A front page editorial is a rare occurrence under current ownership here at The Alamance News. If I’m not mistaken, this is the first in the 34½ years since we bought the newspaper from my parents, Tom and Jean Boney in 1990.
During the 1960’s and 1970’s, in particular, it was not such a rare undertaking. My Dad would not infrequently use front page editorials to crusade against secrecy in government, against corruption and self-serving actions among public officials, thereby highlighting the importance of the topic by the placement of the news-paper’s editorial opinions and concerns right on the front page.
I believe the topic that follows is of such importance to the citizens of Graham and Alamance County that it, too, deserves to be highlighted in this way.
– Tom Boney, Jr., Editor & Publisher, The Alamance News
“And, by the way, when will the public be allowed to weigh in with their views about the future of the Sesquicentennial Park? So far, there’s been no mention whatsoever, so far, of a future public hearing on that topic.
Alamance News editorial Sesquicentennial Park, part 2, April 11, 2024
“The [Graham city] council’s consideration of how to spend the $600,000 grant [included in the state budget] will continue at next week’s (June 11) meeting, but it’s not clear whether the public will ever be asked for their opinions about how the money could most effectively be spent.
“There’s not even any public hearing on the horizon in Graham – either on how to spend the money, or about what to do about the Sesquicentennial Park – another topic the council has raised without the first semblance of seeking public input.”
Alamance News editorial Frittering away tax dollars without any public input, June 11, 2024
For reasons we’ve never understood, a majority of Graham’s city council has for more than a year been on a campaign to get rid of the lovely Sesquicentennial Park on the northwest corner of Court Square across from the Historic Court House.
Built following the 1999 celebration of 150 years of Alamance County history, the park is a reminder of the county’s history, as well as of the history of the county seat where it is located.
From the moment the issue of the park’s sinking floor appeared out of nowhere on the council’s March 2024 agenda, three council members have been pressing to do away with the park altogether, wanting to have the city sell the property as “surplus,” hoping to convert it to some form of private ownership where the city could resume collecting property tax on it.
The park foundation is sinking, and rather than undertaking any repairs, they want to eliminate the downtown remembrance of 150 years of Alamance County and Graham history and potentially move it to a much less visible location – somewhere, almost anywhere else. (Most frequently cited is behind the Graham Civic Center, off McGee Street.) The fix has been in since last year. This week’s city council discussion was mostly a replay of the very first discussion from March 2024. Little meaningfully new was said.
Over the last few months, the park has now been closed, fenced off from the public, but council members still consider it a “safety threat.”
We’re trying to imagine the real reason for removing the park: is it to “solve” the problem of homeless people hanging around the downtown area (which is, indeed, a problem that law enforcement has been unable to resolve); was the city embarrassed by the protesters in the past (2020), many of whom were anchored at the park?
Mayor Jennifer Talley, councilman Bobby Chin, and council member Bonnie Whitaker have been especially insistent that the park isn’t worth repairing or restoring. Frankly, the arrogance these three have exhibited toward the public, most recently at this week’s city council meeting, is palpable. (Anyone doubting our assessment of their attitude should view the council meeting via YouTube: https://bit.ly/4jY9vN2; see beginning about 1:18:52)
Part of our initial suspicion last year that Talley might have had an ulterior motive behind championing its return to private ownership was put to rest by her subsequent public assurances that she had no personal interest in buying the property or constructing a building on it.
As for Chin and Whitaker, they didn’t even live in Graham when the park was built, so they’ve demonstrated no allegiance to the county’s history or the outpouring of support from citizens across Graham and the county who raised the funds for its original construction.
Last year, the city received a $600,000 state grant, compliments of state senator Amy Galey, for “downtown revitalization.” Talley insisted that the money shouldn’t – indeed, according to her, couldn’t – be spent for repairs on the park. While Talley maintains her unsupported claim that the state money was restricted, senator Galey, who shoehorned the money into the state budget in the first place, told the newspaper last year that there were no restrictions whatsoever on its use by Graham.
But aside from that $600,000 windfall that the council instead squandered on other less important projects, the city has millions of dollars in the city’s saving account – from years of overtaxing its residents and businesses.
But still council members think it’s not worth spending tax dollars on fixing what has become a downtown Graham landmark.
Chin even went so far this week as to claim that if residents want the park to remain, they should come up with the repair money on their own. (And, according to him, should have already done that.)
The council majority hadn’t been willing to entertain making repairs – not when the initial estimate, one year ago, was $50,000 (with the city doing most of the work) to two recent formal bids from private contractors (for $470,701 or a low bid of $379,425).
Nope. Not worth spending money on, say Talley, Chin, and Whitaker – joined for the most part by councilman Joey Parsons who also thinks the repair price tag too high. “I’d have a hard time spending half million over residents having rusty water.” (Parsons mixes apples and orange, since water lines, under state law, must be funded from a different pot of money – the water and sewer fund – rather than general appropriations.)
Only mayor pro tem Ricky Hall has been a stalwart defender of keeping the Sesquicentennial Park. “It was put there for a reason,” he explained this week.
Ironically, this whole focus on the park apparently began because Hall raised the subject in December 2023 at a budget workshop that the city needed to plan for repairs to the park.
Instead, the subsequent response has been options for getting rid of it.
But what we find the most astounding, most galling in this whole episode is the utter disregard for seeking any input from the public they ostensibly serve.
The city council holds public hearings all the time; this week’s meeting, for instance, had four of them (including on the seemingly minor issue of whether a former mayor’s daughter could operate a hair salon in a private residence).
But somehow in more than 14 months, the council has not found the time to schedule any formal, public hearing to seek public input on the future of the park or its repair.
Sure, some residents have turned out occasionally – primarily in September 2024 – to speak during an open-ended public comment portion of the meeting.
Downtown merchant and former city councilman Griffin McClure, for instance, has at least twice urged that the park should “remain in the city’s possession and be repurposed or repaired as our only green space downtown.” McClure also insists “that is the prevailing opinion for literally every property owner and business owner I have spoken to downtown except seemingly the mayor.”
But the council apparently doesn’t want to know what the public thinks. There’s been no input sought in the way that city councils normally seek such feedback. At one point last year, Chin even suggested there might could/should be a referendum for Graham citizens to determine the future of the park. But that thought was quickly dropped.
There was no formal public notice that Chin’s ultimate motion this week to remove the pergola would be considered by the council, much less that a final decision would be rendered. The “agenda item” says merely, “Sesquicentennial Park Project Options,” with the agenda packet including the two bids from contractors. Talk about disingenuous.
While Graham’s council can’t find any money to fix the park, they agreed at the very same meeting just this week to spend $63,000 to $65,000 to put some new-fangled digital sign in front of city hall. What a waste of tax dollars and priorities.
The budget presented Tuesday night by the city manager, not yet adopted, has a 2-cent property tax increase, 3 percent raises for all city employees, and proposes to hire about five more employees, including a public relations specialist.
We guess we understand the need for the latter, inasmuch as it will take some real ongoing tax-paid PR “spin” to try to make this council look good.
- Advertisement -
