Letter to City Manager

October 26, 2009
Lisa Hildebrand
City manager, Carlsbad CA

Dear Ms Hildeband

One thing that distinguishes Carlsbad from other cities is the many ways that citizen participation is fostered, much more than the minimum required by law. It is a soft asset, one that doesn't show up in measurable criteria, but one of the things that makes the city a more attractive place to live.

I was living in Carlsbad when I walked into Mark Streyaert;s office about five years ago seeking more tennis facilities, and he rolled out the master plan for Poinsettia park, with eleven gorgeous tennis courts. I spoke before the Recreation Commission and lobbied each member of the city council to get a commitment to build them. And sure enough, when the Golf course was funded so were seven new courts.

Even before the courts were built Mark and the other Recreation executives held a meeting for suggestions about organizing the courts. And then about a year ago there was an open house, perhaps two hundred people, all offering suggestions on how to meet the needs of various stakeholders-----existing players, youth development, city revenue and others.

With this preface let me insert part of an oped that I have just submitted, that conveys the disconnect, the breach of trust, in my opinion, between those citizen users who felt they were responsible participants in this process and the Recreation department. First I describe the three broad categories of management choices:

----------

A: a free facility run by the city open to all. This is the current arrangement at these courts and that of Kit Carson courts in Escondido. It is the ideal when there are generally available courts sufficient to demand, as it allows the most regional use. The ongoing maintenance, which is quite low for unmanned courts, are paid by general city revenues.

B: User-volunteer organization, that charges a fee from $100 to $250 a year, with nominal single use fees. This depends on volunteers for the board that allocates court usage, with the city's approval. The organization can become a virtual social club sponsoring special events that bring the community together.

C: Private, for profit, management company. Such organizations are common for Golf clubs where there is a pro-shop, restaurant and lessons that do not use the same facilities as the links. Such private management is rare for tennis courts of this scale, for good reasons. The resources that provide them with their profit, the courts, are the same that are used by recreational players.

Things have changed since the open meeting of users.

When the open meeting to discuss these options was held, the economy was flying high, so B: the user-volunteer option, was discussed in depth; the couple hundred dollars or so annual membership fee was not seen as unreasonable. Now with the highest unemployment rate in decades, even a small fee will shut out people who are now using the courts.

Among those who are now playing on these courts, at least one group of twenty mostly older players who have been together for a couple of decades, but still welcome anyone to join them every morning, could lose their courts. They certainly will if they can't afford the fee, which will have to cover not only profit for the company, but additional capital expansion.

Next is what I consider inconsistent with the spirit of citizen participation that defines Carlsbad. Sue Spickard sent a letter to all of those who objected to this, personalized so those who didn't actually read it felt their objections were being addressed. But they were not.

She said that the negotiations with i-tennis are "in early stages" which implies uncertainty of outcome, but actually means an agreement in principle with details to be worked out. Yes, the city council will have to approve the contract, but to the best of my knowledge they never approved Option C, and certainly the hundreds of people who went to meetings had no idea this had been decided.

Somehow, unbeknown to present users of the court and at least one member of the city council, the Recreation department chose option C, and have now entered into exclusive negotiations with one private company for a long term contract to manage the court. In spite of lack of public discussion of the merits, the serious disadvantages of this choice, they are proceeding ahead, even after the disclosure of this three weeks ago brought a deluge of objections.

Demands for a meeting to discuss the direction the city has taken have being ignored. It seems they have circled the wagons, and only a concerted effort by current, and prospective users, can bring a reasoned discussion of the future of this great facility.
-----------------------
I'm asking you to intervene, as according to the organizational chart you have authority over the Parks and Recreation department. I suggest that you un-circle the wagons, that you explain to the Recreation department that users, and citizens, have reason to be upset, and even angry about the process of deciding management choices of these courts.

These courts mean a lot to many people. They are a success exactly as they are, which says much about the city government and the people who use the courts. It is appropriate to take a step back, to have an open discussion of which option is best A, B or C and then go on from there.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Al Rodbell

Column that broke this story....

.....was by Logan Jenkins in this article from the Union Tribune October 4, with this being the money quote:

The bottom-line question the City Council must answer is how iTennis plans to generate enough revenue to pay for the construction of a clubhouse and stadium court. How do you do that without becoming a de facto lesson factory and/or charging high fees to play?

Neither the Recreation Department or the City Council will answer this question, so we have to take action to demand that they do so.


Verify all the following dates and times:
Email to reach each member of Carlsbad City Council (next meeting Nov. 17th 6:00) Each person can speak for 3 minutes (we should coordinate) council@carlsbadca.gov

Parks and Recreation Commission meeting Nov 16, 5:30

Parks and Recreation Services Manager, Sue Spickard, sue.spickard@carlsbadca.gov

Privatization of Carlsbad's Poinsettia Park

Carlsbad Poinsettia Tennis Courts: Recreation or “lesson factory.”
as printed in N.C Times Community Forum, 10/27/09

By AL RODBELL -

When seven new tennis courts were added to the Poinsettia Park complex last year, it was part of a master plan going back almost three decades. The Carlsbad Parks and Recreation department held an open meeting where players from the courts discussed how they should be managed.

There are three general options:

A. A free facility run by the city open to all. This is the current arrangement at these courts and those at the Kit Carson Park courts in Escondido. It is the ideal when there are generally available courts sufficient to meet demand as it allows the most regional use. The ongoing maintenance, which is quite low for unmanned courts, is paid by general city revenues.

B: User-volunteer organization that charges a fee from $100 to $250 a year, with nominal single-use fees. This depends on volunteers for the board that allocates court usage, with the city's approval. The organization can become a virtual social club, sponsoring special events that bring the community together.

C: Private, for-profit, management company. Such organizations are common for golf clubs, where there is a pro shop, restaurant and lessons that do not use the same facilities as the links. Such private management is rare for tennis courts of this scale, for good reasons. The resources that provide them with their profit, the courts, are the same that are used by recreational players.

When the open meeting to discuss these options was held, the economy was flying high, so "B: the user-volunteer option," was discussed in depth; the couple of hundred dollars or so annual membership fee was not seen as unreasonable. Now with the highest unemployment rate in decades, even a small fee will shut out people who are now using the courts.

Among those who are now playing on these courts, at least one group of 20 mostly older players who have been together for a couple of decades, but still welcome anyone to join them every morning, could lose their courts. They certainly will if they can't afford the fee, which will have to cover not only profit for the company, but additional capital expansion.

Somehow, unbeknown to present users of the court and at least one member of the City Council, the recreation department chose option C, and have now entered into exclusive negotiations with one private company for a long-term contract to manage the court. In spite of lack of public discussion of the merits and the serious disadvantages of this choice, they are proceeding ahead, even after the disclosure of this three weeks ago brought a deluge of objections.

Demands for a meeting to discuss the direction the city has taken have been ignored. It seems they have circled the wagons, and only a concerted effort by current and prospective users can bring a reasoned discussion of the future of this great facility.

Al Rodbell can be contacted at alvrdb-brt@yahoo.com.

How I became envolved in this issue

While this essay is specific to the Courts at Poinsettia  Park in Carlsbad California, as described in this column by Logan Jenkins on October 4, 2009, it touches on many wider questions of social policy.   I suggest you read Jenkins' column for background and then continue back here.

When the YMCA closed their courts several years ago, the following was printed as an OpEd, which was the opening statement of my unanticipated role as a "Tennis Political Activist."

Excerpts of OpEd article in San Diego Union Tribune 2/6/03
Regional Tennis Center  (full article here)

There are plenty of courts in the area; some in exclusive private clubs, others scattered in public parks and private residential communities.  What is missing is a public tennis center like those in LaJolla and Balboa Park.  These were built on city land with city funds, but now operate at no further cost to the public.  Each has a tennis association, open to all at moderate cost, that pays for all maintenance and runs the programming.  And what programming they have.  Tournaments for all levels and age groups up to 90 year olds, (where just showing up gets you a medal) leagues, mixers and clinics. Pee Wee and junior classes along side of senior games.  Balboa even has a special challenge court, no reservation needed,  just pop in and play.

The key to the success of these centers is the concentration of courts in one location.  There is a minimum number, around ten, that is required to produce special events while maintaining regular weekly programs.  With this activity level, facilities such as rest rooms, food stands and pro shop become self sustaining.  In Manhattan, one such tennis association has fund raisers featuring top tennis pros and world class entertainers. People are eager to volunteer their services and join the association.   

This type of public-private facility has been successful across the country. More than just an amenity, it becomes an attraction that adds luster to its surroundings. Our unique strip of sun kissed paradise deserves nothing less. 

Al Rodbell
alvrdb-brt@yahoo.com

After the OpEd was published, I visited the Recreation Department of Carlsbad, where we were then living.  It was a happy surprise when the director of park development showed me the master plan of Poinsettia Park with 11 courts and a sizable clubhouse.   The problem was that it was a bit dusty, already a couple of decades old, with no public demand to build more than the three courts that were already there.

I made my case to the members of the city council, spoke at the Parks and Recreation Commission, and got a commitment from each council candidate to build the rest of the courts (campaign promises are easily elicited); but low and behold, when the massive appropriation for the new golf course was voted on, they also funded the seven new courts I had been pushing.  So, it was with great pride that I, along with several other people who independently had been promoting the same agenda, attended early meetings on the organization of the courts.

I was disturbed a few weeks ago that my suggestion, and the consensus of a public meeting, for some form of an organization described in my OpEd had been changed, under the public's radar, to what was described as a "done deal" with a private tennis management company, and a long term one at that.   I contacted Jenkins, with the article linked above the result.  Another effect of Jenkins' shinning the light of the press on this negotiation is that we have gained time to see if the idea that I, and the audience at the public meeting supported, is a doable preferable option. 

Now comes the difficult part.   In this age of public cynicism, will we find the critical mass of individuals who can come together to form the user based non profit organization that can satisfy all of the varied needs and desires of various parties?   It's a tough challenge, to bring together people with ideas of their own, yet who are willing to remain part of a coherent organizing association even if their own specific plans are not accepted. 

The user based non profit organization faces these challenges that commercial entities overcome with the profit motive, which provides the common incentive of the old "bottom line,"  the potential financial gain that displaces ego needs.  This profit based enterprise model shouldn't be dismissed, as it has provided many good things in our world---along with some pretty awful things---but that's a discussion for another day.

Contact me alvrdb-brt@yahoo.com for more information, or if interested in the organizational process. 

Al Rodbell