Goldy

I’ve got a confession to make: I’m a bit of a cultural elitist. So I want to make it absolutely clear that my opposition to the proposed Chihuly “museum” on the Fun Forest site at the Seattle Center should not be construed as opposition to museums in general or Chihuly in particular. In fact, I think there are strong arguments to make that a “Chihuly Museum” could indeed be a great addition to Seattle, attracting both tourists and their money.

Just not at this particular location.

The Seattle Center is a scarce, kid-friendly attraction near downtown Seattle, and if we’re to have any hope of achieving our density goals over the next few decades we need more near-by amenities for young families, not less. And the several acres of prime parkland the Fun Forest is vacating provides a rare opportunity to create the kinda fun, open and free-admission public space that will draw families to the Center again and again and again.

I fully understand the financial attraction of this proposal to both the Wrights and the cash-strapped Center directors, but a private, for-profit, paid-admission “museum” is simply not the best use of this acreage. Indeed, I’d go so far as to suggest that if your goal is to showcase the work of Dale Chihuly and the Northwest glass art movement he helped spawn and promote, there are equally good, if not better places to build a glass gallery in Seattle.

For example, with the collapse of Washington Mutual, the Seattle Art Museum has struggled to fill vacant space at the former Wamu Center, leaving several floors of the building available to a potential glass art showcase. Situated smack dab in the center of the downtown, a comfortable walk from the cruise terminal and the city’s finest hotels, the Wamu Center could prove an ideal location for a glass museum, capitalizing on its proximity to the Seattle Art Museum to concentrate and increase paid admission to both facilities.

Or, if the glass gallery’s backers really have their heart set on the Seattle Center, there is plenty of under utilized land surrounding the Center proper, including parking lots right across 5th Avenue from the EMP. If backers are being forthright in their claim that the proposed $11 per square foot lease is above market rates, then surely they could obtain an even better deal on a not quite so prime location.

But perhaps the best location for a high-profile, Chihuly-branded glass art showcase — one which would provide the most bang for the buck in terms of anchoring and revitalizing a neighborhood that is much in need of such a boost — would be the empty lot on the east side of Occidental Park, right in the heart of the struggling Pioneer Square neighborhood, and the hub of Seattle’s already existing gallery walk. A Chihuly Museum on this or some other nearby lot might prove the kinda public-private partnership I and others could get behind… and a boon to the entire Seattle arts community. Again, just like with the Wamu Center location, the Chihuly Museum and the surrounding galleries would mutually benefit from their co-location.

That’s just three locations, off the top of my head, that might be well suited to a Chihuly Museum without snatching precious open space from public use. And if this project, as it has been presented, is at least as much about art as it is about commerce, then I would hope its backers would take my constructive proposal seriously.

The folks at The Stranger have been doing yeoman’s work exposing the process by which the proposed Chihuly “museum” is being foisted upon the city, and the ham-fisted public relations campaign by which the backers are attempting to fake some glass-roots street cred. What we’ve learned so far:

The committee considering bids for the Fun Forest site appears likely to be stacked in favor of the Chihuly proposal:

The problem is, certain members of the Seattle Center Advisory Commission and the Century 21 Committee have already publicly spoken out in favor of the Chihuly Museum project. For example, Jan Levy spoke for the Chihuly Museum at Tuesday’s meeting and she is Century 21 Committee co-chair; her fellow co-chair is Jeffrey Wright, owner of the Space Needle. Wright is financially backing the Chihuly Museum. Levy also serves on the Seattle Center Advisory Commission.Robert Nellums, director of the Seattle Center, also spoke in favor of the project at Tuesday’s public meeting—even though he was moderating the meeting. Representatives from Seattle International Film Festival, the Pacific Northwest Ballet, Intiman Theater, and other vested Seattle Center interests all stumped for the Chihuly Museum.

And speaking of Space Needle/Chihuly “museum” owner Jeffrey Wright, it turns out that he’s a big contributor to Republican candidates and causes — over $50,000 worth in recent years. Not that this in itself says anything about the virtues of a Chihuly museum, but as Dominic Holden astutely points out:

The company behind the Space Needle is the entity that wants to build and would profit from the Chihuly glass museum. Asked if Wright would personally make money from the Chihuly museum, Space Needle spokeswoman Mary Bacarella says, “Well he’s the owner. It’s a for-profit [business].”

[…] Building the Chihuly museum would help line the pockets of someone who donates heavily to political causes and candidates that clash with most Seattle residents. And now he’s trying to use public land, owned by those people, to make his profits.

I guess this is what many of the project’s well-heeled backers meant when they repeatedly referred to it as “a gift.”

And while “museum” backers both dis the notion of open space being essential to the Seattle Center while insisting that no other proposals for the site have been made, Cienna Madrid reports otherwise:

John Sutherland, an administrator at the University of Washington, submitted a proposal to Seattle Center director Robert Nellums in 2007. Sutherland proposed demolishing the covered pavilion and creating a greenbelt/picnic area, adding new rides in the kids area, and introducing six new major amusement park rides, including a roller coaster. Sutherland’s plan also called for a kid’s public playground and a water play area.

When Sutherland was submitting his proposal, the Seattle Center master planning process (formally called the Century 21 Master Plan) was just beginning. He attended “at least 60 different meetings,” he says, during which officials and the public made it clear that what the people wanted was more green space. In the end, Sutherland says, Nellums told him that the proposal was not going to happen. “And I thought that was fair,” says Sutherland. “Even though my proposal incorporated green space, I thought we lost fair and square. It wasn’t what the people wanted.”

So when Sutherland made his family-friendly proposal, the Century 21 Committee, which Wright co-chaired, dismissed it as not providing enough green space. And now Wright himself is proposing constructing a for-profit, paid-admission gallery/gift shop/cafe/catering hall on the site. Huh.

Oh. And from the Credit Where Credit Is Due Department, after credulously reporting “overwhelming support” for the project the morning after the sham hearing, the Seattle Times at least comes back with a report on the expensive PR offensive the backers have launched:

Representatives of the Space Needle went two hours early to a public meeting about their proposed Dale Chihuly exhibit at Seattle Center to make sure their supporters would be first on the list to speak.

They filled in the first 60-or-so speaking slots. It was clear from the handwriting that some people had signed up multiple people…

Yup. That’s why the respectable folk got to speak at 6:30 PM, while I didn’t get to the podium until almost 9.

Heard enough? The folks at Slog have conveniently compiled a list of phone numbers and email addresses of Seattle City Council members and other players for you to contact and voice your opinion. Or you can conveniently mass email them here.

Via Daily Kos:

The Quinnipiac University poll found that 60 percent of Americans among both major political parties think raising income taxes on households making more than $250,000 should be a main tenet of the government’s efforts to tame the deficit. More than 70 percent, including a majority of Republicans, say those making more than $1 million should pay more.

Huh.

I know our legislature can’t seem to close the deal on addressing even the current supplemental budget, but with Washington facing a structural revenue deficit as far as the eye can see, this poll sure does give one something to think about.

In fighting the proposed Chihuly Museum Chihuly-branded glass art gallery, gift shop, cafe and Space Needle-affiliated catering hall on 1.5 acres of Seattle Center land currently occupied by the Fun Forest, it is important to make it clear that we don’t just oppose the proposal, but that we support an alternative that better meets the needs of all Seattleites.

Of course I’m talking about the really kick-ass playground that I’ve proposed here. And here. And here, here, here, here and here.

While many have derided the Fun Forest as a rundown, cheesy, underused eyesore, few would argue a downtown with no grade school, no playgrounds, no ball fields and no basketball court, needs even fewer amenities for young families than we already have. But the pro-Chihuly crowd is quick to argue that there is no money available to build alternative proposals, while the Wright family is prepared to commit $15 million to their for-profit venture, including as much as $500,000 a year in rent.

It’s this or nothing the glassoholics warn us, and thus the city would be crazy to turn down such a “gift.”

But there is money available to build the proposed children’s garden and water feature/skate rink on the north end of the site, as well as the really kick-ass playground I’ve proposed for the south end. All we need to do is ask.

Of course, I’m referring to Seattle taxpayers, who have long been generous with their dollars when its going to something they support, and whom I’m guessing would be more than willing to fork over a few dollars a year each if pitched the kinda family oriented redevelopment I envision.

Now, I’m not talking about a full blown Seattle Center Levy; that might be too expensive and too complicated and too much of a temptation for political mischief to make it to the ballot and past voters in a timely manner. No, I’m talking about a very limited levy aimed solely at redeveloping the Fun Forest into an admission-free, world-class, family-friendly attraction filled with amenities for both children and their parents.

For example, in 2008, 59-percent of Seattle voters approved the Parks and Green Spaces Levy, raising $146 million, and costing the average Seattle homeowner an additional $80.78 per year over the six-year life of the levy. I doubt most voters even understood the specifics of what the levy would pay for; we just like the notion of “parks” and “green space,” and so we voted yes.

Now imagine a Really Kick-Ass Playground Levy that would raise maybe only a tenth of that money. Only 8 bucks a year to build something really, really cool that your kids and your grandkids will use again and again, instead of some elitist, $15 admission “museum” you might visit maybe once, but that would lock up and enclose an acre and a half of precious open space for generations.

I don’t think it would take much to sell this levy to voters.

I know there is a majority of council members who aren’t too enthralled with the Chihuly proposal, if not downright opposed, but nobody’s pitched a way to fund an alternative. Until now.

If Dino Rossi is going to continue to drop hints that he’s considering a run for the U.S. Senate, then it’s time he started answering questions about where he stands on the hot button issues of the day. Like, does he pledge, if elected, to join his fellow Republicans in pushing for repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

Well Dino…? Do you?

Because if you don’t start addressing legitimate public policy issues, then questions about your character and shady business dealings are all voters will have to assess you as a candidate.

I’m just sayin’.

And don’t think for a moment that Seattle Times Publisher Frank Blethen wouldn’t do it.

I’ve received several comments and emails taking issue with, or downright offended by, my characterization of the pro-Chihuly “museum” forces at last night’s public hearing as a bunch of “rich, old, white folk,” as well as the implication I made that the forum was stacked in such a way that most of us on the other side didn’t get a chance to speak.

Well first of all, yeah, my headline was intended to be a little derogatory and hyperbolic. Big deal. So a couple of people of color spoke in favor of the proposal. And the Republicans always manage to get a couple of people of color to speak at their otherwise homogenous conventions.

Don’t take my characterization at face value? Here’s how The Stranger’s Cienna Madrid described the assembled throng:

Last night’s meeting at the Seattle Center on the proposed Chihuly Museum starred nearly 400 men and women in suits, most tied to the Seattle Center, Space Needle, or slick PR firms, all hustling for a project that would benefit the tourist industry, reading their scripts beneath a striped tent-top and bulbed sign that spelled out “Whirligig.”

Moderators Bill Block, Seattle Center Advisory Commission chair, and Seattle Center director Robert Nellums kicked off the meeting with a stump speech on how the Chihuly Museum would benefit the Center. City Council Members Sally Bagshaw, chair of the parks and Seattle Center committee, and Jean Godden, an alternate member of the committee, were also there to hear testimony.

But that testimony was stacked. This was more of a circus than a public meeting.

The Seattle Center brought its own public comment sign up sheet with them and the first hour of comment was wholly devoted to blowing Chihuly’s glass—the audience heard from the CEO of the Space Needle, a Seattle Center Advisory Board member, Seattle Center business managers and financial officers, and a hotel concierge representative. […] Less than 10 people in two hours spoke against this project.

Cienna was wrong on one point; she left before I did, and about two and a half hours into the meeting I finally had my two minutes to speak; not that there were many folks left in the Center House to hear it. It’s also true that about an hour into the proceedings the moderators started pulling names from the middle and back of the sign up sheets, so as to present a more diverse selection of speakers. But my post from the scene, laboriously typed out on my iPhone between 7:00 and 7:30 PM, was an accurate report at the time.

So what were the main arguments for the proposal?

A.) Dale Chihuly is a great guy who gives stuff to schools, and thus deserves this tribute.

Well, maybe he is, and I’ve got no reason to doubt the character assessment of the hundreds of friends (and two or three PR firms) he had there wearing “Yes for Chihuly at the Needle” stickers. But I’m guessing there are a lot of great guys in Seattle, and we can’t offer all of them the opportunity to lease scarce downtown parkland at $11 a square foot. Chihuly is a widely admired, world renowned artist whose talent and fame have made him an extremely wealthy man, so not only don’t I find the “great guy” argument all that convincing, I find it hard to muster any sympathy for him or the Wrights should they feel snubbed by the proposal’s less than enthusiastic public reception.

B.) Seattle would be crazy to turn down a “gift” like the proposed Chihuly “museum.”

The word “gift” was used repeatedly by speakers supporting the proposal, as was the word “museum,” when in fact, neither of these two words are really accurate.

Let’s be clear, the private, for-profit facility the Wrights have proposed is neither a “gift” nor a “museum,” Chihuly or otherwise. Museums have permanent collections; the Wrights’ glass house would not. Even the “$50 million worth of glass art” Chihuly has pledged will merely be displayed on loan, and may be removed entirely once his initial five year contract is up. The Wrights’ lease on the other hand, would continue for another 25 years at least.

What this is, is a gallery, gift shop and catering hall, conveniently located at the foot of the Space Needle where the Wrights could easily cart the food over from their existing catering business. Hell, for all we know, the $50 million worth of glass that Chihuly promises will be just as for sale as tchotchkes in the gift shop. And if Chihuly were to pull out at the end of a five-year contract, what we would be left with is a glorified Fireworks… a nice enough shop, but one which you can already find in malls throughout the region.

C.) The economic prosperity of the Seattle Center, indeed the entire region, depends on building this “museum”

Again and again the subject of money was raised, with the pro-“museum” speakers pointing out how desperate the Center is for revenue while in the depths of our current economic downturn. And while that may be true, I don’t think it pollyanna-ish to suggest that our economy won’t stay in the dumps forever.

Proponents argue that the $11/square foot the Wrights are willing to pay is above market rates for the Center, and that we should be grateful for the half million dollars a year that would generate. But the Fun Forest was already paying $350,000 a year, so it’s not like we’re looking at that much of an increase. And besides, this is public parkland we’re talking about. Since when do we evaluate its value by rental revenue per square foot?

No doubt if this proposal is rejected, that portion of the Fun Forest will remain vacant for a couple years as the economy recovers and the city raises the revenues to implement the master plan. But the alternative to being patient is selling off a 1.5 acre chunk of the Center for at least several decades, if not in perpetuity. So… what’s the rush?

D.) The proposed Chihuly “museum” would prove a tremendous upgrade to the Center’s current, “scary” facilities.

One speaker even suggested that his wife and young children were “afraid” to go the Seattle Center in its current state, but that the Chihuly “museum” would help turn this around. Really. A guy who thinks the Center is too scary and unsafe a place to bring his young kids has the balls to tell us what to do with its redevelopment.

The I’m-a-suburban-white-guy-who-fears-my-kids-might-run-into-some-hippies-and/or-dark-skinned-people bullshit aside, the proposal doesn’t really provide much of an upgrade at all. In fact it keeps the existing, bland brick building where the indoor amusements are currently housed, although it promises to green it up a bit by growing ivy on the walls or something. Now that’s what I call the making of a world class museum.

So yeah, while I eventually got my chance to speak, I stand by my on-the-ground characterization of last night’s meeting, and the cultural elite who packed the hall. In fact, I’m tempted to merely dismiss them as a PR orchestrated hiss. But that will have to wait for another post.

UPDATE:
The Stranger has more on what they’ve dubbed “Glastroturf,” including the $25 gift certificates folks are being promised for joining the PR-firm-organized “Chihuly at the Space Needle” Facebook group. Really.

Anyway, you can email the mayor and the council by clicking here, or click through to the Stranger’s post for a list of all their email addresses and phone numbers, and let them know where you stand on selling off Seattle Center land for a for-profit gallery, gift shop and catering hall.

One of the most hotly contested U.S. House races this November will be for the seat in Washington’s 3rd Congressional District that Democrat Brian Baird is vacating. And I truly believe that the Dems’ best shot at holding this seat — and in fact improving on it — is State Sen. Craig Pridemore, a progressive yes, but also a genuine populist with the ability to connect with voters during these troubled economic times.

But don’t take my word for it. Stop by Seattle’s Spitfire Restaurant tonight between 6 and 8 PM and meet Pridemore for yourself. And if you like what you see, don’t just share a pint with him, share a little campaign contribution too.

Seattle Jew cancels his subscription to the Seattle Times:

After the PI closed, we refused to change to the Times because, to be blunt, the Times seemed to have much too little news.

Recently, my wife responded to a “special offer.”

We want to cancel the Times. Your editorial opinions seem more appropriate for a Tea Bagger newsletter than for the sole remaining Seattle newspaper. The writing is often poor, but the endorsement of Rob McKenna’s actions is over the top. Mr. Blethen needs a course in Government 101 .. as well as lessons in grammar. We do, after all, have a government of checks and balances based on law. If an AG has the independent ability to decide that he or she can determine the state’s interest, doesn’t that create the office as nearly a fourth branch of government?

I thought that the concept of our courts is that parties to an action must be able to show an interest in the action. IF Mr. McKenna can not show that he represents the interests of the State, then who does he represent?

Perhaps he represents Mr. Blethen?

Over 19,200 citizens have joined the “Washington Tax Payers OPT OUT of Rob McKenna’s Lawsuit” Facebook group over the past week, yet the Times dismisses our opposition as a mere “politically orchestrated hiss.”

So if you’re sick and tired of being disrespected by Frank Blethen and his cronies, cancel your subscription and send a copy of your correspondence to me, and I’ll be happy to post it to HA, with or without attribution.

Of course, how could Jon Stewart not be funny when he’s got the whole lesbian-bondage-themed-nightclub-GOP-scandal to work with, but his aside on the NY Times headline on the story is a perfect commentary on one of the least discussed factors behind the newspaper industry’s precipitous decline: its self-imposed stodginess.

The Seattle Times has twice editorialized in favor of a sham process to placate opponents of the proposed Chihuly “museum,” and that’s exactly what we’re getting at the public hearing tonight at the Seattle Center.

The hearing didn’t start until 6:30 p.m. but Center employees, the arts board member crowd, and other surrogates of the Wrights and Chihully were lined up at 3:30 to sign up for all the speaking slots. An hour into the hearing only one person had spoken against the proposal, and yet according to City Councilmember Sally Bagshaw, emails and phone calls are running 10 to 1 against.

Go figure.

As for me, I’m the 201 person signed in, so I doubt I’ll get the chance to voice my opinion. But I suppose that’s what folks here mean by “process.”

Um… could somebody on the Republican side of the aisle — you know, those breathlessly opposing, on both policy and legal grounds, the health insurance mandate within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — please explain to me the difference between this mandate, and that within their own Social Security privatization proposals that would require Americans to invest a portion of their paychecks with private financial firms?

And don’t tell me that under Social Security privatization, you still have the option to stick with old government run system, because you have the same exact option with the so-called health insurance “mandate”: don’t purchase private insurance, and the federal government will just take the cost of the premium out of your paycheck in the form of a tax. You know, just like Social Security.

Honestly, how is it constitutional to require economic participation on the one hand, but not on the other? Or are Republicans just a bunch of grandstanding, unprincipled hypocrites?

So far, Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna has attempted to have it both ways. On the one hand he insists that he supports the notion of health care reform. On the other hand, he insists on joining a lawsuit seeking to rule unconstitutional a provision without which the entire reform effort would collapse.

Let’s be clear, without the insurance mandate, the main provisions of the recently passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — the elimination of exclusions for preexisting conditions, and the common practice of “rescission” once policyholders get sick — would be entirely unworkable.

Why? Well, if there is no mandate that you purchase insurance, yet insurance companies couldn’t reject you due to preexisting conditions, then it would be in your economic self-interest to only purchase insurance once you got sick. And with only sick people paying premiums, the premiums would be unaffordable.

So without the requirement that you or your employer purchase private insurance, there can be only two alternatives. Either rescission and pre-existing conditions remain a prominent feature of our health insurance system, or we move to a single payer system in which government is the sole insurer, and there is no private insurance to be mandated.

Considering his recent public embrace of the Teabaggers, it’s hard to imagine McKenna endorsing the latter, so I can only assume his supposedly principled opposition to the recently passed bill implies support for the former. By filing this lawsuit, Rob McKenna is inherently defending the rights of insurance companies to deny you coverage, either by excluding pre-existing conditions, or by searching for technicalities with which to justify cancelation of your policy once you get sick.

And… well… as a Democrat, I sure hope he runs on that in 2012.