Monday, April 14, 2008

City of Lynnwood must retain Athletic Complex

Dear Mayor Gough,

In reading the latest traffic in the local newspapers, one would draw the conclusion that the Edmonds School District seeks to compel your city to absorb an area that you may not be inclined to incorporate. I thought the City had their own planners. What happened?

Planners for the City of Lynnwood should be looking at the potential loss of the Lynnwood Athletic Complex and making plans to retain the use of so great a resource. Think of all of the traffic pouring onto 184th. It is already difficult to navigate through the area during commercially-endorsed seasons of gift-giving. How much worse will it be with two massive retail developments dumping customers onto the same road?

The City Council is probably torn and mildly conflicted. Part of the Council seeks to protect recreational space and the other seeks to increase sales tax revenue from the new development across from the Alderwood Mall. Why not have your cake and eat it, too? As a City of great wisdom, with it's formative years guided by the likes of Mayors "Herk" Hrdlicka and Tina Roberts-Martinez, why not sharpen your pencils and craft a solution for everyone?

I think it would be a great idea to achieve a compromise. The Edmonds School District clearly believes they have no need for the property across from the Alderwood Mall. They seek to leverage the dirt to subsidize poorly-planned projects elsewhere in the District. If another public agency, like the City of Lynnwood, had a legitimate need for the Athletic Complex, why not take the federally-funded portion of the site through eminent domain? The District can ground lease the remaining portion to Cypress and still generate a bit of money for projects across the district.

The added benefit of such an approach would be the diversion of traffic to the north and the possibility of tying the two sites together with a pedestrian causeway. The Council would then be able to satisfy everyone at their table. Citizens seeking playfields would have what they want. City departments seeking more sales tax revenue would have what they want. The Federal government would even get what they originally spent a fortune to create in the first place.

Then you can choose to incorporate the area around the New Lynnwood High School on your own terms. Don't be bullied by the simple minds at the school district. The City of Lynnwood is far brighter than the rotten scoundrels and bobbleheads running the District at the moment.

I would personally contribute the first $5,000 to get the condemnation process started. No doubt, many others would quickly follow. You only get one chance to do this right. The right thing to do is to satisfy all impacted city residents and retain a regional asset.


Mark Zandberg
Resident of Edmonds


Anonymous said...

The crop of rotten scoundrels needs to get thinner, faster. Getting rid of one rotten scoundrel by august 31st, is not enough movement. He was never part of the crop mentioned anyway. He just wanted to be. It is nice however referring to him in the past tense.

Anonymous said...

Hey, let's think of more fun ways to tie together the Alderwood Mall and the new mall at the Lynnwood High site other than a "pedestrian causeway." How about a Sky-high gondola ride, Segways for everyone, put teens in a canon and shoot them across to the other side (they'd probably even pay money for that Disney ride!)a Thomas the Train ride for the little kiddies, etc.

Anonymous said...

I'll contribute $500.00 to the condemnation process --maybe the IRS would consider it a "charitable contribution".

Anonymous said...

The Moving of the Athletic Fields is bad public policy. The best way to expose it is through good research and documentation. The Save Our fields Committee has done just that. Attached is a "Key Point Summary" of our Rebuttal to the Edmonds request to move the fields. If you want the entire 19 page WORD document - just e-mail Mark Laurence (Mark

Rebuttal Evidence Points:
• The District’s relocation initiative has been a closed process without collaboration.
• The District is not legislatively empowered to be a sole Community Recreation Provider.
• The District has failed to clearly identify the Lynnwood Athletic Complex as a separate and independent Project.
• The District has expended funds inappropriately from the February 2006 Capital Bond Levy for a new Lynnwood high school by using monies for a community athletic complex.
• The District has selected a low density and isolated residential area to locate a large community athletic complex.
• The District has failed to provide an environmental impact statement related to the relocation of the Lynnwood Athletic Complex as required by “Manual 7 Policy”.
• The District has not submitted any agreements with the local parks community, (City of Lynnwood, Mill Creek, or Snohomish County) for operations and cost sharing of the new athletic fields.
• The District has failed to notify the surrounding residents of the impacts relating to the current heavy use of the athletic complex (estimated to be greater than 2000 non-school games per year).
• The District has failed to show how the current location, operation and use of the Lynnwood Athletic Complex would have equal or better provision in the new location.
• The District has failed to look at viable alternatives for the Regional Athletic Complex such as to continue to allow the use of the existing complex by the City of Lynnwood.
• The District has failed to provide adequate documentation in their application for conversion that meets the minimum requirements of the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO). (Policies required for conversion)
• The new site will no longer allow the connection to the Interurban Trail System that extends from South Everett to the Snohomish-King County line.
• There is no demonstrated reconciliation of the contractual rights of the City of Lynnwood (nor Snohomish County) under the 1980, 1994, and the 1996 agreements. (exhibits 23, 71, 72, 73, and 74) The City contributed the $344,000 of matching funds in 1980, and an additional $150,000 in 1996. Snohomish County Contributed $211,000 in 1996. These agreements are in effect until 2019. They require the City of Lynnwood and Snohomish County’s approvals to vacate their rights and responsibilities.
• Relocation of Athletic complex is in conflict with Lynnwood’s “Healthy Community Initiative” as well as the “Vision, Mission and Core Values” for Parks. (exhibit 29).
• The ‘Conversion” is in conflict with the intent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. Funds were intended to encourage the healthy activities of the citizens. The citizens of Lynnwood would “lose” in the conversion process. (See exhibit 23).
• City of Lynnwood Council is concerned over the proposal, see Seattle Times article by Lynn Thompson. (exhibit 36)
• The Snohomish County Planning staff was confused over the scope of the Project. They understood that the athletic fields were only for “interscholastic “uses. (exhibit 11).
• Relocation of the Lynnwood Athletic Complex was not discussed at the Conditional Use Plan (CUP) hearing on June 27, 2006. (exhibit 16).

Anonymous said...

What constitutes a "Hostile work environment"? Somehow I just can't picture a Hostile work environment in HR. Little do most of us know, we are working in a hostile work environment. It is not hostile as long as she is out. Keep getting those Doctors notes signed for us. The environment is not hostile as long as you are out. Can I ask why this has not been announced? Do we all just keep working and picking up after her? Why do I deserve this treatment? This is the same person with a spouse that is being dropped like a sad sack of garbage on August 31st! Bet there will be more than one party on that day.

Anonymous said...

According to my sources (EEA-types Wilson and Woods), a "hostile" work environment doesn't exist unless it includes sexual harassment. That was one of the reasons they said they couldn't/wouldn't interfere with the bullying at MMS. Apparently, being demeaned, harassed and bullied in front of your peers isn't "hostile" unless you have underwear put over your head.

Sorry if that image offends, but it's closer to reality than most of you realize.

Anonymous said...

Losing that piece of dirt is definately opening up a can of worms, not only for the City of Lynnwood, or Edmonds School District #15, or a loss to the citizens of the community, but would re-open a Title IX lawsuit via Edmonds Community College. Anon has a great list, but EdCC did the brillant move of paving over the girl's softball field and turning it into a parking lot. Then, they put in a huge chunk of change for "improvements" and continue to pay for "upkeep and maintenance."

The Men's baseball is still on campus at EdCC, but the Girl's Softball is off-campus. To be equal, they use that field to play ball.

How is that equal, espcially if that field is paved over too?