We hope you will take in all the details of this page, but if you just want a quick look, we’ll start with the...
With the sale of the former Westwood View Elementary School land impending, now is the time for the City of Westwood to buy.
The City has a choice:
The citizens of Westwood deserve the best outcome. FWWP does not believe the City's current plan is the most favorable.
FWWP has often been asked for other possibilities, and we present a very flexible one below in The Details. But we find it funny that the City has had SEVERAL options detailed out to them just since 2021. Our question is, how deeply did the City investigate funding the park through a residential development, government or philanthropic grants, private sponsorship, or any combination of the three?
If you want more, check out....
The world is full of choices. At this time, the City of Westwood has given you only ONE (take it or...take it). You are already familiar that there was no bid process. No appraisal as the deal with Karbank was put together. No shared financial study regarding this deal until January 2025. We detail these points on other pages of this site.
What hasn’t been discussed is there have been other options available to expand park space for Westwood since 2016 (and most likely, even before that). Options created for the City, in concert with consultants. The above renderings are from 2021 & 2022. These plans are outstanding alternatives to the proposal that is on the table. And with these other prospects, there are other ways to pay for them aside from TIFs and G.O. bonds. Ways that do not put our city in the potential path of financial peril.
FWWP would L-O-V-E to see further discussions to enlarge the park to the full 8 acres...and we're not the only ones. Experts at the Urban Land Institute (ULI) agree. In their 2021 Technical Assistance Panel Report issued to the City of Westwood, the ULI recommended the City "Acquire Westwood View elementary school property for park expansion and new civic area." ULI added:
“With first-refusal rights to the current Westwood View school site and the addition of the former Westwood Christian Church property, the City is encouraged to reimagine Joe D. Dennis park into an expanded amenity that would expand to a full eight-acre property. Eight acres provides the City with ample room in which to provide a range of new park amenities and play spaces while also carving out space for civic uses and public gathering spaces, both of which are in limited supply for a landlocked community like Westwood. It is also possible that a community building in the new, expanded park could house a relocated City Hall for Westwood, placing it closer to the center of the City and freeing up its current site for redevelopment. The natural beauty of the site and the mature shade trees in the western portion of the property could be maintained for public enjoyment, and some of the open space used for sports fields today could likewise be dedicated to similar activities going forward.”
Many discussions surrounding this issue have included this statement: “We could have a park like Meadowbrook!” There’s no getting around it: Meadowbrook is lovely. It’s an award winning, 80-acre community that is, in fact, built around a park. The big word to consider here is ‘community.’ This community has been created with a variety of higher density housing, such as single family homes and twin villas. It also includes a small Inn, a café and a restaurant that fit within the fabric of the landscape. What Meadowbrook DOES NOT have is any office or retail space.
But back to the word, ‘community.’ The park and potential parkland that is adjacent…already has community. This collection of the old school, old church lot and Joe D. Dennis Park is surrounded by community. A community that should stay together.
We know that the school site isn't free...and we assume that funding is the main reason city leaders made the rash decision to go with the current development proposal. There are options for alternative funding; secured grants (that ARE available from state and federal sources), the sale of the current City Hall and adjacent land (which the City is considering), raising funds through donations or sponsorships for various improvements (look at what Roeland Park has done in this regard) — or a combination of all of these possibilities — are a few great options that we know exist.
If the City chooses not to pursue alternative funding and continues to believe it cannot follow ULI's suggestion to turn all three parcels into an 8-acre park, we have put together a couple of options here. One has a small area for retail or municipal offices; the other has additional residential lots in that area. There are many possibilities that could spin from these concepts. And here's ONE funding alternative that would allow the City to maintain control of the land, keep property tax revenues in hand forever, and could put Westwood in a more agreeable financial position:
This totals to $4,625,000 of debt for the City of Westwood.
How the City pays for it:
This totals to $4.5 million to the City from a residential developer, making it nearly a wash.
And all of this is done without the potential for TIF revenues to fall short or G.O. bonds coming due. And with residential tax revenue that, yes, is lower than the estimated revenue of the office complex, but is a continual stream of revenue that the City can count on. It would be taxable forever...unless the City were to rezone the area and sell it to a non-profit entity.
We won’t say the possibilities are endless, but we will say they are plentiful. If the sale of Joe D. Dennis Park passes, the possibilities that deserve better investigation no longer exist.
We, too, are in favor of a bigger, better park.
We, too, are in favor of maintaining lower property taxes and competitive property values.
We, too, are in favor of the safest possible environment and a community we can all be proud of.
We ask you to VOTE NO. Give our city a chance to find a better way forward.
Your Vote-by-Mail ballot will be mailed to you mid-March.
It must be RETURNED — not merely postmarked — by noon, April 1st, 2025.
