Rainbow Terrace Endorses Measure 3-568

The Citizens’ initiative builds upon Springbrook Park’s Charter protections to explicitly define the natural parks, their boundaries, and the limitations on development. Anything not prohibited would follow standard city practices, such as master planning, management planning, and city ordinances.

Charter protections provide consistency across time with changing Mayors, City Council members, and City staff by placing the custody of change with voters.

The City’s referendum deviates from Springbrook’s Charter protections by moving certain protections, such as which natural parks, their boundaries, other uses, and facilities to city ordinances.

City ordinances can be changed at any time by City Council with a 4-3 (simple majority vote).

To put that into perspective, the multiple attempts to expand the tennis center into Springbrook Park would have hypothetically been possible under such a scenario by City Council altering the Springbrook’s boundaries by ordinance.

The Citizens’ initiative emphasizes the preservation of natural areas for the enjoyment of all. It lays out a straightforward standard for development: “consistent with the preservation of a Nature Preserve as a natural area available for public enjoyment.”

The City’s referendum talks a good game but then pulls present charter protections from Springbrook and gives only illusory protections to it and the remaining “natural areas” owned by the City.

The Citizen’s initiative is explicit on what is included within charter protection.

The City’s referendum, however, is not. By definition, the boundary of any natural area, if any, will only be decided by City Council and not until after the election. You, the citizen, will have no or little say over what will be selected. If a seller said to you, hey, I’ll decide after a deed is recorded just exactly what I have sold you, how foolish would that be?

The Citizens’ initiative forbids cutting trees to facilitate development but does allow activities appropriate for “a Nature Preserve for the purposes of ecological restoration that provides a safe and healthy natural area that is accessible for public enjoyment, provides a healthy habitat for wildlife, eliminates invasive species, restores native species, and mitigates fire hazards.” Really, how more candid can a provision be?

The City’s referendum, by definition, would allow tree removal (by whom isn’t said) on a mile-wide standard of “advancing overall health of the forest” and to promote “ecosystem restoration.” Given the City’s record of taking no real steps to stop big tree removals, is trust in order?

The Citizens’ initiative is comprehensive on what constitutes telecommunications and would not allow further development “of any Athletic Facility, any Telecommunications Facility, or any parking lot, road, or trail for motorized vehicles within a Nature Preserve.”

The City’s referendum on what constitutes a telecommunication facility is very limited. Further, any limitations on development are all for new athletic facilities, commercial logging, construction of streets and telecommunication facilities. So whatever facility is there now, can be expanded.

For example, the tennis center could well spill out further — which Chapter X has prevented recently. It is not at all clear how much more parking would be allowed, at least, as an adjunct to the tennis center. Is this not what Springbrook was trying to avoid in 1978 and even 2018? More traffic from an overcrowded tennis center? More loss of trees from parking? More infringement on houses bordering the park?

The Citizens’ initiative actually gives far more management directives than our present Chapter X. The natural conditions of a Nature Preserve are actually respected through meaningful charter protection not vague messaging.

If the City did not implicitly recognize this, too, why is the explanatory statement in the voters’ pamphlet anything but the actual contents of their referendum?

Supposedly all of the decisions affecting the natural areas would be made, again later, after an “environmental assessment’ by Parks and Recreation Department and the corresponding advisory board. Aside from the lack of assurance of adequate expertise, this provision requires a trust in leadership, both elected and staff. It should require trained foresters.