What F/friends Said -- answers to the campus discernment survey, 2024
by Amanda Franklin and Lois Loontjens
In spring and summer 2024, the revived Campus Discernment ad hoc committee attempted to have 1:1 contact with everyone associated with UFM: members and attenders, active and not, including those who have not participated in the life of the meeting for many years but are still choosing to be listed in our directory. We did this out of a desire to solicit every interested person’s voice, and out of a recognition that many people don’t attend business meeting and might not come to an in-person or virtual meeting on the topic. We also wanted to listen carefully to everyone, hoping that a 1:1 conversation would give the time and privacy for each person to speak their mind.
We attempted contact with 177 people, and succeeded in speaking with 99 -- some very active with UFM, some formerly active, and some at a distance (one in Japan!) Another 78 people either did not respond, or declined to participate. We did not succeed in initiating contact with everyone, due to the limitations on the committee’s time and energy, and the fact that not everyone is listed in the directory and some did not respond to bulletin/listserv/verbal announcements. But we are confident that we reached out to nearly everyone whose name we recognized.
We asked people four questions. The results of our inquiries were summarized in the August and September ’24 Gleamings. What follows here is a more lengthy discussion of the responses.
How long have you been associated with UFM?
About 20% of respondents had been associated with us for less than five years, and another 20% for 40+ years, with the rest pretty evenly distributed over each decade in between (5-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40). For people who have been away for many years, we counted the years they actively participated at UFM. About a third of respondents had come to UFM within the last decade. The strength and range of people’s opinions did not particularly correlate with how long a time they had been part of UFM.
What role do you think our campus should play in supporting the root purpose and work of University Friends Meeting?
These might well be differently-worded but identical answers: half of the respondents said that our root purpose is to be a spiritual community, and about a third said our root purpose is to worship together, while many people gave some version of both answers. Other people talked about UFM as a place for spiritual seekers, those wishing to enquire and grow, those who want to follow the Quaker tradition together, and those who embrace traditional Quaker values such as peace and justice.
The role of the campus in upholding UFM’s root purpose yielded these responses, in approximate descending order:
* a place for Quaker education, committee meetings (pre-pandemic especially), the library, art installations, children’s activities, games, celebrations of life transitions, and fellowship; a place to support people’s leadings in the world
* the grounding that having a physical home provides to our UFM community. Fully a third of respondents mentioned some version of these first two items
* an affordable venue for values-compatible groups to hold events and celebrations
* our physical presence witnesses to our larger community, particularly the UW and the University District. A number of people noted that we were established as an outreach to UW students, and some thought we should step up our efforts in this regard
* the location of the campus is relatively central for the greater Seattle area, and relatively accessible by non-car transportation
* a rental space for current or former tenants (SIMS, Facing Homelessness, QuEST, SHARE, AFSC, Nakani, preschool, contra dances…)
* the serenity and physical witness that our beautiful grounds, meetinghouse, and worship space provide for those within and those who pass by. Many people praised the worship room specifically, both for the effect it has on them, and for the oft-noted sense of how the space is made sacred by its spiritual and communal history
Other people noted that Quaker activities, particularly worship, suffer when conducted on line; that it is challenging to be a Quaker in isolation; that we don’t have many spaces for several groups to meet at once; and that a rental space does not provide the same grounding as owning a physical home does.
Some respondents believe that, over time, the increasing demands on our time and money detract from our fulfilling our root purpose, while a few noted that working together on maintaining our buildings and grounds provides opportunities for deepening community. Several question whether we ought to be landlords or lease holders at all, either because this proves a distraction from what we ought to be doing, or because it keeps us from being financially self-sustaining. Others said that we are not visibly carrying out our root purpose of a commitment to social justice.
Even among people who praised our physical space, though, fully ten percent said that owning the campus itself is not part of our root purpose, noting that South Seattle and Salmon Bay Friends are long-established meetings that do not own.
What are your thoughts about any or all of the four options?
Respondents were offered the chance to offer any Light they might have on any of the four options for the use of our campus:
1. remain as is: most respondents spoke strongly against this option, with many citing the rising costs in money and labor hours to keep us going. Some spoke nostalgically about wishing we could remain the same, and five people affirmed that we should go on as we are. Others pointed out that, with a shrinking and aging membership, option #1 becomes less and less tenable over time, and some candidly remarked that they themselves couldn’t put in the
time and labor to maintain the status quo. Some spoke against the wisdom of our being landlords at all, or of financially sustaining ourselves on rental income.
2. redevelop part of the campus: most respondents favored this or the next option, with some being unclear which of the two would be the wiser course of action, and many asking for an explicit proposal to consider. Although there were concerns about parking, the people who spoke to option #2 generally favored redeveloping Quaker House (and perhaps the parking lot as well). Favored uses included housing (most often mentioned, often specifying for low income folks or a low-income/market rate mix), along with Quaker-adjacent office spaces, as well as a Quaker retirement community. Several respondents pointed out that UFM itself should not try to manage a redevelopment project, or a redeveloped campus. Others thought we consolidate in the meetinghouse and not offer rental space any more. Additional suggested uses included public gathering spaces both indoors and outside, a coffee house, and a playground/childcare. People spoke with concern about the needs of our renters, particularly SIMS given its recent major renovation, as well as about the availability of parking – particularly for those who are car-dependent. Several praised the architecture of the meetinghouse, and strongly urged that it be preserved as an historically significant building which is imbued with decades of Spirit.
3. redevelop the entire campus (meetinghouse, parking lot, and Quaker House): there were a number of detailed visions under this category:
* go the route of other churches who have worked with the Faith/Land initiative, and use our entire redeveloped campus to provide many units of housing, with a stipulation that we would retain needed worship, meeting, and parking spaces in some new building
* consult with Seattle Unity, which has apparently done something similar and has retained (lifetime?) use of its sanctuary and Sunday parking spaces while a developer has built up around it
* partner with some other organization, perhaps Native/Indigenous, to effect land reparations while still being able to meet on UFM land. This might take the shape of deeding our property over while retaining lifetime rights
* take advantage of City of Seattle zoning changes which facilitate churches building housing; perhaps partner with the city
* relocate the worship room to the top floor of a multi-story building, providing many windows to take in the wider view to visually enhance our worship, and rent it out as a desirable venue (weddings/concerts/conferences, etc) the rest of the week
* this option should provide housing for targetted groups, such as: low income or formerly unhoused tenants; people who work for the UW, or in the U District, and who are currently priced out of living near their jobs; retired Quakers (perhaps an allocated number of units); and Indigenous people
* a rooftop childcare facility/play area that would be available for Quakers on Sunday mornings, for a preschool during the week, and for tenants the rest of the time
Some spoke favorably of the tangible witness that this use of urban space could offer to Seattle, both in using the air space above our current campus for the good of all, and in perhaps
effecting a very practical land reparation. Others suggested that building family housing could attract families to our Meeting, particularly if the name of the building were something like “Quaker House.” Others pointed out that, once the upheaval was over, this step would ensure UFM’s financial stability into the future.
Concerns included finding a place to meet during construction; keeping our community intact during a long disruption of the campus; the loss of our current, much-loved worship room; the availability of parking; the unreliability of partnerships with outside agencies, and the uncertainty that we could still have the campus for Quaker uses into the future; and discerning who might undertake this massive, years-long project.
People who spoke against this option mentioned the loss of our existing worship room; the massive amount of time, money, and energy which would be called for, particularly as our Meeting shrinks and ages; and the wishful thinking that we could find the funding for this large scale project.
One suggestion was that we keep our existing committees and business meeting during reconstruction, but join with other local Quaker meetings for in-person worship for the duration.
4. sell and move: nearly all respondents were firmly against this option, pointing out that we would never find a centrally located option to buy; that our building is a witness to Seattle; and many simply asking, “ but where would we go?” Several people spoke in strong opposition to allowing our land to pass into commercial hands, where a developer would build market-rate
housing for profit.
A minority pointed out that we are sitting on a financial goldmine with resources that could be put towards Quaker leadings or permanently assuring our financial stability, and that our smaller meeting could be well-housed in a smaller building. Several people have concerns over the changes in our neighborhood, and the difficulty in finding parking. A couple of people pointed out the practical advantages of being long-term renters, and mentioned the growing availability of unused office spaces. Three respondents thought that selling and moving was the best option.
Other people vigorously asserted that we should not let go of an irreplaceable asset – and that we’d never get unity to do this, anyway.
5. sell Quaker House: although this was not offered as one of the options, about 10% of respondents specified that this is what we should do. This would provide a financial windfall, and free us up from maintaining an elderly building.
6. keep worship room: enough people emphasized this point that it almost became its own category. Respondents noted the sense of centered peace it offers, and the connection to decades of Quakers they feel simply by entering its space.
7. other thoughts: several people suggested that we need to come up with a vision for our future, which would point the way towards right action, and which would engage people with working towards a common goal. Respondents varied in their prediction of whether we will retain enough members to be a viable meeting, with some pointing to our steady decline, and others hopeful about the arrival of new and younger F/friends. Many people suggested that we need to focus on attracting younger people and young families. Several people pointed out that
we do not have to be in a building to be a worshipping community, though others feel strongly that being in a building really helps.
As UFM discerns what to do with our property, and when to do it, what do you think is important to keep in mind/to pay attention to?
There was less agreement here, but (in descending order of frequency) these concerns were mentioned by three or more respondents:
* the value of our presence in the community, and our ability to serve our neighbors/city * the financial implications of any choices we do (or don’t) make, and a desire for input from our Finance Committee
* the human energy it takes to remain as is, or to make any changes, with a recognition that there is probably not a low-energy option available
* the importance of preserving our community, regardless of what option we might choose
* considering and providing for the future, up to seven generations hence, even though we cannot know what the future might hold
* getting more families, young people, and children to join us
* climate/environmental concerns, both in maintaining our current campus or in redeveloping. People felt there were strong climate reasons in favor of each of the first three options
* reparations to BIPOC
* Seattle’s housing crisis: we have land which could help to alleviate this problem, which will just keep growing
* we need a communal vision or goal to guide us in this undertaking – how are we led? * we have a community which is aging and dwindling: what energy do we have to facilitate each of the options? Will this energy continue to decline as our demographic ages?
* we must listen to each other carefully and discern from what we hear
* accessibility concerns
* the time and energy it takes to sustain our aging buildings
* the sense that being landlords is not part of UFM’s mission
* the role UFM’s history has played throughout the years
* the need for parking
* staying true to Quaker values
* the decline in religious membership across all denominations
Where do we go from here?
The Campus Discernment Committee will host a community-wide potluck, presentation and discussion on the evening of Wednesday, September 18. We will go over these responses more thoroughly and suggest our next steps.
Posts
