Greenway managers make the wrong move

Tyler Wilson, 5, of Pittsburgh is reflected in the water of a fountain on the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway in July.
Tyler Wilson, 5, of Pittsburgh is reflected in the water of a fountain on the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway in July.Jessica Rinaldi/The Boston Globe/File/Globe Staff

Conservancy should have thought of intangibles before dropping nonprofit

Re “Clean sweep at park: Kennedy Greenway managers cut ties with nonprofit employer of disabled” (Page A1, Oct. 7): I am sure that it was not a simple decision for the Greenway Conservancy to award the contract to maintain the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway to a new company, thus terminating its relationship with WORK Inc. and affecting a number of disabled people. However, the conservancy should have considered intangibles as part of its decision, in particular providing meaningful work for people who already struggle with an unemployment rate twice the overall rate.

We should encourage organizations, especially those that are recipients of public dollars, to provide an opportunity to those who need a helping hand the most. We need to remember that it’s just chance that puts people on one side or the other of the disabled line.


Let’s hope that these and other disabled workers find the meaningful work that we all deserve.

Edwin Andrews


Decision runs counter to Greenway’s mission to be ‘inclusive’

Jesse Brackenbury, executive director of the Greenway Conservancy, should be ashamed of himself. The recent decision no longer to contract with WORK Inc., and thus no longer to employ the disabled workers on the nonprofit’s staff, is not in keeping with the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway’s mission to create an “inclusive” public space. “Inclusive” should include the staff, and contractors, that keep the Greenway an inviting place to visit.

Putting people with disabilities out of work not only places them in a more vulnerable position, but it is also contrary to the Greenway’s mission of “raising the standard of excellence in urban park management.”

The conservancy could not see fit to allocate a fraction of 1 percent of its endowment to cover the difference between the for-profit low bidder from Kentucky and WORK Inc., which has devoted enormous energy and labor to keep the Greenway in tip-top shape?


The conservancy’s decision perpetuates the insensitivity in today’s world. The organization should be better. It should give the jobs back to those people who want, and need, those jobs to survive and be a part of our community.

Michael Weiner