There’s a renovation project in the works for B.F. Day Playground, and Seattle Parks is asking the public to weigh in on design elements.
The Parks department has created an online survey that will be open until Jan. 1 to gather public comments on what the new play area at B.F. Day Playground (4020 Fremont Ave N) should look like.
The project will replace play equipment and improve the adjacent picnic area, including replacing the drinking fountain and improving the accessibility of the playground in compliance with ADA safety standards.
“We are interested in finding out more about how the play area is being used, and things you value or would like to see at B.F. Day Playground’s play area,” the survey info reads. “Although we can’t include all input in our park design, our goal is to work with the public to create a community designed park project.”
For more info about the coming changes, visit the project website.
Input on a playground they ask for eh? Just build the damn thing. Unless they install a flame throwing cannon and a water fall,, how difficult can this be? Paralysis by over-analysis. Yet some person in a created position must keep their jobs by doing this. The last paragraph cracks me up. “Working with the public”. Should read “fleecing the public”. As in when most voted low car tabs? Puget Sound clean air is about to try to impose a $.57/gallon tax on gas. Is that “working with the public” too?
You just whine and complain either way, so why do you bother even reading this stuff?
As in when most voted low car tabs?
You mean the (yet another) unconstitutional, state destroying initiative that was churned out by an anti-American criminal who profits off of our initiative system and could care less what happens to our state or his initiatives because he’s busy laughing all the way to the bank?
I think the supreme court’s job is to determine if it’s constitutional. I don’t think there would have been the strong effort to defeat the measure if they knew it would be a slam dunk in the courts.
Wow, can’t believe I’m with elenchos on this one. It pains me to agree with he and/or her, but yeah, it was on the ballot, people voted on it, and people voted to overturn the car tab initiative. It’s King County that is trying to tell the voters they don’t know what they’re doing…that’s what’s unconstitutional.
And before you say ‘proof please’, since you made the first statement, please provide specific articles that prove the unconstitutionality of I-976.
I know you’re just grasping at straws, so much that you’re agreeing with a noted blog troll, but here’s a quotation from the Seattle Times:
And since you asked politely, here’s the one section of the constitution the initiative violates:
Washington State Constitution, Article II, Section 19, BILL TO CONTAIN ONE SUB-JECT:
I mean, the “one subject rule” is literally in the name of the section of the Constitution. So yeah, people knowingly voted for an unconstitutional initiative. Just because voters approved this dumpster fire, doesn’t make it any more constitutional or valid.
Maybe instead of voting for garbage initiatives that are detrimental to our state, why don’t voters push our legislature to properly fund transit in ways that doesn’t involve volatile MVETs and sales tax?
It is not certain it will be struck down, though it’s possible.
Want to bet? If it gets struck down, you either go away or change your troll personality (it’s been far too long since your last switch).
Want to bet if it’s certain?
Truth – that troll has a personality?
Question: Gov Inslee suspended all future transportation projects while I-976 plays out in court. Currently, I-976 is suspended from taking place.
Question: Where are all these still-being-collected-from-car-tabs transit fees going now, since our fine Gov. has suspended future transportation projects? The state is still collecting monies, the question is, who is spending them?
Maybe the public voted for ST3 initially and felt fine about it, until they received their ridiculous blue-book valuations and started thinking they’d been scammed? You’re right, maybe it’s time the legislature figured out other ways to fund transportation projects. And meanwhile, return blue book valuations to rational levels.
@dudeist: Yeah, they’ve gone back and forth from conservative troll to progressive troll. Untreated mental illness no doubt.
@Ballard By Boat:
They are rolling back projects because they want to be prepared in the extremely unlikely event that I-976 is upheld in courts or the more likely, but still unlikely event that the Legislature chooses to enact it, similar to what they did for I-695. If either option happen, the state would have to refund MVETs, retroactive to an undetermined date. If the state had spent that money, they would be in financial trouble, because there are likely no alternate sources identified in the current state budget. It’s assumed that once I-976 is declared unconstitutional, those projects would be back on track, Legislature involvement notwithstanding.
What I don’t understand is why you are so keen on defending unconstitutional, garbage initiatives. Seriously, go look at Tim Eyman’s Wikipedia page. After you scroll past all the investigations and indictments for paying himself hundreds of thousands of dollars from his initiative campaign funds, continuing past his petty theft charges, there’s a pretty good running tally of all of his passed initiatives that have been declared unconstitutional. The only two that passed and weren’t declared unconstitutional were reducing the King County Council from 13 to 9 and the one that dictates specific auditing directions to the State Auditor.
So what makes you confident this latest dumpster fire will pass, despite it being checking all the boxes that resulted in 9 of his last 9 anti-tax measures to be declared unconstitutional?
Oh and don’t forget, it was the GOP, with a majority in the State Senate at that time, that set the ST3 MVET rates to an outdated table. In fact, another GOP senator from Ferndale attempted to amend the bill to allow for WSDOT’s current MVET rates, but the rest of his party voted against it. The going theory is that they thought the outdated rates would cause people to vote against ST3 (they didn’t).
I don’t know that it will pass, but I hope that it will pass. I voted for ST3, but I also voted yes on I-976. Why, you might ask? Well, since you seem well informed, why don’t you explain to all of us what happened to our money that went to car tabs to pay for our monorail in the 90’s? Do we have a monorail? No? Did we get refunded? No? Did someone get rich buying up property at goverment-mandated rates for this ‘transit project’ that never happened?
People do get tired of things, eventually.
The monorail was a semi-private entity that had little to no oversight. We learned our lesson with that.
Sound Transit is a completely different animal and is structured completely differently, with oversight and lessons learned from the monorail. They’ve produced plenty of reports and data detailing funding sources and where that money is anticipated to be spent.
Voting against ST3 because of the monorail fiasco is just poor, uninformed voting. Although uninformed voting seems to be the driver behind all of Eyman’s unconstitutional initiatives (briefly) passing, as you’ve clearly demonstrated in your replies.
Actually, my voting was informed by my wallet, as, clearly, it was for many other voters. But, like a spoiled kid, the city is holding the initiative up in court because they really didn’t like the outcome of the vote. Call it what you want, but you’ve not won any victory for transit yet.
So is Seattle supposed to just roll over when the rest of the state approves an unconstitutional initiative that overrides voter approved self taxing measures that don’t affect any of the counties that approved I-976?
And if so, why?
Finally, should we pass a constitutional amendment to keep tax revenue in the counties that generate it?