Ju writes:
I wanted to let you know that our local 4-H Club, Cooped Up in Seattle, is
hosting our third annual club Poultry Show on Saturday, June 1, from 10 AM-noon. It’s co-sponsored by Seattle Tilth, and will be held in the Tilth Children’s Garden at the Good Shepherd Center (4649 Sunnyside Avenue N).
4-H’ers from our club and other clubs in King County will enter in three
contests:
- Fit and Show: Kids compete in their knowledge, handling, and preparation of their birds. You’ll see 4-H’ers present their birds to a judge and answer questions.
- Judging: A test of 4-H’ers ability to compare and evaluate animals or items related to raising poultry (such as comparing actual chickens, or comparing equipment).
- Posters: Informational and educational posters having to do with poultry.
There will also be an information booth and a petting table with chickens
and rabbits. People should stop by to see what our 4-H Club is up to and
to see some kids who know a lot about chickens. If you have any questions
about the show or the club in general, please feel free to contact me at
[email protected].
Hi Russ, Hi Karen,
Well……at the meeting I could see you both wanting to get 5 absolutes that we might pursue…and we kinda sorta did not get there.
The ingress and egress is a much bigger deal after some of my new research.
But, we need the other 4 main issues.
2) I still think the 3400 block frontage of both buildings needs to be a full new re-design..per a village concept that actually has proper commercial and retail…with those plazas that everyone seems to want.
3) The 5th floor has to be eliminated.
4) The sky bridge? I don’t know..these don’t seem to bother me..it is a simple issue though..they are trying to use just one set of stairs in the westerly building such that they walk across those bridges from the east to west so to speak so the easterly building will always use the westerly set of stairs to get down etc. I am not so sure this is a huge issue..maybe it is.
Set backs seem to be to code..from the sidewalk and all of that..so, not sure about that either.
5) We could say that the live work thing is silly..or, we could have 1 or 2 of those..and the rest real actual stuff that is open for use or patronage from the public proper, ie commercial, and retail that is true, for the public just walking up and down the street as it were.
Here is some new news.
I was just by chance able to talk to a couple who are at the Prescott…they have only bad things to say and in fact are moving out.
The walls are paper thin..the garage is only 40 percent used due to fees that will shock you both. First of all, if you have 2 cars..the first is 100 bucks..and the 2nd car is 150.00..you read that right..it goes up!!!
So..I asked them what they did in the way of parking..they said it was a “no brainer” they just went and bought 2 rpz’s for zone 22..that area..and…..it gets better…those 2 parking stickers cost them just 65 dollars each, and they are good for 2 years..so, for 130 dollars, they are now parking right in the very neighborhood, and in from of long term single family residences that have been there for 100 years..and they are taking up the very space that the rpz is supposed to reserve for the neighborhood.
If they had used the parking in the building, in 2 years they would have had a total of 3 thousand dollars for both cars together..instead they accomplish the same thing for 130 dollars total, for 24 months. That is right..130 instead of 3,000.00!!! Which would you choose?
Anyway..I see a city wide initiative that saves both the tenants and the neighborhoods where these projects are placed..to link proper parking with the rental, and disallow this de-linkage of the 2 aspects of renting. After all the tenants are being abused too..not just us.
I have searched the internet using ( apartments charging me for parking at my building) sorts of titles like these..and lots of stuff comes up all over the country. From what I can tell, about 90 percent of renters have a car, or cars..so when you see bizarre statements like “well, if you disallow the building to charge for parking, then it is essentially penalizing the renter who does not have a car”..that sort of thing..it is laughable because a huge majority has cars, if not the entire populations of many buildings..so that argument is really just silly.
The other argument is that it costs money also to build the garage..as if it is an elective..it is not, it is a permit requirement to build the building at all..so it is in principle supposed to be offered as part of the rental.
The other ridiculous argument is that is somehow is like a rental raise? Odd..it is not..because if the rules or laws are city wide..market rent will be adjusted per competition like anything else..and I would argue that rent might indeed go down as they compete due to tenants leaving to other buildings of which the price is such that they occupancy is nearer to 80 percent, instead of the a lot of these so called luxury buildings being at maybe 40-60 percent ever..
It is amazing how vacant some are in fact. They are never full for instance..and go figure with all the fees and the actual rent…they are selling a lot of smoke.
I want to pursue 2 things right away.
1 is to see if I can start the process to make Burke at my end a dead end…so the travel could come up from 34 just prior to the side walk here on the south side of the intersection and dead end here.
The other is a city wide initiative that will ask voters to decide if renters should be allowed a parking space with their lease or rental contracts included within or as part of their rent in that it would not be some arbitrary extra fee of any kind.
It is possible to try another angle..and that would be to offer the parking lot at a fee not to exceed the fee of existing city rpz stickers..or 65 dollars per car for 2 years.
Also, I do not see why we cannot buy the same spaces if there is overage in these buildings..I mean why not? I a can easily see a writ that asks..shall these apartment buildings, within a 4 block radius, be required to show their parking overage or existing spaces to this public at large, and shall this apartment building allow, if canvassed, to required to, and agree to rent, a parking space for a years term, to this 4 block radius audience if someone so chooses to ask, and is deemed to be qualified for same. Why not? Why cannot we use the very same parking spaces if we might want or need?
I think we should go right at them and very aggressively with a city wide initiative that rips these buildings wide open in terms of these parking lot scams. We can save virtually every tenant from that abuse..and we can protect our neighborhoods also by taking the incentive to be abusive and blow it all to smithereens.
Let your minds go and be as creative as you want about the parking lot. I figure they have crossed so many lines that they cannot say that they will not offer the very space that was required as part of rental to build the building in the first place..then take it away by charging even more for the second car for instance.
I either want it universally organically part of the pay rent and live experience in that it is just one whole entity..or, I want it tied to the existing rpz reality in some way or another. Then, I want the public to be able to be granted usage when the parking lot is no where near full, up to say 90 percent. Perhaps they could keep 5 percent unused as a for instance.
Chat soon,
Brian..