Not even remotely. For starters, the "park" in question--Carl Barron Plaza (CBP)--has been in existence for decades. Someone upthread mentioned it. So I made the point-blank obvious observation that any holistic appraisal of what ought to be done with CBP would necessarily include a frank analysis of the best intervention/mitigation strategies involving the chronic homelessness issues there. Yes, I cited the scenario of it being renovated--and then the homeless descending back on it--but only to underline the basic point: that addressing the homlessness crisis in our country, if it is to be done humanely and progressively, is fiendishly difficult.Just to be clear, is the argument that there is no point in creating a park because the homeless will just fart it up? Really?
But since you mention it, yes, there is a larger issue of private entities/developers swooping-in to renovate public spaces, as part of much-larger redevelopment projects at adjacent parcels. AKA "mitigation" (extortion of developers by municipalities). The developer and the municipality enter into an LMI (License Maintenance Indemnification). The shiny new park/plaza/square/what-have-you is delivered. Ribbon-cutting, speechifying, etc. But then... ohmigod! The developer walks away from covenants of the LMI. And said public space gets junked-up. And the municipality is left holding the bag.
Point being: making developers do "mitigation" as a way to evade the fact that municipalities can't or won't perform badly-needed renovations of public spaces--and then compounding the error by signing LMIs--is a really crappy way to pursue urban revitalization. But it happens all the time, is my understanding.