It's a small change that doesn't involve a huge number of people. But a recent decision by Seattle University to discontinue neighborhood memberships to the Connolly Center leaves those affected with a sour taste regarding the role of a major institution in their community. As well, the decision has rallied those neighbors to work for an equitable solution.
Community memberships allowing use of the Connelly Center's swimming pool and racquetball courts have been available to the neighborhood for more than 35 years. But while community use of the nearby tennis courts and ballfield is officially recognized by the university, such use came as a result of mitigations in response to the university's Major Institution Master Plan during an expansion 15 years ago.
With the Connolly Center, there is no signed document that allows neighbors to buy memberships to the athletic facility. But there is an established history for roughly 200 Squire Park residents who regularly use the center.
Last fall, the university reduced the hours the Connolly Center would be available to community members, saying that increased student size and use required that neighbors couldn't use the facility between 3:30 and 7 p.m. on weekdays.
Learning that the memberships would not be renewed came via a small flier handed out at the center beginning on March 11. The short note said that existing memberships would be phased out, and that the Connolly Center would no longer sell community memberships.
As for the reasons, the note referenced the "extraordinary demands on the Connolly facilities and recent due diligence reviews of the University's non-profit operations in light of applicable tax laws. Federal and state laws regulate how the University is permitted to use the property it owns when that property is exempt from income and property taxes."
"They're afraid that allowing us to use the facility undermines their exclusive educational use," said John Perry, a 15-year Squire Park resident who's helped organize a community response. He said the neighbors who use the Connolly Center were stunned by the news and disappointed by how they received it. One man, Bruce Anthony, is in his 90s and still plays racquetball regularly at the center. He's been playing there for 33 years.
"We've been trying to convey to them just how much we feel this is a community asset," he said.
Ann Merryfield, a 20-year Squire Park resident agrees with the notion that the center should remain available to the community. She said the neighbors were not pleased with the reduction of hours, but understood that the university's students have first priority. But cutting the neighborhood off completely leaves a sour taste.
"The facility is like a public swimming pool. It doesn't have the amenities of a full-health club, and the money [the university] raises from the community is pretty small," she said.
Merryfield, who is a self-described swimming advocate, said that when she began swimming at the center the place was virtually unused.
"It was very underused then," she said. "Things have changed. There are more students at the University and much more use of the pool now. But during the hours we are able to use the pool its usually empty. The number of us who use the center is also pretty insignificant."
She added that the money Seattle University generates from the individual memberships, $360 per year per member, is a tiny amount compared with the institution's total budget. Even less so, she said, when you consider that perhaps half of the 200 individual members are alumni and will still be eligible to use Connelly Center.
Perry sited the social benefits he fears will be lost if a solution is not found:
"A lot of us go five days a week. It's a social activity for many of us. A social network and a sense of community has formed over the years - a large mix of people of different ages and backgrounds come to the Connolly Center."
Perry also laments the possible reduction of places were neighbors can meet.
"There are very few community spaces left," he said. "We've told the Seattle University administration this. I think they might be getting it."
In an effort to come to a more agreeable conclusion, a group of community members met with several SU administrators in early April to discuss possible solutions. Perry described the meeting as cordial. At that gathering, the university maintained that the decision was required because of its non-profit status. But the idea was floated that if the community could form as a non-profit organization, or perhaps officially align itself with one, then Seattle University might be able to allow limited community use. The university sent a letter acknowledging the idea on April 14.
Merryfield said that the group is now working on a way to achieve nonprofit status.
"The idea is still in the exploratory stage but it might be promising," she said. "We are still open minded to other creative options. But if all goes well we will find a way to become a nonprofit."
Perry said that the group needs an official agreement from Seattle University stating that if the neighborhood achieves non-profit status that it will be allowed to remain Connolly Center members.
"Seattle University isn't to be vilified here," Perry said. "We weren't happy about the way we learned about it, but I think there really is a tax issue. But if this doesn't work out it would be unfortunate to live in a community where we ultimately felt rejected by the university."
Doug Schwartz is the editor of the Capitol Hill Times. He can be reached at editor@capitolhilltimes.com or 461-1308.
[[In-content Ad]]
