Comments on: Council Ends Art Saga, Postpones Other Items

By: Jack Eaton

Jack Eaton — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:02:36 +0000

The article reports “Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted that law enforcement will get $44.5 million of next year’s general fund budget …” I think CM Taylor probably meant “public safety” (police plus fire) not just “law enforcement”.

In the FY 2014 budget, public safety received about $39 million of the total $81 million spent on “recurring” expenses. I’m pretty sure that there is no plan to spend more on police services in the next fiscal year than we spent on the combined police and fire services in the current fiscal year.

By: John Floyd

John Floyd — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 04:25:31 +0000

Thanks for the update, Chuck!

By: Chuck Warpehoski

Chuck Warpehoski — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:19:47 +0000

Re #5: Last year’s budget increased parks funding. There is an increase in fire funding as the general fund takes on the costs of the firefighters initially hired with the SAFER grant. The initial staff budget notes include a potential increase in police officers.

By: John Floyd

John Floyd — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:40:54 +0000

There is plenty of $$ in the General Fund to maintain parks. It’s simply a matter of priorities, whether for parks, police, “Art”, the urban forest, pothole filling, or the DDA’s tax increment financing scheme.

The premise of the A2D2 re-zoning was that oodles of new tax revenue would result from all this “Economic Development”. Six or eight new buildings have been erected. Where’s the dough? Of does the dough not flow until the Library Lane park has been paved over?

By: Jeff Hayner

Jeff Hayner — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:43:17 +0000

Re: #3. Of course I know that PAC did not design the Library Lot. What they did do was create a set of conditions for the development of any downtown park, including the Library Lot, that are so narrow as to rule out any use that is not favorable to the interests of downtown business. As for Ms. Grand’s opinion as to what is in the public’s best interest, remember; despite her appointment and service to the PAC (the mayor’s city council farm club, it would appear), she is but one member of our public. We have heard PAC’s opinion as to what characteristics might best define a downtown park, now we are hearing from others, and a truly public process has begun. That this conversation is now happening in a larger arena, outside of the PAC’s political influence, is, in my opinion, in the public’s best interest.

By: Julie Grand

Julie Grand — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 00:10:21 +0000

I sincerely hope that Mr. Hayner understands that PAC had nothing to do with the design of the parking structure. PAC did recommend a robust public process moving forward on the Library Lot. A process that occurred outside of PAC’s influence in the past has nothing to do with a desire to solicit future public input.

The potential for a developer to fund, program, maintain, and activate a potential public space, in my opinion, is in the public’s best interest. This type of fiscally responsible cooperation will allow Parks and Recreation to focus on the maintenance and improvement of our 157 parks while simultaneously providing public open space that is desired by the community.

By: Jeff Hayner

Jeff Hayner — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 17:58:13 +0000

Missing from the reporting of my remarks is my refuting the remarks made by Julie Grand, who insisted that the PAC required robust public participation on anything to do with the Library Lot or a downtown park. I commented that I don’t recall an especially robust public process in approving the additional expenditure of in excess of $5 million dollars worth of foundation work to support a convention center on the Library Lot. The PAC worded their condition statements for a downtown park carefully, led by CM Taylor, in order to avoid having anything built, or set aside, that is not in the best interests of business. There is very little respect given to the public’s interest in this matter.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 15:57:17 +0000

“Hieftje ventured that the park/plaza area could become a public space accessible to the public but not owned by the city.”

This approach may sound reasonable but builds in a lot of conflicts for the future. A space that fronts a busy enterprise would necessarily be restricted in its use by the public. There are many possible scenarios. I can imagine that police would even be called in to enforce access to the building under circumstances I can visualize.

The open area that passes through the Ashley Mews development was originally designated as public access, including as a pedestrian passage from Ashley. Public money was used to subsidize this development. However, I’ve heard anecdotes that passers-by have been advised by residents that this is a private space.

We need a public open space in the downtown that is unequivocally public. Despite all efforts, Liberty Square has failed to fill that need.