We continue to be baffled by the obsession some Graham city council members have with removing the Sesquicentennial Park located at the northwest corner of Court Square, across from the Historic Court House, built to celebrate the county’s 150th anniversary in 1999.
We’re not surprised, however, by the revisionist history that transpired during this week’s public hearing on the proposal from one individual citizen, Russell Compton, to move the park to a small courtyard behind the city’s historical museum on West Elm Street, around the corner from its present location on Court Square.
By our calculations from public documents, the current park occupies about 3,311 square feet. The courtyard where Compton suggested moving it appears to be roughly about 30 feet wide x 20 feet deep, or roughly 600 square feet – a very small fraction, less than one-fifth of its current size.
How in the world Compton or the city council think 3,311 square feet can be squeezed into 600 square feet is simply unfathomable.
Council members were incensed when this newspaper’s publisher had the temerity to call such a proposal “half-baked” during this week’s public hearing on the idea. Oh, no one should criticize another resident’s idea, the publisher was told, although such restraint seemingly didn’t apply to the citizens this month and over the past year-and-a-half who have repeatedly called for preserving the park.
Their pleas have been deemed “unrealistic,” “unaffordable,” and “too expensive.”
When the public hearing was first advertised two weeks ago, we asked city officials for any drawings – whether preliminary or otherwise – for some outline of what was contemplated, since the public hearing on this idea was the very first time this location had been publicly suggested.
We asked, for instance, how many parking spaces might be lost by converting some of the parking spaces in the city lot for the park, or whether the one-way through traffic (to exit on Maple Street) would be maintained.
Graham’s assistant city manager Aaron Holland responded to our public records request for such information with this succinct response, “ I don’t have anything on the potential new location other than Russell Compton wanted to address Council with the idea and they wanted it to be a public hearing for the public to weigh in. Not sure about closing the exit to Maple or how many spaces would be removed…that would be something Public Works would investigate I would assume.”
At this week’s public hearing, the publisher asked whether any study had been done on how extensive is the use of the parking lot – it appears to be full often or close to it – that would ostensibly be “converted” for use as a downtown park.
Apparently not.
Frankly, “half-baked” was a generous description.
Among the revisionist memories is that the city council has had “several meetings” dedicated to this subject, mayor Jennifer Talley intoned at the outset of the public hearing.
Yet this week’s public hearing was the first official, public announcement about any consideration of moving the park.
Council members have discussed it, it’s true, at several meetings. They are apparently under the impression that Graham residents roam the city’s website regularly to uncover any mention that the topic, or something remotely related to it, might be on the city council’s agenda over the past year-and-a-half.
Likewise, the claim that the solicitation of bids was “advertised” on the city’s website is equally frivolous. How would any conscientious businessman in his right mind know that he should be looking at the city’s website to uncover the possibility of a bidding process?
As one resident noted this week, this is not the way bids are typically handled. (To be honest, we’re not even sure such a limited approach is even legal.)
It is clear that the city has never even explored the idea – mentioned by at least two public speakers – of a new technology that would pump some sort of foam-like substance into the “voids” underneath the existing park’s foundation that would then turn solid, in order to shore up the park’s brick floor and planters.
Likewise, we’ve mentioned another technology, helical piers, that could also be explored – but hasn’t been, so far.
We’re also amazed at the number of red herring arguments made.
Mayor Talley keeps talking about wanting to have the park area fenced – even after it’s reopened – as though there is some kind of “safety” issue associated with public use of this small, public acreage.
We don’t know if the mayor or other council members have noticed, but none of the city’s other parks – all far larger than the Sesquicentennial Park – are fenced whatsoever and, have no gated, fenced, or other entrance restrictions.
One topic that seems to be avoided in the discussion about the Sesquicentennial Park is what had been the problem of vagrants, or homeless, sleeping in the park.
That problem would only accelerate with the proposed new location, which is already in an area frequented by both.
It continues to interest us that the city makes no efforts whatsoever to search for financial solutions to keep the park.
They express no reluctance to find tens of thousands of dollars to move it, but haven’t really, seriously, explored ways to keep it.
The one good thing about local government is elections, and there’s one coming up. We’ll certainly be asking candidates in our biennial election questionnaire what their priorities would be in connection with the Sesquicentennial Park, preserving it, fixing it (and if so, how to find financing for it) or relocating it (and where).
For instance, it was interesting to note that councilman Bobby Chin, who has previously expressed enthusiastic sentiment for moving the park and selling the corner lot, was silent throughout this week’s public hearing.
Meanwhile, several challengers – one mayoral candidate and two city council candidates – made clear during the hearing their support for preserving the park where it is.
Residents of Graham need to continue making their voices heard to the mayor and city council members.
