I received a letter last week from North Bend City Administrator

Phil Messina full of poor excuses and questionable logic and feel compelled

to share some of the “low”lights with those who have not received it.

My understanding is this letter only went out to the Si View community

and people living within 300 feet of the proposed Park and Ride site.

The letter was about the “community parking facility” planned in

the backyard of the Si View neighborhood. I thought it was a Park and

Ride. The letter from City Administrator Messina states under the heading

of “Rationale for Site Location” that

the site (next to the Si View residential neighborhood) was chosen

“because it addresses a number of parking

needs in the community.” Aside from being a Park and Ride, this parking lot

would also serve as overflow parking for Si View Pool and Park.

To this, I would like to suggest that there is more than ample

non-ballfield property at that location for the

county to address its own parking needs on its own property. Seems to make

some sense to put the parking at the location people are visiting if there is

space for it there.

In addition, several other so-called “needs” were outlined including

the post office, two schools, the North Bend Railroad Depot, Torguson

Park ballfields and skatepark, and Tanner Trail. I challenge the city to

produce any study that has ever been done that identified a real “need” for

additional parking at any of these locations.

These purported “community parking needs” are an insult to the

intelligence of anyone who is familiar with North Bend geography and

current parking patterns. The city is clearly grasping at straws to defend

a site selection that was done without adequate analysis of alternatives

and as to whether this is the best use of the city’s resources in general.

Thus far there has been absolutely no quantifiable benefits to the community

presented in association with this project. Only the costs. Even those

numbers don’t reflect the complete costs.

Furthermore, several representatives of the city stressed at the May

24 open house that the so-called “free land” to be donated by the DOT if

the site is used as a Park and Ride as a primary part of the rationale for

the site selection. The resolution itself also mentions this donation, but this is

conspicuously absent in the “Rationale for Site Location” in Mr. Messina’s

letter.

I urge the city government to do their jobs with pride and

acknowledge that they resolved to ” … plan,

design and construct a park and ride, … “

Not simply a “community parking facility.” If the other so-called

community needs addressed by this parking lot really should be the focus of our

attention, let’s start talking about a plan that doesn’t include buses and

commuter traffic coming into our neighborhood.

Joel Burklund

North Bend