Riverpark Place Citizens Report

RIVERPARK PLACE

.

A CITIZEN’S REPORT

Riverpark Place is a private mixed-use development sponsored by
Metro Government and The Louisville Waterfront Development Corporation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CLICK the contents entry to navigate to that section. Use the back button to return. Some of the links contained in this report reside at www.louisvilleboatharbor.com and will not be available offline.

FOREWORD

BACKGROUND

The Point Neighborhood - Thruston Park

The Louisville Municipal Boat Harbor

Louisville Waterfront Development Corporation

THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS

Underlying Conceptual Errors

The Initiating Legislation and Aftermath

WDC, The Metro Council, and Citizen Concerns

Suppression of Public Input

Conclusion 1

THE WDC, THE HARBOR, AND THE OHIO RIVER BOATING COMMUNITY

Boater Reaction and Official Response

Lack of Research and Negative Effects

WDC Marine Asset Management

The Local Marine Business Community

The United States Coast Guard

Conclusion 2

THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS REVIEW

THE LOUISVILLE MUNICIPAL HARBOR

Developer Reaction and Approach

Historic Misrepresentations

Conclusion 3

RELATED ISSUES

Paget House and the Heigold Facade

Native American Cultural Resources

Conclusion 4

FLOODPLAIN ISSUES AND PUBLIC SAFETY

Background and Traditional Land Use

Lack of Prerequisite Engineering and Research

Conceptual Naivety

Irrational Design Approach

Outdated Methodology

Local Manipulation of FEMA Regulations

State Regulatory Oversight

Subversion of Local Floodplain Management Prohibitions

Marketing Misrepresentations and Omissions

The Facts

Conclusion 5

THE SOLUTION

APPENDICES

Viewshed Analysis During Flood

9/18/06 Letter to the USACE

Sep 2006 Communications with KDOW

THE FEMA MAPS

Map 1. The Latest 2002 FEMA Floodway Delineations

Map 2. The Revised 2005 MSD Floodway Delineation

DEVELOPMENT RENDERINGS

The Harbor and it's pristine surroundings

Fig 1. The Original ICON/WDC Plan

Fig 1A. The Poe/WDC Plan Presented to the USACE

Fig 1B. The Interim Poe/ WDC Plan

Fig 1C. The Poe/WDC Plan Phase I Marketed to the Public

Fig 1D The Current Phase I Plan (LBH Rendering)

FLOOD DATA

Fig 2. The Proposed Structures, the 1937 Flood, and the BFE

Table 1. High Ohio River Levels in Each Year for the Past 100 Yrs

FOREWORD

As a long time recreational boater and later day member of the Louisville Harbor Association, we have closely followed the evolution of this development proposal from the beginning. When it was learned that this initiative would result in the privatization and total destruction of The Louisville Municipal Harbor and it's replacement would be an inappropriately designed “marina”, we resolved to encourage Louisville Metro officials to require the appropriate and legislatively mandated adaptive use of this historic facility. To this end, we began documenting the issues on www.louisvilleboatharbor.com/.

Although we originally voiced no particular objection to the residential component of this initiative our research into the issues in defense of The Harbor has forced us to reconsider. Implementation of this initiative required numerous public misrepresentations, total disregard of historic preservation and design guidelines , municipal litigation against established religious institutions, egregious treatment of Native American interests, and subversion of floodplain management regulations meant to protect public safety. This government sponsored development initiative has circumvented so many local, state, and federal regulations that it has far exceeded the realm of political expediency and manifested itself as a clear breach of the public trust. This report is meant to present a more transparent presentation of the issues.

BACKGROUND

The Point Neighborhood - Thruston Park

The Point neighborhood was located east of downtown and north of present day Butchertown. In its earliest days, it afforded an easily accessible leisure area where residents would escape the bustle of the city to fish or otherwise relax on the banks of the Ohio River. Starting in the early 1800's, it grew into a thriving residential area whose diverse population built everything from grand mansions to shantyboats. By 1850, it was home to so many wealthy residents who had moved to Louisville from New Orleans that the numerous grand mansions along Fulton St. near the river eventually came to be known as "Frenchman's Row".

In 1854 many area homes where demolished when Beargrass Creek was rerouted from it's original outflow near 4th St in downtown Louisville to its current location at the foot of Ohio St; now Frankfort Avenue. During the ensuing years, repeated floods continued to claim homes and businesses and the area became less desirable as the wealthier residents moved elsewhere. In an effort to revitalize the area, the city built The Louisville Municipal Yacht Basin in 1935-36 adjacent to Towhead island. This first attempt at urban renewal was cut sort by the Great Flood of 1937 which ravaged the area. In the wake of this flood many more homes and businesses north of Story Ave were lost; only the Yacht Basin, Paget House (the last of the Fulton St mansions) and a few other more substantially built structures such as the Fulton School remained. As a result, Louisville officials decided to convert the entire area to its previous popular use as public park land. This gave rise of what was to become the Point Park Project

In 1948, the city condemned the entire area and most of the remaining structures were demolished for what was to eventually be known as Thruston Park. With its fountain, playing fields, and proximity to The Harbor, it remained the preferred public park throughout the 40's and 50's. In the early 60's it was cut in two and the northern half isolated from the Butchertown neighborhood by construction of I-64. By the 70's the remaining parkland near the river was still popular among Louisville less wealthy citizens but with the emergence of Waterfront Park in the 80's, the city ceased maintaining the area it became more of less deserted. Although there was another effort to redevelop the area in the early 98's, this was also doomed by a major flood in 1997. The Harbor remained the only activity utilized area until it to was closed by the city in 2005. Today the only remaining structures are The Harbor, the facade of Heigold house, and Padgett house, the last of the grand mansions; the latter two saved by their presence on the National Register of Historic Places.

The Louisville Municipal Boat Harbor

Designed by noted architect Fred H. Elswick of what was later to become known as Arrasmith, Wichmeyer, & Elswick, The Louisville Municipal Harbor was built in 1935-36 as WPA (Works Progress Administration) District 6 Project #110 and is located at 1300 River Road in Louisville KY. Built under the supervision of George H. Goodman, director of the Work Projects Administration in Kentucky from 1934-42, it was among numerous schools, hospitals, courthouses, libraries, municipal buildings, and other public works projects built by Mr. Goodman. These include The University of Louisville School of Law and Speed Scientific School, The Iroquois Amphitheater, and expansion of Bowman Field including major additions to the Administration Building. The true significance of this accomplishment can best be illustrated by this official letter to Mr. Goodman by the then Louisville Director of Public Works, Roy W. Burke.

The Harbor is believed to be have been the oldest continuously operated municipal harbor on the Ohio River and among the oldest remaining purpose built inland recreational harbors in the entire country. As evidenced by its inclusion in a series of 1940’s Illinois Central Railroad postcards that also included St. Louis Cathedral, New Orleans; The Mississippi River Bridge at Vicksburg; and Confederate Park in Memphis; it was once considered a major attraction and an engineering marvel. It continued to appear on various nationally circulated postcards till the early 1980's. In spite of municipal indifference and neglect, its ingenious design has survived the test of time and the whims of the mighty Ohio for 70 years.

From 1956-2005, The Louisville Harbor Association, a non-profit group, had leased the property from the City of Louisville (now Louisville Metro). For 50 years, its members were solely responsible for the daunting task of maintaining and operating The Harbor. This was done through a membership system based on seasonal slip rentals and community involvement. The only requirement for membership was a love of boating, sense of community, self-sufficiency, and respect for the awesome power of the Ohio River. The LHA always fulfilled its financial responsibilities to The City and most significantly acted as a concerned steward of this hidden public treasure. Being precisely the target demographic that would be logically attracted to this development, Since the previous Falls Harbor proposal had included a key role for the traditional Ohio River boating community, the LHA was excited with the possibilities and eager to assist in a successful Harbor renovation.

Isolated from the mainstream by construction of the interstate system in the 1960's and overshadowed by the recent appearance of Louisville Waterfront Park and other downtown civic improvements, The Harbor has totally disappeared from the community radar screen. Even though thousands of Louisvillians drive past it every day, most non-boaters don't even know it exists. Nonetheless, with its ingenious far sighted original design, it has survived 14 of the 20 most severe Ohio River floods on record, and has remained an enduring touchstone to the Ohio River Boating community for 70 years. Its fascinating history shows that it was, and still is, the original Louisville Waterfront Park. It is ironic that its descendent threatens to do what the relentless Ohio River never could, erase it from living memory.

Louisville Waterfront Development Corporation

The Louisville Waterfront Development Corporation was created in 1986 to oversee waterfront development efforts along the Ohio River in Louisville, Kentucky. At its inception, numerous public workshops were held to define it's mission. The result is summed up by these published comments by its Executive Director David Karem. "This is a blank slate," he told citizens. "We have no secret design. You get to say whatever you want. But you have to come and participate... The downtown screamed for green space," Karem says. "People said ‘we want parkland.’ So, we made it parkland." According to the WDC website, their three-part mission is oversight of the design and construction of Waterfront Park, operation of the park/ event coordination, and park maintenance. WDC also administers design review for properties within the Waterfront District (the Waterfront Review Overlay or WRO District).

The original 1980’s Hargraves and Associates Master Plan for Waterfront Park was based on passive seasonal recreational activities and structures that respond to the constraints of the extremely volatile environment that exists along the Ohio River. Louisville Waterfront Development Corporation (WDC) owes the success of Waterfront Park Phase I, II, and the resulting peripheral economic development, to this thoughtful design. Although a residential component, was originally proposed and included in the 1994 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) permit, the failed Falls Harbor Development and the flood of 1997 invalidated this concept and should have forever banished any thought that this was a judicious use of the former Thruston Park area.

During the administration of Mayor Armstrong (1999-2003), efforts were made towards a more environmentally compatible approach such as a nature preserve or other public use. These too failed for various political and environmental reasons and by 2003, it was time for WDC to turn its attention to the completion of Waterfront Park Phase III, This coincided with the return of Jerry Abramson as Mayor. Since Mayor Abramson had originally initiated the failed Falls Harbor Project and it was widely known it was his “dream” to place a residential development at the site, WDC solicited yet another residential component as part of Phase III. This time however, federal regulatory intervention and the public scrutiny that had doomed the Falls Harbor project would be avoided.

WDC began to implement new initiatives that were not part of the original plan but nonetheless well received. These include Slugger Field, Louisville Extreme Park, and The Water Play Area. None of these countered the original design concepts of environmentally passive, seasonal recreation within the park. The alteration of the planned “seasonal café” near Towhead Island into a full service, year round restaurant was the first significant departure from the status quo. For the first time, WDC had given private commercial interests proprietary possession of public land at the river’s edge within the park in return for a share of the profits. This restaurant could have easily been built at a less valuable site south of River Road with the same success it is enjoying now and the public would have retained free access to what is arguably one of the most beautiful spots on our riverfront. It is surprising there was little public criticism of this initiative, but then again, it was done unilaterally with little research or understanding of the negative effects it has since had on the park, (i.e. noise, congestion, traffic, etc.)

In light of their past successes and recent profits from privatization, WDC now seems to believe they have the moral authority to dispose of public parkland without proactive solicitation of informed public input and transparent regulatory review. WDC has moved from its primary mandate of reclaiming blighted land for conversions to public green space, to selling our most desirable tracts of public urban waterfront for proprietary profit.

THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS

Underlying Conceptual Errors

In 2003 Louisville Waterfront Development Corporation issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) seeking development proposals. The core requirement of the RFQ stated in part “The image of a village with low to mid-rise buildings is desirable. Limited office and commercial opportunities that support the village concept would be considered an attractive addition to the residential development.” and “The desired image for this site is a residential village that is well connected to a variety of neighboring features.” It also stated “There will be no additional incentives or public investment in this project”.

This RFQ was a direct descendant of the original concept for Waterfront Park of the mid 1980’s and the failed Falls Harbor Development of the 1990’s. At that time, it was believed the park needed a related residential component to entice citizens back to an otherwise deteriorating downtown. Since then and without the original residential component, the park itself has proven to be the best vehicle for spectacular downtown residential and economic development activity. In light of this, we believe the original residential concept is obsolete and this land should be kept in the public trust as an additional riverside public green space to augment our increasingly overcrowded Waterfront Park. It is our contention that the privatization of this extremely valuable and potentially spectacular addition to the park will actually stunt further development, especially south of River Road where a farsighted authority with the public’s best interests in mind would have concentrated their efforts in the first place. We believe this development will go down in history as a monumental blunder only surpassed by the construction of I-64 in the 1960’s.

The Initiating Legislation and Aftermath

In October of 2004, The Louisville Metro Council voted to accept the recommendation of Mayor Jerry Abramson and WDC to build a residential/commercial development called Riverpark Place. The ensuing Developers Agreement stipulates that WDC is to receive 4% of all sales and rental income and also requires the developer, Icon Properties/River Partners LLC, to redevelop our historic 70-year-old Louisville Municipal Harbor. It was widely believed at the time that the numerous municipal codes and statutes that require adaptive use of historic structures would guarantee a thoughtful redevelopment. It soon became apparent however, that our publicly owned harbor was to be privatized and totally destroyed for use as fill beneath a parking garage.

It soon became apparent that although the developer was expert at the artist rendering and the press release, public collaboration, market research, and engineering was not priority. They had seriously misjudged the environmental constraints, preservation issues, and economic realities of the overall design concept. The WDC RFQ states "The primary purpose to develop this property is to create a market rate residential neighborhood" and the original rendering submitted WDC Board and the Metro Council that resulted in the Developers Agreement in late 2004 were totally compatible with these specifications. By the time the design was officially presented to the public, the new renderings showed the "neighborhood" was now dominated by blocks of large suburban style apartment buildings and luxury residential towers. (see 02/22/05 - Riverfront Project Design Unveiled)

Louisville Metro Government, WDC, and the developers, and have abandoned the core requirements and push the limits of the legislation to radically enlarge and expand the scope of the development. In the following six months, the project grew from the approved $20M medium density development meant to blend into the existing Butchertown neighborhood, to a $200M high-rise/high density urban form with no connection to anything but itself. Besides undermining the entire “village” concept as presented in the WDC RFQ and approved by The Council, the revised version did not meet existing Louisville Development Code restrictions for the area. This led to a WDC request that the area's land use designation be changed from Neighborhood to Downtown Form to allow higher structures and greater density. (see 11/10/05 - Beargrass Rezoning on Council Agenda This resulted in yet another "final design" that is a drastic departure from that presented to the citizens, The WDC Board, and the Louisville Metro Council.

Recent announcements raise serious questions surrounding the residential component of this initiative as it pertains to the administrative and legislative record. (see 01/06/08 - Riverpark Place Plans Altered) The WDC RFQ also called for the developers to demonstrate the financial strength to build what they propose... this has also proven to be a false promise. Construction of all but the most expensive residential units have now been deferred for as much as 10 years. Although the developers blame this on the current housing market crisis, dismal pre-sales of the more affordable units prior to the housing slump clearly indicate this proposal was based on unsupported speculative assumptions... more than enough for any prudent financial institution to limit financing.

The latest "plan" calls for a "single four-story building with about 50 condos to be built atop some parking at a cost of $14 million and the completion of the marina at a cost of around $5 million". Since the Riverpark website shows the vast majority of the condos that have been "sold" are in the $400-1500K range, it is reasonable to presume the one building will be primarily high end units. This confirms our repeated assertions that this has always been an elitist development aimed at the wealthy with little benefit to the public at large. This is in stark contrast to the "bigger is better" pitch to the Metro Council whose central theme was a diverse market rate residential neighborhood. This announcement also indicates the marina design has been compromised. .At $5M, this is at least $1M less than previously stated... a fatally flawed design will now be built on the cheap. it is now apparent that the need to satisfy the nonexistent demand for residences in the development was an ongoing fabrication to foster interest and retain Metro Council legislative and improperly influence regulatory approval. See June 30, 2006 - Potential Residents Vie for Units at RiverPark Place)

WDC, The Metro Council, and Citizen Concerns

After a year and a half of press releases and articles, early March 2006 saw the original Icon/Riverpark Place billboard disappear from the foot of Frankfort Ave. as did the development page on the Icon Website. This is understandable since the project was well behind schedule and these out of date public displays clearly indicated disarray. What wasn’t known at the time was that this also coincided with the departure of Steve Poe from Icon Properties to form Poe Companies in pursuit of his Museum Plaza project.

In the initial Poe Companies/Museum Plaza press releases, there was no local reference to Riverpark Place. This was the first time since the original 2004 Riverpark Place “unveiling” that it had not been associated with Mr. Poe along with his other projects, which were. At the same time however, similar announcements in the European press specifically mentioned Riverpark Place as a Poe Companies development and had increased its size yet again to 1500 units. This contradicted the non-transferable Icon/River Partners Development Agreement and most involved observers believed Metro Council action would be necessary to reassign to a different firm. When this did not occur, many believed Riverpark Place had gone the way of the failed Falls Harbor project. It was only some weeks later that Poe Companies appeared as the developer of record in documents submitted to the COE. It was now clear official reassignment had been either ignored or done behind closed doors. This was the first concrete indication, other than carefully orchestrated and misleading press releases meant to foster public support, that the process was now being orchestrated well out of the public eye and further public scrutiny would be avoided.

During the period the proposal was being expanded through the Downtown Form initiative, the only publicly available information on The Harbor redevelopment were the artist renderings. The renderings showed an obvious lack of specialized riverine design expertise or understanding of local conditions. Few experienced boaters believed the proposed marina design would be approved. We became concerned that the land use change might release the developers from the previously stipulated preservation guidelines of the original 1994 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) permit allowing the construction of Waterfront Park. It was feared this could effectively neuter our effort to encourage adaptive use of this historically and culturally significant facility. Consequently, we decided to attend the Public Hearings on this issue in the hopes of gaining some insight.

At the first of these hearings in Sep 2005, we saw that our concerns were not unique. Although The Butchertown Neighborhood Association (BNA) had previously supported the original neighborhood concept, the zoning change conflicted with the ongoing development of a Butchertown Master Plan. As a compromise, WDC reluctantly agreed that the area south of River Road would be excluded. The BNA also expressed concerns pertaining to the destruction of previously identified historic and archaeological resources as well as others believed to exist in the immediate development area including the Louisville terminus of the 19th century Geiger Ferry and other remnants of early European settlement. There was also a request that the historical street names be preserved. These concerns were addressed by the WDC with a general statement supporting preservation and a passing nod by the Council.

At the end of the hearing, I had a conversation with the WDC project manager to express my operational and historical concerns related to The Harbor. Having operated a power vessel from The Harbor for several years and having studied the proposed design in some detail, it was obvious to me that although suitable for a placid inland lake, it would be a disaster if placed in our often-violent Ohio River. When asked how the developer planned to keep this huge inappropriately designed marina clear of silt and debris in such a hostile environment, the official replied. "It'll be a nightmare alright,.. but we (WDC) already have the dredging permit that you (The LHA) have been operating under". The fact is, the LHA, a non-profit citizen group that had operated the Harbor since 1956, has had its own independent dredging permit for many years. Nonetheless, neither permit allowed for the volume of silt removal necessary for the proposed marina expansion. This was the first clear indication that little research, engineering, and planning had been used to formulate the new marina design.

We then discussed the proposed layout that was, in the opinion of most experienced boaters familiar with the area, operationally impractical and navigationally unsafe... especially if the protective man-made Harbor Island was removed. The official launched into an explanation of how the removal of the Harbor Island and other proposed features would accelerate the flow and minimize the severe silting endemic to the area. I then pointed out the following:

Towhead Island was slowly washing away and removal of the secondary man-made Harbor Island would eventually expose the entire area to the wind, waves, debris, and current of the main river.

Their design would not decrease the silting, the inappropriate layout would make the required maintenance dredging and debris removal almost impossible, and the resulting extremely high maintenance costs would financially cripple the facility.

The combination of the proposed dock layout, extremely long crosscurrent fairways, and increased local water velocities resulting from removal of the Harbor Island, would result in frequent collisions with downstream objects as vessels attempted to enter and depart the moorings.

For the same reasons, swift water evacuation of vessels in advance of flooding will be impossible.

After finally agreeing the layout was "problematic", the official stated his solution; "My slip will be way out at the end near the channel". Being a former tenant of The Harbor, he knew most vessel owners, especially those close to the shore, would have serious problems safely navigating the long cross current fairways shown in the various renderings. It was now clear that WDC knew the design was impractical and unsafe. When asked who had designed the new marina, I was told. “No one did.” When pressed further on this point, the official finally admitted there had been no design engineering performed and that the layout was driven by “economic necessity” i.e. the income potential of including the maximum number of deeded slips. It is beyond rational consideration that this was the level of design expertise acceptable to the agency charged with the redevelopment of our waterfront and has design approval power within the Waterfront Review Overlay district .

It has since been learned the layout was based on a marina constructed on the Williamette River in Portland OR as part of an astonishingly similar development called Riverplace, the proposed inner harbor footprint of the original Falls Harbor renderings of the early 90’s, and artist rendering produced in the initial conceptual presentation stages of this proposal. On the surface and to the inexperienced eye, The Portland design seems well suited for adaptation to the proposed location at Towhead. Unfortunately, the Williamette is a creek compared to our Ohio, the developers have no experience in marine infrastructure design or construction or hire anyone who was, and they failed to consult with those with specific local knowledge of the area and harbor operations at that location. We have found no evidence that this design had ever been scrutinized for technical merit in context with prevailing local conditions and is anything more than the vision of a real estate professional and a graphic artist.

When asked if the historical and culturally significance of The Harbor had been considered as stipulated in the LDC and the Ohio River Corridor Master Plan. His response was: "Maybe 100 people care about The Harbor's history now. In five years, maybe 50 will care. In ten, no one will care... " Considering the advanced age of many of the long time members and officers of the LHA, and their long service to the community, this was an incredibly insensitive statement coming from the Louisville Metro official in charge of the project.

Since the current marina design was substantially different from that approved in 1994, we knew the Corps would require additional review so I then asked if he believed the COE would actually permit such a poor design. His response was... "The design has already been approved". I then informed him we would aggressively oppose the current design through my website. Although the mention of a website seemed to take him by surprise, his response was "It doesn't matter, it will be built anyway". This offhand dismissal of public concern and previous statements clearly indicated WDC was operating in an vacuum, driven by proprietary financial gain, and resolutely prepared to unilaterally move forward at any cost, even if it victimized the public; especially the local boating community. Our previously thriving and publicly operated Louisville Municipal Harbor was to be destroyed, replaced with an inappropriate and unsustainable design, privatized, and sold piecemeal as window dressing for an elitist upland residential development.

The Louisville Development Code (LDC) encourages preservation and adaptive use of historic structures and sites as well as culturally and environmentally thoughtful development within the Ohio River Corridor. When the subsequent Council staff report of this hearing was released, the citizen concerns voiced at the hearing were totally misrepresented. A 30 min discussion of preservation issues was inaccurately summarized as “… this area (south of River Road) and Waterfront Park is very important to them (BNA) and should be protected”... the discussion had nothing to do with the park. Since this report was the only record of public input submitted to the Council at large to use in making their voting decision, citizen concerns were effectively omitted. Subsequent events would show the painting of this development in an unrealistically favorable light, omission of any negative information, and suppression of public input and criticism would become a recurring theme.

Suppression of Public Input

Through my expanding contacts with other concerned citizens and advocacy groups, we learned that the various Ohio River public interest groups registered for notifications of governmental initiatives affecting their interests were being excluded from the planning process and the previously routine notifications and solicitation of input was absent. As a result, we began closely monitoring The Courier Journal for the legislatively required Public Hearing Notices. It was soon learned that due to a procedural error, the vote on the Downtown Form issue had been postponed and another public hearing was necessary. Once again, local groups were not notified. As a result, most could not attend on short notice. I arrived with the intention of questioning the misrepresentation of public input in the Staff Report, lack of historical considerations, lack of engineering study and preparation, abandonment of the core requirements of the WDC Request for Qualifications, and failures by the developer to meet specific performance deadlines of the Developers Agreement.

Before the second hearing began, I once again had a brief conversation with the same WDC official and his demeanor was now less than "official" He let me know in a very intimidating manner that “your opposition to this proposal is inappropriate and wont change anything anyway". Coupled with previous observations, I realized WDC policy was to actively discourage, ignore, or suppress any public criticism that could negatively affect continued Metro Council support. Realizing I lacked the knowledge, experience, and political weight necessary to counter this policy. I left the hearing before it began and resolved to educate myself on the issues and redirect my efforts toward preparation for the upcoming state and federal regulatory permitting process.

In the following weeks, emails were sent to every member of the Planning and Land Design Committee pointing to the historic information assembled on our Website. This elicited little or no response. Contacts directed to the Mayor’s Office were forwarded to the Executive Director of WDC and then back to the WDC project manager. Since we already knew this was a dead end, I initiated contact with other pertinent local agencies. In every case, any mention of Riverpark Place brought a noticeable chill. No one seemed willing to go on the record as doing anything that could be seen as countering the current administration's sponsorship of this project; it was a hot potato and public scrutiny and involvement had become a problem, not a guide.

Being a newcomers to the process, we could not understand the aggressive governmental opposition encountered in the course of attempting to make a constructive contribution. Further research into past WDC initiatives show that in its beginnings in the mid 80's, there was a concerted effort to ask the citizens of Louisville what they wanted on the Louisville riverfront. The overwhelming answer was parkland and green space. It was a clear mandate. In the ensuing years, WDC did a marvelous job of rooting out deeply entrenched private industrial and commercial interests to convert previously blighted and industrialized areas into the magnificent Waterfront Park Phases I and II. We also learned that a thoughtful Board of Aldermen and federal regulatory examination of the issues had delayed the former Falls Harbor Development at this same site for 10 years. That initiative was finally abandoned after the ’97 flood washed away any lingering support by bankrupting the development coalition and reawakening the lessons learned in the past that this area was absolutely unsuited to residential development.

During the Administration of Mayor Armstrong (1999-2003), efforts were made towards a more environmentally compatible approach such as a nature preserve or other public use. These too failed for various political and environmental reasons and by 2003, it was time for WDC to turn its attention to the completion of Waterfront Park Phase III, This coincided with the return of Jerry Abramson as Mayor. Since Mayor Abramson had originally initiated the failed Falls Harbor Project and it was widely known it was his “dream” to place a residential development at the site, WDC included yet another residential component as part of Phase III. This time however, federal regulatory intervention and the public scrutiny that had doomed the Falls Harbor project would be avoided.

To insure the public would not hamper their plans, WDC ceased eliciting public input and began to unilaterally exercise its considerable governmental power to suppress or circumvent the many negative or illegal pretences the were part of this development plan. During the course of the regulatory process, every possible legal tactic was used to avoid public hearings on any part of the plan and the media was fed a steady stream of positive hype. None of the objections by concerned citizens was aired and none of their requests were seriously considered.

The Louisville Courier Journal seems to have also played a significant role in this effort to suppress public opinion. We realized in early 2007 that the CJ was methodically sanitized the public record by deleting reader comments critical of this initiative from the CJ StoryChat Forum. (see Sun Feb 18 2007- Comment and Criticism of Poe Companies Proposals Disappear from the Louisville Courier Journal Online Forum Archives.) In spite of the numerous negative reader comments posted in response to past CJ articles on this initiative prior to Sep 2007, few can now be found. This includes several by this webmaster. (see Fri Feb 23 2007 - Poe Co Announces Corps Approval has been Secured and Groundbreaking is Scheduled) It is obvious the local media continues to distribute RiverPark Place "spin" as "news". No investigative Journalism has been employed and none of the controversial issue have been published.

The same brusque techniques the WDC had developed to evict industrial interests in the 1980’s and 90’s was now being used to subdue public advocates and citizens groups in a campaign to convert existing parkland to private commercial use. Our scant remaining riverfront is now being methodically transformed into a “pay per view” operation controlled by a quasi-governmental corporate culture intent on making as much money as possible for its hand picked business partners, and in turn, for itself. In this case, the land is not blighted, industrialized, or in need of reclamation. It is pristine public waterfront land that was painfully annexed from the private sector in the early 40's and always used, and intended for use, as public parkland and green space. In return, the public would gat a walkway, and a small courtyard.

The Downtown Form legislation eventually passed unanimously with little discussion We now had additional legislation to justify a fatally flawed initiative; all based on conceptual errors, misrepresentation, and omissions. In the ensuing months, the development grew from the "residential village that is well connected to a variety of neighboring features” to a $200M 1500 unit project with absolutely no connection to anything but itself.

Conclusion 1

Giving WDC oversight responsibility for an initiative that affects the public interest while at the same time awarding them huge profits for proactive implementation of private development creates a serious and unacceptable conflict of interests. As a result, WDC has continuously exerted extraordinary political pressure at the local, state, and federal level to minimize or circumvent the monumental regulatory restrictions presented by this inappropriate concept and site. Bear in mind, these restrictions were primarily meant to safeguard the public. A powerful argument could be made that WDC has now lost all objectivity and stretched the limits of governmental ethics by becoming a willing party to improperly withholding the unpalatable realities of this development from the public and the Metro Council. The end result is the trading of what is arguably the most valuable public parkland in the Commonwealth for a single luxury condominium with underground parking deep in a floodplain. This behavior is definitely not in keeping with the WDC’s public mandate of creating public parkland and green space.

THE WDC, THE HARBOR, AND THE OHIO RIVER BOATING COMMUNITY

In October of 2004, The Louisville Metro Council voted to accept the recommendation of Mayor Jerry Abramson and The Louisville Waterfront Development Corporation to award a contract to build a residential/commercial development in the area adjacent to The Harbor formerly known as Thruston Park. Despite the fact that fact the rest of the nation is proactively upgrading and increasing publicly owned recreational boating assets and access, this Developers Agreement calls for the privatization of Louisville's only publicly owned recreational harbor.

Boater Reaction and Official Response

Having seen similar proposals come and go during the last 20 years or so, most local rivermen were initially skeptical. After all, numerous studies and surveys over the years have shown the area to be environmentally, historically, and archaeologically sensitive in the extreme. It soon became apparent however, that the political horsepower behind this particular project was unprecedented and that it would proceed regardless. Indeed, residential development of this very area has been repeatedly and absolutely rejected by natural forces since Louisville's earliest days. In recent times, the flood of “97 finally doomed the Falls Harbor attempt and bankrupted its developers after years of futile WDC encouraged effort. Those that understand the river best had no reason to believe it would be different this time, but memories are short and the lure of profit beguiling. It soon became apparent that the political and perceived financial horsepower behind this particular project was unprecedented and that it would proceed regardless of lessons learned in the past.

In April of 2005, a small billboard showing the latest artist’s rendering appeared at the foot of Frankfort Ave. Consensus quickly emerged that the absurd marina layout would not only totally erase our historically significant harbor, but was also operationally impractical and navigationally unsafe. Surely, the developer would soon contact the boaters for input on how to properly expand and modernize. After all, having operated a successful recreational harbor at that location for 50 years, The LHA had intimate knowledge of the considerable challenges and lessons learned in the 70 years The Harbor had been in continuous operation.

When the phone finally rang in mid season, it was the Louisville Waterfront Development Corporation project manager for Riverpark Place. Instead of the expected request for involvement in the redevelopment process, the LHA was told, "This will probably be the Association's last year" and then asked to provide its financial records. The LHA decided it would be inappropriate to disclose its finances without a better understanding of the situation and consultation with the membership, so the request was denied. In the following months, numerous calls were made to the WDC requesting dialogue. These were ignored. After years of resolute commitment to the continued viability of this unique place, the only official communications with these hard working citizens was a polite Oct 2005 termination letter from the WDC Executive Director of WDC informing them their lease would not be renewed for the 2006 boating season and all boats and equipment must be removed by Dec 1. This was to be only official communication that was to come from Louisville Metro. It was now obvious the mutually beneficial 50-year relationship with Metro Louisville had changed and that specific expertise and long-standing service to the community was not a consideration.

Since there are few affordable moorings in the area for large non-trailerable vessels, this loss has had a very negative effect on the traditional boaters. After four generations of contributing to the local culture and economy by pursuing this admittedly expensive and difficult activity, many average citizen boat owners of modest means or on fixed incomes have been driven off the river and forced to sell their boats. For them, and their families, this governmental initiative ends a fulfilling lifelong activity and threatens to end the traditional boating lifestyle that has been a fixture of the local river landscape since Louisville's earliest days. Sadly, Louisville has now effectively turned its back on the very group that has kept our historically tenuous connection with the Ohio River alive in our time... the local recreational boating community.

Lack of Research and Negative Effects

In mid June 2006, Poe Companies sent offers to the former members of the LHA offering pre-construction options for the 144 slips in their non-existent, unapproved marina. The prices were the highest ever seen in the area, $30-65,000, almost double the going market rate. The marketing material and plans clearly indicated the developers have made little effort to understand the local recreational boating demographic. These materials show that 118 (82%) of the 144 slips in the proposed design are 55-70’ in length. Even a casual market study would have shown that vessels over 50 ft are almost the sole domain of the very wealthy and amount to less than 5% of those registered nationwide, this percentage is much lower locally and most of these are already accommodated elsewhere. Given the fact that the local annual household income in Louisville is $50-60,000, it is unreasonable to expect that very wealthy boat owners will suddenly appear in the numbers necessary to support this design.

This lack of understanding of the local boating community has totally overlooked the realities. The vast majorities of local non-trailerable vessels requiring permanent or seasonal moorings are in the 30-50’ class and owned by average citizens at great personal, physical, and financial effort. The developer has provided only 20 (18%) of the available spaces for them and Inquiries at the time of this offering also showed the developer had still not developed a dredging and maintenance plan, addressed or even acknowledged the navigational problems, and could not give an estimate of the owner fees that would be necessary to maintain their design. Recent announcements have put the maintenance fee at $70. Anyone who has ever been involved in a boat owners association that operated a marina realized this is totally unrealistic.

The marketing efforts thus far have resulted in some boaters purchasing reservations to purchase the new docks, but this has amounted to less that 20% of those proposed and the overwhelming majority of reserved slips are in the 40’ class and closely mirror the traditional 1935 design in layout and location. Pre-sales of the larger slips has been dismal. Area boaters are concerned with operational viability and navigational safety, not artists’ renderings. As a result, they will not place their vessels in the vulnerable situations posed by this absurd design. The sales pattern thus far has closely follows that predicted by our design comments submitted to the COE in late 2005. These constructive criticisms were totally ignored by the developers and now their design is a stillbirth. In fact, the boating community at large has upheld our observations by totally rejecting the overall design through their lack of support for what could have been a tremendously popular offering. The developers have simply gotten it wrong.

This only serves to reinforce our position that if current Louisville Metro policies stand and the currently proposed marina design is allowed, the likely results will be:

Sales will fall far short of that required to even recover construction costs resulting in inflated maintenance fees.

Annual maintenance costs will be extremely high, seriously burden those owners able to participate, and this burden will further hamper sales.

The few owners able to participate will see their Marina Owners Association bankrupted by the cost of recovery this design will require after major flooding events.

Owners will see the value of their investment steadily decrease as maintenance is deferred and the design flaws become apparent.

The developers will eventually be assailed by litigation resulting from the reasonably foreseen facility and vessel damage attributed to the poor design.

Our previously viable and sustainable Louisville Municipal Harbor will have been destroyed for no good reason.

WDC Marine Asset Management

In retrospect, the dismissal of public should have come as no surprise. There has been little public collaboration in planning and scant administrative effort directed towards recreational boating since WDC assumed local authority over this activity in the late 90’s. What efforts have been applied seem to be limited to creating an income center through the Thunder Slip Auction and satisfying the minimum navigational safety requirements imposed by The U. S. Coast Guard (USCG) and USACE. There has been no proactive or continuing support other than that minimally required to maintain appearances and little attention has been given to the needs of the average Ohio River boater. Indeed, the most serious problems and misjudgments have persisted. These include:

The concrete seawall along the Louisville Wharf was intended to allow for the mooring of recreational craft. Unfortunately, the area has no cleats (tie-ups) for small craft.

The concrete seawall at The Wharf was designed with a concealed underwater shelf that is a mortal danger to the running gear (propellers, shafts, struts, rudders) of inboard vessels.

WDC initially attempted to solve this problem by attaching inflatable Vinyl fenders not designed for this purpose. These were removed after the second year, but the bolts that were installed to secure them were not. These bolts remain hidden underwater and pose an additional grave danger to fiberglass vessels. Although appropriate commercial cushioning systems exist, rather than correct the situation, the WDC solution was to post "dock at your own risk" signs. This is why one seldom sees any recreational vessels moored there. Enough boat owners have suffered damage and the word is out.

The Boat Harbor at the Great Lawn was built with inadequate electrical capacity to service all of the docks and many of the utility pedestals that do work are wired incorrectly or otherwise in need or repair. This has caused costly damage to the electrical systems of recreational vessels. These problems have persisted since this moorage was constructed.

This same very small harbor is only dredged and cleared of debris in preparation for the profitable Thunder over Louisville slip auction, which WDC operates. It is usually silted up and full of debris by mid summer. These problems have persisted since this moorage was constructed.

The docks at The Brown Forman Amphitheater are isolated and obscured from the vantage point of the new restaurant. Indeed the first year in operation, the Louisville Police Department patrol boats were burned at this same dock. Consequently, boaters are uneasy leaving their vessels unattended in this unsecured. The “dockside service” that was promised has also not materialized.

There is no public pump-out for vessel sewage management. Although a new unit was installed at the BF docks, it has never put into operation.

In spite of the perception of an administrative infrastructure to manage WDC marine assets, in reality, none exists other than “dock at your own risk” signs. Requests for overnight dockage using the phone numbers posted at the docks go unanswered. Even the basic requirement of a qualified Harbormaster to manage the various facilities, address boaters concerns, and respond to emergencies has not been implemented.

Besides those listed above, another indication that the current recreational marine asset management strategy is counterproductive is that while the rest of the nation is actively soliciting available state and federal fund to invest huge sums in public recreational boating infrastructure access, the WDC has now eliminated the last publicly owned permanent moorings in Louisville. When asked why they had not sought funding from other governmental sources to assist in renovation of the local marine infrastructure and in stark contrast to the realities, the WDC project manager stated "that never works... it's too much trouble".

The end result of this government incompetence is that 2006 marks the first Ohio River Boating season since at least 1935 that the City has offered absolutely no services to boat owners with large non-trailerable vessels. We are now devoid of any marine asset management strategy other than the most ineffective and easily implemented... privatization. Through its recent actions and policies, The City has effectively turned its back on the very group that has kept our historically tenuous connection with the Ohio River alive in our time. After 70 years of continuous service to the community, our previously viable and sustainable Harbor is now closed, overgrown, and filling with mud and debris. This loss has had a very negative effect on the traditional boaters. After four generations of contributing to the local culture and economy by pursuing this admittedly expensive and difficult activity, many are being driven off the river altogether.

The Local Marine Business Community

The continuing negative effect unenlightened local governmental experimentation and victimization of the boating public has had on the local marine business community has also not been adequately considered. Concerns by long existing recreational boating firms in the Ohio River Corridor have been ignored while outside interests have been allowed special access. The result has been unfair business competition underwritten by Metro through the policies of the WDC. Although KY contains the 5th longest shoreline of any of the lower 48 states, we are ranked 28th in the economic impact of recreational boating... about of 1/2 that in the surrounding states. This is largely the result of governmental indifference towards the boating community and ignorance of the effect official policies have on the economic dynamics of this activity. The governmental arrogance driving the current situation was recently summed up by one long time local marine businessman: “The WDC lords over the river as though it was their private property and we just don’t count”. (see Oct 3 2006 - Island Plan has Some Worried )

The United States Coast Guard

In late 2006 the U. S, Coast Guard officially voiced opposition to the proposed design based on congestion and navigational problems and requested that the U. S. Corps of Engineers Louisville District hold public hearings to gain consensus on the design. In spite of the fact that there was more than ample reason to give the issue a public hearing, WDC managed to lobby the Corps into denying this request by proposed even more equally absurd measures to “correct” the situation. (see Jan 23 2007 - Waterfront Development Proposes Closing the Towhead Channel.)

The most inappropriate of these was the proposal to close the Towhead Channel between Towhead Island and the KY shore. If implemented, all vessel traffic visiting waterfront park would be forced into the navigation channel used by commercial vessels at the point in the channel where these commercial vessels can not maneuver due to the downtown bridges. This disregard for public safety for the sake of profit is despicable as well as illegal. The Towhead Channel is a federally administered Public Waterway as defined by the Rivers and Harbors Act and can only be closed by the Secretary of the Army through upon recommendation of the Chief of Engineers USACE or by affirmative action by Congress. As has been the case with other measures taken in the course of this development initiative, this clear federal prohibition has been ignored.

Another glaringly inappropriate development activity discovered during our research was the fact that as a navigable public waterway of the United States, the Towhead Channel is under the jurisdiction and protection of the federal government and administered by the state as a public trust. As a result , it and can not be subdivided and sold to private parties. Just the same, WDC and the developers have taken proprietary possession of this federally protected public waterway and sold portions of it as privately deeded boat slips. This unlawful activity should have been blocked at the regulatory level, but WDC has also ignored this clear federal prohibition.

Conclusion 2

Through it's continuing incompetence in managing our public recreational boating assets, Louisville Waterfront Development Corporation is squandering the opportunity to create a cultural / recreational boating environment that would put Louisville far ahead of any other Ohio River community as a center for recreational boating. The Louisville Municipal Harbor should be the crown jewel of this effort through public involvement and implementation of policies that encourage peripheral boating related business activity and seasonal recreational marine tourism.

It is our position that the longstanding guarantee of public access to a community's waterways must include not only pedestrian access for the users of Waterfront Park, but also for the local boating community, rich and poor. This can only be accomplished through a thoughtful administration of public recreational boating assets that encourages recreational boating and enhances this potentially beneficial and totally underutilized economic activity. We believe a new approach and immediate action is necessary.

The long term solution is an independent, user based, publicly administered authority specifically committed to the proactive modernization, expansion, and enlightened administration of our public recreational boating resources. Experiences in other states and municipalities clearly show this is how it is done in the real world.

THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS REVIEWS

In the fall of 2005, the much-anticipated application to the U S Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for permission to begin construction was submitted. Although the Developers Agreement clearly states the developer is responsible for regulatory compliance, we were surprised that WDC, not the developer , was the applicant of record. This application lacked any of the usual technical material normally required for a marina project of this magnitude. The omissions included: overall dimensional plans for the marina, detailed dredge depth cross-sections and volume budgets, dock layout and fairway dimensions, indicated flood level elevations and flood probabilities, construction runoff and containment plans, hydraulic, hydrostatic, and hydrodynamic modeling, evidence of current environmental testing and water quality certifications, historic review, etc. The graphics and plans consisted of some artist renderings, simple elevation drawings, and the 15 year old Hargraves and Associates Master Plan with “Riverpark Place" scrawled above the failed Falls Harbor development of the 80’s and 90’s. Considering this project is much larger, infinitely more complex, and had little or no resemblance to its predecessor, it is hard to believe that WDC expected this inadequate level of engineering detail and research would be sufficient to bring this development into Federal regulatory compliance. The Corps reviewed the permit application and wisely decided to treat it as a Request for Modification of the 1994 permit for Waterfront Park and this would require a full review. This clearly showed that WDC assumptions that formed the basis of this expanded initiative had been incorrect from the beginning.

The COE reevaluation required a period of Public Comment. Many of those submitted were critical of the "marina" design. My comment was a compilation of personal observations and also those of various other interested parties including experienced river men, engineers, neighborhood leaders, public interest advocates, and marine business concerns. Besides the historical concerns, I also questioned the lack of preparatory study and engineering and even detailed the problems with additional comments and graphics. Sadly, The Corps was very concerned with the affect the design would have on commercial traffic, but ignored the very negative consequences this design will have on recreational boating. This lapse was obvious when The U.S. Coast Guard announced their opposition to the design and called for public hearings... the Corps declined to hold them. There was never a rational discussion of the operational and navigational safety issues. Had there been, we firmly believe public input and proper technical evaluations by those within The Corps that specialize in small boat harbor design would have at least confirmed our poor opinion of the proposed marina and required the adaptive use we sought.

THE LOUISVILLE MUNICIPAL HARBOR

Developer Reaction and Approach

The COE Public Comment process led to my designation as a Citizen Consulting Party to the COE for the required reviews. This designation made me eligible for information and review of any activities that may impact historic sites within the development area as they pertain to the National Historic Preservation Act Sec 106. I was subsequently invited to a COE Consulting Parties Meeting set for Nov 8 2005 at the offices of WDC. All of the Local and State preservation offices, other Consulting Parties, the WDC, public advocates, neighborhood groups, Native American interests, and the developers were represented.

The meeting began with a very impressive multimedia presentation by the developer to support their preservation plans. Unfortunately, it was vague on specifics and the Consulting parties pointed out it failed to adequately mitigate the many historical and archaeological issues; Specifically Paget House (National Register) and also those pertaining to federally protected Native American burial sites that are known to exist throughout the area. As far as the historic significance of The Harbor was concerned, the developers were totally blind-sided. My previously dismissed historical concerns and other related issues were taken very seriously by the State and Federal agencies and the developers were flatly refused permission to begin site preparation. It was apparent that WDC had seriously misjudged the situation and failed to adequately prepare the development team. Bear in mind construction was slated to be