There was only one wrong statement made by the City, and one curious comment made by a resident and former mayor (which I respond to below), during the impressive presentation and workshop for the planned Creekside Park in the Waterfront that took place on December 1.¹

The park itself is a bonus in my opinion. The master plan barely shows space for a park, and to date, it has been mainly described simply as a plaza. But it is, in fact, a good-sized park that will reside on the north (or east) side of Refugio Creek, adjacent to the planned parking structure (which will be wrapped in retail)…

The park will also be adjoined by the restored Refugio Creek, mixing natural and manicured open space…

There is almost nothing wrong with the park; it is close to perfect. (The presentation is available on the City’s website.)

The incorrect statement from the City came in response to a question (yes, it was mine) about the proposed speed limit on Transit Loop Drive (also a temporary name), which will be primarily used by buses dropping off passengers, but will also likely be used by regular patrons who will drop off passengers in the most convenient and hasty fashion possible (including the counter-clockwise, bus-only direction). The unfortunate answer: “possibly 25, but preferably 35 mph.”

As residents know, all streets in the Waterfront are 25 mph, and should continue to be so, if only to maintain the pedestrian-oriented aspects of the burgeoning New Urbanism community. Arbitrarily raising the speed along a street that will be host to hundreds of pedestrians daily would forfeit pedestrianism in favor of the automobile. I assume that it was a misstatement that the increased speed was “preferable” — and not representative of policy — but we’ll be sure to keep an eye out.²

And a comment to a former mayor

I would not normally criticize a resident’s comment during a workshop, but the resident was the former mayor, and holds a certain amount of respect in the city. In response to a resident’s reasonable assessment that this park may not necessarily be a park for children — provided the proximity to traffic and buses — and that it should not be designed as such (with playground equipment, etc.), adding that he would not see bringing his children to the park because of the perceived risks, Trevor Evans-Young, the former mayor and one-term councilmember (although he was never elected), suggested that individuals should consider the age of their children by the time this park is actually built. On the surface, the statement seemed innocent surely enough, but it does reveal the rather peculiar mindset of the establishment.³

Is it the establishment’s honest belief that the Waterfront residents will simply die-off, that if they persistently resist any efforts from the Waterfront to slow traffic, encourage pedestrianism, ensure the reality of New Urbanism, that they will overcome the current nuisance of Waterfront residents because there is only a limited number of them? There will be more children in the Waterfront, Mr. Evans-Young. And whether or not one resident’s children may be young enough for playground activities by the time the park is built, there will be plenty more when that time does come. We are not going away. We are growing. (And we are going to need that school, too.)