UofL’s Handling of Stansbury Park Suggests a Lack of Democracy in Louisville

Written 3/19/2024:

Ms. Feldkamp’s recent article calls attention to University of Louisville’s plan to “acquire and redesign Stansbury Park”. Considering this alongside Louisville’s Park and Recreation department’s seeming unwillingness to ensure Frederick Olmstead’s mission to “[connect] nature and neighborhood” raises suspicion to possible unaired intentions these public-facing institutions may harbor.  

Previously balking on communally decided plans to renovate Stansbury Park, The University of Louisville also bought and barred the public from the nearly 7 acres that was Churchill Park. 

Alongside their failure to invite the Olmstead Conservancy to University-hosted public input meetings determining Stansbury Park’s future, UofL’s intention to continue expansion at the cost of public and UofL student’s access to green spaces is malicious at best, especially when considering how Louisville ranks 22nd of the 25 most polluted cities Nationwide.

After grasping the weight of this situation, I had the opportunity to speak with Ms. Wolff at the Olmstead Conservancy, who “[hopes] to be… at the next meeting with UofL and the Mayor’s office…to negotiate an agreement that works for all parties while retaining it as a public park.”

While I am hopeful for Stansbury Park’s future, there is no current or historical reason to believe UofL or the Greenberg administration will negotiate in good faith with the Olmstead Conservancy, aside from a need for positive publicity.

As Ms. Feldkamp’s article emphasizes UofL’s consistent self-serving values through their blatant plans to build “Intramural Fields” on a park they do not own, Mayor Greenberg’s administration demonstrates theirs through past decisive actions. Namely, Mayor Greenberg refusing to sign an anti-displacement ordinance, his push to develop Louisville’s West End via the West End TIF, and an excessive increase in clearing homeless camps. Even so, there is reason to believe Stansbury Park could exist unchallenged under Mayor Greenberg, as all three of these decisions objectively center potential developer’s interests and the increase of real estate value in a given neighborhood. Interestingly enough, so does proximity to parks and greenways: two things that define Stansbury Park. 

Something I will hold with me after looking into Stansbury Park’s future is the lack of agency that many of these well-intentioned organizations I spoke on and to truly have.

Even if the Olmstead Conservancy is given the seat they deserve at the table, they have no leverage aside from the potential increase in real estate value their park’s developments can bring the city, unless the Greenberg administration decides otherwise. Concurrently, the Greenberg administration’s insistency to center potential developer’s profit over our neighbors -homeless and housed- affects and defines many Louisvillians’ daily lives. 

Because of this, I don’t think the question “what should happen to Stansbury Park?” is as relevant as the question: “what does this situation tell us about the state of democracy in Louisville today?”