Public Comments

10 Responses to Public Comments

1. Sharon Burke says:

   January 24, 2016 at 4:35 pm

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

   Reply
2. Cindy Rutstein says:

   January 31, 2016 at 9:55 pm

   “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”

   Reply
   • eddie says:

     February 1, 2016 at 10:50 am

     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.

     Reply
   • Conor Watters says:

     February 1, 2016 at 3:13 pm

     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.

     Reply
     • Conor Watters says:

       February 1, 2016 at 3:16 pm

       And, for the sake of transparency of information, reference and fair consideration of both sides, here is the Daniels Real Estate website pertaining to the Saint Edward Seminary: http://www.danielsdevelopmentcompany.com/projects/st-edward-seminary/

       Reply
     • Chris Overholt says:

       September 17, 2016 at 5:19 pm

       Conor. I have been going there over 30 years. Privatizing the grounds would destroy the family friendly relaxed atmosphere of the park. The building would be nice to keep, but the most important is the park itself. What they are actually proposing is to privatize part of the park. Forget the building.

       Reply
3. Christi says:

   February 2, 2016 at 7:17 pm

   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?

   Reply
4. Chris Overholt says:

   September 17, 2016 at 5:14 pm

   Turning the Seminary building and surrounding grounds into a private hotel would not be good. I have gone to this park since the early 80s when I was attending the nearby Inglemoor High School. This has always been a deeply spiritual place that I have returned to over the years and continue to go there now with my wife and young daughter. Turning it into a private hotel will ruin the vibe of the whole park and close down the play area and also scare away the deer that we saw near the playground.

   This is a rare treasure that must not be sold or leased to a private hotel. It is one of the few places I can take my family to relax and actually relax. Both in the park area and around the seminary building.

   We can eadily turn it into a community center similar to the Good Shepherd Center in Wallingford if you need to cover costs. Or just tear it down rather than privatize it. This park must remain public for all future generations. I want my daughter to be able to take her kids there.

   Reply
5. Patrick O'Brien says:

   November 7, 2017 at 7:11 am

   Who voted for artificial turf and lighting at St. Edward Park? Dam, those Saint Edward Bat’s full speed ahead? Then who voted to spend $5 million of the cities approximately 11 million annual budget on a baseball field in a State Park? Yes, off into a wetlands setback area no less. This place is not about fences, synthetic grass or light polls around a forested edged field. Get a grip on the natural setting. Enjoy it.
   Then relax.

   Reply
6. Patrick O'Brien says:

   November 7, 2017 at 7:28 am

   All eyes are on Lake Washington’s north shore wherein 2015 environmental standards are mere history. Kenmore residents are relying more now than ever on exemplary leadership who demonstrate the utmost respect for our unique and fragile ecosystem as we develop.

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.