and in some threads prejudiced as well.

Instead of anybody being offended, sometimes we need to check our thinking and see if we're prejudging and embracing stereotypes and all.

The original poster was shot down or dismissed in a few posts for expressing his dismay over the exclusionary tactics taken by the village in which the parkland lies; I certainly understand his dismay. East Hills has made their park exclusive to the members of the community in order to keep out transients (i.e. renters) and people from neighboring areas. If East Hills hadn't accepted public money to acquire the ANG property, they could do as they wished and discriminate freely. East Hills utilized public money.

I don't have the OP in front of me, so please excuse me if I don't recall it verbatim. If he had written anything prejudiced or inflammatory, he weakened his point; after all, a person can feel strongly about something without having to resort to name calling or stereotyping.

[GCGuy]

Originally Posted by OhBeeHave

The original poster was shot down or dismissed in a few posts for expressing his dismay over the exclusionary tactics taken by the village in which the parkland lies; I certainly understand his dismay. East Hills has made their park exclusive to the members of the community in order to keep out transients (i.e. renters) and people from neighboring areas. If East Hills hadn't accepted public money to acquire the ANG property, they could do as they wished and discriminate freely. East Hills utilized public money.

I don't have the OP in front of me, so please excuse me if I don't recall it verbatim. If he had written anything prejudiced or inflammatory, he weakened his point; after all, a person can feel strongly about something without having to resort to name calling or stereotyping.

Can anyone prove that they used public money? In lib-filled New York, I have a hard time believing this to be the case. It may be true, but surprising if it is.

[Johninwestbury]

From what I understand, state and county money went toward the NEGOTIATIONS between the Village of East Hills and the feds, and village money want toward the actual purchase.
So the village recieved outside help. If the village did this all on their own, I would not be upset with their policies regarding the park. It was because of those negotiations they got the land for such a low price.

[GCGuy]

Originally Posted by Johninwestbury

From what I understand, state and county money went toward the NEGOTIATIONS between the Village of East Hills and the feds, and village money want toward the actual purchase.
So the village recieved outside help. If the village did this all on their own, I would not be upset with their policies regarding the park. It was because of those negotiations they got the land for such a low price.

So, now you're upset they got help negotiating...me thinks that no matter what happened you wouldn't like it.