The proposed site for a new children’s museum at the closed end of the Foss Waterway is not the best site.

It might even be a bad site, for reasons geographical, environmental, legal and political.

All that might become apparent at the end of the latest public process of the Foss Waterway Development Authority. But it isn’t apparent yet.

On Tuesday night at Freighthouse Square, more than 100 people discussed what they thought were the best uses for one of the last open spaces on the waterway.

On one level, it was the boat people vs. the museum people.

The boat people are advocates for what was termed human-powered watercraft – kayaks, canoes, dragon boats, sculls. For a decade or more they were promised a place on the Foss to store and launch their boats, kind of like Thea Foss herself did more than a century ago.

And the land in question was bought with Pierce County Conservation Futures money to be set aside for open space, nonmotorized boating, native plants and a soft shoreline (as opposed to the bulkhead and concrete that lines the rest of the waterway).

Dedicating some of the land to a new building – even one as benign and beneficial as a children’s museum – raises legal questions for which there are theories but no answers.

The 3 acres at the corner closest to the Tacoma Dome and near two massive storm drain outfalls is leftover land that’s not considered attractive for development. It had some of the dirtiest soil and sediments. But even that was welcomed by rowers and skullers because they have no other place for their avocation.

That was the deal before it was purchased. It was the deal after it was purchased. No wonder there’s resentment at an attempt to bargain a new deal, mostly in secret, with no one from the rowing community at the table.

As site after site on the publicly owned Foss has been given over to buildings – museums, apartments, condos and restaurants – there is growing concern in the broader community that little will be left open and natural, at least as natural as a former industrial cesspool can be.

The museum people want a new spot for the museum that is now in leased space in the middle of downtown. It seems fair to them to ask that a portion of this land – just 20 percent – be set aside for the museum.

In isolation, it might seem fair. But those 3 acres already are a small percentage of the entire Foss. So losing some of the small amount left undeveloped is a bigger deal than it might seem to some.

Finally, is this the best possible site for a museum? It’s remote and has been hemmed in by construction of the massive D Street overpass project. Access is awkward. Parking is a challenge. It’s relatively far from other tourist destinations on the Foss. It’s not a site that will be stumbled upon by curious pedestrians. And it will require another $300,000 in environmental cleanup.

The public process will continue with a meeting Feb. 19 at 5:30 p.m. But the best result of the controversy may be that a better site has been identified. About halfway up the Foss, around where Johnny’s Seafood now sits, is land in public ownership.

City and county government officials have suggested offering it as open space in trade for the land the museum wants. In theory it would satisfy the conservation futures requirement that land it helped purchase be preserved.

But why not build the museum there instead? It is closer to downtown, closer to the other museums, more accessible and less environmentally damaged. And it can be used without picking a fight with the boat people and open-space advocates who want what they’ve been promised.

And no one has to be labeled anti-kid.

Peter Callaghan: 253-597-8657

peter.callaghan@thenewstribune.com

blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics