Commentary: A survey can help us reach consensus on Fairview Park

Since June 2013, the nine-member Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee has met monthly to diligently study and make recommendations on a variety of issues related to the future of our city’s natural crown jewel, Fairview Park.

The committee — helped by significant input from residents and expertise provided by city staff — has found remarkable consensus on most issues involving the 208-acre park. I am extremely proud of the group. As the City Council liaison during most of the committee’s work, this has been a wonderful, cooperative process to witness.

The notable exception to the harmony among the committee members has been whether more active uses — archery, community gardens, sports fields, skate parks, even an amphitheater — should be allowed in the southeast section of the park (part of the acreage where model trains run on five miles of track). Rumors have even spread about a proposed casino, which is clearly ridiculous.

Last month, the committee voted 5-4 to ask city staff to study the possibility of combining sports fields with the train to that section of the park. This has been a classic community debate: in a city that’s short on playing fields (especially lighted ones), should a portion of Fairview Park’s open space — already in use as a miniature train depot — be combined with a more active use or just be left alone? And do Fairview Park’s sensitive environmental and archaeological areas propose serious challenges to any kind of new activity there?

At the Fairview Park meetings, the debate over this issue has been vigorous, with the advocates for leaving the park alone outnumbering proponents of sports fields. Anyone who knows me will attest to the fact that there’s no stronger advocate for solving our field space issues than me. Our children deserve them, and our city will attract and maintain more families with better open space sports facilities.

But I’m concerned at the divisiveness this issue is creating at Fairview Parks Citizens Advisory Committee meetings and spreading in the community. As I see it, both sides have persuasive arguments. And I think this issue is important enough that we should know exactly how all Costa Mesa residents feel about it. We could put the matter on the ballot, but that would be costly, messy and divisive.

Our community can find consensus, and I’m proposing this: Let’s call a brief time out and conduct a community consensus survey to determine if Costa Mesa residents want sports fields on the southeast quadrant of Fairview Park. The survey would be relatively inexpensive, but provide everyone with the first unambiguous picture of what residents really want in that section of Fairview Park.

If the overwhelming majority say don’t touch Fairview Park (which, by the way, I believe is a strong possibility), then the Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee will have clear direction and be able to wrap up its work. On the other hand, if the survey shows Costa Mesans are undecided or definitely would like sports fields at Fairview Park, then the committee (and eventually the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council) could determine the feasibility of sports fields there.

I will propose the idea of a Fairview Park community consensus survey at the March 3 City Council meeting. I believe a well-done, statistically valid survey of Costa Mesans on this issue would provide an equal playing field for all involved.

STEVE MENSINGER is the mayor of Costa Mesa.