“We know that our current president surrounds himself by some of the smartest innovators around,” Harrell said. “When we drop names like [Marc] Andreessen or Peter Thiel or David Sacks or Elon Musk—these are smart innovators.”
Debates erupted this week over trees, housing, and whether Elon Musk and Peter Thiel are “some of the smartest innovators around.”
A group of neighbors and tree activists protested the removal of a tree on private property in Ravenna, claiming the late owner of the property “cherished” the tree and cared for it lovingly. Her family tells a different story—they say their mother “hated” the tree because it was so much work to maintain, and argue that after owning the house for more than 70 years, the family has the right to sell it to the highest bidder.
After critics complained that Council President Sara Nelson, who’s sponsoring legislation that would allow affordable “workforce” housing near the city’s two stadiums, only included supporters on a panel about the bill, she convened a second panel of opponents. The group, predictably, blasted the proposal, saying it abandoned a “deal” with maritime businesses and the Port to keep industrial land industrial forever.
Protesters prevented a tree crew from entering the street to remove the cedar at the center of the dispute PubliCola covered earlier this week, occupying the site and blocking the crew’s truck until police arrived. We spoke to several people who were at the protest the night before and remained on site Tuesday as the tree came down.
PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you. CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.
Two stories in Wednesday’s Morning Fizz: First, Mayor Bruce Harrell continued to tout a questionable metric for progress on homelessness—the number of people who were told about available shelter beds during or leading up to sweeps—in his “Seattle On the Rise” state of the city speech. And the city of Burien continues to rack up legal fees for outside counsel, this time suing the campaign for a higher minimum wage in an effort to stop the new pay standard from going into effect.
In a speech to downtown business leaders, Mayor Bruce Harrell appeared to praise the tech bros who are currently dismantling the federal government, calling Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, and David Sacks “some of the smartest innovators around.” His spokesman claims Harrell was actually criticizing Trump byr “referencing they have an objective reputation as leaders in technology and innovation, and that it is a danger they are in the president’s orbit.”
On this week’s Seattle Nice podcast, we talked more about the tree story (read this post to find out why I’m frustrated by people who focus all their activism on solitary trees in their immediate vicinity). And we debated whether Harrell was right—is Elon Musk, whose Swasticar B called “one of the most unreliable EVs made yet,” a genius, or a reckless ketamine abuser who used Twitter a a test case for running the government into the ground?
UPDATE: On Monday morning, police intervened as protesters attempted to block construction at the site. According to the Instagram account PhotogSteve81, posting at about 10:15 Monday morning, “arrests are being made” at the site. Video posted by the account showed protesters skirmishing with police officers and a man and woman lying on the ground, surrounded by police.
Erich Armbruster, of Ashworth Homes, told PubliCola that protesters showed up at the site last night and occupied an area behind a fence set up by the Seattle Department of Transportation; at some point, one broke onto the property itself and refused to leave until police arrived last night. This morning, protesters returned and re-occupied the site as well as the street in front of the property, with at least one person lying down in the street and refusing to leave, while others stood inside the fencing itself. Police came out and attempted to deescalate, eventually arresting at least one protester.
Look back for more updates later today.
Original story follows:
On February 9, several dozen people gathered outside a construction site in northeast Seattle to rally around a large Western red cedar tree, which is slated for removal as part of a new development that will replace a one-story bungalow with four new townhouses. The city had recently posted a notice that the tree could come down as February 10, so neighbors who wanted to save the tree scrambled to respond.
“We were shocked because it was too close [in time],” said Saraswati Sunindyo, who lives down the street. “We didn’t have enough time to do much of anything.”
Tree Action Seattle, a group that has pushed for revisions to Seattle’s tree ordinance that would make it harder to remove trees for development, quickly got to work, organizing the rally and creating an action page for the tree, which is located just off busy NE 65th Street, between two apartment buildings and across the street from a drive-through coffee stand.
Formerly one of several anonymous large trees on the block, the cedar now had a name—Grandma Brooks’ Cedar—and a backstory: According to Tree Action Seattle, the previous homeowner, Barbara Brooks, “lovingly cared for” and “cherished” the tree for for more than 70 years. “On hot summer days, she would carry a bucket of water to the tree to water it,” according to the website, and even swept the driveway of the neighboring apartment complex until she was almost 90.
When the apartment complex owner offered to buy her house, the site continues, Brooks refused, because he said his plans would require cutting down the tree. “Barbara passed away at 103, and requested her family only sell the property to a buyer that would preserve the tree.”
According to Tree Action, Legacy Capital Partners, the real estate firm brokered the deal, “offered to save the tree,” but “immediately filed plans to remove the cedar” once the land was in their hands. A representative from Legacy did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and the owner of the apartment building did not return a call last week.
According to Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections spokesman Bryan Stevens, developers are allowed to remove “Tier 2” trees—those with a diameter of 24 inches or more—if retaining the tree would reduce the amount of developable land on a lot to less than 85 percent of its total area. Anyone who removes a tree for development must replace the tree with a tree or trees that will result in a similar or greater tree canopy once they mature.
Those trees, however, will take a long time to grow to full height—longer than many of the people mourning the loss of the cedar will be alive.
“The whole neighborhood really loves the tree,” Sunindyo said. There are other Western red cedars in the area, she acknowledged, but “they’re not as big as that one. My kids grew up with that tree. A neighbor who is 70 years old said, ‘When I was little, it was already big.’ So everyone is attached to that tree.”
Not everyone.
“Mom hated that tree,” said Beverly Brooks, who grew up in the house and lived with her mother for the last seven years of her life. “My mother never took buckets of water to water the tree. She was 101, not 103, [when she died], and she never told any neighbor that she loved that tree. We all hated that tree.”
As for protesters’ claims that their family told Legacy they had to keep the tree in place, Beverly said, “We never said anything to anybody about that tree.”
PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you. CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.
“Our mother hated that tree,” Beverly’s sister Barbara confirmed. “It’s a huge tree, and it sheds all the time.” Her mother maintained the tree to the best of her ability, removing piles of needles from the roof, gutters, and sidewalk, but she certainly didn’t “cherish” or “lovingly care for” it, the sisters said.
“My mom would cut back the branches and clean it up just constantly,” Barbara said. “We didn’t have a lot of money growing up. Mom always said, ‘If I could afford to get rid of this tree, I would.'”
“That tree was a burden to my mom for years and years,” Beverly said. Eventually, it became her burden as well. For 30 years, into her 70s, Beverly climbed up on the roof to remove needles from the house and gutters, then cleared the sidewalk. “I didn’t want anybody to fall and get hurt,” she said. In all that time, “Not one of the neighbors asked if they could help or nothing. They saw me up on the roof and every man turned the other way.”
“They call my mom ‘Grandma Brooks.’ I don’t like that,” Beverly added. “Her name was Mrs. Brooks. She wasn’t a grandma to any of them.”
Both sisters recall that a neighbor across the street told their mother she needed to put a covenant on the property so that any future buyer would have to keep the tree, but their mother said no. They were surprised at the vitriol the new owner, Legacy, has received for their plans to remove the tree. “In our minds, we just thought ‘let’s get rid of it’ because it’s going to cause the next people problems,” Barbara said.
Today, the Brooks’ house is gone, reduced to a pile of rubble. After the city received an anonymous complaint about potential groundwater pollution from asbestos, the new owner, Ashworth Homes, stopped demolition to do a second asbestos remediation on what’s left of the house, stopping work on the project.
Remnants from the recent protest, including a circle of rose petals surrounded by a wreath of cedar boughs, remained visible on the ground as of last week. The tree, which towers over the three-story apartment complex next door, is now surrounded by protective fencing that neighbors have festooned with signs reading “SAVE THIS TREE!!!” and “MAKE AMERICA AN ENDLESS EXPANSE OF OLD-GROWTH FOREST WITH NO CERTAIN BORDERS AGAIN.”
There is no old-growth forest remaining in Seattle neighborhoods, although isolated old-growth trees can be found in a few local parks. Western red cedars like the one in the Brooks’ former yard take about 50 years to reach their mature height of 80 feet or more, and were part of the landscaping planted to replace the old-growth forest that was destroyed to develop single-family neighborhoods across what is now Seattle.
Tree Action Seattle argues that it would be a simple thing to keep the tree in place and redesign the site plan, by shifting around the buildings and converting two of the four proposed garage spaces into surface parking spots. “I showed the plan to two architects,” Tree Action’s Sandy Shettler said over email. “One of them laughed and said there are so many ways to design the site with the same amount of housing around this tree you’d have to go out of your way to remove it.”
Ashworth Homes president Erich Armbruster agrees it might be technically possible to keep the tree–but not on the site plan he purchased the plans for the property based on a layout that has more value because of the size and floor plans of the homes that can be built there, including garages and more usable ground-floor space than Tree Action’s proposed site plan would allow.
“Had I been presented that plan, presuming it was possible, might I have purchased it? Yes, I might have, but not for the price I paid,” Armbruster said. Tree Action’s plan, he said, lowers the value of the finished development by replacing garages with less desirable surface parking and changing the layout of the building next to the tree to make the first floor “harder to lay out for any sort of meaningful use.”
Property records show the Brooks sold the property to Ashworth for a little more than $1 million.
“A bank would have required it to be less because the finished value isn’t as high,” Armbruster said. “I purchased a permitted site plan that was all negotiated according to the rules in place today.” Renegotiating the plan now would be like buying a car, driving it off the lot, and getting a call from the dealer asking you to pay more for the tires. “We can’t renegotiate it, because I’ve already purchased it.”
A rendering of the approved townhouses on the site of the Brooks’ former property.
Armbruster said that after tree activists began protesting the removal of the cedar, the tree service provider he hired to remove the tree backed out and he had to hire a new one—an event that’s reflected in city records. Once they’ve completed asbestos remediation and received a permit to remove the tree, work can move forward again, Armbruster said.
There is one way for homeowners to prevent future developers to remove a tree on their property: Before selling a property or passing it on to heirs, an owner can place a covenant on the land to protect the tree. Although both sisters recalled a neighbor telling her mother repeatedly to protect the tree with this kind of covenant, she didn’t. “He would tell my mom, ‘When you sell this house, put it in writing that this tree has to stay,’ and she said, ‘No, don’t tell me what to do,” Beverly recalled.
The sisters say the pressure from neighbors has made them feel uncomfortable returning to their old neighborhood. But Barbara did stop briefly by the recent protest. “I went to their little event,” she recalled, “and said ‘Don’t homeowners, after they pay taxes for 75 years, have the right to sell the place?”
“I’ll be honest with you,” Barbara said, “It’s just like killing my mom over and over. … It’s been three years. Can’t that poor woman just be left alone?”
As the city considers density increases so modest that its own planning commission called them utterly inadequate, single-family preservationists are creating petitions to oppose any changes in “their” neighborhoods, especially those that allow more renters to live in more parts of Seattle.
Kevin Dave, the police officer who struck and killed 23-year-old student Jaahnavi Kandula while driving almost three times the speed limit, finally got fired after spending two years on SPD’s payroll after killing Kandula, whose family is suing the city for more than $110 million.
Tammy Morales’ resignation opens a spot for yet another new council appointment. The appointment process, which should wrap up before the end of this month, will result in a council with only one member, Dan Strauss, who has served for more than three years, including seven members who have served one year or less.
PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you. CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.
One of those recently council members, Cathy Moore, came out hard against a proposal to allow apartments along the periphery of single-family neighborhoods, saying that allowing three-to-six story apartments within 800 feet of 30 transit stops across the city would destroy neighborhood character, denude the landscape, and produce “unstable” housing occupied by renters, who, she said, aren’t “engaged socially and politically” the way property owners are. About six in ten Seattle residents rent their homes.
The Seattle Nice podcast sat down with City Council public safety committee chair Bob Kettle to talk about his priorities for 2025, how much density the city should allow in single-family neighborhoods like Queen Anne, and at what point the new council will stop blaming their predecessors for the real and perceived public safety challenges in Seattle.
Four stories in this week’s afternoon Fizz: Bob Kettle and Rob Saka take a field trip to SPD’s firing range to test blast balls for themselves; the Community Police Commission proposes changes to SPD’s proposed policy allowing the use of “less lethal” weapons, which is moving forward at breakneck speed; the Seattle Times sues SPD for violating an agreement over public records requests; and former police chief Adrian Diaz loses his longtime attorney.
PubliCola’s founders give you our predictions for 2025. Sandeep thinks Seattle will fail to break out of its political inertia; Josh says you’ll start to hear more open MAGA rhetoric in public places in Seattle (which, he also predicts, will still be riddled with dogs), and I predict that new, even more stringent tree protections will be used to prevent housing for renters in the name of the environment (despite the fact that car-oriented sprawl, which results from insufficient housing in cities, is an existential environmental risk.)
Also, despite a $2 million budget setaside, I predict that SDOT will find reasons not to remove an 8-inch traffic safety curb that prevents dangerous left turns into the parking lot of the preschool Rob Saka’s kids attended, which Saka claimed his constituents found “triggering” and “extremely traumatizing” because it reminds them of Trump’s border wall.
Seattle City Council members have proposed stripping away funding proposed as part of the 2024 transportation levy for small, community-initiated transportation safety projects and giving themselves the authority to decide which neighborhood projects get funded in their districts.
The program, known as the Neighborhood-Initiated Safety Partnership Program (NSPP) is an expansion of an existing participatory budgeting program that gives neighborhood residents a direct say in which small-scale local projects the city funds. The current program, called the Neighborhood Street Fund, has funded work on the Garfield Superblock, safety and connectivity improvements on the Delridge Greenway, street lighting and traffic calming at Bailey Gatzert Elementary, and dozens of other projects.
According to SDOT spokesman Ethan Bergerson, the new program would “co-create safety projects with residents to directly respond to emerging community requests for safety improvements. The community engagement would go beyond the nomination and selection process of the Neighborhood Street Fund, and would also incorporate ongoing and iterative neighborhood engagement similar to our Home Zone Program,” an equity-focused neighborhood street program.
The proposal came out of the work of the Transportation Equity Workgroup, which recommended that SDOT “include a participatory budgeting process in the next transportation levy package” specifically to “meet the priorities of BIPOC and vulnerable communities.”
Harrell’s levy proposal included $41 million for the neighborhood-based projects, plus $14 million for a new spending category called District Projects, which would fund emergent safety concerns and requests” in each council district. Transportation levy committee chair Rob Saka proposed an amendment that would cut funding for neighborhood-initiated projects to $25.5 million—a 38 percent reduction—and increasing the District Projects fund to $21 million.
At the levy committee meeting on Tuesday, Saka said he considered the new District Projects program a mere “rebranding” that would accomplish the same purpose as the Neighborhood-Initiated Safety Partnerships program; the only difference, he said, was that instead of community members, “the seven individual council members would decide” how to spend the money. “At that high level, it’s intended for smaller-scale capital projects, so there’s alignment and consensus” even if “we have competing visions right now, currently, for what that looks like and who specifically decides on the neighborhood-initiated safety, neighborhood street funding.”
Earlier this month, Saka abruptly shut down a presentation by SDOT transportation equity program manager Annya Pintak, which Bergerson said would have been about “how the levy proposal is integrated with the City’s Race and Social Justice Initiative,” telling SDOT director Greg Spotts that the council already had “a good baseline on that.”
A proposed amendment by Councilmember Cathy Moore would go further than Saka’s, eliminating the entire community-initiated program and adding $21 million to the District Project fund, tripling it to a total of $42 million. Moore had to leave when her amendments came up and did not discuss this amendment when she returned.
Not everyone on the council supports cutting or eliminating the participatory budgeting program, which has been around since 2007.
Council member Tammy Morales proposed an amendment to Saka’s proposal that would restore funding for the neighborhood-initiated projects program to the $41 million in Harrell’s initial proposal by reducing the District Projects fund to $7 million.
“I know that as district council members, we know our districts best, but the truth is, we can’t know every corner of our neighborhood because we don’t live on every corner of our neighborhood and see how traffic moves around,” Morales said. “So this funding would allow residents to work directly with SDOT to implement transportation solutions directly that directly affect them
Council president Sara Nelson also proposed an amendment to Saka’s proposal that would reduce the new District Projects program to the $14 million in Harrell’s, but would do so by restoring the old Neighborhood Street Fund, rather than increasing the size of the new participatory budgeting program.
“I am putting this forward as a way to bring [the Neighborhood Street Fund] back,” Nelson said. “I am open to conversation about this. I’m not completely wed to this. I would like to understand more what the new program will do versus what the old program did, but I’m just saying that [the Street Fund] seemed to be something that was working well.”
In a letter to the council, Harrell, and SDOT, the co-chairs of the Transportation Equity Workgroup, Jessica E. Salvador & LaKeisha Jones, said the work group was “disappointed to see the recommendations from Committee Chair Saka to divert funds from community to district-level decision making.
“Diverting the $15.5M from Neighborhood-Initiated Safety Partnership Program would also divert us from our goal of equitable investment,” they wrote. “Equitable investment means that we are better able to serve communities by creating programs or initiatives that can be quickly implemented. Diverting the decision-making processes from neighborhoods is the opposite of empowerment. We need to ensure that our decisions are driven by community, for community.”
In these historical images, included in an archaeological consultant’s report, the tree known as “Luma” is outlined in red.
By Erica C. Barnett
An independent report commissioned by a company that plans to build several townhouses in a historically single-family neighborhood in northeast Seattle suggests that a double-trunked Western red cedar tree in Northeast Seattle is around 85 years old, far shy of its widely reported age of “roughly 200 years old.” The tree, named “Luma” by activists, was designated a “culturally modified tree” after an in-person assessment by the Snoqualmie Tribe. According to one media report, “she,” meaning Luma, “was a sapling when white settlers arrived here.”
The newly released report, which is posted on the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections’ website, calls that history into question. The analysis, by an independent cultural preservation firm called Drayton Archaeology, uses historical photos and a review of the history of development in the area to determine approximately how long the tree has been around. According to the report, the tree does not appear in aerial photos taken in 1936, and was “relatively small”—just starting to peek over an adjacent roofline in photos—in 1953.
By 1965, the report says, the tree was still “not tall enough to be fully present in the photo and does not appear to be of advanced age.”
On December 18, after this story appeared, the head of the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Allyson Brooks, wrote a letter disputing the report, saying that Drayton’s “desktop analysis” mis-identified the tree’s location, using “blurry and pixilated images… which adds ambiguity to the analysis.” According to Brooks’ analysis of the same images, there appears to be a large tree where Luma now stands.
Brooks does not make any claims in her letter about the tree’s possible age. Western red cedar trees grow quickly, adding between two and three feet of height a year, and can grow up to 200 feet tall in forests. Luma is about 80 feet tall.
According to a letter the Snoqualmie Tribe sent to city officials in July, the cedar once served as a marker “that delineated an ancient indigenous trail system connecting Puget Sound to Lake Washington.” The letter adds that the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation independently reached the same conclusion.
However, the head of the DAHP, Allyson Brooks, said it’s up to tribes, not the state of Washington, to decide what constitutes a culturally modified tree. As an archaeological agency, she said, “We see artifacts. We know what an artifact is. But the question about culturally modified trees is one of culture for the tribes.” The Snoqualmie Tribe did not respond to an email seeking comment.
A comparison of old aerial photos showing three different trees in the location where Luma now stands, along with other historical images, suggests that the tree “was not extant in 1936 but may have been planted shortly after, as it had grown large enough by 2021 that its canopy encompassed the space formerly occupied by the three smaller trees.” The tree is now about 80 feet tall.
“Based on this information, it is my opinion that the subject red cedar tree was not extant in 1936,” the report continues. If the tree was planted that year, it would be 87 years old today.
According to the website Wedgwood History, the oldest houses still standing in Wedgwood were built around the turn of the 20th century, and the neighborhood had electricity by around 1923. By the mid-1930s, Wedgwood was a developed area, with paved roads and houses (as well as a county-endorsed racist covenant that banned all non-white people, except live-in servants, from living in the area). If the report’s estimate of Luma’s age is accurate, the property where it sits would have already been developed and occupied when the tree was a sapling.
Regardless of the age of the tree, the developers aren’t arguing to remove it; they’ve submitted new plans to the city that reduce the proposed housing on the lot from three townhouses to a new single-family house with a small backyard unit.
Seattle’s tree preservation ordinance includes protections for exceptional trees, a category that includes all very large trees, regardless of age. Luma’s unusually large diameter—52 inches, according to a separate arborist’s report—is based on a formula that combines its two separate trunks; other single-trunked exceptional Western red cedars in the immediate vicinity are between 30 and 42 inches in diameter. Exceptional trees can only removed with permission from the city under certain limited circumstances.
Asked about the consultant’s report, Brooks, from DAHP, said the agency “cannot comment on an unofficial report to our agency that was sent to us by a third party.”
By Asian Pacific Americans for Civic Engagement (APACE) PAC
The Chinatown/International District is hurting. The recent vandalism of the Wing Luke Museum showed that anti-Asian hate is alive and well. The cancellation of the CID Night Market was a blow to our small businesses, still struggling after the pandemic.
Yet many in the media and positions of power (or seeking power) have been using the CID—which spans Chinatown, Filipino Town, Japantown, and Little Saigon— to advance their personal agendas and platforms while conveniently forgetting to advocate for resources and care the neighborhood so desperately needs.
To those who wish to effectively lead or to media personalities who want to cover the challenges our home is experiencing, we call on you to do better by embracing the difficult work and truly advocate with us: not press conferences, not media stunts, not using the neighborhood as a wedge issue.
To many, the neglect of the neighborhood or its use as a talking point to justify systems that often oppress and marginalize poor, non-white, or limited English proficient people might seem like a new dynamic, but the history of the CID shows otherwise.
Our beloved neighborhood, a cultural home to many, has also been a home for other groups, including Seattle’s Black community and tribal communities. Throughout the neighborhood’s history of being one of the few areas where non-white communities could reside, it has been serially overlooked, under-resourced, and neglected. At the same time, the CID has routinely been treated as a “convenient site for services” that would never land in a wealthy, white neighborhood.
Decades and generations of failed pro-carceral, pro-police state, pro-NIMBY political ideology—working to protect wealthy (and white) neighborhoods from disruptions to “neighborhood character”—have worked to produce safety and economic opportunity that centers some and fails many others—especially neighborhoods like the CID, because of who lives there or calls it home. Ignore the non-stop local media and conservative politician talking points about “public safety.” The CID is much more than what these individuals and institutions would want you to believe to support their agenda.
Our predecessors were resilient in the face of intense legal and de facto discrimination, as well violence from the state and from xenophobic homesteaders, and it shows in the richness of the neighborhood.
It is home for many of us across the broad Asian and Asian-American diaspora, who have memories of walking up and down Jackson Street or King Street or Weller Street with our family and friends, eating the foods that evoke powerful, cherished memories.
It is where we can hear our home languages, where our elders and younger generations have found community despite being unwelcome, treated as perpetual foreigners, and targeted with violence.
We’ve had enough of leaders using the CID when it’s convenient—to prove their community credentials, as a sad story to be gawked at, or when it serves a political agenda.
In July, the National Trust for Historic Preservation named the CID one of America’s 11 Most Endangered Historic Places, citing the history of displacement and gentrification in the neighborhood. Across the country, other Chinatowns have disappeared or are disappearing. To prevent that from happening here in Seattle we must put progressive, community-centric values into policy and program interventions that start upstream. It is essential to pair that long-term work with an immediate urgency to stand up and increase the availability of services that truly meet the needs of the neighborhood.
To meet the public safety needs in a way that can genuinely move the needle, we cannot and must not replicate the pro-carceral positions of the past (and current day). Insisting that “more police is the answer” has not been effective at reducing harm or safely de-escalating people in crisis safely. Policies of the past merely shifted the visibility of people in crisis while ignoring the causes of abject poverty in our communities or ignoring people suffering from substance use disorder or mental illness. Community trust in policing is critical to public safety, and in light of recent headlines, this trust is delicate at best.
One example of what collaboration can look like? After the 2021 Atlanta Spa shooting that targeted Asian women and businesses caused a national wave of concern and anxiety of being further targeted for violence by AANHPI communities, Seattle City Hall directed resources to enhance public safety via community-led resiliency and safety initiatives in partnership with the CID. This shows a different way is possible.
We’ve had enough of leaders using the CID when it’s convenient—to prove their community credentials, as a sad story to be gawked at, or when it serves a political agenda. It’s time for leaders to commit to working with nonprofits and community members supporting the neighborhood to address systemic inequities, co-design strategies and solutions, and move the neighborhood to long-term vibrancy and prosperity. This is love for the CID in action.
