Everybody likes parks. We all want good parks for our children to play in. We want good parks for ourselves to have good recreation in (as opposed to bad recreation?). Politically speaking, everyone has to be for parks—just as they are for schools and firefighters and the environment.
That said, I’m as much a self-proclaimed and proud tax and spend liberal as anyone, but there are also budgetary realities and sometimes you have to really question the choices that are being made about city spending.
There is growing concern about the structural constraints of the budget—too much money being automatically tied up in ever-growing city staff salaries. Again, we do not begrudge people their livelihood but we have to question choices that are being made.
Claire St. John’s article last night demonstrates just such a problem. Tonight, the City Council will consider hiring consultants at a cost of between $50,000 and $75,000 to update the Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan (adopted in 1998) and “create a survey to learn how residents can be better served by their parks.”
So we are going to pay a consultant to take a survey to learn how residents can be better served by their parks? Is this why we passed a park tax?
When the city council decided to hire an ombudsman, one reason that they created a part-time rather than full-time position, was the lack of money. Parks are important, but one has to question the priorities of the council in this matter. Granted this is undoubtedly one-time money, but it is not clear that this is the most pressing need for the city at this point—to survey residents about parks.
Meanwhile there is the heated battle brewing over the use of public tennis courts and whether the Davis Tennis Club should have permission to reserve tennis courts in Walnut Park for league play.
I do not agree with Don Saylor very often, however, he did make a couple of good points at the last meeting. The first was that the Parks and Recreation Commission had a full hearing on the tennis court issue and rendered a recommendation. Perhaps, the council should have heeded that recommendation rather than rehearing the issue. The second point was that council was bringing up a large number of items that required staff preparation work, and that perhaps the council ought to start prioritizing the items they agendize. The rest of the council clearly disagreed with Saylor, but he did have a valid point.
The council needs to recognize that they have a very limited budget. We all love parks and we enjoy having nice parks, but sometimes you cannot simply spend money to create a survey about park usage. There are priorities and there are more pressing concerns that need to be addressed and deserve funding opportunities long before we start hiring Park Consultants to design surveys.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
That said, I’m as much a self-proclaimed and proud tax and spend liberal as anyone, but there are also budgetary realities and sometimes you have to really question the choices that are being made about city spending.
There is growing concern about the structural constraints of the budget—too much money being automatically tied up in ever-growing city staff salaries. Again, we do not begrudge people their livelihood but we have to question choices that are being made.
Claire St. John’s article last night demonstrates just such a problem. Tonight, the City Council will consider hiring consultants at a cost of between $50,000 and $75,000 to update the Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan (adopted in 1998) and “create a survey to learn how residents can be better served by their parks.”
So we are going to pay a consultant to take a survey to learn how residents can be better served by their parks? Is this why we passed a park tax?
When the city council decided to hire an ombudsman, one reason that they created a part-time rather than full-time position, was the lack of money. Parks are important, but one has to question the priorities of the council in this matter. Granted this is undoubtedly one-time money, but it is not clear that this is the most pressing need for the city at this point—to survey residents about parks.
Meanwhile there is the heated battle brewing over the use of public tennis courts and whether the Davis Tennis Club should have permission to reserve tennis courts in Walnut Park for league play.
I do not agree with Don Saylor very often, however, he did make a couple of good points at the last meeting. The first was that the Parks and Recreation Commission had a full hearing on the tennis court issue and rendered a recommendation. Perhaps, the council should have heeded that recommendation rather than rehearing the issue. The second point was that council was bringing up a large number of items that required staff preparation work, and that perhaps the council ought to start prioritizing the items they agendize. The rest of the council clearly disagreed with Saylor, but he did have a valid point.
The council needs to recognize that they have a very limited budget. We all love parks and we enjoy having nice parks, but sometimes you cannot simply spend money to create a survey about park usage. There are priorities and there are more pressing concerns that need to be addressed and deserve funding opportunities long before we start hiring Park Consultants to design surveys.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
