
First, for the record, the blog is not saying that the contaminated property should not have been purchased. Sure, we question the wisdom behind even considering the location, but if we assume for a moment that the location and its potential traffic implications can be overcome, the real issue to ponder is the price that was paid.
There is no doubt the site is contaminated. I was in the room when every one of the District's consultants and their legal counsel agreed the site should not be purchased because of the contamination. I reviewed the documentation regarding the site at Raskin's office in Kirkland. I poured over the evidence of contamination and reviewed a lot of the documents on behalf of the District, prior to pulling AMEC and Reid Middleton into the process. In fact, along with my supervisor, I assembled an inventory of reports and findings held by Raskin prior to selling the site to the District. It was this summary that was provided to the District's consultants that allowed them to more fruitfully obtain the reports necessary to effectively study the site. That study resulted in the recommendation that the site not be purchased.
"All appraisals were done by certified, licensed appraisers." This is factually correct but it does not reveal who selected the appraiser or for which party the appraiser was working.
"All of the negotiations and aspects for this purchase were reviewed with district legal counsel and technical consultants, as well as with the Board of Directors." This is factually correct but it does not reveal the position taken by these technical consultants nor is there a single member of the Board qualified to effectively evaluate the aspects of this purchase.
"One rumor that has persisted about this property,... is that it was contaminated." We have never made any claim that the site "was" contaminated. Our position from the very start of this process has always been that the site "is" contaminated. Anyone saying that the site "was" contaminated would be spreading a rumor, because "was" implies past tense and factually the site is currently contaminated.
"As part of our review of the property prior to purchase, our consultants evaluated the soil and determined the risk of contamination should not preclude purchase of the site." Okay, this is a lie. But if you allow the District to be creative with their interpretation of what they pay people to tell them, there is still a problem. This risk of contamination should not preclude purchase of the site... if the sale price was less than three million dollars.
"We negotiated for the seller to pay for insurance to address any soils issues that might arise during construction." First, the seller's premium for this coverage would not be expensive if no actual construction or earthwork was to take place during the seller's period of coverage. The insurance provider was more interested in the manner of construction to determine real exposure to paying on the policy. If you don't dig more than a few feet, and avoid known hot spots, you could limit the amount of exposure to contamination. The fact the District even sought insurance for contaminated soils proves they were convinced of an elevated chance of liability.
"...since we recently completed demolition of the old school and grading of the property, and in the course of this work no contamination was found." The District was not looking for contamination and did not aggressively test while grading was taking place. Modern construction techniques allow for development on contaminated soils. The fact that such development occurs does not erase the existence of contaminants.
"The Department of Ecology also was asked recently to review all the data, and confirmed there are no contamination issues to be dealt with on the site." This is factually correct, but it was a member of our blog team that initiated contact with the Department of Ecology. Ecology has no data for the site because the District and the previous owner, MJR Development, did not provide the results of their environmental evaluation. Their process for investigating situations like these is currently underway. When we have updated information, the blog will provide it to our readers.
The District's drivel regarding the need to relocate to a site further from the commercial core of Alderwood Mall is not being challenged by the blog. We are concerned, however, that the City of Lynnwood, in their insatiable quest for sales tax revenue, is happily prepared to overlook regulatory issues to expedite the District's departure from the current bus barn location.
"The [D]istrict is ever mindful of how precious the use of public funds is for any and all transactions." Would someone kindly explain to me how the District would allow the piano transaction with Seattle Piano Gallery to move forward. It was a violation of public trust to craft the scheme in the first place and then matters worsened when Marla handed a $40,000.00 check to her friend from Rotary. The evidence is clear that the District's regard for public resources is an illusion.
The District goes on to make certain that everyone is clear about the source of the funding to buy this contaminated piece of property. The funds "came from the capital projects budget and not the general fund." Every dime in the District's pocket belongs to the public and should be spent with the highest regard for the appropriate use of public funds.
"Certainly, if the property owner would have sold the property for less we would have purchased it for less." I suspect if the seller would have demanded more, Marla would have found a way to buy it at any price.
"However, we do not control the sale price..." The District has absolutely no comprehension of basic economic principles. The buyer always controls the selling price. Without a willing buyer, nothing sells. The seller only controls the asking price. Pick up a text book.
The District goes on to describe adversarial condemnation. Remember, Marla, I am well aware of the fact that Raskin asked the District to pursue this option. As far as the process "requir[ing] another appraisal to be entered into a court proceeding where the value/price would have been established", I cannot help but shake my head. Does the District actually believe that another appraisal would have been higher than $5,600,000? What would have happened if that third appraisal came back less than the District's appraisal?
"The Board determined that an adversarial condemnation action would have been contrary to our mission of being fair in how we work with people in our community, including property owners." Michael Raskin of MJR Development lives in Medina and works in Kirkland. How is he a person in our community? What about treating district taxpayers fairly? Raskin made a disgustingly obscene amount of profit on this transaction and avoided having to pay to remediate the contamination. District taxpayers will be paying that tab later.
"On behalf of the Board of Directors and district, we thank you again for your interest and support." That is rather presumptuous. We have been forced by district management to support MJR Development in their quest to develop more wineries and condos in Woodinville.
Mark Zandberg
Executive Director of Blog Content Development