Seattle School District Works Overtime to Silence Critics

Opponents to the Seattle School District's clearcutting of half a grove of old evergreen trees at Ingraham High School got slapped with two motions over the weekend to silence their criticism.

Both seem petty and ill advised from a public relations sense yet the Seattle School District seems impervious to listening to the public.

One motion was to try to silence a quiet mannered public citizen who seems to have devoted most of his breathing time in recent years to trying to make Seattle Schools better. He is present at most of the school district's meetings regarding all manner of things and presents thoughtful researched input into the public process that seems to have few Seattle citizens participating.

His name is Chris Jackins and he represents a broad base of Seattle citizens concerned about school issues under his Seattle Committee to Save Schools. Our family is a member of his group as are other neighbors. Yet the Seattle School District has filed a motion to dismiss him and his committee from the appeal tomorrow on the School District's Determination of Nonsignificance for the Ingraham High School renovation project.

The motion was filed by G. Richard Hill a special attorney paid for by our tax dollars to try to push through the Seattle School District's opinion that cutting down up to 90 old Douglas fir, western red cedar and madrone trees that have existed on the Ingraham High School campus even before the school was build in 1959 is not significant. The trees are over 75 years old and 100 feet or more tall.

According to Mr Hill, Chris Jackins is not an aggrieved person and as such can not file an appeal. By definition all of Seattle residents are aggrieved persons because they are taxpayers who are paying to clearcut trees at Ingraham if the Seattle School District continues with its ill advised anti- environmental stance that cutting down 90 old evergreen trees in a park like setting on the west side of Ingraham High School is not significant.

Hill says that " a person is aggrieved only when the following conditions are present (a) the interest that the person is seeking to protect is within the zone of interests that are protected or regulated by SEPA; and(b) the person has alleged "injury in fact" ie, that he or she will be specifically and perceptibly harmed" by the proposed action."

Chris Jackins and his committee are aggrieved by the proposed actions of the School Board as are most other Seattle residents and should be commended for taking the time to be involved as a citizen activist, not told to put a muzzle on.

Ingraham High School is a International Baccalaureate school that is trying to attract students from all over the city. As such families across the city have an interest in what happens at Ingraham. And if Ingraham diminishes the urban forest habitat by its actions it affects all Seattle residents. Ingraham is not an island unto itself.

The Seattle School District does not need to cut down any large trees to build the addition at Ingraham High School. The North side of Ingraham High School has an open grassy lawn that the school district has actually identified as a future building site in their master plan for Ingraham High School. Considering the magnitude of the impact on the current site that clear cuts 2/3 of a magnificent grove of trees, most reasonable persons would scratch their heads and ask, "Why don't you build the proposed addition there and save the trees?"

The problem is that the Seattle School District and the Ingraham School Design Team made their decision as to where to build in private without public involvement. And that is one of the reasons they have filed their second motion - which is to quash any discussion of their secret process and lack of consideration of alternatives to the present site. They gave lip service to public involvement but unless you were personally selected by Ingraham High School's Principal Martin Floe to come to the unpublicized Ingraham School Design Team meetings you had no way of participating.

The second motion is to dismiss appellants claims regarding alternatives. They argue that since they have "mitigated " their determination of nonsignificance that we can not discuss the fact that other potential building sites like the North side of the school do not require any old trees to be cut down. Yet they make a number of references in the Environmental checklist as to why specific alternative sites won't work as well discuss them in the latest letter of determination of nonsignificance. But the Seattle School District is now trying to say that while it was OK for them to discuss them, we can not do the same.

The Seattle School District is trying to say that its proposal is not environmentally significant because it is going to plant more trees than it takes out. The problem with this argument is that they can not replace old large coniferous trees with small deciduous street trees and claim they are making up for the irreversible loss of a park like grove of 75 year old by planting a bunch of 1 or 2 year old deciduous street trees and some small conifers elsewhere on the campus. This is like telling season ticket holders of the Seahawks that the team has been replaced with two teams of junior high school football players and if we wait long enough they will be able to play against the New England Patriots or the NY Giants. Just have patience.

Seattle School students can certainly get a good lesson in how democracy and the law really works by watching the attempts of the District to silence its critics. Repeated requests to get specific information on alternative designs and budgets from the School District and information on the basis on which it decided to make its decision that the trees were not significant have met with minimal response. This lack of timely and specific response to these public information requests for records leads me to the conclusion that the Seattle School District is a closed bureaucracy that does not feel it needs to involve the public in its decision making It would prefer to do it business behind closed doors out of the public limelight and doesn't feel it needs to be accoutable for its actions.

The hearing on the appeal of the SEPA determination of nonsignificance for the Ingraham High School renovation that will result in clearcutting trees on the site will start tomorrow at 9 AM at Ingraham High School in North Seattle in the school library. The hearing is open to the public and media.

Seattle City Council to Act on Saving Tree Groves

This Tuesday afternoon at 2 PM, the Seattle City Council 's Environment, Emergency Management and Utilities will be discussing and considering passing a resolution on clarifying the existing rules on protecting trees in Seattle "to include groves or groups of trees or other vegetation that are determined to have substantial ecological, educational or economic value"

Resolution 31065 is sponsored by Council President Richard Conlin and Sally Clark. You can read their press release here. They expect the Committee to vote on the issue June 24 and the full council to vote on June 30, 2008.

It does not appear that the public will get much chance to comment on the resolution because the Committee is only allowing 10 minutes of public comment for a jam packed meeting that also includes discussion of a 20 cent per bag green fee on disposable shopping bags and another discussion on prohibiting polystyrene containers for food and shifting to compostable and recyclable alternatives.

The best bet for those that want to help protect existing groves of trees from being destroyed in Seattle is to call or e-mail Seattle City Council members urging their support for added strengthening tree protection. Certainly come to the meeting to show your support as well. The Seattle City Council members can be contacted by going to the Seattle City Council website.

The two current battles over threatened destruction of trees includes a grove of 130 old Douglas fir and western red cedar and madrone trees at Ingraham High School in north Seattle and another grove of mostly Douglas fir in the Maple Leaf area in Seattle called the Waldo Woods.

Recent articles on the proposed tree ordinance:

"Seattle council members want groves of trees protected" Seattle Times 3/29/2008

"Call to Protect grove of trees is sent to Nickels" Seattle PI 3/29/2008

"Seattle Treescape: A bigger canopy" Seattle PI editorial 6/11, 2008

"Neighbors Urge Seattle School Board to Redesign Ingraham HS Project", MajorityRulesBlog 4/15/2008

A growing contradiction at Ingraham high, Seattle PI 3/28/2008

"Maple Leaf appeals decision on letting developer cut down trees" Seattle Times 5/28/2008

Seattle School Board Wants to Honor Renowned Mountaineer by Cutting Down Old Trees

The Seattle School Board is both out of touch with the environment and with history. They are pursing a pig headed approach to renovating Ingraham High School in North Seattle, refusing to consider any alternative designs. Their one and only design clear cuts half of a grove of 75 year old 100 foot tall evergreen trees.

The disconnect here is that besides being contrary to the current goals of Seattle to preserve existing trees and to plant new trees to increase our tree cover in Seattle, they are doing this clearcut at a school named to honor a renowned outdoorsman and mountaineer. The school was named after Major Edward Sturgis Ingraham - the first superintendent of Seattle Public Schools.
As noted on Wikipedia, Ingraham was "a noted mountaineer who climbed Mt Rainier 13 times and a leader in the effort to establish Mt Rainier National Park." The Ingraham Glacier on Mt Rainier is named after him. He also was involved in some of the first ascents of Mt Baker in the 1890's. He was appointed to be a member of the first State Board of Education.

So much for having a school named after you by the Seattle School District. Its sort of like the US Navy naming a battleship the USS Gandhi. Ingraham is probably rolling over in his grave, seeing the lack of respect for what he stood for regarding the environment and the horrible lesson this teaches our children entrusted to the Seattle School District.

The voters approved the funds for the renovation of the school but the Seattle School District never told the voters that their intent was to cut down some 66 Douglas fir, western red cedar and madrone trees on the west side of the school to build the addition. If they had told the voters, the funds never would have been approved.

And all during the planing for the addition through the rendering of architectural drawings, neighbors and other members of the community were kept in the dark as to the Seattle School District's true intent. Internal minutes of a Seattle School Design Committee were first released some 6 months after the meetings started and after the first opportunity for the public to comment on the Environmental Checklist for the project.

The committee noted last year that some neighbors may object to the trees being cut. But at their second meeting they already stated that building where the trees were was their preferred choice. This was despite the fact that a large open area exists on the north side of the school where they can build the addition without cutting down any trees. And they had already in their long range master plan picked this site for a future classroom addition.

The Seattle School District only seriously considered the site where the trees were. A request for release of public information on any alternative designs and associated budget figures produced only a brief one page line sketch of a building on the north side. No alternative budgets supposibly exist.

The Seattle School Board has taken a blind eye to the whole thing - refusing to look at building on the north side and saving the trees. They have issued a notice of determination on non-significance for their SEPA environmental checklist. This is so they do not have to do an environmental impact statement.

The problem is that the Seattle School District is the one issuing the so called notice of determination of non-significance. There is not a review by a separate agency or entity which seems like a significant conflict of interest. It's like asking a coal burning energy plant to determine whether its emmisions are impacting the environment and taking their word for it without any independent agency or entity reviewing the information and making the determination.

Contact the Seattle School Board and urge them to save the trees by building the addition on the north side of the school. No money has been committed or spent for construction yet. The Seattle School District is acting like it is still 1959 and they can build whatever they want where ever they want without taking into account the concerns and goals of the larger community they live in. They are being bad neighbors when they don't need to be bad neighbors. They need to hear that the public opposes their clearcutting plan for Ingraham High School.

You can email the Seattle School Board members at - Sherry Carr, District II; Harium Martin-Morris, District III; Peter Maier, District I; Cheryl Chow, District VII Steve Sundquist, District VI; Mary Bass, District V; Michael DeBell, District IV

Send them all your email since 4 of the 7 board members need to vote to build the addition on the north side of the school. Also send a copy of your e mail to the Superintendent of Seattle Public Schools - Maria L Goodloe-Johnson at superintendent@seattleschools.org .