Maps

Here's a map that shows you the land which the petition has asked City Council to preserve:

You will have to click on it to enlarge. All the land within the purple land is what petitioners want preserved. This map also shows an earlier compromise proposal from Open Space Chairman Charlie Wakeem. His proposal is everything between the dotted blue lines. It preserves Arroyos, FEMA 40 and 39. Note also that he moves Paseo del Norte west out of the preserved land.

Now here is the PSB proposal which they adopted in Executive Session and proposed to the Open Space Board yesterday:

Again, click on the map to enlarge. It is the same map that I posted on September 1. Already it is erroneously being called the "Wakeem" map. Compare it to the map at the top of this post. Note however that it includes 22 acres (a resort/golf course) in the middle of the open space and cuts into FEMA 39 in the southwest corner - probably to move developable land closer to Transmountain so that the City picks up less of the burden of the cost of Paseo. Of course, note that Paseo is not moved in the PSB proposal whereas it was in the earlier Wakeem proposal.

Here's what we know about the PSB: they are opposed to a Conservation Easement as the means to preserve the land. They have stated such at OSAB. Their goal is to re-appropriate the land in a few years which a CE would make impossible because it would be forever. Also, when the City Council was ready to rezone all of the land in the Westside Master Plan as URD (Urban Reserve District) in lieu of re-planning it under Smart Code, Mr. Archuleta and the PSB reneged on their agreement to go along and supported Rural zoning. Bottom line: Mr. Archuleta and the PSB do not want any land conserved - they want it all to be sold for development. What does this mean for petitioners should City Council decide to seek some process to come up with an alternative to the petition plan rather than voting in favor of the petition plan?

The Open Space Advisory Board (the same Board that voted twice to preserve the same land as proposed by petitioners and, in fact, turned down the Wakeem "Compromise" shown in the map above) voted to recommend a process for conserving the land and finding common ground (no pun intended) with all stakeholders. This process will require about 90 days perhaps 120. It includes working with Dover Kohl, a review of the Comp plan, the use of charettes, the conversion of the Westside Plan to SmartCode and a conservation easement for land preserved.

It seems to me that this will be a good process for petitioners and all stakeholders. However, if it seems that there is no resolution, if it seems that some are not negotiating in good faith (as PSB has done with their stance regarding a conservation easement), then the petitioners have every right at any point to return to the voters and seek a referendum election. Since I was one of the chief petition organizers, I can tell you that getting the necessary signatures will take just weeks - not months - because we know where to find enough voters now.

What does this entire process teach us (if the lesson has not already been learned)? EPWU should just be a department of the City run by a Director not a CEO, the PSB should be abolished and City Council should assume total responsibility in reality and not just as a matter of fact. There is just too much power held by one man and it is used to thwart sustainable growth in the City of El Paso. Equals seek win/win. Autocrats do not.