Good points on Southpass plan

The City Council agenda for Tuesday includes ramifications of a resolution they passed in 2004. That resolution (138-04) might be misleading because it only states that the mayor can contract with Southpass developers "to accept 200 acres of park land, a 10 acre water tank site, one million dollars for park land development and other consideration for the city's acceptance of ownership of a 33 acre landfill." That's it. Nothing about a new city center pop. 11,000, or schools or amphitheaters or jobs, etc. Nothing about regional tournaments. It's just a deal whereby someone gives compensation ($1 million and 200 acres) for private owners not having to risk liability for the 33 acre landfill.

I've no idea why the resolution didn't summarize all of what's in the separate agreement that the mayor was authorized to make with Southpass. It's in the public record. It's just one layer removed from the resolution itself. This agreement was (still is) in the form: if you do this, I'll do that, etc., and it isn't binding till the to-do list is done. In other words this contract is not a done deal, Southpass is not a done deal, even though the resolution that made it thinkable was passed 4 years ago.
The project as it's being described today goes far beyond anything the resolution would have led us to expect and even beyond what the "contract" suggests.
But the important point for the moment is that the contract's requirements haven't been met. Tuesday night the Council could leave this contract where it stands, minus its essentials and so leave it non-binding. Or it could commit the City to some key elements of the contract: annexation, rezoning, sharing expenses. If the Council agrees to these ordinances, advocates for economic and environmental sustainability will have a much tougher fight. There will be only a few loose ends left before the contract becomes enforceable.

Another writer on another list offers this good advice: "Real fiscal responsibility would suggest that setting Southpass in motion should be delayed until after the election and until we see see how the big economic picture is going to shake out." Let's hope that the Council will not approve this huge project without getting defensible answers for questions about economic and environmental problems that will be with us for a very long time.

Barbara Moorman