Wallingford Park Alliance

Voices: Letters Sent

These are letters sent to Seattle Public Schools, Parks & Rec, the City Council, and other public officials. The authors of these letters graciously allow us to share them with you in the hopes that they inspire your own.

Short or long, write soon, and write often. You can send the same letter again to SPS, or SP&R, or anyone else. Make your voice heard.

Date: Sun, Dec 8, 2024 at 12:09 AM
Subject: Save Wallingford Park – For ALL Kids
To: <Andy.Sheffer@seattle.gov>, <David.Graves@seattle.gov>, <AP.Diaz@seattle.gov>

I am a parent of two young kids and a Wallingford resident. 

I firmly object to the turf field (both full and half size) and reject the prevailing idea that we are annexing a public park for “the benefit of the kids”. No. Let’s be precise. It is NOT for the benefit of “kids”, rather FOR the benefit of  “student athletes”. 

Oh wait. But not for the benefit of all Lincoln and Hamilton student athletes… for many will still need to go off campus for practice. Ahem. So if I understand it correctly, this takeover of a public space is for the express benefit of Lincoln Varsity Football and Soccer teams with fringe benefits to PE classes who already use the park. Got it. 

Given that, can we please consider the main talking point: Is this really for the kids? 

By turfing this field you are drastically limiting which kids can enjoy the park and how and when they can do so. Someone once told me that this park was created to provide a place for neighborhood kids to play. That makes a lot of sense; it is unsafe for kids to be in the streets and most of our yards are minuscule (if you are lucky enough to even have a backyard with the surge of townhomes and apartments). If this proposal goes through, you are robbing all of the kids in the neighborhood of this open play space. 

On a personal note, Wallingford park has been a foundational part of my kids’ childhood. (See attached video). As toddlers they would go everyday (sometimes twice) no matter the season. And though they are elementary age now, they still frequent the park on the weekends, after school, and in the summer. They play catch during tee ball season, or kick a ball around for fun. And they love to run down the slope and bolt across the wide open field as fast as they can.  If you decide to turf even a portion of this park, you are sending a strong message: if kids are not old enough, or “athletic” enough, they don’t deserve a place to play in their neighborhood. And that is a heartbreaking thought. When my kiddos first learned that their beloved park might be turfed over and turned into a football field, they cried.

Let’s be clear, this proposal is not “for the kids”. It is not inclusive of kids that differ in age or athletic abilities. Not to mention that it disenfranchised other members of the community that also deserve green open space. And I encourage us to really examine the statement that “this turf field is for the community”. It will seize 85% of the park* between the hours of 8am-7pm (times mentioned in the first community meeting) on weekdays for exclusively school use. I’m still unclear on the weekend availability if Seattle Parks rents it out to leagues. So when exactly is the “community” able to use it? 

On a side note, I’ve been watching the dueling narratives and discourse around the future of Wallingford Playfield for the last few months. I am saddened by how this issue has pitted neighbor against neighbor. I think we are losing sight of our community as whole, and the needs of all members that benefit from this park. 

But if the “pro turf” advocates must continue the battle cry that this change is “for the kids”, let’s be honest with ourselves. Most kids will lose too. The toddler who picks dandelions on a spring day. The father and son/daughter who play catch in the early evening. The kids who launch nerf rockets with a single stomp. The kids who make bubbles with wands. The babies that can’t walk yet, but crawl across a picnic blanket while their parents get some fresh air. The kids that love to wander in open spaces and look at the airplanes in the sky. Just to name a few losers if this decision goes through.

So please save Wallingford Park. Save it for the kids. 

Respectfully, 

M.N.

*And on the note of the ½ field proposal pitched in the last community meeting: it seemed like a half baked plan and no questions were entertained about what this actually entails. Literally, no one was able to get clarity or answers. For example, why, if a full size field is being built in Woodland, do you need an additional ½ field? That seems a very expensive way to satisfy none of the original requirements, particularly if this new full size field meets the needs. And if another location meets all the requirements, but you still are proposing to turf the Wallingford park, it seems like this whole process where “other sites were considered” was a brazen charade and the goal was always to annex Wallingford park for the schools. 


Date: 10/29/24
To: AP Diaz, Superintendent

Greetings AP,

I’m writing in support of saving Wallingford Playfield.  We love this park – frisbee, wiffle ball, friendly pooches.

But I also have two athletes at Lincoln High School – my boy just graduated and my daughter is a junior.  They play(ed) football/lacrosse and flag football/soccer respectively.

I’m here to say that it’s actually kinda cool to be in an urban school where your practices and games are offsite.  My son loved practicing and having his home football field at Memorial.  My daughter as well.  My kids were born in Brooklyn NY and we nearly stayed there, where every high school has their sports offsite (save for basketball).  O’Dea is of course a football powerhouse yet they don’t have a home field.

Let’s not remove an historic and beautiful piece of nature.  So much of the city is being carved up and paved over with synthetics.  Let’s keep this oasis.

Lincoln HS Parent

Date: Monday, September 30, 2024 at 1:57 PM
To: paigem@sojsea.com
Subject: FW: Lincoln Athletic Field Input for Wallingford Playfield

Hello Ms. McGehee –

I am a resident of Wallingford and have sent the below message to our local representatives, council members, Seattle Parks and Recreation, and Seattle Public Schools. I wanted you to have the communication as well. The main message it this:

“I am writing to ask that you please not move forward with plans to have the Lincoln Athletic Field located at the Wallingford Playfield.”

Thank you,

Scott H. – Wallingford Resident

Sent: Monday, October 9
To: Graves, David <David.Graves@seattle.gov>


Our children grew up using the Wallingford Park and it remains near and dear to our hearts. Now we frequently take our grandchildren there. 

Aside from removing this park from community use, I feel it’s crucial to emphasize the environmental concerns raised by leveling knolls, cutting down long-standing trees and covering the majority of open space with plastic turf. Green spaces absorb heat—plastic turf magnifies it. 

At this crucial time in human history, as the climate crisis accelerates, we should all be uniting to conserve existing green spaces! 

Thank you again for your role as SPR’s liaison and for receiving input from community members. 

Very best,

Jane S, Wallingford resident

I am writing to you today to urge you NOT to put in an artificial turf athletic field at Wallingford Park Playfield.

Yes, Lincoln HS needs an athletic field. I am one of many neighbors that supports the schools, both LHS and HIMS. 

But LHS should not take a community resource and change it so that it primarily serves athletics, pushing out all the other people who use this park daily, for things like frisbee, day-care, and families with kids playing on the grass. Also dancers and the tai-chi. Shakespeare in the park!

I’ve been here fifteen years. I’ve seen Wallingford go from sleepy bedroom community to bustling urban village. As densely packed as we are now, with more apartments and townhouses all the time, we need open green space with grass and trees more than ever.

We need a park with grass and trees for use by anyone to come, play, or sit, without needing to reserve it. Without it being plastic.

Please find somewhere else to build your athletic field.

Sincerely,

AT, Wallingford resident


I’m contacting you regarding the proposed co-opting of Wallingford Park for an artificial turf athletic field for Lincoln High School. While I sympathize with the school’s need for athletic facilities, taking away an old and beloved park is decidedly not the way to go. 

One of the biggest drawbacks to this project is that injury rates are significantly higher on artificial turf than on grass fields. (Please see links below regarding this issue, although, as I’m sure you’re aware, these represent just the tip of the research “iceberg “ on this topic. ) 

In addition to higher injury rates, environmental concerns with covering the majority of this green space with plastic and cutting down long-standing trees, the community has and continues to highly utilize this park! Preserving such treasured spaces and protecting equal access are two values I’ve always connected with Seattle.

I hope you will talk to those who use and love this park and encourage Lincoln High School to reconsider the short sided, environmentally irresponsible decision making reflected in this project. 


Thank you sincerely for your time, 

Jane S, Wallingford resident

Date: Monday, September 30, 2024
To: Maritza.Riveria@seattle.gov <Maritza.Riveria@seattle.gov>, Sara.Nelson@seattle.gov <Sara.Nelson@seattle.gov>, Tanya.Woo@seattle.gov <Tanya.Woo@seattle.gov>
Subject: FW: Lincoln Athletic Field Input for Wallingford Playfield

Hello District 4 Representative Riviera and Councilmembers Nelson and Woo –

Please see my note below to the Seattle Parks and Recreation regarding the proposed use of our public park at Wallingford Playfield for the Lincoln Athletic Field project led by Seattle Public Schools.  In short, we are supportive of the process of finding a location for the students to have a quality practice field with the redevelopment of Memorial Stadium.  What I am not supportive of is the process and involvement of the citizens of Wallingford in the decision-making process.  This process feels rushed and biased towards a pre-determined outcome (which is to use the Wallingford Playfield as the site of the athletic field).  I am concerned this will have very negative consequences for the community and our already dwindling green space will be reduced greatly giving the community less options for getting out and connecting in healthy ways with our neighbors.

If this is not already on your list of issues to consider, I would encourage you to get involved and hear from the community here in Wallingford on what the negative consequences of this decision would be.  I believe this would naturally lead to the conclusion that other options (like the utilizing the Queen Anne Bowl Playfield athletic field which is already built and available) would be a better balance of the needs of the community and the needs of the students and Lincoln and other schools in the area.

Thank you for your consideration and representation.

Scott H. – Wallingford Resident

Date: Monday, September 30, 2024 at 12:49 PM
To: PKS_info@seattle.gov <PKS_info@seattle.gov>
Subject: Lincoln Athletic Field Input for Wallingford Playfield

Hello Seattle Parks and Recreation –

Without burying the lede, I am writing to ask that you please not move forward with plans to have the Lincoln Athletic Field located at the Wallingford Playfield.

I have recently become aware of the plans to find an athletic training field for Lincoln High School and other schools in the Wallingford area.  While there are many things about this plan that are exciting for the kids to give the girls and boys a place to practice their sports each day throughout the school year, I am concerned at how this process is being run.

1. There is not nearly enough community engagement in Wallingford for a project that has the potential impact this project would create.  Whether this is intentional or not, this seems last minute, rushed, and designed to put the community involvement at a disadvantage.

2. The Wallingford Playfield is a CRITICAL part of the community in Wallingford.  The diversity of usage for the community is compelling.  On any given day, you might see people playing frisbee, catch with a football or baseball, joggers running around the edge of the field, family and friends having a gathering in the picnic area, parents racing RC cars with their kids, people flying kites, kids playing on the playground or splashing in the field and of course tennis and pickle ball on the courts.  Add to this the value that this park has for dogs (which are plentiful in Wallingford) to stretch their legs, socialize with other dogs, and to get out of the house as we all continue to emerge in a more social post COVID world.  This park is the great equalizer for gatherings in our community – inviting people of all ages, socio-economic backgrounds, and interests to convene and connect with other members of the community.  While this may not be completely destroyed by this project it will be severely muted as the use cases and available timing will be more limited.

3. It’s not clear what the opportunity is for the community to “vote” on this issue and who actually has the final say in terms of the site and if this is going to be cited at Wallingford Playfield or some other site.  It’s not clear what the mechanism is to objectively look at the impact this will have on all of us in Wallingford.  Listening sessions are good but they look performative at this point as if a conclusion has already been drawn.

From my perspective, there are more compelling options (which were communicated in the first meeting with the community September 19th) including the conversion of the parking lot into a multi-use space of parking and playfield like we see in communities all around the country.

Lastly, I would add, we are lifelong supporters of the public schools with our children both participating in athletics at public schools so we understand the need and positive impact so we are not opposed to the project at all.  In fact, we are very supportive.  What we are not supportive of is the approach and impact of putting the athletic field at the Wallingford Playfield location.

Thank you for your consideration,

Scott H. – Wallingford Resident

Hello. I would like to express my excitement and concerns regarding the funding for a new sports field for Lincoln High School. As a neighbor to Lincoln High School and parent of a Hamilton International Middle School student, I am deeply invested in the decisions  you make regarding this project. 

I am writing specifically about the plan to redevelop Wallingford Playfield Park. Although I have similar concerns for all options where public park spaces are considered.

Please keep our parks spaces community spaces.  

I ask you to consider the following and how it impacts our neighborhood and school communities. 

  • Displacing Current Activities   
    Currently the Wallingford Playfield Park is an asset for both the school and those who live in the neighborhood.  It supports numerous activities including school sports, club sports, daycare and after school camp activities as well as being a backyard for our neighborhood, to name a few. Adding the rigorous schedule of high school football and soccer to the current mix of activities is just not feasible. Many valued community activities will be displaced or may be eliminated completely. 
  • Providing for Increasing Density
    We are a designated “Urban Village” which means our density is increasing without any plan in place to add additional outdoor public spaces. This is a problem that will be compounded by reappropriating our public park to prioritize specific high school sports.  It should be a priority to preserve our public parks. 
  • Environment and Mental Health  
    In the face of increasing density and decreasing permeable landscapes and established trees, this will take a toll on the environment and our mental health. Replacing grass and trees with expansive artificial turf will add to the heat island effect and eliminate valuable shade for both humans and wildlife. For those of us without a backyard, this plan will significantly reduce the ability to connect with nature or give us refuge on a hot day. Artificial turf also increases runoff which will be a problem for our already overtaxed sewer system. 
  • Keep it on the School Campus
    Why doesn’t this project use the parking lot to the north of Lincoln High School? If it is too expensive/ not feasible to maintain parking via parking structure, eliminate it! Hamilton International Middle School doesn’t have designated parking. Why prioritize parking over supporting athletics on the school campus?  As an Urban Village we should be encouraging public transit and eliminating expansive blacktop parking lots. Especially parking lots with such limited use! 


Please reconsider. You are asking a large and diverse community to sacrifice a multitude of activities for a small group of male dominated school sports. This is unfair for everyone. 


Thank you for your time and consideration. 

Sincerely, 

PW, Wallingford resident and parent

September 28, 2024

Dear Council Member Rivera,

My name is Dr. Julie McCleery, and I’m a Wallingford resident who is on faculty at the University of Washington’s Center for Leadership in Athletics. Until recently, I also led the King County Play Equity Coalition, an organization dedicated to ensuring all kids – regardless of race, gender, zip code, and ability – have access to sport, free play, and outdoor recreation. 

I’m writing to you today as a private citizen with substantial understanding of the constraints and challenges our community is facing in providing access to parks and playfields for all youth. I am asking you to take a serious look at the choice to put a turfed, lit playfield at Wallingford Park. This decision will have profound health equity consequences in Wallingford and is squarely in opposition to the City’s, SPR’s and the School District’s equity goals.

History

In 2016, I – along with my neighbors – sat in the Lincoln auditorium and suggested the Lincoln renovation plans were short-sighted to put a parking lot on school grounds in lieu of a turf playfield field. The District told us students would be bussed and play sports at Lower Woodland. The neighborhood argued that was cost ineffective; that Lower Woodland was already one of the highest use field spaces in the city (the average use-hours on a Seattle turf field at that time was 1900/year; Lower Woodland was then at 2400/yr), and that Lincoln deserved a field just like other comprehensive high schools. 

We wrote articles about it, started Facebook pages about it, and met with Council members and School Board Directors. We even spoke with Bassetti, the architecture firm that did the Lincoln renovations, and learned they had proposed a field on top of parking in their original plans. 

We volunteered to raise funds for a public/private partnership to make this elevated field a reality – an innovative solution in a dense city and newly declared Urban Village. However, school and city officials told us that was inequitable because private funds shouldn’t pay for public fields (even though such private investments have since happened in other places, such as South Park). In the end, the District chose the parking lot. No field.

Equity

And now that unfortunate shortsightedness is perpetrating an actual inequity: taking away a free play space from the youth and families in Wallingford. The primary beneficiaries of a neighborhood-based, natural, free play park are families without backyards, families without cars, and families without means to pay for sports and other structured programming. In Wallingford, that would be the families who live in nearby subsidized housing and newly built town homes. 

Due to a confluence of systemic barriers – including the high cost of organized sports – these are also the families whose children are least likely to get adequate physical activity and least likely to play sports. In King County, middle school youth from high and medium affluence families are 3X more likely to meet the CDC’s physical activity guidelines. And while 89% of high affluence families engage in organized sports only 66% of children from low affluence families do. 

Further, immigrant youth in King County are the least likely to meet physical activity guidelines and the least likely to play sports (Tandon, et al., 2021). 

So now, the district has proposed -with apparently the City’s blessing – to take away one of the places where children of all ages and backgrounds can come to be healthy and active and learn to throw a ball, pass a frisbee and ride a bike and replace it with a turf field for those who have been able to afford structured sports enough to play in high school.

I have inserted pictures that I took at the playfield in July of 2019. I took them because, as a play equity researcher, I was so moved by the vast array of neighborhood members who were utilizing the park in some way. I remember thinking “this is an example of the power of a neighborhood park for reducing inequities and encouraging community health and wellbeing.”

These pictures illustrate exactly what will go away when a turf field is put in. There’s ample research to show that neighborhood users are displaced when playfields become turfed, lit, and schedulable. There’s also ample research to show that those who play sports in high school are whiter and more affluent than the general student population. 

To add insult to injury for Wallingford families, Wallingford is the ONLY neighborhood in Seattle without sufficient access to a community center.

According to the Seattle Parks and Recreation Community Center Plan, “A community center should be located within one mile of every Seattle household; and/or one full-service center to serve a residential population of 15,000-20,000 people. Each Urban Center of the City is to be served by a community center” (SPR Plan, 2016, p. 44). The plan goes on to say that “the most significant gap is in the Wallingford neighborhood” (p. 44). This was in 2016 and is – as of yet – unaddressed!

Now that Wallingford has become an Urban Village and has targets for increased density and affordable housing, instead of pursuing equitable access to amenities for recreation and health for all residents, the City is choosing to take away an accessible amenity and leave those families who will be populating the urban village without both a community center and a regularly available free play space. This is a profound health equity issue: the removal of a natural neighborhood free play space exacerbates the growing divide between who has access to enjoy the health benefits of physical activity and who does not and leaves lower income Wallingford families with no access to affordable public play space.”

Julie McCleery

Dear Mayor Harrell, Superintendent Diaz, and Seattle Public Schools,

I am writing about the fast-tracked plan to take away a public green space in Wallingford used by everyone in order to replace it with an artificial turf surface which will only be used by those in organized sports. 

Alarms are ringing across the country, if not the world, about the use of artificial turf, based on a variety of issues: higher rate of athlete injuries, creation of heat islands where the plastic grass becomes unsafe to play on, and the manufacture of artificial turf with forever chemicals that find their way into our bodies and our waterways. Did you know that:

– The EU is in the process of banning artificial turf fields 

– Los Angeles is in the process of banning artificial turf fields

– The women’s national soccer team fought so they did not have to play on an artificial turf field (FIFA insists the 2026 World Cup be played on natural grass and Met Life Stadium will change out its artificial turf accordingly)

– The NFL Players Association is against artificial turf.

Turf fields, even without tire crumb rubber infill, contain PFAS (polyfluoroalkyl substances/synthetic chemicals) and microplastics, which are linked to an increase in cancer, neuro-toxicity, harm to the reproductive system, and respiratory issues. This presentation (minutes 8 to 22) by Dr. Sarah Evans, Environmental Health Scientist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, succinctly describes the issues in minutes 8 to 22 in this webinar from just last week.

    The federal government has conducted artificial turf studies confirming the presence of over 350 chemicals in artificial turf. At 13:35 in the video, Dr. Evans discusses how PFAS present in the blades of artificial turf grass are an urgent threat, even at low levels, to human health and to the environment. 

    The lifespan of an artificial turf field is approximately ten years and there are no turf recycling facilities in the United States. The bulk of the removed artificial turf ends up in landfills.

    Artificial turf fields absorb solar radiation and do not allow evaporation in the same way as natural grass. They are now commonly referred to as heat islands. On average, artificial turf fields can get 30-70 degrees hotter than the surrounding ambient air temperature. This is hot enough to raise the temperature of the houses that surround Wallingford Park, and more than hot enough to cause heat illnesses for those using an artificial turf field. Here is an example from just last May of 11 children being sent to the hospital outside of Boston when playing on an artificial turf field.  

    Significant increased injuries on turf fields, including knee injuries, head injuries, and skin abrasions, are increasingly documented.

    All of us are well aware of the rising temperatures and extreme heat scenarios facing us. Seattle experienced the third hottest July on record this year. Is replacing natural grass and trees with a carpet of plastic the right choice for either student athletes or the Wallingford community? For Seattle to cover one of its neighborhood green spaces with this product with eyes wide open is short sighted at best. At worst, it is dangerous, for our kids and for our community.

    Lincoln’s student athletes do deserve a field. But it is critical to recognize that Wallingford Park, a community space needed for mental health and equity as our population grows, is not the answer. Nor is adding acres of microplastics and forever chemicals to Seattle’s environs.

    The student athletes and the community at large each need green space. Reconsider this proposal and work together to identify an alternative site.

    Respectfully,

  Wallingford resident 

I live in the Wallingford neighborhood and have kids who play sports through Seattle Public Schools. Recently, SPS held a meeting at Lincoln High School to review a proposed plan to site an artificial turf field at Wallingford Park. I am opposed to this proposal.

Wallingford Park is a heavily used and cherished neighborhood green space. On any given day, morning to evening, you find neighbors of all ages engaged in activities that meet needs for connection, play, health, and nature. There are parents hanging out on benches as their kids play on the playground, tai chi classes on the grass, seniors strolling the gravel pathway around the perimeter, children rolling down the grassy knoll, dog owners with their dogs, teens playing frisbee and spike ball, rec soccer practice for U8s, and more. Simply put, it is a well-loved and well-populated City park that serves the needs of the surrounding neighborhood, as well as the community beyond.


The proposed artificial turf field would occupy three quarters of the park. It would take away 90% of the natural grass and many mature trees (and in turn shade) which would not have space to be replaced at the site. 

This proposed field would also require:

  • A new equipment storage facility
  • Relocation of the bathrooms, and if the artificial turf field is sited at the north end of the park, the wading pool and the always busy, and much newer playground
  • Field lighting that would stay on until 10 p.m. every night 

Most importantly, locating the proposed artificial turf field here would erase the casual, multi-generational use that the neighborhood needs as density increases. In a vacuum, this artificial turf field could allow a practice space for a few of Lincoln’s sports teams, but the rest of the time would be sold by the City to other sports teams from 4-10 p.m. weekdays and all day Saturdays and Sundays.

A carpet of plastic will forever alter what Wallingford Park brings to the vast community it serves. 

I understand the needs for Lincoln High School, and I understand the needs of a public neighborhood park currently serving an inclusive citizenry. Taking away one public amenity in order to provide an amenity for a select group is unacceptable in our City. Pitting parents of student athletes against the Wallingford Park neighbors who live here long-term, in what should be shared goals for a shared community, is unacceptable in our City. Making a decades-long decision based on convenience solely for sports, is unacceptable. 

Please scrap this proposal and pursue an alternative option for Lincoln’s field.

Thank you,

E.B.

I’m writing to ask you to intervene and oppose the rushed selection process SPS is using to take an enormous portion of natural green space at Wallingford Playfield.

At a minimum, demand that SPS slow down the selection process so that the entire Wallingford community can work WITH SPS to find the best location for LHS’s practice field. While I understand that Memorial Stadium is imminently under renovation, SPS has been aware of this for quite a while. As my grandfather used to say, ‘Lack of planning on your (SPS’s) part doesn’t constitute an emergency on mine.’ Our little playfield deserves a lot more thoughtful consideration of alternatives before being cut-down at the knees.

For one, SPS HAS the real estate for a practice field immediately adjacent to the north side of the school…where the field was located for decades. Additionally, there is open space at Woodland Park, a short jog of under a mile away for youth warm-up, for a facility that would meet all the needs of the sports programs.

Please demand that SPS work with us, not against us. Please ask them to stop trying to pit neighbor against neighbor with a rushed process that clearly had a pre-determined outcome at their Sept 19 meeting. And please, insist that they do a better job posting the time and place for the next meeting. I guarantee, there will be a ROBUST turnout.

Catherine H, Wallingford Resident

Wallingford is a designated Urban Village experiencing and expecting increasing density. The neighborhood is already under the recommended allocation of green space per household from the urban village and city growth plan’s guidance. Carpeting 85% of the existing park with an artificial plastic turf removes green space, destroys tree canopy, produces a heat island, and turns a multi-use public play area available to the whole community into a specialized and heavily scheduled facility dominated by student athletes and organized sport activities. I’m dismayed this project seems to be getting rammed through without well-considering the more diverse needs of the neighborhood. Around 5,000 people live within a 10 minute walk from this park, perhaps double that within 15 minutes. Your proposal eliminates scarce accessible green space for many to serve the convenience of a few hundred student athletes.

I’ve heard from members of the community that the question of Lincoln High’s athletic field needs came up in the remodel project less than 10 years ago. The community and the project’s architect recommended a field where your parking lot is, but the schools declined to implement that and said they’d just use Lower Woodland. They also promised NOT to annex the neighborhood park, yet here you are breaking that promise.

There are suitable places to build a new athletic field, that don’t destroy a much loved and well used public green space, within walking/jogging distance of LHS. I’m thinking most strongly of the little used gravel parking lot in Woodland Park near 50th & Aurora, and the little used grassy wedge west of the parking lot at Gasworks park (this latter might require moving part of the parking lot to accommodate a full size field). Building athletic fields and one or both of these locations would genuinely enhance the community instead of stealing from many to benefit a few.

DB, Wallingford Resident

To SPS via feedback form

I’m reading your FAQ.

You claim that this new synthetic field at Wallingford Park would be an open and accessible amenity for the neighborhood.

You write: “The project team is dedicated to maintaining Wallingford Playfield as a multi-use space that serves all community members.”

How, exactly? The artificial field you propose is likely to be 90% reserved and scheduled for school use, typical of other similar fields across Seattle, during all hours from 8am to 10pm, hours in which you and other schools will have priority access. These are also the hours that parents of high school athletes tell me their young athletes practice.

So the community can use the park, but only if they don’t use the field?

This does not at all sound like open, accessible multi-use space that serves all community members.

 Wallingford Community member

To: david.graves@seattle.gov

Dear Mr. Graves,

I’m dismayed at Lincoln High School’s plan to convert Wallingford Park into an artificial turf athletic field.

How does Lincoln HS have the right to take away community land that’s been a park for such a long time? How is it that they are allowed to simply annex a neighborhood park for their school athletics, just because they want to? How did they get this entitlement?

This park is already in daily use. Conversations. Lunch. Frisbee. Pick-up games. Day-cares. After-school camps. Dance. Tai-chi. Theater. Other organized sports. Families with young children.

People like me. I jog the track. In spring, I inhale the scent of flowers. In summer, I walk through the grass. I watch children play in the long sunsets, and then watch the stars come out. In autumn, I listen to the wind through the trees. Through all this, I gain back a little bit of my good mood and my better self.

This LHS plan will take over at least 85% of the park, and all of the open space. Gone is the grass. Mature trees yanked. LHS says they’ll replace these mature trees, but with what? Saplings. Goodbye canopy.

The school is pushing fast and hard, talking as if it’s a done deal. They say they want to start bidding and construction in April. APRIL?

Please understand how much this plan would disrupt–and displace–existing neighborhood use. And for what? How many student athletes would gain advantage in this plan? 50? 100? A stretch to call it 200, but sure, let’s.

Contrast that with a conservative estimate of 5,000 neighbors living within a 10 minute walk of Wallingford Park — and we do walk in this area. A lot. We have a walkability score of 85. We don’t walk by Wallingford Park. We walk through it.

Five thousand people, and that number is just rising. Our area is home to ever more density — we’re an urban village. An increasing number of households in Wallingford now live in townhouses and apartments, with NO back yard. For many of us, Wallingford Park is our backyard.

Please — this is our neighborhood park, our greenspace, and we don’t have a lot of it. Wallingford also doesn’t have a community center. We have this one little park.

But we love this park. We love our trees, our benches, our grass.

Please don’t let them take our park away.