Sale of city parks to Salvation Army[]
Nationally, the Salvation Army is targeting public parkland in many cities. The insistence is that parks are the only suitable sites. They have rejected any serious consideration of other, non-park sites.
In Grand Rapids, Michigan:[]
The Salvation Army has targeted a 100-year-old city park, Garfield Park, as their site to build one of their Kroc Foundation supported "community centers"/worship centers. A group of residents has been fighting the deal. [1]
Grand Rapids, Michigan, Garfield Park, is the birthplace of O.C. Simonds, who created a plan for the park. The land was donated by the Simonds family and Charles Garfield family with the contingency that the city keep the park as a city-owned park in perpetuity. Charles Garfield was an early environmentalist in the state of Michigan whose contributions were many, and he is buried in the park.
The Salvation Army center would replace aging recreational facilities (a pool and gymnasium) and not greenspace. However, even with downsizing the design to a 69,000 square foot structure, clearly the Salvation Army intends to use Garfield Park and its green and open setting as a buffer for its big facility. I would imagine the same logic is working elsewhere for them.
In the 1906 deed donating the land to Grand Rapids, the donors specifically prohibits religious or political activity in Garfield Park.
The Garfield Park Neighborhood Association, the newspaper, and even a Spanish-language newspaper came out in favor of the project. But the Save Garfield folks are much larger in number and have over 1,500 signatures on petitions. They had overwhelming support among all neighborhoods around the park and even from residents farther away. There were more than 300 people who attended the one-and-only city meeting/public hearing this past Tuesday. The city commission votes on the deal Feb. 7, 2006.
The mayor and city manager worked secretly with the Salvation Army for more than a year wtihout any public knowledge or input. Without even the other elected officials knowing what was going on. The mayor and adminstration are offering only the park as the site. No other spot.
In November, 2005, the city of Grand Rapids, MI, secretly filed in probate court to open up the deed and in that filing threatened to use eminent domain to undo the historic deed. THAT is quite interesting, all you separation of church and state fans, no? To force a sale of public parkland to a religious, not to mention discriminatory, organization?
In December 2005, before the holiday season, the city started pitching its project. Now it's do or die to make a decision by the Salvation Army's self-imposed deadline. Some city commissioners and planning commissioners are incensed to be put into this position.
Unfortunately for Grand Rapids, the city could have been working with the Salvation Army about alternate sites long ago, and better yet, presented the choices to the people well ahead of deadline time. To force this upon its citizens and its own elected officials, the Grand Rapids adminstration and mayor have done a disservice to its residents.
In Grand Rapids, where they are claiming there's NO money for maintaining this important park, the city would also have to come up with $7.5 million to give to the Salvation Army's endowment for the operation of the center--another of their "requirements."
Cleveland and Toledo[]
The Salvation Army dropped plans for their worship centers in Cleveland and Toledo.
New York City[]
Salvation Army's tactic of proposed take-overs of underfunded public parkland is a lousy precedent, and is one that would be fought, tooth-and-nail in NYC. Let the Salvation Army buy land for their place, but not our park, no matter how drug infested it is.
[]
Local governmental folks think that the Salvation Army proposal is a win-win. They don't want to fix the park because that costs money. Everyone could use a new rec center. Plus, "those people," could use the "religion."
Salvation Army's reputation helps to twist arms, not so subtlely by advocates in your area.
[]
Fighting the Salvation Army provides a real battle on the backs of the citizens. For starters, citizens need a group of neighborhood residents who are willing to do the work to create an alternative plan for the park. The plan needs to be sustainable and as good as the Salvation Army's plan.
Tip: Get some master gardeners from the area to start creating beautiful garden areas in the park that would be "irretrievably lost," if the Salvation Army plan went through.
Use phrase, "alienation of public land," and a "dangerous precident for the region / state / nation / (your area)."
Separation of church and state[]
Residents are sure to be split[]
Many may welcome the center, religion and all.[]
Anti-[]
A gay activist showed up at the city commission meeting this past week and gave a great synopsis of the Salvation Army's dismal record on discrimination and the ACLU suit against them, as reasons to turn down the offer.
Salvation Army's tactics[]
A similar approach is brewing in other cities. Some identical claims are being made.
The Salvation Army's requirement that the land is owned, not leased.
Background[]
The Salvation Army has $1.6 BILLION to spend on these community centers/worship centers. They're going to be built. But where? In our city parks across the country?
Opposition groups[]
Fight[]
As a community activist - get all local civic, homeowners, commercial, youth to sign petitions and write letters. WHO are your fighting against? Who would allow this?
Although Salvation Army gets LOTS of charity money...they are VERY anti-gay people. A friend of mine was going to leave them $ in her will, then checked out their stand on homosexuality and decided NO WAY.
The city would also have to come up with $7.5 million to give to the Salvation Army's endowment for the operation of the center--another of their "requirements."
TAX money for the Sally???????????? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING?????
It is not easy - but you must find a pro-bono lawyer that has not dealt with the city.
Manhattan's Westside: We (hundreds of residents, groups, and commercial interests) have fought and won against a tourist heliport on top of the USS Guadalcanal aircraft carrier (`94-`95) and a few months ago beat the Jets football team from building a stadium w/no parking spaces in Manhattan's westside.
[]
Links[]
- urban.parks@topica.com has some discussions on this topic.