[Vision2020] City Council on the Beebe Rezone tonight

[Nils Peterson]

Bruce. I am clearly mistaken about what happened last night. Stephanie
called this to my attention as she was working on the minutes. I will review
the events in the minutes.


On 9/19/06 4:12 PM, "Bruce and Jean Livingston"
<jeanlivingston at turbonet.com> wrote:

> Nils, I dropped off my written statement at the beginning of the meeting and
> then went home, but I watched every second of the meeting on my computer
> when I got home, from the middle of the staff presentation onward.  That
> included Mr. Beebe's presentation, Larry Hodge's, and yours on behalf of the
> petitioner, as well as those speaking against, Bob Greene, Betsy Dickow, Tom
> Bode and myself (read by Betsy Dickow), I am not sure whether BJ Swanson
> spoke as a neutral party, or against the petition.
> 
> Your false representations about what went on and the votes by the Mayor
> Chaney give me some concern.  I hope you are merely mistaken, and not
> advancing some personal agenda or seeking to discredit the Mayor with your
> reporting of last night's meeting.  My recollection is that your reported
> point 2, below in your post, is entirely false.  When reporting these things
> to the community discussion group on Vision2020, it would be wise to be
> correct before slandering people and mis- reporting their votes.  I think
> you may have done that today.
> 
> The Mayor did NOT get an opportunity to break a tie on any motion proposing
> passage of the re-zone with a parking mitigation plan in place, as I
> recollect the evening.  When that proposal surfaced, twice, I believe, the
> vote was 4-2 against passage.
> 
> You are correct that Nancy voted not to deny the re-zone, and you are
> correct that she voted not to pass the re-zone when the motion did not
> require a parking mitigation plan to accompany it.  It seemed very clear to
> me that the Mayor would break a tie, if one presented itself, in favor of
> passing the re-zone so long as parking mitigation was also required.
> 
> Clearly, the Council ought to deal with the parking issue in any event.
> 
> While some might favor what you appear to suggest as the only real
> alternative in light of last night's meeting, i.e., dealing with the parking
> issue first and holding up re-zones until then, that position is not likely
> to gain any traction.  Mr. Ament's several motions to table the Beebe
> re-zone proposal for that very reason failed to even garner a second and
> died immediately.  Clearly, the Council is in favor of going forward with
> the re-zone, and the struggle is over how to structure it: some would not
> require parking mitigation by the re-zone proponent; others would.  As I
> stated last night, requiring parking mitigation seems the wiser course to
> me, among the alternatives.
> 
> In my opinion, the wisest proposal of all would be to re-zone the property
> to a transitional zone or a Planned Urban Development between downtown and
> the university, that would allow the mixed use development that Mr. Beebe
> envisions.  But how Mr. Beebe seeks to get there is ultimately his decision,
> not mine.   But who can blame him for attempting to increase the return on
> investment by not having to provide parking on his 2.3+ acres of downtown
> land if he can persuade us to re-zone it to the Central Business District
> category?
> 
> Bruce Livingston
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nils Peterson" <nils_peterson at wsu.edu>
> To: "Bruce and Jean Livingston" <jeanlivingston at turbonet.com>;
> <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] City Council on the Beebe Rezone tonight
> 
> 
>> Bruce, too bad you were unable to attend and watch the process.
>> 
>> I don't mean to be unfair to Nancy, but she had the chance to break the
>> tie
>> in 3 different ways:
>> 1. Approve as requested (this would have not addressed parking, and given
>> your comments, she would not have wanted this option)
>> 2. Approve with parking mitigation plan (this was intended to put a
>> parking
>> requirement on the developer. Perhaps the parking mitigation plan was not
>> sufficiently clarified for Nancy, but she did not indicate that)
>> 3. Deny the application. This would seem to fit your description "deny any
>> proposal that did not deal with the parking issue"
>> 
>> Each of these motions was voted to a tie twice last night. Nancy had 6
>> chances.
>> 
>> Bruce, you are correct in characterizing our difference in opinion, which
>> is
>> a fundamental one, and I can respect your position (which was also the
>> position of others at the meeting last night.)
>> 
>> So, following your reasoning, to not make the parking problem bigger
>> before
>> solving it, the Council needs to deny requests like the one last night
>> until
>> some criteria is met for resolving parking.
>> 
>> 1. What criteria would the Council use to know it had addressed the
>> parking
>> problem so proposals could be approved?
>> 2. Would denying development proposals while solving the parking problem
>> cause development to go elsewhere? would that matter? would it be
>> characterized as business unfriendly?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/19/06 9:55 AM, "Bruce and Jean Livingston"
>> <jeanlivingston at turbonet.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Nils, your characterization of Nancy Chaney as "siding each time with the
>>> side that would keep any decision from getting made" is an unfair
>>> characterization.
>>> 
>>> Just as she did two weeks ago, Nancy consistently voted to deny any
>>> proposal
>>> that did not deal with the parking issue contained in the issue at hand
>>> each
>>> evening (parking mitigation for NSA to get its conditional use permit, on
>>> the one hand; parking mitigation for the rezone of industrial land
>>> between
>>> downtown and the University).  In essence, she recognizes that adding
>>> concentrated, dense, people-heavy uses to our downtown business zone,
>>> which
>>> does not require any parking at all and is the only such zone in the
>>> City,
>>> is short sighted and bad planning.  Parking needs to be addressed
>>> satisfactorily BEFORE we make the downtown parking problem bigger.
>>> 
>>> Where you and I disagree is on whether to add to the parking problem
>>> before
>>> solving it.  I see no reason to increase parking problems by
>>> substantially
>>> increasing the areas that need NOT provide parking, as you advocated last
>>> night, before solving the parking issue.   Generally speaking, solving
>>> problems before they get bigger is the wiser course.  Purposely making
>>> the
>>> problem bigger before dealing with it is unwise, and Nancy Chaney was
>>> astute
>>> in refusing to go along with the varying proposals last night, all of
>>> which
>>> failed to address it.
>>> 
>>> So long as developers continue to bring projects before the City that
>>> seek
>>> to increase the parking demand downtown without ameliorating it, those
>>> projects should be modified and required to provide for their own
>>> parking.
>>> 
>>> Obviously, it is clear that a long-term solution is preferable, as you
>>> also
>>> advocate, Nils, and I agree with you.
>>> 
>>> But I cannot agree that adding to the parking problem, before solving it,
>>> is
>>> wise policy.  That is a particularly short-sighted and imprudent public
>>> policy direction.
>>> 
>>> Especially when Proposition 2 is on the horizon and very likely to pass,
>>> expanding the downtown, parking-free CBD zone without requiring an
>>> off-setting obligation to provide parking on-site for the new area is a
>>> foolish move.  That policy choice seems likely only to enrich those
>>> developers who get preferential zoning that releases them from their
>>> current
>>> obligation to provide parking, because under Proposition 2 they will
>>> never
>>> be forced to provide parking at their own expense, as they now are
>>> required
>>> under the current zoning.   The parking problem is generally acknowledged
>>> by
>>> City staff and the downtown retail businesses that are the core of the
>>> area.
>>> The expense of dealing with the parking issue will be shifted to us, the
>>> taxpayers, and to those whose property rights are most effected -- and
>>> values decreased -- by the transfer of current parking obligations of the
>>> grain elevator landowners to their neighbors (most particularly,
>>> downtown)
>>> by this unwise rezone without parking mitigation.
>>> 
>>> Hopefully, our Council can figure out that the rezone with a condition
>>> requiring parking will pass, or at the very least get three votes and
>>> allow
>>> our Mayor to break the tie and allow the redevelopment of that area to go
>>> forward.  Without such a condition, the project should be voted down, and
>>> the City should expeditously deal with the parking issue for the entire
>>> Central Business District.
>>> 
>>> I say all this, while commending Mr. Beebe for undertaking a
>>> redevelopment
>>> project that has much potential.  But like all other developers, except
>>> for
>>> those in the downtown, I think he ought to retain the burden of providing
>>> parking to his eventual users and charging them for it, rather than
>>> foisting
>>> those costs on his eventual neighbors and the taxpayers.  Seeking to
>>> rezone
>>> the grain elevators to downtown essentially seems to be a means of
>>> avoiding
>>> his parking obligations, and that should not be allowed to happen.
>>> 
>>> Bruce Livingston
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Nils Peterson" <nils_peterson at wsu.edu>
>>> To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 10:23 PM
>>> Subject: [Vision2020] City Council on the Beebe Rezone tonight
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> I don't know how Omie is going to cover it, but the events reminded me
>>>> of
>>>> the childhood song...
>>>> The noble Duke of York, he had 10,000 men,
>>>> he marched them up the hill,
>>>> He marched them down again.
>>>> First they voted it up, and then they voted it down,
>>>> and then they voted half-way up, which was neither up nor down.
>>>> 
>>>> To make matters worse, they repeated the first verse again, moving to
>>>> pass
>>>> the rezone, moving to pass the rezone with 'parking mitigation' (would
>>>> that
>>>> run with the land, if so how??) moving to deny the rezone, moving to
>>>> table
>>>> the whole mess for 6 months. Each vote was 3-3 and Nancy sided each time
>>>> with the side that would keep any decision from getting made.
>>>> 
>>>> The issues seemed to be
>>>> Parking and readings of the Comp Plan vs reading of the Zoning code. The
>>>> Comp Plan says one thing about new CBD and parking, the strict
>>>> constructionists say the zone is what the zone is. So, approve the
>>>> rezone
>>>> with no parking would fail because some wanted parking stipulated. Add a
>>>> mitigation plan for parking would fail with those who had problems
>>>> changing
>>>> the zone with extra requirements
>>>> Denying the whole thing failed, because "My God" (quote Pall) this is
>>>> something we want. Ament wanted to put the whole project on the shelf
>>>> and
>>>> couldn't get a second.
>>>> 
>>>> So after at least 6 votes, maybe more the decision was tabled for 2
>>>> weeks
>>>> (first Monday in October) Nobody can talk to anybody.
>>>> 
>>>> I can say this, there was good speaking from the audience: Bob and
>>>> Betsy,
>>>> a
>>>> letter from Bruce Livingston, Tom Bode, Kit Crane. They all made it a
>>>> thorny
>>>> issue with multiple facets.
>>>> 
>>>> While it got mentioned, no one on Council really said how they think
>>>> about
>>>> NSA being required to provide parking in its CUP and this rezone being
>>>> (or
>>>> not) similarly required.  I think the difference is the CUP was allowing
>>>> something exceptional in a zone, this is expanding the zone.
>>>> 
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>