1. Durham Coalition
for Urban Justice
November 12, 2011

2.  Old North Durham Park (ONDP) has become
a controversy because of efforts by Central
Park School for Children (CPSC) and their
associates, including “Friends of Old North
Durham Park” (FONDP), to block a quality
full-size athletic field and control the park to
serve private interests.
 This has a disparate, negative impact on the
park’s current users and neighborhood
residents, predominantly low-income African-
American and Latino residents.

3.  The key points of controversy are:
• City directives (Sept. 6, 2005, Resolution # 9281)
to upgrade and maintain Old North Durham Park
as a full-size athletic field have been intentionally
ignored for over 6 years.
• Agents have worked to replace the City’s Master
Plan (reaffirmed by City Council on 9/6/05) with a
privately-developed plan by CPSC, FONDP, and
ONDNA.

4.  December 2003: CPSC acquired a building
under questionable circumstances with an
unwritten agreement that this would also give
them the park.
 September 6, 2005: City Council directs DPR
to upgrade OND Park full-size field.
 November 15, 2005: CPSC enlists the Old
North Durham Neighborhood Association
(ONDNA) with plans to stop the 9/6/05 City
Council directive.

5.  For- keep the field at tournament level
(330ft x 180ft) as indicated in the Durham
Parks Master Plan and as directed by City
Council on 9/6/05 (Resolution #9281)
 Against –duplicate amenities that already
exist in walking distance (garden, bog,
walking trails, etc.)

6. Old North Durham Park’s full-size field is actively used by the community.

7. Studies have shown that
whereas higher income
residents who have
access to private gyms or
programs for exercise
view public parks
primarily as spaces of
leisure, low-income and
people of color who suffer
disproportionately from
child obesity, diabetes,
and other diseases
related to lack of places
for physical activity
depend on public parks
for athletic recreation.

8.  TheDurham Parks and Recreation Master
Plan (2003-2013) recommends that
Durham should have 46 athletic fields;
 DPR has less than 14 athletic fields, and
even fewer full-size fields.
 Old North Durham Park is the ONLY
athletic field in downtown, and the ONLY
full-size athletic field in downtown.

11. Page 32 of DPR Master Plan (2003-2013)

12. “Our long range plan includes rehabilitation of the
park. A capital project request in the amount of
$100,000 (construction costs) has been funded in
the City Manager’s Proposed Budget.
This project involves the installation of a permanent
automatic irrigation system, extensive subsurface
drainage will be installed and new top soil will be brought
in.
The field will be "crowned" once again to provide positive
surface water flow. Bermuda Grass will replace the
existing grass to provide an appropriate playing surface.”
To: City Council; From: General Services
June 7, 2004

13. “…the parkfield and kids playing the picnic
“…the butterfly garden, the walking trail, are not
“…a soccer is for the whole City, not
spaces, that the school parents a big green (well-
mutually CPSC; and the say they want, exist
exclusive—won’t
just in Central Park-1 blockwhole City the
right now away-isn’t that
maintained) playing field be good for the kids to
desperatelythis schoolmore athletic fields”
point of having needs in an urban environment?”
use for their games during the day?”

14. “With the current shortage of athletic
fields in Durham, DPR staff feels that
we cannot afford to reduce or lose one
of the existing fields”

15. Feb. 21,
2006

16. November 15, 2006
Letter
From Rhonda Parker,
Durham Parks and
Recreation, Director
To Leslie Frost,
Old North Durham
“A field suitable for athletic events, in a densely developed
Neighborhood
“…I would like tothat is not to bethan a Centraltruly a
“…What resource “multi-use” taken lightly; it isgreen,
area, is a is more note that Durham large, Park,
Association, President
Rocky Creek whole open Bay-Hargrove ParkCouncil
well-maintained and space? It’s suitable for
resource for the Park,community to share. The City are in
your meetingneighborhood,2005)future events or
ongoing events…or for many and the Recreation
(at its larger on September 6, as well as the OND
Advisory Commission (at its meeting on November 8, 2006)
Park itself. Those parks offerspace” trails,
activities that require walking
reaffirmed their support for continued scheduling of athletic
benches, programming in OND Park”
and children’s play equipment”

18. “We are hoping
that lots of
CPSC
families…will
drop in and
object to the
size (very large)
of the soccer
field proposed
for the Park.

19. “request is that
ONDNA support “if anything is going to change, the
a motion to stop neighborhood has to dig in hard to get this
the current plans changed; it needs to be done with Central
for the park and
Park…this is 1996 BOND money, it has
instead hire a
planner to make already gone out to bid once and didn’t get
it more broadly any response, and now it is going out to
useful” bid again; nothing is actually final until
money exchanges hands and construction
shows up”

20.  2003: City transfers ownership of building adjacent
to park and the Eastern park entrance to CPSC.
 2004: CPSC Privately-runs and finances “Master
Plan” process (Claims to focus only on playground)
 2005: Enlists ONDNA to block field upgrade
 Nov. 2007: Attempts to lease park for $10 per yr
for 10 yrs. No park users/neighbors notified.
 October 21, 2010: CPSC/FOND seeks to get City
Council to pass Master Plan never shown or
discussed in a city-sponsored public meeting
 Recent 2011: FONDP controls park meetings. No
city-sponsored public process.

23.  June 2004 (Crittendon email): $100,000 for
upcoming budget. OND Park funded in 2004-05
CIP.
 OND Park included in CIP ($887,000) for six “field
renovation;” $222, 879 specifically listed for OND
Park.
 $10 million 2/3 Bond (Aug. 2005):
• $2.6 million Parks and Recreation Bond
• $1.3 million Public Improvement Bonds
 2005 Bond (Nov. 2005):
• $38.3 million for Parks and Recreation (Resolution 9278)
• $11 million Cultural Facilities Bonds;
 2008: $800,000 from sale of Erwin Field to Duke.

24. “It is our intent to have major repairs and renovations made
to the field next year…the General Services Department has
requested $100,000 in this up coming year’s budget for the
complete renovation for the North Durham Park Soccer
field.”

25. “Our long range plan includes rehabilitation of the
park. A capital project request in the amount of
$100,000 (construction costs) has been funded in
the City Manager’s Proposed Budget.
This project involves the installation of a permanent
automatic irrigation system, extensive subsurface
drainage will be installed and new top soil will be brought
in.
The field will be "crowned" once again to provide positive
surface water flow. Bermuda Grass will replace the
existing grass to provide an appropriate playing surface.”
To: City Council; From: General Services
June 7, 2004

26. 2005 Bond
$38,333,000 for
Parks and Recreation

28.  November 2008: City Council sells Erwin Field Park
(5.5 acres) to Duke for $700,000, removing yet another
city park and soccer field from public use.
 The City received $700,000 cash from Duke at closing
on January 28, 2009. Duke still to pay City $100,000
once an encumbrance on an adjacent parcel is
removed.
 The contract states: “the City is willing to sell Erwin
Field Park to the University in order to have funding to
construct a replacement soccer field or fields in
another location to meet pressing park and
recreational needs of the City.”

29.  No mention in Sept. 6, 2005 City Council meeting
of drainage problems that would inhibit the
upgrade of the field.
 Stormwater funds have always been available to
improve drainage (pipe under field) receiving runoff
from the publicly maintained street.
 Right now, public money is being used to repair
drainage issues on the private property of Nana’s
restaurant. ($176,563 on design alone; over
$500,000 for construction)

30.  November 8, 2007: Residents
overwhelmingly object to transfer of
control of OND Park to CPSC via
renewable lease (City Council)
 December 18, 2007: Residents
speak in favor of publicly-controlled
full-size field and against CPSC
lease (DPR)
 October 21, 2010: Neighborhood
residents speak out against the
FONDP Master Plan & violation of
public process (City Council)
 March 15, 2011: Overwhelming
support of full-size field; 150+
people protested the FONDP-
sponsored meeting (City Council)

32.  OND Park should be a quality, publicly-
controlled and maintained full-size field
 It is the directive from the City Council and
matches the City’s own Master Plan for
OND Park.
 A dire need for soccer fields remains
 There was and is money
 The drainage is not the problem
 We need your support