A park is not feasible because nobody has the funds to

1) Buy the land,
2) Remove the existing structures,
3) Probably do some clean up on the entire site,
4) Apply for a variance that would allow a park without a vehicle parking area,
5) Redevelop the entire site with a trail network, grass, plants, lighting, etc... and
6) Maintain the whole thing!!!

If this park was part of the Olympia Comprehensive Parks & Recreation plan, then yes, we would be dealing with a much different scenario. But they left the Isthmus out for a reason-- because it was designed for mixed use.

Don't forget that we already have a hugeeee park project going on along West Bay (PDF) that is struggling for funding and clean up assistance. We also have an extension to the existing fountain play area at Heritage park coming soon, too. I find the green space downtown to be very extensive and adequate-- from the Capitol Campus to Percival Landing greenspaces and play scapes, to the boardwalk (PDF), to the entire walking paths around the lake-- the park system surrounding downtown is great. Also just on the outside of downtown is a huge chunk of beautiful waterfront property known as East Bay Waterfront Park.

I don't think adding another 3 blocks of grass is going to really make all the difference. What's going to make a difference is putting in more shops and places to live, which is happening and is great to see. Larida Passage is just another one of the projects that I think will continue to bring downtown on the upswing. We've got enough parks that I  think are under utilized and probably underfunded to begin with. 

To ask the City to throw money onto the isthmus, which wasn't 'part of the plan' will put other park and rec projects on the back burner for decades to come.

But I am Just Another Voice

Swap the West Bay property for the isthmus and let Tri Vo put up any pile of Kirkland Krap he and the Market can bear.

Burt, I don't think I understand your logic here. Your statement that "A park is feasible because people need a park" does not hold up. How often do people go without the things they need? People need health care, a safe place to sleep, food, etc, and sadly plenty of them go without. Their need does not make it all suddenly feasible. Likewise, cities can't always afford what they need, look at Detroit. And I don't think there is even a clear need for a park there, maybe a want, but not a need.

The other issue is your worry that new downtown residents will have to reverse commute to find a park if condos are built on the isthmus. There is a park. There are several. They are all within walking distance of the proposed condos. I don't think there is any reason to believe the existing parks are reaching capacity any time soon. That said,if we do need more park space there is no reason to believe we need it there. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the parks out rather than cluster them all together along the waterfront? Wouldn't that actually lesson the need to drive to recreation? The isthmus is probably one of the least feasible spots you could pick considering the potential costs Just Another Voice has pointed out. I appreciate your passion and I know you only want to see what you feel is right for the community, I just don't think this argument holds water.

The Future West Bay park is going to be much nicer with a more important trail structure. The isthmus is mostly parking now and even though it is unsightly at least it doesn't block any views. Tear down the Port and let Tri Vo put his condos out there.