Many at the Feb. 19 meeting in the Elliott Bay Marina Yacht Club also charged that the city is paying more attention to special interests than it is to neighborhood sentiment. More than a few speakers complained that Seattle Transportation did a poor job of notifying people of the gathering.
Project consultant Kirk Jones said meeting notices were sent out to more than 160 residents who would be affected by Alternative B, as the waterfront route is known.
But the notice didn't reach everyone, including one man who said he only learned of the meeting by reading a flier on a bus. The News also was left out of the loop, hearing of the event from a reader and then only in time to run a notice the day the meeting took place.
Alternative B would require the demolition of all the pricey, waterfront residences on West Galer, replacing them with a "concrete canyon," said one man of the new arterial. Jones noted retaining walls would have to be built on both the upland and waterfront sides of the arterial.
The proposal has already lowered property values by 20 percent along the dead-end street, according to Patty Groesbeck, a real-estate agent who owns one of the homes. Groesbeck also said at the meeting that she lost $15,000 in earnest money when she backed out of a deal to buy another Magnolia home.
Groesbeck said she thought the waterfront route was no longer being considered when she made arrangements to buy the other home. But, Groesbeck added in a later interview, she backed out of the deal when she found out Alternative B was still on the table. That's because she didn't think her old house would sell under the circumstances, and she couldn't afford to make payments on both, she explained.
Taking it in the shorts aside, Groesbeck said she's also concerned about the traffic impacts of an estimated 20,000 vehicles a day streaming into and out of Magnolia Village via 32nd Avenue West. That's something that also worried Magnolia resident Sue Olson, who said the preliminary Seattle Transportation analysis predicted only minimal impact from the traffic if Alternative B is chosen. "The analysis is really screwy," she said.
Several people at the meeting said they thought the Port of Seattle was behind the waterfront route still being considered, because it could tie into development plans for Port property north of the existing bridge. "If you believe the Port of Seattle isn't going to get what it wants, you're deluding yourself," said Magnolia resident Randy Vaughn.
It was a comment echoed by Dwight Jones, general manager of the Elliott Bay Marina, which opposes the waterfront route. "The Port does what it wants to do," he said.
Jones and Port spokesman Mick Schultz both said the Port commissioners have not taken a stand on the alternative routes. "Whether they have or not, (Port staff) have spoken out in favor of (Alternative) B," Olson countered at the meeting.
Others thought the waterfront route ended up back on the table because the Magnolia Chamber of Commerce is supporting it. Chamber President Dan Bartlett denies that's the case.
"It has not been debated, and we have taken no stance," he said.
Some Chamber members do support Alternative B, Bartlett said, and others don't. But that mirrors divided community sentiment, he added. Indeed, the waterfront route got a number of votes at a recent community-wide meeting about the bridge project.
Others wondered whether the Magnolia Community Club was involved in Alternative B still being considered.
"We take the position that, at the moment, these are the four things on the table," said Magnolia Community Club President Lindsay Brown. The club has not taken the position that any of the alternatives should be eliminated, she added.
Looming in the background is a preexisting legal agreement that prevents through traffic from traveling between the Elliott Bay Marina and 32nd Avenue West.
The agreement was signed by, among others, the city, the marina owners and the Magnolia Community Club, and several people at the meeting thought a lawsuit challenging Alternative B was a near certainty. Jones said he realized that. But he also said that the waterfront route would be cheaper than the other three alternatives - even when litigation and delays caused by a court case are factored into the costs.
Whether the city's condemnation powers trump the existing agreement remains to be seen, according to Jones. The issue could come down to a question of pitting "overall community good" against the agreement, he said.
Assistant City Attorney Judy Barbour, who signed the original agreement for the city, said she's looking into the matter.
"My thought is it's a factor decision-makers will have to take into consideration," she said. "At this point, it's way too early to say it's a fatal flaw."
Staff reporter Russ Zabel can be reached at qanews@nwlink.com.
[[In-content Ad]]
