...as a rich dude, maybe he is trying to effect change for the better (but just doesn't want to see downtown squashed by venture capital looking for an edge in the real-estate market)...I dunno, but I kinda doubt he is acting to protect his economic footprint out of carbon guilt or whatever you assume is his motivation.

...I have not met the man and refuse to speculate about him, but you are welcome to your opinion.

I think the public should demand community GIS-enabled visioning or a LEGO-enabled discussion to hammer out all these issues (certainly Triway has vast LEGO resources for design & planning =).

Firstly, the mission of Friends of the Waterfront is not to argue against the proposed rezone or any amendment that stems from the proposal. The mission of FOTW is to advocate the wise and responsible management of areas within 600 feet of the water. The mission of FOTW is to advocate the public interest on these matters. This does involve a specific defense against some of the more narrow interests of private developers. But the mission is not specifically to argue against the proposed rezone. So there is one problem with your facts and figures.

You attack Bob Jacobs for being a landowner. What is the sense in that? The fact that he is a landowner, and that he rents some of his properties, ought to give him more credibility when he argues against private development. He has private interests; so why should he argue against private interests unless there is some real harm posed by them.

Bob Jacobs owns properties that are outside of the urban core. big deal. I wonder how many other people are in the same situation. We don't live in a perfect world. People do what they do in this society to get by. It's tough, but that's life.

I don't have the energy to respond to your NIMBY argument, except to say that everyone has a right to express his or her opinion on this, whether or not he or she lives in a million dollar single-family mansion or not.

Many of the homes on Eastbay were built long before the current pressures of population. There are major differences between the current situation and the situation when those residences were built. There are also significant differences between the locations. The "isthmus" is an integral aspect of the corridor between the Deschutes River and Budd Inlet, for one. Blocking the corridor is an issue here.

FOTW advocates for the wise and responsible use of land within a narrow strip of the waterfront.

It seems to me that the above post, Andy, is an attempt to further distort and confuse the argument. I just don't get it. Because people are wealthy they don't have a right to advocate public interests?

The point in all of this, is that high-rise development on the isthmus would be an obstruction, and it would take away part of the view for everyone.

We already have one eyesore in that location. Let's not complicate the existing problem.

• Under what circumstances would it be acceptable for him to have standing to organize a group? Is it not the right of every citizen to protest something they do not like? Are bikers the only people who have the right to press for more bike lanes? Credibility is just as much an issue for the supporters, many of whom do not own buildings downtown and/or live and work in low density housing. On the other hand, the proponents of this rezone stand to financially benefit a great deal. Very few developers can afford to take any other factors under consideration than ROI. It is disingenuous on your part to single the Friends of the Waterfront out by this reasoning.
  
• Are any of these houses 95 feet tall? It is not as though the developer is attempting to build two floors of office space.
  
• Who is going to buy a $300,000-2,000,000 condo in downtown Olympia? They are sitting empty, immaculately staged, in Seattle at that price. Do you fancy an empty spec house downtown?
  
• The likelihood that this project will lose its funding before completion is very high. Regional banks, who are typically the funders for these projects, are dropping like flies right now. I would not grant a permit to an outhouse in the current residential market unless the money is in the bank. (It may be, but I doubt it.)
  
• As long as there is a parking lot anywhere in the central core, I do not see any reason to be granting re-zone's in areas where there are environmental issues.

I would like to see people asking, and genuinely seeking answer to, this question: How can we, as a society, reduce harm to nature - how can we reduce adversity in our relationship with nature?

Wouldn't it be better to live alongside nature, to respect nature, rather than to exploit and seek dominion?

What would it look like if our buildings were designed so that they fit into the natural existing design of the landscape?

Day before the Community planning Commission hearing andy_d, (Olyblog member for 5 hours) pops up offering no argument on the pros or cons of the rezone but rather launches an ad hominum attack on a member of a true grassroots organization.

I feel confidant that the months of research, posts, and opinions expressed on Olyblog have innoculated Olybloggers from this kind of drive-by charater assasination regardless of thier position on the rezone and the Triway project .

andy_d welcome to Olyblog. Let me introduce you to a pretty insigtful phrase that floats around here.

Play the Ball, not the Player.

"...have endorsed downtown housing as desirable and important, but argue against any form of building development, including housing, on or near the waterfront."

where I begin work at 06:30, I counted fifty six garbage totes set out for collection, (a reasonable indication of the number occupied houses), and five Save the Waterfront signs, four of which appeared to be associated with a home and one of which was on the grassy hill next to San Fransisco street. None of the 4 homes with signs had a gate that I could see.

The actual number of homes along the waterfront along East Bay Drive is higher due to a group of condos that had no totes out. My count also excludes the East Bay Condominiums, an apartment complex and a smattering of single and multi-unit buildings on the east side of East Bay Drive near State street.

Counting just the waterfront homes on the west side of East bay drive, it appears less than 7.4% of the homes had a Save the Waterfront sign associated with them. Opinions vary but I would not characterize 7.4% as 1.3 miles of full-blown hypocrisy.

PS to Sam. I'm disappointed that you didn't cite my favorite gem from my slash and burn post you quote from.

Let's hang a Plaza from 10 hydrogen filled semi-rigid gas bags. Oh wait, cloning Janette Hawkins is beyond our technology.

Now that's what I call Character Assassination!