The politics of the parks levy
Why didn't the Seattle mayor and the City Council get together on Proposition 2? Welcome to the politics of special levies and the artful shaping of each year's big ask.
One of the more curious political stories of this election is the Seattle Pro Parks levy, Proposition 2. The measure would raise $146 million over the next six years, spreading the money over 54 parks and some cultural facilities. The twist is that Mayor Greg Nickels opposes Prop 2, while the City Council and some parks advocates are pushing it. Why the discord?
Part of the answer is simple politics. The City Council wanted to prove it could do something big in defiance of the mayor, who has spent the years since he was elected in 2001 bullying the council. Better organized under council President Richard Conlin, a possible challenger to Nickels in 2009, the council can now do things like this. For his part, Nickels will want to finally oppose a tax increase, and especially this kind, of taking an expired levy and extending it, which is something of a violation of taxpayer trust. Nickels has a reputation for being a tax-hugger. So both the council and the mayor get to prove something.
This is one terrible way to run a railroad. For one thing, it was done in great haste. Secondly, as new Parks Superintendent Tim Gallagher points out, his department could not participate in any of the planning for the levy. As a result, the levy is full of round numbers, scattering small amounts to virtually every neighborhood. A typical entry: "Roxhill Park: $450,000 to improve playground safety."
The real planning is coming from assorted parks and neighborhood activists and the Parks Foundation, plus some prominent players like the Arboretum, the Seattle Art Museum (Volunteer Park), and Langston Hughes Performing Arts Center. There is a little strategy to be sensed amid all the holiday gifts: covering reservoirs and putting parks on top of them, for instance; synthetic turf for athletic fields; and skateboard facilities.
Another political factor is that the parks levy interrupted the carefully arranged queue for these special levies. The city is obviously addicted to them, as a way to fund major maintenance costs outside the regular budget, leaving more room for personnel and social services and higher pay for police. They are carefully arranged so as to include some mom-and-apple-pie levies (the Pike Place Market, for instance) along with the harder-to-swallow ones (low-income housing). This year, with a large Democratic turnout for a presidential race, there was a juicy opportunity to pass some big levies. Nickels put most of his eggs in the Sound Transit basket for this year, steering Seattle Center off the ballot and trying to keep the parks levy off as well.
One irony in all this comes from the great unforeseen event, the crashing economy. It's easy to imagine Nickels getting a rude comeuppance. Sound Transit, which Nickels strongarmed onto the ballot this year, is likely to fail. The Market levy is coming under criticism as an obvious example of the city practice of letting things run down so you can pass the buck to the taxpayers in a sentimental campaign, so it, too, might fail. (Same criticism applies to parks, of course.) The one that might pass is the least-well-considered but at least one that promises a small improvement in a neighborhood near every taxpayer.
Presumably, the red-faced mayor will accept the $146 million.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Fri, Oct 24, 6:41 a.m. inappropriate
This levy isn't about the Mayor, and it isn't about City Council either. In the face of an expiring levy a community coalition called the Green Legacy Coalition came together to push for renewal. Without a renewal, capital spending on parks would go down dramatically, both to develop existing city owned sites and to acquire properties in rapidly growing neighborhoods. The politics you describe were a considerable obstacle, and without the pressure from a broad array of community advocates, there would have been no levy renewal at all.
To say it was hastily put together is an insult to the citizens committee that developed the plan. There were literally hundreds of projects identified through neighborhood planning, parks department planning, and the very successful parks opportunity fund. The committee, which worked for months with public input, chose the projects that had firm cost estimates and that met a wide variety of city needs.
That the political class of this town had a disagreement about the parks levy may make for an interesting article for those who chronicle their opinions. But the real story here is that because community members came together to make their voices heard, this city has the chance to keep investing in parks and open spaces as this city continues to grow. This is not about the mayor and city council, it is about us having a say in our quality of life.
Posted Fri, Oct 24, 7:16 a.m. inappropriate
And this curious comment:
"Another political factor is that the parks levy interrupted the carefully arranged queue for these special levies."
Whose carefully arranged queue? Is that really an issue -- that the establishment did not get to decide what is best for us?
C'mon, what goes on the ballot is alway the result of democratic processes. That is how it is supposed to work.
Posted Fri, Oct 24, 9:22 a.m. inappropriate
So many people writing about the different "angles" on this levy, but most of them have nothing to do with what people will be deciding on: What will the money go towards, and can they personally afford it.
For me, helping ensure Seattle's green legacy at a lower tax rate than the expiring levy is a no brainer. A lower tax burden, and great projects across the city is why people should be voting YES on Prop 2. They shouldn't be voting on every news outlet's OPINION of what the "real angle" is on the levy.
Posted Fri, Oct 24, 9:53 a.m. inappropriate
As a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee that constructed the levy measure, I can say with certainty the choices we made were based on YEARS of city process. Over a decade of planning -- by neighborhoods, Parks, and other groups -- have been reflected in over a dozen different documents that name necessary parks projects. At the very beginning, we made the conscious (and smart) decision not to reinvent the wheel, but to prioritize the projects other groups had already identified.
If you look at our April to June work period, you can say we threw together the levy in three months. The more accurate statement is the three solid months of every-day work most of us ut in to create the levy was merely "cherry on top" of over a decade of planning.
Nickels should be ashamed. He directed his departments not to work with us simply because this was a grassroots idea. The more I work with his administration, the more I realize that while he professes to like Seattle it is very obvious he doesn't much like Seattleites. This is a perfect example.
Media outlets fall for this "tax break" idea all too often. The fact is the Nickels parks levy version will be much, much larger than the current modest proposal -- which actually results in a decrease in tax burden over the expiring levy by about 30%. As Councilmember Tim Burgess recently pointed out on his blog, the tax RATE for Seattle has fallen. A link to his graph appears below, with the 2009 figure assuming the passage of both the Market and Parks & Green Spaces Levy.
http://timothyburgess.typepad.com/tim_burgess_city_view_/files/property_tax_chart_102308.pdf
This levy was constructed under a plan of "specifically directed flexibility". Knowing that new park spaces are necessary because of our increasing density, our committee designated $20M in acquisitions funds to those urban centers with the worst parks to people ratio. The silver lining to the economic downturn is financial pressures on overextended developers may allow this money to go much farther than we had dreamed, if we can negotiate some good deals at today's lower land values. The fact levy money will go farther right now is a great reason to pass this levy without delay.
We did the same in creating a fund for opportunistic acquisitions around environmentally critical areas like our city's native streams. I'm especially proud we were able to increase the Opportunity Fund -- both in percentage and dollar amounts -- to allow for neighborhood-generated projects that haven't even been dreamed up yet. This fund was the most popular feature in the expiring levy, and one that created some of the best projects.
All this is overseen by a volunteer citizens board, with changes to what we've set out in the levy package requiring a 3/4 vote of the Council to change.
The list of endorsements for the levy is impressive. Every single Seattle Democratic Legislative District endorsed the levy and all carried parks levy literature to voters in their precinct. The list, which is accessible at the link below, shows how broad support is for the levy across the city. Our grassroots campaign movement has distributed over 100,000 pieces of literature, both door-to-door and at events citywide.
http://keep.seattleparksforall.org/forum/topic/show?id=2225951%3ATopic%3A332
This is a good levy and one that is worth the $7/month the median homeowner will pay. I hope you'll join me in voting yes.
-- David Miller
Posted Fri, Oct 24, 11:33 a.m. inappropriate
This levy authorizes about $10.7 million for artificial turf--about 15% of the total funds--to fix just four playfields with a substance that has raised significant controversy across the country. In the summertime, the fields get so hot you cannot walk on them barefoot. A two year old who fell on one spent days in a New York hospital recovering from burns--the ground up used tires are oil derivatives that heat up to 160 F when the ambient outdoor temperature is as low as 85 --- yes, we get that even in Seattle. TO STOP THE PAVING OF SEATTLE PARKS WITH FAKE GRASS AND USED TIRES, VOTE NO ON PARKS LEVY PROP 2. Thanks. For more information, go to www.synturf.org or www.plasticfieldsfornever.org
Posted Fri, Oct 24, 12:41 p.m. inappropriate
The conflict is that most of the public would prefer to give parks and open spaces higher priority and more resources than the mayor and a couple of council members prefer.
Citizen demand for parks as places to be near nature for spiritual renewal or as places for recreation will grow faster than the parks regardless of this levy. Without it we will be farther behind and worse off, living packed more closely together, with less access to parks and nature. There will never be better future time for acquiring land.
This levy is our best bet for having resources directed towards priorities with the greatest benefit for most of us.
Council Members Rasmussen and Conlin deserve a lot of credit for gettng this on the ballot and being willing to buck the Mayor as do the other strong council suporters: Godin and Licata.
It is hard to know how this proposal and others will fare given the state of the economy. If we all wind up poorer in the future free recreation in the parks will be more important than ever. If the economic slowdown results in federal matching funds for infrastructure becoming more available these park levy funds accomplish more and prove even a better investment than planned.
Posted Fri, Oct 24, 12:46 p.m. inappropriate
"Sound Transit, which Nickels strongarmed onto the ballot this year, is likely to fail."
Are there some polls out showing this? If so, could someone please give us the numbers? If not, why does Brewster believe this?
Posted Fri, Oct 24, 4:36 p.m. inappropriate
If only Seattle's weather had enough sunshine to make cvandy's concern about heat valid, we'd all be much happier people (and then I'd support that concern). However Seattle has more clouds and rain than not, and we also have many natural turf fields to address the need in the hot summer.
Synthetic turf has progressed to a degree that it is safe on the knees and the body. Most of the studies cited lately are based on old versions of the turf or were done in other climates, so they aren't directly relevant here. However, we DO need studies for our region, and I know Parks is committed to ensuring environmentally safe fields. Plus the levy includes language that says the funding won't be disbursed for synthetic turf projects until they are found to be safe (something changed by the Council to address citizen concerns).
I'd hate to vote down $135 million in park acquisition and improvements for projects all over Seattle because a vocal minority doesn't like a particular use of parks. This is about Seattle parks for ALL, not me.
Posted Sun, Oct 26, 6:44 p.m. inappropriate
Vote "NO" on this Parks Levy. The Levy Committee was another opaque group of "stakeholders" put together by the City Council which is very unrepresentative of Seattle citizens. There was little or no outreach to park neighbors ( the heaviest users of any given park) as to what they wanted in their neighborhood. It asks for excessive money for projects that benefit few-Asian Art Museum( that SAM can very well fund on its own), Langston Hughes Center, artificial turf and more lights that are 40% used by adults who don'teven live in Seattle ( but puts money in the pockets of the organized sport leagues, their lobbyists, and officials). All this levy will do is extract money from taxpayers for too many amenities that they will have no say in developing if they get anything at all. The details in the Parksforall site even brags about building more skateparks claiming that it is a growing sport; in fact, according to state level statistics it has declined in both participation numbers by 20% and in actual times per year participated in from 10 to 5.7.
My neighborhood had a lit partially fake turfed field shoved down its throat over vociferous objections over the intrusions into a neighborhood playground and over the many people displaced from using their local greenspace-all for the benefit of people who don't live in the neighborhood or even in Seattle. This levy will simply promote more similar depredations in other Seattle neighborhoods.
The really sad part is that this levy simply hands another pot of money to the Mayor ( Budget proposer), and City Council that they will use to "pay-off" those members of the Levy Committee who contribute to mayoral and council campaigns. The "wish list" is simply that-there is no guarantee that any of the money will go to the mentioned projects. As with the last levy, the oversite committee will be another rubberstamp group strongly influenced by people who have absolutely no interest in any broad public benefit. If you want to see your neighborhood park ruined, see yourself and neighbors displaced, see more graceful trees cut, more grass for everyone replaced with artificial turf for the few, more big intrusive lights in formerly peaceful neighborhoods, more concrete replacing potential natural areas, then vote yes. If you have any real sense, you'll do the truly wise thing and vote "NO"
Posted Sun, Oct 26, 7:19 p.m. inappropriate
The parks levy requires a study on the safety of synthetic turf be conducted before money is spent. If the study shows synthetic turf is not safe, then no money may be spent on it from the levy.
Friends of Greenlake have endorsed the replacement of the sand fields near Greenlake with syntheitc turf (provided they are shown to be safe) and the levy overall as they believe it will reduce particulate getting to the lake.
The four fields are currently four existing sand fields that are already lit. Making this levy pay for former Parks Superintendent Ken Bounds' ignorance of neighborhood views is neither fair nor right.
Posted Wed, Oct 29, 12:14 a.m. inappropriate
The sand fields at Lower Woodland Park were grass fields 7 years ago. They dumped no particulate matter in the Lake until they were turned into dirt all-weather fields after the Nisqually quake of 2001. The Parks Dept has told us #7 will continue to flood even if artificially turfed since the area is actually the old bottom of Green Lake. SPR has made drainage improvements to the area since it turned out one of the major particulate problems was actually coming from the gravel parking lots, not the dirt soccer field.Those lots are being paved and have new vaults for stormwater. And a very big thank you to Parks (KS) for doing that.
The City Council and the Mayor's Office will most likely find the artificial turf to be "safe" since like so many government agencies, that is what they want to see and hear-science be d---ed.They also listen to no input from neighbors. We exist simply to pay the bills and put up with whatever travesty is to be visited on us.
You may not like it, but Ken Bounds past poor decisions are going to haunt this city and SPR for many years. His legacy still lives on in Levy Committees that are unrepresentative of Seattle Park users, in an ARC group which consists of a large collection of one note wonders, and in a massive distrust from citizens who have tried to reason with SPR in the past. Neighborhoods have no representation in the Parks Dept except through the growing good efforts of the new Superintendent,Tim Gallagher, who in one year has demonstrated that he has good ears and a fine mind. I applaud his efforts.
I can in no way condone or support a levy that is the kitchen sink collection this one is. There is also no control at the neighborhood level, and City Council is free to move money wherever and however it wants using a 3/4 vote. They are also highly influenced by paid lobbyists and personal biases which demonstrate them to be untrustworthy with public funds.
I would rather wait until we have a better City Council, a better Mayor and a philosophy in SPR that puts neighborhood needs first.