- This topic contains 0 voices and has 25 replies.
April 12, 2010 at 5:04 pm #594470
Not to mention Puget Sound too….
Please visit the online petition site for stopping the current travesty of plans for at least a 1 million gallon underground tank in, on, and around Lowman Beach Park.
Thanks!April 12, 2010 at 8:06 pm #692408
Hey Ron –
I just signed the petition. Wondering if you have set up a twitter account with the link to thepetitionsite.com? Might be worth it?April 12, 2010 at 8:26 pm #692409
Would you please clarify what your statement “move them in the right direction” as included on your petition means? Do you have other alternatives in mind?
It appears that the park is the low point of the Murray drainage basin so it seems to make sense that CSO treatment should be provided at this location. The overflows currently discharge at Lowman so isn’t it a good idea to provide the necessary storage here to limit any damage to the Sound?April 12, 2010 at 10:19 pm #692410
Hey Bofus –
Until Ron gets back to this thread, here’s a link, which I hope works, to WSB coverage. In the comment section Ron makes some very clear and compelling arguments.
He also has put a website up reiterating his points, and I just haven’t found that link yet. He had started another thread here in the forum, I believe.April 12, 2010 at 10:22 pm #692411
Hi Bofus: Actually, here is the petition word for word. Sometimes people do not click on the letter link at the petition site, or read the petition wording at http://soundangels.wordpress.com/petition/ because, unfortunately, the petition site isn’t as good as I would like it to be, but we don’t have time to shop around for better. Thanks.
“We, the undersigned, REJECT all of the alternatives that the King County Wastewater Treatment Division has chosen for siting and building at least a 1 million gallon Combined Sewage Overflow (CSO) tank in, on, and around Lowman Beach Park and its unique and treasured neighborhood.
Said alternatives that are unacceptable and any similar future alternatives that resemble the current ones that might have similar destructive and dangerous impacts on said neighborhood are also REJECTED.
This does not mean that the undersigned does not believe in the necessity for protecting Puget Sound. This does not mean that the undersigned would not accept and even support a different and better solution to the CSO problems in the West Seattle neighborhoods. Said current alternatives rejected in their entirety by the undersigned can be viewed at Murray Pump Station Alternative Sites Chosen by KCWTD.”
So, the words are “this does not mean that the undersigned would not accept and even support a different and better solution.”
The better solutions possible are not yet vetted adequately. The best solution does not have to be at the lowest point in the Basin. For instance, ALL the alternatives proposed by KCWTD for Barton, for instance, are much higher and generally higher than any Lincoln Park alternative would ever be.
So, it is not about “lowness in the basin,” it is really about what size should it be, and why try to cram it into such a small space when there is plenty, I mean, PLENTY, of space in much larger areas where the potential for expansion, bringing online new or back up services, etc., is readily available and doesn’t have to be so crammed in that it can’t possibly come close to working right, or be future-oriented in any way… other than continuing to dig up the neighborhood in the future once they have set the precedent and “need” to expand, upgrade, maintain, etc….
Hope that answers your question. The overflows currently pretty much simultaneously overflow at Lowman and Barton. Generally, it is never just one and not the other. In fact, KCWTD is, by its own definitions clearly and dramatically underbuilding CSO tank(s) in the Barton area, figuring, as far as we have gotten them to “admit,” that a bigger facility at Murray will pick up the slack.
Although the words you quote – “move in the right direction” — are not in the petition itself, but only in the description of the petition they mean, “stop what is going on now, and have a genuine, not a fake, conversation, discussion and consultation with the community about what they want to truly protect the Sound, not just some band-aid, we will have to come back again later, solution. “April 12, 2010 at 10:52 pm #692412
Thank you! I read the previous thread and your latest response. I am now up to speed.April 12, 2010 at 11:00 pm #692413April 12, 2010 at 11:16 pm #692414April 12, 2010 at 11:22 pm #692415
WSBKeymasterApril 13, 2010 at 5:52 am #692416
I am equally opposed to having a CSO storage site in Lincoln Park. Lincoln Park is a treasure and is no place for million or multimillion sewer overflow tanks. I cannot support a movement to solve the Lowman Beach problem by moving the problem into one of the City’s best parks.April 13, 2010 at 2:41 pm #692417
Waterworld: The options, as you likely know, are to underbuild a facility in a cramped, risky, environmentally complex and small neighborhood space, or to buy up a bunch of private property and evict a bunch of owners (destroying treasured neighborhoods) or utilize areas that can actually tolerate the kind of help the Sound needs. Lincoln park, as treasured as it is by me and many others, has the space that is needed.
If you are choosing to site something that is needed for Puget Sound’s health in the West Seattle area, and your choice boils down to underbuilt and dangerous in a small cramped area or in a larger area (both parks) the larger one that can tolerate it, that can hide it, that has all the upside and very little downside, is the logical choice.
As if Lowman Beach Park is NOT one of the city’s best parks. Is that how we are going to argue? Which park is best? Won’t work.
Let’s see, destroy a park completely, entirely and a its surrounding neighborhood (Lowman Beach) or “destroy” 1 acre or so (below ground) with some above ground amenities in a 125 acre park… hmmm…April 13, 2010 at 2:48 pm #692418
Lowman Beach is one of the city’s most historic parks and unique in what i has to offer.
those of you who scoff should go see it before it’s gone….
those little cottages along the side give you an idea of where this park started.April 14, 2010 at 12:31 am #692419
First, I’m not “scoffing” at Lowman Beach Park. I agree that it should not be further degraded with additional utilities. My position is that we should not site these additional utilities in ANY park. I wish that in their zeal to save Lowman Beach Park people would not offer up Lincoln Park as a solution.
Second, I do not accept the proposition that the viable options are as limited as the City says. The City has proposed three different options for the area, but I am far from convinced that those are the only good options. For example, I have not seen any analysis of how much storm water flow could be reduced by disconnecting residential and commercial gutter drains from the sewer and either holding water on-site in rain barrels for use in gardens and on lawns, or diverting flow into small, highly localized swales. In the north end of the city, even small swales have reduced storm flows enormously.
Even if we were limited to some variation on the options the City has proposed, I would vastly prefer a plan that includes storage under low-lying streets, such as Beach Drive, than a plan that would sacrifice the ecosystem of Lincoln Park for a CSO storage tank. Installing storage under the streets will be a temporary disruption, whereas digging up Lincoln Park will do permanent damage and pave the way to site additional utilities in one of Seattle’s largest and most popular parks. Surely we can push the City away from Lowman Beach park without substituting another of our city’s wonderful, but limited, park spaces.April 14, 2010 at 1:36 am #692420
I agree with you..
but would point out that Lincoln Park isn’t all ecosystem.
At the north end of the park you will find a more than one maintenance area that could be converted without impacting the park much.
it would upset the homeowners living it at the north end of the park though.April 14, 2010 at 2:49 am #692421
As noted in many of my posts, I don’t know what sites might be available overall. All I know is that small, complex tank systems built under streets might be possible, but, you need a street in which it is possible. The suggested streets so far have been a very small tank under Murray and a medium tank (the biggest one they can put in Beach Drive at this end is still only a medium tank).
So, would people tolerate a tank under Fauntleroy? Don’t think so. The only other site available is Lincoln Park. The mid-park parking lot alone is twice as large as Lowman Beach Park. How about under the Parking Lot?
The issue JoB brings up about the north end of the park is likely viable. The density of trees and shrubbery would likely dampen much of the noise during construction and a different path could be made for direct access to the work site that would be distant from most homes. Similarly, after construction, the density of shrubbery and trees would hide any above ground amenities almost completely. The above ground amenities are very small for such a large park, but very large for a small park. Smaller than 1/8 of the Parks Dept’s current facility in the park.
None of these facilities should be in parks, but, we don’t have too many other options, unless you want your neighbor’s property bought up by the county.
I am as attached to Lincoln Park as anyone, but the fact is, it is large, and it won’t be compromised hardly at all.
Believe me, I have no “zeal” about any park option, but logic is logic. Sacrifice my neighbors or sacrifice a small portion of a very large park.April 14, 2010 at 3:43 am #692422
Amenities? If the above-ground components of the sewer overflow system were amenities, you’d be more interested in having the project at Lowman Beach. You can call the facilities many things, but not amenities.
I think I’ll bow out of this discussion now and take my concerns to the County.April 14, 2010 at 4:08 am #692423
I guess the word “amenities” is putting the KC spin on them. Maybe I should just use the term “above-ground control stations.” They are above ground controls that allegedly cannot be located below ground, that relate to the operation of the CSO tank, itself. At least in Lincoln, the back-up diesel-powered electrical generator would most likely be below ground — In Lowman Beach Park, it is proposed as above ground…. some amenity, eh?April 14, 2010 at 7:37 am #692424
Signed. Duckitude, why don’t you meet with Dow Constantine? West Seattle has lots of Dow supporters (including me) – We voted him in, and now he needs to listen to us.April 14, 2010 at 2:55 pm #692425April 14, 2010 at 3:12 pm #692426
Several people, including me, have written to Dow. You can find links to his office at http://www.SoundAngels.org on the right sidebar. At this point I have spoken with staff and written to Dow, Tom Rassmussen, Jan Drago, and Sally Bagshaw. I have also written to all of the 34th District legislators.
I don’t know if it would be fair to use this forum to “organize” for this effort, so, please feel free to e-mail me at ron @ soundangels dot org. Thanks!April 14, 2010 at 3:40 pm #692427
it’s fair to use this forum to organize to organize:)
it doesn’t get any more West Seattle than thisApril 14, 2010 at 4:14 pm #692428April 16, 2010 at 3:07 am #692429
been out of town adventuring. hey that’s what markopolos do! bravo duckitude! help king coutny keep its ducks in a row! as for putting structures, mostly underground it seems, in lincoln park – I have no problem with that. Most logical soltuion I am aware of and practicaly no distrubance to the park.April 16, 2010 at 4:25 am #692430
(I know. Deja vu. I posted the same thing a few days ago. I signed the petition then, and swore I saw it on there. Was just now skimming the sigs, and didn’t see it. Oh well, I was able to say more in my comments this time.)
MikeApril 17, 2010 at 6:10 am #692431
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.