So where is the controversy? Little details to some, major issues to others such as length, terms and conditions of the lease. Some want the Fair Board to be in total control and others want the city to have a say.

Monday's proposal, written by the fair board, offered to renew on current terms at $1 per year for 52 years on 64 acres of city-owned land. Members of the fair board wants the deal. Who could blame them? They wrote it.

City staff hasn't had time to read it, let alone understand it.

But that didn't stop City Council members David Rabbitt, Mike O'Brien, Karen Nau, Samantha Freitas and Mike Harris from pressing on. They wanted to test the waters. Let's have a discussion and possibly take action.

Who would object to that? Well, fortunately, many did.

Why the haste, you ask? You would have to ask Rabbitt, O'Brien and Freitas, the three who made this all possible. But their haste unto itself destroyed the trust of many in the public who have learned, and too often for good reason, to be leery of what might be happening behind closed doors. If you can't trust the process how can you trust the product?

It was revealed during the meeting that the developer-backed majority on the City Council has no intention of living up to the vision for this property as identified in the General Plan -- a plan the City Council adopted unanimously in May.

The General Plan requires this parcel to include a minimum of 20 acres of active park land.

Judging by his comments, Rabbitt intends to squeeze out the acreage by counting the medians toward that commitment. Furthermore, Rabbitt minimized the general plan commitment as a late addition and therefore somehow less valid. This council seems to march to the beat of a very different drum.

It is clear the current lease doesn't allow the city to achieve the vision of the general plan. So if the lease is adopted by the council as written by the fair board, it is highly likely the controversy is just beginning.

I was among those who expressed concern and the need to slow down, exam the facts and, indeed, check the process. Were we obstructionists?

Interestingly enough. among those with a concern were Mayor Pam Torliatt, Councilwoman Teresa Barrett and the city manager.

John Brown, the newly hired city manager, wisely advised the council on Monday to allow city staff enough time to vet the document. He said, "City staff hadn't had the opportunity to fix what might need to be fixed . . . It may be that the lease may need to be completely re-written." He asked the council to bring the lease extension back on Sept. 8 because the Aug. 4 meeting was not a realistic time frame.

And with that statement, the air was out of the balloon. There would be no rush to judgment on this particular day. So the issue now becomes the judgment of those who were ready to slam dunk a renewal of a lease that is not consistent with the very general plan they unanimously adopted two months ago.

The people won for now, but a thought occurred to me as I left the council chambers: You shouldn't have to fight city hall that hard to get a fair deal and a fair process.

David Glass, host of "The David Glass Show" on KSRO Newstalk 1350, is a former mayor of Petaluma.