Housing v. parks. The city of Bend v. Bend Park & Recreation District.

What’s going on is more nuanced than that, but a potential park district board policy has Bend Mayor Melanie Kebler “a bit alarmed” and Park District Board Chair Nathan Hovekamp also concerned.

For different reasons. And coming from different points of view.

It’s about housing incentives. There’s no disagreement about Bend’s housing crisis. There is disagreement about what role the park district should play.

Bend has tax exemptions and waivers and other policies that give housing incentives to both for profit and nonprofit developers and others.

The park district board is concerned about what that may mean for revenues intended for parks and where the public dollars end up.

Hovekamp asked park district staff — with the approval of other board members — to look at developing a board policy to give it direction for future requests. A draft is available on page 28 here: tinyurl.com/Bendparkspolicy.

“Public funds that come to us as a special district are dedicated through either the property tax stream or the growth impact fee stream for parks and trails and recreation programming and so forth,” Hovekamp said. “Are they to be diverted to basically subsidize housing? And the mechanism is frankly, honestly, a kind of gift to developers.”

Mayor Kebler knows there are issues for the park district board.

“We were hoping to have a good conversation with the parks board and the park district staff this year,” she said. “This signals to me a different approach…. It’s a pretty big signal.”

One part of the proposed policy Kebler zeroed in on asks the park board to consider if an exemption or waiver would set an unfavorable precedent. She asked: Unfavorable for who? For people who need housing?

The mayor, city manager, park board chair and parks director and others have regular set meetings to talk about issues such as this. One happens to be scheduled for next week.

Good timing.

“The mayor and city council know with a fair amount of accuracy where our board is coming from and we kind of know where they are coming from, but I am certainly open to more conversation,” Hovekamp said. “I am less open to — as has sometimes happen in the past — somewhat of a patronizing, one-way conversation about: The park district needs to recognize this community need for housing and we need to prioritize that and we need to participate without asking too many questions in coughing up funds that are public monies that the public pays for parks and rec.”

After speaking with Kebler and Hovekamp on Friday, the meeting between them can’t happen soon enough. Bend does need more housing options and the park board needs to defend its excellent parks. A critical question for us, though: Which is in crisis?

There would be value in holding a joint meeting on this topic

between the two boards, so the public can see the debate and the formulation of choices in housing v. parks.