Note to @6′s response to @4: after following our local political climate for several years, it strikes me that one could be forgiven for having the impression that few city residents are considered “valid” by the current political class, whether or not these residents live indoors or ever use any downtown park.

Note to Ingrid Ault: “Democratic Party events” is not where public policy is supposed to be made. Public Policy is supposed to be made in pubic, at public events – not in private, at private events.

Your understanding is correct. Yet, we may have already thrown away that money. The first round of responses to the RFP for that site couldn’t pass economic muster. Future ones may not either. Likewise for the other surface lots that are part of the CWS process. That’s one reason I suggested waiting on the decision to build the underground structure.

@4: Not all users of the park (those that “congregate” there or others) are homeless, as I imagine you are aware, Tom. Other than that, your point stands. People who aren’t passing through or just stopping for lunch don’t seem to be seen as valid park users. Are downtown parks only for people who work or shop downtown, or are they for everyone? I wonder if kids will be seen similarly if they use the space next to the library–if it ever really becomes a useable green space.

I believe that there is an inherent conflict between private territoriality and public space, and that they can’t be merged.

In terms of Liberty Plaza, I believe the term “unsuccessful” is simply a code word for “the homeless like to hang out there.” Every time I walk past Liberty Plaza, it is full of people, which I think proves that the design is fine the way it is. Perhaps they just aren’t the right kind of people?

The problem is that there are so few places for homeless people to go during the day downtown–especially park type spaces. The well-patrolled UM campus is off-limits to them, for sure. Re-design it all you want, but as long as homelessness is a problem and this is the only real public park space downtown, Liberty Plaza will always be the one outdoor place where the transient homeless feel comfortable congregating.

1) Is it a stated community goal to acquire more parkland in the center of downtown?
2) Will the added cost of maintenance for any new acquisitions mean less money for maintenance of currently under-maintained neighborhood parks?
3) Considering the failure of Liberty Plaza, why is it that PAC is discussing a “bigger downtown park”?
4) Can someone clarify the rationale behind putting a large park on top of the underground structure? My understanding is that we have already made a publicly-vetted decision, through council, and spent millions of extra dollars so that this deck can support a large building on top. Is anyone seriously considering throwing that money away? Or for that matter, sacrificing any prime land for large open spaces downtown at the cost of millions? I could think of much better uses for that money (e.g., affordable/workforce housing, increased transit, etc.).

Looks as if I’ll add the PAC meeting on the 2nd to my calendar.