And, trust me, I like this blog a bit, so its hard to choose sometimes:

But the whole idea of taking oral testimony from a select few publicmembers on subjects of this sort is insane. What good can come of it? Most of the testimony consisted of stating the obvious with emotion, or presenting numbers that would be better served in paper form with corroboration. Ultimately, on this issue the bickering came down to aesthetics: whether the present one- and two-story buildings and parking lots look better alongside the Inlet and the Olympics in the distance, or whether five- and six-story buildings would look better in their stead. But so many irrelevant issues were raised: whether construction should be allowed at all on the isthmus; whether all the present buildings (especially the former DOC headquarters, and possibly excluding the Bayview grocery store and the yacht club) should be razed to make way for an expanded Heritage Park; whether luxury housing should be built at all, and if so where it should be permitted; whether construction of tall buildings should be permitted at all.

And for what? Given the real issue involved, was there any real possibility of minds being changed?

 

Hi, Emmett - Speaking to the logistics not the philosophical question about value of public hearings that you thoughtfully raise ...

In spirit of full disclosure you might want to post the 2nd drawing - which shows row-by-row seating and which notes that seating could also be done individually "pro" - "con" in each row (people with differing viewpoints actually sitting next to each other).

It was more than my fingers could handle to individually color each seat.

When we had a similar public hearing at the WA Center a few years ago, several people complained that all of the "proponents" got to the sign up sheet first, and they therefore filled most of the first hour or so of testimony in support of a rezone. This suggestion is offered as a way to mitigate that concern from a few years ago.

Another complaint from large public hearings is the mega line that forms when people try to sign in. Not only does it cause big confusion in the lobby, not everyone is physically able to stand for an extended time in a waiting line.

So the proposal for reserved testimony seating with tickets handed out at respective doors is an attempt to avoid that problem.

I always figure there's nothing to lose in listening, learning from the past, and trying someting new the next time.

BTW, a public hearing is required by State law for comp plan amendments.  Traditionally (for years and years), Olympia has held two public hearings each year on comp plan amendments (instead of just the bare mininum) - one with the Planning Commission; and one with the City Council.

Cathie Butler, Communications Manager, City of Olympia

Their plan is a surefire way to promote shouting matches in the audience.   Second, what's the problem? Evidence of a rather serious, citywide disagrement should tell the council and the rest of us that we have more work to do.  I guess we don't have any strong enough leaders to put this on hold. 

As for Rhenda worrying that "[t]he hyperbole is objectionable enough, but the anger coming from the people who want to talk about this issue is really astonishing." On issues such as these, there are always people who feel so strongly that they come across as angry.  But, really, most of us aren't angry, we just disaggree.  

[Apologies right now for the lengthy post.]

As a former councilmember, I have no pity. Sorry.

The people primarily responsible for the unpleasant tone of this debate are the members of the Olympia City Council.

The city council chose to have the debate on this issue (the developer did request the zoning change, but the council was not required to hear his request). Only a few years ago, we debated the very same issue. It was controversial and heated then, and nothing fundamental about the community has changed. So, it was easy to predict that it would be controversial and heated now.

The city council chose to frame the issue as yes/no, pro-heights/anti-heights, support the zoning change/oppose the zoning change, period. You allowed the public no means to influence or shape the proposal (the "compromise" amendment isn't really a compromise), which left them able merely to oppose it. And you allowed no discussion of the bigger picture. But this issue is, in fact, firmly embedded in a larger discussion of downtown. You might argue over some of the other matters people are bringing up, or the significance of some of those matters (one building, by itself, won't change absolutely everything), but you can't pretend that building heights are somehow isolated from everything else in the community. Telling people they can't, or shouldn't, discuss the big picture is beyond stupid.

The city council chose to limit public input. You are still using the old, traditional, tired public hearing process. You say you are allowing TWO public hearings? Big deal. Many people at the planning commission hearing didn't even get to testify, because the planning commissioners weren't willing to stay and keep listening. And now city staff say that only about 75 people will get to testify to the city council. If true, that's just going to piss people off more.

In a separate email, Rhenda, you said that are public hearings "are meant to be an opportunity for competing interests to present information which will help the board members make their decision. At some point, repetition of similar points of view does nothing to advance the board's deliberation." In other words, you don't think you need to hear from everyone, as long as you hear from at least someone on both sides. I intensely disagree. Public hearings are meant as much for the public as for the elected officials. They are there to give EVERY member of the public the chance to directly address the decision makers. (When I was on the council, we stayed until everyone who wanted to testify had their chance.)

In that email, you also said “while I care very much what my constituents think about this issue, I find myself increasingly weary of hearing arguments about how they feel. Emotional reactions interfere with civil discourse.” Again, I disagree. Emotions and feelings about what our community is and what we want our community to be are the basis of all our decisions. “Objective” information informs us on how to achieve our desired community, but does not define our desired community for us. Negative emotions, which I think are what you actually are complaining about, result from the perception that our feelings are being ignored.

The city council, despite the easy prediction that this issue would be controversial, chose not to expand the public discussion in ways that could address the bigger picture and reduce the adversarial nature of public hearings, such as through town hall meetings. One community group held such a meeting. That speaks well of this community, but merely highlights the failure of the council.

The city council chose to further reduce the already limited options for members of the public to speak directly to them. One councilmember sent out an email announcing that, on second thought, she would NOT meet privately with citizens to talk about this. Then the council created the rule to stop people from discussing an issue at weekly public comment in the 90 days BEFORE a public hearing. The old rule was only 90 days AFTER. As it happens, I wrote that rule, to establish a definite closing point to the public comment (at which point, councilmembers could absorb the comments and make a decision). At the time, no one on the council even imagined restricting citizens' opportunity to comment before that closing point.

The city council chose to have this debate in the context of other recent council actions that suggest they have a larger agenda for downtown. These actions include the sidewalk sitting ordinance, the ordinance about RVs downtown, the noise ordinance, and continued discussion about a parking garage. Some people see a pattern of the council trying to change “who downtown is for.” The issue of building heights seems to confirm that pattern. You may or may not agree that the pattern is there, but many reasonable people in this community (both opponents AND supporters) see it that way. Again, denying that bigger picture leads to a failure of the debate.

Finally, several of the individual city councilmembers chose to accept campaign contributions from developers, including the developer who requested the rezone. No, I’m not accusing anyone of taking bribes. Instead, let’s assume that the developer merely donated to those candidates who already held points of view that he supported. Even that suggests that, in fact, some city councilmembers do already have an inclination to support the rezone, despite any objective façade. That tells opponents that reasoned debate won’t work, because the councilmembers just don’t agree, so the only way to stop the rezone is by bringing pure political pressure. (And by the way, if you don’t want people loudly telling you what do as a councilmember, and threatening your continued presence in that office if you don't do it, then just resign now. Because it never stops.)

Bottom line: The Olympia City Council is responsible for the negative tone of this debate. If you want that tone to change, the council must change the rules of the debate so that every person in the community has a real opportunity – and perceives that they have a real opportunity – to be heard. Can you do that?