ZONING AGAINST HUMAN NATURE

Bob Jacobs wrote this email in response to Chris Hawkins, co-chair of the Olympia Planning Commission. Chris made this statement in an email sent to envirogroups (a discussion group on environmental issues."

Chris said, "I (Chris Hawkins) should have posed my initial question thusly: How much do we value maintaining contiguous rural/agricultural land and wildlife habitat versus preservation of views?"

This indicates to me (Bob) that we have a very serious communication breakdown.

First, there are two values to be protected in the downtown waterfront area.

Views certainly are one of those values. People love views and strive to have them preserved. This is clear from the Olympia Comprehensive Plan. Also from real estate values - always higher for view lots.

The other value - at least as important (and more important to me personally) - is waterfront per se (note that we are Friends of the Waterfront, not Friends of the Views). Humans have a deep desire to be near the water, to look at and into it, to skip stones on it, to swim in it, etc. This is also reflected in both the Comp Plan and real estate values.

And experience tells us that people don't want just a narrow strip of land near the water. They want a wider area.  The most desired configuration is a public open space next to the water, then low-rise structures, then high-rise structures. This configuration forms a transitional zone between the openness of the water and the closedness of the more densely developed blocks farther inland. In my experience, people feel comfortable with this zone being about two blocks wide. The "grassy park block" by Percival Landing, with the low industrial buildings in the next block back from the water, is a good example.

In a Green Pages article some months ago on this topic I mentioned that this pattern of transition matches that of nature, which goes from water, to beach, to smaller plants, to tall trees.

Now, the special beauty of our downtown waterfront is that we have a "twofer". Many cities have waterfronts without views, and of course strive to preserve public access (physical and visual) to the water. And many have views without water, and strive to protect the views. We've got both in one place. That's what makes it such a glorious spot. Why people especially appreciate public access and view protection here.

So in summary on the first point, the formulation Chris suggested left out the more important value of waterfront per se. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the Olympian's coverage has focused more on views.

Second, Chris' formulation is stated as an either/or situation - either protect "views" or protect rural/agricultural/habitat lands.

But it is not an either/or situation at all. There are many blocks of land in downtown Olympia that are ripe for redevelopment. Merely placing the housing zone in these other areas will have all the desired benefits and not sacrifice the public values in the waterfront area.

Of course there may be a time differential. It is possible that housing would be built sooner in the waterfront area than in the other areas. But the long-term effect would be the same. And once large structures are built (those proposed are more massive than any existing block in downtown Olympia), these areas would never revert to smaller scale structures or open space. Too expensive.

From an environmental point of view, there is an additional benefit to maintaining the waterfront area in a condition that is inviting to public use and enjoyment. This is because people who interact with the waterfront come to value the water and support environmental efforts to keep it clean. This is the view of People for Puget Sound and I assume it would be shared by other groups.

The proposed Comp Plan amendments would wall off important parts of our waterfront, making the use of the Percival Landing boardwalk less enjoyable. It would also violate the openness and human scale that people desire in the vicinity of the waterfront, making the waterfront area less attractive. One person who participated in our march last Saturday, which by the way was attended by about 100 people, called the proposal "ZONING AGAINST HUMAN NATURE."

I hope that these thoughts are clear and will contribute to the understanding of our position Chris Hawkins and others:  

Bob Jacobs