need a political front - not a legal front

besides building in a better location, the same number of units, might be the better plan

who wants to live at the end of the runway

Please excuse the (totally unnecessarily) profane headline on this Slog post.

Who wants to live at the end of a runway? How about the 2500 people who're currently living in homeless shelters because housing is unavailable and unaffordable?

Still, I can see why they want them torn down. Housing there would be a constant thorn in the airport's side. Any expansion of operations would draw protests about noise, and any accident would probably result in a lawsuit.

OK, let them tear 'em down. But make them replace 'em somewhere else. Fair/square.

Replace them? Hellooo???

The Port already bought out the original apartment owner for $16M and provided each of the original tenants with generous federal relocation benefits.

So you're saying that, for being good guys and letting the Housing Authority use the apartments during the seven years the third runway has been under construction, pursuant to a written agreement in which everyone agreed the apartments would be a temporary solution to the housing crisis back in 2000, the port should pay twice for the same apartments????

No good deed goes unpunished, eh?

Quite a novel theory. Actually, I think you are the one who needs to get a clue!

Fuckity Fuck Fuck!!!
Look what Fucking Dan Fucking Savaage Fucking wrote in Fucking October Fucking 2002

Excerpt from \\\"Say Yes To War\\\" by Dan Savage October 2002

\\\"War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times. Saying no to war in Iraq means saying yes to the continued oppression of the Iraqi people.\\\"

And then did they replace the units, Burienite? No. Why should the POS be treated differently than other entities (Wash St Conv Center, UofW, Harborview, etc) and not be required to replace the units themselves, huh?

Maybe the solution is to demolish the runway and replace it with surface streets and transit. ;)

getacluedan @8,

It's really very cute how you keep getting your arguments shot down, then bouncing back. :-)

The Lora Lake apartments were market rate apartments when the port bought them. So what you are saying is the Port of Seattle needs to replace 192 units of market rate housing in Burien?

I'm sure the Port could make a lot of money building market rate housing, but how's that help solve the problem of homelessness, really?

How about a better idea? How about the County and the Housing Authority stop trying to threaten and bully Burien and the Port with things like lawsuits and stopping funding Burien transit issues, and how about they try to work collaboratively on trying to solve homelessness for the region?

If you hadn't noticed, JL, we're in a severe shortage of market rate housing. It now takes 2.5 f/t minimum wage jobs to afford a 2-bedroom apartment in King County. A great way to solve problems like this is to stop bulldozing perfectly good housing.

P.S. Thanks for calling me cute.

The Port has demolished thousands of units of housing. They aren't through yet: next on the list is some trailer park complexes in the airport area. But remember, "its all about economic development." Who needs housing if you have slabs of concrete that drive our economy?

well now --- what a morass

not really - all of these problems are solved by the PORT spending on low income housing

think this - helps the economic engine to have workers properly housed

the PORT spends like the proverbial rich bitch and side kick the drunk sailor - maybe they can be a real player and help build 2,000 new units of low income housing all over the area

OK by me - and as a voter, don't I own a tiny piece of the Port??

Call them tomorrow and suggest they become a big time player in low rent housing - for the economic benefit

earle, the Lora Lake Apts. are NOT at the end of the runway. They are west of the flightpath and that makes a big difference. There are scores of homes right under the flight path that aren't being torn down.

Maybe you can explain to me why the Burien City Council voted on May 7th to allow a small new subdivision of seven single family homes to be built to the north and east of Lora Lake. This is even closer to the flight path than Lora Lake. This was the very same Burien Council meeting when the Councilmembers voted to tear down Lora Lake because it was too close to the flight path.

Guess that must mean they think it is ok for people who can afford to buy a home to live this close to the flight path, but people who can only afford to rent shouldn't live that close.

earle, the Lora Lake Apts. are NOT at the end of the runway. They are west of the flightpath and that makes a big difference. There are scores of homes right under the flight path that aren't being torn down.

Maybe you can explain to me why the Burien City Council voted on May 7th to allow a small new subdivision of seven single family homes to be built to the north and east of Lora Lake. This is even closer to the flight path than Lora Lake. This was the very same Burien Council meeting when the Councilmembers voted to tear down Lora Lake because it was too close to the flight path.

Guess that must mean they think it is ok for people who can afford to buy a home to live this close to the flight path, but people who can only afford to rent shouldn't live that close.

I can explain it to you Alinca - The city of Beercan wants COMMERCIAL tax revenue from that area. Money honey.