2011-Nov-ONDP Presentation To Upload

Old North Durham Park : 

Old North Durham Park Durham Coalition for Urban Justice November 12, 2011

Overview: 

Overview Old North Durham Park (ONDP) has become a controversy because of efforts by Central Park School for Children (CPSC) and their associates, including “Friends of Old North Durham Park” (FONDP), to block a quality full-size athletic field and control the park to serve private interests. This has a disparate, negative impact on the park’s current users and neighborhood residents, predominantly low-income African-American and Latino residents.

Issues: 

Issues The key points of controversy are: City directives (Sept. 6, 2005, Resolution # 9281) to upgrade and maintain Old North Durham Park as a full-size athletic field have been intentionally ignored for over 6 years. Agents have worked to replace the City’s Master Plan (reaffirmed by City Council on 9/6/05) with a privately-developed plan by CPSC, FONDP, and ONDNA.

Timeline : 

Timeline December 2003: CPSC acquired a building under questionable circumstances with an unwritten agreement that this would also give them the park. September 6, 2005: City Council directs DPR to upgrade OND Park full-size field. November 15, 2005: CPSC enlists the Old North Durham Neighborhood Association (ONDNA) with plans to stop the 9/6/05 City Council directive.

Serving the Public Interest: 

Serving the Public Interest For - keep the field at tournament level (330ft x 180ft) as indicated in the Durham Parks Master Plan and as directed by City Council on 9/6/05 (Resolution #9281) Against –duplicate amenities that already exist in walking distance (garden, bog, walking trails, etc.)

Durham’s kids, youth, families, and adults need more athletic fields for recreation.: 

Durham’s kids, youth, families, and adults need more athletic fields for recreation. Old North Durham Park’s full-size field is actively used by the community.

PowerPoint Presentation: 

Studies have shown that whereas higher income residents who have access to private gyms or programs for exercise view public parks primarily as spaces of leisure, low-income and people of color who suffer disproportionately from child obesity, diabetes, and other diseases related to lack of places for physical activity depend on public parks for athletic recreation.

Durham Lacks Athletic Fields: 

Durham Lacks Athletic Fields The Durham Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2003-2013) recommends that Durham should have 46 athletic fields; DPR has less than 14 athletic fields, and even fewer full-size fields. Old North Durham Park is the ONLY athletic field in downtown, and the ONLY full-size athletic field in downtown.

PowerPoint Presentation: 

Page 32 of DPR Master Plan (2003-2013)

City’s OND Plans -2004: 

City’s OND Plans -2004 “Our long range plan includes rehabilitation of the park. A capital project request in the amount of $100,000 (construction costs) has been funded in the City Manager’s Proposed Budget. This project involves the installation of a permanent automatic irrigation system, extensive subsurface drainage will be installed and new top soil will be brought in. The field will be "crowned" once again to provide positive surface water flow. Bermuda Grass will replace the existing grass to provide an appropriate playing surface.” To: City Council; From: General Services June 7, 2004

PowerPoint Presentation: 

“…the park is for the whole City, not just CPSC; and the whole City desperately needs more athletic fields” “…the butterfly garden, the walking trail, the picnic spaces, that the school parents say they want, exist right now in Central Park-1 block away-isn’t that the point of having this school in an urban environment?” “…a soccer field and kids playing are not mutually exclusive—won’t a big green (well-maintained) playing field be good for the kids to use for their games during the day?”

Sept 6, 2005 City Council Meeting: 

Sept 6, 2005 City Council Meeting “With the current shortage of athletic fields in Durham, DPR staff feels that we cannot afford to reduce or lose one of the existing fields”

PowerPoint Presentation: 

Feb. 21, 2006

PowerPoint Presentation: 

November 15, 2006 Letter From Rhonda Parker , Durham Parks and Recreation, Director To Leslie Frost , Old North Durham Neighborhood Association, President “…I would like to note that Durham Central Park, Rocky Creek Park, and Bay-Hargrove Park are in your larger neighborhood, as well as the OND Park itself. Those parks offer walking trails, benches, and children’s play equipment” “…What is more “multi-use” than a large, green, well-maintained open space? It’s suitable for ongoing events…or for many future events or activities that require space” “A field suitable for athletic events, in a densely developed area, is a resource that is not to be taken lightly; it is truly a resource for the whole community to share. The City Council (at its meeting on September 6, 2005) and the Recreation Advisory Commission (at its meeting on November 8, 2006) reaffirmed their support for continued scheduling of athletic programming in OND Park”

CPSC works to eliminate OND Park’s full-size field, gain control of the park to serve private interests, and undermine the City Council directive…: 

CPSC works to eliminate OND Park’s full-size field, gain control of the park to serve private interests, and undermine the City Council directive…

PowerPoint Presentation: 

“We are hoping that lots of CPSC families…will drop in and object to the size (very large) of the soccer field proposed for the Park.

PowerPoint Presentation: 

“request is that ONDNA support a motion to stop the current plans for the park and instead hire a planner to make it more broadly useful” “if anything is going to change, the neighborhood has to dig in hard to get this changed; it needs to be done with Central Park…this is 1996 BOND money, it has already gone out to bid once and didn’t get any response, and now it is going out to bid again; nothing is actually final until money exchanges hands and construction shows up”

Park Control & Violation of Public Process: 

Park Control & Violation of Public Process 2003: City transfers ownership of building adjacent to park and the Eastern park entrance to CPSC. 2004: CPSC Privately-runs and finances “Master Plan” process (Claims to focus only on playground) 2005: Enlists ONDNA to block field upgrade Nov. 2007: Attempts to lease park for $10 per yr for 10 yrs. No park users/neighbors notified. October 21, 2010: CPSC/FOND seeks to get City Council to pass Master Plan never shown or discussed in a city-sponsored public meeting Recent 2011: FONDP controls park meetings. No city-sponsored public process.

Myth # 1: There was no money: 

Myth # 1: There was no money June 2004 ( Crittendon email): $100,000 for upcoming budget. OND Park funded in 2004-05 CIP. OND Park included in CIP ($887,000) for six “field renovation;” $222, 879 specifically listed for OND Park. $10 million 2/3 Bond (Aug. 2005): $2.6 million Parks and Recreation Bond $1.3 million Public Improvement Bonds 2005 Bond (Nov. 2005): $38.3 million for Parks and Recreation (Resolution 9278) $11 million Cultural Facilities Bonds; 2008: $800,000 from sale of Erwin Field to Duke.

PowerPoint Presentation: 

“It is our intent to have major repairs and renovations made to the field next year…the General Services Department has requested $100,000 in this up coming year’s budget for the complete renovation for the North Durham Park Soccer field.”

City’s OND Plans -2004: 

City’s OND Plans -2004 “Our long range plan includes rehabilitation of the park. A capital project request in the amount of $100,000 (construction costs) has been funded in the City Manager’s Proposed Budget. This project involves the installation of a permanent automatic irrigation system, extensive subsurface drainage will be installed and new top soil will be brought in. The field will be "crowned" once again to provide positive surface water flow. Bermuda Grass will replace the existing grass to provide an appropriate playing surface.” To: City Council; From: General Services June 7, 2004

PowerPoint Presentation: 

$38,333,000 for Parks and Recreation 2005 Bond

Sale of Erwin Field Park to Duke: 

Sale of Erwin Field Park to Duke November 2008: City Council sells Erwin Field Park (5.5 acres) to Duke for $700,000, removing yet another city park and soccer field from public use. The City received $700,000 cash from Duke at closing on January 28, 2009. Duke still to pay City $100,000 once an encumbrance on an adjacent parcel is removed. The contract states: “the City is willing to sell Erwin Field Park to the University in order to have funding to construct a replacement soccer field or fields in another location to meet pressing park and recreational needs of the City.”

Myth # 2: Drainage was and is the problem: 

Myth # 2: Drainage was and is the problem No mention in Sept. 6, 2005 City Council meeting of drainage problems that would inhibit the upgrade of the field. Stormwater funds have always been available to improve drainage (pipe under field) receiving runoff from the publicly maintained street. Right now, public money is being used to repair drainage issues on the private property of Nana’s restaurant. ($176,563 on design alone; over $500,000 for construction)

Myth # 3: The “neighborhood” does not want a public, full-size athletic field: 

Myth # 3: The “neighborhood” does not want a public, full-size athletic field November 8, 2007: Residents overwhelmingly object to transfer of control of OND Park to CPSC via renewable lease (City Council) December 18, 2007 : Residents speak in favor of publicly-controlled full-size field and against CPSC lease (DPR) October 21, 2010: Neighborhood residents speak out against the FONDP Master Plan & violation of public process (City Council) March 15, 2011: Overwhelming support of full-size field; 150+ people protested the FONDP-sponsored meeting (City Council)

Conclusion: 

Conclusion OND Park should be a quality, publicly-controlled and maintained full-size field It is the directive from the City Council and matches the City’s own Master Plan for OND Park. A dire need for soccer fields remains There was and is money The drainage is not the problem We need your support