In this corner … with tears in my eyes.

GOOD NEWS: Read an update here!

This isn’t the post I was planning to write about the developments with Kate and Peter’s Treehouse, but it is the one that recent events have warranted I write. Events that have enraged the normally calm and collected Amy, and events that, well, what’s a word STRONGER than “enraged?” Cause I’m THAT.

Stick with me to the end of this post, please, friends, and I hope I can count on you to stand in Amy’s corner with me as she gears up for a fight in the name of her dead children.

As you know, Amy Ambrusko writes the Callapitter blog in an effort to come to terms with the deaths of her two young children, Kate and Peter, who died one year ago in a car accident. Their father’s car left the road and went over an embankment when he had a seizure and by the time the police found the wreckage three hours or so later, Kate and Peter had died.

In the wake of their deaths, Amy has remained incredibly strong, yet human and vulnerable to the rollercoaster of emotions, bright spots, and outright terror she faces every single day as she does her best to function by putting one foot in front of the other. Taking one breath after another. Just keep swimming.

Not long after Kate and Peter died, Amy spoke with her father about memorializing her children in such a way as to do two things: give her some peace in knowing their memories would live on, and do it in a way that benefits OTHER children.

Kate and Peter loved Frick Park. It’s where Amy often took them to play. And 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. On what grounds? We still can’t fathom it.

In that email, Amy told me that a small contingent of residents opposing the treehouse had become quite vocal. A representative with the Parks Conservancy met with them to hear their concerns and told Amy that  she didn’t know if they would be able to fight them. 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?”


In that email, Amy wrote:

It never occurred to me that I might anger people by trying to build a playground. I thought I was trying to do something positive, and add something to not only their neighborhood, but the city of Pittsburgh – something that would benefit lots of people. I guess they see me as selfish. I never expected this. Especially not from Pittsburghers.

It never ever occurred to me either. When I read her email, I was livid. So livid. Shaking with rage. I emailed Mike to get him to calm me down. I emailed Amy all, “UNLEASH ME, PLEASE!”

But Amy kept a cool head.  She said no. Not yet. She said there was going to be a meeting of the Regent Square Civic Association on June 7 and that would be the proper place for the opponents to voice their concerns and for Amy and the treehouse designers to perhaps address those concerns and to show the residents what an awesome gift this would be for the children of Frick Park. I stayed leashed and promised Amy I would do what needed to be done to get some supporters to show up at that meeting and that I personally would be there, even though I don’t live in that area. That’s the post I was SUPPOSED to be writing today.

Asking you to come with me. To stand behind Amy and say, “At least LISTEN to the woman. Look at the money she’s raised! Look at this freaking awesome treehouse!”

Yet, today, I received an email from Amy and in the months that I’ve known her and have emailed with her. In the months that she’s suffered through the one year anniversary and a hellish Mother’s Day, she’s never shown anger. Never raged at the unfairness of life. Never said to me, “God. I’m so freaking pissed off right now.” She’s been through the anger stage and right now, she’s so level-headed when you can be damned sure if my children perished, I would nourish a deep-rooted anger at everyone and everything and it would fester and I would change and I would become an unbearable human being until the day I died with clenched fists and a scowl on my face. Amy just keeps swimming.

So you can imagine my surprise when I received an email from her today and the subject line was “OMG” and there was a word in that email that blinked at me like a check engine light … RAGE.

It was a short message and I was in tears by the end.

Amy spoke with Doug Shields’ office today. It seems this small but vocal group of opponents to the treehouse have somehow managed to get Doug Shields on their side. Doug Shields’ chief of staff told Amy that they are requesting she pull the proposed treehouse from that part of Frick Park and go put it somewhere else. In someone else’s backyard.

Brace your freaking selves, friends.

Said people don’t want it in their backyard and if everyone built a memorial in Frick Park it would look like a cemetery. When I said absolutely not, until everyone’s voices are heard, she said, ‘Do you really want your kids’ names to be part of this controversy?’

Doug Shields chief of staff went beyond the pale in being cruel and went so far as to play the You’ll Tarnish The Names of Your Dead Kids Card.

After I read her email, I begged again, “UNLEASH ME. PLEASE.”

And she did.

Hear me well.

Amy could never and will never be a disappointment to the memories of her dead children, even as she fights this callousness and cruelness. Can you imagine, you guys, for just one moment, what she’s been through? Wouldn’t you feel an almost unbearable desire to pay tribute to your children in a way that ensures their brief presence here on earth isn’t forgotten?

It’s why the park near my house has the David J. Nelson baseball field, and every time I go there, I look at his picture, and I’m reminded of how fleeting life can be.

It’s why there’s a special place in Oak Hollow Park dedicated to Staff Sergeant David Wieger. I’ve stood in that space and looked at his picture and paid my respects to him.

It is parents saying, “This was my child. I’ll never forget him. Please don’t you ever do it either.”

Amy isn’t asking for a free ride, or even an easy ride. She just wants the opportunity to state her case for the treehouse at the meeting, and Doug Shields’ office is trying to stand in her way.

I’ve taken on some fights in my five years as a blog writer, and if there’s one thing I learned from BRESMA, it is that if you fight for something you truly believe in, you can make a difference.

At this point, Amy is still on the agenda for the meeting on June 7, and if that remains true and if you agree that Amy should at least get to speak her case, then will you come with me? A physical show of support made up of Pittsburghers, TRUE FREAKING PITTSBURGHERS.  Anyone that wants this project canned or moved without at least giving Amy a chance, has hereby had their Pittsburgher Card revoked. A special session is planned for 6:00 p.m. at the Wilkins School Community Center.

As for Doug Shields, will you email or call him? Let him know you support Amy’s project at least to the point that you strongly object to their efforts to stand in her way to put a treehouse in Frick Park, the place Kate and Peter loved to play. That you object to their methods. That you object to their callousness. That Amy chose Pittsburgh as her haven as she endures every day without her children and that by God, we’re going to show her that wasn’t a mistake.

Show her what a true Pittsburgher is.

You can email Doug Shields’ office here or at

You can call his office here: 412-255-8965

And you can sure as effing hell tell him I sent you.

I’ll keep you posted.


  1. pam
    May 26, 2010 10:47 pm

    Composing and sending email as soon as I publish this.

  2. Michelle Smiles
    May 26, 2010 10:50 pm

    I don’t understand – what is the objection? I feel like there has to be a reason these people are objecting to a play area.

    Regardless, it is outrageous. I don’t live in the area anymore but I’ll ask some friends/family to speak up.

  3. Pingback: Well, hello there… |

  4. MbkMac
    May 26, 2010 11:04 pm

    I am hopeful that there can be some solution to getting a memorial in the park. I am so sorry for Amy’s loss and having such opposition to a positive idea.
    It saddens me to read the reply of Doug Shields.
    Sending my email.

  5. KGC
    May 26, 2010 11:16 pm

    Leadership. Doing what is right without question.

    Leadership (Pittsburgh style). “Maybe” doing the right thing after you, or you’re staff, is shown to be a jerk.

    I met Amy at Las Velas last November. We had dinner together (I was dining alone and she, her friend and Suzette [last name?] asked me to join them). I’m a 55-yo male. I still cry when I go to her blog. I tink I gave $$ last Fall, but just to make sure I’m going to Amy’s site and send $50. Now.

    Mr. Shields – If you’re chief of staff responded to Amy in the manner he/she is alledged to have without you specific authorization and knowledge, he/she should be gone. Now. No discussion. No negotiation.

    As an aside, it is Shields that looks like PeeWee Herman?

  6. CS
    May 26, 2010 11:31 pm

    A person named Judy Feldman identified herself as Doug Shields’ chief of staff in a comment over on Amy’s blog in case anyone wants to know.

    Um, she left a phone number in that comment as well:


    I am the Chief of Staff in Councilman Doug Shields’ office. I have received some good feedback from your friends and blog followers. I would love to discuss this opportunity with you further.

    Please call me at 412-255-8965 when you have a moment.

    Thank you,

    Judy Feldman”

    Amy has also recently posted an update and it sounds like things are going in a positive direction. Sounds like everyone will get their chance to be heard.

  7. cmcmcl
    May 26, 2010 11:35 pm

    sent a note to DS.
    i don’t understand — IS there a FB group for this project? I did a search and didn’t come up with one. Seems there SHOULD be.

  8. squarian
    May 27, 2010 1:01 am

    I live in Regent Sq, I know the people opposing this, and I and others have heard them state their case in public meetings in the neighborhood. Several have said the park is “overrun” with kids, as if children were a sort of vermin.

    Most of them act as if that edge of the park is their own private property. It’s a public vs private issue – they think they can use their connections and their wealth to treat a public park like their own private property.

    It’s obscene that a minority of privileged people should be able to pull strings with City Hall to deep-six a good and worthy project simply because they don’t want to share a public space near their homes with the children who will be paying for their medicare benefits in a decade or so.

  9. Wesley
    May 27, 2010 2:12 am

    I’ve read many of the postings here, and it feels appropriate to cite a line from Rumsfeld’s Rules:

    “‘Every government looking at the actions of another government and trying to explain them always exaggerates rationality and conspiracy, and underestimates incompetency and fortuity.’ — Silberman’s Law of Diplomacy, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Laurence Silberman”

    The project site appears to be in district 5, Councilman Shields’ district. East of the park, north of Forbes, east of Braddock Avenue and north of Biddle Avenue is district 9.

    It’s interesting to me that the meeting is being held outside the city limits. As regards residents’ concerns about “those people” coming and using “our parks,” there may be racial/class undertones, but there may also be a resentment of “freeloaders” from suburban municipalities who do not pay city taxes but want to come and use city facilities without making any direct contribution towards their upkeep. If I were a Wilkinsburg resident and taxpayer, I would not necessarily be too upset to know that playgrounds were in disrepair (as mentioned above) if I knew that I could use the City of Pittsburgh’s facilities a few blocks away any time I wanted without ever having to pay for them.

    I look forward to a lively meeting on June 7.

  10. Bitter
    May 27, 2010 2:23 am

    This is INFURIATING. I have no words right now.

  11. CP
    May 27, 2010 7:21 am

    Totally pissed off and saddened for Amy. Ginny- the email is sent (and I didn’t swear once, I’m so proud. LOL!)

  12. PittGal in WI
    May 27, 2010 7:32 am

    To #211- that was just what I was afraid of — a few people ruining something good for the majority. With Ginny’s update- I hope this all works out for the best for all involved.

  13. Pingback: The Thursday Reader « The Pittsburgh Reader

  14. Laurie
    May 27, 2010 9:22 am

    There is no greater pain than the loss of a child, no greater joy than a child’s laughter. I have known Doug Shields for over 20 years. Once an asshole, always an asshole. My voice will be heard, and I’ll pass this along.

  15. Loretta
    May 27, 2010 11:22 am

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I beieve Doug Sheilds was a huge supporter/friend of Bob O’Connor, the now deceased former Mayor of Pgh whose name now graces a PLAYGROUND at Colfax Elementary School in Squirrel Hill. I’d be interested in finding out if Doug thought it was politically prudent to attend the ribbon cutting for that groundbreaking or if he stayed away because naming after a dead person made the playground seem too much like a “cemetery.”

    I’m a Regent Square resident and I’ll be at the meeting.

  16. Tyler's aunt
    May 27, 2010 11:46 am

    My heart is broken….and I am now saying a prayer for these sweet babies and their mommy. Man, I have no clue how she copes. That said, wish I could be there, but I live in the south and I swear, I’d be in that meeting, kicking like a ninja. I’ll be listening a praying and hoping for a good outcome. This just isn’t right.

  17. Charlotte
    May 27, 2010 12:47 pm

    It looks as though Don’s email address is coming back undeliverable. Does anyone know where we can get more information regarding this situation. I can get people to call and write in, but it would be easier if I could write up a detailed summary.

    We’d like to circulate across the MOPS and Playgroups asking for people to support, attend, call or write.

  18. Kris
    May 27, 2010 1:10 pm

    I wanted to let you know that this story breaks my heart! not only did I send an email, but I also have sent a link to channel 4! let’s hope this will help!

  19. How Can You Mend A Broken Heart?
    May 27, 2010 4:31 pm

    OMG! These Frick Park posts are frickin’ awesome!!!

  20. Mike Reynolds
    May 27, 2010 6:11 pm

    Councilman Doug Shields has on multiple occasions been anti-child and anti-green and otherwise shown poor leadership. His regressive attitude, lack of proper management of his staff, and poor governance is a black eye for the City of Pittsburgh. It would be a miracle if this man will be able to find employment after his term ends, either in the private sector or as public official.

  21. Xena
    May 27, 2010 6:13 pm

    The post above that explains why some people might oppose a playground that could attract minorities and working-class kids has probably hit the nail on the head.

    I lived very near this section of the park and used to go out EVERY DAY in the summer to pick up litter in the area around Forbes and South Braddock. I used to run in the park but quit in fear of the roving packs of dogs being “walked” by their pack of owners in spite of the danger to walkers, runners, and small children. So there are REAL problems in and near the park that people pay no attention to. Shame on these folks. I’ll send an email but can’t make the meeting since I work that night. I will forward this post to others who live in the area who can attend.

  22. Chris
    May 27, 2010 6:15 pm

    A hatred of kids and actions to prevent them from having places for development and play is damaging the City’s image. Top City to Live In? Hardly. Sad.

  23. Xena
    May 27, 2010 6:19 pm

    One more thought: as a long-time city resident, I can certainly sympathize with city residents who get upset with suburbanites who use the facilities and don’t pay taxes. But that problem might better be solved with user fees for those who don’t live in the city; those fees could then pay college students to check for permits, etc., pick up litter, and generally supervise play areas. The city could also ask Swissvale, Edgewood, and Wilkinsburg to contribute to the upkeep of this area of Frick if these municipalities want their own residents to have access to this park. If the problem is non-city residents, then Doug Shields and his staff should get off their *sses and find a solution.

  24. Chris
    May 27, 2010 6:21 pm

    Regent Square’s recent reputation of blocking all things children is due to a small minority. The minority should NOT be allowed to dictate the terms to the rest of us in the neighborhood. First they blocked the school from allowing more children in the doors, and now this. This is not democratic, this is Nazi Germany, right in our neighborhood. Allow the place to be built for kids to play!

  25. bob
    May 27, 2010 6:23 pm

    Doug Shields is unfortunately not about solutions, nor has he ever been. The word escapes him. He has been usually about iron fist governance from his throne in recent years.

  26. Eric Williams
    May 27, 2010 6:49 pm

    “This is not democratic, this is Nazi Germany, right in our neighborhood.”

    Godwin’s Law FTW!

  27. Johnny Nmeumonic
    May 27, 2010 7:33 pm


    This sort of bs appointment will have much more impact on your life than this playground ya know?

  28. Charlotte
    May 27, 2010 7:36 pm

    I like the idea of picking a color and trying to have all supporters where it at the meeting. We’ve secured several residents to attend the June 7th meeting.

    Please post information so that we can visually show who is in support of this project.

  29. Virginia
    May 27, 2010 7:40 pm

    Johnny, there’s no need for you to name call.

    Secondly, see here:

    Thank you.

  30. Luke Steelerstahl
    May 27, 2010 7:53 pm

    I’ve heard there’s a World War I memorial already on that spot? I don’t know for sure, since even though I’m the mayor I don’t know where half the crap is in this City – but if this is true…

    …then the residents of Regent Square are right and Amy of Callapitter is wrong – her two children are not more important than the veterans of WWI

  31. Virginia
    May 27, 2010 8:11 pm


    Read this.

    Not a WWI memorial there.

    There’s a bench. Some trees. That’s it.

  32. MacS.
    May 27, 2010 8:15 pm

    Lukey if this is actually the case:

    1)Amy has been and is still right as she has been working with the Parks Conservancy all along and they know the sites of and protocol around standing memorials as they run the parks and inform Amy if this place was not appropriate.
    2)The residents have every right to go to the meeting and state this reason as well as all their other concerns NOT lean of Doug Shields to silence Amy.
    3)her two children are not more important than the veterans of WWI No one, including Amy ever said that…except Regent Square resident(s) on a local site today. I hope you have the cojones to show your face at the meeting and say comment to Amy and the community in person.

  33. MacS.
    May 27, 2010 8:18 pm

    AW crap – multitasking, comment SHOULD READ:

    Lukey if this is actually the case:
    1)Amy has been and is still right as she has been working with the Parks Conservancy all along and they know the sites of and protocol around standing memorials as they run the parks. They would inform Amy if this place was not appropriate.
    2)The residents have every right to go to the meeting and state this reason as well as all their other concerns – NOT lean on Doug Shields to silence Amy.

    3)Her two children are not more important than the veterans of WWI No one, including Amy, ever said that…except Regent Square resident(s) on a local site today. I hope you have the cojones to show your face at the community meeting and say that thoughtless comment to Amy (and the community) in person.

  34. Luke Steelerstahl
    May 27, 2010 8:31 pm

    The Parks Conservancy DOES NOT RUN THE PARKS

    The Department of PARKS & Recreation runs the parks. The Parks Conservancy is just some fundraising vehicle someone though of because the City doesn’t give enough money by itself to the parks.

    – but

    Like I said, I have no idea what’s there. I only know Frick Park from drinking at Ryan’s Pub across the street

  35. Jack-ImageX
    May 27, 2010 8:35 pm

    Maybe we could compromise and put up a memorial to one of Ravenstahl’s relatives and build the treehouse? I know that City Council gets pissed off unless they can waste some taxpayer funds and this solution meets the nepotism requirement for all city projects. I know this privately funded project stands against everything they’re for.

    Just a suggestion…

  36. MacS.
    May 27, 2010 8:36 pm

    My mistake, it doesn’t run them except for the fund raising and related oversight and project management – which would entail knowing something about monuments and memorials in said parks, correct?. I stand by the rest of my post.

  37. shari
    May 27, 2010 9:21 pm

    This makes me more than angry. I live in the North Hills, but I will be sending Mr. Shields and email. And I plan to post about this on my own blog, and alert every person I know about it.

    Has anyone called the media? Seriously, this is the sort of stuff they love. And Doug Shields hates it when the media gets in his face.

  38. Beau-Jacques
    May 27, 2010 9:24 pm

    I sent a CIVIL protest email to Shields.

    NO swearing here either!

    Just sayin….

    GAWWD I feel reformed!!!!!!!!!



  39. Sexy Jesus
    May 27, 2010 9:57 pm

    In a public hearing there is no way that these vocal, but anonymous protesters hare the stones to voice their opposition with Amy in attendance. Get the hearing, get the tree house.

  40. SteelCityPRide
    May 28, 2010 1:01 am

    XENA – Did you seriously just suggest people should have to BUY PERMITS to use a playground??

    Seriously? *blink* seriously?.

    Does your boss make you pay to use the bathroom when you have to pee at work?

    Should it cost more to sit down on the bus than it does to stand? Should a hall moniter be appointed to make sure people sitting down on the bus rather than standing have purchased the proper permits to do so?

    *blink* Seriously?

  41. Madeleine
    May 28, 2010 8:41 am

    I will be at the meeting on the 7th.

    I do not assume that the “vocal minority” are fun hating, misguided or bad people: I know how awful it has been for me to live within earshot of loud noises of any kind that begin early in the morning; how crappy it is to buy a house on a quiet, uncongested street and see it become impassable, unsafe or inconvenient.

    Still, the Treehouse is an amenity, and I am for it.

    Here is the text of my letter:

    Hello Doug,

    I live near, and am a frequent user of Frick Park. I love its lush, deep greens in summer, and its stark, vertical contrasts in winter. I love the off-leash dogs, the creeks, and I especially love that there is at least one spot in the park for almost any activity, including kid space and ball games.

    Amy Ambrusko wants to give the city, the RAD and families the gift of a tree house in honor and memory of her kids. There is no downside. Either help her to realize this project, or get out of the way.

  42. Jerry Maloney
    May 28, 2010 9:22 am

    Unless I’ve am mistaken about the location of this park, there is, in fact, a WWI memorial there, as seen on google maps.

  43. Scott
    May 28, 2010 9:34 am

    Looks like you made the PG this morning. And poor Dougie is crying about all of you emailing and calling him. hahahahaha

  44. Bert Bankovic
    May 28, 2010 10:20 am

    If I were Amy Ambrusko, I’m not sure how I would feel outside the obvious emotions. She may be thinking “go to hell” and that she now doesn’t even want the treehouse to go up there due to the opposition. In other words, not wanting it to go to a place that isn’t worthy and appreciative. I hope she reads all these support posts and allows us to all be involved in the support of getting it for her kids and ours. Don’t let the action of a few spoil the support of many.

  45. anonymous
    May 28, 2010 10:38 am

    Isn’t Frick Park named for a dead person? In order for it not to turn into a cemetary full of memorials, perhaps the name of it should be changed. Afterall, naming a park after a dead person makes it a big old memorial, right?

  46. Sixburger
    May 28, 2010 10:52 am

    I’ve got to ask, who the hell is this Barbara Hicks from the PG story this morning?

    “She also is worried that the playground might become a haven for drug users, noting that the site has drawn such activity in the past. “‘If you have a treehouse, what better place to hide the drugs,’ she said.”

    Obviously one of the old crotchety people who doesn’t have a firm grasp on reality. Poor old bat.

  47. Caryn W
    May 28, 2010 1:02 pm

    Wow – having grown up near Regent Square and Frick Park, I am both surprised and not surprised by the whole situation and many comments made here. There has long been a group in Regent Square that has problems with people using the park. While I acknowledge that parking is tight and traffic can be heavy in Regent Square generally, the people chose to live there in large part for three reasons (1) close commute to the city, including back road shortcuts, (2) Frick park and its amenities, and (3) the community feel – small business area, restaurants, etc. You cannot live in an area like that and not have others come to enjoy it which equals traffic and parking (not to mention it is a cut thru area for commuters). Many, many people in Regent Square understand and accept that reality, even embrace it, but some resent it and the impact it has on their lives. However, with all that said, my thoughts are:

    (1) Doug Shields and his staff handled this thoughtlessly and with lack of empathy and tack.
    (2) DOug Shields OR his staff were too easily influenced by a vocal minority without doing their homework. He can say Ginny didn’t call or email before posting, but it was his staff who reached out to Amy and did so in a callous manner without researching the project or its public support (I had heard about it months ago and not just from this blog – so where has he been??). Therefore, his STAFF started the firestorm – and he is answerable for his staff.
    (3) Perhaps the parking concerns could be addressed/met or maybe they are being exaggerated – all of that should be discussed at the meeting
    (4) no one should discourage a citizen from speaking at such a meeting,
    (5) from what I know of the project, it sounds promising and a wonderful addition to the park. After all, I have many fond memories of playing on the old fire engine that used to be in the park (until it was removed for safety reasons after I grew up)m, and
    (6) in response to Xena – your permit suggestion is misguided and unenforceable. ALL members of the public, regardless of location, should be free to use a park. Otherwise, only local New Yorkers would have free access to Central Park, you could not go to another community to use their small,locally funded parks, etc. Let’s think rationally here….

    – Good luck Amy!

  48. CIVIL-ization
    May 28, 2010 2:35 pm

    So the plan is to go to a meeting in a neighborhood 90% of you don’t live in so you can shout down residents of the neighborhood without even hearing their valid concerns. Are you bringing pitchforks and torches too?

    Did you ever stop to think there is probably a compromise to get the memorial and deal with the concerns of the people who are going to have to live next door to it?

    Councilmen Shields, who represents the people living in Regent Square and will be the ones directly affected by this change, not most of you, is doing his job in questioning and getting input from ALL sides.

    The people of Regent Square are like ANY other neighborhood, including yours. They simply want to make sure ANY project doesn’t degrade their neighborhood. There are at least TWO sides to every story and they are not, as our national politicians would have us believe, always black and white or good or evil.

    Someone mentioned in an early post this is not democratic….how right they are, no mob is ever democratic!

  49. USDog
    May 28, 2010 4:38 pm

    @ CIVIL-ization

    No, I do believe you have this wrong. I believe that people want to go and support Amy. I believe this is EXACTLY about hearing BOTH sides of proposal. I don’t believe there is anyone stating that there couldn’t be compromise… Oh except those in Regent Square who have already stated they are set in their opposition.

    Does “questioning and getting input from ALL sides” mean trying to convince Ms. Ambrusko to stop trying before there’s even a public forum to discuss the proposal?

    Don’t you get that this whole thing has been about getting a fair and open discussion about the proposed play area?

  50. john mcintire
    May 28, 2010 4:52 pm

    Sorry to be a contrarian. If there is opposition, why not just build it on private property? Does she have a back yard?
    I’m very sorry for her loss. But this controversy. would just seem to extend her grief unnecessarily.