Although one council member was clearly troubled by the decision, the vote to uphold the decision of the Landmark Commission to allow the new Shorewood High School as part of the historic Ronald School was unanimous.
At the Shoreline Council meeting on Monday, March 7, Councilmember Chris Roberts read a long statement which summarized the points and positions of all parties to the appeal and pointed out that although he did not believe that the Landmark Commission had a legal quorum, that issue was not part of the legal appeal and therefore could not be considered.
Councilmember Chris Eggen said that the staff and commissioners of the Landmark Commission are experts and he saw no grounds to criticize their work.
Mayor McGlashan observed that making Ronald School part of Shorewood guarantees its preservation. Not only will the exterior be restored and the windows replaced, it will be part of the school district maintenance program.
Bassetti Architects will proceed with their design which makes the Ronald School the centerpiece of the new Shorewood. It will probably house the performing arts classes, as it will be adjacent to the new Shorewood Performing Arts Center.
Did anyone at any time throughout this process engage in any point by point discussion of each of the issues raised by the appellants? NO. NO ONE. NO DEBATE.
ReplyDeleteThis proceeding was as far from "judicial" as one could get - it was not even "quasi".
The Shoreline City Council members have once again shown themselves to be incapable of - or unwilling to - exercise their own independent judgment even when that is precisely what they were required to do.
"I'm not an architect", said one, bowing to the decision of the Landmark Commission when that was the opposite of his job. What he was supposed to be doing was judging that decision and the procedures by which it was reached.
Shame on all of them for providing one of the prime examples of total incompetence. That's the kindest interpretation of what I saw. Their lack of debate on the issues raised in the appeal could be seen as deliberate avoidance of their duty. In the latter case, one would have to ask why.
What an embarrassment.
I find it sad that our city council has spent two meetings discussng quorum when it was not the question at hand. The question, and their job, was to determine if the Landmarks Commission MAY have made errors, if fact, judgment, or decision. If so, they were legally required (shall)to remand it.
ReplyDeleteI've been trying to follow this and it's obvious their failed to do their job. Maybe because the appeal was not dumbed down enough for them. If you actually read the material the Landmark Commissioners themselves agreed that should the Ronald School Building apply for landmark status once the new high school is attached, it WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED. How then does the current decision protect this building? That sure seems to a possible error in judgment to me.
I thought that at least some of our council members were smart enough to understand their job and give consideration to the landmark process. Instead they "washed their hands" of questioning it like Pontius Pilate by deferring to the Commission's decision; they one they were charged to judge (quasi-judicial.
I'm embarrassed to have them representing us.
I agree with both previous comments.
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty clear our city council doesn't want to make any waves with the school district or king county landmarks comm. & staff. These cowards don't even attempt to appear that they can think independently (except perhaps C. Roberts, but he went along by blaming the appelant's attorney on the quorum issue and simply ignored the other merits). These so-called "representatives" are embarrassing!
The appellant's attorney made reference to the Landmark Commission failure to follow their own procedures, which would have included the formation of a quorum; however, he failed to clearly elaborate on that point.
ReplyDeleteAlthough never covered in the SAN (funny how that happens), Debbie Buck, in her appeal of the Crista Master Plan in King County Superior Court, made a critical error in her case by failing to file with Firlands Good Neighbor League and wound up with an orphan SEPA appeal.
Mistakes like the ones above result in appeals failing not because they were not without merit, but on legal technicalities. The public should not jump to the conclusion that the public agencies had not committed any errors in fact or procedure.
Oh for crying out loud. Suck up that old ugly building. It's useless, smells bad, and is so far out of code (both earthquake & ADA) that no one can afford to fix it up as it stands.
ReplyDeleteHooray that the school district will attach the new HS to it. At least the "beautiful facade" will be intact and it can be used for something instead of the 20 people who visited the Shoreline Historical Museum over the past 5 years and the countless poor kids who got yanked there on a field trip.
@6:44 pm - bitter much?
ReplyDeleteWell, anon 6:44.
ReplyDeleteYour comment is so typical of the SSD groupies. All you can think about is what's new and shiny. Your respect for history is completely lacking, hence your need to tear down the "old" in favor of the shiny new. The fact that this building is Landmarked, under City law has no meaning or consequence to you apparently. Therefore your respect for City/County laws is also vacant.
Your understanding of history obviously goes back to maybe what happened last week. Did it ever occur to you that this building might have meaning to a large number of people in our community? Actually, 10,000 visitors a year! This building was dedicated as a museum, by very dedicated people of Shoreline, as a bicentennial project in 1976.
Does it matter to you that your tax dollars and those of everyone in this state paid to educate us with this living history?
But to you, it has no meaning. Bicentennial what you say? That's the US Bicentennial. Remember? The founding of our country?
I'm guessing nothing matters to you other than what's on Facebook five minutes ago. Or Twitter 10 seconds ago. Never mind 100 years ago.
Just a pathetic lack of respect for the past and the future. A community that forgets and loses it's past is losing it's way.
Hi - this is anon @ 6:44 again,
ReplyDeleteI don't facebook. I don't twitter. I'm an adult. I'm a liberal. I'm a tree hugger. I'm green. I recycle. I love animals. I contribute to many, many causes. I donate much of time to better my community.
I'm just tired of you bitter, whiny, nasty, mean people who can't see that the battle is over and at least there was a compromise. The building will not be torn down. There will be historical value. It will be used. Time to see the up side and move on.
Put some of this energy into making some PEOPLES lives better instead of a BUILDING.
@9:22 - it's a free country and it's great that you volunteer, but where do you get off telling people where to spend their time and money? Are you some kind of uber control freak where you have to micro-manage the entire community so that they satisfy what you think is important?
ReplyDeleteAnd risking the $17 million of state funding for the new high school by continuing to fight the process serves who exactly? When the current building is finally deemed unfit for habitation and we have no state funding to help build a new one, guess who will be providing that additional 17 million dollars?? The Shoreline taxpayers! We need to set aside the differences in this situation, take the compromises given and move forward before we lose that funding. I know of a very good cause that needs the energy of passionate people worried about the good of our community and the environment....POINT WELLS!!!
ReplyDelete@10:25 am - as I said, it's a free country and I happen to think that Point Wells is a good project, hope it happens. We need more density and economic development. The people behind the Point Wells development have done a wonderful job in Vancouver, BC and it is award-winning work. Vancouver, BC is the model for urban renewal.
ReplyDeleteSee how easy that is? After all, the architects responsible for the Ronald School work on behalf of the Shoreline School District are award-winning too.
Like I said, it's a free country, who are you to tell someone what to think, how to spend their time, and what to spend their money on? You have an awful lot of nerve. My difference with you is that you appear to be some fascist where if someone doesn't agree with you they are wrong, well, it doesn't work that way.
Like I said - bitter much?
Ha ha - this is almost as good as Charli Sheen!
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think that the Shoreline taxpayers are going to pony up $17 million more after voting to approve the bond just one year ago that the school district stated was enough to build the new high schools?
ReplyDeleteIf they miss out on the federal funds, well, that might be a failure due to the school district administrators to appreciate the need to carefully follow SEPA & all associated laws. People have the right to due process under the law whether or not you agree with it; after all, that is why there is a GMA appeals hearing on Point Wells. No one is calling you all kinds of names over that and you are spending city taxpayer money on that issue.
I guess when it comes to Point Wells you want to keep on looking at that nasty, polluted tank farm. It is only responsible for decades of pollution and one of the largest oil spills in Puget Sound in the last decade. Don't you worry about the children seeing some of those naked people at the illegal nude beach down at Point Wells since you are so concerned about the kids?
What a hypocrite - go check yourself out in the mirror sometime.
Point Wells project will be a blessing. Welcome to Growth Management
ReplyDeleteRichmond Beach!
Speaking of whiners, get over yourselves RB. You'd rather look at an ugly tank farm, than have a one in a century chance to clean up that mess!
Traffic, shmaffic! Boohoo!
Wow - there is so much bitter and nasty in this town. Is it the water?
ReplyDeletePoint Wells a blessing? Probably to Snohomish County, which would get all of the property-tax revenue.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if it's only 2 people commenting here or more. But however many you are, you're very childish with all your name-calling and being so mean. (Don't mean to give a bad name to children!) Sorry I wasted my time to look at this. Get a life - both of you.
ReplyDeleteChildish? What would you call the bully tactics of the Shoreline School District. Lies, excuses, deceptions, threats Severely childish, but not in any good sense.
ReplyDeleteAnd the results and destruction are becoming more and more evident.
A hideously short sighted and childish display of behavior. They should be sent to the "corner" with a dunce cap.
Now they are about to engage in the ultimate juvenile behavior. Severe
malicious mischief and vandalism of the demolition of the Ronald School. Big boys with big toys.
@8:38 am - you asked the question is there so much bitterness & anger is this town? Of course there is, just ask around Snohomish & King Counties - Shoreline is known as a slime pit because of the mud-slinging politics that began with the open public meeting lawsuit more than five years ago and the email lawsuit that doesn't end. Dirty politics and name-calling is blood sport here. One side calls another divisive and the city hall staff plays one against another so they can do what they want, and one-side has the city staff in their pocket.
ReplyDeleteOh, please. The "mud slinging" started WAY before that. Look back about 10 years and it was well underway. Yes, it is blood sport here.
ReplyDeleteThank Pro Shoreline. They are definitely the "Pro's!"
Interesting how certain members of the community involved in this debacle were also involved in the open meeting lawsuit debacle too...hmmmm. And both arguments were about following proper procedure and rules? Rules didnt seem to apply back then!
ReplyDelete