Although these proposed condos will range in price, there will be no quote-unquote affordable housing here. Mixed-income housing has a concrete definition that includes different incomes relative to the area median income (anyone have the actual definition lying around?), and includes restrictions on percentages of the housing that are leased to/bought by folks from the various income levels. For example, a mixed-income apartment building could have six units for "other low-income" folks (NOT very-low or extremely-low income) and the rest market-rate. In that case, six units would be reserved for people who meet the criteria (in Thurston County, that's a household that makes up to $52,900/year--the units would cost $1324/month). The rest would be priced according to what the market could bear.

I think you mean mixed-use, in which some area of the building is set aside for retail or office space, or some other non-housing use. Usually, the first one or two floors are reserved for this, since they are more accessible to the public. In this case, I think they're talking about two floors of retail space. Unfortunately, the only retailers who can afford to lease space in new construction are those with a lot of capital and flexibility; generally, this is not the case for locally-owned small businesses. So, we are probably talking about bringing in national chain businesses, at least in the first decade or so until the building is worth less relative to everything else in downtown. Which means, oddly enough, that we are talking about bringing in outside business whose dollars flow to headquarters far from Olympia and who will compete directly with our local businesses, in order to "revitalize" downtown, in order to support local business. Weird, huh? Somebody should invent "systems thinking" so we can get our heads screwed on straight, finally. Again, sheesh. 

Why can't we have a public works project to develop the isthmus into a natural park / wilderness preserve?

I have a vision for a natural area on the isthmus that would serve the important purposes of recreation, and education (education in regard to the importance of wilderness in providing for and maintaining a high standard of living - i.e. if we kill the wilderness we kill our standard of living and indeed perhaps ourselves.)

We need dense urban housing. We need it to counteract the destruction caused by suburbia. But the isthmus is just not the right place for housing (or any further development)!

The views of Budd Bay, Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains are a public asset. If buildings are developed that block the public view, then a real injustice and a disservice will have been done to the public.

It is all too difficult for people (especially those of modest means) to access wilderness in their daily lives (and otherwise). Thusly, there is an important mission, and a service, to bring the wilderness to the people, and to maintain views of that wilderness where it currently exists (i.e. views of the Olympic Mountain Range from Downtown Olympia {on the isthmus.})

I'm sure others can say it more effectively and add to that.

This project addresses one real issue (urban density), which I think we can all agree on, and one semi-real issue (rich shoppers), which I think is still up for debate as to its effectiveness and/or necessity. Given that small amount of benefit, how can you justify the many negative consequences of the project? As I mentioned, negative impact on local businesses (although that might be counterbalanced by increased consumption by upper-income residents of the condos, but if you own a million-dollar condo, are you really going to eat at Old School, the Reef, Le Voyeur, the Clubside, etc.? Are you going to spend hundreds of dollars at downtown's shops? the target consumers of downtown Oly are not millionaires. sorry.). Increased traffic in an area where the council is really trying to improve walkability/bikability. The loss of views. The environmental impact. The possibility that the housing market won't support it. The possibility of shoddy construction and/or lack of developer accountability (someone else mentioned Cooper Crest?). The apparent blithe disregard for the city staff's own sea level rise predictions. I'd like to be able to address all of these things without being accused of being a member of the clandestine "Carnage Group", without being called an anti-growth whiner, without hearing shouts about greeners/activists/leftys trying to ruin the city. So, can we talk about these things? Or is it a clear growth/no-growth argument?

EDIT: this is in response to Matthew--not sure if that's clear 

Don't eat meat, ride a bike...that's how you can brake global warming, the head of the United Nation's Nobel Prize-winning scientific panel on climate change said...