Letters to the Editor

To the Editor:

Contrary to what Bonnie Heaven wrote in her letter, "Reader rebuts senator's push for park privatization" (The Seattle Press, April 5-18, 2000), ESB 6858, which the governor has signed into law, does not allow "...contracting out as the most common form of privatization in the United States, and the most advantageous

from the point of view of the corporation." The Woodland Park Zoo Society and the Seattle Aquarium Society are non-profits, not corporations. As I mentioned in my guest column, non-profit management of public facilities is nothing new--in Seattle or elsewhere in the state. Examples in Seattle are our three public golf courses, the Seattle Art Museum and the Museum of Flight. A related example is the Seattle Symphony and Benaroya Hall (owned by the City), which are managed by the non-profit Seattle Symphony Board.

Other examples around the state are the Kirkland Performing Arts Center, the Ellensburg Rodeo and rodeo grounds, which are managed by the non-profit Kittitas Fair Board, the public Sun Dome managed by the non-profit Yakima Fair Board, and the Puyallup Fair and fairgrounds managed by the non-profit Puyallup Fair Board.

In addition, contracting out as referred to by Ms. Heaven has been vehemently opposed by organized labor. However, there was no such organized labor opposition to ESB 6858. The legislation was supported by the labor unions covering City employees working at the Zoo and Aquarium, i.e., the Joint Crafts Council and Local 17. In fact, the only reason the legislation was needed was to protect City employees so that they would be able to keep their pensions and other benefits.

Also of importance and contrary to what was written by Ms. Heaven, oversight and accountability are provided for in the new law, which specifies that "as part of the management and operation contract, the legislative authority of the city shall provide for oversight of the managing and operating entity to ensure public accountability of the entity and its performance in a manner consistent with the contract." Such oversight and accountability incidentally are not required in other non-profits managing public facilities.

Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles
36th Legislative District, Washington State Senate
via e-mail

New Aquarium an Unnecessary and Costly Giveaway of Public Land

To the Editor:

The Mayor and Park Superintendent Ken Bounds promote the disposal of the most rare and valuable open space park we own, on the shore of the Central Waterfront along Alaskan Way. The scheme is to privatize (piratize?) Piers 62 and 63 to a group calling itself "SEAS," the Seattle Aquarium Society. These open piers are the locale SEAS would seize for the new aquarium, twice the size of that which now exists at Piers 59 and 60.

Their claim is that they can get private contributions to round out a $50 million government gift to make a total of $200 million, to make it THE MOST EXPENSIVE AQUARIUM ever built in the U.S. A new one opened in 1998 in Long Beach, California, and was then called one of the most expensive ever at a mere $117 million. We've enough experience with cost over-runs (i.e. Safeco Field) to know that even $200 million won't satisfy for long.

If you or I were giving away our property we would at least know its monetary value. The City has not done an appraisal on the two piers since it bought them in 1989 for $3.8 million and Pier 57, which it then owned.

Eleven major aquaria have been built in U.S. cities across the country in the past ten years and another 30 are under construction or planned. New Orleans has one, as does Tampa, and two new also in Minnesota. A new one in Denver has a "Northwest Exhibit" for which they manufacture seawater. Do we really need to add to the surfeit that exists, given our other tourist attractions and the Endangered Species Act prevailing?

The SEAS plan doesn't bring in one more parking space on the ever-congested Central Waterfront area. Pike Market tenants have reason to worry that the parking garage used by their customers would be taken by aquarium visitors lounging in its new restaurant and bar.

For recreation, is there anywhere else on the Central Waterfront where you can put a fishing line over the railing and even have transportation via the waterfront trolley? We owe it to ourselves and tourist guests to protect the spectacular view to enjoy at Piers 62 and 63. It's a sight that spans from Mt. Rainier to the panorama of the Olympic range, of Puget Sound's ocean-going ships to ferries. Let's save all that magnificance, not allow the sight to be blockaded by yet another and unnecessary building.

Benella Caminiti

New City Hotel Project Unpopular with Queen Anne Neighbors

To the Editor:

Here is an interesting update to the Aquarium public/private partnership project:

The City is also involved in another public/private partnership. This one is at the Seattle Center. The MUP board went up today. The Project number is #9901651.

It seems that the City is going into the hotel business. It has signed a lease for the public land. The property, acquired by the City through the law of eminent domain specifically for parking, is currently a surface parking lot containing 106 parking spaces, and is across the street from the Seattle Center on the soutwest corner of John and 2nd Avenue North.

As anyone who travels or lives in the neighborhood knows, the lack of parking is well above the 85 percent that is the saturation level allowed according to a local traffic consultant.

Also, the hotel is supposed to provide 100 percent replacement parking but is providing only 78 public parking spaces from the original 106. And, there are no protections included for the public to have any of the 78 spaces be reserved. Nor is it known how many cars this proposed 159-room hotel will bring into the already saturated area.

The construction of this five-story, 159-room hotel is opposed by the residents of this long established neighborhood. The lack of notification from the Department of Design, Land Use and Construction last July caused by the Seattle Center's incorrect siting of the project, has left many of the neighbors unaware of the pending project.

Another thing to be considered, This building is in direct conflict with the city's own guidelines for height, bulk and scale and will be out of proportion with its current neighbors. For example, the building directly behind the five-story, 65-foot project is only 36 feet and the building directly across the street to the north is only 22 feet in height.

All these considerations aside, my first question is: why is the City going into the hotel business? Especially when there are more than seven hotels in the immediate area and at least two more on the drawing boards (a hotel is even being considered for the property directly across from the new Experience Music Project museum, a more appropriate location according to some who live and work in the area).

J.M. Black-Ferguson

Industrial Area Still a Bad Idea for School District Headquarters

To the Editor:

The City Council should stick to its previous 7 to 2 decision, and not bend the rules to allow a school headquarters in an industrial area.

Sued by the Seattle School District, the City Council is considering legislation to exempt the District from the zoning laws, and thereby allow the District to put its new $43 million headquarters at a former postal facility in an industrial zone.

The school headquarters is an office site: 85 percent of the school employees at the site--620 out of 728--would be employed in offices. It would be located in an area of industrial noise, odors, traffic and busy train crossings. The public, including parents, young children, and teachers, would be invited into this area daily: for meetings, for parent conferences, for training.

To get City reconsideration, the School District was required to sign an agreement, forbidding the District from seeking help or complaining to the City--or even to the press!--about noise, odors, etc. in the area. The agreement also restricts when meetings may be held at the site.

This is crazy. BAD SITE!

The project would take money from education for 25 years, without a vote by the public, and deliver a debt of $26.7 million. The District would sell other nicer sites (like the current headquarters on Queen Anne). And the legislation would apply to other industrial sites, allowing large office developments there as well.

The City Council should pull the plug on this deal, and vote 'NO' on this legislation. The School District should drop this project, and get back to focusing on education.

Chris Jackins, Coordinator
Seattle Committee to Save Schools

Reader Comments

Discuss this article in the forums!