Papago Park Puns

Received an informational email from Friends of Papago Park (FOPP), as follows:

A Complaint and Request for Injunction has been filed against the cities of Scottsdale and Phoenix. The name of the case is Lasse Norgaard-Larsen, et al. v. City of Phoenix, et al. (No. CV20-02467-PHX-GMS). Also, FYI, the 163-page case can be found on the US Courts PACER system (Account required) , or it can also be found for free at this link:  https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/. 
Enter "Papago Park" in the search box.

The basic issue in the lawsuit is that the City of Phoenix gave away public park lands to a private, for profit entity, restricting access to those public lands by the public. A further issue is the destruction of desert lands and misuse of a public park. Note that all deeds, land patents and other instruments of conveyance (1932, 1937, 1959, 1964, 1997, etc...) for Papago Park contain clear “park only” use restrictions (“this deed is issued upon the express condition that the lands so conveyed shall be used only for municipal, park, recreation, or public-convenience purposes”). The penalty for violating this provision is also clear: “….only for the purposes herein indicated, and if the said lands, or any part thereof, shall be abandoned for such use such lands or such part shall revert to the United States), and also “such action or attempted action by Said grantee shall be deemed an abandonment and Papago Park shall revert to the United States of America.”

The plaintiffs (FOPP) did everything possible to avoid this action, but their pleas were ignored by all officials engaged with, as were the covenants, provisions and restrictions in the title documents for Papago Park. During the past year FOPP sent hundreds of emails about the illegal nature of the Giants project, as well as the suspicious nature of the arrangement between Phoenix, Scottsdale and the professional sports team. These emails and other relevant documents are found in the Exhibits attached to the Complaint, which include a copy of the Lease contract (disreputable, at best, at $1260/acre per year!), copies of the Title Documents, a timeline for Papago Park and 63 pages of emails (with photos of the destruction).

Appropriation of a public park for non-public or private use is a serious matter. If in doubt about this, take a look at Smith v. City of Westfield, Cohen v. City of Lynn, Dunphy v. Commonwealth, *Brooklyn Heights Association

Every year they destroy more of Papago Park. I would like to bring your attention to two important issues relating to our most historic park: 1. the ongoing destruction of desert landscape, particularly in the last ten years, and 2. the building of an private corporate facility in a public park.

When I was a child, in the 1950s, I estimate that 90% of the non-military area of Papago Park was still undisturbed native desert landscape. In the 2010 Master Plan prepared by Phoenix, only 23.8% of Papago Park was deemed “relatively undeveloped desert” and classified as “protected areas”. Since that time, they have extended the golf course, built unneeded roads, added walkways and inflicted other permanent damage on those protected areas. In the last year alone, park authorities have devastated three more desert areas: nine acres for an unneeded zoo parking lot, two acres for a never used parking lot near the softball facility and forty plus acres for an illegal corporate baseball training facility in a rather suspicious deal.

In November 2018 the Cities of Phoenix and Scottsdale signed contracts that gave the Giants Baseball team full control (the legal term is ‘quiet enjoyment’) of 36.75 acres of a public park, for 35 plus years. Then they basically scrapped clean all desert vegetation and they are now spending tens of millions of dollars on a state-of-the-art sports facility. The rent is $4,750/month, starting in 2022, of course. That is chickenfeed for the best real estate in Arizona. As if that weren’t bad enough, the Giants are building beyond the contractual limits and have erected a huge, ugly, ghastly building that looks like a used tire warehouse at the entrance of this facility. Insult to injury, and that building was not even in the diagrams of the signed contract.

Note that all title documents for Papago Park contain deed restrictions requiring that Papago Park lands be used for “park and recreational uses”, “city park only” and “municipal, park, recreation, or public-convenience purposes”. Papago Park used to be a US National Monument before it was transferred to the state of Arizona and Phoenix. That transfer states: “This patent is issued upon the express condition, that the lands so granted shall be used only for municipal, park, recreation, or public convenience purposes, and if the lands or any part thereof, shall be abandoned for such use, such lands, or such part, shall revert to the United States” -signed President Franklin D. Roos

This is to provide an update on the situation of the lawsuit against the cities of Phoenix and Scottsdale, relating to the building of a private facility for the Giants in Papago Park (near our neighborhood). What really irks me is the smug attitude of the two cities. They have basically told us we have no right to sue them because we are private citizens and they own the land -- deed restrictions and US legislation be damned.. Oh yes, never once did they address the silly issue of building a private corporate enclave in a public park.

Note that this is about more than the Giants facility. Over the last decade the City of Phoenix has destroyed desert vegetation in four different areas. This has to stop. Then there is the "Billy Bobs Used Tire Warehouse" at the entrance of the facility. How could they let that visual monstrosity be built?

Here is an up-to-date timeline of the lawsuit (http://friendsofpapagopark.org/lawsuit.html)

• December 23, 2020. FOPP filed a Complaint and Request for Injunction with the US District Court of Arizona  (Lasse Norgaard-Larsen, et al. v. City of Phoenix, et al.- Case No. CV20-02467-PHX-GMS).
• December 30, 2020. Plaintiff submitted FOIA requests to Department of Interior (DOI) and Arizona State Parks to obtain all correspondence using the words “Papago Park”. This action is believed necessary to understand reasons for ignoring their statutory responsibilities, not responding to requests and/or providing false information.
• January 7. 2021. Recognizing their lack of legal expertise and financial resources in a lawsuit that is extremely complicated, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Court Appointed Counsel
• January 11. 2021. The judge denies the above motion for a court appointed lawyer
• January 14, 2021. Plaintiff sent emails to several government agencies, as a courtesy, informing them that a lawsuit has been filed and they may be involved.
• January 21. 2021. The city of Phoenix sent an email to the plaintiffs (link), complaining about the formatting of the Complaint. The main point seems to be that the plaintiffs, as private citizens, do not have a right to file a complaint against the two Cities. The actual allegations of the Complaint – violation of deed restrictions and misuse of public lands – are not mentioned.
• January 27. 2021. The Plaintiffs responded to the letter of January 21 saying the court has the power to allow

Papago Park being sold to SF Giants

More people need to see this. I just don't know who.

What irks me about all this.

Land protected by President Roosevelt. Says its a national wonder and a park to be experienced by all.

Land sold to the city with stipulations about only using it for public use or sell it back to the government.

Then land sold to another city with same stipulations. That city worked around it by renting the land. Now they are wanting to sell it.

This needs to be stopped.

Received an informational email from Friends of Papago Park (FOPP), as follows:

A Complaint and Request for Injunction has been filed against the cities of Scottsdale and Phoenix. The name of the case is Lasse Norgaard-Larsen, et al. v. City of Phoenix, et al. (No. CV20-02467-PHX-GMS). Also, FYI, the 163-page case can be found on the US Courts PACER system (Account required) , or it can also be found for free at this link:  https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/. 
Enter "Papago Park" in the search box.

The basic issue in the lawsuit is that the City of Phoenix gave away public park lands to a private, for profit entity, restricting access to those public lands by the public. A further issue is the destruction of desert lands and misuse of a public park. Note that all deeds, land patents and other instruments of conveyance (1932, 1937, 1959, 1964, 1997, etc...) for Papago Park contain clear “park only” use restrictions (“this deed is issued upon the express condition that the lands so conveyed shall be used only for municipal, park, recreation, or public-convenience purposes”). The penalty for violating this provision is also clear: “….only for the purposes herein indicated, and if the said lands, or any part thereof, shall be abandoned for such use such lands or such part shall revert to the United States), and also “such action or attempted action by Said grantee shall be deemed an abandonment and Papago Park shall revert to the United States of America.”

The plaintiffs (FOPP) did everything possible to avoid this action, but their pleas were ignored by all officials engaged with, as were the covenants, provisions and restrictions in the title documents for Papago Park. During the past year FOPP sent hundreds of emails about the illegal nature of the Giants project, as well as the suspicious nature of the arrangement between Phoenix, Scottsdale and the professional sports team. These emails and other relevant documents are found in the Exhibits attached to the Complaint, which include a copy of the Lease contract (disreputable, at best, at $1260/acre per year!), copies of the Title Documents, a timeline for Papago Park and 63 pages of emails (with photos of the destruction).

Appropriation of a public park for non-public or private use is a serious matter. If in doubt about this, take a look at Smith v. City of Westfield, Cohen v. City of Lynn, Dunphy v. Commonwealth, *Brooklyn Heights Associatio