Letters to the editor

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

SATURDAY IN THE PARK

Children playing where once were piles of junk

Editor, The Times:

We are responding to "Should Seattle proceed with plan for new sports fields at Magnuson Park? Con: Plan's scope incompatible with wildlife, other park users" (Times guest commentary, Feb. 27). The proposed playing fields will be used by children a majority of the time. The math is simple: By Seattle Parks policy, children use fields for practice between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. on weekdays. Adults get whatever time is left.

The playing fields are critically needed for local, neighborhood kids. The LVR (Laurelhurst/View Ridge/Ravenna) Youth Soccer club has nearly 2,000 children. Fully one-third of these kids have no fields to practice on.

Bulldozing? Drive into the park along Northeast 65th Street and look left. Instead of decaying asphalt and industrial debris, visualize your kids and mine exercising, playing, and growing healthy on new playing fields. Most of the new field space will replace existing parking lots, antiquated and dilapidated buildings, and piles of junk. We vote Yes to bulldozing that, the sooner the better.

The Magnuson Park plans contain over 100 acres of wildlife habitat, walking trails, bird-watching benches, quiet beach areas, dog off-leash areas — in short, lots of space for passive recreation and enjoying nature.
Harry Hoffman, president, and Edward D'Alessandro, fields advocate, Seattle Youth Soccer Association

Lost in the lights

Regarding "Pro: Improvements will serve children, help preserve park's natural resources" (guest commentary, Feb. 27): despite author Stuart Kahn's attempt to portray the Magnuson Park Sports Field Plan as no more intrusive than erecting an ornamental birdbath, this plan will do nothing less than destroy one of Seattle's few remaining open spaces.

Having emigrated here in 1980 as a refugee from New York City, the idea of spending $60 million to convert this gem-like parkland into a buzzing light-bulb saddens me greatly. With regional congestion mounting annually in every direction, this gorgeous park must be saved for future generations.

I am sympathetic to the desires of amateur athletes, and could support constructing three to four fields (with any additional needed facilities being strategically spread citywide), with a 10 p.m. closure policy. However, the existing Sports Field Plan, as it stands, is simply ruinous.
Bob Kupor, Seattle

Nature trial

As a longtime resident of Seattle, I have seen several attempts to misuse Seattle park lands. Some of us remember proposals to usurp Golden Gardens Park for the city aquarium. Then there was, in the early l970s, a proposal by University of Washington to fence the Arboretum for unidentifiable research projects. Similar absurdities have been proposed for other major parks at one time or another.

At Magnuson Park, a very large, lighted sports complex is proposed that will essentially be built with private monies, since the city could not possibly afford to build it. (Even so, about $13 million of the $60 million cost will come from public park levies.) This is one of those "public-private partnerships" that essentially represents a land grab, however innocent soccer fields may seem. Apparently, this is fine with Mayor Greg Nickels. It is not fine with naturalists, birders and hundreds of other people.

The City Council must give approval to the proposed plan. Now is the time for citizens to speak up.
Patricia Coburn, Seattle

Here a beacon

I take strong exception to the arguments against the ballfield development at Magnuson Park that are stated under the guise of preserving the environment in the Feb. 27 Pro/Con feature. Although they won't come out and say it, the central basis of the opposition to the ballfield development is the lighting of the fields and its impact on the view of the neighbors on the hill.

Too many times, "environmental arguments" are made that hide a group's true agenda. In truth, Magnuson Park has been subject to a wide range of multiple uses through the decades. The city's plan takes into account environmental concerns; something that likely was never done when the entire tract was a federal facility.

Magnuson Park is a tremendous asset with the recent addition of the Navy property. There is more than sufficient space to make this a successful mixed-use park, providing much-needed playing fields and preserving natural areas.

Let any ballfield lights at Magnuson stand as a beacon to the implementation of a successful mixed-use plan, one that serves the people of Seattle, not just preserves the evening view for the neighbors on the hill.
Tom Callahan, Seattle

Dispelling the fog

By looking at a map or aerial photo of the Magnuson Park area, anyone can see that the peninsula is well-suited for a lighthouse. If North Lake Washington constituted a hazardous shipping lane, the Magnuson Park location would allow a bright light to be seen for miles around!

However, the peninsula does not protrude into a shipping lane, but rather into a sensitive region primarily composed of private residences. Hence, there should be no lighthouse nor any other source of intense lighting.

It's common sense. Let's find a less-obtrusive location.
Glen "Beau" Edwards, Kirkland

PIANO LESSON

Roll out the wheelbarrow

As a "closet' architect and interior designer, I have always looked forward to and enjoyed the profiled Homes of the Month in The Times, but was horrified to see the photo of Bill Wahl's Bellevue home piano — with a gigantic plant — sitting on top! ("50 years of open houses," Living, Feb. 29.)

Unfortunately, money doesn't equate to depth or taste of character. I could've forgiven Wahl if he had only displayed photos on the piano, but a large plant with the pot sitting on top?! Not only is it sacrilegious but I sadden to think of all the young musical talents who cannot afford and could've used a grand piano while Wahl's is wasted away as a plant stand!
Anchi Miller, Kirkland

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company