Letters to the Editor

State parks decision requires public input | Letters | March 20

I am a strong supporter of Bainbridge parks, but I believe our park board is moving too quickly to bail out the state with the transfer of both Fay Bainbridge and Fort Ward state parks. Careful consideration has not been given to the long-term impact on other well-planned community goals.

The local board is talking about making a permanent financial commitment of millions when it should be talking about helping the state in a short-term, interim manner while we weather this economic crisis. Perhaps most troubling of all is the speed at which it is happening and the nearly complete lack of public process regarding the transfer.

At the state level we need to ask our local legislators how it is that both our island state parks ended up on this list and what is being done to solve the bigger problems of State Parks. Why, during such hard economic times, are we reducing a low-cost recreational option for folks who can’t afford an expensive vacation? Should we revisit a user fee?

Experts have said that a fee of one or two dollars per car would solve all the State Parks budget problems. Let’s institute that fee, spread the cost around, improve operational efficiencies and find a way to keep our parks open.

Neither Fay Bainbridge nor Fort Ward is in short-term danger of being sold for private development. The gates may be closed for a while but the land is still protected and the public will still have access, so why the rush? Meanwhile, a long list of community prioritized projects are jeopardized if the transfer happens.

Here’s a partial list: an island-wide trail system, senior community center, Pritchard Park, Blakely Harbor Park, Strawberry Plant Park, improving the Teen Center, and Big Kids programs, more active use areas, more parks in Winslow...

After years of work we’re only a dozen or so easements away from connecting the island from Lynwood Center to Port Madison with a network of pathways and trails. Many other low cost/high return nonmotorized connections have been planned jointly by the city and Park District, and the public has spoken clearly and consistently in support of trail connections.

How does the park board propose to keep the promise made to the community during the levy campaign for trail development and maintenance if all the development money from the levy is spent on these two state parks?

There has not been enough discussion for the district to move forward with such a permanent and costly decision. To date there has been only one poorly advertised meeting by the State Parks and none by the local board. The negotiating stance portrayed in both local papers makes it sound like it’s a done deal except for some details.

The public voted for the levy increase with trust in the Park District. Let’s put the brakes on, slow things down a bit, have more public input, and make a thoughtful decision. It’s a huge commitment and we need to get it right.

John Grinter, vice chair

Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Committee

We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Read the latest Green Edition

Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.

Oct 24 edition online now. Browse the archives.

Friends to Follow

View All Updates