Arkansas Blog

The question is in the long term what is the best for those involved. At sometime in the future UAMS will need more property for expansion. The Zoo needs more property to expand. Whose needs serve the greater good? So if the Zoo comes up short there is always the golf course. Give half the golf course to the Zoo and make the rest into a public park. A public park that would be used by the public not just the limited number of golfers that have domain over the people's land.

good choice. having utilized the world class medical facility it serves more than just a small community. top notch medical professionals right here under your noses. check that out. people from all over the world come right here to receive services. research, educational opportunities, yada yada yada........the golf course is a good option for the zoo.

If UAMS gets the property for future expansion, what argument will they use to get the National Guard to move their facility? It wouldn't make sense to build unconnected buildings, the armory would have to go. And the Red Cross, what do they think of this plan?

Dailey - once again the putz screws up the situation.

I would never call former Mayor Dailey a fool because I like and respect him too much, but this is about as close as I've come. Clearly UAMS got him to do his bidding. That is fine. Playing politics is nothing new. But that he has jumped on the absurd Stodola bandwagon of really considering the most logical expansion opportunity for a zoo to be extending across A HIGHWAY (are you kidding me?????) into presently unavailable property puts him dangerously close to the aforementioned "fool" category.
And yes, I believe that Stodola is in danger of leading that fools parade if he sticks with this idea (and taking the rest of the City's "leadership" that doesn't figure this out with him) absent a public commitment and plan (and agreement from the zoo) to execute this "idea." Not because I disagree with thinking big and considering such an undertaking, but because I disagree with the idea of avoiding obvious and much more logical (and likely logistically more convenient, not to mention inexpensive) alternates of - oh, I don't know - say, expanding to an adjacent dormant ballpark or, say, making a smaller leap over a road into other existing park space (i.e. War Memorial parking lot/golf course). But that these "leaders" think jumping A HIGHWAY into currently unavailable space is the next best alternative shows that the leadership of this city - now including both current AND former, is stuck in the pocket of parking lot paving, money wielding special interests and appear to lack any skills at all with respect to responsible City planning! Who are these people!?!? How do we as citizens put up with this? Where is the real leadership in this City? People with common sense who can find real solutions?
I used think I wanted Dailey back as Mayor because I find Stodola to be incredibly unimpressive. I'm not so sure anymore. Time for some new blood who can think rationally, plan for their City responsibly and maybe, just maybe, has the ability to Be Thoughtful.
Way to sell out and provide cheap cover for Stodola and the rest of the City's "leaders", Dailey. You just lost some respect. Not that you care.
And to the rest of the City's "leadership," you all need to do some critical thinking and less politicking. Bear in mind that the people who put you in your current jobs and pay your salaries are the same people who vote the Zoo as the number one attraction around by virtue of their attendance. Thumb your nose at them at your own peril.
I'm left shaking my head at the absurdity of what passes for leadership in this City...

your relentless negativity should "change" as our leadership has......try one day to blog cast on all, or just a few, of the positive things that go on in little ole backasswards arkansas. starting with the uams medical community.

Wait a dang minute!

Ray Winder is CITY property. UAMS is state.

Do not give/sell city property to the state. Let the state go get their own property.

Condemn the Rick's armory and use that land. It is closer to the UAMS property.

Parking garage is not an "economic engine".

The city has some badly needed park land that was long ago bought and paid for and doesn't need to wittle off parts. Set that precident and St. Vincents shows up with hat in hand wanting some land on the west side of the park. State Hospital wants to wittle off some land on the east side.

Then a developer wants the strip of the golf course bordering University avenue for strip mall/ oops lifestyle center which could be argued as an "economic engine".

Just because Little Rock doesn't have someone on the board ramrodding developement of War Memorial like they do the River Market that is not a good enough excuse to fritter away the future opportunity to have a world class park in the center of the city. For future growth Little Rock needs ample clean water and land to expand parks.

Don't let anyone soil our water for the future or strip away available land for future quality of life improvememnts!

Little Red, I'm not saying I oppose the idea of expansion as offered by this "mayor." But if they're going to use a nebulous and logistically absurd (and much more expensive) idea of expanding OVER a highway, onto land that they don't own, would have to pay for and then essentially convert to green space to make way for their offered zoo expansion, then they simply must lay out some idea of exactly how they're going to do it (and preferably when and with what funds).
As I understand it, they feel that the money and/or leadership isn't there to simply expand over into the ball park property (which is right next door), but they're throwing out a suggestion of the massive undertaking of expanding over a highway and moving into land they don't own and would have to pay for? I'm sorry for being a little practical (and thoughtful) about it and pointing out the mixed message this sends.
The fact remains that this "leadership" is trying to pull the wool over so that they can make the decision they want (not what the citizens they represent want) and can hopefully stave off criticism or accountability by paying pie in the sky lip service to a ridiculous and unlikely alternative - all while ignoring the much more logical, logistically easier and cheaper alternatives of expanding next door into the War Memorial space.
Critical thought and calling city leaders out on their poor planning and communication abilities is not "relentless negativity" it is responsible citizenship.
Be thoughtful.

war memorial is owned by ?

Doesn't matter. The fact remains this is nothing more than a special interest money move by "leaders" who aren't open and transparent (but are meeting in secret behind closed doors - sound familiar?) and can't lay out logical explanations or plans and are now recruiting others to provide them cover.
This is absurd.
And why can't UAMS expand across the highway?
Hmmm...something doesn't smell right here. And it isn't elephant poop.

my comment wasn't directed at you bethoughtful, it was max, but you do make interesting points. off to fish. catch and release, my personal preference, keep em if you like.

Good luck! Wish I was fishin! Catch and release indeed.

I got it! Have the Travs play 2 games a year at Ray Winder. Issue resolved.

If I'm going to an appointment at Building X at UAMS on one side of 630 and after that, I need to go to an appointment in Building Y, I can schedule those so that there is ample drive/park time. However, if I'm visiting the ZOO, a walking attraction (seems to have escaped Dailey and Co), I probably won't visit the exhibits across the freeway. I'll park at one location, see what's there and leave. Zoos are largely frequented by families with children who really can't walk for miles on end, especially in Arkansas in the summer.

I'm not knocking UAMS, it's goals or the progress it makes, but before they do any more land grabbing, they need to get more efficient with what they have. They have far more opportunities for land efficiency than the Zoo does.

Forfeit valuable and irreplaceable city park land?

Are they insane?

How the heck would they get people back and forth across I-630 if they expanded the zoo in that direction? What a waste of land to use it as a parking lot when it's right next to the zoo and could be utilized by that organization.

UAMS has land it could use, and believe me they need parking since my driveway is often blocked by employees parking along my street, but there are better places to put parking than there.

Where is the Parks Commission on this? Or has our beloved City Manager gotten lock step with our "mayor" and decide to ram this through, citizens and parks be damned? Seriously, isn't this also a parks issue? Who is afraid of going through that process? And why? Can we get an answer on that?
Where is the open, deliberate and thoughtful process of carrying out the PEOPLES business? I see where the process is for carrying out UAMS's business - that is clear (albeit secretively behind closed doors by people with a singular agenda and prepared speeches) but what about the PEOPLE and their priorities dear city "leaders?"
Do they really think we are this dumb? Are we?

the Ray Winder preservation committee still has an opportunity to play baseball there if they want it. UAMS is open to negotiations to use the stadium for 5-10 years for baseball if the committee can find the funding to operate and pay for the insurance in case someone gets hurt there attending a game and a beam falls etc...

UAMS admits if that doesn't happen they will demolish RWF soon and pave it with a parking lot. And then in 7, 10, 15 years when UAMS figures out what they want to build there, the parking lot will be ripped up and up the next major building on the UAMS campus goes.

According to Dailey both proposals were attractive, but the fact that UAMS has the money to buy the land now and is willing to accommadate the Ray Winder Foundation played a role in the committee siding with them.

I'm betting the public comment portion at the board of directors meeting when this is brought up will be packed. You don't like it? Go to a meeting and let your opinions be heard.

Clearly the zoo has an image problem, when it takes a back seat to a new parking lot. Certainly the Clinton library is a big tourist draw. The zoo needs to figure out a way to piggyback on the tourists to be viable. There is currently no coherent public transportation strategy to get tourists and their dollars to the zoo. If the zoo were relocated near the Clinton Library, then visitors to the city could see the monkeys as well as the monkey business. Out of town visitors don't always have cars at their disposal and LR public transportation sucks. You ought to be able to take a bus or shuttle from the Clinton library to the LR zoo.

The fix has been in on this, and Jim Dailey stinks. Don't let this happen, Little Rock. Don't give me this shit that UAMS doesn't have any room and can't move eastward, but needs the Ray Winder space just for parking. Build a friggin' lot.

Severus, the zoo may very well indeed have an image or leadership problem. But allow me to point out that it is a City zoo and that the City can't sit back and point its finger at any zoo problem without having to take some responsibility for it (or changing it).
To everyone else, including Rex Nelson, don't be fooled by UAMS and Dailey's dangling carrot of limited term use of the facility for more baseball. It is just an effort to sway a few more over to their side for a short term win until they can bring in their wrecking ball and still deliver to UAMS what they have clearly promised to do. It also points out the practical absurdity or turning a space detached from their campus into a parking lot (and perhaps ominously hints at their plans for further real estate conquests in the immediate vicinity).
Again, why is it that UAMS can't expand to the other side of the highway or to any of the other adjacent properties it either already owns or most certainly could find a way to buy?
And, one more time, why does the City's "leadership" think its citizens are dumb enough to buy the load of monkey poop they are shoveling our way?
Is there any real leader out there who recognizes this for what it is and is willing to step up to the plate and point out the obvious? If so, they'll likely find an excited audience of cheering families willing to send votes their way come election time. Heck, if I was Beebe, I'd jump in on this on behalf of the good people of the great state of Arkansas and beyond who like quality of life amenities and plans for their expansion that don't take them over a highway (which will probably take 50 years to accomplish, at best). And don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of UAMS and believe in their expansion...I just don't believe Ray Winder is so obviously for them or that they are as restricted on expansion options as the zoo such that we whittle away green space in the interest of short term financial and political gain for those presently in power.
I love that Dailey apparently actually admitted that a short term financial gain (because UAMS has the money) was more important than long term city planning. Unreal.

Sell that whole big acreage to the same Texas sharp operator guy who was gonna put up the world's greatest shopping center across University Avenue from the park. Kick St. Vincent out, level that entire medical complex and let a visionary guy put the private enterprise economic engine to work with 500 acres of shopping center with 15,000 luxury condo units and six multiplex movie houses and nine Target stores and two Saks Fifth Avenues and four Nieman Marcuses and 23 Crate and Barrels and 19 Gaps and 24 Talbots and six Ann Taylors and 109 luxury food boutiques.

Oh yeah, and give him some of that sweet TIF boodle and sell some city-backed bonds to take University Avenue under a ginormous new overpass that links the useless War Memorial Park/St. Vincent/Zoo/Ray Winder property with that amazing Park Avenue shopping center that's coming along any day now.

My heart sank as I read the news that UAMS had been awarded the RWF land. I do not approve of this and I work at UAMS. It seems like all we ever do is strip the land and build, build, build. Yes, UAMS is a great facility and in the coming years will probably need to expand more, but geez do they have to take everything? And do they have to put up a dang parking lot? It's not like the employees or students are going to park there. They prefer to park in my neighborhood and monopolize the streets. And yes, we've complained to UAMS, but it does no good. But that's not my point. I feel that the LR Zoo should have gotten the bid not UAMS. And when this goes before the City Directors I will be there protesting this decision.

Ew. Imagine if the city had actually passed the Open Space Policy the Mayor appointed Little Rock Open Space Committee came up with instead of just sitting on it. Wonder if this would have been decided differently.
http://www.littlerock.org/parksrecreation/blog/
Ew.

what does the Zoo proposed plan look like?

I think they had their minds made up about this a long time ago. Was there not a news conference a while back with Jim Dailey where he was joking about how many of the people in the room had actually gone to the zoo? I thought that was a rather crass and callous thing to do. UAMS needs to buy land on the east side of the hospital and build a parking tower...also, 1.2 million seems awful cheep a price to pay for such a prime piece of land located in the heart of Arkansas largest city. There are single lots out in Chenal that go for $30,000.

Oh, sorry, it is 2.75 million with the city getting 1.2 million....still way too cheap for what the citizens will be losing.

Today's meeting was only about the city's HALF of Ray Winder. The state owns the other half. The total park, both city and state halves, is valued at $2.7 million, not just the city's half. The city can't sell the state's portion. So even if the Zoo or the Ray Winder foundation had prevailed today, what good is half a ballpark going to be to them?

Also, Ray Winder is in need of quit a bit of repair before it could be used by people or animals. There is lead paint everywhere, exposed electrical wires, plumbing problems. It isn't usable and needs some expensive renovation to bring it up to code. The field is in bad shape and many things are missing or were sold off when the Travs moved and auctioned off memorabilia. This isn't the Field of Dreams and it certainly isn't somewhere you would want your kids playing ball or visiting elephants in until improvements are made. UAMS has offered the Ray Winder Foundation the opportunity to play in the park if they are willing to make the improvements needed to bring it up to code. That sounds like a win-win for both groups. As far as helping the Zoo, why doesn't the city take the money UAMS spends for the property and put it in a park improvement fund and use it to buy new land for the Zoo and make it into a Zoo we can be proud of. That would certainly help them more than giving them half a ball park.

That sounds like a great idea ... use the money UAMS plans to give to actually put into the existing zoo that sorely needs some upgrading as it is. Make the zoo that already exists something we can be proud of and then think about expanding it.

City Watch, the Zoo is trying, and they've come a sight far from where they were 10 years ago.

What I can't imagine is how locating a Zoo expansion across an interstate would work. Would it be the Great Zoo Tunnel? A small-scope version of Boston's Big Dig? Well, if we're going to do that, why not cover up the entire damn interstate and turn the overhead into greenspace?

Unless private investments were allowed to come in for a restoration, I don't see how Ray Winder could be preserved in close to its current state. But on the other hand, it makes no sense to me to put a parking lot on the land instead. Seems if UAMS needs more parking, some of the current parking areas could be converted to parking decks.

Personally, I'd love for the Zoo to take over Ray Winder and use the land for an aquarium, but that takes money and a headstrong lobbyist or two, not to mention a favorable wind. But that's just my opinion.

Zoo investment/expansion/management issues are many and worthy of discussion. And same goes for UAMS. And Gina, nobody is suggesting putting the elephants in the existing RWF outfield and flipping on the lights. It isn't that simple. And UAMS's attempt to throw Rex Nelson a bone with the hope of winning his support is only putting a band over a much bigger problem to win short term favor before they ultimately kill the ballpark with their yet-to-be-determined expansion. At least the zoo (unlike UAMS) has made its long-term expansion plans (and the anticipated resulting benefits) known. UAMS is only offering short term options (parking lot or spruced up lead paint for kids to play on) until they figure out what they really want to do with it. And in either case with UAMS, it will pick off green space. The zoo plan preserves it.
This is a brazen land grab by the well connected, plain and simple.
Lets not take our sights off of what is happening here and what the citizens (and real leaders) of this city should be concerned about.
This is a sweetheart deal for special interests who have worked a back room deal they're trying to keep under wraps at the expense of a publicly favored option. The "process" they're trying to convince us has taken place is mere window dressing and they (and we) know it.
And in the process of this charade, City leaders ignore viable zoo expansion options that could be acted on and implemented in the near future (nearby expansion) in favor of throwing out an absurdly improbable "expansion opportunity" across 630 (I mean REALLY???? Dailey and Stodola, do you think we're THAT stupid? Are you? In whose lifetime is that going to happen, and with what funds?), thereby sending a clear message that they aren't serious or committed to the zoo or its legitimate expansion opportunities and that they think the average citizen is too stupid to notice what they're doing. If they were serious, they'd roll out the UAMS plan side by side with a thoughtful and actionable plan for the zoo. But they haven't.
Shame on them. And shame on me for voting for them both. They didn't deserve it. And it won't happen again. Same goes for Hurst.

If this goes through (and you bet your bottom dollar Dailey, Stodola, and Hurst will make it), they need to rip Jim Dailey's name off the fitness center and stick it on the parking lot they are going to build a mile from the hospital.

This stinks to high heaven. We need a recall law in Arkansas so we can jerk Stodola out of office and put someone in who gives a damn about citizens, not his buddies pocket books.

I obviously agree anoncow.
Who is out there to run against Hurst? I've been done with her for a while. I'm ready to make a meaningful contribution TODAY to her most viable opponent. No joke. Whoever her next most viable opponent is (Republican or Democrat), make yourself known (or someone else let me know). You have your first/newest donor.
Who is Stodola's next opponent? I hope they jump all over this and other ridiculous decisions/debacles like this (and there have been others - just none quite so obviously ridiculous).
And as to Dailey...well, I used to be a fan. Way to blow your reputation for purposes of providing cover to a bunch of wimps. Any non-wimps out there?
Speak UP!!!! This is an easy win with the voters for you.

Bad process, bad decision, bad result for the the City of Little Rock, bad prospects for the future of War Memorial Park.

Exactly BeThoughtful. Even though I'd not stand a chance in hell and I'm not crazy enough to get into politics, I should run on the platform of better parks, less ass kissing of big money players (and instead give breaks to all business, like lower business permit fees and elimination of the home office permit requirements amongst many) like Flake/Kelley, who probably had something to do with this. Today Ray Winder, tomorrow you're going to have the golf course gone not for general park space, but so that John Flake can put in a "lifestyle center", thanks to his brother-in-law's meddling.

Speak ye Stodola. The masses want to hear you and they are pissed. I expect a barn burner of a meeting where Hurst and Stodola try and keep the opposition, which probably will be there in mass numbers, from speaking so the less stodgy folks vote the way they want.

A and BT - I would not trust Dailey or Hurst. And your right, a deal has been brokered.

My question is this, why can't we leave RWF as a ballpark?

You have high school teams in this city that don't have home fields. There are two American Legion Baseball teams in Little Rock that played all of their games in other cities(2 games each at Curran-Conway Field this year).

Why the City of Little Rock has never supported baseball has always been a mystery to me.

I don't have the answers, but I DO have some questions.

Why, in all these discussions about "the zoo," going back many many years, apparently, and certainly on this blog and in the media, does nobody discuss the welfare of the animals themselves?

Except for the brouhaha over the elephant years ago - that's right, the SINGLE elephant kept in isolated lonely confinement for 20 years until the zoo managed to find and afford another one to join her - that's the only serious consideration about the animals' needs I've ever heard of, related to "the zoo."

Why do friends from out of state who visit the zoo (most recently in December, from New York) ALL come back with the same impression? "God, that place is depressing."

Why do ALL the discussions about "the zoo" concern ONLY tourists and revenues? It's not like the zoo is bringing in $10 million a year to the state. Nowhere close.

As Doug Smith wrote in his recent article, the zoo "has always operated in a hand to mouth fashion." It still does. It always will, despite delusional fantasies of better days - of attracting a million tourists a year someday, like the Memphis Zoo apparently does. Memphis is a major airline hub and tourist destination already (Graceland, etc., anybody?). Little Rock is not. Even with the dream-on figures of 1 million visitors - exactly how much revenue will that "world-class" zoo actually bring to the state, after salaries, animal upkeep and expenses?

Why does noted zoologist Susan Altrui promise a "world-class" zoo in Little Rock, "someday?" Oh, wait: she's not a zoologist. She's their Director of Marketing. What's she SUPPOSED to do: tell the truth and bite the hand that feeds her?

What's up with this "world-class" Arkansas obsession anyway? Years ago, UAMS advertised itself (all over bus-stop benches, for instance) as "World Class Care" (since, happily, dropped). Now we're supposed to have a "World Class Zoo."

UAMS is a wonderful medical facility any state can be proud of. But its only truly "world class" department is Dr. Barlogie's multiple-myeloma program, which is indeed (and deservedly) sought out worldwide.

Why do Arkansas patients who can afford it still seek care at institutions like Sloan-Kettering or the Mayo Clinic, et al.? Because they really ARE "world class." That's why they don't have to brag about it. They don't have the inferiority complex that seems endemic here.

The San Diego Zoo, for instance, really IS a world class zoo. And even IT has issues and problems and ongoing financial challenges.

The Little Rock Zoo will never REMOTELY approach that (and other "world class" zoos') level of scientific development and sophistication. Why delude the public into thinking we will?

Zoos are ENORMOUSLY expensive to operate. Even "world class" zoos are CONSTANTLY engaged in fund-raising to meet their animals', staffs' and facilities' current and future needs.

Arkansas hasn't the money. We can't even afford to pave our own roads or maintain our infrastructure or provide adequate health care or improve our poverty-level statistics or provide "world class" educations for our PEOPLE, much less humanely care for exhibition animals. (Which is why, as JD pointed out in a previous thread, so many people grow up in Arkansas only to leave for better lives elsewhere.)

Supporters of the zoo ultimately fall back on its pseudo-educational value to children - the usual false-sentiment fall-back position for losing propositions: "It will harm the children if it's gone." As if staring at confined depressed animals for a few minutes and reading a plaque about their native habitats is "educational."

No, I don't have the answers and I'm glad Mr. Blakely and his staff have jobs.

But I can observe that there is NOTHING scientifically humane about the actual animals in these discussions. Just a lot of superficial sentimentality ("We have a baby giraffe!") and pipe-dreams ("We can be a world class zoo!").

Even Doug Smith appears to fall for the false promises. "Zoo officials think that certain improvements would allow Little Rock to make that leap to world-class."

There are myriad considerations and lots of valuable land and money involved in these property-development issues.

For once, I wish our leaders would speak the truth.

The humane disposition of the zoo's existing animals can allow them to live out their lives under far better conditions - at a cost that's far less than pursuing doomed visions of a "world class" zoo in Little Rock.

As beautiful as our state is, as wonderful are its people, the truth is that America's "tourists" had rather throw their millions at Las Vegas or Branson than fish for trout where the beautiful Norfork and White Rivers join, or dig for elusive diamonds in the dirt.

Because glitzy gambling, sexy showgirls and has-been entertainers are a bigger and more profitable economic draw than zoos any day.

Everybody loves baseball and everybody loves the animals. But c'mon, be practical. If the city board throws fiscal sense to the wind as you suggest and gives the city's HALF of Ray Winder to the Zoo what good is that going to do? The state already owns the other half and guess who is sure to get that half. So what you are suggesting is that on one half of Ray Winder there be elephants and on the other half the new dental school UAMS has proposed? Guess those tusks will come in handy.