First, there are not “many different ways” to fund parks. There is only one: taxes. We can call it a bond, levy, special taxing district, whatever, but it still is a tax on those who live in the district. Now, not to imply here that it’s bad, just let’s not fool ourselves. This Prop one is a new tax plain and simple.
Moreover, how O.O. Denny Park was run by the several commissioners over the years, does not translate well into how the larger city of Kirkland runs its parks. The many different constituencies in Kirkland, with varying desires and pocketbooks presents a far different set of issues. Just look at the time consuming (AKA costly) process of siting the ARC. Then Kirkland Parks has overhead that the FHPRD did not have. Remember, the commissioners worked for free. We had no structural costs as well.
Insofar as checks and balances: An election is neither a check nor a balance. It is an after the fact response to something the voters disapprove. It will have a punitive effect, not a check or balance. The damage is already done and voters generally cannot undo that. Checks and balances provide an ability to keep something bad from happening. An election does not.
As a founder and commissioner of the Finn Hill Park and Recreation District, I support both the acquisition and maintenance of parklands for our city and for future generations. Proposition One seems flawed in many regards and will meet with strong resistance from many quarters. But that does not mean it is fatally flawed. I just wish the Proposition had put an eraser on its pencil. Still, I’ll vote “yes”.