* We knew about the old structures being demolished for some time now, in favor of the planned new Molbaks. The Molbak family didn't seem to care, either. Why are we only addressing this now?
No one foresaw Molbak’s going out of business. It was sad to consider the old buildings being demolished, but there was consolation in that the spirit of Molbak’s—its store and its people and the legacy they carried—would go into the new project for another 67 years (or at least another 40 before it can be designated a landmark). I imagine that was a large factor in why the Molbak family, along with the rest of us, seemed okay with the demolition of the old structures (they can speak for themselves).
Now that the business is no more, these structures are all the physical remains we have left; they are the bones of history, now that the spirit has left them. Without recreating the store, we want to put the same spirit and legacy back under those bright greenhouses. How do you choose to memorialize someone/something that has passed away? We choose to memorialize Woodinville's memories and history by protecting the bones of the business (the structures).
* You're just trying to stop growth in Woodinville, aren't you?
This is not an attempt to “stop growth” in Woodinville. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Locals want to uphold the city motto “Country Living, City Style.” I am not aware of any better way to fulfill this motto than to have residential and retail surrounding an open-sky area emphasizing local food & gardening. This makes much-needed room for incoming residents and still saves critical geography for community-building and enrichment. Think: Central Park. This still allows for higher concentration of population in the downtown area to provide much-needed residential space and still keep the rest of Woodinville feeling more rural.
* This will upset Green Partners' (the owner) original plans on private property. How is that ok?
Indeed, this is unlikely to be in the owner's original plans. Green Partners backed out of the latest Development Agreement (June 2023) with Molbak’s and the City, so that is null and void, which means that whatever plans were originally laid must now be reworked, anyway. Perhaps both the City and GP can work this into those new plans? As far as I can tell from the Agreement, the planned landmark district would only affect 2 of 5 phases (numbers 2 & 3) and less than 2 of 9 full parcels, reducing the number of residential units from the original plan by about 32% when considering the void Molbak's will leave in the new plan and the undecided Phase 5. Perhaps also the landmark, if the owner chooses to open it to the public, could be considered a “Public Benefit,” which could allow them to have greater incentives (like building higher than 39 ft) for their builds elsewhere on the property? It would be just as easy as it was to consider the ecologically-protected area of the property that they already could not build over a “public benefit.”
What is more: yes, it is private property and the owner may choose not to allow the public onto it. Notwithstanding, the owner could also choose to see this as a potentially lucrative opportunity to not only generate revenue, but also to show themselves as community-minded and (truly) sustainable. Indeed, it restricts the property owner from making certain changes. But this is not all changes, and not without incentives. One of those incentives is deducting assessed value by rehabilitation costs. This not only means tax relief for the owner, but also for local businesses nearby, who (as voiced loudly at the City Council meeting in early Sept) are already struggling with current rates and are concerned about being pushed out and replaced by chains. This indirectly promotes affordable commercial property, protecting local businesses. For more on the landmark owner incentives, see the Details page above.
* The place is derelict and the structures are "wood, aluminum, and plexiglass." It's not pretty or architecturally significant. What is there to save?
It's true, many of the structures are very old and decrepit. These can be restored to aesthetic and functional completion. Yes, that requires funding, which is addressed in the Details page above. With proper care, it can be as good if not better than when Molbak’s cared for the landscaping. Some might wonder what significance such modern-style buildings could have, especially given that they are constructed of low-cost, temporary materials like wood, aluminum, and plastic. I’d have to go through the significant history of the Molbak family in Woodinville and beyond (addressed in Your Story page above), but suffice it to say here that while they are not in themselves incredible architectural masterpieces worthy of protection in their own right, the structures represent significant human history. They are the last remaining, tangible public icon tied to the Molbak and Nicholas families and their significant role in the horticultural industry and local, even regional history. People protect things that are precious to them, no matter how little value it may have in the eyes of others.
* The Special Landmark Commissioner for the city of Woodinville is appointed, not elected. I don't like that.
Yes, Woodinville's Special Landmarks Commission officials are not elected, but appointed. Notwithstanding, King County commissioner officials are appointed by the County Executive and confirmed by County Council (who are non-partisan elected to 4-yr terms). So also the Woodinville officials are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council (again, who are elected) for a 3-year term “until a successor is duly appointed.” Yes, the current Special Commissioner for Woodinville has held the position for over 20 years. The city simply did not get around to appointing someone else.
* The structures were reviewed by Perteet, Inc., on an official report and considered ineligible for national protections. Why bother?
Not eligible for nationalSome have noted that the structures are not eligible for National protections based on a report completed for Green Partners in 2022 by Perteet, Inc. Notwithstanding, another set of reports completed by the Dept of Archaeology & Historical Preservation (DAHP) around the same time states that they are eligible for State protections and regardless are eligible for consideration under local protections. Even if they were not eligible for national or state protections, do they have to be, in order for a community to declare that they are important to them and designate them landmarks? Nope. They can be important just to that community, and that is sufficient; no one else needs to care.