Koshkonong City Park Controversy

From this week's Koffee 'N' Kosh:

CITY OF KOSHKONONG LOOSES [sic] THEIR CITY PARK

Koshkonong City Hall is packed with residents of the city as the change over of Mayor and New City Council Members prepare to take their new positions.

Former Mayor Tom Lowe opened the meeting, then announced, the city clerk that they had just hired, had resigned. Liana had been ask[ed] to take the minutes and read the last months minutes, which she did, then it was time for the change over of administration, but not before Former Mayor Tom Lowe dealt the residents of Koshkonong with one final blow. Tom Lowe announced "The City Park has been sold to a private individual and I will be in charge of the Park. If anyone wants to use the Park they will have to go through me." Everyone is in a state of shock as Tom Lowe, Myrtle Rigel and Norma Duncan leave the building.

After the shock and some discussion as to how this could happen, some of the residents said "We may have lost our park but we will not be defeated, we WILL salvage our town!"

Geneva Bernard is the new alderman for Ward I and Brian Willbanks is Alderman for Ward II. City Council meetings will be held the second Saturday of each month at 10:00 a.m.

Tense changes and desperate need for an editor aside (I gave up on the "sic"s; there would have been so many it would have been distracting), this story is interesting. While I don't know the details, as a general principle I have no objections to the privatization of public lands -- it takes the city's cash outflow, in the form of expenses the park generates, and turns it into inflow, in the form of property taxes paid on the land.

But in this case (and admittedly I've only heard one side of the story) it sounds to me like this reeks of corruption, not just in what was done but also in the way it was announced. The city of Kosh has a few options here that might return the park to them.

1. Get a lawyer to go over the deal with a fine-tooth comb. Does Kosh have requirements that such transactions be published beforehand, such as a bidding process, and if so were such requirements followed? Does the transaction cover only the land? If so, take the improvements off it (picnic tables, the fence around it, etc.). If he's only bought the land, don't let him take anything but the land. Tie him up in red tape -- does he need an environmental impact study before changing it from a park to private property?

2. Does Kosh have zoning restrictions against the property being a private business? Probably not, but it's worth a look.

3. The next time property in Kosh gets assessed, note every single thing on the property that improves it's value, and raise the assessment accordingly. If the guy has to pay thousands in taxes on it, he might slip up and become delinquent on the property. Then someone can snatch it out from under him by paying the taxes on it. You probably don't want to do this if you are exploring option #5, however, because you might end up having to pay more in "fair compensation."

4. Have one of the residents file complaints every time the grass gets too tall at the park, every time it has litter, etc. Preferably, it should be a resident who keeps his own lawn meticulously manicured, so the park owner cannot retaliate in similar fashion.

5. While I absolutely oppose the power of eminent domain, it IS an option. Missouri law requires only that the land would be used for "public use." The downside is that the city might have to pay a pretty steep price, if that is what is determined fair compensation at the trial. And there IS that pesky Commandment against stealing. In a perfect world, eminent domain is not an option. But in the world where we live, it is an option. It's not an option I would use, but the people of Kosh might.

6. This is probably the best option -- let him have it. Boycott the park. Get a group of citizens together to buy a new space for a park, or get someone to donate the space. There is nothing sacred about that space. It has trees, yes, but so do lots of places in Kosh. Schedule lots of events at the new park. Make it a hundred times better than the old one, and people will choose to go to IT instead of the old one nearly every time. The only thing I'd advise is, before donating the land to the city, put clauses in place that will prevent such a thing from happening again. "Any attempt to transfer the donated land to private individuals shall result in ownership of the land reverting to the people who donated it, or their heirs" should do the trick.