Phyllis Betts comments about yesterday’s post about the looming housing crisis spotlighted by Brad Watkins of Peace and Justice Center:
There is an immediate crisis that needs to be dealt with now. Perhaps through a public-private problem-solving summit that will marshal resources to find housing for these families NOW. Peace and Justice can continue to work on longer term issues and help individually displaced families, but the entire housing sector needs to be mobilized to take advantage of high vacancy rates in some B and C class apartments that are nevertheless more acceptable than where displaced residents have been living. Establish a fund to clear up MLGW acreages and cover deposits, set up future payment plants with credit/budget support, etc. The reason it took so long to rule against Global is the long-standing policy to not put people on the street. So that hurdle has been jumped, and longer term tenant rights strategies must be accompanied by some creative short term problem-solving. Who will convene and have the resources for immediate implementation of a strategy?
The following are comments about City Council’s Unilateral Intervention into the Greensward Parking Issue:
Aaron says:
This quote, written byTim Jancelewics over in the Memphis Flyer comments section says it best:
“The 100 year-old Greensward and Overton were modeled by George Kessler after Central Park. The Greensward is the heart of the park, like the Great Lawn in Central Park. To cover it with cars is a blow to civic pride, and moves Memphis backwards.
“Improving Memphis’s biggest problems will take a lot more than protecting our parks, but respect for our most cherished assets and beautification of public green spaces are key components to moving a city forward and out of a blight-ridden state.
“Parking cars in the middle of our finest public park is a perfect metaphor for the lack of vision our city’s leaders have for the future. It is a lazy, short-sighted, and selfish move that should not have been made. I thought we were better than that.”
Sherman says:
I can only use one word to describe observing yesterday’s debacle at the City Council in person: Demoralizing! 300 citizens rush down to a last-minute, unpublicized, possibly illegal, yet certainly underhanded vote at City Council to destroy one of the crown jewels of Memphis. These citizens took time from work, home, or their day off to plead with the council to not destroy Overton Park with parking on the Greensward. The council chambers were full of angry citizens against this bill!
Only two (2) people spoke in favor of destroying the Greensward at Overton Park (one of whom was a disgraced former City Council person indicted for bribery charges).
City Council and city council attorney brought race into an issue that has nothing to do with race. And the person who was supposed to represent the area being destroyed (Councilman Morgan) was wisely too embarrassed to put his name on the bill and too inexperienced to represent his district. Then every council person (except Councilman Jones) voted against progress for the city including Councilman Morgan!
This council does not bode well for solving problems and progressing Memphis in the next four years for Memphis. This was embarrassing on a local and national level!
Urbanut says:
I cannot believe I am typing this, but it makes me nostalgic for the 1960’s freeway proposal.
Reid Hedgepeth and Worth Morgan are wonderful examples that younger does not equate to an increased likelihood of deviating from the “good ole boy” mold. The same pattern that sees democracy as an inconvenience and the council as a path to enforce the will of their donors and friends. What I do find amusing is that Morgan stated at least once during his campaign his desire to create a city that would attract millennials. Of course, he has now acted in a way that is quite the opposite. In fact, I have doubts he understands any of the characteristics that define this coveted group of young adults.
Morgan has proven himself just as incompetent and ignorant as any other member of the council. So sad to see “leadership” that is so myopic in their view and actions. Small, pathetic and decidedly provincial. No doubt if Worth and Hedgepeth were able to formulate their own independent thoughts, they would no doubt defend their actions with the tired cliché of “…this ain’t (fill in the blank city), this is Memphis and this is just how things are done ‘round here…”.
It would be a bit extreme, but perhaps the times justify the actions: in a world of infinite possibilities, should we enact new regulations regarding who may qualify to serve on the Memphis City Council?
Specifically, I question if anyone who attended both high school and college in Memphis and/or has never resided in any other city beyond a 150 mile radius for less than 1 year should be banned from running for a council position. Ridiculous I know, but the insular nature of these locally connected and paid for representatives and their inability to change the city’s trajectory is equally absurd. What I have yet to determine is if their actions are benignly idiotic (ignorance meets incompetence) or if their actions result from a type of willful stupidity.
Leigh says:
As I watched and listened to the council meeting yesterday, I witnessed a number of citizens speak on behalf of preserving parkland in one of America’s Great Parks.
Following public speakers supporting the Greensward, Barbara Swearengen Holt, speaking on behalf of the Zoo, seemed to want door-to-door service directly to the gates of the Zoo, claiming, “People will not park blocks away or be shuttled, no matter how much they love the Zoo.” I could not help but be reminded of her time while serving on council, when she had a telephone installed in the ladies’ room at City Hall.
Rev. DeAndre Brown argued poor communities are denied access …and this is caused by a parking problem? I can only think he meant on crowded days, poor people could not visit the Zoo because of a lack of parking space. For me, it was difficult to determine and understand how the issue before us, looking for solutions to preserve the Greensward and solve the parking problem at the Zoo, had become a race issue denying access due to crowded parking.
To continue the race bait, council attorney, Allen Wade, presented (and lobbied) that 16% of those attending Zoo free Tuesdays were mostly African Americans from poor neighborhoods.
None of it seemed relevant to the issue of finding a solution to the parking overflow on the Greensward. (other than “acknowledgment”, and perhaps more free days and free parking on those days at the Zoo…the Zoo charges $5 parking on all days).
But, I want to look back to the 16% Wade spoke about. The percentage is from a high poverty demographic who visit the Zoo on free days. It was just a month ago the Vice Chair of the Zoo board, said this, “The Zoo has looked at all possible options for expanding parking on its grounds and within other areas in or near Overton Park. We have explored costs of a parking garage — which does not make sense given the millions it would cost to build and the fact that it would sit empty nearly 300 days out of the year.”
This means there are only 7-8 free Tuesdays a year that fall within the “busy” Zoo days when parking overflows. This leaves approximately 48 free Tuesdays when parking is not a problem. The ploy, by council, to throw race into this very important issue was a complete ruse. What a disappointment!
What is missing from the entire debate and discussion about parking is that the City has allowed, and the Zoo Board has taken advantage of being able to 1) raise money for several attractions, 2) build several attractions, 3) increase attendance, and not spend $1 on making additional parking provisions except at the public’s expense.
Who else gets to do this? No one else gets to do this.
Every other entity, developer, builder, business (big or small) are required to fund or account for parking when expanding use and demand of its facilities. “Accounting for parking” does not equal running a back door deal between the Zoo Board and the City Council to “Take” public space. The Zoo Board, were it required to meet the rules applied to everyone else, would have to fund and build parking. To be sure, funding parking is not a fun or exotic expense. Still, it is necessary. It is clear that the Zoo Board will not take on this duty, unless it is forced to do so…..just the same as is required of every other business in the community.
SCM-
Thank you for continued coverage of the issues pertaining to Overton Park. I can only imagine how frustrating this must be for those who were actually tasked with crafting long term solutions for the park’s accessibility issues.
A flaw in your argument, Cardwell, is that the Memphis Zoo is not a business — it’s a non-profit entity, much the same way the Overton Park Conservancy is. Should the Conservancy be forced to pay to build parking structures to accomodate added visitors for the things it builds or adds to (Overton Bark, Levit Shell, etc) without public expense?
George, Regardless of who pays for it, would you at least agree that it is clear mismanagement to spend somewhere around $70 million on expansions and renovations to increase attendance at the zoo while completely ignoring that additional parking might be needed?
George, his argument is hardly flawed as none of the attractions you mentioned including the golf course, the Brooks, the Memphis College of Art and the Levitt Shell have ever utilized the Greensward as a parking lot. Another glaring difference is that these other attractions do not charge residents for parking when attending events, unlike the zoo which is not confiscates sections of the Greensward (a section of a PUBLIC park) for parking, but is charging drivers to park on said lawn area. At the very least the zoo should be prevented from charging a fee for those forced to park on the Greensward, or any money collected from those parking on the Greensward should be placed in a joint account and dedicated entirely toward maintenance, rehabilitation and improvement of the Greenward itself. However, should the financial benefits of parking on the Greensward suddenly disappear, I would hardly be surprised if the zoo suddenly displayed renewed interest in alternative solutions.
Users of Levit Shell and Overton Bark often park on grassy areas of Overton Park. PerhPs instead of wishing for a less successful zoo, we should be hoping for more local attractions to be that successful.
George-
No they do not. It is these types of comments that are either ignorant of the reality on the ground or are purposely misleading that pollute the conversation and result in sharply divided parties. The fact that you believe that any party involved would seek a solution that results in a less successful zoo also shows that not only do you understand the issue, you are totally uninformed regarding the study that is in process regarding access at parking for Overton Park.
This in today’s Daily News: “Hedgepeth also defended the resolution’s rapid move through council committees and to the full council the same day that the resolution was put in written form and made public, saying he was still working on it late the night before”.
Exactly how is that a defense of the resolution’s rapid move through the committee and council? Nowhere does he offer an explanation for the expedited nature of the resolution. Why that day and not the next council meeting? If this is such an important issue, why was a half-witted resolution slapped together at the eleventh hour instead of crafting said proposal over the course of many weeks? Why did he fear the public having access to the proposal for only a few short hours before it went before the full council? Does he simply lack the knowledge and the critical thinking skills to piece together the fact that the council has acted on a contractual relationship that was executed by and is the responsibility of the mayor’s office? Is he really so uninformed and out of touch with community as to believe that only those in Midtown object to the zoo’s continued use of the Greensward? “Save the Greensward” signs can be found throughout the city. Even if it were the case that only those in Midtown objected to parking on the Greensward, is he so dim as to not realize that in his comments he just established precedent (legally?) to override objections of any resident or neighborhood where the impact of the use of public assets are a concern? In cases such as this, the law is very much attuned to precedent and any deviation from that precedent on any grounds that appear even remotely subjective in nature become easy targets for future litigation. By what right did Hedgepeth have to vote against the proposed hotel at the corner of Front and Jackson, a project with support of the Office of Planning and Development and one that few if any in the city have any knowledge and thus deny every resident the benefit of increased tax revenue critical to support services and amenities (a fact pointed out by other council members) simply because St. Jude did not want that particular hotel as a neighbor? Hedgepeth’s hypocrisy has certainly been established as part of the public record.
Not only does Hedgepeth appear to be inept, but I now question his intelligence and observation skills based on the above.
Just as Morgan before him, Hedgepeth’s would have been in far better position had he not said anything. His comments incriminate him and simply raise additional and darker questions. Then again, when there are those such as Hedgepeth that consider honesty, dignity and integrity as merely optional characteristics of their actions and service, it is hardly surprising that they would succumb to such myopic stupidity.