Home Tags Posts tagged with "Stebbins Center"
Tag:

Stebbins Center

Blog

You CAN Fight City Hall… and Win!

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

Parkside is safe! Earlier today I received the following email from the Mark Stebbins Community Center letting us know they’re NOT going to destroy our community garden at Parkside, and will be seeking an alternate site for their project, phew!

(Backstory: HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE.)

As I said to the organizers via email as well, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the Stebbins family and those involved who chose to keep their word and not break promises they made to West Side neighbors at our prior meetings.

I am confident the right space will be found that can serve the needs of the community without destroying our park, community garden, and the nature of an established residential area.

Just goes to show, when people communicate open and honestly, when you film your interactions at public meetings so that you have a record of what was said (I won a landmark lawsuit making it legal to film cops… if you’re taking taxpayer money… On the job, on the record!), and when neighbors stand together, we can accomplish great things! Turns out, sometimes, just sometimes, you CAN fight City Hall… and win!

Here is the letter that was submitted to the Board of Alderman:

0 comment
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Blog

Second Parkside Meeting Regarding Stebbins Center

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

Last night, there was a second meeting about the Stebbins Center being proposed on the site of our community garden & green space here in West Manchester.

I gave an impassioned speech (video to come) but here’s coverage by Manchester Ink Link so long.

I would like to point out something, my *feelings* aren’t really in question, I am rightfully responding to ACTIONS taken. i.e. We don’t FEEL overlooked, we WERE OVERLOOKED.

We all know that when someone apologizes by saying, “I’m sorry you feel x,” that’s not really an apology. Saying, “I’m sorry I did x,” is.

Republican candidate for State House in Ward 10, Tammy Simmons did a great job crystallizing the real issue, which is the City of Manchester and Mayor Joyce Craig failed us all by simply unethically shoving this through.

This land was never “surplus” to start with, and that should have been communicated to the parties involved. Ward 11’s alderman is entirely missing from all of this. Doesn’t show up, doesn’t respond, doesn’t seem to care. That’s likely why they thought they could get away with this… NO ONE was advocating for the people living in the neighborhood to be impacted. Now, we are.

From Ink Link:

“Carla Gericke, a local resident, felt that if the project went forward as it is now, it should not be a ‘community’ center due to the group’s interactions with the community up to this point. ‘No one wants to go to war here, right? But it’s important for people to understand where our frustration is coming from and we do not trust you,’ Gericke said to the organizers. ‘You cannot build a community center when you literally ignore the community that lives here.'”

Ink Link
0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Blog

Keep Parkside Parkside: Meeting Tonight, Tues 08/16/22 at 5PM

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

Reminder! There is a meeting scheduled tonight 5-7PM at Parkside Middle to express your concerns.

There was an article in today’s Union Leader about it. See below.

According to the article, you will be able to speak for 3 minutes or write your concerns on cards provided and they will be read out.

I’ve asked Manchester Public Television to attend and record the session.

For me, the types of questions I have, are:

Why was the standard City procedure of requesting an RFP not followed? Under what basis of law was this exception made to sell public parkland to a private entity?

The letters submitted in support of selling the public land were solely submitted by state actors or people involved in the project (conflict of interest?) and simply state the park is “surplus” and “not in use” without any substantiating evidence. We all know the opposite is true and the park is, in fact, a robust community garden. How can you use these letters in support of your actions when all of us can see with our very own eyes it is a lie?

What other sites were considered? Where, in relation to these sites, do the sitting aldermen and people involved with the project live?

How many children on the West Side currently attend the Boys & Girls Club on the East Side? How many neighbors and gardeners will be affected by changing this park into a giant building?

What is the distance between the proposed site and the current Boys & Girls Club? How long does it take to drive or walk there?

Is it true that one of the reasons the destruction of the park is being proposed is because there is a bus driver shortage?

Do the nonprofits being proposed for this site have any data on how much crime increases and property prices drop when they open up in a neighborhood? If not, why not? This seems important to assessing all aspects of impact to an area, not simply measuring the criteria you want and ignoring the data you don’t want to consider.

Please provide substantiating data for claims of “extreme poverty” on the West Side.

Will this property be tax-free? If so, the costs will eventually be downshifted to the neighbors living there. So you are asking neighbors to lose green space in return for higher crime and higher property taxes, is this correct?

Can you explain all the funding sources for this project? Initially, it was claimed that all the funding was private. Since then, it has been exposed that there is both private and public funds being used, including federal grants. Can you shed light on this public/private funding. Can you shed light on the ARP grants (and where we can get copies). Can you breakdown where the “$17 million” is coming from?

Who was the “generous donor” for the under-market, unaudited sales price of $600,000 for the “property sale”?

According to its website, Amoskeag Health provides transgender affirmation services and chemical abortions. What will parental rights be like at this clinic next to a school that is being included in something called “wrap around services”? What is “wrap around services” and what grants relate to this?

What does “consent of the governed” mean to you?

I understand these questions make me seem like a curmudgeon, but they are important in order for us all to make an informed decision, taking into account ALL NECESSARY DATA, not just the cherry-picked data from one side of the equation.

In the end, the City has NOT acted ethically, and while I don’t want to bad mouth the private interests promoting this, they are now willfully associating with what can only be described as a “shady deal.”

The Stebbins family now has a choice to act with integrity and return to the drawing board. They can choose to follow standard procedures like informing the people who live in the neighborhood and the gardeners who use the community garden beforehand, and follow a standard RFP procedure, or they can choose to side with the City and railroad the community that lives here, and then let the chips fall where they may.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
The Carla Gericke ShowVideo

Ep. 29 The Carla Gericke Show Deep Dives on the Mark Stebbin Center Controversy

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

Controversial backroom deal to declare a public park with a robust community garden “surplus” in order to sell this green space to a private developer without telling the people living in the neighborhood? Say it isn’t so! This week, I discuss my recent op-ed in the Union Leader regarding the unethical mess happening at Parkside Park. Get involved!

Sign up for alerts: ParksidePark.org
Next meeting: 8/16 5-7PM at Parkside Middle. YOUR voice counts if YOU show up!

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Blog

Let’s Unpack Info About the City’s Sweetheart Backroom Mark Stebbins Center Deal

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

In a recent op-ed, Kathy Sullivan accused me of making unfounded accusations about the proposed Mark Stebbins Center. You can read her inaccurate statements HERE.

Let’s unpack “unfounded accusations,” shall we?

1. It will NOT be paid for “entirely with charitable donations.” There is federal ARP grant money, which they admitted ON VIDEO at the abridged meeting that they cut short when they realized their unethical approach to “community building”–you know, ripping out an actual existing community garden–was backfiring.

2. “Built on land purchased by the City.” NO RFP was requested or required, which is standard operating procedure. Therefore, this deviated from the norm, therefore, it is “special treatment.” This land was designated “surplus” without any criteria being stated or met. Many boilerplate letters were submitted with NO EVIDENCE; again, because the ACTUAL FACTS ARE the land IS BEING USED BY THE COMMUNITY ALREADY.

3. “When the board of mayor and alderman supported”: 14 residents spoke AGAINST the decision. 8–ALL AFFILIATED with the city or project spoke in “favor” (i.e. they should be “discounted” because they have a conflict of interest). To Sally Stebbins’ credit, she did say the project will not proceed without community support. This is also captured on video, and I hope we can believe her.

4. The community partners listed include health services for juveniles that provide, amongst other things, transgender reassignment services and chemical abortions. (Amoskeag Health, where Maggie Hassan had a little presser yesterday, hum.) The other community partners listed include: Easterseals, Waypoint, Mental Health Center of Greater Manchester & Granite United Way. I encourage people to go look at what the areas around some of these places look like on the East Side, and ask yourself if this is what we want next to a middle school?

5. How do we define “underserved”? Manchester isn’t a big city, and you can WALK from the West to East side in 15 minutes, let alone drive from the proposed building site to the current Boys and Girls club in about 5 minutes (it’s less than 2 miles away!).

6. There are several other sites more suitable than a park hosting a thriving community garden on 5 dead end streets where the speed limit is 10 mph. I guess the reason this was picked is because the City thought they could railroad us?

The next meeting is scheduled for 8/16 at 5PM at Parkside Middle. PLEASE plan to attend.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Blog

Paving Over Paradise to Put Up a Parking Lot

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

The next meeting is scheduled for 8/16 at Parkside Middle 5-7PM.

Join our mailing list where you can stay up to date on developments at ParksidePark.org.

Here’s some media coverage:

Proposal for West Side community center clears first hurdle…

My op-ed from today…

WHAT DEFINES a community? Is it a location, a value system, a bit of both? Should something be called a “community center” when the people who live there don’t want it? Can you claim to be building “community” when you don’t inform abutters, the residents who would be most impacted?

The Manchester Board of Alderman and Mayor Joyce Craig voted to sell 4.2 acres of public parkland next to Parkside Middle in West Manchester for $600,000 to a private entity called the “Mark Stebbins Community Center.”

Fourteen individuals spoke against the center at this location. Eight spoke in favor, all affiliated with the city or project. The week before, the project facilitator, Jeanine Tousignant, shut down an informational session when it became clear the approximately hundred attendees were aggrieved.

Abutters were not informed until after the letter of intent for the sale had been signed; i.e., neighborhood homeowners were not told about the plans until the “deal was done.”

Joe Kelly Levasseaur voted against the “surplus” recommendation without abutter consent. Ed Sapienza stated that an RFP process should have been followed. At Tousignant’s abridged meeting, we were told, “We aren’t legally required to inform abutters.” My neighbor responded, “We all know what’s ‘legal,’ isn’t always what’s ‘right.’”

Do you think the government should change the nature of your neighborhood without your consent? Do you think it is right for one group of special interests (the Mayor’s friends pushing this, Group A) to “help” another group of special interests (the beneficiaries of the largess, Group B) without telling the people who bear the brunt of these actions (Group C)?

Is this good governance? No; it is exactly what’s wrong with the government– everyone thinks it’s OK to bleed Group C, the taxpaying property owners. We are tired of this.

The park is next to Parkside Middle, situated on five dead-end streets. The speed limit is 10 mph. A robust community garden exists called Manchester Grows. Forty percent of the property is on a steep hillside, not suitable for building. They are proposing a 40,000 sf building plus parking.

To declare the site “surplus,” Parks and Rec must demonstrate the land is not being used for any purpose and that the sale is in the “public interest.” Based on my Right-to-Know requests, the boilerplate letters submitted simply state the land is “surplus” and that taking it will be in the “public interest” without explaining why. One might even ask, who is “the public”? Apparently no-one in Group C.

What about our community garden and green space where children play? Only the president of Manchester Grows supports relocating. Other gardeners do not. One asked why the notices weren’t put on the fence to inform them? Good question. Perhaps the claimed efforts to involve the community is not the whole truth?

What about other sites? West High, Second Street, and the Housing Authority plot near Rock Rimmon that seems more suitable? Erin George Kelly (Ward 12) cited a conflict of interest during the surplus vote; what was it?

Everyone is committed to doing good for the children of the West Side, but let me be clear. We cannot start with objectionable, unethical behavior and expect good to follow. The city and the Mayor’s friends need to apologize for the railroading, and let’s regroup together.

If this is such a good idea, they should be able to persuade the majority of abutters. Or do they realize as I do, that this rushed decision will depress our property values by 10 to 30%, downshift to us the costs of services provided to this “tax free” property, and invite increased crime and homelessness into our safe neighborhood.

Perhaps the reason they failed to inform us is because they know exactly what they are doing and don’t want to confront our rightful outrage.

We can debate the best solutions to solve society’s problems, but I know when you harm one group to benefit another you are not doing good, despite what you tell yourself. Deciding who must make sacrifices for “the greater good” should be done with the advice and consent of the people doing the sacrificing.

I hope we can figure something out, not only for the connected and the people who will receive services, but also those of us who live next to the park, grow our vegetables there, and pay our property taxes for our still safe streets.

The next MSCC meeting is scheduled for August 15 from 5 to 7 p.m. at Parkside Middle School. Learn more at ParksidePark.org.

—

Carla Gericke lives in West Manchester. She is the Republican candidate for the House of Representatives in Ward 11.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Close