VIDEO: See what the Parks Board heard about proposal for new ‘guidelines’ governing greenbelts & natural areas

Will the Seattle Board of Park Commissioners – aka the Park Board – recommend approval of new guidelines for the natural areas and greenbelts under Seattle Parks jurisdiction? Intense discussion preceded and followed our preview of the board’s public hearing last Thursday night. Now the video’s available online – embedded above, or watch it directly on the Seattle Channel website here. The board is expected to make its recommendation next month; even if you didn’t get to the hearing, you can get your comment(s) to the board as long as you do it by July 16th.

Karen Lyons June 29, 2015 (5:30 pm)

This explanation is far too complicated for our neighborhood groups. I am Coordinator for the Solstice P-Patch and I have a Masters Degree in Botany, and I do not understand what is being presented? I think we have to work together with this. Let’s make this understandable?!?

julie98106 June 29, 2015 (7:11 pm)

I agree, this is completely unreadable

Mark Ahlness June 29, 2015 (9:03 pm)

I agree with the previous comments. This is a complex issue. There has been zero public outreach through the usual City and Parks media outlets. Thanks WSB once again for covering the story.
.
Outside of the video, there are to my knowledge only two publicly available accounts of the meeting.
.
One is from Seattle Nature Alliance: http://seattlenaturealliance.org/2015/06/29/one-voice/
.
The other (referenced in the previous link) is from a representative of the Conservation Committee of Seattle Audubon, via the “Tweeters” listserv: http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/2015-June/109284.html
.
Very, very quiet for a decision of this magnitude. That is in itself a story, imho…

Parksforal June 30, 2015 (8:08 am)

I read the document. It is more readable and forthright than many other city documents.
–
It states a position that does not jibe with the limited use proponents such as the greenspace coalition and the nature alliance who are so vocal and determined in their green only policy.
–
The document lists a slew of public outreach meetings and documents that have already taken place.
–
Simply put, it says that parks should be available for a wide variety of uses and sets up criteria for evaluating and making decisions on what to allow.
–
It is always sad to see two healthy interests, bikes and nature lovers, at odds.

Denise June 30, 2015 (10:52 am)

Seattle Nature Alliance opposes this policy change, but we have ALWAYS been in favor of passive uses in our natural areas, particularly those that are in underserved neighborhoods, or in natural areas that have been long neglected by the city. (Passive uses are low-impact, universal, and compatible with other users and wildlife).
The best place to get information about us, or other groups is from their respective websites, NOT anonymous posters or ranters. We’ve said it many times: we are FOR deepening the connection between people and nature. The proof is in our work. Same goes for most of the other groups that are opposing this policy change.
Signed, Denise Dahn, co-director, the Seattle Nature Alliance

John F July 1, 2015 (2:09 am)

Regarding the previously posted questioning of why this information hasn’t been made public. Actually its been an on-going, pubic discussion for years now. Please see below.

http://www.seattle.gov/parks/projects/cheasty/gs_bike_trail.htm

Park Board Meetings About Bicycle Use (from the Parks Dept. website)

Meeting 1/9/14

Meeting 11/14/13

Meeting 10/10/13

John F July 1, 2015 (3:17 am)

In addition:

Cheasty Greenspace Bike Use Community Participation Meetings

Park Board Public Hearing 4/9/15

PAT & Public Meeting #5 2/19/15

PAT Meeting #4 1/29/15

Project Advisory Team (PAT) Conference Call 12/18/14

Community Outreach Meeting 12/3/14

PAT Meeting #3 11/20/14

PAT Meeting #2 10/23/14

PAT Meeting #1 10/2/14

Project Advisory Team (PAT) application closed 8/29/14

Public Meeting 3/25/14

Parksforal July 1, 2015 (7:07 am)

Denise,
This blog is based on anonymous posters.
A person’s choice to remain anonymous has no bearing on accuracy of information.
Seattle Nature Alliance is a lobbying activist group, so one should assume their ‘information’ is biased and misrepresents opposing opinions.
–
“(Passive uses are low-impact, universal, and compatible with other users and wildlife).”
–
It is the so called “passive uses” that need definition. Words such as “universal” and “compatible with other users” imply that other activities such as biking and athletic endeavors are included.
Are they?
Or what is included under “passive uses”?

Sorry, comment time is over.