Last night at Ingraham High School, the DPD held a public meeting on the Ingraham construction project. As you know Save the Trees – Seattle and others in the community are opposed to the Seattle School District cutting down 68 trees on the west side of the High School when other locations exist on the campus where the addition can be built without cutting down any large trees.
Many neighbors and others turned out to support the trees and to urge that the project be moved. There was also a very large contingent of vocal students and parents and teachers frustrated by their long standing grievance of classes being held in rundown mold infested portables for too many years. The Principal at Ingraham stated that he made a concerted effort to turn out students and parents and teachers to support the project. With his encouragement the students basically staged a pep rally for the project. This was not unexpected considering what they have had to put up with in a substandard learning environment. The meeting comments basically turned out to be a rehash of both sides positions with little new emerging.
Those of us opposed to needlessly cutting down the trees on a campus that at 28 acres is the largest in the Seattle School District, sympathized with the frustration of the students and parents and teachers that for many years have been forced to take classes in substandard portables that are in terrible shape and have mold. Teachers and students complained of getting sick. Some of the portables house special needs students but do not have running water or bathrooms.
The Seattle School District has let the situation get out of control and is now trying to make the neighbors the villains for their negligence. The Seattle School District’s approach has been to deny they have any responsibility for delaying the project and blame neighbors who love trees more than students as what is preventing the project from going forward
But Save the Trees – Seattle and the neighbors support the long overdue upgrading of the classrooms. We are not, however, the villains just because we also don’t want to needlessly destroy a unique urban forest when viable alternatives exist on the campus for building elsewhere. One location we suggested was the North lawn area which Ingraham actually picked as the site if a future addition was to be built after the current project. It is rather ironic that the Ingraham Master Plan produced as part of this project can propose building on this North lawn location in the future but it is somehow not possible to build there now and spare the grove of trees. They are serious enough about retaining the North lawn area for a future addition that in the current proposal it is the only area on campus where they do not propose planting trees.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Not upgrading or maintaining the school in a responsible way for students and teachers in the past and proposing to cut down 68 Douglas fir, Western red cedar and Pacific madrone trees to now do the upgrade is only compounding the past mistakes by avoiding responsible stewardship of both our schools and our natural urban habitat.
The Principal testified that he went around to different student groups to recruit them to come to the public meeting to support the project as is. It is very hard for any students to take on the Principal publicly and say they opposed cutting down the trees. I have spoken with both students and teachers who opposed cutting down the trees. At least one teacher was told to stop any efforts to get students to oppose cutting down the trees because that was political and not education. The teacher felt threatened and that her job was at stake.
The Principal is the authority figure at the school. Student recommendations for college frequently come from the Principal. Is it any wonder that teachers and students who oppose cutting down the trees might feel intimidated or threatened if they spoke out. I remember when I contacted Martin Floe about our arborist looking at the trees he personally told me to not talk to the students. I guess he was afraid of them hearing anything contrary to his position. So much for an open dialogue at Ingraham.
What Floe has forgotten is that he is acting in a capacity of public trustee for the school. He has tried to make us NIMBY’s which means he doesn’t even understand the term. We are not opposed to renovating the school and in fact believe it is long overdue. I am aware of no one in our group or neighbors and other tree advocates that are opposed to the renovation. We voted for the BEX bond issue. Our tax dollars are paying for the project and we have the right to express our views as much as anyone else.
Unfortunately the process set up by Martin Floe excluded the community and neighbors from the initial selection of the site and design of the project. Meetings of the School Design Team were held in secret with a few parents and teachers personally selected by Martin Floe. The public’s only chance to comment on the proposed project was earlier this year after the building site had been chosen and the design done. And we were then told we could not comment on the site anymore since that decision was already made.
At last night’s meeting as I publicly stated, I do not think anyone there opposed the decaying portables being torn down and replaced with modern classrooms. Unfortunately it was obvious that the only option given to students and others to get new classrooms is to build in the tree grove. And blame the neighbors, rather than the School District for its inadequate review and closed review process, for preventing them from getting new classrooms.
The issue at this point is a legal one, whether or not the project is in compliance with city and state SEPA laws. We are pursing the legal process afforded the public to review the project.
The meeting was part of the public process for approval of land use permits for building in the City of Seattle and is proceeding on the normal timetable, except for the delay caused by the School District withdrawing their permit application in August in an attempt to just cut the trees down. The King County Superior Court issued an injunction to stop the trees from being cut down without any review by the City of Seattle.. The City of Seattle is expected to make a decision in the next few weeks. The City does have the authority under the city’s SEPA laws to move the project to save the trees. We will let you know when that happens.
Ingraham update
6 months ago
10 comments:
Thank you to all of the concerned neighbors who spoke so eloquently at the meeting last night.
Your preparedness, knowledge, and passion inspired and impressed me deeply.
We faced a virtual pep rally of opposition - not to trees as much as to anything that prolongs the shameful conditions in classrooms at Ingraham.
There will always be choices, and there will always be pressing human needs. Thank you for your efforts in creating a balance so that the needs of nature have a place at the table too.
Regardless of the outcome, I would like to suggest that we consider proactive ways to become involved with the Ingraham student body. We clearly failed to reach them, as not a single student testified on behalf of saving the trees. If these plans go forward, perhaps we can create an "adopt a sapling" program or an outdoor club that helps to monitor and nurture the new plantings. I would also be interested in pursuing some type of special designation for the grove near the pool that protects it from future development.
Julia Ricketts
Hi All;
I have offered to rent my home to the Seattle School District to replace one of the portables at Ingraham. I made the offer Wednesday morning via email. If any of you who live close enough to Ingraham and have a room large enough to be used as a classroom are interested in renting the room out to the school district to replace a portable, ASAP contact the Principal at Ingraham as I have. I also sent a message to the Pres. of the PTA with notice of my proposal to replace the portables ASAP. My next action will be to hardcopy my proposal to the Seattle School Board.
The description of the portables at the Tuesday evening hearing was shocking and is a condition that we can help address. The disgraceful conditions in the portables will continue until construction of replacement structures is complete. We can show that we are good neighbors by trying to help a neighbor (Ingraham High School).
I'm not certain if we succeeded in retaining the grove of trees intact, but we can make a difference in the conditions at the school.
Let me know your thoughts on this.
Maybe instead of renting our your house which is to far away (the portables and Math building are to hard to monitor students according to Mr. Floe), we should offer to fix up the portables? Maybe a work party by Save the Trees volunteers to clean, trouble shoot wiring, maybe fix the heat etc. would be a more appropriate answer. What do you think?
Chlorox goes a long ways to kill mold as does many of the new paints. And perhaps a good electircian could figure out the heating problem. I got pretty good at fixing leaky roofs in the apartment building I managed (also flat roofed). Save the Trees should be able to fix something temporary, What do you think people?
I agree those portable and Math modular are deplorable, and something should be done immediatly.
Your offer is very generous, though I do not expect it will be accepted, due to the distance from the school and the in ability of the school to monitor students.
On the campus at Ingraham sits 2 if not 3 empty portables in good if not very good shape. These were used by the Ingraham daycare until they were kicked out about last April ( i was told by a neighbor that was 4 months after signing a 2 year lease! Her daughter is in the daycare, which has moved).
Since the Daycare had been using these portables I am sure they have heat and are free of mold. I do not know why the School is not using them. My guess is they are too far away for the school to monitor the students.
I also have noticed that the school upgraded all the stairs and rails to all the portables, I am surprised that the interiors have not had reasonable updating as well.
I offered my house to the School District, to buy it outright--at $300,000 about a year ago, they haven't taken me up on it, 900 square foot is the size of my house and the ideal size for a class room. And it is already plumbed for the necessary sink and bathroom for handicapped students!
That's a generous offer but don't hold your breath waiting for the School District to take you up on it. Years of dealing with the School District has made me skeptical of their claims. Right now enrollment at Ingraham is just over 1,000. The last year I was a student there enrollment was about 1,400. This makes me wonder how many of those portables they really need given the low number of students. As for the modular building where the math classes are taught, yeah, it needs some work. But you know what, it had a leaky roof and balky heating back in 1978. What I would like the School District to explain is why they have spent well over ten million dollars on all kinds of improvements at Ingraham (lights for the tennis courts?, Astroturf for the fields? etc) but didn't seem to think that it was worth fixing the long standing problems with the classrooms. A paltry few hundred thousand dollars would have been more than enough to fix the roof and heating systems for the modular building, but apparently it just wasn't a priority compared with Astroturf and lights. Their actions are far more revealing that their dubious pleadings at the public hearing. The story their actions tell is of misguided priorities where the actual quality of education in the classroom has been a lower priority.
The meeting (Tuesday) was troubleing in that the students had obviously never been talked to about any environmental issues. I found it sad that in their minds the two sides have now been pitted against each other -- not so. Two examples of stewardship come to mind. The woods next to Shorecrest High School -- sold by the district to the city of Shoreline to be kept as natural woods -- Another example would be the private school out on Meridian whose students are engaged increating and maintaining a wet lands on the property. I believe this was written up in the Shoreline paper. A good example that our school district could follow ! We could use some encouraging words right now couldn't we ? Thank you for all your work.
To Seattle City Council President, Richard Conlin;
Land Use Committee: Sally Clark, Tim Burgess, and Tom Rasmussen
and Superintendent of Seattle Public Schools, Maria L. Goodloe-Johnson
and Seattle School Board members: Sherry Carr, Harium Martin-Morris, Peter Maier Cheryl Chow, Steve Sundquist, Mary Bass, Michael DeBell;
The Green Party of King County is dismayed by the inappropriate behavior on the part of Ingraham High School's principal, Martin Floe, who worked many students into a frenzy of anti-environmental chanting at a November 18th public hearing, according to a Green Party member who attended this hearing, and according to other witnesses.
As reported in the Seattle Times, "'This NIMBY [Not in My Back Yard] has got to stop," added Ingraham principal Martin Floe." * Need Mr. Floe be reminded that public schools are publicly funded, and so are the paychecks of school principals. Ingraham's neighbors are among those who fund our public schools, and they should not be subjected to insults by a school administrator. Ingraham's principal has derided and mocked anyone questioning his judgment.
Proponents for saving the trees at Ingraham are from across the city and expect the Seattle School District to comply with environmental laws and to protect our urban forest habitat. We also expect the Seattle School District to involve neighbors and the local community in projects that impact that community. It is inappropriate for a school principal to go contrary to our city's need for saving mature trees, and to fly in the face of the State Environmental Policy Act. Does Mr. Floe not take global warming seriously?
Seattle taxpayers expect the Seattle School District to be acting as responsible stewards of the land they hold in trust for educating students. As such they should be teaching by example and be a role model for wise stewardship of our public lands. They should be involving students in appropriate ways to manage our public lands for the benefit of the schools, the community and our environment. Needlessly cutting down trees when alternatives exist is poor stewardship.
The urban forest areas at Ingraham could be used to teach things like habitat preservation and restoration in order to help the city meet its goals of protecting existing trees and natural areas and increasing our urban forest areas in a responsible manner. Replacing 75 year old trees with saplings is going backwards.
Based on the Ingraham experience, future school levies should spell out more specifically the details of a project before being put to the voters, because the blank check process seems to have failed here and has violated a sense of public trust that needs to exist for future community support. When voters approve school levies we expect that the public will be involved in the design and review process. We expect an open, inclusive process, not the type of process that occurred at Ingraham, where decisions were made without public review and then presented as a fait accompli.
We would like to see this issue resolved in a manner that is in the best interest of students and environment; and repositioning the location of the new addition should be able to accomplish this.
*Tree issue near Ingraham brings both sides to hearing
Charles E. Brown, staff reporter, Seattle Times Nov 18, 2008
Respectfully;
Green Party of King County
Secretary, Kara Ceriello
secretary@kingcountygreens.org
Chair, Marjorie Rhodes
chair@kingcountygreens.org
Green Party supports Grassroots Democracy as one of our ten key values
I wrote this to the High School Newspaper, because one popular student claimed to be a part of the paper's staff, I thought I would share my comments here also:
To the Cascade staff,
I am saddened that the staff of the Cascade has failed in realizing the Ingraham trees are NOT an issue regarding the need to replace the portables and math modular.
In fact the portables and math modular buildings have continually been placed as a "later" project in the planning of the School Board/District for years.
The portables and math modular needed replacing when the fields were built and the lights were installed, why didn't the student body find the conditions in the portables and math modular so deplorable then as to stand up and say NO we need NEW Educational facilities before we need athletic facilities?
I am saddened at the lack of respect given to neighbors who PAY the salaries of the instructors, and for the athletic field and the lights, and the science building and the library, and even Mr. Foe's salary. The Tax payers of the City pay for the grounds that the School is on.
I am also saddened at the lack of respect, and the lack of understanding as to the health of the neighbors and future students. For the neighbors, future students and the instructors health will be at stake when the trees are removed.
The answer is to move the addition elsewhere on campus AND keep the trees. It is NOT addition OR trees.
The issue with the neighbors has never been addition or trees. It has always been MOVE the ADDITION and LEAVE the TREES.
Oh, and were any of the students listening when the Department of Planning and Development person stated how many trees would be removed? 73, Were they listening when the Department of Planning and Development person said ONLY 187 trees would be planted? Perhaps your math instructor could explain how the ratio of 73 to 187 is equivalent to 1 to 3?
It is the wasting of a Natural Resource like trees that is wrong. The North Lawn has NO trees. The places where the Portables and Math modular are don't have trees, why not build there?Why weren't the library and science construction built in a manner where a second story could be added? And why is there a future plan to build on the north lawn? Why not build on the north lawn NOW and make that addition strong enough for a 2nd story later? Why are only 20 people in ONE design team considered to have the Right answer? After all the Terrorist who attacked on 9/11 had 20 people were they correct? Or Japan at Pearl harbor? It isn't the number of people that make a project correct. Or even the professionals on the project's team. Mistakes were made when the Narrow's Bridge was built the first time. As were the mistakes when the I-90 bridge was under construction. Engineers and Architects were on those projects and were absolutely sure the plan's that had been produced were correct. How long will it take for I-90 and The Narrow's Bridge to reach Capacity Or I-5 under the convention center? How long did it take for 520? All projects done by professionals who were sure they would last for decades, with no capacity problems.
The sad part about this new addition at Ingraham, this new addition that will waste a resource that can not be replaced in the lifetime of the students or the neighbors is IT WILL NOT GIVE THE SCHOOL ANY ADDITIONAL CAPACITY. It only replaces the number of classrooms it removes. What is the current problems with the School District? Where are the Capacity issues?
Does the High School need more Capacity for the future or less? Does the School need the addition or is there away to rearrange classroom space inside the building and not have the portables now? Has anyone investigated this? Not by asking biased people, but by researching documents? Demographic studies? If the Portables and Math Modular are so horrendous, then why hasn't some one reported them to the Health Department? Force the School District to bring in new ones?
What about maintenance cost? Is a full daylight basement more costly than a traditional class room? How has the School District payed for maintenance, what is their "track" record in taking care of their property? The math modular and the portables, the current landscaping and the trees? Something so simple as Who rakes the leaves from the gutters? The students or the neighbors? Who picks up the trash along the road now, students or neighbors--that will be who more than likely will rake the leaves and pay for the disposal of the leaves, just like they do the garbage.
There are so many more questions.
This is not something about trees vs an addition. It involves counting true costs: Health for students and neighbors now and in the future, drainage-are the students aware of the abandoned landfill and methane gas?, education, dollar value, future costs both environmental and maintenance. It involves where our City wants to be in the future..40% green not 18% not 14% or 8%. And by the way it way the attitude toward trees in the 60's that removed an entire forest to build Ingraham. It was that attitude that has taken our City from over 40% green down near 8%. Why would any one want to continue that type of attitude for future building? This is what the District and Architects are doing when they say, the school was designed back in the 60's to have a west addition. The 60's Environmental awareness and 2008 is quite different. Is the District saying it is OK to live in the past?
How far can the research into this topic go? I have been researching since March 2008, and every day I find more questions, more secrets and more things to be concerned about, not just for the neighbors, but also for the students and the staff of Ingraham High School. Sometimes closing our eyes and believing an authority figure is the easiest way to go, but it can also be the most dangerous and costly.
SAM
The facts are that as of two years ago the District's own numbers showed a 17% surplus of High School classroom space and declining enrollment. The most conservative estimates (again, the District's own numbers) predicted a decline of about 1,000 students over the next 5 years or so with a modest growth after that to regain about 600 of the 1,000 lost at about 10 years out. (I quoted these numbers in one of the public meetings and provided references to the documents which are available on the District's Web site. I also provided a hardcopy [5 pages of questions and issues] to Ron English, expecting some sort of response, but so far I've received nothing.)
The question that no one seems to be asking is how does that make any sense? Declining enrollment, surplus classroom space and additional classroom construction. The only logical answer I've been able to think of is that they intend to close a high school and consolidate the students into the new and surplus classrooms. I wonder how many parents would be supportive of the new construction if they knew their local high school (i.e. not Ingraham or any of the other most recently remodeled schools) was going to be closed? I remember the parent uproar when they closed elementary schools. (And this year we hear that they have done a lousy job of balancing the students so that some are overcrowded and some are underused.) I wonder how vocal the parents and students at that school would be if they knew they were to be parceled out to other schools in the district? Of course, this is hypothetical on my part, but if someone can think of another logical explanation I'm interested in hearing it. Of course, incompetence would explain it too I guess and that certainly can't be ruled out....
The District has always kept its plans as concealed as possible. Sort of a Need To Know policy with them deciding that we don't need to know what their plans are. I've always thought of it as the Board not wanting to tell us what they are doing because that way they can tell themselves they are representing our wishes. If they made the plans public we [the public] might tell them that they are NOT representing our wishes. It's the age old issue of elected representatives telling us we don't know enough about the issues to have opinions they should respect, so they will take care of us since their opinions are much more important than ours. If the majority of the public are in the dark (i.e. quiet), they can write off the few vocal members of the public as exceptions.
Wasn't that the comment being sent around in the Save The Trees News back in November--right after the Public Meeting?
Quite prophetic...at least for Rainier Beach.
Post a Comment