We ought to rethink Santa Clara park plan.

Byline: GUEST VIEWPOINT By Kate Perle For The Register-Guard

Santa Clara is a place where the urban and rural meet, creating a challenging dynamic that plays itself out in the politics of land use. This dynamic begs the question: How do we best meet the needs of a burgeoning urban population and simultaneously provide for our future?

We need growth that values balanced communities. Growth that enables people to live near their workplaces, schools, recreation and commerce. Growth that minimizes urban sprawl and maximizes the quality of our neighborhoods.

The city of Eugene and the McDougal brothers propose to convert 197 acres of farmland outside the city limits into 1,000 houses, 77,000 square feet of commercial development and a 77-acre regional park.

The proposal is labeled a ``land swap'' and is promoted by the city as a community park and smart-growth development for Santa Clara.

Eugene proposes to bring 197 acres of farmland north of Santa Clara into the Urban Growth Boundary for mixed density residential and commercial development, and work with the McDougals to remove 120 acres in the Laurel Hill Valley from the UGB. The difference between the two parcels - 77 acres - would be donated to city at the Santa Clara site for a park. And the city would spend the $950,000 remaining from the 1998 parks and open space bond measure on a Laurel Hill Valley site to acquire an extension to the Ridgeline Trail.

To develop the farmland, the applicants need a Metro Plan amendment to expand the UGB before its state-mandated evaluation in 2017.

This boundary was created to constrain urban development and to protect lands outside the boundary from speculative land purchase. This proposal would reward speculation and set a precedent for developers to have their land rezoned on a case-by-case basis.

The addition of 1,000 homes creates a demand for social programs, public health and safety services, road construction and maintenance, public works and schools to be paid for through increased taxes. The residential, commercial and park development would magnify traffic congestion on River Road, Irvington Drive, the Northwest Expressway and in surrounding neighborhoods. Our already overburdened schools will be expected to absorb additional students.

Furthermore, there is no secured money for the proposed infrastructure or long-term maintenance; funding will come from future bond measures. The city's park planner admits it could be 10 to 20 years before the park is completed.

The developer stands to gain instant millions from the land swap while park amenities remain underfunded. Santa Clara residents will bear long-term costs and immediate environmental impacts while the city gets free land earmarked for a future regional park dependent on continually squeezed public funds.

This doesn't resemble "smart growth" from the perspective of Santa Clara's residents. Shouldn't smart growth consider the entire cost of development?

Aside from the permanent loss of potential food production, loss of farmland to development contributes to increased water pollution, reduced air quality, intensified traffic noise, loss of open space and wildlife habitat, and lost cultural and educational opportunities.

Parks are essential. Santa Clara would clearly benefit from a community park. However, the city's proposal is not our only option - just the only one presented.

What if we thought about Santa Clara's future park or parks in an environmentally creative way? Do areas around the Willamette River present low-impact recreational opportunities? How are our parks connected, and how do their uses complement each other? Are they designed with our entire park inventory in mind - or are they seen as separate entities, each meeting the needs of adjacent residents?

Looking at these issues, we see potential options that better suit our community's needs.

What if we split up the components of a community park into two or three sites, preserving outlying lands and distributing traffic impact? Could Santa Clara Elementary School be considered as a community center, library and aquatic facility? In addition, we could acquire one or two smaller plots within the UGB for our active and passive recreation needs. Extending the riverfront bike path up to Santa Clara and giving our citizens access to our most prominent natural feature would create the "linear recreation" features most highly valued by the public.

With a bit of creative thinking and thoughtful planning, Santa Clara can create a viable community resource that will better serve its residents and preserve what is important.

Kate Perle is a member of the Santa Clara Committee for Sensible Parks and Open Space. The group meets at 6 p.m. on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at the Santa Clara Grange.