As one of the demented few who have never voted against a parks or school levy in my life, it's with some discomfort (but not really that much in this case) that I oppose Seattle Proposition 2, also known as the "Seattle Parks and Green Spaces Levy."

It's "green" alright, if you count the color of millions of dollars being thrown away on hidden costs, while we face one of the most dire financial crises in our city's history. How else is it green?

Well, if you count the lead-laden green dye used on the $10 million worth of potentially toxic synthetic turf paid for in the levy, that's another way it's green. All around the nation, from New Jersey to Los Angeles, city governments have been halting use of the new heavily leaded fields, while studies indicate real danger from the new surfaces. One need not look far on the Internet to find legitimate and scientific consensus about concern about these new fields.

Yet, Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation and the Seattle City Council sit on their hands. While other cities are ordering immediate and urgent testing of new synthetic fields, with many tests showing serious concerns about lead and other toxin levels, Seattle officials say "we'll wait and see" while placing $10 million worth of these unproven and possibly unsafe fields into the levy. They say, "it's for the children." This forever evidences that mythology, showing the disregard for the safety of children in order to stoke the big-dollar industry of adult sports leagues, replete with full-time paid lobbyists, demanding synthetic fields as thought it's their constitutional right.

Additionally, the advisory committee appointed by the city Council to design Proposition 2 was stacked with organized sports lobby advocates, while known parks department critics where completely excluded. Perhaps the most egregious example was the inclusion of a high-ranking member of the organization "Friends of Athletic Fields," one of the most aggressive pro-synthetic groups around. Ironically, the Pro Parks Levy of 2000 created a "Pro Parks Levy Oversight Committee," which included a member who was cited by the Seattle Ethics Commission for conflict of interest in attempting to promote commercial services in their role on the city committee. And guess which organization they represented? You got it, "Friends of Athletic Fields."

But it's not just the bone-headed, "head in the sand" attitude about potentially dangerous synthetic fields that warrants a hearty "nay" on the levy. Perhaps even more ludicrous is the inclusion of millions of dollars for air conditioning for the Seattle Asian Art Museum. In the words of a certain vice-presidential candidate, "let me repeat:" this "Green Spaces Levy" includes millions of dollars for HVAC at the Seattle Asian Art Museum.

Now how did this occur? Good luck getting anyone to tell you straight, but word has it that the Seattle Art Museum was owed a favor by the City Council, and this was the time to pay it back. Does the museum perhaps need upgraded air conditioning? Sure. But should millions of dollars be used in a Parks and Green Spaces Levy? No way.

And it doesn't stop there. While Rome burns and we're being asked to cough up millions for toxic plastic grass fields and air conditioning for museums in a "green space" levy, the city continues to pillage open space at the besieged Magnuson Park. Council members admit that green space would be lost to the construction of a new tennis center at Magnuson Park by a private entity.

An excellent argument can also be made that these kind of levies are in fact double taxation, used to bailout city agencies for their inability to properly plan for and use public money already appropriated to them from the city budget. We just coughed up almost $200 million for a "one time only" parks levy in 2000. Now they want over $100 mil more, and rest assured they'll come back soon for more.

The gall of this scam is clear. They call it " green space", and we get air conditioning, lead-based fields, and terminal renewals. They allocate $10 million for plastic fields, with no plan or budget for replacement and the impossible disposal of these toxic rugs. They know full well that they'll be coming back for more, and they expect us to say, "Well sure, I support parks!"

Some proponents say this is a chance to really put it to Mayor Nickels. He was opposed to this levy going forward, and the City Council, in an act hardly reflecting the bravery that the council attaches to this effort, moved forward anyway. Even without the mayor's permission? Such courage!

Here's the answer: vote No. And demand that they strip out the millions and millions of BS in this levy, and come back with an honest levy free of hidden pay-backs, free of toxic fields, free of the biased and stacked advisory committees, and focused only on the many worthy programs that make up the majority of this levy. Call the city on the "well most of it's OK!" logic, and demand that political favors and sports-field lobbyists make a living some other way than on our backs. We have a responsibility to fund a solid parks system, but we deserve better than this.

Jim Anderson may be reached via bnteditor@robinsonnews.com