To the editor:

Hmmmm, two parcels of property. One need: affordable housing.

One parcel generally flat with a gentle slope downhill; covered with Scotch broom, alder, blackberry bushes, and evergreens (none first growth.)

The other parcel slopes on the east and west sides of the property, culminating into a ravine with flowing water, a pond, old growth trees, a fern glen and clear evidence of animals inhabiting this area. If you have ever walked in this beautiful forest (run, don’t walk at this point!) you will encounter an osprey flying overhead as its nest is on the perimeter; or see a deer family, and if lucky, an owl or a fox. I have seen all.

Of course the most environmentally-sensitive, cost-effective, and reasonable choice (because of its closer proximity to downtown and the ferry) would be the parcel of land that is relatively flat and not the remnants of an old growth forest (because it was clear cut decades ago to grow strawberries.)

Yet that is not the conclusion drawn by the city. I understand that one parcel is owned by the city and the other by the parks and recreation department, which complicates matters. However, creative thinking is not dead on this island. A land trade could have been factored out so that all goals could be achieved; affordable housing, preserving the wild, and creating a green space within the housing development.

Instead, another forest will fall making room for a densely populated 13 acres close to an already compromised (read cluster$%@!) intersection.

This is not a NIMBY issue, close-the-gate-once-I-get-through sort of issue, but one that resonates again what it is that we hold valuable.

Decisions made by the city council often do not support their comp plan. Protecting beautiful stands of forest and creating affordable housing could be achieved by re-framing how these two entities support one another in an overall island goal.

DANA ROSENBAUM

Bainbridge Island