Seattle City Council Candidate Responses on Sportsfields Questionnaire

City Council candidates provided responses to our questionnaire leading up to the election on November 6, 2007. These unedited responses provide insights into Councilmember views on issues that are important to field users, athletes, and parents. Congratulation Councilmembers.

Council Position No. 1

Jean Godden

1. What are your favorite recreational activities - active and passive?
> Among my favorite recreational activities are walking, hiking, bicycling, aerobic exercise, yoga, kayaking and swimming. I attend an early-morning exercise class on most weekday mornings (6:30 a.m.) and walk and/or ride on the Burke-Gilman Trail weekly. I own a sea kayak and get out on the water less frequently than I'd like, but often early on weekend mornings.

2. What team or individual sport(s) do you or your family members participate in?

> My family members (some in Seattle; some not) also enjoy kayaking, bicycling and hiking. A couple of them also like basketball, skiing, wakeboarding, tennis, marathons and mountain climbing.

3. Many parks and schools districts in the Seattle region are converting athletic fields to synthetic (Field Turf-type) surfaces, especially at facilities that are already lit as a means to create greater capacity with existing infrastructure. 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?
> Yes. Because of Seattle's climate, synthetic surfaces appear more practical for certain athletic fields. This seems to work best to extend use at fields that are already lit.

4. What experience do you have in developing or improving parks in general and playfields in particular?

> Some years ago, as an elected Lake City Community Club director, I was instrumental in working on several parks projects in the Lake City area. We proposed turning a greenspace at Lake City School and one in the Cedar Park neighborhood into city parks; we also proposed a Thornton Creek Trail. The parks remain and, after many years, Thornton Creek Trail is now under construction. It took a lot longer than any of us imagined.

5. How should the City plan to move forward with the ProParks Levy expiring in 2008?
> Although we're waiting for an over-due business plan, it seems certain that there will still be a need for an extension of a parks levy. It may come as part of a package along with a Seattle Center/Pike Place Market measure or it may be a stand-alone proposal. This will be something to explore with the new Seattle Parks Superintendent and with neighborhood and community groups.

6. Do you support the Parks Departments' current development plan and design (as approved by City Council) at Magnuson Park that includes five athletic fields and enhanced wetlands habitat? What improvements in the design or public process might you recommend?
> I do support the plan that includes five athletic fields and enhanced wetlands habitat. The council needs to continue to listen to the public on progress on designs and to keep pressing for proposed improvements, such as public restrooms and an enhanced entrance.

7. How do you feel about the potential commercialization of selected Seattle Parks properties as a means for increasing revenue for supporting Parks Department activities and/or offering broader services to citizens?
> Although I believe that parks can profit from some commercial activities (golf courses management, for example), I do not generally approve of wholesale commercialization. The parks belong to all and should serve the public, rather than being carved up and locked away for rental uses.

8. How would you attempt to balance the needs of sports field users against the concerns (such as increased noise, light and/or traffic) of people who live near playfields?
> This is one of the most difficult balancing acts of all. People who live near a park should not have to endure constant noise, lights and traffic. On the other hand, people in urban areas do need green space and recreational areas that are readily accessed. Appointment of a citizens advisory group with neighborhood representation is one way of balancing needs for popular parks.

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?
> This is something that I think needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. It may be possible to institute some general guidelines, but in the end each proposal will need to be looked at through the lens of supporting those proposals that are most in the public interest.

Council Position No. 3

Bruce Harrell

1. What are your favorite recreational activities – active and passive?

> I love to coach kids at playfields, play baseball at parks, jog along paths for exercise, fish in lakes and snow ski.

2. What team or individual sport(s) do you or your family members participate in?

> My son plays on baseball, football and basketball recreational teams, including Seattle Parks Dept. leagues.   My daughter plays recreational basketball through the Parks Dept. league.  My son and daughter ran cross country (2007) with their cross-country meets being at Woodland Park.

3. Many parks and schools departments in the Seattle area are converting athletic fields to synthetic (Field Turf-type) surfaces, especially at facilities that are already lit as a means to create greater capacity with existing infrastructure. 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 do think some athletic fields, like that at Franklin High School, were significantly improved with synthetic turf in that it allowed year around access to other sports and seemed to improve participation and aesthetics.   I will support funding for playfield improvements as a general rule but I believe improvements and playfield projects must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the needs of the neighborhood, the historical use of an area, and our City’s need to preserve open space and greenery.   I will advocate for an open and transparent process with all stakeholders to make sure collaborative decisions are made.

4. What experience do you have in developing or improving parks in general and playfields in particular?

> As a youth coach and community volunteer, I sat in meetings with City of Seattle representatives and neighborhood activists to get more money for my neighborhoods’ largest playfield, the Rainier playfield.  We were successful in getting improvements for the last 2 years.  I spent many Friday nights getting the field ready for Saturday games and tournaments.      
 

5. How should the City plan to move forward after the ProParks Levy expires in 2008?

> Assuming that the newly hired Superintendent of Parks completes a strategic plan and the City Council can accurately determine what the City’s financial needs are regarding park operations, park maintenance and open space/park improvement needs and then determines how this is integrated into the City’s neighborhood plans, it should begin discussions on the feasibility of another park levy.    

6. Do you support the Parks Departments’ current development plan and design (as approved by City Council) at Magnuson Park, which includes five athletic fields and enhanced wetlands habitat? What improvements in the design or public process might you recommend?

> Since the prior City Council has already approved a development plan and design, I am not sure whether an after-the-fact opinion is appropriate or even of value.  I have met with several very credible neighborhood representatives from the Magnuson Park area and I believe they have raised some significant concerns about the impact of this project and some of its unintended consequences on the neighborhood and the natural environment.  I would like to discuss these issues with all stakeholders once elected

7. How do you feel about the potential commercialization of selected Seattle Parks properties as a means for increasing revenue for supporting Parks Department activities and/or offering broader services to citizens?

> I have a core belief that parks are for everyone to enjoy.  As a child growing up in Seattle, some of my fondest memories are those I have in Seattle’s parks.  I do realize that times have changed and to some extent, the interests of a new generation have changed.  I am willing to consider creative means to find revenue sources and funding for parks and for offering broader services in order to achieve sustainability.  However, my core belief that parks are for everyone to enjoy will govern my policy making.  

8. How would you attempt to balance the needs of sports field users against the concerns (such as increased noise, light and/or traffic) of people who live near playfields?

> In order to arrive at win-win solutions, I will ensure open and intelligent dialogue with stakeholders, always with the intent to mediate a resolution.   While we all must realize that there are certain inherent issues associated with living near a sports field, we should also be willing to determine whether field-users would be willing to make some concessions in order to reduce noise and traffic during certain times.   At the end, there must be balance and one of my responsibilities will be to find that balance on a case-by-case basis.

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?

> This is good question.  As stated in Question #7 above, my goal is to have a thriving park system, well maintained, clean, safe, vibrant and accessible to all.   I want clean bathrooms and water faucets that work.  I do not have enough information to know whether the smartest tool is independent commercial endeavors or simply investments by sports leagues.  As an attorney, I am used to researching systems in other cities and states to determine which model seems consistent with my goal.  Once elected, I hope to provide more guidance in this respect.

Council Position No. 5

Tom Rasmussen

No response

Council Position No. 7

Tim Burgess

1. What are your favorite recreational activities - active and passive?

> I jog 3 to 5 times per week and I cycle. I also like to take long walks and read.

2. What team or individual sport(s) do you or your family members participate in?

> I don’t participate in team sports any longer, but I do run and cycle. All three of our daughters played soccer growing up in Seattle. Last night (Thursday) I spent the evening at Loyal Heights Field in Ballard meeting with parents and coaches of the Ballard Knights youth league. It was a great experience to watch dozens and dozens of kids practice football, then stuff themselves with the end-of-season hotdog feed. I had good conversations with parents and learned about their scheduling issues and concerns about access to fields.

3. Many parks and schools districts in the Seattle region are converting athletic fields to synthetic (Field Turf-type) surfaces, especially at facilities that are already lit as a means to create greater capacity with existing infrastructure. 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?

> Yes, I very much support upgrading our fields. When my daughters played soccer we didn’t have synthetic fields and they routinely played in mud holes. Then, we would venture to the eastside or north to Shoreline and think we had gone to heaven because their fields were well lit and had synthetic surfaces. Sports teams do better on synthetic fields in Seattle because of our wet climate, injuries are reduced, and the overall playing experience is enhanced. And, I’m sure, parents cars are cleaner! :-)

4. What experience do you have in developing or improving parks in general and playfields in particular?

> I used to chair my neighborhood community council (1988-1989, Queen Anne) and several parks issues came up during my tenure. The most controversial was the city’s idea to let Disney take over Seattle Center. I have nothing against Disney, but our parks are the people’s property and they should be used for the common good of our community and remain firmly controlled by the city as trustee of the people. We successfully defeated the Disney plan. Another important matter related to the city’s plan to remove historic light standards along the Queen Anne Boulevard which is part of the park network of boulevards throughout Seattle. We worked with the city to instead cast replica light standards to replace the decayed and non-functioning lights. Today, the boulevard is lined with exact replicas and they work great.

My campaign has been endorsed by all of the city’s environmental groups,
urban sustainability organizations, and leading park and open space
advocates.

5. How should the City plan to move forward with the ProParks Levy expiring in 2008?

> The ProParks Levy should be renewed and it’s disappointing that neither the Mayor nor the chair of the Council’s parks committee has done anything about it. The Mayor has recommended shifting the operational costs covered by the Levy into next year’s general operating budget and I strongly support his recommendation. But the Levy’s renewal is necessary to allow the city to acquire additional land for new parks and open space.

6. Do you support the Parks Departments' current development plan and design (as approved by City Council) at Magnuson Park that includes five athletic fields and enhanced wetlands habitat? What improvements in the design or public process might you recommend?

> Yes, I do support the compromise plan, although I thought it included seven new fields. I could be wrong on that detail. I don’t have specific recommendations on additional process—haven’t we had enough already?—but I’m willing to look again once the new fields are completed and we begin to look at the next phases of development.

7. How do you feel about the potential commercialization of selected Seattle Parks properties as a means for increasing revenue for supporting Parks Department activities and/or offering broader services to citizens?
> Frankly, this issue raises red flags for me. I’m conflicted on privatization of our parks and want to make certain that the parks remain squarely in the public domain and available to all citizens. An exception that I would allow is public-nonprofit partnerships that allow use of park facilities on a contract ongoing basis.

8. How would you attempt to balance the needs of sports field users against the concerns (such as increased noise, light and/or traffic) of people who live near playfields?

> I recognize that this is a controversial issue and there are good people on both sides of this question. I believe that light and traffic issues can often be resolved. Noise is a problem that will also be associated with our parks. Again, without commenting on specific parks or current issues I would just say that I believe our parks exist for the common good of the broad community and their use and management should be skewed heavily in that direction.

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 partially answered this question above in #7. I have less trouble with nonprofit organizations than I would have
with commercial companies. But, I have an open mind on this issue; I don’t want to shut out discussion and brainstorming.

Council Position No. 9

Sally Clark

1. What are your favorite recreational activities - active and passive?
> Reading, gardening, cooking, walking my dog, rowing.
 

2. What team or individual sport(s) do you or your family members participate in?
> Rowing.

3. Many parks and schools districts in the Seattle region are converting athletic fields to synthetic (Field Turf-type) surfaces, especially at facilities that are already lit as a means to create greater capacity with existing infrastructure. 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 conversion to synthetic surfaces on a case-by-case basis to accommodate fuller scheduling.
 

4. What experience do you have in developing or improving parks in general and playfields in particular?
> I have experience related to the acquisition and development of Hitts Hill in Columbia City.  Hitts Hill is a former fireworks factory site above Columbia City, an area underserved in terms of open space in Southeast Seattle.  After the housing proposal for the property fell apart, my neighbors and I worked to line up acquisition funding through the City, County and private sources.  Development of the park continues today with new pathways and native plantings.

While working for the Department of Neighborhoods I spearheaded efforts to convert the dirt on Beacon Hill Playfield to grass.  This was a high priority for the families in the neighborhood.  The dust/dirt was a problem for Beacon Hill School and for the kids experiencing asthma.

5. How should the City plan to move forward with the ProParks Levy expiring in 2008?
> I think the City should use the forthcoming parks department business plan as a basis for developing a long-term financing plan that could include voter-approved levies or bonds.  Any such plan must include asset management and long-term projections for operations costs.

6. Do you support the Parks Departments' current development plan and design (as approved by City Council) at Magnuson Park that includes five athletic fields and enhanced wetlands habitat? What improvements in the  design or public process might you recommend?
> I support the approved plan for Magnuson Park.

7. How do you feel about the potential commercialization of selected Seattle Parks properties as a means for increasing revenue for supporting Parks Department activities and/or offering broader services to citizens?
> While I do not generally support the "commercialization" of Seattle Parks, I recognize that we can do more and better maintenance in our parks be drawing in private dollars.  I worry about opening the door too widely to commercial endeavors, but I support the plan to introduce a higher level of food concessionaire at Magnuson Park. The park accommodates so many different people and uses.  I think the level of traffic and the length of use, in combination with the relative remoteness of the park, demands a higher level of food.

8. How would you attempt to balance the needs of sports field users against the concerns (such as increased noise, light and/or traffic) of people who live near playfields?
> We live in ever-densifying neighborhoods in which we must find ways to meet competing needs. Not every park will meet every needs, but I think we can balance demands and meet needs on a neighborhood level. I would like to see staff at the Department of Parks & Recreation recognize that not all fields are created equal and that there could be come adjustment of playing field use times in order to address the needs of particular communities.

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 that independent commercial endeavors should be considered on a case by case basis.  I think the Audubon partnership at Seward Park is terrific.  I'm less excited about the proposal by Arena Sports for Hanger 27.  I think Arena provides an amazing indoor soccer experience, but I'm not convinced the space should be dedicated to single user group.  I do support sports leagues investing their own funds in local parks.  I think there are great examples in all parts of the city of sports leagues making great upgrades enjoyed by the
community at large.