The business community is quick to criticize government for passing up potentially beneficial opportunities due to red tape or lack of creativity — with good reason. Over the years, VICA has pointed out many chances for the City of Los Angeles to capitalize on public-private partnerships for the benefit of all residents. Occasionally action is taken, but more often than not, these prospects slip away with business left holding the bag. Lately, observers might say that the city is going the extra mile to earn its reputation as an ineffective bureaucracy. The developer of a 264-unit project in the San Fernando Valley is willing to create a park for the community on an adjacent parcel currently owned by the County of Los Angeles. In lieu of Quimby fees, the developer will build a beautiful river-oriented park near the Tujunga Wash at a price tag equal to or in excess of the required fees. Quimby fees (originally passed in 1965) are paid to the L.A. Department of Parks and Recreation by developers to fund the acquisition of, or capital improvements to, open space. The intention of the fees created by the State Quimby Act was to preserve open space and parks for communities. Sherman Village neighbors who have met with the developers are excited about the park’s prospects, because the proposed Sherman Village Greenway would have more money behind it than the city or county could provide. While it would be constructed through private funding, the liability, maintenance and ownership would remain with Los Angeles County. This project has the potential to be a model for public-private partnerships. However, to the disappointment of current and future residents of this area, this project is stalled by city department politics. Despite the best efforts of the developer and Councilmember Paul Kortez, the city’s Parks and Recreation Department is more concerned with adding the more than $1 million in Quimby fees from the project to its coffers than it is with actually accomplishing the goals of the State Quimby Act and the city’s Quimby fee ordinance. The intention being: to increase the availability of open space to residents. The Parks and Recreation Department’s desire to control the funds, and its fear of setting precedent for other beneficial public-private partnerships, has created a bureaucratic mess. The May 2011 motion by Kortez to move this project through with City Council action is now being ripped apart by the City Attorney’s office and faces months of review and scrutiny by numerous city departments. Sherman Village Greenway would be an actual, tangible recreational space for the public to enjoy. Instead, city departments would rather collect money than achieve the goals intended by the fees. This delay is a waste of city resources and makes businesses balk when weighing the pros and cons of potential partnerships with the City of Los Angeles. Should the city allow developers to create open space at a cost equal to or greater than Quimby fees in lieu of the actual payments? Does waiving Qumiby fees set a bad precedent or open the door for beneficial public-private partnerships? Email your responses or thoughts about the column to [email protected].
City Allows Politics to Stifle Potential Public-Private Partnerships
