|
|
||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 11 users and 68 guests online.
Online users
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
 |
Submitted by Peter Alden Stroble on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 6:36am.
OLY 2012's Final Position Paper Endorsing the Urban Waterfront Rezone September 2008 Introduction OLY2012 is a group of independent citizens who care about downtown Olympia and hope to see it evolve in the best way possible for the community as a whole. Just as the community has been divided by the proposed Urban Waterfront Rezone, the OLY 2012 steering committee was torn on this issue initially. Back in March, our first straw vote on the issue amongst our initial six-person steering committee was split, 3-3. True to our mission of building broad-based community support, in early June we published what we hoped would be a "compromise" proposal for addressing the isthmus issue in our first position paper: Today's Vision for Downtown Olympia. The proposal called for opening views and park space through the center of the isthmus by purchasing and removing the Capitol Center Building while approving a modified rezone to enable the building of mid-rise, mixed-use structures on the western edge of the isthmus. Our hope was that our compromise proposal would unite the community, just as it united our initially-divided steering committee.
Since then, we have continued to study what the rezone would mean to downtown Olympia, and through this process our opinion has evolved. Our final position fully and unconditionally supports building mixed-use structures on the isthmus, and thus, supports approving the rezone suggested by the City of Olympia staff and recommended by the Olympia Planning Commission. We do not think that approving the rezone will necessarily preclude the realization of our compromise vision for the isthmus. The following position paper thoroughly details our findings and supports our conclusion. Environment & Community The root cause of many of the most challenging problems in our world today is suburban sprawl -- enabled by our 20th century car culture. We need to take responsibility and change how we live at the community level if we are to begin addressing some of our most severe environmental and societal problems. Urban density is one answer. It mitigates the threat of global warming by reducing our auto-dependant carbon footprint. It lowers our transportation costs, which lowers our overall cost of living. It enables us to eat more healthfully because less sprawl equals more local farmland. Density also brings communities together and helps address social ills. Suburbia has polarized our society; density will moderate it. In our suburban culture today it's easy for the haves to ignore the have-nots: homelessness isn't a problem to a typical suburbanite – it's merely a once-in-awhile inconvenience. Density offers us the opportunity to change this by bringing us closer to one another. Smart Growth Growth is inevitable, and with the rising cost of gasoline alone, density is bound to occur naturally – we can't sprawl forever. But density is not as simple as just building high rises in urban cores. For communities to function with density, the environment we create must be designed with both humans and the outdoor environment in mind. This is what the term smart growth is all about. If we ignore the questions of where and how to accommodate more people living in our urban core, density could actually do more harm than good to our downtown. Renowned urban activist Jane Jacobs wrote that in order for city parks to foster – not hinder – healthy urban communities they must be surrounded by the daily activities of human life – living, working and exchanging goods and services. She argued that expansive urban parks that don't play a role in these everyday activities denigrate urban cores by fragmenting the organic patterns and conventions of city dwellers, and by providing an unwatched habitat for at-risk members of society to fester uncared for by the greater community. The Growth Management Act and our city's comprehensive plan attempt to employ these concepts of smart growth. These documents call for mid-rise – not high-rise – mixed-use structures. They call for parks that are appropriately scaled to the urban environment. With this in mind, sacrificing height and density for the far-reaching promise of converting the isthmus into an extension of an already generous park complex would not be wise. Not only is the park alternative not feasible under any financing package we have heard of, but it would create additional challenges for our urban society, while providing little incremental benefit. On the other hand, cradling Heritage Park and Percival Landing within beautiful structures on the isthmus that support the 24/7 lives of our citizens would sew these great parks deeper into the fabric of our downtown, nurturing a sense of safety, function, vibrancy, virtue and civic pride in and around them. The Other Alternative The isthmus is bound to change, especially in the short term. No one in our community has argued in favor of keeping the blight that currently exists on this valuable piece of land, and Triway Enterprises, which owns much of that blight, has made it clear that if its rezone application does not receive city approval, it plans to build a 63,000 square foot, 41 foot-high office building (plus 10' of HVAC mechanics) with adjacent surface area parking. This, too, would be a terrible option for downtown Olympia. It would not create - much less "jumpstart" - desperately-needed housing in downtown. Moreover, single-use office buildings do very little for their surrounding communities. In addition to impeding much of the same view from the State Capitol that the housing option has been so criticized for, an office building would cause terrible traffic congestion (rush hour) and leave the isthmus devoid of human activity for 13 hours each weekday and 24 hours each weekend day. Office dwellers on the isthmus would have little stake in the community around them – they would drive in from the suburbs, park their car, work an eight hour day, perhaps buy lunch, and retreat back to their homes at the end of the day. In short, single-use office buildings suburbanize the urban core itself while facilitating continued use of the suburban development model (i.e., sprawl) throughout our region. Improving the City's Tax Base As we see budgets of schools and other local public services cut, we need to support improving the local tax base. The current Triway Enterprises proposal for condos and commercial space on the isthmus would increase the assessed value on two small parcels by about $150 million. Property tax revenues on those parcels would grow to $1.4 million – even with an eight year abatement given to condo purchasers. Initial sales of condos would generate $1.6 million in real estate excise tax to fund infrastructure projects. Building and furnishing condos and commercial spaces should generate about $8 million in sales tax. Condo re-sales and commercial activity would generate other taxes. These additional revenues will help fund school, library, city, county and transit services, as well as repairs to our city's abundant public waterfront amenities like Percival Landing. The rezone does not block off the waterfront. Almost all downtown waterfront is publicly owned. What is blocking off the waterfront is the lack of a tax base to repair the boardwalk and build the parks and trails for the waterfront we already own. Current Zoning Hasn't Worked Our state's Growth Management Act is almost two decades old. Our city's comprehensive plan, calling for 2,500 units of market-rate housing in downtown Olympia, is 14 years old. It's been six years since the City rezoned Columbia Street to Urban Waterfront Housing. But, in all that time, and after a good deal of expense in sound planning, hardly a single unit of market-rate housing has been built downtown. There's no denying that Olympia - despite its progressive and green reputation - has fallen woefully behind its counterpart cities in other parts of the region. These facts confirm our argument that attaining urban density is not as easy as simply building high rises wherever they are least likely to face public opposition. Urban planners understand that in order for an urban housing development project to be truly successful for the community as a whole, it must take advantage of the best amenities that the urban landscape has to offer – the everyday lives of citizens and our city's amenities should be woven together, not segregated. The blight-infested isthmus holds our city's best privately-owned amenities. And, it is owned by a local developer who wants to build in a smart growth manner. It's time for our city to capitalize on this opportunity, not stand in the way. Economic Development Opportunities We must revitalize our downtown business district, and lend additional support to our many family-owned small businesses we all treasure. These restaurants, shops and service providers are the only alternative in our community to the big box stores and malls that are evermore prevalent in Thurston County. The addition of market-rate housing downtown will diversify and improve our downtown economy, and offer a choice for citizens who want to adopt a lifestyle of living, working, shopping, dining and playing in an exciting urban environment. Views The rezone will not "wall off the waterfront", since almost the entire waterfront - fresh water and salt water - is publicly owned. We currently have a walkable waterfront, with unhindered views of Budd Inlet and the Olympics – a waterfront that will, over time, be greatly improved with the development of trails and parks on the West side and throughout much of the Port. We acknowledge that the rezone will marginally impede some of the viewshed from the state capitol campus and the hillside leading down to Heritage Park. But, is a completely unobstructed view of the water and the mountains – from the capitol campus -- really what we want if the foreground of that same view is of blight, or of office space for 9-5ers? OLY 2012 prefers a view that confirms that Olympia was chosen by our former state leaders as the Capitol because it is an exemplary city unto itself. We agree with the existing city-state compact to make the fountain park the Capitol's view corridor. We prefer a view that tells us that our city can adapt to change and live up to its reputation as a progressive, environmentally conscious and globally minded community. We want a view that gives us a sense of hope for the future that lies ahead. Conclusion We remain committed to the redevelopment of downtown Olympia, including the building of market-rate housing for all income levels, and adequate parking to meet the needs of residents, business owners, and visitors. We want a diverse, walkable, inviting and economically thriving downtown we can all be proud of! Furthermore, we want to save as much of the farmland and forestland of Thurston County as possible from the everyday threat of suburban sprawl by developing denser, more diverse housing options for Olympia's citizens. The environmental and social problems facing our world today must first be addressed at a local level. This issue of rezoning the isthmus is a first step towards these goals. -- ADDENDUM: Rebuttals to common arguments against the rezone not explicitly addressed above. All of these arguments were published on internet blogs and in alternative community newspapers: It's abundantly clear that the majority of Olympians don't want housing on the isthmus! Most of the people we know are in favor of smart growth, urban density, improving the tax base, and making tradeoffs for the good of downtown and the surrounding environment, which is to say, they are in favor of passing this rezone and building condos on the isthmus. We have also encountered many citizens in our community who are initially drawn to the populist-sounding appeal made by opponents of the rezone, but our experience has proven that once citizens think through the issue to a level deeper than a protest catch phrase, they realize, for all of the reasons laid out above, that the right thing to do for the community as a whole is to support the rezone. Even if there are citizens in favor of the rezone, the issue is divisive and should be shelved! Controversy is common to most urban development projects. To expect that we will achieve our comprehensive plan goals without some form of community resistance is wishful thinking. To shelve projects just because they are controversial gives the minority considerable power it doesn't deserve. This project will wall-off my access to the waterfront! This project will have absolutely no impact on the abundant existing access to Olympia's waterfront. What will block access to the waterfront is the lack of a tax base to repair the Percival landing seawall and boardwalk and build the parks and trails for the waterfront we already own. Affluent people won't spend money downtown or use public transportation! These claims, perhaps more than any other, embody the lack of hope, imagination and void of progressive thinking that has consumed many opponents of this rezone and has kept our downtown at a stand-still for decades. To claim that people living in these condos wouldn't drive their cars less, wouldn't ride their bikes or take the bus more, and wouldn't shop at the grocery store across the street, dine in any number of our fabulous downtown restaurants or purchase other goods and serves offered by the many first class vendors in downtown demonstrates a disbelief in the ideals of smart growth. Furthermore, to suggest, as Works In Progress has, that residents of market rate housing in downtown would instead drive their cars back out to the suburban "bourgeois environment" they chose to leave reeks of classism and speaks to a sad state of open-minded thinking in our community. Finally, these claims ignore the trend towards urban revitalization and increased demand for urban housing lifestyles across the country. We envision a diverse downtown where all residents can contribute to humane and lively community. Olympia needs people in its downtown that can donate time, energy and sometimes money to our charities and cultural and civic organizations. We've been through all this before six years ago. It's déjà vu all over again! As Planning Commissioner Amy Tousley said in her planning commission deliberations, the decision made in 2002 did not result in the desired housing development intended, and the last six years of development inaction in downtown proves this. Plus, times change, ideas evolve and new citizens with new views come into our city and its civic discussion. This isthmus is not a sound place upon which to build anything new given the threat of sea-level rise and seismic dangers, not to mention the Shorelines Management Act! The project will not be permitted if it does not comply with all seismic, environmental, storm water and shoreline regulations. These regulations are devised, monitored and updated by educated professionals working in our city, county and state governing bodies. We do not advocate abandoning downtown Olympia or other parts of our community because we live by the sea or in a seismically active area or near a volcano. Every inch of the planet faces environmental challenges. We need to do the best we can to adapt to these challenges within our current urban boundaries. I thought that the original designers of the Capitol campus intended it to be a park? There has been much debate and interpretation about what the designers of the Capitol campus intended for the isthmus, but two key facts are indisputable: 1. The designers (Wilder & White and the Olmstead Brothers) were not commissioned to design the isthmus. The isthmus was never a part of the Capitol campus or within the scope of the design project. 2. All historical renderings associated with Capitol campus design documents showed buildings – not a park - on the isthmus. While it may be reasonable to argue that a hundred years ago these designers may have objected to mid-rise buildings, this was a time long before the advent of the auto culture and the need for parking. With global warming, a carbon footprint and the damage that sprawl has wrought on the natural landscape across our region (indeed, our country), we are not so sure they would have insisted on low-rise buildings. The ex-governors want to preserve the views and we should respect their wishes! With all respect to the great work of our past state leaders, this is our city. We live here; we pay taxes here; we vote here. They do not. But the current State government also wants to preserve the views! The State of Washington – through the State Capitol Committee that oversees land-use issues related to the campus – and the City of Olympia have a written agreement that requires the City to fully develop the fountain park block into an open view corridor. This is the only "position" taken on the issue by state government. Triway's alternative of building an office building if it doesn't get its way with the rezone sounds like a threat! The isthmus is not owned by the city. The property owner has the right to pursue any and all development alternatives that are afforded by the law, and intends to build an office/parking complex on the isthmus. However, the developer has chosen instead to offer a far more attractive alternative for our community – one which calls for far greater financial risks - in order to help transform our community. There is no threat here, only hard reality. The comp plan calls for market rate housing, not luxury condos for the rich! The comprehensive plan calls for diverse housing and the development of a tax base to support public services and amenities. Triway Enterprises plans to build market rate housing. If the market will bear high-priced housing, those condominiums are, by indisputable definition, market rate. Our community already has a real estate market that supports high-end single-family housing alternatives – just look at the miles of waterfront residences, the Street of Dreams, and Indian Summer as examples. Of course, there are other segments of the market that will demand other, more affordable urban housing development, and those projects will bring us diversity in income levels living downtown. Citizens who can afford to buy one of these condominiums should not be excluded from living downtown. Downtown needs a mix of people in the community to become diverse and vibrant. There's no market for 141 condos at $800,000+ each, especially in this terrible housing market! No one is more suited to make this determination than the individual willing to risk personal capital to make this project successful. It's simply not up to the city nor its citizens to make this determination. It's not fair that the wealthy who can afford these units would qualify for a property tax abatement lasting for eight years! This abatement is not unique to this project or rezone. All downtown multi-family housing is getting a tax break: low income has a permanent tax abatement, low cost housing is enjoying a 12-year abatement, and market-rate housing qualifies for an 8-year abatement. The State Legislature adopted this policy enabling cities to use abatements in recognition of the high cost of housing development. The city council passed this abatement years ago, and any downtown housing project proposed would qualify for it. So, unless the goal is to impede any and all housing in the urban core in order to keep these abatements from serving their purpose, this is not a valid reason to reject this rezone. With regard to the purpose of these abatements, citizens must realize that the city must invest in itself in order to continue to grow its budget and to continue to provide services for its growing population. Abatement plans like this one are used in municipalities all over the world to help accomplish this goal. If the city does nothing to invest in itself, choosing instead to expend all of its actual and potential budget dollars on services, it should expect a long future with ever-increasing budget shortfalls. Triway is a bad developer with a bad track record! Of course, this is purely a matter of opinion, and there are plenty of people in the community with the opposite viewpoint. And remember, it is the duty of our city's regulators to ensure that any project is done in accordance with our city's comprehensive plan and design goals. The renderings look terrible! Again, this argument is a matter of personal taste, and opinions vary. Initial renderings, however, appear to have features that few in the community would not embrace including parking hidden inside the buildings and a walk-through corridor between the two buildings for small shops. That said, the developer is a long way from approval, the architects have not completed their work, and the project will have to pass design review to receive city permits. So, renderings of what the project looks like today are in no way relevant to the rezone decision. The project will push up rents for retail space, making existing downtown businesses unfeasible! Virtually every business association in our region, including The Olympia Downtown Association, The Roundtable of Thurston County, and The Thurston County Economic Development Council has publicly endorsed this project. There is not a single business association that has opposed this project. These businesses understand that rents go up only when business is strong. Construction of the project will be a nuisance! Construction anywhere will be a nuisance. Construction to turn the isthmus into a park would be a nuisance. Simply removing the existing blight – which everyone seemingly wants – would be a nuisance. Construction nuisances are a necessary evil when it comes to development. And let's not allow ourselves to overlook this basic fact: no development anywhere is not an option. I've also heard… You can name your favorite conspiracy theory…we aren't going to repeat any of them. The scurrilous rumors being promoted in a "whisper campaign" are beneath the integrity of our community and should not be tolerated. Let the rezone decision rest of facts, not innuendo, lies and rumors.
| |
First, I would like to
Submitted by Meta Hogan on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 8:20am.First, I would like to acknowledge the energy and time that Oly2012 has contributed to thinking about downtown development, and their appreciation of broad public support. In a truly generous and civic-minded way, these folks have been doing our homework for us.I would also like to remind everyone (myself included) that the condos-on-the-isthmus-issue is not the raison-d'etre of Oly2012; they are committed to continuing involvement in the future of downtown. I look forward to reading equally detailed assessments of other community needs and opportunities in the future.
That said, there are a few points that I would like to respond to. This paper is sufficiently comprehensive to make a single-post response almost impossible. I will add more later.
Urban density
This rezone will do far less to address the issue of urban sprawl than, say, an overhaul of the zoning in outlying county areas (see last year's TCPC minority report for an example of what I think would make a difference). I allow it is entirely possible that the potential owners of these condos will be downsizing from suburban dwellings, but it seems far more likely to me that they will be relocating from apartments and homes in the even denser urban cores of other cities. One of the lures of suburbia is affordability, and this project does *nothing* to address the lack of affordable housing in downtown. In addition, unless the residents are retired or working in downtown (?!), they will be reverse-commuting, undoing all of the good work done locating them there. For some, it may even be a second home, necessitating a regular trip to Seattle, Portland, California, or wherever the first home is. Fighting sprawl is a noble goal, for sure, but if that is the real goal it must be done in a way that addresses the actual causes of sprawl. It is cheap to tack that label onto a project that, despite its other benefits, will do very little to reduce suburban sprawl in Thurston County.
Jane Jacobs did indeed decry city parks surrounded by single uses, or not tied in to the uses around them, or not sufficiently purposeful. Design, not size, was the issue for her. In most cases, she argued, a large park could not be sustained by the level of activity at its borders, but she fought to maintain the integrity of Central Park from an expressway that would have effectively cut it into two smaller parks. She also used as examples many small parks that did not work. Jacobs had a very complex understanding of parks that far transcended mere size, and any discussion of parks using her work should reflect the fine-grained nuances and comprehensiveness of her arguments. She was also vehemently opposed to the "renewal" that disrupted existing, vibrant low-income neighborhoods in the service of outsiders' condescending visions of ameliorative planning. While this project might not have roused her ire, it is important to note that much of the language around it is very Robert-Moses.
The office building proposal is a threat, and should be treated as such.
School impact fees don't exist in downtown anymore, presumably because there are no families there. We could argue the wisdom of laying a path toward the privatization of education, but suffice to say neither TriWay nor the purchasers of condos will be paying these funds toward the betterment of our local schools.
Okay, more later.
OLY2012
Submitted by tezzer1 on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 9:17am.I can't count how many city council meetings I have attended wherein the "have" citizens complained long and loud about the"have-not" youth hanging out at the transit center, playing music on street corners, relaxing in Sylvester Park, or those panhandling. And then there was the "ordinance" passed to stop this so-called 'blight'.
And where has all the support for Camp Quixote come from? The "haves"? Not if the city manager is one of them. He still hasn't apologized for kicking in the residents tents in the early morning hours.
But lo & behold, "density" will end this social ill by bringing us closer together. Be sure to tell the "haves" that finally they will be able to mingle with those street youth who have been sexually exploited, ostracized and kicked aside like so much trash. I can almost hear the distant strains of KUMBAYA. Oh, and in the Olympia tradition I'm expecting the "haves" to plan the potluck. I have never been to one that included caviar.
SEMPER VIGALANTE!
Well Done Peter
Submitted by JMK on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 8:34am.Nicely done...
Submitted by Peter Alden Stroble on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 9:30am.I wish there were more of this type of honest, thoughtful debate going on in this community! This, and the response posted by Thad to my critique of his editorial yesterday, bring the community closer to the truth, and thus, more able to make the right decision.
In both Meta's and Thad's responses, I see much more clearly their point of view. I respect it, but I disagree with most of their assumptions, interpretations and opinions. (For example: Meta, I do think there will a lot of retirees in those condos and I think more office will be located downtown as there is more living available there; and Thad, there are 35,000 people in the city of Olympia – my belief is that if it went to a referendum it would pass – but private land use issues should not be decided in this manner). Being able to agree to disagree is a wonderful thing and is what we should have more of in this community.
I had someone tell me recently that she and her friends would never be able to work with OLY 2012 because of how we have handled this isthmus issue. This is a sad commentary about the state of civic discourse in this community as far as I am concerned. Meta's preamble above recognizes and appreciates what OLY 2012 has done for the community discussion, and how we have done it. She then goes on to disagree with our position in a well-reasoned, and arguable, manner.
The personal attacking that is so prevalent here on OLYblog, the Karl Rove tactics, the conspiracy theories, the misinformation, the innuendo and the "ninety-nine reasons not to rezone" approach by WIP are base forms of civic dialogue that only further divide the community, make it much harder to learn about the discussion, and ultimately, get in the way of reaching the best decision.
Thank you Thad and Meta. And, I disagree!
It isn't a "private land use"
Submitted by Thad Curtz on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 8:09am.Property is created by the government. Before that, there's just land, and whoever's the strongest can do whatever they like to and with it. When a government's army takes over the land, and the government divides it up and hands it out along with rules that the cops will enforce about what you can and can't do about using, passing on, and preventing the use of your piece of land by other people - then there's "private property" and "property rights" (but only because of rules created by the government acting - in the US - to represent the will of the public.)
Zoning's part of the rules; that's why your neighbor's choices about "private land use" don't include choosing to put up a slaughterhouse or a junkyard - or a tall building in the middle of your view if the rules don't allow it. (In the US the rules happen to generally say that you can keep people from hiking across your land - in England "private land use" often doesn't happen to include that right.)
In this case, Triway wants the City Council to create two new pieces of private property in the air above what the company bought and owns. It bought and owns a piece of property on which it was and is legal to build three stories - about 300,000 square feet of floor space. It has absolutely no private property rights to the air space or the views above that. Triway wants the City Council (elected to represent and act for the public) to give it new property - enough new property to build another six stories - nicer property with better views than the property it bought. Just by voting to rezone, the City Council can triple the value of the land Triway bought, giving it a roughly $10,000,000 profit without the company's having done anything to increase the value of the land except successfully influencing a public, governmental decision.
Obviously, the Council and all the rest of us need to decide whether we think this choice is a good one or not. But Peter's rhetoric about "privately-owned amenities" and "private land use" seems really off the mark to me.
Private property...
Submitted by Burr on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 9:06am.Thad, I agree that this issue is about cubic airspace that nobody owns today - not Tri Vo, not the city. (Remember, as the ODA said in their press release cited by the Olympian this morning, this specific view is not protected in the comp plan).
But this is also about a purely private land use issue which you acknowledge above - the office space alternative. So, would you prefer to have a brand new 63,000 sqft, 41-foot high (+ 10' of HVAC mechanics) office builing there? If so, great! We can disagree on the basis of opinion. But let's make sure we aknowledge all of the facts in this issue.
My opinion is that an office building would be an absolutely disasterous alternative for the isthmus - the worst of all of them. I am more than willing to trade a little view to keep this from happening.
office building
Submitted by Bert on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 3:12pm.Also, how can you build a 41 foot high building (+10 feet HVAC unit) in a 35 foot high restricted zone?
The 41 feet variance
Submitted by Thad Curtz on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 7:42pm.The developer who owned the land before Triway took the plans for this particular building, on the block next to the old Kentucky Fried Chicken building, through the city's approval process to the point where the project vested. (Maybe there were even two sets of owners in the process.) Anyway, they eventually got a six foot variance on the 35 foot zoning limit through a legal argument about how their rights to build were being infringed because they couldn't build on the sewer easement and the pedestrian/bike path and therefore couldn't get the same square footage on the property that other land in the area would have allowed. The Hearing Examiner rejected this pitch, but the City Council embraced it on appeal. (Then that developer sold the land to Triway - including the right to build this particular 41 foot vested project, which has 10 feet of equipment sheds on top.) I don't think that Triway can build any other 41 foot project on that block, only the one that the city approved, and I think they'd have to use at least part of the second block for parking if they built the project, because parking inside the structure isn't part of the approved design, but I haven't looked at the details. Some people certainly think that building doesn't make any economic sense at this point...
Best,
Thad
I (heart) propaganda
Submitted by peter on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 12:09pm.Read this part carefully
Submitted by stevenl on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 8:39pm.Most of the people we know are in favor of smart growth, urban density, improving the tax base, and making tradeoffs for the good of downtown and the surrounding environment, which is to say, they are in favor of passing this rezone and building condos on the isthmus.
We have also encountered many citizens in our community who are initially drawn to the populist-sounding appeal made by opponents of the rezone, but our experience has proven that once citizens think through the issue to a level deeper than a protest catch phrase, they realize, for all of the reasons laid out above, that the right thing to do for the community as a whole is to support the rezone.
What do you think he's saying here?
I am not sure - but I don't like it
Submitted by Bert on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 3:08pm.I would like to know what deeper level "thoughts" are supposedly convincing people to change their minds and move from opposition to support.
The is issue is very simple and clear. On this matter, the public interests supersede and rank higher than the private interests.The idea is that building for profit luxury condominiums in an area that many people feel is the heart and soul of downtown Olympia - a sacred space, is just wrong.
Many also feel that the buildings would detract from the aesthetic qualities in the location. Does it seem reasonable that that is the basis of the majority of the opposition?
What's the deeper level thought? Please don't tell me that it is trickle-down, "ownership society," economics.
With that, in all fairness and honesty, I will now read through this article.
Let's Deepen the Discussion!
Submitted by Burr on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 8:45am.[This is Peter Alden Stroble’s response…his comments are getting held up for moderation by the OLYblog admins. He tried to publish this twice under his own name yesterday, but both times it got held up, so don’t be surprised if you see this again (maybe two more times) under his name.]
---
Bert, we published ten pages of research, analysis and opinion. It's not perfect, but it is our best effort. We don't think anyone who holds a view on this issue that is different from ours is (I'm paraphrasing) “wrong”. For example, you have a lot of opinions on this issue: "buildings would detract from the aesthetic qualities in the location"; "the isthmus is a sacred space"; "building condo on the isthmus is just wrong". I don’t agree with any of these opinions, but I respect them and can accept them at face value. As I stated above, agreeing to disagree is a symptom of a healthy civic discussion.
You question what “deeper level thoughts” are convincing people to support this rezone. Let’s explore deep thought. A great example of lack thereof is how many opponents of the rezone have dealt with Tri Vo’s option of building office space on his isthmus property is this rezone does not pass (which is the worst of all the options in my opinion). “It’s just an empty threat” seems to be the response by most (includingMeta above). Is it really? How do we know that? Do we have evidence that Mr. Vo is bluffing? Does the city have imminent plans to purchase the land? Are there zoning laws that would prohibit him from carrying out this option? I have studied this one pretty hard, and haven’t uncovered anything that would tell me that this is an empty threat. But maybe I haven’t dug hard enough. Please, if you have information that supports this being an empty threat, share with us. Deepen the discussion!
Another great example of “shallow” (to use your term) thought: turning the isthmus into a park. OLY 2012 has explored this concept thoroughly because remember, we, too, would like to see incremental parts of the isthmus turned into park space. But neither the city nor the state nor any wealthy individual we have heard of has the money to pull this off. We have met with elected officials at both the city and state level and not one has even been willing to accept the notion that purchasing the isthmus for the purpose of turning it into a part is financially feasible (regardless of any tax bill or legislation that might get passed). So, please, for the sake of the discussion and for the sake of the community reaching the best decision, share with us what I and my colleagues are missing on this issue. Deepen the discussion!
I think it would be pretty easy to get an (allegedly) 80%+ response to my petition if I were telling people that signing the petition meant not only saving the isthmus from the fate of big yellow cubes that look like the dilapidating Tumwater Brewery, but that it also meant turning the whole peninsula into a big grassy, tree-lined park (which is exactly how a petitioner presented it to me on Friday). I am pretty sure that I could get similar results if I told them that my petition was for attaining a big pile of cash for the city, while omitting the fact that the pile of cash doesn’t actually exist (or even providing a theory for how the pile of cash could actually exist). So, what am I missing here? Deepen the discussion!
Finally, you state that our “reasons… are shallow, and some simply don't hold water.” Go on. That’s what the blogosphere is for. Don’t just casually throw out surface-level criticism and then say you “don't have the time or energy to delve further into this” if you don’t truly intend to come back to defend your statements. Please, for the sake of the best isthmus decision, inform us by thoroughly, “fairly” and “honesty” critiquing the paper. But remember to be detailed and specific and not to confuse opinion with fact. Deepen the discussion!
Deepening the Discussion
Submitted by Bert on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 2:49pm.I would love to respond to every point in your paper. I would love to respond to every point in your above statement. I just don't think that I have it in me. I don't right now. I might not anytime soon. Maybe it will be easier for me to approach these points one by one after Tuesday's Council Meeting.
I just looked up Smart Growth today. I don't know all the details. I just know what it said on wikipedia - my understanding of which is that Smart Growth basically is a meme that seeks sustainability through dense urban living. That sounds great to me. And I am glad that we don't have any disagreement here.
One of my major disagreements with OLY 2012 is that I simply do not think, or believe, that the rezone (assuming it would result in Larida Passage) would truly serve the vision of dense urban growth. I think Larida Passage will have the tendency to divide the community - perhaps even cause a gentrification that would drive out the "natives."
The Counter Culture of Olympia needs affordable housing - not luxury condominiums. The counter culture - which I believe is a very valid and special aspect of this unusual town - will not benefit from a few more retail shops and restaurants.
What Olympia needs is housing of all types, luxury included - just not on the Isthmus. What Olympia needs is industry. It needs manufacturing. We cannot have sustainability so long as we are shipping in the basic necessities from far away places. We need to find ways to localize manufacturing and production of the basic goods and necessities - I am talking about construction materials, clothing, food, etc. - Those things need to be locally sourced as much as possible. That is sustainability.
This is a deepening of the discussion on sustainability.
OLY 2012 says that Larida Passage would jumpstart the economy to advance the cause of Smart Growth. An admirable cause I agree! - However, the facts just don't pan out. I don't see how it will work. There are already housing projects moving ahead. What this town needs is affordable housing. What this town needs is a return to manufacturing (environmentally conscious of course), to serve the cause of truly functional sustainability.
We can. Change is possible. The park is important because it would add to the novel and forward thinking character of Olympia. It would increase the likelihood of attracting visitors, residents and investors (in the housing and industrial sectors.)
bert
Please stop the cheesy PR
Submitted by OlyDowntowner on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 4:20pm.Please stop the cheesy PR stuff. "Deepen the discussion!" That is incredibly condescending. And please stop it with all the how-to stuff: "Remember to be detailed and specific and not to confuse opinion with fact". I glimpse some of your opinions peeking through that statement right there. Opinion is pretty much what blogs are about, and last I heard, you weren't making the rules on this one.
But since giving advice is the trend, let me give you, whoever you are, some advice in turn:
- Please be more concise! Essays are boring.
- Please respect people's communication styles instead of giving them instructions! Some of us may not want to spend a temperate summer weekend responding point by point to your tendentious "paper".
- Please respect other people's opinions! Don't assume that if they thought more deeply, they would share your viewpoint. That is unconscionably arrogant.
- Please don't tell me to thoroughly, fairly and honestly critique your paper -- I am not your professor, nor are you mine.
I notice no one is taking you up on your "offer" to respond to your paper. I guess it convinced everyone. You can rest now.
You're right...
Submitted by Peter Alden Stroble on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 6:13pm.......I hit back awfully hard, and it was preachy. But given what was served up to me, it needed to be done. I always try to be as fair as possible in both my arguments and my style – both in the blogosphere and in real life. I stepped out a bit this time, but I don’t think it was wrong to do.
As I said above in my response to Meta, the personal attacking that is so prevalent here on OLYblog, the Karl Rove tactics, the conspiracy theories, the misinformation, the innuendo and the "ninety-nine reasons not to rezone" approach by WIP are base forms of civic dialogue that only further divide the community, make it much harder to learn about the discussion, and ultimately, get in the way of reaching the best decision for the community as a whole. This needs to be overcome. I, like you, am just trying to do my part.
Doublethink
Submitted by Bert on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 9:48am.Doublethink as defined in the novel 1984 by George Orwell:
Great Job...
Submitted by Burr on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 8:47am.Transcribing Orwell
Submitted by Bert on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 4:13pm.I hope that I didn't offend Peter, or anyone else from OLY2012 when I accused the group of Double Think. I really don't want to get into a personal fracas with anyone. I don't know Peter very well, but I am friends with one of the steering members of OLY2012, and I am sad to say that all of this arguing over the rezone and Larida Passage has put some strain on.
Okay. I'll explain. First off, the concept of "Smart Growth." The term itself sounds Orwellian. It sounds like doublethink, or newspeak, or crimethink. smart growth. smartgrowth.
Secondly. I simply cannot believe that the rezone, and Larida Passage - subsequently, will meet the stated goals of Smart Growth.
This is a luxury condominium development that would be affordable for only the richest element in society. To paint that in a cloak of sustainability strikes me as simply disingenuous. I am sorry if that's offensive. But that is the honest truth of how I see it.
Rich people have the biggest impact on the planet and society. Rich people leave the biggest footprint. Rich people, sorry to say, cause the most environmental degradation. That's the way it is. It's sad, but true.
So I don't want to see this turned around - to reward rich people with the best views. Reward rich people for causing degradation to the environment, whether through recreational activities or business activities. (Wars of aggression very much included - reference G. Smedley Butler "War is a Racket." This may seem like a non sequitor, but it is not. War and the corporations it serves, are very much part of the problem - and part of the issue with this project.)
That said, let me make it clear that I don't hate rich people. I know a lot of rich people. In some ways I am a rich person. I have rich friends whom I love. So please don't understand this as an attack on rich people. It's a critique of some of what some rich people do (sometimes.)
Maybe it's classism. But you have to understand that from the perspective of the poor that this project is just another example of a battle in the war on poor people.
Trying to deepen the discussion,
Robert Whitlock
[p.s. additionally: Are the concepts of "Growth" (even if it is "Smart Growth") and Sustainability (if it is truly functional and global sustainability) mutually inclusive?
Now, there might be a line of questioning to deepen the discussion about growth and sustainability.]
Root Causes of Problems in the World...
Submitted by Bert on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 9:12am.Another root cause is the mentality of entitlement (and related mentalities like selfishness and greed. Also fear-based thinking.)
Conflict of Interest
Submitted by Bert on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 9:17am.Perhaps someone with more knowledge about conflict of interest would be willing to explain more about this aspect.
And who might that be?
Submitted by Laurian on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 2:49pm.No need to whisper
Submitted by jlw on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 5:00pm.Bert, maybe you ought to read the paper
Submitted by Laurian on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 2:43pm.Thanks Laurian
Submitted by Bert on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 2:58pm.The isthmus is not the thing.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 5:14pm.The thing is, whether or not the conditions are right for these condos isn't my problem. That's the developer's problem, that's their risk, not mine. If this development were to go through and fizzle because no one bought in, then not much would be different than it is now. If it doesn't do as well as Tri Vo hopes and they have to auction some of them off, then somebody is going to get a really good deal on fancy downtown housing. If it's a raging success, then great, we have new neighbors and an expanded sales tax base just in time for the Downtown Tax District.
I've stayed away from this whole debate, honestly, because I don't really care one way or the other. None of the arguments for or against either the rezone or the condos in general sway me from the fence. As far as views go, I like to live in a city because there are lots of people around and because that's more sustainable than living in the burbs. That said, as cities grow, in exchange for sustainable housing density, you have to sacrifice things. Cars might be one, a view of the water might be another.
Another side of this is gentrification. The theory is that this condo development is one step in the gentrification of Olympia. Well, I don't think condo developments equal gentrification. I think disengaged citizens and a lack of civic pride bring gentrification. If we want to see our values reflected in the kinds programs that are created, projects that are started, and developments that are built, then We have to invest our sweat. Instead of latching on to the divisive issues of the day and choosing sides, we should embrace the things we like and work hard to maintain them, grow them, and start other things we like.
This is about sweat equity. We invest our sweat in downtown expecting no immediate returns, knowing that in the future there will be a huge return in the form of our values being manifested. The more people investing their sweat in downtown today, the less chance there is that our downtown will become a gentrified SoCal strip mall or a soulless civic center with a 'Promenade' and private security (unless that's what we want, and if that's the case, then all we have to do is sit back and watch).
We have to get active, we have to be willing to sweat, but more importantly, we have stop arguing and start working together. One thing we know for sure is that everybody involved loves Olympia, and that's a hell of a starting point.
Olympia is Washington's City
Submitted by stevenl on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 9:40am.The ex-governors want to preserve the views and we should respect their wishes!
With all respect to the great work of our past state leaders, this is our city. We live here; we pay taxes here; we vote here. They do not.
Don't be selfish now. There are sacrifices for being the political power center.
Olympia is the State Capital City, it belongs to the people of Washington State. Earlier local leaders fought hard to keep it that way. Washington State taxpayers contribute to the upkeep of a major chunk of Oly real estate. This is not just a town for the locals. This is purely subjective, but I bet any visitor on the campus would look out on an isthmus covered with highrises and say, "What were they thinking!?"
If I had to choose between the bi-partisan opinions of every living ex-governor with their combined experience of public service vs. that of a developer who stands to profit, who do you think I'll take more seriously?
Fair point...
Submitted by Burr on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 12:12pm....but you are absolutely wrong when you say that Olympia belongs to the people of Washington State. The Capitol Campus might, but the isthmus and the rest of the city does not. I totally reject the notion that we, as tax-paying citizens and voters in this town, should subjugate our needs for the wants of anyone from the outside.
And, my opinion is that Olympia has, since it became the state capitol, sacrificed quite a lot for being the capitol city - mainly in the form of lost property taxes. Cities in other parts of Washington get to benefit from collecting property taxes from their largest employer. Olympia sacrifices this benefit because the state doesn't pay property tax. So, Olympia must find other ways - without sprawling into every last square inch of undeveloped Thurston County - to generate the revenue needed to provide services for its share of our region's growth.
Density is a must. Smart growth is a must.
The city controls the zoning
Submitted by OlyDowntowner on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 4:00pm."Smart Growth is Must"
Submitted by Bert on Tue, 09/16/2008 - 9:06am.I didn't know that the state doesn't pay property taxes. The state employees do, however.
Personally, I think that a state (progressive) income tax would help the situation a lot - it would help the state with funding for projects like an isthmus park, which would enhance HQ.
Interesting that you raise the county issue. I think Meta already described what she sees as a solution - and I agree with her - that the county needs to impose strict regulatory measures on development in rural areas - perhaps even to the point of a moratorium. This would force people to develop in areas that are already zoned for such things - like the majority of DT Olympia.
As far as what is a must goes, I think it is a must for good governance to genuinely and sincerely serve the public interest. It is not the place of government to facilitate private interest, or profit making. That's for businesses to do on their own. When private interest flies in the interest of the public - then it is time for government to step in as a protector - and a keeper of the public interest.
People feel strongly about this area of the Isthmus. Many people do not want to see a private luxury condominium there. That must be respected, and represented. Tonight's meeting will certainly be interesting, if nothing else.
Again, why is smart growth a must? And is it possible for any type of economic growth to be truly (and ultimately) sustainable?
The Main Difference
Submitted by stevenl on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 1:10pm.is that I view the isthmus as public, you view it as private. I see it as an extension of the campus, you see it as an opportunity for development. We will probably never see eye to eye on this.
I also see the view of the Olympics as an important part of Olympia's identity. Subjective, I know. Call me a romantic or a Populist, but that development proposal is just plain ugly no matter how beautiful the buildings might be. Architecture is fickle, the Olympics are eternal.
State employees pay taxes in many forms and contribute to Olympia's economy. Oly has gained more than it has sacrificed for being the center of government, I would wager. Development of the isthmus will squander part of what Oly has gained from being the Capital City. It is in Oly's interest to remember (in a generic sense, so settle down) that Olympia belongs to Washington State just as Washington, DC belongs to the United States. Why do you think all those ex-governors are so worked up?
Yes, smart growth is a must. I still maintain my "Carless not careless" is smarter growth for Oly in the long run. It is a compromise that is good for downtown business, good for the isthmus, and good for Oly's main tourist draw. Surely you can find a more appropriate place to try out your "Density is a must" theory. Perhaps the site of the soon-to-be vacated City Hall?
OK...
Submitted by Burr on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 2:53pm.These are all great opinions except for DC belonging to the nation. Yes it's our nation's Capitol. No, citizens of the United States do not (and should not) have a say in municipal govt decision-making because of it.
I am glad to hear your opinions, stevenl! They are valid - if not interesting and a little out there...turning the isthmus into a park-n-ride parking lot is quite and idea! Of course, you know where I stand on that one.
It's not the isthmus...
Submitted by Rick on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 5:52pm....that is owned by the people of Washington, it's the view. The view is a public good, just like the parks, clean air, and beautiful weather (joke). The problem is that someone wants to exploit that public good by excluding most of the community from viewing it (unobstructed), and selling it to a few. This is the fundamental issue here, not who owns the land, economic development, smart growth, or anything else. It's about enclosing a common good for private profit. And I think it's a really bad idea.
Beware the terrible simplifiers.
Jacob Burckhardt
We could all benefit from more specifics.
Submitted by jlw on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 7:33pm.To that end, I have a few questions. You said Oly2012 looked at the possibility of creating park space on the isthmus. Yet your description of your process was vague. When did Oly2012 explore the park possibility? (It seems that much, if not all, of your efforts in the past four or five months have been directed toward swaying public opinion in favor of the rezone.) What sort of experience does Oly2012's Steering Committee have with arranging financing for civic projects such as this park? With whom did you speak regarding partnering with the state for funding? How much did you estimate such a park would cost? How committed was Oly2012 to the idea of a park? Do you believe your efforts can match those of the Olympia Capitol Park Foundation, which formed for the sole purpose of exploring funding options to create a park on the unoccupied areas on the isthmus?
How is it that so many parks exist when creating them is such an unsurmountable challenge?
I look forward to reading detailed and specific answers to these questions.
Phew...some answers for you.
Submitted by Peter Alden Stroble on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 6:12am.You questions are fair, but a bit off topic.
We explored (our version of) the park option starting in March, and first wrote about our park concept in Today's Vision for Downtown Olympia, published in early June (really our first public stance on anything). There are also a couple of other, important, non-isthmus initiatives we have been pursuing over the course of the summer, the most important of which is the "Capitol City District".
In terms of our steering committee's experience in arranging financing for civic projects such as this park, we have on our steering committee two ex-state lobbyists, Enid Layes and Sharon Foster, who spent their lengthy careers on the hill working on all kinds of state budget bills and initiatives, and through that experience gained extensive knowledge about how state-funded public works projects get financed. In addition, Sharon is on the board of the Heritage Park commission (I am not sure if it is a commission or a board, forgive me). We also have on our steering committee, Maureen Morris, who spent her entire 30+ year career working in county and state budget offices as a budget manager, most recently as a policy manager at the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM). (She is our guru on tax stuff). Cheryl Duryea is a municipal bond attorney who has worked with the City of Olympia many times throughout her career on muni bond issues. I worked in the securities side of a global investment bank for most of my twenties and spend much of my time today figuring out how to finance large capital investments in the private sector - much of which is related to land acquisition.
In terms of creating a city-state partnership for financing options, the following is a thorough but by no mean exhaustive list of people we have spoken with in direct, one-on-one meetings over the past three months. The ones with the stars are the meetings that I, personally, attended.
Karen Fraser
Sam Hunt
Brendan Williams
Sam Reed
Doug Sutherland*
Craig Ottavelli*
Joe Hyer*
Doug Mah
Rhenda Strub
Karen Messmer
Jeff Kingsbury
Joan Machlis
Steve Hall*
Jane Kirkemo
We have heard a range of estimates for how much turning the isthmus into a park would cost, from around $20 million on the low end (Thad Curtz) to over $200 million (Olympia City Council Member).
As it says above in our latest position paper, we remain committed to the concept of a park as presented in our compromise plan. I am not sure how our commitment would compare relative to that of the Olympia Capitol Park Foundation. I don't know much about them or what they have learned along the same paths we have explored. But you can see we have made a large effort to explore this, and have not reached the conclusion that turning part of the isthmus into a park is out of the question.
I think your last question is rhetorical. I will try to get to your other questions tomorrow, but I am beat now. My 5-yr-old learned to ride a two-wheeler today!
Hope this helps!
For the record
Submitted by Thad Curtz on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 2:36pm.Just to keep the record straight - I don't think I ever said I thought turning the isthmus into a park would cost $20 million. I may conceivably have said that all the land in the original rezone request was *assessed* for $20 million, which is somewhat high but at least in the right neighborhood, but that's not its market value. (Somebody else may well have said that, or even said I said it because they didn't get the difference between assessed value and market value; it's pretty hard to keep track these days!)
One reason I'm pretty sure I never said this is that to me it's always seemed far more feasible politically and economically to turn Triway's two blocks into a park as a start, and worry about the high rise in the long run. In fact, I wrote a letter to The Olympian criticizing Oly 2012's proposal on precisely these grounds when it first came out. (My letter was published June 21st, as follows:
"The new Olympia 2012 group that The Olympian praised warmly a few months ago just released its first report on revitalizing downtown. I liked the section urging we 'enhance the isthmus for view corridors and community events.'”
"However, their actual proposal seems less intelligent and well-reasoned than The Olympian proclaimed it would be. They recommend buying the block with the old Capitol Center high-rise, assessed at $10 million, and removing that to open one block of the view. But they also recommend giving Triway Enterprises a rezone right now to put up new high-rises walling off the next two blocks of the view."
"As Olympia 2012 has discovered, there’s wide and deep opposition to more high-rises on the isthmus, and buying land to enhance the views and the park would be great."
"But it seems the Olympia City Council would get a lot more for our money by refusing to rezone and escalate the value of the land Triway’s recently bought. By buying Triway’s two lots at their market value now — their assessed value is $3 million — we’d be getting two blocks to improve the park instead of one, for about one-third the money."
"In the long run, the old high rise should come down too. But starting by promising that and also giving Triway new zoning now for a $175 million complex we’ll never be able to remove seems the wrong plan. It would help Triway a lot more than the rest of us."
I still think that's right. (Incidentally, the block Triway just bought from the Housing Authority sold for about 65% above it's assessed value; on that basis the market value of the two blocks at this point is roughly $5 million. Just as a point of reference, the fire department levy that just passed handily raised $12.9 million for two buildings and two fire trucks.)
Best,
Thad
You are right (I think)...
Submitted by Peter Alden Stroble on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 3:30pm.Thad, My bad - I had no intention of misrepresnting this number. You did write in a blog comment here on Olyblog (http://olyblog.net/open-space-v-development#comment-63328) that you thought the assessed value of the isthmus was $20 million and I just (too casually) used that number to try to bracket the extreme low side of this variable. As I think you noted above, assessed values are usually lower than actual market values - particularly in a condemnation situations. I think we are in agreement that $20 million is too low.
Jeanette Hawkins said $80-$100 million in her debate with Bob Jacobs at lunch today. Bob took great exception to that number. Whatever the number is, the city can't afford it without major help from the outside. Do you or the Park Group have thoughts on this?
Don't rezone
Submitted by Thad Curtz on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 4:08pm.Or rezone the land for housing, but don't raise the height limits. Ask the voters if they want to buy the two blocks. Try to negotiate an alternative site for the legacy project Mr. Vo wants to build, and persuade him not to build the vested project. Buy the two blocks if the voters are willing, put grass in and ask the garden clubs to put formal gardens there, and call it Tri Vo park as an expression of the genuine gratitude I think most people in the city would feel about his contribution to having that view retained as a legacy for the city and hundreds of thousands of visitors a year to the Capitol...
And then wait, patiently, for an opportunity to get rid of the high-rise - maybe in collaboration with the state or some foundation or big private foundation donors, maybe not for another twenty years until the building reaches the end of its life.
Maybe the voters would be willing to do it all by themselves - the new City Hall's a $35 million project - but I agree it would be a big request however the exact numbers come out when the initiative's study is completed. (I hear they're over 4,000 signatures already...)
P/S. It's not a big budget item for the State, at all.
Best,
Thad
Great Ideas
Submitted by Bert on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 4:54pm.Most important is to make sure that the public feels a sense of ownership in the community. The public must feel that it has been heard, listened to, respected - and represented.
I do believe that there is overwhelming sentiment that the area in question is not appropriate for the type of development that is proposed. Many of us feel it is a sacred space and that it deserves to be treated as such, not enshrined as a monument to wealth, privilege and power.
The problem, as I see it,
Submitted by Peter Alden Stroble on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 6:41pm....apart from our opinion that too much park and open space in an urban core is a detriment to a healthy urban community, is that the city of Olympia has waited close to two decades to address what the Growth Management Act intended (i.e., smart growth), while cities all over the region - Portland, Vancouver WA, Bellingham, Seattle, Vancouver BC, Spokane, Boise, Couere d'Alene even Bremerton - have taken major strides. Meanwhile, Thurston county sprawl is utterly and undeniably rampant. Our growing housing needs are being met in ways precisely opposite to what the GMA intended and we have done nothing as a community to address this problem other than pass legislation that doesn't seem to work. The lawsuits by Futurewise validate my point (and cost us all of lots and lots of money).
So the problem is that while a grand park with formal gardens might be what some in the community want, there's no money to do it today and your ideas otherwise require some great combination of luck, philanthrpy, new (yet undifined) taxes, and even more waiting. Meanwhile, the cost of living for the average south sounder continues to climb to all time highs, more and more sprawl eats up evermore of our sustaining natural resources, and Olympia continues to fall woefully behind its counterpart cities in the region for sustainability. These are sad things.
P.S. I would be interested to know why you think it's not a big budget item for the state. That's not at all what we have learned, and if it were the case, surely the Capitol Campus Committee would have coughed up the funds by now, don't you think? The blight and the DOC have been screwing up that view for decades, haven't they?
Too much park
Submitted by Bert on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 9:47pm.The main thing to think about in relation to the park concept is the potential to create a truly novel, and lasting, feature for the city - something that will make Olympia stand apart. Something to make people think of Olympia as a place that sets trends - a leader - a leader of a novel approach to society that values truly functional sustainability. A leader, not a follower. Not a follower of Smart Growth - as admirable of a cause as that is.
On a side note, I don't think growth is ultimately sustainable. Unending (especially uncontrolled - and I realize "smart growth" answers the uncontrolled part) growth is what cancerous tumors do - before they cause organ failure. I am not saying that smart growth is necessarily a tumor, or cancerous, but I am saying that I am skeptical. I think too often in our society people don't consider the true costs of our economic activities. Damage to the oceans and forests half way around the world - externalities that are out of sight and out of mind.
But the real world is interconnected. And the consequences do eventually make their way back half way around the world.
Yeah, I am blathering on here, so I'll stop with that.
Maybe the isthmus issue is about growth. But then again maybe it's more complex, and maybe it's also about changing Olympia - into a city that is a follower. Maybe it's about trying to fit in. Maybe it'ss about people being embarrassed or uncomfortable around some of the counter cultural elements. Maybe it's about challenging the wisdom of socialism and equitable society.
I don't want Olympia to be a follower. I want Olympia to be a leader - to lead the free world into the world's tomorrows with a vision of truly functional holistic sustainability. A better world of equitable relations, social conscience, prosperity tempered by respect for the planet and future generations, of community decision making, of consensus.
bert
Another request for specifics
Submitted by jlw on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 7:36pm.No, I could not...
Submitted by Peter Alden Stroble on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 9:45am....this is purely conjecture on our part. We can no better prove this point than can the people in opposition of the rezone who seem to make this same claim of every day.
If we were to try to prove this claim, we would start with the fall election for city council positions. What were the key agenda and platform items that got the winning candidates - Mah, Ottavelli, Strub - elected, and how do those themes tie into this issue?
got the candidates elected
Submitted by Bert on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 9:56am.It would be good to revisit that election and try to get a handle on exactly how these candidates got into office.
There is a sizable population of Olympia residents does not support a "pro-business" agenda, but rather an agenda of fair trade and truly functional sustainability.
Were the issues represented fairly, or were they couched in terms that engendered fear and division?
Maybe we have an expert among us somewhere who can answer some of these difficult questions.
For my own part, I feel that the issues were hi-jacked by people in power - people at The Olympian and also, for example, people in the building / development industries.
We have details and specifics, not just conjecture
Submitted by jlw on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 2:51pm.It's not mere conjecture on our part -- we actually do have evidence that the majority of Olympians oppose the rezone. The preponderance of communications to the City Council and Planning Commission (statistics are cited here), the majority of Letters to the Editor of the Olympian, the swift and eager response of voters to the Olympia Capitol Park Foundation initiative, all indicate that the majority of Olympians opposes this rezone.
And the majority opposes the development despite the fact that the developer has paid staff urging people to write, call, and show up voicing support for the project, sending out colorful reminder postcards, emails, inviting them to receptions, etc., to sell them on the idea of developing the isthmus.
You don't need to reiterate your belief that naysayers show up more unless you can also cite a detailed and specific study which proves the credibility of such a statement.
I think the NEXT election will tell the real story about how the public feels about the current City Council.
Here you go...
Submitted by Peter Alden Stroble on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 3:13pm.In an essay published last month, Harvard School of Design professor Matthew J. Kieffer argued that the public hearings process for land use issues in America inevitably attracts those opposed to development, and that those who are in favor of development, or more commonly, those who are indifferent to development, by human nature, tend to stay home. “Public hearings,” he wrote, “become forums for the chronically aggrieved; in an increasingly fragmented culture, they are what pass for community.”
From:
The Social Functions of NIMBYism
http://www.planetizen.com/node/34505
Chronic Aggrievement
Submitted by Bert on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 3:33pm.I, for one, am interested in exploring the causes of this chronic aggrievement.
Oops, double post
Submitted by jlw on Tue, 09/16/2008 - 6:00am.You think that's proof?
Submitted by jlw on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 8:49pm.Yeah I agree
Submitted by Bert on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 9:26pm.It seems to me that those who are pro-development are somewhat at a disadvantage, because there are usually fewer who stand to benefit on a project of this nature (when a private developer wants to disrupt a natural corridor (in an area that is held as a special place amongst a wide portion of the public) for personal gain.)
Most people probably just don't care. They might be tuned out, comfortably (or uncomfortably) numb. They might be apathetic. So, I think someone from equally as prestigious a school as George W. Bush attained an MBA from could make an opposite argument:
If the public was civically engaged, familiarized with the holistic view, and had a deep understanding of the situation in regard to the rezone proposal, that there would an even more massive show of opposition.
Most people value fairness and equity. Most people think that the government should serve the public interest. Most people don't participate in government.
In this case, it is clear that the "business community" has really organized and mobilized around this project. Bankers, real estate types, developers, etc. have all rallied quite impressively - in many ways.
Tomorrow's meeting is likely to be very interesting.