Senior Center Housing on Parkland Faces Pushback

McGovern Park Senior Center. Photo taken May 24, 2020 by Jeramey Jannene.

The county’s idea for a new McGovern Park senior center received tentative support from a county board committee, but the plan to include housing is already engendering pushback.

The Milwaukee County Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is working with Jewish Family Services on a feasibility study of redeveloping the senior center. JFS specializes in residential facilities providing social and mental health services

One of the options is to build a new, modern senior center in McGovern Park with 35-50 affordable housing units for seniors. The project team is also considering developing a senior center off-site, or simply leaving the McGovern Park center as it is.

DHHS has $2 million federal funding it can use on the project, provided it includes a housing component. Because a private developer would be working on the project, the county could also tap into Low-Income Housing Tax Credits to pay for the development.

But this would mean developing private housing in a public park, albeit on top of a public senior center. And Milwaukee County Parks would need to negotiate a lease agreement with JFS to develop the project.

The prospect of residential development in a public park left some supervisors and members of the public feeling queasy. During a meeting of the Milwaukee County Board’s Committee on Parks and Culture Tuesday, Sup. Felesia Martin, whose district includes McGovern Park, said she refuses to support any project that involves developing housing in a park. And members of Preserve our Parks, a local parks advocacy organization that opposes any development in parks, registered their opposition.

The problem for DHHS and the parks department, is that, as things stand, there is no other plan to repair, let alone rebuild, the county’s five public senior centers. The McGovern Park senior center has more than a million in deferred maintenance, likely multiple millions, according to Jim Tarantino, Parks deputy director. If nothing changes, the county will eventually find itself unable to continue managing and running public senior centers, said Shakita LaGrant-McClain, DHHS director.

“I don’t have 30-something-million-dollars to build a new senior center, and that’s the risk,” LaGrant-McClain said.

The project proposal, which remains in the feasibility study phase, is following up on a comprehensive conceptual plan for the future of the county’s senior centers. It was developed by the Commission on Aging in 2024. The MKE Hubs report, named for its emphasis on senior centers being reimagined as community hubs for all ages, called for modern senior centers, with expanded amenities. The commission, recognizing the county’s limited ability to pay for the projects, suggested officials model development on the city’s successful mixed-use redevelopment of the public library system: with libraries on the first floor and housing above.

The county would likely be able to cover a “substantial” portion of the project cost with tax credits, said Celia Benton director of economic development. Renovations to the surrounding park could also be considered.

“I will not vote for anything that says housing on parkland, period,” Martin said. “But the other portions of the Hubs project, totally for that.”

Martin said she believed senior housing would bring new challenges to the park. Family members may end up living with senior relatives at the park, and suddenly the housing and its associated parking are not being used for their intended purpose, potentially leading to conflict.

“We can’t have that, and it creates a whole culture around senior parking and senior housing in a park,” Martin said. “There will be problems.”

Patricia Jursik, a former county supervisor and Preserve Our Parks board member, said the organization is “fearful” of exactly the sort of proposal going before the board now. “If you do such a development, you’re going to have every developer in town paying attention and noting the fact that parks are now available for development,” she said.

Another Preserve Our Parks board member and former county parks planner, Laurie Muench, said senior housing is inconsistent with park use and that it would require overnight parking, which no parks in the system currently allow.

Sup. Anne O’Connor, said the use of public parkland leaves her feeling hesitant about the project, but added that she is encouraged by the inclusion of JFS.

Sup. Steve Taylor said he likes the project, called it “creative” and said it solved the problem of funding for new senior centers. The county’s financial picture is only getting worse, he said. Parks has struggled to find land and money for a new dog park, he noted, let alone for development of a new senior center.

“The emerald necklace is crumbling. It’s tarnished, alright,” Taylor said, referencing a nickname for the parks system in its heyday. “And there’s nothing to tell me, in the next decade, that anything is going to change.” 

Taylor said the county should keep pushing forward on the project and bring it to the board for a decision.

Sup. Sheldon Wasserman agreed with Taylor’s assessment that the senior centers are in poor shape and it’s unlikely the county will receive the funding it needs to take care of them on their own. But he said he would back Martin’s position on the project as the local supervisor.

“However, if there are supervisors who want this to support housing in their parks and redoing their senior centers and having an updated, modern Senior Center, I support them,” Wasserman said.

The county administration could return to the board in July with a lease agreement to kickstart the project, Tarantino said. Until then, the project remains a proposal, and no decisions have been made about whether it will go forward.