Charter amendment for park land use would let residents have voice in its protection
Since I could not get on the list for citizen comments (on July 16), here's what I would have said: I applaud the initiative of Council members to put this proposal on the ballot in November and I look for your vote of approval.
The intent of acquiring park land is for our needs now and in the future. As we see development and expansion plans occurring within our city and university, it is even more critical to have THE best protection we can for our park land… whether acquired in the past or newly acquired.
This ballot proposal speaks to this issue: specifically to protect repurposing of park land by a council alone. Council has not had the will to protect our park land from non-park uses. When the voters approved the Charter Amendment Requiring Voter Approval of the Sale of City-Owned Land Acquired for or used as park land, no one thought that re-purposing and reassigning usage would be an issue.
It has been the activities and actions of Council that has brought the need for this ballot initiative to our attention. I am proud of our Council members who recognize that the intent of The City Charter Amendment of 2008 was to protect parks but that many activities like long-term leasing and reassigning usage have not lived up to that intent… and thus all of our parks deeded or acquired by our millages… are vulnerable to decisions made by a small number of people.
This is a small loophole to correct but has huge implications for our future. Although several City Council members find this unnecessary, the activities of Council show that the intent of the 2008 Charter Amendment has not been upheld. Any delay means Council is not on the side of recognizing that their activities have found a way around the 2008 Amendment so they can reassign usage of our parks at will.
I am certain the voters will recognize this need. I can only assume that any member of Council would like to be on the side of protecting park land and would be eager to fix this loophole.
Now is the time for the City Council to let the voters decide if they want their parks to be “re-purposed” for other uses.
Barbara Bach
Ward 2
Comments
Veracity
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 6:52 p.m.
Protecting parks for everyone is an important issue for Sally Hart Petersen, contender for Ward 2 City Council. She presented an amendment at the last City Council meeting (even though she is not a member yet) that would expand protection to include citizen vote for any attempt to lease park land long term or any effort to re-characterize park land. Though the amendment was tabled until it can be discussed by the Parks Advisory Council (PAC) the hope is that it will be attached to the ballot proposal. Since concern should be for preserving all our parks in Ann Arbor this issue is not confined to Huron Hills Golf course and Fuller Park in Ward 2. All city residents should express their concerns to their City Council members and encourage support for getting the proposal on ballot in November.
Veracity
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 4:14 a.m.
ERRATUM: In my comment above "Parks Advisory Council (PAC)" should read "Parks Advisory Commission (PAC)."
LXIX
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 4:15 p.m.
Does this superduper semantic amendment include all A2 city monies used for countywide greenbelt parks where only out-city governments have legal jurisdiction or is that park partnership's use also locked into this ironclad verbage?
Basic Bob
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 3:02 p.m.
A small train station in the middle of a vast park is a compatible use. Apparently no one has a problem leasing it to the hospital as a gravel parking lot. Frankly, there is no better place to build a train station in the city. This is one of the few good decisions by mayor and council, but people still vote for them.
Mick52
Mon, Aug 6, 2012 : 4:53 p.m.
I agree somewhat with both of you. I think Bob is correct that this may be the best place, but I think Stephen may be correct that this area is already very crowded with traffic for commuters in the am and pm. But I disagree with Stephen, I can think of no better place due to poor access. The area where the station is now does not have proper access for more traffic. The use of "park land" here is folly. There is not park value for this land south of Fuller Rd. The park is on the other side. No one uses it as a park and if so, where was the outcry when the parking lot was put in? A more appropriate complaint would have been loss of "green way" or whatever they call it. And finally I would prefer a commuter like train system for Ann Arbor commuters from all directions, than a so called "high speed" train from Detroit.
Stephen Landes
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 9:11 p.m.
Basic -- there are, in fact, much better places to put a new train station and I have personally advised members of Council and the AATA of just such a location. The push by the Mayor and his "gang" is inappropriate, doesn't meet the intent of the City Charter amendment, and inefficient because it actually draws more vehicle traffic into an already constricted area without easy access to major highways.
a2grateful
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 2:46 p.m.
Agree. Well stated, Ms. Bach!
Brad
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:41 p.m.
Again, if the mayor/council hadn't indicated their willingness to circumvent the original and plain will of the voters on the subject of parkland "repurposing" we wouldn't even be having this discussion. That's the real tragedy.
golfer
Sun, Aug 5, 2012 : 12:21 p.m.
very simple leave our parks alone. city council stay out of it. you have already mess up the crosswalks, bike paths and give more money to the art commission.