Shoreline Preservation Society announces appeal of GMHB case

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Friday, January 15th the Shoreline Preservation Society (SPS) filed a judicial appeal of the Growth Management Hearings Board decision on the 185th Subarea, zoning, and environmental impact statement  to the Thurston County Superior Court. The Board had ruled in favor of the City of Shoreline on December 16, 2015.

SPS did so because the Board erred in a rush to approve transit-oriented development, failing to recognize  that the Shoreline City Council has mandated explosive new growth without any plan to pay for the substantial new infrastructure that will be required to support it. 
SPS is appealing the GMHB decision because these massive rezones are wrong for Shoreline, a city that prides itself on having livable neighborhoods. SPS believes that the City’s actions do not comply with the Growth Management Act and therefore must be invalidated and remanded back to the GMHB Board by the Court. 
The physical nature of our community as described in the appeal states: “According to the Subarea Plan, the subarea’s existing population is 7,944 people. This subarea, rezone, and planned action allows for buildings of 4-7 stories with densities upward of 48 dwelling units per acre with a build out population of approximately 56,529 people -- a population eight times its existing size, and larger than the existing population of the City of Shoreline as a whole.

 Janet Way, President of SPS, stated
“SPS is standing up for the distinct character of our community, while still in support of the GMA. We can support smart growth and promote a vibrant community without dismantling our existing community completely, displacing thousands of residents who have contributed to our community for many decades. We can support growth without destroying our sense of place or overtaxing our residents to pay for upzone impacts.”


Anonymous,  January 19, 2016 at 11:55 PM  

Right on, SPS!

Anonymous,  January 20, 2016 at 8:01 AM  

HURRAY!!!!! I have lived in Shoreline, Echo Lake for 30 plus years. I went to Shoreline High School, stayed in the community and adore this area and community. I want my children to stay in this area and enjoy all the wonderful things this community has offered. PLEASE people help save the Shoreline we all know and love!! How dare the Council destroy this beautiful gem of a city. Join the fight against ""people" who are doing the wrong thing for a terrific area!!!

Anonymous,  January 20, 2016 at 9:40 AM  

Thanks! They are trying to do this to 145th right now, which I just found out about! Apparently, as a homeowner who works 60+ hours a week as a nurse, I am supposed to spend my time off dealing with local politics instead of the city REALLY contacting me. All my one neighbor has received was a single postcard about something maybe happening.

Anonymous,  January 21, 2016 at 9:57 AM  

Let it go Janet Way. You need to understand that a majority of us do not share your vision of Shoreline. This is called democracy. I'm a millennial and I hate your efforts to block density in my neighborhood. You act so entitled as if you own this city. The changes you are opposing aren't even going to take effect in your lifetime. Please let us get along with our life. We have a job to go to and don't have time for such shenanigans. Get out of our way!

Anonymous,  January 21, 2016 at 11:29 AM  

@ anon 9:57:
1) You're not the majority.
2) Ms. Way and SPS aren't "blocking density"... they are fighting for the right fit of density for the subareas. What was voted in on Mar. 16th was haphazard.
3) Get out of our way? Why don't you get out of "our" way instead and move back to Queen Anne, or Ballard, or whatever neighborhood suits you best. Can't afford it? Who's entitled now?

Anonymous,  January 21, 2016 at 3:46 PM  

Anonymous@9:57, speak for yourself! I'm 25. This wasn't democracy AT ALL. The overwhelming majority of public comment from Shoreline residents at City Council meetings, young and old, was against this. The overwhelming majority of online public comment from Shoreline residents, young and old, was against this. The only voices the city council listened to was Futurewise and their own.

Anonymous,  January 22, 2016 at 7:17 PM  

Your candidate Richey, who ran on the platform of overturning the rezone lost the election. Own up & stop blocking what the majority of Shoreline wants. We need vibrant, 21st century shoreline; not 1970s suburb losing population. Tired of the naysayers. I might move down to Seattle myself if this suburb goes back in time, no shame in accepting that.

Anonymous,  January 22, 2016 at 11:19 PM  

Oh Anon 7.17... you're so precious, I just want to pat you on the head. The election results between Salomon and Richey were close, with low voter turnout in an off year election. And statistically, it's difficult take the seat of an incumbent. The fact that it was so close, means that it may be closer next time if Richey decides to run again?

That being said, don't you think it's interesting that Keith Scully, won his position with a pretty big percentage of the votes over Cafferty? Perhaps it was Scully's viewpoint on supporting reasonable growth while respecting the needs of current neighborhoods that helped him win as opposed to Cafferty, who was basically just parroting the City's agenda and developer-driven affordable housing advocates with her platform.

If you're so tired of the naysayers, how tired will you be a year from now, or two or three... ten? Sounds like you may get pretty exhausted over these next several years. Brace yourself, because the naysaying isn't going away. And perhaps you should see your way to Seattle if you can't handle it. Why not go gentrify a neighborhood in the CD while you're at it? I hear Colombia City is nice? Rainier? Surely Northgate with it's blight and endless miles of asphalt must be preferable and more hospitable to escape this "hostile environment because people don't agree with me I wish you'd shut up" thing that you appear to be afflicted with.

You can tell yourself you're the majority all you want, the results of the Scully/Cafferty position disprove your claim. And again, please stop embarrassing yourself with spreading misinformation. Richey was not "blocking" density and neither are the SPS. Moderate, reasonable density would be welcome as long as growth pays for growth.

Post a Comment

We encourage the thoughtful sharing of information and ideas. We expect comments to be civil and respectful, with no personal attacks or offensive language. We reserve the right to delete any comment.

  © Blogger template The Professional Template II by 2009

Back to TOP