Park Update on the Defense of Justice in Old North Durham and for a Non-gentrified City!

Dear Friends,

We would like to express our deepest thanks to everyone who came out Tuesday, January 17 to stand together for justice and democracy in Durham, as City Council took a vote on the future of Old North Durham Park.  Over 100 people from our neighborhood community and the broader Durham Coalition for Urban Justice filled the halls of City Council to insist on the fulfillment of the 2005 City Council Resolution (#9281), the only legally-binding, publicly-decided resolution to upgrade and protect a full-sized athletic park meeting the needs of low- income communities of color who use it in the neighborhood.

Voices City Council Attempted to Silence on Jan 17

At the Tuesday, January 17 City Council meeting on the future of Old North Durham Park, City Council refused to let any members of the public to sign up to speak about the new resolution (drafted by Council Member Schewel) being proposed.  Ultimately, the Council only permitted 1 person with concerns about the resolution to speak for 3 minutes, and proceeded swiftly to push through the new, problematic resolution (Read the statement by Civil Right lawyer Al McSurely).   Below are a few of the many comments community members had prepared to present at City Council but were prohibited from expressing that night:

• Gentrification, Development and Old North Durham Park
• Disparate Negative Impact on People of Color
• Durham History Lesson: The 2005 Park Compromise and the Deception that Followed
• The Problems with Schewel’s Resolution
• Ugly Disregard for Our Community
• To City Council: Fulfill the 2005 Park Directive

Updated FAQ to Debunk Myths

1. What is the 2005 City Council Resolution?
2. What is the difference between Council member Schewel’s resolution and the 2005 resolution?
3. Why does reduction of the field size matter?
4. Why does 2005 resolution matter? What is at stake in preserving the 2005 resolution?
5. Why does DCUJ have legitimate reason to believe that anything other than fulfilling the 2005 directive is disingenuous?