"Majority" = "Overwhelming Majority"

Navigation

User login

Online users

OlyDowntowner
einmaleins
Just another voice
jlw
Thad Curtz
Just another voice
Laurian
OperaGirl
flyfreeasabird
Guglielmo

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

Lisa P
GRuB
ktcoxster
making a differ...
johnmac

"Majority" = "Overwhelming Majority"

Submitted by Thad Curtz on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 6:36pm.

The Olympian's story on the isthmus rezone this morning was headlined "Opponents in majority at city height hearing," but it didn't include any actual data about the crowd. (Since I'm kind of a geek, and I like knowing the numbers, I went down and counted the sign-in sheets today.)

15 people signed in supporting the rezone. 287 people signed in opposing it. (There were also a few people who signed in but didn't express a position, and a couple I couldn't decide how to count.) The longer comment sheets weren't available yet.

Best,
Thad

What We Don't Know

Submitted by JMK on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 7:15pm.

is how many people have emailed, phoned, visited personally or written snail mail letters in support of rezoning...

Personally, I have no interest in personal confrontations, especially over political issues and generally choose not to place myself in the middle of debate forums like this one. I also am protective of my home and choose not to voice my address to anybody listening or watching. I've seen what happens to those who do when they voice opposition to the majority.

I prefer to visit with my representatives in one of the manners mentioned above.

We know something closely related...

Submitted by Thad Curtz on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 7:57pm.

And maybe it's true that statistically supporters of the rezone are likelier to communicate their views in advance than to go to a meeting; the numbers I have don't refute that idea, anyway.

Just under a third of the accumulated letters, emails and phone calls that the Planning Commission got supported the rezone; two-thirds opposed it. Still a pretty sizeable majority, but not as big as in the Council's hearing sign-ins.

Maybe being in the minority makes people shy away from a meeting, or maybe the sorts of people they are tend to prefer these methods to spending an evening at a meeting, etc..., etc...

For the Planning Commission process, though, the percentages of the people who signed up to speak were pretty much the same as the percentages of the people who communicated to the Commission in these other ways.

P.S. It's also true that visiting personally doesn't go on the record, but I don't think those numbers can be very large compared to these others.

Best,
Thad

What do you mean?

Submitted by Peter Alden Stroble on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 8:18pm.

Thad - What do you mean when you say "signed in"? We're there sheets to sign your name and express a pro or con? If there were, I certainly missed them.

No one would argue that there weren't more people at the hearing opposed than pro - that's to be expected and anyone who was there saw it first hand. But a ratio of 15:287? Are you arguing that this ratio approximates the split at the hearing?

In the first group of randomly selected speakers, the ratio was 27 against, 12 pro - about a 70/30 split.

It's standard procedure at hearings

Submitted by Thad Curtz on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 9:20pm.

At least at any one I've ever been to - city, county, or state. (I guess there are just longer comment sheets once in a while, as at the Planning Commission hearing, but usually they're a supplement to the sign-in.) There were two or three sets of them spread out across the front middle of the city's table in the back - right next to the cards that anybody who signed up to testify had to fill out, and to the sheets for commenting to the Council.

Since several of the Oly 2012 steering committee spent their careers as professional lobbyists and in government I'm kind of astounded that nobody said anything about the sign-in sheets in the course of your group's getting who was going to do what at the hearing sorted out... (It's the first thing people usually worry about, and I just assumed you guys must have talked about it as part of getting the various other things you did set up, like having people standing at the building entrances distributing those 2012 stickers for people who supported your position to put on.)

Best,
Thad

Point of Clarification

Submitted by Cathie Butler on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 10:04pm.

FYI, there is no requirement for anyone to sign in to attend a public meeting per state law:

Statutory provision: A member of the public shall not be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of a governing body, to register his name and other information, to complete a questionnaire, or otherwise to fulfill any condition precedent to his attendance. RCW 42.30.040.

Procedures, including providing name/address/etc, may be established to register for testimony, but no sign in or any other condition may be placed on the simple act of "attendance."

I often receive requests from people in attendance at large public meetings, in particlar public hearings, to somehow indicate their presence. This is why we set out voluntary sign-in and/or comment sheets.

Often people who register for testimony do not then sign-in on a voluntary comment sheet.

I estimate that throughout the evening of the Sept 16 public hearing about 500 individuals were in attendance.

Cathie Butler, Communications Manager, City of Olympia

P.S.

Submitted by Thad Curtz on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 11:10pm.

No - 15/287 certainly can't be the right ratio for the whole meeting. At that rate, there only would have been 30 supporters or so there (on Cathie's estimate of the size of the crowd), and more than that talked. I suppose the ratio in the whole crowd was some place between 30/70 and 15/287. Maybe the rest of the numbers about testimony sign-ups and comments would throw some more light on just where, though I'm not sure it matters at all practically. I guess I'd call 30/70 pretty overwhelming too, in political contexts - I think most newspaper headlines would call that a "landslide" in an election.

Maybe I can skip more counting and mow the lawn or weed the garden for a change...

Weed and mow...

Submitted by The Original Yoda on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 11:19pm.

,,,,I just want to thank you, Thad, for your contributions.

OlyBlog is better with your participation...

I agree...

Submitted by Peter Alden Stroble on Thu, 09/18/2008 - 6:48am.

...70/30 would be a landslide in an election. It's a good thing that public hearings for land use issues are not elections.

(while you're weeding your lawn, I think I might go outside and bang my head against the side of my house!)

I did not know that...

Submitted by Peter Alden Stroble on Thu, 09/18/2008 - 6:44am.

...so wouldn't it be fair to assume that many other people didn't either? I may not be the brightest or most clued-in member of the community to this whole issue, but I have tried awfully hard to understand it. I listened carefully to Doug Mah talk about the "protocol" of the hearing at lunch on Monday and "signing in" was not mentioned.

I am surprised that given that you were there in person you would choose to cite the 287:15 ratio. I just doesn't seem like it would be an argument that any reasonable person would accept, regardless of what side of the issue you are on.

numbers

Submitted by Bert on Thu, 09/18/2008 - 7:26am.

How many people spoke in support of the rezone at the meeting? Probably a little over 20 people, maybe 25 or 30. The fact is that it's an estimate. No one was required to sign in, nor should anyone be required to do so. In lieu of hard facts, the simple truth is that the number is somewhere between the supposed 15 people who signed in support and a higher number that is yet to be determined by gauging other comment sheets and oral testimony at the meeting.

Numbers of supporters are important and should serve to guide the Council's decision making process. So I don't understand why supporters of the rezone wouldn't sign in, except for the fact that they were unaware of the ability to do so.

Thad is one of the most, if not the most, credible voices on this issue. He has done his homework. Do you really think that he is being unreasonable? (Or even further, that as you say, he is an unreasonable person?)

Speakers

Submitted by jlw on Thu, 09/18/2008 - 7:17pm.

Twenty-five people total spoke in favor of the rezone, and 68 spoke against it. The ratio was 12 to 27 in Group 1, 9 to 28 in Group 2, and 5 to 13 in Group 3. I jotted down the names of every speaker, and the position they took. I also noted their affiliations, if they were mentioned; most of those people speaking in favor of the rezone were members of the Oly2012 Steering Committee, downtown business owners, members of the Thurston County Economic Development Council or employees of Triway.

Yes.

Submitted by Peter Alden Stroble on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 4:25pm.

When Thad creates a new public blog post entitled "Majority" = "Overwhelming Majority" and in that post the only piece of supporting data he cites is a 15:287 ratio when he knows full-well that this couldn't possibly be representative of the truth, then yes, I really do think he is being unreasonable. Of course, he backtracked hard after being questioned on it, but the initial act seems awfully suspect to me so you'll have to forgive me for being a little cynical. This is the type of "intellectual dishonesty" that I am pretty sure planning commissioner Matt Litwin was referring to in his deliberations about this issue.

Furthermore.

Submitted by Peter Alden Stroble on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 4:28pm.

False arguments like these do nothing good for the debate or the community as a whole. With garbage data like this being strewn into the debate, how can the City Council not call into question the petitioners' alleged 80% sign rate (to say nothing about the tactics used to attain them) or the monotonous mantra continuously refrained from those in opposition: "it's clear that there is an overwhelming majority in the community against this rezone."

You are right to say that Thad has been a fairly credible voice throughout this debate, but not this time.

falsities

Submitted by Bert on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 11:27pm.

You keep taking jabs at Thad, when you fail to account for the fact that Thad never claimed it was 287 to 15. He said that is the high end of the range. What he said was that there were definitely 287 people there in opposition. Definitely 15 in support.

I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself Peter. This is not constructive criticism. You're not tending toward obfuscation, are you?

tactics

Submitted by Bert on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 11:47pm.

You mention the tactics used to attain the signatures for the petition. My contribution to the petition has been very modest. I only gathered about 15 signatures. But I worked hard for them. The one day I went out walking around downtown I spent 45 minutes talking to the first person I stopped to canvass. Then I went about 50/50 with people, who were mostly interested (I would say 80% were for the park petition feasibility analysis - though there were definitely those who were not for it (and were for the rezone and condos...)), but the biggest problem was that the young people I approached were not registered to vote.

You mentioned tactics. Do you consider walking around and talking with people on the street, or walking around in neighborhoods, door knocking and talking to neighbors, to be somehow wrong? To me that is a pure and beautiful picture of democracy in action.

I agree (again...)

Submitted by Thad Curtz on Thu, 09/18/2008 - 7:37am.

287:15 can't be the ratio for the whole crowd. I really didn't intend my first post to say it was; I'm sorry if it seemed to. All I wanted to say in the beginning was that I didn't think the headline saying "Majority opposes..." gave a very accurate sense of the crowd. (To me, that sounds as if maybe it was 55/45 opposed.) The sign-in numbers were the only ones available then.

I'm sure that the numbers for testimony have a higher percentage of supporters than that.

That won't represent the whole crowd accurately either, since a lot of the supporters of the rezone were people used to talking in big public meetings and comfortable doing it and a lot of people on the other side weren't and just signed in rather than actually signing up to talk. Maybe I'll get around to adding some other numbers to try to bracket the actual story, whatever it was. For now, I'd bet money on more than 30/70, less than 15/287, but I've got no basis for guessing exactly how much less.

Best,
Thad

Coverage in the Olympian

Submitted by Bert on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 8:50pm.

The Olympian coverage is incomplete. It has consistently and very significantly oversimplified the opposition argument. The Olympian cannot be considered as an unbiased source of information. The articles are not accurately portraying the event.

Much of the opposition last night was based around the concept of public interest, both maintaining the view in the interests of the public, as well as opposition to the use of city resources to subsidize an up-class housing development in an area that is very meaningful and special to thousands and thousands of residents of Olympia.

Pluck up Olympian - tell the whole story!

Tell the Whole Story

Submitted by Bert on Thu, 09/18/2008 - 8:07am.

The Olympian commits a disservice to the whole community by oversimplifying the arguments of the opposition.

Yes, the views are important. But it not just about the views. It is about public access and respect for public structures and institutions.

I don't have time or energy or ability to codify the opposition argument right now.

But this is just wrong. If I was on the council there is no way I would vote for such a spot rezone. It is unethical, and according to one person's testimony, it might be illegal as well.

Personally, I can't believe it has gotten this far. Of course the public doesn't want a high-rise on the isthmus (whether it is 20, 30, 65 or 90 feet). Just look at the last mistake! The proposed building is several times larger than the Capitol Center.

The city has spent at least $50,000 on this. That is money that could have been spent otherwise. This was money that was spent on a private developer proposal. Items of this stature ought to be initiated via public process - with primary input coming from the public - not a private developer. The city could have used that $50,000 to start that process - then once the public would have decided what it wants, it could have sought bids from local developers. That would have been good public practice and good business practice.

I think residents of Olympia deserve representative leadership in City Hall.

Same as it ever was...same

Submitted by w1r3d1 on Thu, 09/18/2008 - 6:41pm.

Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...same as it ever was... Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...same as it ever was... Same as it ever was...same as it ever was... - David Byrne

maybe yes, maybe no

Submitted by Bert on Fri, 09/19/2008 - 7:31pm.

Same as it ever was doesn't make it right.

This type of activity should not pass.

I really hope that someone includes this information, about Tri Vo and Triway and associated interests' campaign support for certain members of the council, in their testimony on Sunday.

It's relevant. This is a special interest spot zone that will be of great financial benefit to the developer. Talk about rewarding campaign contributors.

We can do better than that.

You mention "great financial benefits"

Submitted by Peter Alden Stroble on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 7:42am.

You mention "great financial benefits". Can you please flesh this one out for the benefit of the readers. Specifically, what can you tell us about the costs and risks of this project?

financial benefits

Submitted by Bert on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 8:02am.

Yes. I am not going public a pseudo-intellectual hit-piece paper to do so, however,

I am just going to tell it like it is in plain English. What a park would do would be to serve as a "magnet" to attract people. A park, both in physical reality and in concept, would increase peoples' interest in visiting, living, and participating economically in the downtown sector.

The park is novel. That's how it would work. People would continue to understand that Olympia is a different kind of place.

With a park, there would be some infrastructural costs. I was talking with Thad. He told me that he thinks a basic park could be constructed in the area that we are talking about (in between 4th and 5th West of Water Street) for around $6.8M.

Of course, we're low on money. Thanks to Bush's war of aggression, we spent all the money beating up on Iraqi's who don't want to give the petroleum of their nation to multinational oil corporations. But that is no reason to pander to special interests. The public interest must override.

Let's take this opportunity to examine the costs and benefits of the rezone (presuming it would actually result in the Larida Passage.)

What does it say, first of all, to make a project that caters to the most wealthy, at a time when so many regular people are struggling economically?

What will the cost to traffic flow be? What about cultural and social costs?

Who will this project benefit, besides the developer? Well, if it's actually successful and they find 141 people to buy a unit, it will benefit realtors, bankers, and builders. That's a small subset.

A park on the other hand, would benefit everyone. It would be a tribute to public process, and the natural world. It would be a place that everyone could feel pride in. A parkway on the Isthmus, where people would drive slowly through a wide open space, and perhaps be reminded of their relationship with the ecosystem.

Larida Passage would represent a monument to consumerism and materialism. The social costs of such a monument are undesirable.

Parks don't do that by themselves, Robert.

Submitted by FRESH on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 11:13am.

Read some Jacobs, she'll tell you. You need things around the parks that attract people, then the parks will be used, not the other way around.

Nice, but you missed my question...

Submitted by Peter Alden Stroble on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 11:25am.

When I questioned your use of "great financial benefits" it was in relation to your comment that this rezone would result in great financial benefits to Triway Enterprises. So, my question is: what can you tell us about the profit/loss potential of this project for the developer (not your opinions about the profit/loss for the community). You seem to speak of it as though it is a given Triway is going to profit. And this argument seems to fly in the face of your other argument that there is no proven market for these condos.

Financial Benefit for Triway

Submitted by Bert on Mon, 09/22/2008 - 3:28am.

The property value of the land that Triway possesses, or has options on, will increase if the rezone is approved.

But yes, I suppose an unsuccessful building project would destroy that potential financial gain - to not only Triway's loss, but the community's loss as well. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

Will the rezone increase the value of the land

Submitted by Peter Alden Stroble on Mon, 09/22/2008 - 6:33am.

Will the rezone increase the value of the land if it is passed with a "binding development agreement"?

Binding Building Development Agreement

Submitted by Bert on Mon, 09/22/2008 - 9:14am.

Good question. I don't know the answer.

I suppose that would depend on how "binding" the agreement actually is. For example, would the agreement contain any escape clauses?

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: