The Parks Levy (Prop 2) on the November ballot has even longtime parks supporters divided on its merits.

The Phinney Ridge Community Council has not taken a position on the levy.

While ostensibly the measure continues funding from the Pro Parks Levy, which expired this year, and while everyone supports parks as much as apple pie and motherhood, several elements of the plan have raised opposition from contingents usually squarely on the side of additional parks funding.

Among them:

Artificial turf. At $2 million to $3 million a pop, artificial turf projects eat up huge chunks of levy funding. The pro argument is that AT permits winter sports such as soccer to be played in less mud, and that maintenance costs less than natural grass. Conversely, AT puts grounds keepers, landscapers and others out of work, has to be replaced every few years, and may be dangerous to athletes and children (some AT has been shown to contain lead, to cite one example).

Concrete. The levy also funds projects that are heavy on "hardscape," the current euphemism for concrete. Skate parks are one example. Typically a skate bowl and associated plazas, runups and girdles cement over the ground, not only reducing open space but creating yet more permeability problems.

Questionable allocations. Skeptics have raised concerns about parks spending on lidding reservoirs, providing car access to shorelines and funding pocket parks. Some projects also seem inflated, or overallocated, such as playground "upgrades." And there continues to be disagreement about whether $9 million in funding for the Asian Art Museum in Volunteer Park is appropriate for a parks levy.

Parks and park funding used to be why we paid our local taxes. It's a sad sign of the times that normally avid parks supporters feel torn over a levy costing the average Seattle homeowner the equivalent of one night's dining out — not because of the expense, but because of the omissions, trends and priorities at stake.

For more information, here are lengthier statements on both sides.

In this corner, supporting the levy, Bill Farmer of Friends of Athletic Fields:

Dear Phinney Ridge Community Council – Thanks for letting me speak to you about Proposition 2, the Seattle Parks and Green Spaces Levy, last week. Here is additional information on the levy package including a link to previous work done by the Citizens Committee that helped put the package together.  The Open Space Gap Report is the best source I could think of for the requested “metrics” on parks demand/needs. Check out the maps (NW map attached above) that graphically show areas that are lacking park spaces, like Phinney Ridge and east Ballard.   As Seattle becomes more densely populated we need to make sure we provide the open spaces for reflection, recreation, and opportunities to touch nature. Many neighborhoods in Seattle don’t have adequate parks nearby due to the lack of foresight in the old days. We can only try to make up for that now but developers do not take time off. Opportunities will be lost if we don’t renew the levy now. There are so many cool projects on the list that address a wide variety of needs. I don’t think $81/year per household is asking too much to fund these types of parks improvements that folks use every month or every week and many even every day. Getting a chance to vote on the levy is your chance to decide how important parks and open spaces are to you – and that is a good thing.

Seattle Parks for All

Seattle Parks and Green Spaces Levy 2008 Citizens' Advisory Committee Report

2006 Open Space Gap Report

Here are some other compelling reasons to vote for Prop 2:

1. New open space is being created on reservoir lids at two proposed project sites: Maple Leaf and West Seattle. The Parks Dept will have no funding in the foreseeable future to develop these sites without renewal of the levy.
2. New properties were acquired with the existing ProParks Levy (eg, 7th Elect Church site, Crown Hill Elementary) and recently at sites like Discovery Park (ie, Capehart Housing) and Magnuson Park (ie, former Naval air station). Again, Parks has no funding set aside to develop these sites without renewal of the levy.
3. The ProParks 2000 levy provided extra funding from Seattle to the Parks Dept for the first time since 1984. Before that it was a Forward Thrust bond in 1968! There are so many needs we’re still catching up after years of inattention.
4.  An expanded Opportunity Fund provides up to $15M for projects initiated by citizens. These will be grass-roots, neighborhood-led projects like these from ProParks Levy: Fremont Peak Park, Ballard Pocket Park, Cesar Chavez Park; 21 total.
5. This tax levy was purposely reduced (by 27% from current rate) to address the anticipated economic downturn and make it more affordable.
6. People of modest means are some of the most frequent users of our free park system. Don’t they deserve a better park system?
7. Community gardens, off-leash areas, skateparks, bike/ped trails, it goes on and on. The list of projects or types of projects is impressive in its breadth of scope.
8. Upgrading cultural facilities is okay too; just because the cup is only 90% full to some people shouldn’t preclude citizens from voting for the levy.

And from the "against" camp, Jim Anderson, Loyal Heights parks activist:

Greetings, 
I hope you will all give a second thought to your vote on Prop 2, the parks and green space (ha ha) levy. As Christal Wood wrote in the no segment in the voters pamphlet, the savvy and environmentally-minded voter will vote no because you know artificial turf from a green belt, and a building from a tree.


I read today on the pro-levy web site about Seattle Youth Soccer Association donating 10K to the levy effort. That's indicative of the driving force behind this levy. It's not about parks and green space, unless you count money as the green. 
 
Why would Seattle Youth Soccer Association kick in 10K? This, from an organization with a full-time paid lobbyist known to attend public meetings and heckle those giving testimony daring to challenge the hegemony of the SYSA party line (I was there.) This, from a group that called citizens selfish for taking public stances opposing those of SYSA.


SYSA has tax-exempt status, and their bylaws state: 'No substantial part of the activities of the corporation shall consist of the carrying on of propaganda or attempting to influence legislation.'
 
How does giving 10K to the levy campaign committee not constitute influencing legislation? They have done the same thing with past city council efforts, lining up speakers and lobbying against efforts made by citizens to get mitigation legislation passed by the city regarding the use of sports complexes frequented by SYSA.


I hope you'll take a look at the nicely written opposition statements in the voter's pamphlet below. Hold the city to the high standards we all deserve, and please consider voting against the levy, even if you have projects that are funded by the levy. That's how we all get sold out and bought off: money is provided for our own projects, while millions are slipped in for patronage and pork. If you want to stand shoulder to shoulder with SYSA, a group who has attacked some of the very groups and individuals who are for the levy, then do so, but let's at least acknowledge the process for what it is. We can do much, much better than this.
 


From the voters pamphlet


The forward-thinking voter will vote NO, because the proposal proposes too much as we face an economic downturn. Our economic future depends on sustainable budgeting. Perpetual levies are fiscally irresponsible, and render levy lids meaningless.   The practical voter will vote NO, because a safety upgrade to a playground shouldn't cost $1.4 million. Because this year over $500,000 was added to an already sizable parks budget to maintain projects from the last levy expansion. Because the Department of Neighborhoods budget already includes money for p-patches and other opportunities for neighborhoods.   The tree-hugging voter will vote NO, because too little of this levy will go toward the environment. Because it was foolhardy to lid the reservoirs in the first place. Because impervious surfacing and increased auto access to the shoreline aren't “enhancements.” Because you know artificial turf from a green belt, and a building from a tree.