By Antonio D. French
Filed Wednesday, May 03, 2006 at 9:48 PM
The St. Louis City Planning Commission tonight approved a proposal that would allow Barnes Jewish Hospital to purchase or lease a portion of Forest Park. The proposal still faces several hurdles and vocal opposition from several elected officials and numerous city residents. Labels: Development, Parks
More than a dozen people, including representatives from Comptroller Darlene Green's office and the office of Aldermanic Board Pres. Jim Shrewsbury, spoke against the plan at a public hearing tonight in City Hall.
Deputy Mayor of Development Barb Geisman, who is also a voting member of the Commission, spoke on behalf of Mayor Francis Slay, who supports the plan.
"Many people don't even know this land is part of Forest Park," said Geisman. She also pointed out that Barnes is one of the largest employers in the city and has been a good neighbor in the Central West End.
Jim Garavaglia, from the Comptroller's office, told the Commission that the details of Barnes' plan still are not known. "Their intentions are unclear, unspoken and should be revealed to both the City and the community," he said.
He also pointed to the fact that the appraisal being used to determine the value of the 12 acres being considered is more that a year old. He said the Comptroller has authorized a new, more accurate appraisal of the land that should be available in two to three weeks. He and others asked the commissioners to hold off on a vote until that new appraisal came in.
The vote was 7 to 4, with one abstention. The plan will still have to be approved by the three-member Board of Estimate and Apportionment before it is finalized. That board is made up of Slay, Shrewsbury and Green.
17 Comments:
So if you're a large employer, we should let you ravage the city in ways that others would never be allowed to?
I guess that worked for Bell and the Century building.
5/03/2006 10:53 PM
It sounds like the Century issue all over again. I liked the quote on the radio this morning, where a CWE resident said that rushing to pass this proposal tells the citizens that we can't trust our city officials.
Amen to that.
If the aldermen of CWE and FPSE approve this, will there be talk of a recall? Let's hope so.
5/04/2006 7:37 AM
I am a fierce proponent of Forest Park and I was against running the MetrLink through the Park, even underground, when it was proposed. But if you have ever used these grounds please let us know. Geisman was right, most people did not know this was park of Forest Park. I didn't. Because it is on the OTHER SIDE of KINGSHIGHWAY.
It is not aesthetically pleasing, has zero architechtural value (there is no century building on this location), and is located next to a HIGHWAY, busy THOROUGHFARE (Kingshighway) and a PARKING LOT.
Get Real people. This decision is a no brainer, free up city park funds, sacrificing a spot of land that is NOT USED, to fix the rest of the dilapidated parks in this city while Forest Park gets a guarenteed revenue stream as long as Barnes is around.
This is smart and responsible government.
5/04/2006 8:07 AM
Being against this lease is about as silly as being against MetroLink running through the park. Yes, our parks, especially Forest Park, are to be highly treasured. But at some point, you have to see the larger picture to our City's economy as a major trade-off.
These 12 acres are less than one percent of the total acreage within our largest City park. And this block is isolated from the rest of the park, sitting between Kingshighway, 40 and medical complexes, separated then from any residential neighborhood blocks.
The nearest residences are south of 40 in FPSE. Rather than continue having these residents cross 40 to reach the park and its playground, such amenities should be rebuilt within the heart of the FPSE neighborhood. BJC is willing to relocate the tennis courts and playground within Forest Park. Maybe they should instead build them in a more accessible location within the FPSE neighborhood.
5/04/2006 8:39 AM
Anony #3, more than a dozen speakers at last night's hearing would disagree with you on whether that part of the park is being used.
Many of them pointed out that not only Forest Park Southeast residents use it regularly, but also Central West End residents.
Many parents noted that that part of the park has the only playground in walking distance for their young children.
Others noted that the playground is often the only place the children can share a few minutes with their docter parents when they're on call.
Several people noted that for family members of patients the park has for years offered a tranquil place to collect their thoughts and get a break from the confines of the hospital walls.
And as someone who uses the raquetball courts there, I can also say that the park IS used regularly. But that is really beside the point. There ARE sections of Forest Park that are not used as regularly as other parts. If Washington University offered a big sum of money to purchase those parts to help ease their parking woes, would you support that deal as well?
From your point of view, does every piece of the park have a price tag on it?
And BTW, the Comptroller is correct that the price tag currently on this piece of land is too low.
5/04/2006 9:53 AM
And if you were at the meeting last night you would have heard how much use the park gets. Much more than I imagined, and I knew it was used regularly before 10 am on weekends.
Like the priest said when he spoke, "Forest Park Forever? Or Forest Park For a While?"
The Forest Park Master Plan called for no reduction in green space, and money was raised on that promise. If this 1% is taken by BJH, will Turtle Park be next? What about more parking for the History Museum or the Zoo or the Muny or the Art Museum. The change in the Master Plan doesn't specify that this is the only time a reduction in green space will be allowed for use by a private enterprise.
The highway system has done enough damage to our city, and just because the the routing of I-64 and the current interchange at I64 and Kingshighway meant some of the park was not contiguous, does that mean we continue the rate of damage by giving up on that park space?
If BJH needs the space, where is their plan for the property? For all we know, it will be a surface lot.
The city has signed off on this, and will probably go with the questionable appraisal from over a year ago, contrary to the many concerns expressed last night by the Comptroller's office and former aldermen. In 30 years, one third the life of the lease, this $1.6 million may be equivalent to about $250,000.
In exchange for this loss of playground equipment and recreation facilities, the FPSE alderman will handpick some citizens to find a new location for the equipment somewhere in his ward. What about the people from the CWE? What do they get in exchange?
The fact that people don't know it's part of Forest Park shouldn't matter. The Master Plan, to which many of us subscribed and donated money to see completed, is scratched. We, the residents and taxpayers, lose green space. Will they talk about refunding 1% of the donations made to fund the Master Plan that promised no loss of green space?
And yet again, the whole process is presented to the citizens as a done deal. Negotiations have gone on for at least a year.
During that time, FPSE ironed out a deal with MoDOT to maintain the pedestrian bridge over I-64 so they could retain access to this part of Forest Park. That's how much this area means to them.
5/04/2006 10:03 AM
Not too long ago, the Mayor stated (our his blogger) that if this concerned any other part of the park, such as the near 99% of acreage west of Kingshighway, that he too would be opposed. However, we're talking a section of the park long cut-off from the remainder of the park. As such, many feel this is not a dangerous precedent.
Besides, if you're talking precedent, since the 1970s, 9 of the desired 12 acres have already been leased, but currently for only $150,000 a year. That's why it's only an amendment to a current lease being considered, and far from an entirely new concept for Forest Park.
5/04/2006 10:25 AM
I laugh when people say that no one knows that this space is part of Forest Park because it is east of Kingshighway. Don't people know there was time before the present day? And, once upon that time in that history that is ignored, Kingsighway did not run on its present course but ran to the east of the land BJC wants. Back in this day, before "Highway 40," the park extended uninterrupted south to Oakland.
These lands are now severed but very much a part of the park despite the paved intrusions. "Turtle Park" gets about as much use as the Hudlin tennis courts. Should we lease it to Forest Park Hospital?
5/04/2006 10:27 AM
Please Michael, comparing Turtle Park to an unused section on no-man's land is hardly the case. And I bet nobody waxed for the days of that bit of the park. Where has the outrage been about it since the building of Highway forty, in the 1950s? Get real man.
5/04/2006 11:37 AM
And I travel by both of those sections of the Park frequently, Turtle Park gets used, the other does not.
I've used Turtle Park on multiple occasions.
5/04/2006 11:39 AM
"unused section on no-man's land"
It's obvious that you have never used the park yourself, or walked through it. You can't learn much about a park by driving through or by it.
As for setting, the 12 acres east of Kingshighway are much more attractive and urban than Turtle Park.
The usage is a lot higher than BJC, Roddy and Geisman claim. Usage would be higher if the park was more accesible (and visible to folks still afraid of FPSE), which I concede in not likely to happen.
5/04/2006 1:21 PM
Originally the Mayor stated that the City would recieve $2.8 mil per year and this was reduced by $1 when the FP board voted to approve this lease.
Considering the finances of the City and those of BJC, if this agreement is going to proceed, shouldn't the City get the most from the deal as possible? Can we afford to give away our assests to private companies who make profits, but don't pay taxes? If the discussion continues, the price should be equally apart of the discussion.
5/04/2006 2:07 PM
HOW THE VOTE WENT DOWN
Seven in favor: Yes votes: Ald. Phyllis Young, Ald. Fred Wessels, Susan Stauder, James Bell, Marjorie Melton, Luis Porrello, Barbara Geisman.
Abstain: Dan Jay.
No votes: Chaz Jaquess, Ted Spaid, Brandyn Jones, Ivy Pinkston.
5/04/2006 2:42 PM
Michael, wouldn't the tennis courts and playground be more accessible if relocated south of 40 within Forest Park, say near the Lambskin east of Kingshighway, or near City 10, west of Kingshighway? That way residents south of 40 wouldn't have to cross 40 anymore to use this defacto pocket park surrounded by the BJC-WU mediplex.
5/04/2006 3:37 PM
Jackie says..............the park is the park. Period. This 12 acres of the park needs to continue providing the benefits it offers. Everybody needs to rally their support to help save recreational space from a takeover by institution space, and believed to be beneficial for the city budget. The negotiations were kept secret. The event was brought to light by the Post-Dispatch and television news broadcasts. We the people in the FPSE Neighborhood heard about it at the same time as everyone else. We were appalled when we learned our neighborhood representative who is paid by the Alderman and Wash U/BJC had submitted a letter on the behalf of the FPSE Neighborhood, we support this proposal. This denied us the time to rally support against this issue. Those of you reading this comment.......please do something to get our voice heard. Plead our plight to everyone who will listen. We need help from Voters. Our elected leaders are voting against us. We need your vote with us to change the outcome of this injustice. People need a place on earth to find peace and relaxation. Help us keep ours and yours. Please Help Us!!
Call City Hall, the Alderman, especially Joe Roddy. Call the Forest Park Advisory Board and Forest Park Forever, call the Media, tell your employer, everybody. Help us rally voters in the City, County and Out of Towners who believe a park is a park. Thank You,
The Losers
5/04/2006 6:08 PM
FOREST park should lease the land for the cool mil a year but the yearly lease should increase with inflation, so lets say 4.5% a year. That would be cool.
5/05/2006 12:58 AM
Well, this is a heated argument!
The 12 severed acres that are well used by those closest to it and knowledgeable of its existance are more than beneficial to its users. Forest Park as our valuable asset should continue to be enhanced. Therein lies the issue, the 12 severed acres have already been compromised and the City of St. Louis has lost more than 500,000 residents and its supportive tax base in order to maintain parks. Forest Park may be heavily invested in, but what about Fairgrounds, O'Fallon, Bellerive, Marquette, and the many others with aged playgrounds and few updates since the 1960s?
First
This 12 severed acres needs to be replaced closer to residents with six for the CWE north of Forest Park Parkway, six for FPSE, and some remainder greenspace at BJC for its own employees, patients, and customers. These conditions need to be required in order to locate much needed decent park space in the two actual neighborhoods. I believe few could disagree with that proposal.
Second, the money from BJC to maintain Forest Park should not entirely replace current funding, and BJC should add some money to creating and maintaining the two smaller parks in the residential CWE and FPSE.
Third, the current parking garage park is one very short block from the Metrolink station. This potential for transient oriented development proves a great unmet need for maximizing tax revenue to the City for the benefit of its citizens. You stand to benefit as City taxpayers by the efficient use of this land in close proximity to the future of transportation. Why waste it? This land is worth far more than the parking garage under the park and transformation into offices, businesses, and hospital space would greatly benefit the City and its citizens. The future of economies relies heavily on education and health care. WashU Med and BJC contribute greatly to the business climate and economy for the City and nare the region! The conversion of the land to use for education and health is needed for the continued rebirth of the St. Louis economy especially since it is nearly adjacent to a Metrolink station making for a sustainable city!
12/11/2006 2:12 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home