No decision yet on North Annex future; NA-FC Parks Department wants Community Park to remain intactSound familiar? That's because we were discussing it on July 15: Is Floyd County seeking to develop up to 18 acres of Community Park? The discussion rather prematurely ended with this comment from Jeff Gillenwater.
... Ted Heavrin, president of the county council, said no decision has been made about the property’s future. He said the layout of the area will limit development.
“You can’t build under power lines ... they should know that,” Heavrin said of the parks board.
Heavrin said before anything is decided, all parties involved will have a meeting.
I appreciate your time, Don (Lopp), but that really doesn't answer my question. You mentioned that the original thought was to make 4-6 acres available but that preservationists requested an expansion to 18 acres.
Why? What is someone going to do with 18 acres that they couldn't do with 4-6? Is there an entity proposing something specific that requires more land? What thinking led to the expanded offering?
Given their abysmal communication record lately, it would be helpful for the public to know what's happening on the preservation front *before* any governmental commitments are made.
So, what's really happening? Give that wheel a spin, will ya?
5 comments:
In response to the question -
In terms of 6 acres vs. 18 acres, I can not direclty answer the question - that would be better directed to the historic preservation group advocating the redevelopment regarding why the need for the entire 18 acres.
In terms of the rationale behind expanding the acreage by the County, the commissioners and council decided to provide three options for the proposals - 6, 12, and 18 acres as way to gauge the actual need of projects.
In terms of the rationale, I suppose I must conclude from the bureaucratese that the council and commissioners, having concluded that parkland will be sold, are gauging the conceivable packages for such sales.
I sincerely thank Don for his responses, but I must note their funadmental evasiveness, which I suppose makes good sense given who signs his paychecks.
What we and the public would like to know is this: Are these elected officials determined to sell parkland?
I believe you are drawing the wrong conclusion regarding this process. In my opinion, this process is about considering all the possible options. I apologize for any percieved evaiseness and I can assure you it is not linked to the signatures on my check.
The real question here is - How does the County deal with a historic structure at the end of its useful life and will be more than likely vacant within the year, which is located adjacent to well used park setting, and where the financial resources for the government to restore or rehab itself are beyond its limited financial considerations?
If there is a different approach or alternatives, I am always open to listen and discuss...
The Annex occupies a very small part of up to 18 acres. The very best idea for these acres is the only one I'm not hearing: Keep them green ... and that's a direct result of the Philistine proclivities of the dudes who sign Don's check.
I appreciate the forum and the response regarding the alternative of keeping the frontage entirely green.
I would like to continue the dialouge if I could by asking your thoughts on the annex building.
Thanks for the discussion...
Sincerely
Don Lopp
Post a Comment