The petition to put the Chuckanut Mountains Park District proposal on the ballot sometime next year is gone. A Superior Court judge invalidated the measure after concluding that the boundaries of the proposed district were improperly drawn.

Even if boundaries had not been an issue the measure may well have been doomed from the start. It was the brainchild of a well-meaning, but narrow group that fell short of making its case to the general public.

Thus, for many, it seemed to spring up from nowhere. Skagit County, with 40 percent of the land proposed for the park district, would have had only 6 percent of the vote. With the proposed boundaries reaching into the south side of Bellingham, Whatcom County voters would have had an overwhelming advantage in controlling the agenda.

We believe the advocates of the park district were sincere when they said there would be no intent to invoke the power of eminent domain to acquire more land for parks. But as long as state law allows for such an eventuality, there will be those who remain skeptical of the park group’s aims.

When a group proposes a brand new taxing district, that proposition is tethered to a large burden of proof that it would be meeting a crucial need. Too many other priorities rise above the creation of a new system of governance long on sweeping goals, but rather short on details.

One of the details that got overlooked when the park district proponents drafted their petition and drew lines on a map was the inclusion of Indian trust land within district boundaries.

A proposed tax levy of 25 cents per $1,000 assessed valuation may not seem like much — $50 a year on a $200,000 home. But it is a hard sell at a time when school district after school district can’t get construction bonds passed.

It should be noted that among the park district proponents are those who want to end logging on Blanchard Mountain, which would have been included in the park district. Much of the revenue from logging on the mountain goes into the capital school construction funds of the Burlington-Edison School District, which has seen two successive bond issues fail.

That is not to diminish some of the goals the park district group put forth. The idea of treating the Chuckanut Mountains as a planning unit for recreation and open space is a good one in principle.

Perhaps, park district proponents would be more successful by developing effective outreach programs to spread their message and build a public consensus that elected officials can’t ignore.

• Editorials reflect the consensus opinion of the editorial board and are written by its members: Publisher L. Stedem Wood, Editor Don Nelson and City Editor Dick Clever.