Graham’s city council voted 4-1 Tuesday night to move the Sesquicentennial Park, now at the northwest corner of Court Square, to a courtyard and parking lot behind the Graham Historical Museum at 135 West Elm Street in Graham.
Mayor pro tem Ricky Hall unveiled a proposal to move and expand the park at this location during what was on the city council’s agenda as a “discussion” about the Sesquicentennial Park.
[Story continues below special subscription offer.]
MORE GRAHAM NEWS THAN YOU’LL FIND ANYWHERE ELSE!
SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
The Sesquicentennial Park, which had been dedicated in 1999 as part of the county’s 150th (sesquicentennial) anniversary. The city’s sesquicentennial was two years later, in 2001.
Hall’s plan
Hall, who had previously been an opponent of closing or moving the Sesquicentennial Park, gave council members a nine-page presentation outlining what he considered to be the current park’s deficiencies, reasons to move it to his proposed location, and future advantages from such a move, including having more space for larger events.
He said the current corner lot where the park is located offers only 1,132 square feet of “useable space,” has a “considerable amount of city and traffic noise,” contains no grass or open space, and has minimal seating, as well as a “continually shifting” brick floor and “sinking bricks,” which are causing a “tripping hazard.”
Hall said the new park would take 20 parking spaces from the municipal lot that wraps around a corner of the 100 block of West Elm Street under his plan, and under his plan would be 7,710 square feet.
Hall described that the new location would increase park size and areas to “provide more room for outdoor activities, community and multi-use events.”
Hall emphasized that the parking lot land is flat and would require little grading, other than to remove the asphalt.
Hall also raised the possibility that the city could rent the venue and thus “be a big economic draw for our city, by hosting large events.”
Hall suggested including a “stage for performances,” moving the original arbor, or gazebo, from its current location to the center of the new park configuration; the memorial bricks would be moved, as well.
Bricks dedicated to various individuals and organizations were sold for $100 each to help fund the original park’s construction.
Hall stressed that there would be room for 20 to 30 vendor tents in his plan, providing a much larger area for special events at the new location.
Hall said his plan would have gates at the two main entrances and two side entrances, which would be closed and locked nightly after closing hours. A three to four foot high retaining wall, topped with wrought iron fencing, would be installed around the entire perimeter of the park. And security cameras would be installed throughout the park, he said.
[Story continues below photos, aerial rendering of the new park location.]
Hall suggested that the city could negotiate with the county for an “interlocal agreement” to get city usage of 20 parking spaces, which he described as “seldom used,” in a lot the county operates adjacent to the municipal lot that Hall proposes to halve. Hall implied he had already discussed the matter with a county official.
But when asked about the county’s purported willingness to sacrifice some of its parking spaces in a joint venture with the city of Graham, as Hall had described, assistant county manager Brian Baker told The Alamance News Wednesday, “That’s not a conversation I’ve had.”
Hall put the price tag of his plan at $600,000 to $800,000, a figure which he said was derived from conversations with the city public works director, Burke Robertson.
In an interview after the meeting, Hall said he had drawn the plans presented to the council himself, explaining that he is a draftsman.
Hall insisted that he had not shared his plans with anyone prior to the city council meeting, although he did acknowledge when pressed in an interview with this newspaper that he had discussed his ideas with council members Bobby Chin and Bonnie Whitaker, both of whom immediately embraced his concept after Hall’s presentation.
Council members effusive in praise for Hall’s plan
City councilman Jim Young, who had campaigned for city council last fall on a pledge to preserve the existing park, said he “liked” Hall’s plans. Young said he found Hall’s presentation to be a “compelling argument” for moving the park where Hall suggested.
Young said everything at the current Sesquicentennial Park would be moved to the new location, which he said would make it safer. “Why not just auction off” the current location and let them deal [with the problems underneath the brick floor],” he asked.
Young conceded that he had expressed a preference for leaving the park where it is in an Alamance News election questionnaire, “but I would be a fool not to have my mind open to being changed – about anything.”
Whitaker said, “I like the fact that we [would] get more use out of that [new] space,” adding, “We [didn’t] even get much out of it when it was open [in its current location],” she said.
“We can’t just leave the yellow police tape up around the park,” which Whitaker said “looks like crap now.”
Chin said he liked the idea of a stage which would allow for musical groups to perform, with the city reaping revenues from rental of the venue, and that the new park would be large enough to accommodate large celebrations, such as birthdays, weddings, or other events for which the city could charge a fee.
[Story continues below photo.]
Chin suggested that new residents might be able to buy memorial bricks to be added at the new park.
He and Whitaker also emphasized that the original park had marked the county’s 150th anniversary; the new park, they said, would be a Graham park.
Former councilman/businessman’s opposition
During public comments at the end of the meeting, Griffin McClure – a Graham resident, former city councilman, and downtown businessman who has consistently advocated over the past two years to save the existing park – criticized the council’s decision earlier in the meeting to move the Sesquicentennial Park. He said the council’s action was ill-considered because it had “agreed to move a park without a budget, to a place that hasn’t been approved, to take up parking for businesses that are right around the corner.”
McClure also seemed to take aim, without naming him, at Young for his change in position. “I have trouble with certain council people that have been elected on a platform to keep the park in place. It seems like a bait and switch to be recently elected [and then change after the election].”
McClure also seemed to allude to Hall’s change of position, suggesting that perhaps “someone had put a presentation in front of you to present tonight, maybe an employer.” Hall works for former mayor Jennifer Talley.
Responding to a McClure’s veiled hint as to his motivation for changing his stance on moving the park, Hall was insistent,during the meeting and in an interview afterwards, that he had not had any input from Talley. “This is 100 percent mine,” he said.
Hall had foot surgery just before Thanksgiving, and he said he had used his rehabilitation time to study the situation and come up with the new proposal. He was wearing a rehabilitation “boot” during the meeting; last month he attended using a knee scooter.
Hall said he was increasingly concerned that unexpected problems might occur if the city set out to dig up the existing park to fill the voids that have caused the floor to sink. “You just don’t know what you’re going to get into.” Chin alluded to “contamination” under the existing park.
As to the clamor to adopt the plan immediately after Hall unveiled it, Whitaker, Chin, and Hall all used a similar refrain: that previous councils had continually “kicked the can down the road,” and it was time to address the issue comprehensively once and for all.
Mayor asks for time for review, public input
While Dickey praised Hall’s design and creativity – calling it a “great proposal” – she didn’t favor moving forward without getting public input. “My hesitation,” Dickey said, is that at a recent public hearing, “only one person came forward wanting to move the park. Everyone else wanted to keep it where it is.. . The community hasn’t told us they want to move it. They’ve said they want to keep it where it is.”
“It’s my understanding,” Dickey said in urging a month’s delay, “is that the people don’t want it moved.”
“I think there’s a lot of details we need to work out before we jump on this plan,” Dickey added.
As to the previous outpouring of opposition to moving the park, Whitaker and Chin both claimed that many people who had not come forward at city council meetings had expressed an interest in moving the park to them in person. Whitaker said “only seven or eight” people had come out during a public hearing last fall to urge keeping it where it is.
“We’ve been elected to make a decision. This is for the betterment of our community,” Chin said in rejecting Dickey’s plea for another public hearing next month.
Chin made the motion to adopt Hall’s plan, which was seconded by Young and adopted 4-1. Chin, Hall, Whitaker, and Young voted in favor; Dickey was opposed.
In separate action [see separate story this edition], the council took the first steps later that night toward providing some of the funds for Hall’s proposal.
Sign up early, or not allowed to speak
Later, the council voted 3-2 not to hear from two residents who wanted to speak during the public comments portion at the end of the meeting, but had not signed up to do so before the meeting began, to address the council.
Eric Crissman and former city council candidate Daniel Alvis attempted to speak, both seeming to want to address the park issue. Crissman’s family had dedicated the original courthouse bell for the park, which had been removed it after it became a point of contention between rival groups of protesters in 2020; Alvis had spoken out previously, organized a petition, and ran on a platform of saving the existing park.
While Dickey and Young were willing to hear the pair at the podium, Chin, Hall, and Whitaker voted against allowing the men to speak.
