Loading...
Agenda Item - 2021-06-15 - Number 4. - Public Comment - Theresa Kohlhoff From: Theresa Kohlhoff To: Council Distribution Cc: Theresa kohlhoff Subject: Agenda item 7.3,Proposed Referendum Date: Tuesday,June 15,2021 8:50:12 AM "If the Council agrees that Charter protections for the 15 parks and natural areas listed by the petitioners are appropriate,the City Council may consider referring a charter amendment to accomplish the same goal with some of the identified issues resolved." P 3 Para 3 This sentence is disingenuous. The draft referendum in no way accomplishes the goals of the Love LO Parks which is now in the process of being qualified for the ballot in November. The goal was to maintain and extend Springbrook's protections to the other parks. What this referendum does is to take away Springbrook's charter protections and then set up a much diluted charter amendment that is more messaging than substance. Springbrook is only a thorn in the side of the city,not to the citizens. This assertion is unacceptable on the face of it and although presented in a non-transparent way to council will be extremely obvious to any voter. The Love LO Parks initiative is looking to stop the kind of development that took place at Woodmont. The net result however it occurred was that one evening the area was natural and the next morning it was completed graded. Much could be said but not one time,that at least some of us heard,did we hear an explanation on how this happened or an admission. Iron Mountain Park is another example of a city park which features play ground equipment and impervious surfaces,extended parking and"native grasses." It hits a person like a thud. The very point of the initiative is to not have the remaining park lands developed the way the past parks have been. There is a place for both,agreed,but without the charter protections afforded Springbrook they've all look the same. The same rationales(stewardship and education)will be used to remove trees,to make"improvements"and basically destroy the preserve aspect. A further sore point is the referendum's use of the disabled as a poster child. The fact that the ADA was not mentioned in the initiative is probably because it was logical to think that the ADA applied to Springbrook and would apply to the other parks as well. Compliance with ADA does not require only hard surface trails. I cannot emphasize enough how those who actually are disabled or have a disabled person in their lives will see through the referendum's unwelcome use of this condition to sell it to an unwitting voter. It's hard to imagine what would not pass if the city was allowed to develop property-specific master plans. Supposedly there would be extensive public involvement. Are we saying the plans in the past have allowed pro forma public involvement? "Property-specific master plans could spell out other facilities that would be allowed, such as safety features,limited parking lots,or facilities that support restoration and public access." If this is the standard-a balancing of preservation of ecological functions while providing public access and enjoyment-then given its breadth,there clearly will be no standard. This is business as usual. An example of why this is the case is the recent struggle over the expansion of the tennis center in Springbrook. The application to the DRC included an over expansion of parking on the notion that neighbors were against users of the facility spilling over into the neighborhood. Two maples and a fir were to be cut down for parking and for storm water management purposes. The neighbors were out of luck regarding the speeding and increased traffic on Diane Drive because the development was not, incorrectly, considered an increased use. If you are increasing capacity,you are increasing use. This matter got settled at the DRC level: the parking was decreased,the trees saved(one DRC member on first glance saw a way to achieve the storm water issue without cutting down the trees,it was that obvious)and the speeding cars? It really appears that residents of the street have been parking their cars along that winding street. The relevance of this example is that in the process of coming to that settlement,the neighborhood once again was taught that even with a uniquely qualified,motivated and volunteer challenger putting in extensive time,the position of the city was to do exactly what it wanted. Only the power of actual litigation over informal interpretations succeeded,this time. One has to wonder if the strength of Springbrook's charter which thwarted some of the city's plans is why the referendum includes replacing it with the proposed toothless referendum. The bottom line: Why on earth would citizens ever knowingly willingly put themselves in this wounded position without the protections of the Springbrook charter? Why would they not want those protections-meaningful protections-for the remaining preserves available to them? In may be that the city would have more"flexibility"but that is exactly why the Love LO Parks initiative is so important. There are plenty of developed parks now. Once developed,natural areas cannot be unpreserved. Leaving them protected is the way forward. I appreciate your early attention to this matter. Thank you.