Supporting Our Urban Zoo in GR

This week, in my service as a Board Member of West Grand Neighborhood Organization, I was included in a meeting with leaders at John Ball Zoo. Alongside others from our community group, we discussed the Zoo's parking needs and Master Plan amendments, as well as the concerns of the somewhat-disingenuously-named "Save John Ball Park" effort. (Which didn't land with me, as I saw similar dishonest branding back in Nashville with the "Save Our Fairgrounds" movement.)

After this discussion, I have reached the conclusion that the Zoo's adjustments to their plans are not only reasonable, but that they've made many (documented) efforts to engage the public - which is how they arrived at the new plan.

I will be supporting our Neighborhood Org issuing a letter of support.

They have one more upcoming engagement, a tele-town hall at?6pm Wednesday, 11/15. Anyone interested should connect there and learn more, offer feedback, etc. But I encourage everyone to be open to learning that some of what they have heard is not true.

the Zoo's adjustments to their plans are not only reasonable, but that they've made many (documented) efforts to engage the public

While I am a big supporter and very impressed with the efforts of many involved in this discussion, such as the amazing work and people at Strong Towns Grand Rapids, a lot of what's been making its way around the community is misinformation and exaggeration.

A good deal of it is coming from the scuttlebutt of an aging NIMBY population, ginned up by a Kent County Commissioner who seems to have trouble understanding and engaging with anyone younger than Boomers. (This same Commissioner also approved the old plan from 2015 that nobody, including the zoo, currently wants to utilize - but now disingenuously fights against the new, superior plan for reasons that are unclear and likely politically expedient.)

The answer here is not "all change bad" or a religious-level-opposition to any and all paved spaces. I was all-in on the opposition to Corewell Health's bad plan, and total lack of engagement in Monroe North. The same factors that made that a bad plan are not at play here with the Zoo.

We can, and should, tackle these hard conversations. That's how consensus and progress align.

Here are some corrections to the false notions I've heard around the community, as well as some of my own observations.

• A zoo in the urban center is smart, and good for the community. Its location make it accessible by foot, bike, bus, scooter, ride-share, and more - and it is situated to serve the most under-served in our community.
• To be sustained, said zoo has to "cater to the suburbanites" and give them a place to park. They will not (and should not be asked to) haul kids and strollers onto busses. It's easy for 20-somethings without kids to oppose this, but in practicality, this is about knowing the target market and their habits.
• While we all wish we could have a utopian vision of offsite parking and busses, that's not going to happen like magic. Some onsite parking has to be present, and as I have advocated against false utopias in regard to Grand Action 2.0 and the City of Grand Rapids' zero-parking plans for the new Acrisure Amphitheater, I must be consistent in that when it comes to the zoo.
• The designation of being a Park does, indeed, include parking lots. Building lots on the "park side" of the property is not a violation of those boundaries.
• The zoo has made it clear they want to commit to green space forever, with a new boundary, and even if that's redundant by some old and dusty vague documentation of the past, let's allow them to make that commitment.
• Their new plan solidifies green space as green space, and no longer scarred with parking as it is now. It also includes a garage in the future. That's a win!
• The space they have proposed their expanded parking exist in was (a) originally supposed to disappear for an amphitheater, and is (b) a horrid mud-hole that is good for no use as an enjoyable green space now. In fact, its primary purpose seems to be flooding the biking and walking path with mud. Engineering it to become parking is a proper use, and can add appropriate drainage.
• The zoo has committed to many improvements, including to the facilities and attractions of the front park area. In good faith, they added a playground already.
• Efforts are being made in these new designs to take the parking and traffic off the neighborhood grid streets, which is important, as those streets are already at critical mass and dangerous enough with the local drivers, let along the clueless suburbanites.
• Future visions include entirely directing traffic away from the neighborhood. That's another win!

I look forward to the continued conversation and the continued success of a great zoo in a great city. We can, and should, tackle these hard conversations. That's how consensus and progress align. I appreciate all the voices who've entered the discussion and will enter it in the future, but I will defend common sense and facts when needed, as we all should.

The full proposal from the zoo is available online, here, for those interesting in the deep dive.