Making Parks Accessible to All

The League of Women Voters of Orange County opposes the easing of park dedication requirements for large builders in the unincorporated areas, and therefore applauds your editorial "Keep Parks Accessible to All" (Feb. 10).

Your reasons for opposing the Board of Supervisors' decision to reduce the land dedication requirement for private parks closely parallels those of the people who spoke at the public hearing on Dec. 4, 1984.

Inaccessible parks will serve no purpose for residents who are not able to live in gate-guarded communities and will only compound the problem for any to-be-formed cities in the area.

In addition, the method of arriving at this decision flies in the face of the public hearing process.

People leaving the public hearing on Dec. 4 understood that the 2-for-1 policy would remain. It was only by the process of private closed-door negotiations after the public hearing that large developers in the area were able to change the minds of four of the board members. This is certainly an example of the public's business being conducted in private, with no chance for public rebuttal.

The league decries the supervisors' Feb. 5 decision and the method by which the supervisors conduct public business--away from public view.

The league feels that public hearings should be reopened so that those of us concerned about future public parks--and the integrity of the public participation process--can also be heard.



League of Women Voters

of Orange County

Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times
EDITION: California | U.S. & World