City’s park agenda hasn’t wavered from start | Letters | July 23
Published 12:11 pm Friday, July 23, 2010
The strange, and estranged, path to peace and place for the Strawberry Cannery Park has been skewed by the city itself from the get-go.
According to the city’s website, the chronology begins in the fall of 2004 when a city planner wrote a memo to the Open Space Commission outlining what is still the current city plan – before the city even owned the site. Perhaps it was viewed as a creative way to use the Elliot Bay Trust Funds for shoreline restoration.
However, the proposal was made well before any charettes or community workshops were held. Except for minor refinements, the plan to remove two-thirds of an acre from useable recreational space and waterfront access has not changed.
All along, the city has ignored all citizen input except for those who agree with the restoration. The well-attended community meeting on Nov. 7, 2009, was designed so that no conclusions became clear.
We weren’t allowed time to talk to each other, just to post our thoughts on the wall. Community members could have been engaged in more imaginative cosmetic improvements.
A July 2 letter (“As council knows well, it’s time to move on”) said, just do it, let’s not talk about it anymore. This has been the rule all along in terms of any opportunities to actually talk and work together – whether initiated by the city or anyone else. Instead, views have hardened on all sides and we have a more divided community.
It’s true there are no buildings to preserve much less to be reconstructed. It is the spirit and respect for history that needs to be acknowledged, which means the hard work of early pioneers. It also means honoring John Nelson’s gift to the city of his land for “the purpose of creating a public park and place for recreation, amusement and education of the people.”
The many neighbors who come to the park with children or are out for a walk are shocked to learn of the park’s destruction because they enjoy the serenity and low-key atmosphere that it offers. Some who support the city plan may consider the site an eyesore.
However, volunteers have done a huge amount of cleaning up while the city has done zero maintenance. Attractive benches placed at strategic viewpoints were an instant hit but soon removed by the city.
Limited access is another unfortunate aspect of the plan. There will be only five parking slots and the shoreline will only be reached and seen via a gravel path running through the riparian planting zone. Handicapped access is a token effort by reserving one parking space.
No one against the “restoration” is suggesting rock concerts or ball fields or other high intensity uses for the park – just to enjoy the simple pleasure of access to water and sky especially for those who don’t live on the waterfront.
Kathryn Keve
Bainbridge Island
