Eric Gottlieb 
Member since Apr 5, 2015



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “A Compromised Greensward “Solution”

Scott, I welcome and respect your opinion, even when we disagree, as appears to be the case here.

3 likes, 11 dislikes
Posted by Eric Gottlieb on 06/22/2017 at 3:22 PM

Re: “A Compromised Greensward “Solution”

The Alliance did not appoint ourselves leader of anything. We're a coalition of the willing. We understand that CPOP and the Sierra Club prefer to do things their own way. That's fine with us, and we recognize your right to do that. I don't understand why you seem to think we are not entitled to the same freedoms as you.

As far as getting used goes, obviously we see things differently. Neither of us are political newcomers. Sometimes informed people reach different conclusions.

5 likes, 13 dislikes
Posted by Eric Gottlieb on 06/22/2017 at 2:28 PM

Re: “A Compromised Greensward “Solution”

Scott, there are lots of park supporters. They don't all read the political tea leaves the same way, and they all have a right to address this issue as they think best. No person or group has been elected to lead this movement, and none of us can tell the others what direction to go. Just because one group reaches different conclusions from another doesn't mean that anyone has co-opted anything.

4 likes, 15 dislikes
Posted by Eric Gottlieb on 06/22/2017 at 2:02 PM

Re: “A Compromised Greensward “Solution”

Scott, for the record, no one co-opted the Save the Greensward campaign.

4 likes, 14 dislikes
Posted by Eric Gottlieb on 06/22/2017 at 1:42 PM

Re: “A Compromised Greensward “Solution”

The author condescendingly misrepresents the compromise and the position and attitudes of the Overton Park Alliance, its members, and Mary Wilder in a number of ways. I won't enumerate them here, but his hypocritical objection that supporters of the compromise "deflate the efforts of others" in a column that is *explicitly intended to deflate the work of others* speaks volumes.

Ideally, park advocates could work together when we agree, and when we disagree, avoid engaging in circular firing squads. Sadly, some folks just can't seem to help themselves.

16 likes, 30 dislikes
Posted by Eric Gottlieb on 06/22/2017 at 8:20 AM

Re: “OPC Meets $1M Greensward Goal

Greenline user, I get how you feel. However, because a majority of the council is under the zoo's sway (I'll leave it to you to speculate why), this was the best achievable result. In fact, Chuck Brady, the CEO of the zoo, tried to get the compromise to fail. He offered to pay for the whole thing, provided he gets to build it his way. That means no restriping the zoo's lots for greater efficiency, and *all* 415 new spaces come out of the park.

It sucks that some space that is currently green will be paved. It sucks that the conservancy is having to pay half the cost of the zoo's new lot. But all of this is better than what would happen if the OPC had not raised the money.

5 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Eric Gottlieb on 06/13/2017 at 6:25 AM

Re: “Report: New Zoo Lot Would Take an Acre of Greensward

Good article. A couple of things:

1. to emphasize, the acre+ that will be lost is due solely to the 10x20 requirement and is *in addition to* the amount of greensward that will be lost because we are adding 415 spaces to the zoo's lot if those spaces were sized at 9 x 19, as the zoo's spaces currently are.

2. The 10 x 20 requirement adds hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of the project.

3. The agreement was that the zoo and the OPC would share in the cost of the project, not that it would be split evenly. The zoo gets between $3 and $4 million from the city each year, not counting special contributions for exhibits. The OPC gets $150 thousand from the city. It is not reasonable to expect the OPC to pay for the zoo's new lot.

4. An acre+ of pavement will contribute greatly to stormwater runoff in an area that is already prone to flooding.

5. The 10x20 requirement gets no additional spaces for the zoo. It will be a little easier for patrons to get in and out of their cars, but they'll have to walk further to get to the zoo entrance, often with little ones in tow.

This amendment is a bad idea on so many levels. Reducing the minimum space size to 9 x 18 is a no-brainer. If we can't make obvious good choices regarding simple matters like this one, I don't know how we can expect to do better on crime, poverty, education, or other such complicated issues.

19 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Eric Gottlieb on 01/09/2017 at 3:06 PM

All Comments »



Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
© 1996-2017

Contemporary Media
460 Tennessee Street, 2nd Floor | Memphis, TN 38103
Visit our other sites: Memphis Magazine | Memphis Parent | Inside Memphis Business
Powered by Foundation