Some community members felt the meeting turned out to be about how tee-ball and youth soccer were to be scheduled for the field, not about whether they should be scheduled at all, which was their expectation. One resident told me “The meeting last night was not productive. There was an agenda, but nothing was actionable.”

This experience left me feeling the need for DPR to improve its outreach practices, which I encouraged then-DPR Superintendent Ken Bounds to pursue.

The following year, he and DPR published the department’s first public involvement policy.

This month presents Seattle residents an opportunity to test it.

DPR is soliciting help from the public in planning the future of Seattle’s parks, programs and community centers as well as other facilities. Their goal is to gather public input for incorporation into their Parks Legacy Plan. The City Council will be presented DPR’s plan for approval in December. Councilmember Sally Bagshaw Chairs the Council’s Parks and Neighborhood Committee.

• Tuesday, May 7 from 7 to 8:30 p.m.: General Meeting
  Seattle Parks and Recreation Administration Building
  100 Dexter Ave. N
• Wednesday, May 8 from 7 to 8:30 p.m.: Sports, Recreation, and Aquatics
  Green Lake Community Center
  7201 E Green Lake Dr. N
• Monday, May 13 from 5:30 to 7 p.m. Seniors, Teens Including LGBT, Community Centers And Associated Recreation Council (Arc)
  Northgate Community Center
  10510 5th Ave. NE
• Thursday, May 16 from 7 to 8:30 p.m.: Environmental Programs, Open Space And Maintenance
  Jefferson Community Center
  3801 Beacon Ave. S
• Tuesday, May 21 from 7 to 8:30 p.m.: General Meeting
  Dakota Place Park Building
  4304 SW Dakota St.
• Wednesday, May 22 from 7 to 8:30 p.m.: Immigrant and Refugee Communities
  South Shore K-8 School
  4800 S Henderson St.
  

  A 1950 ariel photo of Seattle’s 1st public park, Denny Park, dontated in 1864 by David Denny & Louisa Denny while still a cemetery. Graves were moved at the city’s expense after the Denny’s created an 1883 deed making most of the area a public park. (courtesy Seattle PI Archives)

Some of the questions current DPR Superintendent Christopher Williams and his staff want to ask include “Are we spending resources as effectively as possible? What does the public think of our park system? What are the basic services we provide? Should the community center programs seek to bring in more revenue? What do you think is important to provide through teen programs? How would you prioritize funding dollars for cleaning comfort stations, maintaining sportsfields, and lawn maintenance?”

DPR is also inviting residents to comment on any DPR topic.

Do you know that DPR is a long time supporter of the arts?  It runs arts programs at Magnuson Park and the Alki Arts Studio while partnering with 9 other arts groups, such as Pratt Fine Arts Center, Seattle Public Theater, Spectrum Dance Theater and the Seattle Art Museum.

After being harangued by me over the years to prioritize reconstruction of Building 30 in Magnuson Park, they are doing so as I write. The seismically upgraded building is expected to re-open this fall with at least 20 artist work studios and its large hanger space welcoming back community groups and activities that had been turned away due to safety concerns.

Artspace, a provider of affordable artist live/work space throughout the country, estimated over a thousand working artists are on waiting lists for affordable work studio and live/work studio space in Seattle. 24 artists once worked in Building 11’s studios at Magnuson Park.

Will DPR again seek artists to rent work space in Building 11? How does it plan on working with Magnuson Park’s 20-year old arts advocacy group SPACE – the Sand Point Arts & Cultural Exchange? Will DPR update its system wide 12 year old planning documents for the arts?

To learn more, refer to DPR’s Parks Legacy Plan.

Those who cannot attend a meeting and wish to comment on DPR’s draft plan can email parkslegacy@seattle.gov.

Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter.
• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.

While you may know about our city’s arts office and the important contributions it provides to Seattle’s ranking as a top U.S. arts destination, you may not be aware that Seattle’s DPR contributes, as well.

Their summer arts program is designed to provide summer learning opportunities, build self esteem, promote cross-cultural experiences, build ongoing participation in Parks, including welcoming drop-ins, and support the City’s Youth and Families Initiative. Up to $8,400 will be awarded for each of four parks: Othello Playground, Lakeridge Playground, Judkins Park, and Maplewood Playfield.

Summer Art in the Park is intended to offer fun, innovative, curriculum-based visual and performing arts activities in our parks for children, families, early childhood education facilities, and community centers.

The winning proposers are expected to offer activities complimentary to existing uses of each park while providing programming that appeals to young children ages 5 to 9 and teens ages 10 to 14 starting June 24th, ending August 16th, 2013.

Susan Tidwell’s temporary 2011 art installation in Occidental Park.

Proposers must also participate in the Free Summer Food Service Program, provided by the Seattle Human Services Department and coordinated through Seattle Parks and Recreation, as well as participate in the End of the Summer Celebration – a performance showcase, food and visual art display held August 15th.

Electronic submissions are not being accepted. Proposers must snail mail their applications to:

2013 Summer Art in the Park Program RFP
City of Seattle, Dept. of Parks & Recreation
Out of School Time Office
Attn: Daisy Catague
4209 W Marginal Way SW
Seattle Washington 98106

For more information, call DPR at 206-615-0303 or email daisy.catague@seattle.gov. Click here for DPR’s “Request for Proposals” website and scroll down to find the RFP.

 Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter.
• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.

The Levy Opportunity Fund is a $15 million fund within the 2008 $146 million 6-year Levy. The fund’s projects are proposed by neighborhood and community groups. After consideration and recommendation by the Oversight Committee, funding for these projects is approved by ordinance. The City Council approved a 1st round of Opportunity Fund projects totaling $9,758,000 in November of 2011. Their April 22nd hearing is for a 2nd round allocating up to an additional $8 million.

Flo Ware Park project Pro Parks Levy check presentation, 2002.

Back in 2000, I sponsored legislation sending the City’s 2000 Pro Parks Levy to the ballot. It was an eight-year $198.2 million Levy. As chair of the Culture, Arts, and Parks Committee, I had worked with then-Mayor Schell and Department of Parks and Recreation Superintendent Ken Bounds to create the citizen-based Pro-Parks Committee that proposed the measure to fund Seattle neighborhood parks, recreation and open space projects. That measure – Proposition No. 1, Parks, Green Spaces, Trails & Zoo Levy – passed with 54% approval, second only to the Monorail’s Proposition 2, which garnered a 56% yes vote.

This past January, Parks staff and the 2008 Levy Oversight Committee members heard more than forty 2nd round funding presentations.

Some of those presentations included a land purchase in South Park to build a future gateway park and connection to the Duwamish River; a Sensory Garden at Woodland Park Zoo designed for the disabled and all abilities to experience nature through imaginative, therapeutic, and educational ways; and a Northwest Native Canoe Center Carving Shed where the public is welcome to observe native carvers working on distinctive varieties of Native American culture.

Projects funded in the 1st round include the roof replacement at the Green Lake Bathhouse, home to Seattle Public Theatre; renovation of the Rainier Beach playfield play area; and renovation of the Madrona playground shelter restrooms.

The 16-member volunteer Citizen Oversight Committee advises the Parks Superintendent, the Mayor and the City Council on the Levy fund. Members serve staggered terms over the life of the current 2009-2014 levy. Members represent the community at large geographically. Half are appointed by the Mayor and half by the City Council.

 Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter.
• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.

The 10th Annual Langston Hughes African American Film Festival kicks off April 13th at the Langston Hughes Performing Arts Institute. It will run through April 20th.  The festival brings to Seattle thought-provoking, illuminating films that showcase stories of people of African descent, from around the world, by independent filmmakers. Check their website for more information.

ART IN THE PARK

A couple of years ago, in response to dwindling revenues, the City’s Parks Department sought to save money by having three of its most popular arts programs paid for by the City’s Arts Office so they could continue. During 2011 and 2012, funding for the Parks Department’s Langston Hughes Cultural Arts Center, its Downtown Parks Arts program, and its Outdoor Neighborhood Parks Activation program was drawn from the City’s arts account, which receives revenue from City admissions taxes to fund the Arts Office. The Parks Department continued to manage those programs.

Blue Trees, by Konstantin Dimopoulos. Photo by Graham Syed.

This funding agreement ended last year and some worried that the Parks Department might not continue its commitment to bringing art into City parks. I then sponsored a budget paper expressing the Council’s intent to see continued arts programming in our parks. The Parks Department agreed. That’s good news for the many children and adults who participated in past Parks Department arts programs.

ARTSparks, a partnership between the Parks Department and the Arts Office, is now seeking proposals for arts projects to be temporarily installed in Occidental Square between June and September 2013. Individuals and organizations are asked to submit one to three distinct proposals. ARTSparks is part of the City of Seattle’s Center City Initiative, which contributes to making downtown parks more attractive, safe, and welcoming to the public.

The Summer Art in the Park Program seeks individuals, groups, or organizations to provide culturally relevant, safe, and reliable arts programming for Othello Playground, Lakeridge Playground, Judkins Park, and Maple Wood Playfield. The program’s focus is to provide fun, innovative, curriculum based visual and performing arts that will have a positive impact on the children, families, early childhood education facilities, and community centers of Seattle.

For the Summer Art in the Park program, the Parks Department will host a free workshop on Thursday, April 4th, from 6 to 7 p.m. at Miller Community Center, 330 19th Avenue East in Seattle on completing the Request for Proposal.

The deadline for applying to either program is May 10th.

Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.

Building 11

Unfortunately, disagreements over the lease developed between the City and the LLC that lead to litigation resulting in a settlement that the City Council recently approved. The agreement  ends the LLC’s lease and returns the building to the City while compensating the LLC for its capital improvement costs, professional services, and other related expenses in the amount of $7,250,000. The LLC will continue construction this year to meet code compliance and subsequent operation of the building by the Parks and Recreation Department.

During the original lease being negotiated in 2009, I learned that the approximately 24 artists who had leased studios in Building 11 for the previous 9 years were about to have their leases terminated. In order to retain at least some of those artists, I proposed to the LLC they allow the Parks and Recreation Department to lease a smaller area of artist studios in the building from the LLC and, in turn, the Parks and Recreation Department would lease those units to any artists wishing to return once rehabilitation was complete. Although the LLC and the Parks and Recreation Department agreed to my proposal, disagreements over the master lease prevented that agreement from being exercised.

Magnuson Park, circa 1999. Bldg. 11 is at extreme top right of the peninsula.

Now that operation of the building will return to the Parks and Recreation Department, I would like to see working artists return.

With years-long waiting lists at Seattle’s few affordable artist studios – TK Lofts, Hiawatha Lofts, the Good Shepherd Center artist lofts, etc. – I’m sure it won’t take long to lease Building 11’s artist studios to working artists.

By recruiting artists into both Building 30 and into Building 11, the City comes closer to achieving its long-held vision of Magnuson Park being a home to creativity as well as to recreation and environmental stewardship.

Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter by sending a blank email.
• To Unsubscribe, send a blank email (No message needed in the body of the emails you send).
• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.

DPR received ten construction bids for this project, rather than the expected five or so. Apparently, the construction market is so competitive, it resulted not only in a lot of bids, but in the winning bid coming in 8% below City estimates for the construction portion of the project – a savings of about $392,000. DPR will parlay those savings into new windows for the West Wing and removing lead paint from the Hanger doors on the North, South and East facades of the building and re-painting them.

The building, located at 7400 Sand Point Way NE, is really three connected structures. The Hangar is one. On either side of the Hanger are two “wings:” the East Wing and the West Wing. The entire project is budgeted at $8,453,000, with $6,762,400 of that going to hard-line construction costs. The rest is for soft costs, such as design fees (architecture and engineering), permit costs, staff time, inspectors time, and contracting fees.

What Building 30 will look like when completed

Once upon a time, Building 30 hosted hundreds of events each year. But, like many of the buildings at Magnuson Park, it had not been maintained since the Navy occupied it prior to deactivating the base in 1970. The Navy transferred the base to the City five years later.

A couple of years ago, Building 30 was declared unsafe for full occupancy, resulting in only a handful of events being allowed each year and throwing a wrench into the plans of regular users, such as  Friends of the Library, Rat City Rollergirls, Seattle Tilth and Cascade Bicycle Club.

Library fans will be happy to see a return of Friends of the Library, whose book sales in the Hangar raise much needed funds for our library system. Not only will the completed renovation welcome back Friends of the Library and many other popular community events and activities, it will create over twenty new artist work studios. These studios mark another milestone in Magnuson’s plan to locate arts in the park, as described by the 1999 Sand Point Blue Ribbon Committee and advocated by the Sand Point Arts and Cultural Exchange (SPACE). Artists who had worked in Building 11 at Magnuson Park for up to nine years moved out of those studios when a private developer took control a couple of years ago. I hope to see these newly constructed artist studios welcome some of them back.

Kelly Goode, with DPR, added a small caveat. Having had to wade through all those bids, the process did take longer than expected and so DPR is now left with a very tight, yet he believes manageable, construction schedule.

Goode anticipates a slightly accelerated schedule for the East Wing so that it’s ready to re-occupy by June 28th. The Hanger would be completed by August 5th and the West Wing by mid-September. Their original schedule anticipated a July opening.

Also, the City is pursuing a LEED Gold for Commercial Interiors for the West Wing. The green systems and renovation work being incorporated into this historic building will have long term sustainability benefits to the tenants and to the community.

Keep in touch…

Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter by sending a blank email.

• To Unsubscribe, send a blank email (No message needed in the body of the emails you send).
• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.

The Gardener

The Volunteer Park Conservatory, named in honor of volunteers who served in the Spanish American War, offers 6,800 square feet of display space and has an annual budget of about $420,000. Due to the Conservatory’s unique structure and plant collections, it has no direct competitors in the conservatory market.

The Mayor proposed cutting one full-time gardener position at the Conservatory as a cost cutting measure benefitting the Department of Parks & Recreation (DPR). Although DPR’s budget does have to accommodate reductions, I consider this particular cut to be premature.

DPR hired a consultant – EMD Consulting Group, LLC – to study and recommend options for increasing earned revenues and making the Conservatory more self sufficient. Implementing a $4 entry fee and cutting one of the 4.5 gardener positions are among their recommendations.

It strikes me as risky to cut the gardener just when the Conservatory will be gearing up for their East Wing & Greenhouse capital campaign and replacing their suggested $3 donation with a $4 entry fee. Even the consultant noted this cut risks displays suffering, attendance dropping, and that DPR might need to consider re-staffing the position. And I agree.

Drawing new visitors with exemplary displays would seem more challenging without their current gardening staff. If the Conservatory’s now-splendid displays were to suffer from fewer hands tending them, which could result in resentment over their new required entry fee, visits will surely drop.

Unfortunately, I was not able to convince my colleagues to retain funding for this position. I was able to preserve the position, though unfunded, until we can assess next year whether display quality has been compromised and whether new revenues generated by the Conservatory can restore the gardener in late 2013.

The Arts Liaison

The other staffing issue I was finally able to garner support for is the arts & cultural development liaison position in the Office of Arts & Cultural Affairs (OACA). Back in 2009 a group I and Councilmember Clark assembled, called the Cultural Overlay District Advisory Committee (CODAC), recommended establishing this position. Council resolution 31155 accepts all of CODAC’s recommendations.

The purpose of the position is to advise City departments, community organizations, other government & cultural agencies, and developers on matters of the arts in general and on developing space for cultural organizations and creative workers in particular. The development of cultural and arts space supports a non-profit arts & culture industry in Seattle that generated in 2010 over $447,000,000 in economic activity and over $38,000,000 in local and state government revenues.

Nevertheless, the past few years of declining revenues and budget cuts have provided little motivation for my colleagues to act on this CODAC recommendation. This year’s budget was the first since 2009 offering enough revenue to add new positions. Although this is only a half-time position for 2013 and 2014, establishing it allows OACA’s director to expand it if demand for services proves great enough. By the way, OACA’s director once served as co-chair for CODAC.

Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter by sending a blank email.
• To Unsubscribe, send a blank email (No message needed in the body of the emails you send).
• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.

Under the old approach, people could be administratively excluded for a violation of minor park rules and then arrested if they return – even if they return and break no rules .  With the exception of immediate public safety threats, now folks must be told what the rules are at the start and that these rules can be forced against them in the future.  If people commit an infraction one day but are using a park appropriately the next, there should be no issue with their presence in the park the next time.  Under this new approach, folks are given a trespass warning and then if they return and continue to violate rules they can be arrested for trespass.  They will not be banned unless they are found guilty of violating the park rules – not just for coming back to the park, as under the old approach.

As background, the Parks Exclusion Ordinance, Ordinance 118607 (see link) was passed in 1997. The Seattle Human Rights Coalition recently wrote to the Mayor to ask that the City stop banning individuals summarily from Seattle parks without providing due process, saying that that: “Exclusions in Seattle parks have been issued disproportionately against people of color.  The share of parks exclusions notices issued to black people (38.4 %) is nearly five times the black share of the Seattle population (8.4 %).  The share of parks exclusion notices issued to Native Americans (8.2%) is over ten times the share of the Seattle population that is Native American (0.8%).”

The year I took office, in 1998, I tried to amend the law with Council Bill 112320.  My amendments would have limited the reasons for summary exclusions without due process to only those violations that pose a public safety threat including felony drug activity, weapons or assault charges.  For more minor violations, the City would still be able to issue tickets.    My legislation in 1998 had the support of  Councilmembers McIver and Steinbrueck, but didn’t pass. I’m glad that the community members I worked with in 1998 have continued to monitor the issue and have found a way to negotiate a better approach while also not compromising on public safety and fair access to our parks for all.

Here’s the language for the new policy:

1.0       Purpose
This Rule augments and supersedes Department Policy & Procedure Number 060-P 7.15 regarding the issuance of Parks Exclusion Notices under SMC 18.12.278.
2.0       Authorization to Issue Trespass Warning
Seattle Park Rangers and any other designated department employee or Seattle Police department employee authorized by the Superintendent may issue a Trespass Warning to anyone within a City Park who violates:
•    Any provision of the Parks Code (Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 18.12);
•    Any Parks Administrative Rule of Conduct;
•    Any other applicable laws under the Seattle Municipal Code or Revised Code of Washington, including but not limited to the following: No Camping; No Alcohol or Drug Possession; No Graffiti or
Vandalism; No Fighting/Assault; No Urinating/Defecating; No entering or remaining in an area that is not open to the public.
3.0       If the conduct that results in a Trespass Warning being issued threatens public safety, then the person may be removed and excluded from the park for the remainder of the day.
4.0       Trespass Warnings apply to all Parks properties.
5.0       Trespass Warnings do not expire.
6.0       If a person who has received a Trespass Warning remains on or returns to any Parks property and violates any of the applicable rules or laws, the person’s permission to be on the property is immediately revoked and the person may be arrested for the crime of Criminal Trespass.
7.0       If a felony crime or weapons violation occurs on Parks property, a one-year Parks Exclusion Notice shall be issued. SMC 18.12.278. For all other violations a Trespass Warning shall be issued.
8.0       The Trespass Warning is a pilot program and will be in effect until further notice.

On September 4, the City Council approved four pieces of legislation giving the Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) the green light to move ahead with its 30 acre, $300 million redevelopment of Yesler Terrace.  Of the $30 million in City funds that SHA will request, approximately $11 million are committed with this agreement.

BACKGROUND

SHA has been working with the City and the Yesler Terrace Citizen’s Review Committee since 2006.  The establishment of the Review Committee was the result of a 2002 settlement secured by the Seattle Displacement Coalition in their fight against the redevelopment of Rainier Vista.  The City Council review of Yesler Terrace began this year in February and the Council’s Special Committee on Yesler Terrace Council began meeting on May 21, 2012 and, after 12 meetings and two public hearings, finished its deliberations on August 16th.  I would have preferred more time to address several issues that I believe would have benefited from additional discussion.  I proposed a one week delay on the passage of the Cooperative Agreement, in particular to address the request of the Little Saigon community that we add language committing SHA to work with them. Councilmembers declined out of concern that additional delay could lessen the likelihood of receiving up to $20 million in Federal funds for the project.

The Displacement Coalition sent the Council a letter, signed by nearly 30 individuals and organizations, notifying the Council of their disappointment in the direction of the redevelopment.  I understand their sentiment; in some areas, I share it.  But I believe that one Yesler Terrace resident leader said it best when she testified that the plan approved by the Council is the least bad option when we consider that the 70 year old units do need repair and there is no federal funding available for a renovation option.

Yesler Terrace is one of the most diverse as well as the most economically challenged communities in Seattle. The average, Yesler Terrace household earns about $14,000 a year. It is the oldest publicly subsidized housing in Seattle.  Its 561 housing units, according to SHA, have water, sewer and other key systems that are failing.  The Council’s role in supporting a redevelopment like this should be to preserve the existing community as much as possible.  Of course some families may decide not to return to Yesler Terrace but if we do not have as a goal sustaining a community, then all we are doing is building buildings.

TWO POLICIES TO PURSUE

The primary two community preservation policies that still need to be strengthened are:

1.  More Family Units

The difficulty producing larger family-sized units is not unique to SHA.   Recently I spoke with a group of immigrant youth, not living in SHA housing, who told me that they were members of 6 person families living in 2 bedroom homes.  Still, there should be more guarantees that Yesler Terrace will remain a child-friendly environment.  Although the legislation passed by the Council requires the redevelopment to provide more affordable units for low and moderate families with children than exist now, I still want a commitment from SHA that they will limit the time away for today’s Yesler Terrace families to not more than a single school year, particulaly if the children will have to change schools.  We did receive a commitment that of the 281 replacement housing units that will be available at all times to returning Yesler Terrace residents during the redevelopment project, 94 of them will be 2, 3, and 4 bedroom units.  Hopefully this will increase the number of families that will be able to return sooner.

2.  Provide Staffing for Assisting the Low Income Community

Though I am pleased that SHA has dedicated staff to work with the resident community, I wish they had included staff focused on advocating specifically for the unique needs of a low-income tenant community in what is planned to be a dense mixed-use neighborhood including office buildings and retail spaces, with a population expected to be 5,000 families, over half of whom will be living in more costly market-rate housing.

AMENDMENTS TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

I am, however, glad that I succeeded in having the Council adopt a number of amendments to SHA’s Cooperative Agreement with the City (I sponsored 12 of the 16 amendments.) So, what new commitments did we get?

• Many asked that we reevaluate the plan’s intention to sell 40% of the public land, as necessary to fund the project.  The legislation requires SHA to explore the benefits as well as the negative impacts of leasing rather than sale and requires SHA to provide a report to the Council prior to the sale of any property.  This report will start the conversation about sale of land, not end it. I personally prefer the land be kept in the public domain, even if it is leased out for a many years to come. I hope that this report will show how that can be accomplished without hindering SHA’s ability to provide a quality redevelopment of YT.

• SHA must use all proceeds from the sale, lease, or other disposition of property in the Yesler Terrace Redevelopment Area only for Yesler Terrace redevelopment activities. It came to my attention that the draft Cooperative Agreement made no mention of how the proceeds from the sale or lease of land, had to be applied to the Yesler Terrace project.  Consequently, I added language saying that if there are excess revenues, SHA is required to submit a proposal to the City Council for approval before expending them.  In the legislation, if capital and operating funding is available after SHA and development partners have completed all the Replacement Housing, SHA shall produce up to 100 units of extremely low income housing with a minimum term of affordability of 50 years.

• The Cooperative Agreement now increases the number of trees to be planted by 10% and requires maintenance of the trees that are planted.  Urban planners agree that landscaping with trees demonstrably contributes to more cohesive social communities. It was unfortunate that more mature trees could have been retained but extensive road work required their removal. With this new commitment, we should see a greater canopy in this neighborhood in the future.

• The legislation requires that the City and SHA work with the Friends of Little Saigon and other community members to explore the feasibility of developing a mixed-use project in Little Saigon that may include low-income housing, affordable commercial space, and a Vietnamese cultural center.

• The legislation requires new limits on screening policies and an appeal process for Yesler Terrace residents seeking to return after redevelopment.  Returning residents will not be denied their right to return unless they are ineligible for federally subsidized housing.

• I would have preferred legislation limiting the use of levy funds for the redevelopment of Terrace to the already $7.2 million in levy funds already committed. Instead, the legislation requires that if SHA requests future Housing Levy dollars for Yesler Terrace, they must compete for those funds through the regular, competitive Housing Levy process.

• Each year of the redevelopment SHA will provide an annual report to the Council that will include the status of all housing production by affordability and bedroom count as well as the number of public units still on site, taken out of service, and brought back into service through replacement housing production.  The report will also include an update on properties leased or sold, including purchase price.

• SHA must work with community organizations that assist women- and minority-owned businesses and economically disadvantaged individuals to obtain employment through Section 3 hiring, apprenticeship programs and equal opportunity programs.

GUARANTEEING THE RIGHT TO RETURN

Some feared that there would not be a guarantee of 100% replacement of the very low-income units on or offsite.  The legislation not only requires that all 561 current units will be replaced within the immediate neighborhood but it also controls the location and timing of replacement.  Of the 561 units being replaced, only 118 of those units are planned on property that is adjacent to Yesler Terrace, property that was actually once included within the Yesler Terrace boundaries.  Some critics were concerned that residents would not be granted a right to return to Yesler Terrace; however every Yesler Terrace resident has been given a certificate of return.  It’s true that it may take time for residents to be able to exercise that right because the construction of all 561 replacement units will happen over many years, but the legislation has granted residents that right should they choose to use it.  The focus has rightly been on the replacement of very low income units, but the plan is to build another 290 units of housing for low income residents earning up to 60% AMI and 950 units of 80% AMI housing.

SUMMARY

The scope and size of this project is unprecedented among other Federal Choice Neighborhood projects that the Federal government is currently funding.  Some have used the word “scary” to describe the project.  I don’t believe that I could have just voted “no” and let fear hold me back from working with other Councilmembers in seeking commitments from SHA to assure that this legislation promotes the principles of a culturally and economically diverse community while continuing to prioritize the provision of housing and services for those most in need. It is the Council’s duty to watchdog this legislation as it is implemented and to work with SHA and the community to assure that every requirement that is in this legislation is met.  In moving forward we cannot be slack in our diligence.

Image from http://waterfrontseattle.org/

On Monday, July 23 the City Council will hear the recommendations of the Central Waterfront Committee about how to redesign the Downtown Seattle waterfront. The Central Waterfront Committee was created by the Council in Resolution 31264 to “advise the City on designing, developing and managing a series of premiere public spaces on the Central Waterfront and the broader connections necessary to reconnect the Central Waterfront to the City.”

The Central Waterfront Committee presentation contains an overview of their design and funding recommendations. The Strategic Plan includes more detail about their proposed timeline and recommendations.

In addition, Monday’s meeting will include a summary of the proposed design.

Last Monday the Council received a high-level Waterfront Design Presentation from City Staff.