Kirkland has recently taken over Juanita Bay Park and is remanufacturing it into an enviro-adventure park where if only left alone to nature’s ways it would simply revert back to being a sandbar in the bay. Where do we draw the line between public parks, which are capital intensive reworkings of nature or privately owned pay-to-enter amusement parks that are nature oriented? Should government be spending capital sums to re-engineer nature to make it more natural than it was to begin with because sometimes nature lacks appealing pizzazz? It is typically private ownerships that are lambasted because of their capital improvements, which change the natural face of the land. So it is strange to see government now stepping in to the same arena. Where should the line be drawn between amusement parks with a nature theme such as Northwest Wildlife Trek and plain old public parks? We are seeing user fees more commonly to defray the expense of public parks so is there going to be a park entrance fee now to take a look at the artificial wetlands?

Miles F. Holden, Kirkland