Monroe Park lease moves forward with no recommendation
Councilwoman Robertson has misgivings and Councilman Agelasto has amendments.
The city council committee forwarded the leasing of Monroe Park for $1 a year for the next 30 years to full city council without making a recommendation. A last minute submission by Mo Karnage, local anarchist, threw a wrench into what previously looked like a done deal for the Monroe Park Conservancy.
Both Councilman Parker C. Agelasto, 5th District, and Councilwoman Ellen F. Robertson, 6th District, have expressed misgivings about turning full authority over to the Conservancy and Agelasto was drafting amendments to the lease. Those Amendments will have to walk a tight line, because it’s been stated that the lease can’t be substantially changed without going back out for the public advertisement process.
On Wednesday, council analysts recommended awarding the lease to the Monroe Park Conservancy as planned. The council’s land use, housing and transportation committee concurred with that choice, but the committee forwarded the matter to the full council with no recommendation after several members voiced unease about the lease terms.
Activist Mo Karnage has fought the city’s plan to lease the city’s oldest park to the nonprofit conservancy. The lease idea has been introduced as a way to bring about a $6 million renovation of the park with an equal mix of public and private money. But the plan has drawn criticism from those concerned about the city giving up some control of a high-profile public space.
-
Recommend this
on Facebook -
Report an error
-
Subscribe to our
Weekly Digest
Notice: Comments that are not conducive to an interesting and thoughtful conversation may be removed at the editor’s discretion.
From March statement from the Executive Committee of the Sierra Club Falls of the James: We are very concerned that the City of Richmond is considering the 30 year lease of Monroe Park, the city’s oldest public park, to a private conservancy made up primarily of VCU and City administrators. Through the wording of this lease, the city parks department would no longer have any supervision of the care of the trees of the park, which is a vital green space of the city. The proposed lease would grant VCU the total authority to remove trees and shrubs at will. We are aware that in the past VCU has proposed removing 20% of the mature trees in the park. There is concern that the city park may be cooped by VCU as the University’s quadrangle. The proposed conservancy offers no representation to the surrounding neighborhoods that rely upon this green space, nor does it offer representation to the city parks department or organizations such as the Sierra Club and the Lewis Ginter Botanical Garden that are devoted to fostering the city’s environment. We urge that the lease of the city’s oldest and arguably most historic park be rejected in favor of reconstituting the Monroe Park Advisory Council with representation from the surrounding neighborhoods and city parks department.
I couldn’t agree more, Scott. Add to that the fact that, as a private entity, the conservancy can make its own rules with respect to how the park is used. It will be legally the same as a shopping mall when it comes to free speech. I would prefer to not have my First Amendment rights be a matter of “promises” made by those selected for this board.
The quasi-private entity governing the use of the park will have the “right” to grant and prevent access to the (once) public area as they see fit. Last time we voted, there was a referendum about Public Domain. It was a little bit legalese, but it’s clear Virginia’s don’t support the appropriation of private land for public use, at least not without some care and the appropriate compensation for the previous owner.
This is basically the reverse. It’s giving away public land to a semi private entity (the Monroe Park Conservancy) so that they can restrict its use. At least for the next 30 years. So I’d vote no if I could, but it doesn’t look like the mayor wants anyone voting on this one.
The problem with the alternative proposal, which was a better proposal than the city’s plan, was that it was proposed by a professed anarchist.
Isn’t the anarcho-collectivism and/or anarcho-Communism in the case of the Wingnuts in S. Barton Heights opposed to the existence of the City Council?
If someone who supported representative government proposed a different plan, maybe there would’ve been some support for it.
I really wish the 2 parties involved in the bidding would at least try to sit down and talk about how they can work together to have a Win-Win. The situation appears that both sides have good intentions for what they want to do. The big difference is the Monroe Park Conservancy has big money donors to make what they want a reality. Perhaps, they could work out some agreement to help Food Not Bombs with funding and space to conduct their activities.
A scary precedent. If such a lease can be passed so easily and with so little regard for public comment are any of the City’s assets up for grabs? From an H&H perspective, what happens when the lake at Forest Hill Park needs dredging? Will the funds be there or will it become Motorola Presents Forest Hill Park?
Better Government Richmond questions Monroe Park lease.
http://bg-us.org/2014/04/10/better-government-richmond-questions-monroe-park-lease/
The Richmond Free Press just came out with an Editorial for keeping Monroe Park public:
Keep Monroe Public
Though Richmond’s Monroe Park serves many important functions every single day, its appearance and its facilities admittedly demand attention.
We do not endorse a specific park renovation plan. But we do hold strong views about this public space.
It should always fulfill the purposes of a public park. It should be free, open and inviting to all. It should be a respite from the sometimes gritty nature of our urban environment. There should be plenty of grass, trees and flowers. It should be a place to come with family and friends.
We love the varied festivals and events held there by VCU and other organizations. We applaud the weekly feeding programs and other services that are often made available there; they must be preserved.
We fervently believe that Monroe Park must always welcome a wide variety of strongly felt opinions. A prominent area should be available for rallies large and small.
We are not anxious to lease this much-used and much-loved [park] to a private group. When considering such “public-private” ventures, we are often too eager to sacrifice public responsibility and public accountability in return for a few dollars. Our city should not shirk basic obligations.
We want to improve Monroe Park. We want city government to remain its primary caretaker. We welcome the advice and the financial contributions of all who share our vision.
Long a haven for drug dealers, faux homeless squatters, fugitives, and all round dregs, Monroe Park has been the a hub, for decades, for the entitleist at heart, who seek feel good moments engaging with the complacent litter of human geese gorging on free bread from those who enable dependence and non-progression, who wouldn’t dare open their homes to these “needy”, but satiate their feelings of goodwill by exacerbating a nanny state with needless offerings to people who “want” instead of “need”. I, for one, will be very glad to see anything rise at Monroe Park that will turn the current blight of arm stretched entitleists, both giving and taking, loitering on and littering in a once beautiful park.