Collaboration of church and state? Congregation wants to purchase park from city of Ann Arbor to preserve and maintain
Matt Postiff, pastor of Fellowship Bible Church, is asking the city of Ann Arbor to consider his church's proposal to purchase Bader Park from the city. He said it would save the city money on maintenance and the church would preserve the area as a park.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Faced with a mounting budget deficit earlier this year, Ann Arbor officials explored the possibility of selling a handful of city parks to make some quick cash.
Mayor John Hieftje and the Ann Arbor City Council ultimately decided they weren't interested in short-term solutions to balancing the city's budget, and the idea came to a halt.
But on a list of 23 parks identified for possible sale was Bader Park, an obscure, 1.5-acre swath of green space off Provincial Drive, east of Arlington Boulevard.
The park is nestled in the backyard of Fellowship Bible Church, 2775 Bedford Road. And while it's used little by the general public, the park is an asset treasured by the 100-member congregation and the surrounding neighborhood.
Pastor Matt Postiff says his congregation worries the idea of the city selling parks could resurface in the future. So the church is now proposing to purchase the park from the city, and Postiff thinks he's found a way to make it work for both parties.
Postiff wrote in a letter to the city dated Sept. 15: "We propose that the city sell Bader Park to Fellowship Bible Church, with the condition that the church maintains a publicly accessible park on the same site for use that is typical of a city park."
The entrance to Bader Park is this small pathway located off of Provincial Drive in the Ann Arbor Hills neighborhood.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Benefits to the city, Postiff said, include a permanent park and green space in the Ann Arbor Hills neighborhood, zero ongoing maintenance and capital costs, and an immediate positive cash flow to the city from the sale. No price has yet been determined.
So what's in it for the church?
"The origin of the idea came when I saw that the city had kicked around the notion of selling some of the parks," Postiff said. "And so I said to myself, 'Well, do I really want to have someone else buying the land behind our church?'
"We want a park anyway because our kids use the park, so it seemed like a win-win for us with everybody involved, and the green space would stay here," he said.
But there's more to it than that. The church is housed inside the former Bader Elementary School, and currently uses the school gymnasium for its Sunday morning services.
Postiff said the church would like to expand someday and add an auditorium onto its building. The way the property lines are drawn now, he said, an expansion might slightly encroach on the boundary line that divides the church property and Bader Park.
"It would ease the setback requirements because there wouldn't be a hard property line here then," Postiff said during a tour of the site on Wednesday. "So we could kind of build up to what was the old park instead of having to be way off from it. That's an advantage for us."
Postiff has been communicating with Colin Smith, the city's parks and recreation manager. In a letter dated last week, Smith told Postiff thanks, but no thanks.
"Thank you for your proposal and interest in Bader Park," Smith wrote. "As indicated in your letter ... there was mention in the news regarding consideration of park land sale during the last budget process. Ultimately, this was not a direction that council directed the administrator and staff to explore further. As a result, the city is not interested in selling Bader Park."
But Hieftje said Wednesday he's intrigued by the church's idea.
"The city's not interested in selling any parks, but this is a pretty novel proposal, and I appreciate the effort that went into it," Hieftje said. "I'm sure the council and I, we might have a conversation about it. No one's ever made an offer before like this that I know of."
Hieftje said if the paperwork were done properly, and the church committed to preserving the land as a park, it may be worth taking the idea to city voters.
Council Member Stephen Kunselman, D-3rd Ward, said he was approached by the church and respectfully declined to help champion the sale.
Taking a guess at the value of the land, Kunselman said, even if the city were to get $50,000 to $100,000 for Bader Park, it would be a "drop in the bucket" in terms of the city's budget.
An overview of a portion of Bader Park. A Dumpster and some construction equipment were on site Wednesday as crews contracted by the city worked to install a new playscape.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
"The financial return to it is pretty minimal," he said.
Council Member Christopher Taylor, D-3rd Ward, said he doesn't see it happening.
"The purchase of city parkland would require a vote of the people and, for my part, I don't believe the residents are generally inclined to sell parkland," he said, adding a city charter amendment three years ago was put in place specifically to restrict the sale of parkland.
"People in Ann Arbor love their parkland, and even in the presence of good motives on the part of the purchaser, my belief is they would not generally be in favor of selling parkland," Taylor said, suggesting the church look in to the city's adopt-a-park program instead.
But Postiff said the church's ability to add onto its building would be lost by going that route.
"In our proposal, we committed to say, 'Look, we would buy the park, but we would keep it as a park, and we wouldn't build a Taj Mahal here or anything like that,'" he said.
The park, Postiff said on Wednesday, actually was first owned by the church.
"And the church leased it to the city to be used as a park," he said. "What happened over the years was there was a conflict between the pastor of the church and the city, in terms of restrictions of use on the park. So the city took the park, condemned it, paid the church a little bit of money, and I understand it went all the way up to the state Supreme Court. It was not voluntarily given to the city by the church."
Postiff said there may be another benefit to transferring ownership of the park back to the church. He said it has become a haven for teenagers, college students, and others who take advantage of the secluded nature of the property.
"Until 3 or 4 in the morning, these folks will have parties," he said, noting the church could make the park more secure and work to curb the problems.
Public access to Bader Park is now a narrow asphalt pathway off Provincial Drive that's easy to miss. The park includes a basketball court, bike racks, swings and picnic tables. On Wednesday, crews contracted by the city were at work installing a new playscape.
Ann Arbor has 160-plus parks covering more than 2,000 acres.
Jason Frenzel, the city's Natural Area Preservation volunteer and outreach coordinator, said the city's adopt-a-park program may be the way to go if the church is interested in helping the city maintain Bader Park.
"I would be astonished if something like that happened," he said of a sale. "I think the citizens of Ann Arbor are strong protectionists of their parks and green space."
Anyone interested in adopting a park in Ann Arbor can contact city adopt-a-park program coordinator Tina Roselle at 734-794-6627 or adopt-a-park@a2gov.org.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
Matt Postiff
Tue, Oct 19, 2010 : 12:54 p.m.
I want to thank the residents of Ann Arbor who commented on our proposal. Although some were not in support of our proposal, we are pleased to see 53% of the annarbor.com voters were favorable to it. To conclude, I thought I would add a few comments in response to earlier readers: 1. Our proposal is designed to head off the possibility of a future city council selling the park to a developer at a much higher profit than our proposal would bring. If access were widened to Provincial Dr., three homes could be put on that plot, which would bring in maybe $1 million in revenue from the sale, and thousands yearly from property taxes. This might become a more attractive option if the city budget continues to have problems. Instead of the extra money, we offer a restriction on use to keep a park space for the neighborhood, as well as for our church kids and the Ann Arbor Hills school that shares our building. 2. I was surprised to see some of the readers antipathy toward our proposal because of our religious affiliation. It is my belief that we can (and should) leave religion out of the conversation. We are a non-profit corporation which happens to have a religious purpose. We are not a very dangerous bunch of people :-). There is no religious test for land ownership or land purchase in the city of Ann Arbor, no matter how much anyone in particular may disagree with our personal beliefs. Someone might object that it was a religious belief that caused the previous trouble over the park. I would counter that was actually a secondary cause. The primary cause was essentially (perceived?) breach of contract. 3. I understand the argument of precedent in terms of selling park land. Of course, the citys use of eminent domain to obtain the park in the 1990s was arguably not a very good precedent. More to the point of the immediate situation, it would actually be a good precedent for a private group of citizens to buy a park, maintain it, and keep it open for public use. If the details could be worked out, it would be a good thing, not a bad thing. I believe there are many people who want green space and parks, but are not necessarily married to the idea of public ownership of lots of land, with the public expense that comes with it. 4. AlwaysLate asked me to address the allegation that I would scold children playing in the park on Sabbath. I simply would not do so, nor would anyone else in our church. Ill save space and not go into our beliefs on the Sabbath issue, but our belief is far different than you cannot play in a park on a Sunday. Id love to talk about this more if you want to get in touch (www.fbcaa.org). 5. I hope that readers will agree that there is no shady backroom dealing going on here. Our proposal is out in the open and we recognize that a vote of the citizens of Ann Arbor would be necessary to do this. Weve sincerely meant what we said. In the end, this would not be re-purposing park land. It would be keeping park land, and selling some additional benefits to a small group of private investors who are interested in doing civic good as well. Thanks again for taking the time to consider our idea.
salinebill
Mon, Oct 4, 2010 : 11:22 p.m.
I find it very interesting how so many people are opposed to selling Bader Park who never even knew it existed until this article. As for one reason A2 is in such financial hardship, here is a prime example from Council Member Stephen Kunselman's quote, "...even if the city were to get $50,000 to $100,000 for Bader Park, it would be a "drop in the bucket" in terms of the city's budget." I guess Mr. Kunselman plays the Lotto hoping for that big windfall. If the city found a few "drops in the bucket" like this, they would soon recoup millions to help the city's budget crisis.
onlytruth
Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 10:28 p.m.
"On Wednesday, crews contracted by the city were at work installing a new playscape." This is kind of strange. Isn't this work that the City's employees should be doing? I believe that the City's largest Union, AFSCME, has contract language to protect this from happening. I hope the Union does something about this. If work can be done by members of AFSCME, why is it being contracted out. Ryan Stanton do you know anything about this?
Missy
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 6:39 p.m.
Sounds reasonable to me, the city needs money, the church is willing to buy and maintain and keep green space and a park. Don't you think in Michigan's economic environment we should be thinking outside the box? Yes it would be a little dent, but we need lots of little dents in the budget now.
Speechless
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 8:26 p.m.
There's a convenient overlap of interests here. The church would like to acquire the park space so as to remove a legal obstacle to its plans for facility expansion. Meanwhile, there are likely some at city hall who would welcome the opportunity to bring forward a referendum to sell park land. If such a proposal can pass, the city will get some cash for the open space, along with reduced maintenance costs. Should it fail to win approval, then that failure might become the rallying point for promoting a local income tax, with the city possibly telling voters that the tradeoff for keeping all of its current park land will have to be the addition of a new revenue source. (Will mention here that I'm not inherently opposed to the city imposing an income tax. In order to be fair, though, it would need to be structured so that it would not be regressive for renters and low income earners.)
Elizabeth Nelson
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 8:07 p.m.
I don't attend church, not since I was a kid... and as a teenager, I remember churches being prime locations for hanging out late at night because they were DESERTED. I'm really not understanding how anyone concludes that the CHURCH would be interested in hyper-supervision of that space, dictating its use, or otherwise intruding on general enjoyment of it by others. Churches rely on the time volunteered by members and there's simply no way they're going to find the people (let alone the motivation) to watch that space in the way some folks here are warning about...
AA
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 7:06 p.m.
"@AA, I find your comments quite laughable." I do not see anything at all funny about selling MY City land to some religious entity. Perhaps we sell (sell out) to some believers of MY choice?
Bogie
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 4:40 p.m.
Let's see. The city leases the land off of the church. The city and church had a conflict. The city has the property condemned, so they can gain ownership again. Now the new pastor wants to buy it back, and the city says no? It's evident, that the church doesn't want a bunch of illegal partying going on until 4am, so what's the problem. Sell it back to the church (which, I don't know how the city got away with taking the property the 1st time), and end the illegal partying! Case closed.
David Briegel
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 4:32 p.m.
No way, no how! Why don't they just "adopt a park"?
leaguebus
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 4:16 p.m.
@RayA2, good comments. The problem with selling parks to an institution, is that an institution could/will change. The church is doing this now for all the right reasons, but what happens in ten or twenty years when the congregation is down to 25, or up to 2500? No matter what the agreement is now, the city will have to defend itself against the church and the agreement that was signed which might possibly end in buying the park back to maintain its space. Sorry, no use taking any chances that this scenario could come to pass. Just keep it on the books.
Macabre Sunset
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 3:31 p.m.
I'd rather it be sold to developers. At least they don't freeload off the taxpayers like churches. But, ultimately, I'm against parkland being sold at all. Maybe the city should stop buying land in the country instead. There's already plenty of greenspace in the country.
eb2010
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 2:49 p.m.
@AA, I find your comments quite laughable. You honestly think of a small, 100-member church that wants to purchase a one-acre parcel of land as "very very scary"? And in Ann Arbor!? Oh the horror. Last time I checked, there were hundreds of churches in this city, most of which help to make this a pleasent, safe, and family-friendly place to live. Let's stop making this about the church's beliefs or the unfair claim that they're going to suddenly kick eveyone out of the park who won't conform to their religion. That's ridiculous. If the city doesn't want to sell the land, fine. They have every right to deny that. But don't make up false accusations and rumors about something that hasn't happened and most likely won't happen if the sale DOES go through. I see no reason why this church won't take care of the property as promised and keep it as a nice park for families to visit. Period. And if, in some crazy twist, what you're accusing them of DOES happen, then go find another park to play in! Most people opposed to this have probably never heard of Bader Park and will never visit there anyway. This is a city of smart, educated people. Let's start acting like it.
a2momX3
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 1:54 p.m.
The MAIN REASON that the Church wants this parkland is so that it can expand. They tried to expand a few years ago, but do not have the setbacks required. All we have is their honor that they won't build a Taj Mahal. Not good enough for me. When they tried to expand years ago, the neighborhood was adamantly against it. Looks like a run around to me!
Ryan J. Stanton
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 1:54 p.m.
From Parks Manager Colin Smith: In regards to maintenance, Field Operations does not track costs on a per park basis. Maintenance that is performed at Bader on a regular basis includes mowing, trimming, and trash removal. On an as-needed basis playground equipment repairs and inspections occur, along with tree work. The cost of the new play structure, including demolition and installation is $25,138. Each year the City replaces approximately 4-5 playground structures throughout the neighborhood parks based on a number of factors. Bader was last replaced in 1993. The playground was chosen as parts of the structure were no longer repairable and were considered to be unsafe if not replaced. Replacement was recommended by maintenance staff that have playground safety inspection certification. As with all playground replacements, a public meeting seeking input was held on March 30, 2010. City Council approved the project on June 21, 2010, per resolution #R-10-206.
AA
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 1:38 p.m.
This is just a very bad idea. Mingling religion with city assets. It is really scary. I do not agree with this mans religious beliefs and do not want him in ANY position of authority over this piece of parkland or people that visit or use it. I do not like his prosletizing and/or admonishing others because they do not conform to his ideals. Again, a very scary, verrry slippery slope indeed. And this is the Ann Arbor we find ourselves in. SCARY.
treetowncartel
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 1:34 p.m.
Kind of ironic that they waited for the city to make the improvements to it before they made an offer.
eb2010
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 1:18 p.m.
I guess I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to this. This is a rarely-used, 1.5 acre park in the center of a residential area. I know that if I lived in that neighborhood, I would NOT want anyone, teens or otherwise, loitering there after dark. If this church wants to purchase this property, keep it as a park, and create a safer environment for the community, I am all for that. Especially if the City of AA is as cash-strapped as they claim. What's one small park in a city overflowing with them? I think, as the Pastor noted, that this would be a win-win situation for everyone. As for the claims that the church would go back on their word or somehow renig. on their promises, what basis are those claims made on? It seems to me that the church would also be benefitting from this. It would be a place for the kids to play, allow them a chance to expand (slightly) onto a small parcel of the land, and create a place for the community to enjoy -- something that I'm sure most area churches would welcome (as a way to bring more people through their doors). I hope city council changes their minds.
Epengar
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 12:29 p.m.
In case other readers are wondering where this park is (I was), the city website has a listing and maps of all city parks. Here is the listing, by park name: http://www.a2gov.org/government/communityservices/ParksandRecreation/parks/locations/Pages/ParkLocationA-B.aspx There is also a list organized by "feature" (basketball court, shelters, etc.) http://www.a2gov.org/government/communityservices/ParksandRecreation/parks/Features/Pages/ParkListingbyFeature.aspx Each park name in these listings goes to a page with a short description of the park and a downloadable map. Here is the page for Bader Park http://www.a2gov.org/government/communityservices/ParksandRecreation/parks/Features/Pages/Bader.aspx
Ryan J. Stanton
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 12:21 p.m.
Please note that I have added links in the story to PDF copies of (1) the church's proposal and (2) the parks manager's rejection letter to the church. I have a request in to the city asking for an estimate of the annual costs for maintaining Bader Park. I will share that information when the city responds.
treetowncartel
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 11:40 a.m.
Bader might be a good park for some of next years Punk Week festivities.
RayA2
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 11:27 a.m.
It is tragic that after so many generations of park building in Ann Arbor, our existing generations are unwilling to even maintain the parks we have. I say unwilling because so many have been convinced that the government is their enemy and a dollar given to any government is wasted. The stubborn refusal by the current citizenry to step up in difficult times to support what our ancestors placed such a high value on is very damning. I don't doubt the good intention so of the church but we have to take the long view here. Churches do not weather generational transition very well. Their finances have cycles that are far more severe than the city's. If the church buys the park, it will be their's to dispose of based on the church's needs alone.
treetowncartel
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 11:14 a.m.
If the church gets the land, they won't allow people there during school hours. Don't be fooled people. Leslie is right, they want to control what goes on there. One poster said the Church doesn't pay taxes, I am not sure that is correct. However, they may be running afoul of their non-profit status by becoming a landlord, unless that falls within their chritable purpose.
Leslie Morris
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 11:03 a.m.
Pastors and policies can change, as we have seen. There are ample opportunities now for aid to city parks, either financially or with volunteer labor, without changing ownership. The clear wish here is for private control of public property.
treetowncartel
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 10:59 a.m.
Teenagers hang out in parks and playgrounds afterhours? When did this start happening in our community? Completely unacceptable! Those Hooligans. Thanks for the info on the new playstructure. I forgott about Bader as a place to take my kids. I used to play hoop up in there when i was in elementary school, and I admit to loitering there afterdark as a teenager.
genericreg
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 10:43 a.m.
St. Francis use park as private playground, take over whole thing, leave toy. But pay no tax. Churches not using parks responsibly. This ugly, ugly dealing. NO church in charge of public land. No forever sale for one time tiny money. No promise with no enforcement as we see from last time promise. Thank you Matt for telling parties. I will attend.
Matt Postiff
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 9:58 a.m.
Dear Leslie, Thank you for your comments. I agree that the promise was not kept. The church was wrong in that regard. The spirit and letter of the agreement should have been observed. For that, I can offer no excuse. I do believe that the city could have enforced the contract through other means rather than invoking eminent domain. Of course, that was in the past, and as I said, Im not expert on all the details of that situation. Today, we welcome people to the church and to use the church property as an easy access to the park. About future use of the park, your comment and several others have shown legitimate concerns. Our proposal is very simple: the church will always maintain a park on the site. There will be no new rules for the parkwhatever the rules are now, they will remain the same. As far as I am aware, we have laid all the cards on the table (this is for you, SillyTree). Our proposal to the city lays out benefits for both parties. Not only would ownership change hands, but green space would be preserved, the school that uses our building would be assured a playground for the children, the church would have an easing of the existing property lines/setback requirements for potential future expansion, the city budget would get a boost, and future city expenditures on the park would be eliminated. Its a win-win collaboration from our perspective.
Matt Postiff
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 9:16 a.m.
Dear Rblaw and AlwaysLate, I saw your comments a few minutes ago and I am happy to respond. I too share your concerns of returning to what was before. While I am not conversant with all the details of the situation 20 years ago, I can say that I am not in agreement with how the situation was handled by either side. Addressing what you have said, I do not agree with the city using the power of eminent domain in this situation. I also do not agree with the church pastors rather rude approach. Im sure a more amicable compromise could have been crafted. Our present proposal represents such a mutually beneficial arrangement. With that said, I became the pastor in 2006 and have mended and continue to mend bridges with the neighborhood and the community. I think our immediate neighbors would agree that our relationship today is excellent. The congregation will always strive to maintain and build upon this good relationship. Furthermore, we see nothing at all un-Christian about children playing in the park any day of the week, so there is no call for any lectures. We have had no problems with the park besides the after-hours extra-curriculars mentioned in the article, and we expect that this good atmosphere will continue into the future.
Leslie Morris
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 9:09 a.m.
This is a dangerous and undesirable way to go. There is altogether too much talk of selling, leasing, and "repurposing" public parkland. Notice that one motive for this purchase would be to facilitate building expansion in a way that might encroach on the park. We should not be encouraging private control of public park property. There is ample opportunity for the church to take advantage of the "Adopt a Park" program to help with maintenance, development and rule enforcement without losing public control of the park. The original promise that the school playground would remain open to the public was not kept; that is why the city acquired the property by eminent domain.
Sonnet Meek
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 9:09 a.m.
Why is there no mention of the church's tenant, a preschool and primary school, Ann Arbor Hills Child Development Center in this article? The park is used by these school children 5 days a week. The school has been in this location for 23 years. You would think, as the primary users, they would have some stake in the redevelopment of this park.
jcj
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 9:03 a.m.
@rblaw "But the church pastor then would go into the park on Sundays and scold children for playing on the Sabbath. The City had to acquire the property through eminent domain to prevent the Sunday lectures." HOGWASH! When is the last time you even heard anyone complain about a church because their kids were playing on church property? Get real no need for the exaggerations! The city did NOT acquire the property "to prevent the Sunday lectures." I don't think the city should be getting rid of any parkland. But if anyone thinks the Fuller rd deal would be OK then they have no argument against this deal!
xmo
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 8:57 a.m.
Maybe the city should consider leasing all of the city parks to anybody who has the money for maintenance. Would anybody care if there was GOOGLE Park and it was leased to GOOGLE but open to the public. It could be a good source of revenue for the city and good for the companies wanting to do something for the city's residents
sbbuilder
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 8:54 a.m.
This is akin to farmland being sold for permanent protection in the form of the Greenbelt. It's just going it the other way 'round. Many of these farmers are cash strapped, but want to continue farming on the land. Well, the City is cash strapped, and needs to do something. I am very troubled by the attitude shown by councilman Kunselman. "Taking a guess at the value of the land, Kunselman said, even if the city were to get $50,000 to $100,000 for Bader Park, it would be a "drop in the bucket" in terms of the city's budget. "The financial return to it is pretty minimal," he said. Regardless of the issues surrounding the sale of parkland, every nickel and dime should be important to the council. The idea that 50k here or 100k there is of no importance belies a very cavalier attitude to the financial health of our City. If an accountant for a business had that attitude, he or she would be shown the door post haste.
LBH
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 8:49 a.m.
This is a unique situation and it could be a good thing for both parties. I am not sure why people insist that any time you make a decision which is outside the box, that you are setting a precedent and are then perched on the precipice of a slippery slope. It is like the Kindergarten gum for one, gum for all argument. Given the history of the park, go ahead and either sell it or find a way make a deal where by the church leases the park for 100 yrs and is allowed to proceed with their building project as though the land were theirs. If it were a lease situation, the lease could be revoked if the park fell into disrepair, etc. It is revenue neutral as far as taxes go, but there are maintenance costs associated with the park which would be eliminated and those funds could then be spent on other parks.
AlphaAlpha
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 8:43 a.m.
After-hours park activity? Perhaps the city does have too many assets to manage them effectively.
AlwaysLate
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 8:34 a.m.
@Pastor Postiff... Please address this allegation that you "...would go into the park on Sundays and scold children for playing on the Sabbath. The City had to acquire the property through eminent domain to prevent the Sunday lectures." If true, that kind of intolerance would seem to eliminate you from any consideration of you buying any parks within the city of Ann Arbor.
ordmad
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 8:31 a.m.
Bad idea unless the deal comes with about a million restrictions that flow with the deed that dictate what the church can and can't do as far as regulating conduct in the park, posting signage in the park, building in the park (I can see Monahan's zillion story cross now), conducting services in the park, and extending their new church onto park land. This is public space free of any religion other than that in the heads of those who walk through it. It should remain so.
katie
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 8:22 a.m.
We don't need anymore precedents of getting rid of park land. It's a slippery slope, first Fuller Rd., then a church, then a developer. No more precedents. Protect our parks, they are one of the things that makes Ann Arbor so desirable.
Elizabeth Nelson
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 8:14 a.m.
What town are people living in? I'm not aware of any church in THIS town where pastors run around scolding people out and about... that sounds like ancient history to me or the (already acknowledged) unique situation of a single pastor involved in conflict. That's not typical of the profession and it's especially not typical of religious leaders in ANN ARBOR.
SillyTree
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 7:52 a.m.
I am wondering why Matt did not address rblaws concerns. If the park were sold to the church, it would be the pastor's moral obligation to see to it that his beliefs were enforced in the park setting. While it is public land, he can only pray that people will do right, but he will now have a voice in what goes on in the park. I am not saying that is wrong. I am just saying that the way this is being sold here is that ownership is the only thing that will change. That just cannot be true and I would feel better if all the cards were on the table. Additionally, what was the cost of the new playscape? My understanding is that they are fairly expensive to purchase and install. I would be for this if I knew exactly what the new rules at the park would be.
Forever27
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 7:37 a.m.
As long as the church is willing to keep the park open to the public I'm ok with this. From what it seems, this is a community group that would like to take control of a public space to help preserve the space and relieve the city from the burden of maintaining the property. Part of what makes Ann Arbor special is the vast amount of park space. It is important to the citizens to maintain this standard, however it comes with a cost. Sometimes we can't afford everything we want/need and it is necessary to elicit help from other organizations. Like I said at the beginning of this comment, as long as the public is still able to have access to the park, this seems like a win/win.
AA
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 7:31 a.m.
Bad, very bad idea and precident for city land. It is a CITY park. We have paid and maintained it as so for decades. I do not want MY city property sold to a church. PERIOD.
blahblahblah
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 7:29 a.m.
What are the projected administrative costs of placing a vote on the ballot, such as city legal expenses, etc?
Elizabeth Nelson
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 7:24 a.m.
Most of the people commenting here, I suspect, have never lived next to a church and don't have a vested interest in significant green space next to their property. On my street, our property backs up to a grove of trees owned by Trinity Lutheran Church-- the neighbors and I joke that having that church next to us is the absolute best protection for maintaining our green 'view.' City park or church property, either way it's a gift to the neighbors to have park space stay out of the hands of developers. Big deal, this pastor got an idea that could potentially be convenient for both his church and the city... people seriously have a problem with this? I don't see how it's such a wild and crazy idea. And, truly, having a church at your doorstep is just about the best situation to have (e.g. a parking lot that's open most of the time for play, quiet with virtually no activity most of the week)... and if they take responsibility for the green space, even BETTER!
Matt Postiff
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 7:12 a.m.
Dear Zags, It is reading too much into the article to say I am biased against young people. Far from the truth! We welcome everyone to the church and to the park through our church property. Most of the activities of the young people are harmless. They do not affect the church much since we are not there when they are "taking advantage" of the space. At that point in the article, I'm actually advocating for the neighbors who have experienced loud disturbances late into the night, apparent drug dealing, and some other seemingly dangerous activity when the park is officially supposed to be closed. As for the tax issue, it is true that churches do not generally pay taxes. In that sense the proposal is revenue-neutral to the city since it gets no tax revenue from it now anyway. We actually do pay some taxes in our particular situation. The proposal offers other non-tax financial advantages to the city. Thanks for considering these additional factors.
AlphaAlpha
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 7:02 a.m.
Interesting idea. Whether it's right or wrong, realize the cost benefit is not just the ~$100,000+ the parcel would earn; the sale would also save the significant labor and material costs associated with mark maintenance, record keeping, etc, forever. At the huge average city employee cost of over $103,000 per year, the future cost avoidance will soon be much greater than the sale income is now.
Watcher
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 6:58 a.m.
Terrible idea. The public school system sold the church Bader School along with what is now the park. The sale was with the restriction that the playground area be preserved as a neighborhood park. But the church pastor then would go into the park on Sundays and scold children for playing on the Sabbath. The City had to acquire the property through eminent domain to prevent the Sunday lectures.
zags
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 6:38 a.m.
Right in the middle of the article the pastor admits that he is biased against "teenagers, college students, and others who take advantage of the secluded nature of the property." Those damn teenagers and college students seem to be the root of all evil in this city. And remind me: do churches pay property taxes? Thanks, but no thanks.
DennisP
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 6:12 a.m.
It's touching to see how the city council is so very protective of a small patch of city park land which it siezed using eminent domain years back. It's also heartening to see it's allegiance and dedication to the law by reminding us all that NO park land can be sold without the vote of the citizens. I mean if they wanted to be nefarious about it they could avoid a vote by doing something tricky like entering into a long-term lease with the U-M, uh, I mean church to turn over the property without having to go through a vote of the citizens. Nah, the city council would never go for that--they're dedicated to both the letter and spirit of the law. It and the mayor are so very protective of all park land here--especially big tracts of it like that one along Fuller Rd.--to use a ruse like that...
SMAIVE
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 5:57 a.m.
Interesting, in one area of the city, council is willing to lease parkland for a parking structure and in the another, it's unwilling to consider a permanent easement perserving a green space that would save money in the long run. Lovin the logic...