Memorial Park Master Plan - Minutes and Recaps of Meetings and Other Activities
August 4 Recap:
There was a City of Houston Neighborhood Protection & Quality of Life Committee meeting today in which many people working on the Memorial Park Master Plan presented their Plan, in what appeared to be an attempt to get approval from the Committee to proceed to City Council. There were several people in the audience who responded on behalf of both sides, and several members from our organization were present to express our concerns. From our perspective it is clear that the plan is not ready to be addressed by City Council as it is still lacking in several areas. For example, there still are not any actual plans regarding the relocation of the "to be relocated" amenities. They do not have language in their proposal that provides City Council the right to remain the final authority. There are additional items still outstanding.
At the September 29th Quality of Life Committee meeting, the Memorial Park Master Plan was again presented. The meeting was very confusing as even the Committee members could not really understand what was submitted for approval. We still don't know if it was a request for Phase I of the plan, or for the entire plan to be approved. At the end Councilwoman Annis Parker, who Chairs the meeting, agreed to move the plan forward to City Council for "discussion". What is moving forward, Phase I or all? Unfortunately there was not a quorum present, so there was no ability to have many questions asked and/or answered.
The Houston ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is investigating the Memorial Park Master Plan. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Our Alliance coordinators met with the committees involved in creating the Master Plan on September 8 and again on September 25. The meetings were informal, and were assembled to allow all parties to openly communicate their issues and desires. No agreements were reached, except that we agreed to disagree. Our position will remain as previously stated, which is to defend the position of the citizens who would like for the amenities to remain in the park now and in the long-term..
Return to Home page