6. Open Space Home Page Perhaps
the most debatable issue of this campaign is the use of RPV open space.
My definition of open space includes parks, recreation fields, golf courses
and beaches as well as areas of natural habitat. PVP Land Conservancy
(PVPLC), SOC II and associated organizations have a common vision to "preserve
undeveloped land in perpetuity as open space for historical, educational,
ecological, recreational and scenic purposes". Unfortunately, their
definition of recreation often excludes most of the above noted items.
While I enjoy and encourage hiking and nature walks the number of people
who use existing areas for this purpose is a very small percentage of
the RPV population of 42,000. However, the Palos Verdes Loop Trail promoted
by Sunshine and others is an incredibly great asset. None of the other
3 Peninsula cities have dedicated open space acreage anywhere near that
of RPV and many of the members of the noted organizations live outside
RPV or even the Palos Verdes Peninsula. They see our city as the open
space mecca for the South Bay at our expense. (1) The land is a mix of buildable and non-buildable areas and the estimated $40,000/acre appears to be a nice bailout for the developers whereas some safe development could result in the use of a major part of the 700+ acres at little or no cost. (2) The $1M of RPV tax monies is only a down payment. To date the NCCP has cost RPV taxpayers almost $300,000 plus another $295,000 in state and federal grants (tax money). Additionally, $60,000 has been committed to pay for a lobbyist and at least $125,000 per year for maintenance. The PVPLC contribution is generally calculated in volunteer time while the RPV contribution is measured in your real tax dollars and is only the visible part of past and future costs. (3) Although
some "open space" is considered reserved for passive and active
recreation any mention of the latter is almost always attacked by some
group as violating conditional use language, Although the PVPLC is not
as extreme as other groups it does not have a strong record of moderation.
White Point in San Pedro is a good example where the use of a couple of
acres out of 102 for playing fields and a dog park were not included in
their plan. The site has been fenced off for decades with No Trespassing
signs and after being approved 4 years ago only $1M has been raised for
the project. Meanwhile most walkers, bike riders and our youth use the
beautiful area across the street including the lone baseball diamond in
the area. In fairness a few playing fields and a small dog park were included
in other areas of San Pedro. I support the expenditure
of your tax dollars in the above areas after city safety and infrastructure
are fully funded and the needs of our youth and seniors are definitively
committed in the City's plans. |