City 'not poor enough'
The elderly native of Jamaica is unemployed, so he likes to eat his snacks under a shady tree, sometimes feeding the ducks.
St. Rose said the park needs to be cleaned up. He blames the occasional dead duck on the filth and debris that lines the edges of the water.
And he wants more trees in the park. Too many look like they're dying, he said.
"And clean the parking lot like it's supposed to be," he said on a sunny Thursday morning.
St. Rose has a lot of ideas to improve the park. But the city doesn't have much money.
And the state just trashed the city's application for $20 million of $184 million under the StatewidePark Development and Community Revitalization Program.
"The outrage is palpable," said Kevin Hawkins, the city's director of parks and recreation.
The program is part of Proposition 84 - passed by voters in 2006 - which allocated $400 million in bond money for local cities to develop new parks or expand overused parks in underserved communities.
A law passed in 2008 provided that grants for the program be awarded only for projects in critically underserved communities, meaning areas with "a significant percent of persons living at or below the poverty level."
The state Department of Parks and Recreation defined a "community" for purposes of a grant application as the area within a half-mile radius surrounding the park project.
The department also determined that factors qualifying communities as critically underserved include the total population, the median household income, the number of people living at or below the poverty line, and the amount of existing park acreage.
The city submitted four applications for some of its most impoverished areas.
Hawkins said those were for a renovation of Seccombe Lake Park, a new park on E Street, and renovations at Speicher Park and Encanto Park.
The communities each have 5,500 to 7,500 residents, between 30 percent and 40 percent of the residents are living in poverty, and the median household income is around $25,000, according to the Mayor's Office.
The city's four applications represented more than 25,000 residents, almost 10,000 of whom are living in poverty, according to the Mayor's Office.
While the Office of Grants and Local Services awarded 62 grants in the average amount of about $2.97 million, creating 50 parks and improving 12 others, the city didn't get a dime.
More than 475 applications were received, requesting $1.6 billion.
Which local cities were among the winners? Rancho Cucamonga, Grand Terrace and Calimesa.
Mayor Pat Morris sent a scathing letter to the area's state representatives in which he said he was frustrated, disappointed and angry that three of the four Inland Empire park projects funded do not serve the communities for which the program was intended.
"It is deeply concerning to have the electorate and legislature mandate a Parks Development Program for critically underserved communities with significant poverty, and then watch $9 million in parks grants for the Inland Empire serve communities with barely 10,000 residents, median household incomes of almost $45,000, and only 1,322 residents living in poverty," Morris wrote.
Morris said each application submitted by San Bernardino would have served almost twice as many impoverished residents, plus thousands more residents whose median household income is half of those to whom the grants were awarded.
"This outcome is frankly a gross injustice to the will of the electorate and legislature as expressed in Proposition 84 and A.B. 31, and to the impoverished residents of the Inland Empire who have been largely ignored," Morris wrote.
Rancho Cucamonga was awarded $3.9 million for the creation of Southwest Cucamonga Park on more than 3 acres, with amenities including a new playground, outdoor fitness center, picnic area and community art and landscaping.
Grand Terrace received $2.1 million toward creating West Side Park on 3 acres, which includes a garden, play area and walking path.
Calimesa got $2.8 million for the creation of the Fourth Street Park, which includes a multiuse trail with fitness stations, a dog park and playgrounds.
Mayoral Chief of Staff Jim Morris said feedback the city received from the state was strong, and yet the cities that received the grants "make you scratch your head."
Hawkins said the outcome was disheartening and that most of the cities and agencies that won grants submitted applications for funding of new parks, not park rehabilitation.
"We have antiquated parks in the target areas," he said. "They basically said that we weren't competitive enough for the income levels. They essentially said we were not poor enough. I love my city, but I find that hard to believe."
Hawkins said when he took over the Parks and Recreation Department in 2007, it was underfunded by $2 million.
He said in 2007 the department had one worker per 15 to 20 acres. Best practices call for one per 10 acres, he said.
Hawkins said the department now has one park worker per 60 acres.
"We're trying to be creative," he said. "That's why we were so discouraged. We needed that capital investment (for) our parks."
Officials said the city will tweak its applications and send them in for what is supposed to be another round of $184 million in funding.
The Grand Terrace City Council will be holding a special meeting on Thursday, January 13, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. The Notice/Agenda and Staff Report is now available on-line.Click below for Packet
http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/archives/38/01132011%20Council%20Packet%20Special.PDF
The City Council will have a special meeting about the West Side Park. Nearly half of the State Provided funds would go to Doug Jacobsen in the sum of $ 870.000 to acquire the land. He bought this land to replace low income housing he removed on Michigan and Barton Road. He has been paid by Stater's and Stater's was given a big contribution and fee waiver in excess of a value of $ 2,000,000.00 already. Now he wants out of the obligation to build much needed low income housing, and he wants the City to make a deal with the State to transfer yet more taxpayer's money to him.
I say 870.000 is too much to pay for that land and the State has no business paying for more parks at this time. IF the Jacobsen's donated the park land, and the city held onto it for better days to build the park than ok. We the citizens of GT accept the Park and will pay a token payment of 2 dollars to the Jacobsen's and the obligation to replace the housing units still should be required.
The annual cost of operations includes the leanest of estimates. There does not appear to be a repair budget, or a replacement budget of anykind. This is a misrepresentation of the operational costs of such a park its intended use would be more like say half the cost of Rollings Park. It is yet to be seen if it's neighbors will protect it from vandals and so forth.
