urbanSTL

Somethings I have not yet seen yet discussed (or disgust):



1) This space is the only "modern" park accessible by the up-and-coming Forest Park Southeast neighborhood. It is used often. It is also used nearly daily by the Cent. Inst. for the Deaf kids next door.



2) BJC supposedly has let this site deteriorate even through they promised the City they would take care of it in the last deal.



3) When this deal came to light, BJC had gone to the Forest Park committee and made the lease offer and tried to get them to commit to it THAT NIGHT without the public's knowledge or comment.



4) BJC has never said EXACTLY what they plan on putting there have they?



5) What the hell is with the 99 year lease? Why not just sell it if we are willing to part with control? Who can anticipate what will happen in 99 years?

bassistonline wrote: Who can anticipate what will happen in 99 years?

That's exactly why the City should only lease the land, rather than selling.

Interesting editorial that reveals some of the conflicts of interest of Forest Park Forever...

Who protects Forest Park?

By Eric Mink

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

05/03/2006



At a public meeting scheduled this afternoon at 5:30 in Room 208 of St. Louis City Hall, the city?s planning commission is expected to consider whether to approve handing over 12 acres of Forest Park to Barnes-Jewish Hospital (the largest unit of the BJC HealthCare system) for development.



The suspense is killing me.



Two weeks ago, the Forest Park Advisory Board (members appointed by the mayor) voted 15 to 4 to approve the deal, which was presented by city officials as highly desirable ? and all but done.



Today, the 11 members of the planning commission are set to take up the proposal. Six of them are city officials or staffers. After ? I mean, if ? the commission approves the plan, the Board of Aldermen will consider it.



Read More

I've said before that I'm all for BJC building on this land. But maybe the city should wait and re-evaluate to see if they're really getting enough for this land. $1.84 million/year matched by FP Forever still puts you at a little less than $3.7 million per year, over $800,000 short of the $4.5 million/year needed to maintain the park.

As part of the agreement, BJC is willing to help relocate the current recreational amenities in this space (playground, tennis courts) within Forest Park. But since this is the most accessible part of the park to the FPSE neighborhood, maybe BJC could also help pay for improvements to an existing or new pocket park within the FPSE neighborhood. South of Manchester, FPSE already has the Adams School, community center and ballfields. Is there a location between Manchester and 40 in FPSE that could use a pocket park?

southslider wrote:As part of the agreement, BJC is willing to help relocate the current recreational amenities in this space (playground, tennis courts) within Forest Park.

I thought their obligation was to relocate these amenities somewhere else in the city, not necessarily within forest park. Maybe they could be persuaded to do so in FPSE in the area you suggest as a gesture of goodwill to the neighborhood.

From MayorSlay.com:



The Mayor has asked CPAs Krewson, Conway, key aldermanic chairmen to study/report on the proposed BJC lease extension.

^ excellent news...no harm in the city making sure it's getting everything it can out of this land, we only have one chance to do this right.

I still haven't decided where I stand on this whole thing, but I just want to get my two cents in on one part of the issue. I've seen it repeated here that BJC hasn't kept up the park, and it's now in a decrepit state. While it's true that the tennis and racquetball courts are in bad shape, the rest of the park has been very well maintained, and the plantings are beautiful. Whatever happens, I hope at least some of this park is retained.

I would like to see a study of possible expansion elsewhere on their current "grounds". Can't they tear down the older building directly to the east of the main building? what about the older buildings on Kingshighway to the north? those could be torn down. are there any surface lots still to the east? move the existing garages farther east and build where some currently stand. But, I'm still not totally opposed to the idea of allowing them to lease this land.

MayorSlay.com: Revised proposal for BJC/FP lease

Full disclosure: I'm in favor of the new proposed lease. The payment is to be tied to inflation - even 50 years from now it should cover a very substantial portion of Forest Park maintenance. Ammenities are to be moved either across Clayton Rd or into the FPSE neighborhood - that's excellent (and a better use of land). The current park isn't really a neighborhood park (it doesn't touch any residential land) and there's no usuable connection to the main FP (such as a running trail) to be used. The current lease is terrible. The signs are true: My Park is not for Sale! - it's for lease, and at very attractive terms.





More from the Mayor:

Wednesday, September 6, 2006

BJC Lease



I recently asked the Forest Park Advisory Board to explore ways that might improve the proposal to extend an existing lease with BJC on property east of Forest Park. I expect their formal report next week. I also expect to receive a report from four members of the Board of Aldermen who have been reviewing the financial terms at my request.



Either group could suggest changes that improve the overall proposal.



But whatever changes we make to the proposal, it is worth repeating why we are even discussing it: to improve Forest Park. The proceeds from the extension of the lease would be matched by Forest Park Forever and dedicated to Forest Park. For the first time, Forest Park would have a dedicated stream of revenue for maintenance.



And the cost?



The parcel in question, east of Kingshighway, is already leased by BJC for a parking garage – and it has been for years. Very few people even consider it part of a public park. And even fewer people know they can use the tennis courts and playground on top of the garage. Under the terms of any agreement, BJC would have to move those amenities to nearby neighborhoods so that more people can find and use them.

I can't see why people are against this idea. I would bet the vast majority of people weren't even aware this area is part of FP (it was a surprise to me), and I'll bet some don't even know now where this parcel is. One letter writer to the PD said if Hwy 40 were located, this piece of land would again be joined to FP. This just shows some people aren't even familiar with the area and are spouting off just because they're affraid of further whittling away of the park. I support this plan, while I'm confident more "whittling away" will not take place.

I'm totally in support of this plan as well, and it sounds like it just got a little better. People seem to be worried that if the city is willing to lease a tiny, isolated, underutilized piece of the park to BJC, then it's only a matter of time before the whole park is being used for corporate interests - a sentiment that is completely unfounded. Perhaps if the city involved would institute restrictions on the future sale of the remaining parkland west of Kingshighway and east of Skinker, certain unreasonable parties may cool their jets a bit.

Now that I read the Mayor's post again, there are a few things I don't like.



What's the purpose of saving the small bit of land south of Clayton? A playground there isn't in the FPSE neighborhood. Maybe the playground at Taylor and Gibson could be enhanced. Or more could be added to Adams School. Each of these are infinitely easier to access for the FPSE neighborhood than that small patch of land. I have a similar issue with the tennis and handball courts. That's great if the courts in FP are expanded and/or improved, but that doesn't address FPSE. The existing courts in FP are more than two miles from the nearest corner of the neighborhood. That's not close enough for FPSE regulare use. Imagine if someone said they would add a swimming pool to the CWE, it will be built at Kingshighway and Natural Bridge!!!

DeBaliviere wrote:I'm totally in support of this plan as well, and it sounds like it just got a little better. People seem to be worried that if the city is willing to lease a tiny, isolated, underutilized piece of the park to BJC, then it's only a matter of time before the whole park is being used for corporate interests - a sentiment that is completely unfounded. Perhaps if the city involved would institute restrictions on the future sale of the remaining parkland west of Kingshighway and east of Skinker, certain unreasonable parties may cool their jets a bit.

And I'm totally in support of you -- and anybody else who'll support this generous plan.



Those who oppose this offer don't seem to grasp that this small square of underground parking/tennis courts hasn't been a real part of Forest Park for many years, and will probably never be again.



This is a win-win prop for the city; the park will receive funding, BJC will build something terrific, jobs will be created and everybody will benefit. And contrary to all the whining, this will not set a precedent for park lands being sold-off to business. Everybody should support this deal.

If they would just bury Kingshighway everything would be terrific. ( )

Again, remember: Barnes still has 45 YEARS remaining on their current lease. It's not like the existing parking garage and tennis courts would be turned into parkland if this proposal is rejected. They would remain just as they are.

Sounds like this is close to being done. The only problem I have is this: "Forest Park, one of the largest urban parks in the country." Looks like Lisa needs to talk to Brian Williams!!! Forest Park - the largest, greatest, urban park in North America!



From the bizjournal:

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stor ... st=b_ln_hl

I think this is positive, likely adding more space south of Clayton at Euclid. However, I still think this is a terrible location for a neighborhood park. BTW - how cool would it be to have a velodrome back in FP? The resurfaced track in Penrose Park (70&Kingshighway) is being used, but is in very bad condition. Having this in the park would draw a lot of cyclists and give them a place to train in the city without braving Clayton Rd.

won't there be a considerable chunk of land added to the park as well when the new interchange of kingshighway and 40/64 is done? as far as i remember, the clover leaf is out and they're slimming it out which should give even more room to barnes as well as considerable room to that small corner of the park.



it's something.



i think people are just getting upset now for the sake of being upset.

I think the 40/Kingshighway and 40/Hampton interchanges are where land may be gained-this is what they Mayor's talking about. Of course it may just be an acre or two, but hopefully more.

As Swuss said, MoDOT is planning on replacing the cloverleaf interchanges at Hampton and with SPUIs which should by itself give a considerable amount of land back to Forest Park (see here). The only reason I can think of why Slay may be involved is to convince MoDOT to shift Kingshighway farther east closer to its original location which would reduce the amount of Forest Park land in "no man's land."

Ihnen wrote: BTW - how cool would it be to have a velodrome back in FP?

Excellant idea! (Of course, it'll have to be "paved" with grass to satisfy the hard-core Parkies)

Indeed. In other news - all tennis courts will now be grass and the ground in the zebra exhibit will be covered with fresh sod each week.



Now, I know I'm jumping into a hornet's nest here, but where do we get off including golf courses into the 'green space'? Central Park probably has more usable park space the FP. I used to golf and don't now - just saying that it's really not public park space, not if you have to pay. And the golfers give you a funny look if your running route happens to cross a fairway or two! The hard-core Parkies should fight to close 9-holes NOW. (I may actually support this.) The people of the city would actually gain from this.

Excellant idea! (Of course, it'll have to be "paved" with grass to satisfy the hard-core Parkies)