Dear Goldy, I think you could do better in your analysis. The Press Release sent out by Parks lists three poll questions. A question identified as Q. 32 (the $54M question), a question identified as Q. 40 (the $26M question), and a question which lacks a number which asks whether or not citizens believe we should continue investing in parks, but does not call out the funding mechanism. I cannot find an actual survey question addressing the MPD issue in the press release, although the poll piece leads with the finding of 61% support for an MPD. Could you dig deeper? Was this a push-poll? I don't know many people wildly enthusiastic about an MPD, with the possible exception of Michael Maddux.

The full survey results, with questions, will be presented to the Parks Citizen Legacy Committee by the polling firm, EMC on Thursday, March 20 at 6PM at Miller Community Center. After that presentation the full survey will be made available to the public.

For the record - I am "wildly enthusiastic" about finding solutions. An MPD is a solution to a serious funding problem caused by the 1% rule and years of minimal REET funding.

The alternatives:

a) Let our parks and facilities decline in quality.

b) Public-private partnerships with more benefit to the "private" than "public".

The next meeting of the Parks' Legacy Committee is this Thursday, Feb. 20 at 6 PM at Miller Community Center. Is that the meeting you intended, ptb?

What I find mystifying about the whole Metropolitan Park District issue is that there has been no public discussion of the topic. The Legacy Committee has been meeting since last spring, and they've done no education or outreach, done nothing to answer questions that voters might have.

I attended one of their public meetings a couple of weeks ago. I was expecting a good explanation of the MPD and how it would work, but that didn't happen. The topic came up only in table conversations. If the MPD is such a great idea, why keep people in the dark?

From the people who brought you the Seattle Commons . . . .

No, michaelp, the alternatives are not as you suggest. Voters can approve a 6-year levy of sufficient magnitude to eliminate most of the maintenance backlog and put additional funds into the operating budget.

You will not succeed with a story that the MPD is essential to avoid continuing decline of our parks system. Voters will see through that line.

Dear PTB: Are you talking about tomorrow night's Parks Legacy Committee meeting at Miller Community Center--tomorrow, February 20th? I believe the committee is charged with coming forward with a recommendation by March 7th, so it doesn't make sense for EMB to do the presentation on March 20th.

And to MichaelP, yes, we are in agreement about avoiding public-private partnerships where the private partner gets all the benefit. It would be great to work together on some of these problems ... I wouldn't rule out an MPD at some future date. I think it's premature in 2014 & unfortunately smacks of a bit of a Stealth Campaign, which doesn't insure tons of citizen trust.

Oops, not "tomorrow" but the day after tomorrow, Thursday, February 20th, is the meeting where I'm hoping the EMB group will make its presentation ...

@6 - you're right only if you believe that micro-managing funding for parks by six year ballot measures is an appropriate way to respond to the long-term funding crisis caused by the 1% rule.

Frankly, that's what Tim Eyman wants, but it is a piss-poor method to budget on the municipal level.

@7 - I knew that would get us agreeing :-)

I am reminded of one idea that was brought up during the High Point community meeting discussion - a short term capital levy to start work on the AMP, while working out more details on an MPD.

The committee has had some in depth discussions during a few meetings on the MPD. And I admit freely that I have supported an MPD as a final result (whether after a short term capital levy, or immediately) early on due to the problems associated with the funding mess caused by the 1% rule.

I think at this point, it is very important to really actively engage on what protections will be necessary as part of an MPD - supplanting issues, intergovernmental agreements regarding sale of parks space, etc. On the whole, getting out of the levy cycle for parks funding should be a good thing (and hopefully someday the Legislature does away with this crippling rule).

I'd be glad to have some more investment in the zoo and the aquarium; however, first the entrance fees should be lowered so that families whose annual income is lower than $80,000 could afford to take their kids.

I support this and strongly dislike yet another tax regressive solution.

I'd also like to see a zero growth of bureaucracy clause, but suspect it inevitable that a steady higher revenue stream will mean a lot of hiring of essentially inessential management and project directors. Parks Czar far behind?

Is it Seattle's obligation to find financial dodges around "Tim Eyman"? Folks -- Tim Eyman doesn't enact legislation. When the majority vote imposes a 1% tax increase law, how about we consider following it or changing it rather than breaking it? This Parks District idea is simply bad governance masked by a funding "crisis" of our own creation. We aren't creating new funding, just new place to cause more debt not subject to periodic voter review.

It's not a financial dodge, whatever, it's actually what Eyman intended -- keep property tax increases below the rate of inflation and give local taxpayers the ability to raise them via public vote. That's what the levy mechanism already allows us to do. The MPD actually takes authority away from voters and gives it all to the City Council, masquerading as a separate parks board where decisions would be immune from initiative and referendum.

Yes for parks funding, No for the MPD.

Only a little off topic, the Methow Valley is having an election on April 22, trying to establish the Methow Valley Recreation District.
http://www.methowrecreationdistrict.org/

@16--Did this little self-serving poll include the fact that once approved an MPD can levy taxes in perpetuity without a public vote? Thought not.

Will commissioners to the MPD be elected for life? If not, then if voters don't like the tax, they can toss out the old commissioners and elect a new bunch and the new bunch can change the taxes.