Introduction

OLY 2012 is a volunteer group of citizens committed to the revitalization of Olympia’s downtown core, as well as to the tenets of the state’s Growth Management Act, which, among other things, call for housing density in our urban centers and along transportation corridors. As such, OLY 2012 has been a vocal and ardent supporter of the City of Olympia’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment that allowed for taller buildings on what is known as the Olympia Isthmus. Our September 2008 position paper on the City of Olympia’s Comprehensive Plan Amendment can be read here.

Naturally, we are strongly opposed to Substitute Senate Bill 5800* , which seeks to override the Olympia City Council’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment decision with the singular and common purpose of preserving a narrow view corridor within a panorama from the Capitol Campus that has long been interrupted and blighted by an economically ailing downtown Olympia. SSB 5800 would limit building heights on the Olympia Isthmus, and designate virtually the entire isthmus as a “shoreline of statewide significance” thereby greatly regulating and limiting almost all forms of development.

In addition to usurping power from our local government under the false pretense that there has been a long-standing agreement between the City and State to “protect” the view, these bills seek to undo what is arguably the most important economic development legislation our city has ever enacted – and to do so in the midst of the worst economic crisis our state and country have faced in over 80 years. If passed, these bills would cost our city and state millions of dollars in tax revenue – both during the project construction phase and over the long run. Further, they would perpetuate the division of a polarized citizenry that has faced almost unprecedented strife and civil unrest in 2008 – and just at the beginning of a new year when we had hoped and expected to return to calm and civility. And finally, if passed, this legislation would ensure a view that will symbolize the state’s inability to embrace the tenets of smart growth or to follow the very principals of its own Growth Management Act.

False Pretense of City-State Agreement

Proponents of the bill have claimed that there is an agreement between the State and the City that requires the city to “protect” the northward view from the capitol campus. But not one proponent can point to any document that verifies this is the case. Their argument is based on hearsay alone.

Though honored Capital Campus historian Norman Johnston testified at the Senate that the views were always meant to be preserved, his own book, Washington’s Audacious State Capitol and its Builders, leads us to believe otherwise. In it, Johnston shows renderings of the isthmus as presented by both commissioned designers of the Campus in 1909: Wilder & White and The Olmstead Brothers.

In both cases, the Isthmus is shown to be built-out with a traditional city grid system. Though it’s unclear how the designers would have felt about buildings as high as 65-to-90 feet, it is just as impossible to know what these designers would have thought to be an appropriate use of the isthmus had they understood the extent to which the automobile was to redefine the urban landscape and our way of life. With climate change and a carbon footprint to consider, we are not so sure the designers, projecting one hundred years into the future, would have been opposed to height.

It is also important to note that in both renderings, only the Olmstead rendering shows any kind of view axis preserved in a park, and that axis runs through what is today the isthmus Fountain block. Which brings us to the one document which we believe does provide evidence for the existence of a City-State agreement: The Olympia Parks Plan. As Steve Hall, the City of Olympia’s Manager testified at the Senate Committee for Government Operations hearing, the city has been operating in good faith for over a decade to acquire and convert into park space the fountain block to preserve the true North axis from the Temple of Justice. This is the only public document that seems to refer to any sort of agreement between the City and the State.

Loss of Economic Development Stimulus

The City of Olympia amended its Comprehensive Plan to encourage the development of a mixed-use, mid-rise development on a privately-owned piece of land in its core that has been blighted for decades. This land is also one of the City’s highest amenity sites surrounded by water, parks, public boardwalks and nearby retail conveniences including a grocery store. Study after commissioned study by the professional planning community – for years – pointed to Olympia’s need to incentivize the development of housing in some of its amenity-rich sites near its waterfront in order to revitalize its historic urban core in the wake of decades of suburban development that had sucked the life – and most of the money – out of it.

Small cities throughout the region including Bellingham, Vancouver, and Bremerton embraced this same planning philosophy, and through the recent building & construction boom made major strides in converting some of their high amenity-but blighted urban real estate into vibrant, housing-intensive neighborhoods that have blown a new breath of life into their long-struggling urban cores.  Olympia’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment a major and important step for our beloved city in accomplishing this goal.

Economic development is the 5th of thirteen explicitly-stated goals of the Growth Management Act, an act with which the Shorelines Management Act – and thus the designation of “shorelines of statewide significance” – must harmonize. Thus, we are extremely troubled that any legislation would be considered at the State level that would inhibit any local governing body’s ability to stimulate it own economy, particularly in the midst of the worst recession we have faced since the Great Depression. If passed, these bills would do irreparable harm to the economy of downtown Olympia for years to come.

Loss of Tax Revenue

The tax analysis in our position paper on Olympia’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment was developed assuming there would be an eight year property tax abatement for housing. In the end, the City of Olympia decided not to grant that abatement. That decision makes the financial case for the prospective project even more compelling – both for the State and our local tax districts.

The current assessed value of the property involved in the dispute is about $16 million. Some of it is currently exempt from taxation – so the whole area produces about $156,000 per year in property tax. It produces almost no other tax revenue. The buildings have been vacant for years.

The new development would add $150,000,000 to the tax rolls. That is equal to about 2.5% of Olympia total assessed value in 2008. This would generate about $1.5 million in property tax revenue per year – over $300,000 of which would be for the State School levy. Another $600,000 would be generated for our local schools.

The construction and furnishing of the building would generate over $7,000,000 in sales tax revenue – most of which would go into the State’s general fund. Furthermore, the first round of condo sales would generate $2,800,000 of real estate excise tax, over $2,000,000 of which would go to the State.

Of course, there would also be B&O and other taxes that would be generated by the construction and operation of the building and its commercial tenants. Though tough to calculate on a pro-forma basis, they too would be significant.

In our opinion, this legislation seems grossly misaligned with the economic development goal of the Growth Management Act. And given the unprecedented deficits faced by both Olympia and the State of Washington, these bills are unconscionably untimely.

Usurping of Power

The Growth Management Act intentionally places the power of land use decision-making in the hands of local governments through the adoption of local comprehensive plans. This framework ensures that State mandated growth management objectives are met while allowing the important decisions that impact local communities to be made by locally-elected officials.

The City of Olympia went through an extensive Comprehensive Plan process to reach its decision to raise building heights on the isthmus. In this process Olympia’s City Council and Planning Commission combined heard over a dozen hours of public testimony. More than 175 people testified at public hearings, some 1,400 articles of written testimony were submitted, a proclamation from six former State Governors was presented at both public hearings, and a petitioned initiative to conduct a parks feasibility study for the area was adopted by the City Council. The City Council also read countless market studies, opinions on legal issues like spot zoning, and had access to extensive view analyses.

City Council Member Joan Machlis, at the Senate Committee on Government Operations hearing testified that the City Council “carefully followed the public process laid out under the Growth Management Act for Comprehensive Plan Amendment” and that “the City Council and planning commission spent more time and resources than [they] ever have in any time in Olympia’s history.”

Land use decisions are not subject to the popular vote because they are not political decisions. Rather, they are critically necessary to further a plan that the city has adopted to best meet its needs, which is to say, the needs of its citizens.

By passing these Senate bills, the State legislature would undermine these needs of the citizens of Olympia. In so doing, it would demonstrate its own lack of faith in the delegation of power to local governments set forth by the Comprehensive Plan framework of the Growth Management Act.

Divisiveness

The City of Olympia’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan process was divisive from the beginning. Emotion manifested itself throughout the process in many different ways, including intimidation, hate crimes and vandalism – the latter to such an extent that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has become involved. Indeed, Rhenda Strub, an Olympia City Council Member who initially voted against the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (but later changed her vote at the final reading) admitted that she had been “browbeaten and bullied” into her initial position.

Senator Karen Fraser, the prime sponsor of these bills never once went on the record opposed to the rezone, nor did she publicly participate in the year-long amendment process. For her to introduce bills that would effectively “trump” a local government decision now, after months of study, public education meetings, and public hearings – simply because she and some of her constituents are angry over the Council’s decision – is an action that perpetuates the divisiveness of this issue.

Our experience has led us to the conclusion that the vast majority of people in the Olympia community – once they gain a modest understanding of the nuances and tradeoffs of the rezone issue – support the City’s decision, or at the very least understand why it was necessary. Passing this bill would leave the citizens of Olympia feeling powerless and unable to self govern from the local level, and resentful of the State’s heavy-handedness.

Furthermore, should these bills become law the precedent for coming to the Legislature to overturn local decisions will be established — and legislators will be placed in the unenviable position of determining a “winner” in local land use debates. Pandora’s Box would be opened.

Growth Management Act

As we state above, economic development is the 5th of thirteen explicitly-stated goals of the Growth Management Act, an act with which the Shorelines Management Act – and thus the designation of “shorelines of statewide significance” – must harmonize. Here are some others:

Goal 1: Urban Growth.
Goal 2: Reduce Sprawl.
Goal 3: Transportation.
Goal 4: Housing.
Goal 6: Property Rights.
Goal 7: Permitting (Expediency and Predictability).

From this, it’s not difficult to conclude that SSB 5800 violates the spirit and intent of the GMA. For these same reasons, Olympia’s 2008 Comp Plan Amendment unquestionably complies with the GMA, and the complete absence of protest and exception from any recognized environmental organization, but most notably Futurewise, is testament to that point.

Simply put, the Growth Management Act compliance work was done by the City of Olympia in its Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. It found that the rezone complies with State Law under the GMA. Those who disagree with that decision have an appeals process to pursue, as specified by the GMA itself.

Olympia’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment is a shining representation of explicitly what the GMA intended: managing growth and economic development sensibly from the local level. Overriding that decision would simply undermine purpose and intent of the State’s Growth Management Act.

The View

The view from the Capitol Campus would be made worse, not better, with this legislation. Even with buildings as high as 90 feet, the view of our state’s natural icons – waterways, forests and mountains – would not go away; they would remain the overwhelming impression.

The reality of the north facing view from the Capitol Campus is that downtown Olympia will always be in the foreground of this view. The capitol campus view foreground already includes large red Port of Olympia cranes, urban blight on the isthmus (including the vacant Capitol Center building), industrial operations on West Bay, and residential housing as far as the eye can see in West Olympia. While on paper it may seem plausible that this legislation could improve the distant view, the reality is that it would do nothing to address the existing anthropogenic items scaring the forefront of the view.

In our opinion the minor, peripheral interruption of viewshed by shiny new buildings as high as 90’ would be more than made up for by a picture of urban vibrancy that says something interesting, if not inspiring, about how the man-made and the natural worlds work in harmony – something like, humans live right here so that nature can be conserved over there.

Isn’t that the sort of aesthetic intended by the GMA? By passing SSB 5800 , Washington State would preserve a view from its Capitol Campus that symbolizes the dysfunction of its Growth Management Act. Visitors to our Capitol Campus would gaze upon that view and see a picture that clings to the past and forsakes the future, one that values the visual appreciation of nature above the protection of it.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, we see no reasons for legislators to support this bill. We believe that the initiative to push SSB 5800 forward stems from a misguided, outdated, somewhat hypocritical, and undeniably irresponsible set of values and priorities.

We strongly encourage members of our State government to defeat the bill.

–

*Substitute Senate Bill 5800 is the combination of original Senate Bills 5799 & 5800.

Click here to download a printable PDF version of this position paper.

© Copyright 2009 by OLY 2012. No redistribution without prior written consent.