Dedication to 'dedicated'

At the northwest corner of ButlerBoulevard and Genesee Street near downtown, a pair of two-story housesare in good shape. Eleven years ago, passersby might have noticedplayground equipment on the .39-acre lot. Maybe even a sign that read“Genesee Park.”

However, contrary to its appearance back then, the parkwas not on the city’s inventory of “dedicated” parkland. Without such adesignation — and to some neighbors’ frustration at the time — voterapproval was not necessary for the city to sell off the land.

And so in 2003, the city did exactlythat for $30,000 to the Greater Lansing Housing Coalition. Three yearsprior, a battle took place in the City Council chambers over whetherthe city could sell the property without voter permission. The CityCharter requires voter approval to allow the city to sell off dedicatedparkland. 

But what looked like a park and actedlike a park didn’t turn out to be a park. Even though the city boughtthe property in 1969, installed playground equipment, “placed it underthe jurisdiction of its Parks and Recreation Department” and listed itin the “inventory of parks property,” the state Court of Appealsconfirmed a trial court’s decision that the property was not “required”or listed in the city’s Master Plan. The Appeals Court ruled such inAugust 2002, nearly two years after the Lansing City Council voted toapprove the sale. In those two years, the group Citizens for a BetterLansing and residents Gregory and Lois Klink filed suit against thecity, alleging the sale of the park needed voter approval. All along,the city’s plan was to sell the land to the Greater Lansing HousingCoalition so it could build two houses on the property in an effort toclean up what some residents deemed was a drug-and crime-infested park. 

A proponent of the sale all along wasCity Councilwoman Carol Wood. Seemingly, this position contradictsWood’s view on a Nov. 8 ballot proposal to sell off nearly 13 acres ofparkland on the city’s eastside — especially when she says her“philosophy is about the preservation of green spaces.” 

“It (Genesee Park) was never a dedicatedpiece of parkland,” Wood said Monday. “There’s a big difference betweendedicated and not.” She said it was “out of the goodness of the heart”of a former parks director that a sign was ever erected calling theparcel “Genesee Park.” “We’re talking about something that wasn’t parkproperty.”

Wood also said that a previous CityCouncil decided in the “late 1970s, early 1980s” this parcel’s future“was something the neighborhood could decide.” However, Council minutesfrom Sept. 14, 2000, show “174 residents in the Genesee Neighborhood”signed a petition opposing the sale of the land. Lois Klink, who withher husband filed the suit against the city in 2002, said she was“disappointed” by the court ruling.

“We figured it was a park when we movedin,” Klink said Monday. She and her late husband, Gregory, lived at 905W. Genesee St., across the street from the park. Lois Klink, who hassince moved to Haslett, said, “When we heard it was not going to be apark, we decided we would fight it. We were living in town, we felt thechildren needed space for picnics, parties, baseball — things likethat.”

Klink would not comment on whetherWood’s position on Genesee Park — Wood said at the time it was a havenfor drug users — and that of Red Cedar is a contradiction. “I don’tknow any of the details on that.”

Rick Kibbey, president of the Lansing Parks Board, agreeswith Wood that since the property wasn’t dedicated parkland, the cityhad every right to sell it. Kibbey served on the Housing Coalition’sboard at the time, he said. “One of the things that came out of thatbattle is that although it may look like a park and act like a park, ithasn’t been dedicated a park and is not a park for city purposes,” hesaid.

However, when asked if Wood contradicts herself with astatement that preserving green space is her philosophy, Kibbey said,“Certainly she did.” 

It’s Kibbey’s view that you have to lookat each proposal regarding parkland separately. He supports selling aportion of Red Cedar Golf Course for redevelopment, with the “bigcaveat” that any potential revenue from the sale go directly into thepark.

“I appreciate the fact that she’s reluctant to sellparkland. Frankly, I’m reluctant too. But as we enter the 21st centuryand the city undergoes bone-wrenching changes to its demographics andeconomics, we can certainly expect a change to our public facilities toaccommodate those changes. We need to look for new opportunities in anew reality.

“I think she (Wood) needs to take a longer look, abroader view. Any time someone brings up a big park proposal, theanswer’s been pretty much ‘No’ or ‘I have more questions that can’t beanswered.’ I think that’s unfortunate.”

Wood offers a flat “no” when asked about the perceivedcontradiction. She said Genesee and Red Cedar are “apples and oranges,not the same thing.” “There’s a difference between dedicated ordeed-restricted land versus two vacant lots that are barely largeenough for two houses. We’re not talking about 12 acres of property,”she added, referring to the Red Cedar proposal.

“I have said that I voted to put it (Red Cedar) up tovoters to sell. I was asked about my personal opinion. I don’t supportit. I believe I have a right to my opinion. I could have easily saidit’s my prerogative not to tell you.”