Bad karma for the City Council, Olympian, and Triway

author : Janet Blanding topic : City Council

by Janet Blanding

The City Council, The Olympian, and Tri Vo have succeeded in getting the rezone of the isthmus passed, but it’s doubtful that they’re celebrating. Rezone karma looks harsh; as the rezone opponents continue to resist the destruction of priceless views, the condo’s champions are experiencing apparently unrelated meltdowns, from law-suits to lay-offs to public consternation over inappropriate council communications. In the meantime, legal action seems to have stalled the rezone’s forward motion.

“Emailgate”

The Council has been in hot water over the discovery that most councilmembers have been of sending emails to each other during council meetings, a practice which Timothy Ford of the Attorney General’s office has deemed in violation of the Open Public Meetings Act (opma). Local activist Steven Segall, exercising his right to a public records request, contacted the AG’s office after obtaining the emails, questioning their legality. The story broke in an expose by Terry Knight, published in the now defunct Sitting Duck.

Emails ran the gamut, from the frivolous (“I love your hair”) to the potentially illegal (“Will you second?”). Councilmember Jeff Kingsbury was probably the councilmember most damaged by the communications that were exposed. While the memory of his calling a citizen testifying before the council an “idiot” on Facebook still lingered, emails sent during official meetings showed him to be prodding other councilmembers to “chime in” or second a motion. He also maligned a citizen as “a coward,” and gossiped about his own hair, clothes, and relationship status, as well: “Back on the market!!!!”.

In a phone conversation, Ford explained that no enforcement agency exists in Washington state to handle violations of the opma. As an ombudsman, he provides advice letters, but “It’s up to the citizens to bring a lawsuit.” The council’s violations of the opma were mentioned as a claim and cause of action in a recent lawsuit against the city (Munro v. Olympia, see below). Citizens are disgruntled; there has been talk of recall. A Facebook Group called “Olympians for a New City Council, Now“ has 67 members (most of whom received friend requests from Joe Hyer on a recent Saturday night), and many people are talking about the upcoming elections in November of 2009: Jeff Kingsbury, Joe Hyer, Joan Machlis and Karen Messmer will all have their seats on the ballot.

Pink slips, resignations at The Olympian

Community dissatisfaction with The Olympian seems to be increasing as citizens object to the slanted coverage of local politics and obsequious editorials praising the un-popular City Council. People have wondered why The Olympian remained silent when the AG’s office sent an admonitory letter to Mayor Mah; it was weeks before the O covered the issue. Recently, The Olympian was humiliated by the publication of an editorial in the Tacoma News Tribune, criticizing the council practice of sending emails during meetings, a subject upon which the paper’s editorial board had remained conspicuously silent. The Olympian finally published a weakly worded editorial, praising Doug Mah for following the advice of the Attorney General’s office and counseling the councilmembers to stop violating the law. The Olympian is also seeing its staff dwin-dle, as parent company McClatchy experiences record losses. Both executive editor Vickie Kilgore and publisher John Winn Miller have resigned in recent months, and reporters and other staff members have gotten pink slips, as the recession reduces advertising revenue, and competition from online news services increases.

Triway v. Everyone

Triway’s joy at winning the rezone game may have been marred, as well, by recent troubles: in addition to other pending lawsuits, Triway principal Tri Vo must contend with an $8.9 million breach of contract suit filed by a former business partner, Scott Griffin. Griffin claims that Vo failed to make scheduled payments outlined in a Unit Purchase Agreement filed in 2007. Vo’s lawyer, Colin Folawn, in turn, declared that his client was not served with the complaint properly and in fact, learned of the lawsuit through a news article in The Olympian. Other lawsuits are ongoing, or may soon be filed.

Tumwater resident Skip McConkey is planning to sue Tri Vo over expenses related to flooding of land owned by McConkey which is adjacent to a parcel owned by Vo. Vo pumped water from his 40 acres on the South side of Trosper Road into McConkey’s 15 acres on the North side. Conkey was forced to spend over $50,000 to channel water, and lost an opportunity to sell his land at a good price because of flooding issues.

It is also becoming increasingly likely that the city will collect on three bonds, totaling $1,074,784, which were posted to guarantee work at Cooper Crest. After the City sent a letter in October addressing concerns, and threatening to pull the bonds if problems weren’t rectified, Triway was given 30 days to remedy issues pertaining to stormwater drainage facilities, stormwater ponds, street trees, landscaping, sidewalks, and other matters. After the 30 days passed, Triway’s bond insurance company, Developers Surety and Indemnity Company, claimed it was entitled to 30 days as well.

“Those 30 days came and went,” said Cooper Crest resident Karen Veldheer, “then the homeowners wrote a letter to the city saying issues were still not resolved.” Hat-ton Godat Pantier, an engineering firm frequently employed by Triway, wrote a report which was sent to the city; the city in turn said the report was inadequate. As this tug of war continues, deadline after deadline, the bonds have not been pulled, and Cooper Crest residents are frustrated. Some residents feel the city staff is working for Tri Vo’s interests, not theirs, although there is hope that the city council will apply pressure, and eventually Triway will “do the right thing.”

Munro v. Olympia… justice delayed

An injunction has been filed to halt the rezone of the isthmus area until the feasibility study for turning the area into a park has been completed. Munro et. al v. City of Olympia (with the lead plaintiff being former Secretary of State Ralph Munro), was filed, but the hearing has not yet been scheduled.

Attorney Allen Miller reports that Judge Anne Hirsch recused herself, then the court administrator passed on the information that all of the judges in Thurston County Su-perior Court were going to recuse themselves. Hirsch explained “I know parties on both sides of the case and it didn’t feel appropriate for me to hear it, so I recused.” While it is commendable that judges are careful to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, it is unfortunate that an issue of such importance, both to the state and the com-munity, has been delayed.

According to Miller, “If they need to find a visiting judge, they should do that sooner than later.” Miller explained that the primary purpose of the injunction is to allow the feasibility study to be performed before the property values of the land increase, something which is likely to happen as a result of the rezone. “We want to make sure the 35 foot limit is applied. In our view, the value of the property has been increased by the rezone.”

Munro v. Olympia seeks to “stay the effect of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the Shoreline Master Program Amendment until the feasibility study required by the initiative petition ordinance is completed and all administrative and judicial remedies of the rezone and shoreline decision are exhausted.” Given that the city has not yet even sent the SMP Amendment to the Department of Ecology, that could be a long time.

Stalled at Ecology

Now that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the concomitant Shoreline Master Program Amendment has been approved by the City Council, the next step is for SMP amendment to be approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Former Olympia City Councilmember and Triway representative Jeannette Hawkins has been insinuating herself into the Ecology approval process since at least early last year; on Jan. 17., 2008 she sent an email to Department of Ecology shoreline manage-ment planner Randy Davis. The subject line of the email reads “Triway/DT Housing, and the text says, “Hi Randy, We have been forwarded through the CPA [Comprehen-sive Plan Amendment] docket! The Council is solidly behind us. We have developed a wonderful rendering of our buildings and the view analysis is very instructive. I’m sure we’ll be seeing each other in the not too distant future.”

Hawkins’ confidence that the Council was solidly behind Triway’s downtown housing, in Jan. 2008, before any hearings had been held or votes counted is disturbing. Yet confidence and the support of the council may not be enough to push the Shoreline Master Program amendment through Ecology; rezone opponents believe there is an opportunity to block the rezone at this juncture of the process.

Once the Shoreline Master Program amendment is received by the Department of Ecology, it will be evaluated to ensure that it is what Department of Ecology spokes-person Sandra Lange terms “a complete submittal.” Ecology will need to ensure that the amendment includes an adequate analysis of public visual access, as the Shore-line Management Act ensures both public physical access and visual access as an important part of its program. Once the submittal is deemed to be complete, notification will be made to persons on the “interested parties list,” and there will be a 30 day comment period. (To place yourself on the interest parties list, send your name and street address to Sandra Lange at slan461@ecy.wa.gov).

A public hearing on the raising of the height limits on the isthmus may also be held by the Department of Ecology; whether this is deemed necessary is at the DOE’s dis-cretion. Lange speculated that a hearing was likely, saying “I would anticipate a public hearing as it’s guided by complexity and interest at the public level” - and while there’s plenty of argument about the level of public objection to the project, with rezone advocates making frequent references to a “silent majority” that approves, it’s indis-putable that the issue is both complex and interesting to the public.

Rezone opponents anticipate that objections to the amendment to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) will fall into three categories. First, it is questionable whether an amendment changing height limits and public visual access to the shoreline can be done in a limited way, as an amendment; the argument can be made that such a change must be part of a comprehensive update to the SMP, which is currently underway, and scheduled for completion in 2011. Second, members of the public will likely argue that the impact of this amendment will not have been sufficiently evaluated – already, the view analysis commissioned by Triway which claims that the massive 90 foot buildings will only degrade 1% of the view has been criticized as biased and inadequate.

It is also likely that many people will argue that the amendment is not consistent with the Shoreline Management Act, which states among other things, that “The public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally.”

However, it is uncertain when members of the public will be able to make these and other arguments to the Department of Ecology in the near future. Lange reports that the Department of Ecology has not yet received the SMP amendment from the City of Olympia, and although she has been in recent contact with City of Olympia Senior Planner Jan Weydemeyer, she doesn’t know when to expect it.

Friends of the Waterfront still strong

A recent meeting of the Friends of the Waterfront showed the opposition to the rezone to be undaunted by recent events. Turnout at the meetings continues to be strong, another citizen forum is in the planning stages, and various strategies for preserving the height limits on the isthmus are being considered. Close tabs are being kept on the progress of the feasibility study, which is being conducted by Sandy Fischer of Eckbow, Dean, Austin and Williams (EDAW). It is scheduled for completion in March.

The Capitol Park Foundation has begun plans to resume a fundraising campaign after the feasibility study is completed, with an eye to eventually purchasing land on the isthmus. Approximately $60,000 has already been raised. However, according to Jerry Reilly, Foundation Chair, “We suspended aggressively raising funds for acquisition when the Council made its final decision to approve the rezone… in favor of raising money for the legal fund to fight the rezone.” Although several attorneys and legal re-searchers are donating their time to challenge the rezone, there are still costs associated with the legal battle.

And looking to the future, it is likely that members of the public who oppose the rezone will also likely be encouraged to contribute to campaign funds for candidates run-ning for city council, as well.

Finding better councilmembers

Thad Curtz, one of the core members of the Friends of the Waterfront, has pulled together another group, the Citizens for a Responsive Local Government Endorsement Committee (CRLG). The group includes several people who have been actively engaged in opposing the rezone, as well as other community members who haven’t. CRLG plans to seek out and support candidates who would bring a calmer, more civil ethos to the next Olympia City Council. Although the council’s disregard for the concerns of the public regarding the isthmus rezone was the catalyst for forming this group, its aim is to do more than respond to the isthmus issue.

“Lots of people are upset about things some council members have done in the last year,” says Curtz, “especially voting to rezone the isthmus before they even looked at the park initiative and trading emails, stage managing meetings and insulting people during council sessions.” Curtz sees the aim of the CRLG as “working to focus and organize that widely shared dissatisfaction to help elect new councilmembers in November—members who who’ll represent more people more responsively and more civ-illy.” Although the CRLG currently has no fundraising plans, it is possible that it or some of its members will continue to support candidates in material ways as the Novem-ber 2009 council election approaches.

One candidate, Karen Veldheer, the tenacious Cooper Crest resident who has been sparked into activism by the city’s lack of response to the environmental problems in her neighborhood, announced her candidacy at the Coalition of Neighborhood Association Steering Committee meeting on January 26. “I think things can be done better,” she said recently, “and I’d like to help. I will listen to all sides and do what is best for the the city. That should be the goal of the city council—to listen to everyone, and then make decision based upon the feedback they receive.” Works In Progress is planning an in-depth interview to explore Veldheer’s qualifications and policy positions for of-fice in the near future.

To be placed on the Dep. of Ecology’s Interested Parties list for the isthmus amendment, send your name and street address to slan461@ecy.wa.gov. Send donations to the Capitol Park Foundation’s legal fund to Capitol Park foundation, c/o Jeff Jaksich, 812 San Francisco Ave NE, Olympia, WA, 98506