COMMENTARY

MARK SCHUMANN

When you consider that opulent homes could have been built on what is Veterans Memorial Island or on the land in Riverside Park now dotted with picnic pavilions, it seems a shame the property was commandeered by populists many years ago and set aside for public use.

This argument, void of any sense of stewardship, is basically the logic being offered by City Councilwoman Pilar Turner and former councilman-for-a-month Charlie Wilson.  Turner and Wilson, who are opposed to designating a portion of MacWilliam Park as an off-leash dog exercise area, seem focused, not on how the land might best be used for the public’s enjoyment, but on money.

As they wonder aloud what price tag might be put on the land, I am reminded of a quote by the late Steve Jobs.  “Being the richest man in the cemetery doesn’t matter to me.  Going to bed at night saying we’ve done something wonderful, that’s what matters to me.”

There is, of course, a verse in the Bible that also speaks to this issue.  “What does it profit a someone to gain the world, yet forfeit their soul?”  (Matthew 16:23)

Similarly, what would it benefit the people of Vero Beach to “monetize” priceless public lands and in doing so surrender at least part of what is soulful about the community.  I, for one, have grown tired of hearing Turner complain that Vero Beach has excessive and thus excess public park land.  Turner appears to have a long list of grievances about what she perceives to be wrong with Vero Beach.  I sometimes wonder why she moved here in the first place.

While Turner has said she is not opposed to establishing a dog park, she believes the riverfront land in MacWilliam Park is too valuable to be dedicated to such a public use. For his part, Wilson was on local radio last week ranting about a so-called “million-dollar dog park.”

Given their focus on what the land might be worth on the open market, one has to wonder what Turner and Wilson would like to see done with the property.  Perhaps to help the city weather the budget woes that will surely follow the sale of Vero Electric, they would propose selling the land for residential or commercial development.  Maybe Turner would like to see the proceeds from a sale of this and other public lands used to help pay to move the treatment plant, thus improving the sunset view from her barrier island home.

More than 2,800 people have signed a petition in support of Friends of the Vero Beach Dog Exercise Area.  The non-profit group is proposing to develop and maintain the area as a fenced in, landscaped, off-leash dog exercise area, and all at private expense, with no cost to local government.  The park would be open to all residents and non-residents free of charge, with or without dogs.

The proposal is a win-win for everyone except those who are set on selling off public lands.  Dog owners and their “masters” will have a safe place to run and play without having to worry about four legged friends running off into the boat ramp parking area or into traffic on Indian River Drive.  The city would retain ownership of the land and, with public approval, would be free to put the land to some other purpose at the end of a reasonable land use agreement.

Let’s be clear about this.  An attractive, well-maintained dog park would be an asset to the the larger community and to barrier island businesses, which is why the Oceanside Business Owners Association has endorsed the proposal.

Alex MacWilliam Sr., Mayor of Vero Beach from 1927 to 1945, secured the land that is now Riverside and MacWilliam Parks for the City, and did so with one provision — that the land be preserved for public use.  About establishing a dog park, MacWilliam’s grandson, Alex “Buzz” MacWilliam, III said in a prepared statement,  “For several years now, hundreds of animal lovers have been able to use the land, and it is fitting now to formally dedicate and improve the land as a dog park.”

Vero Beach voters should have an opportunity next November to decide how the land is to be used.  They will have a clear choice between two very different visions, one of a city committed to preserving open space and park lands, or one of a community that would sell off every conceivable asset of value, simply for the sake of short-term gain.