Should view preservation become the new standard by which development is opposed in Kirkland?
The citizens of Kirkland have a penchant for appealing stopping projects they don’t like: Lake and Central in 2004 map, the Bank of America Project 2007 map, and most recently, the pending the McLeod Project map. Two of these three downtown developments have been successfully appealed stopped by CiViK. The McLeod project is currently on appeal by another group of citizens and the outcome is still to be determined.
A recurring theme of the appeals to these projects has been the emphasis of the impacts on life in general in Kirkland: too big, too much traffic, too little parking, wrong type of retail, etc. There is one argument, however, that is seldom heard: “it will block my view”.
Each of these projects, if developed, would have a negative impact on the views of some neighbors. The appellants in these cases have steered clear of this line of argument as it tends to hold little weight with the public. City codes do not protect views. That said, it is interesting to notice that often the loudest voices have the most to lose when it comes to views.
This is not to say the successful appeals to date have not been based upon anything other than legitimate concerns by citizens. But this is worth further examination.
Take for example, the Kirkland Parkplace development. This project is already opposed by a group called Kirkland Citizens for Responsible Development (KCRD) - a website owned by Finn Hill resident, Ken Davidson. I have spoken with several of the people who are on a mailing list for the group and their individual reasons for opposing Parkplace are varied. Some have issues with the planned eight story height. Others are concerned about the traffic and parking impact this project will have on the surrounding neighborhoods. A few even argue for Parkplace to be left just as it is because they like it that way. Mr. Davidson has coalesced individuals with sometimes disparate views in opposition to Parkplace under his KCRD umbrella.
Ken Davidson has created a website (www.kirklandcrd.org) and makes public addresses in opposition to Parkplace development. His website states many reasons why he thinks the Parkplace mixed-use plan should not be built. Once again, view is never mentioned as a reason for opposition to the development.
However, it appears that the loudest voice in KCRD has the most to lose if Parkplace is built: Mr. Ken Davidson. One small fact is omitted in both the KCRD website and in his presentations that is rather illuminating as to the position taken by KCRD: the fact that Mr. Davidson owns an office building directly behind Parkplace which will lose their view if Parkplace is built as planned. The Emerald Building, a five story office building purchased in 1994 by Mr. Davidson and partners map, is adjacent to Parkplace and views from this building would be negatively impacted by the planned development.
Now, I bring this to light to make a point. Mr. Davidson is the loudest voice in opposition to Parkplace and he happens to be one who would have the most to lose from the project — his view. According to King County records, the Emerald Building has over 47,000 net square feet of office space — much of it with views. Mr. Davidson is simply protecting his assets.
Mr. Davidson’s KCRD website has gone to great lengths to make their point that Touchstone should not be allowed to build the preferred mixed-use plan. KCRD has even produced what they call a “better way” to develop the site which they claim would abide by existing City code. This “better way” plan just happens to place a parking lot in front of Mr. Davidson’s building so that views would not be so negatively impacted.
There is nothing wrong with Mr. Davidson defending his property. When pressed on the issue after a Kirkland Alliance of Neighborhoods (KAN) meeting last night, Mr. Davidson stated that the loss of views that his property would sustain is not relevant to his promotion of KCRD nor to his opposition of Parkplace. So be it.
Every property owner has the right to protect the value of his/her assets. Common sense would lead one to believe that a fabulous view is a high-value asset and certainly worth a fight to protect. Personally, I too work to protect the value of my assets, just as everyone else does. What is missing from the development debate in Kirkland is an acknowledgement that there is an undercurrent of unspoken motives and agendas. In this case Parkplace will apparently block views of a neighboring office building.
Opposing a development project because it would block one’s view is not a popular stance. Few people outside of similar circumstances would rally to the cause because it is a selfish act to prevent a public good for personal gain.
People need civic-minded ideals around which to rally, not individual agendas. That said, there are many potential reasons to oppose any given project, including the loss of one’s view.
I do not berate Mr. Davidson for protecting the value of his assets. He would be a fool not to do so. The issue I raise is that he should be able to make any argument he sees fit and everyone should know the facts. Opposition groups should not hide unpleasant facts from the public eye. Mr. Davidson is a respected, longstanding contributing member of the Kirkland business community. He also happens to have a direct financial incentive in opposing the Parkplace project. There is no need to avoid acknowledgement of these facts, however inconvenient they may be.
We, as a community, should openly discuss the agendas that are shaping our city. My guess is that some of those in opposition to other developments downtown are doing the same — protecting their assets, and in many cases that means protecting views. A view is indeed an undeniable asset. The question is, should development in Kirkland be at the mercy of people who want to protect their views?
Let’s have an open discussion about this issue. Protecting one’s view is by no means the only reason one might oppose a development project, but it certainly is a good motivator.
What are your views? Should view preservation be a reason to stop a development? Do you think views do play a factor in the Parkplace and other downtown development opposition? When does the public good outweigh the individual property owner’s rights? Does a property owner have a “right” to protect his/her view?
Related Articles
11 Responses to “Should view preservation become the new standard by which development is opposed in Kirkland?”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe
You can subscribe by email to receive newsletter updates:
Subscribe through a RSS feed reader
-
-
-
-
Translator
By N2H
KCTS 9 Connects - Yakima Valley Gangs
Sponsored Ads
i can tell you right now that i opposed downtown development because kirkland is too busy already! we have new people moving in on top of us so fast it is a wonder our traffic isn’t even worse. i don’t have a view. i just want kirkland to not be bellevue. park place blocking views? it is so far from downtown that is where taller buildings should be put. but please dont make this into another bellevue. no more than 10 or so floors. if you let park place build offices then maybe you will keep downtown kirkland low rise.
[Reply]
As a resident of Juanita, I find the potential for traffic issues to be my highest concern at Park Place. The commute along Market is bad already. The city is supposed to require the developer to mitigate traffic problems caused by development. Somehow I don’t trust the city to follow through.
[Reply]
I am against a 5 story building that will wreck Kirkland forever and at the same time my view. So what if I have a view. My view is my business and what I support and why is not your business. It is not illegal to have a view.
[Reply]
The NIMBYs that desire to limit development that negatively affects their views are offensive in their thinly veiled “I’ve got mine so screw you” attitudes. Most likely their condominimum blocks the view once enjoyed by folks further uphill. They care nothing about the community as a whole, and they know they don’t have a legal or political basis for view preservation, so they find other arguments to support their cause. Yes, they should definately own up to their motivations because they are costing the City (aka us taxpayers) dearly for their obstructionist tactics.
If the view preservationist and other small-town-charm folks want to re-write the zoning code for downtown, they should be working through the standard politcal processes to make that happen.
[Reply]
Correction: I was incorrect in stating that Lake and Central was appealed by CiViK in 2004. CiViK was instrumental in informing the public of the impending sale of the Lake and Central property for development. They organized a group of citizens who then stormed City Hall, convincing a majority on the Council to vote “no” to selling the property, thus sinking the project.
-Rob
[Reply]
it seem the prudent thing would be for appeal-ers to sign some kind of sworn statement that they are not appealing out of direct self-interest. It will effect thousands, it will cause delays and it will cost many people much money. As Rob has pointed out, far too much cost when you put up so little and can do it just because you feel like it. What’s to stop two rival developers, lets say Chaffey and McLeod are in a feud and Chaffey wants to spite McLeod, as he’s a developer, he knows an appeal will be a pain in the ass and costly, so he does it. This is such a bad arrangement… it should be costly to appeal so that it’s not so frequent.
[Reply]
“upset” has it right all the way.
Having agreed with that, I will say that we all act in our own self interests. That’s OK, it is just up to anyone’s conscious if they want to conceal their true motives. Since few people would be concerned with Mr. Davidson’s offfice views, he logically argues for the things that more peoplewill be concerned with in an effort to gain support for his cause.
After all, he is an attorney. That’s the way they make a case.
[Reply]
It seems that we are a city that insists upon listening to the “one-voice” wonders, and a Council that seems intent on listening even if they only hear one complaint. While government that is responsive to its citizens is nice (and can even do some good at times), in Kirkland, it has progressed to the point that anyone who comes up with an emotional appeal, frequently not based in fact (as pointed out above), gets decisions made. In the case of Park Place, Lake and Central, and even the Marina Park restroom (remember that one??), well-thought out projects are stymied by endless appeals and reasonable development never occurs.
with the notable exception of Park Place, I do think it is interesting that many of these appeals are “eleventh hour” and those involved have not bothered to come to hearings, write letters, or really even care until they discover their personal space is about to be redefined.
The hidden result of such pandering by City Council members to these special interests, is a slap in the face to the many people who chose to engage a process over time. Has anyone figured out the cost to the city of endless studies, meetings, etc. in volunteer and staff hours, particularly when the results of these studies are rejected by a Council listening to (or funded by?) special interests? I dare say we could put a dent in our predicted budget shortfall if we called a halt to this practice.
I agree with others above that it is about time to stop the NIMBism and special interest focus and start to look toward the healthy growth and development of the WHOLE city. It is about time for us to move forward from here.
I for one, am tiring quickly of all the shenanigans…
[Reply]
Thank goodness Ken is motivated to react to this developer! From day one when Touchstone bought the site, they planned on a development 50% larger than the Comprhensive Plan.
The CRD is not against the development of the site, only that it be in alignment with the Comp Plan of buildings being up to 5 stories.
- 6,000 employees will cause gridlock at 25 intersections in Kirkland
- Traffic will drive thru the side streets to get around the gridlock
- The 3,500 parking spaces is inadequate, and will cause 1,000+ cars to park in surrounding neighborhoods.
- Most, if not all, of the retail sales tax will go to pay the $13 million in additional payroll.
- We may or may not be charged for night and weekend parking.
Why should we allow this Amendment Request when there is no benefit to Kirkland?
[Reply]
Of course Alex, you make good points if they are true. I am on the fence on parkplace but if the view issue is true it taints the no on parkplace crowd just like civik is tainted now.
[Reply]
It’s scary the amount of power that the Planning Commissioners have regarding the height limits on our buildings. Basically it is up to their discretion whether or not they will allow a variance. They have already approved a 5 story building downtown Kirkland, one of which is Merrill Gardens and guess how far they allowed the buffer between the two buildings? 23-28ft!!! Only one of the members, Brian, in the architectural committee who seems to be the most qualified on that committee (or cares the most) suggested 40ft minimum for light and air quality but the others did not agree. If one of them had any personal interest in the any of the buildings that was affected by the Merrill Gardens project, you bet the outcome would be different. I’m tired of such a small group making permant decisions for the residents of Kirkland.
[Reply]