Comments for http://friendsofaldercrest.org Wed, 22 May 2013 21:53:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 Comment on Contact Us by Sean Osborn http://friendsofaldercrest.org/?page_id=43&cpage=1#comment-663 Sean Osborn Thu, 24 Feb 2011 01:35:49 +0000 http://friendsofaldercrest.org/?page_id=43#comment-663 Thanks for your suggestions. Donation is not the same as sale for $0 though. I'm no attorney either, but that I am pretty sure of. S Thanks for your suggestions.

Donation is not the same as sale for $0 though. I’m no attorney either, but that I am pretty sure of.

S

]]> Comment on Contact Us by Janne http://friendsofaldercrest.org/?page_id=43&cpage=1#comment-659 Janne Wed, 23 Feb 2011 02:20:32 +0000 http://friendsofaldercrest.org/?page_id=43#comment-659 Sean, One minor clarification regarding your message. You refer to giving the land "back to the city". The School District and the old Kellogg school site pre-date the city by several decades. It was never city land. While I do not know the history of the title on that property, it was likely purchased from a private owner when this area was unincorporated King County. You could probably figure out the site's sale history from the King County Assessor or from the School District if it interests you. Janne Sean,
One minor clarification regarding your message. You refer to giving the land “back to the city”. The School District and the old Kellogg school site pre-date the city by several decades. It was never city land. While I do not know the history of the title on that property, it was likely purchased from a private owner when this area was unincorporated King County. You could probably figure out the site’s sale history from the King County Assessor or from the School District if it interests you.

Janne

]]> Comment on Contact Us by Janne http://friendsofaldercrest.org/?page_id=43&cpage=1#comment-657 Janne Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:12:39 +0000 http://friendsofaldercrest.org/?page_id=43#comment-657 Sean, As I said, I am not an attorney, so I do not know what other provisions of state law pertain to this type of case. The district could lease it long term as they have done with Paramount Park. This allows them to retain the option of taking it back for school purposes. But the law does state fairly clearly that the School Board has jurisdiction over all real property. Have you sought to influence the Board on this matter before or after they made their decision to surplus the property in 2008? I think you'll agree that the law says if they sell then they can't do so for less than 90% of the appraised value, with some qualifications. So, selling it for 0% (i.e., giving it away) does not seem like an option. I really do agree with you that it's a shame the taxpayers have to either buy the property or come up with creative ways to save as much for the public as possible. But, that is an issue that you should take up with your state legislators. Furthermore, if you care about this issue more broadly than simply the Aldercrest case, then you might urge the City and District to communicate years in advance about any future properties that may come up. If we had known the situation back in 2005 or 2006, we perhaps could have gotten this property into the Parks Bond that we all passed with overwhelming support. But, like the idea of the district not selling the property, that train has left the station. Janne Sean,
As I said, I am not an attorney, so I do not know what other provisions of state law pertain to this type of case. The district could lease it long term as they have done with Paramount Park. This allows them to retain the option of taking it back for school purposes. But the law does state fairly clearly that the School Board has jurisdiction over all real property. Have you sought to influence the Board on this matter before or after they made their decision to surplus the property in 2008? I think you’ll agree that the law says if they sell then they can’t do so for less than 90% of the appraised value, with some qualifications. So, selling it for 0% (i.e., giving it away) does not seem like an option. I really do agree with you that it’s a shame the taxpayers have to either buy the property or come up with creative ways to save as much for the public as possible. But, that is an issue that you should take up with your state legislators. Furthermore, if you care about this issue more broadly than simply the Aldercrest case, then you might urge the City and District to communicate years in advance about any future properties that may come up. If we had known the situation back in 2005 or 2006, we perhaps could have gotten this property into the Parks Bond that we all passed with overwhelming support. But, like the idea of the district not selling the property, that train has left the station.

Janne

]]>