King County Parks is preparing for their 2025 levy vote. Taking their survey made me change my mind about how I prioritized things — defining success for something as big as a park system was an interesting thought experiment. I like that they didn’t provide any examples, but simply listened.
Prioritization of themes
Respondents are asked to select their top three priorities for Parks from these options:
- Safety and belonging
- Equity, representation, inclusion, and access
- Maintenance, repairs, and staffing
- New parks, trails, recreation opportunities, and infrastructure
- Information, education, outreach and engagement
Five feels like a reasonable number of options to choose between. There’s also a space for folks to answer if they “don’t relate to any of these themes.”
Defining success
I like that they ask users to define success (in up to 450 characters) because I actually went back and changed the prioritization of the three themes I chose after I started putting down what each meant. I settled on safety first, equity second, and maintenance third. New parks are exciting and all, but I’ve been seeing so much talk about the value of maintenance — and know how constantly underfunded it is — that I had to “put my money where my mouth is.” I’m sure there’s plenty of other good stuff I didn’t think of under each of these, but that’s where crowd-sourcing comes in 😊
“Safety and Belonging” in parks
I answered that success would look like:
- People feel safe getting to parks and trails on foot or by bike.
- People feel safe to use the park by themselves.
- Parks are welcoming and provide ample, comfortable seating and all-season bathrooms.
- Safe needle programs reduce use of drugs in urban parks and support is provided for unhoused folks — shooing people away doesn’t solve the problem of homelessness.
I tried to think beyond just the parks themselves, but that getting there is part of using them.
I’ve noticed that a lot of people in the Seattle area seem scared of homeless people camping in parks and there’s a lot of fearmongering around needles — if we could re-route those fears into productive responses instead of just doing clearings, that would be swell. (I don’t know how much of an issue it is in King County Parks specifically but the housing shortage is severe, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it was common.)
“Equity, Representation, Inclusion, and Access” in parks
I answered that success would look like:
- Information is available in multiple languages.
- Outreach and access supports communities that would otherwise have a hard time accessing, or not feel welcome in, County parks and trails.
- Most parks have ADA accessible activities.
- Where appropriate, Parks involve Tribes in co-management of lands and resources.
Eyyyy, fit in some #LandBack ethos. I don’t expect anything of it, but I’ll say it wherever I have the chance 🤷♀️
“Maintenance, Repairs, and Staffing” in parks
I answered that success would look like:
- Catch up on backlogs and fix what needs to be fixed.
- Maintain paved trails for bike access.
- Hold the line against invasive plant species.
- Keep bathrooms clean and open year-round.
- Staffing is appropriate to maintenance needs.
Squeezed in some ecosystem recovery 💪
Other priorities
They provided a space for other priorities that weren’t covered by their themes. I answered “habitat restoration and wildlife connectivity.”
Park locations
I didn’t look at the levy webpage before answering the survey, but that probably would have been helpful to refresh my memory on where the parks all are and what programs they offer 😅 I might have been tempted to bump “new facilities” up because there are literally none in Seattle proper and the north end is pretty sparse too. The Cross Kirkland Corridor / Eastrail is a less than ten minute walk from my house 🙌 But other than that, the two nearest King County parks are both a 20 minute drive away.
It probably makes sense for them to prioritize purchases in unincorporated King County and leave local parks to the cities to manage, but I wonder if there’s an opportunity for King County to help cities acquire or link more land than they might be able to afford otherwise, and to enable land purchases when choice parcels come up for sale so they don’t get missed out on. Also, I wonder if it would make sense for King County to spearhead more expensive facilities like aquatic centers.