Let’s Not See County Parks as Development Opportunities

McGovern Park. Photo by Jeramey Jannene.

Dear County Executive Crowley,

Reimagining the McGovern Park Senior Center may be necessary to fund its reconstruction, but locating it in McGovern Park is certainly not necessary. There are many good reasons why housing has never been allowed in parks, as I’m sure you are aware. I urge you to reconsider before taking this unprecedented step.

In your op-ed piece on “Reimagining McGovern Park Senior Center…” you identified a “number of misconceptions” that the public needs to rethink. However, I suggest that they are not so much misconceptions as disagreements. Let me take them up point by point and explain why, which should make it clear why there is so much opposition to the proposal to rebuild the Senior Center in the park if housing is involved.

You assert that “Milwaukee County is very fortunate to have been offered a unique, once-in-a-lifetime funding opportunity to rebuild … McGovern Park Senior Center.” However, if this proposal proceeds to completion, it is important to point out that plenty of developers will be happy to offer additional once-in-a-lifetime opportunities to build housing in other parks, beginning—but not ending—with the four other senior centers.

You note that “The County does not have the capacity to renovate the existing senior center or build a new senior center alone.” No argument here; the aging Senior Center certainly needs to be rebuilt and Milwaukee County Parks have been underfunded for decades. But our choice does not have to be between pursuing this proposal and seeing the Senior Center become a blight upon McGovern Park. Those are not the only options. Consider the fact that Jewish Family Services, the proposed developer, has never built housing in a park before (because no one could). Surely, they could provide all of the same services in another location. While keeping the center in McGovern Park would be ideal, having no housing in the park is an even greater ideal and of greater benefit to the public it serves. If the Senior Center can’t be built without housing, then the sensible solution is to build it elsewhere than in a public park.

To your point about not selling parkland, the fact that the County would retain ownership of the land underneath the new apartment complex seems irrelevant to the matter at hand. A “long-term ground-lease and development agreement” is a defacto conveyance of the site. Nor does size of the development relieve any public concern. Arguing that the apartment complex won’t take up much more of the park avoids the crucial factor. Whether it takes up 3 acres or 5 acres, the essential point is the kind of development: it is residential and would result in privatizing a section of a public park.

“A busy park is a safe park.” That’s true, but clearly has never been an argument in favor of putting housing in parks before now. Taking that logic further could become a can of worms used to justify not only housing but also other kinds of incompatible developments throughout the park system.

Finally, you offer assurance that the County will retain “full control over any proposed development on County parkland.” But once the County is willing to pursue housing in one park, there is nothing to prevent it from doing so again and again. I find it disingenuous to suggest that “this is about McGovern Park and McGovern Park only.”

At the Parks & Culture Committee meeting on June 10, proponents argued that this proposal is a “creative and forward-thinking solution.” Though I recognize their good intentions and enthusiasm, our history demonstrates that it is, in fact, neither. More than a hundred years ago the architects of the Milwaukee County Park System were forward-thinking when they established an exemplary system of parklands that would be held in perpetuity for the public to enjoy. A creative solution to the problem of aging infrastructure would not compromise the integrity of public parkland. Allowing developers to build in parks is actually the easiest of solutions. Developers of all stripes would love to help the County solve that problem over and over again.

Arguing eloquently against the proposal in the June 10th meeting, Supervisor Felesia Martin, who was elected to represent the McGovern Park district, said, “Who wouldn’t want to live in one of our beautiful parks?”

Let us not be the first generation to break with tradition and jeopardize the next hundred years of accessible public parks. A long-term, forward-thinking solution would be to establish a dedicated, adequate and sustainable funding source for Milwaukee County Parks, such as creating an independent Parks District with taxing authority.

Eddee Daniel, Preserve Our Parks board member

Existing members must be signed in to see the interactive map. Sign in.