I have been called a socialist. I have been called anti-development. I have been called a NIMBY. Call me what you will for defending my neighborhood, but the development of a monolithic, out-of-scale, high-income apartment building in the core of and along the waterfront of Seattle’s historic district should be termed “criminal.”

It was early 2014, when my neighbors and I noticed that Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development had posted a placard on the two-story building next to ours notifying the public of its demolition and the development of an 11-story, 120-foot-tall building with 199 apartment units. I later found out that the existing 105-year-old building — a building that had been used as a terminal for storage, delivery, and later parking (and even had a name, “The Old Seattle Parking Garage”) — had already been deemed “non-contributing” to the historic neighborhood. True that the garage is covered in bland, green stucco. But the high ceiling interior with old growth lumber and wide beams is original and if stripped of its exterior stucco might very well reveal an ornate façade. Every person living in Pioneer Square probably assumed that this and every other building was “contributing,” and therefore untouchable, but actually, this designation might apply to several buildings in the Square, and it allows for their demolition.

Ironically, Pioneer Square is — or was — protected. It was saved from urban renewal in 1960s when Seattle proposed leveling the old buildings and turning them into parking garages for the downtown corridor. Citizens such as Victor Steinbrueck and Bill Speidel came together, recognizing something important and got the district listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1970. Today there are signs around the Square, designed for the tourists to read so they can appreciate how many buildings were saved with this effort but also which were lost. The Old Seattle Hotel, a gorgeous, triangular building, was torn down for an ugly, concrete “sunken ship” garage. With such a reminder of the folly of short-sighted development, commemorated by a placard on the street, no one ever believed they’d have to fight for Pioneer Square again.

But, in 2011 as part of a citywide rezoning effort, Seattle’s City Council rezoned Pioneer Square in such a way that heights no longer stepped down to the waterfront. Instead, the maximum height wrapped around the outside of Pioneer Square, right up along the waterfront to an allowable 120 feet. Our pre-1900, historic registry building is the largest on the block, at 65 feet. Buildings on adjacent blocks max out at 85 feet. No building comes close to the footprint of this single structure. The cubic volume of the new structure would be three times the size and mass of the largest building in the core of the Square. It will be a wall along the waterfront.

Despair struck the residents of my building and other residents in Pioneer Square when we realized what was being proposed. We were astonished and bewildered. We plunged into our effort, naively believing we could immediately change the course of this development. We believed we would have the support of every citizen who heard the news of this project. Seattle is under assault with new development right now, and as families have watched multi-unit dwellings pop up in single-family home neighborhoods, the citizens have awoken to the shock of this new policy. In such a period of discontent and anti-development feelings, we felt sure to find allies.

But we were unprepared for the dichotomy of every experience. With City Council, only four of the members responded in any way to our outreach. Sally Clark visited us in the Globe Bookstore for a discussion and tour of neighborhood. Sally Bagshaw and Nick Licata saw us personally, and Mike O’ Brien sent a representative along to inform me that Councilman O’Brien had no interest in revisiting height. Nonetheless, the personal contact was encouraging, but that the majority of board had no response to both a dominant Seattle issue (land use and density) and consideration for Seattle’s historic district, was demoralizing.

The dichotomy extended to our neighborhood experience as well. Few experiences offer more satisfaction than building a strong team, and meeting like-minded, talented, and intriguing individuals. The response from neighbors varied, though, and most interesting was the divisiveness that land use has caused among Seattle citizens. On the online site NextDoor, we had people from Belltown and other neighborhoods criticizing us for not fighting when the condos went up in their neighborhoods (I concede my ignorance, and my failure to follow some local issues). Even worse was this vindictive response from multiple people, “Stop complaining. It happened to us, and now it’s going to happen to you. There’s nothing you can do.” This seemed distinctly un-Seattle given Seattle’s reputation as a community sensitive to its people, issues, and environment.

Apathy and fear also divided and eroded neighborhoods. Neighbors will sign petitions, but most are uncomfortable speaking or attending meetings. Merchants will sign petitions, but many are intimidated by business organizations like the Alliance for Pioneer Square (whom they support through a required business tax) and fear retribution. The business-oriented Alliance has wrongly sided with this development from the beginning, bringing into question their commitment to the irreplaceable attractiveness of Pioneer Square and its importance to heritage tourism.

In the neighbors’ defense, the most shocking part of this situation is the imbalance of compensation. Every hour committed by the public or our citizenry is an unpaid hour. In fact, many people are essentially paying to have their point heard because they must take time off from work to participate in this process. On the other side of the fence, we have City Council, the DPD, the developers, and the architects. They are all well compensated for every hour they put into this process.

Furthermore, as the Public pays for its attendance, it is only allowed two speaking minutes per individual in City Council or Pioneer Square Preservation Board meetings. This following the 30-minute, unrestricted presentation by the architects.

Understanding this process was initially only possible through my friendship with some attorneys and architects. We asked questions, took advice (“focus on the code”), and ultimately drew the same conclusion. The Department of Planning and Development (DPD) is too closely aligned with the developers. They suggested we focus upon the Pioneer Square Preservation Board (PSPB). The developers cannot build without a Certificate of Approval as issued by the Pioneer Square Preservation Board. No C of A; no demolition. The PSPB is a 10-member, all-volunteer board interviewed and hired by the City of Seattle, and made up of four architects, a lawyer, two residents, an advocate for our homeless shelters, and another professional.

Oversight of the PSPB is through the Department of Neighborhoods (DON), another layer in this bureaucracy, but an essential organizing force in the Seattle’s community government.

The Pioneer Square Preservation Board was an appropriate alliance because they are all volunteers. They are not paid for their hours, though, those with employers may be allowed the time off. Like us, they are contributing because they care. We have gained great respect for them because though they are unpaid, they have listened carefully to all arguments, and have stood strong against the pressures of growth and avarice.

The most consistent part of this process has been the developers and architects. Whether due to intention or utter ignorance, they’ve appeared extraordinarily well mannered, prepared, disingenuous and self-serving in all actions from start to finish. They submit shadow studies that only extend until 2pm. When told their structure is monolithic, they change the brick color to one unlike any existing historical structure to make it more “subdued.” They compare the height of their building to those in the Stadium’s North Lot when one, we’re arguing scale, and two, the North Lot has a special zoning designation. They release their most recent designs and briefs one or two days prior to the meeting. Without any announcement, they publicly post their designs and briefs not to their company website, but to a random, little-known site such as Issuu.com and then change the upload to another little-known site such as Hightail.com. They use compatibility studies showing how their building compares favorably to the few modern buildings in the Square or to buildings that have not yet been approved for construction. Obviously invalid, these red herrings successfully disorient. Every action seems intended to evade, elude, and fool the public and the boards. It is a demonstration in the opaque.

In last Wednesday’s PSPB meeting, on July 8, they arrived with a new surprise. “We are committing 20 percent of the building to affordable housing. That stood in contrast to their DPD application that stated “high to middle income.” This was clearly intended to gain favor, but such commitments are non-binding, and the Public reminded all attendees of this fact.

Some have suggested we try to negotiate with the developers. In 18 months, they’ve never budged on reduction of scale in spite of the fact that the PSPB declared the building “monolithic” in December of 2014. Negotiating does not seem to be their intention, but wearing us all down — or practicing sleight-of-hand by changing brick color and window size — appears to be.

We’ve seen the Alliance for Pioneer Square act only in alliance with the developers, listening to the Director frustratingly tell us that no approval has ever taken this long. We’ve heard her tell the Pioneer Square Preservation Board that none of this is under their purview. Of course it is via SMC 23.66.180B: “Scale. Exterior building facades shall be of a scale compatible with surrounding structures. Window proportions, floor height, cornice line, street elevations and other elements of the building facades shall relate to the scale of the buildings in the immediate area.”

Such grandstanding is disrespectful and inappropriately dictatorial.