Those of us who care about the environment, open space and habitat often attend El Paso City Council meetings. Indeed we should. What we have been missing are the regular meetings of the Public Service Board. Because the PSB manages vast areas of land in El Paso, West Texas and New Mexico; and, since the advent of the stormwater fee, they have the charge to procure more open space, the decisions they make are critical. Their meetings, agendas and decisions should get top priority on our radar screens and contact management programs.
Tomorrow’s regular meeting is a case in point. The PSB will consider the adoption of a Land Use Policy – one which may be restricting unused land (land not set in use as ranch or storm water infrastructure for instance) from use by the public. Remember: the land is our land. The money they manage is our money. By dodging what seems to be a fiduciary responsibility for maintenance and by saying some land can have trails and other land cannot even if it is understood to be land that is only temporarily open space, portions of unused open space can be said to be restricted – not to be used by responsible recreational users even though, as it now seems, poachers and illegal dumpers may have unfettered right-of-way.
Although the policy mentions that laws against littering, theft (poaching of plants and rocks for landscaping for example) and illegal dumping will be enforced, one has to wonder because those laws are not being enforced now. Indeed, when such a crime was reported recently with clear evidence to track down the perpetrators, nothing was done. Yet, the policy suggests that none of the 10% of stormwater fees will be used at any time for maintenance or recreational matters. Note to PSB: We already hike and mountain bike our land, and many, who do so, work hard to maintain and keep trails and surrounding areas clean. Isn’t is a fiduciary responsibility to strictly enforce rules against poaching and illegal dumping? Isn’t it a fiduciary responsibility to maintain this land even if that means an easy contract with recreational associations who care.
What the policy may really be saying is that an arbitrary decision by some at PSB determines what is and is not open space. (Land that is open space can be so in perpetuity or temporarily.) What the policy may also be revealing is that funds will be spent down rather than managed so that, instead of the preservation and maintenance of the maximum acreage of open space, those funds will be spent down to limit that acreage so that more can be sold and developed. It’s a game of profit not of preservation. All of this may not be the case. However, it would be great to have all the cards laid out on the table so that, we the people, can know the concerns and plans of the PSB. Transparency should trump paternalism.
One last thought: wouldn’t it be nice to spend just a little bit of that stormwater fee to build attractive trailheads with some nice amenities such as bathrooms and a water fountain and inviting parking? It would be, if places such as the Palisades truly are the “gem” and “the Central Park of El Paso” as CEO Ed Archuleta has said. When our money is spent down rather than leveraged and managed so more can be purchased, one wonders what the hidden agenda or the concern may be. Wouldn’t it be better to work together and do big things?
No comments:
Post a Comment