This topic contains 63 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by Anonymous 3 years, 7 months ago.
07/15/2015 at 10:10 am #81584
You could go out tomorrow and get 2000 people to sign a petition saying what, GI? That they want the missing link built? I’d like to see the missing link built too, but in my opinion that is far from Ballard’s most pressing concern.
Mike O’Brien made a serious misstep in trying to push through the proposed encampment sites without any input from the community. I’m guessing he didn’t expect the level of blowback that’s resulted. The way he’s handled this shows a total lack of consideration for his constituents, not to mention a lack of political savvy.
The Ballard Chamber and its members are pissed about this. They were completely blindsided. The Chamber has been working with the city for several years on a new Urban Development Framework for Ballard and were notified about the selected sites just two hours before the city sent out a press release about them. That’s not how you work with community partners, or garner votes.
We’ll see what happens in November.07/15/2015 at 11:05 am #81586
“…were notified about the selected sites just two hours before the city sent out a press release about them. That’s not how you work with community partners, or garner votes. ”
Interesting that besides Mike O’Brien, the other Seattle politician to operate like this was Mayor McGinn, O’Brien’s close political compatriot.07/15/2015 at 12:47 pm #81591
Actually, Mondo, the entire council (except Tom Rasmussen) is operating the same way on this issue. All of them except Rasmussen signed a letter sent to the mayor last week that signed off on the encampments and made it clear that they’re not interested in a public process about the proposed sites (which is what prompted the petition), because they knew there would be a big uproar. And they (wrongly) thought that Ballard would just roll over.
The mayor also shares the blame – he was on a recent tour of Ballard with Chamber members and didn’t mention the two proposed sites. And the selection process was underway even before the council voted in March to approve three new encampments. By March the list had already been whittled down.
So there’s clearly been an attempt to slide this through without notifying the community or giving anyone a chance to comment on it.
FYI, there’s a meeting about this tomorrow at Ballard Church:
On Thursday July 16 at 7 pm at the Ballard Church (73rd and Mary) WHIN (Whittier Heights Involved Neighbors) is holding a meeting of citizens concerned with new transitional encampments (tent city) and the process leading to their siting in Ballard. If passed by the city these sites could be occupied by the encampments for up to 2 years with options to renew after a one year vacant period.07/15/2015 at 7:57 pm #81599
Salmon Bay, GI and Ernie,
You don’t think a public process is warranted for the proposed tent sites. So I guess that means you also agree with Shell not having to hold a public process for stationing their Arctic drilling platforms in Seattle – since the Port of Seattle didn’t require it.
How about if a developer wants to put a 10-story building next to you? You don’t need to have a say in that if our elected officials okayed it, right? Or if the parks department decides to light the park next to you up with bright floodlights until late in the evening. Or City Light wants to build a substation on your block. Or the city decides to change the parking requirements on your street.
No public process required, right? Because we should all just trust our elected officials and let them govern.
D07/15/2015 at 10:47 pm #81604
CR, your use of hyperbole doesn’t indicate that you actually “got it”, or that you are really interested in having a grown-up discussion.
Have fun at the concerned citizen meeting, give my best to the other WHIN-ers!07/16/2015 at 6:01 am #81605
Any adult that’s walked around Seattle/Ballard would know this shanty camp is a bad idea. Begging, crime and public intoxication would increase and disrupt normal activity. Bums are boring pests.07/16/2015 at 8:11 am #81606
Nice try, Ernie. It’s not hyperbole at all. It’s a pretty basic principle. Either you support a public process in Seattle, not just for decisions you don’t like, or you don’t. And clearly you don’t.07/16/2015 at 9:41 am #81607
~How about if a developer wants to put a 10-story building next to you?
*Zoning doesn’t allow that in my neighborhood. I checked the zoning before I bought my house.
~Or if the parks department decides to light the park next to you up with bright floodlights until late in the evening.
*That would be awesome. The street lights surrounding my house light everything up all night. More lighting increases security.
~Or City Light wants to build a substation on your block.
~Or the city decides to change the parking requirements on your street.
*I bought a house with plenty of off street parking and a big garage. I would love it if the city changed all street parking in the city to be paid parking. It is an undervalued commodity with huge external costs.07/16/2015 at 9:50 am #81608
I feel sorry for tourists visiting Seattle and getting pestered by the bums downtown. I attended a couple of events last weekend at the Convention Center and nearby a nearby hotel. The beggars are constantly hovering like Mosquitoes and trying engage visitors. They hide under freeway park or flop in the park between time spent harassing tourists. You don’t want to attract more of them to Ballard.07/16/2015 at 12:14 pm #81612
Nice attempt at obfuscation, SB, but you’re proving my point. You don’t feel the need for a public process on (hypothetical) initiatives you have no problem with.
But what about ones you don’t? Do you think there should have been a public process around Shell’s Artic drilling platforms?07/16/2015 at 4:06 pm #81614
Just a side note on zoning for SB: you write “~How about if a developer wants to put a 10-story building next to you?
*Zoning doesn’t allow that in my neighborhood. I checked the zoning before I bought my house.”
It IS important to check zoning before buying, but zoning can and has been changed. The streets in Central Ballard with 4- to 6-story buildings popping up were zoned for 1-3 story buildings until the City changed the zoning during the past 10-15 years. The new proposal to the City is to change all the former single-family zoning to allow multiple units per lot — you may not want that next to your house.07/16/2015 at 4:49 pm #81618
the new proposal allows up to three units per lot, but does not exceed current height or lot coverage restrictions.
I’m sure people will still grumble about that precious ‘loss of parking’ but this sounds like a terrific way to add density to single-family neighborhoods w/o changing the character (scale) of the streetscape.07/16/2015 at 7:15 pm #81619
Vehicles, cars, trucks and motorcycles, are here to stay and they need parking. Bums need to be arrested for vagrancy.07/16/2015 at 10:58 pm #81628
gi – That’s only the first stage of the rezone. Once you have multi-units, it’s easy to upzone again to multi-story. The real problem is blindly applying major zoning changes to large areas of the city without testing them first. Last time they did this, we ended up with apodments. Why not try this new scheme in a limited area (part of one or two neighborhoods) first for 5 years, and see if there are major unintended consequences?07/17/2015 at 8:22 am #81629
What we heard from Alan Durning and Faith Pettis at Sightline yesterday was that the HALA recommends changing the zoning on 6% of the 65% zoned residential in Seattle. In the remaining approximately 60% of the City that is zoned residential they have recommended easing the regulations on accessory dwelling units (“mother-in-law” apartments and small detached dwelling units on the same property) but not changing the zoning.
The Mayor still has to come out with his recommendations and the Council will consider and no doubt make their own changes before enacting legislation. There will be opportunity to weigh in and influence that process as it continues.
When asked about those people earning 0-30% of AMI, they said the other committee (don’t have the name) will address that group in its recommendations. The HALA’s recommendations will be in addition to what the other committee recommends.
Does anyone have information about what the other committee is called and what it will recommend?07/17/2015 at 9:13 am #81630
Mondo, we did not end up with apodments because of any zoning change.
that code loophole (“A single dwelling unit can house up to eight unrelated people utilizing a single kitchen and common space.”) has always existed; it only came into vogue as there was an uptick in demand.
the city tried that limited approach with backyard cottages. I believe they initially only allowed them in the Southeast portion of the city until they figured out there were no “major unintended consequences”.
I don’t think it was helpful to delay this building type in our neighborhood. maybe housing costs wouldn’t be quite through the roof.07/17/2015 at 10:46 am #81631
“Do you think there should have been a public process around Shell’s Artic (sic) drilling platforms?”
Sounds as if you are not familiar with what happened here. The Seattle Public Process is EXACTLY why the drilling platform was allowed in to the port. Foss Maritime appealed the ruling by Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development to a Hearing Examiner. Sound familiar? (Hint: Missing Link)
Insert some comments here about family wage jobs, the value of the maritime industry, sustaining the oil fleet in Alaska, supporting the heating oil business in Ballard, etc., etc., etc.07/17/2015 at 10:51 am #81632
“Vehicles, cars, trucks and motorcycles, are here to stay and they need parking.”
They sure do. If you need to park your car, truck, motorcycle, you should rent or purchase a place with parking. It’s that simple.07/17/2015 at 11:00 am #81633
GI, at least one of the zoning changes that led to apodments happened about 5 years ago IIRC. That was where they changed the zoning to allow multi-unit dwellings not to build on-site parking to meet the building’s projected demand, but rather to use on-street parking, even if the necessary number of free spaces were not available in the area.
I believe there were other changes that allowed taller buildings, a “bonus” story on top if the “ground” floor was partly below grade, and so forth. Apodments wouldn’t make sense if they had to pay for their full impacts, or were restricted to traditional low-rise neighborhoods.07/17/2015 at 11:09 am #81635
“They sure do. If you need to park your car, truck, motorcycle, you should rent or purchase a place with parking. It’s that simple.”
And when you purchase a house, you will oppose adding more apodments on your street when there’s no underground parking included with the new intrusive structure. The developers don’t have to live next to their wonderful creations, but we do. A story in the Crosscut.com points out, the wealthy neighborhoods won’t allow dormitories.07/17/2015 at 11:09 am #81636
Tell the developer trolls to shut-up.07/17/2015 at 11:13 am #81637
This thread has wandered off the topic of adding a tent village on Market St.– without adequate parking for RVs, shopping carts and vans!07/17/2015 at 12:09 pm #81644
I hear that the local NIMBYs are actually going to protest at the Market Street location (and others?), possibly wearing those crass “STFU Ballard” shirts.
I hope instead they dress like those ‘billionaires for Bush’ protestors did a few years ago– that was hilarious!07/17/2015 at 1:25 pm #81648
The petition has now surpassed 900 signatures. We’d like to get it to 1,000 by the end of the weekend.
If you haven’t signed it yet and want to see an opportunity for public input before the two Ballard sites are finalized, please sign!07/17/2015 at 1:31 pm #81649
Yes, SB, it was appealed – because the port decided there was no need for a public process, which apparently you’re perfectly fine with. Just make sure you don’t bitch next time elected officials unilaterally make a decision you don’t agree with.
Also, if you’re going to get petty about typos, it should be “into the port,” not “in to.”
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.