My name is Peter Stroble and I am a member of OLY 2012. I believe strongly in Olympia’s past-due need for density and smart growth.  I believe strongly that it’s high time for Olympia to live-up to its faltering reputation as a progressive, globally-minded and environmentally-conscious community. And I believe strongly that the isthmus rezone will be a huge first step in addressing these problems and accomplishing our comp plan goals.

We have submitted to each of you our position paper on this rezone, and I hope you’ve had a chance to read it.  But it fails to address one thing, which I would like to touch upon tonight.  In a recently published essay, Harvard professor Matthew J. Kiefer argued that the public 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 out of it.  “Public hearings,” he wrote, “become forums for those who oppose development; in an increasingly fragmented culture they are what pass for community.”

Tonight, my impression is that the composition of people in this room are far from a representative cross-section of our community.  Most of my friends and acquaintances see the benefits of this rezone for the community as a whole.  But most are not here tonight.  Why?  Because they are at home with their families struggling to balance the demands of busy lives in the twenty-first century.  I am here to testify that there are many, many citizens of Olympia that do not have the luxury of time to show up simply to support the normal course of progress.

The petitioners will tell you differently, but I’ve seen how they work.  What the petitioners are doing is portraying an improbable, if not highly inaccurate, illustration of what this decision is really about.  I see the allure of that air-brushed image showing the isthmus as a park, and the hideousness of the image of the isthmus covered in yellow cubes evoking the dilapidating Tumwater brewery.   If I were told, without knowing anything, that this rezone decision was as black and white at the juxtaposition of those two images I would sign that petition in a heartbeat. 

In watching the petitioners do their work at the Farmer’s Market on Sunday, it looked to me that on average, it took about 20 seconds to convince someone to sign it.  It took our group a couple of months to learn enough about this issue to reach our position, which we backed-up with 10 pages of research, analysis, and insight.   This is precisely why zoning and land use decisions should not be decided by referendum; they should be decided by leaders such as yourselves who have taken the time to thoroughly understand all of the nuances and tradeoffs of the matter at hand.

It is time for you to face what is hardest about being in politics – making a seemingly unpopular decision for the benefit of the community.  In the end, your true constituency – even those in opposition here tonight – will reward you for it.

"Tonight, my impression is that the composition of people in this room are far from a representative cross-section of our community.  Most of my friends and acquaintances see the benefits of this rezone for the community as a whole.  But most are not here tonight.  Why?  Because they are at home with their families struggling to balance the demands of busy lives in the twenty-first century."

So true, and what I have intimated in my previous posts about the "vocal minority".  When you are a student or have no JOB, you have the luxury of time that others don't.

Good work!

"RITALIN, so much easier than parenting"

itchyhitch.blogspot.com

This language weakens your argument.

What is normal? Some might say building within current zoning is normal.

Progress? Toward what? Developement doesn't automatically equal progress.

It is easy to think that history is "a natural movement in the developement of progress" but a closer examination sometimes shows a "two steps forward and one step back" thing.

To me, a  normal course of progress, looks like developing downtown living in other parts of town - not the area currently under discussion.

Perhaps an objective, second reader next time. In grad school, a friend asked me to read his dissertation and mark any passages that were particularly offensive (he couldn’t find any, but had a feeling they were there). There were many.

His dissertation was on the nature of property rights and he frequently relied on analogies that drew uncomfortable parallels between cattle, slaves, and women. The analogies were apt, but they also angered people, which was never his intent. He was blinded by his own "rhetorical exuberance" it seems.

My friend found less colorful analogies that made the same points, but without looking like a chump, alienating his readers, or embarrassing his committee and the school. It was a economics dissertation after all, not a talk radio show.

That's not an apology at all. It appears to me that you, Peter, do not really think you need to apologize.

Your argument comes down to: I'm right because I know I'm right, and all those other people are wrong, and the mere fact that all those other people are here proves that they are wrong, and everybody who is not here agrees with me.

To that I say: bull. Nixon had his silent majority. You have your "many citizens of Olympia that do not have the luxury of time to show up". And no matter how you deny it, you made clear that all those people at home with their family are people who "see the benefits of this rezone". That implies both that the opponents who showed up simply had nothing better to do that evening (as opposed to they had other things they could have done but decided that attending the hearing was very important), and further that the opponents are simply incapable of seeing the objective benefits (as opposed to they see it clearly but place different values on the costs and benefits than you do).

In your issue paper, you put forth some actual arguments for the rezone. That is commendable, regardless of whether one agrees with you or not.

But in your testimony, you portrayed yourself as able to make a good decision and everybody who disagrees with you as unable to make a good decision. Apology not accepted.

I will use this as one example of a point we disagree on for purposes of illustration. I believe the costs of going forward with the zoning changes, and actually permitting the construction of the proposed Larida Passage, would be greater than denying the zoning changes and moving forward with a feasibility analysis for creating a park, then figuring out the funding issues. Even if it takes 20 years to get the funding to make a truly awesome park (which I don't think it would), temporary measures could be taken to improve the existing area for a price that wouldn't be prohibitive (in my opinion.)

Then there are the cultural and social costs of the zoning change and building to consider. What social costs would be associated with putting an "up-class" development in a place which so many common folk consider to be sacred?

I am not happy about the City subsidizing this proposal to change the zoning rules. This proposed rezone was initiated by the developer. Zoning changes of this sort ought to be led by public process.

In defense of Peter's reference to the Kiefer article I would like to say that I actually passed the article on to him and also made the jump from "teaches at Harvard" to Harvard professor. I may have even introduced it to him under that characterization. My mistake.

I think it is unfair and off-base though, to imply that Peter was inflating the man's credentials to support his argument or that Kiefer is so obviously pro-development that his essay should be ignored. In fact, let's look at his credentials, they aren't in need of inflation.

Kiefer may not be a Harvard professor, but he teaches a course on the the development approval process in the Harvard Graduate School of Design, this essay was published in Harvard Design magazine and he was a Loeb Fellow at Harvard. The fellowship by the way "is a unique opportunity to nurture the leadership potential of the most promising men and women in design and other professions related to the built and natural environment." They don't post alumni prior to 1997, so I wasn't able to find what the focus of his research was as a fellow, but I don't think the reference to Harvard is uncalled for and I don't think he lacks actual academic credentials. If this article is no more than his opinion, it is an EXTREMELY well-informed opinion.

I think it is also important to note that the conclusion of his article is actually that "NIMBYs" play an important social function and have helped save many important places through their efforts. He even says if NIMBYism were to disappear, we would miss it more than we currently bemoan it (which depending on which side you stand on is I'm sure debatable). But, he also points out that those opposed to a project tend to monopolize public hearings and be far more vocal than those in favor of the development, which is Peter's point. I think that is a pretty balanced view of the phenomenon and not at all the pro-development propaganda it is being characterized as and worthy of reference in Peter's statement.