The Bay Front Corridor’s subcommittee has been formed to explore the best ways to utilize the Sandusky Bay Pavilion. The committee seems to have come to terms with the fact that the park should remain a public park.
The subcommittee would like to have the Trust for Public Lands (experts at raising money for local conservation) facilitate a steering committee which would include the Recreation Board, Planning, and other interested parties. The city manager was instructed to gather the Trust for Public Lands together with the stakeholders and BGSU to work something out. Does it make any sense for one group to go one way and the city manager to go another way when BGSU is in talks to see if its plan is feasible? The group seemed to have waited until BGSU took an interest in the park and decided they needed to form a committee to discuss their plans for the park.
The subcommittee is made up of at least one member of the Yacht Club and the director of Mainstreet Association. It will be difficult to tell what hats these gentleman will be wearing, taxpayer or lobbyist’s hats, at the time they are discussing what to do with the park. It all depends on what the city is going to do with the park whether or not the members will end up having a conflict of interest when it comes to voting on a recommendation to the commissioners.
I don’t understand why the city is making a big production out of a project that could cost a tremendous amount of money when all the citizens would like to have is a clean, functional, and well maintain park. It seems the city could have several parks remodeled by the time it expends money on consultants and design work. The city should have its own in-house talent to do the planning in order to save money on consultants and design work. Why can’t things be simplified instead of making them more complicated than they really are when it comes to improving a park?
The whole corner of Meigs Street from the City Hall to the pavilion has been nothing but a never ending turf war. Anytime there are discussions about fixing up the pavilion or City Hall, it never fails to end up with a group stalling out the projects and then the subject is dropped with nothing ever being accomplished. Does the group have bigger plans for the properties if they can stall the projects long enough until the time is right and the city is better off financially?
Until next week, let’s hope the city will keep the park project on track and not allow the project to be stalled by talking the subject to death and never accomplishing anything. Time is running out for the park and something needs to be decided soon as to how to proceed with the improvements.