City rules may force San Francisco to buy the park from itself for $2.42 million, unless the state changes its mind.
The park planned here is a city priority and the thing is going to get built, period. However, because the SF Public Utilities Commission owns the land, the Recreation and Parks Department probably has to purchase it from the PUC for fair market value, according to some city rule.
The park itself is being funded through a state grant, but the state grant won’t pay to purchase the land.
The worst case scenario is – if money can’t be found elsewhere and the park can’t be leased from the PUC and the state doesn’t budge on its grant – money saved from development fees will go to the PUC to buy this park.
However, the city’s still pressuring the state and looking for other park money under rocks in San Francisco. Upshot is, for the public, we might, or might not, lose $2.42 million to another department, money that would have otherwise been spent on other parks in the Eastern Neighborhoods, including Mission.
Why can’t the city understand that developing the park without the future affdbl housing in mind is ridiculous? The designs need to be integrated. Otherwise, it’s poor urban form. I understand the money thing but it wouldn’t take much to have some sort of conceptual plan.
I’ve posed your question to the planning department. We’ll see if they can answer.
If you’ve got a deep and unsatiable interest in planning, I encourage you to attend these Eastern Neighborhoods Citizen’s Advisory Committee meetings at the planning department on Mission Street. They are open to the public and take public comment at the end of each item.
Plus, you usually can bug people from the planning department after the meeting if you have more questions.
Also in the works are changes to their approach on in-kind agreements, like one I wrote about here.
http://missionlocal.org/2010/04/city-to-subsidize-market-rate-childcare/
Anrica Deb
Mission Local
I’ve heard the same thing over & over… “because the SF Public Utilities Commission owns the land, the Recreation and Parks Department probably has to purchase it from the PUC for fair market value, according to some city rule”. But no one from the city has proved that this rule exists. It might be a case of practice vs. actual policy. Mission Local, maybe you all can crack this mystery. The Visitation Valley Greenway owned by PUC got leased for a dollar.