To the editor:

Early in April I noticed an article in the Bainbridge Island Review with a headline that read: Officials talk about kids train. “If approved the train and a quarter-mile long track will be installed at the park district’s Sakai property on Madison Avenue.”

Having some concerns about the train proposal, I decided to attend the April 6 Bainbridge park board meeting where this subject would be discussed. The proposed miniature steam train would provide rides for kids. The spokesperson for the train project discussed that the train was owned by an individual who would gift it, if approved, to the park and recreation cistrict.

It seems appropriate at this time to discuss from my perspective some points about this train project since in speaking to community members I have found that most people are not aware of this proposal. The conclusion of the park board at the end of the discussion on April 6 was to assign a member of the park staff “to do a feasibility study regarding installing the train at Sakai.”

The Sakai property was purchased with strong public support. It consists of 23 acres of which approximately 9 acres can be developed. The location across from the aquatic center on Madison Avenue makes it contiguous to our rapidly expanding core. Public meetings, recreation board meetings and public input from study groups over a period of time resulted in 10 recommendations for possible uses of the Sakai property.

At this time Sakai is still a virgin piece of public parkland awaiting development. In an online survey done “of those who responded about 63 percent favored open space and paths for walking and biking as being a very high priority for the Sakai property.”

The public has entrusted the future of the Sakai property to the Bainbridge Island park district board. As with all our island parks one would expect that the interests and needs of the island residents would be at the heart of decisions regarding our island parks.

There is at this time no public parking lot or restrooms at the Sakai site. Perhaps the feasibility study might also include finding out what the experience of such a train has been in other communities in regard to use, vandalism, cost and liability. Also, perhaps another location such as Battle Point might be more appropriate.

I am aware of the many responsibilities taken on by the Bainbridge Island Metro Park & Recreation District in recent years. The job being done by their staff has my respect and support as does the park district board. I appreciate that the board is giving the train proposal appropriate consideration.

The next parks board meeting will be on May 18 with the agenda becoming available a few days prior to the meeting.

EDITH HARTMANN

Bainbridge Island