Tim Ryan, tryan@wolfrivermedia.com
Leader Photo by Tim Ryan City officials want to split Hartman Park, at Andrews and Stevens streets, into at least two residential lots and sell the property. After listening to neighbors’ concerns, a judge on Thursday gave the city until Sept. 18 to reconsider its plan.
Supporters of a small, neighborhood park targeted by the city for sale and development scored at least a temporary reprieve Thursday in their fight to forestall the city’s plans.
Nearly a dozen neighbors attended a court hearing to rally behind Anita Hartman, whose father, Edward, donated the property to the city for use as a park some 70 years ago.
By most accounts, the city never developed the property as a park other than designating it with a sign as Hartman Park; instead putting its efforts and resources into the much larger Memorial Park less than a block away.
At least one neighbor, however, recalled a merry-go-round and benches that were there in the 1960s that fell into disrepair and were never replaced.
“There was a merry-go-round that broke down and was hauled away. There was a picnic table that deteriorated and was hauled away,” said Beverly Gipp, who has lived across the street from the park since 1961.
“I counted 38 (children) I know that played there regularly for 15 to 17 years,” she said, though she added it was “not so much in the latter years.”
Even so, she said, the park is still used.
“There are children playing there early in the evening, or a boy and a girl standing there kissing, or whatever,” she said. “It’s just really a nice park.”
Neighbor Stacy Wagner said neighborhood children use the park for such things as baseball, football and soccer, or just to play tag behind the many trees that dot the property.
“Elderly people throwing down a blanket and having a picnic” is another common sight, she said, as well as people going there to have their lunch.
She said some people prefer Hartman Park over Memorial Park because it’s quieter. She said it’s also a safer place for children.
“I can see where some people don’t see the usage, but they don’t live there,” she said. “It would be sad to see it go, because it does get used.”
Former city park and recreation director Judy Judd in an interview Thursday confirmed there used to be at least one picnic table at the park, but it was damaged by high school students.
The high school was then located where the middle school is now, a few blocks away at 1050 S. Union St. The high school had an open campus policy for lunch at the time. Judd said that would probably have been in the late 1980s.
She said the picnic table, or tables, were removed at the request of the high school.
For the city, discontinuing the park is a matter of economics and efficient use of resources.
Officials say the park has to be maintained but is seldom used because Memorial Park — along with its ball diamonds, shelters and other amenities — is so close by.
“We have a very extensive park system and we have to look at where to best place our resources,” Shawano Park and Recreation Director Matt Hendricks said.
The city currently maintains 26 city parks.
City officials believe the property, roughly two-thirds of an acre at Andrews and Stevens streets, can be split into at least two residential lots that would add to the city’s tax base.
“Presumably two single-family homes would be very appropriate for this,” City Administrator Brian Knapp said.
Anita Hartman said she had not gotten any notice about the city’s plans until after the March 18 special Common Council meeting at which council members voted in favor of a resolution approving the sale of Hartman Park. The park and recreation commission recommended the sale late last year.
“I had no information that this was even being thought of,” Hartman said.
Hartman faulted the city for not developing the park, which, she said, would have increased its usage.
“The park has been there since the 1940s. Nothing was ever put there to make it a park,” she said. “Why do you have a park that has nothing to entice people to use it? That upsets me, that in all these years no effort was ever made to make it a park; just the sign, and I had to fight the get the sign there, too, many years ago.”
Hartman offered to donate items and equipment to develop the park.
“I would be happy to put some things there,” she said, “some equipment of some kind — a slide, some swings, some benches, tables. Never was I ever informed that this was an issue.”
She also questioned how much expense it is for the city to maintain what’s there now.
“What do you do? You cut the lawn once in a while,” she said.
Judge James Habeck said Hartman’s offer of donating equipment was something the city should consider.
“Mrs. Hartman, who’s here today, is well known for her philanthropy and has said she is willing to sponsor some of those things,” Habeck told city officials at the hearing. “You should definitely go back to your committee and say we have someone willing to do that, and we have some more input, and ask, ‘is this still our priority?’”
Habeck said the city met all of its legal requirements for vacating the park and altering the city plat, but said he would delay a ruling until the city decides whether that’s really what it wants to do.
“It’s sort of like foreclosures,” he said. “I sometimes approve foreclosures and later on the parties say we’ve worked something out and we don’t need it anymore.”
Habeck set a date of Sept. 18 to review the matter.
Hartman said after the hearing she felt better there was at least a chance of saving the park, but, she said, she wished it had been settled.
“It’s been dragging and dragging,” she said. “I see no reason to close it. If you’d put things there to entice people, you probably would have used it as a park.”
Knapp said the question will go back to the park and rec commission.
“It seems to me that over the last 60 to 70 years, the fact that the community policy makers haven’t chosen to develop it just reinforces the fact that it hasn’t been a priority,” he said. “The question is now, do they want to make it a priority?”
