Seattle Press on Line - Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor

Mar 28, 2002 -- History Repeats Itself

To the Editor:

We know that those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Those who have forgotten or did not live in Seattle 30 years ago should know the events of 1972 - 1974. They may be repeated with our now-privatized Woodland Park Zoo.

Institutions such as the Zoo Society have long memories. Once defeated, they can wait for years until that defeat is generally forgotten, and then proceed as if it never happened.

Almost secretly in 1972, the City Council and the Department of Parks and Recreation bought the "Bartholick Plan," named for the architect who created it. The plan meant to use the Zoo's portion of a 1968 countywide Forward Thrust bond issue, not to improve the existing zoo with the $4.5 million allocated--big money then--but instead to build the first half of a bridge-lid over Aurora Ave., which divides the Zoo from the Lower Woodland Park on the east. A variety of animals would be house atop the lid, sheltered in a plastic tent to be supported by blown-in air. The State Highway Department refused to supply the additional $3 million for the bridge.

A greater offense than this misappropriation, any remaining money would be spent to construct animal pens in Lower Woodland Park. But the Forward Thrust bonds would only be the first of four necessary to complete the plan. The second half of the bridge-lid would take one of the future bond issues. The goal was to confiscate all of Lower Woodland as zoo habitat.

Fortunately, a group of people, organized as "Save Woodland Park," came together in opposition. Their goal was to have the Forward Thrust bond issue used as the voters intended and to protect Lower Woodland Park's status as a public park.

Thankfully, they succeeded in doing both. That kept the only 0park of any size in North Central Seattle as open space, for use of its woods and meadows for walking and running trails, family church and club picnics, kite flying, lawn bowling, horseshoe playing and enjoying the sight of large, old trees.

Defeating the plan was not an easy job. Countless meetings and EIS replies (there were two EISs), informing the public of its sorry aspects, rebutting the false claims that only Not-In-My-Backyard-ers opposed it.

Save Woodland Park circulated a citizens' initiative petition for the November 1974 ballot, winning hands down.

There are always those who see public parks land as available for their own exploitation rather than as a public property inheritance. In the near future, the Zoo Society will again try to expand its presently large land holdings and lay claim to Lower Woodland, using our tears for the animals as its justification. There are always public officials who will abet these schemes.

The Zoo Society contributed nearly $300,000 to publicity campaigns for the $ 200 billion Parks and Recreation levy of 2000. The Zoo will be the biggest single recipient of that eight-year levy, getting $27 million of it. In the Seattle Times, November 1, 2000, Parks Superintendant Ken Bounds is quoted as saying, "After eight years, city officials could go back to the voters with another levy to aid the zoo." Now where have I heard something like that before?

Our task now is to guard our park property from privatizers. We can learn from our past or lose it.

Benella Camitini

Highway Dollars Could Do a Lot

To the Editor:

In the March 14 edition, Tara Peattie wrote, "The 18th Amendment, the will of the people in 1943, won't allow such options. Saying that gas tax money should only go to roads is an obsolete notion. Increasingly, highway dollars don't add mobility for Seattle residents and may only gridlock us more by bringing thousands more cars into Seattle every day."

I disagree that "highway dollars don't add mobility for Seattle residents." Especially with regard to the SR-520 floating bridge. I was a Seattle neighborhood representative on the 47-person TransLake study committee and was floored to learn that 40 percent of the daily bridge traffic was folks from north Seattle (N of ship canal and excluding the U-District) heading to the Eastside. Clearly, they are earning money over there and choosing to live over here. Is there anything wrong with that?

What worries me most is that select Seattle neighborhoods will succeed in constricting the capacity of that bridge--and the direct and indirect economic consequences will be felt by all of Seattle north of the ship canal--and by the city as a whole.

Thomas Heller

Borkowski is Backing a Loser

To the Editor:

In response to Mr. Borkowski's recent points about Tara Peattie's column (Letters, February 28):

1) True, monorails don't "jog." But, try ramming a light rail downtown--you'll find it's anything but "light" and actually far heavier than any monorail, whether elevated or on the ground. And no matter where you put it, it will take longer to build, cost more, and not gain you any more people moved.

2) Running a beam over Westlake Park (assuming that was even done) is far better than ramming a train through the middle of it. And if you tried to elevate a light rail over Westlake Park, you'd be putting in something like that "freeway overpass" recently mounted on the Convention Center's front facade. Interesting how the City Council is against skybridges downtown until it's something THEY want to do...

3) This "taking of free space" is, again, far less in sum total with monorail than light rail, something Mr. Borkowski conveniently doesn't point out. Why doesn't he point this out? Because his group, People for Modern Transit (PMT), favors ramming light rail into already crowded neighborhoods, displacing businesses and creating at-grade safety hazards with cars, buses and pedestrians. That's the dirty little secret yet to be discussed by "Sound" Transit/PMT--but it's coming, believe it.

4) Let's address his "key question" point, but ask the real question here: Does Seattle want to rely on 18th century technology (light rail is, after all, little more than modern streetcars) and buses (we already have plenty of those; with trunk line monorail criss-crossing the city, more buses can be freed up to go into more neighborhoods) instead of moving forward into the future with monorail? Certainly we've been waiting long enough for something to make a dent in congestion (which Sound Transit admits openly now, after the election, they won't do) and the "WPPSS on Wheels" system "Sound" Transit and PMT promote certainly isn't going to do us any good, assuming we're not all dead by the time it's built.

5) Finally, so what if an American city wasn't the first to build monorail as a trunk line system? Does that mean the Japanese (6+ major systems and counting), Europeans (several different systems in Germany, France and England) or Malaysia (large system being built in Kuala Lumpur now as we speak) are stupid or clueless? Or does it mean that in this country, we have more of a political problem with systems being built by the same core group of light rail "rah-rahs" that travel the country and lobby local politicos to build their ultimately overpriced and underserving systems? Can anyone say "Bob White"? Hmmm... Take a look at Las Vegas--a new (and rapidly expanding) monorail is going up pretty darn fast down there...

Kevin Orme
Friends of the Monorail
www.monorail.org

Doing Wheelies Around Government Agencies

To the Editor:

I enjoyed your article ["Doing Wheelies Around the ADA", page 8] in the January 31 issue. However, the "joy" in enjoyed was not to be translated literally for me I too suffer from a number of disabling diseases and come across many barriers. Although the physical barriers are daunting, it is the emotional attitude of those around you that truly "handicaps" you. Government agencies that violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not held responsible by their governing entities (legislature, elected officials, managers) not only dehumanize but disempower people. I've written Governor Locke and suggested he cut the budgets of such disempowering agencies/offices I've had contact with. We need government to assist the people, not hinder them.

Ynema Reeves

SUVs are Dangerous

To the Editor:

The recent weather conditions of slick, icy roads have shown us the ease with which SUVs, with their higher centers of gravity, can spin out of control and turn over. The American public needs to be made aware that SUVs are not safe; and certainly they should not be used as family vehicles. The truth is not to be found in the TV ads, but in the TV news clips, showing SUVs lying over on their sides on snowy roads. The public has definitely been sold a bill of goods. The lesson: Don't use gas-guzzling SUVs for family transportation--or at all!

Barbara Tomlinson

Reader Comments

Discuss this article in the forums!

No comments yet!