Daylighting Seattle's parks department
Under fire from neighborhood advocates and in search of a new parks superintendent, Seattle City Hall is promising transparency and openness.
Shaping, opening up, and daylighting foliage are specialties of Seattle Parks and Recreation, especially this time of year. The department seems less welcoming of the same approach applied to decision-making.
Plenty of landscape awaits work this season, including finding a new superintendent, replacing three Board of Park Commissioners members, and figuring out what to do when the Pro Parks Levy expires next year. All the while trying to accommodate increasingly insistent neighborhood and parks advocates who feel burned by controversies involving Magnuson, Woodland, Gas Works, Loyal Heights, Occidental, and other parks.
It all spells big culture change for a traditionally benign agency used to operating away from the public eye. But with the City Council strengthening oversight of the superintendent (through last November's city charter amendment) and deciding to appoint three commissioners, change seems inevitable.
So far, the reconfigurations are proving a bit rocky. At a meeting last month, Parks and Open Space Advocates (POSA) and interim superintendent B.J. Brooks crossed swords over a recent board shakeup. Brooks says the meeting was more cordial than activists made it out to be and has promised to meet with POSA again. But she's not likely to find tensions relaxed.
Then there's the recent city audit of parks procedures focusing on the Loyal Heights meltdown. Summed up, the audit said mistakes were made, including "administrative errors, poor facilitation, lack of clarity and opportunities lost."
Communications broke down between the Parks Department and the northwest Seattle community over unwanted fake grass ("synthetic turf") and field lighting. From December 2002 to March 2005, the report stated, nothing was done to inform Loyal Heights residents of specific plans. The audit recommended a series of procedures, including professional facilitators, signage of project plans, and more communication (including e-mail lists).
Even as audit results were being formalized, the department planted a section of 16 potentially view-blocking red oaks without soliciting community input. Neighborhood activist Jim Anderson called the planting "the perfect crime" – after all, who could oppose planting trees in a public park?
Saying that, er, more mistakes were made, the department promised to replace the trees with a shorter variety. Anderson, a prickly firebrand with a populist sense of mission (and humor), is only partially mollified: No apology for the department's multiple transgressions has been forthcoming, he notes, despite the audit's recommendation of one.
And the department's provincial sense of protectionism, where commissioners refuse to make e-mail addresses available and hearings on projects or policies are only minimally publicized, is proving downright resilient. For weeks, I have been trying to get a list of potential nominees for the parks board, only to have City Council staff finally suggest I file a public-disclosure request. After I filed a formal request more than a week ago, it took a week for the City Clerk's office to get back. Its response: We'll have something for you in a couple of weeks.
Come on, folks – a public-disclosure request for a list of people who are volunteering for public service? How sensitive can that be?
I went through similar hoops to obtain a list of the mayor's search committee, which has already met and was formed weeks ago, to find a successor to superintendent Ken Bounds, who retired under fire early this year. It took three weeks of asking, albeit no (thankfully) formal public-disclosure request. (Disclosure: Crosscut publisher David Brewster is on the search committee.)
It isn't just the press that gets the cold shoulder. POSA requested late last year to meet with the mayor's office to discuss the superintendent selection process. After six weeks, the group was turned down.
This is all despite seemingly earnest pledges of a new "openness and transparency" from David Della, head of the City Council's parks committee, and parks public-information head Dewey Potter, who told The Seattle Times after the Loyal Heights audit that "a whiff of controversy" would trigger a fresh-air facilitation process with the community.
So smell this: Parks advocates are none too happy with the makeup of the superintendent search committee. They consider the inclusion of Kate Pflaumer, a former U.S. attorney, to be a red flag and exclusion of any POSA member or other community activist a glaring omission.
Pflaumer is the former board chair who, as one observer put it, "threw a hissy fit" and resigned after the City Council moved to shake up the board late last year. Her presence on the committee "is hugely inappropriate," said Cheryl Trivison, a founding member of Seattle Urban Forest Stakeholders.
"Parks and the mayor are missing a golden opportunity to get feedback on the candidates from the people who care most about our parks and open spaces, and with whom the controversies have arisen that led to the ouster of the previous superintendent," said Kit O'Neill, a Ravenna Park activist. "What can they be thinking, to exclude all of those people?"
The mayor makes no excuses. His chief of departmental operations, Ken Nakatsu, said Nickels was aware of POSA's request for representation but "went with others instead." Nonetheless, Nickels feels the committee represents a cross-section of the community, including labor, conservation, housing, and past parks service (several have served on the board). A public-input process is being settled on, Nakatsu said, with the admittedly optimistic goal of a selection by August. (Interim parks chief Brooks says she will apply for the position.)
Politically, it might be argued that parks advocates represent a noisy but easily ignored minority to elected officials. But many also are tireless volunteers doing yeoman service for parks, and their combined voice could prove instrumental to supporting King County's parks levy this August and any potential renewal of city Pro Parks funding.
The mayor has sent mixed signals on Pro Parks, telling City Council members that he will not seek renewal while privately assuring supporters that replacement funds will come from somewhere. If there is a reversal on his part, it might be from not having to solicit taxpayers for megabuck financing of a waterfront tunnel proposition this fall.
Parks advocates did find a scintilla of hope recently when John Barber and Vera Ing, both civic activists, were nominated as commissioners by Della. Ing subsequently withdrew for personal reasons, but Barber's nomination moved forward last week at a council parks committee meeting.
"My reaction to seeing John's name was that I felt yes, there is a God in heaven," Anderson, himself a potential candidate, commented at the committee session.
Barber, who was praised for consistent "constructivism" at the meeting, hopes for "a sifting out process" in the superintendent selection where "we'll find areas of commonality." He hopes the search committee "will go to various sections of the city and listen to what people want in terms of a superintendent." High on his list: scientific credentials and environmental leadership.
Whomever is chosen will need to be comfortable with public pushback. If the agency is to avoid future clashes with community groups, it will have to come up with a more accommodating stratagem than "mistakes were made."
Who's searching
The Seattle mayor's Search Committee for Parks Superintendent: Bill Arntz, former parks board chair and emeritus director of Seattle Aquarium; Bruce Bentley, former parks board chair; David Brewster, founder of Seattle Weekly and Town Hall, and publisher of Crosscut; Margaret Ceis, arboretum committee member and mother of deputy mayor Tim Ceis; Gene Duvernoy, president of Cascade Land Conservancy; James Fearn, former parks board member and Seattle Housing Authority attorney; Andrea John-Smith, fund development and communications officer for Impact Capital, consultant to the Columbia City Revitalization Committee; John Masterjohn, business manager for Local 1239, Public Service and Industrial Employees; Kate Pflaumer, immediate past parks board chair and former U.S. attorney; Joyce Pisnanont, program director for Wilderness Inter-City Leadership Development at the International District Housing Alliance; Ron Sher, Third Place Books founder and board member for the Project for Public Spaces; Chris Towne, board member of the Seattle Parks Foundation.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Thu, Apr 26, 8:39 a.m. inappropriate
A Better not a Lesser Fun Forest: The metro-ification of downtown has a lot of good things in it, but planner need to to remember the mistake of the Shakers. No kids means the society ends.
The Fun Forest is MORE imortnat to Seattle as a family city than the Koolhaus Library or the Science Museum,
The problme is that we need a better model, something that will attract more customers so that the FF cam attract ongoing investment.
Some ideas:
1. Tie the Children's museum t the FF by creating outdoor activities .. clowns can do a lot. Same for the science museumj ... add some U-ride-me dinosaurs.
2, This is still SEATTLE ... the FF should have some Seattle style kids attractions, e.g. a bike trail like the one at REI, a climbing wall, maybe an indoor outdoor swimming pool? How about a long boat kids can row?
3. Summer camps. Finding day camps in Seattle in the sumemr is difficult, e4sp for FF age kids. Day care ... the Center is little used most week days, Creating a rent subsidized facility with public facilities like the FF seems obvious.
4. Day Break Star .. Seattle badly needs a downtown location where the indigenous people can mix with the ROS (rest of us). Some totem poles, the long boat ride (above), a salish theme for the FF (didn't the Squamish invent the ferris wheel) makes a lot more sense culturally than a casino! Get Ivar's to clone the sam,on house while you are at it.
Posted Thu, Apr 26, 8:51 a.m. inappropriate
park politics: Heads up park advocates! As a former member of the Pro Parks 2000 advisory committee and an activist on various city-wide park issues, it looks to me like there is another stealth movement by behind-the-scenes advisors to the Nickel's administration to create a separate parks government - some variation of a metropolitan parks district combined with some kind of public-private management of the parks system. This will, according to advisors, accomplish a few missions - like relieve the city of the increasing financial burden of management and maintenance for parks, create a whole new revenue source from private business, individuals (bench buying and memorials in parks) and partnerships (though sponsorships and advertising) and limit the amount of public involvement - you know, get rid of those noisy park activists who get in the way, file public disclosure requests, and ask too many questions.
Why do i think this? The composition of the hiring committee and the fact that the Mayor is dragging his feet on pro parks levy renewal, the appointment of a parks board and a new superintendent.
Patricia Stambor
Posted Thu, Apr 26, 12:39 p.m. inappropriate
Sweet Jesus: I know "parks activists" threw a fit when Occidental was rehabbed, but the place looks 1000 percent better now. They removed 17 trees, which is sinful, but the place is not used by folks who aren't homeless.
Posted Thu, Apr 26, 12:40 p.m. inappropriate
oops: should read "now used"
Posted Thu, Apr 26, 1:14 p.m. inappropriate
Keep the 'Public' in Public Parks: Both Mayor Nickels' silence about future Parks funding and the list of appointees for the new Superintendent Search Committee raise red flags about the increasing privatization of our public lands. Let's keep the public in public parks.
I also echo the concern about the public not being able to contact Parks Commissioners. How crazy is that? They can call us to set up a meeting but we're not allowed to approach them. I welcome changes for more transparency for Parks decisions as well as the possibility of greater authentic dialog with Parks decision-makers.
Posted Thu, Apr 26, 3:04 p.m. inappropriate
The City Needs Parks, NIMBY's Need Them Too, They Just Don't Know It: The Parks department is trying to carry-out the legitimate interests of the entire City in creating environmentally-advanced lighted artificial fields to serve a wide range of recreational interests. These fields can take 6X the use of a grass field with virtually none of the upkeep. One sixth the space is needed in the City and open space becomes available to kids and families so they can lead healthy lives in a densely populated city. New-generation directed lighting dramatically reduces energy costs and "spill". All in all, practically environmental Nirvana.
But no. Because of the high cost of land and the monopoly on playing fields by schools and parks depts, huge numbers of kids and recreational groups are denied. When the Parks Dept tries to upgrade a field or build new fields, ultimately rich anti-kid NIMBYs crawl out of the woodwork like locusts and defoliate their efforts.
To "solve" this problem, we get the usual rearrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic. Better would be to directly address this schism between local and larger public parks needs with a strategy that directly addressed the real issues:
1. What rights and interests do neighbors have in the creation of lighted artificial fields? Do adjacent neighbors, nearby neighbors, and "I can see the park at a distance, I'm from Kirkland." neighbors have the same rights and standing? What mitigation measures and dollars are available and appropriate?
2. What mandate exists for Parks to unilaterally upgrade fields with FieldTurf and with lights? Is there a well understood policy framework for this kind of work? Is political warfare and Seattle's storied backroom public process required for every park site? If the Parks Dept cannot upgrade local fields (Loyal Heights) and cannot build new fields at a nearly 400-acre park such as Magnuson Park, then the Parks Department should shut its doors. Almost any organization is capable of watching the grass grow.
3. Critics of Parks Dept upgrades rightly object to better fields because they then draw more nearby users. This means more traffic, more noise, and -- in the case of lights -- more traffic and more noise at night. Clearly, this may not always be in the best interests of nearby homeowners. But for Gawdz Sake, People! You've chosen to live next door to a park, What do you expect? What SHOULD you expect?
The "perfect crime" of the row of planted trees mentioned in another comment is a case demonstrating the Scylla and Charybdis between which the Parks Dept operates. Here's an effort--apparently to put a buffer between neighbors and the park--that should be hailed as good for the neighbors, yet it's a neighbor worried about the obstruction of his view and the value of his property who complains! Clearly a pot of mitigation money to smooth out contradictions like these would help. The answer is not to pillory Parks Dept and Parks Board members as criminals fraternizing with Al Qaeda.
Local property interests are the main opponents to Parks Dept plans. Sometimes these are neighbors. Sometimes these are well-meaning environmentalists who want to turn every park into a local nature preserve. In all these cases, NIMBYism is at play. The Parks Dept is trying to execute the will of the larger City. When the Council supports NIMBYism over the greater good, it does the City an injustice. The sad fact is that when fields are upgraded typically the local community benefits enormously and becomes a safer more vibrant place in which to live. Property values go up.
The Parks Department is a leading indicator species. Where parks thrive, cities thrive. Where they whither away, those cities decline into oblivion. Leadership would really help here, along with a strong vision for what parks are all about. Where there is no vision, the people and their parks will perish.
Posted Thu, Apr 26, 5:36 p.m. inappropriate
RE: park politics: Dear Patricia,
I thnk you are correct in your assessment of the present situation. With what I have read of Ron Sims suggestions for King County Parks ( a levy similar to the Seattle Pro-Parks Levy), I can imagine Seattle and Metro teaming up to basically privatize all of our parks, mostly for the benefit of adult single sport palyers of various sorts. Seattle Parks and Playfields have been heading in that direction for some time. It bodes ill for the huge majority of Park users who are walkers, picnickers, swimmers, nature observers, and those who use Parks for their original purpose-respite from city life. The truly strange part of this is that the King County Parks study of 2004 showed that the public subsidy of single sport users runs 85%. The subsidy to non-sport activities runs 5-15%. In other words, if we want to save money and maintain our parks, all we have to do is make them general use areas only. Becauase that is the opposite of what is being done, I have to guess that there is much behind the scenes maneuvering by groups most of us know nothing about. Even stranger, The IAC of Washington State indicates that the non-sport group will grow 20-40% over the next 20 years while field sports will grow only 6% ( lack of land availability and changing interest on the part of the public). So why are Seattle and King County engaged in lighting, turfing, and tree cutting on every park in sight?
Things to think about. Kris Fuller
Posted Thu, Apr 26, 6:26 p.m. inappropriate
Paul Andrews redux: Paul:
Is this you re-emerged as a general commentarian after your Seattle Times career as an electronic gadget evaluator? As someone who knows none of this bureaucratic arcana I found this most interesting. Chris
ctb@dylanbay.com
Posted Thu, Apr 26, 6:26 p.m. inappropriate
RE: The City Needs Parks, NIMBY's Need Them Too, They Just Don't Know It: Hi Stuka,
Unfortunately, you seem to think that the majority of Park users are field sport members when, in fact, the huge majority of Park users are not members of a field sport group. They are park walkers, picnickers, swimmers, general playground users, nature observers, and others who have no intention of ever joining league play. They out-number the adult field users by mind boggling numbers ( a sample from IAC Report as applied to Seattle-walkers 356,000, nature observers-90,000, playground users ( non school only) 42,000. All the adult field sport users living in Seattle total about 10,000 (Softball, baseball, soccer). So why would we turn more treed green space over to such a small group when it has direct and negative repercussions on 1. nearby neighbors, and 2. the majority of park users who do not find big lights and artificial turf conducive to what they like to do in Parks? In case you didn't know it, the Parks Dept will run you off if you set foot on those plastic turf fields to do anything but the prescribed sport for the field. Picnic on artificial turf? I don't think so.
As for calling all those many Park neighbors NIMBYs, I think that is out of line and shows a tremendous lack of sensitivity to the living circumstances of others. Not only are many of these folks subsidizing your field play with taxes, they then are taking a further hit with a loss of home value for your benefit. I have lived near Parks all of my life in Seattle, but it is only in the last five years or so that the really bad, neighborhood impacting projects have gone in. In the 50's and 60's when there were twice as many kids as there are now, we had no problems with playgrounds and fields-they were open to multi-users. In my old neighborhood, we used to have croquet tournements, play volley ball, badminton, and pick-up games of various kinds. As Seattle densifies, it seem apparent to me that what we need are more general use areas and fewer specific sport areas. IAC indicates general users will increase by 30% while single sport users will increase 6%. In addition, general park users require only a 5-15% subsidy from the city while single sport users require an 85% subsidy ( see the 2004 King County Parks report). And it isn't kids out there playing at night; it's adults, many of whom don't even live in Seattle since many teams are made up of workmates.( and only 49%of the people who work in Seattle actually live here.) I know this because I have played on teams and my husband has been a ball player for many, many years.
As far as the lights go, they are really bad. There is NO adequate mitigation that can be provided other than making indoor sports arenas for adult/night players, and I have suggested that to the powers that be. Field noise and light trespass simply can not be blocked. If you want to see a "state of the art" lighting system, go up to Ingraham HS on 130th between I-5 and Aurora. Ask yourself how you would like to look at that until 11:00 5-7 nights a week. As I told Chris Fotes of Sparling Lighting, lighting technology has a very long way to go before it is good enough to be installed in dense, inner city neighborhoods. It is totally inappropriate, like putting strip clubs and bars next to elementary schools. It needs to stop.
I do think some of your suggestions are very appropriate. The City has been very remiss in determining what activities are appropriate in what areas. Whether they will ever bother to do what they should in this area is something I can not guess. If we want the city to accommodate field sports at night, I think the very best idea is to totally privatize them and make them indoor only. That is the only way to make everone reasonably content.
Sincerely, walker
Posted Thu, Apr 26, 8:13 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Paul Andrews redux: Thanks Chris, At some point, not sure exactly when, Seattle City Hall political intrigue became more interesting than Windoze upgrades. Imagine that! Thanks for checking in...
Posted Fri, Apr 27, 12:48 a.m. inappropriate
RE: The City Needs Parks - Common Ground?: I agree with most of what you say:
- lots of walkers and passive recreation folks, way more than active rec folks
- many perceive negative repercussionsto expanded use of fields
- lights and artificial turf are not necessarily compatible or conducive to other passive uses
- the Parks dept tries to keep people off fields during non-game times
- fields are subsidized, and they cost more than most other subsidized uses
- property values can be adversely affected, depending on location of home and overall situation
- used to be lots more kids but not such a high need for fields
- structured sports has all but eliminated pick-up games and unstructured play
- we need more general use areas
- adults play at night (not the kids)
- many field uses are parts of recreational communities that are outside neighborhood boundaries or City boundaries
- lights can be really bad for neighbors
- putting all fields indoors would eliminate the lighting problem, and of course,
- I am tremendously insensitive to the living circumstances of most others (I generalize too much) and still believe that most park neighbors are NIMBY's (that seems to be the only option we offer them).
So I see the above as common ground. Here are some things that are also true from my perspective:
- Field users are dependent to an enormous degree on the virtual monopoly held by schools and parks departments. If schools and parks departments don't build fields no one else will. Note that in the Sammamish Valley King County has actually converted existing land gifted for play fields into farmland and has fought to assure that no one can play on farmland. At Magnuson Park, which is over 300 acres in size, the hillside neighbors can't tolerate the light. So here's a place where dozens of fields could be concentrated to relieve the pressure on local neighborhood fields. But the neighbors fought tooth and nail and only a handful of fields are being built, even those over the dead bodies of many opponents who live miles away. The point I'm making here is that field users are always told "Go someplace else, there's plenty of land." But when you go someplace else, people say "Not here, go someplace else, there's plenty of land."
- Sports fields have grown in demand not just because of population. With Title-IX, there are roughly equal numbers of girls and boys playing field sports. Thirty years ago it was mainly boys. There are many more adult leagues and more adult recreation than in years gone by, particularly with soccer which virtually did not exist in this state before 1960. And newer sports such as field hockey, lacrosse, ultimate disc (ie frisbee), and cricket are now making demands on our fields. And finally, most sports now have some sort of elite year-round component for older kids which also increases demand. This is all compounded by the ways in which pick-up games and unstructured sports and play has virtually disappeared form our neighborhoods, as fields are closed to drop-in play. So you end up with a perfect storm of demand drivers. Parks departments haven't been able to keep up.
- Only with FieldTurf and its imitators has a truly grass-like surface "surfaced" to make meeting demand possible. Grass fields in our rainy climate turn to mud after about 600hrs of play. They cost a lot to maintain. With FieldTurf, during the evening hours that matter, a Field can be used approximately 2400 hrs without appreciable wear or tear, and 3600 hrs if you add lights. So really, all the Parks guys are trying to do is meet this demand. They own Parks, so this is where they try to put fields.
The above change in usage can be upsetting to many people. So how do we get out of this morass? See next post.
- Stuka
Posted Fri, Apr 27, 1:04 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Lighted FieldTurf Field Impacts - Possible Solutions: Okay, here are things that address the current impasse. I think addressing these issues can really lead to solutions.
(As an aside, arguing about the make-up of the Parks Board is like arguing about the right military strategy in Iraq. One side will win out, but nothing will ultimately get fixed. Indeed, if you put hardliners on the Board or groupthinkers, it's hard to get compromise or people even listening to the other side. )
1. Mitigation money should be made available for many sorts of actions such as: light separation walls, direct payments to affected homeowners, addition of park amenities appropriate to neighbors, purchase of buffer property, reconfiguration of lighting with directed, lower glare lighting on shorter light poles (note that baseball requires higher lights than does soccer or football)
2. Lowering of property taxes for properties adjacent to high-intensity fields. (I like this one a lot!)
3. Purchase of homes adjacent to parks for sale explicitly to those who are willing to accept covenants that allow for active field usage (kind of like living on a golf course and accepting that people may hit golf balls into your yard)
4. Same thing for homes near schools, except that these homes would be targeted for sale to teachers who couldn't otherwise afford to live in a district
5. Reasonable parameters for night usage that are negotiated by reps from both sides to restrict lateness of usage and the number of days that fields are lighted at night, and which season they're open. with a City-wide approach the load could be borne by all, so that, for example, fields were lighted Tue & Thu at one park, Mon & Wed at another, and Sat-Sun at a third. this is a compromise for both sides, yet is better than the worst-case scenario for either.
6. Definition of what specifically will be built in which parks in any future levies or bond issues, so that a comprehensive plan that distributes the load is understood. Right now it feels like each conversion to artificial fields is an arrow in the heart or the back of some set of park users. If you knew that the arrows all had suction cups on the ends, and that everyone was in on the game it wouldn't be so bad.
7. Consistency of treatment of schools and parks. My local high school has tall obnoxious lights (probably like Ballard's) and plays rock music all the time. I wouldn't want to live near it. However, in a sense its use is grandfathered, and most people who choose to live near a school know what to expect. With parks, what happens in terms of fields and lights varies a lot, since not all parks have fields, and not all fields are lighted or artificial. Both parks and schools should play by the same set of rules.
8. A rigid definition of how neighborhood parks and larger parks like Magnuson differ, if at all, in the requirements and limitations of fields. Plus we need a definition of the rights of parks neighbors and what it is reasonable for them to expect in terms of mitigation of their personal situation, as well as mitigation of the effects of the park fields themselves.
I could go on and on about subsidies and monopolies and the value of team sports and health and active recreation, but I won't. I'd be interested in your feedback.
- Stuka
Posted Fri, Apr 27, 3:18 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Lighted FieldTurf Field Impacts - Possible Solutions: Hi Stuka,
Oddly, you and I are actually on the same page with regard to a lot of what you suggest. Right now Parks Dept seems out of balance since it seems to want to concentrate the field playing at certain sites with pretty nasty impacts on those particular Park neighbors. Spreading the sites out with a maximum of 2 lit nights a week makes a whole lot more sense to me. Limits on hours of lighting would help too as would lower pole heights and more yellowed lighting than they install at present.( I have spent a great deal of time investigating field lighting, and I have checked out all types of lighting around Puget Sound. Seattle Parks could be doing a much better job than they are right now.)
I understand the frustration with the school district. I share it. After looking over the details of the distribution of the last levy money, I have to say they are not so good at prioritizing needs, but that is a whole 'nother ballgame.
One other problem not being addressed is the fact that athletic fields require the cutting of big trees. A Big Leaf maple in the middle of a baseball field just won't fly. And many Seattle folk just hate seeing big old trees cut for the benefit of small user groups. And the artificial turf may provide more hours of play for specific groups, but it reduces use areas for many other folks which is a problem. A further problem with the artificial turf is that it acts like a heat sink similar to asphalt and concrete in a city. In warm weather, artificial turf fields can heat up to 150 degreesF and then radiate it back during the night. Natural grass doesn't and can't do this.( See Wall Street Journal today 4/27/07 on Cities as heat sinks). So, the turf has problems in spite of allowing more concentrated play. The tree cutting presents problems too since those big old trees are very good at aiding storm water control-they can really soak up excess water which then doesn't go into our stormwater system for eventual discharge into Puget Sound where it does additional damage.
I still think one idea is to make indoor sports areas for those dedicated players. Expensive? Yes, but I don't think playing outdoors at night under lights is such an enjoyment of an outdoor park anyway. My impression from watching and playing 34 years of softball is that most players pay absolutely no attention to their surroundings anyway. Their minds are on the game.
One big problem with everything both you and I have suggested is that it drives the cost of playing to astronomical heights for the players, and as you well know, the fees are pretty high right now. That shuts even larger numbers of ordinary people out of the sports since they have other more pressing needs for their dollars. Actually, I don't see why we can't make some provisions for players to use some of our professional fields available for recreation play on some non- damaging basis. The public has helped pay for those fields, and many sit empty for a lot of the time. The same goes for Memorial and Husky Stadiums. They are there, they are lit, and they are available if the politics can be worked out.
If you don't mind I would rather like to keep this dialogue going because it is an increasing problem for field players, city/suburban neighborhoods/ and park departments everywhere. It is possible we can come up with some reasonable fixes for the present problems that will bring a little peace and happiness to everyone. Most people are reasonable, or they can be if emotions are kept in check and we are willing to think hard, really see the points of the other side, and then seek adequate compromise. So, let's keep talking. walker
Posted Fri, Apr 27, 9:31 p.m. inappropriate
RE: More Possible Solutions: walker,
I don't sense that this conversation is widely read, but no matter. I think we're coming up with some reasonable paths for solutions of some of these problems. Here are some things I further agree with you on, plus some thoughts on bigger subjects in the next post.
Agreed:
- Spread impact of lighted fields out by lighting more fields but limiting days and hours.
- A widespread, and pretty darned expensive, upgrade of lighting could reduce electric bills and light pollution. I know there's a lot that can be done in this area, and that should be done, particularly in neighborhood parks and schools.
- A tax on pro sports revenue to fund parks and fields is a wonderful idea!
- Use of the big stadium fields can be done. It would or maybe already does help some, but at the margins.
- Emphasizing Indoor facilities is a great idea. Converting warehouses in many places would work. This can easily be done for many sports activities: basketball, indoor batting cages, indoor soccer and hockey, etc.
- No objection to preserving big trees. I know in some cities they have the concept of the "significant tree," where a larger tree of a certain size cannot be cut down. With such a definition its "clear cut" which trees should stand and which can go if need be.
- Stuka
Posted Fri, Apr 27, 10:37 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Some Big Policy Changes: LAND OVER BUILT INFRASTRUCTURE BIAS
Parks Depsts are biased towards cheap open space n parks and against built amenities. It's not so much the cost of capital infrastructure that is the problem, but the O&M; requirement that makes an amenity emphasis hard. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have lots of trees and open space in parks, but that we should have more indoor facilities as you suggest, and I'd put a particular emphasis on neighborhood swimming pools where kids can learn to swim, at a minimum, and adults are more likely to participate.
LAND OVER PEOPLE BIAS
The IAC has found that grant money for urban recreation goes unclaimed. They found that that the same environmental standards exist for "undisturbed" land out in the boondocks as exist for land inside the City, and meeting such a high standard in a city isn't worth the trouble.
Environmentalism is successful because it keeps people out of the environment. A neighborhood park or urban park should be land designed primarily with the needs of people as a first priorty. But the GMA and the definitions of environmental preserves, forests, farmland and open space are designed with the resource as the first priority, and people second. This is done because it makes loopholes in environmental law really hard to come by. However, an unintended consequence is that people-first parks are also hard to come by.
People need to be priority one in urban parks. This doesn't mean we eliminate environmental priorities or concerns, only that we understand that we're trying to meet human health and recreational needs first, and preserve habitat second. The HUMAN RESOURCE is the priority, just as trees are a priority in a forest.
MOVE SCHOOL FIELDS TO PARKS
Selling off all school fields and playgrounds to the Parks Department and concentrating this monopoly in one central authority is an intriguing notion. My understanding is that most schools don't even require P.E. anymore, so having a huge recreational infrastructure on-site at each school seems plain stupid (in the Math WASL sense of the word). Schools might jump at the chance for a pot of gold to infuse the moribund school system, so this could be a big win-win. In such a divestiture, possibly through long-term leases, the individual schools would make sure that they have first priority on fields in perpetuity. , The capital budget and the M&O; could be transferred to the Parks Dept. By combining the school and parks field inventories, the public ends up with economies of scale, and simplification of policy and scheduling.
FIELD RATES
We should have a demand-based, tiered pricing system that distinguishes between kids and adults. This means that we'd always have some free use of fields (i.e., tier 1) at off-peak hours, or for walkers and people who run or jog around a track. But the evening times (tier 2) would be much more expensive, and adults should pay significantly more than kids.
Because of competition for fields amongst different user groups, parks depts ultimately should be able to set demand-based rates on fields. For example, a 7pm slot is more valuable than a 10pm slot, and a weekend slot more valuable than a weekday slot. A subsidy might also be added to a particular economic area to keep rates down for a poorer area or a particular policy reason. In theory, this pricing scheme should be able to fund O&M; and field replacement in perpetuity, so you get sustainability too.
Parks Depts typically charge low flat-rate fees or they give away usage. They don't really even attempt to recover a significant part of their capital or O&M; costs, because virtually all of their revenue comes from voter levies and bonds, and making people pay for parks makes them vote against Parks. Fields IN PARKS needn't be free, thus the rate schedule suggested above.
Posted Mon, Apr 30, 6:33 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Lighted FieldTurf Field Impacts - Possible Solutions: Sadly, I am ignorant about anything beyond the basics on this argument, since no one in our family participates in sports leagues and we don't have late night games at our nearest park. However, I think your conversation is great - to me, the best result of these blog/public conversations is an exchange of ideas resulting in solutions. Great job!