I am disturbed by the city’s referendum which would strip away Springbrook Park’s charter protection — and preclude this protection to the remaining parks — while professing to be “protecting” natural areas. This is double talk.
Over the years, Springbrook has been maintained and has had trails wide enough for emergency vehicles to drive through, whether for wildfire suppression or extra water. As is, it has worked even with the overused-for-the-space tennis center inappropriately placed there decades ago. The ADA applies there and an accommodation was made at the first of 2021 for a little more parking as opposed to the excessive parking the Parks and Rec had wanted. So just what problem does it have that the city now frantically wants to fix by snatching away its charter protection?
Springbrook is what has existed and been appreciated since 1978. If you haven’t been there, do go. It is a wonderful place to walk through. The citizen’s initiative merely brings the remaining undeveloped parks into this protected status. The city’s referendum did not spring up spontaneously. It was a calculated attack against a true citizen’s initiative to limit development. The overwhelming embrace by the various allied/advisory groups for the city’s referendum is not a sign that it will benefit the land or the regular citizens. It only benefits them. Answering the question “Who decides” clears up a lot of confusion.
Finally, in order to save Springbrook, and to extend the same charter protection to the remaining parks, you need to vote yes on the citizen’s initiative, measure 3-568, but you also have to vote no on the city’s competing referendum. Whichever of the two gets the greater number of affirmative votes will win.
With Theresa Kohlhoff’s permission, we have reproduced her Reader Letter for your convenience and for those who don’t subscribe to the LO Review. Read her letter in the LO Review here: