Now, that wasn’t really so hard, was it?
Now that the Overton Park Conservancy has done the work that more appropriately should already have been done by City of Memphis or the Memphis Zoo years ago, we can only hope that calmer heads will prevail and everyone can finally agree on the steps that can be taken to get parked cars out of the Overton Park greensward.
The primary question at this point is whether there are any calmer heads in the current Zoo hierarchy. Time after time, they have not only misread the dynamics of the issue but have doubled down in ways that enflamed the situation, brought new opposition into the fray, and ultimately squandered the most precious commodity the zoo has – the public’s good will.
This week’s report by the Conservancy about options for dealing with the parking demands for the zoo and other equally valued tenants of the Park was logical, reasonable, and more than anything, felt like common sense. That a professional report to the public has been lacking for so long feeds the opinion by many that city politicians have been so blinded by the influence of influential special interests and political contributors that they failed to search for simple solutions that could have long ago been implemented.
There’s Nothing That Can’t Be Done
The report’s recommendations can be divided between the “easily accomplished” and the “more involved,” but any suggestion that they are not implementable is misleading and untrue.
The “easily accomplished” recommendations can add as many as 800 parking spaces during the next two years at the bargain basement cost of $1.7 million. If more spaces were needed, the “more involved” recommendation is for a parking garage with more than 300 spaces costing $8.55 million (design and construction).
Overton Park Conservancy executive director Tina Sullivan said the report “dispels the notion that we’ve exhausted all solutions,” and that is unequivocally correct. It’s amazing what reasonable options reasonable people can develop when they are willing to consider all the scenarios for addressing the problem of cars taking up parkland more appropriately used by people actually experiencing the park.
In retrospect, it is staggering how long Zoo officials have adamantly declared that there are no options but greensward parking, but it is more staggering still that city officials acquiesced without any serious examination of the facts of the matter. Ultimately, we don’t blame the zoo for not developing the options, but its officials certainly should have been sounding the alarm that more parking would be needed rather than thinking they have a divine right to the greensward.
It’s Not A Question Of Money, But Political Will
It’s testament to how influence and power can produce tunnel vision that so easily keeps intelligent public officials from doing their duty, which in this case was to pursue solutions that would protect the park from the kind of environmental pollution that results from serving as a parking lot.
We’ve previously posted the amounts of the appropriations in City of Memphis budgets for the Memphis Zoo and how they increased between 2010 and 2016. When it took office, the Wharton Administration inherited a budget that included $2,127,000 in operating funds for the zoo, and in the six budgets prepared by the Wharton Administration, zoo funding increased by a cumulative amount over six years of $4.97 million. The final operating budget prepared by the Wharton Administration, the one that will end June 30 of this year, provided $1,044,017 more than it received when the Administration took office.
Meanwhile, in those six budgets, Memphis Zoo received $4.68 million in capital funding from City of Memphis.
When these amounts are considered within the context of the parking solutions and their costs, it is clear that the Administration abdicated its responsibilities to find solutions while responding to the political influence of the Zoo board to send more money to the private nonprofit organization.
Leadership Failures
Just consider it: the “easily accomplished” options in the Conservancy’s report cost $1.7 million. And the annual bond payments for the “more involved” option of an $8.55 million garage are about $684,000 a year.
In other words, the “easily accomplished” options were imminently affordable, and although city government regularly said that it did not have the money for the “more involved” solution – a garage – if parking solutions had received the same capital funding as the zoo did in these six years, the remaining gap in funding would be $3.9 million, an amount that could likely have been raised from private and philanthropic sources.
While city government failed to take action – and in our mind, a parking garage for all of the tenants at Overton Park is the responsibility of city government rather than the Zoo or the Conservancy – the Memphis Zoo pushed ahead with major new projects without developing any better ideas for handling the increased parking than continuing to park more cars on more of the greensward.
The zoo has operated for years on the premise that it could largely do anything it wanted in Overton Park, and even with the creation of the Conservancy – and the increased public use, increased things to do, better maintenance and equipment, and stepped up advocacy – the zoo appeared to bet that its political muscle could make sure that things didn’t change. In fact, it was logical for them to think this since the precipitous and ill-considered action of Memphis City Council to inject itself into the debate proved to the zoo once again that it had not lost any of its power in City Hall.
The Times They Are A’Changin’
In the wake of the Council’s action, the reality of how much the times have changed slapped zoo officials in the face, a shock that could feed their heavy-handed, over-the-top pronouncements, and their unsteady footing on what to do next. It must be especially infuriating – as it is baffling – to them that a growing group of park advocates that they had so cavalierly dismissed have been able to turn this into a cause celebre that has become symbolic battle for a city that values and is willing to fight for quality, high-functioning public spaces.
Unfortunately, anytime the zoo has had a list of 10 reasonable responses, it has regularly chosen an 11th one that suggested that they had lost touch with the city they claim to serve and the public whose name they invoke to justify each of its actions.
It makes them so tone deaf that they can say without a hint of irony that protestors are undermining Memphis Mayor Jim Strickland’s ongoing mediation, apparently oblivious to the fact that nothing did this more than their own lawsuit. Or when they defended their barricades and takeover of the entire greensward as a way to protect park use, again oblivious to the contradiction of protecting the park by denying park users access to the park’s sweet spot, the greensward.
Their actions and their rhetoric would be laughable if they weren’t so disappointing. Before this controversy escalated, it would have been next to impossible to find any amenity in Memphis that was more loved than the Memphis Zoo, and yet, zoo officials have forfeited a great deal of that love.
It’s been hard to tell if they have simply lost their footing or whether it is merely arrogance, but at this point, it doesn’t matter, because the results are the same. Because of it, it is the zoo that is paying the heaviest price.
Serve, Now For The Volley
Soon, we’ll learn if Zoo officials have learned anything from their disastrous public relations experiences. While hope springs eternal, we’ll get an indication of its attitude early on if its leadership defaults to its normal talking points: we know best, we know what our customers want, we’ve already thought about all of this, and a garage is too costly.
While all of this has been unfolding, the “save the greensward” advocates have built up steam, and like the celebrated time when a few citizens with passion and vision stopped an interstate from destroying the park, thousands of citizens with passion and vision are working hard to protect the city’s most beloved park yet again.
The ball is now in the zoo’s court. Hopefully, this time, its officials will carefully consider their response and not draw another line in the sand.
***
Join us at the Smart City Memphis Facebook page for daily articles, reports, and commentaries relevant to Memphis.
Thanks for this! Gathering the facts, speaking the truth, the obvious that some journalists/news reporters seem to totally miss. Great writeup, great read! You’ve covered it nicely! The only things I would add is the fact they tried hard to turn this into a race issue at the City Council meeting on March 1st. The Park advocates were trying to keep the disadvantaged from visiting the Zoo by not allowing them to park their cars on the Park on Free Tuesdays, which by the way is not what they make it out to be. Their “Free Tuesdays” are only for a couple of hours on Tuesday afternoons and no Free Tuesdays in March, when the kids are out for Spring Break. Like we need to start a race war in Memphis, TN! Oh, and let’s not forget, the Zoo is still charging those same disadvantaged the $5.00 to park on the Greensward on their so-called Free Tuesdays! And… the charge to park, all this time over all these years, has been going straight in the Zoo’s pockets! The Zoo could have taken that money, which really shouldn’t have been theirs to begin with, and paid for these upgrades, the parking study has brought forth. You are right, the entire fiasco… it would be funny if it weren’t so sad. I’m wondering who does the hiring and firing over there. They need new leadership at the Zoo. The Zoo management has failed miserably! Who in their right mind expands the Zoo by leaps and bounds, with no planning for parking for their guests!?! As for the City Council… election day will be here before they can turn around good! One last thing, there were several council members, who hadn’t paid their property taxes, by the deadline, and if I’m reading it right… they shouldn’t have been allowed to vote, on their back room developed Resolution. It should be thrown out. Hopefully, Open Records will see through their shenanigans and rule them in violation of the Sunshine Law. Power To The People!
I didn’t mean to be anonymous. Hard to write this from my phone so I missed that part! Thanks again! Have a great day!
As always, yours is the voice of considered reason. Thank you for your eloquence and insights…
No. Not another dime of taxpayer dollars should be given to the Zoo until the current Director and Board Members are replaced.
The City’s disregard for Overton Park started long before the current zoo crisis. The people won the battle against the interstate and I have faith that this parking controversy will be resolved in a way that benefits everyone. Where the people lost was in the rape of the southeast corner of the park. There’s a veneer of shrubbery to hide the horror from view at the intersection of Poplar and East Parkway. Before the City destroyed it, it was one of the densest most remote sections of the old forest.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1426795,-89.9832916,556m/data=!3m1!1e3
Hopefully the Conservancy will prevent further abuses like this.
Case Closed
Thank you for telling it like it is!!!
Awesome report…!
Great post. Thank you for, once again, being the voice of reason.
The Overton Park Zoo is one of the small number of top tier visitor attractions Memphis had to offer both residents and visitors. The parking situation has been out of control for years and the city and zoo officials have failed in every possible way to come together. A well designed parking garage should be a no brainier. But then no dice, this is just more evidence of how backwards and small minded leadership in this city is. I’m so embarrassed to see the drive/in parking lot on park property. It’s a disgrace and both sides should be ashamed. Geez but this city keeps getting worse and worse!
Awesome read. It will be interesting to continue and watch to see how this plays out. Let’s hope they get it right instead of continually wrong!
It seems like the Conservancy is interested in telling everyone else to make sacrifices, while disrupting park enjoyment by others who disagree with them and harassing other park visitors. Instead of trying to find a compromise solution, OPC told everyone else they need to give up some things so that OPC doesn’t give up anything.
All the “solutions” in the proposal involve other people making sacrifices (zoo users need to put up with more difficult parking, potential zoo users need park far away and use a shuttle, North Parkway users need to lose heavily-used travel lanes, nearby neighbors of the zoo need to put up with heavier traffic and parking on their streets). Some greensward proponents even proposed closing the golf course (saying that greensward people mean more than golf course people). That’s an awful lot of finger pointing and making demands of others, all the while making no sacrifices yourself.
Perhaps the greensward could be shrunk, allowing for both zoo parking and greensward uses. Never in the last 25 years have I seen the greensward more than 1/3rd full of people – even on the busiest days. Usually when the zoo parks cars out there, the cars are so far away from where the people were that you can’t even see the people. Perhaps some of the trees could be cut down to either allow for more parking or a relocation/redesign of the greensward.
OPC can’t claim that they have exhausted every possibility here. It seems like they’ve only looked at the ones that cause others pain, but spare themselves.
George: This was a study based on public input and included all park stakeholders including the Zoo leadership. This was not a pet project of the OPC eventhough they footed the bill.
According to the Commerical Appeal:
“The plan was commissioned by the Overton Park Conservancy, the private nonprofit group managing the park for the city, and produced by a team of planning, architecture and engineering firms that held public meetings earlier this year to discuss options.”
According to the text of the report, it was prepared for the OPC (Zoo is not mentioned in this) by a smattering of various architects. The report was also released to the public before they gave the Zoo a copy.
The report did say that park partners were interviewed, but it did not say which specific proposals were endorsed by the different park partners or if they took any of the Zoo’s suggestions (or even what those suggestions were).
Are you trying to say that the Zoo developed these recommendations or that their ideal scenario is reflected here?
Did anybody notice that one of the parking proposals for the broader park (not specific to the zoo) is to create a mobile app that reserves you a parking space for an event (Brooks Museum, Levitt Shell, greensward event) before you get there — for a fee?
What does everyone think about that? Will parking spaces be sold weeks in advance for Levitt Shell shows? What about people who can’t afford to pay for parking and just wanted to come out for a free show in the park?
How’s everybody going to respond to driving around for many minutes looking for a place to park, while there are spots open, but reserved, so we can’t park there?
I am saying the OPC was trying to conduct a public study to provide alternatives to parking on the Greensward. How much bias is built into the report is hard to quantify but I do think they were trying to solicit a public solution rather than go to the Council and have a their own self-serving resolution crafted for them..
The previous post is mine.
Are you trying to say that OPC’s motives are somehow more pure than the Zoo’s? Let’s stay on task and evaluate what’s been presented. So far, OPC has said that everyone else should change to accommodate OPC. They’re saying to neighbors: you let people park where you want to be (your neighborhood) so they don’t park where I want to be (greensward).
I think there should be a little more give-and-take in their solution. This proposal is all take and no give.
George, it doesn’t matter if there is one person on the Greensward or 200 people or no people. It was designed over 100 years ago to be open green space in a beautiful public park in the heart of a city, not a parking lot. Never a parking lot.
The Zoo was asked to participate along with all the stakeholders in the park, but they refused. Further, OPC has always allowed the Zoo to use the same Northern 1/3 of the Greensward since the Council gave them exclusive control of it. They have said they would continue to allow overflow parking on the Greensward until a suitable alternative could be found. If the Zoo wanted to participate in good faith to show what they claimed beforehand, that no suitable alternative could be found, they were welcome to do so. As far as I can see, OPC are the only ones to actually compromise and operate with complete transparency. I think we all know what the Zoo did and it didn’t involve offering to compromise their position.
Anonymous: Overton Park has undergone a lot of changes since its inception. Maybe we don’t agree with all of them, but I think we can agree that at least some of them were good. If we let the park stagnate and not change with the times (and increased or altered demand), we won’t have anything that anyone would want to visit. Would you rather not have the Rainbow playground or Overton Bark? Those weren’t there 100 yrs ago.
Toof: The Zoo asked OPC numerous times over the last several yrs to join them in a parking solution. OPC declined every time. In fact, the Zoo approached OPC earlier this year about a parking solution and OPC declined, then turned around and launched its own project without the Zoo.
You can’t spend several yrs refusing to play nicely with others, then put out your own report and claim that others didn’t want to help you.
The phase I of the plan would create an additional 350 parking spaces. 300 of which would be off Zoo property. Assuming all the spaces would be used (a big assumption for the off property spaces) that still would not be enough spaces to stop parking on the Greensward, although it may lessen the number of cars. Are the supporters of this plan agreeing to continued parking on the Greensward until the other phases are completed?
Phase II proposes another 400 spaces with 100 of those being on Zoo property. The first two phases depends heavily on the public accepting on street and remote parking to go to the Zoo. What happens if the public rejects those options?
George: Do we have public record of the OPC refusing the Zoo’s invitation to work with them on a parking solution? Such a refusal seems out of character for the OPC.
@George, I don’t know what you mean by Zoo asking OPC to “join them in a parking solution.” I know that the Zoo in a letter stated there was no other solution but to give them the land currently used as a maintenance area and let them run a tram through the Old Forest. I know that they negotiated an agreement with the OPC, but that when Mayor Wharton extended the deadline to stop using the Greensward, the Zoo simply tore up that agreement. I know that they agreed to mediate with OPC when asked by Mayor Strickland and then 2 day later sued OPC, the City and the Council. I know that they announced they would reconfigure their current paved parking area to create more spaces and that they said a few months later they would not do that. All I can say is that the only thing positive I have seen is that they are using Richard Smith to represent them in the current mediation process.
@Michael, the process has always depended on the public accepting the proposals. It’s just that there has been zero ability for the public to have any input. We haven’t even been allowed to see any proposal at all. Everything the Zoo has done up until recently, was proposed, put before the public and only after that adopted by the Council. Why did that process have to change to the point that the Zoo can refuse to disclose what will be done with public property? If the public had known all along the Greensward parking was temporary by knowing what the long term plan was, then the whole protest would most likely have been avoided. All that anyone knew was that more and more cars were being parked on the Greensward on more and more days until some became concerned about what it was leading to.
@Tom Jones- Great Post! (as always!)
@George- I’d like to see the specific Zoo proposals that were rejected by the OPC. Please provide them. >>Perhaps you are talking about the idea of buying some land east of the Park (east of E.Parkway), and driving electric trams through the Old Forest to get to the Zoo entrance– That idea fails because very very few people want vehicles in the Old Forest. >>Perhaps you are talking about the idea of putting parking near the SE corner of the Park, replacing Memphis’ maintenance facility there, and again driving electric trams through the Old Forest to get to the Zoo entrance– Fails again for the same reason.
@George- any claim that the OPC’s parking study was self-serving is so misinformed! [1] They invited the Zoo to be a partner in the project, but the Zoo declined; [2] They did include the Zoo and every Park Partner (aka “Venue”) in the process of developing the study; [3] The study had 3 very highly regarded consultants doing the study; [4] The consultants made extensive efforts to get input from all quarters- {a} public meetings, {b} public surveys, {c} Park Partner meetings, {d} meetings with other Park Stakeholders (neighborhood groups, various groups of users of the various park venues).
@Patty Pierce- What is really the story behind “No Free Tuesdays in March”?? [1] If the Zoo wanted to continue to enable poor residents of Memphis to visit the Zoo, they should have continued Free Tuesdays, especially during Spring Break; I never saw any clear explanation of why they stopped that promotion for the month; [2] If the Zoo just wanted to build more support for their programs, “how much Free Tuesdays” are appreciated, that’s great; [3] But if the Zoo wanted to somehow make it look like the Greensward parking controversy was to blame, that’s really a backhanded slap at all those who value the Greensward.
George,
First regarding tradeoffs, it is pretty obvious you either did not read the full report or did not really understand the recommendations provided. The report is defined by a series of middle ground conclusions and equitable solutions. The authors no doubt understood that had it been as biased as you presume, it would fail to attract the universal support necessary for implementation.
In addition to the comments posted by others above in response to your posts, I will add this: The only individuals I have heard proposing to infringe on the Golf Course, have been those advocating for the zoo’s continued use of the Greensward for parking.