Should portion of Garfield Park go to the Salvation Army

[GRDadof3]

And that is bad why?????

Because some would argue that it is taking publicly owned land (even though it is not currently being used) and converting it to a "missionary/religious" type organization.

[dbrok]

Because some would argue that it is taking publicly owned land (even though it is not currently being used) and converting it to a "missionary/religious" type organization.

However, they're selling the land, so it won't be owned by the city when the facility is actually constructed.

[GRDadof3]

However, they're selling the land, so it won't be owned by the city when the facility is actually constructed.

Oh yeah, I know that dbrok. I don't think the argument is a "separation" issue, but moreso a public to private use. Private entities can discriminate who uses their facilities to a greater extent than a public facility (ie Boy Scouts of America).

[Sunlover38]

Oh yeah, I know that dbrok. I don't think the argument is a "separation" issue, but moreso a public to private use. Private entities can discriminate who uses their facilities to a greater extent than a public facility (ie Boy Scouts of America).

Who is using the empty pool right now? Seems everyone is losing w/ the status quo.

[GRDadof3]

But some solutions are better than others....and some are more permanent than others.

[Paris Texas]

And that is bad why?????

I didn't say it was bad.

[GRguy]

Well, it doesn't much matter now anyhow. No Center in the Park. They withdrew.

[Rizzo]

Looks like the ideology of a some screwed it up for the rest of the citizens who might have enjoyed this center.

[GRDadof3]

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4452285

It sounds like there were some unresolved legal issues to deal with as well, that the city was concerned about.

[PBJ]

Looks like the ideology of a some screwed it up for the rest of the citizens who might have enjoyed this center.

You're always going to have 2 opinions on something. Neighbors were concerned about loosing greenspace, they spoke out, the Salvation Army listened. The city hadn't even voted yet. I don't see how this "screwed" up anything, it's how our country works.

[Paris Texas]

What a shame. I feel for both sides. It does seem rather unfortunate to give up a $30 million gift which was given in such good faith. Maybe there is more to the decision than meets the eye. I can't help but think that if this had been done differently, the outcome would have been different. You have a lot of homeowners who love their neighborhood and want to make it better, just with conflicting ideas about how to do it.

[Rizzo]

PBJ - I wrote that hastily without reading into the article at the site... That's my initial reaction. I do have to say that because the SA stated there was no other viable area to build this comunity center... Maybe they pulled out in the spirit of not dividing the community even more... I do know some folks out there and they were pretty polarised on this issue. And the issue that seemed to dominate their talk wasn't greenspace, but rather the issue of having membership.

[Nitro]

It would be unfortunate if this fell through, but I don't think the world will come to an end...

Stick a fork in it............this one's done....

http://woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4452285

[snoogit]

Who is using the empty pool right now? Seems everyone is losing w/ the status quo.

No one is using it, its cold outside

[GRDadof3]

Looks like they're headed West to Wyoming:

http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ss...5840.xml&coll=6

..with this parting shot:

"It's basically up to the local community to really provide the semblance of widespread support," he said. "We cannot invest tens of millions of dollars in a community that does not want a community center."

While I can agree with their statement about the investment, I think it's a bit of a low blow. I just don't think Grand Rapids was totally behind THIS particular site.

[snoogit]

Looks like they're headed West to Wyoming:

http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ss...5840.xml&coll=6

..with this parting shot:

"It's basically up to the local community to really provide the semblance of widespread support," he said. "We cannot invest tens of millions of dollars in a community that does not want a community center."

While I can agree with their statement about the investment, I think it's a bit of a low blow. I just don't think Grand Rapids was totally behind THIS particular site.

I cant imagine there arent other 7-9 acre lots in the city.

[MAU]

The SA also has known about this grant and wanting a GR location for almost a year now. Originally they wanted the location down town on 10 acres.

It was pretty bad planning on their part to only come up with one location. And also from what i understand, lack of organization on their part also.

[mejane]

I think, once again, politics played a part in all of this - most being played out

behind the scenes - and we will never fully know the story.

What bothered me the most was the attempt, or talk of the attempt - I don't

know how far that got -to change the original deed of the property to the city

by Mr. Garfield and his wife.

Starting with that alone, it could have set a bad and potentially ominous

precedent for other city parks and property. After that, the gift of Joan Kroc

to the SA for a community center was generous, but which was more important

to her, the Salvation Army, or a Community Center? A community center built

through the city on city property for the public makes sense. Funnelling a

community center through a religious organization to be built on city (public)

park property seems inherently inappropriate.

Seems like, with all the brilliant minds and resources in this town, someone could

come up with a better plan. This whole project smelled a little stinky from the get-go

for me, like wet wool being pulled over our eyes. I am glad the public didn't fall for it.

The city, and people who set up these kinds of 'gifts', need to be better advised as to

what is the right thing to do for the entire community when involving the community's

land. Anything less becomes self-serving, trying to establish some kind of personal

legacy, generosity notwithstanding.

Do it better, cleaner, and properly next time, folks.

[buzzkill]

the Wyoming proposal is actually VASTLY superior to the Garfield Park site. It's on the bus line, has a diverse population, lots of recreational space and would not have the legal hang-ups.

The Salvation Army should just say "no thanks" to GR and head to Wyoming.

[GRGridGirl]

I think the issue was in regards to public park land, not the City of GR. If Wyoming has a location that meets the needs of the S.A. then great, go Wyoming.

I guess I do not like the use of the word "superior."

[GRDadof3]

I think it's time for the city of GR residents to say "No thanks, Salvation Army"

Now this is a first, GR being accused of being "unwelcoming" to a religious organization:

GR leaders say they don't want to lose Salvation Army community center

[buzzkill]

I think the issue was in regards to public park land, not the City of GR. If Wyoming has a location that meets the needs of the S.A. then great, go Wyoming.

I guess I do not like the use of the word "superior."

I was talking simply about the facilities available if the center moved to Wyoming. The neighborhoods are almost carbon copies of each other.

[egrguy]

if there is a consolation prize to this all, is at least the wyoming plan is for the northern end of wyoming rather then the higher-burbish south end bordering byron center.

not that wyoming is urban by all means, but i do like their planned location, and it is too bad that a deal for the center wasn't more efficiently handled for a grand rapids location.

[foo_gr]

One interesting thing about this, that really didn't come out, is the grant that the city applied for to build the picnic structures. It is a Land and Water Conservation Fund grant. Under the terms of the grant, to sell any part of Garfield Park, the city would have had to get permission from the DNR and National Park Service. To do this they would have had to prove there were no other alternate sites. Then, the city would have had to buy the same amount of acreage at a cost equal or greater than the fair market value of the park land sold, and convert that land to park with similar recreation opportunities.

This only came out right at the end of the process. I think it was overlooked before.

[twoshort]

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4...33&nav=menu44_2