Last Friday representatives from six different organizations with a stake in downtown met to take a full inventory of all of the other organizations associated with downtown and to discuss how all of these organizations might work together for the common good of our city’s core.  The general impetus for the meeting was a recent surge in the number of organizations sprouting up in our community – each one to stake claim to their individual downtown-related causes.

The six people in attendance were:

Katherine Mahoney – Chair of thePBIA

Mathias Eichler – Everyday Olympia/PBIA

Danier Furrer – President of the ODA

Rob Richards – Bread & Roses

Jason “En Pen” – downtown arts/grafitti wall

Peter Stroble – OLY 2012 committee member

An exhaustive inventory of all of the groups and organizations was brainstormed by the six attendees, which Katherine Mahoney has on file.

Once the inventory was felt to be comprehensive, the group began talking about what steps could be taken to help bring these groups together and to find common ground for all groups to work towards.  Out of this discussion came three ideas:

A Downtown Amenities Project

One of the meeting attendees suggested that undergoing a project – most likely small in scale and inexpensive – to make downtown a better place.  The idea would be that members from various different groups could come together to work on and complete the project.  In the process, our downtown would benefit from the project and the groups themselves would benefit from (a) getting to know one another and (b) discovering the ability to work together towards a common goal to get small things done – and small things lead to big things.

The Capital City Taxing District

Another suggestion was to begin an effort to bring downtown groups together to support the concept of the Capital City Taxing District (CCTD).  CCTD is a concept generated by Olympia’s lobbyist to the State, Mike Ryherd.  The basic concept of the CCTD is to pass a bill in the state legislature that would allow one cent of every six-and-a-half cents of sales tax collected in Olympia’s downtown to remain in downtown.  This new revenue stream would be substantial and would provide enough of a long term annual cash flow (a 40-year term is what has been initially proposed) to make payments on a municipal bond issuance.  It is believed – though not yet defined – that tens of millions of the dollars could be raised in this issuance.  That capital would be administered by the City but would be required to be spent on downtown public amenities such as the rebuilding of Percival Landing, Parks, Parking Garages, among other things.

While some might be quick to write this off as a long shot, initial feedback from City officials and the State legislature is that this concept has some real validity to it.  The main argument in favor of passing this bill, among several, is that Olympia, as the capital city, does not benefit from the ability to collect property tax from its major employer, the State – a disadvantage that no other city in Washington has to face.  This is not to say that it is a sure thing – the probability of failure is material, which we must keep in mind.

Our Friday group had a hard time believing that any group with a stake in downtown – or anywhere else in our city – would oppose the potential for this concept.  If successful, it would turn our city’s budget shortfall completely upside-down, and bring an unprecedented change in the condition of downtown’s publicly.  

Rallying a citizen-level coalition to lobby the state (an advantage that Olympia has vis-à-vis other Washington cities in being so near the legislature) is critically important to accomplishing this objective.  Enlisting support from all groups to support this cause would be a huge first step.  The effort put forth needs to be commensurate with the probability of success, but at this point the concept is still gaining momentum and deserves of community’s full consideration.

Charette

The need for a more detailed, unified, and inclusive “visioning” process and urban plan for our city and our downtown is something everyone feels strongly about.  Growth and change is inevitable, and accommodating that change in (a) a way that make sense in an urban planning context and (b) takes in account, to the furthest extent possible, the sentiments of the varying factions in our community is arguably the best thing our community can do to bring people together to accommodate that change in the best way possible.

The urban planning community has a name for a process like this, and it is called a Charette.  From Wikipedia:

In urban planning, the charrette has become a technique for consulting with all stakeholders. Such charrettes typically involve intense and possibly multi-day meetings, involving municipal officials, developers, and residents. A successful charrette promotes joint ownership of solutions and attempts to defuse typical confrontational attitudes between residents and developers. Charrettes tend to involve small groups, however, and the residents participating may not represent all the residents nor have the moral authority to represent them. Residents who do participate get early input into the planning process. For developers and municipal officials charrettes achieve community involvement, may satisfy consultation criteria, with the objective of avoiding costly legal battles. Other uses of the term “charrette” occur within an academic or professional setting, whereas urban planners invite the general public to their planning charrettes. Thus most people (unless they happen to be design students) encounter the term “charrette” in an urban-planning context.

Also, see: http://www.charretteinstitute.org/charrette.html

Charettes cost money, and the initial thought at our meeting was to tie the charette with the CCTD so that the latter could pay for the former.  However, after some offline deliberation, a few members have concluded that making the charette dependent on the success of the CCTD is a mistake – while the CCTD is of huge importance, we must recognize that it has a fair probability of failing.  The charette, on the other hand, is of utmost importance and should be pursued at all cost – the funds for which could come from any number of sources.