Candidate Q&A: Don Gruber for Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District.

As part of the 2022 election season, the Weekly asked candidates for several offices to answer questions about some of the issues by email. Don Gruber is running for Ward 3 on the board of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District, against incumbent Kevin Raskoff.  

How might your role on the board impact FORTAG?

Good question. Firstly, only a majority vote can change anything, and as two of the three incumbents are running unopposed, I would be outvoted 4-1 on everything. And probably the first phase of FORTAG is written in stone, anyhow, as a board can't be changing already agreed-upon decisions just because there is a new board. I'm not going to be wasting any energy trying to change the Phase One development, although I will probably refer to it with a hint of superior sarcasm in my voice.

As to the inevitable next phase for the Frog Pond, which is likely going to be a trail along the creek, I will still face a 4-1 opposition, and won't win, unless attitudes change in existing board members.

But I will oppose it, and vehemently, to the board and to the public. In fact, the main reason I should be elected is to speak loudly for the habitat, to the board, to the public, so that all are informed about the potential damage, not only in the Frog Pond, but everywhere in the district. Isn't that after all the reason CEQA exists? Not to stop any development, but to let all people—and especially all decision-makers—know what damage your development will likely do? Then you can do it or not, but at least you have had a chance to understand both the benefits and the damage.

In my opinion FORTAG is mostly a good idea, but a good idea is only as good as its weakest link, and that is the Frog Pond. If FORTAG could route around the Frog Pond, I would be a full-on supporter.

Short answer: my position on the board is not going to influence FORTAG at all, unfortunately.

Curious if you believe San Jose Creek Trail should be opened, and if yes, by when?

I am not familiar with that proposal. I'll look it up. I have rarely been to Palo Corona because they don't allow dogs. I always hike with my dog.

Curious if you believe access to the Palo Corona Peak should be opened to mountain bikes? If yes, by when? (And where—going past Animas Pond or from which entry point?)

It doesn't take much research to find out I have been usually very much opposed to mountain bikes on trails. A recent, unfortunate visit to Fort Ord and close encounters with speeding, noisy cyclists at close range have reminded me of why. Bikes and hikers should not be on the same trail.

That being said, I'm not automatically opposed; I'd look at the plan and see if it is reasonable. The chances of my liking it are pretty slim, but possible.

Ditto for hikers? If yes, by when?

Hikers? I generally like the idea of getting people at least to the edge of wild places. That way they understand and love wilderness, and become supporters. I would have to look at the specific plan to see if seemed reasonable. I don't know "by when?" as once again I will have to research the proposal.

Do you support the dog park at Palo Corona?

Yes, probably, but again I have not looked at the details.

Boards change over the years. The earlier boards of the Park District were inclined to acquire land, and keep it mostly as habitat. The current board is not inclined to acquire property, and they are much more about access. My role would be to temper that view and broaden the discussion.

Additionally:

I believe the summation of the board attitude comes from your own paper, quoting [MPRPD General Manager] Rafael Payan, defending his own actions in [the Aug. 29] edition:

"We are the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District, not regional conservation district…we are a park district, which impels that aspect of providing public access."

I think that's a pretty arrogant posture, for one thing, but more-or-less tells us what the official view is, and I believe that needs to change, and I would try to make that change. Without first protecting and valuing the habitat, there is no point in providing access.