… IN A MEMORABLE CLASH OF MEMORIES
Once again, Wildomar Magazine provides a public dais for the discussion about parks in Wildomar. On the one hand, Steve Beutz, ultimate author of the litigation that eliminated the $28 per year tax assessment that maintained Marna O’Brien Park, Windsong Park and Heritage Park offers his recollections for our consideration.
In this and the previous article, which can be seen below, Beutz provides insight into the why and wherefore of his litigation.
After the first article was published, John Garrett, local astronomer, desired to rebut some of the interview with Beutz.
Naturally, graciously as well as generously, for the good of the community, Wildomar Magazine made its pages available for such a rebuttal.
However, in order to be fair, Zak Turango invited Beutz to respond to John Garrett’s rebuttal. Said rebuttal is reproduced in its entirety as resubmitted to Wildomar Magazine by Beutz, as follows:
| Gil, please see the responses by Steve Beutz in blue: 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. WildomarMagazine 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: 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. I was indeed surprised at the course of action chosen by the committee, not at the prospect of a park near my home, but rather that the regional park already near my home, which had been planned for baseball fields and purchased using a combination of taxpayer money and a donation from the Potter Family Trust, specifically and only to be used for open-space recreational activities, was being abandoned in favor of a white-elephant community college campus. 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.) The neighborhood where I live is named “Parkside” Estates, not “Collegeside” Estates – enough said. 3. He alluded to CEQA (the Califoria Environmental Quality Act) as a means at his disposal. When government officials who are called upon to enforce environmental laws make exceptions for themselves, the law itself is often the only remedy left to the common citizen. 4. And to me, he said, “They [meaning the committee] won’t know what hit them.” True, I did say this, but it was not a reference to the committee, but rather to any government entities with designs on shortcutting the same legal obligations that we as citizens are expected to follow. 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 am informed that the good people of Lakeland Village are still trying to figure out how millions of dollars of RDA funds legally mandated to be used to combat blight conditions within their RDA boundaries were used instead to refurbish Marna O’Brien Park, which is not even located within the Lakeland Village Wildomar Redevelopment Project Area. Perhaps a future expose for Zak Turango? Another quandary, why is it that of the 4 original Ortega Trail Recreation and Park District (OTRPD) parks, the County refused to refurbish or open any of the 3 Wildomar parks (Marna O’Brien, Windsong & Regency) until after Wildomar residents approved the formation of an illegal assessment district to tax themselves, yet the 1 former OTRPD park located in Lakeland Village (Perret) has been fully refurbished and maintained by the County from general fund revenues for years with no assessments at all? jg As a matter of courtesy, Wildomar Magazine invites a |
Comments can be made to zakturango@excite.com.
Wildomar Magazine 