Belmont can do better on its PROS plan

The council received hundreds of emails — revealing divisions between those wanting a quick decision and those asking for improvements — indicative of community division over content and the revision process.

The PROS planning process was premised on a survey; however, the survey was not only open to Belmont residents but to anyone. More than 50% of respondents were from outside of Belmont. Encouraging nonresident opinions about how Belmont’s resources are to be used was only the first of a number of process concerns.

The majority of the 18-month PROS process only discussed parks and recreation. Residents gave feedback; drafts were reviewed. However, there was clear dissension over use and management of our open spaces. Specific discussion about this contentious topic was promised.

I was a member of the PROS committee and unfortunately while the PROS process sounds thorough and representative, in reality it fell far short.

Residents had limited opportunity to make only timed comments. The PROS committee did not engage in discussion — only inputs were collected for consultant, Gates and Associates. Despite promised open space discussion, it was not until this May, a full 16 months into the process, that its use was even addressed.

No discussion was held to address questions about open spaces use, including:

• Why were traffic studies not conducted to anticipate the effect of increasing park use and trail development on neighborhoods?

• How do other cities evaluate and manage trail use, including size/conditions of trails for mountain bikes and pedestrians, and policies such as Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s recent ban on e-bikes?

• Why is there no city management/enforcement over private individuals creating their own trails on city open space?

• What safety measures protect all users in a mixed-use setting?

It is clear that our PROS plan needs more work. The council has delayed discussion — now we need to get it right.

When the Belmont Library was planned from 2000-2004, we engaged citizens in meaningful discussion — not only inputs — but with opportunities for feedback on planned outputs — ensuring that Belmont residents felt comfortable with plans for their resources.

When I served on the City Council, twice as mayor, from 2007-2015. I always embraced what I felt was my duty to listen to all voices of the residents.

Current Mayor Julia Mates has referred to the PROS plan as the most important and contentious issue facing Belmont in years. I urge the council to hear resident voices and to encourage real discussions to get this plan right.

The current draft lacks clear direction for future decision-makers on contentious issues and pits environmental groups/walkers and bikers against each other. By our fifth and final PROS meeting, I stated that the city had lost a great opportunity to bring these two groups together. I believe there is still time to do so.

It’s not about how long the process has taken but the quality of the output. I encourage the council to take the time for proper studies to be done before PROS is approved. It must consider the unique size and nature of our Belmont open space, the effects of anticipated usages and growth, and what our city is able to manage before making the guidelines that will drive policy for decades.

At present, there remain clear contentions over Belmont’s open space. Instead of allowing a divided community to persist, the city should lead output-oriented discussions and work through our differences so that when the council does ultimately approve the PROS plan, there is consensus it is a good plan with clear pathways to guide us forward.

National contentions are concerning enough. Belmont can do better.

David Braunstein is former two-term Belmont councilmember and mayor. An educator, father, and 27-year resident, he has served on the Belmont library project, community center development committee and the PROS committee.