#65, April 4, 2001
Things were looking up for Lafferty Park. In seven days, the
City was scheduled to formally approve the project. Volunteers were signing up
for trail building, and the Friends of Lafferty Park group was halfway to it's
initial fundraising goal.
That's when our Board of Supervisors decided that the City,
whose project would increase traffic by about 15%, should bear the cost of improving Sonoma Mountain Road to Stony
Point Road standards, or be sued. This, despite 30 years of road neglect by the
County; despite the other steep and narrow, windier and busier County roads to
parks, roads that get improved to the County's satisfaction by installation of
warning signs; despite Lafferty's designation as a park site in the County's
General Plan. "I can't think of any County Board of Supervisors which has
ever threatened to sue a city for helping it implement its General Plan,"
said local business owner Hank Zucker.
So now everyone waits three months while the City develops a
litigation-proof response to the County. And you wonder, why is Lafferty taking
so long, and costing so much?
But I'll forgive our Supervisors, on one condition. They
must seize a wondeful opportunity to help them achieve their General
Plan mandate for open space parks and preservation, to help save the OSD, to
help open Lafferty park (to all County residents) at no additional cost to the City,
and provide substantial additional funding for recreation projects in Petaluma.
All this without raising taxes or tapping General Funds.
Petaluma is about 1800 acres short of its 2010 County
General Plan goal for open space park acreage, which itself is only half of the
Bay Area average. But our Open Space District (OSD) has spent only 3% of the
$22 million collected from south county taxpayers on recreation projects. The
OSD, responding to widespread criticism for failing to address its open space
parks mandate, is changing its rules and priorities. Now, it will purchase land
"fee simple" for parks. It even buys development rights from public owners,
as it did at the Sonoma Development Center. But in the 2nd district, good park
sites are scarce and very expensive.
Meanwhile, Petaluma faces expensive roadblocks erected by
the Lafferty Park opponents, who seem confident they can win a courtroom war of
attrition. If, for lack of funds, this Council falters, a future City Council
could face the additional expense updating the EIR. They might then
follow the advice some citizens now offer: sell the property to a developer,
and use the proceeds to help fix City streets.
Here's the solution: the OSD buys the development rights on
Lafferty, discounted to $1 million. The OSD has now forever protected Lafferty
from development, fulfilling one of its mandates. That, by itself, justifies
the purchase. But the City could give the County a bigger benefit by earmarking
the proceeds for opening Lafferty Park. That ensures the City will not abandon
Lafferty Park for lack of courtroom or road work funds. And it just might
pressure the opponents to stop their scorched earth campaign, freeing the most
of the million bucks for local ball fields and parkland projects.
Thus, the County makes the 270 acre "jewel of Sonoma
Mountain" accessible to its citizens, instead of leaving it vulnerable to
ridgetop eyesore homes. (Added bonus: Lafferty has a completed EIR and an
enthusiastic volunteer support group, further reducing expenses.) What better
open space parkland deal could the OSD get for a million bucks, regardless of
where they spent it? And it would dispel the OSD's reputation as merely a cash
cow for wealthy landowners.
I'm disappointed to read Supervisor Kerns dismissed this
proposal as a "ploy to get money for road improvements." Mike,
Petalumans live in the 2nd district, too. This is our tax
money in the OSD account, Lafferty is public property alongside a public
road. Getting public money for public benefit is not a "ploy"--
it's taxpayer justice.
It's time for the County to stop treating Lafferty as the
bastard stepchild, inventing excuse after excuse for abandoning it to Peter
Pfendler. Supervisor Kerns, give us some representation to justify our
taxation.