Proposed Balboa Statue for Park May Be in Limbo

Plans to install a statue of the Spanish explorer Vasco Nunez de Balboa in Balboa Park appear to be foundering--not because of the long and wearing debate that finally ended with a much-criticized decision to allow the statue, but because of poor communication between the city and the statue’s donor.

While city Endowment Officer Kevin Munnelly says the project is merely delayed by budgetary constraints, other city employees close to the project say the misunderstanding has rendered the project all but dead. Plans to erect the statue were hotly argued last year because, although Balboa (1475-1519) is heralded as the first European to sight the Pacific Ocean, he also is charged with cruel, oppressive treatment of the native populations he encountered in the Americas.

Last December, the City Council voted to accept the statue as a gift from local benefactor Elizabeth North and her daughter, Gaye. The 23-foot-high bronze statue on a 10-foot sandstone base was to be placed in the Palisades area of the park. Though council documents clearly identify the gift as “a sculpture,” North now claims she never intended to donate the finished work of art. Instead, she wants to give the city $150,000 to commission the work from the artist of her choice, Guillermo Castano of Tijuana.

“Mrs. North feels she doesn’t have the expertise to oversee the commission. We don’t either,” said David Twomey, assistant director of the city Park and Recreation Department. “Maybe it’s best left that there has been a misunderstanding of what the form of the gift would be.”

Having the city administer the artist’s contract adds costs and complexities to the project that the city is unprepared to address, Twomey said. The Park and Recreation Department has substantially reduced its staff because of budget cuts, and cannot take on the responsibility of overseeing such a contract, he said.

“It’s not as simple as signing an agreement,” said Gail Goldman, coordinator of art in public places for the city’s Commission for Arts and Culture. “We need very specific information about the materials and design. If the money is given to the city, it is then the city’s money and the city is obligated to go through city procedures to use that money.”

Concerns were also raised in the mayor’s office that North’s gift of $150,000 might not cover the price of the statue and that the city would be left liable for the difference.

Based on these concerns, Mayor Maureen O’Connor is preparing a letter to North recommending that the issue of the statue be “revisited” in a few years, when the economy might be better, according to an aide in the mayor’s office. Several city staff members who requested anonymity agreed that this was a graceful way out of a deal that the city no longer wants, without alienating a generous donor. North is from a longtime San Diego family and, according to Endowment Officer Munnelly, has promised future gifts to the city from the North estate.

In 1989, North pledged $70,000 to the Gaslamp Quarter Theatre Company, which named one of its theaters after her. She paid half of the pledge, but reneged on the remaining half after the company developed serious financial problems and canceled part of its 1990 season. North said the cancellation of the season violated the contract she signed with the theater company, but lawyers for the company disagreed with her reading of the contract.

North’s current misunderstanding with the city over the nature of her gift also stems from a difference in interpretation. City documents spell out the city’s action as “accepting the generous gift of the North Family of a sculpture of Vasco Nunez de Balboa.” No mention is made of a sum of money to be donated in addition to or in place of the sculpture.

North refused comment, but referred questions to Munnelly, who said: “It’s always been her idea to give the money to the city and have the city engage the artist.”

This assertion brought reactions of disbelief from Twomey of the Park and Recreation Department and Goldman, of the Commission for Arts and Culture.

“In the mind of the Arts and Culture program staff, it was understood to be the donation of the sculpture,” Goldman said. “At the time the presentations were made to the various committees (that advise the council), it was presented as the donation of a sculpture.”

A small clay model of the statue was displayed at meetings of the Historical Site Board, the Facilities Committee and the other review and approval bodies that approved the proposed gift last year. The Commission for Arts and Culture was the only group to recommend against placing the statue in the park, citing public sensitivity to the subject of the work.

Debate among commissioners centered on the appropriateness of memorializing such a controversial historic figure. The proposed statue also called attention to the city’s lack of a clear policy to guide in the receipt of such gifts.

Vonn Marie May, who chairs the Historical Site Board, voted against the statue’s placement last year in protest against its subject and the manner in which it was embraced by city and park officials.

“Memorialization has to be culturally relevant,” she said. “Everyone loves the park so much. It’s getting to be the living room of the city, and everyone wants a piece of furniture.”