Seattle School Board Backing Off on Southeast Promises

Story in the Times today about how members of the Seattle School Board are already talking about reneging on their promises to Southeast Seattle schools.

Some members of the board are rethinking the Southeast Initiative, the district's much-lauded effort to improve three underperforming South End schools: Aki Kurose Middle School and Rainier Beach and Cleveland high schools.

The School Board launched the initiative last year with $250,000 and a three-year plan to draw back neighborhood students to the schools. But as the district staff has continued to propose arts programs, more rigorous classes, additional class periods, teacher bonuses and other extras for Southeast Initiative schools, several board members have wondered aloud whether it's getting too expensive. And some have expressed frustration that the superintendent has not yet identified specific goals for the schools.

There's no budget yet, but district officials have estimated the Southeast Initiative could cost $3 million to $4 million each year.

At a board meeting earlier this month, member Michael DeBell called the situation "problematic."

Board member Peter Maier questioned whether the effort would be sustainable.

"Let's assume this works," he said. "Then the question arises, are we committed to many years of these kinds of resources?"

In an interview Friday, board member Harium Martin-Morris said he is open to backing off the Southeast Initiative if necessary — even reneging on commitments already publicized in the district's enrollment guide.

"I must confess, I have some reservations," he said. "I have to look at that and say, 'Gee, that's a lot of money, and can I use that money in a better way to still help those schools, but help even more [schools]?'"

OK, so the school board is totally willing to just let South Seattle schools fail without providing them with the extra help they need. Where are these people from? I'm guessing they come from north of the ship canal. Pathetic.

And how is it even legal for the district to let the north-end schools put on two plays and a musical every year, while Rainier Beach has to resort to illegal downloads if they want to try to put on a single performance? What is the official justification for all this inequality in services?

After 50 Years of Toxic Dumping in Georgetown, GE Agrees to Do a Study

From yesterday's Seattle Times:

GE to consider cleanup options

The General Electric Co. has agreed to study cleanup options for contaminated soil, groundwater and indoor air at the Georgetown building the company used for decades to build and service aircraft parts.

Solvents leaked and were spilled in the building at 220 S. Dawson St., which GE used between 1949 and 1996, according to the state Department of Ecology.

Until it can get a cleanup under way, the company is running a system of sump pumps and fans to capture and vent pollutants.

Documents connected with the cleanup are available at www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/hwtr/foia/index.html, at the New Holly Library at 7058 32nd Ave. S., or by appointment at the Ecology Department's regional office at 3190 160th Ave. S.E. in Bellevue. Call 425-649-7190 for scheduling.

The public may comment by April 25 to Dean Yasuda at the Ecology Department: 425-649-7264 or dyas461@ecy.wa.gov, or by mail.

Clean and Green Event on Beacon Hill Draws 130

Craig Thompson's Beacon Lights blog has a photo of some of the 130 volunteers who worked to clean up the Jose Rizal Park area back on March 15. Thanks to every single one of you!

I swear to God, someday I will help out at one of these Beacon cleanup events. But ever since we moved here and inherited a jungle from the previous owner, I've felt that I want to finish cleaning up my own yard first before helping out with public spaces.

A picture of the jungle before we started cleaning it up (that much-abused willow tree was about to fall over and possibly kill someone):



And after we started working to tame it:



It's coming along. But the ivy continues to be a formidable opponent, especially along the neighbor's chain-link fence.

Introducing the Ice House

Today Sabey unveiled its plans for the building that will replace the demolished Stock House in the Rainier Cold Storage Complex in Georgetown. It will house six shops/restaurants, and they're now looking for tenants to fill those spaces.



Sabey and Johnson Architects seemed to have taken the community's comments to heart -- they came up with a building with the bricks and arches that everyone was asking for. And, honestly, on its own, I think it's kind of cute. (And I'd dance a jig in the street if this was replacing one of the godawful buildings up here at Beacon and Columbian.)





But I still worry what it will look like next to the real deal. You don't get any sense of that from the two photos above, or this crude rendering of all the buildings lined up on the street together. (This drawing includes an old section of wall that may or may not be saved, while the drawings above do not. If they have to keep the wall, they will construct a new building behind it.)



The bricks, very similar but not quite the same. The arches, very similar but not quite the same. I'm not loving it. But I think the neighbors will be relieved that nothing crazy will be going up there. And that's good.

Update: Here's the P-I story about this.

Theatre Off Jackson Not Buying Eagles Building

The cool folks at Theatre Off Jackson will not be buying the Eagles Aerie #1 building in Georgetown. From this afternoon's e-mail:

Hello Neighbors,

It is with much sadness that we make this announcement. Theatre Off
Jackson is no longer pursuing the purchase of the Eagles Building.

As many of you know, the Theatre Off Jackson (TOJ) has wanted to
relocate or expand to Georgetown ever since Patti and I moved to the
neighborhood 2 years ago. When the Eagles property at the corner of
Michigan and Corson became available last summer, we saw an
opportunity to make our dream a reality.

With much help, we pulled together a team to win the bidding
competition and successfully contracted to purchase the property in
November. In the last several months, we completed our review of
the building and all of the legal details associated with it. We
have also been making efforts to raise funds for the purchase and
have attempted to negotiate with others interested in sharing the
property with us.

We are very sorry to announce that TOJ has not been able to secure
the necessary funding to move forward with the purchase of the
Eagles property. Despite our best efforts, this particular project
proved to be too ambitious for an organization of our size.

We are still committed to owning a home in Georgetown, and will
regroup to build support before seeking out another property. Of
course we are incredibly disappointed that we could not secure that
particular corner for both the theater community and the
neighborhood. A non-profit arts organization would have been an
exciting addition to Georgetown and, we think, a great asset to the
community.

On behalf of TOJ's staff and Board of Directors, we offer a
heartfelt thank you to everyone who has offered support and
donations. Special thanks go to Sabey Corporation (especially Jim
Harmon) for being so generous with their time and mentorship. Their
contributions are invaluable, and we consider ourselves extremely
fortunate to have received their advice and guidance. We are also
grateful for the efforts of Kathy Nyland (of Georgetown), Keri Healy
(of Printer's Devil Theater) and Robin Tomazic (of Remax): all
offered their time and talents to make this project happen.

We have learned much and come farther than we could have imagined a
year ago, and have contributed to the much needed city-wide
discussion about preserving arts space for small organizations. We
look forward to helping solve this issue in the future – by securing
a permanent home for the countless independent arts groups that are
using TOJ and creating a permanent addition to Georgetown to nurture
theater and community.

Thank you,
Amanda Slepski
Theatre Off Jackson

Yet Another Asian Woman Attacked in South Seattle

The assailant pushed her to the ground and attacked her in her driveway around 2:30 this morning. A neighbor heard her screaming and scared off the attacker, who then drove away. The P-I story about this 23rd attack.

(In the headline -- "Another Asian woman assaulted on Beacon Hill" -- the P-I identifies the site of the attack, the 4200 block of South Webster Street, as Beacon Hill, though I consider that MLK/Renton Avenue area to be Rainier Valley instead.)

The police are asking for help finding this guy:

The suspect was described as black, 20 to 30 years old, possibly 6 feet tall and slender. He wore a green jacket, Jamieson said. Anyone with information is asked to call the Special Assault Unit at 206-684-5575.

Let's all keep our eyes and ears open. Beacon Hill residents have complained on this blog about how unfriendly their parts of the neighborhood are. Even if you've never met the people who live around you, please look out for them, like this woman's neighbor looked out for her. If you see or hear anything weird, investigate. You could be the one to stop this guy.

Developer Follow-up (Beacon Ventures, Sabey)

1. The Beacon Ventures folks still have not responded to my Saturday e-mail about when they plan to paint out the graffiti I originally alerted them to in mid-February.

2. Jim Harmon did write me back about my Friday e-mail about which "historical preservation principles" made saving the freestanding Brew House wall undesirable.

It's the piece of wall sticking out here in this photo I took in January:



From his Friday e-mail to the neighborhood:

Regarding where we are, the demolition of the Stock House will be
completed in the next few weeks. We have not reached a conclusion as to what to do about the remaining façade wall attached to the Brew House. While that wall does not pose an impending danger like the Stock House did, it does pose the matter of design and cost, as it looked to be several million dollars to retain it. In our discussions with the Landmarks Preservation Board, certain members expressed their desire to keep this façade. Additionally, certain neighborhood members expressed their concern and very much wanted to keep it. However, landmarks regulations recognize that the preservation of certain landmarked elements may be uneconomical and can grant an exception to the preservation rule. Our assertion is that it is not only uneconomic, but that it is undesirable from a design and historic standpoint (and there are certain historic preservation principles that this is based upon).

And from his response to me:

In response to your questions, the principle in question is termed façadism. Below are excerpts from submittals we previously made to the Landmarks Board and posted on our website:

* “We do not believe that retaining this wall is true to historic preservation and constitutes façadism since there is no structure behind it, historic or otherwise. We understand there to be divergent opinions, but façadism is not supported by many and is contrary to federal and local tax incentives, further indication of its standing.”

* “...we do not believe that retaining the North Wall is within the spirit of historic preservation as it constitutes façadism[1], and we see the removal of that wall as an opportunity to open the remaining historic structures to sight from Airport Way as well as reasonable vehicular access into the historic areas.”

* "[1] This point is emphasized by the fact that significant tax incentives are provided to retain historic structures by both federal income tax and local real estate tax credits; however, no such economic incentives are provided for retaining a building façade."

It’s also referred to as facadomy. See Wikipedia reference and citings here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facadism.

Hmm. I'm no expert, but that Wikipedia link about facadism seems to suggest that preservationists believe that maintaining an entire building is preferable to maintaining just a facade. However, it does NOT seem to suggest that preservationists believe that destroying an existing freestanding facade is preferable to maintaining it. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about historical preservation would like to weigh in?

[Update/sidenote: Here's a 3/25/08 Crosscut article about Seattle's historical landmark designation process.]