CONTROVERSIAL PARKS PROPOSAL

Dale Warner

San Jose's parks department proposes to allow "developer park in lieu fees" diverted from public park development to many kinds of other outdoor projects, including mountain bike trails, equestrian trails, dog runs, and structures to house theater productions and dance recitals. This covers redevelopment agency property as well as other city areas. The controversial proposal was presented in public for the first time at a parks commission meeting on 11/3/04 with no notice to neighborhood associations, no publicity about the proposal, and no input aside from a very small set of developers.

PROPOSAL ON FAST TRACK
The parks department scheduled the controversial proposal for city council committee consideration on 11/29/04, just 26 days after the proposal's first appearance. Several neighborhood advocates testified at the 11/29/04 hearing about the inadequacy of public participation and about the profound betrayal to long-standing parks policy that the proposal embodied. The advocates won the day, and the city council committee postponed consideration of the proposal until 1/24/05 and called for community meetings to be held before that date.

SUBSTANCE OF PROPOSAL
Some parts of the proposal are valuable to the establishment and maintenance of city facilities, but one part represents a serious danger to our city's parks program. And that's the part that provides a legal basis for diverting "developer park in lieu fees" to non-park purposes.

Right now, city policy requires (whether under the redevelopment agency, or under regular city rules) that no fewer than three acres of park be dedicated by developers for every 1,000 new residents who will live in the developer's new housing project. City rules provide that the developer may pay in lieu fees to the city if they think they cannot afford the land for the new park.

In practice this means that developers very rarely provide adequate parks on site of new housing projects, and instead negotiate in lieu fees with the city which are paid into a park trust fund and languish there for up to five years. The park trust fund now amounts to approximately $100,000,000 in unspent fees, and the city appears very unwilling to use these funds to develop public park lands.

ADDITIONAL EFFECT OF PROPOSAL
A second problem with the proposal is that neighbors will quarrel over whether they want a trail for equestrians or a dance recital hall or a new park. The advocates of special structures are much more tightly organized for their special projects, and the advocates of adequate parklands are diffuse and unorganized. Neighborhoods will split over these expenditures, conflict will emerge, and neighborhood associations will be destroyed by this issue.

We badly need adequate parklands for young and old people -- we do not need to engage in community brawling over which project should receive funding. Let's keep a clear mind about this proposal, and ask the city council to maintain the present long-standing policy of using "developer park in lieu fees" for parks.

HEARINGS
There will be a community meeting in city hall, Room 204, on 1/19/05 at 7:00 PM to discuss this proposal. If you attend, watch out because the parks department spokesmen are confusing in the way they present the proposal. You will need to pay particular attention to what is said about diversion because that portion of the proposal is often soft-pedaled even though it is the most basic change in parklands policy in a quarter century.

The city council committee ("Driving A Strong Economy Committee") will consider the proposal on 1/24/05 at 3:00 PM in room 204 of city hall. This is probably the most important hearing to attend if you can attend only one. At this meeting you will see city council members discuss and vote. They will allow only two minutes for any testimony so if you have remarks of longer duration, please bring written comments for the record.