Development Group Pays Massive Sisley Fines ($3.5M)

Update: got it wrong from initial news accounts.  The development group - RDG - are the ones who paid the fines for the Sisleys in order to move on with developing the area.  The City had apparently put so many liens on Sisley properties that RDG knew they were unlikely to move on with their development plans.

It's unclear what the City will do with the money.

End of update.

Finally.

I note that the City Attorney's office told me that the buildings in front of Roosevelt High will be coming down by the "end of the month."

1) I see nothing happening on this front so it may be the world's fastest teardown if they are keeping true to their statement.
2) The permitting I have seen  is only for the buildings that face NE 65th, not the buildings that face RHS on NE 66th. 

Comments

Patrick said…
This month or next month, just be glad to get them removed this year.
8/19/15, 5:06 PM
Anonymous said…
It wasn't Sisley that paid the fines...it was the developer of his properties, Roosevelt Development Group. A 65 ft., 225 unit development will be going in at 65th and 15th.

From another thread:

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2015/08/relief-for-roosevelt-developer-pays-off-sisleys-3.html

-fyi
8/19/15, 5:25 PM
Anonymous said…
Another article from the Biz Journal. Including a <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2015/08/redevelopment-of-downtrodden-roosevelt-property.html?ana=twt</a> of the planned development.

-StepJ



8/20/15, 1:11 PM
Anonymous said…
With a link that works...

-StepJ
8/20/15, 1:20 PM
Anonymous said…
I wish they could leave the property across from Roosevelt High School as open space. It is a shame to block that beautiful building. Plus, it would be nice to have more open space in that area that the high school could use. Maybe add some tennis courts, etc.

HP
8/21/15, 7:48 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested.  It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio.  (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Read more

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, grief, that is to come fro
Read more

MEETING CANCELED - Hey Kids, A Meeting with Three(!) Seattle Schools Board Directors

 Update 2: So I have seen a message from President Liza Rankin on why she, Director Evan Briggs, and Director Michelle Sarju backed out of this meeting.  In a nutshell: - She says there was no organization to the meeting which is just not true. They had a moderator lined up and naturally the board members could have set parameters for what to discuss, length of meeting, etc. All that was fleshed out. - She also claimed that if the meeting was PTA sponsored, they needed to have liability insurance to use the school space. Hello? PTAs use school space all the time and know they have to have this insurance.  - She seems to be worried about the Open Public Meetings law. Look, if she has a meeting in a school building on a non-personnel topic, it should be an open meeting. It appears that Rankin is trying, over and over, to narrow the window of access that parents have to Board members. She even says in her message - "...with decisions made in public." Hmmm - She also says that th
Read more