Is Memorial Park deal best for Houston?

It's reforestation of Memorial Park - the Houston Way.

The city is considering a proposal to let a group called the Uptown Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone No. 16 annex a beloved green space twice the size of New York's Central Park so it can pay for tree planting, water lines and other improvements the city can't afford.

The overall project would take 20 years to complete and cost around $150 million, paid for by private funds, any state and federal grants obtained, and by the TIRZ No. 16, which has authority to plow a portion of property taxes back into its specific area.

Reforestation is sorely needed in a park devastated by hurricane damage and drought. This is a great deal, city leaders and supporters say, a great way to restore our crown jewel to its former beauty. And we should all trust the Memorial Park Conservancy - a private body whose members aren't elected and which acts as both fundraiser and watchdog for the park - to make it happen.

But some meddlesome environmentalists aren't so trusting. This week, they walked into City Hall and demanded the public have a say, a real say, in the deal. They asked for details beyond a press release. They asked for more than a couple of weeks to sort it out and read the small print.

When they were assured by Mayor Annise Parker and some City Council members that the city would have to sign off on any decisions, the environmentalists continued to argue that the public should be involved from the get-go. Not after the fact. Not left holding a rubber stamp.

After all, it's a public park, a very special one with a rare wildness that offers a unique escape in a city as large as Houston. It belongs to all of us, they say. It is not for sale.

They make some important points - none better than Olive Hershey, the stepdaughter of Terry Hershey, the determined conservationist and life member of the conservancy who fought government agencies trying to pave parts of Buffalo Bayou in the 1960s.

Neon signs along trails?

"There's been virtually no disclosure of the real details of this scheme and the public stands to lose any meaningful control of an irreplaceable park in our public lands and waterways," Hershey told the council Wednesday. "Memorial Park must not be turned over to a group of bureaucrats who may have little understanding of how to nurture and defend this fragile jewel. If the city needs money to reforest the drought-damaged landscape there, it seems a shame to basically turn the park over to TIRZ 16 because the city can't afford to protect the remaining trees."

She wondered aloud whether the powerful influence of developers and other interests over a relatively few conservancy members could lead to "neon signs" along trails and retail developments similar to San Antonio's Riverwalk. The mayor dismissed such scenarios as "far-fetched" and stressed that the park can only be used for "park purposes."

Perhaps. But concerns of Hershey and the others are understandable. Surely, there are varying definitions of "park purposes" out there.

There are details in a "Letter of Intent" on the project that didn't make it into the press release. The letter outlining details of the plan states that the Conservancy would be responsible for major decisions including design, bidding, and managing construction projects in the master plan. The city would later have to approve those decisions, but it's unclear if that leaves enough time for a thorough public vetting.

A troubling section of the letter called "Coordination of Public Relations" points out that the conservancy isn't subject to public information requests. And the agreement would require all parties - even the public ones that are subject to information requests - to coordinate through private parties before disclosing any information to the public.

'Where's the public?'

When I asked Joe Turner, Houston's parks director, about that provision, he said it had been awhile since he'd read the letter. He said he'd read it and get back with me if he had anything to add. He didn't call back.

"The public is a missing piece of this organization. It's political appointees, private nonprofits and a TIRZ. Where's the public?" Evelyn Merz, with the Sierra Club, told me. Merz said she's "appalled" by the plan, but not because she doubts the motives of conservancy members.

"I know they care about the park. That's not the issue. Are they the same as the public? I would say they aren't," she told me.

The Uptown TIRZ proposal is creative problem-solving, and maybe even a necessary solution. But the public should play a meaningful role in determining whether it should happen, and how.

We should have a say as big as our stake. The council is expected to take a vote on the annexation issue in a couple of weeks.