HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-01-2017 PRC Item 3, Small (2)U
MAR 01 2017
CLERK
From: Camille Small [
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 2:07 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>
Subject: Please post with Parks and Recreation Agenda Correspondence Item #3 for March 1, 2017
February 28, 2017
Dear Parks and Recreation Commissioners,
I wish to bring to light a few facts regarding your request to take
funds from the account for the North Broad Park. I learned that there was an account held
in the past in the amount of $500,000 which no longer exists. As you have heard from the
people near the area, no park exists. Towns/cities with the most appeal have parks. It
should be a "right" in each geographical area. In fact it is as the General Plan calls for one!
A place to recreate and to `gather' is an asset for every age group. Any reading one does will
assert that it contributes to the health and welfare of residents.
Each time the group of people in the North Broad area cited any piece of land that might
become a park, they were told by the City there was no money. When misinformation
surfaced that 71 Palomar could have been obtained by the City, the North Broad people
hoped beyond hope there could be a park. It seems `beyond hope' now may mean hopeless.
I know you have a heart for other important goals, including fencing for
an area of a park to become a Dog Park. By the way, thank you to the Commissioner who
corrected my thinking by explaining it wasn't a new piece of land for a dog park, but rather
a portion of an existing park. Great
thinking. Perhaps you have an idea of what fencing will cost and whether
those funds are available at this time. I know lighted tennis courts is a sought-after item
that will also take finances.
I'm sorry if it was an irritation to Chair Whitener (in fact, made him angry) this 'deposit' was
made to the North Broad group. Perhaps he and others
of you were not aware how long these people had been asking/pleading for a park. I
personally thought more of the excess Measure Y funds could have gone to programs for
residents --such as Parks and Rec. Instead 3 million went to a new computer program and
additional monies to other administrative benefits.
We (the "resident advocates" I work with) are for anything to benefit permanent residents
and against anything that harms them. We and your Commission are not on opposite sides
of any issue. We should not be unfairly labeled "anti development". We defend residents
who have a poorly planned project threatening quality of life. We always support fair
treatment for all residents in all areas of town. The egregious projects currently a
detriment are 22 Chorro and 71 Palomar. The reason they are negative is very easy
to explain (and we would like all residents to know). They are for students who will rent
there at $1,000 a bed (2 bedrooms/2 beds each room) Yes, developers are driving up rental
1
prices. And _just so you know, as residents, the housing we hear as "needed" is for young
professionals and families. Not dorm -like apartments in town. Cal Poly is responsible for
housing thousands more students and has done this town a great disservice by
lagging. The result is investors causing house prices to increase dramatically because they
have thousands of clients they can
over -charge. Families cannot compete in this market.
Details you may not be interested in but are really disastrous: up to 100 students will live
at 22 Chorro with 33 parking spaces in a 4 STORY BUILDING that should be 2
story. There is a remnant of a' real' residential area nearby. Do we feel sorry for them?
YES!
When so many permanent residents have left the area due to the flood of student rentals in
R-1 neighborhoods, we are desperate to protect those who are left. The same goes for 71
Palomar --right across the street from
R-1. There will be up to 150 students (with 67 parking spaces).
Hopefully you are capable of caring and will applaud us for our advocacy instead of blaming
us .... for that we would be grateful.
It occurs to me a park for an entire area of town would benefit many people. That doesn't
rule anything out; it rules another item in. Fair is just that—fair. The ultimate result is
neighborhood wellness which we know is a positive.
When we appeared before you to advocate `banking' the money granted by the Council for
the future park, it was done to "mark" the money for its intended use... and to not have it
disappear (again). Now suggesting taking up to $200,000 for a `consultant' is not fair. If it
is ever money wrongly taken from a Park and Rec. program, please notify us and be
assured we willl go to bat for you!
Thank you,
Camille Small