On the rainiest day in June so far, Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn and City Council members Sally Clark and Nick Licata joined Capitol Hill Housing’s Chris Persons in a Wednesday afternoon press conference to announce details of the 12th Ave Arts development agreement reported by CHS this morning.
The mayor said the city will transfer ownership of the East Precinct parking lot on 12th near Pine to Capitol Hill Housing in a deal that is still being worked out with the non-profit housing developer that will include city ownership of new parking facilities in the planned mixed-use development.
McGinn called past barriers to the plan over the past 10 years a “log jam” that the City had now overcome due to a better financial opportunity to create the SPD parking facility and a “spirit of collaboration” exhibited by the various departments involved in the deal with CHH. No money from Seattle’s general fund will be spent on the project.
Rain drops drizzling down his back, Persons called Capitol Hill “an economic engine” of Seattle and said the $38 million project represents the economic, community and cultural needs of the neighborhood.
Persons said financing for the project must still be secured and said he hopes to have that plan in place by this time next year. The executive director said he expects a mix of sources to be put into play to pay for the development including tax credit, levy dollars, state programs and some commercial bank loans. He also announced that the 12th Ave Arts capital campaign has already received its first donation — $500,000 from an unnamed Seattle foundation.
Depending on how things go on the money side of things, groundbreaking could occur in late 2012.
I wonder what the Police Department thinks of this. I noticed nobody asked the cops and civilian employees who use it what they think of it. Where are they going to park with this space gone? Was it really that underutilized?
1) They’ll park in parking stalls that are part of the development
2) I’m not putting anybody on the record but the three SPD officers I’ve spoken to about it said the project is a good thing — though one brought up an interesting question about where parking will be located during construction.
Justin: Previously, you wrote: “SPD has said it will need around 150 spaces in any development. We have questions out to the department and the City for more information on how this issue worked out.”
Any word on that?
Also, will SPD be using the new property only for parking, or will other police facilities be built there?
I should have included what I don’t know yet — I asked East Precinct Commander Dermody and SPD’s lead info officer Sean Whitcomb for more details on the parking facility but they referred questions to an SPD representative who has been part of the planning. Unfortunately, that officer is out on vacation. So more on that as we continue to cover the story.
As for other facilities, the mayor and city reps says parking plus some storage but I’ll make sure to include questions about this, too, when I get the opportunity to talk with the rep when he gets back from vacation.
Somebody (you know who you are) has to complain about a police officer taking a vacation. A terrible abuse of police power.
Vaca2, is it possible for an outside observer to discern vacation from suspension with pay?
Always looking for the negative.
Always avoiding tough questions.
You will always find what you are looking for regardless of whether it is really there or not.
I am unsuccessfully looking for an answer to the question, “Is it possible for an outside observer to discern vacation from suspension with pay?”
Phil, a city full of people like you are the reason the best cops we have are leaving for the suburbs. Keep be snide jerkoff and shitting on cops in general, you’ll end up with the left overs.
Cool jseattle, thanks.
TGL: Please elaborate. Do you consider pointing out that the biggest punishment that most police officers who misbehave on the job receive is what the rest of us call “vacation” amounts to be shitting on cops? Seriously: “suspended with pay”? What a joke. I’d like to be suspended with pay for the rest of my life.
No point in arguing with somebody who is so anti-police. You will find fault with anything. That’s how we have moved so far beyond parking stalls.
Who’s anti-police? I’m all for having police. All of them I’ve personally met in Seattle seem like good people.
“Vaca2, is it possible for an outside observer to discern vacation from suspension with pay?”
Phil, I don’t understand the point of your question….at best it seems very tangential to the subject of this post.
Bob, it’s a question; it doesn’t have a point. It’s tangential, for sure. But I bet the next time someone who read this thread (all five of you) hears the police announce that an officer who did something wrong has been suspended, they’ll think, “Oh, doesn’t that mean he or she received vacation time?”
I meant it when I said that all the Seattle police I’ve met seem like good people. I see them at community meetings all the time. I think of them as my neighbors (though we’ve recently learned that most of them have such disdain for us that they won’t live in our city). But the force as a whole has big problems that put the public in danger. I’m tired of people tippy-toeing around the issue. I think that every chance we get, we should challenge the organization. They work for us. We shouldn’t have to fear them.
And Bob, what do you suppose was the point of someone’s pseudonymous comment, “Somebody (you know who you are) has to complain about a police officer taking a vacation. A terrible abuse of police power.”?
When a police officer is suspended, there is cause to believe that he/she did something wrong, but subsequently there is an investigation to either confirm or deny the wrongdoing…..this seems like a fair process to me, but no doubt you will say it is biased in favor of the officer.
As far as “suspended with pay” goes, I think it would be better to “suspend without pay” until the investigation is complete, and at that point re-instate the pay if the officer is cleared of the allegation. But, if the officer has accrued vacation time, it is certainly his/her right to use that paid time during the suspension period.
All I’m saying is, it’s misleading to tell the public that a police officer was suspended if he’s really just taking some vacation time.
As for the fairness of the process Calhoun described, I tend to think officers should not be suspended based on accusations alone. A more reasonable approach, I think, is for one or more supervisors to judge whether the officer should be temporarily assigned to alternative duty — say, something that doesn’t involve running around town alone with a gun — for the duration of an investigation of the allegation.