I think his speech was grossly misinformed, or, at least, lacked a demonstrable attempt on his part to look beyond the status quo and the situation that OLY finds itself in today.

His keynote sentence was: "Research shows that millionaires don't ride the bus", implying that while the rich may live in the condos, they will not stop driving ther cars.

Obviously, Mr. Curtz has never been to New York, Chicago, Boston or any of the cities in Europe, Asia, Australia & South America. When cities are built with density that allow rich and poor to live together in small geographical areas, public transportation not only works very efficiently, but is used by all members of the class array. Research may show that "rich people" who are relegated to living in the sprawling mess of 20th century suburban America may not take the bus, but that is exactly the problem that this height amendment proposal is trying to address!

His speech was a fine example of the inability of many members of our community to accept that change is necessary to accommodate our community's needs: our needs for a economically vibrant downtown, for a lower carbon footprint, for a better civic context where people from all different socio-economic backgrounds can find common ground, and for a built environment in our downtown core that, as James Howard Kunstler would say, is worth caring about.

I agree with you that The View was paid an undeserving amount of attention. I for one, could not give a rats ass about a view. Seriously.

I disagree that the core of the disagreement about the rezone comes down to taste. I think it's about who the city is prioritizing in it's development plan. We have a demonstrated need and demand for affordable, market rate housing downtown. We have an UNdemonstrated demand for millionaire condos.

I didn't here a single voice speaking against more housing development downtown. Where the Oly2012 crowd gets anti-growth is beyond me. The core of the disagreement here is WHO are we going to build for? The people who live here or work here and want to move into downtown or rich people we're not entirely sure are coming anyway.

I think the discussion would be really different if there were millionaires climbing over one another tot live downtown. As it stands, there are tons of regular folks who want to live there (myself included, although I already live really close). I hope the planning commission and the council listen to the voices of the present community and not the hypothetical one. It's easy to be cynical. It hasn't seemed like they've had our welfare in mind on this issue.

Having sat through many a public hearing, I agree they can be boring and/or promote a sense of two unreconcilable sides with hardened position. There needs to be other forums designed to encourage more creative, agreement-seeking discussion. Such forums should happen long before we ever get to a public hearing.

That said, there is no such thing as "irrelevant issues and prejudices" in a public hearing.  The whole point is that citizens can bring forth any issue they choose, without government telling them what is or is not relevant.

Also, refering to other people's issues as irrelevant and prejudiced is a great way to even further exacerbate differences.

If you really listen -- I mean, really listen -- to public comments, especially the seemingly irrelevant and prejudicial ones, you can learn an awful lot about what people are truly concerned about (but perhaps cannot express well).  This, in turn, can help you design alternate proposals or efforts that will address concerns, and thus help turn something that is merely a conflict into a potential shared goal.

Idealistic, I know.  But important and valuable.  Unfortunately, I fear there are few people in this community, and perhaps none on the current city council, who are in a position and capable and willing to do this.  (Councilmembers: If you're reading this, prove me wrong.)

Matthew