The streatery pictured above is in the lot off Tyler Street, behind the Mount Baker Block building. The city gave a no-cost temporary lease to the Cellar Door in February 2021. City officials told the owner they would likely allow the streatery to remain after Covid restrictions were lifted, which made investing in a creative, attractive space a reasonable risk. Clearly, the city had a plan back then that they were keeping very close to the vest. Was city council aware of this deal?
Business owners in the area watched as those previous parking spaces were graded and transformed into an outdoor patio dining area for an underground restaurant that opens when the dominant business activities cease. Throughout the busy day, the restaurant is closed and that dedicated space is glaringly empty. People still try to park around it, causing major headaches for already parked cars, residents in neighboring buildings and businesses, and delivery vehicles.
To be clear—this has nothing to do with the business or owners of the Cellar Door. Honest, hard-working people, they’re simply trying to survive insane times and reactive policies. Please support this restaurant if you dine out.
This is about city administrators operating in the shadows, choreographing the emergence of their preordained, desired scheme that will appear to have sprung naturally from public endorsement.
———————————-
“About the opportunity [for the public] to speak, to have their three minutes, they will have that at the two public meetings we’re going to have on this topic … if this goes off the way we want it to.”
Mayor David Faber, March 14, 2022 Special Business Meeting of the Port Townsend City Council
———————————-
In nearly all aspects of our lives today, the tendency of government agencies to abandon the Constitutional bedrock “of, by and for the people” in favor of rule by diktat is expanding at alarming rates. We vote for local leaders expecting them to insure that we have honorable processes and adherence to democratic principles. We do not elect them to make important choices for us, then to simply pretend afterwards that our considered opinions matter to them.
This is exactly what has occurred in the battle over the streateries. At the March 14th “workshop,” council decided to move forward with a “long term streateries program,” tasking Main Street to create a survey and open house, and Public Works to begin developing changes to municipal code. Oddly enough, the PowerPoint prepared by Public Works Director Steve King entitled “Parklets and Streateries Next Steps: Moving to a formal and long-term program?” claimed “No decision” would be made there. As we can see from promising assurances given to the Cellar Door in 2021, the decision had apparently already been made.
Screenshot of slide 19 from Public Works’ power point presentation at the March 14, 2022 council ‘workshop’
A careful review of the March 14th meeting shows an orchestrated effort to portray long-term (permanent) streateries as widely popular and more critical for the community than a parking management plan. While opposition was significantly downplayed throughout, King’s presentation hyped, to an eye-rolling degree, the positive public response to “surveys” Main Street posted to their membership and Facebook page in October 2020, June 2021 and November 2021. (Director Mari Mullen told me that there are 140 members, however their member directory shows only 85.)
From the March 14th powerpoint presentation:
10/2020 — PT Main Street Survey demonstrates high degree of support (217 respondents) but also some concerns about permanence after COVID
6/2021 — More feedback per PT Main Street survey (322 respondents), with over 70% support for program continuation
12/2021 — November survey (270 respondents) indicated over 79% support for extension and over 59% support for more solid structures
Over 79%, over 59%? Average response of 270 respondents per Facebook ‘survey’? How can this be taken seriously? A small select group had agreed to allow restaurants temporary private use of public parking spaces in an emergency.
Let’s recall that until June 30th, 2021, restaurant occupancy was severely restricted by public health authorities’ so-called “social distancing” protocols. Logically, dining outside throughout the summer would appeal to those who would have ordinarily dined in.
In November 2021, jab refuseniks weren’t even allowed inside restaurants and pubs. The composition of this minuscule population of survey respondents will be left to our imagination, as Mari Mullen has told me I shouldn’t expect access to the surveys’ raw data, only the summary provided above.
More emergency management
It was framed as an emergency by staff and council members. If we put the parking plan first, we’ll never be able to get a permanent streateries program approved. Why this is so was never explained.
At the March 14 meeting, Steve King acknowledged that:
- the city’s informal survey of businesses revealed concern that “the streateries would get pushed into a permanent program;”
- streateries “are a temporary use of public space for private purposes;”
- parking is a chronic problem;
- Port Townsend has a “tourist economy.”
As it turns out, we already have a viable parking management plan (read on for more details). City taxpayers forked over a lot of money for a professional analysis back in 2004. A Public Records Request forced it out of the dustbin of PT history and it appears to be as relevant today as it was almost two decades ago. The firms involved in its production are national transportation advisors.
Mari Mullen and well-known restaurateur Kris Nelson were operating in advisory capacity during its creation. It’s been referred to in public meetings, so its existence is known to all. Why haven’t Mauro, King and council members combed through this document to glean a broader understanding of the historical elephant in the room, aka “parking?”
There is an agenda here. Commitment to the agenda requires a particular set of blinders. You must believe that automobiles are bad, walking and biking are good, and that streateries are the answer to “activation in the downtown.”
In response to Steve King’s acknowledgement that streateries “are a temporary use of public space for private purposes,” Faber took his turn to opine, offering this puzzling perspective:
“Regarding use of public space for private benefit, the only really significant use of our rights of way is for people to leave their very significantly large personal property — their cars — sitting around for who knows how long. Which is pretty ridiculous to me, that that is the one allowed use of our public spaces, our rights of way, for people to just use and use up space. People are using the sidewalk as a means of conveyance to get from their car to a store or a restaurant, and you don’t see people out and about.”
Recording of March 14th Special Business Meeting
As King said, Port Townsend relies on a tourist economy. Our primary (city limits), secondary (county) and tertiary (Clallam, Kitsap, Mason and beyond) consumer base relies on vehicular travel to get downtown — for restaurants, retailers, theatre, you name it. Have you observed a dearth of “people out and about” on the sidewalks and in the various waterfront parks aside from very inclement weather? The spin applied to this issue to promote the city’s desired outcome doesn’t cease.
Faber admitted at the meeting that he is a fair-weather utilizer of those streateries he is so determined for us to have, seventy degrees being the temperature he finds ideal. He made it clear we shouldn’t expect to see him there in April, May, October or the rest of those other winter-side months.
2004 Downtown Parking Management Plan
The 2004 Downtown Parking Management Plan
This 18-year-old strategic analysis evaluated the existing ‘parking system,’ non-motorized access options and key issues dogging us at the time. Little has changed in those categories.
One paragraph in the document stands out conspicuously, in light of various city staff and council members’ claims that it’s not all about money, that ‘activating’ the downtown with in-street dining is ‘a greater good’ than parking, and that the restaurateurs who do manage to secure a treasured extension of their interior square footage may only have to pay as little as $2,000/year for the privilege:
Short-term parking is intended to accommodate people in town to shop, dine, or other recreational activities. The Main Street association has estimated that each downtown shopping space generates approximately $150 to $300 per day in retail sales revenue. As such, preserving the short-term parking for shoppers should be a priority for Port Townsend.
Mari Mullen doesn’t remember exactly how her office arrived at that estimated value of $150-$300 per day per short-term parking space. Perhaps the national office, she says.
Before the city uses more staff time on code adjustments, they have fiduciary duty to conduct a watertight analysis of the current contribution of each parking stall considering all elements of the downtown business landscape. This isn’t about just retail. Revenue generation also comes from those doing business with services including medical, insurance, financial, legal, the theatre… every single entity that relies on public parking to connect with their customers.
Adjusting for inflation using government calculations, at $300 per day, a single space contributes to downtown’s fiscal vitality $169,987 annually. Two = $339,975; the triplets in front of Alchemy and in the Tyler St. lot are worth $509,962 per year.
City leaders are prepared to sacrifice this revenue for the sake of this pet project; at the same time, Mayor Faber argues that “we have extremely limited public resources to address [a parking plan].” Is that so? Interesting that they managed to find the public resources to fund a sham let’s get’er done PowerPoint, along with the post-decision “survey” and Open House.
Moving forward — the fix was in
At the April 4 council business meeting, Manager Mauro acknowledged that “it is [putting the] cart before the horse… ideally, we would do parking management and how the streateries fit in… we’re doing this backwards, partly by timing and unfortunate circumstance.”
Free Press editor Ana Wolpin wrote to council, Mauro and King on April 13th, highlighting the performative theatre of the post-decision survey and open house, pointing out that:
“David Faber made it clear a month ago at your March 14th meeting—before the survey had even been created, before the poorly-attended open house to sell the proposal resulted in near-total opposition which was ignored, and before opposing the intended outcome was characterized as a loud and angry minority—“if all goes as planned” the agenda to make streateries permanent was a done deal. It appears you are simply going through the motions of fulfilling legal meeting requirements. Rather than listening to business and public feedback that this streatery proposal should not move forward, you are deciding program details instead…”
As Wolpin wrote in her March 30 article Strangulation by Streateries?,
“The public was never notified of this significant proposed change to city code in the newsletter that is included in all city utility bills each month. It was not mentioned in reports from either the mayor or the city manager.”
Her 3/13 letter continues:
“Not only were residents not informed of this fast-tracked proposal, it appears that Main Street did not even notify all the business owners who would be most affected. The survey was written with an overt slant to skew the responses in favor of making the streateries permanent, with only one question out of 13—#5—asking ‘Do you support the establishment of a long-term program for streateries and parklets?’ Every other question following it is marketing the proposal — Where are other streateries you like?… How many streateries should be allowed?… Should there be an annual fee?… etc.
At the 4/4 meeting David Faber applied pressure to continue on this predetermined path saying, ‘We talked two weeks ago about moving forward with a permanent streateries program… it’s frustrating when… we task staff with something and then we pull back.’ It would appear that consideration of staff’s efforts supersedes the public you are elected to serve and justifies ignoring overwhelmingly negative feedback.”
Faber warned that “Stopping the streateries now is only going to stall this out and make it more complicated.” Dealing with parking is too complicated, so let’s kick it down the road again and permanently remove at least a dozen of those precious parking spots while we’re at it.
Throughout the April 4 meeting, Faber hammered his left hand on the table to emphasize numerous points, beginning with this one, where he raised his voice in a surprisingly authoritative tone:
“I’d like to remind people as much as possible — do not [be] beholden to the loud minority.”
Never mind that every feeble attempt at reaching out to the citizenry by the city and Main Street has yielded a pathetically small number — a real minority — of respondents. Never mind that these efforts never utilized the sole communiqué that reaches every resident who pays for water and garbage services in the city — the newsletter. Never mind that any support found for the agenda proposed is puffed and promoted, while those opposed are continually denigrated (loud and angry) or marginalized.
It is easy to imagine that the mayor’s aggressive style is intimidating to other council members and discouraging of opposition.
The deal cut with the Cellar Door operators, unbeknownst to them, has created an undeniable Wizard of Oz moment for all to see. The agenda looks to have been to codify the streateries as “long-term” i.e. permanent, at least as far back as February of 2021. Were all the machinations—the surveys, PowerPoints and open houses—pure theatre, designed to obfuscate and give the appearance of due process, when nothing could be further from the truth?
Call to action: In the Long-Term Program, Next Steps: PowerPoint slide at the top of this article, you can see that we are perilously close to the planners’ end game. Here is the agenda for the Monday, April 18 6:30 meeting. As the streateries are on the agenda, do not use the opening public comment period to share your thoughts, rather wait until it is raised in the discussion under “new business.”
Public in attendance and webinar participants will be able to provide up to three minutes of public comment during the meeting. Public comment will also be accepted by email and will be included in the meeting record, provided emails are received two hours before the start of each meeting. Please send public comment to: publiccomment@cityofpt.us. *
* The city’s public comment link is bouncing back a message that says “Thank you for your email. Haylie Clement is no longer with the City of Port Townsend. Please direct City business matters to Joanna Sanders at jsanders@cityofpt.us.” I inquired to Joanna Sanders, here is her reply:
“Your comment has been received. This is an auto reply to emails still directed to Haylie Clement – such as the publiccomment@cityofpt.us which come to both of us. Haylie Clement was the deputy clerk but has recently left the city.” She thought it had been fixed so no bounce back would occur, they’re working on it.
Annette Huenke studied International Relations at the University of Pennsylvania. Prior to heading west, she was a manager for an Auckland-based international publisher of peer-reviewed drug information journals. In 1992 she moved to Port Townsend, opening Ancestral Spirits Gallery in 1993. She is past vice president of the Jeff Co EDC and board member of The Boiler Room. She researches, writes and wanders the forests around PT.
Streateries are the conversion of a public property to private purposes.
The use of that public property cannot merely be given away*.
If there is a conversion it should be in the form of a lease or rental agreement.
Agreements can be made for short term (i.e. summer months) or for the entire year.
Agreements should be made at fair market value.
A monthly fair market lease or rental rate should be the work of a professional property appraiser.
Note: Washington State Constitution, ARTICLE 8, SECTION 7 CREDIT NOT TO BE LOANED. No county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money, or property, or loan its money, or credit to or in aid of any individual, association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm…
Dave is correct. The City is effectively gifting public property to a private entity for private gain, contrary to well established law. Did the City Manager consult with the City Attorney? What was her opinion?
Here is her address, Rosemary. I hope that you’ll ask her directly.
hgreenwood@cityofpt.us
First of all, I’d like to say something about Port Townsend being a Tourist Destination. I worked for the Seaside, OR Chamber of Commerce. and my departed wife was on their E-Board in the 1980-s. We could have an extra 500 people and sometimes more all weekend long. Port Townsend Port Townsend in the 2000’s had 300 rooms (This was told to me by the City Manager). Port Townsend closes down at 5:30. You could find stores open in Seaside at 9 and 10 o’clock. That’s PM not AM. Our Chamber had some things that would also bring people into town, but if you want to find out, go down and talk to them or compare their website to Port Townsends. Now the city wants to drive away any small number of tourists they have. They don’t have any large motels and now they want to take away the parking. I don’t think many tourists will want to take a bus, ride a bike or walk all they way from Safeway. What really surprises me is the powers of City Hall don’t seem to care about the other retail businesses. I’m surprised they’re not screaming their heads off and assaulting Ciy Hall with tar and feathers!
If you want to avoid all this, I suggest going to Poulsbo, Sequim, Silverdale, Port Angeles, Bainbridge, Kingston or Edmonds. You’ll find no parking problems and businesses that are open past 5:30 pm. If this idiocy continues, that’s what I will do.
On the PTFP Facebook page, Bee V Margaret wrote:
“Well I responded a very strong no in the questionnaire. So how do we demand to see the respondents answers?”
I don’t use FB, so am responding here for anyone interested in the survey results. I was sent a copy of the document “Received APR 0l 2022 / 2022 Long-term Streatery & Parklet Survey Results.” When I reviewed all the comments, predominantly negative about streateries, mine (which had been submitted the last day of the survey) were not there. I then sent it to someone else I knew who had filled it out on the last day and his were not there either. I then learned that there was another document that might have been more complete, so I submitted a Public Records Request for ALL survey results and was sent the one I had already reviewed plus an “Additional Comments” file. Turned out the “Additional Comments” document only covered responses “from start of the survey up to 3/28 at 2:00 p.m.” That was 3 days before the survey closed (on 3/31) and so obviously did not contain any responses submitted the last few days.
The incomplete survey results is one of the main reasons I wrote the 4/13 letter to the city council that Annette referenced. I wrote, “It appears that at least a full day’s responses, possibly more—mine and an unknown number of others—were not tallied… it appears the report you received did not even include survey results that came in that last day. My comments were definitely not included, nor were others I know who filled out the survey within its advertised time frame.”
Even so, the vast majority of comments in those two reports opposed continuing the streateries. As did the feedback during the open house that took place before my article was published. At the 4/4 meeting, Mayor David Faber dismissed all negative feedback as coming from “a bunch of loud, angry people, and it’s not representative of the population as a whole.” In my letter to council, I said:
“He led off council’s discussion about survey results by emphatically instructing, ‘Do NOT take that as a statement from the majority.’
“Why even conduct an open house or a survey if the feedback will be disregarded?” I asked. “With such a flawed process, how could you begin to know what the majority thinks? By my reading, most of those overwhelmingly negative comments that came in before my article was published were sensible, intelligent and well-considered. These are typical of what you would call a super-majority of responses:
‘I work at the corner of Polk and water street and it’s hard to see around the tents when pulling out making it dangerous to enter in traffic and harder for our customers to find parking.’
‘This is prioritization of one business sector over all others in a tourist town notorious for its parking shortage.’
‘There are plenty of public outdoor dining areas, and restaurants that already offer outdoor dining. Streateries are unsightly from the outside and uncomfortable from the inside. They take up space from other businesses in a highly unequal way.’
‘This is a taking of public property that benefits only a few business owners with no return to the tax payers. The program is no longer needed. The emergency is over. Return the parking.’
‘Driving downtown is already crowded and unsafe. Streateries take up valuable parking/driving space and biking lanes. They also block views of pedestrians and bikes for those in vehicles.’
“A bunch of loud, angry people?
“Given what we are hearing from the business community, I suspect many—if not most of these comments—came from shop owners and employees who are rightly concerned that you are bent on using city streets for the benefit of restaurant owners to the detriment of all other businesses.”
The first survey results document can be seen here: https://cityofpt.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=4&event_id=1698&meta_id=199823. The “Additional Comments” through 3/28 file is here: http://solmaker.com/public/StreaterySurveyAdditionalComments.pdf
The results of the “Streateries” survey would be legally irrelevant even if the survey was even marginally legitimate. The Washington State constitution (see Dave’s comment above) overrides any survey. The ugly mess tents also can’t possibly be compatible with a historic district.
Nothing changes until the groveling, begging, and crawling is replaced by clear demands for government officials to follow existing laws. Direct democracy without protection for individual rights is mob rule. If “the people” want to replace the existing downtown with a tourist restaurant zone, then “the people” need to compensate the businesses and residents who will have to move or relocate out of the downtown area.
Below is a March 30 email, one of several emails sent to City Attorney Heidi Greenwood and others including Council
There has been no response to any emails from anyone in City Government. Main Street has now blocked any incoming emails from me.
I am not polite when it comes to corrupt people damaging the community who hold public office and work for the public.
The “formula” expects polite counter input and ignores it, in this case criminally subverts it.
Thanks to Attorney and Appointed Weak Mayor Faber for showing us all how his mind works. It explains a lot of past damage that he has been a part of. I have emailed signed copies of my flyer/petition to City Council.
What is not easily explained is the lockstep often seen in Council.
Thanks to those helping to “kick at the darkness ’till it bleeds daylight”.
A response from the City Attorney is overdue.
The old saying goes “Give them enough rope and they will surely hang themselves”.
City Attorney-
Council and Weak Mayor
Mr. Mauro
Once again for the record.
Besides the negative proposed removal of even more parking spaces for insider special interests, the process looks to be extremely flawed.
My manager knew of the proposal only because she signed up on a mailing list.
Monday with only a few days before input cut off on the 31st I took what little time I could spare and spoke with 2 neighboring businesses. Bergstroms and the new owner of the Antique Mall.
Neither were aware of the proposed unknown final number (problem there as well) Streaterie and Parklet conversions and were shocked at the proposal.
Claims were made that businesses were given information. Where is the checklist of businesses contacted?
Why was this not in the local paper weeks in advance with both sides of the issue covered?
Robin Bregsrtom asked me if there was something he could sign in protest. A class action lawsuit is where this is headed.
Parking problems have been managed into existence. Like Cherry Street. Backwards movement under Faber and Howard.
This is conversion of a limited and already mis managed public asset for special interests. Business and visitors are damaged. In this case Restaurants will think they benefit but where do their customers park?
Streateries and Parklets instead? Planning on the level of Cherry Street.
Special interest discriminatory Streateries?
Where is my special woodworkers spaces. And auto shops. And antiques. When restaurant owner Kristin buys a 6 million dollar parking not enforced building I think her losses are manageable without taking from me and others.
Selling my business to get away from this just got harder.
Several Restaurants are owned by the President of Main Street, run under already compromised Mari Mullen under the influence of Mr. Mauro.
Mauro has a widely known lack of qualifications and has ignored parking issues from his beginning here. It is hard to claim that was not pre arranged.
He is a mistake Sandoval and Stinson made and seems to do no wrong.
Council did not deal with that or qualification information during his delayed review.
Mr. Mauro has no business further damaging limited parking. The City Council is responsible to keep him in his place and doing his actual job.
I am attaching 2 photos for the record of Mr Mauro and Mari along with restaurant owner Kristin’s attempt to close Taylor.
I contacted the City Attorney then and am now.
The meeting at the Cotton Building, if like FWPDA meetings was likely loaded with folks to show up who wanted to take from others. The flawed notification process limits those on the other side.
I believe most do not know of what is going on. Especially after speaking with other business owners. It is a formula.
Even restaurant customers need parking. This is insanity. Helter Skelter Insanity against all visitors and business.
There can only be a negative hidden agenda.
I may stick around for the next election at this rate to highlight as I did with Stinson the records of some.
May also see you in court seeking damages for the last 8 years of emotional and financial damages with this as the
cherry on top. Looking at those options today.
Y’all have a nice day.
For the ongoing record.
Harvey Windle
Collateral Damage year 8
A correction, in my email to the City Attorney I pasted here and in a couple of other places since this began, I believed Kris Nelson who did own 3 restaurants, but sold Alchemy and its street tent recently, was still President of Main Street. She was for about 6 years and was involved with Mauro in attempting to shut down Taylor early on during covid.
Currently this is the Board according to Main Street’s website. An employee of Kris is on the board. Credit where due. Amazing that Main Street assists the City to damage its membership by reducing business access for a few special folks, and did a 180 on the importance of keeping parking under control. City Tax money is now flowing into Main Street. Hey Main Street joining neighbors, what are you being led into?
Board President – Wendy Duede – 1st Security Bank
Past President – Sandy Spencer – At large
Treasurer – Jen Rubinowitz – Coldwell Banker Best Homes
Secretary – Jan Carter – At large
Pat Loudenback – Getables
Amber Bartl – The Old Whiskey Mill & Sirens Pub
Nathan Barnett – Old Consulate Inn, Olympic Peninsula Steam
Simon Little – studioSTL
Sue Arthur – At large
Shirlena Freund – Elevated Ice Cream & Candy Co.
Jennifer Wake – Lively Olive Tasting Bar
Harvey Windle- thank you for your spot on comments and activism. Defund Mainstreet.
We have plenty of choices for outdoor dining. People don’t need to eat in the street.
Ajax Cafe
Alchemy
Alchemy Bistro & Wine Bar
Aldrich’s (2nd floor outdoor patio)
Banana Leaf
Batch Brothers
Bayview
Bishop Block Bottle Shop & Garden
Blue Moose
Cablehouse Canteen
Cafe Tenby
Cellar Door
Courtyard Cafe
Doc’s Marina Grill
Dogs-A-Foot
Elevated Ice Cream Co.
Farm and Sea Grill
Farm’s Reach Cafe
Finistère
Finn River Farm & Cidery
Hacienda Tizapan
Hudson Point Cafe
Ichikawa
Jen’s Marina Cafe
Key City Fish Tacos-to-Go
Lighthouse Cafe
Lila’s Kitchen
Mo-Chilli BBQ
O’Yummy Frozen Yogurt
Old Alcohol Plant
Owl Sprit
Pho Filling
Port Townsend Vineyards
Pourhouse Beer Garden
PT Soda Fountain & Diner
Quench
Reveille Café
San Juan Taqueria
Sirens
Spruce Goose Cafe
Sunrise Coffee
Taps
The Castle
The Cup
The Old Whiskey Mill
Tommyknockers
Please for the love of God will someone do a count on how many people actually live downtown, including disabled and elderly residents? Residents who need their cars absolutely and unquestionably? Why is no one talking about the people who actually live downtown?
My mother used to live down there, and those people from main street, treated those folks who live downtown just awful.
I am sending this out to all who have expressed concerns regarding
“public process” and streateries/parklets
Some thoughts after watching the 4/18 City Council meeting.
First and foremost all the details being discussed were and are “fruit
of the poison tree”.
This usually refers to illegally gathered evidence in police work for
use in court cases. In this case the poison fruit is the purposefully
flawed methods by Main Street to gather “public input”. .
This was brought up to Council by several sources. Council unanimously
approved of using the poison fruit as a basis for public support that
does not actually exist in the broader community.
The time frame to gather input was unusually limited. The vast majority
of business owners and employees I spoke with (about 30) just days
before the cut off for public input had no idea the permanent
streateries/parklets were being moved forward by City Council and
special interests.The time to mount a good response to this slanted
approach left working people like myself and others with little time to
really organize.
My first hand real time “investigation” into the nature and methods Main
Street used to gather “public input” shows that a minimal number of
people were contacted. The majority of businesses were not. The majority
of the public were not. Michelle Gransgaard has spoken with Mari Mullen
regarding not being contacted despite being on 2 mailing lists allegedly
used. There are no good answers.
Main Street is allegedly neutral. Main Street is receiving large amounts
of tax dollars from the City. The failure of Main Street to contact
every single business as was seemingly claimed originally is not
neutral. A person who ran non profits for 17 years feels that at the
Cotton Building meeting Mari was promoting streateries. This can get a
non profit in trouble with the IRS.
In addition there was no oversight in counting votes or tracking
comments.
The true “vocal minority” in this case are special interest restaurant
folk, Appointed “Weak” Mayor Attorney Faber, compromised and unqualified
City Manager Mauro, Main Street itself is betraying most members, and it
seems at least one Council person observed in the 4/18 meeting was doing
a lot of apple and oranges comparisons and skewing statistics. Both she
and Faber repeatedly stated that “everyone” they spoke to loved the idea
of streateries. In front of them were emails and public input in person
not supporting their cause.
An anchor restaurant owner spoke in person at the meeting in opposition
to the streateries.
Streateries will divide the community into have and have nots. A few
marginal eateries getting parking spaces for life will further impact
the Cities problems with finances, much of that due to the sitting
Appointed Mayor and some Council, and their bad choices in the recent
past. Yearly losses are into the hundreds of thousands of
dollars.Expecting other businesses to refer their customers asking where
to eat to those establishments is simply not going to happen. An
organized effort to boycott is more likely.
In the midst of spewing of falsehoods by the special interest Council
person, someone in the room attempted to correct the Council person.
They were shut down abruptly with “I am speaking here” or similar. The
facts were not to get in the way of their predetermined conclusion. This
person blatantly defined themselves as not needing public input and
going with their personal affinity for eating in the street, and those
who will benefit..
Real public input not manipulated and limited would show that there is
no desire, need, or good reason for the proposed streaterie program.
This real public input has been prevented by Main Street acting for the
City. This real public input would negate every step and expense the
city has undertaken to build momentum for this damaging long term
change. Once again the City spends public money to come up with a
negative.
As with a virus, streateries/parklets will spread and grow over the
years using similar tactics now seen. The decidedly pro streaterie
Council person cited a town in New York that had negative reactions then
became comfortable with shutting down several blocks to vehicle access.
Apples and oranges. Parking availability is not known in her example. It
is known here. This person’s end game, and that of the loud minority was
revealed.
Promised parking enforcement assured by one council member has not
occured. A month overdue. The monetary damages now out in the open from
per space losses to community and city income is into the hundreds of
thousands of dollars over the last 8 years. I know personally they were
reminded regularly. Malfeasance. Real estate special interests cost all
public and merchants.
A next step is a formal letter to the City Attorney asking for a time
out to gather real and broad public input by a credible polling entity.
She has not responded to several emails from me asking similar. If that
fails a class action lawsuit seems a logical move some are talking
about.