Letters to the Editor

To the Editor:

As a supporter of Proposition 1, I am probably one of the few that appreciates the critics' reasons for opposing this parks levy. I have learned as an activist not to discredit opponents but to learn from their message.

I agree with the critics' fundamental argument that basic funding for maintenance and programming should not be paid for with a voter-approved tax levy. In theory, they are correct and in a perfect society we should expect a well-run government to set its priorities straight by funding basic park services through the general fund.

Unfortunately, as well-informed critics like park activist Benella Caminiti, Seattle Times editorialist Casey Corr and former Seattle Mayor Wes Uhlman point out, the less than perfect political leaders in this City set the funding priorities and Parks and Recreation is not at the top of their list.

As a park activist and a member of a number of different park advocacy groups, I and many others who pay attention to the parks budget have come to realize that although a tax levy may not be the ideal way to fund parks, it is the most politically viable way to inject much needed funding at a critical time into park programming, maintenance and park acquisition.

Citizens of Seattle should support Proposition 1 this November. They should, however, never forget that this levy is only a temporary eight-year bandage for park funding. I hope that no matter what the outcome of the election, responsible voters on both sides of this ballot proposition will be more aggressive in demanding that our civic leaders set their funding priorities straight. We must send a clear message to our City Council and the Mayor that we do not want essential services, such as park funding, to be at the mercy of controversial voter-approved tax levies every few years.

Patricia Stambor Urban Dwellers Need Parks Levy

To the Editor:

The Eastlake Community Council and the Olmsted-Fairview Park Commission are among the many volunteer groups that support the Seattle parks levy. Fast-growing neighborhoods need more and better parks. Some landlords who are fortunate to live on tree-lined suburban streets with big yards are opposed. But their Seattle renters need nearby parks for exercise, relaxation and to keep this city livable. I'm voting yes!

Chris Leman Parks for All Benefits Seattle's Kids

To the Editor:

Last Sunday, I watched the team of girls I coach (the 13-year-old Planet Kickers) play soccer on the beautiful new fields in Lake City. When the game ended, it was such a pleasure to see those girls wildly happy, excited and confident. They were flush with the sense of accomplishment. I felt proud of them for their fearless, organized and unrelenting play. And as they celebrated, I felt proud, too, for my community that is at long last stepping up to provide decent, safe playfields for Seattle's kids.

The Seattle school levy a couple of years ago was the first step. And now there's Proposition One--Parks For All, to make another quantum leap forward in facilities for kids and adults.

New and improved athletic fields in neighborhoods throughout the city are only one part of the levy, but important. As a youth coach for 14 years, I know what a difference sports can make. I have seen girls grow to respect their bodies, learn discipline and focus, and have great fun in a healthy way with a team made up of all kinds of kids.

Demand is growing for our fields--and that's a good thing! It's an indication of the health and vitality of our city. So, let's jump at the chance now being offered to us to help meet the demand. Vote Yes for Proposition One--Parks For All.

Kathleen Warren If We Value Parks, We Will Vote to Pay For Them

To the Editor,

As the wise frog Kermit once said, "It's not easy being green." Turns out it's not free either. But it's never been free. At the turn of the century, despite protests that we could not afford it, officials took the plunge and purchased Woodland Park from Guy Phinney's widow. That was a good investment. As individuals and as a collective group of taxpayers, we don't always spend our money so wisely, but investments in parks and recreation facilities are long lasting and spread the benefits across a wide spectrum of the population.

Economists tell us that we value what we pay for. In Proposition 1, we get to decide very directly what we value about Seattle. Levy critics raise an important issue for the long term about the proper mechanism for budgeting parks maintenance. But one thing seems certain--we got behind in the payment for parks and we have eight years to catch up using some of these levy funds to do it. A few years ago we made the same decision about transportation, and increased spending by millions per year. It's now parks' turn. There are also tax relief programs for individuals who are truly unable to foot the bill. Many eligible seniors are not taking advantage of them and more outreach is needed to get them on the program.

After you vote YES for Prop 1, I suggest you take a walk in a Seattle park and feel good about your real estate investment.

Irene Wall Neighbors Support Seattle's Proposition 1

Dear Editor:

As a Seattle resident and a volunteer in support of the Parks for All referendum (Proposition 1), I would like to share with your readers my take on the value and importance of this November 7 ballot issue.

If the levy is approved, the city will be able to develop 100 parks and open space projects, benefiting every neighborhood. It includes new parks, playfields, youth projects, senior projects, P-patches and improvements to the Zoo.

The list of projects addressed by the Parks for All referendum was put together by a broadly representative group of citizens and adopted with few changes by the City Council. It has been endorsed by over 70 neighborhood and community organizations. Seattle citizens who worked so diligently on the 33 neighborhood plans will be happy to know that many of the projects fulfill their open space requests in the plans they sent to the City Council.

The importance of this referendum is the gift it enables us to bestow on our children, grand children and great-grandchildren. As our city grows ever more densely populated, the opportunities and cost of providing open space amenities become [respectively] more scarce and prohibitive. Consider this a 50-year investment, while land is still available.

I have been making phone calls to my neighbors to encourage support for Proposition 1. The response has been very positive. In one evening of calling, almost every person I reached was in favor of Prop. 1. A few were unaware of the ballot proposition and a few were undecided, but no one I talked to was opposed. Another indication of broad support is the fact that over 600 citizens have contributed money to the campaign. This is far more than contributed funds to the Library campaign.

Neighbor to neighbor, please support this truly grass roots effort. Vote yes on Prop.1 .

Frank Kirk Parks for All Benefits Even Neighborhoods Not Slated for Improvements

To the Editor:

I am writing as a resident of a neighborhood that is not earmarked for new park funding under the proposed Pro-Parks levy, Proposition 1 on the November ballot, yet I am urging my neighbors to vote for Proposition 1.

We don't get many chances to support a significant improvement to the city's open space qualities, in fact, it is about once every generation. Our last ballot anywhere similar to Pro-Parks was the Forward Thrust bond issue, about 30 years ago.

Parks are part of the heartbeat of our city--they nurture our health, meeting neighbors, and feeling attuned to nature. Maybe we will even drive less if more of us have the opportunity to walk to parks.

Besides, neighborhoods that are not specified to receive improvements do get benefits--through the improvements to regional facilities like the zoo, arboretum, and sports fields--or through recreation programs for young people and seniors, and we can compete for funds for buying park land or improving existing parks, by means of the Opportunity Fund.

Vote Yes for Proposition 1 on November 7.

John Barber
Leschi Parks for All Levy Provides What Volunteers Can't

To the Editor:

I want to tell you why I think it is important to vote yes for Propositon 1 "Parks for All" levy. As the president of Friends of Seward Park, I spent Saturday morning working with 30 volunteers and park staff to plant 100 plants in Seward Park. Many of the young volunteers came to us through a special event sponsored by Nickelodian. Kids between the ages of 8 and 14 brought their parents to make a difference for the future by planting trees in our park.

Seward Park is a 288-acre natural wonder in our city. It is part of the Olmsted legacy left to us by early city leaders. It is used by neighbors as well as people from across the city and county. Like many of our parks, it is loved to the point of wear and deterioration. Ivy is shrouding our magnificent cedars and Douglas firs. So the Washington Native Plant Society is sponsoring an Ivy Out program; they remove the ivy and plant native plants to restore the vegetation.

These volunteer projects make a difference in the park. However, volunteer projects like ours cannot happen without the park department staff. There is site preparation, logistics, project supervision and, most important, the follow up maintenance that living things require. With greater use of our parks, we want and need more maintenance. As any homeowner knows, preventive maintenance saves money in the long run. Investing in our parks now means that they will be there in the future...for our kids.

Vote yes for Seattle Proposition 1--Parks For All.

Mardi Roberts Proposition 1 Makes Parks Funding Levy-Dependent

To the Editor:

I join longtime open spaces advocate Benella Caminiti in her opposition to Proposition 1, a supposed boon to us park lovers. Proposition 1 is a wolf-cloaked-in-sheep's-clothing appeal to the "green" hearts of Seattle activists. I mean green in more ways than one. The Pro-Parks 2000 committee, city-picked activists, spent several months providing the city political cover as it sought to move its agenda of privatizing the zoo and the aquarium forward in the state legislature (and succeeded). Naive? You bet. However, the committee's own minutes reveal that the city plainly told them that they wanted to make some changes at the state level, in order to avoid doing it at the city level. The city charter requires that all park employees be supervised by the Superintendent of Parks: changing that would require a vote of the citizens of Seattle. Instead of insisting that the move to privatization deserved a public debate, Pro-Parks committee members took maybe all of 10 minutes to mildly object and then agree to accept circumventing the city charter and Seattle voters as part of their committee's charge.

Unfortunately, privatization of park resources is not the half of the city's agenda. The city is basically trying to rid itself of the requirement to maintain parks out of the general fund, potentially freeing up money for more parking garages, no doubt. That piece of their proposed legislation, setting up a special taxing district, failed in Olympia, but a piece of that strategy is carried forward in Proposition 1.

As a co-author of Initiative 42, Protect our Parks, which saved Bradner Gardens (and was supposed to save all parks), I am forced to admit that parks are as vulnerable as ever. This is evidenced by the political shenanigans that have surrounded the city's three-year campaign in Olympia to set up a special taxing district, putting parks under more exclusive control of the city council and the mayor (the very people we Bradner activists had to fight and the reason we had to write a citizens' intiative)--and to quietly privatize some of the most precious jewels of the park system, without full public discussion. Proposition 1 is the payoff for "citizen support" of the city's efforts in Olympia.

As a co-founder of the Seattle Tenants Union in the 70s, I'm quite suspicious of any positions that the Apartment Operators and Owners might take. I am not an anti-tax activist. In this case, though, I find the arguments being made by these groups that Proposition 1 is an example of irresponsible government to be correct. Seattle Times editorial writer O. Casey Corr is making that argument quite well, too. Proposition 1 is not about acquiring new park land so much as it is about setting up parks and open space to be forever dependent on special levies--which sets them up for failure. Vote NO.

Bonnie Heaven Drivers, Transit Riders Should be Allies Against Congestion

To The Editor:

The concept of Initiative 745 is based on the myth that continually adding road capacity will reduce traffic jams. This has never been the case. When we have added roads they filled up whether it was is in California, Washington or Texas. Interstate 5 has had traffic jams since it opened during peak periods and at unpredictable times after accidents and during construction and repairs. The initiative focuses on roads as "the system" rather than the roads as part of the system.

For example, the effectiveness of proposals to increase the capacity of I-520 are limited by the infrastructure at both ends of the road. To keep a car traveling at 60 miles per hour in the middle of the 520 bridge, the receiving communities must accommodate several other cars at progressively slower speeds until they are parked. If we were a wiser people we would at least calculate the cost of these local accommodations before adding more connecting roads. Instead we add roads and let the rest catch up later and it never does.

End point infrastructure is very costly and takes expensive land off the tax rolls and out of more productive uses. Commuters on a half-filled bus take a fraction of the road space they would take up in cars. At work the bus commuter only needs a personal workstation. For parking alone the car commuter also needs the space of a second level manager at one end of the system and up to twenty percent of a dwelling space at the other.

We need to look at transportation as a system that moves goods and people by the most efficient means, where those who need the flexibility of cars and trucks see people who use other transportation modes as allies who are making it easier to park and drive.

Carl A. Slater Metro Sales Tax Replaces Funds Lost to I-695

To the Editor:

The authors of a recent letter to the editor on King County Proposition 1 ("No New Taxes for King County Metro," Seattle Press October 18 - 31 issue) forget two old sayings: "You get what you pay for," and "you can't get something for nothing."

Stripping away the Tim Eyman-style anti-tax rhetoric in the letter, here are the facts. Initiative 695 removed $100,000,000 of money Metro uses to operate buses. The 2000 Legislature managed to cobble together enough money to preserve service through the end of this year. After this year, state money goes away. Without another revenue source, the county will cut 25 percent of bus service beginning in January. Proposition 1 raises the county's portion of the sales tax by .02 percent to preserve this service.

As the popularity of I-745 outside King County shows, the county can't count on the state to finance mass transit that primarily benefits county residents. If people want the preserve the first-class bus system we have, they need to pay for the services they receive. I hope Seattle residents will recognize how important bus service is to overcrowded roads and neighborhoods in our city and vote "Yes" on Proposition 1.

Mark A. Horowitz Metro Transit Serves Ballard Well

To the Editor:

Where I live--the Ballard area--thanks to the 5, 16, 17, 18, 26, 28, 43/44 and 48 busses thousands of us can get around very well without having to drive or park our cars. We get to and from work and local events easily, all on the bus.

If I-745 passes, the Metro transit system will be damaged critically, if not fatally. Furthermore, If King County Proposition 1 fails, Metro Transit will still suffer harm and service losses. Please, vote NO on I-745, and YES on King County Proposition 1.

Tom Cecil Initiative 728 Worthwhile Way to Aid Schools

To the Editor:

On November 7, voters in King County will have a chance to vote for a ballot measure that uses state surplus money to improve student achievement in our public schools--Initiative 728. Although voters have said that education is their #1 issue, Washington still has the third worse student/teacher ratio in our country. And that ratio is figured per certified teacher, meaning that this number includes music and phys. ed. teachers, as well as classroom teachers. This means that the actual number of children in a classroom with one teacher is substantially higher. My daughter is a great example: she has 30 students in her first grade class. Thirty 6-year olds! Hers is not an isolated case. It is the standard. You don't have to be Einstein to figure out the smaller the class sizes, the quicker and better our children will progress. Parents who have chosen private schools over public have figured this out long ago.

How can we expect our kids to meet the tougher academic achievement standards without investing in our schools? Initiative 728 invests state property taxes and unrestricted lottery proceeds to reduce class sizes, increase per student funding, improve teacher training, and provide early childhood education programs. And because it uses surplus money that cannot currently be spent under the I-601 spending cap, it helps schools without raising taxes and without hurting other social services. Let's walk the talk. This really may be our last best chance to ensure that education in Washington really is our number one concern.

Sharon Mentyka Bush's Isolationist Policies Demonstrate Ignorance

To the Editor:

Lest we may forget important lessons in history on Election Day, I am writing to the Editor:

Governor Bush's view on foreign policy may be emblematic of his lack of understanding about not only geopolitics but also the lessons the United States learned to become the most affluent and influential nation in the world. As President, Bush says he would like to curtail US military involvement overseas in places like Africa and the Balkans because that region is in "someone else's backyard" and should be their responsibility to police. Bush very clearly asserts that he favors regional responsibilities in terms of promoting peace and protecting against human atrocities. Additionally, Bush has been exceptionally critical of what he calls "nation building" activities by the U.S. once a regional conflict has ended and he decries the lack of resolve by the Clinton Administration to withdraw troops from these sorts of hotspots.

Based on Governor Bush's foreign policy proposals, it is obvious that he must have been playing baseball the day everyone else learned that isolationism was over on December 7, 1941. Further, it is apparent that G.W. must have been thinking of ways to get into the National Guard when all and sundry were actually listening to their history lecture on the ramifications of the Treaty of Versailles, when the U.S. and its allies left a torn country out to dry. Voters surely need to remember the history lessons of the 20th century in November, but if they have forgotten they should ask a veteran from the greatest generation who risked their life for god and country to protect freedom, not just on their own soil, but the soil of their fellow man because they knew that no one is free if others are oppressed.

As the most prosperous nation in the history of civilization with the most well equipped military known to man, the United States should not ever decide not to intervene in situations of humanitarian crisis based merely on its location, nor should U.S. forces desert people like Exxon abandons an oil spill.

Jayme White Police Crackdowns Won't Solve Club Dancers' Economic Woes

To the Editor:

Like Tom Hundley (Seattle Press letters, October 18 - 31 issue), I would like an eight-foot rule for risque dance clubs in Seattle. However, mine would require a strict eight-foot separation between moralizers and law-books. It's okay to look, but never, ever touch.

Hundley argues that dancers are "in essence economically coerced" into working, and strangely concludes that the solution is to further criminalize what they do. Hundley, are you telling me that "coercion" is when someone chooses, of her own volition, to accept employment where she is also free to quit at any moment? And then I guess non-coercion would be when armed men, i.e. police, show up and drag her to jail for doing so. O-kaaaaaaay...

Hundley seems to believe (contrary to the experience of Canada) that the clubs exist mainly because of a lack of Nader-style economic policies, and a lack of options for women. But he wants the eight-foot law right away. Then the plan is apparently to wait around for the economic policies that have about the same chance of passage as Nader has of winning the election, namely slimmer than a meth-addicted dancer.

I recall quite an outcry 18 months ago over "sexual McCarthyism," which if I understand, has something to do with government intrusion into private sexual matters between consenting adults. All of Seattle seemed to roar against "sexual McCarthyism," while off in the corner continuing the undercover stings on risque clubs.

I urge all to contact the City Council and tell them to focus police resources on murderers, rapists and muggers, not risque dancers.

Russell B. Garrard

Reader Comments

Discuss this article in the forums!