Comments

1
Could we help a lot more homeless if they sold this property and used the proceeds to purchase some land elsewhere? Might even be able to finance the whole project off the sale of this property if we bought land in a less expensive area. Do we want to help as many people as possible or do we want to have affordable housing for a few people in walking distance to the locks? Not only is the land expensive but they would need to do a lot of archeological surveying on this site due to the sensitive nature so you need to factor that into the project as well.
2
Plenty of empty citizens-owned local, state and federal-level buildings to house the millions and millions and millions of houseless Americans: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-…
3
"Instead, she implies the city’s current building boom is resulting in the “demolition of affordable housing,” for which she herself provides no evidence."

I seem to recall the Stranger complaining about this very thing at several points in the past.
4
The city should start over, buy the land from the federal government, and build a campground for the city's children to use in summer. The old military buildings on the site could be easily converted to bunkhouses and other summer-camp uses, most of the parking and pavement could be removed, and the city would then have a great amenity for our growing number of children.

Meanwhile, build affordable and low-income housing somewhere near transit lines and social services, i.e. nowhere near Fort Lawton.
5
If Seattle was even 20% as progressive as it's reputation, people who do stuff like this would be widely recognized and treated as moral monsters, and would be ashamed to show their face in public.
6
Talaris really is a good site for affordable housing, not as some kind of an affordable housing ghetto, but rather as one component of an economically integrated community.

Build Taleris with urban density that reflects the excellent transit, employment opportunities, shopping, health care, parks, education, and other urban services that are already nearby.

Fort Lawton, by comparison with Taleris, offers only the nearby park. It’s a lousy place for Seattle to invest its limited funds for affordable housing. Fort Lawton is an isolated site with few existing urban services and no employment opportunities within walking distance.

Make an HALA type bargain ... offer a potential developer the opportunity to build greater density at the Talaris site in exchange for providing land for affordable housing.
7
@5: I didn't know the mere act of questioning government proposals was treason, punishable by public shaming. How wonderfully Puritan of you.

It's self-evidently obvious that the location in question is a terrible site for low-income transitional housing. For purposes of reaching the rest of Seattle, the top of Magnolia Hill may as well be an island in the Sound. Formerly homeless persons housed there will be marooned from the educational, employment, and social services such persons tend to require to return to healthy participation in society. Setting such a population up to fail does them no favors.
8
Elizabeth Campbell is an embarassment for Magnolia and Seattle. She has been fighting Tent City 5 all the way and has impeded them housing more people without housing. She didn't want the viaduct removed. She is a dinosaur with a law degree. If there is no compassion in her heart. I'd love to take her to meet the people for TC5 and hear their stories, I have heard many and they have changed me profoundly.
9
@5, @8: Attacking the messenger says nothing about the message, let alone the content of the policy at which the message is addressed. I really wish we'd stick to dialog about land-use policy, and how best to use our civic resources for the betterment of the entire city.
10
Other areas of the city have been dealing with sanctioned and unsanctioned encampments for decades. It's time for Magnolia to share the burden. After that, the next tent city should be in Madison Park.
11
@9 they're attacking the message. We are trying to build affordable housing, on ~free~ land, whereas Elizabeth Campbell is firing up the anti-housing sentiment across the city.

It's just good policy to build here. The city's been served a large plat of land for free on a silver platter. We should be building 10x as much, and throw in a couple hundred market rate units too.
12
There will be no homes for freeloaders at Ft. Lawton. There are places in Sodo and beyond that are good enough. Want better, do something about it.
13
@11: No, david jw said anyone who behaves like this should be publicly shamed, and greyhairedinmagnolia personally attacked Elizabeth Campbell by calling her names. None of you have addressed the inherent problem with the site, which is the remote and isolated location.

Unless you tell us how these new residents will travel, shop, and otherwise live when there is currently no infrastructure for those activities, you haven’t made the case for building new homes there.
14
The language used by the opponents to this is consistently vile and dehumanizing - the sort of thing I'd expect from the current Preisdent, not people who often think of themselves as liberals.

Even worse is when its couched in terms of concern, when really what is meant is 'these people' are not wanted in 'our' stores, on 'our' streets.
15
@14: Again, attacking the messengers does not affect the message. Right now, these bitter personal attacks are just becoming an ever-stronger indication the city’s plan is so bad, it cannot be defended by its own self-described supporters.

If building low-income and transitional housing at Ft. Lawton is such a great idea, why do proponents never address the obvious problems of location?
16

It is despicable that our city government wants to waste its resources privatizing this unique land. There are SO many better places (including in Magnolia) to add affordable housing that don't involve giving away the what is essentially an extension of Discovery Park. There are also other uses of the land that are desperately needed. As a coach of youth sports, I can attest to a lack of field space and facilities for children in the area, for example. There are way more places you can put affordable housing than where you can put, for instance, soccer fields or schools.

17

This “all neighborhoods need to share the burden” mentality is decision making at its worst! You don’t select a location for low income, previously homeless, mentally ill or addicted (yes, the “hard to house”, with addition and mental health issues are slated to be living at the Ft Lawton development) because all neighborhoods need to “share the burden”. You select a site that has the best opportunity to service this population. Close to services and support groups, easy access to transportation, jobs and affordable living. None of which makes the Fort Lawton site ideal. It’s only appeal is that it’s free to the city. There are dozens of better locations across the city.


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.