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 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[chub]

He was running you off so he could go detect later?

Chub

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[TerryC]

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?"

I haven't read all the posts but I suspect the city was faced with a conundrum. Could not sell it to certain entities because their purpose papers were not in sync with the city's land use policies. Maybe they made an undisclosed TRADE for something of value. I suspect (only conjecture) that the church got it because they were the only interested party that would not violate the zoning laws for the park.... no development. TTC

 

[Peyton Manning]

it should have been in a city counsel meeting at some point

I would have asked the dude if I needed written permission to pee on a tree there?

 

[Dave Rishar]

Dude, I was all set to come in swinging and give you a hard time for not telling us the whole story, but I just had a look at Marion's GIS parcel map and Sunnycrest United Methodist Church has in fact owned that park since 2010. Not only that, the transaction between the city and the church shows a sales price of (blank), so this story may be correct as presented - Marion gave a five acre park to a local church for nothing.

Now, this might not be what happened. If your county keeps records like mine does, this may just be an error that gets fixed (or not) later. (Hell, I spent my afternoon today detecting around a ruined foundation from a house that burned down in the nineties, but the county insists that it's still present on our parcel map.) But on the surface...man, that's just incompetent. Not only does it appear that they gave it away, but they gave it away to an entity that has never paid taxes on it and never will - a double whammy. It would have made better sense financially to give it away to McDonald's, never mind going through the bother of selling it.

If this is the kind of thing your elected officials do on a regular basis in Marion, you may want to consider firing them. They don't appear to know how to run a city.

EDIT: This isn't even where I live and I'm pissed off about this. Wow, just wow. You're right...the metal detecting isn't the important part of the story here.

 

[enamel7]

I know I'm gonna catch it, but with that type of logic and managing your city is obviously controlled by liberals.

 

[13dolphins1]

One cannot help what they think...I thought the same. However bad management knows no political parties....could be people are not aware of some of the bad dealings their elected officials have made or not all information has been shown. Sounds and looks bad though

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk

 

[Xraywolf]

A few years back a suburb around Detroit put up a nativity display on the front lawn of the city hall, as they had been doing for decades.
ACLU raised a stink and threatened a lawsuit, worried sick it would offend muslims and atheists.
So the city took it down, and 2 days later it was back up.
What happened ? The city donated the front lawn of the city hall to a church, it was now private property, they chose to put up a nativity display and there was nothing the traitorous snots of the ACLU could do about it.

May not have much bearing on the OP but the point is, cities can play loose with public lands for any number of reasons, and for better or worse.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... May not have much bearing on the OP ....

At the risk of also veering off the md'ing related topic of the op , I gotta comment on this

.... and there was nothing the traitorous snots of the ACLU could do about it.....

Sure there WAS something the ACLU could do about it. Didn't you follow those news stories through to the end ? They showed that the *mere act* of giving the land away (or selling for $1, or whatever such deal had been done) was, IN ITSELF 'favoritism' . Ie.: defacto endorsement of one view over another. Thus "offending".

Thus they could even sue for THAT land switch as well. Tsk Tsk. And to remedy this, it has to go out for public bid, advertised in a newspaper. Eg.: Such & such park (or 20 square foot of a park) for sale. Submit bids to P.O. Box such & such, blah blah. So THAT way: the atheists and muslims can bid on it. And only in THAT way, is it fair.

Now repent of your horrible ways and stop offending all those thin-skinned people. You should be ashamed of yourself. Haaarrruummmppphhh

 

[pat-tekker-cat]

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.:

That right there...... in bold......
Seems you gonna have a pizzing contest with this dog.
What/who set him up as the almighty governing authority, because of his "vested" interests......?

For a preacherman, so much for, do unto others...... (do as I say, not as I do ).
Guess that's one way to cut out his competition.......

 

[bigscoop]

Following up with the required due-diligence, I have a call into the parks department and am waiting a return call. The lady I initially spoke with, very nice and cordial, said that she didn't think the park was still property of the city but that she would have someone with more knowledge of the particulars call me back. She didn't think it was an adoption situation but wasn't sure?

 

[foiler]

Well too much to cover here in both state and federal law on transfer of public property. But, just to be the one to stir the pot, if you really wanted to make a stink, I would wander done to my local ACLU office and tell a story about the city giving public property to a church without public announcement and leave it at that. Talk about leaving an aromatic trail after a 3 burrito breakfast.

 

[Dave Rishar]

The lady I initially spoke with, very nice and cordial, said that she didn't think the park was still property of the city but that she would have someone with more knowledge of the particulars call me back.

If she follows up, I'd expect an answer similar to the one that I gave you earlier. (In fact, she'll likely use the same resource that I did to get that information. ) I am curious about the city's decision making process though.

 

[TommyB]

Bigscoop, How about sending an email or calling a local news station to investigate the 'park transaction'. They usually have some investigative reporters just itching to come up with a great story. This would also expose any wrongdoing by any individuals and let the town know what's going on.

 

[DiamondDan]

Considering the church pays no taxes, the maintenance is still squarely on the backs of the taxpayers. I probably would have told him to piss up a rope.

 

[Xraywolf]

At the risk of also veering off the md'ing related topic of the op , I gotta comment on this



Sure there WAS something the ACLU could do about it. Didn't you follow those news stories through to the end ? They showed that the *mere act* of giving the land away (or selling for $1, or whatever such deal had been done) was, IN ITSELF 'favoritism' . Ie.: defacto endorsement of one view over another. Thus "offending".

Thus they could even sue for THAT land switch as well. Tsk Tsk. And to remedy this, it has to go out for public bid, advertised in a newspaper. Eg.: Such & such park (or 20 square foot of a park) for sale. Submit bids to P.O. Box such & such, blah blah. So THAT way: the atheists and muslims can bid on it. And only in THAT way, is it fair.

Now repent of your horrible ways and stop offending all those thin-skinned people. You should be ashamed of yourself. Haaarrruummmppphhh

Alls I know is the Nativity stayed up, and has been there every year since.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Following up with the required due-diligence, I have a call into the parks department and am waiting a return call.....

How about this then, if possible: Once you get the call back, can the question leave out mention of "metal detecting" ? All it needs to center around is the following flow-chart :

a) is the park still city property ? If so, no need to progress to any other steps. Because if it's city property, and the city never had a "no md'ing rule", then all the other steps are a moot point. But ....

b) If it's now church property via simple maintenance "adoption" agreement, then: Does city park rules still apply ? Or can the party that "adopted" it make up their own rules ? If they say , "give us an example", you don't say "metal detecting". Instead say: "Like can they arbitrarily say that blue tennis shoes are no longer allowed? " Or does the city rules that had been in place prior to adoption still stand in place ?

c) If they say that the church now owns the property lock-stock-&-barrel, then I suppose you can't be there for any purpose. No more so than you could go to your neighbor's living room and start watching his TV. As to whether you want to go legal regarding that transfer, I'm betting they dotted their I's and crossed their T's way-back-when. ANY public entity (city, county, state, etc....) that sells land off to the private sector has to post a classified ad (in the teensy print in the back of newspapers that no one ever reads). And would have to put up flyers on telephone poles giving people a 60 day window to voice any objections, etc.... It's possible someone skipped these steps and didn't do all this. But not likely.

d) If there is a provision in the city sale of the land that it is to be kept open to the public as a park into perpetuity, then step (b) is still a question: Do city park rules still apply ? And need not mention "can I metal detect?" as a sample rule. Lest you merely devolve into a p*ssing match of whether this constitutes "deface", etc....

NONE of this means that the old man couldn't still gripe. Heck, even at city or county parks everywhere, md'rs can run into someone that claims "you can't do that". And as I've said, it's not always our duty to have to run around disproving them, seeking clarifications, etc... Sometimes it's better to give lip service, and avoid the one lone griper on future hunts there.

 

[bigscoop]

How about this then, if possible: Once you get the call back, can the question leave out mention of "metal detecting" ? All it needs to center around is the following flow-chart :

a) is the park still city property ? If so, no need to progress to any other steps. Because if it's city property, and the city never had a "no md'ing rule", then all the other steps are a moot point. But ....

b) If it's now church property via simple maintenance "adoption" agreement, then: Does city park rules still apply ? Or can the party that "adopted" it make up their own rules ? If they say , "give us an example", you don't say "metal detecting". Instead say: "Like can they arbitrarily say that blue tennis shoes are no longer allowed? " Or does the city rules that had been in place prior to adoption still stand in place ?

c) If they say that the church now owns the property lock-stock-&-barrel, then I suppose you can't be there for any purpose. No more so than you could go to your neighbor's living room and start watching his TV. As to whether you want to go legal regarding that transfer, I'm betting they dotted their I's and crossed their T's way-back-when. ANY public entity (city, county, state, etc....) that sells land off to the private sector has to post a classified ad (in the teensy print in the back of newspapers that no one ever reads). And would have to put up flyers on telephone poles giving people a 60 day window to voice any objections, etc.... It's possible someone skipped these steps and didn't do all this. But not likely.

d) If there is a provision in the city sale of the land that it is to be kept open to the public as a park into perpetuity, then step (b) is still a question: Do city park rules still apply ? And need not mention "can I metal detect?" as a sample rule. Lest you merely devolve into a p*ssing match of whether this constitutes "deface", etc....

NONE of this means that the old man couldn't still gripe. Heck, even at city or county parks everywhere, md'rs can run into someone that claims "you can't do that". And as I've said, it's not always our duty to have to run around disproving them, seeking clarifications, etc... Sometimes it's better to give lip service, and avoid the one lone griper on future hunts there.

It's not that complicated or complex or shadowy or covert, etc. Pretty simple/basic inquiry/stuff.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

It's not that complicated or complex or shadowy or covert, etc. Pretty simple/basic inquiry/stuff.

I would agree. But you'd be surprised how easy the question devolves, when some pencil pusher avoids your actual question, and says "what exactly do you wish to do?" The md'r proudly announces "metal detect". Then lo & behold, the subject of ownership and authority CEASES to be the point-of-discussion. Instead someone starts to focus on whether or not your actions harm earthworms, or violate the "harvest and collect" verbiage, etc....

 

[bigscoop]

OK, here is the scoop and some information other responsible detectorist might want to keep in mind when researching city parks. Why is the park still listed on the city parks web site? Answer, because it is within the city limits and as such it is still considered a city park, even though it is now...."Privately held by the church." So the church does own it and they do now hold jurisdiction over that park's policies, not the city.

 

[SeabeeRon]

OK, here is the scoop and some information other responsible detectorist might want to keep in mind when researching city parks. Why is the park still listed on the city parks web site? Answer, because it is within the city limits and as such it is still considered a city park, even though it is now...."Privately held by the church." So the church does own it and they do now hold jurisdiction over that park's policies, not the city.

OK, that seems clear now.

Are you going to pursue how this all happened and if there are other city parks to go this route?