Council Discusses Childrens Museum on the Foss
The City Council study session yesterday dove head first into the discussion of the future of the Foss Waterway Park. The room was quiet at first. Nobody seemed to volunteer a first opinion. Slowly the conversation started by talking about the process. How did we get here? What was the spirit of the Conservation Futures money? Where did the idea of the Children Museum of the site come from? There was a lot of talk of the public meetings in the past and in the future.
Eventually the conversation switched into the one that we’ve had here and we’ve seen in the public meetings. Is this the right place for the Children’s Museum? Yeah Children’s Museum! How is it that land purchased with Conservation Futures covenants can be used for something else? Yeah passive open space!
A few notes:
Jake Fey: “We need to discuss this. Discuss the alternatives… I think our credibility is on the line.”
According to Councilmember Anderson, while the city’s role in a decision is small, the impact on the city is huge.
Talbert said that the site is “appropriate for the Children’s Museum” as it would provide kids with access to the water.
On the other hand, Lonergan, mentioned that the Sea Scouts, Urban Waters, and the Waterfront Museum all offer, or will offer, children’s programming. So the Children’s Museum will not be the only opportunity for kids to be near the water.
Julie Anderson: “Is this the best place for passive open space?”
Mike Lonergan: “I don’t think its the best place for the children’s museum.”
Ahhh… the conversation continues.
If you want to know more about the discussion, check out the audio of the Feb 26th Study Session on the city’s website (LINK). If you feel particularly civic today, listen to the discussion on road repair and pothole success – the first hour or so.
A couple of documents cited yesterday include:
Erik Anderson’s 2/21 Memo to Council:
Page 1 and Page 2
FWDA’s 2/22 Letter to Prosecutor Horne
Page 1 and Page 2
More background and play-by-play at The News Tribune
Filed under: Waterfront, Developments, Foss Waterway, Foss Waterfront
14 comments
S Steve Wells February 28, 2008
Peter Callaghan’s column today is spot on. He could have said more, as this issue is complex. Simply on the immediate legal uncertainties raised by the Museum’s proposal, he could also have explored the legal definition of “covenant shall run with the land.” Or the due process concerns of those who applied for Conservation Futures funds and who did not score as high as the Waterway Park proposal but who might have if the Waterway proposal had included a museum building. He could ask why the Children’s Museum is the only nonprofit in Tacoma who is given the opportunity to propose using the Park for their purposes?
The Boater’s Coalition met with the museum’s representatives in December, 2006. At that meeting, we agreed to be open to possible co-location. I suspect we had the same reaction as did the City Council about the same time. “Museum? We like the Museum so let’s take a look.” We thought the burden was then on the Museum to demonstrate how they would fit (legally, practically, and operationally). They never accomplished that. We only heard vision statements and wonderful talk about the power of play. Even at the last Workshop, the Museum’s opening statement was “don’t hold us to these details.” So to the question of “why can’t you work together?”, I respond “OK, with what? how? give me some answers to all the questions being asked.” In the end, after 14 months, the Boater’s coalition had even more unanswered questions, even less interest in having the Museum as our landlord in a shared building, greater concerns about delay due to possible litigation as well as from fundraising challenges. We share qustions about the duplication of programming efforts with the other groups focused on kids and the waterfront. The Museum has generated so much heat and offered so little light, we finally agreed this week to move on. The FWDA now has a letter signed by the four paddling and rowing groups comprising the Coalition saying we are not interested in a co-location option. This is a clear, definite, final statement. We have a proposal to move forward by adapting the existing Berg Warehouse as a boathouse. We call this The Easy Button. We ask the FWDA to push that button.
E Erik B. February 28, 2008
What is the objection of having more than one use at the location so it is used more of the time?
More and more businesses and non-profits are using the model in Tacoma and other cities.
Without a number of uses there, its likely going to be a dead zone most of the time.
Why not have a museum with boating access?
A ann February 28, 2008
I love children. I love museums. That being said,the land at the protected open space on Thea Foss Waterway should not be developed into a Children’s Museum because: IT’S ALREADY SPOKEN FOR! IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE HELD IN PERPETUITY AS OPEN SPACE. And regardless of what John Landenburg would have us believe, perpetuity DOES mean forever. It DOES NOT mean for the time being until something better comes along.
I truly believe if we were not talking about a museum for children that the citizens of Tacoma would be outraged at the underhanded, behind the scene tactics that have taken place to quite honestly steal land from it’s intended use. To paraphrase what Councilman Lonergan said during Tuesday’s study session: if the board of Children’s Museum went to Thea’s Landing and told them they were going to take that land, and develop it into a children’s museum that would not be acceptable. But since the museum wants to develop open land that APPEARS to be unused, it would be acceptable just because there is no building upon it.
Why did the Children’s Museum board even look into this land as an area to be developed? Why has city council appeared to have supported it’s development and urged the city manager to direct the Foss Board to make way for the museum on land they have no legal right to oversee?
Let’s stop looking at land that is protected from development, and direct our time and energies towards suitable building sites. I would encourage people to come to the meeting on March 10th at 5:30, atFreighthouse Square.
C Claudia Riedener February 28, 2008
Parking. The kids need parking. Why not pave over open space if kids need parking? How can you object to kids needing parking?
The covenant can be moved over to the Luzon building. One of a few places downtown where trees grow healthy.
C cck February 29, 2008
I don’t have a dog in this fight – I like kids and small boats are really cool – but how come a boathouse is open space but a children’s museum is not? Just wondering.
S Steve Wells February 29, 2008
These are great questions, and many of them have been actively considered over the past 14 months.
The boathouse is specifically included in the original proposal and in the text of the application that was scored by Conservation Futures. Its use is allowed by the authorizing County Code and State statute. On the other hand, the museum meets none of these conditions. Therefore, there are legitimate concerns about the legality of a change in use, and these concerns are addressed in the series of questions now before the Prosecuting Attorney. An additional legal concern is one of due process. Since these funds were awarded through a competitive process, there were many applications that were not funded. Would they have been funded if the museum had been included from the get go? Does the scoring process need to be repeated/reopened in order to be fair?
Speaking of being fair, if it’s possible to place a nonprofit such as the museum on this publicly owned site, then why does only the museum get a shot at it? There are many other local nonprofits that could effectively use this site to provide programming for kids (e.g. YMCA, Boys and Girls Clubs, etc.) Shouldn’t all be given a chance to make their case?
It may be architecturally possible to fit a museum into the uncontaminated parcel at the south end of the park. The heavily contaminated parcel at the north end is obviously undesireable for either a museum or boathouse. However, there are many questions that have been raised by the conceptual sketches that the museum has produced and, so far, no satisfying answers. These questions include issues of permitting, funding, co-management, the destiny of the Berg Building, and timing. Not to mention getting swept into litigation. Many of us no longer are willing to wait for answers when there is an Easy Button solution and when there are likely other sites at which we can also have a vibrant, exciting, viable Children’s Museum. It’s important to remember that virtually everyone that has been active on these issues has consistently said, “I’m for a great Children’s Museum, but just not here.”
S Steph March 1, 2008
I think the notion that this is an easy button issue is totally naive. Who is going to pay to clean up the site—right now it’s a “brown field”.
I don’t think the boaters have any money—so are our tax payer dollars going to now pay for an extensive clean up, parking lot and a boat house for a small group of priveleged people? i don’t support that and never will. the boaters need to pay for their hobby NOT the citizens of tacoma.
S Steve Wells March 1, 2008
Good points, Steph.
The Berg Building is on a parcel that is not contaminated, and since there is no need to dig when re-using the existing structure, no significant cleanup costs are required. However, to add a new building might trigger additional cleanup. The boater’s proposal avoids that possible outcome. The more contaminated parcel to the north is likely to be paved (i.e. capped) for parking regardless of the eventual site plan.
I agree that boaters should pay fees to store their boats in the building as well as membership fees to generate capital needed, for example, to buy club boats so that more people can enjoy the sport and get on the waters of Commencement Bay. The dock being installed is largely funded by a grant from the State, for which we all are very grateful.
There are many more details yet to be worked out. Much work remains. We’re eager to focus on those points and initiate negotiations with the FWDA and City.
In any case, the dock and boathouse are proposed as public assets and will not be the exclusive province of private clubs. I hope you and many others will take full advantage of them!
T teehee March 2, 2008
The city benefits from a vibrant human powered waterboat community. They bring in dollars when they have races and people from out of town race.
It’s not for the privilaged few. It’s for kids, adults and seniors who want a healthy way to have fun and become connected to our waterway, our community, our natural world.
M michael g. March 2, 2008
I couldn’t agree more with Steve and teehee … a diverse array of public recreational amenities are key to the quality of life in any city. Currently, in spite (willful disregard?) of its spectacular natural setting, Tacoma lacks recreational amenities relative to a lot of other Northwest cities. Having a public dock and boathouse would be a good start toward correcting that problem.
S Steph March 3, 2008
I think recreational amenities are fine and good but who is going to pay for them? Steve did not answer this question. Here are a few more:
Who is paying to clean up the site? Who is paying for a boat house?
Who will maintain the park?
To continue to say “there are many details to be worked out” is not okay—these issues are bigger than mere details.
S Steph March 3, 2008
One more thought—Steve, you say no significant clean up costs are necessary because you would use the Berg building. Does this mean that folks would just tiptoe around the contaminated portion to get to the Berg? Is this really feasible or desirable?
J Jon March 4, 2008
From what I hear, they would cap the contaminated portion, which is a small portion of the land, with blacktop.
In regard to paying for the boathouse and maintenance, there is available grant money in the area that could be used.
B beerBoy March 4, 2008
It is not currently open space. It is not pristine. It would have to be reclaimed.
This is an area that has a high level of transients (homeless). The boat launch could very likely become a magnet.
Available grant monies isn’t the same as dedicated grant monies. Just because it might be possible to submit grant proposals doesn’t mean that you are going to win grant support – especially in the current economy. And, for long term funding relying on the possibility of winning grants without a well established track record AND a well-heeled board of directors who are willing to donate when need is and exercise in building castles in sand.