Citizens in Edmonds have wondered for months whether or not the controversial waterfront redevelopment project couldn’t have a simple solution: 20 acres of parkland instead of 20 acres of tall buildings.
At its next meeting, the Edmonds City Council is going to ask whether or not parkland on the property is a question worth pursuing.
The council has scheduled a Jan. 15 vote to consider a rather confusing question: Should the city start taking steps to study the possibility of creating parkland from what is now privately owned waterfront property?
To buy all of the land would likely cost in the neighborhood of $40 million, officials told the Enterprise in October. Al Dykes has asked for between $15 million and $16 million for the Antique Mall site, the Skippers property was recently sold to Bob Gregg for roughly $1 million, and the Port of Edmonds spent $13.6 million two years ago buying just the buildings at Harbor Square. The Port already owned the land.
Critics of a park plan said the land would be better suited for development. Mayor Gary Haakenson has said the city simply doesn’t have enough money.
Still, questions linger. Possibilities entice.
How much would the property actually cost? How much could be bought? How could a park be used?
“It’s an idea that we’ve been kicking around for a while. I know some council members are interested,” newly elected council president Michael Plunkett said at the end of the Jan. 8 council meeting. “I think we should decide to either talk about it seriously, or stop talking about it.”
As he announced the Jan. 15 vote, Plunkett said the council’s Jan. 15 decision will answer questions about the possible park itself — not its size or uses.
That’s all in the future, he said.
The city would first have to get an appraisal, evaluate funding options and enter into negotiations with the property’s three owners. Funding would likely include a bond measure, Plunkett suggested.
Because there are long-term business leases on the Harbor Square property, it seems most likely that a possible park would be carved from either Gregg’s property or Dykes’.
Reached after Plunkett’s announcement, both Gregg and Dykes said they were willing to listen to city offers, but neither is convinced a park is the best use for a property that experts say has great potential for economic development.
“It is hard to say that we couldn’t live with a park when we have lived with a piece of trash there for 20 years,” said Gregg, who is a resident of Edmonds. “But I don’t think two wrongs make a right, either. I don’t think a park is the best use for that land.”
Dykes agreed. “If I get my dollars, I don’t really give a crap,” he said. “But if you take one of the city’s most vital economic properties off the market, that’s not smart.”
Plunkett’s call for a vote was hailed, however, by opponents of building heights. In December, the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds wrote a letter to the council asking it to study exactly this, president John Reed said.
Without city input, citizens don’t know what could — or could not — be done, Reed said.
“We are absolutely happy” that the council is going to vote on this, he said. “That was the point.”
While Haakenson didn’t want to comment on the Jan. 15 vote after Tuesday’s meeting, he did say that if the city decides to pursue that plan, the decision needs to come from the council.
“There would be a lot of steps to take (to get a park there),” Haakenson said. “But the first step, clearly, is to take the pulse of the council.”
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
