Seattlest: Fighting Over Fort Lawton

robinbudd

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:25:39 -0800

Just to clarify a few fact. First, the land in question is NOT outside Discovery Park, according to the Master Plan, which for decades has guided the City's planning and management of the park. In fact, the City's website for DP clearly shows the property in question inside park boundaries. Second, BRAC rules DO NOT REQUIRE that homeless housing be built. That is one of many uses that qualify the land to be transferred at discounted price (parks use is allowed, too). We oppose any non-parks use of land inside DP, period. We have little enough green space as it is, and using parks for residential development doesn't serve us well.

Unknown user

Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:07:16 -0800

That Thriftway is not exactly, uh, thrifty. It caters to a certain clientele--presumably those who are willing to purchase the $9 boxes of cereal on its shelves. Although they do have tons of free samples at the deli, and free coffee.

MvB

Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:43:06 -0800

Still not exactly spoiled for choice, Katelyn. And yes, you're being overly charitable towards Metro.

Katelyn

Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:48:58 -0800

There is a Thriftway right there, for grocery shopping... And this might be overly charitable towards Metro, but I would hope they would adjust their routes to suit the changing needs of that community. I don't know, I think it could work -- apparently federal law requires them to turn it into housing? (Still trying to find the specific wording of that rule, but I've read two articles that mentioned it.)

MvB

Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:32:05 -0800

The first thing I gotta wonder about is why you want to maroon homeless people on Magnolia. The three bus routes in the proposal have waits of 30 min. to 1 hr. off-peak, and mainly run downtown. And I can't imagine there's a lot of nearby employment and grocery shopping. It seems like this location creates additional expenses for people who have the least disposable income.

TroyJMorris

Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:34:25 -0800

Scratch that, I finally got to the map on page 17 of section 3. It's right on the outside of the park, so all it's going to do is upset the Sargents' wives that currently inhabit that area.

TroyJMorris

Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:32:30 -0800

There is nothing wrong with wanting to really help the homelessness issue in this city. But mixed-income? In the middle of the largest city park? The most natural and un-touched park? Really? I can see this exploding into pure dung in 7 years when funding bottoms out and the city stops caring to funnel the huge resources into maintenance. Moreover, what's that going to alter in the surrounding area as far as services go? I just sense an overall feeling of "too little benefit for too much headache."