Chris Coursey column published in the Press Democrat Friday, July 28, 2000

Park plan caught up in politics

I don't read minds.

Still, I have to think the majority of our Sonoma County supervisors are being a bit disingenuous when they claim politics wasn't driving their decision this week to halt work on a $100 million parks plan until after voters decide on the Rural Heritage Initiative in November.

Politics not only was behind the wheel, it provided the fuel.

The supervisors, after all, are politicians. They are engaged in a political campaign. Those who voted to back-burner the park plan also oppose the Rural Heritage Initiative, which would strip them of much of their power to make land-use decisions.

The park plan, meanwhile, occupies a special place in the hearts of the environmental groups that bring the RHI to the November ballot.

This is about as raw as politics gets.

I don't begrudge a politician being political. But please, Supervisors Cale, Kelley and Smith, don't insult us by passing off political moves as prudent governance. The veneer is too thin.

Let's take a look at the background.

Environmental groups and individuals for the past few years have reveled in firing broadsides at the supervisors from a variety of angles. The board has been scorched as pro-development, insensitive to concerns about the Russian River and, most vociferously, "in the pocket" of the wine industry.

Supervisors -- not without some reason -- feel the attacks are unfair.

Attacks, though, can be shrugged off. All three supervisors who faced re-election this year won easily in the March primary.

But the stakes changed with the introduction of the RHI. Environmentalists mobilized a signature-gathering campaign that forced supervisors to place on the November ballot a measure that requires a countywide vote of the people in order to change land use in rural areas. Essentially, the initiative says the Board of Supervisors can no longer be trusted with land use decisions.

Now the supervisors are not shrugging.

Board members -- particularly Mike Cale and Tim Smith -- have lashed out at the measure at every opportunity. Cale has been disdainful of not just the RHI, but its framers, and at times his public remarks have come accompanied by red-faced rage. Smith has been slightly more temperate, but still hasn't hidden his anger at the measure.

The board's opponents of the RHI -- Paul Kelley and Mike Kerns round out the majority -- immediately seized on the portion of the measure that deals with parks. While supporters highlight that the initiative is designed to prevent residential sprawl into agricultural areas, it also apparently requires elections to create parks in such areas, unless those parks are limited to "non-intrusive recreational or educational uses, such as hiking or nature study."

Supervisors have complained that language favors parks for greenies and nature lovers, while parks for soccer players or roller bladers are relegated to the same status as subdivisions and sewer plants. RHI backers, on the other hand, argue that the county rarely develops high-intensity parks in agricultural areas, so the initiative's impact on parks will be minimal. If a good park does fall under the initiative, the public will vote for it, proponents say.

Still, the lone supervisor who supports the RHI, Mike Reilly, last month attempted to defuse the park issue. He suggested that his colleagues place a companion measure on the November ballot that would exempt new parks from provisions of the RHI.

The idea went nowhere.

Why not? If the board majority really wanted to move ahead with the park plan, wouldn't it make sense to try to fix any potential problems posed by the RHI? Wouldn't good governance indicate the wisdom of adding a non-threatening companion measure to protect parks alongside what likely will be a victorious RHI?

Or, does it better serve political purposes to hang ambiguous parks language around the RHI in an effort to highlight its shortcomings?

You don't have to be a mind reader to answer those questions.

Call Coursey at 707-521-5223 or e-mail ccoursey@pressdemo.com