The new 520: What are they thinking?

When he was a newly-minted, wet-behind-the-ears civil engineer employed by Seattle’s public works department, former Washington Governor Daniel Evans worked on the Alaskan Way Viaduct project. That gray monolithic artery is now, of course, regarded as such a monstrosity and egregious planning error that it naturally raises the question: “What were they thinking?”

That very question was recently put to the former Governor by an enterprising KPLU reporter when she interviewed Evans about his support for the Viaduct replacement tunnel. His matter-of-fact response was that what they were thinking about was solving a problem: getting traffic moved through Seattle quickly in the absence of any alternative road (I-5 was not built through downtown until more than a decade later). According to Evans, the engineers and public officials working on the project were focused on getting the job done (which they accomplished) and he can’t remember anyone complaining about the waterfront location, which he describes as having been a blighted area.

Flash forward more than a half century and we now have another civil engineering dilemma: how to safely meet the cross-Lake transportation needs of our growing community. Are we getting ready to repeat the mistakes that were made with the Alaskan Way Viaduct? Will residents of Seattle and the Eastside be asking “What were they thinking?” sixty years from now?

According to the opponents, that question will not have to await the verdict of future generations—at least not if the proposed Option A+ is implemented without revision. It will be obvious as soon as the thing is put in place, they say, that this was a tragic blunder—a project wasting of billions of dollars while incurring environmental havoc, creating visual blight, and not even solving the basic transportation problems the new 520 is supposedly designed to ameliorate.

Sounds harsh, but there you have it in a nutshell: the main objections to Option A+. If you’re interested, however, in the rationale in favor of the plan, you can check out the State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) website, which has the complete supplemental draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for Option A+ available here. I’ve read it--or, rather, its 66-page executive summary—so that you don’t have to wade through it unless you are so inclined.

But first, some background.

If you’re like me, you probably haven’t been paying that much attention to the fact that the 520 bridge, which opened in 1963, is nearing the end of its useful life. WSDOT gives the bridge 10 to 15 more years. The need for a replacement is based both on the bridge’s structural insufficiency and the growing transportation needs of the region. It was designed to accommodate 65,000 daily vehicles when it opened and is now estimated to be handling over 115,000 vehicles per day. As we all know, it is often clogged with traffic. Additionally, the bridge is potentially unsafe in high winds and is subject to possible collapse during an earthquake (as graphically portrayed in this WSDOT simulation). I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the bridge should not be replaced. The issue is: with what?

The State, in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration, plans to replace it with a new bridge that will be located 190 feet north of the existing structure. Construction on the floating bridge portion of the project is scheduled to begin in 2012 and be completed in 2014. The remaining changes to 520 would be completed—if they are funded and the project remains on schedule—by 2018. That’s six years of construction or more, principally impacting the Montlake neighborhood.

The cost of the project, which includes a new interchange at Montlake and a new bridge approach through Portage Bay and over Foster Island, is estimated at between $4.5 and $4.8 billion dollars, with $4.65 billion budgeted to date. The State has yet to identify how it will meet the anticipated $2.66 billion difference between funding sources (including tolls) and the total cost of the highway project.

Although the recently released supplemental draft EIS reviews three possible configurations for the project, a Legislative Work Group has already recommended to the Governor and Legislature that Plan A+ be adopted. As noted in a previous posting, this plan involves a second drawbridge at Montlake and a six-lane floating bridge.

As laid out in the EIS, here are the advantages of this bridge design (in addition, of course, to making the bridge structurally safe):

· The addition to two HOV lanes will reduce or eliminate congestion

· Landscape lids over portions of the highway will “reconnect neighborhoods”

· Pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross the Lake on new pathways

· Stormwater treatment facilities will be installed for the first time

· Greeenhouse gas omissions will be reduced due to less standing on roadway.

The EIS summarizes the history of the planning process for the bridge, noting that both a four-lane and an eight-lane alternative had been considered. The four-lane replacement was rejected because it would not meet the goal of improving traffic flow. The eight-lane option, meanwhile, was considered impractical in terms of connections to both I-5 and I-405.

Here are some of the principal downsides of the new bridge, as identified in the EIS:

· The Montlake freeway transit station is eliminated, forcing riders to change current travel routes

· Tolling, which will be electronic, will force a hardship on those with low incomes (tolling on 520 will begin in 2011, before the new bridge is even under construction)

· Parkland will be eliminated (5.5 acres or more) due to the larger footprint of 520

· “Visual quality” will be impacted (though the report does not actually say negatively)

· Traffic noise is expected to increase in some areas, even if noise-abatement walls or “quiet asphalt” are installed

· Some wetlands will be filled in and other wetlands will be shaded

· A sockeye salmon spawning area will potentially be eliminated

· Fishing areas utilized by the Muckelshoot Indian Tribe may be adversely impacted

· Vessels over 70 feet high will no longer be able to pass through the bridge due to elimination of the draw span

· Changes to the west approach to the bridge will affect the experience of boaters and park users in the Arboretum.

With surprising understatement, the EIS notes that “broad public and political consensus has not been reached in support of this (Option A+) recommendation.”

That’s for sure. Fran Conley, coordinator of the Coalition for a Sustainable SR 520, has this to say about the WSDOT’s efforts: "It is now clear that the intention is to build a highway looking back into the 20th century instead of a transportation system for the 21st century. After years of working cooperatively with the state, all of our communities are now unalterably opposed to the current proposals." The representative of the Roanoke Park/Portage Bay community, Ted Lane, goes further, stating “this process has been a charade.” And Madison Park's representative to the Coalition, Maurice Cooper, calls the new floating bridge design "that prison wall across the Lake."

The Coalition objects to many of WSDOT’s assumptions about the bridge replacement, including the idea that a safety fix could not be undertaken on the existing bridge at an economical cost. But the biggest issues for opponents are the doubling of the width of the bridge corridor, the addition of a second drawbridge at Montlake (rather than a tunnel), and the “unnecessary” height and profile of both the Westside approach and the new floating bridge itself.

The Coalition notes that the proposed new bridge is actually almost 150% wider than the old bridge, sits 30 feet above the water across Lake Washington (“as tall as a three-story building”), and does not properly incorporate mass-transit options into the mix. As noted in an article in the Seattle Times today, opponents of Option A+ are now pushing for the new HOV lanes to be used by buses only or for a shared bus-rail corridor. In other words, the State should not be encouraging more car use on the revamped bridge but focus rather on mass-transit options.

With regard to the visual impact of the floating bridge itself, the Coalition states that the height can be reduced without negatively impacting the integrity of the structure. Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond is quoted in the Times’ article as saying that WSDOT engineers are now looking at ways to cut the bridge height to 20 feet.

Why a higher bridge was ever thought necessary was not addressed by Hammond, however. And it may well be that the engineers, just as in Dan Evans' day, simply designed the new bridge with utility rather than aesthetics in mind. In the case of 520, the goals were to have the new bridge be high enough to keep waves from blowing onto the roadway while still allowing room for worker access to the brdige deck from underneath. Now, apparently as a result of public criticism, the engineers are back at their drawing boards. It raises the question: what other changes are possible to WSDOT’s current plans as a result of public pressure?

.

I guess we’ll find out.

Here are some ways you can give input to the process during the comment period, which ends March 8: 1) you can comment by mail to Jenifer Young, Environmental Manager, SR 520 Project Office, 600 Stewart Street, Suite 520, Seattle, WA 98101, 2) you can email your comments to SR520Bridge_SDEIS@wsdot.wa.gov, or 3) you can comment online here.

You can also attend the Environmental Hearing and Public Open House which will be held February 23 at the Lake Union Naval Reserve Building (860 Terry Avenue N.) from 5 to 7pm.

Meanwhile, the City Council has just gone on record asking for a 120-day delay in the decision-making process, and opponents of Option A+ and “the massive high bridge across the Lake” have scheduled a press conference for Monday morning at which they will be presenting their position. City and State politicians are expected to be in attendance. The event will be held at the intersection of East Miller Street and Lake Washington Boulevard East, in the green space immediately north of the parking lot (near the "ramps to nowhere"), just south of 520 where the Arboretum and Montlake join. The Coalition requests that opponents turn out for the press conference to show their solidarity.

.

[Upper photo: SR 520 at Foster Island from Google Earth 2009. Middle graphic: configuration of new floating bridge from WSDOT. Lower graphic: configuration of Option A+ showing interchanges and western approach from WSDOT.]

December Real Estate Report

Steady as she goes

The year ended on a pretty positive note for the real estate market here in the Park. Sales were steady, inventory was down, and there’s good reason to hope that even if things are not improving quickly, at least they don’t seem to be getting worse.

In line with the activity level that began in the early fall, there were eight houses sold in Madison Park during December, as well as two condos. Not bad for the holiday season. Among the sales was the spectacular $12.8 million waterfront mansion in the Reed Estate (shown below) that I profiled during the summer (“A glimpse beyond the gates”). After over a year on the market, the house changed hands at $10.6 million, a discount of 17% from the list price. A local real estate blog reports this as the second-highest -priced home sold in Seattle in 2009, based on data from the Northwest Multiple Listing Service (MLS).

Confirming the rarefied atmosphere of the market here in the Park, there was only one house sold in December at under $1 million; and the New Year begins with only four such houses listed for sale. December also saw the sale of two homes built by speculative builders (i.e. spec houses). But this still leaves, by my count, nine other spec houses on the market as of mid-January, with another two nearing completion. These represent 14% of the total homes listed for sale here—28% of the houses on the market outside of Broadmoor, which does not allow speculative building.

There is one spec home currently listed as a short sale by the MLS. A short sale is a situation where the sales price is (or, in the case of a listed-but-unsold house, is expected to be) less than the amount owing on the underlying mortgage. The particular spec house that has now become a short sale is located at 628 32nd Avenue E. (shown below). It was built in 2008, is listed at $1.65 million, and has been on the market for over 600 days.

As I noted in an earlier posting, it’s a tough market for spec builders—and there’s a limit to how long most can afford to wait before unloading their houses. Usually a short sale occurs when the property is turned over to the bank that financed the project. I am aware of only one other short sale in Madison Park during the past year, a Broadmoor home that is currently listed as pending sale. A short sale is always a sacrifice for both the owner (who gives up all equity) and the mortgage holder (who receives less than the amount financed).

Inventory shrinks

We begin the New Year with an inventory of only 64 homes listed for sale, including 18 residential condominiums. The for-sale properties are certainly not scattered uniformly about the Park, however, especially the houses:

.

So, while Broadmoor represents less than 20% of the total housing units in Madison Park, listed houses in that enclave constitute 50% of the Park’s for-sale inventory. This was the general pattern throughout 2009, but it has accelerated as the cheaper housing inventory outside of Broadmoor was gradually sold but not replaced with new listings during the year. There have been only three new house listings in our market during the last 30 days, and two of these were in Broadmoor (one was in Washington Park). And there were only two new condo listings during the period.

Here’s how the Madison Park market (Washington Park and Broadmoor included) looks in January, as reported by Redfin:

Houses

Listings: 46
Median List Price: $ 1,995,000
Median Sq. Ft.: 4800
Median Price per Sq. Ft.: $415.63
Percentage with Price Reduction: 39%
Average Days on Market: 154

Condos

Listings: 18
Median List Price: $550,000
Median Sq. Ft.: 1,125
Median Price per Sq. Ft.: $488.89
Percentage with Price Reduction: 44%
Average Days on Market: 218

There’s a significant difference between the houses that sold in December and those that remain on the market, both in terms of price:

and in terms of size:

Houses sold in December were on average 35% smaller and 23% less expensive than those still on the market in January. There are currently four houses listed as pending, and these houses have a median list of price of about $1 million and median square footage of about 3,000.

The most expensive house currently on the market is the $10,995,000 Normandy-style home shown in the photo at the top of this posting. Built in 1931 and extensively reconstructed in 2005, it sits on a half acre of prime Broadmoor real estate and boasts four bedrooms and seven and a quarter baths (listing by Betsy Terry of Ewing & Clark). The least expensive listed house, at $599,950, is a 2,400 sq. ft. 1925 Spanish stucco located on the south side of E. Madison Street, but with a view of Lake Washington.

As an aside, I see that at least two houses are “for sale by owner” in Madison Park, listed on Zillow at $2.2 million and $1.5 million respectively. It’s unusual for homeowners in the upper market to try this gambit, so I’ll be watching to see their success (or otherwise) in marketing their homes without an agent involved. It’s not the kind of thing real estate professionals advise, of course (the doing it, I mean, not the watching it).

Up next month: an overview of how the Madison Park real estate market fared in 2009 compared to previous years.

[Thanks to Wendy Skerritt of Windermere Real Estate/Capitol Hill for her help in providing market data used in this report. Upper and bottom photos courtesy of Redfin.]

Day Two for McGilvra's new principal

McGilvra Elementary's new "interim" principal, Birgit McShane (at center in the photo above), listens as seven McGilvra students speak extemporaneously on the subject "Why I Like McGilvra." It was Open House at the school this evening, and several dozen parents who are planning on (or at least considering) sending their children to McGilvra were in attendance for the presentation by PTA members, School District officers, and students. The event was held in the school library, following which there were tours of the classrooms, interactions with some very well-behaved McGilvra students, and questions for McGilvra's teachers and staff.

Also making a presentation was Seattle Public Schools Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson, who gave an overview of the District's plans for the year, including how the new student assignment plan will (hopefully) work. Goodloe-Johnson proved quite adept in cutting off questions on why the school's departed principal, DeWanda Cook-Weaver, is now on leave.

It's my impression that many of McGilvra's parents are pleased with the change in leadership at the school. I had an opportunity to speak with McShane, who seemed pleasant, open, ready to get down to work--and perhaps slightly dazed by the suddenness of her return to the principal's role. She had retired from the district in 2008 after a long career, which included stints as principal at both Bagley (Green Lake) and Sacajawea (Lake City) Elementary schools. She herself is a graduate of the Seattle Schools (Roosevelt High School) and currently resides in Ballard. She is expected to be on board through the end of the school year (though the school district cannot confirm this because of the "personnel matter" involving Cook-Weaver that it's currently dealing with).

McShane agreed to let me quiz her once she gets acclimatized at the school. This I plan to do.

McGilvra principal is out

Effective last Friday, DeWanda Cook-Weaver is on an indefinite leave of absence as principal of McGilvra Elementary School. “We can’t say anything about it because it is a personnel matter,“ says Seattle Public Schools spokesperson Teresa Wippel.

Effective today, Birgit McShane, a former elementary school principal in the Seattle Public School system, has taken the reins at McGilvra as “interim principal.” It is possible that she will serve in that role through the end of the school year, according to Wippel. Officially, the school district will not comment on whether Cook-Weaver might return to McGilvra at some future date. To quote a statement this afternoon from a school district spokesperson: "We are not legally able to comment on the terms of the leave or speculate on the timeline."

McGilvra PTA President Bob Steedman was reticent about discussing the situation publicly, except to say that Cook-Weaver’s decision to leave was made for “personal reasons.” It is well known, however, that McGivra benefits from having a high level of parent involvement in the school, meaning a very activist PTA. This is a fact Cook-Weaver herself acknowledged when I interviewed her at the beginning of the school year (“What’s new in the schoolhouse?”). I’ve been told that some parents felt that her management style was not a “good fit” for the school. She had only been in the position at McGivra for four months at the time of her departure last week.

Steedman was full of praise for the district’s handling of the situation and, having just met McShane this morning, says he is excited that she’s on board. Both McShane and Seattle Public Schools Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson, he notes, will be attending the open house tomorrow evening at McGilvra (6:30 – 8:00 pm). The ostensible purpose of the event, scheduled earlier this year, is to provide information about the school to parents of children not yet enrolled. But the curious are also welcome.

[Photo courtesy of the McGilvra School Messenger]

The 2010 Seattle tax rate is up a whopping 13.4% (but our tax bills will be down!)

The King County Assessor’s Office this morning certified the 2010 property tax rate for Seattle, and property owners will be seeing the implications when they get their tax bills in early February. The 2010 rate is $9.04 per $1,000 of assessed value, which compares to the 2009 rate of $7.97. While this is a huge rate increase--13.4% to be precise--it doesn’t mean that Seattle property owners will be getting tax bills that show a big hike in their tax obligation this year. And depending on where they happen to live in Seattle, many homeowners will actually end up with a significantly lower tax bill.

But not those of us who live in Madison Park. Our property taxes will be down just slightly-- essentially unchanged.

This is one of those good news/bad news situations for most homeowners in Madison Park, Madrona and Leschi. Our three neighborhoods share the same tax-assessment area (see map); and as I reported in June, our section of the City had the lowest decline in property values of any area: 12.8%. This is the good news part of the story, since in the opinion of the tax assessor at least, our property values held up better than the values elsewhere in Seattle.

Now here’s the bad news: since we had the lowest decline in property values, the typical property owner here will not see the kind of decrease in absolute tax obligation that the typical property owner living anywhere else in Seattle may experience. This is the bottom line: for the vast majority of us in our area of the City, our 2010 tax bill will be about the same as last year (assuming we made no improvements to our homes). The reason is essentially this: the decline in the value of our properties was pretty much offset by the amount of the rate increase.

Homeowners in the rest of the City “lucky” enough to see bigger declines in their property values will have a lower tax burden in 2010 than they had in 2009. In this respect, some neighborhoods are really benefiting in tax terms from big declines in property values.

Seattle Neighborhoods with the Biggest Declines in Property Values

Beacon Hill (down 22.4%)
Queen Anne (down 21.3%)
Rainier Beach (down 19.1%)
E. West Seattle/Georgetown/South Park (down 19.0%)
Central Area (down 18.5%)

These neighborhoods all come out ahead for tax purposes since their property declined in value to a much greater extent than the amount of the 13.4% tax-rate increase.

Seattle Neighborhoods with the Smallest Declines in Property Values

Madison Park/Madrona/Leschi (down 12.8%)
Rainier Valley (down 12.9%)
Ravenna/University District (down 13.1%)
Mapleleaf/Wedgewood/Bryant (down 13.5%)
Capitol Hill (down 14.0%)

These neighborhoods came out the worst for tax purposes, since their property-value decreases were effectively offset by the 13.4% tax-rate increase.

Although Madison Park and our two neighboring communities had an overall decline of 12.8% in property values, that’s not the decrease in value that any of us saw reflected on the 2010 property assessments we received last year. For reasons too involved to go into, most Madison Park, Madrona, and Leschi property owners (94% of us, to be precise) received an actual downward property-value adjustment from the Assessor of 12.3% for the 2010 tax year. (If you want to know why it’s not 12.8% you can email me for an explanation).

To understand why Madison Park has not come out ahead in terms of taxes this year we can compare our situation to that of property owners on Beacon Hill, where property values (again, in the opinion of the King County Assessor) declined the most of any Seattle neighborhood. The Assessor adjusted property-tax values downward by 22.4% for about 89% of homeowners on the Hill. That’s not quite twice the level of decline experienced in Madison Park.

This is how that difference between the two Seattle neighborhoods results in a far different tax outcome in 2010 for a house valued at $500,000 in 2009 in each of the two neighborhoods. I picked the house value based on what the King County Assessor’s Office tells me was the “average” assessed value for houses in Seattle last year (give or take a couple thousand).

In 2009 the tax obligation for a $500,000 house on Beacon Hill was $3,985 ($500,000 x .00797). For 2010, the house was reduced in value by 22.4% to $388,888. The 2010 tax obligation for the Beacon Hill house is $3,507 ($388,000 x .00904). That’s a decrease of $478, or 12%.

In 2009 the tax obligation for a $500,000 house in Madison Park was also $3,985. But for 2010, the house was decreased in value by 12.3% to $438,500. The 2010 tax obligation for the Madison Park house is $3,964 ($438,500 x .00904). That’s a decrease of $21, or less than 1%.

Like I say, it’s a good news/bad news situation. At least we’re not paying a big increase in taxes as a result of our property values holding up better than those in the other parts of town. I'll have more on Madison Park's tax situation next week.

The new 520 bridge: higher, wider, noisier and butt ugly to boot?

The State’s so-called Plan A+ for replacement of the SR-520 floating bridge is not getting much respect from those neighborhoods, such as ours, that will be impacted most directly by the $4.6 billion project. Opponents of the plan, organized as the Coalition for a Sustainable 520, say that the proposed bridge is aesthetically challenged, environmentally degrading, and doesn’t even meet the region’s transportation needs.

.

Tomorrow, however, the State moves one step closer to implementation of the locally unpopular plan when it releases the supplemental draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project. Opponents are bracing for a rough time trying to convince the powers that be (the Governor and the legislature) that Plan A+ (which they jokingly refer to as “Plan F”) is too flawed to be implemented. They propose a temporary retrofit of the seismically unsafe floating bridge while a better plan is developed for a replacement.

As we reported in November, a legislative work group recommended Plan A+ as the best of several options. According to the Coalition, however, the input of the affected communities was given short shrift in the decision-making process. A mediation group created by the Governor, which included Seattle neighborhood representatives, failed to come up with a consensus recommendation. So what we’re left with is something the opponents consider to be—both figuratively and literally--a very ugly potential outcome.

The likely negative impact on the lakefront communities of the proposed new bridge is laid out in detail by two of our community council members, president Ken Myrabo and Kathleen O’Connor, in a guest column in the current issue of the Madison Park Times (“Viaduct on the Lake?”). They point to the visual impact of the proposed bridge on our community, noting that “the roadway base at Foster Island will be about 10 feet higher than the island. It will then slope upward to about 30 feet above the water in front of Canterbury Shores and Edgewater and rise to 45 feet and possibly higher at the west high-rise.”

.

(This is what the current high-rise looks like from the Edgewater Apartments)

And the proposed bridge won’t be any more pleasing to the eye, say the opponents, as it heads east across the Lake. Here’s how the Coalition describes the visual impact: “The roadway…is 30 feet (three stories) above the water. Above the pontoons is a service area, then columns holding up the main roadway. This hulking overbuilt and overly expensive structure will permanently block views up and down the lake, from its swimming beaches, from tourist and recreational boats, and from homes on both sides of the lake.” The diagram above shows a side view of the bridge as it will look from the Lake.

The aesthetics and cost of the bridge are not the Coalition’s only concerns. There’s also the potential negative impact of the bridge’s wider roadway and entrance ramps on the Arboretum and the surrounding waterways; the creation of a massive, neighborhood-destroying highway interchange in Montlake; the lack of noise abatement as a design element; and the absence of adequate provisions for future light-rail and bus usage.

In addition to Madison Park’s, the Coalition for a Sustainable SR 520 is made up of the community councils of Laurelhurst, Roanoke Park, Portage Bay, and North Capitol Hill. Also involved is the local boating community, consisting of the Seattle Yacht Club and the Queen City Yacht Club, as well as other concerned individuals and businesses. The Coalition, which is coordinated by Capitol Hill resident (and longtime Seattle private equity investor) Fran Conley, has hired a lawyer and is actively fundraising to support its efforts to stop Plan A+. (Additional information on the Coalition, its anti-Plan A+ arguments, and how to get involved is available on its website.)

Here’s what’s coming next in the replace-the-520-bridge drama: 1) the supplemental draft EIS will be issued by the State Department of Transportation (SDOT) on Friday (and should be available for viewing here); 2) interested parties will have a fairly short period during which to give input in response to the EIS; 3) the EIS will be approved, amended, or withdrawn; 4) the Governor will approve the resulting plan (or not); the legislature will fund the plan (or not). Throughout the process, the Coalition, in conjunction with the Sierra Club and the Transportation Choices Coalition (and possibly Seattle’s new mayor), will try to kill the plan by lobbying the Governor and legislature to have SDOT go back to the drawing boards and produce a more “context-sensitive” design. And I’ll be covering the whole saga here on the blog.

As an aside, here’s an interesting photo I unearthed showing the Lake as it looked in 1963, before the existing Albert D. Rosellini Bridge had been built (although it and Park Shore, in the foreground, were both under construction):

[Upper graphic courtesty of SDOT, with labels added by the Coalition for a Sustainable SR 520; lower photo courtesy of the Museum of History & Indlustry.]

Happy 100th Birthday, Governor Rosellini

Congratulations and best wishes to former Washington Governor and longtime Madison Park resident Albert D. Rosellini, who turns 100 years old on Thursday. Rosellini, the State's 15th governor, left office on January 11, 1965--over 45 years ago. He is the nation's oldest living former governor, according to Wikipedia.

In case you missed it, Erik Lacitis wrote a nice piece in The Seattle Times on the Governor's birthday party last week with all of the other living former (and current) Washington governors in attendance. Rosellini, who served two terms in office before being defeated by Daniel Evans in 1964, remains active in both politics and business. He still gets around fairly well, though he apparently is no longer driving his white Cadillac (license plate: "GOVADR").


HistoryLink.org has an interesting retrospective on the Governor's life, available here. I dug up this photo of Gov. Rosellini with Elvis (and a ham) from the digital archives of the Museum of History and Industry. It's 1962, and Elvis was in town filming "Take Me to the Fair" at the Century 21 fairgrounds (now the Seattle Center). Supposedly the the ham was a gift to the Governor from Elvis, the source being Presley's Tennessee farm.

There's another picture in the archives showing Gov. Rosellini cutting the ribbon opening the Evergreen Point floating bridge (later renamed the Governor Albert D. Rosellini Bridge). I wonder what he thinks of the State's plans for building a new 520 bridge. More on the subject of 520 tomorrow.