UALR/UAMS Chancellors Address Tech Park Concerns Amidst Protests
By: Marci Manley, KARK 4 News
Updated: May 16, 2012
"This is not their fight alone, this is all of us in midtown, because we're next," he said holding a sign with an X over dollar signs.
Robert Webb doesn't live in any of the three neighborhoods where a Technology Park could be built in Little Rock, but he's still demonstrating against displacing local homeowners outside Wednesday's Technology Park Authority Board meeting.
"I'm just here because I want to make sure everybody understands just because it's their neighborhood this week, next week it could be ours," he said. "There's already been the state fair suggestion, now this. Any of us could be next, we're already in danger."
Folks living in three locations being considered as the Park's possible placement have been speaking out against being forced to move.
"I don't care which site it is, they shouldn't take anyone's house from them for a Tech Park," said resident Donald Wade who lives in Oak Forest. "They want to do it because their research has shown the Tech Park needs to be five or ten minutes from UALR and UAMS. I call bull crap. These poor Tech people can't commute to their work? Give me a break, we bus kids to school at twice that amount of commute."
Chancellor Dan Rahn of UAMS and Chancellor Joel Anderson of UALR, two of the major institutional partners for the park, addressed the board saying they have heard the community's concerns.
"Individuals and families should not be harmed as a consequence of this initiative," Rahn told the board. "This is a long range goal. There are economic development goals and community development goals. This should be a mutually beneficial process."
He went on to note that he had personally driven through the neighborhoods currently being considered for the site.
"I've been able to see firsthand that while there are houses and homes in disrepair there are many, many more homes that are well-cared for and owner-occupied," he said.
Rahn recommended that the board create a community advisory committee, be open to considering alternative locations, and relax the five minute campus commute rule.
"That seems to be a stumbling block at the present time," he said. "Adherence to close proximity to the campuses should not take priority over interests of individuals, families and the community."
Rahn's strong stance, received a round of applause from the audience in attendance.
Anderson took a less stringent stance on residential impact.
"We've recently had a lot of experts on the location of Tech Parks," he said. "Location of the Tech Park matters. It matters to homeowners who may be affected and that's an important consideration. A Tech Park will change many lives in the short run as this Board acquires property and relocates residents and businesses from whichever site is chosen."
"These residents and businesses are our neighbors," he went on to say. "They are our students, staff, faculty, as well as your friends. It's essential these persons not bear a disproportionate or undue hardship because of this project."
Anderson suggested the board go ahead and select one site from the three being considered, but allow for a window of opportunity where members of the community could make alternative suggestions.
He also wanted the Board to publicly explain the property acquirement process.
"This is not a time to hold cards close to your vest. Without concrete details the unknown gives rise to unnecessary and understandable fears based on feelings rather than facts," he said.
Much like Rahn, Anderson suggested the creation of a Task Force comprised of Board members, community representatives, and public/private agency reps to work through issues of the process as the Park progresses.
Anderson also asked the Board to publicly affirm that as the project moves forward all citizens would be treated equitably and that eminent domain would be a last resort when aiming to acquire property.
"We'll try to see what to do next as a next step," Board Chair Mary Good said following the presentations.
She did not provide any comments regarding the possibility of considering alternative locations, but at the beginning of the meeting she had pointed out the Authority had spent $100,000 on a study to select the "very best" possible locations from numerous locations across the city. However, it should be noted one of the key criteria to that site selection was the five to ten-minute commute rule from the UALR and UAMS campuses.
The board essentially took no action regarding the Chancellors' recommendations, but essentially conceded to consider them.
Until concrete commitments come their way, folks like Robert Webb intend to continue protesting the Park Authority's eminent domain power.
"Pretty soon, who knows, they may come up with another great idea and decide to displace some more of us," Webb said.
They've set up a petition to encourage the Little Rock Board of Directors to withhold some $22 million in taxpayer funds that the Park is set to receive to prevent it from displacing those in residential neighborhoods. You can find the petition by clicking here.
Robert Webb doesn't live in any of the three neighborhoods where a Technology Park could be built in Little Rock, but he's still demonstrating against displacing local homeowners outside Wednesday's Technology Park Authority Board meeting.
"I'm just here because I want to make sure everybody understands just because it's their neighborhood this week, next week it could be ours," he said. "There's already been the state fair suggestion, now this. Any of us could be next, we're already in danger."
Folks living in three locations being considered as the Park's possible placement have been speaking out against being forced to move.
"I don't care which site it is, they shouldn't take anyone's house from them for a Tech Park," said resident Donald Wade who lives in Oak Forest. "They want to do it because their research has shown the Tech Park needs to be five or ten minutes from UALR and UAMS. I call bull crap. These poor Tech people can't commute to their work? Give me a break, we bus kids to school at twice that amount of commute."
Chancellor Dan Rahn of UAMS and Chancellor Joel Anderson of UALR, two of the major institutional partners for the park, addressed the board saying they have heard the community's concerns.
"Individuals and families should not be harmed as a consequence of this initiative," Rahn told the board. "This is a long range goal. There are economic development goals and community development goals. This should be a mutually beneficial process."
He went on to note that he had personally driven through the neighborhoods currently being considered for the site.
"I've been able to see firsthand that while there are houses and homes in disrepair there are many, many more homes that are well-cared for and owner-occupied," he said.
Rahn recommended that the board create a community advisory committee, be open to considering alternative locations, and relax the five minute campus commute rule.
"That seems to be a stumbling block at the present time," he said. "Adherence to close proximity to the campuses should not take priority over interests of individuals, families and the community."
Rahn's strong stance, received a round of applause from the audience in attendance.
Anderson took a less stringent stance on residential impact.
"We've recently had a lot of experts on the location of Tech Parks," he said. "Location of the Tech Park matters. It matters to homeowners who may be affected and that's an important consideration. A Tech Park will change many lives in the short run as this Board acquires property and relocates residents and businesses from whichever site is chosen."
"These residents and businesses are our neighbors," he went on to say. "They are our students, staff, faculty, as well as your friends. It's essential these persons not bear a disproportionate or undue hardship because of this project."
Anderson suggested the board go ahead and select one site from the three being considered, but allow for a window of opportunity where members of the community could make alternative suggestions.
He also wanted the Board to publicly explain the property acquirement process.
"This is not a time to hold cards close to your vest. Without concrete details the unknown gives rise to unnecessary and understandable fears based on feelings rather than facts," he said.
Much like Rahn, Anderson suggested the creation of a Task Force comprised of Board members, community representatives, and public/private agency reps to work through issues of the process as the Park progresses.
Anderson also asked the Board to publicly affirm that as the project moves forward all citizens would be treated equitably and that eminent domain would be a last resort when aiming to acquire property.
"We'll try to see what to do next as a next step," Board Chair Mary Good said following the presentations.
She did not provide any comments regarding the possibility of considering alternative locations, but at the beginning of the meeting she had pointed out the Authority had spent $100,000 on a study to select the "very best" possible locations from numerous locations across the city. However, it should be noted one of the key criteria to that site selection was the five to ten-minute commute rule from the UALR and UAMS campuses.
The board essentially took no action regarding the Chancellors' recommendations, but essentially conceded to consider them.
Until concrete commitments come their way, folks like Robert Webb intend to continue protesting the Park Authority's eminent domain power.
"Pretty soon, who knows, they may come up with another great idea and decide to displace some more of us," Webb said.
They've set up a petition to encourage the Little Rock Board of Directors to withhold some $22 million in taxpayer funds that the Park is set to receive to prevent it from displacing those in residential neighborhoods. You can find the petition by clicking here.
Comments
One aspect that I have not heard discussed is how so drastically altering this part of town will affect the city as a whole. This is a quaint area--when people buy a house there, they say "it's the new Hillcrest,%u201D meaning that they see it as on the rise, coming back from a couple decades of decline. This is the kind of area that could be attractive to the people who are supposedly going to be drawn here for the research jobs created by this park. The Fair Park Residents Association is trying to do just that. They have been working with UALR to improve the neighborhoods to attract higher caliber profs at the school and to provide a safety for their students. This area is an *asset* to Little Rock and should not be thrown on the chopping block so carelessly. I can imagine that the people who are trying to make this project happen are telling themselves that, "Well, it's all for the greater good. People are displaced for these types of projects. Someone must sacrifice. It's just unavoidable in certain cases." But this is not the area to lose. It is unique to midtown. And what would life be like for the residents who have to live near this thing? Twelfth and Fair Park and 12th and University are already large, unpleasant intersections--will this park just butt up to people's properties and create traffic in front of homes that makes it even less safe for children and pets? Will people want to move away and after it's built and further blight the area that people have lived in their whole lives? Will the remaining residents be left alone in a wasteland??
As to the sacrifice made by these residents, let%u2019s be perfectly clear. These are people of limited means%u2014very limited in many cases. There are no other areas in midtown that are as safe and affordable. Go south and east and the neighborhoods get scarier and scarier. You can afford a house there, but you%u2019d rather not live there in a lot of cases. WHERE are these residents supposed to go? The board members and the chancellors of the schools say they want to treat people as fairly as possible%u2014but there is no fair trade for THESE properties in THIS part of town. There just isn%u2019t. And of course we come to the money. Mary Good has made it perfectly clear that the budget is tight. Very tight. Twenty-two million dollars. And they need to spend very carefully. Read: we must acquire these properties as cheaply as possible. Hillcrest is 5 minutes from these institutions%u2014why don%u2019t they buy property there? Oh, yeah, right. Homes in Hillcrest can cost three times what homes south of I-630 cost. And they only have that $22 million. People who live in Hillcrest can afford to buy another safe home. People in Oak Forest and Fair Park will have to really scramble to find something comparable in this part of town. Scramble. Sure, they could move to Bryant%u2014but their lives are here. It%u2019s where they chose to live.
Little Rock is a beautiful city. It%u2019s interesting. There is so much crammed in to midtown, it%u2019s fantastic. Let%u2019s think real hard about this one.
Anonymous A.
May 16, 2012 at 11:15 pm
