Enough with the Old School. Frank Chopp is from the Seattle area, went to Univ of Washington 40!!! years ago.

I only vote for people like those who work for the Stranger. Newcomers to the city in the last 10-15 years and have the arrogance to describe the city, its people, and its culture.

Hooray for the New Arrogance!! Vote!!

Voting YES on 1 is handing over the decision making from the people (with levies) to the city council + mayor.

Legislation in WA/Seattle created the Big-Dig tunnel boring machine Bertha, despite being voted down twice when presented to the people. The decision was made by Gregoire and the state legislator without "the people's" approval. As a result, we are stuck with the costs and the *fact* that it doesn't do anything for traffic.

The only thing Bertha and the Big-Dig does is create a waterfront of taxable property taxes and business ventures. If we vote YES on 1, our parks money will go towards waterfront development. Mayor Murray has added a "interlocal agreement" to make sure that the *current* park funding is met, but THERE IS NOTHING TO IN PROP 1 to make sure additional monies go to our Parks.

The fact is, PROP 1 removes We the People from deciding anything and puts it into a handful of people.

http://www2.ci.seattle.wa.us/ethics/vote…

Vote for higher rent if you want to vote for Prop 1.

To be fair, the Times has criticized Woodland Park's elephant program before. This isn't something new for Prop. 1.

If Prop. 1 fails, it would be interesting to see what would happen if the elephants were taken from WPZ to a sanctuary, and then proponents tried the same exact bill again. There is a huge amount of community hate for the zoo, not just for the elephants but for the (eventually abandoned) parking lot plan from a few years ago, and the shutting of the Day and Night exhibit (the only part of the zoo I ever really cared about).

In an editorial all about advocating stuff the Stranger wholeheartedly advocates -- freedom of information, better treatment for animals -- there is one sentence about prop 1. The sentence is factually true. The editorial does not come out against prop 1. But there is just a whiff of a bad vibe in that once sentence that just might reflect badly on prop 1. SLOG's response: describe the editorial as "whacked out" and "crazy" and talk all about prop 1. I guess this makes clear that getting more money to the government is SLOG's #1 priority above all its other. Anything that threatens that priority must be attacked mercilessly.

@3 It never ceases to amaze me how people like you completely ignore the facf that the mayor and city council are elected officials.

@9
Hernadez believes in the election process. HAHA
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-s0cQH06gDBk/UO…

I voted NO on Prop one, not just because of the Woodland Park Zoo elephant rape issue, and the way Prop 1 would facilitate spending >$400,000,000 on a new central waterfront park that will soon be lined by luxury hotels even taller and more view-blocking than the viaduct, but because of the fundamental issue of governance. How can agency so incompetent as to accumulate a $267,000,000 maintenance backlog be trusted to spend wisely the vast increase in funding that passage of Prop 1 would enable? This issue needs to be decided after a much more thorough discussion, an open and transparent audit of Parks' past performance, and deeper consideration of the best way Parks can address its maintenance problems. Throwing more money at a broken system, and enabling that system to balkenize itself even more thoroughly from public scrutiny and accountability unlikely to provide "better parks for all." I can see it easily selling off parts of our parks in the same way they almost got away with letting a developer build medical offices in Magnuson Park in a below market-rate lease deal. That scheme would also have displaced non-profit community organizations that rent space in the park, and would have violated the State Shoreline Management Act and Seattle's own Shoreline Master Program. It cost Parks $7.25 million to settle a lawsuit over that fiasco. Here's details:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2…

Our parks do deserve stable funding at an increased funding level, but Seattle Citizens also deserve better governance of our parks and rec services. Prop 1 will deliver neither.

Interestingly, all the stories mentioned by Anna broke on a local blog run by some guy named "Goldy".
I feel like I've heard that name before...
Anyway, you guys should totes find this guy Goldy and, like, offer him a job...
Oh I remember... You fucking morons fired him.
Now your still relying on him for content. What a bunch of fucking assholes.

@12
Having slog and goldie website voice essentially the same thing is good, no? The propaganda reaches a wider group of sheeple.

This is what you get without an independently elected, knowledgeable Parks board, and another reason to vote NO:

When Parks wanted to cut a deal with Vulcan Real Estate and Amazon and put an off-leash area (OLA) in Denny Park, for which the companies offered to donate money, Christopher Williams and Parks Strategic Advisor Brenda Kramer made multiple misleading statements to the Board of Parks Commissioners (BPC; Nov 2011 meeting) regarding the effects of OLAs on park trees. At their first vote at that meeting, the BPC voted not to place an OLA in any park in South Lake Union. The majority took the view that Vulcan and Amazon should use Vulcan's own vacant land across the street from Denny Park to site an OLA, as Amazon's policy of letting employees take their dogs to work was creating much of the demand for one. That vote was apparently not recorded; instead, one commissioner suggested they discuss putting an OLA specifically in Denny Park. Two commissioners started asking questions about possible effects on the park's trees.

Though eight large trees that qualify for protection as Exceptional Trees under Seattle's Land Use Code border the OLA site on three sides, a Parks memo to the BPC stated "there is only one small tree in the area" and Parks ignored the status of the large trees. Several years ago, Parks admitted to serious damage to trees in Volunteer Park from an OLA that Parks eventually closed for that reason, and a judge ordered the replacement OLA in Volunteer Park closed because of the likelihood of further damage to trees. A Parks report on OLAs from April 2011 stated that soil compaction from off-leash use was killing trees in Woodland Park. But Kramer told the BPC that Parks had never known of any damage to trees from off-leash areas, particularly in Volunteer Park. When a commissioner asked why the OLA in Volunteer Park had been closed, Williams said only that it wasn't functioning well. Williams and Kramer told the BPC that Parks didn't want to put an OLA in the new South Lake Union Park because it would have to be fenced, but not that staff had reported to Williams and Kramer that dog urine would kill trees in the park. When asked how the OLA in Denny would be constructed and if excavation would be involved, though Kramer had the Parks landscape architect's estimate that described only one method--excavating with a bulldozer and grading within the drip lines of the trees (though the trees are not even mentioned in the estimate, and the Land Use Code does not allow excavation within the drip line of an Exceptional Tree without a plan prepared by a tree care professional)--Kramer said she wasn't an engineer or a landscape architect but thought that just piling chips on the existing surface would work. She told the commissioners that an arborist could be consulted if they wanted, in a tone that suggested it would be a waste of time, when the Code actually required it. The Parks arborist was not asked for his input. When one commissioner said she was glad to hear about the arborist's report on the lack of damage to park trees from off-leash use, Williams and Kramer did not correct her mistaken impression that such a report exists. That commissioner then reversed her earlier "no" vote to "yes" to shift the majority to recommend the construction of an OLA in Denny Park, which was then excavated as described. The next day, Sally Bagshaw's staff sent Kramer an email telling her she did a great job at the meeting. While the Board was told the OLA would be a short-term pilot project with a performance assessment at 9 months, it's been in place for over 2 years with no assessment, and apparently its status is now "permanently temporary": it will be kept in Denny Park as long as Vulcan and Amazon keep paying for it.

The City Council replaced John Barber, an environmentalist on the BPC, with Tom Tierney, who Bagshaw has said was valued for his connections (he was head of the SHA when it gave Vulcan the rights to redevelop Yesler Terrace, and headed the City's committee on South Lake Union zoning and affordable housing).

I suspect that closed-door strategy meetings with corporate donors and senior Parks officials making false statements to the BPC with the encouragement or at least tacit approval of the City Council (all of whom, excepting Sawant, were apprised of the above yet had no objection that I know of) is not most people's idea of good Parks governance. The existing BPC, weak as it is, at least has members nominated by both the Mayor and Council. The new, additional advisory committee would be picked by the Council alone, and likely not for independent mindedness. Checks and balances are an important part of policy making and our democracy. Accountability requires an elected BPC with final approval/veto power.

If public/private partnerships can be advanced by ignoring City regulations, how long would an MPD keep the voluntary interlocal agreement? In the context of the Denny Park decision-making, ask why the Council want the authority to tax the public without giving us a vote on specific projects?

Vote no on Prop 1.

The reason for the editorial was because the Zoo waged a (successful) court battle against being required to comply with the sunshine laws that apply to public agencies. Because, you know , it's a private nonprofit. The Public Records Act has been a hobbyhorse of the Seattle Times for decades.

Magical taxing authority that Olympia can't mess with? Ah, Stranger, it must be nice to print all you like without any regard for reality. Either the Legislature or an Eyman initiative could wipe out every park district in the State tomorrow. But don't let facts get in the way of advocacy.

The problem is you guys don't vote

That said time to break WA into 3 states, OR into 2 and retake our Western Destiny since Ecotopia

#7 Why is it that you think there's any accountability of 9 people, elected every two years to be useful for a community of 625,000 people? With BERTHA, we've been shown that our state's representative government will take on multi-billion $$ debts on projects without the consensus of the populace. Even when they do make this kind of enormous blunder, you think it's just as simple as "voting them out" ? It doesn't happen. They stay in government, relying on an educated population with phrases like "You don't like fun? How can you not vote for Parks"?

tl;dr

If Proposition 1 is Voted YES, we will find our Parks money going to land-developers. The only people getting the money will be new Parks for displaced Californians and their brand-new waterfront condos.

@18, you're having a stroke. Please seek medical attention immediately.

@16 I'm not sure you know what the word "fact" means. You could get raptured tommorow, that's a fact.

@23, the mayor has no role in the new parks district. It would be governed by the City Council alone.

A pity they waited so late in the game to run this. I voted for Prop 1 primarily because I feel almost obligated to vote for ALL taxes, simply because I know there are so many jackholes who reflexively vote against all taxes, regardless of their merits. But I'm also pretty much on board, point by point, with Fnarf's "community hate" for the zoo management, and I might have listened to the Suburban Times for the first time ever, if I hadn't already mailed my ballot.

@25, here is the text from the Interlocal Agreement concerning the oversight committee. You'll notice that while it says City Council will confirm the appointments, it doesn't say anything about who will make the appointments. One can presume that the Parks Board will make its own appointments, but who will make them from the 7 councilmanic districts, and from the other boards and commissions?

In the absence of detail, one could assume the mayor would make the appointments, but it should've been included in the agreement. Sloppy drafting here, seems to me.

Relevant text from ILA --

4.4 Community Oversight Committee. In addition to the community-based Park Board, which advises the City pursuant to chapter 3.26 of the Seattle Municipal Code, a Community Oversight Committee ("Oversight Committee") shall be formed to provide advice to the Mayor, City Council, and Superintendent of Parks and Recreation, and to provide oversight of the projects, programs and services undertaken jointly by the City and the Seattle Park District, pursuant to this Agreement, as follows:

A. The Oversight Committee shall have 15 members: 4 Park Board members; 7 members, one from each Council district; and 4 additional members to be considered for appointment based on recommendations from City commissions, including the Immigrant and Refugee Commission, the Commission for People with Disabilities, the Human Rights Commission, the Seattle Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Commission, and the Women's Commission. All member appointments are to be confirmed by the City Council. The Mayor shall appoint the Chair of the Oversight Committee.

B. The City will seek to appoint Oversight Committee members with a diversity of expertise, and perspectives including but not limited to parks management, public financing, urban horticulture, landscape architecture, contract management, and the interests of low-income and communities of color..