Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Thwarted once, Spratt again wants preserve

By TIMES EDITORIAL
Published April 15, 2007

Public backlash has put the kibosh on a proposal by a private group to build three youth sports fields on 38 acres in the Brooker Creek Preserve. So why is Pinellas County Administrator Steve Spratt suggesting, as an alternative, even more ball fields on even more acreage, still inside the preserve?

The county leased the 38 acres of preserve land off Old Keystone Road to the nonprofit East Lake Youth Sports Association for construction of much-needed youth sports fields. The group already operates a youth sports complex on an adjoining 26 acres.

However, local environmentalists, the Friends of Brooker Creek Preserve and the county administrator's own Environmental Science Forum oppose putting ball fields on the 38 acres, which consists primarily of wetlands and a planted pine forest.

Opponents emphasize that wildlife lives on that acreage and that the Brooker Creek Preserve Management Plan allows only passive recreation on preserve lands. Some also say the county needs to put more effort into finding property for ball fields outside the 8,000-plus acres of Brooker Creek Preserve.

Enter Spratt and his new idea.

The county has already cleared 46 acres of a 101-acre plot inside the preserve in a controversial plan to build a drinking water blending plant there. When the price tag for the plant came in much higher than expected, some county officials got cold feet about building the plant. They decided to study it some more.

Perhaps Spratt sensed an opportunity to solve the thorny ball field problem: If the blending plant was not going to be built there, and the land was already wiped clean of vegetation, why not let the East Lake Youth Sports Association build its ball fields there? It's not like any forests would have to fall to build the fields.

The county even urged the East Lake Youth Sports Association to apply immediately for a land use change from Preservation-Resource Management to Recreation-Open Space on the entire 101 acres.

What seems a change of direction is really just more of the same. Spratt's idea is still a proposal to put active recreational activities inside the boundaries of the preserve and still violates the Brooker Creek Management Plan, which states, "... Recreational programs on the Preserve should be of a passive nonconsumptive nature. ... Recommended activities include: trails designed for walking, bird watching and photography; trails for long hikes by small groups; equestrian trails, and limited primitive camping for small groups by arrangement."

Ball fields, parking lots and concession stands certainly do not qualify.

Spratt's idea would also put ball fields and parking lots on land that could be reclaimed and restored. The management plan for the preserve encourages restoration of disturbed lands inside the preserve boundaries.

The timing of Spratt's suggestion is also odd. The county staff isn't even expected to finish its report on the feasibility of the blending plant until May 19. And the County Commission is only one-third of the way through a series of public workshops on whether to develop new policies about use and protections of Brooker Creek and the other county preserves. The next meeting on that issue will be April 24.

The idea of putting ball fields on the 101-acre blending plant site is no better, and perhaps even worse, than the first proposal, because it would be an even more intensive use of preserve land. More ball fields, more cars, more people, more noise, more lights.

County officials still don't seem to accept the mantra that friends of the Brooker Creek Preserve continue to repeat: A preserve is a preserve. Just leave it alone.

[Last modified April 15, 2007, 07:41:19]