I agree with Laurian that one of the peculiar things about the last 18 months of city politics has been that lots of people who actually share many of the same civic and environmental goals have ended up devoting so much time, energy and money to struggling over what ought to happen on two city blocks.

I also agree that Oly 2012 has promoted a number of other good ideas (and done some serious analysis in support of them.)

The newsletter headlined this piece "Opinion/Editorial" so I don't know that it's fair to equate the rhetoric and claims of the author (Enid Layes) with "Olympia 2012's;" she's one person on their 11 member steering committee, which Joan Machlis, Michael Ryherd (who just retired from lobbying for the city), and Katherine Mahoney (the retiring president of the downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area board) just joined.

All that said, I think this particular editorial is out of touch with the facts in a number of ways. The notion that a 56% turnout does not represent "a majority of voters" and that the other 44% were Larida Passage enthusiasts who just stayed home seems ludicrous to me. Whatever else this election showed, the defeat of every pro-rezone candidate in the primary and the general - in the face of the paper's endorsements, the biggest spending on a Council race in the city's history, and Joan Machlis's many virtues - seems to me to make it as plain as one could that "a majority of voters" strongly disagree with 2012's and the departing incumbents' vision for the isthmus...

In addition to the other deficits people have pointed out in the argument, the claim that

Olympia needs to be ready to welcome investment and jobs. We will face tough competition from communities that have figured out what pays the bills for schools, cops, libraries and parks.

is really dubious. Taxes pay the bills for schools, cops, libraries, and parks. Supporters of development in general as a Good Thing are always focused on the revenue it will bring; the costs that will come along as a result over the next years do not get the same attention.

Some of these costs are direct - in this year's budget, the Council may take another step toward actually collecting enough money from developers to pay for the construction of the parks that their new projects will require the city to build. If they do that, we taxpayers will then only pay 30% of those extra bills we have new developments to thank for (about $1,700 for every new house) instead of paying half of those bills as we do now.

The other costs are indirect - downgrading the quality of people's lives. The outgoing Council just voted to allow the Bentridge development to go forward, even though the Olympia School District said that it had no financial basis for providing schools in that area for the almost 600 new houses that the developer wanted to build (and that it wanted to very significantly reduce the impact fees that the city collects to provide for building new schools!) As a result, more kids will be bussed, housed in portables, and required to change schools by the district's redrawing of boundaries.

People pay those intangible and tangible bills. Some development pays for them through revenues and fees, or through benefits in the community's quality of life - some doesn't.

Best,
Thad

Qualified is a strange word. In terms of competence, I would agree. Jeff is a smart man who speaks frankly and usually thinks things through. I still voted against him, however. Not because I disagree with him on the bulk of issues, not because of a lack of dedication, not because of any personal disagreement with him. I voted against him entirely because his behavior has tainted public perception of him. Like it or not, city council members have to be respected by the population at large. Jeff trashed that over the last few years. That's the loss of a very important qualification.

"The groups opposing revitalization of downtown keep saying that state and federal governments and foundations will pay for repairs to Percival Landing..." Really? When did they say that? If they "keep saying" it there must be plenty of examples.

In response to your assertion that:

Two of our finest council persons were defeated by, in my opinion, far less qualified challengers.

I take exception to the "far less qualified" bit-

-I'm pretty sure that the candidates that got elected are way more qualified to lead.

Got any stats or facts to back-up your "opinion"?

"unfortunately, it is too late for those who will suffer from cuts in vital services" For the record, those cuts were made by the current council. You know, the one with the thoughtful, courageous 'real' progressives on it. The thoughtful, courageous 'real' progressives who said that Olympia didn't need anymore "social service customers". The same thoughtful, courageous 'real' progressives who call citizens idiots and baby-rapers. The budget I assume she's referring to, with the cuts to vital services, will be passed by the current council before the new council is seated.

has promoted a number of good ideas. Their lone mistake is throwing all in behind Larida Passage. This editorial is a mean spirited doubling down on a poorly reasoned position and now lost cause. Come on 2012ers let's really work to find that common ground and not fight a rear guard battle.

I think that progressive can be defined in a number of ways. The definition I prefer takes into account systematic privilege and oppression, and recognizes the very real need for social justice and deep ecological sustainability - the need to respect our environment as a community to which we belong, rather than a commodity to which we are entitled to exploit.

What I am most concerned with is the ongoing call for economic growth. Ms. Lays calls for an economically vibrant Olympia. But what does that really mean.

I think most people would agree that they want economic vitality and opportunity, and a modest prosperity that is available to all people.

But I am concerned about how we anyone could justify any net increase in economic activity given the current severity of deleterious environmental impacts.

The fact that there are so many people unemployed, so many people, and families, living in poverty beckons not a call for them to "work harder" to make ends meet - but instead a radical redistribution of wealth.

In America, some are made rich by outsourcing jobs to overseas locations (where ever the pay is the slightest.) Some are made rich through advancements in technology which allow them to reduce the amount of skilled labor necessary to conduct production activities.

This all results in a marginalization of the working and middle classes. This results in a reduction of job security and opportunity for a stable and secure economic livelihood.

Myth of Scarcity

It is a mythical notion that there is a scarcity of material and financial resources for everyone to comfortably get along. There is no basis in fact for this. In fact, there is plenty for everyone - if only the materials were to be distributed in an equitable manner.

However, the scarcity of jobs is real. And this scarcity is directly connected to the close relationships that exist between wealthy well-connected business class people and government.

What we need is government to protect us (as individuals and as a society) against the exploitations and environmental degradations wrought by big business.

It seems to me that common people have more influence over the local government (as partly evinced by the recent election cycle,) than over government at higher levels. Influence over State and Federal governments is solidly dominated by the various interests of the established owning class. (Not that the owning class is a monolith, nor that there isn't a diversity of views amongst the owning class, nor that owning class are necessarily against social justice or ecological sustainability... It's just that, in general, the interests of controlling large sums of wealth usually don't match up with social justice, with guaranteeing prosperity and freedom for all people, nor with true ecological sustainability, conservation, preservation, and restoration.)

So it makes sense to organize locally, and create the kind of economically vibrant community that all people can get behind, here at the local level. Not an easy task, but a task that all the more would be entirely worth the effort.

There are bonds that secure the various entrenched aspects of our socio-economic system firmly in place - there are points of fastening. This community is but one aspect of our socio-economic system, but if this community were to break free, then it would be a signal that other communities can do the same.

The economic vibrancy that I envision includes full employment, health care for all, an end to poverty, and holistic ecological sustainability - with a return to past levels of ecological health in the local ecosystems. (I read a story today about the amazing abundance and variety of life that once existed in Budd Bay -- that is, before the advent of widespread industrial activities.)

Anyway, that's some of what's on my mind regarding this.

You guys are trying to drum up attendance for the next meeting.