Prop 1

[wakeflood]

Skeets – your prediction sounds pretty solid to me. I suspect that anything that even hints of an open-ended funding scenario, whether it actually IS or not, is likely to get less support.

Share This

[skeeter]

The accountability issue is interesting. I think the park board (or whatever it’s called) would be assigned by the city council. I wonder if city council members will spend much time figuring out if the board is making responsible decisions with taxpayer dollars. I love our parks too. I wish I could get some unbiased data on how much our current park spending is compared to other large cities. Are we getting good bang for our buck now?

Share This

[au]

This is a sincere question, wakeflood, skeeter everybody-

Have y’all read the 35.61 RCW that we will be voting on?

That’s what the discussion needs to be based upon because that’s what we are voting on.

skeeter, you can get unbiased data by requesting the accounting records of the parks dept. That’s a good start just to see what is being spent where. I’ve been shown a bit of an older one and well I’ll just say it was pretty eye opening.

Oh and btw, I am a big fan of parks too and also want to keep the Olmsted Legacy and all the other parks in place, funded and maintained.

Share This

[JoB]

i do’t have a problem with establishing a parks board

but i do have a problem putting our city council in charge of it..

what to do ?

Share This

[metrognome]

I’m not as worried about the City Council being in charge if this passes. Why? Because the media is much more likely to pay attention to what the CC is doing than they will to an independent Parks Board. I would bet the CC Parks Board meetings will be broadcast on the city channel and minutes, handouts, etc. available from the city clerk. This is how the KCC handles the two special purpose governments that they are board members for (The KC Ferry District, which pays for the WS water taxi with property taxes, and the KC Flood Control District, which also levies property taxes.)

Here’s a perfect example of an unknown special government that can raise your property taxes … ever heard of the King Conservation District? No? Why? The media ignores it.

http://www.kingcd.org/about-property-tax.htm

Second, the CC is more likely to make funding decisions in light of all the other financial pressures on the city and county (CC members sit on KC’s Regional Transit, Policy and Water Quality committees) than an independent committee. Sure, the CC may go rogue and jack up prop taxes, but I doubt it.

As for the concern about the permanence of this change, I agree this is of concern. However, what the legislature has created, the legislature (or Tim Eyman) can change. Time and again during my career, I saw local, state and federal legislatures and courts significantly change laws and regulations and interpretations of those laws and regulations. Sometimes, it’s political (R’s pass something, lose their majority, D’s change it and vice versa.) Sometimes, the law didn’t accomplish it’s purpose or times changed.

It wouldn’t be an easy or quick process but it could be done.

Share This

[metrognome]

after I posted the above, I did as au suggested and read thru RCW 35.61. I found the following about dissolution of a metro parks board:

RCW 35.61.310 – Dissolution.

A board of commissioners of a metropolitan park district may, upon a majority vote of all its members, dissolve any metropolitan park district, prorate the liabilities thereof, and turn over to the city and/or county so much of the district as is respectively located therein, when:

(1) Such city and/or county, through its governing officials, agrees to, and petitions for, such dissolution and the assumption of such assets and liabilities, or;

(2) Ten percent of the voters of such city and/or county who voted at the last general election petition the governing officials for such a vote.

So, either the CC could petition the Parks Board, aka the CC, to dissolve or 10% of previous voters could file a petition; either way, the Parks Board, aka the CC, makes the decision on dissolution. Hmmm …

I checked the state appellate and supreme courts decisions and AG opinions and found nothing related to governance or formation of MPD’s.

I did stumble across this complicated explanation of MPD tax levies:

http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/parks/spd-mpdtax.aspx

Happy Reading; I’ve got to take something for my headache…

P.S. Did anyone object to the Seattle Monorail Authority having right of eminent domain?

Share This

[wakeflood]

Gnome, people complained about virtually every facet of the Monoral Authority. To the point of getting it on the ballot multiple times in just a few years.

Seattle Passive Agressive manifest.

Share This

[JayDee]

I am fond of thought experiments. So let’s try this Prop 1 thought experiment:

–

Remember the whole kerfuffle when the Parks Department proposed letting a private company (“Go Ape”) put a 5-6 acre high line rope course in Lincoln Park. Thanks to a WSB-informed community, this monstrosity never materialized.

–

Would such privatization of a very popular and well used park like Lincoln park be more or less likely if a Parks District existed?

–

On one hand, the revolting peasants drove a pitchfork through this proposal because we vote for the parks.

–

On the other, if there was a non-imperiled funding source would such a crappy proposal be entertained? Or would it be more likely to be implemented because our objections would be duly noted and ignored?

–

I will only pose the question.

Share This

[JoB]

good question

the city council routinely ignores citizens when it comes to the business impact of our neighborhoods..

why would this be any different?

Share This

[skeeter]

“Remember the whole kerfuffle when the Parks Department proposed letting a private company (“Go Ape”) put a 5-6 acre high line rope course in Lincoln Park. Thanks to a WSB-informed community, this monstrosity never materialized.

–

Would such privatization of a very popular and well used park like Lincoln park be more or less likely if a Parks District existed?”

Good question. The parks board members would be assigned by the city council if I understand correctly. So the board members, not the council, would decide whether to allow a zip line or not. I suspect even unpopular board members keep their job until their appointed term expires.

Ironically, I’m actually leaning more toward the park board model because of this example. I never understood the hysteria with the zipline proposal. I thought it was a proposal worthy of discussion. I see people having fun playing soccer. I see people having fun playing golf. I see people having fun hiking. Why not have fun running a zip line? I’m all for development of our parks if it allows more people to recreate in new ways. The unelected park board could cut out all the political foolishness and actually make some very fun improvements to our parks. I’d also love to see mountainbike trails in seattle parks and a miniature scale railroad in Seattle Parks. These types of improvements are a great community resource that allow us to recreate without having to drive 60 miles out of the city.

Share This

[JanS]

I objected to such a money making business in the park. I’m sure ziplining is fun for a lot of people. There was a more appropriate place for it somewhere else.

As far as Prop.1 is concerned. I doubt I’d vote for anything that takes the ability to object away from the public permanently. I do not trust our city council to do things in our best interest. There should always be safeguards in it for us.

Share This

[Trileigh]

Some folks have referred to the “Citizens’ Oversight Committee” that would provide guidance to the City Council and oversight of the Metro Parks District. According to the documents, this committee would consist of:

– 4 members of the Parks District Board

– 4 members recommended by other City commissions. These commissions include those on refugees, women, LGBT, disabilities, etc.

– 7 additional members, one from each district.

.

I am undecided about this issue as well and am interested in reading others’ thoughtful rationales.

Share This

[JayDee]

The critical thing is that the park board members are the City Council. So unless they made a really unpopular Parks vote they would still be in office when the next election came up. Which is pretty much a hereditary office(Godden, Licata,Rasmussen, and Clark) have been in office 8+ years. The Citizens Oversight Commitee means it is an oversight that they had to be included…IMHO.

Share This

[au]

Oh sure there is a citizen’s oversight committee, they get to sit and watch…

“It wouldn’t be an easy or quick process but it could be done.” Why set ourselves up this way? Personally I don’t want more power concentrated in fewer hands. I wonder about the monorail and eminent domain, was it for the entire city or was it limited to route specific?

Because it seems with reading the RCW that the word park just needs to be mentioned and the city council suddenly has A LOT of authority in regards to our parks and public land.

To call opposing the zipline in Lincoln Park hysteria is belittling. There were many valid reasons that that proposal sucked. How much do you think someone really cares for the park when they would destroy the canopy as habitat that has been developing for 100+ yrs? Not all parks are for only humans.

If Prop 1 passes, the people will have no recourse until after the damage is done. We will have given away our power to stop idiotic ideas from taking place in our parks.

The only voice that will soon be heard is the voice of money

Share This

[au]

“if there was a non-imperiled funding source would such a crappy proposal be entertained?”

I believe the answer is yes, crappy proposals will be entertained. The reason I believe this is because the RCW 35.61.130 3) says that ‘The board of park commissioners shall have power to improve, acquire, extend and maintain, open and lay out, parks, parkways, boulevards, avenues, aviation landings and playgrounds,…. for the production of revenue for expenditure for park purposes…’

The way I read the full text of this is that the city council can set up revenue making schemes in one park and use it to fund pet park projects somewhere else even out of the district. So I think its important to consider how our tax money, if this Prop passes, can now go to fund expensive amusements that we will be paying for twice; once with our tax money and then again at the gate for admission.

And don’t think somebody’s not going to be making a profit here somewhere.

Share This

[acemotel]

Seattle parks are in desperate need of a reliable, consistent funding source, especially to avoid the various privatization schemes that pop up from time to time. In general, I am a big fan of MPDs, but unfortunately this proposal has some flaws, most significant of which is having it administered by the city council. Having an MPD administered by the legislative branch is not the usual structure, specifically in a large city. An oversight committee frankly doesn’t have any authority. A city council, whether at-large or by district, has too many other interests and concerns and influences to properly take on this role. I will likely vote NO.

Share This

[wakeflood]

I’m on the fence because if this goes down for the reasons we’ve been discussing, I’m concerned that the message back to the CC will be one of the two following INCORRECT assumptions.

1. We want oversight so go create a dozen new full time positions with commensurate additional support staff and build a new layer of bureaucratic inefficiency for us.

And/or…

2. We really would rather fund parks in the same piecemeal, short term way as we do with schools and other stuff we proclaim we need but hate to actually pay for.

Neither of which is what I’m hearing from the folks here.

What I’d HOPE they’d take away from a NO vote would be that we’d like some citizen oversight with teeth and a decent method to prevent scope creep of their taxing and revenue generating authority.

Which sounds a lot like what other municipalities have done.

We’ll see.

Share This

[au]

I would be much less adamant voting NO for Prop 1 if it was a separate park board. I still am concerned with the deceptive advertising although.

It’s a very slick well calculated campaign to manipulate a yes vote.

I’m calling it out. The flyers that we’ve received in the mail soliciting your yes vote are deceptive, dishonest and deceitful.

The latest one? Classy! Let’s link the opposing voice with ‘whiny baby stuff’. I am disgusted with everybody and everything that thinks resorting to not so subtle insults is a proper way to govern our self.

Those that have endorsed the yes campaign, some with whom I am associated, you’ve now associated your names with a low-ball underhanded campaign.

It is unfortunate.

Share This

[HMC Rich]

A friend of mine who has worked on the City Council in the past told me the following:

He urges his friends to vote NO. (In his message to me and his other friends he said)…The vote would create a permanent new parks governance structure that would have twice the taxing authority supporters claim they plan to use, and that as a practical matter cannot be repealed once adopted.

It eliminates entirely the role the citizens now have in approving levies for specific parks development projects, which is in no small part the real intent of supporters (that $500 million waterfront park isn’t going to pay for itself, and cruise ship companies and other downtown businesses would like nothing more than to push the cost off to property owners and renters citywide). The League of Women’s Voters recommends a NO vote, as do many other progressives and longtime Democrats not withstanding the attempts of the pro campaign to accuse anyone who raises legitimate questions about this proposal as an Eymanite.

You know me. I am not usually supportive of the ideas my progressive friends promote but I agree with Matt completely on this. I will be voting NO.

Share This

[dobro]

The research I’ve done on this makes me, surprisingly, tend to agree with Rich on this one.

Share This

[au]

I’m asking people who have done the research and realize what this is to please ask 5-10 people if they are aware of prop 1 and what it really is.

It’s summer and lots of people aren’t paying attention so its important to let them know. The folks I have talked to about this are very appreciative and agreed to spread the word.

I am concerned that a lot of people will vote yes without realizing what the vote really is because they trust the supporting non profits and the yes campaign is so very slick.

Share This

[skeeter]

For folks on the fence or leaning away from Prop 1 – is it relevant that all nine city council members and the mayor support prop 1?

Share This

[wakeflood]

Well, I’d like to hear the “why’s” from those who normally come at things from different angles. By which I mean, we’ve got a pro-business, moderate Seattle establishment guy in the mayor’s office and a socialist agreeing that this method of funding is appropriate. Do they support it for the same reasons or do either respond to the question of oversight/overreach?

Wonder if they both have posted statements on the Prop? I should look before I ask. They may have.

Share This

[wakeflood]

To my own query: I can’t find any obvious place where the Council members discuss their feelings on the Prop as individuals. Sawant is on the Parks Committee so she apparently feels this is a reasonable approach.

Share This

[JanS]

skeeter…no, it’s not relevant to me that all 9 council members and the mayor are for Prop 1 . I can do my own research and make up my own mind. But since you brought it up, do you wonder why they are pro? Could it have anything to do with giving them ultimate power to call the shots, with no citizen recourse.

I think that since it is the public that uses the parks, the voting public should retain some reasonable “oversight” for lack of a better term. We should be able to object when there is something happening that is not, in our minds, kosher. I’m not for giving them “all the power” to do what they want with it.

Guess you know how I’m voting – lol…

Share This

[Author]

Posts