|
 |
||
|
Where's the Sierra Recreation Center located? It's hard for new users to find it without visible signage. The center was approved by the Planning Commission with a visible monument sign on Marguerite Parkway. Where's the sign? A prior City Council majority purposely allowed the center to deteriorate while diverting money into new pet projects. I worked with Trish Kelley and others to prevent the demise of the center and to rebuild and open it to the public. Ms. Kelley dropped out of the citizens group so she could run for council. I became the "Save Our Sierra" chairman and Dale Tyler became the treasurer by popular vote. The center was built by the efforts of many courageous citizens like Max MacDougall, who deserves a Citizen of the Year award in my opinion. We're still waiting Sierra to become the open center Trish Kelley based her campaign promises on, and we're still waiting for the sign. I supported Kelley's run for council but would not do so again. Neither Lance MacLean nor Trish Kelley kept their campaign promises. Both MacLean and Kelley did a lot of head-nodding during their campaigns, which supporters mistakenly interpreted as agreement. Sierra is a now a fee-based operation instead of a center for low-income and very low-income residents. Kelley fought against user fees in her campaign. Kelly and MacLean recently voted for subsidized affordable housing in north Mission Viejo. They first removed Planning Commissioners who stood in their way, opening the door for developers. Do Kelley and MacLean need campaign contributions? That's a question for the future, but my question today is, where do our low-income residents go for recreation? Certainly not the Sierra Rec Center or a fee-based gymnasium that MacLean and Kelley proposed. Are fees designed to make facilities exclusive? MacLean said residents who oppose affordable housing are elitists. Kelley asked me as a Planning Commissioner not to consider low-income housing near her Sierra neighborhood. I did not consider her request. The Sierra center's fee structure imposed by Kelley and MacLean effectively blocks low-income users who reside around Kelley's own home. These two partners - MacLean and Kelley - now want a fee-based gymnasium. If city government provides no services without user fees, then our tax money goes only toward erecting buildings, exactly like the developers do. Public facilities like Sierra and the lost Marguerite Aquatics Center or a proposed gym are doomed as "open facilities" under such fee structures and shouldn't be considered public facilities. If the citizens want a "pay to play" facility, let private enterprise build it - they are the professionals at it, not the amateurs currently in power. Ideas that appeal to me are to trim fat, promote economic development for long-term public funding and deliver the promises of public services as they are intended - free. With MacLean and Kelley, what other public services will taxpayers have to pay to use after paying to build the facilities? Bo Klein |
||