Now This Should Generate Some Interesting Debate/Conversation

[bigscoop]

Corruption? Theft? Fair & Square? You decide.

So here's the background to this situation, the city at one time having dedicated several city parks that were supported by tax dollars. You all know how this basically works but the short of it that the city dedicated certain partials of municipal lands to the development of public parks, these parks then supported by tax revenues and other sources of city incomes. In short-short, these parks belong to the city but are funded by the people. At least that's the general “perception/format.”

This morning I traveled to one of these a local city parks to do a bit of detecting, this park generally being fairly clean, quiet, and only lightly used, and one might also say that it is in an upscale portion of town when compared to most of our city parks. And so here we go....

I had just recovered my first ring, a small sterling ring with a broken shank, not a bad start. About five minutes later I'm approached by and older gentleman in a suit, nice guy, very polite and genial, and after some basic chitchat he informed me that the park was no longer owned by the city and that it now required written permission to detect, which as he pointed out, wasn't very likely. Why? Because he was the guy who decided that and he metal detected too. But this isn't the core of the story, hardly.

As it turns out the city, due to lack of funding, or so they say, just up and “gave” this large partial of ground to....and here it comes.....”the church”....to which the gentleman in front of me was the pastor. That's right, several acres of good city ground simply given to the church, no effort at all to try to sell it in order to recover funds that could be used somewhere else, say to up grade another existing city park somewhere, which, ironically, they are currently doing at at-least two different locations that I know of.

Now here's a bit more on this ground, about seven acres, the neighborhood is well manicured, the property is bordered by some very nice church grounds on one side and the location is convenient. I'm sure it could have brought a fair price and some noticeable additional revenues for the city. But they just up and, “give it away?” Yep, it's all true.

So what do you think? Should this be allowed? A city “grounds” that was accessible to the public “quietly” given away to a non-profit that now restricts public access. Just seems like something is broken and twisted here?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[13dolphins1]

This is why it is important for everyone in every town to hold elected officials to the notion of what is best for the people who pay their salaries...including school officials...just my 2 cents

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk

 

[bigscoop]

According to my sources, and they were pretty darn good sources, the city simply contacted the church and asked them if they wanted the property because the city wanted it off of their plate. And just like that the church was gifted with a nice track of land. Now if this had been an individual, a corporation, then fine, I can live with that. But a "financially struggling" city giving/gifting a public park with no attempt whatsoever to even try to sell it? Where's the economic reasoning and municipal responsibility in this?

 

[13dolphins1]

If this was done recently it sounds like people have a right to make a change in who is making the decisions their...if a lot of people are not aware then one could probably start a serious uprising before the next election....and some investigation into what other freebies were given out on your hard earned money.

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk

 

[pat-tekker-cat]

But a "financially struggling" city giving/gifting a public park with no attempt whatsoever to even try to sell it? Where's the economic reasoning and municipal responsibility in this?

Must be my suspicious nature, but I'd be wanting to see bank records......
I'd almost bet, someone got something, for their "gift".......
Perhaps town folks should demand some sort of investigation, as to why elected officials are just giving away, what the citizens have paid for.

 

[releventchair]

Recently a segment on the " idiot box/ boob tube" featured some folks that had " adopted" a park to allow it to be maintained.
No mention of transfer of ownership....

I am not in charge of the park referred to in original post ,but despite my interest in detecting I see money making for park maintenance through detecting permits at ten to twenty dollars.

As to the park being given away .....vs sold for a dollar , or to highest bidder ; seems odd.
It did relieve the community coffers of the burden of taking care of the park ,but the baby is crying ,having been tossed out with the bathwater.

Them holes in the concrete ( parks) affect the perspective of the inmates in highly populated areas. More so when they can touch them.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Big-scoop, you have a way of writing a good story. And a way of choosing a hot-button multifaceted topics to dove-tail into

This one entails lots of issues as it relates to md'ing: ie.: who owns and controls a certain speck of land ? Is or isn't md'ing an issue which is/can/should be 'regulated' (as opposed to simply walking there, birdwatching, flying a kite, etc...). Does this mean we all grovel now ? Was the md'r (or busy-body) "being nice" vs "being combative", blah blah blah.

I tend to agree with releventchair so far: That the issue is one of those quasi-cooperatives of "adopting". So that someone picks up the litter, administers, etc... But that perhaps it's still technically owned by the city or state or whatever. As to whether that gives the lower entity the "authority" to nit-pick about allowed activities, is a whole other can of worms. Because let's be dreadfully honest: The minute you start down THAT path (ie.: "fighting it" or "seeking clarifications"), is the minute someone can decide that our actions "disturb" or "alter" or "take" or "remove".

Thus if it were me, and I was finding cool old coins there, I would just write off this encounter as a fluke, and simply go when the old man isn't present. Find out what time church services are (assuming he'll be on-duty in the pulpit etc...) and hunt then. Or hunt at night. Or whatever. Some people might consider this "sneaking around". Ok, fine: Sneak around You're in an odd-ball hobby. And you're simply never going to get every last person on earth to sign off on you.

 

[bigscoop]

It makes ZERO sense to me. If the city parks was in financial straits then why give it away VS selling it? And, if they're in such serious financial straights then where is all of this money coming from for the renovating of other city parks? I'm sure there is some grant money at play somewhere, ok, great, but to just up and, "give assets and potential sources of income away?"

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...why give it away VS selling it? ....

Who cares ? That's a debate for the "politics" forum of T'net, eh ? THE BOTTOM LINE IS: it is still open for the public to be there , JUST LIKE IT ALWAYS WAS.

Here's what I mean: What if you had just simply been walking there, out for a stroll ? Or bird-watching ? Or sitting on a rock reading a book ? I don't think the old man would have cared , right ? After all, you're just a park-goer out on a nice day, right ? So the ISSUE is not access (you/we are still very much allowed). The issue is activity. And "who gets to call the shots" on that. And that's when you just start down a slippery slope of semantics.

So just go back when said-lookie-lou isn't present. Presto: Problem solved.

 

[bigscoop]

Big-scoop, you have a way of writing a good story. And a way of choosing a hot-button multifaceted topics to dove-tail into

This one entails lots of issues as it relates to md'ing: ie.: who owns and controls a certain speck of land ? Is or isn't md'ing an issue which is/can/should be 'regulated' (as opposed to simply walking there, birdwatching, flying a kite, etc...). Does this mean we all grovel now ? Was the md'r (or busy-body) "being nice" vs "being combative", blah blah blah.

I tend to agree with releventchair so far: That the issue is one of those quasi-cooperatives of "adopting". So that someone picks up the litter, administers, etc... But that perhaps it's still technically owned by the city or state or whatever. As to whether that gives the lower entity the "authority" to nit-pick about allowed activities, is a whole other can of worms. Because let's be dreadfully honest: The minute you start down THAT path (ie.: "fighting it" or "seeking clarifications"), is the minute someone can decide that our actions "disturb" or "alter" or "take" or "remove".

Thus if it were me, and I was finding cool old coins there, I would just write off this encounter as a fluke, and simply go when the old man isn't present. Find out what time church services are (assuming he'll be on-duty in the pulpit etc...) and hunt then. Or hunt at night. Or whatever. Some people might consider this "sneaking around". Ok, fine: Sneak around You're in an odd-ball hobby. And you're simply never going to get every last person on earth to sign off on you.

Has nothing to do with MDing, that was just the activity that brought about the conversation regarding the church's new acquisition of the park grounds. NO, it "is not" a condition of adoption. Since acquiring the park grounds the church has poured buckets of money into renovations, the property really looking nice, I must say. And remember too, this information came straight from the church, the city park sign having even been recently removed. So let's not confuse the issues and try to spin/speculate it into something other then what is known.

 

[bigscoop]

Who cares ? That's a debate for the "politics" forum of T'net, eh ? THE BOTTOM LINE IS: it is still open for the public to be there , JUST LIKE IT ALWAYS WAS.

NO...no....that's just it, Tom, "it is not open to the public just like it always was." Or did you miss that part? Any public activity on the grounds requires prior authorization/permit from the church. PERIOD!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Has nothing to do with MDing, that was just the activity that brought about the conversation...

Wait, you got me confused here. Are you allowed to simply walk there ? Ie.: is it still a PARK, or not ? Versus private property now ? If it's private property now (owned by the church, and no one is allowed there) then sure, I suppose you gotta do what they say.

But if the simple act of walking around there, sitting down at the bench to read a book, etc.... is not dis-allowed, then nor-do-I-consider md'ing to be any-difference. Ie.: equally innocuous. Might someone disagree ? SURE ! (detecting has "connotations" after all). Fine. Avoid that one individual.

It seems to me that it was the act of detecting that got the man to stop and chat with you, right ? Such that if you'd merely been walking your dog there, or sitting on a rock bird-watching, no-such-conversation would have ensued. Right ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Any public activity on the grounds requires prior authorization/permit from the church. PERIOD!

Oh, now you're clearing things up.

Ok, so is this to imply that they're "shoo-ing away" everyone now ? And that it wasn't the detector that drew the man's attention to you ?

 

[lockster99]

I think "someone" working for the city goes to that church. Or, possible related to the pastor or other higher ups in that church. Something is fishy.

 

[bigscoop]

Oh, now you're clearing things up.

Ok, so is this to imply that they're "shoo-ing away" everyone now ? And that it wasn't the detector that drew the man's attention to you ?

Exactly. Here's what I was told this morning during the conversation. The city parks had called the church and they had asked the church if they wanted the property, which the church quickly confirmed and the park was then "given" to the church. as per the newly accepted activities at the church, the grounds are now for church, family, and otherwise organized events upon written approval of the church." This is what I was told this morning, actually from two church sources, and all that I know. The city sign (as I was leaving I took note) no longer say's "city park" but rather it now bears the name of the "church" park. What is confusing in this is that the neighborhood and church both bear the same name which has always been the name associated with the park, so at first glance it appears to read the same as always, but it's not.

 

[bigscoop]

I think "someone" working for the city goes to that church. Or, possible related to the pastor or other higher ups in that church. Something is fishy.

I have absolutely no idea how the city manages and balances it's budgets and books, etc., and I for sure have no idea how all of the other variables come into play that might likewise also determine some of this bean counting, so maybe there was some financial reasoning in it, but if so I sure don't see how? But even if there was some financial reasoning in it, well, I just don't see how there could be?

 

[Mackaydon]

What city and what park within that city is the subject of this thread?
Did I miss that?
Don......

 

[Tom_in_CA]

But this still isn't answering the question of: Are they shooing away all users and all actions/activities ? In other words: If you'd simply been walking there (or sitting on the park bench reading a book) , do you think you'd have been booted ? Or was it simply the action of md'ing that drew the man's attention to you ?

 

[bigscoop]

Here you go....this is starting to get really interesting now. Going to require a phone call on Monday and a little investigating but it appears that the church wasn't being exactly honest, go figure. I just jumped on the city parks website and did a little research and the park is still listed as a city park, however, it has been removed from certain types of park listings concerning activities, etc. And as one poster already referenced this may be why: (But i can't make the call until Monday to know for sure.)

"Shared Resources:

A city-wide recreation system includes all parties remaining community-minded and sharing resources when possible. Working with neighborhood associations, non-profits and churches to adopt parks will ensure that adequate recreation opportunities are available to all residents, while allowing the city to focus on maintaining several larger park experiences. A study of all classes and programs offered throughout the city would allow for potential facility sharing and the elimination of duplicate programs."

But even if the church has only adopted this park, this raises the question, should they be allowed, and are they allowed, to then dictate policy? Also, and adding to this question, who then determines what "adequate recreational opportunities" are? The city or the church?

 

[SeabeeRon]

Very interesting thread!

We have sort of an opposite situation in my city.

There is a large park in front of our city's namesake church, Holy Cross/Santa Cruz.

To my understanding, the church has leased this park to the city for $1 a year with the understanding the city will maintain it.