The views expressed on this blog are of the individual posting and are not official positions of the Mount Vernon Square Neighborhood Association (MVSNA)
Viewing By Entry / Main
Hide

"Public Safety" v. "Public Park"


Park Meeting

That's how the question was posted around the buildings owned and operated by the United House of Prayer (UHOP) for a public meeting tonight organized by Council Member Jack Evans and Department of Parks and Recreation Director Clark Ray.  The meeting was called as a follow up to at least two other meeting in the past year on the future of the park on the 600 Block of N Street NW.  This is a park that has been desolate for at least three decades with broken basketball hoops and nonfunctioning lighting (until recently), and the location of one murder about two years ago. 

The set purpose of the meeting was to discuss plans to finally renovate the park.  Facing community pressure, Council Member Evans had pledged to secure about $150k to $200k immediate through reprogramming Ward 2 leftovers from other park renovations for the design phase and to seek $1 million for rebuilding the park.  The last meeting was held in mid-December at the Kennedy Recreation Center.  Attendance was relatively sparse, but it did include 3 of 4 Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners, the presidents of ECCA and MVSNA, and a UHOP representative.  It was decided at that meeting that a survey would be distributed through the ANC and community organizations to gather additional feedback on what should be placed in the park -- i.e. basketball courts, tennis courts, a playground for small children, benches, etc.  The meeting tonight was to provide the results of that survey and gather additional feedback.

The meeting turned into something very different: it focused solely on whether the city would agree to sell the park to UHOP for an unstated purpose.  About 100 people attended the meeting.  Of about 20 speakers, all but 3 identified themselves as UHOP members.  In the view of most of those who attended, the "park" (several participants did not acknowledge the area as parkland, but as a nuisance property) has led to nothing but crime and should be sold to UHOP so they can make the neighborhood safer.  Speakers noted that the Kennedy Recreation Center provides facilities just a block away and that city money would be better invested in that park or in improving what is supposed to be the Carter G. Woodson park at 9th and Q.  UHOP would make an unsolicited offer to purchase the land through an unsolicited offer to purchase the land as an adjacent landowner.  Several residents suggested that they would vote out Council Member Evans if he did not support their request to purchase the park.

Director Ray eventually gave up trying to refocus discussion on park improvements, noting decisions on sale of public property are outside his control.  Council Member Evans noted that sale of park land is unprecedented in DC history and did not think the current administration likely to support such a proposal.  Eventually, UHOP led a "vote" as to whether those in attendance supported Bishop Madison's request for the city to sell the park to UHOP.  About 85 or 90 of the 100 in attendance stood up to show their support.  Council Member Evans closing words make it seem likely that the park will remain in its dilapidated state for the next thirty years: "We are going to move forward without moving forward," he said.

What do you think?  Is there a choice between public parks and public safety?  Should the land on the 600 Block of N Street get a $1 million facelift as a park OR should it be sold to UHOP for affordable housing or other purposes?

 

Comments
defacto public housing? i think not. shaw does not need concentrated despair.

Posted By IMGoph / At 1/14/08 9:44 PM
UHOP is already too big a landowner in this area and does not need any more land. They are relatively good landowners but some diversity of ownership is called for and so the property should stay with the DC parks.

Posted By Sam Farmer / At 1/15/08 5:12 AM
Crazy. Did Jack try to get the meeting back on track and state UHOP's proposal was not on the agenda? Enough with the churches running things in Shaw...why would selling the land to UHOP even be under consideration???

Posted By Ryan C / At 1/15/08 7:23 AM
CM Evans let Clark Ray twist in the wind for quite a while as he tried to explain that he was there as Parks and Rec Director to get input on park renovations and had no power to address sale of public land. Eventually, CM Evans explained the process for sale of public land and that, historically, sale of parkland was not permitted by any past administration. Both made an attempt to steer the meeting toward park improvement, but UHOP and many of those in attendance had their own agenda, which was clearly stated on signs UHOP posted in its many properties around the neighborhood.

Posted By Cary Silverman / At 1/15/08 9:33 AM
The Westminster Neighborhood Association [http://our-dc.com/wna/index.html] organized to take care of the park on their block. It's beautiful and safe. They didn't need to own the space to do this.

DPR Director Ray and Community liaison Jesse Rounds ignored the contributions made by MNSNA, 2ndNWCoop, Marion St and ShawNieghborhood listserv members and others to the online survey which addressed safety and issues that might make the park area less of a nuissance. Instead they chose only to acknowledge the comments made on 70 anonymously submitted surveys by god knows who.

We can't have constructive meetings in some churches. Why can't we use the Walter E Washington Convention Center? They donated space for the Mayor's birthday bash. Someone should ask if they would consider donating one of their numerous meeting rooms for meetings that focus on improving the community. Jack will be at this weeks meeting on Thursday.

January WCCA Advisory Committee Meeting
5 pm | Thursday, January 17th
Walter E. Washington Convention Center, 801 Mount Vernon Place NW
Dr. Charlene Drew Jarvis Board Room (Mezzanine Level East)

Come learn about the Walter E. Washington Convention Center and share your comments with key decision makers. A portion of the meeting is devoted to Citizen’s Participation, which is an opportunity to have your voice heard. Representatives from the Mayor’s office, DC City Council designees and WCCA staff are routinely present to address issues such as traffic, parking, public safety, and event-related activities that may impact the community. We look forward to your participation.

During the January 17th meeting:

• Join Councilmember Jack Evans (Ward 2) as he congratulates the WCCA Advisory Committee on 12 years of service
• Receive an update from Third District (MPD) Officers
• Hear about a potential training program for Shaw residents
• Learn the latest update on the Convention Center Headquarters Hotel

Theresa DuBois, External Affairs Manager
Walter E. Washington Convention Center
(202) 249-3042 | tdubois ]at[ dcconvention.com
DCConvention.com

Posted By Martin / At 1/15/08 10:15 AM
who owns the park now? fix the park now. fix it without spending a ton of money. restore ALL THE LIGHTS not just 40% of them. enforce the laws of the district of columbia. LOCK THE GATE when it's supposed to be locked. why have a community meeting in a church who wants the park for a dollar? hold the meeting at the convention center, we paid enough for it!

Posted By richard rogers / At 1/15/08 10:17 AM
Councilmember Evans has requested that the Mayor include $1,000,000 in the FY2009 budget for rehabilitation of the New Jersey & O Street park. He is confident this funding request will be honored, but he encourages residents to express their support for this funding request to the Mayor directly.

Folks should request money for each of these parks: N St, NJ&O, Bundy Field, Carter G Woodson, RI&6th and see what we get. Aim high. ...

Posted By Martin / At 1/15/08 1:12 PM
What do you think? I THINK NOT!!!! Is there a choice between public parks and public safety? WHY CHOOSE ONE WHEN THEY BOTH ARE IMPORTANT.... Should the land on the 600 Block of N Street get a $1 million facelift as a park OR should it be sold to UHOP for affordable housing or other purposes? IT SHOULD GET A FACELIFT FOR A PARK ( HELL TO THE NAW!!! ) ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHAT THEY TRYING TO BRING MORE CRIME AND MORE TRAFFIC AND MORE PEOPLE OT THE AREA GO BUILD OUT IN THE COUNTRY....

Posted By Antonio / At 1/26/08 8:35 AM
Ive been to several meetings regarding this park. UHOP has never stated any intent to build affordable housing when making appeals for DC to give them the land. In recent years they have only constructed market rate "luxury" rentals in this neighborhood.

Posted By Si Kailian / At 1/26/08 8:42 AM
I am a member of the UHOP since birth and a resident of MVS. The United House Prayer for All People has been in this community since before a lot of us were born. Bishop CM Grace came to this neighborhood in the early 20th century. This was at a time when it could not have been in a more treacherous state and he decided to build here to uplift the community. The area as it stands now, which is a park, IS a public nuisance. Why would you keep it as it is and think that the undesirable element will just simply leave? If the land is repurposed, then there would be no doubt that the element would be eliminated.

Posted By MV Resident / At 1/31/08 9:51 AM
No, some years ago UHOP accidentally tipped its hand and revealed that its true intention is to turn this public space into a private parking lot for the exclusive use of their wealthy parishioners from the suburbs. An awful thing for the people in the neighboring apartments to have in their backyard, and no guarantee of having the slightest positive impact on the "undesireable element," let alone eliminate it (that's a hot one). The vast majority of people who attend UHOP do not live in the neighborhood or care about it, and do not even live in Washington itself; they abandoned it years ago when the going got rough. They were selfish then and they are selfish now. As for UHOP uplifting the community, the crime and violence that continues to afflict the community speaks for itself. If UHOP ever did manage to do the neighborhood a little good, it was previous to anyone'e living memory, and doesn't justify the damage they wish to inflict now. No smug declaration of selflessness can conceal what they are really up to.

Posted By A Real MV Resident / At 1/31/08 10:48 AM
I personally know of a good 20 memebers that attend UHOP that live within blocks of the 6th and M property.

I really discourage the people on this forum from badmouthing the church and its business practices. I would honestly bet $50 that the people on this forum know nothing about UHOP's business practices and the programs it offers.

This forum is really incredible sometimes. It seems that some of the neighbors don't actually care about the neighborhood as a whole--only what's within their view.

If UHOP wants the property at 6th and N, let them have it. Nobody else is screaming for it.

And as for the people that still live in the 1900s in this community (mentally and fashion wise) and still wish for that era of architecture (albeit some of the best and remarkable) then move down to Richmond's Church Hill neighborhood. It's been years since some of Reatig's projects have gone up, but some people still talk about them as eyesores.

Why don't you just hold a community wrecking ball gala (god knows you throw enough meetings and events that only a select group are actually welcome to) and destroy the existing Reatig buildings and let them return to their former glory--empty lots and havens for whores and hooligans.

Is that really what you want?

And to the person posting as "A Real MV Resident": Did it ever cross your mind that some people and organizations within this city do a lot of good but don't feel the need to stand on a Dial soapbox and scream it to the entire city--like many people trying to run for office do?

A police camera was erected, two apartments and its awful residents were evicted, families were given rentals that they could afford for years to come, a scooter returned to its rightful owner, and an entire trailer of things has happened without the doers yelling, screaming, panting, and raving about what they did.

Host a little love, that was always a lovely idea.

Posted By Nicholas McKenna / At 2/2/08 10:38 AM


Blog software provided by Ray Camden