From "The Lookout", July 2003
On May 8th a public meeting was held to discuss where to place a paved
path through Bandemer Park. In a scathing Ann Arbor News column on May
25th, Judy McGovern, who was not at the meeting, berated the process
and the conclusions as 'bias' and 'eco-purity'.
Three people who were
present at the meeting wrote letters to the editor taking issue with the
accuracy of the column. The Ann Arbor News has not published two of the
letters and edited the third without the author's permission by
deleting the comment that the paper's coverage was biased.
Readers interested in what the News prefers the public not know about the
Bandemer Park debate will find all three letters presented here. The
published letter (by Kim Waldo) shows the material deleted by the Ann Arbor News as striked out, with additions in red bold.
Bandemer Path is a Consensus Plan
Bandemer Park Plan Was Well Researched
by Kim Waldo
Attributing a thoroughly researched, publicly endorsed plan for
Bandemer Park to 'bias' ignores the diligence of the Parks Advisory Commission
(PAC) and belittles public contributors. But that's the Ann Arbor
News' bias in their coverage of city parks. (See McGovern's 5/25
editorial column)
In the early 1990s, the Parks Advisory Commission, of which I was a
member, established a master plan for Bandemer Park development. It was
the consequence of thoroughly discussing ideas from city staff, a
consultant and park users. It was approved, as I recall, by City Council.
That master plan included a paved path that ran near to the railroad
tracks. That location was preferred because it:
1. protects the fragile shoreline by reducing traffic down to the river; and
2. screens park activity from the river, to preserve the beauty of paddling through that
stretch of the Huron.
On May 8th, 2003 some about thirty Bandemer Park users attended a
public hearing at the park. They discussed placement of a 10 foot wide,
paved path, part of a system that will eventually traverse Washtenaw
county. All but one of the comments made, and subsequent, unanimous PAC
endorsement were in favor of the path running near the railway, between a
prairie remnant and woods, leaving the existing, unpaved path for low
speed meandering.
Two public processes, ten years apart, reached the same conclusion
about the paved path through Bandemer. This doesn't suggest bias to me.
It suggests thoughtful consideration about developing our parks.
Unpublished Letter
by Bill Rodgers
I am appalled at the shoddy journalism represented by Judy McGovern's
column on the Bandemer Park bike path. I attended the Parks
Commission's public meeting on this topic, so I know that much of what she
asserted is false. Those who spoke at that meeting were almost unanimous in
their support for the route near the railroad tracks that was originally
approved by the Park Advisory Commission several years ago. Moreover,
the potential differences in environmental impacts between that route
and one closer to the river were only part of the reason for that
support. I heard concerns about safety (keeping fast bicyclists on a
separate path from slow walkers); aesthetics (maintaining the policy of
uninterrupted tree vistas on both sides of Argo Pond); and financial
practicality (for the same cost or less than would be required to pave the
existing path
nearer the river, two separate paths for two distinct types of users
could be achieved). There was no conflict between active and passive
recreation advocates at this public meeting. Rather, there was consensus.
Readers expect basic accuracy and fairness from our primary local news
medium. In recent years the News has failed to provide this in
articles about our park system.
Unpublished Letter
by Philip D'Anieri, Vice Chair, Parks Advisory Commission
A recent Judy McGovern column rather bafflingly argued that the city's
decision to route a bike path through Bandemer Park was an example of
"eco-purity" trumping the interests of sound public policy. I am still
trying to figure out how paving a ten-foot-wide swath through the woods
constitutes "eco-purity", but in the meantime, it is worth correcting
the record about what lay behind this decision.
A ten-year-old master plan for Bandemer offered two potential routes
for this bike path. Both would go through the woods and open spaces of
Bandemer; one would follow an existing 'two-track' path that runs near,
but not directly adjacent to, the Huron River; the other would run
between woods and a meadowy area closer to, but not at all adjacent to, the
Norfolk Southern railroad tracks along North Main St.
The Parks Advisory Commission, made up of a bipartisan mix of citizen
volunteers, voted unanimously to recommend that a new path be
constructed away from the river, rather than pave the existing 'two-track' trail.
For me, the logic behind this decision was simple: by constructing a
new trail, the city preserves the quiet dirt path AND provides a
thoroughfare for faster, commuter-style cycling. (The Bandemer section brings
the city closer to providing an unbroken path along the length of the
Huron within the city limits, and fits into a larger countywide trail as
well.) Anyone who has walked or cycled around Gallup Park knows the
frustrations of having both uses on the same path. It seemed eminently
sensible to avoid these conflicts in Bandemer where it was cost-effective
to do so.
Ms. McGovern characterized this decision as some sort of fuzzy-headed
refusal to allow park users near the river. But her analysis is clearly
in error; by preserving the existing dirt path, Bandemer continues to
offer the proximity to the river that it always has. It will now also
offer the accessibility and convenience of a second, paved path.
Of course, any time there are two policies to be chosen from,
reasonable people can disagree over the best one to choose and the most
important priorities to be served. But the Parks Advisory Commission (and
nearly every individual who spoke at our public hearing on the matter),
felt that the construction of a new path was the best option here. To
characterize
this kind of conscientious and well-intentioned deliberation as an
exercise in 'eco-purity' is astonishingly off the mark.
Back to the Sierra Club - Huron Valley Group Home Page
Back to the Archive index
Sierra Club Huron Valley Group, 2003.