Posted Wed, Jun 25, 4:42 p.m. Inappropriate

But.....: That doesn't resolve the concerns of the hundred plus downtown property owners who continue to be in the cross hairs of the LPB for nomination and possibly designation. No additional incentives have been created by the city to offset the impacts on the developability of their propeties, or the cloud that has been placed over their heads by being singled out for landmark processing.

The city has dodged a bullet, no a shotgun blast, to it's Ordinance and the behavior of it's staff. Imagine if a lawsuit like the Benaroya one was again filed, challenging not just the designation of a spicific building, but the constitutionality of the Ordinace itself. If it were found unconstitutional for lack of due process and an uncompensated illegal taking of property rights, it could nullify all the sites that have been designated by this ordinance. What then?

It is best to learn from this experience and start reviewing the Ordinace and clean it up. Changes and amendments could help dodge that bullet.

Arn't we all smart enough to know when the envelop has been strectched to it's limits.
Let's not let it bust unnecessarily.

Art

Posted Wed, Jun 25, 6:26 p.m. Inappropriate

RE: But.....: There are not a hundred plus property owners in the cross hairs. Many of them are just fine and happy with having historic buildings.

The city staff is very professional and do excellent work.

There is no lack of due process, there are no illegal takings.

The only behavioral problem is the hysteria brought to us by Art.

At the meeting with city council to review the ordinance the only person in the room upset with the ordinance was Art. Everyone else thought it functioned well.

Art is a majority of one.

Posted Thu, Jun 26, 7:40 a.m. Inappropriate

Excuse me: If one were to profile the number of people who testified at the recent Council meeting referred to by Leah, that were satisfied with the current Ordinance, one would see that the great majority were either:
government employees, non-profits representatives or consultants making their living off being hired by the first two catagories. A couple of property owners of designated landmarks also spoke in support of the current program, but that was a reflection of the specific sites, not to the overall policy.
,The Propety owners in the crosshairs recommended the Incentives Task Force be created. Others agreed. Now it will be done. That would have NOT been on the table if those who are satisfied with the status quo had their way.

I have been a change agent all my professional life. From assistant City Architect, managing Pioneer Square, creation of the Office of Urban Conservation with it's head, the City Conservator, a professionally trained SHPO ( first in the nation), founder of AKCHO, founder of the Washington Trust, developed the King County Preservation Program, and International consultant helping communities here and abroad to get the right start on a fair and effective preservation program.

I speak from 42 years of professional experience in this field. I am a single voice. Always was. Always will be. Complacency is my enemy. There is always room for improvement. That is what America is all about.

Now Leah, go back to sleep!

Art

Posted Thu, Jun 26, 11:59 a.m. Inappropriate

RE: xcuse me: Uh, Art? There were community representatives in that group, too. Some of us suggested operational changes to the process to make it more fair and predictable for both sides.

Knute - McCullough is spinning you, and I hope you'll correct the mistaken information in this article or a subsequent one. Their court filing was DOA unless and until the Landmark Process was complete. They had no standing to sue (yet) because the administrative process had not completed. That process was not nearly complete. A judge would have tossed the suit out in a second had anyone from the city bothered to file the summary judgment motion.

First, the Landmark Preservation Staff was required to make its ruling on the conditions and controls.

Next, that decision is appealable to the Hearing Exmainer

Next, that decision is appealable to the City Council.

Art and the developers' bar like to pretend the landmark process is against them. The fact is any potential landmark building has to endure up to FIVE different hearing processes before it can be preserved (the first two are the nomination and designation hearings in front of the Landmark Preservation Board) -- not counting a court challenge.

Regardless of your view on Googie Dennys, it underscores the big hole in Seattle's landmark process. A developer can overbid for a property with historic significance purposefully or out of a failure to do their due diligence. Because Seattle's rule implies some balancing of financial considerations, the overbidding effectively makes it even MORE difficult to make it through stages 3-5 of the process.

In other words, a developer can buy their way out of the "problem".

Tell me again how this is skewed toward historical protection? It isn't, of course. It is skewed towards destruction of our historical buildings -- heavily skewed.

As a postscript, controversial designations like Denny's and Waldo Hospital result directly from errors and omissions in the legal work done by the developer's bar. In their standard purchase and sale agreements for buildings older than 25 years old, they should specify one price if it is designated and one price if it is not. Designation comes with significant tax and fee breaks, so it does NOT halt development -- only adjust it. There are plenty of developers who specialize in working with historic buildings, so designation rarely results in being a roadblock for development.

Posted Fri, Jun 27, 9:49 a.m. Inappropriate

Clarification: To ddmiller, I said that the great majority attending were....
I did not mean to exclude neighborhood reps. I am sorry if it sounded like I did. Belated thanks for attending!

Art