I would suggest reading the entire thing, its pretty interesting. Included is this little nugget of wisdom of how to shape a compromise between the sides of the noise ordinance business:

Many nights the crowded streets, active arts venues, and busy restaurants in downtown Olympia would be the envy of any small city.  However, as more housing is developed downtown it is important to designate an area where late night activity can be protected, including live music performance.  Downtown residents want entertainment opportunities like nightclubs and theaters close by, as long as they are not disruptive.  The goal should be to minimize conflict among competing uses and to provide lively entertainment to residents and visitors.

The City should designate an entertainment zone, possibly in the historic district.  The City could contribute capital funding for non-profit theatre organizations to restore and repair their facilities and provide adequate sound proofing from adjacent performance spaces.  The businesses and organizations in the entertainment zone would need to work together to create an area where all patrons feel welcome and safe. 

Love it!

I don't know how anyone can be shocked.  We had a lame duck council the past 4 years leading up to the last election.  It's time to get something done already.  I'm onboard with 2012.

So I just read their piece on the web. It actually talks about a lot more than just the Isthmus project/rezone. There's what looks to be a maybe very clever and definitely very interesting idea about sharing tax revenue with the State for more comprehensive investment in public assets in Olympia. I'm especially intrigued by their idea of buying out the (very ugly) Capital Center building and replacing it with park/public plaza while, yes, allowing a limited rezone for just the currently proposed building site (not a bigger chunk). They also don't say anything about "all their members" coming out with this view--it's apparently what their steering committee researched and came up with.

Related, as someone who faithfully reads, but hasn't ever posted, to this site, I've got to say I was kind of annoyed by your coverage...rather than the snide and misleading coverage, why not treat this fairly? I don't know any of these guys, but why not give the beneift of the doubt that they are who they say they are and are just trying to come up with some good solutions? Progressivism, in my mind, doesn't mean doing nothing or hoping for things that are just clearly ridiculous (like the City somehow magically buying the entire isthmus and turning it into a park--not that that's what this post says, but I've been hearing it a lot from friends lately, and it's just plainly an idiotic idea). These guys seem like they have some ideas about how to make things better while working in the constraints of what might be possible.

In any case, I'm signing up for their group. They might be charlatans or wrong, but I'd rather be well informed and hopeful that they are genuine.

Thanks for posting the link to Oly2012, I was interested to check it out! It's going to be interesting to watch the isthmus proposal scenario pan out in terms of community interactions and government response.

I can't imagine anyone disagreeing on a vision of increased housing and housing density for downtown. However, there is a wealth of disagreement about development on the isthmus, and there seems to an abundance of ideas floating around.

I would like to think that consensus is possible, but it seems like a lot of people and groups are firmly set in opinion. I mean, I know that I have my own vision for the isthmus! I hope that those who are essentially opposed to the tri-way proposal can, at the very least, arrive at some basic consensus about how to approach the situation.

A good question to ask (in my opinion) is whether or not the isthmus itself is the correct location to develop any new structures, given the potential for sea-level rise as well as the resultant obstruction (albeit to varying degrees with varying schemes) of the Deschutes River - Budd Inlet corridor. Would it make more sense to offer incentives for, and support the expedited yet gradual, removal of existing structures? As existing structures are gradually removed, the vision for an isthmus-wide open-space could eventually be realized.

Imagine the juxtaposition of a true natural area, open-space (semi-wilderness) - with the denser and more populous urban core to the East. I am thinking of sunlight and a warm breeze rustling tall grasses, and of wetland / estuarine ecosystems.

Does that idea resonate with anyone else? I think it would be good to have a more in-depth discussion about planning and urban density in downtown Olympia, and how to manage the isthmus. Would workshops be a good idea?

...12'-14' open space on ground level, support 2nd story+ on piers, and encourage sky-way connections between building groups, but try to leave ground space open...

Building up is "better" than out, and for Oly, sea-level rise is a concern, so I'm thinking that maybe open space at ground level could accomplish all kinds of goals without limiting height or density.

Would love to have a designer/architect weigh in here, as I'm just an urban studies wonk musing =)

I'd let them develop at the current zoning limits. Either that or demand some heavy pro-Olympia concessions for increasing the heights. Again, the Council should be negotiating from a position of strength.

"In principle, I am an anarchist. Kurt Vonnegut once said he was an agnostic who respects Jesus Christ. I am an anarchist who loves democracy." - Kenzaburo Oe

when we can evaluate the assumptions in our models first? "The naturally conservative nature of scientific prediction," for example. If scientific prediction is uniformly conservative, it would be an easy matter to examine, systematically, predictions over time and put that hypothesis the test. I am not at all convinced that previous predictions are the product of "hedging" scientists. Science is conservative because it requires us to refute the null hypotheis, not the hypothesis. But that's not hedging, it's the foundation of the scientific method.

Or, yes, we can wait and see, but that won't prove either of us right or wrong about our assumptions.

That said, the real problem with Oly2012 is not who they are but what they say. The steering committee's vision is a mish mash of recycled ideas, unrealistic proposals, and advocacy for millions and millions in spending for which they offer no revenue stream other than a pipe dream of getting the State step up and pay for it.

Oly2012 steering committee is smart enough and it's members have been around long enough to know their vision is little more than a smoke screen for their unwavering and unpopular support of designer zoning for a developer with at best a mixed record. Or at least they should.

As an opponent to the Triway proposal I am happy that Oly2012 made public their problematic recommendations. Go to the Oly2012 web site and read what they have written. Or read my critique on Olyblog A close reading of the Oly2012 Vision for Olympia.

I welcome an informed debate on the merits of the steering committee's vision. Tearing it apart is as easy as clubbing salmon in a gill net.

PS Yes the folks who live Downtown should have a little more influence in this debate than those who shop or play here. Not a veto of course, but at least a weighted vote, like the notion behind Stakeholder status.

Don't act so shocked Burr. It happens all the time. As A Dem PCO I had seven votes to cast at a recent Dem nominating convention because I represented 110 Demo caucus goers at the Feb 9th caucuses. The average caucus turn out was close to 70. Representation in the House based on population is a form of weighted voting. Corporate stakeholders have weighted votes.

It's a simple idea that there are people who have done more work, own more stock, or in my suggestion, are more impacted by a rezoning, deserve to have a greater voice in how things are decided. I'm not advocating a weighted voting plan per say, but the truth is downtown residents will live with the Triway2012 vision in immediate ways non-residents won't. Things like construction noise for instance.

BTY Burr, the Stalin reference is stupid, obvious and insulting. Harumph! Stalin said something to the effect "it doesn't matter who votes, it matter who counts the votes." Nothing about weighting them.

One vote.  That's democracy.

But how about arguing about this? Is it really such a great idea to spend a ton of public money, even if we can develop some sort of partnership with the state, on beautifying Triway's side yard, while people are going hungry, and losing their jobs and apartments because they can't afford the transportation costs of getting to work?

I think the city's number one priority in these times should be improving the public transportation system. And I don't mean just expanding the DASH routes. I mean making the bus a feasible alternative for people who live 5 miles from work. I have friends in the suburbs (yes! some of my best friends are suburbanites) who have to walk a mile to the bus stop, and then the bus comes once an hour. Don't get me wrong -- I like parks and performance spaces and would much rather pay for them than subsidizing housing development, but wouldn't a good public transportation system be more useful to more people right about now?