Community planning question
Before discussing a location or building size, residents should decide whether Woodhaven wants a community center at all—and whether it should take priority over other neighborhood needs. The land beside East Regional Library was considered only as a possible playground and outdoor-amenity site; it was never proposed as a community-center location. If residents support a center, the former country-club campus and other feasible sites can then be compared.
This is a planning survey, not a petition or endorsement. It begins by asking whether a community center is wanted before asking conditional questions about size, location and amenities.
Start with the community
A community center should not be treated as a settled neighborhood priority. Residents should be able to say yes, no, unsure or that more information is needed—and should be able to weigh a center against streets, drainage, parks, public safety, housing conditions and other needs. Separately, the land beside East Regional Library was considered only as a possible playground and outdoor-amenity site.
This parcel was never considered as a location for the community center. The concept was limited to possible inclusive play equipment, shade, seating, trees, a small pavilion, safer walking access and connections to the library.
If residents support a center, the City should then define the desired services, operating model, cost and feasible sites. If residents do not support one, public funds should be directed to higher priorities.
If residents support a center
Location should be considered only after the community-center question is answered. The City should then compare feasible sites using the same standards: access, drainage, flood risk, land cost, utilities, environmental conditions, neighborhood impact, operating practicality and room to grow.
Study the old clubhouse footprint together with the former parking, pool, tennis and nearby buildable land.
A nearby higher or more accessible portion of the property may work better than placing the building directly over the old clubhouse.
The City should compare any realistically available public or partnership site before committing to the golf-course property.
If a center is supported
Size and amenities should not be selected until residents have first indicated whether they want a center. Those who do should be able to compare a small meeting facility, a phased center and a full-service building; those who do not should be able to direct resources elsewhere.
Primarily meeting rooms, classes, offices and limited fitness space.
Multipurpose recreation, fitness and community programming with careful space sharing.
A gymnasium, fitness, youth and senior spaces, meeting rooms, kitchen and service offices.
For scale, Fort Worth’s Diamond Hill project is planned at approximately 25,000 square feet and the Stop Six Hub/MLK center at approximately 28,000 square feet. These examples help residents visualize service levels; they do not establish Woodhaven’s final size.
What could it include?
Divisible gymnasium, fitness center, group exercise, pickleball and basketball.
Large divisible meeting room, event space, teaching kitchen and outdoor pavilion.
After-school space, tutoring, computers, teen activities and summer programs.
Dedicated senior room, wellness programming, family restrooms and accessible equipment.
Private rooms for visiting health, employment, benefits, legal and nonprofit services.
Shaded playground, walking loop, event lawn, trees, trails and stormwater landscaping.
The larger land question
The community-center decision should not be used to quietly decide the future of the surrounding property. Residents should be asked directly whether they prefer development, public parkland, natural open space or a carefully defined combination.
Most of the remaining land is developed, subject to drainage, infrastructure and compatibility requirements.
Concentrate compatible development on appropriate land while permanently preserving a meaningful public park and trail system.
Acquire or permanently control most of the property for recreation, open space, drainage, trees, trails and community use.
Focus on floodplain, habitat, mature trees, low-impact trails and greenway connections rather than intensive recreation.
Connection question
The survey asks whether residents support trails, greenways and safer pedestrian or bicycle connections. A connection concept would still require land, route, floodplain, safety and feasibility analysis.
Public funding
Potentially—but not automatically. Some capital costs may qualify if they are lawful public improvements and are authorized through the TIF 13 Project and Financing Plan, Chapter 311, City policy, TIF Board action, City Council action and legal review.
TIF funding should not be described as a complete operating plan. Staffing, programming, utilities, maintenance and long-term replacement costs require dependable ongoing funding.
Resident input
This survey is advisory. It begins by asking whether Woodhaven wants a community center and allows respondents to say no, unsure or that more information is needed. The library parcel is addressed only as a possible playground and outdoor-amenity site, not as a center location. The survey does not constitute a vote, petition, development approval or official Woodhaven Unites position. Verified results will be updated and published on this site, with methodology and participant categories disclosed. Published response data will be anonymous and available to the City and other interested parties.
Public reporting
Results will be updated as responses are verified and reviewed. The goal is to let residents, the City and other interested parties examine the same information rather than relying on a single headline number.
Initial results will be posted after a meaningful number of responses has been received and duplicate review has begun. Later updates will identify the date of the data release and the number of verified responses included.
Equal access to the record: The published summary and anonymous data will be available on this site for residents, City staff, public officials, journalists, researchers, developers and other interested parties.
Survey safeguards
Use private verification information and review repeated submissions before publishing totals.
Report renters, resident homeowners, nonresident owners, businesses and other participants separately.
Publish every question, response totals, methodology, open and close dates and material limitations. Update the results on this site and provide anonymous response data to the City and other interested parties.
Do not describe the survey as a vote, petition or “community-approved plan.”
Background sources
