The “Protect our Parks” initiative being circulated is misleading and poorly written. Please carefully read the entire initiative, not just the summary, before considering signing. Below are just a few reasons the initiative is a terrible idea:

1. The definition of park use is too restrictive. The initiative severely restricts the definition of park use to restrooms, docks, play equipment, playfields, artificial turf, forested areas and underground utilities.

It would not, for example, allow for the following facilities: the skate park, the amphitheater at Luther Burbank or the off-leash dog area at Luther Burbank. Under the ordinance, the City Council could arguably not construct new tennis or basketball courts. Ironically, there is nothing stopping it from mowing down Pioneer Park and installing an artificial turf field, as that use is specifically exempted from the ordinance.

2. The ordinance prohibits all leases, even if the lease involved a park use. The proposed prohibition on leasing or reserving any “parkland” without the user providing replacement land is absolute. A strict reading of the ordinance would prohibit the city from allowing for the reservation for exclusive use of the ballfields, Luther Burbank Park, the Farmers Market or Summer Celebration. In fact, there is an express prohibition of using any of the parks as “performing arts centers,” which could be interpreted to mean any performance whatsoever, such as Music in the Park at Mercerdale or Shakespeare in the Park at Luther Burbank.

3. The initiative will raise taxes and endanger parks. The initiative possibly prohibits the city from charging user fees for use of its park property. These fees are currently used to provide funding to maintain the parks.

4. The initiative would kill the Mercer Island Center for the Arts (MICA) and force Youth Theatre Northwest (YTN) to move. Initiative supporters argue that MICA can still be built, provided that MICA provides equivalent land. However, the initiative requires that the replacement land be in the same vicinity and with the same use. There is no available land anywhere near Mercerdale that would meet this definition. The real reason the ordinance is being proposed is to stop the construction of MICA. YTN cannot stay indefinitely in its temporary location. If MICA fails, YTN will look for other options, most likely off Island.

5. The restrictions would prohibit any expansion of the Mercer Island Community Center. The restrictions in the ordinance do not allow use of “parkland” for a community center, which would restrict any expansion of the community center without providing replacement land, which is practically unavailable. Further, the proposed ordinance prevents future renovation of the community center if any part of the park land has to be used as a staging area for construction equipment.

Please look at the fine print before you consider signing. The “Protect our Parks” rhetoric is misleading. The devil is in the details.

Robynne Parkinson

Mercer Island