City Fleeting Inconvenience Threatens West Seattle
posted by on August 5 at 13:37 PM
West Seattle residents are in a tizzy over a developer’s proposal to temporarily block an alley near the West Seattle Junction (the intersection of California Avenue and Southwest Alaska Street).
Conner Homes wants to use less than half of the alley for one year while it constructs two buildings that would share a parking garage underneath. During that year, drivers entering the alley would have to drive around the block, and deliveries for some businesses—gasp—would have to enter through the front door.
Although the city is encouraging residents to submit comments, that’s not enough for the NIMBAs of West Seattle. They are discussing the alley, blogging about the alley, drafting a petition against blocking the alley, and gathering signatures to protect their alley! According to the petition, being circulated by the West Seattle Junction Association:
The project will impact our ability to do business and will have severe negative economic effects on the businesses in the Junction area…. During this time we will not be able to access parking freely at the rear of the business along the alley way. There will be the impact of not having the ability for customers to load and unload in the alley way and access the businesses. This also will make it very difficult for deliveries to take place during the construction….
The businesses in peril include Liberty Bell Printing, Curious Kidstuff, Elliott Bay Brewery, and Petco. Liz Schroeder, chair of the Junction Association’s beautification committee, is the manager of the Elliott Bay Brewery, where signature gatherers drop off petitions. She says they are campaigning to save the alley “so the merchants can survive.” She attributes the lethal threat to a loss of parking spaces, the potential for alley traffic jams, and a turnaround space offered by the developer that would be too small for 35-foot delivery trucks. But that defense is the same tired “If you do anything to inconvenience businesses then the entire industry will fail” argument. However, as of this morning, all of the businesses had front doors to accept deliveries. As of this morning, thousands of businesses in Seattle managed to get by without any alley at all. And as of this morning, businesses on MLK Way continued to survive despite the inconvenience of light-rail construction.
“Everyone knows that when it is done, it will look a lot better,” says Schroeder. “That’s great, but what about all the businesses in meantime?”
Lest you think Schroeder and others circulating the petition are a bunch of anti-development reactionaries, West Seattle Blog reports: “The group stressed they are not opposed to this development in general. They believe it could be built in phases, one tower at a time, without alley closure required at any point.” Talk about crippling businesses.
Organizing to stop something inevitable and beneficial, simply because they dislike the inconvenience, is ridiculous. The city should accept those petitions with a smile, and insert them directly into the shredder. Losing part of an alley for a year is the sort of thing we have to put up with—we live in a growing city—in every neighborhood. West Seattle NIMBAs need to suck it up like everyone else.
NIMBAs! I love it! ha
Not In My Back Ass
Probably an interesting story here. Maybe you could get a reporter to look into it a little deeper? There may be some reporters sitting near your desk.
here's my citizen's report, as I walked by that alley five minutes ago: they need to suck it up and not get in the way of progress.
So, I'll bet people in West Seattle are glad that when the Viaduct comes down they'll have far worse problems to deal with for 5-7 years during the rebuild ...
Yeah, god forbid those horrible, horrible longtime residents and neighbors opposing giving up a shared right-of-way to make it more convenient for a developer to make money.
The gall, I tell ya!
So Elliott Bay Brewery is worried about losing access to customer parking? I suppose half an alley is kinda a tight squeeze once you're pretty buzzed. Maybe they can just start a lost and found at the bar for their customer's side mirrors?
It's not like they have to take an illegal left to get there either, the lot entrance would be on the right after passing said blocked alley, if I'm picturing this right.
Of course if people are using that alley to avoid the signal at either end of the street, well that would illegal.
Who the fuck are you to say that the city should ignore this? "We" don't have to put up with developers just because you say to suck it up.
What? Something that's happening outside of Capitol Hill? It must be fucking stupid!
Another thought. In the olden days, before Greg Nickels told DPD to turn a blind eye to all kinds of glaring land use abuses and B.D.W.A.A.L.U.E (Before Dominic Was Appointed A Land Use Expert By The Stranger), it was common practice to force developers as part of their permit conditions to phase projects to keep public rights of way - be they sidewalks pedestrians rely on or alleys that businesses do - open during construction.
This is not rocket science - other "world class" cities do it all the time, and commerce and progress goes merrily on.
Since when do property rights only apply to people building new projects?
The nimbys in this town are completely out of control.
Dougsf @7, it sounds like they want to close half the length of the alley, not the width.
From Dom's original post (under California Giants), it would be the Alaska-facing north end of the north-south alley running parallel to California between Alaska and Edmunds.
Dougsf, I'm not following your point about illegal lefts or a lot entrance on the right. Care to elaborate?
Well, you already can't find parking in the junction due to the projects already in progress. Development--whaaaaa!
That said, if the Elliot Bay Brewery does go under, sad day on the west side.
The junction is shooting itself in the foot by getting rid of all the surface parking. Much more of it, and it will be like Broadway.
#12 - Ahhh, I was picturing it the other way. My point might not stand since I was getting backward, but I was imagining the entrance on the right, so all you'd have to do is go another few hundred feet, and turn two rights into the lot. If approaching from the other direction, it's a wash since the alley wouldn't have been any easier than the real entrance.
and what about the children?!?!
FOR GODSAKE, THINK OF THE CHILDRE!
Here is a Google Maps picture of the alley closure (as best I can figure from a few minutes of browsing).
A year is too long a time for this to be a minor inconvenience. And is the city ever going to do something about developers who close off sidewalks on both sides of the street? If I see that shit downtown one more time, I'm going to scream.
Keshmeshi - re: developers that close off sidewalks. Upon the request of Councilmember Nick Licata (full disclosure - my boss), the Audit Office has done an audit of SDOT's issuance of street use permits for street closures during building construction. There will be a briefing on the recommendations of that audit on Tuesday, September 30th, at the Transportation Committee meeting. We'll see what kind of action the City takes on the Auditor's recommendations, eh?
Keshmeshi, I walk through downtown all the time and I can't think of a single time I've encountered BOTH sides of any street closed. Can you give us any examples?
@18 and 20
Whether the closure affects both sides or one side is actually sort of irrelevant - no developer should be allowed to close a public sidewalk or alley for a year (or, in the case of the Lothlorian Apartments on the Ave, for almost a year-and-a-half)- PERIOD.
Other cities require pedestrian access tunnels with construction staging on top - and once again, this is not rocket science.
However, it is a fine example of just how in the pocket of the development community your City Government is (with the notable and sole exception of the aforementioned Councilmember Licata).
@21 - I also have a major problem with the closing of sidewalks, and even public roadways, particularly along the Eastlake corridor where building projects bring the road down to one lane and rip the street apart, making it unsafe and a bitch to bike on. As for this West Seattle thing, if they're really concerned about keeping the neighborhood beautiful, maybe they should do something about Petco's ugly fucking bright red covered windows that take up half the block. If they're going to complain about beauty, then do something to beautify themselves.
@21 - Actually it IS relevant. It's one more example of how anti-development NIMBYs spew hyperbole (or in this case simply make shit up) in order make their case. Pathetic. One more reason why you and your ilk (those in favor of regressive land use strategies) are becoming an increasingly reviled and impotent segment of our community.
Alleys are public rights-of-way but in fact are improved and maintained solely by the abutting property owners -- including the ones being denied the use and enjoyment of this particular alley that they paid for.
Rather than just taking something that doesn't belong to them, the developers should offer some payment to their neighbors -- perhaps a small portion of the increased profits or reduced expenses that they will enjoy by occupying the alley to the exclusion of all others.
@23,
Calling names doesn't make your case, and #24 is absolutely correct from a land use, legal, and rational urban planning standpoint.
But please do feel free to point out where I've "made shit up".
(Hint - saying that if we build it in West Seattle it will somehow prevent sprawl ain't gonna cut it.)
BTW - citywide, people who agree with me are still a solid majority.
...and to put a finer point on it, being reviled by someone who thinks it's perfectly OK to hand over a public sidewalk for the convenience of one for-profit developer is something of an honor.
Thanks for making my day!
(and please, do enlighten us all as to where I "made shit up").
Comments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.