ENCINITAS ELECTIONS : Greening of a City Sows Debate, Confusion

Read his lips. Bob Bonde wants to make one thing perfectly clear: He’s not against baseball, picnics, apple pie or all those other very wholesome and American things.

But, when it comes to his hometown, Encinitas, he says he has to draw the line at Proposition A--the $25-million park bond measure that city officials will present to voters Tuesday.

Over the past month, the 58-year-old retired university administrator has questioned whether the city should go into the real estate business, whether it should buy 150 acres of privately owned land to develop several new public parks and recreational trails, and whether it should create six other neighborhood parks at local schools.

City officials claim that Encinitas is parks poor and that the acquisition is necessary to bring the coastal community up to par with standards set by the National Recreation and Parks Assn. for a city of 53,000 people: at least 3.5 acres of open parkland for every 1,000 residents.

It’s not that Bonde is against a little green grass amid the sprawl of new housing and condominium projects. Anyway, he says, nobody in his right mind would vote against giving a playing field to a kid with a baseball bat.

But Bonde doesn’t like the way the city has run its campaign to educate voters on the merits of the issue. For beginners, counting area beaches and lagoons, there is much more existing public parkland than the 40 acres the city claims there is.

And, if the City Council trimmed some other needless expenditures, there would be ample funds to develop several new parks and playing fields without raising taxes, he says.

For those reasons, Bonde and a handful of supporters have formed “Citizens for No New Taxes.” It’s not exactly a modern-day Boston Tea Party, but the group wants city officials to keep the promise given when Encinitas incorporated in 1986: no new taxes.

“Spend, spend, spend. Tax, tax, tax,” Bonde said. “They have staff coming out of their ears and more new projects than they can count. When is it all going to end?”

Therein lies the problem: Nobody seems to be able to explain why the city needs all this extra land or how much it actually has now for parks.

Considering that the tax measure’s supporters include Mayor Anne Omsted and the entire City Council, along with more than 2 dozen community groups, Bonde’s group has become the sole heckler along a parade of public support.

The result: angry phone calls to his house and a growing public impression that he’s the Grinch who stole picnics.

“Most people think parks are like motherhood, that they’re for kids and no one should ever be against them,” Bonde said. “Well, I’ve caught holy heck from people in the community devoted to organized sports. They call me at home. They say, ‘Do you know what you’re doing?’

“It hurts. This is the hardest thing I’ve ever done, to take a stand on this issue. Because the last thing I want to do is hurt the community. But politicians have to be responsible and credible in what they say and do.”

On the other side of the issue stand Nancy Orr and “Friends for Encinitas Parks,” which have summoned similar energy to present their views on people and parks.

Orr recently resigned as commissioner of the city’s Parks and Recreation Committee--and put her catalogue business on hold--to give ample time to co-chair the privately funded parks group and campaign for the measure, the first new-tax issue in the city’s three-year history.

As Election Day draws closer, both groups have hit the streets to pass out flyers and petitions and call residents at home. And the politicking has gotten ugly. Both claim the other is disseminating erroneous information. Both have waged personal attacks.

But both agree on one thing: Too many potential voters are confused and uninformed by what has become a sentimental community issue. And time is fleeting.

“People need a healthy place to exercise and stretch out,” Orr said. “We’re a culture with lots of free time. And we need these new parks as much as we need new roads and police protection. It’s a pocketbook issue; people are asking what’s in it for them. The only way to find out is to become informed.”

The time to buy is now, Orr and others say, while the land can still be had at 1989 prices. In a city that is already 80% developed, to wait only a few years would sacrifice a part of the city’s future mental health, they say.

Meanwhile, Encinitas officials say they are taking a straightforward approach to inform voters of the importance of acquiring more neighborhood, community and regional parks.

Dave Wigginton, Encinitas Community Services Director, said the city’s 40 acres of existing parkland is far too little for the demand by community groups such as Little Leagues and others seeking to play tennis and softball, or even toss a Frisbee.

According to standards set by the National Recreation and Parks Assn., a city the size of Encinitas should have 50 public tennis courts. The city has one, Wigginton said.

A local Little League was also forced to turn away ballplayers because it couldn’t find enough fields for games. The shortage came after a local high school closed its playing fields to the public use after an increase in student enrollment, Wigginton said.

When it comes to picnics and baseball games, rocky beaches and lagoons don’t count as parks, he said.

“These people aren’t looking at the big picture,” he said of Bonde’s group. “They’re focusing on how much open space we have. We’re looking at services. Ever try to have a picnic in a lagoon? Or play organized baseball on the beach?”

Wigginton said $5 million of the bond will be set aside for development of the acquired parklands, projects such as senior centers and community halls.

If passed, Proposition A would provide neighborhood parks within half a mile of a home and community parks within 2 miles, as well as a regional park, officials say.

Plans call for the purchase of 50 acres in Olivenhain, 20 acres in Leucadia, 10 acres next to the Lake Drive Sports Complex, 20 to 40 acres on El Camino Real near the San Elijo Lagoon and an unspecified amount of land for a general-use trail from the coast through the backcountry of Olivenhain.

The city would also create several smaller parks by developing 17 acres of playground area at six elementary schools, creating community meeting room space and several acres of playing fields and basketball and handball courts.

Payment for the new parks would come from an annual fee based on the assessed value of a taxpayer’s home, Wigginton said. The owner of a $100,000 home would pay $55 a year more in taxes, while the owner of a $150,000 home would pay $82 more.

“We could get that money in other ways,” Wigginton said. “But we’re not going to just impose this on people. We want the public to rally around the idea. That’s why it’s on the ballot.”

But Bonde says he is one citizen who will do no rallying. After 16 years in the planning department at California State Polytechnic University at Pomona, he says he knows poor planning when he sees it.

Like many citizens, he knew little of the proposed park bond until he was by chance asked to participate in a community response session sponsored by the city.

“It became crystal clear to me that citizens were being asked to vote on something they knew little about,” he said. “And that’s dangerous.”

Not only would the bond break a promise of no new taxes, he said, but the money would be unnecessary if the city cut back on other expenditures--such as hiring a consultant for $35,000 to figure out the best way to approach taxpayers on the park bond issue and another $100,000 to carry out that advice.

“I could go on and on with their faulty decisions, their flagrant spending,” Bonde said. “They haven’t hardly made a move without hiring a consultant. They need to go back and look at the way they do business before they ask for all this money for parks they probably don’t need.”

When it comes to existing parkland, Bonde says, the city is crying wolf.

Besides public beaches and lagoons, there are several school grounds and park areas in local subdivisions that are not being counted by the city in its 40-acre figure.

“The package just isn’t being presented in a credible fashion,” he said. “In the ballot document, they throw this ’40 acres of city-owned parks’ figure at you. But that doesn’t tell the story.

“People will look at that and say, ‘Gosh, we’re a concrete jungle.’ And who’s going to take the time to go through the particular figures to prove them wrong? It took me a week to do it.”

By Bonde’s estimates, the city actually owns or controls 213 acres of open parkland--including beaches but not counting San Elijo Lagoon--far more than the 159 acres recommended by the national parks group for a city of 53,000.

Bonde says city officials should improve the land they already own--namely, Oakcrest Park and the Encinitas Sanitary District lot at Encinitas Boulevard and Vulcan Avenue--before they ask the public for another handout.

George Wardner, a North County real estate agent and a member of Bonde’s group, said the city did not play fair when it didn’t give his group time to draft a rebuttal to the proposed new taxes to be included on the ballot document.

“And so, if you read the document, you’ll think there’s no opposition to the measure,” Wardner said. “And there’s lots of people who oppose it. And more who have serious questions about it. There’s a lot of half-truths going around here.”

In addition, Wardner said, in its own general plan drafted three years ago, the city said its agreement for use of playing fields near local schools would satisfy its need for parks.

“What’s changed?” he asked. “Why are they suddenly singing a different tune three years later?”

Meanwhile, Bonde plans to paper the town with educational flyers and a message: For once, the city of Encinitas should keep its checkbook in its pocket.

“We’re asking for caution, that’s all,” he said. “And we want to make sure we get our word out, to balance all the hype with some real facts.”