Jump to content

Should portion of Garfield Park go to the Salvation Army

GRDadof3

By GRDadof3
in Grand Rapids

Ray Kroc Community Center  

49 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the city sell a portion of Garfield Park for a new Community Center

    • Yes
      29
    • No
      20

Recommended Posts

foo_gr Unincorporated Area

foo_gr

Posted
Posted

Wow, didn't realize that Garfield Park had such a strong neighborhood association. Great for you guys. Hope you can influence the commission into keeping it a park and not selling a part of it off. Development will come and go, but when greenspace goes, it is gone forever.

Well, the guys from the Garfield Park Neighborhood Association have supported the sale of the park in public meetings, and in their replies to people from the neighborhood who have emailed them. It is ironic, and a bit sad, because, as I understand it, the GPNA was formed to save Burton Woods (now the Garfield Nature Center) when the city wanted to develop it for low income housing.

I do wish we were hearing more from the rest of the city, though, because the park belongs to all of the people in the City of Grand Rapids.

One other point that is interesting is that, in the 2002 Master Plan, one of the priorities is to preserve and maintain existing park land, while adding more public civic space. The Master Plan is supposed to reflect the priorities of the city, as set by all of the citizens, so I'm not sure how the city managers are justifying this proposed sale, because it doesn't do either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply
GRCentro Hamlet

GRCentro

Posted
Posted

Just looking at the animation of the size of the park once the center is put in is mind-blowing! No way should this be done.

The animation is a little misleading. The proposed sale is not at the Madison-Burton corner and the "red box" shown is not the proposed building footprint, but rather an approximate total land area including a full soccer field, outdoor basketball courts, etc...

Renew Garfield Park provides some good site plan comparisons.

The amount of true green space "lost" is very minimal. And the only current park functions I can think of that would change are perhaps part of the frisbee golf course and the little tee-ball diamond, which would be replaced by the soccer field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
foo_gr Unincorporated Area

foo_gr

Posted
Posted

Yes, that was the image that the Grand Rapids press put out. I think it was the first graphic available. You'll notice that under that image, they have a link to the actual site plan. You can see it here: http://www.savegarfieldpark.com/siteplan.asp

I heard that renew garfield park site is owned by a guy who has a few houses in the general area, too. I thought I read on that site that he expected his property values to go up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twoshort Town

twoshort

Posted
Posted

The animation is a little misleading. The proposed sale is not at the Madison-Burton corner and the "red box" shown is not the proposed building footprint, but rather an approximate total land area including a full soccer field, outdoor basketball courts, etc...

WOW. :rofl: A little misleading? That's REALLY misleading. tsk.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twoshort Town

twoshort

Posted
Posted

That is approximately the size of the park land that will be sold to the Salvation Army, if not the exact location.

I understand the representation, but the difference between that and the actual site plan is night and day. Unless i'm missing something.

EDIT: I was missing something. I thought that big green soccer field was still park property. My bad. While ithink the 'red box' diagram is misleading, that is a HUGE chunk they're asking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRCentro Hamlet

GRCentro

Posted
Posted

I thought that big green soccer field was still park property. My bad. While ithink the 'red box' diagram is misleading, that is a HUGE chunk they're asking for.

Agreed. Even though I think this project should (and will) go through, I'd be a lot more comfortable with it if they bought only the land for the building foot print and left the soccer field and surrounding space public. (Although I can't imagine the Salvation Army would set up 'no tresspassing' signs and chase away the teams who play there on summer evenings.)

Also, I think the building's proposed location on the site is very good for minimalizing "lost" green space. It sits largely over the footprint of the current facility and the muddy gravel parking lot immediately south.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
foo_gr Unincorporated Area

foo_gr

Posted
Posted

Big meeting tomorrow between the Salvation Army, City, and neighbors. They had to move the meeting location due to expected attendance, I heard. www.SaveGarfieldPark.com, in case anyone is interested.

Seems like there would be a lot more outcry over a park sale. By law, cities can sell parks or cemetaries w/out a citizen vote, but apparently our city is trying to get around that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nitro Burg

Nitro

Posted
Posted

Can any good come from this development?

Yes it can, the question becomes at what expense? The Salvation Army has been endowed with a very wonderful gift. How often will a gift like what the Kroc's gave come to us? My guess is not very often.

However, when a piece of land is given to the city as a gift from a donor with the stipulation that it remain park land, there lies a problem. Not mention the fact that we really can't afford to loose any more greenspace then we already have.

I have a real issue with the notion of taking from the whole for the benefit of a few. It isn't just this issue the new eminant domain laws irk me as well. If the facility was open and welcome to all I would have to say it would be in the spirit of the gift from the land donors.

If you have to pay to play.....then no way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
foo_gr Unincorporated Area

foo_gr

Posted
Posted

http://www.savegarfieldpark.com/deeds/deeds.asp

I feel that the deeds are very specific (as well as pretty good reading, if you are into GR history). It seems shameful that we should not honor such a well thought-out gift, from such a prominent and important historical family.

Not sure if I said this before, but who can't think of a place in GR that could use a 15 million dollar investment, that is not a park? I favor the old South Field, which is currently being used as a 10 acre drainage ditch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paris Texas Whistle-Stop

Paris Texas

Posted
Posted

Can any good come from this development?

Certainly some good could come from it, but I am not in favor of it. First the ice rink, then the pools, now the actual land? I'm all for progress and creative solutions to problems, but the park is not the problem and it is not the solution to the City's problems. I think the neighbors around Martin Luther King Park would feel the same way if the City wanted to sell off a portion of it. The youth in the neighborhood won't benefit from office space or parking space. If they want the property, why not refurbish it and rent it to them? A little more parking would not greatly alter the landscape and could be helpful for everyone else that uses the park so that'd be okay. But there are other places the Army could build (seminary, Brookside, Division Ave?). I think the real good that can come from this issue is looking at the City and figuring out why park money is always disappearing and what can be done about it. And not letting them sell off any portion of the park, particularly one that was deeded to them as a gift to its citizens. Maybe a new tax (zut alors!) specifically to maintain the parks would help. I think the neighbors of Garfield Park would be willing to pay something to maintain the park because they do use it and they don't begrudge anyone else using it and it would probably even help property values. Maybe people are wrong to expect the City to do everything. Maybe there is more they can do on their own. Lastly, I'm not a bleeding heart, but I believe a good game of mancala with a park "ranger" would do much more for a kid than having to pay to climb on a wall inside the Salvation Army. Or maybe I am a bleeding heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRguy Hamlet

GRguy

Posted
Posted

I just have to add that I don't think having a house of worship in the project is appropriate> The city is essentially turning this over to a religious group that has in the past discriminated and used their "we are a church" excuse to get away with it. I don't throw change in the red pot because they discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rizzo City

Rizzo

Posted
Posted

Interesting point. You would think that the inclusiveness of Chirstianity would have shown through this development. Why the membership, why private? How stupid to take public land and place it into the hands of a few. I think if it were public then maybe I would say yes, but now I'm no on this. I don't live near Garfield Park, so I don't think my opinion is valid here anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nexpark Crossroads

nexpark

Posted
Posted

I am the creator of http://www.RenewGarfieldpark.com.

Unfortunately I am seeing a lot of misinformation here.

The people at savegarfieldpark.com are very good at using half truths and informational spin. Please compare the information on the two sites and judge the information for yourself.

SGP.com has been scaring residents by using an exaggerated diagram that the Grand Rapids Press has already admitted was inaccurate. Here is a copy of the flyer they passed around the neighborhood:

http://www.renewgarfieldpark.com/docs/sgp-flyer.pdf

(If I didn

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paris Texas Whistle-Stop

Paris Texas

Posted
Posted

I am the creator of http://www.RenewGarfieldpark.com.

Unfortunately I am seeing a lot of misinformation here.

The people at savegarfieldpark.com are very good at using half truths and informational spin. Please compare the information on the two sites and judge the information for yourself.

SGP.com has been scaring residents by using an exaggerated diagram that the Grand Rapids Press has already admitted was inaccurate. Here is a copy of the flyer they passed around the neighborhood:

http://www.renewgarfieldpark.com/docs/sgp-flyer.pdf

(If I didn

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRDadof3 Ecumenopolis

GRDadof3

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'm just warning that if this erupts into a war here, I'm going to have to pull the plug on this thread. You're both welcome to debate the merits of both sides (xopher and nexpark), and any other land-use issues, but I have zero tolerance for inflammatory speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nexpark Crossroads

nexpark

Posted
Posted

I'm just warning that if this erupts into a war here, I'm going to have to pull the plug on this thread. You're both welcome to debate the merits of both sides (xopher and nexpark), and any other land-use issues, but I have zero tolerance for inflammatory speech.

I understand your concerns and am happy to remove any portion of my post you feel is inappropriate. I don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.