An alternative to Megahouses

Short plats reconsidered

Readers may recall the dustup we covered earlier this year over the permit requests of two Madison Park property owners who each wanted to short plat (subdivide) their properties. The two applications were coincidentally for different properties located on the very same block. Both of the lots already had two existing longtime rental units on them, and this fact effectively grandfathered the real estate as suitable for short platting under City ordinance, assuming certain conditions were met. The City ultimately approved both applications, in spite of the written objections of many neighbors and the opposition of the Madison Park Community Council (whose letter of protest arrived at City Hall a bit after the fact, as it happened).

As a result of the City’s approval, each of the properties can legally be developed and sold as two separate single-family residences. The owner of one of the properties moved swiftly to do just that. What was originally one lot at 2330 42nd Avenue E. is now two legal lots, 2328 and 2330. This is what the property looked like before the short plat was approved:

The two small cottages that sat on the lot were each in pretty bad condition, according to realtor Theresa Truex of Madison House, Ltd. “They were crummy little see-through cabins, not even remodel-able,” she says. “In fact, the inspector’s comment was ‘You’ve got to tear these down.’” The owner, who originally bought the real estate for its development potential, had initially been planning to build one big house on the site and leave it at that, says Truex. However, the subsequent downturn in the local real estate market significantly changed the economics for speculative Megahouses in Madison Park. The developer rethought his options, and subdividing became an attractive alternative. Developing two smaller, less expensive houses suddenly seemed to offer more market potential—and less risk.

The picture at the top shows what the site looks like today from the street side, and this photo shows how the second house is being positioned:

The new house on the street-side of the property was sold before it was completed, and the owners moved into it in late December. The buyers are a couple that did not want a big property to take care of but wanted to be able to live close to the amenities of Madison Park’s Village, says Truex. The house has about 1,100 square feet of living space and sold for $539,000. The second house, currently under construction on the back of the property, will be completed in early this year. It’s a bit bigger, at around 1,300 square feet; and it will be priced at $769,000. According to Truex, the developer was correct in thinking that some buyers who want new construction prefer “cozy” to Megahouse. It’s unusual to find a small new house anywhere in Madison Park, she notes, and the very quick sale of the first house on this property seems to prove there is an audience for this kind of construction.

.
“This development, in my opinion, creates a bright spot in the neighborhood,” says Truex. “Where there had been two run-down houses there are now going to be two attractive, nicely built homes rather than one gigantic house.” She says that neighbors have been very supportive of the project, with many of them coming by to give positive feedback to the construction workers. We checked with two of the opponents of the original short-plat permits on that block, and each said they liked what’s being done with this particular property. The small homes have been “designed and executed in a thoughtful manner,“ one of them told us. The other one-time opponent admitted that the new development fits the character of the neighborhood better than the dilapidated structures that originally sat on the property.

So it appears that this two-cottage development, assuming that the second home is successfully marketed and sold, will ultimately be chalked up as a win/win/win: for the developer, the homebuyers, and the neighborhood. Even so, don’t expect the building of cottages to become a trend in Madison Park. There are not that many properties here that can be legally subdivided, so that old economic rule known as “build to the highest and best use” will continue to influence developers. What that almost certainly means for Madison Park is more Megahouses once speculative building makes its comeback.

Read More

School District reneges on agreement

McGilvra shines, but will it always?

When the Seattle School District issued its new school rankings late last year, John J. McGilvra Elementary scored at the top, receiving a “5” on a five-level scale. It was a bit of a “no duh” moment. As we previously reported, McGilvra’s students last year significantly outperformed both their City and State counterparts on the newly introduced Measurements of Student Progress (MSP) tests. Because the District’s new school rankings are primarily based on whether a school has a high percentage of students passing the MSP reading and math tests, McGilvra’s showing was essentially pre-ordained. Shockingly, however, McGilvra was one of only 11 elementary schools and one K-8 school in the district to be ranked at Level 5. There are 52 elementary schools and 10 K-8 (kindergarten through 8th grade) schools in Seattle, 13 of which received a “1” ranking.

Why are McGilvra’s students performing so well? One of the reasons, certainly, is the fact that the parents of McGilvra students have taken an increasingly active role in the School’s operations over the past decade, including providing a significant level of private financing to the School. That funding effort began in earnest with the decision by parents in 2000 to fund the purchase of two portables so that McGilvra could have more classroom space and thus reduce class size. At the time the portables were purchased, the School District entered into a twenty-year contract with the McGilvra PTA under which the District agreed to use the new teaching space to reduce class size. The PTA committed to fund the hiring of additional teachers for the School as well as covering the purchase price of the portables.

As a result of the agreement, the McGilvra PTA for the past ten years has been providing a substantial subsidy to the School, one which currently exceeds a quarter of a million dollars annually. This outside funding, according to the PTA, represents about a fifth of the School’s total budget and is sufficient to pay for approximately three classroom teachers. As a result of this support, the School in recent years has been able to staff two classrooms per grade (Kindergarten through Grade 5) with an average of only 21 students in each classroom.

From the point of view of McGilvra’s parents, the contract with the District has worked as intended over its first decade. Now, however, that agreement has been thrown into dispute. The PTA believes that the School District is in violation of the agreement, and the parents have hired legal counsel to help them make their case. At issue is the District’s decision to allow a significant increase in enrollment at McGilvra this school year. The PTA believes that the 10% increase in the student population at McGilvra conflicts with a District commitment to maintain enrollment at no more than 250 students. There were 246 students at the School last year, and there were 270 students enrolled at the beginning of this school year (266 students as of January 1). The biggest increase occurred in the kindergarten class, which went from 39 students in the 2009-2010 school year to 54 students today. The fourth grade class increased from 39 students to 48 students; and all of the other classes also increased in size, except for the third grade, which declined.

The District apparently does not agree that it is obligated by the 2000 contract to maintain enrollment at the 250 student level or below, as the PTA argues. Nor, apparently, does it accept the PTA’s additional contention that by terms of the contract, kindergarten enrollment was not to exceed 20 students per classroom. This year’s kindergarten enrollment is 35% higher than that maximum level.

The PTA stated its position in a letter from its legal counsel to the District in September, following which representatives of the District and PTA met to discuss the situation. At first it appeared that the School District was willing to debate the issue and come to some workable compromise with the PTA (a so-called memorandum of understanding or MOU). However, a December 8 memo from the PTA Board to McGilvra parents makes it clear that the negotiations have broken down. The memo states that “the District’s attorney advised us that he had reviewed our draft MOU with the ‘very top’ officials in the District and the District was no longer willing to enter into any type of meaningful MOU or clarification of our Agreement.”

The memo further states that the District’s attorney told the PTA negotiators that “the District would prefer to terminate the Agreement with the McGilvra PTA altogether.” Since under the terms of the agreement the School District is obligated to repay the PTA for the costs of the portables if it cancels the contract, this would be an expense for the District (estimated at $54,000-$60,000). That’s not much money, however, relative to what the PTA is providing the District on an annual basis. And, as the PTA board notes in its memo, “Obviously, we do not want a $60,000 buy-out. We want to continue our Agreement.”

That, however, appears not to be an option. Given the District’s response, the PTA believes it has limited choices: 1) sue the District, 2) give up and walk away, or 3) “develop a new way forward to make sure McGilvra continues to be a nurturing and wonderful school for our children.” The memo from the PTA board to the parents makes clear that the third choice is the one the PTA is embarking upon. What this means may become evident over the remaining course of the school year, as the PTA works with McGilvra’s Principal, Mary Lane, to determine what McGilvra would look like if there “was not a dime from the PTA.” The purpose of that exercise, says the PTA Board, is to “make sure the PTA is not funding something the District would otherwise be required to fund.” Once that is known, the PTA says it will develop a plan for funding needed programs at McGilvra in future years.

The McGilvra PTA/School District contract was negotiated ten years ago under a previous Seattle Schools administration. Although current School Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson told McGilvra parents at a meeting last January that the agreement with the McGilvra PTA would “for now” remain unchanged, her commitment apparently did not extend into the new school year. In certain quarters there have always been questions of elitism and “fairness” surrounding the concept of a public school in an affluent neighborhood receiving private funds to support the education of children in that school, money that is not made available to the public school system as a whole.

.

It seems that the District’s attitude toward this kind of “special arrangement” has changed. The question now is: how will the parents and the School adjust to this new reality? We will explore that issue as the situation at McGilvra is clarified in coming months.

Read More

Madison Park road end closed to the public

East Mercer Street: No Trespassing

By Bryan Tagas

For several decades the owners of two waterfront properties in Madison Park have taken for their private use the public road end which sits between their two properties. By doing so, they have excluded the public from what is publicly owned waterfront. This encroachment on the public right-of-way, which may have begun in the 1950s or before, was initially accomplished through the planting of hedges and other landscaping across the road end, thereby blocking physical access to the site and effectively eliminating the public’s view of Lake Washington from the roadway.

Although the City became aware of these illegal encroachments late in the last century, it has not required either that the obstructions be removed or that the waterfront be returned to public use. Ironically, the unsanctioned action of the former owners of these two properties in blocking off the road end provides the current owners with the ongoing right to keep out the public. Because this road-end encroachment has been “grandfathered” under current City rules, all that the abutting property owners have to do now is pay an annual fee for their continued private use of this public space. And that annual fee is not based on the current assessed value of the surrounding properties.

The public property in question is the E. Mercer Street road end, which is located off of 39th Avenue E. in the area several houses to the north of the E. Harrison Street public road end, better known as Hidden Beach. This section of 39thAvenue, just south of the Seattle Tennis Club, is known to locals as the bottom of “Devil’s Dip.” Although Mercer Street actually peters out well to the west of 39th, its stub street end on Lake Washington represents more than a quarter acre of prime Madison Park waterfront. At 120-feet wide, it is twice the width of the Lake Washington lot which abuts the road end on the south side.

Private encroachment on public property usually generates a significant level of public controversy and media attention. Just down the road and around the corner from the E. Mercer Street road end, for example, lies Viretta Park. Many will recall the public outcry in the 1990s that resulted from the supposed encroachment of a neighboring homeowner, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, into the Park’s public space with his landscaping, driveway, and wall. That brouhaha ultimately involved the City Council and the Courts, and Schultz ultimately exited the property. Currently, there is well publicized dustup underway in Laurelhurst over a hedge which only partially obstructs a waterfront road end there. That encroachment benefits a property once owned by Bill Gates, which is currently owned by his sister, Libby, and her husband. Several Laurelhurst residents are up in arms that even a minor private encroachment on that public space has been allowed to continue.

The conversion of the E. Mercer St. road end from public space to private use has never received the kind of media focus that has been generated by these other encroachments. This may simply be due to the fact that very few Madison Parkers are aware that the property in question even belongs to the public. One longtime resident, who lives just down the street from the road end, tells us he cannot remember the public ever having access to the site in the more than 50 years he’s lived there. When a group of community activists from Madrona attempted to get the City to return it to public use several years ago, the E. Mercer St. road end did achieve a bit of notoriety; but there was virtually no media coverage of the group’s efforts. In any event, the City rejected the group’s public-use challenge.

We made a Public Disclosure request to the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) to learn the process by which the public has been legally excluded from this public waterfront site. We also questioned Brian de Place, SDOT’s current Manager for Right-of-Way Management/Street Use, about the situation. What we learned from our investigation is that while the City’s official policy is that “the highest and best use of these street ends is for public use,” there are exceptions. The E. Mercer St. road end is probably as extreme of an exception as is possible, since it involves the complete abandonment of public use.

Here’s a little history of the City’s attempt over the past few years to deal with private encroachments on waterfront road ends. There are 149 such road ends within the City limits, six of which are located in Madison Park. In 1996, the Seattle City Council passed a resolution stating that it is City policy that “Shoreline street ends…shall be preserved as public rights-of-way.” The resolution, however, was strangely silent on the issue of whether existing private encroachments on these road ends must be removed, and no procedure was established for determining when private usage of a public road end could be permitted.

This created an ambiguous situation, which the Council sought to clarify in a 1999 ordinance, which reaffirmed that the City’s goal was to “keep adjacent property owners from encroaching on the public’s shoreline street ends,” but then went on to outline the procedure by which existing encroachments would be permitted through the payment of an annual fee. The amount of the fee was to be based on the size of the encroachment in square feet, the percentage likelihood of the public wanting to use the site (the demand/probability factor), the extent to which any barrier on the site impeded public access (including visual access), and the estimated value of the land per square foot. An annual rate of return (the “land capitalization rate”) was also to be factored in.

The idea was to use the fees that are collected to fund the City’s shoreline street-end management program, including paying for improvements, the inspection of road ends, and the notification to property owners of any encroachments. The SDOT was directed to establish a policy for enforcing the new ordinance, which it did in 2000.

Now, to return to the E. Mercer St. road end. In July of 2000, the City notified the encroaching property owners to the north and south of the road end that they could either apply for a Shoreline Street End Permit or remove the barriers that existed to the public right of way. The letter from SDOT’s Street Use Division included this statement of the City’s philosophy: “Although the ultimate goal is to remove all private uses of these street ends, the permit process acknowledges some private uses will continue. This permit process provides a means to review and approve private uses, as appropriate, until the property can be developed for public use.” Both property owners chose to keep their barriers in place, and from that point forward they have been paying annually for the continued right to block public access to the waterfront at E. Mercer.

Initially, the annual private-use fee amounts were $28,080 and $21,600 respectively, the property owner to the north having encroached on 7,800 sq. ft. of public shoreline and the southern owner having encroached on 4,800 sq. ft. It appears that these fees were not adjusted in any way for seven years, but in 2007 the amounts were set at $35,100 and $21,600 respectively; and those are the annual fees the property owners are paying today. The increase in the fee for the northern property owner was based on the City’s evaluation that the barrier to public access had increased from 80% in 2000 to 100% by 2007.

It is not clear, however, that the City has correctly determined the permit-fee amounts for the E. Mercer Street encroachments. According to the City’s stated guidelines for calculating the permit fees, “values are generally based on averages of assessed values for waterfront properties within like areas.” But SDOT in 2000 assigned a value of only $90 per sq. ft. to the area of encroachment. This assumed land value was never updated when any of the ten subsequent permit renewals occurred, and it is significantly lower than the property values set by the King County Assessor for the neighboring properties. Indeed, the 2010 assessments for the 14 waterfront properties in Madison Park along 39th Avenue E. average $467 per sq. ft.

The 12,600 sq. ft. of public property at the E. Mercer Street road end, based on King County’s assessment of the “like properties” in the neighborhood, would be valued at almost $6 million. However, based on its permit calculations, SDOT’s estimate of the value is only $1.1 million. Quite clearly, if SDOT used a factor based on the actual average assessed value for the area’s waterfront properties, the permit fees of the encroaching property owners would be substantially higher than what the City is receiving.

SDOT’s Brian de Place acknowledges that the City’s estimate of the road end’s value for permit purposes is not in line with current property values. He states that under the current ordinance, the City is not allowed to use King County Assessor data to determine value or to update values once the “City Assessor” has made the original site-specific determination, in this case ten years ago. A proposed change in the ordinance to be introduced next year, de Place notes, will allow the City to increase the permit fee amounts to take into consideration the current values of surrounding properties. If the existing $467 per sq. ft. surrounding-property value were used in calculating the encroachment-permit fees, the annual amounts paid by the two property owners would increase to $182,130 and $112,080 respectively.

According to one of the abutting-property owners, however, the road end is not being undervalued by the City. He says the property could never be built on because a house there would violate current waterfront building regulations concerning setbacks from the waterline and protection of neighbors’ views. If the property could not be built on, he argues, it has little or no value; and the City should therefore not look to the value of neighboring properties when determining the permit fee.

He also points out that neither he nor the property owner to the south created the situation at the road end. They each bought their properties when the encroachments had already occurred. After reading a draft of this posting he responded that “I think the issue is far more nuanced than you make it out to be.” He noted, for example, that the City has no money for upkeep of another public road end, there’s inadequate parking available on the street, and past illegal activity at Hidden Beach offers a warning of what the neighbors can expect if E. Mercer St. is opened up. Moreover, the City is getting some badly needed funds for the street-end program as a result of encroachment-permit revenues.

“I get charged a fee, and I pay it,” he told us. “I don’t control the fee, I don’t control how SDOT works, I don’t control who runs the city. I just get my bill and pay it, just like I pay my property taxes and my light bill. After I bought the house the city imposed the policy you are writing about. I was given the choice of paying or not paying. I chose to pay. So I think that a journalistic slant that tries to make it look like the homeowners cut some side deal with the city implies proactive intent on the homeowner’s part. The truth is that the city changed its policy and notified us and gave us a choice.”

The City, of course, could change its policy again and decide to open the road end to public use. That is the ultimate goal of the street-end policy, after all. But selling the land to the surrounding property owners is not an option. The idea has been broached, but according to de Place, selling the land could only occur after a “street vacation” in which the City would first have to certify that the site could never be used for public purposes. That’s not going to happen, he told us.

For now SDOT is happy just to collect its permit fees and look forward to receiving even higher revenue from the road end when the new ordinance is finally adopted. De Place notes that the goal of City policy is being advanced by the permit process, which since its adoption in 2000 has resulted in the reduction of shoreline encroachments from 93 to just 34. He expects that trend to continue. If so, perhaps one day there will be a sixth road end in Madison Park that the public can not only own but enjoy.

[Graphics: Upper photo shows the view from the southern portion of the roadend. Aerial photo, from Google Earth, shows the extent of the public property on the waterside, currently enclosed by private property owners. The middle photos show the obstruction of the road end as viewed from the street side, on the south and north, respectively. The bottom photo shows the entrance to the public road end from the private property to south. The map shows the six publicly owned road ends in Madison Park.]

Read More

Police Blotter 12/30/10

Very few crimes were reported in the neighborhood during the past three weeks. Although there were two car prowls and a case or two of graffiti, major criminal activity was limited to just one boat theft and two burglaries.

The most notable burglary occurred at the Seattle Tennis Club on Friday, December 10. Early that evening, several STC members reported to staff that personal items of theirs had been stolen from the men’s locker room. One member reported that he had seen someone going through clothing inside the locker room. A review of security-video footage later revealed that a suspect had entered the locker room and remained there for about 15 minutes, leaving only when a STC staffer entered to investigate the report of suspicious activity.

The suspect apparently didn’t enter or exit the Club through the front door, as required of members. During a subsequent check of the premises it was discovered that someone had cut a hole in the chain-link fence on the north side of the property, and a lock had also been cut from an inside gate, probably giving the suspect access to unlocked doors on the east side of the Club. A copy of the video showing the suspect was provided to the police, who are continuing to investigate the case.

There was another burglary reported in the neighborhood over Christmas weekend. This one was at a residence undergoing renovation on the 400 block of Hillside Drive E. The contractor reported that someone had broken into the house by removing a temporary plywood door covering. Taken in the burglary were power tools and construction equipment. The house was not occupied at the time of the break in.

A boat was stolen from the 2300 block of 41st Avenue E. on the evening of December 20, and there were car break-ins on the 2300 block of 42nd Avenue E. on the morning of December 18 and on the 1800 block of McGilvra Boulevard E. on the morning of December 17. There was also one case of a weapon being surrendered to police on the 4200 block of E. Blaine St. on the day after Christmas. No word on what kind of weapon was involved, other than that it was not a firearm.

All in all, we’ve managed to end the year on a fairly positive note, crime wise; and if we’re lucky, the trend will continue into the New Year--until the weather warms up. That, at least, is the usual seasonal pattern.

[Key to crime-map symbols: starbursts represent burglaries, solid cars represent car thefts, un-solid cars represent car prowls, spray-paint cans represent property damage, upraised hands represent shoplifting, dollar bills represent thefts, handcuffs represent arrests under warrants, guns represent weapons involved, and red exclamation points represent cases of harassment. This map covers the period from December 6 through December 30.]

Read More

November Real Estate Report

Madison Park hangs tough

We’ve seen a fair amount of gloomy commentary in recent weeks about the state of the Puget Sound real estate market. An email we received from Redfin earlier this month, for example, described sales volume in Seattle as “dead as a doornail” during November. That’s harsh, but not entirely inaccurate. The number of closed sales in November was down 32% from the same month a year ago, and in our part of town (Capitol Hill are the surrounding neighborhoods), sales actually plunged 41%. Pending sales were also down from 2009 levels.

The market here in Madison Park, however, hasn’t shown quite the same degree of year-over-year decline, perhaps because it was not as impacted by the now-expired home-buying tax credit that is being blamed for the falloff in the overall market. In November, there were eight residential sales in Madison Park, which, though a 20% decrease from the ten sales recorded in November 2009, was still very much in line with sales levels of the past few months. At least through November, the market here in the neighborhood could be characterized as slow but steady.

There were five house sales during the month, two of which were under $1 million. The median sales price was $1,260,000 and the median square footage was 2,900, which works out to an average price per square foot of about $434. Three condos also sold in November, with a median sales price of $325,000. The average square footage was 1,351, and the average price per square foot was $365.

The market continues to be characterized by long sales times (219 days on average for condo sales and 343 days for house sales, according to the Northwest Multiple Listing Service [MLS]). And sellers continue to accept significant discounts from their original listing prices: 11% for condo sellers and a whopping 18% for house sellers during November, according to the MLS. The numbers are admittedly skewed by the sale of one Washington Park house originally listed at $3,295,000, which sold 624 days later at $2,050,000. Another house sold after 482 days on the market, but with only a 9% discount.

Real estate agents always point to pending sales as the hope for the future, and at mid month there were ten homes in Madison Park on the pending list. At this same time last year there were nine pendings, and December 2009 turned out to be a fairly good month for sales.

Inventory levels continue to be low, but not out of line with the typical seasonal patterns. Some sellers take their houses off the market during the holidays and many potential sellers decide to wait to list their houses until the New Year. Madison Park’s current inventory of 76 residences is actually up from the 70 houses and condos listed at this time last year.

Here’s an overview of the Madison Park market (Broadmoor and Washington Park included) using data from Redfin:

Houses

Listings: 52
Median List Price: $1,786,000
Median Sq. Ft.: 3,900
Median Price per Sq. Ft.: $458
Average Days on Market: 180
Percentage with Price Reductions: 40%
Pending Sales: 7
New Listings: 3

Condos

Listings: 24
Median List Price: $635,000
Median Sq. Ft.: 1,262
Median Price per Sq. Ft.: $503
Average Days on Market: 216
Percentage with Price Reductions: 46%
Pending Sales: 3
New Listings: 2

Currently, the most expensive home on the market is this 1931 Broadmoor estate, listed at $11,950,000. It boasts slightly more than an acre of property and over 10,000 sq. ft. of living space. Note: “seller financing available.” At the other end of scale, the least expensive ticket to Madison Park is a 643 sq. ft. condo in Washington Park Tower, listed at $269,000.

Finally, one of the most interesting buying opportunities is this “probably uninhabitable” 1948 brick rambler in Canterbury, listed at $1,800,000:

There’s over a half acre of waterfront property here, and the new owner will get a front-row view of the construction of the new SR-520 floating bridge.

[Photo at top: This house at 2341 McGilvra Blvd. E. was on the market at $940,000 in November but was one of the Madison Park homes withdrawn from the market in December.]

Thanks, as always, to Wendy Skerritt of Windermere Real Estate/Capitol Hill for her assistance with market statistics .

Read More

Washington Park Playfield project wins out

. .
As we reported in April, Madison Park was one of several contiguous neighborhoods that jointly won the CleanScapes 2010 Neighborhood Waste Reduction Rewards competition. The Thursday pick-up area, which includes Madison Park, had the greatest reduction in non-recycled waste during the competition period. As a result, Madison Park and the other winning neighborhoods were each asked to submit proposals for a neighborhood project to be funded by CleanScapes. Thirteen proposals were received and reviewed by a selection committee, and last week a project to provide new playground equipment for the Washington Park Playfield was declared the winner.

The winning project was apparently the handiwork of the Madison Valley Community Council, though the press release from CleanScapes is strangely silent on what group, precisely, sponsored the proposal. The project is designed to replace the existing swing set at the Playfield with an integrated play area consisting of “one giant, continuous and dynamic play feature” suitable for children five to twelve years old (as shown above). If the kids want to swing, they will just have to come down to the Madison Park play area, where the swings that had been temporarily removed for safety reasons have now been returned.

Representatives from the winning neighborhoods’ community councils served on a project selection committee which chose the winner. Madison Park’s David Hutchins, who served on the committee, commends both the people who generated the project proposals and the CleanScapes team for helping turn those ideas into meaningful, executable projects. “CleanScapes’ generous gift to the community will be used and appreciated for years to come,” he says.

CleanScapes will fund up to $50,000 towards project costs. A supervisor will be hired to coordinate the volunteers who will assemble and install the playground equipment on site. There will be a presentation on the proposed new playground on January 20 in the Visitors’ Center in the Arboretum (6:30-8:00 pm). Those interested in volunteering to install the equipment should contact Candy Castellanos at CleanScapes: (206) 859-6717 or candy.castellanos@cleanscapes.com. Construction is expected to begin in February and be completed by April.

[Photo courtesy of the equipment manufacturer, Xccent.]

Read More

Christmas ships arrive with perfect timing

The rain had stopped only minutes before, and the breeze had calmed. The sky was dark and the air crisp. Indeed, conditions were perfect for reflecting the lights and resonating the sounds of the arriving flotilla of Christmas ships as they made their way into Madison Park waters late yesterday afternoon.

The beach crowd of several hundred, mostly decked out in rain gear and toting umbrellas, had lucked out. The boat display was joyous and colorful and the musical performance by the Vivace! Cathedrals Choir was truly outstanding.

But in twenty minutes it was over. The boats sailed on to their next stop, leaving an appreciative and presumably uplifted audience behind. Many in the crowd immediately decamped to the Bathhouse for jazz and refreshments sponsored by the Montlake Community Center. Others piled into neighborhood restaurants or headed up the street for cookies and hot drinks provided by the Madison Park Community Council. And for once, no one had to complain about the weather.

.

[Argosy Cruises would no doubt take it amiss if we did not acknowledge that, officially, their vessel is the one and only "Christmas Ship" (a trademarked term) and that all others in the flotilla are, well, boats.]

Read More