I grew up with a deep connection to Joe Creason Park. My father worked for the Louisville Parks Department and was stationed at “Creason,” as he often called it for short. His crew was responsible for keeping the parks manicured, trimmed, and looking good for visitors. My sister and I often spent time playing in the park or waiting for my dad by the old barn where they used to rest between outings.
I’ve been familiar with the Louisville Tennis Center for just as many years. It was always a bit of a forbidden zone in the midst of the park. It was in the park, but not exactly part of the park.
During the trial of Mel Ignatow, a sort of pall fell over the Louisville Tennis Center, and even the crew at Creason, at that time. According to my dad, Ignatow played at the center during the time he dated Brenda Sue Shaefer, whose murder he committed but escaped conviction for. The workers, my dad included, had lots to say about it.
Don’t get me wrong, there are good stories from the Tennis Center. Tennis greats like Arthur Ashe and John McEnroe played the courts there. Needless to say, the place has some history.
Louisville Mayor Greenberg wants to help the Louisville Tennis Center with their redevelopment, a $65 million redevelopment, by offering 25+ acres of public parkland for a private non-profit’s project.
Residents in Joe Creason’s District 10 are none too happy about the proposal to give away public land from the popular park.
Louisville Tennis Center needs renovation, but the public, particularly during difficult economic times, needs the park more.
Tennis is not a sport that’s easily accessible for many. The lessons and equipment can be expensive. Moreover, spending $65 million for a more exclusive tennis experience is a very “Let them eat cake” proposal. Installing the halls of wealth in the face of a populace working to make ends meet is a disgusting thought.
When people say, “Eat the rich,” this is what they mean. The rich bring it upon themselves by offering the public nothing and begging it to support a development that pays homage to the sport of kings, and nothing to directly benefit the community. Absolutely not.
It’s a very out-of-touch thing to even suggest.
Right now, people need more public spaces to gather. More accessible public events.
Moreover, the public is exhausted by the numbers that supporters of the project are giving. These grand projections fall flat right now.
Yes, it could bring millions of revenue, eventually. It might bring many visitors to local hotels, eventually.
This is speculation in a world where America is increasingly isolating itself and showing up on other nations’ “travel caution” lists. This is speculation at a time when Americans are losing wealth and not quickly recuperating.
Maybe there’s a time for the tennis center to get its renovation, but I have to believe that to suggest it right now and at the expense of the public is embarrassingly tone deaf and stupid.
I would like to see Mayor Greenberg read the room just once, when he tells the local public that he’s supporting giving public space to private companies. It’s very Republican of him, in a city that was supposedly electing a Democrat.
I’d also like to see the public continue to respond with equal ferocity anytime the idea of taking something from the public and offering it to private businesses, private schools, is suggested by any developer or politician.
Kentucky turned down the poorly named “school choice” amendment because it did something similar in taking public funds and offering them to private schools.
The land grab at Joe Creason falls into the same category. It’s a bad proposition. A big fat no.
