The following is a guest column written by Bob Kildall published in the Magnolia News February 2007 -
Doug Taylor’s letter (Magnolia News 2-7-07) poses the question why the money from the settlement agreement is planned to be used to demolish the Nike building in Discovery Park.
The settlement agreement was a legal document between Metro (now Metropolitan King County) and five environmental and civic groups that sought the replacement of the large existing sewage digesters with a system with less odor and consuming less land. By giving up their appeal these citizens allowed Metro’s secondary plant to be built without further delays. These same citizens had supported secondary treatment.
In turn Metro agreed to terms in the agreement to form a citizen’s committee and provided $5-million to study treatment processes that might reduces the impact on the park by the year 2000. If these studies failed they would pay a settlement of $3-million dollars plus interest. After a decade that totaled over $5-million.
The funds would come to the city with this proviso:
“All funds paid under this subsection shall be dedicated to improvements to Discovery Park consistent with the primary function and central purpose as defined in the Discovery Park Master Plan, and if any funds remain, to the acquisition and improvement of saltwater beaches.”
This section of the plan is found under the Park Guiding Principles and reads:
“The primary role of this park in the life of the city is dictated by its incomparable site. That role should be to provide and open space of quiet and tranquility for the citizens of this city—a sanctuary where they might escape the turmoil of the city and enjoy the rejuvenation which quiet and solitude and an intimate contact with nature can bring. It should be accepted that this park cannot satisfy all of the recreational needs of all of the citizens of Seattle. It can only complement the other elements in the park system. This park should not be asked to serve too many functions. It will best serve this city if it is permitted to serve one primary function and to serve that function well.”
The next paragraph in the principles is named “Future Structures and Activities. It states:
“In the years to come there will be almost irresistible pressure to carve out areas of the park in order to provide sites for various civic structures or space for special activities. There will in the future be structures and activities without number for which, it will be contended, this park can provide an “ideal site” at no cost. The pressures for those sites may constitute the greatest single threat to the park. They must be resisted with resolution. If they are not, the park will be so fragmented that it can no longer serve its central purpose. Only those activities and only those structures should be accepted which are in harmony with the overall theme, character and objective of the park. There must be a deep commitment to the belief that there is no more valuable use of this site than as an open space.”
These are two sections are part of nine paragraphs that comprise the guiding principles.
Removing the Nike building to restore the property as a natural area conforms with the Park’s Plan’s ultimate objective. That was “…the acquisition of all lands which presently comprise the site of Fort Lawton.” It also fulfills the Magnolia Community Club’s 1969 Fort Lawton Park Recommendations. The ten recommendations were based on a club’s survey that had called for a natural park. The survey was led by Club members Bill Jeske and Ed Mueller. They had citizens canvass every third home on Magnolia with the oversight by the University of Washington’s Bureau of Community Development.
Since then there have been nearly 150-proposals for “just a piece of the park.” But a host of citizens believe in defending the primary function-central purpose of this Park. We live in a country where Nature is being often overlooked and trashed and constantly diminished. Discovery Park helps fulfill our open space needs and the needs for solitude from the stress of urban living for the citizens yet to come. Removing the Nike site is one way to return that part of the Park to Nature.
Robert Kildall
February 13, 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment