Playfield report may fuel debate over plan for Magnuson Park

By Stuart Eskenazi
Seattle Times staff reporter

	JIM BATES / THE SEATTLE TIMES Supporters and foes of a proposal for Sand Point Magnuson Park gather at City Hall yesterday. Oliver Rose, 18 months, has a perch on the shoulders of his dad, Marcus, who supports the new playfields. Signs and placards reflect both sides of the issue.
	E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

A City Council report released yesterday reveals for the first time that even without building 11 new lighted athletic fields at Sand Point Magnuson Park, Seattle does better than comparable Western cities in providing sports enthusiasts places to play their games.

"Far better, as a matter of fact," Councilwoman Jean Godden said after reviewing the report, prepared by council staffer Bill Alves and presented to the council's parks committee. The finding could be used as an argument against the controversial parks department proposal to build the fields since the demand for athletic fields is fueling the project. It would become Seattle's largest recreational sports complex.

Alves reported that while other cities also have huge demand, officials there say finances constrain them from expanding their field inventory. His research indicates the city of Seattle operates 3.6 sports fields for every 10,000 residents. The next highest ratio is Denver, at 2.9 per 10,000, while Oakland, San Jose, San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles all teeter around 1 per 10,000.

With the support of Mayor Greg Nickels, the Magnuson plan calls for building five fields for soccer, five for baseball/softball and one for rugby. Five of the 11 fields could be lighted as late as 11 p.m., five until 10 p.m., and one until 9 p.m.

Councilman David Della, parks committee chairman, hopes to present a plan to the full council by late next month.

Arguably the most contentious issue before the council, the proposal has led to council members being inundated with e-mails and phone calls, pro and con.

	JIM BATES / THE SEATTLE TIMES Hundreds of supporters and some foes pack a room at City Hall yesterday for a public hearing on a sports-field proposal for Sand Point Magnuson Park.

Hundreds of people wearing rugby, soccer and baseball uniforms packed City Hall's Bertha Knight Landes Room and clapped vehemently as sports-field-renovation supporters spoke at the emotionally charged public hearing last night.

At the same time, those who spoke in opposition to the renovations received a smattering of applause from dozens of residents who live within view of the northeast Seattle park.

Residents who live near the park are worried about glare, noise and traffic. Other opposition has come from stargazers, bird-watchers and Eastside residents who don't want their view across the lake altered by the bright lights.

Parks officials and sports enthusiasts, however, say the project is needed to chip away at the huge unmet demand for athletic fields. Demand is so high that the city's adult and youth recreation leagues compete for precious field time.

Alves' report also said that 27 percent of the city's existing athletic fields are in poor condition. Councilman Peter Steinbrueck said a previous council directive stated that before the city would build new fields, it would improve existing ones.

"It's clear that there is plenty of demand for athletic fields in Seattle — I don't need any more convincing on that," he said. "But what is not so clear is whether we are fully utilizing the resources that we already have and could potentially meet some of that demand by fixing existing fields."

The council committee also was briefed by Eric Friedli, Sand Point Magnuson Park director, who said the $12 million set aside through a parks levy is enough to build only four of the 11 lighted athletic fields — and that is only if the parks department can leverage an additional $4.2 million from other sources. The 11-field project is estimated to cost $60 million.

"What concerns me most is we only have 20 percent of the current project funded and there are no significant funds in sight to fulfill the implementation of the entire project," Steinbrueck said. "We're selling people a bill of goods that is not attainable and raising expectations and hope."

Steinbrueck said he worries that if the council commits to the entire plan, it might be compelled to fund the remaining fields at the expense of other city services that are of a higher priority.

"My suggestion is going to be that we approach this project in increments since we don't have the money to fund most of it anyway," he said.

Seattle Times staff reporter Nguyen Huy Vu contributed to this report.

Stuart Eskenazi: 206-464-2293 or seskenazi@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company