Beach-fire ban update: Parks says “no action this year”

Sent this afternoon by the Parks Department in the wake of our report last night and others:

… Seattle Parks and Recreation Superintendent Tim Gallagher clarified that Parks does not intend to take any action this year [on the proposed beach-bonfire ban].

The briefing is an opportunity to make the Board, which has many new members, aware of the costs and issues associated with beach fires, and to let them know what the options are for regulating them.

In 2004, Parks did a substantial analysis of the issues surrounding beach fires after receiving a citation from the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency for allowing the burning of illegal fuels. Parks decided at that time, with the support of the Park Board, to continue them with some education and regulation.

Parks continues to receive a steady trickle of complaints about associated behaviors–drinking, loud music, and huge amounts of trash, and continues to have concerns about the costs of managing the program.

We also heard late today from Parks spokesperson Dewey Potter, who we had e-mailed to ask about the process that would be involved in making any sort of decision on this – she notes that it would be an “administrative” matter, not a “legislative” matter. Potter also forwarded the briefing paper that the board will be reviewing for next Thursday’s meeting; you can read it here.

9 Replies to "Beach-fire ban update: Parks says "no action this year""

  • cami June 6, 2008 (6:34 pm)

    “Parks continues to receive a steady trickle of complaints about associated behaviors–drinking, loud music, and huge amounts of trash”

    In 2004, many of these types of complaints orginated from Golden Gardens, not Alki!

    I wonder if the classification of “administrative” means that they will do what they want regardless of what the public wants.

    Those enjoying fires at Alki tend to be church groups, kids, families and others. Since the smaller rings went in and the education program was implemented we’ve seen very little if any problems with the fires.

  • bill June 6, 2008 (9:39 pm)

    You made a stupid blunder and your doing spin control, man how did we vote you people in office? I need to be more aware of the people we vote in so i can stop this stupid stuff! do you even have a degree? I truly need to leave this city of fools!!

  • WSB June 6, 2008 (9:43 pm)

    Just to be clear, the Parks and Rec director is not an elected official. Tim Gallagher was appointed to the job last fall – Mayor Nickels nominated him, the City Council confirmed him. (The mayor and councilmembers, of course, ARE elected.) — TR

  • OP June 6, 2008 (9:44 pm)

    Doesn’t intend to take any action…..until the public looks the other just long enough…

    In the wake of the major backlash across talk radio (both liberal and conservative), no wonder they came to this decision.

    There’s a ‘green’ madness in our Sound, and we need to stop it. This is one of many steps needed.

  • alkiguy June 7, 2008 (12:53 am)

    The issue here is not the relative amount of greenhouse gases going into the air, but the degree to which the public lands and free activities are being stripped away. From my letter to the board:

    “These fires are a hallowed tradition, especially along Alki, and the kind of communal bonding that goes on because of this opportunity is invaluable to the health of our community.

    People who own houses in Seattle are not prohibited from using their fireplaces as much as they want; all you are doing is taking away the ability to gather around a warm fire from those who rent apartments and are otherwise less rich. The whole point of a public park is to help equalize the inequality in our world, where some people can own beautiful land and keep those less wealthy off of it. In a park we can gather with our friends for a barbeque or toss the frisbee even if we are not fortunate to have a backyard. To take away the fire pits is to chip away one more public good from the average citizen.”

  • Mags June 7, 2008 (8:40 am)

    If they want to really limit the amount of green house gases, maybe they should outlaw cruising down alki. Make all cars park in the west seattle park and ride (that doesn’t get used much) and put them on a cruising bus that can hold 60 people and they still get to sightsee the beach (especially those high polluting 60’s muscle cars)..let’s get as ridiculous as possible and pretend we are on the city council.

    They already monitor what kind of wood is being burned. We have had many a bonfire at Alki, high school graduations, friendly get togethers for our friends from out of town, etc. We have never had a problem and always talk to the police officers. On a serious note we will be very sad for our friends and neighbors if these yahoos prevail and take away our beloved bonfires.

  • OP June 9, 2008 (1:02 am)

    If they want to really limit the amount of green house gases, maybe they should outlaw cruising down alki.

    As much as I disdain the wannabe “gangstas”, posturing teenagers and small-penised men that cruise up and down Alki, you can’t do this for a simple, democratic reason: It’s restricting the freedom and access to the road that people have paid for via their taxes (yes, even the schlubs like the a-hats that frequently cruise down it). It bugs me, it bugs you, but you can’t do ban cars in the name saving the planet (the planet will be just fine; we’re really just saving it for ourselves). So give the hyperventilating envrio-weenie-ism a rest.

  • grr June 9, 2008 (4:26 pm)

    can we ban the large-breasted rollerblading girls that cruise Alki along with the small penised men and their fine automobiles?

  • ray June 14, 2008 (5:11 pm)

    The mayor is a nut case so ‘his people’ would tend to feed his stupid agenda.

Sorry, comment time is over.