Letter to the Editor: Vote Yes on Prop 1 to fund community members’ top priorities for Parks, Aquatics and Recreation
Monday, October 21, 2019
To the Editor:
In a 2016 survey and public meetings, community members prioritized park facilities for the 2017 Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Shoreline residents prioritized investments in nature trails, small neighborhood parks, paved walking/biking trails, and indoor aquatic and recreation center. Furthermore, the community rated upgrading existing parks and building a new indoor aquatics center as the top actions the city should take to implement the PROS Plan.
After the adopting the 2017 PROS Plan, the city convened a stakeholder groups to make funding recommendations to the City Council. The stakeholder group prioritized park projects for funding that improved accessibility based on location, age, income, and race as well as the need to fulfill parks level of service goals described in the PROS Plan. The park improvements in Prop 1 are located in neighborhoods with less access to key features like playgrounds and spray parks, walking paths, pickle ball and basketball courts, and picnic shelters.
Many of our parks require significant re-investments, as they were developed more than 20 years ago. Shoreline is forward thinking, trying to plan and build new facilities that align with facility life cycles, the growth of the city, and the needs of the community.
These investments in our community will improve the quality of life for all of our deserving residents. Our plans strive to allow every resident to live within a 15 minute walk to a park, to have access to facilities that allow for a healthy and active lifestyle and to build community.
For more information about projects proposed in Proposition 1, please visit the city’s website. Additional details are available here.
Carolyn Hope
Shoreline Resident
Posts
6 comments:
Vote No for Shorline Prop 1. This is bait and switch calling this a parks levy. More than 85% of the levy goes to the pool building. If the city council really cared about our parks, they would take care of our existing small parks. We could buy 210+ average parcels of land throughout the city for the total levy amount!
These "community members" do not represent the entire community. The most active politically usually don't. Why? Because the rest of us have jobs we have to work to pay for these overpriced pipe dreams. I'll vote for school levies 100% of the time, I'll vote for park levies 100% of the time. But I am sick of these "look at me, Shoreline is a big city too" expensive facilities. If the city wanted a brand spanking new pool facility they should have made the developers of these huge boxes of apartments pay for them! I'm voting No!
There should have been two measures. One for parks, and one for the aquatics building. There are so many options other than $80+ million for a pool building. The city already owns land they could use, they can renew the lease with the school district for the existing pool, they could rent or buy any existing building for a senior center. $80+ million dollars can buy a land of land and do more than a pool that will not pay for itself in any real way. Shoreline has a beautiful YMCA that isn't even a 1 mile distance from the proposed pool site. VOTE NO ON PROP 1 and KEEP SHORELINE AFFORDABLE!
What's the expected carbon footprint of this new facility? We've been bullied by the upzone proponents telling us that the carbon footprint of our homes is unacceptable and that we should all swiftly move into these allegedly "built green" stacked sarcophagi. I assume the same standard would be applied to this new pool. At that price tag, it should be environmentally state of the art, but I'm doubtful.
Being forward thinking is OK if you can also focus on the hear and now, which the council has failed at - they lost us a post-office because they were asleep at the wheel, and now it looks like the east-side dog park is going the same way.
I don't think it's fair or correct to blame the City for losing the post office or the Eastside dog park. The PO didn't see the "poison pill" in their lease, and the dog park is on land controlled by the state to do with as they may.
Having said that, I will be voting against the pool, even though we used the swimming pool a lot when my children. were small. I think the parks $ should have been separated from the pool, and arguments that voters would be confused were disingenuous. The parks were combined with the pool to help pass the pool initiative. yes, the current pool needs to be replaced - but there are many options the City could consider. When the issues are separated I will happily vote to support those that I feel are well written and fiscally responsible.
Post a Comment