Facts

MYTH #1
The City’s measure “builds upon”, “shares same goals as”, ”doesn’t take away from”, and “clarifies verbiage” in the citizen-initiated measure.

FACT
The City’s measure uses unnecessary and nice-sounding slogans to mislead voters, but the City’s measure actually removes existing protections from Springbrook Park, eliminates several protections in Measure 3-568, and defers mapping for “natural areas” putting some parks’ acreage at risk of development.

MYTH #2
“Springbrook Park permits vehicular access” to mitigate fire hazards, such as removing dead trees and excess underbrush, and to maintain trails. These activities would not be able to continue in Springbrook and the 15 additional natural parks.

FACT
Measure 3-568 states that the City shall “maintain…a Nature Preserve for the purposes of ecological restoration that provides a safe and healthy natural area that is accessible for public enjoyment, provides a healthy habitat for wildlife, eliminates invasive species, restores native species, and mitigates fire hazards. 

Furthermore, Springbrook Park’s existing charter, the baseline for Measure 3-568, states the City “…shall not construct or develop…any Athletic Facility, or any parking lot, road, or trail for motorized vehicles…”

If City park maintenance & fire prevention efforts with vehicle access can occur in Springbrook today, then these same activities are absolutely allowed to continue for all natural parks protected by Measure 3-568.

MYTH #3
Park-specific master plans wouldn’t be allowed and would lead to costly elections to get voter approval.

FACT
The City would be expected to develop park-specific master plans that define appropriate park uses and plan (a) trails and boardwalks (using ADA-compliant natural materials used across the nation in wilderness areas) that provide access for walking, hiking, jogging, wheelchair/mobility devices, horseback, and bicycle riding, and (b) benches, interpretive displays, and picnic and sanitary facilities.

In the rare instance the City identifies a need to develop in a natural park that would otherwise be prohibited, the City would be expected to produce a compelling case for voters to decide at any May or November election. This guarantees citizens determine what is important for these natural parks.

MYTH #4
Mayor Buck claims that “members of the community attempted to work with LoveLOParks on something that could be collaborative…It just fell on deaf ears.”

FACT
LoveLOParks met with these “members of the community” numerous times who told us to “abandon our efforts” and that their stewardship relationship with the City was adequate. We offered to incorporate their ideas with ours into a joint text, but they refused and insisted on a full rewrite offering fewer development limitations. 

From Sept-Nov 2019, we spoke with hundreds of citizens; In Nov 2019, we met with Director of Parks & Recreation and incorporated his feedback; In Dec 2019, we provided public comment at the City Council meeting and invited them to collaborate — only Ms. Kohlhoff made the effort and signed the petition; In the Fall of 2020, we reached out to all 8 Mayoral and Council candidates and spoke with 7. 

City Council has never reached out to us to discuss and collaborate.

MYTH #5
People with disabilities would be excluded from access to nature.

FACT

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a Federal law and will be abided by.

National, state, and city wilderness areas and natural parks widely use natural materials, such as tightly-packed decomposed granite, and boardwalks for trails that meet ADA requirements.

See the Federal Outdoor Guide, Page 15.

Measure 3-568 absolutely supports, and expects, access to nature for people with disabilities using firm, slip-resistant ADA-compliant natural materials.

*While drafting the Charter amendment, we also consulted Lake Oswego’s Director of Parks and Recreation and discussed suitable trail surfaces used in natural areas.