The design review meeting is scheduled for 6:30pm on Tuesday, February 23rd at the Wellspring Family Services building at 1900 Rainier Avenue South.
Chris Bailey wrote about this project on the mailing list:
This is a complex project with full design review and is a good opportunity to familiarize ourselves with the design guidelines developed for North Beacon Hill. You can find the neighborhood design guidelines here.
Thanks to Robert Hinrix and Chris Bailey for the info!
The design guidelines link doesn’t work. Does anyone have it handy?
Yes, I fixed it. Try it now.
How do you get 18 units inside a three store building on a single family lot?
It’s a 6000 square foot lot if that helps to visualize.
That’s still alot of units in a small space. Where do they park all their cars?
From the zoning classifications for NC2-40, which is the zoning for that lot:
“Parking Quantity
Depends on land use. Required amounts for all land uses are listed in section 23.54.015 of the Land Use Code. No parking is required for the first 1,500 square feet of any business. No parking is required in urban centers or in light rail station area overlay districts.”
I didn’t re-read the relevant Land Use Code section, but based on this it looks like being in the Light Rail Station Area Overlay District means there is no required parking for this development. Here comes the Transit Oriented Development allowed under the existing rules, even while the Neighborhood Plan that is supposed to help define how we manage it smartly is on hold for another year due to citizen appeal.
But the design guidlines are in place. So what’s your point?
I’ll be at that design review meeting for sure. And not because I like to attend meetings but so I have first hand knowledge of the project grounded in reality.
And so we don’t get another 2533 15th Ave S.
monstrosity slipping through the cracks on us.
Correction. Make that 2523 15th Ave S. The huge fail in our midst.
Adam, my point is exactly what you said. Development is starting to happen that is transit oriented, even while changes to the plan are being fillibustered. That’s all.
The odds are that I’ll still be at work as that 6:30 meeting happens. I know I would appreciate a report on what is discussed that is more journalistic than editorial in nature. That’s not how reports on the Neighborhood Plan meetings were written, which is one reason there’s a perception that some people went into them with intractable positions and no intention of participating in good faith.
I keep hearing that the neighborhood plan update that has been delayed is all about zoning. The proposed substantial changes (upzoning 40’ to 65’) to the zoning that are presented in the neighborhood plan update are very limited in area and don’t extend past Bayview to the north and past McClellan to the south (with the exception of the Bank lot). The lot on which this development is proposed is outside of that area and is not proposed for upzoning. The Light Rail Overlay has been in place for some time and is already on the zoning map. Unless I am missing something, I am pretty sure that approval or delay of the neighborhood plan would have no bearing on this project or the ability to develop property outside of an immediate area surrounding the light rail station. Besides, the fact that the proposed construction is adjacent to existing single family homes, regardless of zoning, places great emphasis on appropriate height, bulk, and scale. Section B-1 of the NBH design guidelines has a pair of sketches that show a nearly identical situation, building a multi-unit construction adjacent to a single family home with a “preferred” and “to be avoided” scenario shown. Frankly, I can’t see getting 18 units in there, plus a church, without building what is shown as “to be avoided” in the design guidelines. I’m looking forward to seeing what the plan is.
If you have never been to one of these meetings, you should check it out just to seen the process. I followed the process for the Delite bakery, mainly because of the environmental issues, but I noticed that several changes to the design were made as a result of the design review process. That was before the Neighborhood Design Guidelines were in place. There are more general City design guidelines that are followed by the design review board.
What I’m saying is that attention that could be focused on a vision of how developments like this fit into the changes that the plan would make possible is instead being expended on never-ending process. A change on one lot is a change for a whole neighborhood. It seems to me that design review for this project could possibly go differently if it were happening kitty corner from a lot with 65′ height limit, which is what the proposed plan calls for. Currently the kitty corner lot is capped at 40′.
Brook, I think we are just on a different wavelength with this. I don’t think that developments like this (outside of the upzone area) do fit into the changes proposed by the current Plan because it only consists of the new zoning designations. This lot is already within the light rail area, allowing reduced parking, and it isn’t proposed for upzone. My thought is that if the updated Plan is simply about the zoning recommendations, it has no bearing on the “vision” for the properties outside of the upzoned lots. I just don’t understand how having an NC-65 lot kitty-corner to the lot in question would affect the design or the design review process with the current neighborhood design guidelines.
The neighborhood design guidelines were developed based on a greatest height limit of NC-40, so it will certainly be worthwhile to revisit the issues of newly NC-65 properties and how they fit adjacent to lower-zoned lots. That would be the mechanism to codify that vision. I wouldn’t think that having just a vision without an applicable guideline to support it would be very helpful during design review.
It’s purely a side topic, Chris, and not really worth as many words as we’ve put into it here. Because I tried to answer comments from both you and Adam, it seems like I’m saying much more than I really did. To try to rephase my original point one more time, this proposal is reality, while the appeal of the proposed plan is a distracting process game. That’s it.
A three story build with the religious institution assembly space at grade on a 6000 square foot lot that leaves 9 units per floor on the other two stories. Not taking into account any set backs that gives you less than 666 sqft per unit. These will not be family friendly homes. I hope it doesn’t turn into another half way house.
Yes, I agree Doug, one quarter of the effort of writing blog entries could be put into attending meetings, getting information and making opinions first hand. Would make people seem more fully baked (as opposed to half-baked).
These meeting are not contentious, they are civil. People give and show respect in amazing ways. It is not polarizing, it is unifying.
Appreciate the interest but Brook you are draining the life out of this neighborhood update issue.
I heard an interesting thing on KUOW about the American Revolutionary War (Presidents Day). Actually a 3rd of Americans were for the war, a 3rd was against it and a third were waiting to see what happened.
So even something like that you’d think would be a slam dunk (or so we’ve been taught) was really not a majority decision.
That is pretty much what happens in neighborhood planning and is certainly the case on this plan update and calling b.s. on poorly executed work from the city that adds nothing of substance our plan. That’s not a delay, it’s a blessing.
Again our old plan got us the vision to make stuff happened for 10 years. The library, Jeff Park, Beacon Mountain, countless street improvements. What next?
It doesn’t mean that landowners aren’t still saving their rundown parcels for their heirs. But it does mean that what we are able to control we can; the city’s part of it.
The Delite Bakery is a great example. It didn’t look as nice as it does now at first. But folks like the ones you are complaining about went to the meetings and got them to change the plans.
That is real action, not blah, blah, blah on blog. And certainly not action from a majority.
Is that tyranny? Not even close. That’s folks that know what they are doing looking out for others that don’t know or don’t care.
Cheers,
Brook is breathing life into this issue–he’s actually discussing the issue! Directly! In a public forum! He’s a dissenting voice–how refreshing!
I attend meetings when possible. In every aspect of my life, I’ve found that most of the work that gets accomplished in a meeting is because of conversations that participants held outside the meetings. Agreements are reached, arguments are hashed out, ideas are hatched (and some crumble after review.)
The NBHC meetings do not represent the diversity of our neighborhood and probably never can–we don’t have the capacity to hire interpreters and/or attract the variety of ages, cultures, etc in Beacon Hill. The meetings held at ACRS by DPD were a much better reflection of our community.
I’m disturbed by the lack of confidence and credibility given to any process that occurs outside a small cadre of people who’ve been meeting regularly and all agree. The staff and clients of El Centro and all the neighbors who don’t attend meetings have as much at stake and have as much right for their voices to be heard.
Not everyone has time to commit 1-2 hours in person on a project just to discuss something. That’s why we use email and telephones. I’ll show up in person for a work party (if I hear about it online or by phone) but I can’t (and frankly don’t want to) show up in person for every conversation.
You’re free to criticize the blog and commenters, but you’re also clearly finding value here. Free press has long been a cornerstone of democracy. Access to information and a forum to share opinions is important. Transparency is critical when people claim to be acting on the behalf of others–especially around issues that will affect us all in the long term.
Brook’s a he? I though he was a she! See how wrong this is?
Why the heck don’t people show up at the meetings? Why pull the culture card? It’s it just laziness. Ignorance is so easy.
Adam, I’ll repeat the invitation I just extended in the other comment thread to meet for coffee.
Wait? What?
Brook I’m writing this in response to all the people that just want to get this over with. Those willing to sign away everything for no reason.
Why make it personal? Just be a good neighbor. Use your energy for change through the process at hand not through some other process not yet created. Just attend a darn meeting or two. This is not a some sort of conspiracy, it’s neighborly.
If you don’t have time for that, you certainly don’t have time for coffee with me. What’s the point of that?
I’m not asking you to like me, but the folks involved in the neighborhood we have here on the hill are praise-worthy and have been doing great work on all our behalf for years. By and large we’re not even aware of it. This last year I’ve become aware and I appreciate it. I defend it.
But wait, the process is “endless” and the meetings “contentious”…
Hey, I’m not sure we live on the same planet much less same neighborhood.
So anyway…
Adam, I’m not interested in a flame war, and apologize if I accidentally gave you that impression in anything I’ve written. I’m quite certain we are from the same planet and the same neighborhood. We just have different perspectives on a few things, which is fine.
My offer to meet you for coffee stands.
Brook and Adam, I hope you work out your differences however, I still think this is going to turn into a half-way house. The Bayview stairs is like the biggest drug and alcohol highway in the state. Placing a half way house right along side of Bayview is like putting a kid in a candy store and telling him you better behave God is watching you. It’s to bad we can’t get some real investment/developers in the hood. Organizations that would actually transform the area instead just attracting more of the same. I guess, once a wellfare hood always a wellfare hood.
Brook, the flames are in your mind dude. Stop changing the subject. You are obfuscating when you should admit your mistakes and change your opinion.
Doug, great analogy. I don’t know the Bayview stairs so I’m going to check them out. Thanks.
I don’t think the flames are in Brook’s mind. I don’t know either of you personally, but after reading these blog comments it’s hard not to be turned off by the disrespectful way in which you treat some of your neighbors, Adam. We all live here, we all care about what goes on in the neighborhood, and we all have a right to our opinions.
Adam, I’m with Katie. From your tone, it seems like you’re much more resistant to talking out the issue than Brook, almost to the point of belligerence. I think it may really be worth your time to meet and talk and try to reach a mutual understanding.
O.k. Apologies if my tone has been misconstrued. My posts are relatively short because I don’t have lots of time to write. The goal of my posts is to stand up and be counted as not agreeing with certain things written. In future I will clip what have issues with into my posts to be better understood. I just don’t want to enter into long “questions” that aren’t even questions when I can just stay my point of view. Read my posts again, I’ve been quite clear.
Also the tone is pretty light weight compared to what I read on publiccola and elsewhere? Are we ready to play or are we all to sensitive?
Finally, most of my comments are actually directed at MelissaJ’s opinion and is my push back balancing out what some do/do not believe on the Hill. Not sure how Brook got so involved.
BTW, if this is the same neighbor Brook and not a complete stranger, our kids have played together. But I’m not realy addressing him here.
P.S. In my culture we are very direct. I come from east coast though my relatives strongly concentrated in New York. Nothing I’ve said here I wouldn’t say to anyone in person. And I don’t appreciate being called rude. Who would?
I’ve followed most of this conversation and, personally, I have not found any of the comments disrespectful. I appreciate the points that Adam has brought up.
I notice that Adam is posting using his full name rather than just a first name or a pseudonym. He is making public comments and seems to be willing to take any blow back for them in public. Many of the people posting here are doing so more or less anonymously. Posting strong opinions vociferously, repeatedly and anonymously attracts push back.
“Brook” wants to be taken seriously but also wants to remain anonymous to the greater neighborhood. There were comments complaining about the North Beacon Hill Council being a small group of people who don’t really represent the neighborhood. Well, the number of people posting on this blog is small as well and even less transparent. And one on one coffee meetings? Small indeed.
Mira, my full name is Brook Ellingwood. I’m not being any sneakier about my identity on this blog than Jason, Wendi, or anyone else is when they post with only their first names. Plenty of people who read the blog know exactly who I am when I post with only my first name. I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the only male named Brook in the neighborhood.
Doug,
I’m interested to read that the Bayview stairs have a problem. I walk the stairs up from 17th a few times a week and have always appreciated how quiet, clean and well-maintained they are. I really appreciate the work that went into repairing them and continues to go into keeping them maintained.
Of course, that’s during the day. Is there a problem at night? Or are you talking about a different set of stairs? I know there are some stairs on the other side of Beacon, but I rarely cross Beacon or 15th with the dog.
I have seen camping gear and trash/beer cans on the really steep set of stairs–the stairs furthest north, near I-90, that connect all the way up to 14th. Might be Atlantic Street…near the Cherry Lane condos. I’ve never seen people, though.
I looked up the church that wants to develop this property – looks like they are moving from Mt. Baker and want to develop an income generating building to sustain the congregation into the future. They sold their property and are temporariy at another location. There’s a lot of info on the congregation and some of the planning that they have gone through on their website: http://www.findlaystchurch.org. The planning documents are at http://www.findlaystchurch.org/storage/files/The%20Green%20Sanctuary%20Pilot%20Project.pdf (initial planning)http://www.findlaystchurch.org/storage/files/Green%20Sanctuary%20Pilot%20Project%202%2009-13-09.pdf (more refined planning). It looks like the second set of planning is what they will be presenting at the design review next Tuesday or something close to it.
The planned development includes a church sanctuary and some other church facilities on the lower level and studio and 1 bedroom apartments on the 2nd and third floors. They are planning on developing a green building with capability for solar and green roof and appropriate landscaping. Floor plans are on pages 9-14 of the second document and building elevations are on 15-17. I think most of you will be pleased with what you see.
They also include some info on how they are going to pay for the development initially and maintain payments going forward over the life of their loan. It looks like a fairly well thought out business plan to me, but it would be great if some of you who have more experience would take a look as well. It’s one thing to start building something and another to actually have a viable building that won’t be vacant or turning over. We want stability in the organizations and businesses that locate on Beacon Hill.
Especially interesting is that they plan to hire a property manager for the residential portion of the building and have worked that into the budget. Though these apartments will be small, I don’t think that it will be a halfway house and it looks like it is likely to be maintained with care.
Hmm. Interestingly, the link Mira posted didn’t work for me, but when I went to their website to find it I found the exact same URL. If the above link doesn’t work for you for some reason, try this and this.
If they execute that design well, it will be very much the sort of development I’d like to see in the neighborhood.
Melissa
Check out the Bayview stairs on the west side of the hill. The bayveiw stairs is a pathway from the SODO, under I-5, through the Jungle right up the hill in front of said project to the 76 and Shell gas stations. The stations where people can buy any alcohol or drugs that they want. I am sure you have read about this area and the gas stations on this Blog before. This area is already well know for transient/homeless, drug, trash, and crime problems.
In fact there was a break on bayview and 13th right near these stairs just listed on this blog
Burglaries
2/6 10:30pm near 13th and Bayview: Forced entry burglary.
If you know Dina McDermott, ask her about the Bayview stairs. She was a prior owner of the property being developed and I would bet that she would gladly tell you that she had constant problems with her front yard being a drug sales point, a bathroom, and temporary housing for the folks Doug refers to. Safety of the actual stairs seems to have improved by improving the view and accessibility, but that just makes them an excellent pathway between an area that is within the alcohol impact area and Beacon Hill, which for some reason is not an alcohol impact area.
Regarding the gas stations, I believe it is the station immediately across the street from this property that has refused to stop selling the alcohol products that are not available in the AIA. I understood that the other station does not sell these products. This has been discussed on the listserve extensively, but I have forgotten some of the details.
I can’t access any of those links posted for the church project. It seems like the files have been removed. Did anyone happen to actually download those files to be posted on here somewhere? It would be nice to check those out before the meeting next week.
I’m not sure what DPD is thinking, but they have scheduled what appears to be the only public meeting regarding the updated city-wide design guidelines on the same night as this actual design review meeting. It looks like you can comment online. Here is a link:
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/CitywideDesignGuidelinesUpdate/Overview/
The files are still there. Not sure why the links are not working for some. They are PDF files so your browser needs to be set up to be able to display PDF. If you are having problems with the links, just go to their main website and then click on “Building a New Home” in the nav on the left to get to the right page. In the upper right you’ll see “Part 1” and “Part 2”. Those are the two documents referenced in my previous post.
Thanks Mira, I didn’t see those links. They worked fine.
Interesting project. I didn’t expect it to be an actual church on the bottom floor. The one thing I noticed in the budget that stands out is that for 18 tiny units, they expect $24,520/month. That amounts to $1,362/month average for the 1br/studio apartments. I’m interested to see what people think about how that compares to other rental prices on Beacon Hill.
Jason and Katie, It is true that we are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. Melissa and Brooks have used this blog to spread spurious rumors based on a basic lack of information. The appeal is against a DPD DNS {declaration of non-significance} for the 65 foot upzone. DPD is literally saying a 65 foot build out will have no impact on existing conditions. If it has no impact, what was the point of all those planning meetings and exercises DPD put us through? The charge of anti-density is just name calling. Why doesn’t that offend you? A “small cadre of people”? Is it not rude to refer to people this way when they are not even there to defend themselves? Have you read what Melissa is writing about her neighbors on the other blogs, using only her first name? Brooks wrote that the appeal has put the neighborhood plan on hold. That is ridiculous. The neighborhood plan still stands. The appeal is about adding to the plan, not about putting it on hold. Jason, maybe if you were as offended by the anonymous accusations and misinformed speculations about other peoples motivations, there would not be a story line on Seattle transit blog titled “Beacon Hill neighbors fight density”-with a link to the Beacon Hill Blog.
Sorry Mark, I’m not connecting the dots from a spurned offer to discuss something over coffee to this talk of anonymous accusations. I’m not sure what tree you’re trying to bark up.
His name is Brook, singular, by the way.
Did you see Craig Thompson email on the BAN site about the Bayview Stairs? I have pasted it below:
100 liquor containers were found at the upper and lower Bayview stairs. Of these containers, 62 were beverages currently on the Alcohol Impact Area banned list for the Pioneer Square, Central Core, and University District AIAs.
Of the 62, 25 were various Steel Reserve brands that are sold at the 76.
As aluminum can collectors are working the upper stairs, there is likely an even greater number of AIA beverages being consumed and discarded in this area.
Kryzten took the bottles and cans from the College stairs; I suspect there’s a similar percentage of AIA beverages.
From both areas, we also filled 13 35-gallon bags of discarded junk and assorted trash, plus hauled two shopping carts from Bayview. We found four syringes. There is still a lot of trash off the lower stairs, and the sidewalk that leads down to the lower stair needs to have underbrush cut back (Parks property) so police and emergency crews can more easily access the area.
Four neighbors and three Community Court service workers cleaned both areas in a little over 3 hours.
A neighbor told me this morning that there’s a lot of trash off of the Holgate stairs.
I’m not sure what the deal is with the URL for those pdfs. If you go straight to the URL, it says the files don’t exist, but if you go to their main website and then click on “Building a New Home†and click on the links there, it works — and the URL is exactly the same. It most be some weird thing where they’re only allowing hits referred from their own website.
Jason, I believe Mark Holland is referring to the editorial thread below where we had “PSF”, “JVA”, “MKD” and “Just a thought” weighting in on MelissaJonas’ editorial, “Post Alley or Empty Lot.”
http://beaconhill.seattle.wa.us/2010/02/03/opinion-post-alley-or-empty-lot/
This thread features some of the best answer explaining the delay to the plan and why it’s a good move for our community. It is the thread that Publicola should have linked in their recap of the debate.
The conversation here is a continuation of that thread because the topics not dead yet. The shot across the bow being Brooks comment above…
“Here comes the Transit Oriented Development allowed under the existing rules, even while the Neighborhood Plan that is supposed to help define how we manage it smartly is on hold for another year due to citizen appeal.”
I guess this Planning Update debate is so important it’s spilling over into different conversations…unrelated but intertwined.
That said, I’m so glad that this building looks legit and even may be something high quality.
Perhaps as an organization they could become a powerful lobby in our community to get business owners to ban the sale of cheap fortified alcohol, gas canisters and assorted camping paraphernalia for use around their property.
Things ARE looking up. See you all at the meeting next week though just to be sure.
Regarding the stairs–not at all the stairs I was thinking. Thanks for clarifying and YIKES. Sounds like a mess. I need to check out the BAN site more often and I will check out those stairs.
Regarding the church development, I’m impressed Mira found the information & I agree that the project has potential. Looking forward to learning more about their plans. Looks like this group would fit well in our community.
I comment using my first name because it’s easy and because I assume (correctly, it seems) that people who know me will know it’s me and people who don’t probably don’t care. It gives me a small illusion of privacy online. I’m sorry if it offends people, but I’m consistent and I don’t believe I’m misleading anyone.
Regarding the appeals: I am happy to see Publicola and Seattle Transit Blog covering the SE Seattle appeals. What’s happening has potential to impact every transit oriented community project in Seattle. I wish they were focused more on the appeals (the big picture) instead of making it a BH vs. BH issue.
My primary concern is over the fact that three identical appeals have been filed, one for each neighborhood with a proposed update. Publicly, these appeals have been presented as independent actions taken by concerned individuals. I don’t see how that’s possible. They are word-for-word the same.
These appeals address a variety of issues, and have been explained as being valid because people agree with one or more of the issues (environmental concerns, traffic concerns, lack of proper process, etc). There is no clear goal beyond delaying the updates.
These appeals aren’t only (or even primarily) about Beacon Hill, our neighborhood plan/design guidelines, concurrency, or El Centro development. They do not represent the majority of people who participated in the process of developing the updates. They are also not the result of independent concerns of one individual or a couple of people per neighborhood.
Who wrote the appeals? Who do they represent? What are their goals? Will more identical (or similar) appeals from the same group when Rainier Beach and Columbia City updates are proposed? What about Capitol Hill, Ballard, U-District, etc?
If a large group of people believed that appealing the update was the right thing to do, why wasn’t there a Beacon-Hill specific appeal filed by a group of concerned neighbors?
I appreciate all the work that Freddie, Mira, and others have done to make Beacon Hill a great place to live. I enjoy living in a neighborhood filled with people who really care about the quality of life (current and long term) of our community.
I believe upzoning the area around the station is a good idea. I believe 65 feet is modest, and reasonable. I trust this community to hold DPD and other agencies accountable on a project-by-project basis to create environmentally responsible designs that make our neighborhood a better place. I trust this community to work with El Centro to create an attractive, functional “town center” in our urban village.
I understand that many people disagree. I’m glad you’re watchful and participate. I hope that people can be respectful and welcoming of new voices–coming from new neighbors and from people who’ve lived here a while but never participated in the process.
Finally, I’m very grateful that Jason and Wendi work so hard to provide this blog. It’s a valuable public resource.
The Seattle Transit Blog headline is actually “Individuals Fight Density in SE Seattle”.
http://seattletransitblog.com/2010/02/16/individuals-fight-density-in-se-seattle/
I wish folks from Othello and/or Mt. Baker would chime in. Too bad they don’t seem to have an active neighborhood blog. Kudos to Wendi & Jason for covering a story that applies to the entire city.
As I said before the tie-in to the Neighborhood Plan is a side topic in this thread and I think my offhand comment got 100% more attention than it deserved. Still I honestly believe that until the appeal is dealt with, it’s going to distract neighborhood attention and city attention from more constructive development issues. However, the conversation does not belong in this thread and I regret what happened to what should have been a discussion of a specific design review.
If anyone really wants to mix it up there’s always the cesspool that is the Seattle Times comments, but the excellent resource that this blog is deserves better. I like my neighborhood and my neighbors too much to sling insults instead of discussing issues.
I’m not here to take potshots and I’m very much not anonymous. Since Melissa said why she uses her first name, I comment using my first name because I’m talking to neighbors, not business associates. I reserve the formality of using my last name for professional communications, partly because if someone Googles my full name I assume it’s because they want to know about my work and not because they want to know what I think about neighborhood planning, baseball, or anything else I may talk about elsewhere online, and partly because I’m not that formal of a guy.
I haven’t been involved much in Beacon Hill neighborhood stuff, or any neighborhood stuff in a few years years, but I have a track record of involvement with community arts organizations going back to the late 1980’s. In recent years I’ve been really busy with work, school, and parenthood, but if anyone wants to start talking about doing creative work in the community I’m starting to itch to work on something worthwhile, and I think we desperately need to shift the focus from reactive to proactive conversations. I may not be able to get as involved as I’d like to until I get done with shool sometime next year, but I have skills and experience. You can find various ways to connect with me on http://brookellingwood.com/
I’m still trying to figure out what stairs are being discussed. Are they the ones that come out on Holgate/Beacon and are signed “College St.”? We lived in the fourplex on 12th right by there for a few months in 2001, and there was a lot of sketchy spillover from the Jungle going on. Now, living across Bayview from El Centro we see a lot of drinking on those steps. I fully admit that I have no other great ideas, but I’m not sure that targeted prohibition on cheap alchohol, etc. can be more more than a band-aid.
Adam, I haven’t placed a face to your name yet, but if our kids have played together I fully hope they have the chance to do it more for years to come.
I’m out of this thread now, unless I have something else to say about the planned building.
Jason, The point is, if you are going to apply editorial discretion, then it should be applied equally.
I think perhaps you’ve read something into what little I’ve said that is not there. Seems to be a touch of that making the rounds.
Jason, Thank you for your excellent work and the service you provide to our community with this blog.
I do wish the church success in this location. It would be great to have an active neighbor on that street corner however, I think the church should look again at their finance plan. I don’t think Beacon Hill is supporting $1,362/month average for the 1br/studio apartments especially next to a gas station and other derelict apartment buildings. Their building will need to be upper end to attract that rental price range. I know of whole houses in the area that rent for less. I hope they don’t just give up and turn the place section 8 after they find they can’t make the mortgage. They will probably get a big tax break being a church and all.