The battle between the City of San Diego and Save Our Heritage Organisation over Balboa Park's future continues to heat up, with courtroom action seemingly the next stop.

SOHO the other day slapped the City with a lawsuit to stop an agreement with Qualcomm co-founder Irwin Jacobs' plans to renovate the park. The City Council had previously approved a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Jacobs' Plaza de Panama Committee.

On August 3, the City Attorney's office bit back. Hours after receiving the suit, the office sent a 30-page proposal to dismiss it. The City Attorney's office also sent a letter to SOHO lawyer Susan Brandt-Hawley to drop the case so that the Balboa Park proposals can be carried through.

"To be clear, I have no opinion on the proposed project," wrote Goldsmith. "The only purpose of this request is to avoid the expense of litigating this meritless case and allow public discourse to continue."

Goldsmith also wrote, "The lawsuit is far too premature. Rather than file meritless lawsuits, why not express your views to your representatives, grill candidates and convince the public to submit your point of view?Why sue the taxpayers when you should be trying to convince them of your point of view?"

Funded heavily by billionaire Jacobs, The Plaza de Panama Project was launched in August 2010 with the intention of being completed in time for the park's centennial celebration in 2015. According to the Balboa Park Website, the project vision and objectives include such goals as removing all cars from the Plaza de Panama, improving traffic circulation, limit pedestrian-vehicular conflicts for comfort and safety and increasing open accessible park land by creating new opportunities for park venues.

The plan intends to move traffic out of the park's center and adding a bypass off the Cabrillo Bridge, sending traffic to a parking garage south of the Spreckels Organ Pavilion. Cars have been allowed in the Plaza de Panama area since 1917.

On the Balboa Park site, Mayor Jerry Sanders is quoted, "It was built for the 1915 Exposition as a grand ceremonial plaza for the public. Over time, it was transformed into a grand ceremonial parking lot for cars. We will reclaim this place for ourselves and posterity before the park's centennial celebration in 2015."

That's fine, but SOHO is not buying Sanders' -- or anyone else's -- enthusiasm for the project, and the 42-year nonprofit isn't playing nice about it.

SOHO has placed Balboa Park at the level of "high red alert" on its list of critically endangered historical resources, stating that "The fight to save Balboa Park from this latest threat may result in one of the biggest battles that SOHO has ever been faced with ... it's SOHO's mission to protect San Diego's heritage from such misguided and shortsighted thinking as this."

There's more. Featured prominently on the SOHO Website is a link to a section called "Plaza de Panama, Facts and Myth." SOHO pulls no punches in trashing the project, starting its response to the Mayor's assertion that "The bypass road will have no impact on Alcazar Garden ..." with "This is complete nonsense."

Later, when Sanders is quoted as suggesting he'd consider making some changes in the project, SOHO comes back with, "The biggest myth that Mayor Sanders is perpetuating is that he would consider alternatives."

There's no telling how and when all this will play out. SOHO executive director Bruce Coons told SanDiego.com a few months ago that Balboa Park "is a park, not a park for cars," and has said repeatedly that the Plaza de Panama project is almost universally disliked by the public.

Getting a resolution to this mess could take a while, as it might take a month or more before to set a court hearing with Superior Court Judge Judith Hayes.

"Both sides are trying to get it done as soon as possible,'' Coons said of the latest development. "We've got most of the city of San Diego behind us. People seem extremely supportive of us and what we're doing."

Try telling that to the City. In his letter to Brant-Hawley, Goldsmith wrote, "If the petition is voluntarily dismissed at the point, the City would waive recovery of its nominal costs. If it is not dismissed at this point, the City will vigorously defend the case and seek all remedies available to it under law..."

In other words, play ball or fire up the lawyers and we'll see you in court.