New development on Dexter raises concerns

Posted on September 30th, 2010 by Editor


A planned housing development at 1415 Dexter Avenue has some neighbors worried about losing their views of Lake Union.  Catholic Community Services wants to build 50 units of low income housing on the site which is currently vacant.  That’s not sitting well with some residents of the Nautica condos who live directly behind the site.  They would have to trade their water view for a view of a brick wall.

“It would literally be three feet from the windows of those condos,” said Nautica homeowners association president Gerald Whalen. “It would turn those units into a cave.”


Site of proposed low income housing at 1415 Dexter Ave

Dan Wise with Catholic Community Services tells us two or three units would be blocked by the new building, and that Catholic is trying to minimize the impact as much as possible.

“We’re trying to take all of those considerations into our building design,” said Wise.  “We have a really good record of being good neighbors.”

But Nautica’s HOA president says about three quarters of the condo residents would have their views negatively impacted in some way.  He’s also worried about a possible drop in property values because of the new building.  Dan Wise tells us that Catholic has been meeting with residents as they push forward with the project that is expected to open in 2012.  Once the project moves into design review with the city, residents and nearby businesses will have other opportunities to voice their opinions.


  • Matt the Engineer

    I’m sure the builders of the Nautica knew that this possibility existed. It’s not like there have been any new building codes in the area. Yet they chose to build and sell units as if they would always have views.

    Does this mean that CCS doesn’t have the right to build using legal building codes on their own land? Hardly. It certainly doesn’t sound fun for the owners of those units, but caveat emptor.

  • Matt the Engineer

    I’m sure the builders of the Nautica knew that this possibility existed. It’s not like there have been any new building codes in the area. Yet they chose to build and sell units as if they would always have views.

    Does this mean that CCS doesn’t have the right to build using legal building codes on their own land? Hardly. It certainly doesn’t sound fun for the owners of those units, but caveat emptor.

  • rodstewart

    Neener, neener, nimby!!!

  • rodstewart

    Neener, neener, nimby!!!

  • that sweet

  • that sweet

  • A MAN Who Knows

    Catholic Community Services is going to use our tax dollars to depreciate our property value. How very Christian of them.

  • A MAN Who Knows

    Catholic Community Services is going to use our tax dollars to depreciate our property value. How very Christian of them.

  • AT

    Perhaps Nautica should have considered the possibility of a neighboring building when they built – walls of windows 3 feet away from a property line adjoining another lot tells me their designer had no foresight. CCS is going far beyond expectation by attempting to reduce their impact on the pre-existing building, as they are under no legal obligation to do so.

    As far as property values – get over it. This is the way cities work: things get built and destroyed, people move in and out, values change. Buying property is a relatively safe form of gambling, but gambling nonetheless.

  • AT

    Perhaps Nautica should have considered the possibility of a neighboring building when they built – walls of windows 3 feet away from a property line adjoining another lot tells me their designer had no foresight. CCS is going far beyond expectation by attempting to reduce their impact on the pre-existing building, as they are under no legal obligation to do so.

    As far as property values – get over it. This is the way cities work: things get built and destroyed, people move in and out, values change. Buying property is a relatively safe form of gambling, but gambling nonetheless.

  • George Ivanov

    I’m one of the owners and my unit will be affected. One of the reasons I bought it was the view in the first place. Secondly, I support what Gerald Whalen said in the interview. I believe there are many ways to help the people in need – buying a land in the downtown Seattle is definitely not be the best investment due to the higher land prices. Buying cheaper land means they will have more money for the construction itself and hence be able to provide better services to the needed. Another point is the crime rate. Having such a facility in our neighborhood may increase the crime rate, because not only the needed but also some convicts may be tempted to come and try to get the free or cheap living.

  • George Ivanov

    I’m one of the owners and my unit will be affected. One of the reasons I bought it was the view in the first place. Secondly, I support what Gerald Whalen said in the interview. I believe there are many ways to help the people in need – buying a land in the downtown Seattle is definitely not be the best investment due to the higher land prices. Buying cheaper land means they will have more money for the construction itself and hence be able to provide better services to the needed. Another point is the crime rate. Having such a facility in our neighborhood may increase the crime rate, because not only the needed but also some convicts may be tempted to come and try to get the free or cheap living.

  • A MAN Who Knows

    @AT
    How is CCS “going far beyond expectation by attempting to reduce their impact on the pre-existing building?”

  • A MAN Who Knows

    @AT
    How is CCS “going far beyond expectation by attempting to reduce their impact on the pre-existing building?”

  • Interested Party

    From the article and from some of the comments the issue seems to be mis-charecterized simply as being about views.

    Ofcourse people who live in the city with vacant plots nearby are aware that there maybe some obstructions to views eventually. There are several other issues involved here.

    Firstly, and possibly with the most impact, is the developers decision to build as close as 3-feet to the existing structures. No real commercial venture that is meant for the open market would even considering putting something up like that. the developer is doing it simply because it is low-income housing and the tenants will not have much choice. The existing apartments whose only source of light will be completely blocked would have never imagined that such a development will occur.

    Second, let us be very *frank* here. We are talking about *possibly* placing felons, offenders charged for *violent* crimes in the past, sex offenders. By no means am I suggesting low-income means this. Please let me make that clear. But even CCS admits that this is part of their intended target group to help.

    Third, a combination of the first and second issues: we may have violent offenders 3 feet from our balconies and windows. Can they possibly jump into neighboring houses?

    Fourth, yes the loss-of-view will be a dampener – but as I said that should be expected.

    Fifth, the loss in property values for the entire area from having this development will definitely hurt not just Nautica but other condos in the area. You may show statistics that this need not be so – let us again be frank – how many people want to pay many 100s of thousands of dollars to live next door to low-income housing? It simply isnt very desirable for the large majority of home owners and any other opinion isn’t being very honest.

  • Interested Party

    From the article and from some of the comments the issue seems to be mis-charecterized simply as being about views.

    Ofcourse people who live in the city with vacant plots nearby are aware that there maybe some obstructions to views eventually. There are several other issues involved here.

    Firstly, and possibly with the most impact, is the developers decision to build as close as 3-feet to the existing structures. No real commercial venture that is meant for the open market would even considering putting something up like that. the developer is doing it simply because it is low-income housing and the tenants will not have much choice. The existing apartments whose only source of light will be completely blocked would have never imagined that such a development will occur.

    Second, let us be very *frank* here. We are talking about *possibly* placing felons, offenders charged for *violent* crimes in the past, sex offenders. By no means am I suggesting low-income means this. Please let me make that clear. But even CCS admits that this is part of their intended target group to help.

    Third, a combination of the first and second issues: we may have violent offenders 3 feet from our balconies and windows. Can they possibly jump into neighboring houses?

    Fourth, yes the loss-of-view will be a dampener – but as I said that should be expected.

    Fifth, the loss in property values for the entire area from having this development will definitely hurt not just Nautica but other condos in the area. You may show statistics that this need not be so – let us again be frank – how many people want to pay many 100s of thousands of dollars to live next door to low-income housing? It simply isnt very desirable for the large majority of home owners and any other opinion isn’t being very honest.

  • phil

    Unless the owners at Nautica are willing to buy the land, it will only be a matter of time before someone builds and blocks their temporary views.

  • phil

    Unless the owners at Nautica are willing to buy the land, it will only be a matter of time before someone builds and blocks their temporary views.

  • maffy

    Just another part of city living. CCS is a great organization. I’m lucky to have a condo in the Nautica. 20 years ago, I was homeless. I have volunteered at Noel House (part of CCS) and have nothing but great things to say about them and their work. It’s unfortunate that my view will probably be blocked, but I can’t go on record against CCS trying to do the best for people in Seattle

  • maffy

    Just another part of city living. CCS is a great organization. I’m lucky to have a condo in the Nautica. 20 years ago, I was homeless. I have volunteered at Noel House (part of CCS) and have nothing but great things to say about them and their work. It’s unfortunate that my view will probably be blocked, but I can’t go on record against CCS trying to do the best for people in Seattle

  • A MAN Who Knows

    Who in their right mind is ever going to buy a condo with a homeless shelter, that houses violent felons, 3 feet from their window? I’m sure the folks at Nautica will lose whatever equity they have left in their units. My advice: sell to the first sucker you can find.

  • A MAN Who Knows

    Who in their right mind is ever going to buy a condo with a homeless shelter, that houses violent felons, 3 feet from their window? I’m sure the folks at Nautica will lose whatever equity they have left in their units. My advice: sell to the first sucker you can find.

  • sympathizer

    Have you seen the new “parkour” sport? You are right to be concerned. Those kids jump over, onto, climb everything. 3 feet is nothing. But isn’t that 3 ft from the property line? How far back is the Nautica from the property line? Are the balconies in the setback? For my safety I would want nothing less than the standard minimum 5′ setback – on EACH side of the property line! Isn’t that the current law? Why take less?

  • sympathizer

    Have you seen the new “parkour” sport? You are right to be concerned. Those kids jump over, onto, climb everything. 3 feet is nothing. But isn’t that 3 ft from the property line? How far back is the Nautica from the property line? Are the balconies in the setback? For my safety I would want nothing less than the standard minimum 5′ setback – on EACH side of the property line! Isn’t that the current law? Why take less?

  • RJ

    I live near by, and while the loss of views is unfortunate, I’m much more concerned about the purpose for the new development. Why would we want to encourage low income housing in expensive neighborhoods? What is the benefit? Homes for the poor? Sure, I support that completely, but why in areas with high property values? For that matter, why in highly desirable areas at all? What incentive is there for me to produce if I can live in a great area even if I’m poor?

    I’m not kidding here. If I could take a minimum wage job and live just as well as I do now, then why wouldn’t I?

  • RJ

    I live near by, and while the loss of views is unfortunate, I’m much more concerned about the purpose for the new development. Why would we want to encourage low income housing in expensive neighborhoods? What is the benefit? Homes for the poor? Sure, I support that completely, but why in areas with high property values? For that matter, why in highly desirable areas at all? What incentive is there for me to produce if I can live in a great area even if I’m poor?

    I’m not kidding here. If I could take a minimum wage job and live just as well as I do now, then why wouldn’t I?

  • QA Res

    Didn’t Nautica build right behind a dozen or so residential homes on Dexter killing their privacy?

  • QA Res

    Didn’t Nautica build right behind a dozen or so residential homes on Dexter killing their privacy?

  • Mike

    I think the most serious thing to be concerned about here is rapists literally jumping into your house to rape and murder you. God, what is next in this neighborhood a convience store that sells fortified beer and cheap cigarettes?

  • Mike

    I think the most serious thing to be concerned about here is rapists literally jumping into your house to rape and murder you. God, what is next in this neighborhood a convience store that sells fortified beer and cheap cigarettes?

  • Interested Party

    If CCS brings felons, violent criminals, rapists and sex offenders into the neighborhood by making it attractive to live here in low-income housing, then they will also be held liable for the actions of those persons. If there are any crimes that occur by the direct or indirect involvement of said persons, then CCS could very well be held partly liable. Do you want our children exposed to these influences?

  • Interested Party

    If CCS brings felons, violent criminals, rapists and sex offenders into the neighborhood by making it attractive to live here in low-income housing, then they will also be held liable for the actions of those persons. If there are any crimes that occur by the direct or indirect involvement of said persons, then CCS could very well be held partly liable. Do you want our children exposed to these influences?

  • Yuppers

    Sigh… So much NIMBYism here…. “sure, low income housing is great, I support it, but why here where *I* live? Not In My BackYard!!!”

    As to views, anyone who bought at Nautica should have assessed the possibility of what may be built there within the zoning limits and weighed the risks. This is not the first or the last time views will be lost on the east side of QA.

  • Yuppers

    Sigh… So much NIMBYism here…. “sure, low income housing is great, I support it, but why here where *I* live? Not In My BackYard!!!”

    As to views, anyone who bought at Nautica should have assessed the possibility of what may be built there within the zoning limits and weighed the risks. This is not the first or the last time views will be lost on the east side of QA.

  • @Gerald: Low income and homeless folks have as much a right to live in Queen Anne as you and I do. it seems like the board is predisposed to making ‘Ad hominem’ arguments. Stop being so selfish and learn to live with your neighbors!

  • @Gerald: Low income and homeless folks have as much a right to live in Queen Anne as you and I do. it seems like the board is predisposed to making ‘Ad hominem’ arguments. Stop being so selfish and learn to live with your neighbors!

  • @Gerald: At the most the board can complain to the city and that too only once the project goes in for review which is not until 2012, so why are you sounding the alarm so prematurely?

    Right now the board should focus on setting its priorities right. The top priority should be maintenance and repairs. An example of this is the graffiti on the building walls on the Aurora Ave side. In the past the board mentioned it several times in posted meeting minutes but till today no concrete steps have been taken to address it once and for all.

  • @Gerald: At the most the board can complain to the city and that too only once the project goes in for review which is not until 2012, so why are you sounding the alarm so prematurely?

    Right now the board should focus on setting its priorities right. The top priority should be maintenance and repairs. An example of this is the graffiti on the building walls on the Aurora Ave side. In the past the board mentioned it several times in posted meeting minutes but till today no concrete steps have been taken to address it once and for all.

  • RJ

    @Anonymous: Everyone has the right to own property or pay a property owner for the right to reside on their property if that owner wishes to allow this. This is indisputable. If someone wants to build a building and allow people to live there below the market rate or for free, this is of course their option.

    I only question what the logic behind such an action would be? If the goal is to help elevate the poor, can’t that effort be better reached in an area with lower costs? What benefit is there to the folks this proposed building is targeting that couldn’t be realized in a cheaper area? And in a cheaper area, couldn’t those benefits be extended to a larger number of individuals for the same cost?

    I’m not heartless, and this is more than a not-in-my-backyard sort of attitude. I just know that I pay a lot to live here, and I can’t imagine that it is an ideal location to get the most out of charity dollars. It seems to me that it is a well intentioned plan conceived by an individual or group of individuals who believes for all of us to be equal, then we must all live equally.

    I’m a socialist in so far as I feel we have a duty to provide equal opportunities to all, help those who can not help themselves, and even help those who are helping themselves and need an extra hand. However, I feel that there must be some incentives to reward hard work or there will be none. If this facility is built and an individual is lucky enough to get access to one of units, what incentive would they have to move up from there? Moving beyond poverty into the lower middle class would suddenly place them in a situation where they made too much to continue to live in this facility, but not nearly enough to live anywhere else nearby. Why then ever try to improve their economic situation? It’s actually a disincentive.

    This is a hand out not a hand up.

  • RJ

    @Anonymous: Everyone has the right to own property or pay a property owner for the right to reside on their property if that owner wishes to allow this. This is indisputable. If someone wants to build a building and allow people to live there below the market rate or for free, this is of course their option.

    I only question what the logic behind such an action would be? If the goal is to help elevate the poor, can’t that effort be better reached in an area with lower costs? What benefit is there to the folks this proposed building is targeting that couldn’t be realized in a cheaper area? And in a cheaper area, couldn’t those benefits be extended to a larger number of individuals for the same cost?

    I’m not heartless, and this is more than a not-in-my-backyard sort of attitude. I just know that I pay a lot to live here, and I can’t imagine that it is an ideal location to get the most out of charity dollars. It seems to me that it is a well intentioned plan conceived by an individual or group of individuals who believes for all of us to be equal, then we must all live equally.

    I’m a socialist in so far as I feel we have a duty to provide equal opportunities to all, help those who can not help themselves, and even help those who are helping themselves and need an extra hand. However, I feel that there must be some incentives to reward hard work or there will be none. If this facility is built and an individual is lucky enough to get access to one of units, what incentive would they have to move up from there? Moving beyond poverty into the lower middle class would suddenly place them in a situation where they made too much to continue to live in this facility, but not nearly enough to live anywhere else nearby. Why then ever try to improve their economic situation? It’s actually a disincentive.

    This is a hand out not a hand up.

  • @RJ: The same can apply to you. What’s your incentive?

    You are not heartless but you are selfish. It shows in your statements

  • @RJ: The same can apply to you. What’s your incentive?

    You are not heartless but you are selfish. It shows in your statements

  • Anyone drawn to buying property or renting in a city like Seattle undertands that you will be mixing with lots of different people.

    Zoning codes allow for mixing building uses responsibly in a city.

    While the CCS initative presumably complies with existing building codes, it will be grossly out of synch with the nature of the area.

    Whether or not this location is a good spot for Nautica residents is not the primarly question. The primary question is whehter it’s a good fit for CCS and for the greater neighborhood.

    Responsible development would guide this well meaning facility to a place outside of Queen Anne.

  • Anyone drawn to buying property or renting in a city like Seattle undertands that you will be mixing with lots of different people.

    Zoning codes allow for mixing building uses responsibly in a city.

    While the CCS initative presumably complies with existing building codes, it will be grossly out of synch with the nature of the area.

    Whether or not this location is a good spot for Nautica residents is not the primarly question. The primary question is whehter it’s a good fit for CCS and for the greater neighborhood.

    Responsible development would guide this well meaning facility to a place outside of Queen Anne.

  • TaxChurches

    This is a great addition to the homeless encampment we have just east of the 8 way stop at Queen Anne Drive and 4th ave. Just look out for the bums piling their garbage under the bridge by the road.

  • TaxChurches

    This is a great addition to the homeless encampment we have just east of the 8 way stop at Queen Anne Drive and 4th ave. Just look out for the bums piling their garbage under the bridge by the road.

  • TaxChurches

    and if you want a preview of Dexter with the low income housing in place I recommned you take a walk past the low income housing in downtown Seattle near Virginia Street. ….. Better go while it’s still light, it will be a lot safer than going at night.

  • TaxChurches

    and if you want a preview of Dexter with the low income housing in place I recommned you take a walk past the low income housing in downtown Seattle near Virginia Street. ….. Better go while it’s still light, it will be a lot safer than going at night.

  • To all the people who oppose this project:

    What CCS does with their money is their own business. That’s something you can’t complain about nor is it grounds to prevent them from going ahead with this project

    @Mike, @Interested party: Assuming that low income people and homeless folk are felons, violent criminals, rapists and sex offenders is a generalization.
    I could say Mike is rich therefore all Mikes are rich. That’s simply not true.
    Please stop the fear mongering and generalizations and focus on more important issues that Nautica faces

  • To all the people who oppose this project:

    What CCS does with their money is their own business. That’s something you can’t complain about nor is it grounds to prevent them from going ahead with this project

    @Mike, @Interested party: Assuming that low income people and homeless folk are felons, violent criminals, rapists and sex offenders is a generalization.
    I could say Mike is rich therefore all Mikes are rich. That’s simply not true.
    Please stop the fear mongering and generalizations and focus on more important issues that Nautica faces

  • RJ

    @Anonymous: The same what can be applied to me? If you are asking what was my incentive to work hard, then answer would be so that I could live in a nice neighborhood and enjoy my life (which I’m doing). I continue to work hard because I’d like to eventually be able to provide for a family as well as for myself.

    As for selfishness… I suppose I’m somewhat selfish when it comes to my personal finances, but I’m not sure what is wrong with that. I provide for myself so you don’t have to. I even make enough to contribute to the tax base so that I can feel good about voting for folks who will use our pooled resources to make sure that folks who need help get it.

    You could build an economic system based on something other than selfishness, but I’ve yet to see an example in practice that is effective at doing so. Capitalism has many flaws, but encouraging hard work is not one of the flaws.

    To be more clear about what I meant about this project not being a hand up, what I mean is that it is just a guesture. It actually acts as an incentive to stay poor, so in effect could be considered harmful rather than helpful. That is what I mean by calling it a handout.

  • RJ

    @Anonymous: The same what can be applied to me? If you are asking what was my incentive to work hard, then answer would be so that I could live in a nice neighborhood and enjoy my life (which I’m doing). I continue to work hard because I’d like to eventually be able to provide for a family as well as for myself.

    As for selfishness… I suppose I’m somewhat selfish when it comes to my personal finances, but I’m not sure what is wrong with that. I provide for myself so you don’t have to. I even make enough to contribute to the tax base so that I can feel good about voting for folks who will use our pooled resources to make sure that folks who need help get it.

    You could build an economic system based on something other than selfishness, but I’ve yet to see an example in practice that is effective at doing so. Capitalism has many flaws, but encouraging hard work is not one of the flaws.

    To be more clear about what I meant about this project not being a hand up, what I mean is that it is just a guesture. It actually acts as an incentive to stay poor, so in effect could be considered harmful rather than helpful. That is what I mean by calling it a handout.

  • RJ

    @Anonymous: Sorry, I didn’t see your last comment (25) while I was writing my last. I’d like to agree with you that what CCS does is their own business. That said, it doesn’t preclude me from disagreeing with their approach or opposing their project. Government exists to reconcile the disagreements between individuals. Those of us who disagree with CCS should be able to appeal to our government to intervene on our behalf. The nature of community that is developed around me is very much my business.

    I think it’s also fair to say that assuming all low income folks are criminals is a gross generalization, but I think it is fair to say that introducing low income housing into a neighborhood that didn’t include it before changes the character of that neighborhood.

  • RJ

    @Anonymous: Sorry, I didn’t see your last comment (25) while I was writing my last. I’d like to agree with you that what CCS does is their own business. That said, it doesn’t preclude me from disagreeing with their approach or opposing their project. Government exists to reconcile the disagreements between individuals. Those of us who disagree with CCS should be able to appeal to our government to intervene on our behalf. The nature of community that is developed around me is very much my business.

    I think it’s also fair to say that assuming all low income folks are criminals is a gross generalization, but I think it is fair to say that introducing low income housing into a neighborhood that didn’t include it before changes the character of that neighborhood.

  • Matt the Engineer

    Re: homeless rapists climbing in your window: Grow up. Or go move to a gated community and buy a couple of pit bulls and security cameras.

    Re: construction issues: The nice thing about construction codes is that we can predict exactly what can be built in the empty lot next to us and plan accordingly. Like, if we want room in front of our windows, build, say, 10′ away from the property line. But if you build to maximize profit by building right up to the legal limit, then you get what you pay for.

    Re: better efficiency in building in cheap poor exurbs. I’ve thought about this extensively, and have written a great case for city life being cheaper despite the prices here. My calculations show that over a 30 year mortgage you can save half a million dollars by not having a long commute. Yet we keep pushing the poor further and further out.

    Now there are probably cheaper places downtown than Queen Anne to build, but my point is that the CCS probably has a very good reason to build where they’re building. My guess is that they’re not in the practice of wasting money for no reason.

  • Matt the Engineer

    Re: homeless rapists climbing in your window: Grow up. Or go move to a gated community and buy a couple of pit bulls and security cameras.

    Re: construction issues: The nice thing about construction codes is that we can predict exactly what can be built in the empty lot next to us and plan accordingly. Like, if we want room in front of our windows, build, say, 10′ away from the property line. But if you build to maximize profit by building right up to the legal limit, then you get what you pay for.

    Re: better efficiency in building in cheap poor exurbs. I’ve thought about this extensively, and have written a great case for city life being cheaper despite the prices here. My calculations show that over a 30 year mortgage you can save half a million dollars by not having a long commute. Yet we keep pushing the poor further and further out.

    Now there are probably cheaper places downtown than Queen Anne to build, but my point is that the CCS probably has a very good reason to build where they’re building. My guess is that they’re not in the practice of wasting money for no reason.

  • @Mary Ann &/or Anonymous: This is the MOST important issue facing Nautica. There are now 5 units for sale and none of them can sell despite below market pricing. And the money CCS is using to build this thing is OUR TAX money. If you want socialism move to CUBA.

    And if you have any problem with the way the Board runs this building please LMK – you know how to contact me.

  • @Mary Ann &/or Anonymous: This is the MOST important issue facing Nautica. There are now 5 units for sale and none of them can sell despite below market pricing. And the money CCS is using to build this thing is OUR TAX money. If you want socialism move to CUBA.

    And if you have any problem with the way the Board runs this building please LMK – you know how to contact me.

  • Matt the Engineer

    @27 “introducing low income housing into a neighborhood that didn’t include it before changes the character of that neighborhood”

    Absolutely. And it’s generally more comfortable to be surrounded by people of your own class and ethnicity. But I wouldn’t be too afraid of this kind of change. Diverse housing is generally something to strive for in urban design. You can build a better community when your waiters, store clerks, and children’s teacher don’t all live in long distant towns.

  • Matt the Engineer

    @27 “introducing low income housing into a neighborhood that didn’t include it before changes the character of that neighborhood”

    Absolutely. And it’s generally more comfortable to be surrounded by people of your own class and ethnicity. But I wouldn’t be too afraid of this kind of change. Diverse housing is generally something to strive for in urban design. You can build a better community when your waiters, store clerks, and children’s teacher don’t all live in long distant towns.

  • @Gerald: Your priorities are all wrong. This is not something the board should waste money and time on. Please first take care of Nautica’s repairs and maintenances before anything else.

    What CCS is doing is for a good cause and I fully support them.

    If I have issues with the board I’ll air them here just to put the board in the spotlight. You do want to know who I am don’t you Mr Whelan?

  • @Gerald: Your priorities are all wrong. This is not something the board should waste money and time on. Please first take care of Nautica’s repairs and maintenances before anything else.

    What CCS is doing is for a good cause and I fully support them.

    If I have issues with the board I’ll air them here just to put the board in the spotlight. You do want to know who I am don’t you Mr Whelan?

  • @Gerald: The recession may be over but people are still wary of spending big money. Its going to take a while for consumer confidence to grow. Thats why the 5 units for sale at Nautica are yet to be sold.

    Now you are blaming the units unsold status on the proposed project. Wonderful! You sir are guilty of making ‘ad hominem’ remarks

  • @Gerald: The recession may be over but people are still wary of spending big money. Its going to take a while for consumer confidence to grow. Thats why the 5 units for sale at Nautica are yet to be sold.

    Now you are blaming the units unsold status on the proposed project. Wonderful! You sir are guilty of making ‘ad hominem’ remarks

  • IdioticLiberalism

    The unsold units may or may not be the result of the as yet unbuilt planned low income housing. However, I guarantee you, that once built, the low income housing will absolutely impact future sales of residential real estate within several blocks of this socialist endeavour. And the impact will not be positive.

  • IdioticLiberalism

    The unsold units may or may not be the result of the as yet unbuilt planned low income housing. However, I guarantee you, that once built, the low income housing will absolutely impact future sales of residential real estate within several blocks of this socialist endeavour. And the impact will not be positive.

  • rodstewart

    @ Gerald: “And the money CCS is using to build this thing is OUR TAX money. If you want socialism move to CUBA.”

    First gerald what is the first name of this organization? That’s right. Catholic.
    Where do they get their money?
    Wrong. Not from you. The correct answer would be the Catholic Archdiocese and charitable non-profits such as the United Way.

    Really, do you just make these things up in order to fortify your foamy mouthed paranoid screed?

  • rodstewart

    @ Gerald: “And the money CCS is using to build this thing is OUR TAX money. If you want socialism move to CUBA.”

    First gerald what is the first name of this organization? That’s right. Catholic.
    Where do they get their money?
    Wrong. Not from you. The correct answer would be the Catholic Archdiocese and charitable non-profits such as the United Way.

    Really, do you just make these things up in order to fortify your foamy mouthed paranoid screed?

  • rodstewart

    @IdioticLiberalism:” real estate within several blocks of this socialist endeavour”

    Sure. Just like the public housing developments in Upper and Lower Queen Anne have made both areas soooooo undesireable.

    Q: Since when has the Catholic Church’s community outreach ever fallen under this vaguely defined umbrella of socialism that people of your irrational ilk throw around so… well… liberally?

    A: Just as much as the auto, health insurance I pay for are socialist in that part of what you pay goes to others for the time that they are in need and vice versa.

    You have no understanding of the subject of which you speak and your incoherent babble is proof positive that this is the case.

  • rodstewart

    @IdioticLiberalism:” real estate within several blocks of this socialist endeavour”

    Sure. Just like the public housing developments in Upper and Lower Queen Anne have made both areas soooooo undesireable.

    Q: Since when has the Catholic Church’s community outreach ever fallen under this vaguely defined umbrella of socialism that people of your irrational ilk throw around so… well… liberally?

    A: Just as much as the auto, health insurance I pay for are socialist in that part of what you pay goes to others for the time that they are in need and vice versa.

    You have no understanding of the subject of which you speak and your incoherent babble is proof positive that this is the case.

  • rodstewart

    I meant to quote “I guarantee you, that once built, the low income housing will absolutely impact future sales of residential real estate within several blocks of this socialist endeavour.”

  • rodstewart

    I meant to quote “I guarantee you, that once built, the low income housing will absolutely impact future sales of residential real estate within several blocks of this socialist endeavour.”

  • RJ

    I’d like more socialism. Then maybe we wouldn’t need religious groups building anything in my neighborhood.

  • RJ

    I’d like more socialism. Then maybe we wouldn’t need religious groups building anything in my neighborhood.

  • @rodstewart: No you are wrong. CCS gets MOST of its’ money from City, County, State and now Federal sources. All of which come from OUR TAX DOLLARS. This project will be probably be built using Federal Tax Credits.

    @Anonymous: You are the only owner at Nautica who has a problem with the Board. Oh,and keep that spotlight on – our record has been exemplary.

  • @rodstewart: No you are wrong. CCS gets MOST of its’ money from City, County, State and now Federal sources. All of which come from OUR TAX DOLLARS. This project will be probably be built using Federal Tax Credits.

    @Anonymous: You are the only owner at Nautica who has a problem with the Board. Oh,and keep that spotlight on – our record has been exemplary.

  • Mike

    @ anonymous I was being a little sarcastic with my fears of being raped by a jumping low income resident, I would wager that I make less money than anyone else on this message board. I live in qa because i don’t have a car and enjoy the fact everything is easy to get to either by walking or bus. I was just reminded that this was the same neighborhood who thought a convience store would ruin their childrens minds. Just remember, having money makes you a better person than those who don’t. Cause you can buy things. Anyway, bottom line is sarcasm is sometimes hard to communicate with writing.

  • Mike

    @ anonymous I was being a little sarcastic with my fears of being raped by a jumping low income resident, I would wager that I make less money than anyone else on this message board. I live in qa because i don’t have a car and enjoy the fact everything is easy to get to either by walking or bus. I was just reminded that this was the same neighborhood who thought a convience store would ruin their childrens minds. Just remember, having money makes you a better person than those who don’t. Cause you can buy things. Anyway, bottom line is sarcasm is sometimes hard to communicate with writing.

  • afriye13

    And the people with less money are going to have BETTER VIEWS! Oh, the horror!

  • afriye13

    And the people with less money are going to have BETTER VIEWS! Oh, the horror!

  • @Gerald: Why do you care where CCS gets its money? Your paycheck is still the same.
    There are plenty of home owners at Nautica who dont like the way the board runs its business. They dont bring it up because they dont have the patience to deal with your rough/rude attitude.

    @Mike: You are a materialist! Money doesn’t make you a better person nor does it bring happiness. A good attitude makes all the difference. I know some poor folk who are happier and nicer than rich folk I know

  • @Gerald: Why do you care where CCS gets its money? Your paycheck is still the same.
    There are plenty of home owners at Nautica who dont like the way the board runs its business. They dont bring it up because they dont have the patience to deal with your rough/rude attitude.

    @Mike: You are a materialist! Money doesn’t make you a better person nor does it bring happiness. A good attitude makes all the difference. I know some poor folk who are happier and nicer than rich folk I know

  • RJ

    @Anonymous: Your response to Mike either fails at sarcasm or reveals a shocking lack of reading comprehension.

  • RJ

    @Anonymous: Your response to Mike either fails at sarcasm or reveals a shocking lack of reading comprehension.

  • @RJ: Is that all?

  • @RJ: Is that all?

  • Natt

    RJ, maybe if you worked a little harder, you would have to live on a condo next to a low income housing development.

  • Natt

    RJ, maybe if you worked a little harder, you would have to live on a condo next to a low income housing development.

  • Natt

    Gerald, any HOA that spends community hours and dollars to try to infringe on the private property rights of others is doing a disservice to it’s members. Unless you have view easement rights, you have no claim!

  • Natt

    Gerald, any HOA that spends community hours and dollars to try to infringe on the private property rights of others is doing a disservice to it’s members. Unless you have view easement rights, you have no claim!

  • @Gerald: Listen to Natt. Stop wasting Nautica’s money setting up meetings at Swedish Cultural Center (and other places) to discuss this.

    Some things Nautica needs to focus on:
    1. Preventing Grafitti on Aurora side
    2. Posting meeting minutes for each month on the notice board (something which has not been done in the last 4 months)

    So much for the boards claim of having an exemplary record Gerald!

  • @Gerald: Listen to Natt. Stop wasting Nautica’s money setting up meetings at Swedish Cultural Center (and other places) to discuss this.

    Some things Nautica needs to focus on:
    1. Preventing Grafitti on Aurora side
    2. Posting meeting minutes for each month on the notice board (something which has not been done in the last 4 months)

    So much for the boards claim of having an exemplary record Gerald!

  • Mike

    I hear pretty soon they are going to allow minorities and women to move into this neighborhood! All other 20-50 year old white males join me to stop this before it’s to late!

  • Mike

    I hear pretty soon they are going to allow minorities and women to move into this neighborhood! All other 20-50 year old white males join me to stop this before it’s to late!

  • @Mike: There are women and minorities in Nautica too.

    Why only white males? The way you put it makes you sound racist.

  • @Mike: There are women and minorities in Nautica too.

    Why only white males? The way you put it makes you sound racist.

  • Mike

    Yeah here’s the deal. Low income people moving in and causing such a strong negative reaction among a community makes me imagine what comments must of occurred in the past with stereotypes considered racist and barbaric now. I don’t really mean or want what I said, it’s a terrible statement. But fear of low-income residents remind of a similar vein of thought used with past stereotypes.

    There has been concern about crime, specifically murder and rape (I jumped on that and repeated it but original comments not mine) and devaluing of property, but mostly I sense a vague fear of losing a nice old place to live and having it turn into a weird ghetto with crack heads and murderers running around. Obviously I’m sure I’m terribly wrong in getting that feeling from reading comments about this. My bad I’ll stop nosing in.

  • Mike

    Yeah here’s the deal. Low income people moving in and causing such a strong negative reaction among a community makes me imagine what comments must of occurred in the past with stereotypes considered racist and barbaric now. I don’t really mean or want what I said, it’s a terrible statement. But fear of low-income residents remind of a similar vein of thought used with past stereotypes.

    There has been concern about crime, specifically murder and rape (I jumped on that and repeated it but original comments not mine) and devaluing of property, but mostly I sense a vague fear of losing a nice old place to live and having it turn into a weird ghetto with crack heads and murderers running around. Obviously I’m sure I’m terribly wrong in getting that feeling from reading comments about this. My bad I’ll stop nosing in.

  • @Mike: First you make negative comments about women and minorities then you backtrack on those and then focus on rapes and murders. Whats up with the flip flopping dude?

    Murder and rape can happen anywhere. Thats life. Seattle is growing and those are the realities you have to face when living in a changing environment

  • @Mike: First you make negative comments about women and minorities then you backtrack on those and then focus on rapes and murders. Whats up with the flip flopping dude?

    Murder and rape can happen anywhere. Thats life. Seattle is growing and those are the realities you have to face when living in a changing environment

  • Cornstander

    @Anonymous

    Calm down, buddy! You remind me of Wesley Crusher on Star Trek: The Next Generation.

    “I’m in Star Fleet. We don’t lie.”

    That was a great show!

  • Cornstander

    @Anonymous

    Calm down, buddy! You remind me of Wesley Crusher on Star Trek: The Next Generation.

    “I’m in Star Fleet. We don’t lie.”

    That was a great show!

  • MJ

    I have to laugh at the Nautica folks who are so up in arms about *gasp* low income housing coming to their neighborhood. If you complain about the loss of your view, that’s completely understandable. However, you live on Aurora! You have low income residents all around you right now.

    I lived right down the street from you for 9 years. I liked my condo, enjoyed the view, and had a great HOA. And the building right next door was low income housing owned by the city. The people who lived in that building were no different from any other neighbors except their cars were a little older. I’ve since moved to Magnolia because I was tired of living on Aurora. The neighborhood went to hell when all those new condos were built.

  • MJ

    I have to laugh at the Nautica folks who are so up in arms about *gasp* low income housing coming to their neighborhood. If you complain about the loss of your view, that’s completely understandable. However, you live on Aurora! You have low income residents all around you right now.

    I lived right down the street from you for 9 years. I liked my condo, enjoyed the view, and had a great HOA. And the building right next door was low income housing owned by the city. The people who lived in that building were no different from any other neighbors except their cars were a little older. I’ve since moved to Magnolia because I was tired of living on Aurora. The neighborhood went to hell when all those new condos were built.

  • @MJ: Our board president is a man with a lot of time on his hands. He likes making mountains out of molehills. He’s the chief instigator of this squabble and is trying to see how much support he can shore up. He is also doing it to satisfy his ego and show the building he is doing something for which we get nothing

  • @MJ: Our board president is a man with a lot of time on his hands. He likes making mountains out of molehills. He’s the chief instigator of this squabble and is trying to see how much support he can shore up. He is also doing it to satisfy his ego and show the building he is doing something for which we get nothing

  • Martin Choy

    Obviously MJ has not lived at the Nautica for any length of time. Because of Gerald Whelan’s leadership, he was able to renegociate all our contracts with vendors, make all the units water efficient, not increase dues for the past few years and has saved the condo homeowners tens of thousands of dollars on wasting resources as well as develop a large reserve for the condo for the future capital expenses. Please check your facts before you make an opinion.

  • Martin Choy

    Obviously MJ has not lived at the Nautica for any length of time. Because of Gerald Whelan’s leadership, he was able to renegociate all our contracts with vendors, make all the units water efficient, not increase dues for the past few years and has saved the condo homeowners tens of thousands of dollars on wasting resources as well as develop a large reserve for the condo for the future capital expenses. Please check your facts before you make an opinion.

  • MJ

    Excuse me? I never said I lived at the the Nautica. I said I lived on the same street as the Nautica, Aurora. I also said that life on Aurora means dealing with low income housing in your neighborhood.

    If you’re upset about possibly losing your view, that’s a valid concern. However, if you’re a NIMBY about low income housing, you might want to get your facts straight.

    I do know that the Windwatch was able to get the land in front of them declared unbuildable. I can’t remember the reason (wetlands, perhaps?) but you might want to look into what they did.

  • MJ

    Excuse me? I never said I lived at the the Nautica. I said I lived on the same street as the Nautica, Aurora. I also said that life on Aurora means dealing with low income housing in your neighborhood.

    If you’re upset about possibly losing your view, that’s a valid concern. However, if you’re a NIMBY about low income housing, you might want to get your facts straight.

    I do know that the Windwatch was able to get the land in front of them declared unbuildable. I can’t remember the reason (wetlands, perhaps?) but you might want to look into what they did.

  • Rahul

    @Anonymous : you are entitled to your opinions but hiding behind a mask devalues the point of any dialog. And slinging mud and getting personal certainly devalues it further. There is a process to address any problems you have with the board. If you refuse to participate in it, I’m afraid your voice won’t be heard.

    The HOA board took a majority vote in deciding how to respond to this proposal. The boards responsibility is to protect the best interest of all homeowners, and having CCS build a low-income building three feet from our building is not in our best interest. While it is easy to dismiss any opposition to a project like this as pure NIMBYism, it is foolish to deny that there are legitimate concerns here.

    For one, the proposed building is unbelievably close to our structure. No commercial developer could propose a plan like that, because nobody would buy any units in a new building that is so close to another one. The only reason that CCS can get away with this is that they have no commercial imperative at all. And CCS/CHS does in fact derive a fairly significant chuck of their operating budgetfrom tax-payer funded programs.

    This is also not an argument about how CHS runs it’s properties, and how many low-income units there are on Aurora or whatever. There are a few comments about “facts of city life”, zoning laws and so on. These are all truisms, but do not change the way we and our neighbors feel about how this property will impact us. The fact is, this new proposal represents an intrusive plan that will dramatically impact our property values and quality of life. As such we have no choice but to protest against the proposal.

  • Rahul

    @Anonymous : you are entitled to your opinions but hiding behind a mask devalues the point of any dialog. And slinging mud and getting personal certainly devalues it further. There is a process to address any problems you have with the board. If you refuse to participate in it, I’m afraid your voice won’t be heard.

    The HOA board took a majority vote in deciding how to respond to this proposal. The boards responsibility is to protect the best interest of all homeowners, and having CCS build a low-income building three feet from our building is not in our best interest. While it is easy to dismiss any opposition to a project like this as pure NIMBYism, it is foolish to deny that there are legitimate concerns here.

    For one, the proposed building is unbelievably close to our structure. No commercial developer could propose a plan like that, because nobody would buy any units in a new building that is so close to another one. The only reason that CCS can get away with this is that they have no commercial imperative at all. And CCS/CHS does in fact derive a fairly significant chuck of their operating budgetfrom tax-payer funded programs.

    This is also not an argument about how CHS runs it’s properties, and how many low-income units there are on Aurora or whatever. There are a few comments about “facts of city life”, zoning laws and so on. These are all truisms, but do not change the way we and our neighbors feel about how this property will impact us. The fact is, this new proposal represents an intrusive plan that will dramatically impact our property values and quality of life. As such we have no choice but to protest against the proposal.

  • Queen Anne, The slum.

    I original chose to live in this neighborhood because it was safe. I avoided capital hill because of the half way houses and low income housing. I moved here so my wife could walk around by herself and feel safe. If this is built here I will have to worry about her getting raped or robbed every time she comes home from work after dark. The catholic church doesn’t care. Look at there records on sex crimes.

  • Queen Anne, The slum.

    I original chose to live in this neighborhood because it was safe. I avoided capital hill because of the half way houses and low income housing. I moved here so my wife could walk around by herself and feel safe. If this is built here I will have to worry about her getting raped or robbed every time she comes home from work after dark. The catholic church doesn’t care. Look at there records on sex crimes.

  • crack head

    i cant wait till Piece of Mind opens. then i can buy a crack pipe. i will burglarize some ones place to get some crap to trade for crack. then get myself a room at the CCS joint. maybe get a couple of cats and a hooker. there’s enough restaurants around here to feed me for days! people leave all kinds a crap in there Volvo’s to steal. thanks CCS your the best!

  • crack head

    i cant wait till Piece of Mind opens. then i can buy a crack pipe. i will burglarize some ones place to get some crap to trade for crack. then get myself a room at the CCS joint. maybe get a couple of cats and a hooker. there’s enough restaurants around here to feed me for days! people leave all kinds a crap in there Volvo’s to steal. thanks CCS your the best!

  • @Rahul: Besides lodging a protest there is nothing much you or the board can do.

    Have you talked to CCS and asked them to address your concerns? If not, why not?

    You said:
    “If you refuse to participate in it, I’m afraid your voice won’t be heard.”
    — Are you threatening me?

    You said:
    “No commercial developer could propose a plan like that, because nobody would buy any units in a new building that is so close to another one.”
    –How do you know that?

    You said:
    “And CCS/CHS does in fact derive a fairly significant chuck of their operating budget from tax-payer funded programs.”
    –Well then, go complain to the government. Do let us know what they say 🙂

    Property values may be affected but I dont buy the quality of life comment.

    You accuse me of mudslinging eh! Did I sling mud at you?

    My guess is that you will not be able to stop CCS. But hey, if you want to spend your time complaining and whining to the city and courts, thats your call. I’ll start watching when it gets interesting 🙂

    Just like Gerald you too want to know who I am dont you? 🙂

  • @Rahul: Besides lodging a protest there is nothing much you or the board can do.

    Have you talked to CCS and asked them to address your concerns? If not, why not?

    You said:
    “If you refuse to participate in it, I’m afraid your voice won’t be heard.”
    — Are you threatening me?

    You said:
    “No commercial developer could propose a plan like that, because nobody would buy any units in a new building that is so close to another one.”
    –How do you know that?

    You said:
    “And CCS/CHS does in fact derive a fairly significant chuck of their operating budget from tax-payer funded programs.”
    –Well then, go complain to the government. Do let us know what they say 🙂

    Property values may be affected but I dont buy the quality of life comment.

    You accuse me of mudslinging eh! Did I sling mud at you?

    My guess is that you will not be able to stop CCS. But hey, if you want to spend your time complaining and whining to the city and courts, thats your call. I’ll start watching when it gets interesting 🙂

    Just like Gerald you too want to know who I am dont you? 🙂

  • Rahul

    @Anonymous :

    Re: threatening you, not sure how you can possible construe what I said as a threat. Just stating facts.

    Re: mudslinging. No, you didn’t call me names personally. I was making a comment about the lack of effectiveness of anonymous discourse that gets personal.

    Re: the commercial developer. If I remember the Freehold plan correctly, their proposed building had more than 20 feet of extra seperation vs. what CCS proposes.

    Re: talking to CCS. Of course we’re talking to them. There is a pretty fundamental conflict of interest between them and us on this issue, quite naturally.

    Re: quality of life. That is by definition subjective. I’ve spoken to plenty of neighbors who agree with me on this. I’m not sure if you attended any of the community meetings (which incidentally were organized and paid for by CCS – you seemed to imply earlier that the board paid for the room at Swedish a couple of weeks back), you could have sensed the feeling of our neighbors.

    Re: knowing who you are. Not really. Clearly you don’t wish to have an actual dialog. That’s your choice.

  • Rahul

    @Anonymous :

    Re: threatening you, not sure how you can possible construe what I said as a threat. Just stating facts.

    Re: mudslinging. No, you didn’t call me names personally. I was making a comment about the lack of effectiveness of anonymous discourse that gets personal.

    Re: the commercial developer. If I remember the Freehold plan correctly, their proposed building had more than 20 feet of extra seperation vs. what CCS proposes.

    Re: talking to CCS. Of course we’re talking to them. There is a pretty fundamental conflict of interest between them and us on this issue, quite naturally.

    Re: quality of life. That is by definition subjective. I’ve spoken to plenty of neighbors who agree with me on this. I’m not sure if you attended any of the community meetings (which incidentally were organized and paid for by CCS – you seemed to imply earlier that the board paid for the room at Swedish a couple of weeks back), you could have sensed the feeling of our neighbors.

    Re: knowing who you are. Not really. Clearly you don’t wish to have an actual dialog. That’s your choice.

  • rodstewart

    @ crackhead

    Wow! Aren’t you the mature one.
    You are an adult, right?

  • rodstewart

    @ crackhead

    Wow! Aren’t you the mature one.
    You are an adult, right?

  • @Rahul:

    “Re: threatening you, not sure how you can possible construe what I said as a threat. Just stating facts.”
    — Its an opinion not a fact

    “Re: mudslinging. No, you didn’t call me names personally. I was making a comment about the lack of effectiveness of anonymous discourse that gets personal.”
    — How does it lack effectiveness? Will the person who was attacked personally please stand up?

    “Re: the commercial developer. If I remember the Freehold plan correctly, their proposed building had more than 20 feet of extra seperation vs. what CCS proposes.”
    — Is CCS violating any building codes/city laws?

    “Re: talking to CCS. Of course we’re talking to them. There is a pretty fundamental conflict of interest between them and us on this issue, quite naturally.”
    — I’m happy to hear you are talking to them. When can we expect to have a resolution of the issue?

    “Re: quality of life. That is by definition subjective. I’ve spoken to plenty of neighbors who agree with me on this. I’m not sure if you attended any of the community meetings (which incidentally were organized and paid for by CCS – you seemed to imply earlier that the board paid for the room at Swedish a couple of weeks back), you could have sensed the feeling of our neighbors.”
    — thats a moot point

    “Re: knowing who you are. Not really. Clearly you don’t wish to have an actual dialog. That’s your choice.”
    — I’d rather this dialog be open while protecting my identity online. Clearly you are not very happy about that

  • @Rahul:

    “Re: threatening you, not sure how you can possible construe what I said as a threat. Just stating facts.”
    — Its an opinion not a fact

    “Re: mudslinging. No, you didn’t call me names personally. I was making a comment about the lack of effectiveness of anonymous discourse that gets personal.”
    — How does it lack effectiveness? Will the person who was attacked personally please stand up?

    “Re: the commercial developer. If I remember the Freehold plan correctly, their proposed building had more than 20 feet of extra seperation vs. what CCS proposes.”
    — Is CCS violating any building codes/city laws?

    “Re: talking to CCS. Of course we’re talking to them. There is a pretty fundamental conflict of interest between them and us on this issue, quite naturally.”
    — I’m happy to hear you are talking to them. When can we expect to have a resolution of the issue?

    “Re: quality of life. That is by definition subjective. I’ve spoken to plenty of neighbors who agree with me on this. I’m not sure if you attended any of the community meetings (which incidentally were organized and paid for by CCS – you seemed to imply earlier that the board paid for the room at Swedish a couple of weeks back), you could have sensed the feeling of our neighbors.”
    — thats a moot point

    “Re: knowing who you are. Not really. Clearly you don’t wish to have an actual dialog. That’s your choice.”
    — I’d rather this dialog be open while protecting my identity online. Clearly you are not very happy about that

  • Adam

    @Anonymous: I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish. If you do in fact live at Nautica, why would you be in favor of something that the overwhelming majority is against. And yes it is overwhelming since I’ve been to the meeting and have talked to other homeowners.

    Re: Its an opinion not a fact.
    – Yes, an opinion not based on any facts in this thread.

    Re: thats a moot point.
    – No, it is not.

    Re: How does it lack effectiveness? Will the person who was attacked personally please stand up?
    – Why would you want to personally attack anyone? Why are you so filled with hate? This behavior lacks effectiveness because it seems like you have a very personal agenda against your board. Did they wrong you in some way?

    Re: I’d rather this dialog be open while protecting my identity online. Clearly you are not very happy about that
    – Protect it from whom? What are you afraid of? Do you actually believe someone would harm you? I think that is a little paranoid.

  • Adam

    @Anonymous: I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish. If you do in fact live at Nautica, why would you be in favor of something that the overwhelming majority is against. And yes it is overwhelming since I’ve been to the meeting and have talked to other homeowners.

    Re: Its an opinion not a fact.
    – Yes, an opinion not based on any facts in this thread.

    Re: thats a moot point.
    – No, it is not.

    Re: How does it lack effectiveness? Will the person who was attacked personally please stand up?
    – Why would you want to personally attack anyone? Why are you so filled with hate? This behavior lacks effectiveness because it seems like you have a very personal agenda against your board. Did they wrong you in some way?

    Re: I’d rather this dialog be open while protecting my identity online. Clearly you are not very happy about that
    – Protect it from whom? What are you afraid of? Do you actually believe someone would harm you? I think that is a little paranoid.

  • @Adam: Since when did you become the spokesperson for Rahul? Will you please let him respond?

  • @Adam: Since when did you become the spokesperson for Rahul? Will you please let him respond?

  • Adam

    @anonymous: I am not. I am asking for myself. Please answer.

  • Adam

    @anonymous: I am not. I am asking for myself. Please answer.

  • Adam

    @anonymous: I was serious when I ask you if you were wronged in some way by the board. If so, this should be brought to the attention of the Association. I believe there is a legal means to remove any board member if the association chooses to.

  • Adam

    @anonymous: I was serious when I ask you if you were wronged in some way by the board. If so, this should be brought to the attention of the Association. I believe there is a legal means to remove any board member if the association chooses to.

  • Rahul

    @Adam : hey dude 🙂

    @Anonymous :

    Re: the voice not being heard thing, what I’m trying to say is that if you don’t participate in the governance process of the building, and instead voice complaints anonymously in an online forum, honestly do you think that you’re going to be effective?

    It’s clear you support the CCS development. That’s fine. The position of the HOA board at Nautica is also clear. It coincides with the majority of homeowners who have interacted with the board. Your opinion as a homeowner is more than welcome but in my very humble opinion your complaining on this forum is not particularly effective.

    I’m going to stop responding at this point since we seem to be going in circles. Please engage anyone on the board if you’d like to have a further discussion.

  • Rahul

    @Adam : hey dude 🙂

    @Anonymous :

    Re: the voice not being heard thing, what I’m trying to say is that if you don’t participate in the governance process of the building, and instead voice complaints anonymously in an online forum, honestly do you think that you’re going to be effective?

    It’s clear you support the CCS development. That’s fine. The position of the HOA board at Nautica is also clear. It coincides with the majority of homeowners who have interacted with the board. Your opinion as a homeowner is more than welcome but in my very humble opinion your complaining on this forum is not particularly effective.

    I’m going to stop responding at this point since we seem to be going in circles. Please engage anyone on the board if you’d like to have a further discussion.

  • @Rahul: Let us know when CCS gets the go ahead 😀

    @Adam: There is no point going to the board when the board is the problem. I am happy with the attention this has gotten. That they responded so vociferously (Rahul and Gerald) proves my point.

    For a number of months now they havent posted the meeting minutes on the notice board. Also when they started the whole discussion on the CCS project they resorted to unnecessary scare tactics. Agreed, home prices may fall but there is more to it than what they are telling us. Their whole approach is very suspicious

  • @Rahul: Let us know when CCS gets the go ahead 😀

    @Adam: There is no point going to the board when the board is the problem. I am happy with the attention this has gotten. That they responded so vociferously (Rahul and Gerald) proves my point.

    For a number of months now they havent posted the meeting minutes on the notice board. Also when they started the whole discussion on the CCS project they resorted to unnecessary scare tactics. Agreed, home prices may fall but there is more to it than what they are telling us. Their whole approach is very suspicious

  • Adam

    Re: There is no point going to the board when the board is the problem.
    – I suggested you go to the other homeowners in the Association NOT the board. Surely there must be someone in the building you can talk to.

    Re: I am happy with the attention this has gotten. That they responded so vociferously (Rahul and Gerald) proves my point.
    -What point? Do you understand that the homeowners, with ONLY one exception being you, don’t want the project built? Isn’t the board acting in the best interest of the HOA? BTW, I hardly think Rahul’s responded vociferously. Actually, I thought his reply was both calm and eloquent.

    Re: Agreed, home prices may fall but there is more to it than what they are telling us. Their whole approach is very suspicious
    -Please explain. What have they done wrong? I sincerely want to know.

  • Adam

    Re: There is no point going to the board when the board is the problem.
    – I suggested you go to the other homeowners in the Association NOT the board. Surely there must be someone in the building you can talk to.

    Re: I am happy with the attention this has gotten. That they responded so vociferously (Rahul and Gerald) proves my point.
    -What point? Do you understand that the homeowners, with ONLY one exception being you, don’t want the project built? Isn’t the board acting in the best interest of the HOA? BTW, I hardly think Rahul’s responded vociferously. Actually, I thought his reply was both calm and eloquent.

    Re: Agreed, home prices may fall but there is more to it than what they are telling us. Their whole approach is very suspicious
    -Please explain. What have they done wrong? I sincerely want to know.

  • Adam

    @anonymous

    The minutes can be found here. Hope this helps.

    nauticahoa.org/Documents/MeetingMinutes/tabid/2167/Default.aspx

  • Adam

    @anonymous

    The minutes can be found here. Hope this helps.

    nauticahoa.org/Documents/MeetingMinutes/tabid/2167/Default.aspx

  • @Adam:

    I am aware of it, thanks.

    I was referring to a physical copy of the minutes that is supposed to be put up in the Notice Board on the 2nd floor. The most recent one up there is from May 2010

    What they did wrong was to use sensationalize the issue (scare tactics, dramatization). I’m going to post the e-mail the board sent to prove my point

  • @Adam:

    I am aware of it, thanks.

    I was referring to a physical copy of the minutes that is supposed to be put up in the Notice Board on the 2nd floor. The most recent one up there is from May 2010

    What they did wrong was to use sensationalize the issue (scare tactics, dramatization). I’m going to post the e-mail the board sent to prove my point

  • Here’s the letter the Nautica Board sent out exactly 1 month ago. The letter clearly makes use of scare tactics and dramatization.

    ————————————————————-

    Subject: REMINDER by GeraldW
    Nautica Homeowners Association

    Subject : Urgent notice about proposed low-income housing development immediately in front of our property

    Your property value is at great risk. Catholic Community Services is proposing to build a residential structure on the east side of Nautica. The structure would have 80 units of “affordable housing” on five floors over one floor of office space. The structure proposed is 65 feet in elevation and would abut about two-thirds of the east side of the Nautica and about one-half of the south side of the Galer wing. The facility is intended for low-income people who have experienced homelessness and those with alcohol and illegal drug dependency. The facility would provide case management services from the first floor offices.

    For those of you who remember the Freehold proposal of five (?) years ago, this building would occupy the same footprint as the Freehold building plus approximately one-half of the current Metro site which abuts Dexter Ave N. Facing west on Dexter Ave N, the resulting building would be an upside down “L” with one leg parallel to the Galer wing and the second leg parallel to the Aurora wing, abutting the bulkhead.

    Here’s what this means for Nautica Homeowners:

    1. DRAMATICALLY lower property prices due to MAJOR loss of view

    2. The nature of the new property will affect our property values further – we should expect lower quality and aesthetics from the construction since market rates will not be charged to the residents.

    3. Additional traffic and parking challenges on Dexter.

    4. This development will FOREVER change the character of our neighborhood, discourage future development, and be a significant quality of life change for all of us.

    A community meeting about the proposed building will be held on Tuesday, Sept 7th, at 6:30 pm. It will be held at the Aloha Inn, 1911 Aurora Ave N. It is extremely important that Nautica residents show up in force. This proposed building would have disastrous consequences for our property.

    ———————————————————————–
    * The content of the message above is from the member that posted it and has not been reviewed nor endorsed by your community association.

    You were sent this email because you are a member of the Nautica COA web site and you subscribed to a message or entire forum. If you don’t want to receive these emails, please log on to our community web site, go to Communication…Announcements (in the menu bar), Click My Profile (upper right side of screen), Click the Subscriptions tab and delete any subscriptions you no longer want. If you need help, please contact our volunteer website editor by using the contact form on the website help menu. Thank you,
    Nautica COA
    ———————————————————————–

  • Here’s the letter the Nautica Board sent out exactly 1 month ago. The letter clearly makes use of scare tactics and dramatization.

    ————————————————————-

    Subject: REMINDER by GeraldW
    Nautica Homeowners Association

    Subject : Urgent notice about proposed low-income housing development immediately in front of our property

    Your property value is at great risk. Catholic Community Services is proposing to build a residential structure on the east side of Nautica. The structure would have 80 units of “affordable housing” on five floors over one floor of office space. The structure proposed is 65 feet in elevation and would abut about two-thirds of the east side of the Nautica and about one-half of the south side of the Galer wing. The facility is intended for low-income people who have experienced homelessness and those with alcohol and illegal drug dependency. The facility would provide case management services from the first floor offices.

    For those of you who remember the Freehold proposal of five (?) years ago, this building would occupy the same footprint as the Freehold building plus approximately one-half of the current Metro site which abuts Dexter Ave N. Facing west on Dexter Ave N, the resulting building would be an upside down “L” with one leg parallel to the Galer wing and the second leg parallel to the Aurora wing, abutting the bulkhead.

    Here’s what this means for Nautica Homeowners:

    1. DRAMATICALLY lower property prices due to MAJOR loss of view

    2. The nature of the new property will affect our property values further – we should expect lower quality and aesthetics from the construction since market rates will not be charged to the residents.

    3. Additional traffic and parking challenges on Dexter.

    4. This development will FOREVER change the character of our neighborhood, discourage future development, and be a significant quality of life change for all of us.

    A community meeting about the proposed building will be held on Tuesday, Sept 7th, at 6:30 pm. It will be held at the Aloha Inn, 1911 Aurora Ave N. It is extremely important that Nautica residents show up in force. This proposed building would have disastrous consequences for our property.

    ———————————————————————–
    * The content of the message above is from the member that posted it and has not been reviewed nor endorsed by your community association.

    You were sent this email because you are a member of the Nautica COA web site and you subscribed to a message or entire forum. If you don’t want to receive these emails, please log on to our community web site, go to Communication…Announcements (in the menu bar), Click My Profile (upper right side of screen), Click the Subscriptions tab and delete any subscriptions you no longer want. If you need help, please contact our volunteer website editor by using the contact form on the website help menu. Thank you,
    Nautica COA
    ———————————————————————–

  • Interested Party

    @Anonymous: Seems like everything in the letter is true. I don’t know if you attended the meeting, but they admitted that there would be felons, parolees, homeless, illegal aliens and those with drug convictions residing in the low income housing structure. And the letter doesn’t even mention the worst part of all: 3 feet from our building. Oh God, that seems like a good reason to be afraid. Very afraid.

  • Interested Party

    @Anonymous: Seems like everything in the letter is true. I don’t know if you attended the meeting, but they admitted that there would be felons, parolees, homeless, illegal aliens and those with drug convictions residing in the low income housing structure. And the letter doesn’t even mention the worst part of all: 3 feet from our building. Oh God, that seems like a good reason to be afraid. Very afraid.

  • Natt

    Wow, the NIMBYism being displayed by all of the Nautica residents (with the exception of one) is disgusting! The CCS is not asking for any zoning changes to their parcel of land. They are not asking for any variances to the Seattle land use code to construct their building. Property owners do not have the right to dictate to their neighbors what that can and cannot do on their own property. Nautica residents do not seem to understand this basic fact. The arrogance and classism being displayed by these “residents” is ridiculous. Just as you look down on the potential development down the hill from you, blocking your views, and bring down your property values. High density condo complexes like the Nautica brings down property values for those of us with homes on top of the hill. Work harder and maybe you can afford to live in a single family neighborhood with protected views and gates to keep the criminals out. (note the sarcasm)

  • Natt

    Wow, the NIMBYism being displayed by all of the Nautica residents (with the exception of one) is disgusting! The CCS is not asking for any zoning changes to their parcel of land. They are not asking for any variances to the Seattle land use code to construct their building. Property owners do not have the right to dictate to their neighbors what that can and cannot do on their own property. Nautica residents do not seem to understand this basic fact. The arrogance and classism being displayed by these “residents” is ridiculous. Just as you look down on the potential development down the hill from you, blocking your views, and bring down your property values. High density condo complexes like the Nautica brings down property values for those of us with homes on top of the hill. Work harder and maybe you can afford to live in a single family neighborhood with protected views and gates to keep the criminals out. (note the sarcasm)

  • Adam

    @Natt: I believe the homeowners here are good people and honestly believe the facility would be better suited in an area closer to employment centers, and other social services. The people here are kind and generous, they just don’t want to see their home values plummet. When the USPS had their food drive, our building raised more than any on Dexter.

    @Anonymous: I got that same email and think there is a huge difference between motivating your neighbors to attend a community meeting and scare tactics. The meeting was a lot scarier than the email, I’m sorry, I just don’t see it.

    Re: I was referring to a physical copy of the minutes that is supposed to be put up in the Notice Board on the 2nd floor.
    – I don’t know if that is a requirement. Seems like that is a practice left over from before we had the website. And it saves trees. I must admit, I almost never read them anyway.

  • Adam

    @Natt: I believe the homeowners here are good people and honestly believe the facility would be better suited in an area closer to employment centers, and other social services. The people here are kind and generous, they just don’t want to see their home values plummet. When the USPS had their food drive, our building raised more than any on Dexter.

    @Anonymous: I got that same email and think there is a huge difference between motivating your neighbors to attend a community meeting and scare tactics. The meeting was a lot scarier than the email, I’m sorry, I just don’t see it.

    Re: I was referring to a physical copy of the minutes that is supposed to be put up in the Notice Board on the 2nd floor.
    – I don’t know if that is a requirement. Seems like that is a practice left over from before we had the website. And it saves trees. I must admit, I almost never read them anyway.

  • @Adam:

    About posting meeting minutes. Not all folk are internet savvy like you or me. If the board was considerate they would have done it when it was due.

    The meeting was scarier? And you dont smell a rat? Oh well when the board turns out to be wrong you’ll understand.

    Hey, Queen Anne is quite close to many places of employment. Its a great location. I’m sure the folks who CCS will bring along would like to avail of the good public schools and other amenities that this neighborhood has. Its a shot at a better life for them and their families.

    I understand the concern about home prices getting affected by this development. There is no proof that it will happen. At the most you can draw parallels. Envisioning a worst case scenario and then declaring all out war before a possible outbreak is premature. Such attempts deserve to be scorned. (Hint: No WMDs were ever found in Iraq)

  • @Adam:

    About posting meeting minutes. Not all folk are internet savvy like you or me. If the board was considerate they would have done it when it was due.

    The meeting was scarier? And you dont smell a rat? Oh well when the board turns out to be wrong you’ll understand.

    Hey, Queen Anne is quite close to many places of employment. Its a great location. I’m sure the folks who CCS will bring along would like to avail of the good public schools and other amenities that this neighborhood has. Its a shot at a better life for them and their families.

    I understand the concern about home prices getting affected by this development. There is no proof that it will happen. At the most you can draw parallels. Envisioning a worst case scenario and then declaring all out war before a possible outbreak is premature. Such attempts deserve to be scorned. (Hint: No WMDs were ever found in Iraq)

  • Adam

    @Anonymous:

    All of the points you have raised are addressed in the latest version of the minutes posted on the website.

  • Adam

    @Anonymous:

    All of the points you have raised are addressed in the latest version of the minutes posted on the website.


copyright 2007 - 2010  Next Door Media website by: KILMERHANSEN Design