McEuen: To assumeis to take wrong path

I am addressing the comments made by Rita-Sims Snyder and Julie Clark regarding the Park and/or parking lot at the proposed McEuen Park site. Several points in their comments were misleading and this will clarify the facts. First of all, I contacted the city staff, the McEuen Steering Committee and the consultants, Team McEuen, and learned that neither Rita nor Julie had contacted any of these people to get the facts. If someone does not understand the scope of the project it is unfair to make comments based on assumptions because that is where misinformation is generated and that misleads the people that really want to know.

Rita and Julie stated that we, the people, are not getting an upgraded park from this plan. The facts are that McEuen Park is proposed to expand by nearly five acres of additional open space. We will have five more acres of new parkland that will be right on the water's edge; hooray for us and the City of Coeur d'Alene. People will have access to the lake, events will occur in that space that cannot occur now, people can meet, linger, socialize and enjoy the great outdoors. Currently we do not have that opportunity because those five acres are asphalt and vehicle traffic and parking. Have you thought about the value of what an additional five acres of park land on the waterfront can mean to the population of our city? Especially when that land is located on the north shore of Lake Coeur d'Alene and may be some of the most valuable land in Idaho? Why shouldn't all of us have access to it instead of just a few? Pedestrian safety should also be a priority for everyone. The McEuen Park plan is much safer, more accessible and creates more opportunities for the public to enjoy the park land. Rita and Julie, I don't understand why you would think it is important to have pavement on the waterfront of such valuable property just to park cars. I would encourage you to visit the park site on any given weekend and you will see the vehicle/pedestrian conflicts that occur too frequently. I have to think that public safety should be of the highest priority.

I think most people recognize the need for a boat launch on the north end of the lake to allow for water access but when you say that the Third Street site will always be the best launch site on the lake I think you may have drawn another assumption without exploring the facts. The site proposed at Silver Beach has more boat trailer parking stalls, it is easier to access, it is closer to the interstate, you don't have to go through downtown traffic and busy intersections and it is deep water and open all year around. The consultant group evaluated the current and proposed launch sites and Silver Beach received higher marks than Third Street. I believe that information is available at www.mceuenpark.com. I want to reiterate here that the McEuen Park site may be some of the most valuable waterfront property in Idaho and the use of the land has changed significantly over the years. Boat launch data indicates that seasonal boat launches have dropped from nearly 7,000 launches per year ten years ago to just under 3,000 launches per year. This was a good site for a boat launch many years ago but the community has changed and the needs today are different from those many years ago. This is no longer a good location for boat launching as there is increasing vehicle and pedestrian conflicts and the launch numbers themselves indicate that the majority of boaters are going to other sites.

You suggested that the American Legion ball field be improved and left on site. Are you aware that this restricts the use for the majority of city residents to access that park? An American Legion representative told us that there are only about 80 participants in that program. It does not make sense to restrict this valuable waterfront property for only 80 people when our city population is 45,000 or higher. All of us should have access to this park land without restrictions. I want to thank you for the suggested uses of the open green space that you made; those uses have always been proposed in the McEuen Park plan and that makes me glad that you recognize the need for more activities. The point you are missing is that a conflict of use occurs when you suggest that a specific piece of the property be restricted to only a few people at the expense of the majority. Currently the City is working on a site plan to create a better up-to-date baseball facility at another location where American Legion and other baseball teams will be playing. I was also told that these groups are on board with this plan. Thank you for your positive comments about the playground. The McEuen Steering Committee and the Design Team have always proposed a fully accessible playground with an adjoining splashpad. There are only two fully accessible playgrounds in Idaho. This playground will allow children with any disability to access and experience the things that most of us take for granted. That playground and splashpad would have a theme; it may be about mining, or timber or wildlife, the theme has not been determined yet. You may not have heard or seen this at public presentations but is good to know that you are on the same page with the steering committee on many or most of the park amenities.

Additional amenities for park users that you suggested in your comments have also always been included in the proposed park plan. Lots of open green space is kept in the McEuen Park plan and it is much easier to access without fences and other obstacles. All the things you suggested, Frisbee, kickball, farmers markets, concerts and soccer have already been proposed by Team McEuen in the open space (green space) areas. A misleading point that you made is that the public is not getting any of this in the first phase of the development. That is not correct; all of this is included in the first phase. You implied that only a parking garage and mass grading would occur; this is quite incorrect. You may not have understood the development process and phasing and I would encourage you to get in contact with those that do know so you are not drawing incorrect conclusions. You suggested putting the skate park on the east side of the proposed park. I am glad that you are thinking about those things; the McEuen Park plan has always shown a skate park on the east side of the proposed park in the same location that you had mentioned. That amenity will be a task that the skating community will adopt and like many other park development projects the skater group will assist in fund raising and design for the skate park; that amenity will happen when funds are available.

In closing I want to correct one more statement you made about the time line for developing the park. You said we would have to wait 50 years to get the amenities built in the park that have been proposed. The actual comment was that this park will be a legacy to our community for the next 50 years, it was not said that it will take 50 years to build. Again, I would encourage you to contact any of the folks that have been working on the proposed park plan so you can get correct information and clear up any misunderstandings that you may have created. Change is inevitable and it is imperative that we have a forward thinking direction for those changes. The McEuen Park Plan will build on and mirror the theme of our city; A City of Excellence.

Tina Johnson, Coeur d'Alene resident since 1985, is a member and past president of the North Idaho Centennial Trail Foundation and a member of the McEuen Steering Committee.