I posted this on a previous thread - under the Ralph Munro radio message. However, it bears repeating.

It is common sense: the appropriate and correct Council response will be to delay voting on the rezone until all of the facts are in (from a thorough and complete isthmus park feasibility study).

Even if the study shows that it will require years for conditions to be right for creating park, that should not be considered as prejudice against the park option, nor should it weigh in the decision to rezone. City Planning must be geared toward long term vision.

If the park feasibility study finds adequate conditions, even in the somewhat distant future, for the creation of an expanded park space on the Isthmus (under whatever jurisdiction), then the rezone proposal should be denied.

The people have spoken. The people of Olympia do not want a mixed-use condominium/retail super-structure on the Isthmus. It's important that public officials represent the will of the people on this matter.

Thanks, jlw, for answering my first question. Here's another, possibly more complex, question:

I understand that the Council has prohibited any further public comment on the question of the rezone itself. But are things which are indirectly related to the rezone off limits, as well -- such as the park feasibility study, for instance?

Are we prohibited from beseeching the Council to honor the mandate prescribed in the successful citizen petition to study the feasibility of a park on the isthmus?  Are we prohibited from reminding them that a vote on the rezone in advance of a comprehensive park study could adversely affect the feasibility of a park, hence violating the mandate to conduct that study in good faith?

And what if someone gets up to make such a statement and the mayor decides it's against his rules -- what does he do? Shout them down, have them removed from the building? Is there already a precedent in which this has occurred?

full disclosure