Wrong site chosen for fish hatchery: Guestview

Carl Wernicke
Guest columnist

I support building the fish hatchery in Pensacola. But I agree with the growing number of people who think Bruce Beach is the wrong place.

When speculation about it first emerged, there were knowledgeable people saying there was no technical reason to locate it at Bruce Beach. The Port of Pensacola and Bayou Chico were suggested as alternatives. Tapping water from Pensacola Bay for the hatchery requires only a small pipeline.

Today, opposition to the Bruce Beach site seems well founded. It’s the last significant piece of undeveloped beachfront downtown. As such it offers the potential for a significant economic return for the city.

Yet city officials seem determined to stick with a project with little economic return, and just 11 post-construction jobs. They argue that it will pay for restoring the site, something of a dirt and debris dumping ground now. Also, they cite it as a potential boon for tourism and education, with facilities allowing visitors and students to view the operation.

OK, I can see tourists visiting, but is anyone going to schedule a trip to Pensacola just to see the fish hatchery, as they would for the National Naval Aviation Museum? Well, if they do, they could still visit in another location.

As for site cleanup, why not ask for a million dollars (or two) from the oil spill fund, prepare it for development, and put it up for bids?

No, there’s no guarantee a hotel, condo or restaurant would go there. But even a modest development would offer a better return. This is admittedly silly, but the city would profit more by leasing the site to Waffle House. It would pay a bigger annual lease than the $50 from the hatchery, it would produce more jobs (open 24/7, it needs three shifts) and it would spin off sales taxes.

This is in no way meant to slight Waffle House — they serve a good breakfast! But no one would seriously propose leasing our last waterfront that way.

As for the argument that the hatchery would facilitate public access to the waterfront, it’s a meaningless argument — even if those amenities were still in the budget. Because they can be part of any development there.

The city could, and should, emulate the highly successful redevelopment of Charleston, S.C., and in offering the land for private development require that a waterfront right of way, preserving public access, be included, and make it part of the long proposed waterfront pedestrian path. Charleston secured public access and then let the market decide what was built behind it. This could mean a project I might not prefer, but I’m not putting up the money, either.

Meanwhile, indications are state funding does not require the Bruce Beach site.

Then, of course, there’s politics.

It’s no secret that many people believe Quint Studer, in opposing the plan, is throwing his weight around downtown, and question his agenda. Many others wonder why Mayor Ashton Hayward remains so committed to the Bruce Beach site, and question his agenda.

I am, of course, shocked to discover politics are involved. But why not judge the project on its own value? In the vacant port warehouse or on Bayou Chico, the hatchery would add value to Pensacola. As the best value for taxpayers at Bruce Beach, it distinctly underwhelms.

Carl Wernicke is a former Opinion Page editor of the Pensacola News Journal.