I read your cover story regarding lost views (Aug. 8) with great interest - and a little disbelief. Along with my partner, I am the recent buyer (not the developer or builder) of the new house under construction in Fauntlee Hills that has upset some of the neighbors due to its impact on views.

At the time we purchased the home, we honestly had no idea its being built was controversial. While the developer who purchased the lot and is building the home has no ties to West Seattle, my partner and I have lived and run a business here for 15 years. So as the actual "new neighbors" mentioned in your story, we feel the need to set the record straight.

As compassionate human beings, we are truly sympathetic to anyone losing part of their view. It's very unfortunate, but as everyone knows, this is a very common issue all over the city. But there were several misleading statements made in the article and we feel it's only fair to share the other side of this particular story:

The house under construction that was referred to as a "McMansion" and a "minimansion" in your story is actually a 3-bedroom house with considerably less than 3,000 square feet of living space. Because the building lot is very small and heavily sloped, the house has a total "footprint" of approximately 1,000 square feet. This makes it smaller than many of the '50s-era houses in the neighborhood and significantly smaller than many of the more recently built homes in the neighborhood.

The building lot in question was the former back yard of the home in front of it and was legally subdivided many years ago. When the original owner's intention to build a house there did not come to fruition, the lot was sold. It has changed hands a few times over the past decade, always with the intention of building a home there. Our understanding (from the former owner, developer, and a few neighbors) is that the neighbors were given the opportunity to purchase the lot (most recently in 2005) to restrict its development, but did not. The lot was ultimately sold to the current developer and the building plan was submitted to the city in 2005. So this house did not just "pop up" overnight.

Including Mr. Hoelscher's home, the new house partially obstructs the views of two houses (not four), the other of which is a tall three-story house that was built in the '90s. One of the other neighbors whom Mr. Hoelshcher must be speaking for when he says that "the dreams of four families have been dashed" has told us that he is very happy the house is being built because it affects his view very little and the lot was previously a dumping ground for yard waste and trash. Over the past few months, we have met several of the other neighbors and all of them have been very kind and understanding.

As your article states, the house is well within Seattle height limits. It has been inspected repeatedly and no violations were found. In actuality, every effort was made to site the house as low on the lot as possible to minimize impact on the neighborhood. In fact, most of two of the three floors are below grade on the east side of the lot. In addition, all exterior materials and finish selections have been made specifically to minimize the home's visibility and impact on the neighborhood.

The issue of ethics was mentioned repeatedly in your story. If we are talking ethics, I would like to ask the following questions: Is it ethical (or fair) to publicly question the ethics of someone you don't know? Is it ethical (or intelligent) for Dr. Sutton to refer to a house as "absurd" when she knows nothing of its details? Is it ethical (or responsible) to voice the assumption that a house is wasting energy (or adding to global warming) when you have no idea what type of materials or systems are being used in its construction? Is it ethical (or compassionate) to publicly malign and accuse the developer of being greedy when he is following every pertinent law to develop his property? Is it ethical (or reasonable) to accuse people you don't know of building a house "all to display their possessions and wealth" when you have no idea what they're like or what they're actually building? Is it ethical (or good journalism) for the West Seattle Herald to run a one-sided cover story without making any attempt to get the other side?

Personally, I believe this particular situation is really about a few people who are understandably upset that their views (and property values) are being compromised, even if legally and without any malice. It's not really about unabashed greed, global warming, or degrading the neighborhood. Any citizen who feels that current building heights should be lowered citywide (and applied to everyone; not just their neighbors) should petition their city government officials.

What's done is done. The house is under construction. If the current developer hadn't built the house there, someone else would have. If we hadn't purchased the home, someone else would have. I can assure the neighbors that we will make every effort to be good, respectful, responsible neighbors. We only ask for mutual respect, human understanding, and the same benefit of the doubt that they themselves (or anyone) would want in a similar situation.

Michael Fiacco

West Seattle