The price tag is between $13 and $25 million, and the final plan
should be fashioned soon
It’s been a few months since City Manager Jay Baksa announced the city’s intention to look into purchasing the Gilroy Gardens horticulture based theme park in west Gilroy on Hecker Pass.
The public’s response has been tepid at best so far. But the City Council shouldn’t confuse that with disinterest. Until there’s a real plan that the public can get can get its arms around, sink its teeth into and think about critically, the comments will pretty much be along the lines of what we think so far: “Sounds like a pretty good land deal.”
But the devil’s in the details, and the truth is there aren’t many of those at this point.
Given the decidedly slow pace things are moving at with relation to establishing a true plan, the City Council’s Nov. 30 deadline to decide on whether to spend between $13 and $24 million or so on purchasing the 536 acres seems extremely ambitious – especially if there’s to be any meaningful public input or if any new City Council members are elected in November.
Cynics might suggest that the timeline is purposeful – to exclude any new Council votes and create a crisis vote (You have to vote yes now or you’ll be responsible for losing Bonfante Gardens).
That’s not a scenario that anyone wants, but city officials know full well there is another November deadline looming – the park has to shore up its financial reserves or face possible foreclosure.
Given that, this process should have been put on a faster track.
There are a few fundamental questions that have to be answered before serious public discussion can ensue. Here’s a sampling:
n How much will it cost? One option the city could choose would make the price tag upwards of $25 million. (That’s not close to the cost of the lovely new police station, but it’s getting there and it’s a lot of money.)
Will the Gardens be an amusement park or a free park open to all residents?
If it’s to remain an amusement park with admission fees, how does that qualify in city officials’ minds as an appropriate use of park funds?
Will the city restrict the zoning for all acres to open space/park land in perpetuity?
If the amusement park aspect remains, which entity will operate the park – certainly not the city, and the suitor list of professional companies willing to take it on was very, very short last time. Given current economic realities, it’s likely to be even shorter this time.
The community deserves answers to these questions and others in a timely manner well before the Council takes a final vote.
Anything less would be shortchanging the process and the public.
