‘Myers Park’? Suggestion for southeast West Seattle sites

(Click image to see full-size aerial photo on city website)
The southeasternmost corner of West Seattle is along Myers Way, south of the east end of Roxbury. On both sides of Myers, which continues on into unincorporated North Highline, you’ll find vacant government-owned land – some state, mostly city – and a few other uses, such as the city’s Joint Training Facility (outlined in red on the city aerial view above).

On the Friends of Lincoln Park website, Mark Ahlness has written about a new suggestion for the city to keep 31+ acres of land in that area (outlined in orange above), as “Myers Park,” instead of selling it. It’s not a suggestion FROM his group, or from him, but they were contacted by the person proposing it, Cass Turnbull, a greenspace advocate known for work including founding Plant Amnesty. The city website says the area was declared surplus – and therefore sellable – in 2006. A sale fell through back then, but the city is still looking for one or more buyers, according to 2012 documents like this one, which included a city recommendation that one part of the site be kept, and the rest be sold to cover original acquisition costs (estimated at $13 million).

If you’re interested in getting involved in a campaign to keep it as open space, Turnbull’s contact information is included in the post on the FLP site.

10 Replies to "'Myers Park'? Suggestion for southeast West Seattle sites"

  • dsa September 28, 2014 (1:21 pm)

    Isn’t it relatively flat? Could it be turned into a golf course with driving range or other multiple public park sports uses?

  • Joe Grande September 28, 2014 (2:39 pm)

    I believe much of this property next to the Joint Training Facility is a designated wet land. Not much can be done with it but leave it he.

    • WSB September 28, 2014 (3:06 pm)

      That’s what the city documentation says about the westernmost parcel – it includes wetland areas – but apparently the rest is zoned commercial and could be sold for that type of development. And for anyone interested in deep-diving into the info about this land, the city docs we’ve linked have nested links with even MORE info – this one, for example, links to some historic photos, even a 1936 aerial! (black and white but still of interest)

  • Mel September 28, 2014 (9:29 pm)

    We can’t afford to maintain all of the park land we have right now – it seems like creating more would be a problem rather than a benefit.

  • Cass Turnbull September 29, 2014 (12:03 am)

    I know what it means to be expected to maintain more and more parks with the same funding. I know what it is like to be a maid to the homeless, camping in the parks. It’s not fun and it’s not pleasant.

    Nevertheless, if we don’t set aside the land now, we will loose it forever. People are already fighting over how to use our limited open space. Apartment kids grow up without ever climbing a tree or building a fort. Think how it will be when then next 100,000 people move here.

    We never had urban flooding, smog, and endangered salmon when I was growing up. Trees are proven, cheap mitigation. The beauty of holding land as a Tree Bank is that it is a fenced, low maintenance utility until the funds arrive for it to become a park. When times are tough, the land gets closed, not sold to forever become more buildings, roads and parking lots.

    Density is necessary, but there must be sufficient green to go with it.

  • Brian September 29, 2014 (7:42 am)

    Forgive me for not shedding a tear for a kid whose parents never gave him an opportunity to climb a tree one time (how bad are his parents that this is the case? jeez.)
    This entire county is full of parks. We have so many parks that we can’t even pay enough staff to keep them clean and orderly.
    Meanwhile, affordable housing is nearly impossible to find anywhere within a reasonable distance to the city. You want to cordon off land that no one is allowed to build on while people are being squeezed out and forced to move to Lynnwood and Federal Way? That seems like terrible policy.

  • BT September 29, 2014 (10:04 am)

    This seems like a nice idea…BUT living in the area very close by, for the last 5 yrs. we see and experience constant disturbances of’endless’ traffic of homeless, vagrants, felons, prostitutes, campers and such occupying around this area and across the street in the other Myers Way woods.
    What will be done with this situation?
    Make another park for them to occupy?…. And they will because this whole area is not monitored very well to eliminate the problems. Crime is all around all the time. Check the police and WSDOT records. Problems all the time.

    Think about this before planning another open space park. Thank you

  • Jw September 29, 2014 (8:01 pm)

    Some type of transit hub?

  • Highland Park guy September 30, 2014 (11:24 am)

    Sell it. There is plenty of park space nearby, such as Westcrest Park which is a stone’s throw away. There are also the Duwamish greenbelts and White Center ponds in the immediate vicinity. Proceeds could be used to improve access, trails, habitat, and safety in the other parks in the vicinity, and a new taxable enterprise at this location would provide revenue to the city and jobs.

    @Cass, Do you think it is prudent to acquire more parks before we take better care of the ones we already have? For instance, shouldn’t our City be attentive to ivy and blackberry removal in existing public green spaces as a higher priority?

  • Michael Oxman October 2, 2014 (11:01 am)

    The 79 page Urban Forest Stewardship Plan is here: http://www.seattle.gov/trees/docs/2013%20Urban%20Fores%20Stewardship%20Plan%20091113.pdf

    The city of Seattle’s official goal is to increase coverage of tree canopy by 7%.

    This 7% equals about 300,000 new trees. If the land is sold to developers, very few new trees will be planted.

    Why are there descrepancies between conflicting goals between density & the environment ?

    Can our city councilmembers please remove one or the other of these priorities ?

    Which is it going to be – trees or development ?

Sorry, comment time is over.