With talk of both a $75 million levy to revamp Pike Place Market and a $6-7 billion regional sales tax proposal for Sound Transit on the ballot this fall, Mayor Greg Nickels has shown almost no interest in renewing the parks levy. No doubt he fears that with too many measures on the ballot, overwhelmed taxpayers could shoot them all down.
However, a poll commissioned by Seattle City Council members Richard Conlin, Tom Rasmussen and Bruce Harrell indicated two-thirds majority approval for a proposed $175 million levy for "neighborhood parks, green spaces and trails." It appears that such support, along with a healthy push by many parks, open space, and neighborhood activists, has convinced a majority of council members to go ahead and place some kind of parks measure on this November's ballot, despite the mayor.
We're not big fans of Sound Transit since, as we have said before in this column, our limited transit dollars would be better spent on an expanded regional bus system. We also cannot help but wonder if we really need a levy at this time for improvements at the Pike Place Market.
The word is that the city council might create a levy with half for parks and half for the Pike Place Market. Perhaps a more modest amount of funding for the market can be incorporated into a new parks levy - something worth examining.
But first, there are some unanswered questions about what kind of parks levy should go on the ballot or if it should in fact be postponed until 2009.
The 2000 Pro Parks levy was developed with a high degree of citizen involvement. Nevertheless, some of the results left a lot of folks dissatisfied. If another list of projects is submitted to the voters this fall, will there be time to adequately weigh the interests of different stakeholders? If disputes over where and how the money gets spent are not resolved, that could be a recipe for bitter-end opposition to the proposal.
A particularly intense area of controversy is the conversion of neighborhood parks into lighted sports fields with artificial turf. There is a constituency of adult and youth sports teams that compete for scarce space for games. They may be a minority of park users, but they are well organized and well funded, with paid lobbyists to court city officials, and vigorous e-mail campaigns and vocal participation at hearings. Will their interests win out over the larger numbers of those who prefer passive uses of parks such as walking, strolling, picnicking, bird watching, or just sitting and watching the world go by?
The recent poll commissioned by council members indicated that 52 percent of those polled preferred to use funds from a new parks levy for new and improved parks, trails, more green space or habitat restoration, while only 6 percent preferred using such funds for sports facilities and athletic fields. If sports and playfield advocates nevertheless succeed in weighting a ballot measure in their direction, the general public might vote down the measure.
The mayor has made much of his green initiatives, including fighting global warming and restoring the urban forest. But the expansion of artificial turf sports fields, at the cost of $1.5 million per field, works directly counter to our city's carefully cultivated green image.
Artificial turf heats up to 40 degrees or more above the surrounding air temperature. In a city being denuded of trees and paved over in concrete, this is a serious consideration in a warming climate.
Artificial turf is made from ground-up auto tires, which in direct sunlight release volatile organic compounds that include eye and skin irritants, lead and a known carcinogen, hexadecane.
There are types of artificial turf that are permeable to storm water. But once that rainwater works its way through the ground-up tires into our storm drains and waterways, it will carry toxic chemicals with it.
How green is the conversion of open space with wetlands and wildlife habitat at Magnusen Park into artificial playfields?
If you live in Rainier Valley, you are familiar with the stark glare of Rainier Playfield lighting that pours kilowatts of wasted energy up into the night sky and into residents' windows. If more lighted sports fields mean more of this kind of waste, how green is that?
There are potential solutions to the artificial playfields controversy. Some neighborhood and open space activists have suggested conversion of indoor spaces or former industrial areas for organized sports, or partnering with schools, leaving natural areas in their more natural state. But if these solutions are ignored in favor of more artificial fields with glaring lights, there are parks and open space advocates ready to oppose a levy.
And then there is the recent proposal by the mayor to sell off vacant lots owned by the city in a one-time fire sale that would eliminate forever the potential to save remaining pockets of trees and green space in our increasingly dense city.
Why should we sell off this land to developers, only to raise and spend funds from a new parks levy to buy land elsewhere? The parks department first should inventory these parcels, assess the health and size of the trees standing on them, and determine whether any parcels could be developed for neighborhood "pocket parks," or be left intact to preserve stands of trees as carbon-dioxide sinks.
These are all difficult issues and if we cannot wade through them with sufficient public input, a parks levy this fall may indeed be premature.
John V. Fox and Carolee Colter are a part of the Seattle Displacement Coalition.[[In-content Ad]]