Fan of Auto Museum

In defense of the San Diego Automotive Museum and its supporters, I would like to challenge Gary Kaine’s commentary, “In Balboa Park, People’s Needs Should Outweigh Another Museum” (Dec. 7). He is very convincing in his arguments; he is also very unfair.

Mr. Kaine states that an authentic auto museum could be a positive addition to San Diego, but not if it meant kicking citizens out of Balboa Park. I couldn’t agree more. Nor could the park staff. And that is why the Park and Recreation Department spent eight weeks compiling a study on relocating current Conference Building users to other facilities inside the park. The results of the study? Should the City Council approve the Automotive Museum program, not one current user of the Conference Building would be kicked out of Balboa Park. Mr. Kaine was given this information a month ago.

He then challenges claims made by museum supporters that the building over which this battle is being fought, the Conference Building, is vacant virtually every day of the week. He cleverly uses half-truths to support this. True, the Conference Building is occupied by park staff and Disabled Services offices, and these rooms, located on its periphery, are, of course, utilized every day. But the building’s 16,000 square feet of unobstructed floor space is vacant virtually every single weekday of the year. The building’s primary use is at night.

Mr. Kaine states, “Current users, led by the Square Dancers Assn., . . . (have provided) significant, immediate and long-term financial support. They ask for no tax support, as the museum does. They don’t demand that city offices be moved to expensive leased facilities, as the museum would require.”

This paragraph implies the dancers ask for no tax support, yet they continue to indirectly cost the city over $34,000 annually by not contributing to the Conference Building’s upkeep, while regularly using it--and other park buildings--free of charge. And what of the “significant” financial support these dancers have given the park? This is the first I’ve heard of it.

If the council approved the museum, it would not only take over that $34,000 per year in maintenance fees but would spend close to $300,000 on restoration.

Regarding current offices in the building, the museum went on record two months ago that it would be glad to keep the park staff offices right where they are for up to two years. And the museum would also be contributing $10,000 to Disabled Services to help them find a better location.

Despite two obvious differences of opinion, Mr. Kaine and I do agree on one thing, and it is from his closing remarks that I quote: “(We) simply want San Diego’s favorite park to remain available to all citizens . . . (We) don’t want to restrict the building’s use to a select group . . .”

How true. Why should a few vocal special interests disenfranchise the rights of thousands who will benefit from the cultural, educational, vocational and community-interest programs that make this museum unlike any in Balboa Park.

Don’t we all have the right to enjoy what is ours? Can’t we share Balboa Park? I guess that is something for our City Council to decide.

TERRI L. STEELE

San Diego