Jackson Drive Extension Pro, Con

The San Diego City Council approved the extension of Jackson Drive on Nov. 27.

By acting with unnecessary (and uncharacteristic) haste, it would appear that they have now compounded their assault on the taxpayer’s pocketbook by placing the city in an extremely awkward legal position.

Because the environmental impact report recommended against construction of the extension, the council was legally required (under California law) to construct the environmentally preferred alternative road--or to construct no road at all.

In order to approve the road, the council had to find that there are overriding social or economic considerations.

There were essentially two overriding consideration adopted:

1) The road is required for reduction of traffic on Mission Gorge Road.

2) The road is necessary for park access.

To adopt these considerations, they had to find that there are no other feasible alternatives. There came the rub.

Questions by Bruce Henderson, Ron Roberts and Wes Pratt conclusively revealed that alternative Park access had never been analyzed.

Ron Roberts specifically asked city staff about alternatives and was told that none had been considered because it was always assumed that Jackson Drive would be built.

So now the council is on record as having found (in the legal sense) that the road is necessary for park access and the staff are on record admitting that they haven’t considered alternatives.

Good job, guys . . . the environmental attorneys are already circling overhead.

Had this been any other project, there would have been a “time out.”

Any other project would have been sent back to staff for an analysis of alternatives. Not this project, though. Councilwoman Judy McCarty was in too much of a hurry to admit that more information was warranted.

So now the city is going to be on the losing end of a legal battle that will cost us all a bundle.

Councilman Bruce Henderson concocted a few alternatives right in plain view of everyone--some of them warranted consideration.

He’s a lot more creative than the city staff. Why didn’t he stick to his guns and send this back for further work?

It’s not too late. The issue can be reconsidered. Staff should be told to identify and evaluate alternative park access.

The public should have an opportunity to review the staff’s work, then a decision should be made.

One of Bruce Henderson’s finer qualities is that he’s tight with the taxpayer’s buck. We like that.

Surely he’s not going to continue to be the vote that causes the city to spend $80 million without all of the information.

I call on Bruce Henderson, as taxpayer advocate, to request reconsideration.

MARY DIXON, San Diego