The
City is claiming that, "Since the golf course and RV park
will be owned and operated by the city, or operated by short
term agreements with third parties, the San Diego Charter provision
limiting commercial leases of land to 25 percent in Mission Bay
Park would not be exceeded."
While the
city attorney may be willing to defend this position, and would
likely be forced to in court if they move forward with this,
it violates if not the letter the spirit of the law. No matter
who operates them, development of a golf course and RV park would
restrict the uses of those areas to paying uses only and therefore
would be a commercialization of public parkland, regardless of
the legal manipulations to attempt to avoid the limits in the
City Charter.
While the
City Attorney has opined against public open space on this project,
it isn't the first time. Remember the X Games in the Park? San
Diego Audubon sued the city and negotiated a settlement to increase
protections for the nesting least terns next to the site during
the games. One part of this settlement was that the city would
agree to move the restoration of Tecolote and Cudahy Creek to
the top of the list for implementation when any funding would
become available. Therefore, the city is legally encumbered to
pursue this project first due to its past bad behavior and attempts
to push aside park uses for commercial returns. This might be
a good place for the public to remind them of this priority.
The loss of
open space cannot be replaced. Where and how are they offering
to mitigate the loss of 150 acres of habitat? Are they offering
to mitigate it? Or are they just trying to commercialize even
more parkland to pay for improvements in the Master Plan that
the city already has an obligation to carry out?
According
to the City Manager's office, "These modifications would
be necessary in order to obtain the financing that will be required
to complete the Master Plan elements identified for inclusion
in the RFP, and to provide sufficient revenues to adequately
maintain the improvements on Fiesta Island."
Existing leaseholders
are generating more than enough revenue to fund the Mission Bay
Master Plan if the City Manager and City Council would order
it to be done that way. The current leaseholders in Mission Bay
have agreed in principle, from what I understand, that some portion
of incremental lease revenues should be placed into a Mission
Bay Park Master Plan Development Fund for the purpose of funding
the unfunded portions. There are other key leaseholds: De Anza
and Sea World being renegotiated right now and a portion of lease
increases should go into this fund. But the City Manager has
so far opposed this.
Instead, they
look for ways to make deals and trade away the contents of a
carefully and some would tell you, painfully-agreed-to Master
Plan. Why have a Master Plan at all, if every time a proposal
comes forward it's just another round of "Let's Make a Deal?"
Some of the public and users of Mission Bay Park thought we had
made a deal: that it was called a "Master Plan" and
that the city had a obligation to fund the balance of uses reflected
in this agreement without changing that balance.
Finally, as
our population continues to grow, we need more open spaces and
parklands, not less! But more and more of our public parklands
and open spaces are being threatened with development and sold
as actually good for parks! Expanding public park lands should
be the mindset of the city not continually commercializing parts
for different user groups. We must watch each deal and process
very carefully. Implementing the Master Plan should be the goal
without losses to the park.
|