White River Buddhist Temple urges removal from RapidRide I Line condemnation list, council seeks more notice

White River Buddhist Temple leaders and multiple community members told the King County Council Transportation, Economy and Environment Committee on Aug. 19 that a proposed ordinance authorizing acquisition of up to 25 property interests for the RapidRide I Line has caused avoidable alarm.

Chair DeShawn Quinn opened the meeting by noting Ordinance 20250218 was on the agenda for public comment only and that there would be no staff briefing or vote that day. Mary Bergen, council staff, said the council’s practice is to provide certified notice after committee action but that the executive branch (Metro) had informed property owners the ordinance was transmitted to the council. Mark Ellerbrook, Capital Division Director for King County Metro, reported Metro mailed notices in July about pursuing acquisitions and the condemnation option but could not confirm whether recipients opened the mail.

Temple speakers told the committee they had not received timely, specific notice of the hearing and that placement on a condemnation list harms trust and negotiation. “Consideration of condemnation is a serious escalation,” Charlene Grinold, president of the White River Buddhist Temple, said, and asked the committee to remove the temple from the list because negotiations are ongoing and the temple’s status as a multigenerational Japanese American institution makes the prospect especially sensitive. Kelsey Asato, who sits on the temple’s board of trustees, said being placed on a list of “imminent domain properties leaves a sour taste” and requested removal from the ordinance’s attachments.

Other witnesses who spoke in person and by phone urged formal confirmation that affected owners receive notice; Councilmembers pressed for notice by certified letter or a confirmation call or email. Councilmember Rob Dembowski asked whether the chair could seek permission to invoke advance noticing prior to committee action; Mary Bergen said council rules allow such an approach if the Council chair agrees.

Chair Quinn said he would prepare an amendment for the next meeting to remove properties from the list that have already been acquired since transmittal and to explore adding additional public-notice steps. The committee did not take a vote on Ordinance 20250218 and held further action until members can consider chair-led amendments and additional outreach.

The committee’s discussion repeatedly distinguished three separate steps: (1) Metro’s outreach to property interests about negotiation and a condemnation path, (2) the council clerk’s legal notice that typically occurs after committee action, and (3) whether the chair should request early or confirmatory notice to ensure property owners can attend committee public comment. Metro staff said they had been engaged in negotiations with many owners and reported productive conversations with several property owners but acknowledged the concern about how notice was perceived.

Next steps: Chair Quinn said he will speak with the Council chair about invoking additional notice before committee action, will prepare a striking amendment to remove properties acquired since transmittal, and will hold the ordinance until the September special meeting so members can consider amendments and confirm appropriate outreach.