Pretty wild scene taking place over at That’s Church concerning a proposed treehouse memorial for Amy Ambrusko’s two children, who died in a tragic car accident. The memorial was to be installed in Frick Park, and as Montanez tells the tale:
Amy thought it fitting to raise the funds to put a playground of some sort in Frick Park for them. Those plans grew and shifted and changed until Amy and the Parks Conservancy decided on a unique treehouse type of play area for children to play in at Frick Park.
She began silently raising funds to pay for the proposed treehouse, and secured donations from 700 people and groups all around the world … including me.
So, with money coming into the conservancy, proposed designs being drawn up, and a perfect spot in Frick Park identified, it appeared everything was moving along just swimmingly.
Until Amy sent me an email a week or so ago, to put me on notice that she was hearing rumblings that some residents in the Frick Park area planned to oppose the treehouse. She and I couldn’t fathom why.
It’s worth noting here that, by the Conservancy’s own admission today, “no formal presentation has been made either to the community, or to the city, or to Councilman [Doug] Shields,” who represents the district. Montanez, as a contributor to a silent fundraising campaign, may have known more about the proposal than some of the Regent Square residents living a few doors down from it. And as we’ll see, neighbors had some reason to be on edge anyway.
More from Montanez:
A representative with the Parks Conservancy met with [some neighbors] to hear their concerns and told Amy … that their minds are made up. That one person went so far as to say something along the lines of, “Why does this woman think that just because her kids died and she raised all this money, she’s entitled to put a playground in our neighborhood?”
A public meeting on the park was scheduled, but then, Montanez reports, a staffer in Shields’ office reportedly urged Ambrusko to drop the matter, and said, “Do you really want your kids’ names to be part of this controversy?”
That, to Montanez, “went beyond the pale” by playing the “You’ll tarnish the Names of Your Dead Kids card.”
There was only one thing for it: Montanez called out her supporters to contact Shields’ office and tell him “[t]hat you object to their methods. That you object to their callousness.”
And lo! So it came to pass. Shields tells me he got more than 100 e-mails, many of which were in the “Doug is a jagoff, and how can he be so horrible” mode. (One correspondent informed him that “You are going to rue the effin’ day” he refused to support the treehouse; another called him an “ogre.”) City hall observers say Shields was “flipping out” as the missives came in.
Needless to say, this did not endear Shields to Ms. Montanez, or her legion of adherents. Montanez “published this without ever consulting me,” he says — and after doing so, she Tweeted the request that reporters “not ask me for comment … I am merely the bullhorn.”
Montanez has a standing policy of not talking to reporters on the record, even in innocuous situations. (For example, she declined to give an interview to City Paper for last year’s “Best of” issue.) But as far as Shields is concerned, what the policy amounts to is, “She just lights this fire, and then runs away.”
I quoted the claim that Shields’ office had played the “You’ll Tarnish the Names of Your Dead Kids” card. Shields said, “That’s not what Judy [Feldman, his chief of staff] is telling me, and it’s not what I’m saying now.”
As a city councilor, Shields says, it’s not his job to support or oppose a project right out of the gate. His job is “to get in the middle of these situations, and act as a mediator” between different sides. “That’s never happened here” — in part because the Conservancy hadn’t kept him up to speed on developments, or put a formal proposal on the table.
But why would a community oppose a treehouse in the first place? Shields says the proposal came along amidst protracted discussions about the expansion of an environmental charter school nearby.
“Regent Square is an active community, and there was a great deal of concern about the school’s expansion,” he said. And there was, it seems, a considerable amount of confusion about the treehouse proposal — whether it be part of the school’s expanded “footprint,” whether it would be a simple bench or plaque, or something else.
The treehouse is proposed to go in “Turtle Park,” which adjoins the school. Residents are concerned about building “an attraction” there, Shields says, in part because of a dearth of parking nearby.
The formal presentation of the thing is still scheduled for June 7. It’s scheduled for 6 p.m. at the Wilkins School community center (7604 Charleston Avenue). And now, of course, Montanez’s het-up blog readers are pledging to attend. Perhaps they will share sentiments like the comments-thread claim that opposing the treehouse “boils down to race and class and geographical dividers.” Then the healing can really begin!
Is it possible Doug Shields, daunted by Montanez’s minions, is now engaged in a defensive crouch? Sure. Is it possible that race and class play a role in community fears about who will use the park? Maybe: They play a role in just about everything else, after all. Finally, is Regent Square engaged in a classic “not in my backyard” response? Well, as Shields himself acknowledges, there is concern about attracting more visitors than the area wants to handle.
But I gotta say — if you’re gonna blame Regent Square for being insular and tribal … there seems to be a bit of that going around today.
This article appears in May 20-26, 2010.
The preceding shoot-before-aiming crusade for the children resulted in a dozen or so children being transported from Haiti to Pittsburgh in sketchy circumstances that eventually required adult supervision from the State Department.
(Are those children still being warehoused in Ohio Township while authorities determine whether the children were transported lawfully?)
Against that background, anyone who wants to observe customary procedures seems to be following the prudent course. Good intentions — no matter how energetically expressed — are no substitute for information, judgment and manners.
How could you not have titled this post “Treehouse of Horror”?
would it be too much to ask that they consider the original bequest by henry clay frick, which included never having a permanent structure on the land?
i’m sure it is.
just like i would be way out of line questioning the 200 or so posters who question the motives of anyone who disagrees with them, that’s how permanent republican majorities start.
i’m sure i would also be way out of line for even suggesting that there could be an alternate location for the memorial, i know they bumrushed the fundraising and all, it just seems like maybe, just maybe, they ought to consider a few things, including the existing(at least i think it still exists ww1 veterans memorial on the site they wish to use)tribute to the troops who died in that conflict, a tragic accident that cost a woman her children is one thing, but at the expense of brave soldiers who died for our country?<---see what i did there. yeah there are lots of reasons the neighborhood everyone’s dogs go to poop in, might not want any further busying of a park that was meant to be preserved in its natural state. but here you go with people harboring fantasies of living somewhere coastal and cooler, and they want to bully people who may like where they live, and want to keep it somewhat in tact(given that its a park, meant to be as natural as possible and all).
“but here you go with people harboring fantasies of living somewhere coastal and cooler, and they want to bully people who may like where they live, and want to keep it somewhat in tact(given that its a park, meant to be as natural as possible and all).”
If the local RS residents feel they deserve veto power over changes to the park because “they like where they live”, they can pay for its upkeep. It is a public park, not their private lawn maintained by tax dollars.
“I quoted the claim that Shields’ office had played the “You’ll Tarnish the Names of Your Dead Kids” card. Shields said, “That’s not what Judy [Feldman, his chief of staff] is telling me, and it’s not what I’m saying now.””
That’s quite a non-denial denial.
“As a city councilor, Shields says, it’s not his job to support or oppose a project right out of the gate. His job is “to get in the middle of these situations, and act as a mediator” between different sides.”
Yes. But Ambrusko’s claim is that his COS did take sides. Having had too much experience with Sheilds, I find Ambrusko’s story much more credible.
so you are ignoring the henry clay frick bequest because it is inconvenient to your political view, which is doug shields=bad…all of that is irrelevant to the actual issue, in may be what motivates many who don’t give a damn, including all the hilariously out of town morons on that mommy-blog of self imported inaneity.
the issue is frick park, and the community that surrounds it. the fact that you do not think the community has a right to question the location, and the impact they will bear as a result, then you are purely unreasonable.
now, since i’m sure you are unfamiliar with the site, you are no doubt unaware that there already is a war memorial on the site. you see, people who lived before you had the right to erect memorials too, and to have the spirit and cause of their action be honored moving forward. much as i am sure you would object to the tomb of the unknown stripper going into that location and moving your memorial the day after it was erected, you must respect the solemnity of the already existing memorial. you see that isn’t a location left open to be exploited, just because no one had ever thought of it before, much like frick park wasn’t able to remain in its natural condition all these years because no one ever thought of building high rises, shopping centers etc…the easiest part of your project is finding another location for it, that one, despite what you may have heard, is being used. a playground simply isn’t appropriate for that location, what with a playground already not far away. its about respect. there is a ton of ego going into believing that her children, tragic though their death may have been, deserve a seperate distinct memorial, that supercedes and co-opts an existing memorial. imagine if every one who died under unfortunate circumstances was so entitled… no it sounds like her grieving process is stunted at the anger phase, and being angry at doug shields or the residents of regent square, is easier than dealing with the pain she is postponing. i empathize i really do, however all of you people who are enabling her anger, are really not helping her as much as you need to think you are…she can find a location that would welcome the addition and move forward in her grief. i wish her the best, but this is simply a bad idea, despite her intentions….stop loading it with your own biases and prejudices, what you are doing is simply vile on two fronts.
@fucentarmal,
There are many people who are angry about people like you. For one, I am angry, appalled and disgusted that some of the residents of regent square–which I previously perceived to be a forward thinking neighborhood–would so adamantly oppose the construction of a public tree house in turtle park.
regardless,
I will tell you one thing, and thats that Amy is anything but angry.
She has handled this ordeal with the most care and understanding out of any of us. If you even took a minute to read her blog you would see that.
“That’s all I’ve ever wanted – to be positive, allow everyone to voice their opinions and to do what’s best for EVERYONE – and I mean that.”
–from her blog, callapitter
It is not your place to judge where Amy is with her stage of grief, and to say things so spitefully and without knowledge of who you are commenting on is absurd.
We are adults involved in this expansion, not kids throwing mud at each other in the schoolyard, so to speak.
A gift to the community should never be as ill-received as this and I am completely in shock that the neighbors who I grew up with would be so callous as to disrespect a memorial to two beautiful children and to refuse such a gorgeous gesture from Amy and all her supporters.
I also implore you to read the Pittsburgh Parks Conservatory Blog entry on the subject, as the Kate and Peter memorial tree-house is only a part of a larger project– “The concept is part of a larger effort to construct a new Environmental Center in Frick Park with supporting outdoor learning spaces throughout the park.”
The tree-house is described as being a subtle addition to the area which is meant to blend in with the surrounding environment and “…provide places to learn about nature in a playful setting.”
And in regards to your dedication to Henry Clay Frick, which is understandable to an extent, I may add that the addition of said tree-house would not cheapen or lessen the value of the preexisting monument, and wouldn’t even be that close to it.
If anything, the area looks more like a cemetery as it is now because hardly any children ever play in it as there is nothing of interest there! Is a patch of grass with a cement turtle on it really that sacred to you, anyway?
This is a chance to add a great addition to the park area that would allow all children to enjoy turtle park, while paying well-deserved respects to Kate and Peter.
I seriously don’t understand why residents have such a problem over all this considering how MUCH of frick park there is to walk your dog in and to avoid the sound of children playing… if that’s what you want, anyway.
how many people who oppose this addition actually go to to turtle park on a daily basis anyway? or at all?
Oh, God.
um, the park is fine, it doesn’t need gifts, especially in that part. if you want her gift to be well received, then perhaps another location, perhaps incorporated with the existing playground. as i stated, there is already a memorial on that site, and it is completely ignorant to think her children deserve a shiny new public memorial along side veterans of one of our great wars. i think when some one proposes such a thing, and is adamant, in the face of resistance, then it is time to question their motivations, if you don’t like anger and grief, how about arrogance?
her kids really weren’t all that special to all who didn’t know them, and again, many people die tragically, its sad, but it doesn’t supercede everything else history, the natural state frick park was meant to be preserved in, i don’t think you understand, i am against any further development of frick park.
i’m appalled and disgusted at how you have characterized the motivations of the people of regent square. i’m appalled that folks on your side attempt to act as if this is some sort of class war, put the drums down. have the playground anywhere that welcomes it, that doesn’t have to potential to annoy and offend people. you clearly don’t know enough about the people you are judging to draw any conclusions.
i’m sorry the area doesn’t look like frick vegas, and this displeases your sensibilities, but the memorial there, and perhaps the “empty” you describe it as, has meaning to people, are you so entirely narcissistic and arrogant that you can’t examine that side of the equation before you decide that of course what ever you want to do is needed,and wanted, when clearly you are being asked to consider otherwise?
“Oh, God” was right, Chris.
Meanwhile, over on That’s Church, somebody who favors the Treehouse just suggested that those who opposed it were creating conditions like unto Nazi Germany.
And a pro-Treehouse twitterer has suggested that Shields “has a hatred of dead children.”
@fucentarmal
You keep calling it a memorial of some kind
I do not think the mother and or family and friends will be visiting and leaving flowers and giant crosses like a roadside memorial you might see pop up after a accident on the parkway
from my understanding it will be a fully functional top of the line kids playground
which if you do care about any house in walking distance that is for sale or already has a family with children living in it..This is a big plus
If you have a problem with your neighborhood or the decline of it to the point where you are unhappy then that is a personal problem and i am sure any remax agent would love to
list it and you can get up and out of there
Stop hiding behind your long winded answers…Be Honest
To push your personal neighborhood issues on to a playground that is going to being built and funded privately for the children in the area to enjoy…That is just a shame
I truly think that you should be talking to Mr Shields about neighborhood issues if that is the problem
This is all so sad. Neighbors in Regent Square have the right to be informed about any projects in their area and this information is accessible to them through the internet and the upcoming meeting. Their concerns, whatever they may be, should be heard and decisions that support the best outcome for all involved should be made. In the meantime, personal attacks towards a woman who has done nothing but raise money to build and donate a playground are incredibly mean and certainly not necessary. Personal attacks aimed at anyone involved are certainly not necessary. Amy Ambrusko is a good person who up until last year, was raising two very good children. If you hate this idea of a free playground, and you don’t want it in your area, you have a right to your opinion. However, attacking her or suggesting what her children deserve or don’t deserve is ridiculous and irrelevant to the issue at hand. She has not attacked anyone and has not willfully attempted to hurt anyone. Those who are in favor of the tree-house and it’s location should keep their comments relevant to the issue at hand as well. Here’s hoping that we can all act like grown-ups, stick to the issues, and leave our mean spirited opinions at home.
That said, I just have to ask, does anyone really think that a tree-house designed to blend in with the existing environment in Frick Park will make Frick Park look like Vegas? Have you been to Vegas? Seen pictures? Comments like that are not helping your cause. Think about that.
ASF323, thanks VERY much for the well-reasoned comment. I think people on both sides of this issue have made some comments that are … well … not terribly helpful to their point of view. That was what I meant with that line about how there was a bit of tribalism going around.) It’d be great if people could actually discuss just the merits of this concept and its location.
Sorry, Chris, I’m not pro or anti-treehouse. I’m just amused by the rhetoric and foaming at the mouth from all sides.
What I actually tweeted was, “Evidently, Pittsburgh is aflame over city councilman Doug Shields’s hatred of dead children.” (Link to tweet: http://twitter.com/JustinKownacki/status/14783657794)
Why is sarcasm so easily interpreted as outrage these days? However, since everyone presumes their interpretation of the situation — and the commentary surrounding it, including unresearched tweets like mine — is “right,” our ability to discuss the issue like adults seems ever less likely.
@ Justin — Thanks for the clarification, and my apologies for misconstruing your intent. Not long ago, I wrote a story which cited a bit of research that said people are only able to evaluate the tone of e-mails (sarcastic vs. non-sarcastic) about half the time. I assume the same percentage holds for Tweets. I’ll certainly bear that in mind — and pass it along to the folks who brought your tweet to my attention. But it might be something worth thinking about when tweeting in the future.
I am also extremely disgusted that anyone would make comments about Ms. Armbrusko, her situation, or her children. I see both sides of the issue and have more familiarity with it beyond what has been reported on the internet. Both sides, with the exception of Ms. Armbrusko (who has been classy throughout), are guilty of being inflammatory and nasty here. Though I appreciate Ginny’s attempts to help with the situation, I think she has a tendency to rile people up — her readers, based on their comments (and I’ve followed her blog from the beginning) — can be very… well, intense. I think without fail Ginny’s heart is pretty much always in the right place, but I think too often her readers take what she says too far. That being said — you might not like her methods, but she gets things done.
So yes, @fucentarmal — leave the kids or their ‘worthiness’ for being memorialized out of this. It’s sick and low and is EXACTLY the kind of nastiness that started this ‘internet war’ in the first place.
Thanks, KMN8887. I appreciate your dropping by, and your thoughtful commentary.
Perhaps I haven’t paid as much attention to all of the comments as I should have… I was under the impression from reading Amy’s blog (I sincerly hope everyone has) was that she wasn’t upset with the RS folks opposing the Treehouse. She may not have understood the opposition, but she wasn’t angry. She just wanted a fair chance to voice the plans at the upcoming community meeting. The problem was Sheilds and/or his staff trying to pursuade and strong arm her into dropping the issue, not attending the public community meeting, and going away quietly.
Is is right for residents to voice their opinions and state reasons why they don’t want the Treehouse in its planned location? Absolutely!
Is is right for Amy to be able to attend that meeting, talk with the residents and come to some sore of resolution? You bet!
Is it right for Sheilds to bully Amy to quietly go away and change her plans without an opportunity for all sides to state their case? Hell to the no!
you can call it sick and low, but it doesn’t address the question. what have these kids done to be memorialized?
its sad they died, yes.
if there was a story saying, “its sad these kids died,” no one would argue.
wanting to erect a memorial to them, automatically raises the question of whether or not they are meritorious. that is the question being asked to the community at large.
its sick and low, and utterly disingenuous to try and cast the question you don’t want to answer, the question that is now relevant, we have moved past the issue of their death, why are these children worthy of a memorial? is this an appropriate honor? these questions have to be asked.
my sense is, there is a movement of (BLOGGERS UNITE!) lets show those so and sos we can do what we want, we can bully people into submission, all trying to use a grieving woman and two dead children most of you never even met.
don’t start questioning motives, your motives are suspect from the jump.
but lets look at what is wrong with this, bigger picture.
the original idea of frick park was that it should be maintained in its natural state…ah nature. the conservancy, and the hyperbodies can’t appreciate nature as it is, they must make it interactive, because for them, its not about nature, its about them, even when they go explore “nature” they want “nature” to be a reflection of them…
its a stupid idea, the whole lot of it, spend some money cleaning up the dog poop, keep the extraneous junk to a minimum and on the fringes of the park, stop encroaching on the wonderful peaceful illusion that park can create, of the area that surrounds the park, before it was developed into a city. that is how frick park remains special…
loading it up with dog toys and children’s toys doesn’t make it special, it makes more like the rest of people’s lives. from what i am seeing, these folks don’t need anything else remade in their image, or reflecting their lives, their egos are fairly in tact already.
let nature be nature, lets keep the link back to things that happened more than the last 10 years or so.
Wow – look at me late posting. I guess I just didn’t want fucentarmal to be at the top of the comments. That’s a ridiculous way for these comments to end.
Main Entry: 1me·mo·ri·al
Pronunciation: mə-ˈmȯr-ē-əl
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin memorialis, from memoria memory
Date: 14th century
1 : serving to preserve remembrance : commemorative
2 : of or relating to memory
Yes, raising the question is low and sick. Thank you for permitting me to say it. Also, merit is not necessarily a function of a memorial.. not that it even really matters.
Also – I just wanted to point out that all of posturing that the “bloggers” were going to bring pitch forks and burn witches at the meeting can now be seen for the ridiculous argument that it always was.