Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Congratulations!!
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 11, 2012 at 8:48 pm #603952
tom kelleyParticipantCongratulations and many thanks to those who succeeded in stopping the zip line!
July 11, 2012 at 11:06 pm #763489
DBPMemberSo, tom . . . I assume you’ve been following this. What factors do you think played the biggest role in the Parks Department’s decision to drop the project?
July 11, 2012 at 11:33 pm #763490
JVMemberI’d say it was the pitchforks and burning torches.
July 11, 2012 at 11:36 pm #763491
tom kelleyParticipantOr was it the liederhozen?
July 11, 2012 at 11:38 pm #763492
JanSParticipantnah…everyone knows that West Seattleites don’t like fun…or so I hear…
July 11, 2012 at 11:39 pm #763493
tom kelleyParticipantDBP, I really can’t say what influenced Park’s decision. I would like to think that the will of the people demonstrated by the vociferous neighbors had a lot to do with it.
July 12, 2012 at 1:42 am #763494
JoBParticipantthey found out there was opposition?
July 12, 2012 at 2:08 am #763495
JanSParticipantimagine that, JoB
July 12, 2012 at 2:32 am #763496
sbreParticipantMaybe they’re affraid of your cows DBP!!!!
July 12, 2012 at 6:05 am #763497
DBPMemberOK, so here’s how I saw things unfold over the past week . . .
â–º The ropes course in Lincoln Park story breaks. Blog readers respond with anger and concern. (“Why weren’t we told about this before?”) A few people support the idea, or at least think it should be explored.
â–º A Stop the Zipline at Lincoln Park campaign is launched, complete with letter writing campaign, Facebook page, and so on.
â–º At the first (informal) public meeting held to discuss the ropes course plan, the room is packed, with the overwhelming majority of attendees opposed to the idea of a rope course at Lincoln Park.
â–º The very next day, Parks drops the proposal.
**************************************************************************************
At the meeting, comments from the Fauntleroy Community Association and the public generally fell into one of five cateogries:
1) Seattle Parks didn’t follow its mandate in the way they handled this thing. If they thought a change was in order for Lincoln Park, they should have come to the community first to solicit ideas on what that change would be. In any case, the mandate says parks shall not be used for commercial purposes.
2) The ropes course would irreparably damage the park’s ecology, especially the birds. There was some expert testimony here that was particularly powerful.(For the record, Go Ape says impacts to the ecology would be minimal, but most people at the meeting didn’t seem to trust what Go Ape says about this.)
3) The ropes course would negatively affect the public’s enjoyment of the park, what with the increased noise, loss of available park space, and so on.
4) The course would negatively affect the surrounding neighborhood. There would be impacts on parking and noise levels, for example. Again, Go Ape and Parks have a different story, but people didn’t trust what Go Ape — or the Parks Department — says.
5) The course would not achieve some of the key proposed benefits. At best, the rental fee (65k per year) would be a drop in the bucket of what Parks has lost in budget cuts. At worst, it would not even cover the cost of impact to the park the ropes course would cause — resulting in a net loss. Finally, at $55 a ticket, the course would not be affordable for many Seattle families.
****************************************************************************************
I can’t speak to Go Ape’s intentions, but I still say the Parks people were acting in good faith when they went ahead with this. Based on their demeanor last night, I feel that they were just doing their job as they understood it. They weren’t trying to shove anything down our throats; they just wanted to have a complete proposal before the public comment period started.
Â
July 12, 2012 at 7:02 am #763498
The Velvet BulldogParticipantDBP: I can’t imagine how much it must suck to be management in the Parks Department right now. That they even considered the zipline idea is, I believe, evidence of just how desperate they are for revenue.
Too bad they can’t hold fundraisers, eh?
July 12, 2012 at 7:10 am #763499
JanSParticipantI’d help them with a bakesale :)
July 12, 2012 at 7:14 am #763500
The Velvet BulldogParticipantJanS: That’s a LOT of cookies! ;-)
July 12, 2012 at 6:54 pm #763501
Betty TMemberWhen I heard about the ZipLine, my first thought was ” How cool for those who love it.” Myself I don’t do height but at my age wouldn’t do it anyway. Now I agree with it being noisy and disturbing any wildlife in the area. If a vote, would be “no”.
July 12, 2012 at 9:55 pm #763502
DBPMemberFor me, one of the most powerful comments at the meeting was from a lady who had volunteered at Lincoln Park and had info on park-related volunteer programs. She noted the total number of volunteer hours worked in Seattle parks last year. (It was a surprisingly large number. I think she said 600,000.)
I believe that this lady was making two points: first, that there are ways to sustain the parks other than bringing in commercial enterprises, and second, that the people who put in volunteer time at Seattle parks should be listened to as well — because without them, our parks would be in much worse shape.
July 12, 2012 at 11:01 pm #763503
JVMemberI hope this passion continues when we see somebody at Lincoln Park or Alki littering or leaving their garbage everywhere after a group gathering or a family picnic.
A couple weeks ago my son was riding his bike on Alki and there was a group of about 20 teenagers in a picnic area and the place was destroyed with garbage flooding over into the path down by the water. My son stopped his bike, waited for me and asked if he could pick some of it up. I said no, let them pick up after themselves, but I later regretted it.
Maybe those idiots would have felt a teeny tiny bit bad to see a 7-year-old picking up after them? I suspect they wouldn’t. Their narcissism and sense of entitlement tells them that it’s normal for other people to take care of them. I should have picked up the trash, dropped it on their table, and told them to clean up their sh!t! Alas, I didn’t…20 on 1 isn’t bravery, it’s stupidity.
My point is, let’s protect our parks from insiders who trash it, as well as outsiders who want to exploit it.
July 12, 2012 at 11:03 pm #763504
waterworldParticipantDBP: Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I am guessing you were at the meeting to hear the people from Parks speak (for a very limited time) and the public comments. I was one of the people working on the FCA presentation, and I’d like to note just a couple of other core issues raised by both FCA and many other community members:
(1) The financial benefit that the Parks department hoped to gain was not in the form of a rent payment, which would at least have the benefit of being a fixed amount annually. Rather, it was a “revenue share,” meaning it would fluctuate based on Go Ape’s sales. But it was a very low percentage, which is why Parks would only get $45K to $65K a year. And it could have been a lot less. There was no minimum payment Go Ape would be required to make to the Parks department.
(2) You mentioned the high price, but the context in which that came up is important. Go Ape charges $55 for adults and $35 for kids, and anyone under 18 must be accompanied by a paying adult. Despite Go Ape’s offer of several hundred free tickets a year to people who cannot afford it otherwise, the fact remains that for many families, Go Ape is either out of their price range entirely or maybe a once-a-year event. Why do people in community care about that? Partly because it means Go Ape will likely (as they do elsewhere) bring boatloads or busloads of tourists to its facility, which the street and parking lots at Lincoln Park cannot accommodate. More important, to some of us, putting an expensive commercial venture such as this in a public park sends the message to kids that having fun, even in a public spaces, costs a lot of money — or that you’re not really having fun unless you are spending the money to use the Go Ape course.
(3) Several people voiced a fundamental concern about this type of “private-public partnership,” in which the public is mostly left out. Nothing prevents Go Ape from installing a ropes course in the area on private land. There is no need to make public park space available to them.
(4) The mistrust of Go Ape is also a key factor here. This company has earned a reputation for not being entirely accurate, especially in dealing with public concerns about their projects. (I could use a more succinct word for that, but I won’t.) Several grass-roots websites in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand have been created by people who want to publicize how poorly the company treated their communities and their concerns. The very fact that ordinary people maintain websites with information on how to fight to keep Go Ape out of local parks is reflection of the company’s reputation.
Finally, I want to address your statement that the Parks staff members are acting in good faith and simply doing their jobs. One of the more significant failures by the Parks staff was not coming out to the community early in the process to start getting input. I spoke to one of the Parks staff members after the meeting and got no acknowledgement that they should have consulted the community earlier in this process. Their idea of public involvement is they put the project together and when it’s done, they bring it to the public to *tell* us what they are about to do, not to *ask* us what we think. To the staffer, the next step was to go fill out a 100-point SEPA checklist and then, yes, they would be perfectly happy to shove it down our throats. The same staff member also said that the presenters at the meeting were misinformed and made false representations about the Go Ape proposal during the meeting. This person repeated statements she made during the meeting that we should have gone to the Parks website to get all of the “correct” information — but in fact there was no information about this proposal on the Parks website and there never has been, and that’s part of the problem.
I get it that there are some serious budget issues that Parks, like every other agency, needs to deal with. Frankly, though, it’s hard for me to imagine a less “good faith” approach to dealing with the issue than what was done here, namely, soliciting ideas from the business community as opposed to the park-using community, inviting a foreign corporation to town to pick the park it liked the best, and very nearly agreeing to trade away a well-loved urban forest for a pittance. If that is “just doing their job,” then there’s something wrong with the job description.
July 12, 2012 at 11:52 pm #763505
DBPMemberwaterworld, if you had ANYTHING to do with FCA’s presentation Tuesday, please take a bow.
Â
Â
Â
No really. I mean it . . .
Â
Â
Â
OK, then. Good. [Ahem] —Why a bow? Because that was one of the most INTELLIGENT and EFFECTIVE public meetings I have EVER been to. (City Council: please take note!) The official FCA speakers were well spoken and thoughtful. But most important: they were BRIEF — which allowed for maximum public comment. And when the meeting threatened to get out of hand, the chair stepped right in and restored order.
Good form!
OK. You can un-bow now. Just in time for . . .
July 13, 2012 at 1:13 am #763506
acemotelParticipantOver the years, there have been a number of projects floated by the parks dept, which were dropped due to a large opposition. It’s not so rare.
There have also been projects that went ahead despite a large opposition, i.e. taking down the fence at Madison Park Beach. Parks is actually quite responsive in weighing public benefit against public opinion. The key is knowing when “public” opinion is really that, or when it’s private interest parading as public opinion.
Parks scrapped the project because 1. large opposition 2. the project didn’t have overwhelming public benefit and I think 3. the project was a test run in the first place. There are no other blatant private operators in public city parks YET. (not counting the various negotiated contracts at Magnuson Park) (and the new and aggressive push to contract out community center operations)
My sense is that privatization (which IMO was the central issue here) is being driven by the decision-makers: city council and mayor – those who manage parks leadership.
It’s painful to watch some members of the public attack the parks employees, when the criticism should rightfully go to the politicians who are responsible.
and p.s. the lack of public involvement earlier in the process in inexcusable.
July 13, 2012 at 2:43 am #763507
kootchmanMemberNow we can all gum water soaked saltines and enjoy the quiet.
July 13, 2012 at 6:13 am #763508
JanSParticipantlike you would have ridden the zipline – lololol…give me a break…
July 13, 2012 at 10:36 pm #763509
kootchmanMemberexactly.. I wouldn’t have… but we do have youngsters that would love it. Hell I can’t even look up to see if they are having fun… but I would sure like to hear the laughter… of course there are sourpuss bloggers … but it also seems there are lots of people who vote with their dinero… and ride the ride! Geesh imagine.. a destination in west Seattle. other than to board the ferry… heck some might even come and spend the weekend… y’know.. rent a hotel room for a night, buy a picnic lunch at Husky Deli, have dinner out. …
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.