What’s the Deal with MOHAI?

Comments

1
Everything goes back to the Billionaires Tunnel and the giant sucking sound it's creating.

In the face of cutbacks to more important services, it's very hard to justify the MOHAI "take" if we're having to kick people out of shelters, let rapists and arsonists roam free, and not prosecute dog fighting rings.

That said, the Cascade People's Center has a really cool wine tasting next Thursday on the Virginia V ...

Decisions have consequences. And the Billionaires Tunnel put us over our credit card limit for the next two decades.
2
Hey, you've got Will in Seattle on your side at least. Game over, right?
3
Quit whining Carl, and what's the Deal with Mayor McGinn's office? This seems most unprofessional to air your dirty laundry over The fucking Slog.
4
OK, thanks for clearing this up. So, to review:

1) The city has no legal claim on MOHAI's $40 million from the state. So, MOHAI can keep it.

2) MOHAI was supposed to get an extra $7 million from the city, but ended up with an extra $25 million from the state. So, if there's no formal agreement that requires the city to come up with the $7 million, McGinn can back away from his earlier promise and keep the money.

5
If I'm reading this right, all your employer wants is to redo the Council's deal to share the eventual sale proceeds up to $7 million. Is that right?

Reports here on our li'l Slog said he also wanted a piece of the extra MOHAI got the state to agree to - is that no longer the case?
6
Paahhh-thetic, Carl...
7
Well, it it's for "priorities' OK then. That bike line up an 8% grade on NE 125th isn't going to pay for itself.
8
Bike lines are actually pretty cheap. For the cost of one street going from Seattle Center to I-5 (the Mercer Millionaires Mess) you can literally build bike lanes throughout the entire city - and maintenance costs for them are a miniscule fraction that normal roads are, since wear and tear is very very low.

But you'd know that if you ever studied transit or built roads or anything. I personally love how each road is a multi-layered cake and how the steamrollers work to squish that spongy cake flat.
9
So the city believes it is a good fiscal policy to put the proceeds from a one-time land sale into fixing potholes, housing the homeless, and maintaining community centers? How many months would that $7 mil last until there is once again no money to fix potholes, house the homeless or maintain community centers.
10
Ask Chihulhy, @9.
11
Sorry, Carl. Just another bogus claim from the mayor's team of amateurs. A deal is a deal. MOHAI's money comes from the State for MOHAI, not the city. If you're trying to fill budget holes with capital $s like this you're all showing a lack of common sense as well as integrity. Any hope of getting some grown-ups on the mayor's staff?
12
@11 so does that mean the unions get their COLAs and benefits?

....

didn't think so. Which means a deal ISN'T a deal during a budget crisis.

As we all know.

How's that week long closure of libraries citywide working for you?
13
@11: According to your prior comments regarding the Chihuly Museum, you have an issue with essentially giving away city-owned public land. But here, you change course and make a massive exception in the face of a budget hole because you think -- wrongly -- that it's an F.U. to McGinn, who you've essentially gone after non-stop for the longest time.

You also have an issue with liberals, gay people, Dan and The Stranger as a whole.

That aside, I think this is the perfect point for the Mayor's Office and MOHAI to sit down and have a chat. They've identified their mutual issues so it would make sense to take it to the table and not blogs.
14
MOHAI has the facts. McGinn has Will_in_Seattle.
15
Oh, I read about a similar situation in a book a while back.

The Little Red Hen.
16
You made a deal but because it didn't work out how you wanted, deal is off? If the City feels like it shouldn't have to contribute once MOHAI had obtained a certain amount of money, then that should have been part of the agreement. The City's failure to anticipate a situation they are now unhappy with is not MOHAI's fault and is not a basis to breach the agreement.
17
Its amazing how the city is making so much of the Fun Forest, Chihuly and other proposals to pay such high rent yet MOHAI doesn't pay anything? I would argue its the most boring museum in the city for kids and tourists and has become a huge unused liablity.
Really, does anyone remember the last time they went to MOHAI?
And if you can remember, can you really say it was remarkable or enjoyable?

Put a permanent Chihuly exhibit inside MOHAI at the South Lake Union Armory - glassblowing is an Industry n'est pas?
18
@13 -- "problem with liberals, gay people....?" Huh?
19
Carl
Contract law and signed agreements are done deals. You don't get to go back because you don't like the deal anymore. The sale funds were not tied to particular expenses, and now we're here. Sorry if you don't like how the money is being spent, the deal didn't put any restrictions on the use of the funds.

Referring to "does it make sense to give MOHAI an additional $7 million in City funds?" Misrepresenting the deal, doesn't help your case one bit. MOHAI was to get a SHARE of the $7mil land-sale proceeds, not the entire amount.

Anybody signing contracts with the city under this administration better look at this as an example of how you'll be treated.
20
This is just plain crazy, as yanking dollars from our history museum does not save the city money! Period!

MOHAI is poised to become a revenue GENERATOR for the city in it's move to a currently revenue sucking historic location in South Lake Union. Yanking funding halfway through their project and putting the move in jeopardy is a short sighted and a really dumb move.

This is our HISTORY MUSEUM!!!! This is where our kids and visitors to our area go to learn about our city and our state! Seattle is already mocked for its lame, half-ass museums... the chance to improve our history museum should be supported not undermined, and there is absolutely no financial benefit to reneging on this agreement. This museum has the potential to become a jewel in our crown, and McGinn is trying to cut its legs off. I cannot believe it, this is crazy. Does he really believe that targeting the history museum is a sound fiscal decision? Somebody clue him in, please!