Post navigation

Prev: (05/13/25) | Next: (05/14/25)

Sale of former Seattle Black Firefighters Association headquarters can stand, judge rules

The group rallied at the house in January

The sale of a Central District home once the headquarters of the Seattle Black Firefighters Association has been upheld by a King County Superior Court judge.

The ruling Monday denied a request to overturn the sale of the 23rd and Pike property that had divided the association’s members.

CHS reported here on the legal battle and what is sometimes a house by house effort to hold onto remaining roots of the Central District. The association agreed to sell the property last year sparking outrage from some retired members and community groups.

The double-lot property, located in one of Seattleโ€™s most rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods, was sold for $680,000 โ€” far below its market value, the group said.

The group of retired firefighters and community members has expressed disappointment in the ruling. The group is considering an appeal, Converge Media reports.

ย 

$5 A MONTH TO HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE
๐ŸŒˆ๐Ÿฃ๐ŸŒผ๐ŸŒท๐ŸŒฑ๐ŸŒณ๐ŸŒพ๐Ÿ€๐Ÿƒ๐Ÿฆ”๐Ÿ‡๐Ÿ๐Ÿ‘๐ŸŒž๐ŸŒปย 

Subscribe to CHS to help us hire writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. To stay that way, we need you.

Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for $5 a month -- or choose your level of support ๐Ÿ‘ย 

ย 
ย 

Subscribe and support CHS Contributors -- $1/$5/$10 per month

Subscribe
Notify of

5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tim
3 months ago

Whaaaaaaa? Black people being undersold in Seattle! I thought โ€œwe are in a blue state, we will be fine?โ€

โ€œSeattle is not racist?โ€

Anywaysโ€ฆ womp womp.

TaxpayerGay
3 months ago

But didn’t the SBFFA itself sell the building? The disagreement is among the current board who voted to sell and the retired members who didn’t get a say in the matter, right?

John Mack
3 months ago
Reply to  TaxpayerGay

The current members did not pay for the house, the retired members did.

H.J.
2 months ago
Reply to  John Mack

Key word is member, not owners. The house belonged to the organization not the retired people who started the association.

H.J.
3 months ago
Reply to  TaxpayerGay

Partially correct. The retired “members” haven’t paid dues, come to a meeting, or contributed anything to the upkeep of the house in 25 plus years. There was a committee on what to do with the house and a meeting held over 2 days to accommodate people’s schedules to vote to sell the house. At that the time, the committee, the board, and the members voted to sell the house, back in 2021. It was listed in January 2022 and the long lost retired ff’s came out of the woodwork. It was only about 4 or 5 but they tried to defraud the court (and it worked) and gave a list of 20+ people and told the judge “these people are all members too!” Since the bylaws were really old, and it didn’t say u were kicked out if u don’t pay dues the judge said they were all members and got to vote. In the meantime the bylaws were voted on by the members, and changed so if u don’t pay dues u aren’t a member. Another committee, another board vote, another membership vote and the house was sold. In the court docs they say it’s about “the historical” significance – but in all the papers even their attorney says they want to develop the property themselves. I’ve read a lot of the court stuff, and developing property doesn’t seem like it jives with the mission of the sbffa. The retired ff’s and their attorney have told a bunch of lies, half truths, and plain made up bullshit from what I can read.