Fort Ord and the Monterey Downs
description
Transcript of Fort Ord and the Monterey Downs
![Page 1: Fort Ord and the Monterey Downs](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816271550346895dd2e19d/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Fort Ord and the Monterey Downs
Mallory Karch
![Page 2: Fort Ord and the Monterey Downs](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816271550346895dd2e19d/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Background
• Fort Ord was a military base for 77 years• U.S. Government purchased 15,000 acres in
1917 – in 1940 increased their acreage to 28,000– Closed in 1991
• Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) was created to decide land reuse
![Page 3: Fort Ord and the Monterey Downs](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816271550346895dd2e19d/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
The Downs
• Proposed development: hotels, office park, housing, horse track and sports arena
• ~ 550 acres• Would be on Fort Ord Open Space – Parker Flats
![Page 4: Fort Ord and the Monterey Downs](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816271550346895dd2e19d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
![Page 5: Fort Ord and the Monterey Downs](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816271550346895dd2e19d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Should the Monterey Downs be developed on Fort Ord Open
Space?
![Page 6: Fort Ord and the Monterey Downs](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816271550346895dd2e19d/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Primary Considerations
• Limits access to monument• Loss of 30,000-50,000 Coast Live Oaks• Water allocation• Could create at least 3,000 jobs• Would benefit the local economy
![Page 7: Fort Ord and the Monterey Downs](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816271550346895dd2e19d/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Policy Context
• Water use allocation• Development of natural
areas• Zoning and growth
boundaries• Community education
![Page 8: Fort Ord and the Monterey Downs](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816271550346895dd2e19d/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Key Decision Makers
• FORA• Monterey County• Seaside City Council• Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) • Marina Coast Water District (MCWD)• Dave Potter– Monterey County 5th District Supervisor
• Fort Ord Access Alliance– Open Space Initiative
![Page 9: Fort Ord and the Monterey Downs](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816271550346895dd2e19d/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Stakeholder Analysis• Those opposed value:– Conserving the natural environment and species– Using the natural area for economic benefit– Recreational activities
• Those in favor value:—Economic benefits to the local community—Gambling and horse racing—Job opportunities—Direct monetary benefits
![Page 10: Fort Ord and the Monterey Downs](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816271550346895dd2e19d/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
• Fact: 45,000-50,000 visitors per year come specifically for the natural environment of Fort Ord– Assumed that the Downs will draw away from the
area’s “eco-tourism”
• Fact: Monterey Downs project will create about 3,000 jobs- Assumed the development will positively affect the local community's economy
![Page 11: Fort Ord and the Monterey Downs](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816271550346895dd2e19d/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Policy Options 1. Prohibit development and make Parker Flats part of monument
2. Allow the Downs to be developed as planned
3. Develop the Downs on blighted areas
![Page 12: Fort Ord and the Monterey Downs](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816271550346895dd2e19d/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Policy Option Community Acceptance Equity
Prohibit the development on land directly adjacent to national monument and recognize Parker Flats as part of the monument
Pros: Majority of community would be satisfiedCons: Those hoping for job opportunity and boost to economy would be disappointed
Cons: Rejects the development as well as discounts the possible economic benefits
Allow the Monterey Downs to be developed as currently planned
Pros: Excitement due to job opportunitiesCons: Much of the local community would be outraged
Cons: Ignores community members’ outcry and efforts against the development
Monterey Downs can be built if it is developed on area currently considered to be blight
Pros: Those hoping for jobs will be satisfied, access to the monument and recreation will not be affectedCons: Those strongly opposed to the “unsavory” activities of the Downs would still be unsatisfied
Pros: Community members still have the Fort Ord open space for recreation and access to the monument will not be limited, developers would be satisfied because they can still develop
![Page 13: Fort Ord and the Monterey Downs](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816271550346895dd2e19d/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Recommendation
• Prohibit development of the Downs and make Parker Flats part of Fort Ord National Monument– Prioritized environmental well-being and assumption
that the Downs will decrease eco-tourism and students coming to CSUMB
• Limitations: EIR has not yet been released• Have not yet conducted second stakeholder
interview
![Page 14: Fort Ord and the Monterey Downs](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816271550346895dd2e19d/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
• Allowing the Downs to be developed on blight would bring economic benefit as well and be most equitable
• Possible consequence could be Boudreau looking for another more intrusive area (not blight) to develop
• Not developing the Downs would maintain the area’s cultural and ecological integrity
![Page 15: Fort Ord and the Monterey Downs](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816271550346895dd2e19d/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Conclusion
• The Downs could economically boost local economy– No guarantee– Horse racing is a past time
• Utilizing the natural area can also bring in revenue– Publicizing monument