July 31: Community Park, North Annex, development and the fog of political obfuscation.
July 15: "Is Floyd County seeking to develop up to 18 acres of Community Park?"
NAC appreciates his willingness to participate, and so I'm moving his most recent posting to the marquee in hopes of continuing the chat. First, I wrote this:
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.Don's response:
I appreciate the forum and the response regarding the alternative of keeping the frontage entirely green. I would like to continue the dialogue if I could by asking your thoughts on the annex building. Thanks for the discussion.Readers, what are your thoughts on the Annex building, and by extension, the topics considered in the ongoing Community Park thread?
The Annex building is historical--once upon a time it was the Floyd County poor farm (lest we forget what life was like before the social safety net that some in this country are so desperately trying to dismantle). That building should be preserved as the historical structure it is. I do not want to see it torn down to make way for development, and I absolutely do not want to see the 18 frontage acres of Community Park be sold to the highest bidder (or the lowest, as is so often the case with Floyd County). I don't know anyone who considers that green space as anything but part and parcel of the park, and I don't know anyone who want the county's park land sold to developers. Regardless of what our elected county leaders seem to think about balancing the county budget through parceling out Community Park, I suspect the vast majority of their constituents think otherwise. If these elected officials take seriously their mandate to *represent* their constituents, then it's time to ask us what we think. Hopefully the responses here will be the start of that...
ReplyDeleteBtw, Community Park will never be Sam Peden Park, my not-that-sincere apologies to Parks Dept officials (or was it elected county leaders?) who went on their renaming spree several years ago. Edwardsville Park should never have been renamed either; Gary Caven himself would not have wanted it as he specifically wanted a park for *Edwardsville*. How much money was wasted on new signage for all these renamed parks simply because someone woke up one morning and decided all the parks should be renamed?
I don't know enough about the condition of the annex to comment specifically on the building. The green space has absolutely got to stay. I don't even believe that a "water park" should go in Community Park. So much green would have to be paved for the extra parking.
ReplyDeleteMark,
ReplyDeleteMy dad spent the last seven years in an office in the building. While the problems with the building make it not very suitable for a shelter, he had no problems with it as an office.
He use to joke that when it first was announced that there was mold in the building that the other tenants use to complain to each other about how hard it was to breath in the building while they were outside on their smoke breaks.
Matt,
ReplyDeleteFigures. Thanks for the inside info. (no pun intended)
Mr. Lopp, as a citizen who frequently uses Sam Peden Community Park I would not object to the parks department selling the under-utilized 18 acres with a few exceptions.
ReplyDeleteFrist: If any property were to be sold, property of equal or greater area would need to be purchased to expand existing parks or for the purchase of a new park.
The 18 acres in question is underutilized by park patrons and only serves as green space. Green space is an essential element affecting the quality of life within our urban environment, and therefore, the quality of green space to be had is paramount.
Most patrons of Community Park must commute by car to use Sam Peden due to its geographic location relative to surrounding neighborhoods, but because of Community Park's size and amenities it is the most utilized Park. Increasing the size and amenities of existing smaller neighborhood parks would increase the quality of life for a greater segment of citizens without the need to drive.
As an example, I live very close to Bicknell Park, and in my opinion, it has to be the worst park in the New Albany Floyd County Parks Department even though it’s surrounded by neighborhoods. I personally would love to see Bicknell expanded north to Spring St. and south to Main St.
This would increase the quality and usability of Bicknell Park and would also be a great visual element for any visitors and citizens living near the park.
If expansion isn't possible another thought would be to add a new park west of the I-64 downtown. Prior to the construction of I-64 there once stood Liberty Park. The Parks Department should purchase the vacant land owned by Mr. Padgett and redevelop it into a new Liberty Park. It would be a great addition to visitors and citizen alike to see a beautiful park when they arrive into New Albany via the 64 ramp.
Second: If the 18 acres are to be sold, any new development should include and incorporate the use of the annex. The building alone is both historic and architecturally significant to be kept.
The development of the 18 acres of Community Park, if done thoughtfully and with respect to New Albany and Floyd County citizens, could increase the quality and economic vitality of the city and county beyond its current state.
I think that area is the watershed (look it up Mr. Lopp) for Falling Run Creek, as are Padgett's many poisoned and abandoned acres. Ideally, for the health of the poor people who live downstream, that 18 acres would be returned to native hardwood forest. In 50 years 18 acres of trees would sop up a lot of what will otherwise be storm water. Green Infrastructure I think it's called.
ReplyDeleteAdding trees in Floyd County? On purpose? In a park? How will we drive around them?
ReplyDeleteRememberCharlemagne,
ReplyDeleteAs a Parks Board member, I would like to make sure we a completely clear on one point in your post. No one on the Park Board wants to, or is interested in selling off any parks land for development of any kind. As a matter of fact, the Parks Board had no idea of this plan until another member received a copy of the request for proposals.
One other point I'd like to bring up. Mr. Heavrin mentioned in the Tribune article something to the fact like, the Parks Board should know better. That the land under the power lines can't be developed. We are VERY aware of that however, it was not the Parks Board who outlined the land under the powerlines as part of the developed area in the request for proposals. If you get a copy of the request, it clearly outlines this area as part of the are available for development.
Thanks again for your time and concern.
Point noted, sladuke. Can the area be developed or not?
ReplyDeleteRememberCharlemagne,
ReplyDeleteWell, since the County ownes the property that is Sam Peden Community Park, I assume if they want to sell it for development, there really isn't much anyone can do.
I do think it is funny how a couple of months ago when the topic of the Parks District Legislation was being kicked around. Everyone was pointing at the Parks Board as the "bad guy's" and the ones that wanted to sell property to have access to all of this money. We kept trying to say we don't want to sell any park property. Then when all of that dies down, the people who were pointing at the Parks Board as the ones who want to sell property are the ones now talking about selling and developing the property.
Thank You for your reply, I was aware that the parks department didn't want to sale the property and the actions were being directed by others
ReplyDeleteI don't see the conflict with selling the property if total acreage is maintained or increased via other parks.
And I point to my earlier comments that we have other parks that are dismal, embarrassing, and need redeveloping. If selling 18 acres of prime commercial property could benefit and help increase the quality of prime park property, that would benefit urban neighborhood, then I say go for it, but if the county what’s to sell the property for short term gain then no.
If we don’t find compromise between urban development and conservation then developers will continue to develop outside city limits. I have noticed many people in the city don’t want added development and at the same time want to criticize suburban sprawl. If we can’t reach a middle ground then we are no better than Congress.
And since you are on the parks board I have talked to others trying to promote the idea of a skyline park. Floyd County needs to have a park that people can go to and appreciate the beautiful skyline before it is too late.
ReplyDeleteGood post Karen B., a poor house may not represent our American dream, but it's reality, or was, and might be again. I don't know the history of the "Home", but it is part of our collective story, and odd that it's abandoned when most of the city was then slowly converted to section 8 housing. Maybe a small museum about the history of public housing? It's one of New Albany's most "successful" commercial areas.
ReplyDeleteRemChar,
ReplyDeleteHow about we keep that green space AND increase others. I have absolutely zero confidence that those who want to sell have any interest at all in a total increase of green space. Long term thinking by many elected officials around here means "planning for yesterday".
I'm no engineer but your idea of selling and increasing other areas may not work very well from a storm water perspective.
Mark, I would agree increasing green space is a good thing, but I know that you know there isn't the local money to do it.
ReplyDeleteSelling the 18 acres, not being used as quality park space, could generate the necessary revenue to increase quality park/green space.
And I understand that the ones wanting to sale aren't talking about being good stewards with the funds, and that's why it is important to find a good compromise.
I don't see how storm water would be affected negatively if other areas of green space are increased. Bicknell is a watershed as well.
I think parks need to be looked at as economic asset that can increase the quality in our more economically depressed and densely populated neighborhoods.
Looking at the big picture, the 18 acres can be used as an asset to expand needed tax base, keep development within city limits, and increase quantity and quality of our parks.
What evidence have you seen that a "good compromise" will ever be honored? We've both have seen more promises broken, dilly dallying, excuses given, etc than we can stand.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteI think the park district idea had/has merit. Part of the problem was the suddenness of the proposal at the state level. Also, there is a level of distrust, by some, with the State Rep. involved. Perhaps the level of distrust is a bit over blown at times but for him & his supporters to deny any responsibility for creating it is just as inaccurate.
I agree Mark, that the current environment for political compromise is lacking, even on the local level, but Mr. Lopp's attempt to communicate is a start. All I've heard and read is to develop or not to develop. Officials and citizen have more options than that, and all I can do is make suggestions that I think are objective and reasonable.
ReplyDeleteRemCha "And I understand that the ones wanting to sale aren't talking about being good stewards with the funds, and that's why it is important to find a good compromise."
ReplyDelete...that's why it's important to RESIST.
Jameson,
ReplyDeleteLike you, I really appreciate Mr. Lopp's participation in this discussion. My "resistance"(great, Gina)is not directed toward the planners, either city or county. It's the elected officials that set the course.
Why anyone wants to add more asphalt and/or concrete on sloping ground with just the hope of adding a couple of acres each to a few parcels to replace it, is beyond me. How many green spaces this big are left in NA? Darn few, if any.