SLO’s Emerson Park plan doesn’t align with its recent DEI announcement

It was interesting to read the city of San Luis Obispo’s recent DEI announcement, especially the city’s commitment to “increasing access,” “fostering belonging,” “advancing structural and institutional equity,” and “improving community health and well-being.” It prompted a simple question: How are those same principles being applied to our Emerson/Old Town neighborhood?

Increasing access: The city told the state that “Emerson Park is the only park area that neighborhood residents can easily access by foot,” noting that “358 families near the project site do not have access to a car.” It also explained that, for many residents, “access to free resources within their neighborhood parks becomes vital for their health and well-being.” That is what the city told the state to qualify for a grant. Yet SLO’s recent—and continued—proposal would take away the neighborhood’s only multi-use playing field serving more than 5,000 nearby residents and replace it with a single-use dog facility. How does taking away the very recreation space the city told the state was vital to this neighborhood increase access?

Fostering belonging: San Luis Obispo’s DEI announcement calls for projects that “strengthen inclusion and foster a greater sense of belonging throughout the city of San Luis Obispo.” Yet the city’s parks and recreation director described what little space would remain after eliminating the neighborhood’s only playing field as “sufficient for yoga and group exercise.” Is that really the city’s vision of belonging? To take away the only place where children and neighborhood residents can be with friends and play soccer, baseball, or other active games?

Advancing structural and institutional equity: The DEI announcement states that proposals should “contribute to systemic or structural changes” throughout the city. Doesn’t that require looking at how the city’s own decisions affect neighborhoods differently? SLO identified the Emerson/Old Town neighborhood as already underserved and in “critical need” of active recreation space. Yet the proposal would remove its only multi-use playing field while residents in every other neighborhood keep theirs. How is that advancing structural and institutional equity?

Improving community health and well-being: SLO told the state that “unstructured play is vital to children’s health and development.” The city also told the state that Emerson’s field is the neighborhood’s only place where that kind of recreation is available within safe walking distance. Why, then, does the city still want to eliminate the very space it said was vital to children’s health and development?

SLO’s Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to preserve Emerson’s entire playing field and reject the introduction of a dog facility into a park that is already much smaller than other neighborhood parks. The neighborhood overwhelmingly agreed. Yet the city has already informed State Parks that it intends to keep the dog facility in the plan. SLO has even kept funds set aside to make it happen. Is that being honest with the residents whom the mayor and City Council members were elected to represent?

After reading the city’s DEI announcement, I have to ask … is this really SLO’s vision for our neighborhood? ∆

Peg Pinard is a former SLO mayor and the founder of the Old Town Neighborhood Association. Respond with a letter to the editor by emailing it to letters@newtimesslo.com.

This article appears in Education Today 2026.