Seattlest: Nickels And Seattlest Actually Agree On Something

Katelyn

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:29:34 -0800

I'd vote YES.

TroyJMorris

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:28:19 -0800

I was just staring at this picture and thinking about how many people trek up to that park to take pictures from that grassy knoll. Then I though, why not add a drop box for donations up there? Surely enough poor souls would donate a nickel or two? Thoughts?

Katelyn

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:17:36 -0800

Thanks guys! Some very helpful and clear information has come from this.

TroyJMorris

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:06:59 -0800

Wow... I'm actually happily amazed that someone is upset AND wrote a very thoughtful comment. Thank you greymatter. And I'm really, honestly, not being sarcastic. You shed a lot of light on this, topic. Your handle is well deserved. Unless you're talking about school lunch meat as grey matter....

greymatter

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:12:50 -0800

Okay, I'm shocked and surprised that intelligent and thoughtful people on this blog would be swayed by the voter's pamphlet statement against the parks levy.... There are so many factual errors and misleading statements in it, that I consider it worth a good laugh, but not a good read. Let's clear it up. The pavement thing. The total levy package is $145 million. $30 million of that is for acquisition of neighborhood parks in areas lacking sufficient green space and for securing streamside and forest habitat. The vast majority of the levy is for neighborhood park developments like playgrounds, reservoir lid improvements (66 NEW acres of parkland!), and bike trails. If you consider bike trails, spray parks, skate parks, and such pavement, then I'd say that is a limited perspective on what public parks are. Also, you'll hear people talk out about buildings, too. The only facilities in this levy are for buildings owned by Parks and Recreation including, the Seattle Asian Art Museum and Langston Huges (seismic upgrades)and the Camp Long Environmental Learning Center for a grand total of $12.5 million. That's 8.6% of the levy. Which leaves $132.5 million for the rest of the parks projects. As for the urban village comment... Wow. You might have heard that the City is trying to concentrate growth in specific neighborhoods - these are the "urban villages." You might know them as neighborhoods like Ballard, Belltown, the International District, University District, Rainier Valley, and West Seattle. And yes, Northgate is one of them; but people actually live in that neighborhood, too, and all of these "urban villages" need green space to accompany their density. If you want to see a full list of the parks projects with factual descriptions, please go to www.seattleparksforall.org and look at the project map.

ruffhauser

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:54:10 -0800

From the aforementioned Voters Pamphlet. 21 new “neighborhood parks,” but 19 of them are planned for “Urban Villages” (a.k.a. malls) which will arguably benefit private corporations more than the public... Interesting point.

MvB

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:39:16 -0800

I'm gonna guess that not everyone finds the parks so plentiful, Katelyn, depending on where you live. Here's some of the areas they want to acquire land in: East Duwamish, West Duwamish , Duwamish Head, NE Queen Anne, and Thornton Creek Greenbelts, Ravenna Woods, and Arroyos Natural Area. Why do you hate Duwamish? Why do you deny them their greenbelts? The other thing is that a good chunk of the money is going to new playfields and upkeep. Why do the children play, Katelyn? Yes. Think on that. And no, being against nature and beauty doesn't mean you're condoning the Mercer Street whozit. I just wanted to point out that when the Mayor says we don't have the money for parks, it's because he's already planning on spending it somewhere else, not that the city's coffers are bare.

TroyJMorris

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:32:58 -0800

I'm not a fan of our parks. Yes, we have a ton of parks "tucked away." But I don't want them tucked away. I want them out in the open and in use. To do that, means several things, one of them is making them more than a patch of grass and some trees. I voted yes. But then again, I rent and a landlord can only raise rent so much.... in theory.... I hope. Plus, I think we could all use better places to sling drugs.

Katelyn

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:28:35 -0800

Why can't we just sit tight and enjoy the plentiful parks we already have? Turning down Prop 2 doesn't mean I am automatically condoning the Mercer St. beautification... or does it?

MvB

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:14:45 -0800

I must disagree! This is a terrific time for the parks work to go forward--real estate prices are down, there's a glut of construction workers with free time, and parks are almost always regarded as an asset once they're created, and fiercely protected. If the city is going to spend money on things right now, parks are top of my list. Making SLU's Mercer Street prettier for Vulcan, by contrast, is not. I mention that because Nickels does think he's got $200 million in his pocket for that project.