City should have fought for parkland

We don’t ask the city to get into scraps with the state government

every day. But when the discussion began over use of a five-acre

piece of land next to the Fairview Developmental Center, we hoped

Costa Mesa city officials would make a little stronger case to state

officials that more parks are what we need right now.

The council at first threw around the idea of rezoning the land,

which is owned by the state, from high-density residential housing to

public/institutional use. This came after the Planning Commission

recommended the move in order to open up park space in the city.

In the end, council members decided to change the land to

medium-density residential housing. That’s good news for the state,

which has been looking to sell the land to developers -- the list of

suitors is at 18 so far -- who plan to build homes on the site.

But is that really what’s best for the city?

Don’t get us wrong. Housing is good, and it’s important. At the

same time, does Costa Mesa really want to give up on potential

parkland, when there’s a lack of it in the city?

Remember, this is the same city where high schools, city

recreation and other leagues have haggled in the not too distant past

over joint-use agreements. How can the city help remedy the

situation? Open up more land for public use.

Granted, $15 million -- the state’s asking price for the land --

isn’t pocket change, particularly when Gov. Schwarzenegger appears

bent on selling off as much land as he can to reduce the state’s

deficit.

Then again, the council could have, and should have, fought a

little bit harder to get a more palatable price for the land. While

Mayor Allan Mansoor says the land isn’t big enough for athletic

fields and parking, we say that every little bit counts.

There’s a serious shortage of parkland in Costa Mesa. It would be

a shame to pass up a rare chance to obtain more without a serious

fight.