City of La Grange Recreation - Fayette County Texas
From RPTSWiki
Erich R. Lehmann - Assistant Director of Recreation for the City of La Grange, TX
Texas A&M Summer 2006 Internship
La Grange Recreation covers a broad spectrum of activities, programs, and parks, for all people of all ages. The two main acting facilities are the La Grange Recreation Center and the La Grange City Pool. There are 5 parks in our jurisdiction including: White Rock, Northside, Kruschel, Heritage Park & Library, The Fayette County Fairgrounds, and the Boat Ramp on the Colorado River.
I am a full-time employee for the City of La Grange as: Assistant Director of Recreation for the City, and Director of the Summer Entertainment Series.
I have 15 staff members that I supervise and work with on a daily basis. They are skilled life-guards, swimming instructors, and team players. As the Assistant Director of Recreation, I have many duties and responsibilities which include supervising these staff members and helping them to do their jobs more efficiently, safely, and in a timely fashion. In addition to the City Pool, the Entertainment Series, the Recreation Center, and our many programs, we are also in charge of 5 parks in the area:
La Grange City Parks
White Rock Park
16.5 acres with all areas accessible to people with disabilities, a .7 mile walking trail, 2 Little League Baseball Fields, Basketball Court, 8 Picnic Tables, Playground Area, Rope Swing, Soccer Field, Canoe Launch, Fishing Pier, and Restrooms.
Northside Park
Approximately 5 acres in size, with all areas accessible to people with disabilities, a fishing pier, boat ramp, volleyball court, 6 picnic tables, restrooms, and a primitive campground.
Kruschel Park
3.64 acres, with all areas accessible to people with disabilities, home to the City Pool, walking trails, 2 Little League fields, basketball court, 5 picnic tables, playground area, volleyball court, and swings.
Heritage Park & Library
1.27 acres, with all acres accessible to people with disabilites, playground, 5 picnic tables, gazebo, and home to the La Grange Public Library.
The Fayette County Fairgrounds
Approximately 120 acres, with all areas accessible to people with disabilites, 1 baseball field, 2 softball fields, primitive camping, Colorado River Access, wild life viewing and birding, rodeo arena, home to the Texas Czech Heratage and Cultural Center, home to the Sanford Schmid Amphitheater, and home to the Round-up Dance Hall and Pavillion.
The Boat Ramp on the Colorado River
Approximately 10 acres, with all areas accessible to people with disabilities, 5 picnic tables, portable restroom facilities, boat ramp, fishing pier, volleyball court, and bbq pits.
Fun Stuff to do in La Grange
Recreation & Leisure Programs
City Pool
La Grange Recreation Center
Summer Entertainment Series
Members of the Association
Links to related organizations and information
Chapter 3: Stakeholder Interests Erich R. Lehmann "To waste, to destroy our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed." - Theodore Roosevelt, Seventh Annual Message, December 3, 1907 "The Wilderness and the idea of wilderness is one of the permanent homes of the human spirit." - Joseph Wood Krutch (1893-1970), Today and All Its Yesterdays, 1958. STAKEHOLDERS
A stakeholder is a single person or a group of people that holds an interest or a stake in something. Stakeholders can be anybody in any organization that has reason to benefit or not to benefit in anyway from a certain situation that may or may not take place. In many cases, there are numerous stakeholders for even the simplest situation. It is important that readers understand that not all stakeholders in any one particular group might fully agree or disagree with all the "official" standings of their organization or there level of importance. Stakeholders all too commonly share a greater ideal with a certain group, but can still differ in their methods to attain their ultimate goal. For the benefit of the reader and simplicity, we acknowledge that not every person in any one particular group will agree to everything the organization might do or say, but shares in their ultimate goal. In addition, it is also understood that organizations are stakeholders in and of themselves. In this way, we will assume that the general goals of the whole can be used to differentiate certain stakeholders from others.
There are many different stakeholders for ANWR at many different levels. These stakeholders are classified into three main categories: local, national, and international stakeholders. Some stakeholders have a direct use when it comes to ANWR, and some have an indirect use. Each group of stakeholders holds fast to their core beliefs whether they are direct or indirect, local, national, or international. In this way, we will use these core beliefs in an attempt to accurately classify each group of stakeholders. It should be noted that there are numerous stakeholders and in no way can this chapter or this book contain them all; however, we do make note that many others do exist. LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS
There are numerous stakeholders in the local areas of ANWR such as native Alaskans and Eskimos. These stakeholders work for oil companies in Camden Bay, Point Barrow, and Prudhoe Bay platform locations. They derive their total livelihoods from the oil industry and are therefore direct users of this area. It is hard for some of them to find a good reason to protect ANWR, because it is much easier to look at the possibility of more income and higher job security if they open-up ANWR and drill it out for oil. Some of their benefits are based on economic purposes to sustain their way of life and their level of living standards. They view the opening of ANWR as a possible way to increase these standards. According to Patrick Crosetto, "an overwhelming majority of Eskimos, Alaskans and even Alaska's former Democratic Governor Tony Knowles [all local stakeholders] support drilling in ANWR," and rightfully so … the oil companies that employ these workers in the local fields pay high wages for even the lowliest job (Crosetto, 2005).
Other local stakeholders would include the citizens of Alaska. They, like the oil workers, share in having a direct economic benefit from opening ANWR. According to a 2000 Dittman research study, which was conducted in the month of February, 75% of Alaskans favored the opening of ANWR while 23% opposed opening the refuge. Currently, the citizens of the state receive an annual oil check from the drilling. Alaska is an "ownership state" which means that the citizens of Alaska own the natural resources within their state; hence, they receive an annual check. This is a huge incentive to open ANWR in that in theory, it would increase their personal oil revenue. Hence, the majority of these stakeholders also support the opening of ANWR (Limbacher, 2005).
The native Eskimo peoples are stakeholders as well. They are considered direct users of this area even though they do not actually live in the refuge. The local Inupiat Eskimo tribe, though they do not live and commune in ANWR itself as stated above, are still located very close to ANWR. In this way, due to open ecological boundaries on plants and animals, it can be argued that the native Eskimos have much more at stake with the opening of ANWR then the previous groups. These Inupiat Eskimos were surveyed in 1995 in a Dittman research survey, and it was found that 78% favored the opening of ANWR and 9% opposed opening the refuge. Their use of the land is not only their livelihood; it is their way of life, and most importantly, their survival. These native Eskimos hunt and fish the native wild life as sources of food, culture, and their spiritual wellbeing. They drink from the local rivers and watersheds that run all through the "North Country." However, many native Eskimos in the minority do not want to open ANWR. Some see it as a first step in the destruction of their way of life - all too similar to what happened to American Indian tribes in the lower continental United States, and the others see opening it as providing more jobs for themselves, like other local stakeholders (Limbacher, 2005). NATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS
There are just as many numerous stakeholders at the national level as also in the local level, and even some overlap in certain ways as well. One of the key stakeholders at the national level is the many tourists such as hunters, anglers, hikers, and birdwatchers that come from all across the United States that trek to Alaska every year to enjoy in their said recreational practices. Some of these stakeholders such as the hunters and anglers are in favor of opening up ANWR in that it could lead to the possibility of being able to also hunt and fish in this area. The hikers and birdwatchers are on the other side of this issue, and want to preserve ANWR for their said recreational purposes. Due to the open boundaries of ecological principles, hunters, anglers, hikers, and birdwatchers do in fact have a direct use of this area. Though they are not hunting, fishing, hiking, or bird watching directly in ANWR, they are around the border of ANWR, which affects the species that cross the sometimes blurred boundary that separates the two areas, similar to the blurred boundary that separates the ANWR oil drilling issue as well.
Other national stakeholders are many environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, the Environmental Protection Agency, or Help Save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (HSAR). These groups have many direct and indirect uses of ANWR. For example, these stakeholders favor keeping ANWR protected and keeping ANWR closed for many reasons. According to environmental ecologists, ANWR hosts a huge diversity of plant and animals species including millions of migratory birds. According to HSAR, ANWR contains "caribou, three species of bears (polar, grizzly, and black bears), wolves, Dall sheep, muskoxen, arctic and red foxes, wolverines, [and] many more" species (Appendix A). This group, as well as other Environmental groups, does not want to open ANWR in fear that it would hurt and alter these many species (HSAR, 2005). INTERNATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS
One of the most powerful and widely known international groups of stakeholders is the oil companies. There are many oil companies such as Conoco Phillips, Duke Energy International, Prisma Energy International, Exxon Mobile International, or Evertson Incorporated. These companies want direct uses of ANWR in order to drill it for oil and petroleum products to increase their profits. They see ANWR as an untapped resource that will increase their profits to new records and new horizons. It is claimed that "jobs will be created," there is "no negative impact to animals," and drilling will have a profitable "economic impact" on our economy. They claim with "modern drilling technology, they will only 'leave a footprint' of their actions." These groups are in stark conflict and opposition with Environmental groups (anwr.com, 2005).
Another International stakeholder would be Canada. Canada would be considered an indirect user because of the open boundaries of ecology. Canada should have a major stake at what would be allowed to occur in ANWR. If ANWR is opened, it might alter the environment in an area that could include sovereign Canadian territories. It would be prudent to include Canada simply because that is correct international etiquette. To make an educated guess, the Canadians would not be in favor of opening ANWR to do the potential hazardous environmental conditions that might occur.
ALLIANCES AND CONFLICT DIAGRAM Figure 1
All stakeholders in the ANWR predicament have much to say and much to bring to the tables of discussion and dialogue. This diagram (Figure 1) tries to clarify these embattled stakeholders, where they stand, how much power or influence they have, and the blurred lines of separation that plague each group. Though this diagram is a “one-shot frame” of a simplified depiction of the divisions within the ANWR debacle, the influence, and the separations are constantly shifting as are the times in which live. The “cookie-cutter” image we hear of left versus right is skewed to say the least, and is not so simply the case. It is difficult to say what the future holds for this frozen desert – jewel of Alaska – this untapped oil-rich land – this final frontier of “virgin country.” The question you have to ask yourself is, where will you stand, and can you stand there for long?
alsdkfjalskfjaslkfjaslfjaslfkjaldfja;lskjfa;slkjfalsjfla;jf;alsjfa;ljfa;sljkfas;lkfjaslfjaslfkja;lf aslfjaslfja;lsfjal;sfj;alsjf;lajf aslfja;lfjasljflajflaskjfl;aksjf;lajf;lajflaskjfa;lifuqeerfnadlkjgheqkadjng;qlithas aslfjalskfja;lfja;lsfdja;slkjfas;lfkjas;ldkfjadlkfjas;lkfja;lskfja;lkfja;slfj
- aljf;alsfja;lskfja;lfja;lsfj;aljfalkjf;alfkjalskjfa;lsfja
a;lfja;slkdfja;lskfjalksfja;lkfjas;lkfjas;lfkja;flja;flkja;lfkjal;sdjf;laksjf;laskjf;aslkjfa;lsj
Another International stakeholder would be Canada. Canada would be considered an indirect user because of the open boundaries of ecology. Canada should have a major stake at what would be allowed to occur in ANWR. If ANWR is opened, it might alter the environment in an area that could include sovereign Canadian territories. It would be prudent to include Canada simply because that is correct international etiquette. To make an educated guess, the Canadians would not be in favor of opening ANWR to do the potential hazardous environmental conditions that might occur.
ALLIANCES AND CONFLICT DIAGRAM Figure 1
All stakeholders in the ANWR predicament have much to say and much to bring to the tables of discussion and dialogue. This diagram (Figure 1) tries to clarify these embattled stakeholders, where they stand, how much power or influence they have, and the blurred lines of separation that plague each group. Though this diagram is a “one-shot frame” of a simplified depiction of the divisions within the ANWR debacle, the influence, and the separations are constantly shifting as are the times in which live. The “cookie-cutter” image we hear of left versus right is skewed to say the least, and is not so simply the case. It is difficult to say what the future holds for this frozen desert – jewel of Alaska – this untapped oil-rich land – this final frontier of “virgin country.” The question you have to ask yourself is, where will you stand, and can you stand there for long?
alsdkfjalskfjaslkfjaslfjaslfkjaldfja;lskjfa;slkjfalsjfla;jf;alsjfa;ljfa;sljkfas;lkfjaslfjaslfkja;lf aslfjaslfja;lsfjal;sfj;alsjf;lajf aslfja;lfjasljflajflaskjfl;aksjf;lajf;lajflaskjfa;lifuqeerfnadlkjgheqkadjng;qlithas aslfjalskfja;lfja;lsfdja;slkjfas;lfkjas;ldkfjadlkfjas;lkfja;lskfja;lkfja;slfj
- aljf;alsfja;lskfja;lfja;lsfj;aljfalkjf;alfkjalskjfa;lsfja
a;lfja;slkdfja;lskfjalksfja;lkfjas;lkfjas;lfkja;flja;flkja;lfkjal;sdjf;laksjf;laskjf;aslkjfa;lsj
All stakeholders in the ANWR predicament have much to say and much to bring to the tables of discussion and dialogue. This diagram (Figure 1) tries to clarify these embattled stakeholders, where they stand, how much power or influence they have, and the blurred lines of separation that plague each group. Though this diagram is a “one-shot frame” of a simplified depiction of the divisions within the ANWR debacle, the influence, and the separations are constantly shifting as are the times in which live. The “cookie-cutter” image we hear of left versus right is skewed to say the least, and is not so simply the case. It is difficult to say what the future holds for this frozen desert – jewel of Alaska – this untapped oil-rich land – this final frontier of “virgin country.” The question you have to ask yourself is, where will you stand, and can you stand there for long?
alsdkfjalskfjaslkfjaslfjaslfkjaldfja;lskjfa;slkjfalsjfla;jf;alsjfa;ljfa;sljkfas;lkfjaslfjaslfkja;lf aslfjaslfja;lsfjal;sfj;alsjf;lajf aslfja;lfjasljflajflaskjfl;aksjf;lajf;lajflaskjfa;lifuqeerfnadlkjgheqkadjng;qlithas aslfjalskfja;lfja;lsfdja;slkjfas;lfkjas;ldkfjadlkfjas;lkfja;lskfja;lkfja;slfj
- aljf;alsfja;lskfja;lfja;lsfj;aljfalkjf;alfkjalskjfa;lsfja
a;lfja;slkdfja;lskfjalksfja;lkfjas;lkfjas;lfkja;flja;flkja;lfkjal;sdjf;laksjf;laskjf;aslkjfa;lsj
All stakeholders in the ANWR predicament have much to say and much to bring to the tables of discussion and dialogue. This diagram (Figure 1) tries to clarify these embattled stakeholders, where they stand, how much power or influence they have, and the blurred lines of separation that plague each group. Though this diagram is a “one-shot frame” of a simplified depiction of the divisions within the ANWR debacle, the influence, and the separations are constantly shifting as are the times in which live. The “cookie-cutter” image we hear of left versus right is skewed to say the least, and is not so simply the case. It is difficult to say what the future holds for this frozen desert – jewel of Alaska – this untapped oil-rich land – this final frontier of “virgin country.” The question you have to ask yourself is, where will you stand, and can you stand there for long?
alsdkfjalskfjaslkfjaslfjaslfkjaldfja;lskjfa;slkjfalsjfla;jf;alsjfa;ljfa;sljkfas;lkfjaslfjaslfkja;lf aslfjaslfja;lsfjal;sfj;alsjf;lajf aslfja;lfjasljflajflaskjfl;aksjf;lajf;lajflaskjfa;lifuqeerfnadlkjgheqkadjng;qlithas aslfjalskfja;lfja;lsfdja;slkjfas;lfkjas;ldkfjadlkfjas;lkfja;lskfja;lkfja;slfj
- aljf;alsfja;lskfja;lfja;lsfj;aljfalkjf;alfkjalskjfa;lsfja
a;lfja;slkdfja;lskfjalksfja;lkfjas;lkfjas;lfkja;flja;flkja;lfkjal;sdjf;laksjf;laskjf;aslkjfa;lsj
All stakeholders in the ANWR predicament have much to say and much to bring to the tables of discussion and dialogue. This diagram (Figure 1) tries to clarify these embattled stakeholders, where they stand, how much power or influence they have, and the blurred lines of separation that plague each group. Though this diagram is a “one-shot frame” of a simplified depiction of the divisions within the ANWR debacle, the influence, and the separations are constantly shifting as are the times in which live. The “cookie-cutter” image we hear of left versus right is skewed to say the least, and is not so simply the case. It is difficult to say what the future holds for this frozen desert – jewel of Alaska – this untapped oil-rich land – this final frontier of “virgin country.” The question you have to ask yourself is, where will you stand, and can you stand there for long?
alsdkfjalskfjaslkfjaslfjaslfkjaldfja;lskjfa;slkjfalsjfla;jf;alsjfa;ljfa;sljkfas;lkfjaslfjaslfkja;lf aslfjaslfja;lsfjal;sfj;alsjf;lajf aslfja;lfjasljflajflaskjfl;aksjf;lajf;lajflaskjfa;lifuqeerfnadlkjgheqkadjng;qlithas aslfjalskfja;lfja;lsfdja;slkjfas;lfkjas;ldkfjadlkfjas;lkfja;lskfja;lkfja;slfj
- aljf;alsfja;lskfja;lfja;lsfj;aljfalkjf;alfkjalskjfa;lsfja
a;lfja;slkdfja;lskfjalksfja;lkfjas;lkfjas;lfkja;flja;flkja;lfkjal;sdjf;laksjf;laskjf;aslkjfa;lsj
