MHS Position on Closure of Ft. Lawton

NOTE: It was clear early on that Seattle Parks and Recreation was not interested in having the City of Seattle obtain the surplused property at Fort Lawton through the Base Re-alignment and Closure (BRAC) process for an additional piece of Discovery Park. This was sad because this property is adjacent to the Park and the Master Plan of the Park calls for active participation by citizens in getting any of the remaining surplused land when it became available. Parks in fact, informed us during the BRAC planning meeting that they considered the piece of land “full of old buildings they had no need of, lots of asphalt and no trees”; and, while they would certainly ask for two to three pieces of land that had remained forested and that bordered the park or cemetery (and they are doing so), they had no use or interest in this property for Discovery Park. This opportunity lost and this said (and said emphatically) the Magnolia Historical Society decided the best course of action was to work with the City in making sure a safe, and sustainable neighborhood development plan including a homeless housing component as required by BRAC was a huge priority for us as a stakeholder in the process. We rolled up our sleeves…

It is important to understand how a community stakeholder like The Magnolia Historical Society (MHS) comes to our conclusions of strong support and strong recommendation that you accept the conceptual plan presented to you by City staff and hired consultants and that sits before you in a 2,000 page documentation of procedures, process, and pondering regarding the Fort Lawton Base Re-alignment and Closure process (BRAC).

This matter regards a City action that is far reaching and neighborhood changing to Magnolia Bluff, Discovery Park; and, in particular, to the adjacent neighborhood of impact: Kiwanis Ravine, one of Magnolia’s pocket neighborhoods. Particularly, because of the homelessness portion of the articulated requirements from Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The Historical Society comes to the conclusions being presented today through participation in the project from the very beginning: from taking the first public property tour and attending the workshop presentation of the Notice Of Intent (NOI) process. Then, as one of 3 community-based group representatives appointed as members of the Mayor’s Task Force, which spent time learning of the BRAC process and then studying the submitted NOI(s) and making recommendations to the City as Task Force members (which also included well-known and well-reputed community members on the issues of homelessness and development). Lastly, and most importantly, from its representation and active participation at every single meeting held during the project planning process).

In our opinion, it was wise the public process was stopped for nearly a year and a half, the deadline for the deal extended and that the City went into discussions with the Army to clarify the profit needs and the homelessness requirement for this particular parcel and this particular BRAC deal.

The City says it emerged with a better understanding of the ways this property could meet the requirements and the City could proceeded to continue in it’s role as Land Re-use Agent and it was evident in the way they came to approach the project.

While it was obvious the City had higher hopes for obtaining more homeless housing units at this site (NOI’s of more than 300 requests for homeless units for this site were presented) they realized that was unrealistic given the profit desires of the Army. The City did not back away after learning this; but, continued to get the homeless units they could with consultation of the great providers chosen Archdiocesan Housing Authority (AHA)and Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) Habitat for Humanity and United Indian of All Tribes, and ALASEK; and, still take the responsibility to produce a sustainable neighborhood that the community would accept; and, hopefully would generate Army profit expectations. They could have decided to back out of the deal. Magnolians are so fortunate, that after these discussions and delays did not do so. The City still brought their best people forward and continued to be the Land Re-use Agent for this project.

This move by the City insured in the eyes of MHS a strong commitment to make this development a well-planned sustainable new neighborhood, with a strongly serviced homelessness component that would blend into a mix income market-rate neighborhood. This community would have the benefit of a strong Community Agreement on Homelessness (between neighbors and providers held accountable by the City, which was developed in the process); and, a clear conceptual development plan of this site that we think meets the needs of the neighbors, the and the City, and the Army and HUD and that was developed in partnership with individual neighbors and stakeholder groups as true partners in the task.

In general, the process was even handed, folks were given enough time and many venues to give input and reasoning for their point of views and thoughtful compromise plans were presented and re-presented…discussed and re-discussed in great detail until the final plan that sits before you became a plan of delicate balance and compromise.

MHS views this as a plan of soft density (notable under the maximum amount that could have been called for by the probable re-zone) with a fair percentage of homeless units and services that the Providers feel they need to succeed. That is an important part and point in making this homeless housing successful. (These number of units are also are on a lower end of the spectrum of the maximum that could have been asked to be built).

The plan provides open space, habitat corridors, trees, nice and sensible street connectivity with the adjacent neighbors, and sustainable development practices that will make this a pleasant and safe neighborhood. This neighborhood will have the added advantage of having a master plan and a home-owner’s association that will keep the future planning to development process of a high quality and as planned with no surprises.

The real disaster that could befall this neighborhood is that that you reject or tinker with this very well-thought out plan and the Army rejects it letting developers of all different stripes have at these 28 acres to piece-meal together in an uncontrolled frenzy of density for profit and are unconcerned with the issues that this Plan has been certain to include in its planning for: Landscaping Design, Open Space, Wildlife Concerns, and Mixed Affordable Market-Rate Housing. (It should be noted that: this will be the first time in decades affordable housing will be returned to the Magnolia market).

It is up to you to pass this plan without much amendment, as the experts have done their jobs well (as documented in the 2000 page report before you) and for the most part, in what we heard in meetings, because the community supports the Plan.

Though the time-line was tight, the work was done well and the resultant plan one the magnolia historical society fully supports as is. We realize the devil is in the details and they are still to be developed. We take seriously the city’s commitment to continue the process we have begun: to work together on those details. We expect we will be treated as full partners when this conceptual plan begins to be put into action.

In the words of one of our board member, nearly an 80 year native of Magnolia: “we have been fully kept abreast of the discussions and details regarding the project at Fort Lawton through our continual participation in the process, through written reports and oral reviews at our Board meetings. I have read the articles in both the Seattle Media and the Magnolia News and understand both sides of the controversy regarding the proposed development and concerns of the residents nearby. I come down on the side of the goal to make this prime property used for the benefit of all segments of society. I have seen too much of available Magnolia land (such as the Briarcliff School land) go to developers whose sole purpose is to eek out for themselves as much profit as possible from the high income segment of society. Homeless men, a particularly lonely and forgotten people, deserve a decent place to live with dignity. Single mothers with children need as much help with housing and acceptance as possible. As for others with modest incomes an affordable place to live in Magnolia can be a dream come true.

Possible problems with accessibility and traffic are being addressed sensibly. I think in this day and age, even Magnolia's peaceful enclave must accept its share of urbanization and density… It is happening whether we like it or not. The proposed plan seems to me acceptable and even desirable given the alternatives.”
Dale Forbus Hogle

(Submitted by MHS President Monica Wooton in oral testimony August 21, 2008 at the Public hearing at City Hall in Council Chambers and in written testimony August 21. 2008 to the City Council).

______________________

NOTE: In response to Councilmember Harrell’s question, August 6th, at the first briefing of the Proposed Development Plan at Fort Lawton (BRAC) re: historical precedence that there was possibly a reversionary clause or promise that this Fort land would be returned to the City at no cost if surplused or any other condition:

The Magnolia Historical Society (MHS), as Magnolia historical researchers and writers of Magnolia: Making More Memories) (in which there is an in-depth chapter on the history of Fort Lawton: “Change the Only Constant: Fort Lawton” it was very clear that no such reversionary agreement had been made, the land was not donated to the City for a dollar a claim with any provision to have it return to original owners (as is one persistent Magnolia Urban Legend); but, was in fact sold to the Seattle Chamber of Commerce by individuals (lands were bought outright or traded for City schools property in Ballard) and a complicated dance began when the Army, as one of its requirements for placing the Fort in Seattle, demanded the land be donated to them and The Seattle Chamber gave the property to the Army to cinch the deal.
(Councilmember Clark has a copy of the Magnolia: making More Memories for those interested in reading the chapter on the history of Fort Lawton or go to magnoliahistoricalsociety.org the article is posted on our web page).

In episodes of offering the land back and forth between Army and City over the past 100 years…it always continued to be a complicated dance of ownership between the city and Army with no reversionary agreements or assurances. In the Depression years, when the Army DID offer the entire Fort parcel back to the City, at no cost, one assumes if there had been such an arrangement, it seems only logical the Army would have deeded it back then and there; but, the City said: no, it did not want to maintain the property in depressed times and the Army retained the land).

The Jackson Bill/Fort Lawton Bill- “The Federal Land for Park and Recreation Act” did result in large parcels of military land surplused in the 70’s and given back to the public for parks (Discovery Park was formed through this Act). The enactment and continuation of the practice designed by the Act was more and more disregarded when Reagan came to power (and Jackson passed from the political scene) and evolved through the Bush years as a piece of legislation no longer in force and we now have the BRAC process to deal with surplused military properties left over today. Again, it is a shame that Seattle Parks and Recreation did not pursue getting this whole parcel of land for additional property to be added to Discovery Park through the BRAC process.