Written by Tonight’s council meeting was productive. The administration presented a new recommended Highland’s neighborhood approach which reflected growing council majority feelings in the Highlands. The Community Renewal Act and eminent domain will no longer be considered for this neighborhood. We are hoping we can instead accelerate the positive changes that residents have already begun in this neighborhood, enact more-flexible zoning, lift the construction moratorium, and begin healing the trust issues. I’m optimistic that we are close to agreement on this lightning-rod issue for the first time in months. Very good news.
Jimi Hendrix home gets put on it’s new foundation!
I visited with the team working on the Jimi Hendrix house yesterday, across the steet from the Jimi Hendrix memorial at Greenwood Cemetary. The Jimi Hendrix Foundation has saved Jimi’s boyhood home from destruction, by finding a permanent site for it in Renton. They will restore it, and incorporate it into a museum and music store, and they have some exciting landscape plans in work.
I was very impressed by the group’s spirit and dedication to this work, and I can not believe that the city of Seattle let this treasure get away from them.
Here are a couple shots of the celebration yesterday.
The Jimi hendrix Memorial, across the street at Greenwod Cemetary….
Today’s King County Journal: Eminent Domain
Here is an interesting story in today’s newpaper…..
______________________________________________________________________________________
Highlands residents fight against city’s plans: Some fear Renton will use eminent domain to make them leave
By Jamie Swift
Journal Reporter
RENTON — City Councilman Randy Corman can empathize with residents of the Highlands who are fearful the city will condemn their homes to develop a high-density urban village intended to reinvigorate the area.
Corman, the council president, stood side-by-side on a busy street corner Friday afternoon with a group of Highlands residents waving “no eminent domain” signs.
“The mayor tried to take my house,” Corman said.
Mayor Kathy Keolker was a city councilwoman in 1989. That year, the council tried to condemn Corman’s Highlands home — the same home he lives in now — to clear the way for a new development.
After a court battle, Corman won and was able to keep his home. But he says he’ll never forget the frustration and the intimidation of challenging government.
Corman was so disturbed by the situation that in 1991 he decided to run for the City Council. He targeted Keolker, because “of the pivotal role she took in condemning my property,” he said.
Keolker held on to her seat, but Corman would grab a spot on the council in 1994.
On occasion, Corman said, he’ll say to his wife that he should work harder to cooperate with Keolker.
But his wife always responds: “But she tried to take our house,” Corman says, with a chuckle.
“That’s the back story,” Corman said. “That’s what set up this whole grudge match.”
The mayor was out of the office Friday and could not be reached for comment but the city’s vision for the Highlands is to transform a neighborhood, which is dotted with blighted homes, into an urban village. To that end, the city is trying to increase the housing density.
However, an appeal lodged by the Highlands Community Association puts the city’s vision on hold, at least until the fall, said Alex Pietsch, the city’s administrator of economic development, neighborhoods and strategic planning.
Pietsch said Friday the city has always talked about eminent domain as “a last choice after all other strategies have been exhausted.”
He said the belief that the city is likely to condemn properties is “being perpetuated by people who have their own agendas.”
The residents believe they are in the path of the city’s vision for a renewed urban village in the Highlands, near Sunset Boulevard Northeast, just east of Interstate 405. And they are concerned the city will use eminent domain powers to make them leave.
Corman estimates the city is unlikely to use eminent domain to build its urban village, considering the current makeup of the City Council.
At least four of the seven council members are against using eminent domain, Corman said Friday — which marked the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo V. New London decision, which broadened governments’ eminent domain rights.
In response to that year-old decision, President Bush on Friday signed an executive order declaring the federal government can only seize private property for a public use such as a hospital or road.
Last month, Corman pitched a resolution to the City Council which would have eliminated the possibility of using eminent domain powers in the Highlands neighborhood.
“I was essentially filibustered,” said Corman, adding that council members unwilling to commit to such a step used government process to avoid a vote on the resolution.
Until the city eliminates eminent domain as an option, the Highlands residents will live in a constant state of anxiety, Corman said.
“It’s like taking months away from their lives,” Corman said.
“As soon as you realize how many rights have to get trampled to do this, you should realize you need to do the hard work of finding another idea,” Corman said.
Jamie Swift can be reached at jamie.swift@kingcountyjournal.com or 253-872-6646.
Renton Highlands Revitalization: Take Two
I want to see the Highlands revitalized as much or more than just about anyone else. I’ve lived (with my family of seven) within two blocks of the 1940s duplex area for 20 years. For fifteen years I have been an owner of a remodeled duplex in this neighborhood, and I’ve never lost faith that the area was poised for an economic renaissance (For 15 years I’ve been sure that the area will turn the corner the next year).
When prosperity did not come, I began tossing in my two cents over the years, letting the City Economic Development department know that the area could probably sustain a slightly higher housing density (such as small lot single family, or possibly townhouses) if that is what it would take to finally bring some new construction. For this reason, I was delighted this year when the mayor announced that staff was going to focus attention on finally revitalizing the highland residential areas.
Somewhere along the way, however, we drove off-course, hit some bumps, lost our cargo, and had a wreck. And like a highway accident, there was a lot of blame afterward. But it’s now time to get our bearings and get going in a safe and appropriate direction.
Since the property is privately held, the city can not treat the land as a blank slate. Any illusion of that has been eliminated by the clear resistance the neighborhood had shown to the mechanisms of blighting, community renewal act imposition, and eminent domain. Efforts to use these tools now or in the forseeable future will certainly meet with strong opposition from at least some of the residents and property owners. HCA (hca-renton.org) is organizing more activities to shut down this option, and to me it is as sensible as deliberately running a car into a brick wall for us to continue trying this approach.
Instead, we need to get the residents and land owners back on our side, and work this issue as a team. I don’t think it will be that difficult. HCA’s website has a proposal that seems very sensible to me. I expect that if we adopted it today, we would see both new construction and improved maintenance in the Highlands. In general the HCA proposal calls for flexible zoning, allowing single-family and duplexes as conforming uses, aesthetic standards for higher-density housing, low interest loans to seniors who need to maintain the appearance of their property, tighter maintenance standards in the neighborhood, aggressive enforcement by the city code compliance officers, public infrastructure maintenance where needed, neighbors joining together to enact neighborhood covenants, increased coordination with the police and/or neighborhood watch, and no declaration of blight or eminent domain takings. None of this seems counter-productive to me, and several leaders of HCA have already said that they can live with our proposed zoning if we continue to allow low density as well.
I would add to the HCA proposal some tools that we could supply as a city, at no cost to the property owners. For instance, we could consider creating stock-plans for townhouse development; “follow this free building plan, and you are allowed four new townhouses where you currently have an old duplex” for instance. we could also waive mitigation and impact fees in the redevelopment district.
We have talked about creating a citizen committee to oversee this plan. I think this is a good step, if we can readily reach agreement on who the comittee members are. If we have too much trouble reaching agreement on this point, we may have to keep the planning in the hands of the council. I would feel best having members of this committee primarily be property owners and residents in the neighborhood, supplemented by a representative of Renton Housing Authority, the planning commission, a city council member, and a city staff member.
The only thing we will need to let go of is the view that we are going to build high-density apartments at this site, on land that we have accumulated by eminent domain takings. Since I never wanted such a thing to happen, this one is pretty easy for me to let go of.
The final concern is what happens if some lone holdout refuses to fix or sell their old duplex, and it runs the neighborhood down. I believe the answer to this is that if it in really bad shape, we can solve it under current nuisance abatement ordinances with far less legal expense and political issues than we will incur trying to blight a neighborhood in the face of so much opposition. The public speakers at our hearings have made the case that many of the owners are not trying to harm neighboring property values; they would like to do more, but because of age or limited financial means they can not. In these cases, the option of extending property repair and clean-up assistance, rather than an eviction notice, seems more humane.
I hope you, citizens of Renton, can agree with me. I will be encouraging the rest of the council to move in this direction. With it’s outstanding vistas, excellent access, proximity to shopping and the lake, and fantastic residents, we can make the Renton Highlands a beautiful place to live.
Me on an afternoon walk with my family through the North Harrington neighborhood.
Renton Council clears the Landing for Takeoff
We held an exciting Committee-of-the-Whole and City Council Meeting last night. The council voted 7 to 0 to approve the construction of the streets to support the new Landing shopping center. The bonds will cost us 1.3 million per year, but we expect to receive new tax revenues of at about twice that on the most basic version of the Landing shopping center. The new construction will include the connection of Logan Avenue with the Freeway, which will put an arterial connection directly from I-405 (exit 5) though the Landing and into the center of our downtown. This will be great for our city.
Better still, we are doing the roadwork in concrete instead of asphalt, which has a life expectancy of 35-50 years. The bonds will be paid off a generation before the roads need significant maintenance. Meanwhile, the Landing will provide shopping, dining, entertainment, and tax revenues to our city.
Our attorneys are still fussing with some assorted appeals of the project, several sponsored by South Center Mall, but I believe these will at most affect the plans only “around the edges” a little. We know the land will support a shopping center, and we are going forward with the roads.
We will next turn our attention to a possible public parking garage and other public infrastructure enhancements. If these can be shown to produce a denser entertainment center and more financial activity, and enough tax revenues to pay their way (per the approved development agreement), then I am quite in favor of them.
I hope you, dear readers, share my enthusiasm for this project. My neighbors, my family and I have waited a very long time to get these kinds of shopping and entertainment options so close to home. And the tax money will help the city’s bottom line.
Kennydale Beach’s most famous lifeguard
I’ve heard from many sources that Clint Eastwood used to work as a lifeguard at Kennydale Beach park. Does anyone have any photos, documentation, or personal recollections of this? It would be fun to have more details.
“I said don’t splash…do you feel lucky punk?”
Trying a photo
Interesting picture my wife took in Ellensburg…notice the cars reflected in the tile…
Ugh! Still more controversy! Council legal assistance
Here’s a new area of stunning conflict. When we approved our 150 million dollar budget last fall, we smartly included twenty thousand dollars for use by the city council in seeking third-party legal opinions if we find ourselves in disagreement with the Mayor’s office. I have to credit my wise colleague Don Persson for recommending this line item in the budget, and astute colleague Denis Law for pushing it along. It was our intent not to use the whole amount, and only to use any of the funds in cases that would put our usual city attorney Larry Warren in a difficult situation. The council agreed at the time that the money could be allocated by the Council President, based on a request for outside legal council from any council member. Simple enough.
Then on April 17, when I made a motion to stop the mayor from interrupting the public as they were speaking at a hearing, the mayor ruled my motion out of order based on her accusation that I was trying to break the law. Not long afterwards, others suggested to me that it was time to seek an outside legal opinion. After all, the mayor accusing the council of breaking the law seems like a clear time for an outside opinion, wouldn’t it seem? Don Person and I worked though all proper channels, secured the legal opinion, and guess what….the mayor did not need to interterrupt the speakers who were worried they would lose their homes due to a zoning change. Yep, yours truly was not breaking the law by letting the public address their elected representatives at a public hearing. Amazing. I guess the US Constitution does mean something. But that’s the predictable part, here is the the interesting part….
On Thursday we discovered that the mayor was deliberately refusing to perform her administrative duty of signing the check for the outside attorney. Even though it was a council approved expense, it was authorized in the budget and she had no legal veto right, she simply refused to perform her job. In the best case her pride got in the way of her doing her duty; in the worst case she wants to be able to wrongly accuse without apology or repercussions. In any case, I was ready to let this bounce off, but others on the council are not feeling so generous.
We’ll see what happens next. Stay tuned!
Another article from my Mom
Another article from Mom. Those of you who are strong private property advocates would really like my mother. And believe it or not, she can be more stubborn than me when she wants to be.
Enjoy!…..
Posted on Sat, Jun. 17, 2006
California county’s use of eminent domain upsets developers
SAMANTHA YOUNG
Associated Press
WOODLAND, Calif. – A 17,000-acre swath of farm land that is rich in water reserves went up for sale two years ago, catching the eye of real estate developers but alarming local officials who feared its water would be siphoned off to satisfy Sacramento’s sprawling suburbs.
The sale set off a costly court case when the Yolo County Board of Supervisors decided to seize Conaway Ranch through eminent domain, saying it wanted to protect the water rights and open space. The ensuing fight has pitted a rural county against a consortium of wealthy Sacramento developers who maintain they have no plans to build on the land.
But it also has sparked wider interest. Property rights advocates upset over last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision expanding the governments’ right to seize land point to Conaway as another example of eminent domain abuse.
The controversy has become a flashpoint during a year in which an initiative seeking to restrict the use of eminent domain appears headed to California’s general election ballot in November.
Two courts so far have sided with the county, ruling that it has a legal right to protect the area’s rice fields, water and wildlife from the threat of development by its owners, the Conaway Preservation Group.
“I believe to my core if these guys were to keep this property, they would market this water to the highest bidder,” said Supervisor Mike McGowan, one of the lead negotiators in the county’s talks with the developers. “Their motive is to make money. They’ve acquired this ranch as an investment.”
In court, attorneys for the Conaway Ranch’s owners have argued the county has manufactured a “self-created threat or fear of development” that puts agricultural land across the country at risk of government takeover.
“Speculation does not serve as a ground that allows government to take private property,” wrote attorney Gary Livaich. “Conaway ranch and its resources are being preserved and protected under the stewardship of its private owners.”
—
In the spring, Conaway Ranch is covered by rice paddies and alfalfa crops. A few buildings are clustered at the center of the ranch – a warehouse used by the tenant farmers and two others that serve the ranch’s duck-hunting club.
About half the land also is used during the winter as a floodplain when the Sacramento River reaches dangerous levels, serving as a crucial outlet for rising waters and as a key link in Sacramento’s flood-control plans. Because of that, only the westernmost sliver of the ranch between Woodland and Davis, home to a University of California campus, is eligible for development.
Supporters of the county’s eminent domain effort say precedent for the action already exists, pointing to the federal government’s buying development rights from farmers in 2002 to protect land at Point Reyes National Seashore.
Antonio Rossmann, an adjunct professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley and an expert in land-use law, said the courts have given local governments the prerogative to buy land to preserve it.
“I think the county is on firm ground,” Rossmann said. “The Conaway Ranch case is essentially a political dispute that the landowners are trying to divert into a legal case.”
Nevertheless, the case has fired up local property rights advocates who complain the county has no business buying a working ranch from unwilling sellers.
The next twist in the case is expected to come this fall from a Yolo County jury, which will decide how much the county should pay to the Conaway Preservation Group. If the developers are not satisfied with the result, they could appeal.
The coalition of developers paid $60 million for the ranch in 2004 after the county began its eminent domain proceedings on the ranch. Their appraisers now estimate it is worth as much as $240 million for its development potential, water resources and hunting rights.
In another twist, the Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians, which operates the Cache Creek casino in northwest Yolo County, has offered to loan the county the money to buy the land. That has prompted concern among critics that the tribe might seek favors from the county in the future.
McGowan, the county supervisor, said there’s no such deal between Yolo County and the tribe. He said the Rumsey Band simply wants to be “a good neighbor” and that the property would never be home to a casino. He promised full disclosure of the loan details when the terms are set.
—
The land comes with title to 30,000 acre-feet of water from the Sacramento River and another 20,000 acre-feet from groundwater wells. Combined, that’s enough to supply 200,000 people a year – 15,000 more than the population of Yolo County, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates.
Over the years, county elected officials have fought proposals by area farmers to sell their water outside the county. It is among a dozen jurisdictions in the state that regulates exports of groundwater but lacks the authority to regulate water drawn from rivers.
Experts in state water law say Conaway Ranch owners could sell their rights to Sacramento River water.
“If we can have a fair price for the land, then I think it would be a good idea for Yolo County to secure its water supply,” said Richard Howitt, a professor of agriculture economics at the University of California, Davis, who has studied the impacts of water transfers out of Yolo County.
The farm land also presents an attractive target for housing developers, said Dave Jarnette, a commercial appraiser in Rocklin, a Sacramento suburb.
“In the grand scheme of things, looking out 10 to 20 years, it certainly seems to make sense, because we’re running out of land to develop,” Jarnette said.
All but 2,000 acres of the ranch is designated as farm land under a state law granting farmers tax incentives to maintain agricultural use.
But in a preliminary development proposal drawn up for the Conaway Preservation Group, a private planner hired by the group suggested that 3,800 acres could be turned into a planned community of 12,000 houses, commercial and retail buildings.
In spite of those plans, Conaway Preservation Group representatives said they have no interest in developing the land. The development proposal was pitched to investors when the group president, Steve Gidaro, wanted to buy the land in 2004, but the investors scuttled the plan in January 2005, said Tovey Giezentanner, a ranch spokesman.
Instead, the property will be marketed as a conservation investment to developers looking for open space that can be preserved to offset their building enterprises elsewhere.
“The difference between now and the early 1990s is there wasn’t money in conservation then, whereas there is now,” Giezentanner said.
Neither Gidaro nor any of the investors agreed to be interviewed for this article.
—
The Yolo County Farm Bureau and the ranch’s 20 tenants are opposed to the county’s eminent domain bid.
“There are ulterior motives behind their quest,” said Joe Martinez, the farm bureau president. “They want to divert the water to urban use.”
That point resonates with farmers who have watched elected officials snap up parts of the ranch at least three times to meet the needs of area residents – by Woodland and Davis for sewage treatment and by the county for a garbage dump, Martinez said.
Martinez said farmers trust the Conaway Preservation Group not to sell the water because several of the group’s leaders are avid duck hunters and have an interest in preserving the land for open space.
[end quote]
Eminent Domain and Community Renewal Act
Wow-
Even my own sweet mother in California is sending me stuff about fighting eminent domain. She has been reading my blog, and found this article about organizing against the use of eminent domain. I think the HCA could have written this article themselves.
Renton City Council should have ended the eminent domain threat in the Highlands months ago, and ended everyone’s anxiety on this issue (including the elected officials anxiety!) It’s time to pull the community back together.
I’m thinking of trying another motion Monday night on the topic, but I’m tired of getting fillibustered by the council minority and the mayor like this “blah, blah, blah, process, blah blah, more hearings, blah, blah, more process, blah, blah, didn’t announce in advance, blah, blah, you are breaking the law to want to stop this, blah, blah, why don’t you use my bathroom, blah, blah, where is my lipstick, blah blah…wow it’s almost midnight and time to go home, blah, blah….” You know how it goes. I will think about whether I am up for it!
Anyway, here is the article my dear mother emailed me……..
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Business
Organize with others to fight eminent domain
By Ilana DeBare
san francisco chronicle
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 05.22.2006
[begin quote]
Q: I own one of several auto repair businesses on the same block of a small Bay Area city. We suspect the city is planning to redevelop this area into condos. (There’s a lot more tax money in condos than in auto repair shops.) We are scared of being forced out by eminent domain. What can we do?
A: Organize, organize, organize!
Eminent domain is the process in which the government can force people to sell their property for the public good. That’s how cities commonly get land for public structures like roads, streetlights and schools.
It’s also used for economic development, with cities assembling a number of small parcels for development into a privately owned shopping mall, big-box store or, in your case, condominiums.
The process often begins with the city declaring that a neighborhood is “blighted.” Then city officials can require owners to sell their property.
A 2005 Supreme Court ruling gave local governments wide latitude in using eminent domain for economic development. So your odds are better if you fight this at city hall rather than in the courts.
“You need to organize and get together with other folks who are threatened by this,” said Steven Anderson, an attorney with the Castle Coalition, a property-rights group.
Some of his suggestions:
l Identify other affected property owners and form a neighborhood or business association.
l Find out the actual status of this project. Is it just in the rumor stage, or is it under way? “I recommend you speak to a lawyer for an hour or two and ask questions like what is the procedural status of this project, and what kind of hearings have to take place before any property gets condemned?” Anderson said.
l Meet with local elected officials. Show up and speak at all the relevant hearings.
l Write op-ed pieces explaining your views, and call local reporters to share your story.
l Get tips from other activists. For instance, a San Jose group is waging a similar fight (www.coalitionforredevelopmentreform.org).
Want more information? The Castle Coalition offers a step-by-step Survival Guide for fighting eminent domain at www.castlecoalition.org online.
[end quote]
Annexations
There are many neighborhoods bordering our city that are looking at the potential of annexing over the next few years. People in this position often have many questions and concerns, and I’m not going to try to address them all with one journal entry this morning.
I would instead like to convey my basic position on annexations, and invite readers to contact me at 425-271-6913 or leave comments below with any questions they have of me on the topic.
My basic position is this:
If you are in our Potential Annexation Area (PAA), and the majority of your neighborhood wishes to join our city, then I welcome you with open arms. If you are in the PAA, but the majority of your neighbors do not wish to join our city, then I understand and I have no issues with that..peace to you, and your settlement :-). Lastly, if you are outside our PAA, and you wish to join our city, we should work with other jurisdictions to update the PAA and go from there.
My only wish is that you and your neighbors have accurate facts and data to work from (this is my inner engineer’s voice), Therefore, I support our staff’s printing of materials that explain how your situation is affected by annexation. I want this material to be politically neutral, accurate, and readable.
I will generally not plan to attend meetings of King County residents who are weighing an annexation decision, because I don’t want to put myself in the position of taking their decision personally. If I’m not at their meeting, I won’t have my feelings hurt if they decide not to annex…better for them, and better for me!
In summary, if you are in our PAA, treat it like an event invitation. Ask your questions, get the facts, and make the decision that works for you. I’ll support you either way.
Building the roads for “the Landing”
Well, on Monday the City Council will take up the subject of approving the construction bid for the roads at the Landing (the new shopping center located on the surplus Boeing property). This is one of the subjects Mr. Peter Buck, the attorney for South Center Mall, picked on us about last Monday night.
We have a good plan, but perhaps a little more homework to do before we are ready for a vote. Council Member Denis Law has kept this vital concern on the front burner, and I shared my take on it with the Mayor’s executive assistant today. He has agreed to work on it. Specifically, Denis and I think that Council Members and the public need to be provided with a financial summary that demonstrates that two-thirds of the anticipated tax revenues from the project will pay for the roads we are going to construct, consistent with the development agreement between the city and the developer. The financial analysis does not have to identify specific businesses; it can use average predicted sales revenues on a per-square-foot basis for retail business, restaurants, and health clubs. This analysis will give us a basis for going ahead with the road construction.
As a second decision, at a later date, we need to determine if we will participate in construction of a parking garage in order to increase the density of the project and add an entertainment center (with a movie theater). This decision will be based on a second analysis, that shows that the additonal tax revenues resulting from a more intense version of the Landing project will provide enough additional revenues to fund further public infrastructure (like a garage).
So, we in fact have a two part decision to make, and we need two financial summaries to make these decisions. In keeping with Mr. Buck’s request, we should prepare these in a way that the council and public get the data necessary for a decision, but we don’t get data that is not our business (such as private business information).
It sounds like the financial arrangement will pencil out for the taxpayers, as it well should. Everyone who lives in Renton knows there is pent up demand for more shopping and restaurants in town. And whenever our residents pay state sales tax, over ten percent of the tax gets turned over to the city where the purchase takes place. This amount of money going to Renton instead of Tukwilla, Bellevue or Issaquah should easily cover some new roads.
Now it’s Friday evening, and time for some family activities.
Tonight’s Council Meeting
I’m back from my Council Meeting. It was actually pretty peaceful tonight. We had six speakers from the public discuss a variety of issues. One of them was Mr. Peter Buck, the attorney for South Center. He was a dynamic speaker, and he challenged us to be sure we were not withholding records from the public concerning the Landing. Seems fair enough to me.
Council member Don Person made a motion, and I seconded, to review council policies in our Committee of the Whole. I think Don’s intent included taking up the issue of public sign-in sheets, and name and address requirements, at council meetings.
We also heard from Susan Larson Kensor, a very nice woman who has owned and managed the Kennydale Blueberry Farm for 22 years. She was concerned that rumors were spreading about her reasons for seeking a rezone of the site. She explained that her blueberry bushes are dying as a result of adjacent development, she can barely even afford to open the farm any more, and it is time for her to move on. As a long time customer of hers, I am sympathetic and understanding of her position, and I hope it goes well for her. I will miss the farm and it’s wonderful bounty of blueberries. For years I was buying forty pounds per year from her.
We also heard that many duplex owners in the highlands are working hard to spruce up their buildings as a result of all the recent focus on the neighborhood condition. I commend them all for this. I think the city needs to get in and fix some sidewalks next!
That’s all for now…
Bummer! Our Highlands troubles spilled over to The Landing
I will write more on this subject later, but I wanted to copy today’s newspaper article in this journal for future reference. In short, it looks like South Center Mall is going after our new “Landing” Project to protect their tenant and customer base. Unfortunately, the citizen distrust in Renton Highlands, combine perhaps with the Lipstick Caper, has produced enough “smell of blood” that the attoneys for South Center are moving in. Yikes!
I want to restore the trust of our Renton Highland Citizens (including HCA) to get us back on track in the Highlands, and then recruit all our citizens to help move forward on the Landing Project. But there is some pride and some hurt feelings standing in the way, so it looks like some rough water ahead.
Like I say, more on this later. I’ve got to get some dinner and head to the Council Meeting. I hear that South Center is sending a court reporter tonight! The excitement never ends!
__________________________________________________________________
From Today’s King County Journal:
Multiple appeals might delay The Landing’s start
Harvest Partners
The Landing, a major new retail and residential development proposed for north Renton, will feature stores, a movie theater and about 900 homes, all in a setting called a lifestyle center, similar to University Village in Seattle.
By Dean A. Radford
Journal Reporter
RENTON — Five environmental appeals, including three bankrolled mostly by the owners of the Westfield Southcenter shopping mall in Tukwila, could delay construction of The Landing, a large shopping and residential lifestyle center in north Renton.
Any delays also could increase the cost of road and utility improvements the city of Renton will make at the former Boeing property, estimated now at about $19 million.
“I think that delay is the most likely result and the desired result of these appeals,” said Renton City Attorney Larry Warren, who pointed out that interest rates and the cost of raw materials used in construction are going up.
The cost of bonds, which the city would use to finance the improvements, increases when interest rates climb. The city would use tax revenue from The Landing to pay off the bonds.
However, the appellants question whether The Landing will generate enough revenue to actually pay off the debt, perhaps forcing the city into a difficult financial situation.
City officials disagree with that contention.
But the appeals won’t kill the project, according to city officials and a spokeswoman for the developers, Harvest Partners of Dallas.
“We are committed 110 percent,” said Natalie Quick, the spokeswoman. “The city knows that. The community knows that.”
She declined further comment.
The Landing would include about 600,000 square feet for retail space, a theater and restaurants, along with about 900 housing units, all packaged as a lifestyle center similar to University Village in Seattle.
A comprehensive environmental review of Boeing’s Renton property was done several years ago, before the Dallas company purchased its 46 acres.
In general, the appeals maintain that the scope of The Landing project goes far beyond what was envisioned in an environmental review done of Boeing’s property in 2003 and promised public hearings on development projects were never held.
Also the appeals claim the city didn’t follow proper procedures in approving administratively — without a public hearing — what’s known as a Planned Action for The Landing project.
The three appeals supported by Westfield Southcenter, the former Southcenter Mall, were filed late last month by Alliance for South End, which had incorporated as a nonprofit corporation the week before.
The organization describes itself as advancing its members’ interests in “Renton’s environment, land-use planning and government and fiscal integrity.”
The alliance’s attorney, Peter Buck, acknowledged in filing the appeals that Westfield’s corporate owner, WEA Southcenter LLC, which his law firm also represents, contributes some funds to pay for the appeal by the alliance.
In an interview, he said the Westfield owners are “paying the bulk” of the appeals, but declined to elaborate. But focusing on who is paying the legal bill distracts attention from the message in the appeals, he said.
Two other appeals have been filed by a Progressive Alliance for a Sustainable Southend, which describes its purpose as “ensuring sustainable and responsible development” in Renton and the Boeing property in particular.
Their attorney, Claudia Newman, wasn’t available for comment.
It’s possible all five appeals will be consolidated when they go before the Renton hearing examiner for consideration. A date for a hearing hasn’t been set.
Buck, the attorney for the Alliance for South End, said the city has yet to provide him with a financial analysis that shows The Landing is financial viable and will generate the revenue to pay off the bonds.
“Our assumption is they don’t exist,” Buck said.
An economic analysis has been done, but the question is whether those studies are public documents and thus disclosable to Buck or others, said Alex Pietsch, the city’s administrator for the Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning.
The City Council has yet to authorize sale of the bonds for the improvements. It will receive a briefing on the bids for that work this evening.
The council also will get a briefing on Harvest Partners’ efforts to comply with early conditions the city placed on the project, which include a financing plan and letters of intent from some retailers.
Warren, the Renton city attorney, called the environmental review of Boeing’s Renton property perhaps the most complete ever done in the city.
A consultant found that The Landing fits within in the issues covered in that review, he said.
“I think we have covered our bases,” he said. Nor does he recall the city ever making promises for additional public hearings. The public had ample opportunity to comment during the environmental review in 2003, he said.
Dean Radford covers Renton. He can be reached at dean.radford@kingcountyjournal.com or 253-872-6719.
Developer report
The Renton City Council will be briefed today on The Landing development in north Renton and on construction bids for about $19 million in road and utility improvements in the area. The committee meeting is at 6 p.m., followed by the council’s regular meeting in council chambers, City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton.
Last modified: June 12. 2006 12:00AM
Neighborhood Picnics!
Hooray! The 2006 Renton Neighborhood Picnic schedule has been published. North Renton kicked things off on Thursday with a terrific picnic at the Sartori School. (They also cut the ribbon on some pretty landscape improvements they made at the school.)
The city provides tables, hotdogs, and drinks, and the rest is potluck (bring a sidedish or salad). If you live in Renton, perhaps I’ll see you at one of these picnics this summer.
Neighborhood Picnic Program Calendar 2006
Date Time Association Place
June 8 Thursday 5:30-8:30 p.m. North Renton Neighborhood 315 Garden Ave N.
July 13 Thursday 5:30 – 8:00 p.m. Falcon Ridge HOA SE 8th Place (at entrance)
July 20 Thursday 6:30-8:00 p.m. LaCrosse HOA NE 36th &Monterey Court NE
July 27 Thursday 5:30-8:00 p.m. Tiffany Park, Ponderosa 902 Lake Youngs Way SE
August 3 Thursday 6:00-8:30 p.m. Victoria Park, Talbot Hill, 601 S. 23rd St.
August 10 Thursday 5:30 – 8:00 p.m. Winsper Neighborhood Common Area
August 16 Wednesday 6:00-8:30 p.m. Glencoe Neighborhood Picnic 444 NE 24th Street
August 23 Wednesday 6:30 – 8:00 p.m. Renton Hill/Heritage Garden Phil Arnold 720 Jones Ave.
August 24 Wednesday 5:30 – 8:00 p.m. Highlands Kiwanis Park 815 Union Ave NE
Sept 6 Wednesday 5:00-8:00 p.m. Kennydale Neighborhood Lions Pk 2428 Aberdeen N.E.
Sept 7 Thursday 5:30-8:00 p.m. Earlington Neighborhood 272 Thomas Ave. SW
Recent Comments