Relatives of the late Arthur Hough are looking at available options after the Jefferson City Parks and Recreation Commission opted to move forward with selling beer at the Oak Hills Golf Center.
Earlier this month, the commission voted 6-2 to approve a recommendation to sell alcohol, primarily beer, at the city's only public golf course. But that decision is being called disappointing by the living relatives of the man who originally donated the property with specific stipulations, including one against drinking alcohol on the property.
Oak Hills has never sold beer or other alcoholic beverages, at least while under city ownership, because of that condition.
Philanthropist Arthur Hough donated 50 acres in 1917 for the city to use as a park. One of the restrictions Hough placed on the deed stated: "No beverages containing any quantity of alcohol or the substitute shall ever be used or drunk on said grounds."
Some people believe Hough's heirs signed a quit claim deed to free the land of restrictions in 1952, but no record of the deed can be found at the Cole County Recorder of Deeds office.
The city filed a lawsuit in 1991 in hopes of condemning the property and causing it to revert back to the city without restrictions, but the City Council backed off when public opposition formed.
John Hough, who lives in St. Louis, contacted the News Tribune on Thursday to express his family's disappointment in the commission's decision.
"My sister and I and my nephew, who are living relatives (of Arthur Hough), are disappointed," Hough said. "We are not in favor of the commissioners' decision to allow alcohol and would like our opinion to be made known."
Hough said he is in conversation with former state Sen. John Schneider, an attorney, about available options moving forward and is awaiting Schneider's counsel.
In deciding to start selling alcohol on the property, Bryan Wolford, assistant city attorney, had said instead of actively seeking to clear the title of restrictions, staff would take a more passive approach by simply allowing the alcohol sales to start and seeing if any Hough heirs decide to take action. Wolford said he was confident any legal action would end in the city's favor, adding the statute of limitations on land issues is 10 years.
Wolford pointed to the following state statute: "No action for the recovery of any lands, tenements or hereditaments, or for the recovery of the possession thereof, shall be commenced, had or maintained by any person, whether citizen, denizen, alien, resident or nonresident of this state, unless it appears that the plaintiff, his ancestor, predecessor, grantor or other person under whom he claims was seized or possessed of the premises in question, within ten years before the commencement of such action."
Wolford also had argued none of the other conditions of the original donation have been adhered to, and people already bring their own alcohol on the property to drink, which is a violation of the original conditions.
The original deed of Hough's donation, filed in August 1917, outlined the following conditions of the donation, in addition to the prohibition of alcohol: the grounds should be enclosed with "a good and substantial fence" within five years of the donation; an extension of Moreau Drive into the grounds no less than 20 feet wide within five years of the donation; a bronze tablet should be erected on the grounds with "a suitable inscription" stating the grounds were donated to the city by Hough for public park purposes; grounds cannot be used for any purpose "that would detract from its character as a public park;" grounds "shall be forever used for public park purposes;" and the park should be called Hough Park.
Other than the grounds being named "Hough Park" and being consistently used for park purposes, the city never has completed the other conditions.
Related editorial: Our Opinion: City must keep promise to donor, residents