It’s abundantly clear that the majority of Olympians don’t want housing on the isthmus!

Most of the people we know are in favor of smart growth, urban density, improving the tax base, and making tradeoffs for the good of downtown and the surrounding environment, which is to say, they are in favor of passing this rezone and building condos on the isthmus. 

We have also encountered many citizens in our community who are initially drawn to the populist-sounding appeal made by opponents of the rezone, but our experience has proven that once citizens think through the issue to a level deeper than a protest catch phrase, they realize, for all of the reasons laid out above, that the right thing to do for the community as a whole is to support the rezone.

 
Even if there are citizens in favor of the rezone, the issue is divisive and should be shelved!

Controversy is common to most urban development projects.  To expect that we will achieve our comprehensive plan goals without some form of community resistance is wishful thinking. To shelve projects just because they are controversial gives the minority considerable power it doesn’t deserve.

This project will wall-off my access to the waterfront!

This project will have absolutely no impact on the abundant existing access to Olympia’s waterfront.  What will block access to the waterfront is the lack of a tax base to repair the Percival landing seawall and boardwalk and build the parks and trails for the waterfront we already own.

Affluent people won’t spend money downtown or use public transportation!

These claims, perhaps more than any other, embody the lack of hope, imagination and void of progressive thinking that has consumed many opponents of this rezone and has kept our downtown at a stand-still for decades.

To claim that people living in these condos wouldn’t drive their cars less, wouldn’t ride their bikes or take the bus more, and wouldn’t shop at the grocery store across the street, dine in any number of our fabulous downtown restaurants or purchase other goods and serves offered by the many first class vendors in downtown demonstrates a disbelief in the ideals of smart growth. 

Furthermore, to suggest, as Works In Progress has, that residents of market rate housing in downtown would instead drive their cars back out to the suburban “bourgeois environment” they chose to leave reeks of classism and speaks to a sad state of open-minded thinking in our community.

Finally, these claims ignore the trend towards urban revitalization and increased demand for urban housing lifestyles across the country.  We envision a diverse downtown where all residents can contribute to humane and lively community.  Olympia needs people in its downtown that can donate time, energy and sometimes money to our charities and cultural and civic organizations.

We’ve been through all this before six years ago.  It’s déjà vu all over again!

As Planning Commissioner Amy Tousley said in her planning commission deliberations, the decision made in 2002 did not result in the desired housing development intended, and the last six years of development inaction in downtown proves this.  Plus, times change, ideas evolve and new citizens with new views come into our city and its civic discussion.

This isthmus is not a sound place upon which to build anything new given the threat of sea-level rise and seismic dangers, not to mention the Shorelines Management Act!

The project will not be permitted if it does not comply with all seismic, environmental, storm water and shoreline regulations.  These regulations are devised, monitored and updated by educated professionals working in our city, county and state governing bodies. We do not advocate abandoning downtown Olympia or other parts of our community because we live by the sea or in a seismically active area or near a volcano.  Every inch of the planet faces environmental challenges.  We need to do the best we can to adapt to these challenges within our current urban boundaries.

I thought that the original designers of the Capitol campus  intended it to be a park?

There has been much debate and interpretation about what the designers of the Capitol campus intended for the isthmus, but two key facts are indisputable:

1.      The designers (Wilder & White and the Olmstead Brothers) were not commissioned to design the isthmus.  The isthmus was never a part of the Capitol campus or within the scope of the design project.

2.      All historical renderings associated with Capitol campus design documents showed buildings – not a park - on the isthmus.

While it may be reasonable to argue that a hundred years ago these designers may have objected to mid-rise buildings, this was a time long before the advent of the auto culture and the need for parking.  With global warming, a carbon footprint and the damage that sprawl has wrought on the natural landscape across our region (indeed, our country), we are not so sure they would have insisted on low-rise buildings.

The ex-governors want to preserve the views and we should respect their wishes!

With all respect to the great work of our past state leaders, this is our city.  We live here; we pay taxes here; we vote here.  They do not.

But the current State government also wants to preserve the views!

The State of Washington – through the State Capitol Committee that oversees land-use issues related to the campus – and the City of Olympia have a written agreement that requires the City to fully develop the fountain park block into an open view corridor.  This is the only “position” taken on the issue by state government.

Triway’s alternative of building an office building if it doesn’t get its way with the rezone sounds like a threat!

The isthmus is not owned by the city.  The property owner has the right to pursue any and all development alternatives that are afforded by the law, and intends to build an office/parking complex on the isthmus.  However, the developer has chosen instead to offer a far more attractive alternative for our community – one which calls for far greater financial risks - in order to help transform our community. 

There is no threat here, only hard reality.

The comp plan calls for market rate housing, not luxury condos for the rich!

The comprehensive plan calls for diverse housing and the development of a tax base to support public services and amenities.  Triway Enterprises plans to build market rate housing.  If the market will bear high-priced housing, those condominiums are, by indisputable definition, market rate.  Our community already has a real estate market that supports high-end single-family housing alternatives – just look at the miles of waterfront residences, the Street of Dreams, and Indian Summer as examples.  Of course, there are other segments of the market that will demand other, more affordable urban housing development, and those projects will bring us diversity in income levels living downtown.

Citizens who can afford to buy one of these condominiums should not be excluded from living downtown.  Downtown needs a mix of people in the community to become diverse and vibrant.

There’s no market for 141 condos at $800,000+ each, especially in this terrible housing market!

No one is more suited to make this determination than the individual willing to risk personal capital to make this project successful.  It’s simply not up to the city nor its citizens to make this determination. 

 It’s not fair that the wealthy who can afford these units would qualify for a property tax abatement lasting for eight years!

This abatement is not unique to this project or rezone.  All downtown multi-family housing is getting a tax break:  low income has a permanent tax abatement, low cost housing is enjoying a 12-year abatement, and market-rate housing qualifies for an 8-year abatement.  The State Legislature adopted this policy enabling cities to use abatements in recognition of the high cost of housing development.

The city council passed this abatement years ago, and any downtown housing project proposed would qualify for it.  So, unless the goal is to impede any and all housing in the urban core in order to keep these abatements from serving their purpose, this is not a valid reason to reject this rezone.

With regard to the purpose of these abatements, citizens must realize that the city must invest in itself in order to continue to grow its budget and to continue to provide services for its growing population.  Abatement plans like this one are used in municipalities all over the world to help accomplish this goal.  If the city does nothing to invest in itself, choosing instead to expend all of its actual and potential budget dollars on services, it should expect a long future with ever-increasing budget shortfalls.

 Triway is a bad developer with a bad track record!

Of course, this is purely a matter of opinion, and there are plenty of people in the community with the opposite viewpoint.  And remember, it is the duty of our city’s regulators to ensure that any project is done in accordance with our city’s comprehensive plan and design goals. 

 The renderings look terrible!

Again, this argument is a matter of personal taste, and opinions vary.  Initial renderings, however, appear to have features that few in the community would not embrace including parking hidden inside the buildings and a walk-through corridor between the two buildings for small shops.

That said, the developer is a long way from approval, the architects have not completed their work, and the project will have to pass design review to receive city permits.  So, renderings of what the project looks like today are in no way relevant to the rezone decision.

 The project will push up rents for retail space, making existing downtown businesses unfeasible!

Virtually every business association in our region, including The Olympia Downtown Association, The Roundtable of Thurston County, and The Thurston County Economic Development Council has publicly endorsed this project.  There is not a single business association that has opposed this project.

These businesses understand that rents go up only when business is strong.

 Construction of the project will be a nuisance!

Construction anywhere will be a nuisance.  Construction to turn the isthmus into a park would be a nuisance.  Simply removing the existing blight – which everyone seemingly wants – would be a nuisance.  Construction nuisances are a necessary evil when it comes to development.  And let’s not allow ourselves to overlook this basic fact: no development anywhere is not an option.

 I’ve also heard…

You can name your favorite conspiracy theory…we aren’t going to repeat any of them.  The scurrilous rumors being promoted in a “whisper campaign” are beneath the integrity of our community and should not be tolerated.  Let the rezone decision rest of facts, not innuendo, lies and rumors.