Don’t zone out nuance in debates over land use questions

Public debate can get messy, and sometimes it cleans itself up.
An example of this was good to see Aug. 12 outside City Hall.
City council had heard testimony that night from both sides of the Lot 700-Morrison park rezone debate, and some of those folks continued their argument outside City Hall.
Things remained a little heated, but then a nice moment happened.
It started when Joel Madsen, executive director of Mid-Columbia Housing Authority, gave council extensive testimony explaining his agency’s decision, announced a few days earlier, to discontinue its current partnership with the city for the affordable housing proposal at what is now Morrison Park. Madsen’s statements, and others, took the first 45 minutes of business, and then the council moved on to approving garbage rates and discussing a proposed space analysis for the police departments.
The conversation outside, meanwhile, was civil yet loud enough to carry into the council chambers, a proximity that happens from time to time, but for optics and air flow, the chamber’s double doors are never closed, so staff will ask people to move outside. It was Public Works Director Mark Lago who had the honors.

That is a partial backdrop to the meeting, and to the potently worded “Another Voice” by Ben Mitchell, which appeared in the Aug. 21 edition.
For the record, Mitchell, a former reporter, approached us asking if he could write the Another Voice. We did not request it — which is how it almost always works with the Viewpoints page. People ask to write about a topic, and we generally green-light it. Topics must be local, and not repetitive of recent Another Voice submissions.
After Mitchell’s column appeared, a number of readers took issue with it, questioned its accuracy (it’s accurate) and suggested that it was mean-spirited. That’s a subjective take, and we respect that some may see it that way. I viewed it as a reasoned, but vigorous and pointed commentary. I don’t agree with all of it myself; I think Mitchell overstates the elitism behind some of the rezone opponents, but that’s his opinion.
(Hood River News gave measured editorial support to the Lot 700 rezone when it first happened in 2017, but our most recent comment on the topic was to say the state and city need to work in earnest to explore the possibility of developing on the nearby Cascade Yard property, owned by the state, before committing Lot 700 to development.)

As to NIMBY, I take the acronym as more literal than allegorical, with some geographical flexibility: That is, I think most people mean just that, “Not in my backyard” or, “I don’t want it next door/down the street/in my neighborhood.”
NIMBY in this case is used regarding a zoning question, but not all land use disagreements can be categorized as Not In My Backyard. Susan Crowley and Jim Klaas, the vanguard of opposition to the rezone of Morrison Park and changing its use, have principled concerns. Klaas ran for city council as a single-issue candidate, and has devoted plenty of his own time and resources to speak out repeatedly on the topic, and Crowley is consistently on record as a rigorous researcher of civic issues.
There is a double irony to the, I believe, mis-use of the NIMBY term.
Again, Lot 700 has never really been a “NIMBY” issue. Opponents of changing the land have never operated from that approach, though the point was repeatedly made that it would be close to other, similar apartments and other dwellings, some whose residents are provided housing assistance. Similar, but that isn’t NIMBY.
The acronym lost its punch years ago, and invoking it now is akin to plenty of handy sound bytes we all fall back on. But it’s a little like “Hot enough for ya?” and “Working hard, or hardly working?” More corny than anything, lacking in a subtle appreciation of the situation.
Lot 700-Morrison Park contenders find more nuance in these things. And Klaas and others have always indicated an understanding of nuance. Crowley keys on her belief that the rezone violates the city’s own Comprehensive Plan, and hers is a suitably complex argument.
Klaas’ hopes are for Morrison Park to be maintained for its qualities as open space, multi-modal connectivity, and the recreational and economic benefits of places such as Morrison Park when maintained as pedestrian- and bike-oriented destinations and transportation hubs.
In short, NIMBY is a label, and labels are dangerous but the main point in this case is that it does not apply. Klaas is the one arch-critic of the Lot 700 rezone who does live nearby, but his arguments have always had a larger perspective than NIMBY.