The lingering controversy about Memphis Zoo parking on the greensward seems finally to have run its course. Barring a last minute glitch in fine tuning a few details of the accord approved unanimously by Memphis City Council, the two and a half years’ dispute has been resolved.
All in all, the controversy could not have come at a worse time for Memphis emerging new brand. More and more, as we wrote in a recent Thrillist commentary, Memphis is recalibrating its national image from a slow-moving Southern city to one known for its distinctive outdoor recreation and green spaces.
And yet, in the midst of this historic repositioning, Memphis was mired in an argument about whether parkland is best used as a park or a parking lot. It once again resulted in Memphis looking stuck in time, because as cities around the U.S. were betting on the power of parks, it suggested that Memphis failed to recognize their impact on quality of life, talent retention and recruitment, and health outcomes.
In a sentence, parks are a basic to a great city, and to paraphrase Memphis Mayor Jim Strickland, there’s really no reason that they shouldn’t be brilliant.
All that said, there were some clear winners and losers in the great greensward controversy:
+ Winners
Overton Park Conservancy
In truth, inside City Hall when the Conservancy group was created, the motivation was primarily about shifting city costs to a private management group in hopes of better operations and maintenance for Memphis’ great city park. With Memphis park budgets stagnating or reducing, it was about a Conservancy paying to make the park cleaner, more visually appealing, and more vibrant. Few would have predicted at the time that the Conservancy would come to display the kind of advocacy that would ultimately pit it against the power of the Memphis Zoo and by extension, Memphis City Council.
Few board members have ever had more pressure from influential Memphians directed at them than the Conservancy board, but under the Zen-like leadership of Conservancy executive director Tina Sullivan, the organization not only withstood it but produced the most significant victory since Shelby Farms was protected from commercial development. It’s difficult to praise Ms. Sullivan too much. With complaints sometimes coming from both sides, she remained calm, confident in her cause, and gifted in her ability to articulate why the park matters to every citizen of Memphis.
It was widely expected that the Conservancy would take it on the chin when the final peace accords with the zoo were reached, and while the agreement has been called a compromise, from where we sit, the Conservancy – or put more accurately, the public – were the winners. Best of all, there is now a solid constituency and a powerful momentum behind the Conservancy’s vision for a really great urban park in the center of Memphis.
Mayor Strickland
We’ve written about this in the wake of the mayor’s greensward decision, so we won’t belabor it again here, but the mayor in six months was able to achieve what was thought to be unachievable: reaching a decision that would be supported by both the Conservancy and the Zoo. The back story in reaching this milestone – with its internal and external politics – is more interesting than we can imagine, and it is a testament to a skill he honed as a city legislator that Mayor Strickland was able to pull it off. There were few people who predicted that he would make the politically gutsy decision that he made in bringing this issue to a close and to do it without incurring any serious political cost, and yet, he did just that.
Councilman Bill Morrison
We’ve made no secret over the years of our admiration for Councilman Bill Morrison. Several years ago, we described him as a calm consensus builder, bridge builder, and conscientious leader, and those descriptors seemed especially apt in light of his pivotal role in producing an agreement that led to a 13-0 City Council approval. More than anything, Mr. Morrison is a statesman. Time after time, he is willing to exercise his leadership outside his own district for the good of the entire city, a characteristic on display once again with the greensward agreement. There are details left to be ironed out, but no one is more aware of the political equity that he has on the line than Councilman Morrison. That’s why there is the hope that the agreement will be implemented ahead of its 2019 execution date, so it will be resolved before the city elections scheduled late in that same year for mayor and City Council.
Council Members Martavius Jones and Patrice Robinson
At a time when most Council members were unwilling to consider that the Zoo’s hard-nosed position might not be the right one, Councilman Jones was not cowed by the show of political force that led to the Council unwisely getting involved in this issue in the first place and stubbornly treating the zoo’s position as inviolate. In addition, Patrice Robinson gets kudos for trying to get answers to questions at a point when the vast majority of City Council were content with the zoo’s misinformation.
Stop Hurting Overton Park
There were several social media groups fighting for the greensward, but Stop Hurting Overton Park ultimately became the primary conduit for information and mobilization. As the creator of the 6,000-member Delta Does Memphis Facebook group a few years, we understand full well the careful balancing act that falls on the leader of this kind of grassroots effort, and from our perspective, Eric Gottlieb should write the book about this (with chapters by John Slater and others who kept the conversation rooted in the facts and provided context for opinions that had influence and by those who daily posted the inconsistencies and stubborn determination by the zoo to stick its finger in the eye of park advocates).
Overton Park Alliance and Citizens to Preserve Overton Park
In that same book, there should be a chapter about the Overton Park Alliance, convened and led by the indomitable Mary Wilder. The fight in the beginning between park lovers and the zoo was hardly fair, but the organization of the Alliance helped level the playing field considerably. Most of all, it proved again how powerful community organizing can be in speaking truth to power. It was an impressive group of organizations that included Evergreen Historic, Midtown Action Coalition, VECA, Park Friends, Parkway House, Belleair Woods, Memphis Heritage, Stop Hurting Overton Park, Hein Park Neighborhood, Midtown Memphis Development Corp, Humans of Overton Park, Cooper–Young Community Association, Free Parking Brigade, Bellaire Woods, East End Neighborhood, Morningside Place, Central Gardens, Tucker Jefferson, and Physicians for Urban Parks (which brought a distinctive voice and expertise to the debate). That said, a solid foundation had been set early by Naomi Van Tol and Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, who have been leading the fight about the greensward back to the days when the city engineer wanted to turn it into a flood retention basin.
Levitt Shell, Brooks Museum of Art, et al
While they were often ignored in the parking discussion, other major users of the park have dealt with parking problems for years and encountered their own refusals from the zoo to discuss the issue cooperative. They have been watching the controversy closely, and the agreement also eases the parking pressures for them as well.
Citizen Activism
The history of Memphis is replete with chapters of grassroots activism, but more often than not, they were unable to achieve their objectives, dissipating in the face of recalcitrant political interests that wore them down and stretched out the process until the opposition was fatigued and fractured. Social media have changed this, because of its ability to attract more people more quickly to a cause and to communicate more effectively. All that said, it’s worth remembering that the most celebrated chapters of civic activism have involved parks – stopping the interstate from destroying Overton Park, stopping the development of Shelby Farms, and stopping the interstate through the riverfront parks. All in all, it’s a lesson that public officials should remember.
± No Change
Memphis City Council
It’s a close call to put City Council into a category that suggests it neither improved or diminished its position as a result of the greensward controversy. After all, it’s original hard-edged intrusion into the issue (based on a highly questionable legal opinion by the Council’s attorney) did nothing so much as solidify the Council’s traditionally negative poll results. The demeaning treatment by a majority of City Council of park advocates and greensward supporters presented the legislative body at its worst, and its tendency to cavalierly accept Zoo information merely enflamed the controversy. On the plus side, it was the equivalent of throwing down the gauntlet for park advocates, and in the end, it helped fuel a sense of urgency and brought more supporters to the cause.
In the end, Council finished in the right place, voting unanimously to end greensward parking (albeit it by 2019). All in all, it seems that the midtown and East Memphis Council members may have effectively mended fences enough for this to not be an issue in the next city election but the comments and attitude by Berlin Boyd will undoubtedly follow him in the coming years. Finally, as mentioned above, Council members Jones and Robinson can look for new supporters and contributors from the advocates as a result of their handling of the issue.
New Parks Director
New City of Memphis director of parks and neighborhoods, María Muñoz-Blanco, formerly the executive director of cultural affairs at Miami-Dade College, will find life easier without the greensward controversy dominating park issues in Memphis. With a background more in cultural affairs, she needs more time to familiarize herself and assess the city parks system and return it to its former position as one of the nation’s best.
– Losers
Memphis Zoo
In retrospect, it’s hard to believe – much less understand – how a much-loved Memphis institution could have handled this controversy so poorly. From its opening stance that essentially said the park existed for its use to its misguided missives as the issues unfolded, the zoo’s heavy-handed responses to concerns raised by the park lovers cast it as Goliath against David, but it was nothing short of incredulous that Zoo President Chuck Brady would turn his truculent attitudes toward Mayor Strickland himself.
From beginning to end, Mr. Brady hardened sides, and in causing even zoo supporters to shake their heads at his behavior. It’s hard to see that he can continue to wield as much power within the walls of the zoo as he has in the past. Meanwhile, Richard Smith, board member and scion to the founder of FedEx, walked the tightrope of loyal zoo board member while encouraging compromise through his considerable political connections. Individually, he belongs in a higher category than this one, and based on his influential support for the compromise, he is seen as reason to hope for more enlightened zoo leadership as things move ahead.
Wharton Administration
The decisive action by Mayor Strickland to end the greensward controversy in six months did the legacy of the Wharton Administration no favors. For about two years before Mr. Strickland took office, the issue begged for a decision, but it had been characterized by stops and starts and by shifting points of view. Mr. Strickland complained during the mayoral campaign that the Wharton Administration was indecisive and told everyone what they wanted to hear. With the greensward resolution, he had his chance to prove how he and his administration are different, and he took it.
TV News
The overall coverage by television news too often failed to provide balance and defaulted to its simplistic meme that the greensward parking opponents were a group of well-to-do midtown liberal activists who were devoting too much time to an issue that was not largely relevant to a city with more serious issues confronting it. It is a pitfall of local TV journalism that it frequently reports one side of an issue – especially when it is delivered by a well-oiled PR machine or when it is an institutional point of view, but the editorial comments by some news anchors during newscasts were simply unprofessional and unconscionable. This inclination surfaced regularly when TV reporters repeated the Zoo’s point of view without a countervailing opinion from the Conservancy, Alliance, or Facebook group (which was easy enough to get). It’s a slant seen often when grassroots activism is the topic, whether it’s greensward parking or Black Lives Matter. Meanwhile, the insights of The Commercial Appeal’s Chris Herrington and David Waters reminded us often of why print journalism still matters in this city, as did Toby Sells of Memphis Flyer and the ever dependable Bill Dries of Memphis Daily News.
Trolls
In the earliest days of the parking controversy, the people protesting Zoo parking on the greensward were met with snarky comments questioning their motivations and motives and pounded with suggestions that they were obsessed with the park at the expense of more worthy concerns (despite the fact that so many of the protesters were involved in all kinds of civic and social causes in Memphis). In time, these kinds of comments decreased, most of all as a result of the Facebook group’s willingness to engage in open conversations with those who disputed their priorities.
Fiscal Equity
The final agreements ending zoo parking calls for the Zoo and the Overton Park Conservancy to split the costs of the improvements. That appears inequitable considering that the zoo’s budget is about 15 times larger than the conservancy’s. A fairer division of costs would be based on the proportional size of the budgets for both organizations. Requiring the Conservancy to pay the same amount as the zoo does nothing so much as take money out of the budget that will be needed to achieve the Conservancy’s vision for the park.
***
Join us at the Smart City Memphis Facebook page for daily articles, reports, and commentaries relevant to Memphis and the conversations that begin here.
Unfortunately this article doesn’t mention Citizens to Preserve Overton Park. Without CPOP’s initiative, the zoo would be using the Greensward well past 2019.
You have ‘winners’ and ‘no change’ but no ‘Losers’ category, which would contain one Chuck the zoo guy, and the earlier city council vote giving him the lake, the greensward and all territory he could drive his hippo around in a day.
Naomi Van Tol and Citizens to Preserve Overton Park were the first to bring the matter to the wider public’s attention three years ago, organizing protests and launching the Save the Greensward collective effort, including its logo. She spearheaded efforts years ago to help the Old Forest area receive State Natural Area status (even if the city council had voted overwhelming to run trams through the Old Forest, it would not have happened because of the SNA designation). Thanks Naomi and CPOP for your tireless efforts in ensuring Overton Park is there for the enjoyment of our future generations.
Where are the losers as per the headline? This makes little sense. Other than trying to not offend those responsible for this fiasco. No
Blame for Wharton? This article has zero credibility.
Thank you Smart City Memphis for a comprehensive overview of the parties and outcomes involved in the Greensward issue.
I especially appreciate your praise for Tina Sullivan of the OPC. There was much criticism in social media for her silence during the negotiations, which was interpreted as weakness, but I think it’s clear that she was a calm, stalwart and courageous leader for the park’s interests. She deserves all our support going forth, as her budget was slashed for 2017, and she faces a large burden in financing the Greensward plan.
A word of criticism of the article’s characterization of press coverage throughout the controversy. While you fairly specified an unnamed local tv news coverage as biased and delinquent, you painted all local print/web press with the same brush. I would like to call out Chris Herrington and Ryan Poe of the Commercial Appeal, Toby Sells of the Flyer, and Bill Dries of the Memphis Daily News for their consistently fair coverage from the beginning of the controversy.
I am puzzled by a few things. Bill Morris as winner? He has not been present at most meetings where this was on the agenda. He admonished us to bury the hatchet, which felt odd considering all we have been doing is standing up to a land grab. Unless he was working hard behind the scenes, I can’t figure out why he was singled out as a winnower here. Patrice Robinson was the first to question the original resolution and deserves equal headline with Martavius Jones. We are grateful to them both. Naomi Van too was overlooked as mother of the modern movement to save the park. And the zoo: I agree with your assessment 100%, but they should be given a special award for foul play. In truth, the Memphis Zoo belongs in the winner category too. They successfully used land they had not real claim to as a bargaining chip to get what they claimed to want, more parking spaces and another parcel of the Greensward that they don’t need. There are ways they could redistribute peak attendance to eliminate the need for “overflow” parking that they continue to ignore. Otherwise, great points in this article.
(Gah- pardon above typos courtesy of autocorrect . Serves me right for not proofing)
Sue: Great point about CPOP. I had it on my notes but overlooked it when I was typing. That has been corrected.
Lea: That’s why we carefully labeled the heading, TV news, but you make a good point, so we added a sentence about the fine print journalism work.
Mary: The zoo’s strength was always its political claim, not a real claim to the land, and we don’t know anyone who predicted that it would “lose.” As for Mr. Morrison, he could easily have stayed out of controversy altogether rather than using his political equity to bring it to a close. As for meetings, he has a job with schools that regularly prevents his attendance, but we still salute his willingness to cross district lines, political barriers, etc., to find solutions.
Mary: Don’t get us started about autocorrect…
Thanks, Dan, for the heads-up. For some reason, when we posted this, it deleted the loser headline.
We really enjoyed the planned activities at the park during the past 6 months or so… More families discovered the park and enjoyed the playground (one of the city’s best) and meeting new people. We brought other children with us on Saturdays to enjoy the open space for football and kites. For 8 and 9 year old boys, the Greensward offers a small slice of heaven! Kids were big winners in this! Many learned the importance of social activism and found new spots to simply play!
Thank you to everyone who helped. You’ve influenced a younger generation to stand up for what is right. You also made sure they retained a fun place to be a kid.
I concur with those who mention Naomi Van Tol’s work over the years as a tireless advocate for Overton Park (among other things). She and her husband Larry Smith are both long time advocates for a better and more conservation-oriented Memphis; parks, greenways, natural areas, pollution, environmental racism, etc. They are both caring and ethical people, and community assets that simply couldn’t be replaced.
Anonymous: We agree completely about Naomi and Larry.
Thanks Tom. I would love to see some bright young political science academic take this on as a textbook case i civic activism and particularly the power of Facebook in creating a community to support a cause. Eric and I would gladly provide our backup material.
I’d like to note one important omission. Mary Wilder convened and led the Overton Park Alliance throughout the process. Without taking anything away from Naomi or Tina or any of the hundreds of park supporter who have actively engaged in this cause, Mary deserves a great deal of credit for converting protection of the park from a protest movement easily dismissed by the politicians into a political force that, in the end, the politicians and equally importantly the Zoo Board could not ignore. Mary’s steady hand and savvy political instincts helped her bring together a disparate group and kept us on message and working toward a set of outcomes that included rational compromises by the Zoo that were good for the park, but in the end were good for the Zoo as well.
John: It would make a great thesis or book. I ran out of time with the post and had intended to add a number of names, but I will rectify Mary’s omission right now.
I think this whole debacle has shown that the importance of the Zoo and it’s evolution along with the need to work with all parties involved has eclipsed the leadership capabilities of Chuck Brady. Now it’s time for the Zoo board to make the right decision to find a new leader for this fabulous asset and to guide it in a productive manner going forward.
Just got around to reading this whole thing. The one player in his whole sorry affair who hasn’t been mentioned is city council attorney Allen Wade. After all it was Wade’s dubious, non-binding opinion that empowered the zoo and set this whole thing in motion. Wade — whose greatest lawyering may have been the brief period when he convinced the entire city and himself that he could represent both the council and the mayor, who were suing each other at the time while writing Wade sizable, separate checks, and not have a conflict of interest — is paid what I would consider a full-time salary (around 90k) to advise the council while still running a private practice. (He has the added balls, it came to light, to charge the city for work on top of his base salary.) It would behoove the local paper to investigate just who some of his private clients are because from the get go Wade acted far less like the dispassionate counselor to a supposedly neutral governmental body than like someone who very much had skin in the game. Besides laying the legal framework for the zoo takeover, he seems, with Conrad, to have engineered (perhaps in violation of state sunshine law) the council’s ill-conceived injection into the fight. Indeed, at one council meeting where they were deciding to cede control of the Greensward to the zoo, Wade was the ONLY government-affiliated person to speak, and he did so in favor of the zoo. Winner, loser, or neutral? Wade still has his job, and his influence over his employers appears undiminished. But it seems possible that some council members — Morrison? Morgan — may be wondering just who is working for who, And if the citizens end up cleaning house on the council soon, the new members may well ask themselves what they are getting for their money besides headaches..