Friends of Athletic Fields: Issues

Home

Current Issues

Schedule

Speak Out

Action Items

Government Links

Sports Links

About Us

Membership

Seattle Mayor & City Council Candidate Responses on Sportsfields Questionnaire

Mayoral and City Council candidates provided responses to our questionnaire leading up to the general election on November 3, 2009. These unedited responses provide insights into candidate views on issues that are important to field users, athletes, and parents. Names of candidates that have responded are shown in bold.

Seattle Mayor

Joe Mallahan, Mike McGinn

Mike McGinn responses:

1. What are your favorite recreational activities that you engage in at Seattle Parks?

I’ve enjoyed frisbee throwing, baseball, basketball, launching hand-carried boats, and attending my kids’ soccer, disc and baseball games.

2. Do you support the recreation mission that is currently part of the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation? Or should the Seattle Parks Department be devoted more strictly to providing for green space?

I support the recreational mission. Parks have to serve multiple community needs.

3. With the ProParks Levy running out in 2008, did you support the new Parks and Green Spaces Levy that provided continued funding for many improvements to the Seattle parks system, including converting four existing sportsfields from a sand to synthetic surface? Are tax levies a good method for citizens to inform government of their funding preferences for city services?

The non-profit I founded and directed, Great City, took the lead in building a community coalition to get the Parks Levy on the ballot and passed. I chaired the Parks Levy campaign committee.

Given the state-wide initiative that limit growth in government revenues, levies have become an essential way for government to fund new investments. They are a good opportunity for citizens to inform government of funding preferences, but I also believe that the public can and should be free to inform government of funding priorities separate from any levy process.

4. Given the increasing demand for use of athletic fields in the Seattle area due to increasing population and “new” sports like ultimate Frisbee and lacrosse, parks and schools districts are looking for ways to increase capacity using their existing infrastructure. Many districts are converting their athletic fields to synthetic (Field Turf-type) surfaces that eliminate rainouts and provide for year-round play, especially at facilities that already have field lighting. Do you support funding for these types of playfield improvement projects or do you have other ideas on how to manage our public assets more efficiently?

I support synthetic surfaces to improve year round play. I am concerned about the types of materials used in synthetic fields and ensuring that the materials are not toxic.

5. Given the intense competition for scheduled playing time on sportsfields in Seattle, many athletes have to drive long distances to find available fields. Do you support local playfield improvements that offer more activities in the community, reduce transportation air pollution impacts, and save personal time?

Yes.

6. How would you balance the needs of sports field users against the concerns (such as noise, lighting, and/or traffic) of homeowners that chose to live near parks with playfields?

In urban areas, there is a need to balance the effects of parks on adjacent residential areas. But cities are active places. There is also a need to support community activities such as playfield use.

7. Seattle is constructing hard lids over many of the drinking water reservoirs that will create acres of new public space. Do you support using some of this flat ground for new athletic fields?

Yes.

8. Have you had personal experience in developing or improving parks in general and athletic fields in particular?

As discussed above, I was proud to have played a leadership role in passing the last parks levy, especially given the opposition of the incumbent mayor.

9. Are you supportive of public/private partnerships for parks development and/or operations, such as independent commercial endeavors, or
more simply for sports leagues investing their own funds in local parks improvements?

I think it is appropriate to look at public/private partnerships, but I also think that we need to ensure that the partnerships enhance public use and enjoyment of parks.

end McGinn//

City Council Position 2

Richard Conlin, David Ginsberg (no response yet)

Richard Conlin responses:

1. What are your favorite recreational activities that you engage in at Seattle Parks?

Bicycling, hiking/walking, swimming.

2. Do you support the recreation mission that is currently part of the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation? Or should the Seattle Parks Department be devoted more strictly to providing for green space?

Both parts of the mission are important, and the Parks Department must have the resources and the commitment to provide both green space and active recreation.

3. With the ProParks Levy running out in 2008, did you support the new Parks and Green Spaces Levy that provided continued funding for many improvements to the Seattle parks system, including converting four existing sportsfields from a sand to synthetic surface? Are tax levies a good method for citizens to inform government of their funding preferences for city services?

I was one of the key Councilmembers who initiated the 2008 Parks for All Levy, worked hard to develop it and get it to the ballot, and then campaigned for it all over the City. While it would be great to be able to fully fund City government without the use of levies, because of the restrictions on our funding as a result of the Eyman initiatives, we must rely on them, especially for capital projects. I do not think they are a very good way for citizens to inform government, as a levy vote is simply a passive response to a proposal put forward by government. Active community engagement is a much better way of finding out citizen priorities.

I support funding for synthetic fields and field lighting, and have consistently voted for this funding. It is important for the City to balance this work with full public involvement and attention to making sure that all communities have access to both active recreation and green space. These two aspects of the Parks Department do not have to be in conflict if the City works hard to plan and secure adequate land and funding to meet all of the needs of Seattle residents.

Yes.

6. How would you balance the needs of sports field users against the concerns (such as noise, lighting, and/or traffic) of homeowners that chose to live near parks with playfields?

I support full public engagement in decision making, and careful attention to mitigation where that will be helpful and reasonable to meet the concerns of homeowners. However, ultimately Parks belong to all of the people of Seattle, and we must make decisions on them that reflect that. We should employ, as much as is practical and affordable, new technologies that minimize the impact of lights on neighbors when the fields are not in use. Also, fields can more efficiently scheduled so that the greatest number of people have access to the fields closest to their communities.

7. Seattle is constructing hard lids over many of the drinking water reservoirs that will create acres of new public space. Do you support using some of this flat ground for new athletic fields?

Yes, this is an excellent use of some of this flat ground.

8. Have you had personal experience in developing or improving parks in general and athletic fields in particular?

I have both participated as a volunteer in improving parks and renovating playgrounds, as well as taking votes on the Council that reflect the values and priorities I have articulated in this questionnaire, even when there was considerable opposition to moving forward with field development.

Public/private partnerships can play an important role in parks development, and I enthusiastically support them where this makes sense. The continued development of Magnuson exemplifies this – the work of the sports leagues on the athletic fields, the partnership with Arena Sports to redevelop Building 27, and the continued engagement of Sail Sand Point as a Parks facility are excellent examples of how these partnerships can work.

end Conlin//

City Council Position 4

Sally Bagshaw, David Bloom

Sally Bagshaw responses:

1. What are your favorite recreational activities that you engage in at Seattle Parks?

Walking would be the first activity that comes to mind. Whenever I can, which feels less and less infrequent these days, I try to walk around Greenlake or down at Seward Park.

2. Do you support the recreation mission that is currently part of the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation? Or should the Seattle Parks Department be devoted more strictly to providing for green space?

The definition and purpose of a “park” can be as varied as those who use our parks! I completely understand and support the recreational aspect that our Department of Parks has embraced. However, I am also a big proponent of preserving open space and that is a priority for me. We can do both.

As I state in my campaign, we need to move past the either/or mentality: it should not be about either/or, it should be about ‘and’. How can we create parks that are recreational and parks that are more passive in their purpose. It is a balancing act.

3. With the ProParks Levy running out in 2008, did you support the new Parks and Green Spaces Levy that provided continued funding for many improvements to the Seattle parks system, including converting four existing sportsfields from a sand to synthetic surface? Are tax levies a good method for citizens to inform government of their funding preferences for city services?

Yes, I was one of the 60% that supported the new Parks and Green Space Levy that was on the ballot last year. I do admit I had concerns about the timing of the levy. The economy was turning and I was fearful that perhaps the cost would be a burden. But, ultimately, I supported the levy because parks and open space are a priority, then and now.

I know the synthetic fields were an issue for the advisory. There were concerns about the possible health risks associated with turf and those concerns should not be dismissed easily. I am supportive of turfing dirt fields, especially those with existing lighting.

And levies are a tool for our citizens to remind government about our priorities. The 2008 Parks Levy served as just that: it passed overwhelming and the reason being is that parks are a priority. Now, whether or not this is a sustainable funding source can be debated.

I touched upon this in answer #3.

Years ago, to help make ends meet, I was a referee for youth soccer games. I was also a “soccer mom”, transporting two boys to their weekly soccer matches. So, I understand field issues!

Our fields are already coveted resources. There will be even more demand as our region experiences growth in the coming ways. We need to find ways to meet the ever increasing needs.

I know that grass fields can only be used during certain times of the year. Once the rainy season hits, the fields are closed, closed to all uses.

It is smart to examine turfing fields that already have lighting: this change should not come at the expense of the health of the participants or our environment. These are the fields that could be and should be used all year round, day and night.

We also need to forge a better relationship with the Seattle Public School system. They are facing a budget shortfall where we are facing an increase in field needs. A working partnership seems like a natural fit.

Yes, I support more local playfield improvements. As mentioned above, I was a referee and a soccer mom so I know about the long commutes that are often associated with a game. An hour game often took most of the day!

6. How would you balance the needs of sports field users against the concerns (such as noise, lighting, and/or traffic) of homeowners that chose to live near parks with playfields?

I am a believer that even opposing sides have more in common than not. The trick is to have an open, honest dialogue among the stakeholders and mutual respect is a necessity.

Lighting technology has improved drastically over the years. Lights are much more contained and do not illuminate a neighborhood. Having set hours of operation is also key. I believe, with an honest conversation, we can have parks provide a service without impacting the quality of life of those who live around the park.

7. Seattle is constructing hard lids over many of the drinking water reservoirs that will create acres of new public space. Do you support using some of this flat ground for new athletic fields?

I think we need to look at the Neighborhood Plans and see what the surrounding community wants. I know hundreds of volunteers and thousands of hours have been spent on the vision for these new lidded reservoirs.

I think fields should be considered but that is as much as I can commit to now. Fields should be part of the dialogue.

8. Have you had personal experience in developing or improving parks in general and athletic fields in particular?

I’ve advocated for more open space as a community member. Green space has been and will continue to be a top priority. If elected, I will continue to advocate for more parks, fields, and green space.

9. Are you supportive of public/private partnerships for parks development and/or operations, such as independent commercial endeavors, or more simply for sports leagues investing their own funds in local parks improvements?

The area of public/private partnerships is an area we need to explore. I think there is untapped potential. With that in mind, I do not generally support the "commercialization" of Seattle Parks, I recognize that we can do more by drawing in private dollars but I would be mindful about door too widely to commercial endeavors.

end bagshaw//

David Bloom responses:

1. What are your favorite recreational activities that you engage in at Seattle Parks?

Picnics, relaxing, hiking, walking, festivals, entertainment.

I do support SeattleParks and Recreation mission as a commitment to a better environment and welcoming places for all to play, learn and build a stronger sense of community. My policy will be to have an open door and be accessible, always being supportive of a healthy dialogue about how to support an even greater parks and recreation system. While preserving green space is a priority for me, that is not the only purpose of our parks. They should also provide spaces for a wide range of recreational activities. Our 204 athletic fields are just one example of how Parks provides opportunities for many people to be active and experience community.

I supported the original Parks Levy but had concerns about the timing of the 2008 Parks and Green Spaces Levy, due to the Pike Place Market Levy and the transit levy also being on the ballot during the faltering economy. A successful state wide ballot measure by Tim Eyeman (I-747) requires Seattle and all state municipalities to cap tax increases. That hurts Seattle's ability to deliver the services that people want, and I don't want to sacrifice those basic services.

I also felt that the levy was too driven by sports fields advocates with too much investment in synthetic surfaces, which create environmental problems. I supported the Market levy, which was badly needed. I also knew the housing levy was coming up this year. Parks are relatively in better shape that either the Market or the supply of affordable housing, so for me it was a matter of priorities. So the combination of the heavy emphasis on sports fields and the timing in terms of other priorities were issues for me. I feel the City should have a rational process regarding the timing of levies by planning out a schedule years in advance, rather than throwing them at the voters in a piece-meal basis, which seems too often the case. With the downturn in the economy I fear voter backlash eventually, which could hurt us in terms of all of the important public works projects we need.

4. Given the increasing demand for use of athletic fields in the Seattle area due to increasing population and "new" sports like ultimate Frisbee and lacrosse, parks and schools districts are looking for ways to increase capacity using their existing infrastructure. Many districts are converting their athletic fields to synthetic (Field Turf-type) surfaces that eliminate rainouts and provide for year-round play, especially at facilities that already have field lighting. Do you support funding for these types of playfield improvement projects or do you have other ideas on how to manage our public assets more efficiently?

I recognize the advantage of lower maintenance cost and better consistency of playfields made of synthetic turf. I think many people who play sports want to know that their playing field is not full of ruts nor more like a mud-pit after a lot of rain. But I remain concerned about the potential environmental damage from run-off from synthetic fields. The biggest source of pollution of Puget Sound, for example, is rain-water run-off. I would encourage the Parks and Recreation Department to work with the most environmentally sound synthetic turf, as we want to ensure that issues of high lead in the turf and potential for "heat-islands" in hot weather are reduced to safe levels. We must also continue to research natural surfaces that can withstand wear and are more environmentally friendly. I would encourage the City of Seattle to engage Seattle Public Schools so as to share management expertise in efforts to keep fees reasonable for renting time on athletic fields. I also welcome additional sports in our playing fields system.

Yes.

6. How would you balance the needs of sports field users against the concerns (such as noise, lighting, and/or traffic) of homeowners that chose to live near parks with playfields?

I think we have to start with the Mission of the Parks and Recreation Department that calls for working with all citizens and also to build community. My view is that everyone has a place at the table in looking at how we enjoy our great parks and recreation system. Let's take the issue of field lights. I think City Council's work in recent years to forge an agreement with sports groups using athletic fields and neighbors who had concerns with the hours of operations is a good example. It was a contentious issue and the Council's role was to work with everyone to reach an acceptable outcome. I will support ongoing efforts for Parks to keep up with the latest technology in lighting that cuts down on glare and lighting spill. This supports both the people who play on athletic fields and the neighbors of those fields. I would push for prioritizing the replacement of decades old field lights to the most modern lighting systems that reduce glare and light spill; it's an approach where everyone wins, neighbors and people playing on athletic fields.

7. Seattle is constructing hard lids over many of the drinking water reservoirs that will create acres of new public space. Do you support using some of this flat ground for new athletic fields?

I understand that Seattle public utilities has had concerns about this for reasons including weight of playfield structures and issues of chemicals in grass fields over reservoirs. Let's see how SPU's Sports Meadow plan works in terms of both providing additional recreational space and in terms of protecting our water supply and then make judgments about reducing, continuing, or expanding the program.

8. Have you had personal experience in developing or improving parks in general and athletic fields in particular?

Though I have not had such a role, I know that my role as your Councilmember is to work with City Departments to get to "YES". As your Councilmember it will be my job to not only work with Departments but also to push and advocate on behalf of the community.

9. Are you supportive of public/private partnerships for parks development and/or operations, such as independent commercial endeavors, or more simply for sports leagues investing their own funds in local parks improvements?

Our parks are by definition public spaces. That is a proud historic legacy of America's urban parks. They provide open space for the public to relax, to enjoy recreation, and to step away from the activities of daily urban life in a more natural environment. As such, it is important that parks remain public resources. While I would not be opposed to private organizations investing in the improvement of our parks for the benefit of all, I would not support public/private partnerships that give private groups a special claim on the use of our parks. I think it is very important to ensure that our public parks system continues to be public and for the enjoyment of all.

end Bloom//

City Council Position 6

Jessie Israel, Nick Licata

Jessie Israel responses:

1. What are your favorite recreational activities that you engage in at Seattle Parks?

Enjoying parks and open space is one of the best parts of living in Seattle. Personally, I enjoy them first and foremost I am an athlete. For the past 20 years I have been a rower, rowing with both Mount Baker and Green Lake crew teams. I also coached young people in proper techniques of rowing. I believe that there is an opportunity for everyone in Seattle to use our public spaces in both an active and a passive way and appreciate our city for its ability to preserve these parks.

Yes, recreation is a critical part of the Parks mission. Parks with adequate capacity for both active and passive uses are a vital part of what makes a city livable. Almost two million people are expected to move to our region in the next 20 years. My overall vision for the city is based around building compact neighborhoods that can successfully accommodate this growth and remain livable for families. A livable neighborhood should be safe, walkable – such as to parks, transit oriented, and accessible to good jobs. With the acceptance of more growth Seattleites should demand and I will fight for better and more parks as a key part of this vision.

I have a strong track record of supporting Parks and will continue to prioritize them on the City Council. I will continue to support the new Parks and Green Spaces Levy, while pushing for innovative new ways to generate Parks revenue. In order to keep parks sustainable, we need to establish a diverse funding base. This approach not only provides stability, but also builds citizen trust that Seattle Parks is putting their best foot forward and is deserving of ongoing support from both levies and the General Fund. Some other revenue opportunities include:

Ensure parks have the opportunity to bring in business revenues where possible (concerts, events, synthetic turf soccer fields, concessions)
Explore and support other long term revenue sources that may be designated to fund Parks, pedestrian and bike related infrastructure. Examples include advertising revenue, Local Improvement Districts, grants, etc.

I am a strong advocate for synthetic field conversion for many reasons. Synthetic fields are less expensive, more environmentally friendly, cause fewer injuries for users, and are more enjoyable to play on than the sand of the past. For these reasons I think we should be moving to convert all our current sports facilities into synthetic fields.

As stated above I am a strong advocate for synthetic field conversion, and I have many other ideas for improving the management of parks. I am also the only candidate in this race who will not only put our parks as a top priority, but who has the experience to get the job done. In 2002, after the passage of I-747, King County Parks was left with a potential 80% budget cut and considering mothballing 25,000 acres of open space. I was hired with on job in front of me – save our parks. Since then I have helped reshape King County Parks into an entrepreneurial, performance-driven governmental organization. This transformation allows parks to generate non-tax revenue and ensure green space remains open, even during tight fiscal times. Under my supervision, community partnerships have allowed Parks to build many new facilities by leveraging available capital investment dollars. Through this program, an impressive $50 million dollars worth of new parks facilities will be coming online over the next several years due to the strategic investment of $9 million in public dollars. As your City Councilmember I will continue to prioritize parks as part of my overall vision for compact, livable communities and I know how to get things done from within government, even in the face of severe funding cuts.

Definitely. As your City Councilmember I will prioritize compact, livable communities. We do not want to push families out of the city due to increased urbanization. Areas accepting of growth should be targeted for community improvements, including sportsfields. A vibrant neighborhood depends on both greenspace and athletic facilities that are easily accessible by foot, bicycle or mass transportation. This will not only save families time and money, but also decrease traffic congestion and reduce air pollution.

6. How would you balance the needs of sports field users against the concerns (such as noise, lighting, and/or traffic) of homeowners that chose to live near parks with playfields?

At Magnuson Park, the council had success by putting conditions on light pole use. Lighting is prohibited on Sundays and after 10:00 pm on the other days of the week. The angle of the lighting was also restricted. I believe that this is the type of compromised approach we need to balance the objectives of increased playing time with respect for those who live nearby.

7. Seattle is constructing hard lids over many of the drinking water reservoirs that will create acres of new public space. Do you support using some of this flat ground for new athletic fields?

Absolutely! This is yet another way to use our space efficiently.

8. Have you had personal experience in developing or improving parks in general and athletic fields in particular?

I serve on the King County Parks senior management team with operating revenue of more than $20 million & 150 permanent employees. I directly oversee Parks business revenue target encompassing 25% of overall operating revenues. As discussed in question four, I have supervised a program through which we were not only able to save 25,000 acres of open space in the face of an 80% budget cut, but were also able to build many new facilities by leveraging available capital investment dollars. As your next Seattle City Councilmember, I will put this experience to work for you.

9. Are you supportive of public/private partnerships for parks development and/or operations, such as independent commercial endeavors, or more simply for sports leagues investing their own funds in local parks improvements?

Yes. I have seen first hand how public-private partnerships can save acres of open space and drastically enhance our ability to build and maintain key parks facilities that make Seattle the place we all love to live. As a Seattle City Councilmember I will focus on building innovative partnerships that allow Seattle to tackle our challenges head on, even in the face of decreased funding.

end Israel//

Nick Licata responses:

1. What are your favorite recreational activities that you engage in at Seattle Parks?
Walking. I love to visit different parks and walk through them.

2. Do you support the recreation mission that is currently part of the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation? Or should the Seattle Parks Department be devoted more strictly to providing for green space?
Yes. Recreational is a critical part of the Park’s Dept’s mission.

3. With the ProParks Levy running out in 2008, did you support the new Parks and Green Spaces Levy that provided continued funding for many improvements to the Seattle parks system, including converting four existing sportsfields from a sand to synthetic surface? Are tax levies a good method for citizens to inform government of their funding preferences for city services?
Yes. I strongly supported it. Yes levies are a good method.

4. Given the increasing demand for use of athletic fields in the Seattle area due to increasing population and “new” sports like ultimate Frisbee and lacrosse, parks and schools districts are looking for ways to increase
capacity using their existing infrastructure. Many districts are converting their athletic fields to synthetic (Field Turf-type) surfaces that eliminate rainouts and provide for year-round play, especially at facilities that
already have field lighting. Do you support funding for these types of playfield improvement projects or do you have other ideas on how to manage our public assets more efficiently?
I support toxic free synthetic surfaces to expand the amount of hours that
fields can be used.

5. Given the intense competition for scheduled playing time on sportsfields in Seattle, many athletes have to drive long distances to find available fields. Do you support local playfield improvements that offer more
activities in the community, reduce transportation air pollution impacts, and save personal time?
Yes, I support more local playfield improvements. As a former soccer dad, I
know what it’s like to drive around the region finding the appropriate
available field.

6. How would you balance the needs of sports field users against the concerns (such as noise, lighting, and/or traffic) of homeowners that chose to live near parks with playfields?
The needs of both groups must be balanced in a reasonable manner. I’ve
worked with both groups around the Magnuson Park fields and believe that a
reasonable compromise was finally reached.

7. Seattle is constructing hard lids over many of the drinking water reservoirs that will create acres of new public space. Do you support using some of this flat ground for new athletic fields?
It depends on the nature of the rest of the surrounding park land. There is
no reason to eliminate them for consideration. If they can accommodate a
need and fit into the overall design of the park space then they should be
provided

8. Have you had personal experience in developing or improving parks in general and athletic fields in particular?
Yes, I as the former chair of the Parks Committee I was involved in a number
of efforts to improve parks and athletic fields.

9. Are you supportive of public/private partnerships for parks development and/or operations, such as independent commercial endeavors, or more simply for sports leagues investing their own funds in local parks improvements?
I think this is an area that can be greatly expanded and should be
aggressively explored.

end Licata//

City Council Position 8

Mike O'Brien, Robert Rosencrantz

Mike O'Brien responses:

1. What are your favorite recreational activities that you engage in at Seattle Parks?

I spend lots of time in our parks, whether I'm watching my kids play or playing myself. Both of my sons are involved in soccer and Frisbee, and I swim, run, bike, play ball with my friends and family, and have picnics or just relax in parks.

I definitely support the mission of Seattle Parks and Rec. I believe that all of the opportunities articulated in its mission are important; it's important to acknowledge and work to accommodate all the various ways that people like to relax and play. I appreciate that balancing the needs of different user groups is ongoing, as is balancing the needs of neighbors living adjacent to sites with the needs of citizens across the city.

It’s also clear to me that each site is unique in its physical attributes and in the way that changes in use and amenities affect its neighbors. I will place a priority on listening to local stakeholders, because they are often a great source for the particularized knowledge needed to find workable solutions.

I supported the Parks Levy last year by distributing literature and doing sign-waving at rallies. Levies are helpful in determining citizen’s funding preferences, but they are in no way a substitute for political leadership that recognizes the value of parks, open spaces and access to fields.

Meeting the needs of Seattle fields-users is important to making the city a great place to live and especially important to avoiding the negative impacts from athletes having to drive well beyond city limits. Conversion to synthetic surfaces with lighting makes a lot of sense, especially for sites that are smaller or located away from residences. Synthetic fields are far more reliable for schedulers and can handle far more game hours per year than typical grass fields. Consequently, early research suggests they are more cost effective per game-hour. Modern lighting systems produce far less light pollution than many of those currently in use, and using lead-free infill materials can go a long way to addressing surface-water quality concerns.

I believe that it’s in our collective interest to offer local field-use opportunities. Making the city a desirable place to live, work and play is a high priority for me, and local fields-access is an important component to this end. Maximizing Seattleites' ability to use alternative transportation is a major concern for me, and ensuring transit access to sports fields (and parks more generally) is a big part of this.

Neighborhood amenities should include open space that residents can enjoy daily and spontaneously. On the other hand, team sports tend not to be organized around neighborhoods, so we should think about fields-access in a slightly larger context. Large swaths of Ballard, for example, do not have reasonable access to fields or open space. Connecting parks around the city to a robust transit infrastructure will go a long way toward addressing this concern.

6. How would you balance the needs of sports field users against the concerns (such as noise, lighting, and/or traffic) of homeowners that chose to live near parks with playfields?

One size does not fit all when addressing the use of any specific park property. We need to include all voices in the decision making process, and we need to understand the unique characteristics of a site, such as proximity to residences, habitat value and existing parking amenities. We should also appreciate that field access is not spread equally across the city, and certain neighborhoods need more open space, some more fields and others need more of both. It is also critical to address transportation concerns when we upgrade fields by increasing the public transit access where possible.

7. Seattle is constructing hard lids over many of the drinking water reservoirs that will create acres of new public space. Do you support using some of this flat ground for new athletic fields?

I support installing new athletic fields on some of the new reservoir lids, if we are very confident that they will have no impact on our water supply. If SPU continues to oppose building fields over the new lids, I would consider conversions in other areas and using our new lidded acreage for other purposes.

8. Have you had personal experience in developing or improving parks in general and athletic fields in particular?

I did some research for some fellow parents at Woodland Soccer Club about converting local fields to turf, but my experience was quite limited.

9. Are you supportive of public/private partnerships for parks development and/or operations, such as independent commercial endeavors, or more simply for sports leagues investing their own funds in local parks improvements?

Public/private partnerships can be helpful but should be considered with attention for the public good. I recognize that partnerships can help the city secure additional services and resources. Yet, we do need to be careful not to allow individual groups to buy access, so to speak, by expecting use hours in return. I think there are probably many unexplored opportunities to get volunteer help from some and capital investment from others.

end O'Brien//

Robert Rosencrantz responses:

1. What are your favorite recreational activities that you engage in at Seattle Parks?
Youth soccer, running, swimming, walking and playing catch with my kids. For five years my wife Terry Rosencrantz was registrar for Capitol Hill Youth Soccer. Through her efforts I saw first hand how vital access to field time is.

2. Do you support the recreation mission that is currently part of the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation? Or should the Seattle Parks Department be devoted more strictly to providing for green space?Striking a balance between recreation and green space is a critical element in keeping our City livable. The fact is we don’t have enough of either, and we will be playing catch-up for a long time. Our long-term goal should be to ensure that sufficient City resources are directed towards additional playfields, to serve the myriad recreational needs, as well as acquire the open and green space needed for those whose recreational needs are best served by a quiet walk in the woods.

3. With the ProParks Levy running out in 2008, did you support the new Parks and Green Spaces Levy that provided continued funding for many improvements to the Seattle parks system, including converting four existing sportsfields from a sand to synthetic surface? Are tax levies a good method for citizens to inform government of their funding preferences for city services?

I am a Co-Founder of Seattle Great Cities; we were instrumental in bringing the Parks and Green Spaces Levy to the ballot in 2008. Tax levies are not an ideal means for funding various preferences. Athletic fields and open spaces are a critical element in a livable city. My strong preference would be to have their capital and operating costs as part of the on-going City budget.

Yes I support funding for those improvements.

Yes.

6. How would you balance the needs of sports field users against the concerns (such as noise, lighting, and/or traffic) of homeowners that chose to live near parks with playfields?

As president of my local community council in Montlake, I spent two years working with community groups and sport field users to balance the competing interests involved in play field improvements. Ultimately, cost issues and environmental concerns meant the improvements didn’t go forward, but during this process I learned a lot that will serve me well on the City Council.

7. Seattle is constructing hard lids over many of the drinking water reservoirs that will create acres of new public space. Do you support using some of this flat ground for new athletic fields?

Yes.

8. Have you had personal experience in developing or improving parks in general and athletic fields in particular?

As mentioned above in question 6, I worked directly on the athletic field improvements that were proposed in my community.

For an extended period we are likely to be in a financial situation where public/private partnerships are an important option to improve or develop local parks and playfields. Although my strong preference would be to have City ownership and control, this may not be feasible during a period in which the need for these resources is increasing dramatically.

end Rosencrantz//