Send us Tips

Green Lake Park could be hit with Seattle Parks and Rec budget cuts

What do you think? (13 Comments) April 1, 2010 at 10:47AM

We received the following from Christina Arcidy, Project Coordinator at Associated Recreation Council (a partner of Seattle Parks and Recreation):

Seattle Parks and Recreation is scheduled to take deep cuts in order to balance the budget for 2010 and beyond. For Green Lake, this could mean closing facilities and/or pools or reducing trash pickup, mowing and maintenance at all the parks in our neighborhood.

The City of Seattle faces a budget shortfall of $10 million in 2010 and a projected $50 million shortfall in 2011-2012. Parks is slated to take the biggest hit in the Mayor’s plan to erase the city’s deficit, with the first cuts scheduled for July 1, 2010.

Decisions for the 2010 mid-year cuts are being made now. Community members need to share their personal stories with the Mayor and City Council members if they expect the doors to stay open and the parks maintained. There are no public meetings or formal requests for public comment, so individuals must reach out to their elected officials and start a dialogue if they want to have an impact.

Thinking of writing to Mayor McGinn and/or the City Council?  Share your ideas with other Green Lake residents in the comments to this post.

13 Responses to “Green Lake Park could be hit with Seattle Parks and Rec budget cuts”

  1. amstillion says:

    In a time of deep suffering at so many levels, why reduce the quality of the few things we have to share as a public?

    One goes to the park for so many reasons and walks Green Lake or swims in the pool to stay healthy or practice tai chi or name your small bliss. When every avenue has been cut off: few jobs, no health insurance, little support. Now they want to take this?

    At least we can do this one good thing: maintain our parks. This one good thing.

    I thought McGinn campaigned on building the commons. Now, already, there is the suggestion of tearing it down?

  2. SpringChica says:

    McGinn wants to build a seawall, not the commons. The only chance of saving Parks is creating a Metropolitan Parks District (explained here: http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/parks/SPD-MPD.aspx) , and he's told the Parks Sup to stop talking about it. Hopefully the community will catch on and tell City Council they want to save Parks and are willing to pay for it.

  3. Sabrina says:

    I'm terribly dismayed to see the proposed cuts will potentially have such negative consequences on such a great resource. Green Lake provides something for almost every segment of the population, especially families. This could also have negative consequences on property values and businesses in the area, as Green Lake is the draw. Cutting the parks budget really does a disservice to the entire city.

  4. charleyzee says:

    If you enroll in programs at your local community center or play/ use our parks, PLEASE consider contacting the Mayor’s Office and City Council to tell them why Parks and Recreation is important to you. Action is needed now. Decisions for the 2010 mid-year cuts are being made now. Your voice needs to be heard by the Mayor and City Council members.

  5. greenlakemer says:

    Hmmm we just voted in a new tax levy to support Parks…. was that all for naught, as we just lose all other funding? Kinda like the lottery that was meant to benefit schools… yet somehow overall school funding hasn't seemed to go up at all. What's the point in approving a tax if it results in no -net-new funding???

  6. mag55 says:

    It seems like the out of budget problems, shouldn't be to elimate the parks and recreation programs that we have that serve the young and old. To keep aquring open space that can't be maintained or developed seems senseless. Why take away from existing facilities and parks, where does it end.
    The parks department needs a superintendant that really cares for our parks and recreation, instead of using the position for his own recreation time, use of parks (example illegal wedding location) and travels (sometimes on our tax dollars).
    Plus hiring of upper management, instead of keeping workers that maintain the parks and facilities, does that make sense? NO.
    Why not offer people with more then 30 years, a helping hand to retire, so other can keep there jobs. What a concept, keep the workers.

  7. mag55 says:

    It seems like the out of budget problems, shouldn't be to elimate the parks and recreation programs that we have that serve the young and old. To keep aquring open space that can't be maintained or developed seems senseless. Why take away from existing facilities and parks, where does it end.
    The parks department needs a superintendant that really cares for our parks and recreation, instead of using the position for his own recreation time, use of parks (example illegal wedding location) and travels (sometimes on our tax dollars).
    Plus hiring of upper management, instead of keeping workers that maintain the parks and facilities, does that make sense? NO.
    Why not offer people with more then 30 years, a helping hand to retire, so other can keep there jobs. What a concept, keep the workers.