With city’s record, let’s check the small print

“San Diego plans to forfeit rights to waterfront park at IQHQ campus” (Oct. 21): While signing over a parcel of land to a developer for a park seems like a good idea, we must be wary of real estate actions by the San Diego City Council. Given previous real estate transactions such as the Ash Street property and the purchase of two Marriott hotels to house the homeless, public scrutiny is highly recommended.

While the proposed park is to be developed via a 96-year lease to the developer, let’s not forget that the City Council just signed a 99-year lease for San Diego High School in Balboa Park. The value of park land in the urban core should have been given higher priority.

Wilbur Smith

Clairemont

This seems to be a reasonable contract to gain a public park for a long-term (96-year) lease, however, as always, the devil is in the details.

The city seems to always blunder and lose money on real estate deals due to lack of due diligence. Need I bring up 101 Ash Street?

One item that is disturbing is that the developer “retains the right to program the park as it sees fit, and issue for-charge permits for private events.”

This could mean concerts and other large-scale events that could be held every weekend and holiday, earning money for the developers and none for the city.

Shouldn’t a lease include a share of profits on the leased land as is done on most lease deals? Get some competent lawyers to examine the contract with an eye to this and other details or we will be closing another bad deal by the city and losing money.

Jack Resnick

La Jolla