The contact form is temporarily out of commission…. Please use our email address to contact us.
Our email address is: FriendsOfAldercrest@gmail.com
Karla Dierking says:
October 14th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Hi, I work for Canterbury Court Apts at 2600 NE 195th St, Shoreline. This property backs up to the Kellog School field that is being proposed for sale by the Seattle School Distrct. I am very intersted in the field being left as an area for the neighborhood to use as a playfield, walking track and in general a park for all of us to use.
I wanted to let you know that if there was a need for a meeting place my community room is available. Please feel free to e-mail me and let me know.
Christi Hanks says:
January 11th, 2011 at 8:39 am
Congratulations and THANK YOU to The Friends of Aldercrest for your dedication and hard work!!!!!!!! What fantastic news that the property will be ultilized in a positive manner and that a permanant park is ensured! Nice job and thank you again… we are all grateful to you!
Sean Osborn says:
February 18th, 2011 at 12:03 am
Thanks for the hard work. However, I am not in favor of the proposal.
The PEOPLE of LFP and Shoreline PAID to purchase this land in the first place. The school district merely administers the land for us, but it is still the PEOPLE’S land. We should not have to pay for it a second time. If the PEOPLE want to use it for a park and not for a school, then the PEOPLE should get to do this.
The proposal is defended by those who say the School district must sell the land. This is NOT true. We could have it if we valued this park over the endowment the School district wants. I do.
February 18th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Your point about it being public land is a very attractive one, but it is detached from the reality of state law.
I wish there were a way to channel lands from one public purpose to another, but you’ll need to get a change in
state law first, and a source of funds to compensate school districts and other public landowners for the
properties that they have come to regard as assets. I suggest you start by contacting each of your state
legislators repeatedly and ask for a briefing, talk to as many stakeholders as possible, drum up support in your
community for a change in state law, make statements to relevant public entities and elected officials, reach out
to other community members, raise money, draft some potential legislation, do some legal research, etc. etc.
That is what I and many others have been doing on behalf of you and our other neighbors for well over two years to save as much
of Aldercrest as possible.
I also highly recommend that you go through the city’s development code page by page so that you understand the
level of protection you’ll have from development at Aldercrest in the absence of this agreement.
co-Chair, Friends of Aldercrest
February 21st, 2011 at 7:51 pm
I would like to know which state law to which you are referring.
This proposal also offers me no protection from having the entire west side of my property paved for a parking lot.
February 22nd, 2011 at 9:45 am
Just a brief response for now as I am short on time. See the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 28A.335 regarding school district owned properties, and especially RCW 28A.335.120. I am not an attorney, but we have been working hard for 2+ years to understand our options and our limitations.
You are correct that a future developer could place a parking lot in fairly close proximity to your property. The current owner could have done so as well, had they chosen to rehabilitate the site for future school use. Neither you nor I have a right to the absence of a parking lot on a neighboring property. However, as I suggested in a previous post, do some research on the city’s development code so that you understand the types of rules that all development must operate under (such as parking lot lighting, landscaping, building setbacks, tree retention, stormwater, etc.), and also to understand how the provisions of the proposal add substantially to what would otherwise be required. As an aside, it may interest you that the most dense option (R-48) in the proposal would almost certainly include primarily underground parking beneath buildings simply due to the economics of that density level and the types of construction involved in that type of development. Please contact Dan Eernissee at the city for more information — he has explained this quite well on a number of occasions.
February 22nd, 2011 at 10:29 am
Thanks for the info.
February 22nd, 2011 at 10:39 am
Nothing in that law prohibits the donation of land back to the city. That law only covers what happens when a district decides to sell surplus land. It doesn’t say they HAVE to sell it.
February 22nd, 2011 at 4:12 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2011 at 7:20 pm
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.
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:35 pm
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.