Friends of Rapid City Parks has raised objections to a proposal to create parking for downtown employees in West Memorial Park, at the corner of 8th & Omaha.
Here’s why:
1) The dilapidated tennis court and parking lot at the end of 8th Street have been targeted for removal since the Park View complex, which includes tennis courts, opened in spring 2009. There are another half dozen or so public tennis courts, and the 8th Street courts are not needed. The Department of Parks and Recreation recognized this in 2009, but did not have specific plans to remove the old courts.
2) Removal of the courts and the parking lot came up in a negotiated solution when Friends objected in late 2009 to the Central High School expansion pushing into park land. Friends agreed not to refer the Central encroachment into park land to a public vote in return for a promise that “Central’s tennis courts and parking lot are to be torn up and that land donated back to the parks, so in turn it’s an even trade.” The school district and the parks department deferred action on the demolition and restoration, and Friends was unable to get a definitive answer on which entity would fulfill the agreement. The restoration never happened.
3) Friends provided this information, along with additional facts and documentation to city officials, pointing out that South Dakota law does not allow the city to use dedicated park land to build parking lots for off-site private businesses.
4) If the city wants to use park land for something other than “parks, parkways, and boulevards, and for public libraries, museums, and art galleries” it must put the issue of removing land from the dedicated purpose to a public vote.
5) We have reason to believe the city will finagle this requirement by asserting that the downtown business employees parking is really for the park. But if you look at the proposal, the testimony, the supporting statements, the facts and figures they offer as rationale for the plan, it is 99.9999 percent about relieving the pressure on downtown business parking.
6) We agree that piece of the park is an eyesore. Landscape and beautification plans for West Memorial Park have been proposed repeatedly, via the Beautification Committee of the City and through the Vision 2012 process. Friends has supported these proposals each time, but they never made the cut.
7) Now officials see the parking lot offer as a chance to deal with parking complaints, get some nice landscaping at a key intersection and entry point, leverage some federal dollars for transportation and storm water utility projects, and do it spending a minimal amount of city funds. Such a deal!
8) The problem is that this “solution” cuts out a public process called for by state law: namely a vote of the people to decide whether stewards of public land can give it away to private interests who can afford to throw considerable money on the table.
Yes, it’s a lot to consider. Clearly more than public works committee members want to chew on, since all but one didn’t even open the files we provided with the documentation outlined above. They’re busy people. But the bottom line is that our greenway is a legacy purchased at the ultimate price. It is a memorial park and should not be for sale to the highest bidder.
4 Comments on “What’s the flap about the tennis courts?”
The fate of green areas in most cities is DEATH by a thousand cuts. With our past record, can we envision any other scenario?
I would like to see us help nature reclaim some of its lost glory. That would NOT include “see-ment ponds” with rusting metal fountains…environs that few animals or people care to visit. Nor do I want huge concrete lined flower gardens, vast turf grass deserts (e.g., Mary Hall Park), and artificial lighting designed more for show than for safety and practicality.
Protect Memorial Pond and rehab marshes, husband mostly native plants that support birds, insects, and other wildlife; go green and sustainable.
Thanks, Roger!
“Pave paradise, put up a parking lot.”
My refrain, Barbara! Thanks for commenting.