Remembering Not to Forget

Josie Parker's Real Reasons for Opposing a Park

V.1, Issue No. 3.

For this third installment, I was going to examine a well-circulated blog post from a few years ago that attacked the organizers of the Library Green Conservancy (LGC). In the interim, this same blogger has posted a similar personal attack, this time an interview with the former library director, Josie Parker. Given its timeliness, let’s focus on this more recent piece. In light of the hyperbolic style in which it’s written (“I was reminded yet again of how this group is willing to sacrifice the good reputation of the AADL to meet its own ends”), let’s see if the hype matches the substance. Upfront, it’s worth noting that these critics choose to level personal attacks rather than address the 2018 vote establishing a park, the city’s role in obstructing progress, the library’s real needs and budget, or whether a special August election to overturn the charter that can be expected to involve only half the number of voters from the November 2018 election is democratic or justified. This says a lot about the quality of the reasons that have been offered to justify Props A and B.

The Art of Insinuation

Ms. Parker starts out by claiming illustrative renderings by the LGC somehow affect AADL’s reputation. AADL can certainly deny that a rendering matches their intent, or point out how it would require permission from other entities as well as the city, but how those renderings affect AADL’s “reputation” is never stated. It would only have an effect if the LGC falsely claimed the renderings came from AADL. This they emphatically never did. They were illustrating legal possibilities, that’s all (the city blocked progress towards an actual design process). This smears the LGC’s character, insinuating base ethics and hostile intent (and effect) by twisting facts.

Next, she assumes the LGC is responsible for lack of progress on a park (it “knows it failed”), which is a highly contestable assertion, to say the least. She dredges up her old accusation from 2018 that paid canvassers misled voters, offering no proof. Extensive public debate in 2018 certainly disabused voters of any notion that the library was behind the proposal that created this park. Yet she claims this is an example of the library being “used,” as if this were some false story being widely circulated. It was not. She goes on to make a second unsubstantiated allegation, that the LGC asked for an unlawful donation. She doesn’t explain what would have been unlawful about it. If she can, I welcome her to explain here. So far, it’s just a nebulous accusation, floating in the ether to discredit the LGC. (Repeated references to what she calls “smirks” likewise paint a subjective but dramatic picture of nasty people.) She claims the LGC falsely listed supporters, but once again offers no details or evidence. A pattern is emerging.

Who, What Are the Issues?

Then she moves into meatier issues. The LGC offered only “ridiculous, unworkable proposals,” she contends, listing a few that sound questionable. What she does not mention are other proposals, supported by the LGC, for simple things like removing cars, purchasing seating, and holding food truck rallies, requested not by the LGC alone, but by the mayoral-appointed Council of the Commons (CotC), unanimously. Here it’s worth pointing out that the CotC contained representatives from two organizations involved in the park - the LGC and the “Initiating Committee” - and Ms. Parker fails to distinguish which one might have been responsible for all her complaints. Not to mention, the LGC changed leadership years ago! It’s not even clear who she’s criticizing. The current LGC president, Rita Mitchell, who’s been on the LGC board for years, never spoke with Ms. Parker. Is she criticizing the CotC? Which contained City Council members, among others? She doesn’t seem to have a problem with mixing AADL and city operations, as Props A and B attest. In short, she ignores even very workable proposals, is opaque about who proposed what, yet singles out the LGC.

She complains that drawings were unrealistic, citing as evidence “mature trees growing in surface pits”. In fact, there are already trees growing on the surface of the Library Lot, and parks around the world contain large enough, mature enough trees, providing visual appeal and shade, in planters. Critics seem to like to use the tree argument to portray even the idea of a park as naive and unrealistic. That’s simply not true. That they discussed housing local history she seems to regard as an affront to the library, which already does; that someone merely raised this idea is hardly reason to dismiss a park.

She then asserts, again without evidence, that events were organized “on short notice.” In fact, I was always apprised of events far ahead of time. It’s unclear where she’s getting this information. And, again, she fails to distinguish between the LGC and the other organization. That she didn’t feel certain events were run well, and isn’t even clear who was responsible, is, again, no reason to oppose a park.

Josie Parker and Mayor Taylor’s Long-held Opposition to a Park

Is her claim even true that it was all these alleged behaviors of the LGC (which may actually be a different group) that made her want to “distance operations” from them? For those who really want to explore the history here, several articles speak to the issues and debates around this space dating back well before 2018’s ballot proposal:

https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/10/drug-users-public-libraries/

https://annarborchronicle.com/2014/03/18/council-takes-steps-on-library-lane-future/index.html

https://a2independent.com/2014/04/30/director-unsure-about-handling-and-disposal-of-suspected-drugs-and-paraphernalia-found-in-downtown-library-since-2011/

https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2014/03/library_director_sounds_alarm.html

The picture that emerges is clear. Mayor Taylor (whose faction now controls city council) has never supported even a modest-sized park here (12,000 sq. ft.), and neither has . . . Josie Parker. On one hand, their reasons are not unreasonable. They wanted to know who was going to pay for and manage it. But another concern was front and center: drug use and disorderly behavior in the library itself. And Ms. Parker repeatedly made comparisons to Liberty Plaza, arguing essentially that if the city can’t control drug use there, and it’s already happening in the library, a park next to the library would just intensify the problem. This concern is also not unreasonable. BUT, we also see Ms. Parker saying the real problem is neither homelessness nor drugs, but “behavior”, but rejecting commonsense solutions like greater police presence in the park, and she doesn’t even mention adding social workers (both of which, as one of the above articles points out, are best practices).

If AADL and the city were creative, they would address these legitimate concerns with a straightforward plan. Contract management to a nonprofit that can also fundraise, i.e., create a public-private parks partnership like so many cities have. The private partner needn’t be the LGC. City Council can put out a call for volunteers as it does with commissions to encourage a new nonprofit with personnel and skill sets it admires. Or it can require new board members on the LGC. Sign an agreement (MOU) with that nonprofit. Put the park in the Parks (PROS) plan, which might give the Parks Advisory Commission (PAC) heartburn, but, again, with creativity, their budgetary concerns can be addressed, e.g., put in the MOU fundraising targets and dates, and have a trigger clause that dissolves the partnership and reverts the land to Council’s discretion if the private partner fails to meet them. That funding could help finance security personnel and social workers. Management, activation, addressing drug use - all can be done. As they are done in so many cities around the world. As that article covering other cities points out, many libraries are dealing with similar issues, and they find ways to manage them. But Ms. Parker’s and Mayor Taylor’s answer has always been to postpone a park until every detail can be buttoned down (ironically, a lot like some opposition to Props A and B today), to oppose commonsense solutions, and to minimize open space. Even 12,000 sq. ft. was too much for them. And if she really believes the problem is not drug use or homelessness, but “behaviors,” she wouldn’t seem to support a park until human behaviors change. The message is, our people cannot be trusted in either an urban park or the library itself. I find this a remarkable admission, quite at odds with the Ann Arbor “values” I hold dear.

Bottom line, Ms. Parker’s strong opposition to a park in this space has always had little to nothing to do with the LGC or the workability of a park, and everything to do with her own views on drug use and the intractability of human “behavior.”

The LGC is not “misusing” a “beloved institution”. All the LGC has done is point out possible physical outcomes. Any claims they may have made about Council’s intent for parks in general - accurate or not - have nothing to do with AADL. She asserts they haven’t been serious about developing a park, ignoring the (in)action of the city. We have in fact not seen what the LGC can do with that space because they haven’t been allowed - fundraising stymied (no public-private partnership, no agreement, not in the PROS plan), still cars, no revenue from the parking surface (though it’s earmarked as a park), no food trucks (though they obviously could work there, despite the misleading memo the city put out), no help from the DDA (whose mission a downtown park falls under), and continued vocal opposition from Mayor Taylor, today’s City Council, and AADL leaders like Ms. Parker. Opposition based not on anything about the LGC, but on their own prejudice that Ann Arbor simply can’t manage an urban park and plaza of the type thousands of cities around the world manage. Based on a view of human behavior that is strange, dark, and oddly fatalistic. Rather than Ms. Parker’s conclusion, I would conclude we should vote No and see what the LGC or another nonprofit can do with the Library Lot with imaginative city and AADL leadership. And really live up to our values.

Next Time

I had hoped to address emerging discussion of the LGC’s campaign opposing A and B, but will have mercy on my readers. Hopefully, I can get something out before the election, even if it won’t affect the outcome. Truth matters. And truth is not gotten at by sound bites or bullet points. That’s why it’s so important to look beneath the rhetoric of Ann Arbor politics.