Saving our parks versus HALA

[Jeannie]

There’s been a lot of discussion about the mayor’s HALA plan, which strikes many of us as deeply flawed. I’d like to add a few more concerns as they pertain to our precious greenspaces and parklands, particularly those in West Seattle.
While I may not be able to attend the Dec. 7 meeting, I did email HALAinfo@seattle.gov with the following questions. Thank you to the Seattle Nature Alliance, which provided these. I hope, in addition, someone raises them at the meeting.
How will zoning changes affect natural parklands and the urban forest?
If we leave it up to city leaders, Seattle’s natural parklands may be developed for active recreation, sports fields, community centers, amusement parks—almost anything. And denser development in neighborhoods will deplete the tree canopy.

• How many of our park forests and natural places are protected?
None. Any of them could be developed for other recreational purposes. As we have seen recently, the City could also use them for non-park purposes, like encampments.

To make matters worse, the City has decided that it will not acquire new park land in relation to the growing population. Instead, it will ‘use’ existing parks more intensely.

• How will this impact natural parks in Seattle?
If we don’t demand nature be protected, it won’t be. Seattle’s pro-development mode is too strong, and urban forests are a path-of-least resistance for city leaders who need space for urban amenities.

Imagine a likely scenario: as our neighborhoods get more crowded, people will want more recreational opportunities. They’ll want pools, sport fields, dog-parks, ziplines, skate parks, and community centers. Then, of course, they’ll need parking, and restrooms, and places to get food. The Parks Department will need more space for maintenance and staff. Without a plan to add more parkland in relation to population, where do you think they’ll put all this stuff?

• What should be done instead?
We’re talking about Seattle’s natural heritage—the 1% of our natural environment that has not been asphalted or covered in concrete. These remnant forests and beaches connect us to thousands of years of Pacific Northwest native plants, native animals, and native people. It’s a tiny bit, but it’s very important for human health and well-being, and for wildlife. We want all of this to endure for future generations.

If and when the City needs to add recreational amenities or high-impact uses, it should buy new land or use previously developed land. Existing forests and natural parklands should be permanently preserved for low-impact, passive recreation and wildlife habitat.

•How will the City ensure the massive growth does not overwhelm our natural parklands and urban forests?

•Which park forests or natural areas will be exempt from possible recreational development?

•Which park forests or natural areas will be permanently preserved for wildlife habitat and low-impact, passive-use only?

•What measures will the city take to preserve and increase the urban forest?

Share This

[Author]

Posts