Foss Waterway Park Workshop on Jan 29th

16 comments

• S Steve Wells January 25, 2008

  Here’s the letter I wrote to Dan Voepel in response to his column published today (Friday).

  Dear Mr. Voepel,

  It’s telling that you’d use the fairy tale allusion for your column, because the notion of harmoniously mixing the museum vision with the original vision is, so far, only that… a pleasant hope and wishful thinking. Over the last year, the boaters have continuously asked museum proponents to move beyond the vague vision they have advanced and show in real terms how this harmony will work. The museum replies only with more vague statements about “it’s possible for us to cohabit the site.” I’m willing to believe that when I see how it will happen. There are both structural and functional challenges inherent in the notion that these disparate uses can cohabit. We have pointed these out and have asked the museum folks and/or the FWDA to address them. So far we have nothing in response except another public process that I fear will replicate the Metro Parks process done only last year. This go-it-alone campaign by the museum does nothing to convince me they are willing or able to share governance of the park. Rather than demonstrating collaboration, they advocate their vision and self-interest. Talk about a giant pain in the rear!

  I think it is disingenuous to assert we should approach this effort as if it is a blank slate. It is not. Commitments have been made. There is a covenant that has been established. The language in the applications for Conservation Futures and IAC grants constitutes a contract. The City has said, “If you give us this funding, we will perform in the following way.” To fudge on that commitment invites litigation. Why go there?

  This site is not a blank slate. It is a Superfund remediation site. That reality limits options. It wastes time to pretend otherwise. It seems obvious that any proposed use for the site that leaves the soil undisturbed will be less costly than any proposal that requires soil disturbance.

  Finally, let’s not buy into the simple claim that the only way to have nature, kids and watercraft on the Foss is to add a museum to the park. Every participant in Tacoma’s human-powered boating community is eager to provide programs to get kids on the water. That means getting exercise in boats, which will do a whole lot more for obesity in this town than standing on the shore observing the wildlife that museum proponents feel will be so captivating.

  Please do not think of this letter as opposition to the museum. Rather, please consider it a plea to get beyond the vague assertions of compatibility among disparate activities and start showing structural and functional solutions for a potentially crowded site. Until that happens, we will simply advocate our vision for the park and let them advocate theirs. However, we know that someone, somewhere is going to have to get beyond wishful thinking.

  Sincerely,

  Steve Wells

• T Tacoma Dad January 27, 2008

  Mr. Wells’ comments seem disingenuous; what’s more, he knows it.

  The Foss Waterway Development Authority alone holds the power to create the plan to allow the Children’s Museum of Tacoma and boaters to coexist on the site. The Museum cannot create the plan.

  Tacoma is evolved enough to have boating, the Children’s Museum and green space; but bickering won’t get us there, compromise will.

• R rich January 28, 2008

  Hey Stevo, isn’t the trade for the Childrens museum site another similar space along the Foss just south of the 11st street bridge? Why wouldn’t this be a win/win……Let me see, some additional education space for our youth (Tacoma REALLY needs this, doesn’t our system pretty much stink)….AND….we also get a great park on the Foss…frankly in a much better location ……anyways…just my two cents……

• E Erik B. January 28, 2008

  The Foss Waterway Development Authority alone holds the power to create the plan to allow the Children’s Museum of Tacoma and boaters to coexist on the site. The Museum cannot create the plan.

  The passions seem pretty high on this issue.

  My take on it is they are going to need to be alot of compact uses on the Foss if it is ever going to be anything else than a dead zone. There is not going to be any housing in that area.

• T Tacoma Mom January 29, 2008

  Hey Tacoma Dad, I totally disagree with your characterization of Mr. Wells. What is specifically disingenuous with his comments?

  I can’t see how organized thought should be construed as bickering.

  In regards to the Mr. Voepel’s comments, he wants us to believe that there are no strings attached to the site.

  To quote:
  “But for next week’s workshop purposes, you should think of the site as a blank slate. Not everyone thinks of it like that, however.
  The Development Authority bought the property with Pierce County conservation futures, money set aside for the preservation of open space. In its application for that money, the Development Authority mentioned the possibility of a storage and launch site for human-powered watercraft.
  Since then, however, the City of Tacoma has asked the Development Authority to consider carving off 20 percent of the site for the Children’s Museum.”

  Some people call it strings, others call it a legal restriction. Either way, a deal was made, so why is the City of Tacoma attempting to weasel a different purpose than what the money was for? A grant is a contract, I don’t understand why any non profit would be asking another organization to dishonor grant. Or perhaps explain how a 25,000 square foot new building could be construed as open space. No wonder why it is a “pain in the rear.” (to quote the Executive Director of the Children’s Museum.)

  The approximately 3-acre parcel at the head of the Thea Foss Waterway was purchased with money from Pierce County’s Conservation Futures Program. Property owners pay a tax of 5 cents per $1,000 of assessed value to the fund the program, which is aimed at buying land to shield it from development.

  Tell me, Tacoma Dad, how would you feel if your kid decides that the money you contributed to his college fund goes instead to Porsche and the school of life. Don’t go hate on Mr. Wells; school of life may be very good, but I don’t think that is what you had intended. Same is true with this plot of land.

  I would love to believe in that alternative universe of fairy tales. It would be wonderful but Tacoma is not known for its fairy tale endings. Remember Never Never Land? The shoe slide, like reality, is harsh. Maybe that is the pain that is in the rear.

  Well, instead of lack of funding and vandals, this project will have to deal with superfund EPA regulations, lawyers, and parents with some sense to avoid contaminated sites with their kids.

  Please enlighten me because I don’t understand the reasoning why the Children’s Museum wants to move to this specific site on the Thea Foss.

  Some reasons offered:
  From the TNT article by JASON HAGEY; in the The News Tribune published September 18th, 2007
  1) “Eventually, Andrews envisions an outdoor children’s play area, in addition to a two-story museum building. ‘There really is no gathering spot for families in our county’s urban core,’ she said.”

  What? There are tons of gathering spots, and lots of places to teach kids about wildlife and nature. Ever hear of Snake Lake Nature Center, the Zoo, the beach all along Ruston Way, the Point Defiance Park, the Conservancy at Wright Park, and Thea Foss Park? I wouldn’t call this particular area of Tacoma the “urban core”, I would call it heavy to light industrial.

  2)Tacoma City Councilman Bill Evans is a strong supporter of the museum’s proposal. His experience visiting Tacoma classrooms over the years has shown that few children realize they live in a seaport city. He’s excited about the potential for learning that could come from a museum along the water.
  “Oh wow, this is just something that has to happen,” Evans said. “This is as important as a glass museum.”

  Mr. Evans forgets that Tacoma and its supporters are working on a $12 million capital campaign for the Working Waterfront Museum which is already on the Thea Foss.

  Or that for free kids could take a walk to Ruston Way and see the cargo ships go by. Or take a tour of the Port of Tacoma. Or look at the huge military ships by the Chinese Reconciliation Project.
  Somehow this reasoning doesn’t seem make sense why the Children’s Museum needs to move by a sewer outlet.

  How do you ignore heavy metal contamination and a legal development restrictions?

  Please Tacoma Dad, enlighten me!!

• R rich January 29, 2008

  Anyone ever think about how many people would actually venture down to a place that not too many people live/work…..it’s a dead zone, difficult to get to…..shall I continue…….oh, and the Stadium district is anywhere from 5-50 years away from being developed (depending on who you talk to….)….once again, why wouldn’t you want to put something there(even though it is different than the original idea) that would attrack many different people….plus, there would still be a portion of green space…..and….a whole other park along the FOSS……now that’s what I’m talking about…..lets open our minds here……..have a little vision…..and the proposed location for the other park is a great spot……after the huge tall mixed use development gets built north of the bridge…we’re going to need some green space there………it’s seem’s too many people in this town think too black and white……I think we need some more grey…………does anyone second that motion?….

• R rick January 29, 2008

  I agree that the voepel article was a fairy tale in suggesting that the site is an open book, and thank you Mr. wells for your wonderfully reasoned and expressed response (above)
  There have been many surveys and meetings already done for this site and to pretend that the results of those can be disregarded is a terrible precedent for future citizen involvement.
  The parks dept sponsored a survey in February 07 the results of which the FWDA has on file. Open space and water access was the clear mandate.
  I hope they bring that tonight-otherwise-what was the reason for doing it?
  This disregard for citizen involvement and feedback begins with the conservation futures grant being “transferred”-Please take a look at the site being proposed for the transfer…..
  But in the end it is not here at 133 (thank you Derek) that the decisions will be made, but rather, we hope, tonight….at the meeting that started this thread.
  Hope to see you there..

  Please attend the meeting tonight at freighthouse sq at 5:30 and bring these issues (again) to the body that will be making the decisions as to the final use of the site.
  “The Foss Waterway Development Authority will be hosting two community workshops for the development of a park concept plan on the eastside of the Foss at the head of the Waterway. The first one is next Tuesday.

  Are you interested in joining the discussion?

  Where and When

  Tuesday January 29, 2008
  5:30 pm to 7:00 pm
  Freighthouse Square, Phoenix Room
  430 East 25th St

• A Another Tacoma Dad January 29, 2008

  Tacoma Dad,
  I don’t see anything disingenuous about Steve’s letter. His letter certainly reflects my experience working with city officials, FWDA, and the Children’s Museum on this issue. Despite the help provided to FWDA and city by boaters and environmental groups to procure the Conservation Futures money to purchase the Waterway Park site those groups have never made good faith efforts to find out what the needs of the boating community actually are. The site is constrained by the contract the City and FWDA signed to receive the Conservation Futures funds, which obligates them to use the area for a park for human powered boat launch and storage facilities. It is also constrained by its past Superfund site status.

  Collaboration? —- At some point after the money was procured it is obvious that various permutations of the Childrens Museum, the city, the county, FWDA began talking with each other about whether the Children’s Museum could consider the site for their relocation. Were members of the boating community invited to any of these meetings to describe their vision and needs? No. Over a year ago, the boating community even invited and met with representatives from the Children’s Museum, the City and FWDA to try and develop plans collaboratively. There were no further followups from the non boating participants.

  As in so many of these issues where groups are trying to find common ground, communication among stakeholders during the process is key to the success of the process. There has been little communication with all the stakeholders during this process. It appears that a lot of non-public meetings occurred that were going to determine the fate of the site. When a group of stakeholders is marginalized and then brought back into the process they can’t help but be suspicious (even more so when a public process was already undertaken and resulted in clear answer – 70-75% of respondents last spring favored the park/boathouse plan). I think there is a lot of trust rebuilding that is going to have to happen tonight and beyond. The boaters have a vision for the site and I think are willing to work with other stakeholders, but have to be convinced that there is a commitment to true collaboration.

  P.S. And finally, let’s talk a little about disingenuous, beyond the “collaboration” that hasn’t include the boaters —- look at the minutes from Metro Parks meetings last March.
  http://www.metroparkstacoma.org/files/library/646c10ddcba50f34.pdf

  In the first of these meetings the Children’s Museum is advised to describe the Museum as something other than a Museum, such as a Children’s Discovery Center, because it doesn’t fit the Conservation Futures guidelines. At the next meeting that is exactly what they do. In the BOE Architect drawings for the site that includes an urban attraction, the museum is described as a Discovery Center. A duck is still a duck no matter what we call it.

  Attend the meetings. Share your vision.

• C Claudia Riedener January 30, 2008

  The community meeting tonight was deceiving, if not meaningless. It is NOT up for debate or public comment that there should be a children’s museum (children’ discovery center or family education institute or whatever name you want to call it).
  The property was purchased with conservation futures fund money and has a COVENANT as stated below. City, county and TFWA officials are wasting our time and are misusing public trust and public conservation futures fund tax money by supporting a museum on that site. I am plain disgusted to still have to deal with this kind of dishonesty and backroom dealing. Tacoma does deserve better.

  Property Covenant:
  As a condition of purchase at the time the property sale is recorded, a covenant is also
  recorded. The covenant, in the County’s favor, will run with the land in perpetuity and
  restricts the use of the land to open space uses that are identified in the nomination materials
  and can include active recreation.

• R rich January 30, 2008

  oops, I just realized I said the Stadium district….I meant the Dome district……..Stadium is moving right along….

• L Lynn January 30, 2008

  I also attended the meeting and felt tricked. When I called FWDA to make sure there was not already a mandate to fit the museum into the open space of Waterway Park, I was assured that all possibilities would be presented as options, yet in his introductory remarks Don Meyer said ‘we’re here tonight to see HOW we can work the Children’s Museum into the plan’. It was only when someone in the audience reminded him that many present wanted to consider only an open space accomodating boaters, that a list was given of the original goal of Conservation Futures.
  I hope you will urge Don Meyer and the Foss Waterway Development Authority to host a public hearing as soon as possible. Citizens wanting to support the original Conservation Futures plan outnumbered museum advocates at that meeting, and they deserve to be heard in a public forum.

• W Weyland Duir January 31, 2008

  Museum supporters clearly demonstrated their contempt and disregard for long held community values and the public process during Tuesday evening’s public workshop. Children’s Museum Board and Staff shuffled seats, triplle counted votes and filtered the comments and ideas of other participants through their own myopic, selfish lens. The Public Workshop process was not just co-opted, it was corrupted.

  Tacoma and the Children’s Museum (or whatever they want to call themselves in order to steal Waterway Park from the community) refuse to acknowledged that 74% of folks queried as part of Metro Parks 2007 survey did not want any development beyond the boating facilities at that location. 74% of the people said no. How can you not understand that?

  WD

• T Tanya Andrews February 1, 2008

  The Museum has always considered changing it’s name, as did Olympia (Hands On), Bellevue (KidsQuest) and Snohomish County (Imagine). The word “Museum” evokes images of paintings on walls, or artifacts behind glass. Children’s museums are active spaces filled with opportunities for children and their adults to learn about the world through play. It was a member of the Pierce County Conservation Futures community who suggested that the word Museum doesn’t represent our mission or what we do. During the Metro Parks planning process last March the Museum was named “Children’s Exloration Center,” which was without Museum input. The Museum’s Board still has not decided if a name change is necessary. We’d welcome any clever ideas.

• M Mofo from the Hood February 1, 2008

  Let’s think about this now; a new name for the children’s museum…

  FOSS WATERWAY COALITION?

• A AuntCC February 1, 2008

  Good Lord! Listen to yourselves! It seems hard to imagine people who are passionate about the development of young children also being ruthless back room wheeler-dealers . Have we all had a little too much conspiracy theory in our morning coffee? Even in Tacoma? The FWDA has provided a forum to discuss and explore what that section fo the Foss could look like. At the end of the process – in which choices are made, ideas embraced and discarded – everyone gets to say “look what we created!” Yet a lot of the language above is full of fear and anger. What do we create out of that? Paranoia? Divisiveness? Enemies? Does that create or does it destroy? Pardon me if I choose to use my time, energy, and advocacy in a different manner where the Foss is concerned.

• W Weyland Duir February 5, 2008

  Frankly, regardless of what the Museum calls itself, they can operate anywhere. What the Museum is proposing is to acquire a parcel of land paid for by tax payer dollars without paying a dime for it themselves. The Museums has failed to demonstrate that they can occupy that space without adverse impacts to the rowing community and outdoor public events — the community services the Park was acquired to support.

  No conspiracy theory there. I was there, I witnessed it and it was not an equitable process.

  Weyland Duir