From the Heart

Here is my e-letter sent out today. There are several main issues. First, I am responding to those who say that my e-letter and blog are official words from OSAB - something far from the truth. Second, I wish to wrap-up for now my discoveries about Johnson Basin. Finally, I want to call attention to the upcoming charrettes and an item on tomorrow's City Council agenda which would seem to threaten the advantages the City has gained through its Open Space Advisory Board. Here goes:

There are three main parts to this e-letter: personal comments, the Johnson Basin and, finally, open space issues and how you can help with them. It will make the letter longer than usual; but I hope that you will take the time to read through it.

First some personal comments. It has gotten back to me that some consider this letter and my blog as the official mouthpiece of the Open Space Advisory Board in spite of the fact that far more subjects are covered than just open space issues. I don’t believe for a moment that anyone truly believes that my blog or e-letter are official pieces of OSAB except that creating that kind of perception helps a particular agenda. Nevertheless, perceptions are realities and the fact that I have allowed my passion and love for natural open spaces and ecosystems to be clouded by personalities have allowed for the creation of such perceptions. For that I’m sorry; for my love and defense of this earth, I am not and never will be.

I do not write for the Open Space Advisory Board. I am a member of that Board. I have been the Co-Chairman of that Board only because of my gold stars for good attendance. I can be counted on to call the meeting to order if the Chairman cannot be present. Being Co-Chairman makes no difference to me. Seeking the Chair has never been my ambition nor is it now. OSAB has given me the opportunity to work with others on open space issues. Because of my love for the natural environment, I have also been active with Celebration of Our Mountains, the El Paso Hiking community, the West Texas Urban Forestry Council, the Texas Master Naturalists and other organizations. I am not the mouthpiece for any of those other organizations either even though I am an officer in some of them. As my disclaimer says at the bottom of every e-letter: “Elpasonaturally© is written and published by Jim Tolbert who takes sole responsibility for the content of the letter”, I take sole responsibility.

I am not dispassionate about these issues and that may be the greatest understatement ever. However, too often in the heat of polemics I have resorted to the dark satire of personal attacks forgetting that a good look in the mirror would instantly rectify any such rhetoric. I’ll try to do better. I faulted PSB member Richard Shoephoerster for doing the very same thing that I was guilty of doing and probably more so: failing to do my homework, failing to really see what the facts were. I apologize to Dr. Shoephoerster for my vitriol. As a member of OSAB, it was my responsibility to see for myself what all the various projects were that were on our lists. I did not. I just accepted what I was being told. I do feel as if the situation at Johnson Basin was misrepresented as natural open space (and not just to me, or OSAB, but even to Council). Nevertheless, I never questioned what was being told to me in EPWU presentations at OSAB.

So here comes the transition: a few words about Johnson Basin. I have the advantage now of having spent over two hours the other day at EPWU poring through some documents that I requested under the Texas Open Records laws. A few points:

First, it’s too bad that EPWU felt that they had to misrepresent matters at Johnson Basin. The fact that they did is an organizational matter that should be dealt with. Organizations get cagey when they feel a need to be defensive. It’s too bad that they felt as if they had no choice.

The records show that EPWU was most probably operating on the belief that they had their marching orders from the City and stormwater and open space priorities. Their several presentations over the space of a couple of years showed that they were trying to do their job. They were probably quite surprised when there was pushback about the land acquisition known as Johnson Basin. Better than a Yankee bargainer, they had skillfully negotiated good sales prices on the land. Nevertheless they never did account for any of the Johnson Basin purchases when asked to do so by an advisory Board to City Council or in response to an earlier Open Records Request. Why not? They also continued to misrepresent that land as natural open space. Why?

The land was never open space – a good place for a park and for a park pond maybe, but not open space. It was never considered open space. At one point the land was looked at for a housing opportunity because it was developed land in a developed neighborhood. When it came time to purchase the land in the Basin, there was a discussion about using open space funds to purchase it. Not all at the EPWU saw it as fitting that criteria. (Later I’ll publish the pictures of the email exchanges that show this internal debate.)

All of this caginess and defensiveness builds a credibility gap. Why cover-up something so easily resolved by using other funds? What other agendas are involved? Why are we so quick to build so many park ponds so quickly? Yes, it eats up open space money in a strictly cash account. Moreover, park ponds are at the bottom of the priority list for open space acquisitions. However, there is still a fair amount of cash flow to be effective if some other sources of funding can be found – a discussion we should have as citizens and government and as people who love our community, its natural assets and ecotourism, health and recreational opportunities. Disbursements are made as bills come due. The funding budgeted for park ponds is not automatically expended. There is cash in the open space account and more coming in. It’s not as bleak as it may look but then again the cash flow still doesn’t have the oomph that it could have if there were other ways to finance open space acquisitions. That is a good conversation for government and its citizens to have.  However, to have a good conversation, you’ve got to go beyond personal and institutional comfort zones and lay cards on the table.

There are other conversations about much more valuable open space issues that are coming up quickly. So here’s my last transition.

First, what we discussed as a way to move forward with our petition to preserve the Scenic Transmountain Corridor was the participation in a process led by Dover Kohl and the City’s Planning and Development staff. This process recognizes working together to preserve our natural environment while furthering the economic progress of our City. It begins next week, January 23^rd – 27^th. Dates and events are here and here. Please plan to attend. Being there in spirit won’t cut it.

Second, there is an item on tomorrow’s City Council agenda of some concern: what seems to be an attempt to cut back OSAB’s overview. Hopefully, it presents an opportunity for the City to re-affirm its commitments to open space and Smart Growth and keep going in positive directions more effectively. Item 7A on the agenda is an attempt “to amend the provisions concerning  the Open Space Advisory Board membership, rules, duties, and ability to appoint subcommittees. . .” The wording of this discussion actually exposes some of what is behind it. There is a call to “[m]ove the Tree Board responsibilities to the jurisdiction of the City Plan Commission along with review of the landscape ordinance as a development related issue.” In point of fact there has not been a Tree Board for two or so years now. It was reduced to a Sub-committee of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Its addition in tomorrow’s City Council discussion shows that the real architects of the plan are businesses still bitter about the new Landscape Ordinance. Let me make this plain: I am not anti-development or anti-business. Quite the contrary, I’m quite pro. As a member of OSAB, I have spoken out for developers wanting to get park credits when they do something to preserve natural open space. Ordinance gives the final okay about such credits to the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department. Rather than helping to foster open space values, she continually says “no”. The Parks and Recreation budget has nothing in it for trails, open spaces or connectivity of any kind. I’d like to see them spend more on open space from their own budget and I’d like to see developers and builders get a break. It’s all about all of us pitching in together.

If you can make City Council tomorrow, please do so. Council begins at 8:30 a.m. and you must sign up to speak before then. You can sign-up online. Do call or email your Representative and tell them that you hope that the ordinance will stay the same but that weaknesses in the overall system can be rectified. Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.  Don’t cut off your nose so spite your face.  A glaring weakness, for example, is not having  PSB/EPWU’s maximum input on park pond designs when it comes to water conservation.  We also may need to listen more to the PSB when it comes to not having free water at our parks (if that is what I’m hearing that they are saying). Want to know why Soviet bread lines were so long? Free bread. It’s supply and demand. They didn’t have enough wheat and we sure don’t have enough water.

Finally, one last personal note and an invitation. Anyone can comment on my blog entries and anyone can respond to these emails. I have published opinions differing from mine before. I do monitor comments on the blog so that such posts are not automatic. I weed out profanity and psychosis. I invite comment and discussion. I will continue to take sole responsibility for the content of this letter and my blog. It’s mine . . . not OSAB’s or anyone else’s.