10 Responses to “The Sign, again”

1. posted by david at January 2, 2008 10:48 am :
   

   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.

2. posted by Jennifer C. at January 2, 2008 3:56 pm :
   

   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.

3. posted by david at January 2, 2008 5:47 pm :
   

   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.

4. posted by david at January 2, 2008 5:56 pm :
   

   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.

5. posted by Jennifer C. at January 2, 2008 7:04 pm :
   

   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.

6. posted by Caitlin at January 3, 2008 4:43 pm :
   

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

7. posted by Phil Licking at January 4, 2008 11:14 am :
   

   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.)

8. posted by Wil at January 4, 2008 11:17 am :
   

   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?

9. posted by Phil Licking at January 4, 2008 11:35 am :
   

   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.

10. posted by david at January 4, 2008 4:12 pm :
    

    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.

Leave a Comment