The Concerned Citizens for Mercer Island Parks (CCMIP) filed an initiative to petition the City Council to enact a proposed measure to protect parks from development.

As sponsors, CCMIP has 90 days (Sept. 6 to Dec. 5) to collect about 3,000 signatures of eligible Mercer Island voters to place the initiative on the ballot.

The Mercer Island Initiative Measure No. 16-03, if enacted, would require the council to meet certain conditions prior to selling or otherwise converting city park property to non-park uses. The council would need to hold a public hearing, enact an ordinance finding the change in use necessary and replace affected parkland and open space with equal or better land in the same vicinity to achieve no net loss of park property, according to a CCMIP press release.

CCMIP’s first “Protect our Parks” petition (16-01) was filed in March and did not receive enough signatures to be placed on the ballot. CCMIP filed another petition (16-02) over the summer, but withdrew it.

“In the midst of this fall’s election cycle, this will be the perfect time to ask Islanders whether they desire to have private developers control city parkland,” Peter Struck, co-chair of CCMIP, said in a statement.

If sufficient signatures are collected, the tnitiative would most likely be placed on the February election ballot, unless the council passes an ordinance that enacts the provisions of the initiative.

The initiative would give Mercer Island voters a say in whether they desire to have their public parks and open space at risk to be sold or transferred to private developers, or converted to non-park uses, according to the press release. Parkland and open space is the city’s most valuable asset, and the voters of Mercer Island have a long history dating back 50 years or more of protecting that land from encroachment and non-park use by either private developers or city-sponsored activities.

Based on feedback from supporters, and opponents, the current Initiative 16-03 has been modified so it: more closely follows the successful 1997 Seattle Protect Our Parks Initiative; grandfathers all existing park uses and allows future temporary/short-term uses; retains the “no net loss” of parkland policy; emphasizes the “public” nature of parks; states that the transference of property (such as a long-term lease) triggers a public process; and allows for the construction of publicly owned parks-related buildings.

“We listened to our supporters and opponents and have modified and clarified the initiative so that it’s clear that all existing parks uses are grandfathered and future temporary or short-term uses will be allowed,” stated Meg Lippert, co-chair of CCMIP.

The need for the tnitiative is based on a variety of concerns expressed by many Islanders including a critical need to protect public parkland from private development and requiring a transparent public process with community involvement, according to the press release.

It also notes “specific issues related to a proposed privately-developed regional performing arts facility at Mercerdale Park,” including: lack of adequate parking, increased traffic impact, and congestion; size, scope and scale of the proposed project would destroy Bicentennial Park and stretch almost to the Skate Park; potential additional financial liability to the city that already has a projected annual operating budget shortfall; preferential terms of a long-term lease ($1 a year for 50-80 years) for private development and private management on public land; seismic and wetlands concerns; and setting precedent of using public property for private development.

Go to www.protectMIparks.org or email protectMIparks@gmail.com for more information.