Con: Plan's scope incompatible with wildlife, other park users

By Diana Kincaid and Kim Wells
Special to The Times

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

With its natural open spaces and mile of lakeshore, Magnuson Park provides a unique refuge from the pressures of urban living. It is a wonderful place to picnic and enjoy stunning views of Mount Rainier from a quiet waterfront. It is also a home or migratory stop for 170 species of birds, from great eagles to tiny hummingbirds, and numerous species of mammals and amphibians.

The park offers a variety of recreational opportunities including children's play areas, grass sports fields and an off-leash dog area. Unfortunately, this irreplaceable city treasure is about to be bulldozed.

The Seattle Parks and Recreation Department proposes to build a massive, $60 million regional sports facility on nearly half of the park's open space. This facility will be industrial strength, overwhelmingly devoted to fields overlaid with synthetic carpeting, forests of light towers and huge parking lots.

Existing seasonal wetlands would be filled and "replaced" with man-made wetlands, which have an 85 percent failure rate in our state. Picnic and beach areas will be reduced; open space will be lost. There will be no more quiet evenings in the park. The sheer magnitude of this project makes it incompatible with wildlife and with other park uses.

The parks department says it's only talking about 37 acres of playing surface, but this complex will occupy about 72 acres when you consider not only the ballfields themselves but their immediate landscaping, spectator areas, parking lots, and the pathways serving them. It will be comparable in size to Seahawks Stadium and Safeco Field combined.

The park will be bathed in light by 628 high-intensity fixtures, creating a "sky glow" equivalent to six regional shopping malls. Scientists say that, even without the habitat destruction associated with the project, light and noise from the 11 artificial turf and four grass ballfields will drive away wildlife and birds forever. They will also impact "neighbors" as far away as Kenmore, Kirkland and Juanita.

The debate has been misrepresented. Plan promoters say this project is for children. We are in favor of providing places for our children to play, but they do not use fields lit until 10 or 11 p.m. Most of the fields are adult-sized and all will be reserved and pay-for-play. Plan promoters have failed to acknowledge that they seek this many fields in one place for tournaments; recreational sports users throughout the city will suffer because Seattle Parks is concentrating new development in one far corner of town, poorly served by freeways and transit corridors. Lastly, lighted-field proponents do not mention that space available for other uses such as picnics, walking and waterfront viewing will be permanently lost.

Plan promoters tell us this complex will help fight obesity. However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advocates making physical activity attainable for people of all ages during their daily routine. The CDC urges dietary changes, and promotes pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods that offer local access to fields, as key to obesity reduction and healthy community living. Almost all users will drive to this sports complex; selling it as a way to fight obesity is misleading.

Plan promoters claim citizens approved this project when we voted for the pro-parks levy in 2000. In fact, voters were shown a plan with only five ballfields; there was no mention of artificial turf, lights or filling of wetlands. The parks department created this plan in closed-door meetings with ballfield lobbyists, and only after their decision was largely finalized did they invite public comment. There has been little meaningful public input or consultation with other cities and user groups that will be directly affected.

It is inexcusable for the Seattle Parks Department to tear up Magnuson Park without truly evaluating alternative sites. Meanwhile, it isn't adequately maintaining or upgrading existing fields; many go underused for lack of funds. Parks officials want to spend $13 million to bulldoze the park, fill wetlands and begin construction. They don't have the funding, and don't know if they'll get it, to put the park back together again. They anticipate needing an additional $47 million to finish the job.

At a time of severe budget crisis, does it make sense to spend vast sums to sacrifice a beloved waterfront park for the exclusive benefit of one user group?

The real issue is stewardship of Seattle's second-largest park. As urban density increases, Magnuson Park will become even more precious as a refuge. The parks department plan is too overwhelming, too destructive to wildlife and too unfair to other users of the park to seriously consider. For the sake of ourselves and our children, we should be looking for ways to enhance the open space in this wonderful, multiple-use city park, not destroy it.

Diana Kincaid is incoming president of Friends of Magnuson Park, an all-volunteer organization, www.saveourpark.org. Kim Wells is president of Friends of Magnuson Park.

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company