After four years of extensive work by volunteers, the community, the City and Sound Transit to develop a shared vision and development agreements for the Capitol Hill Link Station, a NIMBY group is slinging outright lies at the work in an attempt to kill it. The NIMBY group is trying to discredit the comprehensive and open process spearheaded by the Capitol Hill TOD Champion group that last September led to a development agreement between the City and Sound Transit, a first of a kind in the region and a model of what needs to happen in the future. At Thursday’s Capitol Hill Community Council meeting John Akamatsu and Lisa Kothari are up for appointment as the CHCC’s representatives to the Champion’s group, and NIMBY groups want to block their appointment in an attempt to stall progress on TOD.
If you support TOD at the Capitol Hill Station come join me at the Cal Anderson shelterhouse on Thursday, February 21st at 6:30pm to show your support these two appointees.
Agenda details are here. To vote on the CHCC you must live within the boundaries of Capitol Hill; own property or own or operate a business or nonprofit organization within the boundaries of Capitol Hill; be employed within the boundaries of Capitol Hill; or volunteer for an agency which serves Capitol Hill.
CHS Blog has more backstory here.
So what do these NIMBYs want and why?
Do they really want a standalone rail station occupying two blocks with absolutely nothing else?
“Neighborhood-traffic-and-parking” NIMBYs in SFH areas are one thing, but this just seems like another whole level of stupid.
“Do they really want a standalone rail station occupying two blocks with absolutely nothing else?”
If it works for Roosevelt…
The general consensus in Roosevelt is that most of everyone would prefer a building above the station. Its Sound Transit that’s blocking that from occurring not the neighborhood.
Ben
Not true.
Looks like the main thing they want is to keep the height limit at 65′ instead of increasing it to 85′ around the station.
Would full-time student at SCCC qualify?
Not sure. Checking into it.
It’s not explicitly called out either way.
http://capitolhillcommunitycouncil.org/about/bylaws/
Membership consists of all persons: living within the boundaries of Capitol Hill; owning property or owning or operating a business or nonprofit organization within the boundaries of Capitol Hill; employed within the boundaries of Capitol Hill; or volunteering for an agency which serves Capitol Hill (see Article IV – Boundaries).
The Capitol Hill Community Council is currently revising its bylaws. If you want SCCC students (that don’t live, work, or volunteer in the neighborhood) to have a vote in the future you should contact them about joining their bylaws committee by e-mailing chcc(dot)officers(at)gmail(dot)com.
[Ot]
17-story towers in Southcenter = a Tukwila downtown?
A hotel will create a some jobs but few that would pay enough for someone to live in the new residences. But the proposal sounds like a decent idea.
Yes, I would like to see them add in commercial space as well.
Seems like office space would be the best bet to leverage the investment in the hotel and adds a lot more jobs per square foot. I would think there would be any number of merchandising and importing companies that would love to locate there in swank new offices with an attached hotel.
It’s a step in the right direction. Southcenter could be an urban village like Northgate if it had housing. The superblocks would suck, but having to get to Southcenter sucks too.
Well the 150 is quite speedy if you get off on the first stop since it takes I-5 and then runs down the relatively fast Interurban Avenue. The long snaking journey within Southcenter itself is what eats up time on the route.
Southcenter is very separated from the residential areas around it — in most cases, by a freeway. I think selling housing there will be an uphill battle. But a hotel and office space will work very well, and may add enough motivation to live there to make housing more desirable.
I didn’t stay for the whole meeting (I suppose I should have, but I’d had my “listening to bluster while standing in a packed room” quota for the night), but there was a turnout of 120+ people. The two nominees were voted in by a 2:1 margin.
Whether more came out of the rest of the meeting, I don’t know.
It should be noted that a significant portion of the opposition was not about height and density, but about the community council’s procedures and by-laws, and whether the candidates had properly fulfilled their responsibilities in their previous roles.
I’m curious to see if/how this leads to by-law & procedure changes for the community council. It certainly sounded like a lot of folks wanted the process shored up to be more accountable. I can’t say I blame them on that point, though I don’t know that opposing this vote was a good outlet of that sentiment.
Is the city aware that it put the Stockholm/Tunnelbana (a.k.a Boston/MBTA) logo at the station entrances, rather than Sound Transit’s actual logo?
Hi Adam
Your “analysis’ was quite interesting – seems to consist primarily in tossing about the dreaded ‘nimby’ accusation.
You may want to look a little deeper. All is not what it seems.