 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
WE HEAR FROM YOU!
A Mt. Baker family shares with us their compelling letter in support of
the project. This letter was originally sent to City Council members.
Dear City Council members:
We feel compelled to write in support of the proposed
Goodwill/Dearborn Street development. We are residents of
the Mount Baker neighborhood, and are both actively involved
in our community. We have two young children (5 years old
and 18 months), and our home is on 34th and Lander, behind
the wonderful Mount Baker park, and about one mile from the
proposed project site.
We moved to this neighborhood four years ago because we
felt it would be a great place to raise our kids. Although
Madison Park, the other area we considered, has a much
better public school and lots of wonderful public shops and
amenities all within walking distance, we ultimately went with
Mount Baker because of the beautiful old architecture of the
homes and most importantly, because of the cultural, racial
and economic diversity of the area. As an African-born
immigrant married to a Native American who grew on an the
Makah Indian reservation in Neah Bay, we have sometimes
been called the Poster Family for diversity because our
children have great-grandparents from each of the four major
ethnic classifications!
Nobody could mistake us for proponents of gentrification, by
any stretch. However, we are disappointed in the lack of
economic development and decent retail options and other
public amenities in our beloved North Rainier Valley. It seems
there are many (including elected public officials) who think
our beloved ‘hood is only good for social service agencies,
day labor camps, half-way homes for ex-convicts or
alcohol/drug offenders, low-income housing, etc. We are not
opposed to helping the less fortunate, and in fact embrace that
calling as deeply as any religious and spiritual faith that we
hold dear, as we have both been or have known those that
have been touched by these services.
With that said, it does get very tiresome listening to people
who want to “help the low-income” by perpetually handing out
fish rather than creating economic conditions that will
ultimately allow them to build ocean-faring trawlers. Or those
who claim to speak for the neighborhood and use the Council
approval process to extract various self-serving financial and
considerations quite unrelated to any legitimate concerns
about the project. [Please see Seattle Times article by Jerry
Large in the Press Room section of this website]. At the end
of the day, most of what passes for retail in our
neighborhood are PayDay Loans, Pawn Shops, Corner
Stores selling Malt Liquor and projects consisting solely of
low-income housing and social services.
Although not a scientific survey, we have spoken to 100s of our
Mt. Baker, Beacon Hill, Leschi, Seward Park and Capitol Hill
friends and neighbors, and practically all are very excited about
having shopping options. Unfortunately, project supporters
tend to be a Silent Majority and not as persistent and
relentless as the loyal opposition. While it is imperative that
citizens in a democracy have a reasonable say in what
happens in their communities, and we all agree that
community input is absolutely critical in a project of this size
and scope, I dare say that citizen input process here has been
taken to a point that is far beyond what is tenable or
acceptable. We are now dangerously close to subverting the
process for fairness -- to the developer and to the entire
community -- in expeditiously approving or disapproving a
project. These increased costs do get passed along to us all,
assuming the project is not abandoned by the battle-weary
developer.
The two misconceptions that the opposition seems to be
operating under, in our view, first relate to their definition of the
Dearborn project "neighborhood," which to us is not just Little
Saigon to the north but all of the bordering/surrounding
communities to the east, west and south. Merchants on
Jackson Street are no closer to the project than many in
Judkins Park or on Rainier Avenue . The second is that this
project will cannibalize patronage of Little Saigon and we
believe nothing could be further from the truth, as both have
different offerings appealing to different individuals or even the
same people with different needs.
We believe this project will help, and not hurt, the businesses
in Little Saigon because the people do like to have options.
After all, Pike Place Market is only a block or two from
Nordstrom, The Bon, Westlake Mall, and lots of other shopping
and restaurant options. And their business has improved, not
suffered, with the revitalization of downtown Seattle . It seems
rather myopic to apply a zero-sum game economic perspective
to every new proposal, and pit one low income/immigrant
group against another. There is simply no need for conflict
between responsible Big Box stores (not WalMart) and small
neighborhood hang-outs. Most people proudly patronize both
(or Big Boxes wouldn’t be so big), and it’s not part of the
responsibilities of our elected leaders to dictate to us whether
Big Box stores are bad or good, or take those choices away
from us.
To illustrate, we shop for African foods and other staples
(which aren't stocked at regular grocery stores) from Little
Saigon and also eat at the Tamarind Tree and many of the
wonderful “pho” restaurants over there. We also patronize
Little Addis Ababa with the Ethiopian restaurants near Seattle
U, as well as Boracchini's, Mutual Fish, and lots of other
wonderful local merchants. However, we don't go to Little
Saigon for back-to-school shopping for the kids, or for baby
gear, clothes or home furnishings – for that, we drive to
Factoria Mall which has a Target, Old Navy, Nordstrom's Rack,
etc. I’m certain the City of Bellevue or Factoria is quite pleased
to enjoy all those additional taxes going to their coffers --
perhaps that’s the reason they are able to keep their property
and business taxes much lower than Seattle’s, at the same
time that they have one of the best school districts in the U.S.
But I digress…
The point is, whether this project is built or not, our patronage
of Little Saigon will not increase by one iota. We will simply
continue to go to Factoria or SouthCenter. And we suspect
that's the case for the vast majority of people in the greater
neighborhood. Similarly, many of the Vietnamese and other
Asian immigrants that do most or all of their shopping and
business affairs in Little Saigon and the I-District will not
suddenly start frequenting Target and Café Campagne! If
anything, the project will bring in more people from all over
Seattle – from downtown all the way south to Rainier Beach --
to Little Saigon and the I-District. And in terms of the project
footprint, this does not compare to the massive adult /
affordable housing project on Rainier and
Charlestown/Andover, or the New Holly affordable housing
along MLK.
I will conclude by making it clear that we have no connection
whatsoever to the project or developer. I am simply a Mount
Baker Mom in tennis shoes (thanks for the line, Patty Murray)
who would like to be able to stroll with my kids and husband to
neighborhood amenities and enjoy shopping choices, both
big-box and mom-and-pop. I am also a small business owner
who would have liked to locate my professional offices – a
technology boutique law firm – in this area and employ people
from the neighborhood, but could not do so because there are
few (if any) mid- or upscale office or retail rental options in this
area.
The project is architecturally pleasing. It is supported by the
vast majority of the community and environmental groups,
including the Rainier Chamber of Commerce, Cascade
Bicycle Club, and most neighborhood residents -- please see
the listserv of supporters under this Be an Advocate section of
this website – versus that of the opposition. The developer
has already made numerous concessions to various groups,
entities and organizations who continue to make Jacksonian
demands (and I don’t mean Andrew Jackson). Some of these
requests are conflicting: “Not enough parking, we’ll be overrun
by the cars,” on one hand, and “there’s too much parking, the
sky is falling,” on the other. “We need more low-income
housing” on one hand, and “we need a smaller foot-print for
the entire project” (and just how do they suppose the low
income housing will be subsidized?); and so on.
It’s any wonder that any developer is ever brave enough to
propose building anything (other than the usual social
services/low-income mixerati) in South Seattle. It’s no wonder
they don’t. And it’s no wonder that the City then has to spend
millions on consultants to figure out how we can spur
economic development in the area, as in the North Rainier
Valley Neighborhood Plan, various eminent domain plans that
have been floated and squelched over the years, and so on.
Until a developer tries to do so, and then the game starts over
again. [“Players, please move your token back to Square One
of ‘Vicious Cycle - The Game’”…]
Respectfully,
Christiana Muoneke and Keith Ledford
A Mt. Baker family shares with us their compelling letter in support of
the project. This letter was originally sent to City Council members.
Dear City Council members:
We feel compelled to write in support of the proposed
Goodwill/Dearborn Street development. We are residents of
the Mount Baker neighborhood, and are both actively involved
in our community. We have two young children (5 years old
and 18 months), and our home is on 34th and Lander, behind
the wonderful Mount Baker park, and about one mile from the
proposed project site.
We moved to this neighborhood four years ago because we
felt it would be a great place to raise our kids. Although
Madison Park, the other area we considered, has a much
better public school and lots of wonderful public shops and
amenities all within walking distance, we ultimately went with
Mount Baker because of the beautiful old architecture of the
homes and most importantly, because of the cultural, racial
and economic diversity of the area. As an African-born
immigrant married to a Native American who grew on an the
Makah Indian reservation in Neah Bay, we have sometimes
been called the Poster Family for diversity because our
children have great-grandparents from each of the four major
ethnic classifications!
Nobody could mistake us for proponents of gentrification, by
any stretch. However, we are disappointed in the lack of
economic development and decent retail options and other
public amenities in our beloved North Rainier Valley. It seems
there are many (including elected public officials) who think
our beloved ‘hood is only good for social service agencies,
day labor camps, half-way homes for ex-convicts or
alcohol/drug offenders, low-income housing, etc. We are not
opposed to helping the less fortunate, and in fact embrace that
calling as deeply as any religious and spiritual faith that we
hold dear, as we have both been or have known those that
have been touched by these services.
With that said, it does get very tiresome listening to people
who want to “help the low-income” by perpetually handing out
fish rather than creating economic conditions that will
ultimately allow them to build ocean-faring trawlers. Or those
who claim to speak for the neighborhood and use the Council
approval process to extract various self-serving financial and
considerations quite unrelated to any legitimate concerns
about the project. [Please see Seattle Times article by Jerry
Large in the Press Room section of this website]. At the end
of the day, most of what passes for retail in our
neighborhood are PayDay Loans, Pawn Shops, Corner
Stores selling Malt Liquor and projects consisting solely of
low-income housing and social services.
Although not a scientific survey, we have spoken to 100s of our
Mt. Baker, Beacon Hill, Leschi, Seward Park and Capitol Hill
friends and neighbors, and practically all are very excited about
having shopping options. Unfortunately, project supporters
tend to be a Silent Majority and not as persistent and
relentless as the loyal opposition. While it is imperative that
citizens in a democracy have a reasonable say in what
happens in their communities, and we all agree that
community input is absolutely critical in a project of this size
and scope, I dare say that citizen input process here has been
taken to a point that is far beyond what is tenable or
acceptable. We are now dangerously close to subverting the
process for fairness -- to the developer and to the entire
community -- in expeditiously approving or disapproving a
project. These increased costs do get passed along to us all,
assuming the project is not abandoned by the battle-weary
developer.
The two misconceptions that the opposition seems to be
operating under, in our view, first relate to their definition of the
Dearborn project "neighborhood," which to us is not just Little
Saigon to the north but all of the bordering/surrounding
communities to the east, west and south. Merchants on
Jackson Street are no closer to the project than many in
Judkins Park or on Rainier Avenue . The second is that this
project will cannibalize patronage of Little Saigon and we
believe nothing could be further from the truth, as both have
different offerings appealing to different individuals or even the
same people with different needs.
We believe this project will help, and not hurt, the businesses
in Little Saigon because the people do like to have options.
After all, Pike Place Market is only a block or two from
Nordstrom, The Bon, Westlake Mall, and lots of other shopping
and restaurant options. And their business has improved, not
suffered, with the revitalization of downtown Seattle . It seems
rather myopic to apply a zero-sum game economic perspective
to every new proposal, and pit one low income/immigrant
group against another. There is simply no need for conflict
between responsible Big Box stores (not WalMart) and small
neighborhood hang-outs. Most people proudly patronize both
(or Big Boxes wouldn’t be so big), and it’s not part of the
responsibilities of our elected leaders to dictate to us whether
Big Box stores are bad or good, or take those choices away
from us.
To illustrate, we shop for African foods and other staples
(which aren't stocked at regular grocery stores) from Little
Saigon and also eat at the Tamarind Tree and many of the
wonderful “pho” restaurants over there. We also patronize
Little Addis Ababa with the Ethiopian restaurants near Seattle
U, as well as Boracchini's, Mutual Fish, and lots of other
wonderful local merchants. However, we don't go to Little
Saigon for back-to-school shopping for the kids, or for baby
gear, clothes or home furnishings – for that, we drive to
Factoria Mall which has a Target, Old Navy, Nordstrom's Rack,
etc. I’m certain the City of Bellevue or Factoria is quite pleased
to enjoy all those additional taxes going to their coffers --
perhaps that’s the reason they are able to keep their property
and business taxes much lower than Seattle’s, at the same
time that they have one of the best school districts in the U.S.
But I digress…
The point is, whether this project is built or not, our patronage
of Little Saigon will not increase by one iota. We will simply
continue to go to Factoria or SouthCenter. And we suspect
that's the case for the vast majority of people in the greater
neighborhood. Similarly, many of the Vietnamese and other
Asian immigrants that do most or all of their shopping and
business affairs in Little Saigon and the I-District will not
suddenly start frequenting Target and Café Campagne! If
anything, the project will bring in more people from all over
Seattle – from downtown all the way south to Rainier Beach --
to Little Saigon and the I-District. And in terms of the project
footprint, this does not compare to the massive adult /
affordable housing project on Rainier and
Charlestown/Andover, or the New Holly affordable housing
along MLK.
I will conclude by making it clear that we have no connection
whatsoever to the project or developer. I am simply a Mount
Baker Mom in tennis shoes (thanks for the line, Patty Murray)
who would like to be able to stroll with my kids and husband to
neighborhood amenities and enjoy shopping choices, both
big-box and mom-and-pop. I am also a small business owner
who would have liked to locate my professional offices – a
technology boutique law firm – in this area and employ people
from the neighborhood, but could not do so because there are
few (if any) mid- or upscale office or retail rental options in this
area.
The project is architecturally pleasing. It is supported by the
vast majority of the community and environmental groups,
including the Rainier Chamber of Commerce, Cascade
Bicycle Club, and most neighborhood residents -- please see
the listserv of supporters under this Be an Advocate section of
this website – versus that of the opposition. The developer
has already made numerous concessions to various groups,
entities and organizations who continue to make Jacksonian
demands (and I don’t mean Andrew Jackson). Some of these
requests are conflicting: “Not enough parking, we’ll be overrun
by the cars,” on one hand, and “there’s too much parking, the
sky is falling,” on the other. “We need more low-income
housing” on one hand, and “we need a smaller foot-print for
the entire project” (and just how do they suppose the low
income housing will be subsidized?); and so on.
It’s any wonder that any developer is ever brave enough to
propose building anything (other than the usual social
services/low-income mixerati) in South Seattle. It’s no wonder
they don’t. And it’s no wonder that the City then has to spend
millions on consultants to figure out how we can spur
economic development in the area, as in the North Rainier
Valley Neighborhood Plan, various eminent domain plans that
have been floated and squelched over the years, and so on.
Until a developer tries to do so, and then the game starts over
again. [“Players, please move your token back to Square One
of ‘Vicious Cycle - The Game’”…]
Respectfully,
Christiana Muoneke and Keith Ledford