Risks and Safeguards

Stewardship models for public spaces raise legitimate questions. This page addresses the most common ones directly.

Risk: Loss of Public Control

Concern: A conservancy could diminish City authority or public ownership.

Safeguard: Ownership, policy authority, and final decision-making remain with the City at all times. Any stewardship arrangement would be formalized through City-approved agreements with defined scope, oversight, and accountability.

Risk: Privatization or Restricted Access

Concern: Public access could be limited through fees, memberships, or exclusive use.

Safeguard: Free, open public access is the foundational principle — not a feature to be preserved where convenient, but a condition of any stewardship arrangement. No ticketing, membership, or exclusive access would be created.

Risk: Over-Programming or Commercialization

Concern: Formal programming could displace the informal community use that makes the space work.

Safeguard: The Hangar's value is its unstructured, flexible character. Any stewardship role would be designed to protect that character, not replace it with scheduled events or commercial activity.

Risk: Mission Creep Over Time

Concern: A conservancy's responsibilities or authority could expand beyond what was originally intended.

Safeguard: Roles and responsibilities would be clearly defined in writing from the outset. Any expansion would require City review, public process, and formal approval — it could not happen quietly or by default.

Risk: Lack of Transparency or Accountability

Concern: Decisions or finances could become opaque over time.

Safeguard: Financial activity would be transparent and subject to appropriate public oversight. Regular reporting supports accountability and public trust.

Risk: Unequal Influence or Capture by a Single Group

Concern: One group could dominate decisions or effectively control access.

Safeguard: No single group defines the Hangar. Any advisory or stewardship role would be structured to reflect the full range of community use — not the priorities of any one interest.

Risk: Unnecessary Bureaucracy

Concern: A stewardship structure could add complexity without adding value.

Safeguard: Any structure would begin modestly, with a clear and limited scope. The goal is to supplement City capacity where it is genuinely needed — not to create a layer of administration for its own sake.

Risk: Long-Term Commitments Without Flexibility

Concern: Early decisions could lock the City into arrangements that prove difficult to exit.

Safeguard: Stewardship arrangements would be designed with flexibility and reversibility in mind. No early decision commits the City to a permanent outcome. Terms can be revisited as conditions evolve.

Next, Next Steps.