These photos show the shocking and heartbreaking living conditions that thousands of people in Seattle are living in. These conditions exist five years after Seattle and King County declared a ‘homeless state of emergency‘. In 2021 we need to take decisive action to protect our most vulnerable residents, our parks and our shared environment. Our petition urges King County and Seattle to treat this crisis as a true emergency and provide clean, safe bridge shelter options now.
It’s time for a true emergency response to this crisis
We know what to do. Every year communities all across America effectively respond to homelessness caused by floods, fires, and earthquakes. In the same way, we can create and utilize safe bridge shelter options such as hotel rooms, tiny home villages, Pallet shelters, and sanctioned tent communities in thousands of non-park properties available in King County to quickly provide affordable, voluntary, safe shelter. In a parallel effort, let’s rapidly build out Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) for the chronically homeless in our communities. A key to the success and acceptance of this solution is that welcoming communities regain their clean, safe, and healthy parks and public spaces.
On October 15th, our petition that has the support of over 20,000 citizens was sent to Seattle Mayor Durkan and the Seattle City Council urging them to protect our parks from development. The Mayor’s reply was disappointing. The full text of our letter and the Mayor’s reply are below.
Clearly, City Hall is not listening to the people of Seattle and does not intend to respond to the questions and concerns of the people. In fact, Mayor Durkan did not reply to any of our questions about why City Hall is studying the development of parks for housing when thousands of acres of surplus government property in King County are available and there is existing capacity for 200,000 new housing units in Seattle.
We need to make our voices heard. Vote for a candidate who has pledged to protect Seattle parks.
We have another opportunity to make our voices heard. We can protect our parks for future generations by electing council members who are committed to protecting parks. If you are a resident of Seattle, vote now (ballots must be submitted by November 5th, 2019) for a candidate who has pledged to protect parks. Coincidentally, all of these candidates have been endorsed by The Seattle Times editorial board.
These candidates have pledged to uphold the Seattle ordinance that protects parks from development or changes of use. We strongly encourage you to vote for one of these candidates. (Updated/corrected to include incumbent Councilmember Lisa Herbold who had previously pledged support for our petition and should not have been required to reply to our October 15th email in which we had requested a reply from Mayor Durkan and councilmembers. Thank you for your support, CM Herbold!)
District 1: Lisa Herbold or Phil Tavel District 2: Mark Solomon District 3: Egan Orion District 4: Alex Pedersen District 5: Ann Davison Sattler District 6: Heidi Wills District 7: Jim Pugel
If you live outside of Seattle city limits please take the time now to write to Mayor Durkan <Jenny.Durkan@seattle.gov> to remind her that Seattle parks are a reason for you to visit and spend money in Seattle.
Read Our Letter to City Hall and Candidates for City Council and the mayor’s response
Mayor Durkan, Seattle City Councilmembers and Candidates for the Seattle City Council,
Over 20,000 citizens have signed our petition urging you to protect Seattle parks from redevelopment: 16,443 online and 4,066 signatures collected on paper at Seattle golf courses. Our petition urges you to uphold the 1996 Protect Our Parks Initiative 42 which has protected Seattle parks from development or change of use for the past 23 years. We respectfully request your reply to this appeal. Please take into consideration these facts before you reply.
Seattle’s population is expected to continue to grow rapidly. Seattle needs more parks and green spaces, not less.
Seattle devotes less land to parks (12.5%) than cities such as New York (21.7%), San Francisco (19.6%), Phoenix (15.2%) or even Las Vegas (19.4%) (Seattle Times)
Seattle currently has the capacity to build 200,000 additional housing units without sacrificing a single acre of park land. (City of Seattle)
As shopping continues to move online, many brick and mortar retail spaces will no longer be needed. We have the opportunity to repurpose and rezone these spaces for housing and save our parks for future generations.
Thousands of acres of surplus public lands are currently available in Seattle and King County for the development of affordable housing. These parcels can be viewed via this mapping tool that was developed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
If revenue generation and ‘ability to use’ are the standards by which we judge the worthiness of any given park use, then every park use that does not generate ‘adequate’ revenue or cannot be used by everyone (due to lack of interest, age or limited abilities) is at risk of being developed. If this is to be our standard, then our dog parks, soccer fields, softball fields, swimming pools, the Arboretum and the Woodland Park Zoo, to name a few park uses, are at risk of being converted to housing.
If the City’s legislative authority decides to remove the protections included in I-42, then we are prepared to collect the necessary signatures to place a new I-42 initiative on the ballot next year.
We await your reply to our petition, which will be shared with our petition signers and other interested parties.
Margaret Anthony Founder, Save Seattle Golf
John Wisdom Founder, Save Seattle Parks
The Mayor’s reply to our letter
Dear Margaret and John:
Thank you for reaching out to Mayor Jenny Durkan regarding our City’s public golf courses. We appreciate your time and input, and that you care so much about this issue that you took the time to write.
Seattle Parks and Recreation commissioned a study of the financial sustainability of City-owned golf courses. This includes an analysis of potential long-term models that could ensure the financial sustainability of the courses. That study is still underway and not focused on any single golf course, but is a holistic look at the use of this particular public land in our City.
As we study the future of the City’s four golf courses, Mayor Durkan believes we have an opportunity to examine our courses with the goals of supporting our parks and green spaces, addressing affordability, and advancing race and social justice.
Mayor Durkan strongly believes that it is in the best interest of Seattle residents to ensure public property is utilized in a way that maximizes its benefit to the community. At the Mayor’s direction, Seattle Parks and Recreation will begin to explore a full range of potential options for these courses.
Thank you again for reaching out. If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to follow up with me directly.
Sincerely, Kelsey, on behalf of Mayor Jenny Durkan Communications Associate (She/Hers) Mayor Jenny A. Durkan | City of Seattle
In 1996, when a Seattle city park was
threatened with development, citizens drafted and collected signatures for the
Protect Our Parks Initiative #42. The Protect Our Parks Initiative was affirmed
by the Seattle City Council by a 9-0 vote and was signed into law by Mayor Norm Rice.
In spite of the hard-won victory for people
and parks, Mayor Jenny Durkan has been making some puzzling public statements
about golf courses, racial equity, and affordable housing. For example, this
head-scratcher released from the Mayor’s office: “As we weigh options for the future of the City of Seattle’s four golf
courses, Mayor Durkan believes we have an opportunity to examine our golf
courses with the goals of supporting our parks and green space, addressing affordability and meeting our
racial equity goals as we build a city of the future.” (emphasis mine)
As appealing as this ‘equity and affordable
housing two-fer’ might sound, golfers and non-golfers alike should take pause,
consider the facts, and ask some important questions before any of our precious
park lands are sacrificed to development.
Thousands of petitioners want Seattle parks to be protected from development
Save Seattle Parks change.org petition has over 10,000 supporters and is gaining nearly 1,000 supporters each day. Our volunteers have collected an additional 1200+ signatures on paper at golf courses and parks throughout the city.
Save Seattle Parks, is asking Mayor Jenny Durkan, Seattle City Councilmembers, and all candidates for Seattle’s seven contested council seats to affirm their commitment to protect our parks for future generations by answering this question: Will you pledge to protect Seattle parks from development and uphold the requirements as stated in Initiative 42?
Troubling Fact: The city didn’t gather demographic data (racial, socioeconomic) for its golf study
If the City had collected demographic information about golfers, they might have discovered the assumption-busting fact that Seattle’s golf community looks more like this:
“These [Seattle golf courses] are not played by people who belong to private golf courses, and it’s a very diverse people population,” said Bill Schickler, founder and president of Premier Golf Centers. “You’ve got grandparents playing with grandkids and kids, and you’ve got women and men of all ethnicities playing these courses and they are very much in need as a resource for sport and recreation in the community.” (Seattle Times)
Seattle’s fast-growing population needs more park land, not less
Seattle devotes less land to parks (12.5%) than cities such as New York (21.7%)*, San Francisco (19.6%), Boston (17.4%), Minneapolis Phoenix (15.2%) or even Las Vegas (19.4%) (Seattle Times and the Trust for Public Lands)
Instead of reducing our park lands, let’s utilize surplus parcels to expand our acreage of parks and build housing around them. This is a win-win solution for parks, housing and our quality of life.
Hundreds of publicly-owned surplus parcels of land in Seattle and King County are available for affordable housing.
In fact, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation helped fund the Home and Hope database and mapping tool to help developers and nonprofits find these parcels. The areas highlighted in blue on the map below are surplus. So why is City Hall talking about using precious, irreplaceable park lands for housing?
Seattle’s flawed affordable housing strategies have made housing less affordable and have disproportionately impacted communities of color
After years of a regional effort to build our way out of the housing affordability crisis, we have produced exactly the opposite. Rents have tripled and housing is less affordable than ever. Seattle is continuing to destroy truly affordable housing by issuing permits for new buildings that displace older, affordable, housing stock. Affordable housing stock (which is typically 50 to 60 years old) continues to be displaced by Seattle’s flawed policies.
Yes, more development will bring us more housing supply, but we cannot expect it to be ‘affordable’ for low-income residents without also providing substantial subsidies. Creative accounting methods that ignore the value of land used for ‘affordable housing’ may successfully hide, but does not change, the true value of public lands.
Award-winning journalist, John V. Fox, writing for The Displacement Coalition: In reality, she’s [Mayor Durkan] found an excuse to bring together in one room a who’s who of the city’s pro-downtown, pro-density, and developer elite and, like every Mayor we’ve observed over the last 45 years, given them a formal role (not just their usual behind the scenes role) in shaping policies that affect them. It’s a foregone conclusion what they’ll recommend: give us more tax breaks, more upzoning, more freedom to build what we want and where we want. As a former councilmember once remarked, “Every developer who lobbies me has really only one underlying message: ‘Give us more, anything that doesn’t is bad.’” (John V. Fox, Outside City Hall, February 13, 2019)
Contrary to a popular narrative promoted by some, golf is not dying in Seattle
Golf is doing quite well in Seattle and it actually pulls its own weight in the parks budget. Is there any other park activity that can make this claim?
Here’s the truth about Seattle’s golf study and the financial contribution of golf to the parks budget. The study focused on the financial health and sustainability of Seattle golf courses (The Hour, June 8, 2019, emphasis mine)
From 2013-17, the courses combined to have a
net profit in operating income each year. But factoring in the 5 percent the courses give back to the Seattle
Parks Fund and debt service on improvements made at the courses put them $1.8
million in the red.
In 2017, the courses had $10.2 million in
revenue and $9.8 in expenses,
not including the payment to the Parks Fund or the debt service payment.
However, “2017 was very poor weather
year, whereas 2018 was a stellar year. In 2018, they achieved record revenues
in virtually every category. Our revenue was almost $1 million better than
budget, and in 2019, we are running already a half a million dollars ahead
of budget revenue for 2019 (as of the end of May),” Schickler said.
golf is the only park use being singled out for scrutiny when, ironically, it is the ONLY Seattle park activity that generates millions of dollars in revenue for the city
Two arguments advanced by City Hall don’t stand up to logical scrutiny and simply make no sense. Argument 1: Golf must be profitable or the courses could be converted to other uses. Argument 2: Municipal golf courses are ‘not available to everyone (because of fences, fees and equipment costs.)’
If City Hall consistently applies the
arguments that ‘park uses must pay for
themselves, be available to everyone or potentially be reprogrammed’, we should
also then be looking at converting city-owned dog parks, The Woodland Park Zoo,
the Seattle Aquarium, swimming pools, wading pools, children’s play areas,
football fields, baseball and soccer fields, and bike trails to housing because
‘not everyone can use them.’
The fact is, there are many activities people can choose to enjoy in Seattle parks. Many of these activities require the payment of fees and the purchase of expensive equipment (many of them much more expensive than golf, such as dog ownership**, bicycling, football and even softball) The truth is that anyone can participate in any of these park activities if they like. All are heavily subsidized by the city and none of them ‘pay for themselves.’
City Hall has painted itself into a corner
given that golf is one of the few park uses that generates significant revenue
for the city. So conversion of a golf course to non-golf use actually makes the
city-revenue problem worse.
“Pools and other recreation aren’t asked to pay for their costs of construction,” Schickler said. “The courses themselves make money, but it’s other overhead. The parks fund pulls money out of (the courses) for other programs and now they are paying for the interest on the debt. It’s only after those items are included that there is any deficit.” (Seattle Times)
If we’re going to look at our public amenities
through racial equity and revenue lenses then let’s look at all of them through
the same lens.
Golf courses create green benefits for everyone.
All park lands, including golf courses, provide refuge for urban wildlife, preservation of unpaved spaces that capture rainwater runoff and trees and green spaces that help clean polluted air and cool the city.
Our senior citizens, who can no longer participate in high impact sports, benefit the most from golf
The physical, mental health, and environmental benefits of golf must be considered and economically quantified before any decision is made regarding golf courses in Seattle. Golf is an especially important excersie opportunity for seniors who can no longer engage in high impacts vigorous sports such as baseball, soccer, football, or even tennis. Eliminating a golf course would disproportionately impact elders in our community who can no longer participate in many other physical activities.
Parks, golf courses, affordable housing and density are not mutually exclusive options. Before we consider giving any of our parklands to developers, let’s put all options on the table, invite everyone to participate, consider all of the ramifications, think creatively and work together to create win-win solutions for Seattle.
By building affordable housing on top of our parks, we use up their value. By building around them, we can amplify their value, thereby achieving the very goals espoused by the city: “supporting our parks and green space, addressing affordability and meeting our racial equity goals as we build a city of the future. ”Thatcher Bailey, Seattle Parks Foundation, June 2019
**Rover.com, a Seattle-based pet-sitting website, figures the yearly average at $2,858 factoring in pet sitting ($25 per night), dog training ($40 per hour), teeth cleaning (at least $400) and emergency vet bills (USA Today).