Lewiston’s City Council has rejected funding of two significant projects for Kennedy Park: a $267,000 pool house renovation and a $250,000 master plan, both of which were approved by previous councils.

The all-new council has an all-new way of doing things. One of its first actions was reviewing all approved, but incomplete, city projects. Within this process, the cuts to Kennedy Park emerged as deepest.

We’ll talk about the process later.

Considering viability of past projects is wise. No council should just adhere to old decisions, especially when finances change. For example, installing Basilica-like lights at City Hall, one of the cuts, was nice, but unnecessary.

Improving Kennedy Park is necessary. The park has benefited from new infrastructure – skate park, etc. – but still merits additional attention. Its playground equipment is old, benches are worn, and gazebos rusting and forlorn.

With its action, the council shelved its planned improvements. In this rejection lies opportunity for downtown advocates, organizations and volunteers to channel their copious energy into one clarion issue.

Namely, rejuvenating Kennedy Park, and acting boldly where the city will not.

We’ve commented on the numerous downtown committees and planners before, mostly in a “too many cooks” vein. The sense we sometimes get is everybody is thinking big – “What can we do to change downtown!” – without considering what change is most practical.

Our biggest concern is these varied groups, either active, retired or planned, will virulently disagree, and leave the future of downtown hanging. Kennedy Park is a chance for these efforts to pin their sights on a common cause.

The park is heavily used. The day after the council rejected the funding, many people enjoyed the sunny afternoon in the park. Kids played basketball, older folks sat on benches, guys rode bikes, teens rode skateboards.

And there is precedent to follow: the laudable campaign for Maple Street Park. A movement for Kennedy Park, executed with the same gusto given to pocket parks, would go far toward improving this higher profile, more highly used amenity.

And the city won’t do anything. A community effort is the last resort.

Now, the process.

The City Council can allow one member to make recommendations on policy, as it did with the review of approved projects. But this review was done without public input, and was essentially decided upon by the single member.

A process like this may seem expedient, but there was no need for speed on this issue. Many of these projects have been hanging around. There was ample opportunity for a transparent review, which should have happened.

In December, we admonished this council for holding its introductory session behind closed doors.

“If there’s anything a new group of councilors-elect could use some practice with, it’s becoming accustomed to working in a public forum,” we wrote.

Given this process, it’s clear the council is still working out the kinks.