More thoughts (and some of the City's perspective) on the West Point Park question

This week's edition of The Durham News ran an opinion piece I wrote expanding on the West Point Park on the Eno discussions here from a few weeks back.

To recap: West Point Park on the Eno is under pressure from threatened development, and two paths seem clear: the City could spend a couple million dollars buying a developable parcel and expanding the park, or -- less definitively, and not confirmed by Raleigh officials -- the state could buy the parcel in exchange for the transfer of West Point Park to state control.

I've advocated the latter path, with some caveats; notably, the City would need to ensure that the state government would continue to permit current activities like the Festival for the Eno and educational programs.

Still, it's a very active public debate, and there are many sides to it. Beth Timson from Parks & Rec was nice enough to write in and share a document presented this month to the city's Recreation Advisory Commission with P&R's perspective on the parcel and the possible acquisition. (Download wp_and_bmr__aug_08.pdf )

The document notes that recent appraisals for the parcel in question range from $1.65 to $3.1 million depending on the allowable development density; the developer is asking $4-5 million for the site. The city analysis assumes a post-rezoning value of $2 million for the parcel, and puts forward a strawman of using $1 million earmarked for the Northern Athletic Park planning/design this year, and another $1 million to be found in next year's budget, to buy it.

The City estimates that $45,000 per year is spent on direct maintenance of West Point Park, with another $160,000 spent on staff salaries (2.5 FTEs) for both WPP and the Leigh Farm facility. By their accounting, that's about half of the quarter-million per year that some acquisition supporters have claimed is spent on the facility. (That said, I'd be curious how much if anything the City is spending towards depreciation or long-term replacement savings for the park, since years or decades down the line, some of today's facilities will need major rehab.)

To my mind, the DPR staff have raised what is, to this observer, the most important question around the acquisition -- would the state continue to allow today's activities and programming at the park? It strikes me that has to be a deal-breaker: what's the sense of giving over control of a prized park if we can't continue to enjoy it?

Personally, though, I'm not as concerned about another question that's been raised throughout the discussion by the city: should Durham be reimbursed by the state for the land and improvements to the site?

The land at WP consists of 390 acres; of those 213 are encumbered by LWCF funding, and 177 were purchased – would the State be willing to pay the City? (at the park land valuation rate of $20,000 per acre for those 177 acres ‐‐ $3,540,000)

What about the structures on the site – would the State be willing to pay the City for those [Insurance values for repair of structures (not replacement) include $467,700 for McCown-Mangum House; $144,000 for restroom/shelter building; $788,800 for the Mill; $173,280 for the Photography Museum; $43,200 for the blacksmith shop; and $21,000 for the tobacco barn ‐‐ $1,637,980] What about the new $1.6 million bridge ($800,000 was paid by the City)?

It's an interesting argument and, to my mind, cuts to the crux of the argument about making a deal like this. The city government spent money to buy much of the WPP land, and to build (or repair) some of the structures there. Does that mean that the city is entitled to, or should expect, that to be reimbursed or paid off for the state to take the land?

Personally, it strikes me as the wrong line of reasoning, for a few reasons.

First off: while the City would be transferring land and property to the state, the state would be spending at least a couple of million dollars in return by buying the fret-worthy parcel at hand. The city gives up some valuable assets but saves a couple of million in cash.

More importantly, however, stands the fact that city-owned property and state-owned property have one important element in common: they're both owned by the public, the very same you and me. The difference is, the state has a lot more you's and me's to work with.

The City spent Durham taxpayers' dollars to create and improve West Point Park, sure. But that doesn't mean only City residents get to use WPP. Durham County residents can, too, as can Wake or Orange residents or even non-Carolinians. That said, it's still an amenity most likely to be used by Durhamites, just due to their proximity to it.

So the facility's primary users wouldn't experience any diminution in the benefits they (we) enjoy from the park. Same great park, same public ownership.

To my mind, the sale of property implies a trade-off: one is giving up their rights to land and improvements in exchange for compensation. But what has been lost, what is deserving of compensation, should one branch of government absorb property from another branch?

I used the analogy of Duke/Gregson and traffic calming in the Durham News column. No one told the City that it would have to pay back the state's investment in the roads if the city were to take them over and add traffic calming. All the city would have to have done is take over the future maintenance costs.

Which brings us to the concept of the park investment having been a sunk cost. What's spent, is spent. Whatever underlying value is present in the park can't really be recouped from a private market sale, unless there's some really edgy hedge fund buying up public parks.

The city's investment in West Point Park is a done deal, and created a wonderful public facility. It's an investment in Durham that can't move, can't leave the Bull City -- a permanent place that's a gift to residents. Whether that gift is in the stewardship of the city or the state, it's still ours to enjoy.

All of which makes the question of just who maintains it a little less pressing to me than it may be to some other folks.

There still may be good reason not to do this deal, of course. There's a civic pride to having the jewel of the park system within city hands. There's the question of how flexible the state would be down the road in allowing new changes or improvements to the park -- or how much the state would invest in new facilities itself.

At the end of the day, though, I'm worried that if we're concerned about who pays whom between the city and state for past park investments, we might be missing the bigger picture.

Comments

[Anon]

I agree that historical acquisition costs are "sunk" and should not be considered. The issue of programming is much more important. And there's another issue: which government, local or state, is more likely to take care of the park the way it should be cared for? To my mind the state budgeting process is cumbersome and unlikely to provide for the park regularly. Not long ago there was NO money for state parks maintenance of any kind. We have more leverage if the park is locally owned; Raleigh isn't far but the insulation makes it hard for them folks to here us very clearly. That's not to say that Eno River State Park isn't well-managed--the local folks there are great.

The real issue is protecting "Black Meadow Ridge." The Eno River Association is working hard to do that. As you point out, there's quite a gap between the "couple of million dollars" and the owners' price. Arguing about who should run the park is something of a distraction. IF a deal can be made, THEN we can see how to find the funds to make the deal happen. And that may be the determining factor on who should own West Point.

[Anon]

I agree that historical acquisition costs are "sunk" and should not be considered. The issue of programming is much more important. And there's another issue: which government, local or state, is more likely to take care of the park the way it should be cared for? To my mind the state budgeting process is cumbersome and unlikely to provide for the park regularly. Not long ago there was NO money for state parks maintenance of any kind. We have more leverage if the park is locally owned; Raleigh isn't far but the insulation makes it hard for them folks to here us very clearly. That's not to say that Eno River State Park isn't well-managed--the local folks there are great.

The real issue is protecting "Black Meadow Ridge." The Eno River Association is working hard to do that. As you point out, there's quite a gap between the "couple of million dollars" and the owners' price. Arguing about who should run the park is something of a distraction. IF a deal can be made, THEN we can see how to find the funds to make the deal happen. And that may be the determining factor on who should own West Point.