Comments

2
Oops, I guess the trolls were in the Slog comment sections instead.
3
C'mon, build hundreds of apartments where the viaduct is when it comes down. Tons of room, close to everything and you can screw up that park too.
5
Yes, put a bunch of seniors w/ mobility issues in a peripheral neighborhood, with extremely limited public transit access/options. Brilliant.
6
Just to clarify on this article. I live 1/2 block from the proposed development. My neighbors are largely against the project. Nearly all of the speakers and most of the attendees were not from the neighborhood. So it was not Magnolia speaking last night, it was the homeless activist community. Now, I am for this development, but there are concerns, valid concerns, that need to be discussed. Last night did nothing to help move the neighborhood toward embracing this project. It only left the neighbors feeling unheard and angry. This was an opportunity. And it was wasted.
7
It's hardly a rare sight to see a venue packed with people in support of homeless anything, Heidi, and you know it. And you know the reason why, too: the meetings are swamped with "activists" and Sawantists, who are mobilized to make it appear whatever is proposed appears to have overwhelming support. And by using Bolshevist tactics like shouting down opponents (or anyone who may not subscribe to the approved narrative), opponents are deterred from even commenting. (But that's the plan.)

So that meeting probably proceeded a la mode Kshama, and got the kind of coverage the "activists" wanted. But to pretend that the crowd reflected the sentiments of the majority of Seattleites is journalistic malpractice. But we don't live in a democracy; we live under a neo-authoritarian regime, which is gonna do what it wants to do, the real public (and taxpayer) be damned.

Sic semper tyrannus.
8
At #6: the opinions of Magnolia residents are not the only ones that matter. The rest of the city is impacted when a project like this is not allowed to occur and the affordable housing crisis is worsened for us all. As such, we all get a say.
9
#8. I am pretty sure that my comment was only referencing the fact that when only one perspective is presented, what is the point? Again, I am for the project. But the neighborhood has real concerns regarding transportation, services, the impact on local elementary schools, and a host of other real issues. My point is that the advocates for this project did not hear the opinions of those neighbors directly impacted by this project. And that silencing of opposition seemed intentional. You are right, we all get a say. But last night, the voice of opposition did not.
9
Is it true that if the only way the Army would hand over this property to Seattle is f it's used for affordable housing?
10
People that use the NIMBY acronym are organically disingenuous.
11
I get a little annoyed when I read/hear people calling the unsheltered folks 'our neighbors'. The unsheltered are many things, but generally not our neighbors. They are human beings and should be treated as such, but don't try to appeal to my heartstrings by calling them my neighbors. I generally am mostly annoyed by the visual nuisance they present and wish they'd be hauled off somewhere and treated for their illness, only allowed to return if they can follow the minimum standards for participating in our society.
12
I'd like to haul off several of my neighbors too.
13
I went to the meeting, mostly just because I'd never been to one. I have to say I was disappointed by the actual explanation of what the project will be. It was nothing more than a 2min summary of what was on the website which really isn't all that much. Really gives the impression that the project isn't thought all the way through. Which for something that's been lying around for a decade isn't acceptable.

These threadbare project explanations just create a "well what if, this or that?" confusion in people. Which either makes them ask for unrealistic or unneeded additions and unwarranted fears of what will and won't be there in the end. They need to do a better job on this front, you can avoid so many problems with clear communication. Basically what they needed to do is cover the FAQ better. Some of the complaints/questions are answered in it or at least better explained than the actual main page of the website.

Side note, didn't appreciate the boos for the lady who talked about a dog park after the bulk of her time was devoted to seniors. She was clearly concerned that putting seniors and/or disabled people up here will result in them be warehoused with nothing to do and nowhere to go. Discovery Park isn't the kind of place you send your 80 year old Grandma with a walker to. I think it kind of shows people really weren't listening closely to what people were saying.
14
Once an open space is no longer respected and is filled up with random crap, it will never be open space again. Tread carefully, Seattle. And remember, all those low income people will need PUBLIC TRANSIT which is woefully inadequate in Magnolia.
15
I’m glad everyone wants more transit in Seattle. Let’s get er done, and build more affordable housing in every neighborhood
16
@5: I live a 1/4 mile from the (expanding) cluster of affordable housing that is Magnusson Park along Sand Point Way (where Charleena Lyles lived). all that housing has "limited public transit options", too. the only food store in 2+ miles is a 7/11. i thought it was a fatally flawed location.

guess what? it all worked out.

Seattle has to utilize the surplus land we have available. the SHA competing with the private market for property is a recipe for not building anything.
17
@14: please take a google earth look at the "open space" you think we need to save. it's mainly parking lots.
18
@13: the SHA already has Senior Housing, "Fort Lawton Place", about 3 blocks away from this site. are those people "warehoused with nothing to do"? I reject your premise.
19
By the way, just how did all those car hating yimby/urbanists get all the way out to Fort Lawton?
20
I guess the idea is to isolate the poor people. Put them all in the most remote, yet expensive part of Seattle, as far away from the rest of the city as possible. No sense building a new development in the middle of Magnolia (which actually has places to work, eat, shop). Put them all in the boonies. I don't care, do what you want. Not in my back yard. Not in anyone's back yard, actually. Y'all realize that right? This is literally in no one's back yard. It is thousands of feet from any back yard. It is fucking nowhere, which is why the city thought it would be great. Not for the people involved, but for people who don't want to upset people when you put a low income project next to them. Amazing that the Stranger embraces it.
21
@16 Yeah, it all worked out great. Charleena committed suicide by cop, orphaned her four children, and now her estate is suing the very provider of affordable housing that built her unit.

Many of our city's homeless population are just like Charleena: profoundly mentally ill, and unable to care for themselves much less dependents. She should have been an inpatient at a mental hospital, and her children should have been in foster care.

I truly do not understand the mentality of giving the best land in the city over to build bright shiny public housing projects to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, then signing up seriously damaged people with no resources or independent transportation to live there. So many of them do not value the gift they've been given and squander our investment.
22
Yeah, I am pretty sure this is not indicative of the people who actually live near the old housing. Nice try.
23
@21: Lyle's death or her estate's lawsuit is unrelated to how well the remote location (adjacent to a well-to-do neighborhood) has worked for Subsidized Housing.

Take the bus (62 or 75) or ride a bike out the Burke-Gilman out there
and see for yourself. You won't get stabbed, probably.
24
@19: by bus? on a bike? Lyft?

what's your point?
25
@20: you're wrong on several points and your conclusions are therefore flawed.

1. the site is across from SF housing on 36th Ave. W.
2. it's not the City that's developing the site, it's the Housing Authority.
3. putting it in the "center" of magnolia means competing with the private market for the land. this land was Federal previously - it came at no cost to the city, therefore no cost to the SHA.
4. there's already an SHA property 3 blocks away on Govt. Way. https://www.seattlehousing.org/propertie…
26
The proposed housing is a theft from the people of Seattle. Right now the land is open for everyone to enjoy the amazing views and forest land. Despite it not being designated as a park, many enjoy it as such. The proposed housing steals this from the public. This project under the guise of "housing" is meant only to help developers and the city officials whose pockets the developers are in.
27
The perceptions of Magnolians presented at the meeting were flat out wrong. Sure, there are some very wealthy individuals (as there are in any neighborhood partly on the water), but most are just hard working professionals. Most are liberal and support housing initiatives, both for affordable housing and to address the homelessness problems the city is facing. This plan for Ft. Lawton, however, is a joke. It temporarily adds a few affordable houses at a cost of a loss of prime public land in an area whose schools and public spaces are already overcapacity.
28
@11 Ummm, because all “unsheltered folks,” as you so kindly called them, are drug addicts, or otherwise so ill they can’t participate in society? You would be shocked to find that many of your “non-neighbors” actually have jobs, pay taxes, and participate in society just fine. It’s society that seems to not be participating correctly in ensuring that rent is reasonable for everyone who needs a roof over their head.
29
I live in an urban village. Everyone on my block says they want more housing and more affordable housing, but when the city asked, we said we wanted less of it on our street than they were proposing. It's how everyone feels about change near their home. There's a little NIMBY in all of us.

So, how have these decisions actually been made in the past? Through political power. Not based on what's fair or what's most valuable or most efficient. Based on who had the political power to shape the decision. Want to know why nicer neighborhoods have the nicer infrastructure? Why did Mercer Island get a gold plated I-90 build out with special access?
Why don't social services organizations have major facilities in Laurelhurst or Windermere, or Magnolia?

Political power, that's why. If a bunch of people from places around the city that have absorbed all the stuff Magnolia didn't want in their neighborhood FOR DECADES UPON DECADES, showed up to flex political power in that neighborhood, well, then, they're just playing the political power game that Magnolia played for decades.

Don't hate the player, hate the game, Magnolia.

The idea that Magnolia has been put upon by the city is fucking laughable. They get it better than nearly any other neighborhood, and have for decades.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.