Tequesquite Community Garden

Comment

Comment by Jane Burkheimer 5 hours ago

In this Draft, here's a simple fix with a little trust, understanding and re-writing.

There is an underlying control issue between the City and the Gardeners that can be turned to a Win-Win for all by good communication between the two.   

Basically, if the city wants to "approve" the infrastructure, they must be willing to build and maintain them at their expense. These are the fixtures of fence and sub-ground irrigation, at least to some, agreed upon, main points. An example might be that if a main pipe blows, it would be the city that would be called and that would cover the repair expense.   

‘The Garden’ would have jurisdiction on any non-fixture items, such as hoses and near surface level piping.  With some common sense, if I break a sprinkler line and need to fix it  I would just do it and not have to seek approval, making it simple, efficient and cost effective for all. 

Fixture - something securely, and usually permanently, attached or appended, as to a house, apartment building, etc.: a light fixture; kitchen fixtures

Comment by David 8 hours ago

There is a national american community garden association which has some templates of fairly simple rules
http://communitygarden.org/learn/starting-a-community-garden.php

I would agree that the draft circulated seemed overly complex

Comment by Kevin Hauser 17 hours ago

My guess is that they found an existing policy in place and copied it.

 Should we form the 501C3 non-profit and put ourselves in a national group we will be able to also get liability coverage at a reduced cost; typically with the City of Riverside as an additional insured at $2 million, which is what they ask of any sports group.  This is the only insurance coverage we'd need, not for each individual. 

I think the phrase of clearly defining each plot with hardscape can be modified to be stakes, as that would indeed be costly. 

Comment by Jane Burkheimer 17 hours ago

I just read and made notes to the 'draft City Community Garden Policy'.

Was this created by our group, the 'Tequesquite Garden Rules and Regulations Discussion' group?                                                               Or was this a City Community Garden committee creation?

I'm just wondering because it is WAY too complicated and has landmines throughout that will be prohibitive and costly for ANY group of gardeners to reasonably comply with.

It requires City review and approval in several areas that just invite cronyism And unnecessary work and expense to the garden members.(4.2.2, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 etc.)

Here are Just two examples... the introduction nicely says each Community Garden "will have the freedom to establish its own specific garden policies and procedures" BUT then in 8.4 the draft has a list of very specific rules that "the Garden Committee is responsible for".  Because  item 8.5 covers these, I would suggest dumping 8.4, 9.1, except for the first sentence, and 9.4 etc. to allow each garden their own latitude and flexibility.

Number 18 is a deal killer. Even though each garden member has signed a liability waiver      (10.1, Appendix A is not given) it "requires that Community Gardens must provide insurance coverage for each of its members". (Appendix D is also not given).  Costly and unnecessary, even it could be found. Especially if I just want a 5X20 plot.      BE REAL!

This agreement needs to be simplified by half if we want Riverside community gardens to become a reality and not just talk.                     That stinky smell is not compost.

Jane

Comment by Chuck Chojnacki on April 24, 2012 at 1:42am

Urban gardens are popular in San Francisco, according to this article:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/23/MNOH1O6...

If demand for individual plots at Tequesquite Garden exceeds the supply, then community areas would best be minimized so individual plots can be increased in number.  Without a specific person responsible for the maintenance of a community area, these locations may be the least attractive. Best to begin with little or no community areas.

Comment by Kevin Hauser on March 31, 2012 at 7:23pm

IMG_0455.jpg

Update photo 3.22.12 Grade has been excavated 2 feet

Comment by Kevin Hauser on February 29, 2012 at 1:20am

Garden area progress photo 2/26/12- the RPU power pole is to be removed through the project.

Comment by Kevin Hauser on February 29, 2012 at 1:18am

Progress photo 2/26/12

Comment by David on February 26, 2012 at 7:37pm

What are the constraints as regards budget for these plans. I would think that would be an important consideration as looks like the implementation would cost quite a bit of money with irrigation and layout. Or has there been some understanding from the city or is it expected that plot holders will contribute either thru external funding or by themselves.

Comment by Chuck Chojnacki on November 16, 2011 at 10:24pm

David,

at this time there is no plan for the size of an individual plot. Virtually all features of the garden remain to be decided.  I am certain that we will have a communal composting area.  As for how the water will be paid for, I don't know, maybe Pat Silvestri or Justin Scott-Coe know the answer to this question. 

Rules for the garden are yet to be decided.  There is a group forming for this purpose.  And the rental rate for an individual plot: NONE at this time and I think this rate will continue.

The garden will have fencing, at least partially and probably the entire perimeter.  See you at the next meeting on November 30th and hopefully by the end of the meeting we will have answers to some of our questions.

Chuck Chojnacki

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page