Presentation about Old North Durham Park

418 views

Published on

Published in: Entertainment & Humor
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
418
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • How many full-size fields exist and are actually in good condition?
  • City records and other documents, however, show a concerted effort since 2003 by Central Park School for Children, a privately-run charter school, to halt the City’s long-standing Old North Durham Park Master Plan consisting of a quality full-size athletic field, in order to supplant the City’s Master Plan with a privately-developed plan that specifically eliminates a full-size field. The history of OND Park since 2003 has been one of repeated attempts by CPSC using its disproportionate access to political and economic resources to gain control over determining the use and development of the park, in direct opposition to the City’s conclusion and residents’ voicing over the last seven years that a full-size athletic field best serves the public interest
  • Financial interests. Who exactly are CPSC and FONDP and ONDNA, etc.?City records and other documents, however, show a concerted effort since 2003 by Central Park School for Children, a privately-run charter school, to halt the City’s long-standing Old North Durham Park Master Plan consisting of a quality full-size athletic field, in order to supplant the City’s Master Plan with a privately-developed plan that specifically eliminates a full-size field. The history of OND Park since 2003 has been one of repeated attempts by CPSC using its disproportionate access to political and economic resources to gain control over determining the use and development of the park, in direct opposition to the City’s conclusion and residents’ voicing over the last seven years that a full-size athletic field best serves the public interest
  • Lease, “Sale”; exclusive use by CPSC; rental revenues, no accountability (maintenance, safety, use, etc.). City accountable to residents, not private entities and developers. Advertised only on email lists.Translators, facilitators, structure, all controlled by FONDP. FONDP email on flier.
  • March 11, 2010
  • Civic engagement, only slandered and demonized in media and by CPSC/FONDP/ONDNA, vicious attacks, misinformation/lies. Still withholding information. Who, when, how, why decision made to ignore City directive. False claims field is unused, dangerous, etc. Horrible misrepresentation.Field, despite its less then optimal state is being used by the community much more than most other parks. This park was not abandoned by the community when it was abandoned by the City; and it will not be abandoned by the community now that it is a piece in the puzzle of profits in the game of developers.
  • Presentation about Old North Durham Park

    1. 1. Durham Coalitionfor Urban Justice November 12, 2011
    2. 2.  Old North Durham Park (ONDP) has become a controversy because of efforts by Central Park School for Children (CPSC) and their associates, including “Friends of Old North Durham Park” (FONDP), to block a quality full-size athletic field and control the park to serve private interests. This has a disparate, negative impact on the park’s current users and neighborhood residents, predominantly low-income African- American and Latino residents.
    3. 3.  The key points of controversy are: • City directives (Sept. 6, 2005, Resolution # 9281) to upgrade and maintain Old North Durham Park as a full-size athletic field have been intentionally ignored for over 6 years. • Agents have worked to replace the City’s Master Plan (reaffirmed by City Council on 9/6/05) with a privately-developed plan by CPSC, FONDP, and ONDNA.
    4. 4.  December 2003: CPSC acquired a building under questionable circumstances with an unwritten agreement that this would also give them the park. September 6, 2005: City Council directs DPR to upgrade OND Park full-size field. November 15, 2005: CPSC enlists the Old North Durham Neighborhood Association (ONDNA) with plans to stop the 9/6/05 City Council directive.
    5. 5.  For- keep the field at tournament level (330ft x 180ft) as indicated in the Durham Parks Master Plan and as directed by City Council on 9/6/05 (Resolution #9281) Against –duplicate amenities that already exist in walking distance (garden, bog, walking trails, etc.)
    6. 6. Old North Durham Park’s full-size field is actively used by the community.
    7. 7. Studies have shown thatwhereas higher incomeresidents who haveaccess to private gyms orprograms for exerciseview public parksprimarily as spaces ofleisure, low-income andpeople of color who sufferdisproportionately fromchild obesity, diabetes,and other diseasesrelated to lack of placesfor physical activitydepend on public parksfor athletic recreation.
    8. 8.  TheDurham Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2003-2013) recommends that Durham should have 46 athletic fields; DPR has less than 14 athletic fields, and even fewer full-size fields. Old North Durham Park is the ONLY athletic field in downtown, and the ONLY full-size athletic field in downtown.
    9. 9. Page 32 of DPR Master Plan (2003-2013)
    10. 10. “Our long range plan includes rehabilitation of thepark. A capital project request in the amount of$100,000 (construction costs) has been funded inthe City Manager’s Proposed Budget.This project involves the installation of a permanentautomatic irrigation system, extensive subsurfacedrainage will be installed and new top soil will be broughtin.The field will be "crowned" once again to provide positivesurface water flow. Bermuda Grass will replace theexisting grass to provide an appropriate playing surface.” To: City Council; From: General Services June 7, 2004
    11. 11. “…the parkfield and kids playing the picnic “…the butterfly garden, the walking trail, are not “…a soccer is for the whole City, not spaces, that the school parents a big green (well- mutually CPSC; and the say they want, exist exclusive—won’t just in Central Park-1 blockwhole City the right now away-isn’t thatmaintained) playing field be good for the kids todesperatelythis schoolmore athletic fields”point of having needs in an urban environment?” use for their games during the day?”
    12. 12. “With the current shortage of athletic fields in Durham, DPR staff feels thatwe cannot afford to reduce or lose one of the existing fields”
    13. 13. Feb. 21,2006
    14. 14. November 15, 2006 Letter From Rhonda Parker, Durham Parks and Recreation, Director To Leslie Frost, Old North Durham “A field suitable for athletic events, in a densely developed Neighborhood“…I would like tothat is not to bethan a Centraltruly a“…What resource “multi-use” taken lightly; it isgreen, area, is a is more note that Durham large, Park, Association, PresidentRocky Creek whole open Bay-Hargrove ParkCouncil well-maintained and space? It’s suitable forresource for the Park,community to share. The City are in your meetingneighborhood,2005)future events or ongoing events…or for many and the Recreation (at its larger on September 6, as well as the OND Advisory Commission (at its meeting on November 8, 2006) Park itself. Those parks offerspace” trails, activities that require walking reaffirmed their support for continued scheduling of athletic benches, programming in OND Park” and children’s play equipment”
    15. 15. “We are hoping that lots of CPSC families…will drop in and object to thesize (very large) of the soccer field proposed for the Park.
    16. 16. “request is thatONDNA support “if anything is going to change, thea motion to stop neighborhood has to dig in hard to get thisthe current plans changed; it needs to be done with Centralfor the park and Park…this is 1996 BOND money, it hasinstead hire aplanner to make already gone out to bid once and didn’t getit more broadly any response, and now it is going out touseful” bid again; nothing is actually final until money exchanges hands and construction shows up”
    17. 17.  2003: City transfers ownership of building adjacent to park and the Eastern park entrance to CPSC. 2004: CPSC Privately-runs and finances “Master Plan” process (Claims to focus only on playground) 2005: Enlists ONDNA to block field upgrade Nov. 2007: Attempts to lease park for $10 per yr for 10 yrs. No park users/neighbors notified. October 21, 2010: CPSC/FOND seeks to get City Council to pass Master Plan never shown or discussed in a city-sponsored public meeting Recent 2011: FONDP controls park meetings. No city-sponsored public process.
    18. 18.  June 2004 (Crittendon email): $100,000 for upcoming budget. OND Park funded in 2004-05 CIP. OND Park included in CIP ($887,000) for six “field renovation;” $222, 879 specifically listed for OND Park. $10 million 2/3 Bond (Aug. 2005): • $2.6 million Parks and Recreation Bond • $1.3 million Public Improvement Bonds 2005 Bond (Nov. 2005): • $38.3 million for Parks and Recreation (Resolution 9278) • $11 million Cultural Facilities Bonds; 2008: $800,000 from sale of Erwin Field to Duke.
    19. 19. “It is our intent to have major repairs and renovations madeto the field next year…the General Services Department has requested $100,000 in this up coming year’s budget for the complete renovation for the North Durham Park Soccer field.”
    20. 20. “Our long range plan includes rehabilitation of thepark. A capital project request in the amount of$100,000 (construction costs) has been funded inthe City Manager’s Proposed Budget.This project involves the installation of a permanentautomatic irrigation system, extensive subsurfacedrainage will be installed and new top soil will be broughtin.The field will be "crowned" once again to provide positivesurface water flow. Bermuda Grass will replace theexisting grass to provide an appropriate playing surface.” To: City Council; From: General Services June 7, 2004
    21. 21. 2005 Bond $38,333,000 forParks and Recreation
    22. 22.  November 2008: City Council sells Erwin Field Park (5.5 acres) to Duke for $700,000, removing yet another city park and soccer field from public use. The City received $700,000 cash from Duke at closing on January 28, 2009. Duke still to pay City $100,000 once an encumbrance on an adjacent parcel is removed. The contract states: “the City is willing to sell Erwin Field Park to the University in order to have funding to construct a replacement soccer field or fields in another location to meet pressing park and recreational needs of the City.”
    23. 23.  No mention in Sept. 6, 2005 City Council meeting of drainage problems that would inhibit the upgrade of the field. Stormwater funds have always been available to improve drainage (pipe under field) receiving runoff from the publicly maintained street. Right now, public money is being used to repair drainage issues on the private property of Nana’s restaurant. ($176,563 on design alone; over $500,000 for construction)
    24. 24.  November 8, 2007: Residents overwhelmingly object to transfer of control of OND Park to CPSC via renewable lease (City Council) December 18, 2007: Residents speak in favor of publicly-controlled full-size field and against CPSC lease (DPR) October 21, 2010: Neighborhood residents speak out against the FONDP Master Plan & violation of public process (City Council) March 15, 2011: Overwhelming support of full-size field; 150+ people protested the FONDP- sponsored meeting (City Council)
    25. 25.  OND Park should be a quality, publicly- controlled and maintained full-size field It is the directive from the City Council and matches the City’s own Master Plan for OND Park. A dire need for soccer fields remains There was and is money The drainage is not the problem We need your support

    ×