Far be it from me to take a stance on a topic about which I know little, and/or with regard to a fight in which I do not have a dog.
For the better part of the past month, I've built a little bit of a buffer of sorts between my two-hour-or-so morning commute and the start of my work day; taking 15-30 minutes to enjoy a chapter of "The Meditations," by Marcus Aurelius while working on a few shots of much-needed espresso in a hotel lobby across the street from my office.
A common theme throughout "The Meditations" is just how short of a time each of us is here — how short our lives are when measured against the backdrop of the stoics' view of time.
For those of a certain age, picture Socrates demonstrating this concept, on stage, at San Dimas High, in "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure."
"Like sand slipping through the fingers of time."
So, as it relates to what sounds to be an ongoing, if not deteriorating, and arguably sports-related issue of local interest — what will or will not be deemed the acceptable degree of appropriation and development, and how to repurpose the city-owned and retained-for-private-use parcels of what was once Wakefield Valley Golf Course — stop with the selfish self-interest, everyone, please.
(Don't wince, Tony. I'm probably not going to say what you think I'm going to say.)
Nothing lasts forever. It's true.
In this case, the golf course is gone, and as Springsteen says, "it ain't coming back."
Conceding for a second that, as politics are at play here, transparency and truth telling will always be relative (and terms used somewhat tongue-in-cheek). Particularly when the mayor is also a real estate agent, and we're talking, for all intents and purposes, about a hybrid public, private real estate transaction involving the city and a private purchaser (agreeing to scratch one another's backs at the outset; the public be damned).
Otherwise, competing interests and/or differences of opinion need to be set aside, and an agreement that is in the interest of the greater good — call it some version of utilitarianism if you must — should be reached, keeping in mind, again, those concepts of the relative impermanence of time, fairness and justice.
I can't say that I follow the running narrative or its fictitious bend as it has been reported on in the papers, or shared over kitchen tables at dinner parties, of the realities of the ongoing debate over what was written in land grants, easements, purchase and sale documents, codified rules and regulations, etc., and how the debate over the interpretations of the language versus the spirit of such documents and codifiers relates to, well, the truth.
But, there are a few points on which I think I'm pretty clear:
A private purchaser paying to build that from which they will derive profits and revenues seems to be much more fair than passing along construction costs and the like to taxpayers; and, it is my impression that if debate continues, the leverage for the former will give way to the unwanted-ness of the latter.
Twelve homes (each likely much more individually attractive) are better than 53 homes. However, and on a note relating to fairness and the construction of any homes on the old Wakefield property by anyone, somebody needs to pay Michael Oats about 25 years worth of accrued interests and a fat lump sum if this is really going to happen, as he intentionally divested himself of the interest and right to do the same years ago after suffering from a true frustration of purpose at the hands of prior versions of the same personalities at play in these ongoing debates today.
But, I digress.
I think I've mentioned I work in sports by day. I have seen no fewer than a dozen proposals for a would-be localized version of ESPN's Wide World of Sports-styled complexes to be built in towns all over the country.
It needs to be understood that we are not in Florida. We're not even in South Carolina; also a warm destination for colleges, universities and the like from the north to take warm weather trips to tournaments in the off- and pre-seasons. Most of these proposals and business plans are loftier than based in financial realities.
That said, there is one way to differentiate would-be (artificial) sport turf fields from area and regional competitors in a way that may give life to the concept in a way that withstands scrutiny: Make as part of the requirement to move the proposal forward, heated turf fields necessary. Such heated fields, with proper drainage, can then be utilized (e.g. money-making) on a variety of days during and on which traditional grass fields, and non-heated turf field counterparts can not.
If the city does not get what it wants, at some point it will make the lives of those that neighbor the former golf course property increasingly miserable — over-grown fecundity and more and more furry feral friends wandering into yards, and perhaps finding their ways into homes.
The flip-side being that if the city gets at least a truncated (and more long-view-oriented) version of what it wants, everyone's lives may be better off in that long term. (Though, again, the long term is all relative. If you don't believe Aurelius, just ask Keynes.)
If a certain version of communal space is agreed to, be that dedicated sports space and/or trails and the like for unorganized outdoor merriment, the city will, thereafter, have a greater vested interest in maintaining the surrounding spaces.
Why not look at the option of granting abutting sub-parcels to those that neighbor the property, particularly where there is no planned use, and where upkeep has given way to neglect and over-growth? (I swear I saw a baby dinosaur wandering what used to be the second hole of the Green nine last fall. And, how many dogs have gone missing near those ponds?)
If people are going to take it upon themselves to mow an additional quarter-to-full acre of grass because the alternative is an increasingly Jurassic Park-like eyesore, why not make mini land grants to them. As best as I can tell, there's a law on the books permitting the same.
Heck], you (the city) could even make those grants free, gifting the add-on parcels as a way to incentivize ('lest we call it a bribe) agreement by tacit coalescence.
Maybe someone could look at razing the old clubhouse, providing for design flexibility in addressing concerns over entrance, egress, traffic, parking and the like. While the Durbin House is a historic property, the termites and a strong wind should all but take care of its condemnation and/or demolition within the year.
Of the sticking point that is the would-be, so-called light pollution: No.
Nobody wants the lighthouse effect-like light like the Jaycee fields in the Greens. (Sorry, residents of the Greens.) But, again, think of the middle ground — fairness and justice. I'm not saying the would-be, heated turf fields be like pre-modern-day Wrigley Field, sans lights.
But, compromise. Turn the lights off at a reasonable hour.
Lastly, be careful what you wish for. Back to the non-feasibility of sports megaplexes as viable business models in suburban spaces. Sure, they're great for the semi-annual WAX-a-thons, and club soccer super tournaments. But that only accounts for four or so weekends a year.
Google any whitepaper on recent developments on sports facility and stadium construction and you will see that facilities designed for limited, specific uses are very quickly becoming outdated. (See again the sands of time.) Being built in their places are venues (lest we call them stadiums anymore) that are intentionally interwoven into the fabric of surrounding communities and neighborhoods — professional sporting venues for example, with one or more sides taking the form and shape of hybrid retail and even residential space(s) and use(s). On this point it may make sense to think broader; realizing that Westminster has certain population limitations and socio-economic clustering issues; and that the majority of its resident population has very defined spending behaviors.
Shoot, you know what would go great alongside heated turf fields, 12 McMansions, and (well kempt) walking paths and trails? A really nice, natural grass driving range and over-sized natural grass golf putting green, or, thinking (in the voice of Harry Doyle), just-a-bit-outside the box, a beautiful natural grass putt-putt or mini-golf course.
(For reference, check out the "Punchbowl" at Bandon Dunes Golf in Oregon.)
If only the parcels, particularly the city-owned portion, were in some way situated somewhere close to a pre-existing golf course property...
Sadly, the roles seem to have become somewhat reversed in the struggle over what to do with the old Wakefield Valley property, including what should and what shouldn't become of its permitted development and use. Typically, it's the parents of Johnny and Billy who don't want, sensible school redistricting, for example, because, God forbid, Johnny and Billy, who have played together on the same team since fifth grade, should be made to go to different high schools.
Now, it's those parents who filibuster logical — let's call it fair and just — change, are most in favor of building heated turf fields because it's in the best interest of Johnny and Billy's little brothers and sisters.
Take selfish self-interest out of the equation. Please. None of us are here for all that long. The least we can do is to treat each other — and to solve the problems put between us — with an eye toward and a want for fairness and justice to prevail.
