PRESS ROOM
Scroll down to read the following opinions and editorials
>Who's boxing in whom?, Bill Muse, Seattle Times, Opinion.
>Dearborn Street Project a benefit to neighborhood, Carrie Kim, Seattle PI, Letter to Editor.
>Easier doesn't come easily, Jerry Large, Seattle Times columnist.
>Seattle must reject efforts to impose "Community Benefits". George Erb, Editor, PSBJ.
Who's boxing in whom?
By Bill Muse
The recent opinion piece "Boxed in on Dearborn Street" [guest column, May 24] claimed many people in
neighborhoods near Rainier Avenue and Dearborn Street don't want a mall built there. That seemed odd
because people in low-income neighborhoods usually beg major retailers to come.
The authors say "Commuters ... might like having a huge, low-cost shopping mall on their way home." So
would people who live nearby, like me. Commuters already have those things close to home. Residents
of Rainier Valley and East Seattle, however, must travel to Northgate, Factoria or Southcenter.
The authors say "we're fighting to stop poverty" — while opposing a mall they say will create 1,200
entry-level jobs? Entry-level jobs are the kind poor people need, and if the people in the neighborhood
don't want to work for those wages, they are perfectly free not to.
The authors say that when the 1,200 workers' shifts are done, "they'll take the long bus ride home
because they can't afford to live in the neighborhood." But earlier, they described the neighborhood as
low-income. (And what's wrong with taking a bus to work anyway? Isn't that what these protesty types
are always trying to get people to do?)
The authors' complaints continue:
There are 2,300 parking stalls planned. Good. I'd be complaining if the mall planned on using city streets
for parking. There will be more traffic. If you drive through there now, you'd know there could hardly be
more traffic. And the authors failed to consider all the driving to Northgate, Factoria and Southcenter that
won't happen once this mall is built.
Toxic runoff. This is a shopping mall, not a 19th-century silver mine. Try building anything in 2007 Seattle
with runoff more toxic than a spilled soy latte.
Then, near the end of the article, it all becomes clear: "We're asking Seattle's mayor and city council to
support our efforts toward a community-benefits agreement with the developer." (As if the mall itself
wouldn't be the single biggest benefit this community has seen in decades.)
Now I get it; it's the modern version of the old protection racket. Nice store you got planned here. It would
be a shame if a bunch of protesters went around stirring up trouble for ya.
Dearborn Street Project a benefit to neighborhood
Below is original Letter to the Editor, before it was edited and published by the Seattle PI, 6/4
By Carrie Kim
Craig Thompson, guest columnist of “Will South End be livable after developers run through it?” got it
wrong (May, 31).
The Dearborn Street project is not two-thirds the size of Northgate. Retail is less than half the size of
Northgate on land less than one sixth its size. There will not be 50 “chain stores” but a mix of chain and
local retailers. Local mom-and-pops will be offered rent subsidies.
He claims traffic will double, yet Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) have shown it will only increase by
17%. The project has undergone intense environmental scrutiny with extensive input from the
community. City engineers have reviewed and supported EIS conclusions.
He states the city must vacate three “public” streets as to suggest neighborhoods are threatened.
However, those streets are industrial and unfriendly.
I wonder if Mr. Thompson has even visited the area? I have. I live 5 blocks away. As I walk on Dearborn
past dilapidated buildings, over broken beer bottles and smashed out windows, I wonder about my
safety.
The Dearborn Street development is a pedestrian-friendly project that addresses needs for low-income
housing, local business opportunity and condensed urban growth in an neglected area of town that
desperately needs it.
In his April 26, 2007 column, Seattle Times columnist Jerry Large wrote that it’s time to start
building Dearborn Street. The column is below.
By Jerry Large
Easier doesn't come easily
I want convenient shopping.
I also want green space and less traffic. I want to protect small businesses and nurture unique cultural
enclaves. I want to create good-paying jobs and keep prices low. I want solid property values and I
support low-cost housing.
The conflicts in my mind are playing out in differences over a development planned for the Goodwill
property north of Dearborn Street and west of Rainier Avenue South.
A few people may see good vs. evil in this struggle. For most folks, it is more of the choices and
compromises that life is made of.
Goodwill would get a new store and training facility. Developers, in exchange, would get land for a mall.
That's good for both, but what about the neighbors?
The property is on the edge of Little Saigon, near the Chinatown International District, about where they
bump into the Central Area. It's just downhill from Beacon Hill and a couple of minutes from Rainier Valley.
It is in just the right spot to benefit some people and trouble others.
The development would include a general-merchandise store, probably Target; a grocery; lots of other
shops; and housing, including some for low-income people. There might also be a Lowe's Home
Improvement Center.
Last Saturday, representatives of a coalition of groups marched from 12th Avenue and Yesler Way to
the Goodwill parking lot for a rally at which they expressed concerns about the plan.
Vietnamese business owners worry the project will drive up rents and traffic.
Some marchers asked for more affordable housing.
The scale — 600,000 square feet of retail space and housing — concerned everyone.
I live in Rainier Valley and I've been looking forward to a Target coming to the spot.
I could stop on the way home from work and buy a pair of socks. I wouldn't have to drive to Renton or
Southcenter or downtown for little things I can't get nearby.
I admitted that to one of the demonstrators and we both laughed. Even some of the marchers think
convenient shopping would be nice.
Most of the speakers said they weren't against development, they just wanted it to be neighborhood-
friendly.
The coalition and other community members have been discussing their worries with the developers for
months.
The developers agreed to a subsidy for small businesses and offered a list of compromises contingent
on support from the coalition.
The compromises are mostly about support for businesses in Little Saigon and a few small businesses
within the project.
People need to have their concerns heard and addressed, so far as that's possible.
But we're still talking about a mall, not a social-service agency.
It's kind of nice that it will include Goodwill, so people can drop off their old stuff and head into Target to
buy new goodies without re-parking. That's a consumer society at its most efficient.
It's time to start building.
I'm looking forward to avoiding a trip to the suburbs. I want to save some gas.
Seattle must reject efforts to impose 'community benefits' Obstacles
Puget Sound Business Journal ( Seattle ) - August 10, 2007
by George Erb, Editor
Some Seattle unions and community groups have latched onto the unfortunate idea of attaching all
manner of social and economic objectives to private developments and project permits.
Their advocacy for communities and workers is laudable, and we share their concern about such issues
as affordable housing.
However, turning private developers into social engineers who work from activists' checklists would be
a terrible mistake.
If the Seattle City Council and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels buy into this regulatory vision, they would
discourage private investment and undermine the city's remarkable economic vitality.
The activists' demands have already injected another layer of political wrangling into the civic discourse
over at least two projects.
Dearborn Street Developers LLC this spring proposed a $300 million mixed-use project on the site of the
Goodwill Store near south Dearborn and Weller streets in Seattle . The proposal consists of shops,
restaurants, 550 housing units and a new Goodwill store.
But the Dearborn Street Coalition, a collection of unions and activists, is trying to pressure developers
into signing a "community benefits agreement" that would advance the coalition's social and economic
agenda.
The group wants Dearborn Street Developers to somehow guarantee that future tenants would pay
"living" wages and hire 30 percent of their workers from the immediate neighborhood, among other things
And if the coalition doesn't get its way, it has threatened to take its case to the Seattle City Council when
that body considers whether to grant developers a rezone request and a street vacation, perhaps later
this year.
In another case, unions persuaded the City Council to limit the size of a proposed hotel in downtown
Seattle 's Alaska Building in favor of more housing. The owner, Kent Angier, wanted to convert the
building into a hotel run by the nonunion Marriott chain.
Plenty is wrong with this "community benefits" scenario.
It stretches the development community's social responsibilities to absurd lengths. How can a builder hold
tenants to employment standards well into the future? Is Lyman Cornelius Smith, the builder of the Smith
Tower, somehow responsible for what the building's tenants pay their workers today? Of course not.
The strategy also slows down the city's regulatory machinery, which is already synonymous with
"cumbersome."
City Hall should not let the "community benefits" advocates, no matter how well meaning, erect a another
disincentive for private investment and entrepreneurial activity.
Scroll down to read the following opinions and editorials
>Who's boxing in whom?, Bill Muse, Seattle Times, Opinion.
>Dearborn Street Project a benefit to neighborhood, Carrie Kim, Seattle PI, Letter to Editor.
>Easier doesn't come easily, Jerry Large, Seattle Times columnist.
>Seattle must reject efforts to impose "Community Benefits". George Erb, Editor, PSBJ.
Who's boxing in whom?
By Bill Muse
The recent opinion piece "Boxed in on Dearborn Street" [guest column, May 24] claimed many people in
neighborhoods near Rainier Avenue and Dearborn Street don't want a mall built there. That seemed odd
because people in low-income neighborhoods usually beg major retailers to come.
The authors say "Commuters ... might like having a huge, low-cost shopping mall on their way home." So
would people who live nearby, like me. Commuters already have those things close to home. Residents
of Rainier Valley and East Seattle, however, must travel to Northgate, Factoria or Southcenter.
The authors say "we're fighting to stop poverty" — while opposing a mall they say will create 1,200
entry-level jobs? Entry-level jobs are the kind poor people need, and if the people in the neighborhood
don't want to work for those wages, they are perfectly free not to.
The authors say that when the 1,200 workers' shifts are done, "they'll take the long bus ride home
because they can't afford to live in the neighborhood." But earlier, they described the neighborhood as
low-income. (And what's wrong with taking a bus to work anyway? Isn't that what these protesty types
are always trying to get people to do?)
The authors' complaints continue:
There are 2,300 parking stalls planned. Good. I'd be complaining if the mall planned on using city streets
for parking. There will be more traffic. If you drive through there now, you'd know there could hardly be
more traffic. And the authors failed to consider all the driving to Northgate, Factoria and Southcenter that
won't happen once this mall is built.
Toxic runoff. This is a shopping mall, not a 19th-century silver mine. Try building anything in 2007 Seattle
with runoff more toxic than a spilled soy latte.
Then, near the end of the article, it all becomes clear: "We're asking Seattle's mayor and city council to
support our efforts toward a community-benefits agreement with the developer." (As if the mall itself
wouldn't be the single biggest benefit this community has seen in decades.)
Now I get it; it's the modern version of the old protection racket. Nice store you got planned here. It would
be a shame if a bunch of protesters went around stirring up trouble for ya.
Dearborn Street Project a benefit to neighborhood
Below is original Letter to the Editor, before it was edited and published by the Seattle PI, 6/4
By Carrie Kim
Craig Thompson, guest columnist of “Will South End be livable after developers run through it?” got it
wrong (May, 31).
The Dearborn Street project is not two-thirds the size of Northgate. Retail is less than half the size of
Northgate on land less than one sixth its size. There will not be 50 “chain stores” but a mix of chain and
local retailers. Local mom-and-pops will be offered rent subsidies.
He claims traffic will double, yet Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) have shown it will only increase by
17%. The project has undergone intense environmental scrutiny with extensive input from the
community. City engineers have reviewed and supported EIS conclusions.
He states the city must vacate three “public” streets as to suggest neighborhoods are threatened.
However, those streets are industrial and unfriendly.
I wonder if Mr. Thompson has even visited the area? I have. I live 5 blocks away. As I walk on Dearborn
past dilapidated buildings, over broken beer bottles and smashed out windows, I wonder about my
safety.
The Dearborn Street development is a pedestrian-friendly project that addresses needs for low-income
housing, local business opportunity and condensed urban growth in an neglected area of town that
desperately needs it.
In his April 26, 2007 column, Seattle Times columnist Jerry Large wrote that it’s time to start
building Dearborn Street. The column is below.
By Jerry Large
Easier doesn't come easily
I want convenient shopping.
I also want green space and less traffic. I want to protect small businesses and nurture unique cultural
enclaves. I want to create good-paying jobs and keep prices low. I want solid property values and I
support low-cost housing.
The conflicts in my mind are playing out in differences over a development planned for the Goodwill
property north of Dearborn Street and west of Rainier Avenue South.
A few people may see good vs. evil in this struggle. For most folks, it is more of the choices and
compromises that life is made of.
Goodwill would get a new store and training facility. Developers, in exchange, would get land for a mall.
That's good for both, but what about the neighbors?
The property is on the edge of Little Saigon, near the Chinatown International District, about where they
bump into the Central Area. It's just downhill from Beacon Hill and a couple of minutes from Rainier Valley.
It is in just the right spot to benefit some people and trouble others.
The development would include a general-merchandise store, probably Target; a grocery; lots of other
shops; and housing, including some for low-income people. There might also be a Lowe's Home
Improvement Center.
Last Saturday, representatives of a coalition of groups marched from 12th Avenue and Yesler Way to
the Goodwill parking lot for a rally at which they expressed concerns about the plan.
Vietnamese business owners worry the project will drive up rents and traffic.
Some marchers asked for more affordable housing.
The scale — 600,000 square feet of retail space and housing — concerned everyone.
I live in Rainier Valley and I've been looking forward to a Target coming to the spot.
I could stop on the way home from work and buy a pair of socks. I wouldn't have to drive to Renton or
Southcenter or downtown for little things I can't get nearby.
I admitted that to one of the demonstrators and we both laughed. Even some of the marchers think
convenient shopping would be nice.
Most of the speakers said they weren't against development, they just wanted it to be neighborhood-
friendly.
The coalition and other community members have been discussing their worries with the developers for
months.
The developers agreed to a subsidy for small businesses and offered a list of compromises contingent
on support from the coalition.
The compromises are mostly about support for businesses in Little Saigon and a few small businesses
within the project.
People need to have their concerns heard and addressed, so far as that's possible.
But we're still talking about a mall, not a social-service agency.
It's kind of nice that it will include Goodwill, so people can drop off their old stuff and head into Target to
buy new goodies without re-parking. That's a consumer society at its most efficient.
It's time to start building.
I'm looking forward to avoiding a trip to the suburbs. I want to save some gas.
Seattle must reject efforts to impose 'community benefits' Obstacles
Puget Sound Business Journal ( Seattle ) - August 10, 2007
by George Erb, Editor
Some Seattle unions and community groups have latched onto the unfortunate idea of attaching all
manner of social and economic objectives to private developments and project permits.
Their advocacy for communities and workers is laudable, and we share their concern about such issues
as affordable housing.
However, turning private developers into social engineers who work from activists' checklists would be
a terrible mistake.
If the Seattle City Council and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels buy into this regulatory vision, they would
discourage private investment and undermine the city's remarkable economic vitality.
The activists' demands have already injected another layer of political wrangling into the civic discourse
over at least two projects.
Dearborn Street Developers LLC this spring proposed a $300 million mixed-use project on the site of the
Goodwill Store near south Dearborn and Weller streets in Seattle . The proposal consists of shops,
restaurants, 550 housing units and a new Goodwill store.
But the Dearborn Street Coalition, a collection of unions and activists, is trying to pressure developers
into signing a "community benefits agreement" that would advance the coalition's social and economic
agenda.
The group wants Dearborn Street Developers to somehow guarantee that future tenants would pay
"living" wages and hire 30 percent of their workers from the immediate neighborhood, among other things
And if the coalition doesn't get its way, it has threatened to take its case to the Seattle City Council when
that body considers whether to grant developers a rezone request and a street vacation, perhaps later
this year.
In another case, unions persuaded the City Council to limit the size of a proposed hotel in downtown
Seattle 's Alaska Building in favor of more housing. The owner, Kent Angier, wanted to convert the
building into a hotel run by the nonunion Marriott chain.
Plenty is wrong with this "community benefits" scenario.
It stretches the development community's social responsibilities to absurd lengths. How can a builder hold
tenants to employment standards well into the future? Is Lyman Cornelius Smith, the builder of the Smith
Tower, somehow responsible for what the building's tenants pay their workers today? Of course not.
The strategy also slows down the city's regulatory machinery, which is already synonymous with
"cumbersome."
City Hall should not let the "community benefits" advocates, no matter how well meaning, erect a another
disincentive for private investment and entrepreneurial activity.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |