Editorial: Whose soccer players are they? Editorial: Whose soccer players are they? (January 04, 2006)

If the city of Menlo Park intends to give away nearly half of Bayfront Park to a golf course developer in return for three playing fields, it makes sense for the city to first take an inventory of its fields and the players who use them.

A task force of three Parks and Recreation commissioners has issued an initial report about the use of soccer and Little League playing fields in the city, which confirms that some fields (on the west side of town) are overcrowded; but it also shows that fields in Belle Haven are under-used. The task force will continue its work in January, starting with a survey of local sports organizers to solicit their field needs and determine whether some fields could be modified to make them more useful.

At the December 21 meeting, Commissioner Heyward Robinson raised several other issues that the city should explore before moving forward with a deal for Highlands Golf to develop an 18-hole executive course at Bayfront.

First, Mr. Robinson suggests that neighboring cities should share in the costs of additional playing fields, if any are built. "This needs to be a regional issue," he said, adding that the commission should meet with its counterparts in Atherton.

The first step in such a move would be to determine how many of the 1,700 registered soccer players and 1,100 Little League players actually live in Menlo Park. If a third or more of the players are residents of Atherton or other nearby towns, should the burden of building more playing fields be only a Menlo Park responsibility?

Another issue that deserves scrutiny is the rate charged to soccer and Little League teams to use the fields. Current rates are extremely low -- $10 an hour for local groups and $15 for non-residents to use a soccer field. The rate is $6 and $10 an hour for Little League fields. Both rates are a losing proposition, said Commissioner Paula Maurano, who said the city takes in $20,000 a year in field rental fees, but spends far more -- $14,000 an acre -- to maintain them.

Finally, the commission should be given another assignment: to search again for a way to alleviate the $187,000 a year required to keep Bayfront Park open. Would residents pay a small, annual fee to use the park, or could another $1 a month be added to garbage and recycling fees to cover the maintenance costs?

When it was converted to a park in 1984, city leaders made it clear that Bayfront Park was to be used as passive open space and not developed. Now the park sits squarely in the midst of a national wildlife refuge and is home to thousands of migratory birds and hiking and biking trails for those who appreciate the wetlands surrounding the park.

If the city enters into an agreement, and later accepts the proposal by Highlands Golf, half of Bayfront Park's open space will be lost for at least 20 or 30 years. To justify the move by claiming the city must build more playing fields before a thorough study of the city's fields and who's using them is not responsible.

The commission is on the right track, but the scope of its inquiry needs to be broadened. The City Council should have a clear picture of the city's playing fields obligation, and at least one or two alternative ways to recover the park maintenance fees before it signs any deal for a golf course that few people seem to want.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.