Keep City Hall where it is

There is no free lunch, especially when it comes to locating a new city hall. While I respect Bill Ficker and the Daily Pilot, I must take exception to an attempt by the press to create policy by half information and barrels of ink. Also, the paper is clearly supporting one group over another at the expense of the process. What happened to their support of parks and open space?

First, any attempt to use the Newport Central Park site for a city hall has been voted on numerous times by the current council and past councils. Elected officials are continually reminded by your paper that they should not and cannot renege on votes and representations that they have made. A councilman’s word is his bond. Anything less betrays the trust placed in their individual elected position. Why are you going to encourage that we betray that trust?

The current site of City Hall is a complicated and difficult development. It includes the city hall, new fire station, a parking structure and open space. The property at this time does not have room for this development without the cooperation of the adjacent property owner. Assuming for a minute that the Newport Central Park site were used for a city hall, the current city hall site would require one acre of land for a new fire station. Also, the front on Balboa Boulevard would require open space to scale down any future project. Lastly, the adjacent property owner has numerous ingress and egress easements that need to be taken into consideration. The net usable site would be much less than envisioned by Ficker. The net proceeds of a sale would not begin to pay for the new building at another location.

The above scenario could also require a Greenlight vote. My opinion is that the voters would not agree to a dense residential project. Then the city is left holding the bag. This would be fiscally irresponsible for the current council to gamble in this manner. Council owes a fiduciary duty to the citizens that put them in office.

There is also an argument being made that the Newport Central Park site is geographically central to the city. With this I cannot argue. However, Washington, D.C., is neither in Kansas nor Nebraska. City Hall is a 10-minute drive from the Newport Park site or vice versa. Hardly a burden on the majority of residents.

The most important reason to keep the current city hall where it is on the peninsula is because of the economic and social impact it would have on the community. Many cities use redevelopment to revitalize older areas. The idea of moving city hall to another area would cause decline in the area (even with new condos on the site) both economically and socially. The original city was incorporated in 1906, and the original city hall was in Balboa. It has only moved about a mile from that original location.

This is a centennial year, and Ficker and the Pilot would have us rip out our roots and move to a highly successful economic area that does not need revitalization.

Let’s talk about traffic for a moment. The area in and around the Newport Central Park site has one of the most impacted intersections in the city: San Miguel, Avocado and MacArthur. Any new site would need to punch through Faralon Drive to MacArthur to mitigate the traffic at San Miguel Road. This is a concept that has never been politically acceptable in Corona del Mar or to past councils.

Here is one last comment that should be considered by everyone. Any delay in moving forward arguably would cost the city $560,000 per month in added construction cost. Costs are rising a minimum of 1% per month, or up to 15% per year. The total project was projected to cost $45 million, not including land or financing cost. The cost escalation would be approximately $560,000 per month. Let the citizens not be swayed by half information or betrayal by the elected officials. Let’s keep City Hall at its current location.