Civic Campus Measure Failing

1137
9

Early election results Tuesday night have the Mountlake Terrace Civic Campus measure failing 54% to 46%. Since the measure needs a 60% vote to pass, it would take a lot for the measure to catch up at this point. While many who voted yes saw the measure as an investment in the community, opponents argued that the cost of the project and additional property taxes were too much to ask for in the current economy.

The measure would provide a new civic campus on the old civic center site with a new community/senior center, public meeting places, new police station, emergency operations center, city offices, library facility upgrades and new streetscapes.

Election results will be updated again on Wednesday, November 3 at 7 pm.

9 COMMENTS

  1. While I did vote for this measure, I think it would be easier for MLT folks to accept a smaller monthly tax for longer. Let’s face it $20 a month is a lot for somefolks, and the jump in the second year from $3 a month to $20 a month seems pretty huge. How about a slightly less ambitious project and $10- $13 a month?

  2. I’m very disappointed. The cost of the project was going to come under what was asked for in the first place. Second, we don’t have a city hall. MTL downtown will remain an empty shell. How is that going to present itself to the community, state and anyone else who might want to come and visit/live/move? Its very short sighted of the people.

  3. RL, I’m not so sure it’s as “short sighted of the people” as it was asking too much out of a citizenry that is out of discretionary money. A lot of us are struggling to meet our own financial obligations here.

  4. To ask for less than half a tank of gas a month I think is reasonable. I do understand that many are struggling, as am I. However, it is a well worth price to pay to have government/protection and something to build civic pride. It is also very easy to get too emotional during election season.

    What will happen to the empty field next to the run down downtown center now? It is a fair question.

  5. I am also trying to think of the long term effects of such a move (which is where the short-sighted comment came in). Building the civic center would actually help with property values near the area. It would help revitalize the downtown core, which is in desperate need.

  6. Maybe it wasn’t marketed well enough. Sadly, I wasn’t aware of it until I voted. It could have even been the artist’s rendition that turned off people. Whatever the case, the bond did not resonate with people. Then throw in the economy…They probably didn’t see a return on investment. Who knows. Will there be a survey after all is said and done?

    As someone has stated, the area needs revitalizing and instead of having something that would have cost money and improved the area, improved business and boosted property values…we now will have a grassy field next to an area in downtown that is blight.

    We have some wonderful businesses in the downtown area, but why have we lost two (archery shop and the trophy shop) in the last year?

    P

  7. It really is a shame that this is not passing. It was a good deal of money, but, as was stated already, this project would be extremely beneficial in the long term. MLT is a great community and I am happy that we moved here, and surely the civic campus would have only helped attract businesses and provide a gathering place. Does anyone know what the City will do now?

  8. I own a building across the street from the Civic Campus, and have spent a lot of effort and money in making it more presentable and a better community asset. The Civic Campus would certainly have benefited me; however, I don’t live in MLT so couldn’t vote. My take is that the city asked for too much at the wrong time. I would guess you’ll see these projects broken into smaller pieces with some separate bond measures, special levies, and indebtedness that doesn’t require a vote. The library roof should be replaced from a dedicated maintenance fund. I would guess a new police station/emergency center could be passed. The senior center and city hall would seem more difficult.

    Some other cities have used a new city hall to leverage private mixed-use development. City officials seem to like having their own single-purpose palace, but that might not be the best use of funds in tight times. Although a big mixed-use development might not be feasible today, maybe next year would be different. Downtown MLT needs new residents, who can get to downtown Seattle on transit faster than some Seattle neighborhoods. The city needs to think outside the box

  9. No construction project comes in under budget and there is no such thing as a true maximum fixed price contract. $36 million is a large starting number for such a substantial project. I’m not saying I wasn’t for the project, but RL’s words made me comment.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here