Montlake Community Club

Should Montlake Change Its Southern Boundary?

by 30 Comments

Boundary-Map

Montlake Boundary Map

UPDATED with MCC President comments

A request to change the southern boundary of Montlake Community Club (MCC) has been brought before the Montlake Community Club.  According to the “official” description in the bylaws, the southern boundary line is E Galer St.  Residents that live just south of E Galer St have approached the MCC about expanding the boundary because, even though they feel they are part of Montlake, they are not truly recognized as “Montlake”.

The MCC Board approved a motion to officially bring to a member vote the proposal to make E Helen St the southern boundary line which is four blocks south of E Galer St, the current boundary.

The only way to change the official boundaries is to change the MCC Bylaws which requires a vote by the MCC members.  MCC members include all residents and business owners within Montlake.  This proposal must be posted on the Montlake Flyer for at least 30 days for the community to consider and members can submit their vote by mail or on-line.  This post serves as the official notice.

To be approved, the proposal must receive 2/3 approval from all of the votes submitted by members.  You must submit a vote for it to count.

Update: Voting Has Closed

Or look for “Vote” at the top of the web page and follow the instructions. Alternatively, you may submit a vote by mail. A ballot is provided in the paper version of The Montlake Flyer that is currently being distributed to Montlake residents within the next few days.  The results of the vote will to posted on Montlake.Net after the required time period.

UPDATE:

I would like to thank everyone for their online comments and suggestions regarding the proposed boundary change which is obviously a controversial topic.  I’ve been following the conversation closely and now I would like to try and provide some history and answer questions about this issue.

What is a Montlake Community Club (MCC) “official” southern boundary change?  Is it a land grab?

No, a community club doesn’t grab land.  MCC and other community clubs and councils aim to foster community and offer representation.  An “official” boundary change is simply a change of the area the community club represents.  It is not a neighborhood definition change.  There are many common interests between residents of Montlake currently falling with the boundaries of the club, and residents of areas not within the boundaries.  Common interests include bicycle and pedestrian safety, traffic, bus service and schools.  Joining together gives members a louder voice so that hopefully we will be heard.

If the boundary change is approved, does that mean my neighborhood will change from the Arboretum to Montlake?

No, of course not.  But, in addition to pooling resources with neighbors to work on specific issues, you can get the support of the Montlake Community Club, its representation, its support in obtaining grants, improvements to streets, access to parks, school issues, etc.  You also can volunteer on the MCC Board, represent the MCC at East District meeting to vote on grants, etc.

How and when did this proposal start?

The idea to change the “official” southern boundary has been discussed for a while.  It first began as conversations with some residents who live south of E Galer St, our official southern boundary.  They expressed a desire to be included in the Montlake Community Club representation area.  As they are not officially part of Montlake they are ineligible to serve on the MCC Board which is a well organized neighborhood group recognized by city and state officials.

Because of this, The Montlake Community Club started doing some research on the area south of E Galer St, east of 23rd Ave E, north of E Madison St, and west of Lake Washington Blvd, an area where exact neighborhood boundaries have sometimes seemed unclear.  We found that, according to the Madison Valley Community, their northern boundary is E Madison St.  Some say it is E Helen St, but if that is true, it is not backed up by their own neighborhood description which is clearly stated on their website.  Last year the past MCC President, Julee Neuhart, contacted the Madison Valley Community Council and she reported that they supported a club boundary change.  A few months ago, I contacted Zachary Pullin, the President of the Capitol Hill Community Council, and he confirmed their east boundary is 23rd Ave E and he also supported a club boundary change.  Residents that identify as the “Arboretum” proved to be more difficult to communicate with as a whole, however, we did find that the people we did speak to supported the idea.  Considering all of this, the MCC felt a change in the boundary was worth pursuing.

According to the MCC Bylaws, the only way to change the boundary is through a vote by members, which must receive 2/3 approval.  Unfortunately, according to the Bylaws, only members that live inside the official boundaries are allowed to vote.  The decision to bring this to a vote was made and approved at the December MCC Board meeting, ballots were printed and distributed in the Montlake Flyer and on the Montlake.Net website.

What is Montlake Community club’s motivation to change the club boundary?  What are the Pros?

We simply want to provide representation to everyone who lives in Montlake and Arboretum neighborhoods because we all share common interests.  A larger group certainly speaks with a louder voice and maybe E Helen St should have been the southern border all along.  We also benefit by possibly getting more volunteers that have the desire and drive to get involved and make a change.

What are the Cons?

The MCC does not recognize any Cons at this time.  If you fall within the boundary area, you automatically become a member.  No forced fees, no obligation whatsoever.  You can, in fact, ignore the MCC if you want to.

Bryan Haworth
Montlake Community Club, President

Comments

  1. I live at in the affected area around 25th and Galer, which is often called Hazelwood. Being part of an official community club would benefit our historically ‘left out’ area, helping us to better advocate for our neighborhood’s needs in a city where the community clubs hold so much sway with policymakers and agencies.

    Reply

  2. I agree that this issue seemed to come out of nowhere. There was no information with the mailing and the after-the-fact explanation, which I just received via e-mail, does not provide convincing justification. The statement that there are “no cons” seems to suggest that a quick survey of the promoters alone led to that conclusion. I still find myself saying, “Huh?” If it would jeopardize the application for historic status and ignores historic understandings of neighborhood, I would vote against. As it is, I did not vote and feel this should be rethought and greater effort taken to hear from each household in both areas and adjacent neighborhoods.

    Reply

    • Thank you for your comment. The proposed boundary change only impacts the defined area the Montlake Community Club represents. It is not a neighborhood definition or boundary change. This will not impact Montlake Neighborhood Historical Status and was confirmed with historical society.

      Reply

  3. Exactly how would changing the boundary “affect” the registration of Montlake as a Historic District? Does it mean we’d automatically lose the registration? I would vote no in that case. I agree with Alan Weiner about the risks of reducing or losing our bit of “clout.” I wish the consequences of this proposal could be delineated more clearly, pro and con. It seems somewhat ingenuous to put it up for a vote without this.

    Reply

    • Thank you for your comment. The proposed boundary change only impacts the defined area the Montlake Community Club represents. It is not a neighborhood definition or boundary change. This will not impact Montlake Neighborhood Historical Status and was confirmed with historical society.

      Reply

      • This could be very important. We have little influence over city and state plans as is, but risking our status as an Historic District might reduce what clout we have. We will need all the clout we can muster when the new 520 and light rail are operational, and what is now a routine traffic jam turns into an impass.

      • Thank you for your comment. The proposed boundary change only impacts the defined area the Montlake Community Club represents. It is not a neighborhood definition change. This will not impact Montlake Neighborhood Historical Status and was confirmed with historical society.

  5. As someone who lives in the red box, I say you Montlakers are preposterous. Why don’t you just vote to take over the rest of North Capitol Hill while your at it? And why stop there denying us poor schleps the benefit of Montlake association? The Central District shall be renamed Montlake South, and Madison Park — Montlake East!!

    Seriously though, my acquiescence to your land grab can be had for a price. Email me and I’ll send my paypal info.

    Regards,

    Reply

  6. Without additional information to help me understand the potential ramifications of such a change, I would vote to have the “boundaries” remain as they are.

    Reply

  7. How long has this proposal been under discussion? Granted that I don’t pay much attention, but this is the first I’ve heard of this proposal. The new southern boundary at E. Helen Street splits what I think of as the Arboretum neighborhood. A dedicated group from that neighborhood has for the past several years been renovating the large wooded area at the dead-end of E. 26th north of E. Helen Street. Has anyone on the MCC board been in contact with this group of people?

    I would expect substantially more information from the board about this proposal before being asked to vote on it.

    Reply

  8. This is all very strange. How can we vote without knowing who is asking to redefine Montlake and why? A democratic election would have statements for and against, but voters are given no hint of the potential advantages and disadvantages for residents on either side of the proposed boundary. And if voting is restricted to members of the MCC (i.e. on an MCC mailing list or email listserve), who defines Montlake? The MCC, the City of Seattle, or some other group? The use of quotes around “official” and “Montlake” in the ballot statement suggests that these are not settled issues, making an informed election all the more important.

    Reply

  9. I am happy to vote but would like to understand why the change (property values, school, what?). And, what does it mean, if anything, for those of us already in the boundaries?

    Reply

  10. Montlake’s existing boundary, at Galer St, well up onto Capitol Hill, has always struck me as way too far south. Interlaken Park and Boulevard is the logical geographic feature in between Capitol Hill and Montlake.

    Most people would say the highest point in the neighborhood is near 22nd & Newton, where house 2205 is 148 feet in elevation. But using the existing Montlake boundary, a house at 1502 24th Ave E (at Galer) would be, at 197 feet elevation.

    The several blocks in question, in fact, can be described variously as extreme SE Montlake, or NE Capitol Hill, or East Capitol Hill, or NW Madison Valley. I think Harrison Neighborhood may also be a term that could be used.

    If I was still on the MCC Board, I would favor shrinking Montlake’s SE boundary to Interlaken Blvd. rather than enlarging it. Also, by the way, Montlake’s official NW boundary also should be expanded slightly —a few blocks. The apartment buildings were left out intentionally by Montlakers who wanted to underscore that this is a neighborhood of single-family residential zoning.

    Arthur Lee Jacobson

    Reply

    • I almost hate to say it, but I agree. I grew up just on the South side of Interlaken Blvd, and we always considered ourselves “Capitol Hill” even though the folks across the street were “Montlake”. I’m not saying boundaries can never change, but there is a natural geographic divide at Interlaken (some might say it is at Boyer), and I think geography serves a purpose. It helps remind us of what Chief Sealth (supposedly) said, that “we belong to the land”.

      The point is, Interlaken or no, I do think the proposed boundary is pushing things a bit. And as others (below) have stated, if changing the boundaries would put Montlake’s Historic status at risk then I’m definitely opposed.

      Reply

      • Thank you for your comment. The proposed boundary change only impacts the defined area the Montlake Community Club represents. It is not a neighborhood definition or boundary change. This will not impact Montlake Neighborhood Historical Status and was confirmed with historical society.

  11. Why? What difference will this change have for those in the area in question? Also why not 6 blocks further south?

    Reply

  12. I voted in favor of this, but have yet to read one single argument or explanation as to what the reasoning behind the vote was. My sense was that, the more blocks we take “into the fold” of the neighborhood, the greater the opportunity for community involvement and preservation of our neighborhood and existing structures. That said, I’d really like to know what the reasoning behind the vote is. Thanks!

    Reply

Leave a Reply