Parks

Measure has too many uncertainties

While there may be some good intentions behind the measure, there are many more reasons to oppose Proposition 1 than there are to favor it. To begin with, in reading the text for Proposition 1, can someone please tell me what is meant by improving property interests? How can one’s interest in a property be improved? It may be an innocuous phrase, or it may be opening the door for our money to be spent on some new form of a taxpayer giveaway. Furthermore, has there been any discussion of what the priorities will be when new land acquisition is considered under this initiative? Will it be for more parks? More undeveloped open space? Water access? Artificial turf fields? There is nothing specific in the language of this proposition directing how this money be spent. And what about oversight? Will we again end up spending millions on swampland in the center of the island that’s not developable?

Many islanders would like to see more open space protected from development on the island. I am one. But there is no guarantee that this levy will accomplish this. The language in the proposal is simply too vague. While this may be your wish, voting yes on this proposition does not mean that this is how your taxes will be spent. As a parent of young children and a outdoors person, I spend time in our city’s wonderful parks. Yet I’m always struck by how few other people are using the facilities. Do we need more underused parkland?

If the park district is short on funds to maintain the property under its control, let them make the case that a tax increase is warranted. But Proposition 1 is ill-conceived and I strongly urge my fellow islanders to vote no on this boondoggle.

Steve Keller

Eagle Harbor Drive

Trust that we need our island parks

I’m confused. (See: “Lack of trust leads vote against lid lift,” Oct. 18). One of Rod Stevens’s highest priority is more open space and he’s voting against the lid-lift? And his rationale is that he doesn’t trust city officials! Hmmmm. Let’s see. If I were in high school and I didn’t like algebra, I would stop attending algebra class because I thought the assistant principal was uncommunicative or autocratic.

I, too, am not happy with some of the secretive, undemocratic shenanigans of some city officials. But I’m going to vote for the parks lid-lift. The island’s parks are as precious to me as the quality of our public schools. They are essential to our quality of life. I’m a member of the Senior Co-ed Softball Team. I play tennis at Battle Point Park. I take kids to the fantastic jungle gym thingamajig at Battle Point Park. We need to support the park district, not nickel and dime it because of some unrelated matter.

However, the next time we have an open space bond issue before us, I’m going to advocate the following: open space should be tied to affordable housing. If we want a diversified island with residents of all economic classes (which I definitely do), we need to subsidize housing for the less fortunate, and this should be part and parcel of our open space bonds.

Roger Lauen

Agate Street

Levy would help support trail system

I am writing to share my support for Proposition 1 on the Nov. 4 ballot, which allows additional funding for the Bainbridge Island Municipal Park & Recreation District.

During development of the COBI Guide to Walking, Cycling, and Paddling, I worked with park staff in this collaborative effort to produce a map making trail information widely available. Since the map came out, and now as chair of the COBI Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Committee, I have worked closely with the park board and staff to develop the vision of an integrated system of island trails.

The trails connect within neighborhoods, along spine routes over longer distances, plus a trunkline along SR 305 – a network supporting the community priority of trails for active transportation and recreation.

We have worked jointly to plan for acquisition by the city of key trail easements. Park staff and volunteers have built some trail segments in collaboration with the city.

I have found the park board and staff to be efficient and pragmatic in their work on trails, as they are in supporting organized sports and other key services. I would describe the park system as lean, with just enough hands-on chiefs to get work done.

In these times when money is even more dear than usual, I believe it is important to give the park district the funds it takes to move ahead on putting together what the Olmsteads’ called an “emerald necklace” of larger parks and more linear connections – trails and connecting paths.

It is especially important to give the district the capacity to add more linear connections now.

Trail easement acquisition needs to happen when people are ready to donate or sell. Once acquired, trails need to be made usable and kept in working order.

This work of acquiring and developing trails and paths is part of the district’s mission and is comparatively inexpensive. It is important to take the opportunities when available.

What if more of us could take our kids to their game or to town by foot or bike on a safe and attractive path? Please join me in voting “yes.”

Don Willott

Gideon Lane