I will never again vote for a Seattle Parks levy after the way people in my neighborhood were jerked around by Parks during and following efforts to get a dog off leash area established in a neighborhood park. After a massive public involvement process that that went on for YEARS, the OLA was approved but not permitted or funded. In addition, SPRD would not allow residents of my neighborhood to fund design and construction of the OLA ourselves, even though a number of us offered to do so.

Other SPRD fiascos include...

Blatant disregard for the Discovery Park Master Plan in collusion with SHA, which intends to build dozens of "market rate" (i.e., $800K and up) houses on the vacated grounds of Fort Lawton.

Massive destruction of wetlands in Magnuson Park in order to cram it full of ballparks.

Auctioning public buildings in Magnuson to the highest bidder, effectively evicting NGOs that serve beneficial public purposes.

The generally molluscan pace at which SPRD has implemented improvements funded by the previous parks levy.

In short, SPRD exemplifies the rot that is prevalent throughout Seattle government. Seattle taxpayers aren't getting much bank for the buck.

Sorry, I meant "bang for the buck."

I often score Jordan with both pluses and minuses, but this one is all pluses. Hear, hear!

I vote for levies and bond issues just like he does, nearly always Yes, but I think it's time to give us a rest. Two full years (at least) with no Seattle $$$ ballot measures. Oh, I know we'll hear from all the interest groups that this levy or that levy are expiring and need to be "renewed," but I still say give us a rest and figure out ways to correct problems such as the ones cited in Jordan's piece.

Useful parks is all in the eye of the beholder.

For example, the two most recent Parks Levys will have provided three new pocket parks and at least two more community gardens in my neighborhood, both things that are in high demand. While you may like to see more programming activities, the many apartment dwellers in my neighborhood rely on the simple green patches in pocket parks as places to sit and read, talk, draw, etc. One of the parks even included a number of BBQs which, as someone without a balcony, I never dreamed I would be able to do in my neighborhood. With a 3 year wait list, the additon of any P-Patches is also a positive thing.

Also remember that a good chunk of the money went to necessary repairs on Parks buildings, such as SAAM and the Langston Hughes Center. Sure some programming at these buildings may be cut back, but if these fixes weren't funded the buildings could eventually have been closed entirely, leaving no activities at all.

According to a 2010 TPL report, Seattle is about middle of the ground in terms of Park Aceage and Parks per Capita. If we continue to densify, it is incredibly important that our amenities keep pace with that growth and securing public land now, when it is cheaper, will certainly pay off in the long run.

And yes, the parks levy may not have been perfect. With any major funding package there are going to be mistakes but overall I think the Oversight Committee put together a very comprehensive list that provided funding for almost every neighborhood and every group of park users. You may not think that Phinney needs more open space, but others might (or heck, get them to purchase an old building that people want saved from development).

I think rather than criticize the Parks Levy, which at the very least secured funding for our parks in a very unstable time, we should be considering ways to make our parks less expensive to operate. One way could be to designate maintaince (garbage collection, pruning, watering, etc.) to neighborhood groups. Another could be more volunteer run activities.

Jordan
I disagree with you on this issue. Since Seattle has made a commitment to funnel growth into a few neighborhoods, now is the time to purchase property which will support the planned density. We had the opportunity previously with the grassroots Seattle Commons initiative. It dismays me at our lack of foresight every time that I'm down in the South Lake Union neighborhood where every building is at the maximum height and maximum footprint permitted. We had the opportunity to make a great investment in the future quality of life for generations and we failed to do so.

And that raises another issue. What will our generation's legacy be to the city of Seattle? The 1960s gave us the Space Needle and Seattle Center and the Forward Thrust bond initiatives which funded the pools and established the Seattle Aquarium.

It seems to me that the challenge of our generation is to create in Seattle the type of community that supports high density but also high quality of life. And that means a commitment to more open space--whether it be parks or public squares. In other words, places where community can happen. Downtown Ballard is one location where public space is needed. The western part of the University District also needs space since it is remote from the University of Washington campus. Northgate has seen significant development with a new library and mixed use development on the south parking lot. But there as well, there isn't any location that one would call a community gathering place.

Jordan's article misunderstands the Levy process, and is therefore wrong on a couple of levels. If there is truly no need for a park on Phinney (or the other examples), Council can reallocate the money. This ability is built into the levy. Reallocation advice comes from the committee overseeing the levy, who listens to input from Parks and citizens when making their decisions.

Jordan takes a handful of examples from the dozens of projects with specific funding, and damns the whole levy. This is flat wrong. By the time the PGSL concludes, it will have funded hundreds of projects and enabled Seattle to bring in significant dollars in matching and other grant funds. That's not something we should be calling a failure.

We do have an issue with maintaining what we've built and are building in the current funding climate. I was on the committee that put the levy together and we were told up front we could include no maintenance dollars. This was a political decision as the powers that be thought it would never pass the voters (I thought then and think now they were wrong). The levy (actually, the accompanying Council resolution) directed Parks and Finance to come up with an alternate proposal to fund future development and operations. Some of that work is ongoing, and I'm hopeful we can devise a system to do both.

David Miller

I use City parks daily, sometimes twice a day. I agree with those above regarding their importance to quality of life/community, but I think Jordan makes an important point.

I often combine my walk with a visit to the branch library, adjacent to my local park. Today, my park is in acute need of maintenance and the library (which just got a fresh coat of paint)is closed...for the week! I can't even use the IT system to put a book on hold. There's not enough money to cover the costs of what we've built/bought (see also federal housing policy which led to recent economic bust/severe social dislocation), and Mr. Miller, that represents a 'failure' to scale the levy appropriately.

I'm angry that our public library is open less than the local ice cream or coffee or bike store. I'm ticked off that Parks and Rec don't have anywhere close to enough to keep the pools and parks and programs open and well maintained. Good government requires saying no to powerful interest groups, and taking the long view when investing in programs and infrastructure. Notwithstanding the seduction when municipal finance meets good cause and well organized advocacy group, the legacy of our generation to Seattle might be learning to live within our means, being particularly careful about when and where we spend scarce public resources.

Doc, one of our levy criteria was to fund projects that would be operations neutral or improve operational costs. Some of the projects do create operational savings.

The levy as a whole is not operations cost-neutral. To do that, you would have to have very little new development and almost no new acquisition. That's not what citizens said they wanted in the hours and hours of public testimony we took as part of putting the levy together. We knew (well, some of us anyway) we were headed to a period of potential availability for new parks space because of the collapse of the property bubble, which was an opportunity we chose to not let go.

Figuring out how to grow Parks' operations budget to match growing park acreage is a challenge. Also a challenge is figuring out how to make parks operations more efficient. Both side of the ledger will be necessary to handle the additional park space we need given plans to add more density.

David, re your "The levy as a whole is not operations cost-neutral. To do that, you would have to have very little new development and almost no new acquisition. That's not what citizens said they wanted in the hours and hours of public testimony we took as part of putting the levy together. "

It sounds like your committee just succumbed to the organized tub-thumpers, when critical thinking was in order.

And during the campaign for this levy, I recall very little if any discussion of the operations' funding problem and how this levy was going to exacerbate it.

I disagree about the idea that the 59th and Phinney Park not needing any work. How about a bathroom up there? Or are there accessible bathrooms at the new zoo entrance?

Also, I don't think you can consider the zoo as a accessible public park since it charges admission and has somewhat limited operating hours.

Love the new FieldTurf on the fields in Seattle. Love the new Magnuson. Love the skate parks and fixed up tennis courts. Love the new community centers. I'll continue to vote for park's levies because I don't want kids to have to put up with the crappy facilities we had to deal with as kids in Seattle in the 1970's and 1980's.

The capital funding levies seem to have been designed by the same kinds of people who want a suburban McMansion with 12 foot ceilings and twice as many bathrooms as people but never think about how much it costs to heat and maintain those kinds of homes. This city used to be pragmatic about spending money on public works.

This is not about the merits or problems with the levys. Jordan's statements about the University District are incorrect. During the neighborhood planning process, the utility of the UW campus as "open space" was considered. Yes it is "open space", and yes it is "used" by residents. However, it is not functional for community recreation, other than walking except for students, faculty and staff. Since the city doesn't own it, or have an agreement with the UW for more active uses, it doesn't count. Second, the neighborhood plan and the subsequent community stewardship has pretty well dispensed with the notion of "pocket parks". The major goal of the Urban Center has always been to make the University Heights school property into a permanent community center providing a wide range of educational, recreational, and other uses including the world-class Farmers' Market. With the 2009 purchase of the property from the School District, the University Heights Center for the Community (UHCCA)is working to achieve this. The initial ProParks Levy provided part of the acquisition funding. The City has purchased a portion of the site for a park. The UHCCA will partner with the City and the Farmers' Market to redevelop the southern portion of the block into a multi-use space. Additional funding from the current levy has been requested to support this project. Finally, I note that while the Seattle Comprehensive Plan says that urban centers should have (city) community centers, University Heights is a privately-owned facility serving that function without which the urban center would be woefully underserved.

Here's a curious question. In 1992, after 5-plus years of public meetings and many, many hours of park planning time, the City Council adopted a Comprehensive Plan for Seattle Parks and Recreation that looked at open space and park needs in every neighborhood of the city. Has anyone ever looked at that document since then? I have a copy if anyone is interested.

@R on Beacon Hill - This discussion was front and center. It was the most common question asked at the forums I attended. A number of people transitioned from the levy campaign to working on how to better fund operations. This effort was hampered by the ill-advised acceptance of Tim Gallagher's resignation, but it is ongoing.

@arizonian - The list of potential acquisition sites and development projects was heavily informed by the Comprehensive Plan and other, similar studies completed over the past decade.

I fall into the camp that concludes Parks needs to focus on getting their operational and administrative house in order. The report by The Center for City Parks Excellence, a part of The Trust for Public Lands, was a real eye opener for me. Seattle ranked number one in the nation in the number of parks employees per capita in year 2008. If the measurement methodology used in the report is reasonable (I am not familiar with it), the logical conclusion to me is there must be way too many resources devoted to planning and administration. It certainly doesn't look like Park's is short on people, yet we struggle with the day to day basics.

I'm not a fan of Mayor Mike at all, in general, but maybe he's actually got it right by focusing on Park's budget in 2011 to help the city's overall budget issue. God help us if someone proposes a separate taxing mechanism to fund Parks maintenance, because surely that will only reinforce whatever it is that apparently seems to keep Parks from being the good steward of taxpayer resources we should all expect.