Tonight: Destination Point Defiance
Point Defiance has some interesting changes planned for its future, and Metro Parks Tacoma is inviting you to a conversation on Destination Point Defiance, the short and long-term planning for the park.
According to the Master Concept Plan, Destination Point Defiance is a multi‐year program to enhance the experience that is Point Defiance through three Guiding Principles:
- Preservation of character
- Activities year round
- Pedestrian focus by creating safe and easy access throughout the park
To be considered an enhancement under the plan, a change must meet one or more of the Guiding Principles, and not conflict with any of them. A major part of the long-term plan will be the connection of Point Defiance with Ruston Way, forming an unimpeded (eventually) pedestrian corridor along the waterfront. Learn more about plans for the “missing link” between the park and the waterfront, and other improvements planned for Point Defiance at this month’s Destination Point Defiance.
Destination Point Defiance
When: Thursday, September 20, 5:30 p.m.
Where: Metro Parks Headquarters, 4702 South 19th Street
Details: www.MetroParksTacoma.com
Previously from Exit133
Filed under: Get Involved, Parks, Point Defiance
21 comments
F fred davie September 21, 2012
Just a few years ago the voters passed a bond issue to pay for Rocky Shores. This was described as an unparalleled improvement for zoo and one which the voters should gladly pony up for.
Now 30 years later the zoo says it all has to be torn out because it was “poorly planned.”
Well, you can’t fool this voter again. I say no to any more bond improvement funding. The cavalier approach to the taxpayers generosity is appalling.
J Jesse September 21, 2012
A generation ago the voters passed a bond issue to pay for Rocky Shores. This was described as an unparalleled improvement for zoo and one which the voters should gladly pony up for.
Now, a generation later, the zoo says it all has to be torn out because it should be replaced. How dare this 30 year old exhibit, which is submerged in uber-corrosive salt water, deteriorate!
Well, you can’t fool this commenter again. Fredo (Fred Davie) says no to any more bond improvement funding no matter the reason. His cavalier approach to paying for civic improvements is appaulling.
F fred davie September 21, 2012
If zoo exhibits can only stand up for 30 years because of “uber-corrosive” salt water then we need to design a zoo that doesn’t feature these uber-expensive and uber-deteriorating exhibits which have the effect of causing uber-damage to the finances of the uber-taxed citizenry.
Put in a squirrel exhibit for christs sake.
J Jesse September 21, 2012
We could have a room filled with bird feeders and squirrels hanging upside down stealing the feed out of them. How cool would that be? But wait! The feeders in my yard are needing replacement after only three years because of the squirrels ripping the bird feeding holes open. That exhibit would need to be replaced ten times as much as the salt water exhibit! I guess that idea is out…
J John September 21, 2012
Imagine how much money we could save if we didn’t bother with pesky, honest-to-goodness live animals. We would save a fortune if we didn’t have to provide food, water, and realistic exhibits that degraded after thirty years of being exposed to the elements. We could even hire a low-cost service to come in and dust and mow once a month or so. My solution is taxidermy!! I suggest we start by making an offer on the moose on the roof of the shop on River Road, and as the animals die off, we just have ‘em stuffed.
J Jesse September 21, 2012
We should throw a super-quality product, say a Ferrari, into a salt water pool and see if it lasts 30 years. According to Fred, it should be just fine.
F fred davie September 22, 2012
Jesse, I want to make sure I understand your points.
You claim that a marine exhibit which probably costs many millions of dollars and lasts 30 years is a better value than some squirrel feeders which only last three years.
Well, I’ll tell you what. I’ll DONATE the squirrel feeders to the Metro Parks and I’ll replace them every three years for the next 30 years so the taxpayers aren’t on the hook for even one dime. How about YOU DONATE the marine exhibit?
Your second point about throwing a ferrari in a salt water pool… I don’t even understand. Are you saying that a ferrari would be expected to have approximately the same resistance to marine related decay that a professionally built marine exhibit would be expected to have? That sounds ridiculous.
Let’s be honest here. A marine exhibit is a WANT it’s not a NEED. Tacoma can be still be a nice city and a place that people can care about even without the exhibit.
J Jesse September 22, 2012
“You claim that a marine exhibit which probably costs many millions of dollars and lasts 30 years is a better value than some squirrel feeders which only last three years.” — fredo
My point is that anything an animal lives in is going to be lived in really hard and need to be replaced more so than anything a human lives in.
About the Ferrari: There’s hardly anything on earth made that can withstand 30 years of constant salt water exposure… let alone an exhibit with animals living in it.
F fred davie September 22, 2012
“There’s hardly anything on earth made that can withstand 30 years of constant salt water exposure” jesse
The North Pacific Aquarium marine exhibit at the Pt. Defiance Zoo was built in 1963. I guess that invalidates your position.
J jesse September 22, 2012
The zoo has been trying to replace that exhibit too.
F fred davie September 23, 2012
The following question needs to be answered:
Is it possible for Metro Parks to scale back their aggressive zoo improvements in such a way that we still have a nice zoo but not increase the tax burden for local property owners? In other words, can we have a city worth caring about without installing San Diego Zoo caliber improvements?
This is a yes or no question.
J John September 24, 2012
I guess the question that needs to be asked is, what is is a reasonable approach? Is it an “aggressive” approach to zoo building or an approach that says “How cheaply can we do this, and still keep the animals alive”. Is there anything wrong with a San Diego Zoo caliber goal? Everyone is well aware of Fredo’s views on taxation and spending, but is this what we really want? We can go back to the zoo we had when I was a kid and had the bears living in cement and steel bar cages, or we can build a zoo that gives the animals realistic environments and lets us share with other zoo’s breeding programs. We can put all the animals in ‘Ivan the Gorilla’ like enclosures, and be happy that we’ve saved a few dollars, or we can spend a couple of extra dollars a year and build habitats that both the animals and the humans can enjoy.
F fred davie September 25, 2012
John, well first of all thanks for your comment.
I believe you have misdescribed my position. I never said that we should return to the days of zoo exhibits in cement enclosures. I said we should consider if replacing Rocky Shores was really a requirement for a small city like Tacoma. Is this a NEED or a WANT? It has to be one or the other.
If we woke up tomorrow and there was no Rocky Shores exhibit and it was just a grassy play area would your life or the lives of anyone else in Tacoma be any worse? Please be honest.
Furthermore the tax increase suggested is a lot more than a “couple of extra dollars a year” as you claim.
C Christine September 25, 2012
As a tax paying Tacoma voter who visits the zoo infrequently, I say that it is worth not only the upkeep, but the changing and remodeling of exhibits as needed. We do need this zoo. It is as much part of this city as Point Defiance itself and now that we have been able to participate in national (maybe international?) breeding programs for endagered species, it is more important than ever in my opinion.
I too remember the days of steel and concrete cages and I love what this zoo is now. I will vote yes on any bond issue that comes up for the zoo. Too many things in our world have disintigrated from neglect and “make do” temporary fixes, don’t let it happen to the zoo.
F fred davie September 26, 2012
“Too many things in our world have disintigrated from neglect and “make do” temporary fixes, don’t let it happen to the zoo.” christine
But it’s OK with you Christine if the act of raising property taxes to pay for zoo improvements means that some property owners will now begin allowing their property to disintegrate from neglect and make do temporary fixes in order to keep up their tax payments. More expenses for property owners means less money available for them to maintain their own homes. Not everybody has unlimited extra disposable income like you do.
C Christine September 26, 2012
Oh jeez Mr. Drama…I can only imagine how you react to a paper cut.
This is my opinion as a property-holding taxpayer, I know that you don’t agree with it, but it is valid just the same.
F fred davie September 27, 2012
Paper cut, that’s pretty funny Christine.
Yes, you are entitled to your elitist POV which fails to take into account the destructive effect that property tax increases have on the poorest people in Tacoma.
While you are standing at the new state-of-art marine exhibit and admiring the wonderful use of YOUR tax money I hope you will take a minute to consider the poor people who had to move out of Tacoma due to the lack of affordable housing to HELP make it all possible.
Sorry to be so dramatic…maybe it’s easier for you to dismiss the plight of poor people than it is for me.
J John September 27, 2012
Holy Crap Fred! So now poor people are going to move out of Tacoma because the elitists are gonna fix the zoo? When did you become such a proponent for the poor? Please be honest and simply admit that you don’t want to pay more taxes, and that your position on this matter has nothing whatsoever to do with how others are doing. We’ve all read your prior posts on not only taxes, but also on ‘entitlements’ to the undeserving. Please spare us your newfound anguish for the downtrodden. It seems more than just a tad disingenuous.
C Christine September 27, 2012
Oooh, I’m an elite!!! Yeah for me, apparently I’m also super-rich with unlimited disposable income. I’m also cool, fabulous and super hot.
J Jesse September 27, 2012
^^ What John said @ 18 ^^
F fred davie September 28, 2012
John, I don’t remember making any comment about entitlements but if you can find a comment which you think is inconsistant with the position I’ve expressed then please copy and paste it into the thread.
I’ll let my comment stand as stated. Raising taxes in order to have a snappy new marine exhibit will make life LESS AFFORDABLE in Tacoma and this will tend to impact poor people the most. Undoubtedly, some people at the bottom will be forced out….all so you could watch a harbor seal eat a sardine. In a recession an expensive marine exhibit is a WANT and not a NEED.
I don’t know why you limousine liberals have such a hard time with basic economics. Maybe you’ve spent too much time prancing about on your unicorns spreading moonbeams and pixiedust.