05/05/2014 at 11:03 am #65669
From the Central Ballard Residents Association:
If you want to save Ballard, this is the meeting you need to attend.
If you can do one thing this month to help preserve the character of our neighborhood and stave off the worst kind of development, this should be it:
Come to a meeting with City Council Member Mike O’Brien
Thursday, May 8
5350 Tallman Ave., Ballard Swedish Hospital, Conference Room A, first floor
(Enter on the west side of the building, the Tallman Ave. entrance)
O’Brien will be the special guest speaker at the monthly meeting of the Central Ballard Residents Association (CBRA). He is chair of the City Council’s Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability (PLUS) committee — the people who decide what kind of development happens where in Seattle. And he might run for the new city council district that includes Ballard. This is your chance to meet face-to-face with one of the key city council members who will decide the future of your community.
O’Brien and other members of the planning committee will be making critical decisions about urban density in June, so now is the time to be heard. We want to pack the room and let him know that residents all throughout Ballard are concerned about the way development is changing our neighborhood for the worse. We need to demonstrate a critical mass of popular support in order to trigger policy changes. So please don’t sit on the sidelines and rely on others to step up. Come and join this critical discussion about the future of our neighborhood!
For more, visit the Livable Ballard website: http://livableballard.org/05/05/2014 at 1:56 pm #65685
Thank you for the information, I’ll be there.05/05/2014 at 2:09 pm #65686
O’Brien? Please he is a beard for developers who will be more than happy to Greenwash the apodments.05/05/2014 at 5:15 pm #65707
Until district elections take effect, he might be the best point person on council.05/08/2014 at 7:36 pm #65960
Just asked in the spirit of a polemic: I wonder how far back “Save [insert neighborhood here]” movements might go? In the ’70s I’m sure folks were clamoring to preserve the [insert neighborhood here] of the ’50s, and so on, and, like mirrors placed opposite each other, movement upon movement elegiacally invoking the ever receding images of a past that can exist only in imagination and nostalgia. How far back do we go and what is the character of Ballard? Raise the buildings, plant forests and give it back to the folks who first moved here after the last ice age? I like and fondly remember the the Ballard I first saw in the early ’80s, but I also like much of the change I have witnessed since then.05/09/2014 at 8:06 am #65972
Jonathan, having attended the packed SRO meeting last night, it seemed at times to be the crowd scene from Frankenstein, lacking only pitchforks and torches!
Most of the complaints were IMHO not nimby, but rather valid complaints about the City Council not delivering on the transit/maintenance/parks/etc amenities promised to go along with the turbo-mode growth we’ve had, or complaints about the incredibly slow progress of the Council in addressing clear spirit-of-zoning violations such as allowing living units as small as 140 sq ft, by far the smallest allowed of any city in the US. (The Councilmember’s response to this, ironically in view of his general politics, was “let the free market decide”). I was disappointed to note that the Councilmember seemed to consider that only all-or-none pauses/temporary moratoriums on building permits are possible, ignoring limited geographically-focused, data-driven “smart pause” type suggestions (see below). That said, the Councilmember was personally gracious and willing to listen to us angry peasants.
I was especially interested by one audience suggestion that I think makes a lot of sense. Ballard has *already achieved* more than 200% of its residential growth goals for the mid-2020s, but seen not an increase but a reduction in transit and so forth. If growth plans are to have any meaning at all, why not automatically slow or pause the issuance of larger-scale building permits (e.g. 5 or more units) if an area has already over-met its growth targets AND has not yet been supplied with the appropriate transportation/school/etc increases? This would have the advantage of being a transparent, data-driven process, would support rather than ignore the city’s growth plans, and allow continued development.05/16/2014 at 6:29 pm #66489
Hey! It’s Friday! Can’t wait to know, did they save Ballard last night?05/16/2014 at 8:35 pm #66507
Crying, Waiting, Hoping05/17/2014 at 9:15 am #66514
OG – the current slogan for Ballard is the same one they had for Ben Tre, Vietnam: “we had to destroy it in order to save it”05/17/2014 at 8:43 pm #66535
Wow, hate to see the old town go away, all of it was pretty nice except maybe the shacks on 56th between Market and 57th they threw up after WW2, as they say, time marches on, and money talks while everything else STFUs…05/18/2014 at 9:12 am #66561
Those shacks have hardwood floors and are better built than anything in Ballard built since the 70s. The townhouses on 56th are on their 3rd set of decks. I call that a shack.05/18/2014 at 3:11 pm #66571
Briarrose… hardwood floors my ass! Been in several of them and you are half right, wood floors, NOT hardwood, WOOD! Got a sliver off of one once, don’t ask…
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.