Selected Santa Rosa Press Democrat Press Democrat August 22, 1999 Editorial Notebook Shameful
shortage of Pete Golis Which county contains more land for public use? Marin or Sonoma? If you guessed Sonoma, you would be making the logical assumption that a place with three times the land area, twice the population and an open space tax must contain more public use lands. But you'd be wrong. Marin has almost three times the accessible lands -- 141,280 acres in Marin, 50,677 acres in Sonoma. This embarrassing disparity emerges, in part, from Marin County's foresight and commitment. But it also testifies to Sonoma County government's longstanding ambivalence about public lands. Absent popular demand, elected officials will tilt toward well-heeled interest groups who make friends in high places and tend to live in fear of the great unwashed. If there is a difference between Marin and Sonoma, it is this: Marin believes in the value of public spaces and the capacity of people to be good stewards of the land. On Tuesday night, when the Board of Supervisors convenes a workshop on outdoor recreation (7 pm, county administration center), we will begin to learn whether public policy in Sonoma County is going to change. Ten years after enactment of an open space tax, the shortage of trails, natural preserves, and regional, community and neighborhood parks has only gotten worse. No one would have predicted that, but the fact is virtually nothing from the first decade's revenues, $80 million, has been spent on public recreation. In the same time, public use of existing parks and trails has increased six times as fast as the population. The Sonoma County Outdoor Recreation Plan, a study three years in preparation, says we will need an additional 1,000 acres of state parks, 398 acres of regional recreation areas, 5,246 acres of open space parks, 6,300 acres of preserves, 269.7 of trails, and assorted neighborhood and community parks just to avoid falling further behind. Money will always be an issue (putting aside for the moment that Marin manages very well). The new study estimates new projects will cost $55.2 million for acquisition, $54.4 million for development and $2.6 million for annual maintenance. But the biggest impediment remains the groups that don't want open space revenues, now $13 million annually, spent on public recreation. For one group of environmentalists and ranchers, money invested in open space parks, ball fields and trails mean less money to buy open space development rights -- less money for their private piggy bank. No one argues against spending most of the tax revenue on open space protection. This money represents part of the public commitment to maintain greenbelts between cities. But the public is wondering whether any money will be set aside for public lands. Do we tax a low-income family for a pair of children's shoes so that we can pay a millionaire for the development rights on a remote property that isn't going to be developed anyway? If popular support for the open space tax fades, it will be because people see the wealthy being compensated -- without public benefit. Meanwhile, another group of ranchers and farmers continues to use its political influence to block efforts to purchase trail easements. Experience in places such as Marin County teaches their fears are unfounded, but many rural property owners continue to believe parks and trails are the source of all kinds of horrors -- vandalism, theft, fires, lawsuits. Making matters worse, the trail issue is caught up in the bitterness associated with efforts by the City of Petaluma to allow the public to use city-owned Lafferty Ranch atop Sonoma Mountain. Neighboring rancher Peter Pfendler has deployed a legion of attorneys, lobbyists and planners not only to stop the city but to spread the word about the evils of public access. His message: Just look what government is doing to me. Never mind that the public is seeking access to its own property. Trail advocates are eager to tell private landowners the good news about voluntary trail easements. The oldest trail organization, the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council, publishes a handbook that details success stories, outlines the potential benefits and debunks the horror stories. (For a copy, contact Bay Area Ridge Trail Council, 28 O'Farrell St., 4th floor, San Francisco 94108. Phone: (415) 391-9300. E-mail: ridgetrail@aol.com. Web site: http://www.ridgetrail.org ) Unfortunately, politics and old prejudices keep getting in the way. The benefits of public spaces are too many to mention here. Civilized societies draw their strength from providing people places to contemplate a sunset, catch a fish, picnic with their families, kick a soccer ball, paddle a canoe, hike to a mountain top. Public places are also money in the bank -- a major attraction for a growing tourism industry. Twenty years ago, a series of new parks -- Sugarloaf, Hood Mountain, Annadel, Spring Lake, Russian Gulch, Salt Point -- testified that state and county governments understood the responsibility to provide public recreation. In recent years, we don't have much to show for our efforts, save new parks extracted as part of new subdivisions. With new curbs on development, this source of new parks is soon to disappear. On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors has the opportunity for a new start, signaling Sonoma County's eagerness to expand recreation by adding new parks and daring to encourage private land owners to consider trail easements. We don't need to be afraid.
Press Democrat September 2, 1999 Editorial Lafferty trail Supervisor Mike Kerns would benefit from re-reading Sonoma County's draft Outdoor Recreation Plan. The plan's purpose, as stated clearly in the first line, is to "facilitate cooperation and coordination among agencies in planning, acquiring, managing and funding outdoor recreation facilities in Sonoma County and to provide public access ...'' Yet despite this clarion call for a unified front, Kerns and the rest of the board appear determined to let Petaluma go it alone when it comes to the county's most hotly debated -- and most crucial -- open space debate: Lafferty Ranch. The complex county plan, part blueprint and part dream, includes a call for 1,000 more acres of state parks, 5,246 more acres of passive open space lands, and nearly 270 miles of unpaved multi-use trails. But it does not mention the single-most desired trail in the county, one linking Lafferty Ranch and Jack London State Park over pristine Sonoma Mountain. Three members of the Petaluma City Council showed up at Tuesday's hearing to urge the supervisors to include the trail. The trail was on the plan's map at one time, but under pressure from private property owners opposed to public access, it was erased. In response, Kerns was detached if not provincial. "If the City Council wants to make Lafferty a park, go ahead and do it,'' he said. "I'm not going to get into that ... I'm not going to get involved.'' Kerns is wrong if he believes this is Petaluma's battle alone to fight. If the county is as committed to open space as it ought to be, it should be supporting Petaluma at every turn and working to overcome the damage done by rancher Peter Pfendler, the principal opponent to public access. Despite Pfendler's augury, people who hike are not a risk. They are there because they love the land, as much if not more than nearby private property owners. The attorney for the property owners is right in noting that the problem with putting a trail across Lafferty is that it would cross over active farmland. That's why this proposal calls for putting a line on a map, not building a trail. A trail over Sonoma Mountain is still just an idea. But it's a worthy dream for Sonoma County -- one that belongs with the others.
Press Democrat Editorial, Thursday, September 16, 1999 A new path It's time to bury
overheated rhetoric The idea of a trail over Sonoma Mountain risked being obscured by the purple haze associated with Petaluma's Lafferty Ranch controversy. Fortunately, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, including Petaluma Supervisor Mike Kerns, saw through the smoke and mirrors, recognizing that trails and Lafferty Ranch are separate issues. On Tuesday, the board agreed that a Sonoma Mountain trail should be included in a $110 million, 20-year outdoor recreation plan. The fears of land owners are much overblown, probably because they remain caught up in bitterness associated with Petaluma's efforts to transform Lafferty Ranch into a natural preserve. In reality, ranchers have nothing to fear from a line on a map. No trail on Sonoma Mountain, or anywhere else, is going to pass through private property without the agreement of that property owner. When a small group of Sonoma Mountain ranchers and their lawyer, Steve Butler, threaten to sue, they aren't defending property rights. They are trying to claim what no reasonable judge will grant them -- the right to dictate what their neighbors decide about public access. That's a usurpation of property righis, not a defense. At the same time, trail advocates need to take a few deep breaths as well. The fact is, trail development will remain a small part of the plan. Money is limited. The number of property owners offering easements is small -- which isn't likely to change so long as the tone of the debate remains just this side of hysterical. In the future, more land owners will discover they have nothing to fear from public trails properly managed, but it will take patience and goodwill on all sides. This recreation plan, the product of three years of deliberations, will not transform Sonoma County overnight. Most of all, we have yet to find the money to pay for it. Still, it identifies what needs to be done, and it is not in doubt that Sonoma County needs more public spaces -- natural parks, playing fields and trails. As has been noted before, neighboring Marin County, with half the population and a third of the land area, has three times the public spaces that exist in Sonoma County. The adoption of this new plan commits local government to correcting this embarrassing disparity. |
