How You Can Help

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process has started. We need legal advocacy to help save St. Edward State Park from developers. Our goal is to raise $5000 by AUG 2.

Future of St. Ed Park-Ing?

Future of St. Ed Park-Ing?

6 Responses to Home

  1. Sharon Burke says:

    Please keep the park for the public. I just went walking around there today. It was filled with so many people enjoying the outdoors.

  2. Cindy Rutstein says:

    “I am in favor of the proposed redevelopment plan for the old Seminary structures and their immediate vicinity at St. Edwards State Park. I am a regular user of the trail system at St. Edwards and do not feel that the development will harm the park experience. These historic structures are an asset to the park. Every effort should be undertaken to maintain their complete structural integrity, and provide public access to the interiors for the first time in decades. In fact, the proposed hospitality functions within the structures will enhance the park experience for all users from across the state and beyond. I live adjacent to the park and use it regularly as I said, but I am fully aware that this is not “my” park. This is a State Park (not a City of Kenmore park) and the state must make the difficult decision to manage this asset for all citizens of Washington State and our out of state guests. The state would not be managing this park for the greater good if decisions are made that allow the Seminary structures to come down. Please, do not let a subgroup of Kenmore residents derail this proposal, they neither represent everyone who lives here now nor those from across the state who might benefit from the proposed changes. Yes, consider traffic, parking and access concerns in the planning but please do move this plan forward. Thank you”

    • eddie says:

      We of course all get to have an opinion on whether the building is an asset or a liability. In response to a couple of your points:
      * Once the sale to Daniel’s goes through, it seems that portion will fall under sway of City of Kenmore vs State. i.e. no longer a pure State Park.
      * A traffic, parking and access study indeed seems prudent, especially given existing congestion on Juanita. This would be most welcome PRIOR to development vs after. Fear that won’t happen until inevitable problems demand reaction.

    • Conor Watters says:

      I agree with you Cindy Rutstein. I think it would be in the best interest of the state and the people to preserve the building (which is on the Historic Buildings Registry). The spa/hotel itself may bring fresh life into the area and greater value, which can benefit the value of the park and give it long term appeal to the public. Plus, the spa/hotel itself could bring greater economic prosperity and relevance to the area.

  3. Christi says:

    I like the building just fine. But the best thing about St Edward SP is the tranquility of the place, the peace. The building is a backdrop to that as it is. If this deal goes through, that will be forever changed. Commercializing public space is a slippery slope, a dangerous one. If we sell off the core of the park to a developer, what’s next? The Coca Cola symbol on the moon? To make this trade is shortsighted, Washington. Hold out for something that serves all from the 1%ers to the poorest. Why must we perpetuate the Plutocracy of Washington State?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial
%d bloggers like this: