So Heidi, regarding the people who would be living on a site they otherwise would never be able to live but for the generosity of the taxpayers. Are they "privileged" too?

I have no sympathy for the opponents of this project, but I have a hard time seeing how this actually makes sense. This is in the middle of nowhere, but because of the view (and the fact that it is in the middle of the nicest park in Seattle) is extremely valuable property. It is a very long walk to the nearest gas station, let alone grocery store or clinic. It as anti-urban a place as you can find in Seattle. If the point is to isolate the poor from the rest of civilization, then I guess it is fine. But as a place where people without means can actually live, it just makes no sense. Has anybody actually looked at the fair market value of this land, and how many places you could get for that money? If this goes through, it will help only a handful of lucky lottery winners. If you took the cash, maybe you could help a lot more.

Why not just sell the land so that they build enormous houses there. Then take that money, and buy up property in the middle of Magnolia, closer to, well, everything. Build apartments close to Magnolia Village, where there is a grocery store, frequent bus lines, a library, and everything else you might need. Build twice as many units as this set of projects in the middle of Magnolia, and call it a day.

If you cant afford to live in Seattle, move to Renton/Shoreline/Skyway/Southpark/Burien/Des Moins/Kent/Lynwood/Everett - there fixed it for you

@5: No, no, no, you don't understand. If you can't afford to live in the city, you're entitled to have everyone else subsidize you so you can. Because you deserve to be able to live in the most expensive neighborhoods in one of the most expensive cities in the country, regardless of your ability to pay for it. On the other hand, if you actually pay for it yourself, then that means you're "privileged." Get it?

I support building affordable housing in every neighborhood where it makes sense to do so. Take a moment, a deep breath, and ask yourself if putting people in greater need of services, affordable food, etc., here is going to make sense. Will the city provide enhanced transit to/from this location? Will the police be able to address any possible issues promptly (they can barely do so in the middle of Ballard)? I'd much rather see this housing in the middle of Magnolia, as expressed by @1, above. Affordable housing is a great idea - don't mess it up by putting it where it doesn't make good sense.

I meant @2, not @1. Sorry.

Back when this was military it was always mixed income and multiracial. Good to see it being used for its original intended purpose.

Classic stranger “journalism” and why I stopped reading it when I turned 25. I ride through this section of magnolia frequently and it would be great to find a use for it that benefits all incomes. A mixed use / mixed income sounds great except for the limitations described above and those are significant. 200 units of mixed income property ( which means maybe 70-80 low income units?) is not going to change Seattle’s much larger affordable housing problem. But hey, come from other neighborhoods to drink out of your flask and complain about Magnolians if it’ll make you feel better about yourself.

I'm sorry, but I can't see how the proposed housing in Ft. Lawton benefits anyone except developers and a few lucky individuals. Set aside the dubious merits of the plan for a second and just think about what is going on. The land now is effectively a park. It's used as a park by many from all over Seattle due to it's open spaces, amazing views, and frequent overcrowding of neighboring Discovery Park. All of this will be stolen from the public so that the land can be used privately by a few people. What really gets me is that a lot of these "affordable" homes, after a short few years, will be owned free and clear by individuals. Understand that these will be privately owned million-dollar (or more) homes. Yes, the current plan rips effective park land from the public to give a few individual families a windfall. Sure, it creates a small amount of affordable housing, but this is very temporary. Once title shifts to the owners, that housing is no longer affordable. I don't see how this solves anything.

What is even more troubling about this plan is that the neighborhood's public resources are already tapped out. Upzoning and other changes are causing a huge population shift. For the current population, there are not enough fields for sports teams to practice, not enough gyms for kids to play basketball in the winter, etc. This housing plan takes none of this into account. It is just a short-sighted plan that causes huge problems that I guess other agencies are supposed to figure out with inadequate budget.

Frankly, it really surprises me to see such personalities as Kshama Sawant supporting this theft from the public. For sure, Seattle needs more housing, both affordable housing and support for the homeless. But to steal from the public for a small and temporary gain? I can't see how one can support that with a straight face.