At this stage in the city budget process, it's hard for me to hear the word "budget" uttered without wanting to take a cheese grater to someone's tongue. But the SeattlePI.com has a great piece up that highlights how the city's $67 million deficit is more than just a bleak exercise for Mayor Mike McGinn and the city council—it's an exercise in how the city views, and uses, public space, versus how residents view this same space. For instance, in his budget proposal, the mayor recommended Queen Anne community center rent out its basketball gym to a television studio for $84,000 in annual rent:

...the deal sent the neighborhood into a tizzy. Complaints flooded City Hall and more than 900 people signed a petition to save the gym. The outrage scared off the studio, a local company called BizKid$, which produces a PBS show on financial literacy for kids.

"We withdrew from negotiations, because we didn't want to be a problem to anyone in the community," said Jamie Hammond, the executive producer of BizKid$. "I think they thought we were a big L.A. company swooping in and producing a big television series here, and that's absolutely not the case."

The people who are testifying at city budget hearings to save their community centers are often the same people signing petitions like this. Seattle residents are fiercely protective of their public space, but "It’s a way of generating revenue and looking at a way for partnerships to support park resources," says Aaron Pickus of the Queen Anne community center proposal. "It's time to get creative."

The same argument has been made for the Chihuly museum. City Council Member Sally Bagshaw is still receiving an email a day (on average) about plunking the private museum down on public land—which would generate $350,000 to $500,000 a year in rent for the Seattle Center. City council also has legislation in the hopper that would allow businesses to display their corporate logos on downtown buildings—a proposal that's been quietly challenged by local activists in recent months, struck down by the city Hearing examiner, and then appealed by the same activists. That legislation is still being drafted so there's no way of knowing right now what type of fee would be associated affixing a 350-square-foot sign to the top of a building, but a safe bet is it wouldn't be free.