Even schoolchildren understand it’s not fair to change the rules in the middle of the game. Watching adults pretend it didn’t happen in this case would be hilarious, if it wasn’t costing us taxpayers our money.

Good job, Mr Black.

This is gonna be juicy-fun to watch the city gets ass kicked.

What a stupid fight the city is fighting & about to very publicly loose. It’s his building not the cities, they should cut their losses now before this gets even more expensive & end up having to pay him with money that should have instead gone to our schools or never ending open needle use problem.

Perhaps an agreement could be reached that would allow integration of the sign into the development. If not, I don't see anything particularly worthy about that building. Move on.

There's no escaping this. The city is going to lose big if they don't just settle. I would like to see Kshama under the lamp getting interrogated though.

Kshama dragged the rest of the council into something they had no business getting caught up in.

@7: “I would like to see Kshama under the lamp getting interrogated though.”

The multiple meanings of “depose” make for some humor here. I hope we voters will “depose” many more members of our City Council In next year’s elections. :-)

The Showbox is an exceptional property and the public has a right to regulate its use under municipal authority. The historical and cultural value of a large 80+ year old acoustic dance hall in the Public Market historical area outweighs this landowner's development interests. While courts are unsettled on how to balance these rights, people are foolish to take the position that public interests are best served when private property rights are protected. All inhabitants contribute to the city and they should all have a say in its regulation for their longterm benefit and legacy.

@9: It's exceptional because of its history and memories Seattleites have, but for its architecture? It's not like it's God's gift to art-deco.

@9
Check
@11
Mate

@11: Indeed. Hard to imagine Seattle without the Pike Place Market.

@10: Can you point to a better example of an Art Deco ballroom in town? Regardless, architectural quality is 2 of 6 considerations:

In order to be designated, the building, object, or site must be at least 25 years old and must meet at least one of the six criteria for designation outlined in the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (SMC 25.12.350):

a) It is the location of, or is associated in a significant way with, a historic event with a significant effect upon the community, City, state, or nation; or

b) It is associated in a significant way with the life of a person important in the history of the City, state, or nation; or

c) It is associated in a significant way with a significant aspect of the cultural, political, or economic heritage of the community, City, state or nation; or

d) It embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of an architectural style, or period, or a method of construction; or

e) It is an outstanding work of a designer or builder; or

f) Because of its prominence of spatial location, contrasts of siting, age, or scale, it is an easily identifiable visual feature of its neighborhood or the city and contributes to the distinctive quality or identity of such neighborhood or the City.

http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/programs-and-services/historic-preservation/landmarks#nominationanddesignationprocess

@10: and C, D, and F apply.

@9 Communist BS. Tear down those walls!

This case entails many thorny legal issues, and Forbes intends to hold the city accountable for what he sees as legally questionable maneuverings. And I don't dismiss him as simply a greedy developer opposed to "the public interest." Private property rights are in the public interest, too. Where's the balance in this matter? That's what the courts (or a city-wide vote?) will need to determine. Meanwhile, the city needs to do its homework better the next time a major historical preservation issue arises. And Forbes is not a devil opposed to "our" interests. We all have a stake in making sure the city does not overstep legal bounds when presuming the right to regulate what is arguably private property.

If the Showbox is such a icon and the building so historical that it’s worth preserving, then why wasn’t it on the do not tear down list long ago????

Musicians create musical culture: they aren't dependent on a specific location. Don't ask those questions, this is about the City Council desperately trying to divert attention from the screw up caused by the head tax. And apparently Rob Johnson has managed to piss off a bunch of his constituents over some ill planned bike lanes along 35th Ave NE

@17: the story I read was that the cinder block wall built when the building that had been in that parking lot was torn down. Apparently the 2 shared a party wall. It's not meant to be a public façade, regardless.

Do you want to critique the alley elevation next?

@21: those NIMBYs had their knives out for Johnson because he's not doing what they want. There are plenty of other people in that district who are on board with the bike lanes. Their complaint about Johnson was that he knew about something before acknowledging it publically. it's the Benghazi of Wedgwood.

and your position that a historic concert venue is irrelevant to a city's musical culture is absurd.

The city clearly violated its own laws and rules when it arbitrarily designated an old furniture store — and two parking lots (!) — as “historic” only after the old furniture store was slated for redevelopment. The city will now likely pay for this rash action. How many homeless persons could be housed for this expenditure, CM Sawant?

(Oh, and the Showbox’ lease on the property runs until 2020. Then the Showbox can disappear, no matter how “historical” the City Council declares it to be.)

As noted above, this was all in response to the citizenry rejecting the EHT. Let’s hope for a similar rejection of this waste of taxpayer funds, preferably at next year’s elections.