Friday, November 7, 2025
HomeOpinionReader view: Our environment is counting on you -- vote yes on...
OpinionReader view

Reader view: Our environment is counting on you — vote yes on Proposition 1

By
Georgina Armstrong

Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!

The Edmonds Marsh (File photo by Larry Vogel)

For good reason, the financial crisis that has hit our city has been widely and publicly debated. No one wants to see our city make drastic staff cuts or reduce much revered community services.

We know that a course correction is required if we are to prevent even more harm from occurring and, regardless of how the city got here, this financial imbalance must be corrected sooner rather than later. As the council has informed us in Resolution 1570, a no vote on the $14.5 million levy lid lift (Proposition 1) will result in even deeper cuts being necessitated. It is not hard to recognize, therefore, that such actions, while being assessed across the board, will have an adverse affect on our environment, an area that our organizations have always worked hard to protect.

We’re sure that the risk is not only of concern to us, but also to those of you who value our parks, open spaces, urban forests, creeks and streams, beaches, waterfront and the Edmonds Marsh. The level of maintenance these areas require is no doubt obvious to any resident who has enjoyed spending recreational time in these beautiful areas, and which provide us, within a short walk or drive away, some relief on hot summer days, or time to commune with nature and watch the wildlife that abound in these areas.

As Mayor Rosen and the City Council have stated, the cuts that will be acted upon will be austere should Proposition 1 fail. As an example, the Parks Department, which oversees the maintenance of all our city’s natural resources, will see its budget reduced by $1,870,000; however, should it pass, then Parks will receive 22% of available levy funds, which equates to $3.2 million, and will include support of environmental stewardship.

The impacts of budget cuts have already been keenly felt, and while we know there is much agreement that a long-term strategy be sought to preclude such an eventuality from being repeated in the future should Proposition 1 pass, there will still be time to plan for future solvency. The question is, will there be time to ensure that no regrettable harm comes to our fragile ecosystem if we fail to provide the needed resources — staff and funding — to continue the environmental stewardship upon which it depends? To curtail or abbreviate future maintenance and environmental projects will not come without risk.

As key environmental organizations in Edmonds and the region, we support a yes vote on Proposition 1.

Georgina Armstrong is writing on behalf of

Advocates for Justice – Environment EUMC
Edmonds Climate Advisory Board
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Advocates Leadership Team
Friends of Edmonds Trees
Interfaith Climate Action
Sierra Club Sno-Isle Executive Committee

33 COMMENTS

  1. Thank you for this insightful letter and advocating for this important levy. The fact that our most prominent local environmental groups support Prop 1 speaks volumes. My family and I will be voting YES and keeping our fingers crossed that Edmonds residents will decide that an investment in our future and environment is worth it.

    • Thanks Chelsea. Georgina is absolutely right. And what is good for our environment is also good for our local economy, preserving Edmonds desirability as a place to visit and run a successful business. Longer-term, finding environmental stewardship makes us more resilient to climate change impacts, protecting our people, property and city infrastructure. All of that protection isn’t free. Yet scores of volunteers in the supporting organizations listed are working for free to save the city money. It’s simply not enough without funding from the levy. That doesn’t mean that city government doesn’t have to work harder than ever for efficiencies wherever they can be found to protect our residents’ pocketbooks.

  2. Georgina — thank you for a thoughtful piece! Protecting Edmonds’ parks, marsh, and shoreline matters deeply. And thank you for speaking on behalf of the named organizations – it speaks volumes.

    I’m a NO – but if it passes, as a city, we should give some serious thought to reform, not just more spending. Let’s focus locally:

    Citizen-led fiscal & environmental task force for accountability.

    Audit of park operations to improve efficiency and reduce overlap.

    Regional partnerships & grant funding to strengthen stewardship.

    Green-infrastructure plan tied to Route 99 and the waterfront.

    Leverage volunteer groups like Joe Scordino’s for hands-on restoration and education..there are others, I just am familiar with Joe and his effort via MEN.

    Edmonds can protect what we love and build a sustainable future by aligning community efforts with City leadership.

  3. OMG. The guilt trip, virtue signaling. Yeah adding several police cars at 100,000 miles a year, or asphalting perfectly fine streets, or Chelsea’s plan of building in seismic zones close to the sound, or the upzoning that will occur when single family residents are displaced, that’s really great for our environment. That kool-aid tastes great!

    Team ‘No’ includes Edmonds volunteer of the year, primarily for his environmental stewardship. And Diane Buckshins co-founder of Edmonds Environmental council, I’ve donated and ask others to donate.

    Where is the empathy for residents concerned with their finances?

    https://edmondsenvironmentalcouncil.org/

  4. Thank you, Georgina, for pointing out that we need to look ahead to what will lay the foundation for an Edmonds for all. Our parks, beaches and recreation opportunities are much of what makes Edmonds unique and special – to residents and visitors alike.
    I’m a senior citizen “yes” voter and I definitely want to see accountability for our city expenditures – thank you for mentioning that, Lee.

  5. Thank you Georgina for pointing out that drastic cuts will harm our environment. If the levy passes Planning will be able to hire an Environmental Program Manager to do a better job of evaluating all the development proposals adjacent or in critical areas. This will make sure the code is followed to protect our streams, steep slopes, and wetlands. Currently the Planning Department is understaffed and overworked. We need the expertise of someone who can focus on critical areas and issues related to shoreline management when a development proposal is presented. Without expertise, the developers have an upper hand.

    I also want the extra funds Planning will get from the levy lift to make sure we can keep an Urban Forester who is just being hired. Our tree canopy is at risk from development. Reading detailed tree reports and applying the code correctly when a development proposal is being reviewed requires expertise.

    There needs to be a balance between new development and protecting our trees which do so much work for the City, by actually cleaning the air, cooling the city, reducing flood impacts, sequestering huge amounts of carbon in their trunks and also the soil beneath them, and actually consuming methane through the bacteria in their bark (a new finding!). Trees are the easiest, cheapest way to help reduce climate emissions.

  6. Chelsea Rudd,

    Please explain how you concluded that “our most prominent local environmental groups support Prop 1.” The most prominent group, and important to Edmonds future environmental health, in my opinion, is Edmonds Environmental Council. https://edmondsenvironmentalcouncil.org

    Joe Scordino, President of EEC is listed as a community supporter of Keep Edmonds Affordable advocating NO on Proposition 1. KEA’s Community supporters are clearly listed on their website:

    https://www.keepedmondsaffordable.com/supporters

  7. This is pretty good doom slinging. The plight of the birds, squirrels, the fair coyote, and the salmon are now dependent on the levy….not dependent on upzoning, State mandated density, additional growth – no – nature itself has a conscience- and a depleted checkbook. Save the trees – 14.5M Dollars at a time.

    My shaky yes vote, based solely on illogical beliefs that our Government wants to do right by its citizens, is starting to quickly lose steam as Disneyland dreams and Apocalyptic Predictions rule the day.

  8. Thank you Georgina for your straight forward and clear presentation of our choices. While it is true that our financial problems are not from just this past year, it is also clear that while our population has increased, our city staff numbers to serve that population have not increased proportionately. So even without the Co-Vid issue, the city was behind in keeping staff numbers up to serve our population. However, the problem now is how to return to the basic, necessary staff to support the current population. Loss in staff numbers today equal losses in services to community members, missing out on grant opportunities, limited preparation for emergencies, and inability to meet the requirements in our comprehensive plan. Although it may not be the best solution, increasing the levy seems the only solution to solve these problems at this time. I will vote for Proposition 1, the Levy Lift.

  9. Joe Scordino is onboard with your views here? I was part of Friends of Edmonds Trees, but lately have stepped back because my views don’t align with those expressed by FoET. I fear more environmental damage will be done by a yes vote – folks moving out and developers who are supporting Prop 1 “moving in.”

  10. YES for the environment. We need City support to enforce critical area and tree codes, to plan for climate change, to meet the coming planning and regulatory conditions of Washington’s Climate Law, to keep our parks open and safe, and to turn the Unocal site back into fish and wildlife habitat for us all to enjoy.

  11. I am firmly convinced that the levy lift is necessary to keep our city a healthy place to live. Due to the state law limiting property tax increases, the city has been trying to survive on income levels that are unrealistic with current inflation. It is like a family trying to survive on paycheck levels from 20 years ago.
    Those who accuse the city of hiding money that would make the levy unnecessary, should pay attention to the statement from Tom Mesaros that it is “improper to undermine public trust without evidence.”

    • I wouldn’t put any value on what Tom Maseros says, Marjorie.. but that’s just me. If you feel so inclined, feel free to send me an email and I’ll forward you a couple of emails regarding his involvement in a recent city attorney contract – and the recent sale of a city owned fire station.

      If we want to make change in Edmonds – it’s important to know who is working behind the scenes against the citizenry. Tom Maseros is one of those people.

      This is an open invitation ⬆️: Lee.reeves.3@gmail.com

  12. Fully support. We must protect the trees, parks, and environment- it’s what makes Edmonds such a beautiful place to live!!

  13. The biggest threat right now to our local environment is stormwater – – and this levy-lift does NOTHING to address this environmental issue because ‘stormwater’ is managed with utility funds (which are under-spent as evidenced by the ‘loan’ the City took from the utility funds).

    Mismanagement of the stormwater impacts to Yost Park is causing erosion that kills salmon in Shell Creek and nothing in the levy-lift will resolve this serious environmental damage. Nor does it open nature trails in Yost Park that have been closed due to bridges damaged by stormwater – – in spite of citizens volunteering – – at No Cost – – to help fix bridges and help rectify the erosion problem with the old Yost Water Company weirs in Shell Creek that cause excess erosion.

    Edmonds is soon to go into the record books on a current-day extirpation of salmon in an urban stream with its continued operation of salmon blocking structures in lower Perrinville Creek. Again, the culprit is stormwater and City has reneged on its 2021 commitment to provide an interim salmon channel while it works on the stormwater problem.

    Citizens wanting protection of our environment should vote No and demand the City develop an overall environmentally friendly budget with a Strategic Plan that requires fiscal accountability. Its time for City to stop making excuses for environmental damage.

    • So how exactly are we going to pay for an overhaul of a Edmonds stormwater system such that it perfectly handles erosion, salmon habitat, etc? Do you have an concrete alternative?

      • Mr. Graham – there are two ways a City can deal with an environmental problem – 1. Use ‘free’ technical information and input from knowledgeable community members combined with the millions of dollars that the State and Federal gov’t have made available to Cities for the asking (i.e., grants) to address the problem, or 2. Make excuses about having no money and doing nothing.

        In this case, the City is asking taxpayers to foot the bill for an $8.5million excess – way over the City’s APPROVED 2026 budget – to continue status quo – i.e., doing NOTHING to address our environmental problems. And that is my ‘informed’ opinion on ‘un-informed’ statements about the levy-lift being good for the environment.

        My opinion is the City needs to reconcile all of its expenditures as to if and how well they provide essential municipal services (including addressing environmental problems) before asking citizens to give the City more money with no accountability for wasteful spending and poor performance. (the over $1,000,000.00 in budget for contract attorney is an obvious example of wasteful spending and poor performance)

      • Prop 1 does NOT include funds specifically for stormwater – the title lists streets, sidewalks, parks, police and planning. The 6-year CFP/CIP includes the stormwater plan and is not funded by the General Fund which is the subject of the levy. Stormwater is funded by utility funds and grants. I anticipate since the majority of the city is built out, developers/owners/builders will play a big role in meeting stormwater requirements. Hope this helps and maybe results in a few more questions…

  14. No amount of money will save our environment and reduced funding won’t destroy it either. Common sense tells you the city is asking for to much over too short of a time period. Especially considering other increased costs. I don’t think there is anyone who thinks this is a good idea except government. Vote no make the city get back to the basics, next year or the year after another bite at the apple might be reasonable but right now the apples are withering on the vine and starting to become infested with worms/taxes.

  15. Marjie,

    This misconception keeps resurfacing—that the city is somehow trying to operate on income levels that haven’t kept pace with inflation. But the data tells a different story.

    Take a look at this chart, drawn directly from the city’s own comprehensive financial reports dating back to 2003: City Revenue vs. Inflation Chart (https://d38u6hukd4et5m.cloudfront.net/growthrateVCpi.png).

    What it shows is clear: total city revenues have consistently outpaced inflation. Property taxes are just one piece of the puzzle—there are multiple revenue streams contributing to the city’s financial picture, and collectively, they’ve grown faster than the cost of living.

    So I have to ask—does this qualify as “evidence,” or will this, too, be dismissed like other inconvenient facts that don’t support the prevailing narrative?

    Let’s ground this discussion in data, not assumptions.

  16. Georgina, as with many KEV arguments, and the Mayor’ budget, you fail to give specifics about how passage of this huge levy will benefit the marsh. Exactly how much money, and for what specific purpose(s) will the city spend this monetary windfall. What measurements will be used to determine the effectiveness of these measures.
    I am highly skeptical of the City’s dedication to the environment when they’ve failed to address “forever chemicals” in our groundwater, and instead chose development.
    Chelsea, as a candidate for the Port Commission, I would hope that you would have a more insight into the topic of the marsh than your comment would indicate.

  17. The EEC is one of the groups that is investing environmentally in Edmonds with volunteers and is making a difference with stormwater and pushing for a code to prevent potential forever chemical contamination of the Deer Creek aquifer. They are also partnering with staff (and a number of other volunteers) to help re-write the critical area ordinance likely increasing stream buffers – again, these are volunteers. Much environmental protection is a result of well written code. Also, the Community has environmental responsibilities (fossil fuels in vehicles and homes, consumer habits…) We should also include the environmental cost of driving to work to make more money to pay the additional property tax for the levy and RFA. I drive to sites in Western WA (very difficult to ride my bike or take mass transit) and will need to work another 5-10 days to pay the increased property taxes. I am having a hard time believing that Prop. 1 is all rainbows and unicorns as a number of authors have indicated.

  18. Prop.1 Police, Parks, Planning, Streets & Environment – please detail how this will help our environment?

    https://d38u6hukd4et5m.cloudfront.net/levyallocation.jfif

    I haven’t had the pleasure of meeting the author (Diane B. others have nothing but praise for her) or Chelsea, others – but I have no doubt they’re all great advocates for our environment. I’ve praised Chelsea in the past for speaking up for our parks and big red.

  19. How will the levy help our environment? It will help stop the environmental damage and losses we are already seeing due to the current budget cutbacks, such as:

    Six parks maintenance positions are vacant due to lack of funding. This has resulted in suspended landscape maintenance services at:

    -SR 104 Trail (Paradise Lane to 5th Avenue)
    -SR 104 Landscape Median Strips (Paradise Lane to 15th Avenue & Edmonds Way)
    -SR 104 Triangle Beds (238th & Edmonds Way)
    -Meadowdale Open Space
    -Pine Ridge / Yost Park Connector Trail Right of Way (86th Ave & Main St.)
    -Fire Station 16, 17 and 20
    -Ocean Avenue Right-of-Way (Trash removal)

    Lack of maintenance to these areas not only erodes our quality of life in the present, it leads to increased costs in the future. Deferred maintenance is never a sustainable cost saving measure.

    The Parks Department took its budget reduction mandate seriously and implemented a 20% reduction in water usage system-wide including parks, landscape beds, lawns, and other irrigated areas. This might be good for the budget, but it’s not good for the environment.

    I will be voting for the levy because maintaining the beauty of our parks and green spaces is not an “extra” to me- it’s the main reason I live here.

Comments are closed.

Upcoming Events

View Calendar

© Copyright 2025 | All rights reserved by My Edmonds News

Website by Web Publisher PRO