The isthmus: Thad's excellent letter in today's Olympian

Navigation

User login

Online users

einmaleins
timada
einmaleins
Rob Richards
Laurian
Austin American

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

Hylik
KybosInfo
radosintra
remitov
Kunstkamera

The isthmus: Thad's excellent letter in today's Olympian

Submitted by Sandy M on Wed, 11/26/2008 - 10:47am.

Council moving too quickly on isthmus rezone proposal

It's hard to believe, but five members of the Olympia City Council seem dead set on ignoring and frustrating the 4,000 voters who signed the initiative requiring them to seriously study creating an isthmus park instead of rezoning the land for high rise luxury condos.

Councilmembers Doug Mah, Rhenda Strub, Jeff Kingsbury, Joan Machlis and Craig Ottavelli have already voted to prepare rezone ordinances. They're legally required to do the study, so they're doing it, but they're now planning to go ahead with the final vote Dec. 5, well before the study is done.

Their new zoning would allow Triway to build 171,000 more square feet of housing with prime views, plus 90 percent of the commercial space it can now, increasing the value of its property very significantly. Doing that in advance will make it easy for these five councilmembers to claim that there's no way to raise the money for a park, even with the help from the state, the federal government, foundations and other private sources that the voters are making the council explore.

City staff said demand for these condos would be shallow at the height of the boom. Given the collapse of the housing market and financing, it's hard to believe they would be built soon, or would be a good investment now. Why won't they wait for the study and then decide whether to invest the views in this project — or refuse to rezone and work patiently toward a park?

Thad Curtz, Olympia

Sandy M's blog
Login or register to post comments

The rezone is independant of the study.

Submitted by FRESH on Wed, 11/26/2008 - 12:08pm.

They're not ignoring you at all, that I can see anyhow. They're doing the study, like 4,000 people asked for, and, they're also proceeding with the rezone deliberations which are on the agenda.

I'm very curious why you didn't stop the rezone in your initiative. Who chose the language and why? It really seems like you could have just put a stop to the whole thing by mandating it be a park, instead of just asking for a study. You had to know that a study wouldn't stop the rezone process.

Also, you should really form an organized voting block out of those signatories. That's more than enough people to really sway a local election.

Limits on local initiatives

Submitted by Thad Curtz on Wed, 11/26/2008 - 1:53pm.

You can't do an initiative for a rezone in Olympia, or one to appropriate money, or one authorizing or repealing the levy of taxes. (If you could, I'm confident that the Council would have been presented with a quite different ordinance by the voters.)

Triway has applied to build an almost identical project on West Bay; the Port has reached an agreement with Ecology about cleanup for the 13.3 acre East Bay Redevelopment project and will be proceeding with it. They're asking for development proposals for 6.8 acres there as part of their plan to "transform a currently underutilized 13.3-acre site into a vibrant pedestrian-friendly district with a dynamic mix of uses that facilitate 18-hour neighborhood appeal through both daytime and evening activity" and "provide a new anchor for downtown Olympia." I really just don't understand why the Council's so insistent that high-end housing downtown has to go on the isthmus...

I keep hoping a couple of Councilmembers will change their minds, but it seems very unlikely to me after last night. If not, I suppose the next two elections will partly be a referendum on what Councilmembers have done about this and what the results (if any) have been.

P.S. There are a lot of other legal limits on local initiatives too, some enumerated and some established by the case law. If anybody's interested in more detail the City has an introductory FAQ and there's a lot more detail at MSRC if you scroll down this page.

Best,
Thad

Thank you, Thad

Submitted by FRESH on Wed, 11/26/2008 - 5:08pm.

for the great explanation.

Why is a park the alternative?

Submitted by eristalis on Fri, 11/28/2008 - 1:51pm.

The specifics of the Triway proposal aside, how can progressive-minded Olympians support a park just blocks from the downtown core when we already have a large park around the lake? Isn't urban density integral to many of our values (e.g. preservation of the regional ecology, reduced emphasis on automobile transportation, etc.)? I imagine this topic has been discussed before, but I would genuinely appreciate an explanation of this. How can liberal Olympians oppose density in our city center? Won't that just mean more suburban sprawl?

It's not a question of either/or

Submitted by Sandy M on Fri, 11/28/2008 - 11:05pm.

As I've said before, if even one person has argued against urban density or raised height limits downtown, I'm unaware of it. The dispute is not about density or height limits -- it's about location, as has been discussed widely on this sight and elsewhere.

We can have increased density downtown and a park on the isthmus.

Density is good, and inevitable... just not there

Submitted by Thad Curtz on Fri, 11/28/2008 - 9:07pm.

Almost everybody opposing Triway's proposal is in favor of more market-rate housing downtown, more density downtown, taller buildings for housing downtown, etc... Almost none of them think it has to be on those two blocks, or that it will never happen if Triway's project isn't built.

And this particular proect won't do much for smart growth goals - if you want more details you can take a look at our hearing testimony at http://www.nuprometheus.com/friends/OPCTestimony.html

Best,
Thad

Density Somewhere Else...

Submitted by eristalis on Wed, 12/03/2008 - 8:03pm.

I read the testimony at the hearing, and it sounds like park proponents want density just as long as it's away from the isthmus, won't ruin views, fits a narrow definition of market-rate housing, won't increase traffic, and won't draw in to many shoppers from out of town (or take away too many shoppers from existing downtown businesses). On top of that, it's not enough that the project contribute to comprehensive plan goals, it has to contribute in a BIG way... I understand that there are legitimate reasons to oppose the Triway proposal, but arguing for a park on the isthmus property (alongside a very large existing park) still seems at odds with urban growth ideals. After all, isn't location a pretty substantial piece of the urban density solution?

location

Submitted by Berd on Thu, 12/04/2008 - 12:07am.

People are saying, in overwhelming numbers and proportion, that they don't want a massive super-structure building on the isthmus. People would rather have a park. People would even prefer a smaller scale office building.

Simultaneous Orgasm Somewhere Else

Submitted by OlyDowntowner on Thu, 12/04/2008 - 12:36pm.

Yeah! All these silly conditions and arguments about the rezone remind me of those people who say simultaneous orgasm is a good thing, but it's got to be in private and you've got to use birth control and protect against STDs and have a meaningful relationship and not let it interfere with other necessary activities like earning a living. Ridiculous! If simultaneous orgasm is a good thing, then it's a good thing even with a stranger on top of a table in the restaurant where you're dining.

Interesting Analogy

Submitted by Berd on Thu, 12/04/2008 - 2:36pm.

At first I thought that you were stretching it a bit to compare the BHRP (building height rezone proposal) and Larida Passage to Simultaneous Orgasm.

I am glad that I gave it some effort and a few moments to sink in. Because you're right. The isthmus building height rezone and related Larida Passage proposals are somewhat similar to simultaneous orgasm.

I can see Larida Passage sitting there. I have a vision of it. Sun glinting off the new exterior. Sitting like a giant simultaneous orgasm.

good point

No, no, no. It's high

Submitted by OlyDowntowner on Thu, 12/04/2008 - 5:55pm.

No, no, no. It's high density housing that I was comparing to simultaneous orgasm. And with orgasms, as with real estate, it's all about location. Location. Location. What might work here and there, does not necessarily do anything good there. Maybe, even, what brings pleasure in one place, could prove downright painful in another.

Sumultaneous Housing (and Getting Back To Topic)

Submitted by eristalis on Thu, 12/04/2008 - 7:06pm.

Going with your metaphor, Olydowntowner, I can see why simultaneous orgasms might not be good in some locations, but that doesn't mean you should ban them outside the bedroom... There are legitimate arguments against the Triway proposal, but a park is another matter altogether. Thad in his testimony says, "we should hope that it continues to be financially unattractive to build [on the isthmus] at the 35’ allowed by the current zoning."

So not only should we oppose the Triway proposal, but we should actually limit future development on that site? Sounds anti-density, plain and simple. And what about the massive park around the lake, the multi-acre capitol campus, and the boardwalk and waterfront park? Parks are nice, but downtowns are for building -- at least that's a central component of progressive urban density ideals. There are plenty of reasons to argue against urban-density, but based on the information I've seen, it seems disingenuous to suggest that park advocates are somehow in favor of smart growth.

One of the arguments for the park seems to be that a lot of people want it. My experience is that majority opinion makes bad public policy (a lot of people, for instance, really like suburbs). I suspect the reason there's a difference of opinion between the "overwhelming numbers" and the City Council, is that the latter has taken more time to study the issue and has a broad set of considerations. It's certainly not that the City Council is unpopular: excluding the one appointed member, all of the council members who voted in favor of the rezone were elected with strong majorities (70%, 64%, 61%, and 56%). (Incidentally, I was part of the 30% minority who voted for Meta Hogan, in part because I believed she would have advocated for a more sophisticated approach to urban planning -- as her comments on previous OlyBlog posts have borne out: http://olyblog.net/what-would-jane-jacobs-have-done.)

Limiting future development

Submitted by jlw on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 2:35pm.

I strongly believe that we should limit future development on the isthmus to the current zoning which includes a height limit of 35'. It is my understanding that the park idea came about because public ownership and development of the land would end these battles to change the zoning and height limits of the isthmus. I don't believe the park idea arose so much out of a desire to have a park there as out of a desire to end the predations of developers who want to build high to squeeze as much profit as possible out of their developments.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing other development on the isthmus, as long as the height limits were maintained. But apparently developer interest is low, as building smaller buildings isn't sufficiently profitable.

I won't reiterate the many excellent arguments for keeping the height limits as they are, for the sake of aesthetics, civic pride, etc.

As for the popularity of the city council, I don't think the election of 2007 is a fair measure anymore. The council has made many decisions that the Olympian has told the public we liked; the actual reaction of the public is hard to gauge. The election of 2009 should prove very interesting.

The Ethical Slut

Submitted by Berd on Thu, 12/04/2008 - 4:03pm.

Maybe this is a good time to mention The Ethical Slut a book by Dossie Easton and Catherine A. Liszt. If the simultaneous orgasm of the rezone and larida passage are slutty, are they also ethical?

from Wikipedia: The Ethical Slut
The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities (ISBN 1-890159-01-8) is an English language non-fiction narrative written by Dossie Easton and Catherine A. Liszt (a pseudonym of Janet Hardy). It is credited with raising awareness of the possibility of consensual non-monogamy as a lifestyle, and providing practical guidance on how such long-term relationships work and are put into practice.
The authors define the term slut as "a person of any gender who has the courage to lead life according to the radical proposition that sex is nice and pleasure is good for you." The term is reclaimed from its usual use as a pejorative and as a simple label for a promiscuous person. Instead, it is used to signify a person who is accepting of their enjoyment of sex and the pleasure of intimacy with others, and chooses to engage and accept these in an ethical and open way — rather than as cheating.
The Ethical Slut discusses how to live an active life with multiple concurrent sexual relationships in a fair and honest way. Discussion topics include how to deal with the practical difficulties and opportunities in finding and keeping partners, maintaining relationships with others, and strategies for personal growth.
It contains chapters discussing how consensual nonmonogamy is handled in different subcultures such as the gay and lesbian communities, information on handling scheduling, jealousy, communication, conflict in relationships, and etiquette for group sexual encounters.
...

Isthmus Area Inappropriate for Buildings

Submitted by Berd on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 6:12pm.

I am of the opinion that the isthmus are is inappropriate for building - especially large buildings, be they high-rise, super-structure, or a combination. Larida Passage may not be a high-rise - but it is a super-structure as planned. It would be ungainly and awkward, and unfitting. Approving the rezone would be inappropriate.

The rezone proposal is inappropriate. The Larida Passage proposal is inappropriate.

What I don't understand is why the City Council seems to be so eager to move ahead with this project.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: