I'm working my way through all the other offers the city received to redevelop the Mercer Megablock now. One thing that jumps out is that Alexandria (the firm the city chose) did offer a ground lease option, which would keep the property in public hands. However...
Conversation
It's impossible to know the details, because Alexandria completely redacted the details of their ground lease proposal.
The city informed me that I have the right to request unredacted documents, but that they will inform the respondents (in this case, Alexandria) that I've asked for this information, giving them the right to sue me directly.
3
6
16
As I read RCW 42.56.540, it gives cities this option but does not require them to inform the entity (again, Alexandria) that someone has requested the information they redacted.
4
16
In their response, the city warned me that "If they chose to pursue an injunction, you will likely be named as a necessary party to the lawsuit and lengthy litigation may ensue."
3
2
8
Other bids provided in response to my records request included minor redactions of financial details as well, but none anywhere near as extensive as Alexandria's.
1
8
The reason I think the details of the ground lease offer are of public interest is that a ground lease would have allowed the land to remain in public hands, as many advocates would have preferred. The public should at least know what this alternative would have looked like.
1
5
42
Obviously, as an independent reporter, I don't have the resources to engage in "lengthy litigation" with a massive real-estate equity firm. But perhaps some of the lawyered-up legacy media would be interested in knowing this information as well.
2
3
31
Another piece of information that has been blacked out in Alexandria's response: How many units of "workforce housing" will be provided, in addition to the 175 units of lower-income (60% AMI) apts. The city did note that these will be primarily studios and 1BRs, not family units.
1
11
