Laurelhurst resident Dixie Wilson withdrew a lawsuit she filed in
February against the Laurelhurst Community Club (LCC) last week after,
she says, the proceedings proved her point: The group does not
represent every resident of Laurelhurst. And leading Seattle land-use
attorneys agree that Wilson’s lawsuit has weakened the group’s
credibility.
In December 2008, the LCC filed an appeal to block a proposed
expansion of Seattle Children’s Hospital. Over the last two years, the
group has spent $34,900 in legal fees challenging the hospital’s
growth. Although the LCC claimed in its appeal to represent “the
interests of the community’s 2,800 households and businesses,” the
group never polled its members on the decision to fight the expansion
of the hospital. And when pressed to name its members in court, the
group could produce only a post-office-generated list of addresses in
the area.
“We feel it is a great victory that the membership list doesn’t
exist and that it was recorded in [King County] Superior Court,” says
Wilson, who supports the hospital expansion. Wilson points out that
several hundred addresses included in the list are not actually in
Laurelhurst, but in nearby neighborhoods, including Bryant, Windermere,
and Ravenna. Under the standards used by the LCC, Wilson says, “I could
form a [community group] and say I represent all of Seattle.”
Over the next 20 years, Children’s Hospital—which serves sick
kids from Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana—foresees the
need for 350 new hospital beds, says Ruth Benfield, vice president of
the hospital’s Facilities and Psycho-Social Services. In December, the
city gave the hospital preliminary approval to expand, and in February,
a volunteer group tasked with ensuing the project jibes with citizen
interests also gave the expansion a thumbs up.
Now, two leading land-use attorneys say the LCC’s inability to name
the people it claims to represent damages the group’s credibility in
any future legal action on the neighborhood’s behalf.
“It would make any claim that [the LCC] represents all those people
pretty dubious, to put it mildly,” says Bob Johns, a Seattle land-use
attorney. “I think it would affect their credibility in front of the
hearing examiner.”
Johns adds that as a nonprofit corporation, the LCC is “required by
state law to have a record of its members, including names and
addresses. If they don’t have that documentation, you have to wonder if
the people at those addresses are actually members.”
Peter Buck, another Seattle land-use attorney, concurs. “The
[LCC]… has no list of members and doesn’t poll those people on
land-use issues, and they have been suggesting otherwise.”
The LCC has a long history of fighting development “in the interests
of” the 2,800 area households—even beyond the borders of
Laurelhurst. For example, the group protested new playfields at
Magnuson Park and opposed buildings taller than six stories in the
Roosevelt neighborhood.
“They sort of portray themselves as the voice of the community,”
says Dewey Potter, spokeswoman for Seattle Parks and Recreation, who
has interacted with the group on issues related to Magnuson Park. “We
think it is not the community overall; it is just some
individuals.”
“I would expect to see in the near future a group of people form a
second Laurelhurst council that would more fairly and democratically
represent the neighborhood,” says Wilson. She believes such a group
would focus on issues “directly relating to the residents of the
neighborhood and not continually spending time and money fighting
issues that don’t pertain to Laurelhurst.”
The city hearing examiner has not yet issued a decision on the LCC’s
appeal of the Children’s Hospital expansion, and LCC president Jeannie
Hale has not returned calls for comment. 
I think its great that someone pulled-back the curtain to expose this rogue organization. The amount of money that LCC spends on attorneys (to object to seemingly everything) is probably outrageous.
That LCC is constantly sourced by the media as a representative group is a testament to the demise of intelligent journalism in this market. (And kudos to the Stranger for serving the community with this coverage.)
The residents of Laurelhurst participated plenty in the process to work (and work, and work) out a suitable solutions, that permits Children’s its needed expansion, and preserves the essential character and livability of Laurelhurst.
Jeannie Hale’s native state is general crankiness, punctuated by her hysterical forecasts for “The End of Laurelhurst Civilization” as we know it.
The City Council is going to approve this plan. No doubt. If LCC’s legal options aren’t fully exhausted, their standing in this community surely is. It is a fringe group — moving further and further from relevance in the Seattle Conversation with each continued objection to progress near that little enclave on the Lake.
LCC’s “leaders” (ahem!) are operating from a pretty weak political base, and continuing to battle this lost cause will be their final undoing.
I can’t wait to watch it happen.
…ding dong….
And on the eighth day, God created NIMBYs, who promptly filed suit to have the Garden of Eden relocated two miles down the road. “The cherub w/ the flaming swords keeps us awake all night. It’s bright, and our kids could injure themselves. We’re trying to maintain our neighborhood’s property values!”
interesting to watch the dogs close in on voices of dissent ….
conform or suffer
because of the objections of the council, the hospital expansion has been modified and is a better plan
and if you really want to chase the kings and queens of NIMBY look at Montlake
most of the community councils are small and weak …. just what the city and downtown high fliers want …. we propose, you agree is the formula
and good luck getting new leaders … J. Hale may have painted a corner for herself and the c. council she runs … but 30 years of community activism and civic interest are her legacy, match that, hospital flaks. Talk is cheap…. great example is C. Hill where the community council collapsed, is now under re-oranization, and just how many issues has The Hill faced neeeding well articulated communiy input?
at this point, C. Hill is a fiefdom of Sound Transit and downtown money, and is becoming dreary because there is no strong community any more, of any sort
More like: It’s nice to see animal control come collect the yapping nuisance.
The point is, LCC kept claiming its nobility in serving the “civic interests,” when in fact it has done little to serve anything more than a few people’s narrow perspective on what’s best for the rest of us.
LCC is a manic group that thinks the civic interest isn’t served by developing much of anything. (I see Jeannie was recently quoted in the P-I, condemning a plan for cottage housing. Is anyone surprised that she’s negative about yet another idea?) LCC has been so obstructive and combative in its approach that it drowns out other voices.
The community has spoken on the issue of Children’s expansion. It’s time for LCC to move on and start being a more positive, constructive partner to Seattle. Or it will only get worse.
I think a lot of folks have known for years that these community clubs and community councils were for the most part small groups of NIMBYs that claimed to speak for larger neighborhoods. The City has empowered these folks by pretending that people running the organizations were elected representatives of the neighborhoods.
I don’t see any reason why folks like Jeannie can’t just represent themselves as private citizens without cooking up some fake organization.
Yeah,
it’s difficult to get the neighborhood together… here’s a suggestion to the SLOG that maybe will help re-direct some of the BIGGER issues of land reclamtion and children’s Laurel like zoning ordinances….
A name Change for The George W. Bush Federal Courthouse on 700 Stewart Street.
How about …
The B&O Federal Monocle Statuary Memeorial Foundation for Mission Redactionite…
Or we could just call it something nice like
The Barack Obama Justice Douglas Truth Memorial Federal Court House.
These public processes go overboard on inclusiveness, so you can’t imagine that Laurelhurst residents didn’t have ample time and opportunity to express their interests.
And spending $40,000 a year on attorneys — to fight a children’s hospital no less!— is fucking nuts!
Anybody who thinks Cap Hill is dreary and lacking community, as a consequence of not having a strong community council, is totally out of their mind.
Most people in Seattle loathe the amount of wasted energy and breath on these process-needy, malcontent community “activists.”
Compared to most world class cities, (those that actually are, not the ones the self-proclaim to be), Seattle couldn’t find its own ass with both hands.
Instead of regarding Seattle’s “community hyper-activists” as a blessing, maybe we should see them as the curse that they are. Other than some stadiums, Seattle has undertaken virtually no significant infrastructure projects in the past 25 years (roads, rail, bridges, parks).
Sound Transit is the possible exception, and even it is a modest accomplishment, featuring 19th century technology along one long line. (And lo’ and behold, the LCC apologist “Jane” cites it as an example of our community’s failings!)
Sure, we have a sculpture garden, but I don’t think the 47 people a week that visit means we have a significant public asset there.
Seattle is getting its butt kicked by other more progressive cities who gather input from the community — and then make fucking decisions.
Laurelhurst, the bus is leaving. Time to get on board.
Finally, some sanity.
It is difficult to turn LCC’s efforts in a positive direction. The officers control nomination of Trustees. The Trustees elect the officers. The substantive portion of their meetings is held in executive session, so neighbors attempting to learn about revenues, expenditures, and legal positions are forced to leave. The community should have an opportunity to vote at the annual meeting and to propose community projects, however the officers control the annual meeting as a piece of theater. The date and time for the annual meeting has still not been announced.
As a 5-year Laurelhurst resident, I am mortified by the community council that alleges to represent me. A larger hospital isn’t ideal for us, but I’m sure having a kid with cancer isn’t “ideal” for those families either. I only went to one of the big meeting, but it appears the facility is needed, the building design is reasonable and Laurelhurst will still be a fine place to live. The attitude of LCC group is caustic, and shouldn’t be construed as what my neighbors and I value in our community. I didn’t receive my dues letter yet, but I understand others have. I’m not giving a penny until we get our priorities in order.
I bet LCC has worked on some positive issues over the years, although I’m still waiting to see the Sidewalk Safety Program come to life. The sidewalks are in as miserable shape as ever, a danger to older people. What happened to the funds slated for that project, anyway? Was all the money spent on legal fees?
As far as I can tell, there is no way for neighbors living in Laurelhurst to have any impact on LCC because only trustees can vote to change the by-laws, and there are no term limits. Apparently J. Hale can stay President of LCC for life. Is there anyone out there who has suggestions to correct this problem? We need your help and advice.
This doesn’t square with the rest of the community interest groups who are trying to assure a livable, sustainable community.
If We the People have a voice (at all) to counterbalance the runaway interests of developers and politicians it is because we have integrity, build constituencies, provide transparency and speak the truth.
When a group deliberately deceives the public and evades accountability, it rips up the grass roots of civic activism. If we don’t have the truth, we don’t have anything.
I think it’s great that people are waking-up to this issue.
http://www.ravennanation.com/2009/03/27/…