Let’s Not See County Parks as Development Opportunities
County exec's plan to add senior housing to McGovern Park is a bad idea.
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.
If you think stories like this are important, become a member of Urban Milwaukee and help support real, independent journalism. Plus you get some cool added benefits.
Political Contributions Tracker
Displaying political contributions between people mentioned in this story. Learn more.
- December 17, 2015 - David Crowley received $50 from Felesia Martin
Our parks are not for sale! They are NOT ours to lease or sell- they belong to our kids, grandkids, and all future generations. Build the housing elsewhere- there’s plenty of space in MKE Co.
Amen to that.
Great letter. Thank you for writing. I am in agreement with the positions stated here.
“Milwaukee County Parks is a vast and diverse network of recreational spaces that offers something for everyone, whether you’re seeking outdoor adventure, relaxation, or a bit of history. Known as the “emerald necklace” for the stunning collection of green spaces that encircle the county, Milwaukee County Parks spans over 140 miles of trails, 169 parks and parkways, 15 golf courses, and numerous playgrounds, athletic fields, and picnic areas. The system also boasts beautiful beaches, inviting beer gardens, and serene natural environments, making it a prime destination for both locals and visitors.” Visit Milwaukee.
Enough said.
Public-private initiatives such including senior housing with the rebuilding of the McGovern Park Senior Center are long over do in this county. There are critical issues that Milwaukee County is facing, the lack of affordable senior housing is high on that list. We no longer have the luxury of rejecting an idea simply because it hasn’t been before. Keep in mind, McGovern Park is not the Lake Front. It is a park that predominantly serves the needs of northside residents. The Jewish Family Services is a non-profit.
So, before we outright reject the project, we need to collaborate together to address some of the issues raises, though NIMBY is certainly not one of them. The county has every right to demand the senior housing be for low-income seniors. This would address issues of gentrification. These low-income seniors would be able to access a community asset that many for lack of reliable transportation, is unavailable to them now. What’s more, it will bring community members together, thus increasing park usage while dissuading criminal elements from taking over the park.
The redeveloped senior center could include activities for seniors, families, and children. Children who have access to the wisdom of grandparents and other seniors do better emotionally. Communities with active elders do better emotionally and economically.
It is possible to control the precedent established by this public-private partnership. Adding limiting criteria such as requiring the partnership address community needs and issues will deter for-profit developers who are simply out to make a profit.
Finally, what is lost in all the arguments against this project, are the needs of seniors in the community. Saying, JFS can build elsewhere is a clear signal that opposition is clear about NIMBY.
@mkwagner Absolutely agree! In comparison to where most senior housing is located, this would truly be a blessing!
Agree!!
How about JFS builds a new McGovern Senior Center, but builds their Senior Care Center somewhere else in the neighborhood area?
Further, this sounds like the County would be the maintenance for the JFS building…not a good idea either.
I would love for our friends and allies from Protect Our Parks (POP) suggest funding and location options to rebuild and relocate a senior center nearby McGovern. The funding package included a new, larger senior center as a foundation for apartments above it. Everyone seems to like that. Just not in my park (NIMP)!
Can someone think about coming up with funding for such an asset? Where? What insentive for investors in a building with a community center and low income senior housing and parking– not that it doesn’t have value?? No federal money available any more.
So when the McGovern Senior Center building’s plumbing or HVAC go out, the facility will have to close, because there are no funds available to fix. Where will the older adults who use the facility go?
I’d just like to hear possible options besides an MPS-County partnership to convert some unused schools into a Older Adult Hub with apartments! Other ideas?
Not sure how NIMBY applies here. All public parks belong to all people. Not based on residency or other criteria
Or are some folks saying or thinking that some parks can and should be sacrificed for housing (or whatever). Just not the parks in my (affluent) neighborhood.
Sacrifice zones are not a new concept. Milwaukee history is rife with such occurrences.
McGovern Park neighbors have noticed and noted that pattern at hearings.