H 32°, L 7° | Tomorrow: 
H 17°, L 4°
A meeting held Tuesday night in downtown Madison afforded community members the chance to voice questions and concerns over the proposed redesign of Lisa Link Peace Park.
Ald. Mike Verveer, District 4, and members of the Lisa Link Peace Park Advisory Committee addressed the public at the Wisconsin Lutheran Chapel about the new design and motivation for the project.
The meeting was important, Verveer said, because it allowed the committee to hear back from the community.
“Your input is vitally important to all of us,” Verveer said. “That’s why we’re doing this tonight; it’s not just a show and tell.”
University of Wisconsin students, local business owners, police officers and current Peace Park users focused on issues of safety related to the current perception of Peace Park.
The new visitors’ center in Peace Park would include a police workstation, according to committee member Mike Sturm. Meeting attendees debated the necessity of this workstation and the effect of police presence in the park.
Dolores Grengg, past president of the Womens’ International League for Peace and Freedom, said she did not believe a police presence would be welcoming to the public.
“We see it as a peace park, not a police park,” Grengg said.
Sandra Torkildson, owner of local bookstore A Room of One’s Own, said police presence in the area was necessary to ensure the safety of both visitors and residents of downtown Madison, adding she appreciates the work of the police.
Hawk’s Bar and Grill owner Hawk Schenkel said a police presence would be completely warranted at the park. Working directly across from Peace Park, Schenkel said even though he did not feel threatened in the area, he recognized the public’s concern about safety.
UW senior Mackenzie Kalepp said she considers Peace Park to be intimidating. Kalepp disagreed with arguments against the project and said police presence should not be an issue.
“I just think that this park would do more good than bad,” Kalepp said. “If you’re not breaking the law, you shouldn’t have to worry about being arrested, so I don’t understand the issue with the police force.”
The location of Peace Park in the center of a retail area requires the installation of a new ATM machine, according to committee member and Executive Director of Madison’s Central Business Improvement District Mary Carbine, as it could potentially increase the revenue stream of the new visitors’ center.
The presence of the ATM machine would also prohibit panhandling within 50 feet of the new Peace Park due to a city ordinance. Maxie Holmes, a frequent user and self-proclaimed resident of Peace Park, argued the purpose of the redesign was to drive off the homeless.
Verveer said the committee had no intention to exclude anyone from the new design.
“My goal and interest was never to kick anyone out of Peace Park,” Verveer said. “It was rather to encourage more and more people to use Peace Park.”
IP hash: e039d8b7
“If you�re not breaking the law, you shouldn�t have to worry about being arrested”
This is the single most flawed argument when it comes to police power. Having more police around us as we go about our daily life is not a good thing. It creates a big brother atmosphere and creates fear. However, this park is definitely a problem for state street (how many have crossed the street deliberately to avoid it?). The answer isn’t to put police in the park. The police are always there anyways, it doesn’t make the area less scary.
I don’t know what the answer is. You can’t really do anything else about it without violating the rights of the people using it.
IP hash: 870b33d3
The target group for this project obviously does not include the homeless or panhandlers that use the already isolated 4x4 square they have to do so. I could not believe the mildest ways of saying homeless in this article - “recognize the public’s concern for safety” “considers Peace Park to be intimidating” “police presence necessary for safety”.
As far as I’m concerned the park itself is impossible of creating such reactions. It’s obvious its current users are the cause for these reactions. So when it’s said “no intention to exclude people from the park” I agree, public space should be of use for everyone. I only see its intention as to whom is welcome.
The design then “encourages more and more people to use Peace Park”, but what kind of people? Is it the homeless? Is it State Street shoppers? What truly was the intention for this design?