Gilroy
– A perennially cash-strapped west Gilroy theme park is holding
a gun to the city’s head for the second time in five years,
according to some city council members.
Gilroy – A perennially cash-strapped west Gilroy theme park is holding a gun to the city’s head for the second time in five years, according to some city council members.
If the city does not cough up $13 million to pay off the park’s creditors, 516 acres of wooded foothills that serve as home to Gilroy Gardens could eventually fall prey to developers. But the investment could mean sidelining or delaying an arts center, library and other projects on the city’s $100 million wish list.
“To a point, yes, we are being forced into making a decision that we were not anticipating,” said Councilman Craig Gartman. “Some of us could see it (years ago) and we were saying, ‘God, I hope it doesn’t come to this.'”
Gartman was on council five years ago when park founder Michael Bonfante first approached city leaders for help. The grocery store magnate desperately needed cash to prevent his life’s dream from falling into bankruptcy, and he asked the city to co-sign a $7.5 million loan to buoy the park, which opened earlier that year.
Council rejected the idea of using city property as collateral for the loan, but agreed instead to let the park sell off 33 acres of land for development as part of the adjacent Eagle Ridge golf community. Bob Dillon, a Dispatch columnist and former councilman, opposed the notion of wedding city assets to the park’s financial fate.
“I thought not only no, but hell no,” Dillon said. “My feeling at the time was, it was like me saying ‘I ran up my credit cards and now I don’t have money to buy a car, and can I have some money for a car loan?’ ”
Dillon and Gartman said it is too late to rezone the land to prevent development – something Dillon proposed in 2004 – because it would undoubtedly inspire a lawsuit from creditors.
For Dillon, the offer to have the city now buy the park is trouble in the making.
“If the city acquires it,” he said, “it’s going to be a giant black hole sucking up every spare dollar we have, to the detriment of every other project we have, including the downtown, the arts center, the library, the sidewalks, parks and recreation. It’s a financial tidal wave.”
Gartman also balked upon learning of the deal Friday, but he has since re-assessed his position.
“I would take it as an opportunity to invest in some land as well as getting control of the future of that land,” he said “One of things we’d talked about was if bondholders took over the land, they could turn it into a shopping center. This takes the future of the land away from development individuals who could essentially do things we don’t want to have done out there.”
The sentiment echoes Councilman Dion Bracco’s ringing endorsement of the idea. Bracco, who serves as the city’s appointee to the nonprofit park’s board of directors, called the deal a “no-brainer” that offers Gilroy a chance to create its own Golden Gate Park.
But neither councilmen is prepared to discuss the long-term fate of the land. Bracco said he would expect the amusement park to operate in the near future, leaving it to “future councils” to decide whether or not to sell off the park’s rides and other equipment and preserve it as open space. Gartman said he “has some ideas in mind” but would not elaborate.
On Wednesday night, Bracco will pitch the land sale to council during a closed session meeting. Councilman Russ Valiquette plans to recuse himself from discussions since he works at the park, and councilmen Peter Arellano and Paul Correa did not return calls from comment. Mayor Al Pinheiro and Councilman Roland Velasco both declined to comment until after they attend the closed session.
“I don’t even know enough to formulate questions at this point,” Velasco said. “Once the presentation gets laid out before the council, then I’ll have an opportunity to start asking questions.”
The secret nature of the discussion has also emerged as a point of conflict, with Gartman questioning the propriety of holding a closed session meeting on the topic. State laws allow public agencies to meet in private with their negotiators to discuss the price and terms of a specific land deal, explained Tom Newton, general counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association. But he said the law does not allow officials to discuss broader policy issues in private, such as how the deal fits into the city’s overall list of priorities.
“The exemption is an attempt to protect the public purse by allowing limited secrecy,” Newton said.
City Attorney Linda Callon stressed that officials tread a careful line. Quoting the exemption allowing city leaders to discuss land deals in private, Callon said, “that’s what we’ll be doing and we will not be going off point.”
Gartman said he will object to any closed session discussions that veer into policy issues and, if necessary, will walk out of the meeting.
“What’s being proposed is the expenditure of taxpayer’s money,” he said. “The public needs to know, at least conceptually, what we’re doing.”
Park officials have declined to elaborate on their plans for the park if the city refuses to purchase the land. The park has made headlines in the last year, however, by maneuvering to sell off additional pieces of land for commercial and residential development around the park’s entrance, at 3050 Hecker Pass Highway.
The closed session is scheduled for 6pm Wednesday night at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna St.
