|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 2 users and 39 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 Bert on Sat, 09/20/2008 - 2:34pm.
Triway, obviously, will receive a substantial financial benefit from the passage of the proposed Isthmus zoning changes. Land on the Isthmus, which belongs to Triway (or land which Triway has options to purchase,) will drastically increase in value as a result of passage of the rezone proposal, regardless of whether or not the envisioned Larida Passage is ever actually built. (So Triway could, potentially, sell the land for profit after using $50,000 City taxpayer dollars to fund an impact study. - Personally I think Triway should reimburse the City.) My question is whether or not there is a conflict of interest given that certain Council Members, whom have received significant and substantial campaign support, could vote to approve a zoning change that would be of significant and substantial benefit to a campaign contributor.
$50,000 is a lot of money. It's especially a lot of money to spend on a project, the results of which will have dubious merit for the overall tax-paying public of Olympia. (You say revitalization - I say gentrification (and harm to the natives.)) Let's face it. The passage of this proposal (and would-be project) would benefit specific individuals, as well as a specific subset of the population. Yet city tax dollars have been used to subsidize the proposal. It's a private development proposal. Is it appropriate to use public funds to accomplish the proposal? It is my firm position that zoning changes need to be led by public process. We need a city government that is community-driven and participatory and broadly inclusive. The process we currently have does not do enough to include the broad public, it is exclusive and limited to those who are involved in development... I believe that this spot rezone poses a conflict of interest; council members who received campaign support might give the appearance of offering reward for campaign contributions. So, my question (somewhat rhetorical, but not entirely (regarding legal implications)) is whether or not there is a conflict of interest with Council Members, whom have received support from the developer in question, voting in favor of a proposal that would benefit the developer. It would have an appearance of rewarding a campaign contributor. Perhaps it is just an appearance of impropriety. What do you think?
Sincerely,
|
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: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
 Isthmus 2008 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
Wow! a new low in the Ishtmus debate
Submitted by Laurian on Sat, 09/20/2008 - 3:44pm.Bert, your allegation of a conflict of interest is nothing more than unethical speculation. You claim Mah and Strub received Triway money, offer no details and then launch into inuendo. This post is ethically and logically problematic. And kinda chickenshit.
Using your logic, when real estate issues arise almost the whole damned city council must recuse themselves due to accepting campaign money from Thurston Affordable Housing Council and/or Citizens for a Thurston Citizens for a Better Community both PACs of the Master Builders, and both who make Triway look like a piker in light thousands of dollars they have sprinkled over our body politic in the decade both PACs have been active.
What about an issue nearer and dearer to your heart? Should Rhenda recuse herself on bike lanes because Jim Lazar wrote a $200.00 check? Should Craig not vote on parking or Music in the Park because Steve Bean gave him a $125.00? Should Hyer bow out of anything that concerns K Records because Calvin Johnson tossed him $150.00? You see where I’m going with this. Using your logic all council members should recuse due to an appearance of conflict on just about anything on the council table.
Now for the numbers. In 2007 city council campaigns:
Doug Mah's campaign received $1,500.00 (7%) of the $22,200 raised from Tri Vo, Triways Enterprises and Nguyen Vo who I am assuming is related to Tri.
Rhenda Strub's campaign received $250.00 (1.3%) of the $18,260 raised from Triways Enterprises.
Jean Marie Thomas's loosing campaign recieved $250.00 (2.5%) of the $9,700 raised from Triway Enterprises.
Otavelli recieved no Triway money.
Of the remaining council, Machlis was appointed. I could find no Triway money contributed to Kinsbury, Hyer or Messmer although each had recieved money from developers, realtors, or associations that represented said contributors in previous campaigns.
Interstingly, in the 2007 race Meta Hogan's campaign has the highest average contribution. Her top nine doners gave close to $4500 of the of the $9,000 raised and theoretically giving a small group quite a bit of influence over her. Of the $9,000, $1,300 (14.4%) came from Christopher Bauermeister and Patrick Kwiecinski, two bar owners and public opponents to the noise ordinance. If Meta had been elected should these contributions prevented her from voting on the noise ordinance? Fire codes? Liquor licensing?
Bert, your allegation that there is an actual conflict of interest assumes 1. the recipient knows of the contribution, 2. has a quid pro quo agreement for the contribution, 3. has an actual monetary interest in any issue before them, and 4. lacks the moral and ethical fiber to make a decision based on the merits of the issue and the will of their constituents. Allegations of an appearance of a conflict is mud slinging, and if the council member were a private citizen, slanderous.
This is a bad argument logically and worse politically. Accusing Doug and Rhenda of ethical turpitude, (this is what you're hinting at but not brave enough to say outright) sure ain’t gonna make working with them on other issues any easier. It’s ok to disagree with them. It’s a little less ok to argue against what you perceive to be their position. It’s not ok to make unsubstantiated and un-provable allegations. That is what Rush Limbaugh does.Paging Mr. Pot, you have a call from Mr. Kettle...
Submitted by hissyfit on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 8:14am.Thank you for the correction
Submitted by Laurian on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 12:16pm.and please point out any other error I have made. My apologies to Mr.Bauermeister.
Clarification: The numbers I list for campaign revenue totals are rounded down to the nearest hundred and do not contain in-kind contributions which in all cases are under one thousand dollars.
I stand by my assertions. Making a campaign contribution does not mean you have bought a candidate. There is no C of I, real or apparent, in this case. It is unwise and unethical to claim so.
Mr. Whitlock has not called for other council members to recuse themselves from any other issue due to their contributor list. His sudden concern over C of I is not a principled stand but a short sighted tactical move taken because he suspects two council members to hold a view he does share.
Mr. Whitlock has alleged unethical if not illegal behavior without a whiff of proof. That is exactly what Rush has made millions doing. Indeed a pot is calling a kettle black.
COI
Submitted by Bert on Mon, 09/22/2008 - 12:18am.And as far as this being the first time that I have mentioned COI in re: city council activity, let me say this: I am just learning.
I am not the pot calling the kettle black. I am a citizen and a resident of Olympia. And I am looking out for what I believe is best for all the people of Olympia. I am looking out for the public interest.
Laurian, I think it would help if you made sure to understand the difference between private interests and public interests. With that, I will say thank you for challenging me on this matter, because it has helped me to understand the issue more deeply.
bert
Ethical Turpitude
Submitted by Bert on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 8:43am.I think we can do better than this. This is a special interest project. Tri Vo will benefit financially from the rezone. There will be an appearance of rewarding a campaign contributor.
This is not a public interest project. It is a special interest project.
What really needs to happen is the development of public campaigns, so that people who want to serve the city as a member of the City Council don't have to raise money privately. Everyone should have equal resources for political campaigns - candidates should be judged by the quality of their actions and ideas - not how much money they have to spend, or how they spend it.
Unethical speculation? I don't think so. This is a critique of a system - a system that is broken and is not working for people.
I stand by my critique. We can do better than this political system of favoritism. We need a system that represents the public interest - not special interests.
Triway ought to reimburse the city for the $50,000 study. Study's shouldn't be used to enable, to offer cover and an appearance of normalcy, and normal governance.
This is a special interest project that is being ferried through, and it's being protected by government structures, despite an overwhelming public dissent.
If council members who received campaign contributions from Tri Vo, Triway Enterprises, or any associated interests (i.e. banking, realty, developer, building), vote to approve the rezone, then there will be the appearance of rewarding campaign contributors by supporting this special interest project.
I wouldn't go as far to call it "ethical turpitude," but I do think it would be unethical, and it would give an appearance of offering reward by approving a campaign contributor's special interest project.
You should cross reference
Submitted by Just another voice on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 1:26pm.And speaking of 50K: who is going to pay for the park? I mean, opponents are worried about TriWays selling the land, but shouldn't they be really really excited? I mean, talk about opportunity! Then again we all know that the time to purchase the land was 50+ years ago, but the opportunity may come a knockin'.
Anyway, how much will the feasibility study cost as outlined on the park initiative?
Paid for by Citizens for a Fair and Equal way to get TriWay kicked out of town forever
But I am Just Another Voice
paying for the park
Submitted by Bert on Mon, 09/22/2008 - 12:10am.You're right. It's important to consider how a park might be funded and how the work would get done. I am sure there are ways to do it in the most affordable and community oriented ways possible.
Just because you apparently
Submitted by Mary Baker Eddy on Mon, 09/22/2008 - 7:20am.Getting people to volunteer to tear the buildings down and build up a park? Puh-leeze.
practicality of volunteer effort
Submitted by Bert on Mon, 09/22/2008 - 9:38am.You heard correct.
Submitted by Mary Baker Eddy on Mon, 09/22/2008 - 11:08am.I agree with you Mary
Submitted by FRESH on Mon, 09/22/2008 - 11:45am.RW often entertains wild notions that live somewhere just beyond reality, but that's OK, we need people like him in this world.
Public Interest v. Private Interest
Submitted by Bert on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 11:55pm.Let's say an avid bicyclist contributed to the campaign of some council members, and they were to face a decision about whether to more fully fund bike lanes in the city. Their support for bike lanes would not constitute COI because bike lanes are in the public interest. Bike lanes encourage bicycling. Bike lanes make cycling safer. etc.
However, the rezone decision will directly affect the financial outlook of Triway Enterprises - a private corporation.
Pointing out COI, indeed, asking if this situation constitutes COI, is not unethical. This is what democracy looks like.
We are talking about campaign contributions here. Contributions from Tri-way, which stands to significantly benefit financially if the rezone is approved. That's all, Laurian. It's really not complicated. It is uncomfortable though. And believe me, it's a little unnerving. But I think pointing out COI is important in moving toward the public interest and the purpose of creating a better society.
We can't have wealthy people with special interests thinking that a few hundred, or a few thousand dollars, in campaign contributions can make things go their way (especially when their way conflicts with the public interest.)
My speculation is not unethical. But the appearance of rewarding a major campaign contributor is a conflict of interest.
What this speaks most loudly and clearly to is the argument in favor of public campaign financing - or even further - direct democracy.
No hard feelings, Laurian.
(this project will) benefit
Submitted by Just another voice on Sat, 09/20/2008 - 4:50pm.That argument could be applied to any number of projects or initiatives by the city. Like bike lanes. They only benefit bicyclists. Or low income housing. They only benefit poor people.
In the bigger picture, we know that development downtown will have a ripple effect. Since you are an opponent of the development, then I think your argument would be stronger if it was less "rich people = death to downtown" and more about facts.
I think saying that the city council is entertaining this TriWay proposal only because they had a small monetary donation by TriWay is ridiculous.
But I am Just Another Voice
So,
Submitted by FRESH on Sat, 09/20/2008 - 4:59pm.No, I didn't say anything
Submitted by Just another voice on Sat, 09/20/2008 - 10:13pm.What I did say is that reusing old buildings and developing vacant lots will have a positive ripple effect on the downtown core. The new 141 wealthy residents aside, extending our downtown onto the isthmus is just a way to bring even more restaurants, businesses, and other necessities into our downtown.
At any rate, I believe that on a local block-by-block level, trickle down economics does play a huge roll in the vitality and longevity of a neighborhood or downtown. In the 1950's, as people and businesses moved out of downtowns, so did their money, department stores, jobs, etc... This is about reversing the trend.
Revitalization means bringing people into downtown. It is a proven technique to develop vacant lots with housing-- all levels of housing-- to ripple a downtown into meeting the needs of new a diverse consumers. Saying that a downtown will not respond to the needs of the 3 new developments in downtown is just plain ignorant.
I am really getting tired of all the isthmus stuff. All I am hearing now is less and less about parks and views and more about rich people.
Paid for by Citizens for a Fair and Equal way to get TriWay kicked out of town forever
But I am Just Another Voice
public v. private
Submitted by Bert on Mon, 09/22/2008 - 12:23am.Have you watched the video of the Council Public Hearing on this issue? The testimony of the public was very illuminating. It's well worth watching. I posted a blog with the video. Hopefully I'll get the final installment up soon. Definitely worth watching. Might not change your mind, but it might help you to understand where different people are coming from.
bert
the other thing
Submitted by einmaleins on Sat, 09/20/2008 - 5:46pm.to remember is, that you want a park on the isthmus, because you don't want millionaires living there. But you told me yourself, that if you could, you would build a house, a tower actually, on the isthmus yourself.
hmmmmmm
mathias
living on the isthmus
Submitted by Bert on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 9:17am.A completely hypothetical and fantastical statement. I said it because I can understand why someone would want to live in a tower on the Isthmus. Though I think the Capitol Campus hill would provide a better location, and in my fantastical hypothetical situation, I would probably choose another location, like the Capitol Campus hilltop, to build the tower.
In fact, the reason that I would want to build there is precisely why the area should be preserved as a public space. Everyone deserves equal access to the isthmus. It shouldn't be sequestered for the benefit of a small subset of the population.
I wish
Submitted by einmaleins on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 10:23am.I wish I could share the same enthusiasm with you on that particular piece of landfill.
If it would be some place truly spectacular, in my eyes, i perhaps would share your view. I just don't think this place is that important.
There are lots of natural places in the world that we truly shouldn't disturb or are worth fighting over.
I've just been re-watching Planet Earth, the BBC movie series that aired on the Discovery Channel and I am totally entranced by the natural beauty of our Big Blue Planet and shockingly reminded of the consequences of our actions.
mathias
einmaleins
I'm With You Mathias
Submitted by JMK on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 2:41pm.and I wonder if those opposing the condos and wanting a park would be putting the same energy into opposing low income housing and trashing the names and reputations of those who don't envision the same thing for the land that they do.
I believe this is more about elitism to those in opposition than it is about the land itself. I think because the condos aren't priced for those against them it's just easier to resort to some of the actions and making statements out of frustration many of us have just shaken our heads at.
I also believe if Tri Vo asked to raise the height limit to build low to moderate income housing Bert and his fellow fanatics wouldn't be grasping at straws and stooping to whatever level necessary to get their way.
complicated issue, perspective of a fanatic
Submitted by Bert on Mon, 09/22/2008 - 3:07am.I will tell you that this issue is complex. It's not either / or. It's not either about the views, or the apparent pandering to the wealthy upper class (to the detriment of the native working class and poor population.) It's a combination. The opposition argument is intricate and highly nuanced.
The opposition is not only against the rezone proposal and triway's larida passage concept. It is also for something. It is for a public space - a park. A central park that everyone can feel proud of, that everyone can participate in, that everyone can feel a part of, and enjoy.
It's not only about opposing the taking of the open space and the views, it's also about opposing the relegation of the views to a small subset of the population (those of whom can then look down on everyone else who doesn't have access.) It's about fairness and equitability. It's about private interests influencing public government.
America is dying because of corporatism (corporatism is when corporations gain untoward influence and power over the functions of government.)
Speaking only personally, for myself - as (what you describe as) a fanatic, I only want to resist corporate power. I want to uphold the public interest. That's part of where my passion - as you might consider it to be fanaticism - comes from.
Now I have to get some rest, because all of that stooping is really fatiguing. hahaha
Really?
Submitted by JMK on Mon, 09/22/2008 - 9:35am.Lesse 80% or more of the housing downtown serves the "native working class and poor population" so does that mean ALL housing built downtown must continue to do so? Why can't other types of housing be built? Why does there always have to be such a knee jerk reaction that anything built for rich people is automatically bad? Sounds like a bad case of classism.
Secondly, this country was built on corporatism and it's certainly not dying because of it. If you kill corporatism, you'll be killing your fellow man. He won't be able to earn an income to support a roof over his head and put food on his table and then there will be nothing but streets full of homeless people and boarded up businesses.
What is Common Sense?
Submitted by Janice Arnold on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 8:58pm.