Manteca’s elected leaders have made their case for a 3/4 cent sales tax hike.

But have they demonstrated their commitment to really making all the things happen they say they well?

It’s a legitimate question.

And the answer isn’t tying anyone’s hands per se.

It is taking courses of action that assure there will be follow through.

A new swimming pool — as dangled before the public during the PowerPoint presentation before the City Council on Tuesday regarding the tax proposal that ultimately was placed on the Nov. 5 ballot — is clearly not the No. 1, No. 2, or No. 3 priority.

Those are streets, police and fire.

But it was legitimately mentioned as something likely to happen with the leveraging of $13 million or so a year in additional revenues would allow through bonding while making serious inroads into the three aforementioned top concerns.

You can’t build an aquatics center — or develop a second community park for that matter — without a place to put it.

Given what property the city currently possesses based on size — unless they are going to dilute the economic promise of the family entertainment zone or use the neat little triangle of land pressing up against the 120 Bypass just west of Living Spaces — they have nowhere to place a new swimming pool.

Or do they?

A year ago, a once quite private sector behemoth when it came to Manteca issues arose from a near century-long slumber.

In doing so, Delicato Family Wines scrambled city politics and upended a general plan update that took an insane seven years to piece together.

Mayor Gary Singh along with then Vice Mayor Mike Morowit struck a tentative deal with winery CEO Chris Indelicato to avoid the Manteca equivalent of political Armageddon on the Nov. 5 ballot.

The tectonic threat?

It was outright rejection of the general plan update.

That in itself is a yawner because it actually would technically make little difference if the referendum passed.

In fact, it would keep in place the current general plan that allows for more housing and therefore more of the growth that gets routinely labeled as evil.

The problem is how the referendum was sold in the gathering of more than enough signatures to qualify it for the ballot.

As such, the perception was passage would stop or severely slowdown growth.

It was also sold as the magic pill to ease traffic, make sure the schools had plenty of room, and to stop or slow down conversion of orchards and farm fields into more housing.

The referendum won’t do that.

But the perception it can and the fact it wouldn’t happen could not only create a political nightmare for local elected leaders but could also tear the community asunder.

The winery has agreed if reasonable progress is made on the city’s part to implement changes to the north Manteca development patterns as Singh/Morowit negotiated with Indelicato they would not press forward with the ballot measure.

The drop dead date for advancing the general plan referendum for the ballot is now a month away.

It is why a prudent council would make a move not just to reassure voters they are committed to a sales tax but to increase the winery’s confidence in what the city agreed to do in north Manteca.

Part of that negotiated deal with Indelicato was the establishment of a 50-acre community park on North Union Road at Lovelace Road to buffer the winery from residential development.

There is $9 million currently sitting in the community park fee account Manteca fills with fees collected on each new residential building permit.

The property in question is worth roughly $5 million.

The landowner wants to sell.

But thanks to the city’s decision to protect the perceived interests of the community, the only entity that they can sell to is the City of Manteca.

And the city appears to be not be very interested in buying the land anytime soon.

It’s strange, isn’t it?

The City Council agreed 5-0 to bless the Indelicato deal that includes the establishment of Manteca’s second community park.

The city is dangling the prospect of a new community pool and such as a way to convince people to support a 3/4 cent sales tax hike.

The owner wants to sell, but the city has essentially made it so that the only buyer can be the city.

The city has the money in hand to buy the land.

Plus the city stated the obvious during Tuesday’s PowerPoint presentation that the more one waits to do something such as buy land, the cost of doing so grows faster than the rate of inflation.

So why isn’t the city buying the land in question?

And more importantly, why aren’t they moving forward with buying the site after spending $475,000 in 2017 to develop a park master plan that was used to assess community park fees in new growth for the past seven years to do just that?

You can’t have a new swimming pool or aquatics center without a place to locate it.

The land is the first part of the physical puzzle.

Elected leaders have already formally decided on the location of the next community park.

And the city has collected more than it needs to buy the land.

There is little doubt if the sales tax hike is passed, city leaders will work to address streets, police, and fire.

But whether they will follow through on the prudent move of leveraging growth fees collected for specific purposes such as a sorely needed police station upgrade or adding community recreational facilities to bond to get them in place is more than hazy.

How they can clear up clouds of doubts is to follow through on their own decisions that include collecting and securing needed funds from growth to secure the next community park and pinpointing the exact location for the park.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com