Science Center Proposal Called Asset, Boondoggle
Depending on one’s viewpoint, leasing Riverfront Park’s pavilion to the Pacific Science Center is a spectacular opportunity or an economic black hole.
About 40 people attended the Spokane Park Board’s hearing on a proposed contract to lease the pavilion to the Seattle-based science center for 20 years with two 10-year renewals.
The center is a hands-on museum where children and adults can take part in science experiments.
Several residents praised the proposed lease as an invaluable asset that would really add something to the community.
“We have an opportunity to offer a world-class science center to Spokane,” said Heather Cassidy, a Spokane School District 81 science teacher. “I urge you to move forward on a lease agreement.”
Bob Mansfield, an electrical engineer and the husband of a science teacher, said he’d visited the Seattle center and found elementary students learning things he didn’t learn until college. “The children of Spokane will thank us,” he promised.
Others called the lease a financial boondoggle that could only hurt taxpayers.
“There are too many unknowns, too many federal, state and city dollars involved, too much subsidy,” said John Talbot, a frequent critic of city spending.
In addition to the lease, the Park Board is considering a separate fiveyear services contract with the center that requires the city and the Park Board to pay the center $400,000 for two years, reducing the amount each year thereafter.
In return, the center plans to give reduced and free admission tickets to students, senior citizens and lowincome persons.
Pacific Science boosters currently are trying to raise about $3 million in private and $7 million from state and federal taxpayers toward the $10 million project.
Indian Trail resident Jonathan Swanstrom said he’d spent weeks comparing the resources available in Seattle to those in Spokane and decided Spokane couldn’t support the center.
“My conclusion is it’s a waste of taxpayers’ money,” Swanstrom said. “I’m tired of people spending my money like they’re going to the electric chair tomorrow.”
Some critics directed their comments to the Park Board, which they say failed to listen to the public.
“I think we’ve got a problem with the Spokane Park Board and this lease is part of it,” said Ken Withey. “You’re appointed to listen to the citizens of Spokane and I demand you do so.”
Since its unveiling, the proposal to bring the center to Spokane has raised the ire of some residents who say the city hasn’t carefully studied the plan and its long-term costs.
Many are upset by the loss of the pavilion’s carnival rides, which would either be removed or relocated.
A group led by Steve Corker, who formerly worked as Riverfront Park’s public relations agent, circulated a petition calling for a vote on the park’s future.
His group proposed an amendment to the city charter that would subject any changes to the Carrousel, gondola, ice rink or IMAX to public approval.
The petition didn’t get enough signatures.
The Park Board plans to vote on the contract next week. Its decision goes on to the City Council for final approval.