Letters: New green space plan not good idea for town

To the editor:

In the article from The Democrat about the “new green space” (park) that the town council wants to build, Buzz King said he envisioned trees for shade, a picnic table, a trash can (for dog waste) and a restroom that is closed in winter.

Yet very soon, there will be construction starting on the “Four Corners” — always known as the Village Green — and they will be replacing the benches and the grass with “play elements.”

They already cut down the shade tree and the fancy restroom is open year-round. So, you might ask yourself if the town council has any sense of direction. You might also wonder why we paid $100,000 to purchase property to recreate what we already have and are destroying?

The proposed “park” is a public space in a residential neighborhood. This “park” acreage is unknown, as it is on the old plat books of Nashville. I do not believe it can be an acre of ground.

It is bordered by the parking business operated for tourist parking by council president Buzz King in our residential neighborhood, the Sycamore Apartments (senior housing), the Schrock home (mother of town clerk-treasurer who sold one parcel of the three of the property for the “park”) and a free parking lot for tourists. Former town council president Bob Kirlin was the listing real estate agent for the property.

For relevance and reference, he also was the real estate agent for the building the new restrooms are on, at the Village Green, where they are destroying the green space to replace it with this new purchase.

Overlooking these facts, if you still think a “park” is a good idea, consider the point that this corner is in the floodway. It floods, very badly, nearly every heavy rain.

During the last severe flooding two years ago, it was accessible only by canoe. Yet King says the town will “level it out” for the “park” and spend no tax money to do so.

So, who will fund this? Taking land off the tax rolls automatically increases taxes for the remaining property owners, so this statement of “no tax increase” is technically untrue.

Nashville town ordinance states land uses in residential 1 or 2 zones are for single-family dwelling, two-family dwelling or multi-family dwellings. A park can be built in a residential buffer zone, but this property is not in the buffer zone, and therefore cannot be used as a park.

You would think our council would know their own ordinances, but when I asked this question at the July 13 council meeting, they did not even know what the property was zoned (or feigned they didn’t know). And who would re-zone the land from residential to commercial property? That’s right, the same council that bought it in the first place.

And speaking of that council meeting, the mention of the park was nowhere on the agenda. It was announced by King at the beginning of the meeting. (King said) “before we get to the agenda, we want to announce that property for the park has been purchased” and that “this is the public hearing meeting on the park” so, again, back door deals by the town council.

The Nashville Town Council is currently being sued in federal court by the Brown County Water Utility and also have a hearing before the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.

Isn’t it time to elect people that will work for us, not against us? Three members of the council are due for replacement Dec. 31, 2018, and the other two in 2019.

Let’s clean house. Let’s get control of our town before it is nothing but a tacky tourist trap, unfit for any of us to live in.

Tricia Bock, Nashville

Send letters to newsroom@bcdemocrat.com by noon Thursday before the date of intended publication (noon Wednesday on holiday weeks). Letters are the opinions of the writer. Letters must be signed by the author and include the writer’s town of residence and a contact number in case of questions. Only one letter every two weeks, per writer, to allow for diversity of voices in the opinions section. Please be considerate of sharing space with other letter-writers and keep your comments concise and to the point. Avoid name-calling, accusations of criminal activity and second- and third-hand statements of “fact.”