|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 19 users and 96 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 Thu, 09/11/2008 - 2:14pm.
Thad Curtz’s letter to the editor of the Olympian, published in this morning’s paper was composed of errant facts, unfair qualifications, and a misleading conclusion. After citing quantitative facts about turnout at the planning commission hearing being numerically in favor of opposing the rezone, Curtz concluded that “people don't want the Olympia City Council to give Triway a big tax break.” First, an incorrect fact: this rezone decision has nothing to do with giving tax breaks. This abatement is not unique to this project or rezone. All downtown multi-family housing is getting a tax break: low income housing 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 (including low income housing), this is not a valid reason to reject this rezone. And it has nothing to do with the rezone decision faced by the council. Second, fairness: Curtz seemingly discredits the support that Triway was able to turn out at the Planning Commission meeting by parenthetically noting that about “one-third of Triway's support came from the development community — real estate brokers, builders, surveyors, engineers, loan officers, building materials suppliers, and so on.” Should these people not have equal say because they work in the development and construction industries? Should their support be discounted in some way? Aren’t these people members of the community who vote, pay taxes, and hold jobs? These are precisely the people I would expect to show up in support. To attempt to discredit their opinion is not a fair approach to this debate. Third, and most important: Mr. Curtz’s argument completely ignores the demonstrable reality that public hearings on land use issues in America are wrought with problems in that they do not attract a representative cross section of the community. 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.” Most of the people I know - primarily people in their 30s and 40s with children in the school system - 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. But most of these people did not show up to the planning commission meeting. Why? Because they were at home with their families after a long day of work trying to balance the responsibilities of life in the twenty-first century. Many citizens of Olympia do not have the luxury of time to show up simply to support proposed development, let alone dedicate a majority of their time to ensuring it happens. This is true anywhere in America and Olympia is no different. Contrary to what Curtz’s LTE strongly implies, hearings are not physical referendums for the community. Private land use issues – precisely because they will always face inordinate amounts of public opposition - must be decided by our elected officials. We, as the citizens who voted our city council into office, must trust their leadership skills and unique perspective to make the best decision for the community as a whole.
|
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. |
|||
?
Submitted by The Original Yoda on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 2:33pm.Odd
Submitted by stevenl on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 4:46pm.Thanks!
Submitted by shackdaddy on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 3:57pm.Peter, that was a very helpful. I really appreciate your taking the time to lend that clarity.
The Kieffer quote has a lot of resonance too.
Thanks,
38-year old with kids in the school system
Well...
Submitted by Thad Curtz on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 4:32pm.Peter's certainly correct in saying that other multi-family housing downtown gets a tax break too, but I wouldn't call saying "people don't want the City Council giving Triway a big tax break" "an error of fact". (Naturally not, since I said it...!)
Lots of people don't like paying property taxes themselves, and (when they find out about it) they don't like the idea that people are being excused from paying them just because they chose to live downtown.
However, I think "big" is the operative word here. Many people probably wouldn't really mind somebody who bought a $250,000 condo not having to pay property taxes for a while. But they are really griped by the idea of having 141 people who can each afford to buy a $1 million condo (and then pay annual maintenance fees) get out of paying their taxes for 8 years. Giving them each a $76,000 break seems like a big break; giving up $22 million dollars in taxes for the proposed rezone seems a big concession to people. (If the city had chosen to put some sort of income ceiling on the break, which the state's authorizing legislation explicitly allows, I think this wouldn't be such an issue.)
The point of my passing remark about the percentage of support from the development community is (ironically) just the same as Peter's. Land use proceedings unfortunately do not attract "a representative cross section of the community." Developers and builders (and the relatively small number of mostly high-end businesses downtown who contacted the Planning Commission in support of the rezone) are a tiny segment of the whole city. But they have a vested financial interest in supporting development. They make their livings from development, whatever its effects on the community. They're much likelier to support development than ordinary people leading busy lives are, especially in response to emails like the ones Triway's full-time paid advocate sent all of them, and to requests from the guy Triway paid to go around downtown soliciting support from businesses.
Like Peter, most of the people I 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." But they don't agree with his next step - "which is to say, they are in favor of passing this rezone and building condos on the isthmus." They don't think this particular project will do much for the goals of smart growth, and they don't think the gains this project offers are worth the particular large tradeoffs involved.
The notion that the five hundred or so people who showed up to oppose the rezone in 2002 were just the "chronically aggrieved", or the even larger number I suppose will show up on this coming Tuesday at the Washington Center to oppose this rezone are just more of the same - people with nothing better to do - seems pretty out of touch what's going on to me. I wish the Council would put this issue to a vote of the people, since I obviously have a very different sense than Peter's of what the outcome of a city-wide election would be.
Thanks, Thad.
Submitted by Peter Alden Stroble on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 10:21am.I don't get Stroble
Submitted by OlyDowntowner on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 4:50pm.I recall a few months ago he had an awful lot to say about how Oly2012 was grassroots, and it was trying to mobilize people to participate in their community, to make downtown a better place. His organization, Oly2012, is constantly sending out email messages saying people should show up for land use hearings, write letters to the editor, and contact the city council to share their feelings on development in their community.
Well, they have. But now, he's spending a lot of time and effort discrediting those people who do show up, calling them chronically aggrieved, and blasting the letters written to the editor.
I don't get it. When the people who participate, as he's been urging them to do, don't parrot the pro-development viewpoint he espouses, suddenly community participation is a symptom of maladjustment.
So which is it? Is community participation a good thing or not? Or is it only good if people show up and say what Peter Stroble wants them to say?