Letters on letters
Willey’s questions, answered
Most questions posed by Earle Willey (Jan. 9 letter to the editor) are addressed in the January issue of the Kingston Community News (KCN), opposite the survey that got Earle’s dander up. To reply to Earle’s concerns, I’ll refer the Herald’s readers to previously published articles.
1) For information about the Kingston Community Center Foundation, see the KCN November issue. As for the Village Green Park, site of the contemplated replacement Kingston Community Center, at least eight articles in the last 12 months have kept KCN readers updated about its development.
2) It is definitely not true that the foundation seeks to become a taxing authority. The survey concerns the feasibility of a Metropolitan Park District (MPD) to fund operation of a replacement facility. Read the November KCN issue for a description of MPDs, and why an MPD is being considered for the replacement Kingston center. The January survey is an attempt to identify and quantify support for an MPD among likely community center users.
As explained in November, establishing an MPD, which would become a taxing authority, requires that a measure be put on the ballot; of two ways to accomplish that, the preferred method is to accumulate signatures on a petition. The January survey is a way to find out where to circulate the petition — what local precincts should be excluded, and which included.
3) The plan for community center features was developed from surveys of the community (two in 2002 indicated the library and meetings rooms were of highest importance to residents) and benchmarking other communities. No element is intended to replace or duplicate an existing facility. As just one example, if you’ve visited the Kingston library, you’ll know that its size is substandard relative to the number of patrons visiting. Public libraries provide educational and economic opportunities for everyone who visits.
4) As for involving Indianola, members of the foundation talked with individual homeowners in Indianola over the past 18 months about whether the features of the planned Kingston center would be seen as supplements to what is provided in the clubhouse, so lovingly refurbished at personal expense to Indianola families. We were encouraged by the replies we got. We thought the best way to determine whether Indianola families are interested in a replacement Kingston community center was to ask; hence the survey. For your information, we also thought that the MPD, if established including Indianola, should pass back to Indianola a portion of the tax dollars levied in Indianola precincts, to defray clubhouse operating expense.
We’re still collecting survey responses; if the tenor of Indianola responses resembles Earle’s letter, we have our answer — the MPD won’t include Indianola households.
Members of the foundation board will share this information again with the Indianola Beach Improvement Club in February — provided Indianolans don’t try to make punching bags of their Kingston neighbors!
Bobbie Moore,
Executive director,
Kingston Community Center Foundation.
Ferries
Reducing services is not the answer
Legislation in 2007 defined future service and investment decision parameters for WSF.
It is my belief that it is only through reengagement with our state Legislature that we can resolve the issues that I and other residents of the Kitsap Peninsula have with this plan.
I have read and understand the planning requirements as follows:
Planning requirements: get better information about “customers” travel; improve forecasting for future needs; develop cost management strategies, improve quality and on-time requirements of service while managing costs; review operations to improve asset utilization and manage costs; and change level of service standards to fit current realities.
1. Having participated in the surveys that went out to the riding public, and been a vocal critic of these same as red flags for reduced service and increased costs to local residents and increased costs to local residents who commute on the ferries every day, I believe that information collection for the WSF was flawed and though it will be expensive, this infor information gathering must be revisited. Social research of this nature needs to be randomized. Also, it is not clear that the number of responses as a subset of overall ridership is truly a representative sample.
2. The Puget Sound region is predicted to continue to grow in terms of population and in economic strength. Beyond predictions regarding the number of people and the number of jobs, a third consideration — how to maintain the environmental health of the region — must be considered. No forecast for transportation needs that does not address the WSF as a member of mass transit and public transit is complete. It is not clear that this plan attempts to engage the WSF as a public transit agency as well as a vital part of our state highway system that must be maintained.
3. Costs will increase. Funding issues for the WSF must be revisited and the entire state of Washington must be made aware that the Kitsap Peninsula and the Olympic Peninsula are just as big, and vital to the state’s overall economic health as eastern Washington. Highway passes must be maintained in the winter, passage across the Puget Sound must be maintained all year round. This is not an optional tourist route and should not ever be spoken of as a system that can by cut out of the budget.
4. Improving the quality and on-time performance within current funding parameters appears to be an impossible goal. The system is going to fail, just as the viaduct is predicted to fail and it is highly likely that Washington State It is the responsibility of the State Legislature to push for solutions to these problems before catastrophic failure occurs. It appears that our current legislature lacks the will to take a hard stance other than the one of allowing the current situation to worsen.
5. Plan B appears to be what we will get based on the current economic situation unless the entire funding structure to the WSF is revisited. Go back, raise the issue loudly across the state, and make it clear that all the agencies have to work together in order to maintain one of the major transportation arteries of the state.
Rebecca Bilbao
Kingston
