One of the interesting things from tonight's deliberations was the opinion of City Attorney Tom Morrill that the rezone does not constitute a "spot" rezone. I suppose that is because the rezone applies to lots, or "parcels of land," that the proposer does not own, or control.

Frankly, I disagree with the City Attorney's assessment. This is a spot rezone. It was proposed specifically to allow the Larida Passage Vision.

There is a lot about tonight's meeting to talk about and cover, and I don't intend to do it tonight - though I am pretty amped up about it.

The main question that I want to ask is whether or not it is appropriate to spend $50,000 public money on a private development proposal. Well is it? The answer might not be simple, as tonight's deliberations attest.

More than one City Council member, I am thinking of Mr. Ottavelli and Ms. Machlis, made compelling public interest arguments in favor the rezone, as it is geared toward the development of Larida Passage. I believe it was Mr. Hyer who talked about the multitudinous public tax sectors that the development, if successful, would contribute to. So it's not so simple.

Members also discussed the possibility of creating a public viewing area in the development - to increase public amenities, generally. But this in and of itself reveals the basic private interest of the proposal.

So we have tax dollars on one hand. We have destruction of important segments of the view corridor. And we have a massive for-profit, private interest, luxury condominium development in a sensitive, and severely hurting, ecological area.

We have the disenfranchisement of the 90% of us, whom could never afford to live in the proposed "up-class" development, with an area that is now commonly held as public open space (though in severe need of ecological restoration.)

I can understand that the rezone, given subsequent successful development, would provide some public benefits - mainly in the tax realm (it was also revealed that the oft-times referred to tax break doesn't technically exist - and the council would have to decide whether to offer the tax cut incentive, or not - if, for example they think that the incentives of the views are enough.)

Anyway, it was a complex series of deliberations. It's a complex issue.

I strongly believe that the public interest is in denying the proposal, and maintaining the Isthmus as an open area, and a central area, to attract people, and to provide for greater public amenities in the form of local recreational opportunity, and to be respectful toward the natural environment, which is suffering so tremendously - so enormously - under the weight of the destructiveness of this culture of consumption.

One of the most successful litigants for the public interest believes the isthmus amendment is a spot rezone and thus violates the Washington State constitution. He is bringing a lawsuit to rule on his belief.

Alberto Gonzales was also stating his "legal opinion" when he advised Members of the Bush Administration that they were good to go on torturing their enemies.

One attorney's legal opinion does not the law make.

Besides - the evidence that this is a spot rezone is overwhelming. A private developer proposed the rezone so that it could build a massage luxury condo project. The rezone is specifically intended to allow the Larida Passage to be built. Thusly, it can rightly be understood as a spot rezone.