…. IN RESPONSE TO WILDOMAR MAGAZINE INTERVIEW
A local community volunteer, John Garrett, Wildomar Magazine’s favorite astronomer, has responded to the earlier Steve Beutz interview (Below, you put 28 2011), as follows:
John’s arguendo is reprinted, without any editing by Zak. Wildomar Magazine is happy to facilitate rational discussion/debate in such an important issue as our park assessment, which is currently “front and center” with the June 07, 2011 ballot Measure D.
“Some of the events described in your post Apri 28, 2011 conflict with observations I made the first time I met Steve Buetz at what appeared to be his first meeting with the Wildomar Parks Committee. This meeting was after January 2004 and before any discussion of an assessment district for parks (and incorporation of Wildomar was even farther away). This was also the first time that I met Steve.
The strategy for establishing parks at this time (and this was being discussed in the meeting) was to leverage San Jacinto College’s interest in land on the East of I-15 to create a regional sports park in the same area, much similar to the park of Steve’s desire described in your interview. Steve’s reaction to this plan, however, was quite memorable:
The strategy for establishing parks at this time (and this was being discussed in the meeting) was to leverage San Jacinto College’s interest in land on the East of I-15 to create a regional sports park in the same area, much similar to the park of Steve’s desire described in your interview. Steve’s reaction to this plan, however, was quite memorable:
1. He demonstrated astonishment and incredulity at the committee by say words to the effect “What! You want the [college project]?” – his tone implying that he was surprised the Parks committee wanted to create a park near his home.
2. He explained his objection to the park East of I-15 thus: he and other home owners in that area “paid a premium” for their homes on the understanding that they would be residing next “to open space”. (Quotes are his words that I remember clearly.)
3. He alluded to CEQA (the Califoria Environmental Quality Act) as a means at his disposal.
4. And to me, he said, “They [meaning the committee] won’t know what hit them.”
So, this was either his first encounter with the parks committee, or posturing to make it look so. He came prepared to threaten with legal action (CEQA and “won’t know what hit them”). And he missed a great opportunity to clarify that his objection was to the college (if that) and not to the park. It is possible that his objection was to the college as part of the package, as that would have a big impact on his neighborhood.
However, if this were the case, I’m astonished that he did not clarify this common objective at the time. Instead he mentioned invoking CEQA and citing his promise of “open space,” which in this case I inferred to mean “untouched” rather than open like a park or golf course.
I regret not knowing the exact date of this meeting, as a lot happened after it: e.g., the regional park was removed from the plan in favor or refurbishing and opening the existing parks; and a parks assessment was planned and passed. I know this meeting was recently after I was elected to the Lakeland Village/Wildomar Redevelopment Project Area Committee (RDA PAC). The RDA PAC, by the way, provided $8.1 million for opening Marna O’Brien, Regency, and Peret parks. The RDA comprises mostly the area west of Corydon and Palomar roads, so this contribution should be included when arguing how money each part of the community has contributed to the greater community’s assets.”
jg
As a matter of courtesy, Wildomar Magazine invites a Steve Beutz’ response to the above, for the edification of my always curious readers.
Comments can be made to zakturango@excite.com.
Wildomar Magazine 