13 Replies to "City Council finalizes $1 million for turf at Walt Hundley Playfield"

• foy boy April 12, 2011 (9:06 am)

  Great, no money for schools but we have the money for new carpet. Oh and with the new carpet will the feild be open with out needing a permit?

• Zippy the Pinhead April 12, 2011 (10:33 am)

  I’m a more than a little confused by this. The Parks and Green Spaces committee has $1 million to spend on Synthetic turf at the Walt Hundley Playfield, yet the Seattle parks and recreation cannot afford to keep open the parks and wading pools?

  Yea, I know, probably different budgets, but overall, shouldn’t the City take care of it’s existing infrastructure before spending another million?

  • WSB April 12, 2011 (11:13 am)

    Yes, different budgets. The levy, approved by voters in 2008, is for new projects. – TR

• shihtzu April 12, 2011 (10:40 am)

  I kind of like the dirt field.

• Nulu April 12, 2011 (10:43 am)

  –
  foy boy’s complaints illustrates ignorance.
  –
  http://www.seattle.gov/parks/levy/default.htm explains that this money is from a parks levy that Seattle voters passed.
  –
  The levy specifies how the money can be spent so as not to used elsewhere in Seattle’s budget. The schools need money as does every other department in our city, but funds earmarked and voted for a specific cause such as parks, must be spent on them.
  –
  I assume I play as little or less soccer than foy boy (I never play) but I know that the High Point field is the muddiest, nastiest soccer area in the winter and the most dusty place in the summer.
  –
  The ‘new carpet’ will provide a low maintenance, clean, long lasting, water conserving surface at far less expense than grass or mud.
  –
  foy boy’s final snipe about required permits is at odds with the many schools, groups and organized teams who have used it in the past. Is he implying that now that the field will be more desirable, organized groups that have used it in the past should not be able to reserve it?
  –
  Since the field is not fenced in, I suspect any person will have access to it during most hours of the day when it is not reserved, just like now.
  –
  I was one of the majority of Seattleites that voted the Parks Levy in and I am happy that these funds continue to improve our neighborhoods during the current economy just because they are in a Park’s ‘lock-box.’
  –
  In these dreary economic times it is a pleasure to see families out enjoying the new park at the 35th Ave water tanks.
  –
  I look forward to the same ignorant posts when the new Delridge Skate Park is christened.

• Zippy the Pinhead April 12, 2011 (2:02 pm)

  Nulu, I would beg to differ with you on the claim that ‘foy boy’s complaints illustrates ignorance.’.

  I, nor do I believe many people, have a lot of time to go investigated from which government budget funds are being allocated from for park maintenance or capital improvements. I spent a little time trying to determine that this morning, but was left with more questions than answers. Thanks to WSB for the clarification.

  What we do see is a downward spiral of a city that is building grandiose new play fields, while at the same time the same city cannot afford to maintain its current infrastructure, be it keeping parks open or roads maintained (i know, another discussion).

  Do you really think that people expected the parks department to be cutting back on services at the current parks and at the same time installing a $1,000,000 Cadillac astro turf playfield when they voted on the parks levy?

  My bottom line is I would like Seattle to be able to fund current infrastructure before it builds more that it will not be able to afford to maintain.

• Nulu April 12, 2011 (3:10 pm)

  Right on Zippy!
  –
  It is difficult to justify all of these acquisitions while watching operating and maintenance budgets decline.
  –
  The Parks Department has known all along of this problem, but it is far easier to pass a levy for new parks and improvements than for maintenance and staffing.
  –
  Of course, one advantage of the astro turf soccer field is lower maintenance and service costs which may save money over time.
  –
  Zippy’s use of ‘grandiose new play fields’ and ‘Cadillac astro turf’ are inaccurate characterizations, as there are no new play fields (much less grandiose) and astro turf is not the Cadillac of playing fields. The old school grass is the established Cadillac as it consumes gas & petrochemicals while
  adding pollution and waste when being mowed.
  –
  Zippy, your differing with me about foy boy’s ignorance puts you with him, on the uninformed ignorant side.
  –
  If you voted in 2008, I hope you were not ignorant of the issues.
  –
  If you read my post and followed the Parks Levy link, you would not be making your claim about how difficult and time consuming the process of educating yourself (and foy boy) and you would not need to thank WSB for the clarification as WSB was confirming my statements.

• Pete April 12, 2011 (3:18 pm)

  Seattle Parks & Recreation is being scrutinized for undertaking large capital improvement programs during such difficult economic times. The projects and programs that are in the levy are being developed over a six year period from 2009-2014 and it is anticipated that the economy will improve by the end of the levy program. While some may question the lack of maintenance and operation funds provided, the levy actually provides for renovation projects to existing parks such as the 23 neighborhood playgrounds, improving playfields, and prolonging the use of important cultural facilities. This was not a deliberate trade off (renovation in lieu of maintenance funds), but had some of the projects not been in the levy, those parks or facilities may have faced closure or removal for safety concerns.
  _____
  The citizens that serve on the overisght committee are very cognizant of these concerns and take that into account when making our decisions.

• Zippy the Pinhead April 12, 2011 (4:06 pm)

  Nulu,
  You stated that ‘The levy specifies how the money can be spent so as not to used elsewhere in Seattle’s budget’. Nowhere in your original post did you mention that the parks levy money could NOT be used for park maintenance budget. That is the budget question that WSB cleared up.
  –
  Further, to utilize a park levy to add more park space and increase maintenance costs while claiming they do not have the money to maintain the current park system is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. At some time the money has to run out. Personally, I take care of the possessions that I have before I splurge on new things that I cannot afford.
  –
  I’d like to know where you established that the cost of spending $1,000,000 on the capital improvement for one playground is cheaper than maintaining a grass or mud field. Do you have any empirical data to back that up?
  –
  If your concern is gas and petrochemicals, did you happen to notice how much heavy equipment it took to put in the Cadillac turf field at Delridge Park? All of the fuel required for that equipment would have gone a long way in cutting the grass during the summer months. And, natural grass provides a much superior drainage solution than having to collect all of the run off from a astro turf field and manage in some sort of storm water system.
  –
  Lastly, because I disagree with you or see things in a different light gives you the right to call me ignorant? Please feel free to disagree with my statements, but please do not assume I am ignorant.

• dsa April 12, 2011 (8:25 pm)

  Is astroturf placed over an impervious surface? If so it seems counterproductive to what the county is doing a few blocks away in Sunset Heights to control runoff.

• James April 12, 2011 (10:47 pm)

  I think this is great news. Have you headed down to delridge field lately (field was converted from a sandlot to a multi-use synthetic field)? Lots of kids in need of physical activity using that field. The HP field is centrally located in West Seattle and is one of few fields with lights. Funds were freed up for this field because bids for other field conversions came under budget (due to the slowing economy), so we are essentially getting 3 or 4 field upgrades for the price of 2.

• foy boy April 13, 2011 (8:26 am)

  Hey nulu, The old saying around our parks. Gee this new park looks great the other guy says thats because it hasn’t had time to be neglected.

• nulu April 13, 2011 (9:17 am)

  Pinhead, apparently your lenthy research di not include opening the Parks Dept link I placed at the top of my post.
  It specifies how the money will be spent. Since there is no mention of maintenance, it is not included.
  –
  Here it is:

  “The City Council created a Parks and Green Spaces Citizens’ Advisory Committee in April 2008, and asked the Committee to propose options for parks, open space, boulevard, trail, green infrastructure, and recreation projects and to identify strategic funding options for these potential improvements and acquisitions. The Council asked the committee to report back by June 30, 2008.The Committee submitted its report, and the City Council adopted Ordinance 112749, placing a levy on the November 2008 ballot, on July 21, 2008. 59% of Seattle voters supported the levy.

  What kinds of projects will it fund?

  Green spaces (open spaces and greenbelts, and other open areas); neighborhood parks (existing parks, new parks identified in neighborhood plans, new parks identified in the Seattle’s Parks and Recreation 2006 Development Plan, boulevards, and other properties purchased by the City for open-space and recreational purposes); and playfields (existing or new athletic fields, open play spaces, and similar areas, including spectator enhancements such as seating).”
  –
  As for WSB, they apparently had a different read than Pinhead when they wrote, “Yes, different budgets,” confirming my post. WSB did clarify it for those who did not educate themselves when voting in 2008 as well as those who were unable to go to the Parks’ link, read and understand the levy.
  –
  The ‘Ponzi scheme’ debate brought in is not a valid description of this process as no one is illegally profiting from investors (the public who taxed themselves) and the investors are receiving real goods and services for their money.
  –
  I am not an expert nor do I claim that I “established that the cost of spending $1,000,000 on the capital improvement for one playground is cheaper than maintaining a grass or mud field.”
  I just pointed out that their may be economic advantages over the life of the playing surface and people often forget the costs of constant watering, mowing, fertilizing, and chalk lining conventional fields.
  –
  I am ignorant of these specifics as I am of any claims about the astro turf, “having to collect all of the run off from a astro turf field and manage in some sort of storm water system.”
  I am ignorant of this Zippy. But do you know this statement to be true or are you speculating? And as you said, “Do you have any empirical data to back that up?”
  –
  As for the cost of,” All of the fuel required for that equipment would have gone a long way in cutting the grass during the summer months.”
  Yes, this may be true but how long a way, when you are counting by decades? I am ignorant of the
  life of field costs, are you informed?
  –
  Finally, Pinhead, I would like to distinguish between ‘ignorant’ and whatever word you have mixed it up with. I certainly did not call anyone dumb, idiotic or moronic, just ignorant. I refer to myself as ignorant when admitting I do not have the facts and knowledge.
  –
  I use the word “ignorant” to refer to people whose statements are just that – ignorant.
  I disagree with statements that display ignorance of the issue.

Sorry, comment time is over.