The city of Mercer Island’s Development Services Group (DSG) is conducting a public input process as it brings before the Planning Commission and, ultimately, the City Council, possible updates to the residential development code. The city is considering changes to the code that would make it align, as required by law, with the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which states in its housing element:
“1.1 Ensure that zoning and city code provisions protect residential areas from incompatible uses and promote bulk and scale consistent with the existing neighborhood character.
1.2 Promote single family residential development that is sensitive to the quality, design, scale and character of existing neighborhoods.”
I take issue with an article in the Feb. 22 Reporter titled “Islanders debate ‘neighborhood character’ versus property rights.” The article states “property rights advocates feel like their voices are being lost in the discussion” and “the Reporter organized a meeting with realtors, brokers and residents at the Mercer Island Library on Feb. 14 to get their take.”
Not only was the premise of the meeting and article inappropriate, considerable misinformation was published. I ask the Reporter to, from here on out, help the community come to an appropriate conclusion on this issue rather than to publish one-sided conversations with a reporter.
The Reporter should not have convened a limited group and devoted an article to their views based on an assertion that “they feel their voices are lost” and that changes “are being pushed by a small, vocal group.” Those who participated in the meeting know well that the public input process for the code update is robust and that hundreds of comments have been taken online, at Planning Commission meetings and at special meetings convened by DSG.
Everyone’s voices are being heard. Yet this special meeting convened by the Reporter was not widely publicized in order to bring in all viewpoints. The Reporter seems to have been taken in or unduly influenced by a group with a narrow perspective on this issue and, as a result, devoted considerable space to one side of the issue. This decision by the Reporter contradicts journalism’s ethic to ensure the publication of information that is thorough and fair and that does not provide favored treatment to special interests.
While I have been assured that the Reporter would be glad to meet with those who are on the other side of the issue, I doubt that the public would be served. Rather, the Reporter should place itself in a position to provide balanced, accurate coverage of this important issue from here on out, bring in all viewpoints and conduct independent investigation to check assertions of fact. I urge you to go to the city’s website and read public comments, read the status report that was provided to the City Council on Feb. 21 and attend some of the meetings.
Regarding misinformation in the published article:
1. Dan Grausz did not propose “a moratorium on residential development.” He proposed a moratorium on short plats and impervious surface deviations for six months.
2. The article’s graphics are erroneously used and labeled. The two drawings were part of a three-part set showing a typical older house, a house that could be built under current code, and a house that could be built under a proposed change. The first two drawings were mislabeled and the last of the three was omitted, completely nullifying the information the original drawings contained.
3. The statement “a maximum house size of 4,000 square feet” would be allowed is entirely incorrect. The existing code allows a gross floor area 45 percent of the lot size. A gross floor area of 40 percent of lot size is being considered. There are many lot sizes on Mercer Island.
4. Another statement: “The current code would work fine if it was enforced; the real problem is the ‘rubber stamping’ of variances by the city’s DSG staff.” This is a fairly serious charge. Did the Reporter investigate? No information is provided. Were the complainants asked to provide examples of city decisions that were proved to be in opposition to adopted codes? This is “he said, she said” conversation mistakenly published as “journalism.” Please, research this topic and come back to the readers with an accurate report before you besmirch the city staff.
Now, in closing, and wearing my advocacy hat: The reasons for the size of houses being built are many, but two stand out: the market and the code. Islanders can’t change the market, i.e. what a developer finds financially rewarding to build and the fact that a buyer is available. Islanders own their city code, however, or they should, and it should meet the adopted land use plan. The plan doesn’t include a goal to support the sales price of property for those who are moving on. It commits the City Council to preserving what is very special about Mercer Island.
Regarding “property rights” and whether a public vote should be taken because code changes might affect monetary property value (and this has not been demonstrated for the modest changes being proposed), no one has unfettered use of their property. The government regulates the use of property, ironically and in part, to protect the “property rights” of your neighbor.
What we are doing now is considering simply a change to what those regulations will be. These sorts of decisions are taken by thousands of city councils around the nation. I recommend that Islanders take a close look at the changes being proposed and decide whether they are earthshaking or, alternatively, modest improvements that just might make Mercer Island a better place to live. Hopefully, we can respect the excellent public process underway and the ability of our elected officials to make this decision.
Carolyn Boatsman
Mercer Island
