Citizens to Protect Forest Park Nearing Critical Mass of Signatures
From their release:
After collecting signatures at city polling places on Nov. 7, 2006, Citizens to Protect Forest Park now has 19,263 signatures in its possession. With some petitions yet to be turned in from Election Day, the total should increase to over 20,000.
Citizens to Protect Forest Park needs to turn in approximately 22,000 valid names of registered voters in the city to the Election Board by Dec. 8, 2006 to have the charter amendment on the April 3 general election ballot. The charter amendment would prevent city officials from disposing of city parks or allowing structures not customarily associated with park use or outdoor recreation to be built in parks without voter approval.
Citizens to Protect Forest Park is mounting a petition blitz to secure the remaining signatures. “Our aim is to collect at least 27,000 names to make sure we reach our goal of 22,000 valid signatures. Anyone wishing to help can go to protectforestpark.org to volunteer,” said Ken Cohen, who is a steering committee member of Citizens to Protect Forest park.
The petition was sparked by the city’s proposed lease of more than nine acres of Forest Park to Barnes-Jewish Hospital that would give the hospital unrestricted use of the land for 99 years. The hospital recently said it planned to put a minimum of six buildings on the site. In addition, the city has floated plans to move the dog pound to Ellendale Park, build a football stadium in Fairgrounds Park, and build two recreation centers in city parks.
Cohen said, “It has become clear that this administration has a policy of using green space for other purposes. We believe the great majority of city residents oppose this policy. They want their parks to remain parks. While we welcome new recreation centers and other new facilites in the city, we do not want them built in our parks.”
Citizens to Protect Forest Park estimates that 75-80% of the voters asked to sign the petition on Election Day were eager to do so.
Does this petition include a tax for park maintenance?
Posted by ellen on Thu., Nov 16, 2006 at 1:49 PMI think by confusing BJC's lease of Hudlin Park with the rec-center plan, these park-purists are going to gain some Holly Hills NIMBY's to Carondelet Park, but otherwise, mostly confuse potential single-issue (read Forest Park) voters elsewhere in the City.
But I say go right ahead and confuse the issue. Undecided voters need to know just how limiting this charter amendment will be to the future of all our City parks, big and small, popular or unknown. So then, it doesn't hurt if the petition proponents themselves help spread the doubts of this far-reaching amendment as a flawed solution.
Posted by Brian on Thu., Nov 16, 2006 at 4:07 PMAd checker here.
"....The hospital recently said it planned to put a minimum of six buildings on the site"
That statement is a total fabrication and should be removed.
The proposal as it stands today restricts BJC to its existing lease footprint (on which they have 45 plus years remaining, which is esentially the area of the underground parking garage.
The likely use is construction of A (ONE) new tower on the site, replacing the existing parking structure.
Whoever is selling that 6 building myth should know better. Ad checker certainly does!
Posted by ad-checker on Thu., Nov 16, 2006 at 4:58 PMIt is a poorly crafted charter amendment. I would vote against it even if I supported the intent.
I will not vote for any ballot measure where the guy trying to collect the signature from me lies and tells me that he is a volunteer. I understand there are volunteers collecting signatures. But I also know there are or were paid gatherers, same guys have been collecting for years. They work here for a couple of months and then go to another city or state to collect. When confronted about who they work for, they say they are independent contractors. When confronted about their business license, they said it is not needed.
Some people have a romantic view about initiative petition rights. They think it is only more recent times that people were paid to collect signatures. They reminisce on the glory days when it was about volunteers with good government motives. Maybe it was that way somewhere but not here a lot of the time. Men were paid to collect signatures for the very first initiative petition drive here in 1916 for racial segregation in housing.
I elect representatives to make decisions. If I do not like the decisions, I can work to elect replacements.
If direct democracy were such a good thing, why don't we have it at the federal level?
I'm with Howard on this. This is a republic. We elect officials to pass legislation. If we don't like it, vote them out.
If this measure is placed on the ballot in April, probably 11% of voters in the city will show up at the polls. I don't want 11% of voters motivated by a campaign of misinformation to decide this issue.
Posted by city beat on Fri., Nov 17, 2006 at 11:22 AM
Right a Wrong. Submit any tips or story ideas by using our anonymous email form. Confidentiality is guaranteed.