“I don’t really see the need for streateries in our code. Many of the restaurants already have courtyards or some kind of space outside. We’ve spent a bunch of energy putting together public spaces where people can take take-out food and sit next to the water.
I believe that it’s probably unfair for me to be taking up [parking] spaces that we should be sharing with all of the rest of the downtown businesses. I agree that it’s not really fair to prioritize restaurants over other businesses…
Nine months of the year it’s raining and cold and miserable here. If we put permanent structures on the street, those nine months of the year are taking up parking spaces that keep people away from the doors of businesses and they’re only used for three months.”
– David Hero, Silverwater Cafe
—————————————
Public backlash over streateries continued at the Port Townsend City Council meeting on April 18. With one exception, the council’s determination to make them permanent installations continued as well.
As reported in earlier Free Press articles, when the health department restricted indoor dining during Covid, the local business community agreed to grant restaurants emergency use of public parking stalls for outdoor dining in the city streets: streateries. Local shop owners were assured that this private use of public rights of way would be a temporary measure. Then in March — prior to any public process — the city council directed staff to draft an ordinance making the streatery program permanent.
As described in “Strangulation by Streateries?” and “Public Streets and Public Process Subverted,” the fast-track process that was developed to meet requirements for public input looked to be after-the-fact window dressing on a done deal. Every step of the way since, the council majority has dismissed and overridden public opposition, apparently bent on codifying the program despite widespread objections.
First, a March 29 open house designed to promote the concept brought overwhelming dissent from approximately two dozen business owners who attended. That was ignored. Then a poorly distributed survey, also designed to boost support, deleted from its published results a portion of comments that had been submitted. Still, hundreds of negative comments did show substantial opposition. (Those survey results can be seen here and here). They, too, were dismissed. Mayor David Faber characterized them as a “loud and angry minority.”
Opposition continued at the April 4 council meeting. Without exception, all public feedback about making streateries permanent was again negative.
Two weeks later, the overt agenda to put a permanent streatery program in place regardless of public input persisted.
The April 18 City Council meeting
Discussion at the April 18 council meeting confirmed that the majority of councilors already had their minds made up long before any of this fast-tracked public process.
Again the public feedback — predominantly from business owners, both in written letters submitted to council and voiced in live public comments — consistently urged the council to drop the proposal. Every councilor except one, Ben Thomas, made it clear that they were determined to approve a permanent streateries program despite public objections. The discussion was not about IF it should move forward, it was about hashing out the details.
After City Manager John Mauro expressed appreciation for all the public feedback, Public Works Director Steve King presented an overview of a streatery “draft ordinance in preparation for its final adoption.”
Public Works Director Steve King at 4/18/22 City Council meeting. Click on image for the video of the meeting. Streateries agenda item starts at 24 minutes.
The proposed ordinance allowed six streateries downtown, three uptown and one per block in other business districts, he said. There would be a lottery process for annual permits. Once an applicant was approved, there would be an annual renewal process, but no need to reapply for the annual lotteries. A permitted streatery would have exclusive use of those former parking spaces during business hours in perpetuity. Each streatery granted would be allowed up to forty feet of street frontage — eliminating two parking stalls where there was existing parallel parking, more for angled. An annual fee of $2000, or possibly $1500, was suggested. King explained that “the principle behind streateries is that it’s a use of public space for some private use, but it’s mostly a public enhancement.”
Prior to public comments, council members reviewed the draft ordinance. Libby Urner Wennstrom kicked off the discussion with this inversion:
“There’s a lot of businesses that are fairly supportive of this and there’s a handful of businesses that are very vehemently opposed.”
That assessment is the opposite of what multiple sources who have been canvasing businesses have told the Free Press. They say that Port Townsend’s business community is overwhelming opposed. The “vehement” opposition was so worrisome to Wennstrom, she asked King if a restaurant could sabotage the unwanted program: “I could see someone putting in a proposal so that it’s going to kill a lottery slot,” she said.
Monica MickHager asked if a streatery could have the option of putting all their outdoor seating on the sidewalk rather than the street, redirecting pedestrians into the street itself. Essentially, could they swap a permitted take-over of the parking strip for commandeering the entire sidewalk instead? When told yes, that was an option, she said she was “excited”.
According to the proposed ordinance, this sidewalk seating in front of The Old Whiskey Mill (the streatery also pictured in the feature photo at top) could be expanded to completely cover the sidewalk, forcing foot traffic into the street where the tent now stands in order for pedestrians to get around the blocked sidewalk.
MickHager also asked if a restaurant sold their business whether the new owner was buying the right to have the streatery permit “as part of their private business.” That, too, was answered in the affirmative.
Receipt of letters written to council (grouped at links 1, 2, 3) were acknowledged by the City Clerk. All of them expressed opposition to continuing streateries. No letters were in support.
Harvey Windle, owner of Forest Gems wrote of the city’s long-time mismanagement of parking and of the streatery program taking public property, “given to a special class of people.” He shared a circulating petition titled “City Ordinance Change Benefiting Restaurant Special Interests.”
Michele Gransgaard, a concerned resident who has been canvasing businesses, criticized the survey used to help justify the program: “To report results from a sloppy, biased survey is disingenuous, anti-democratic, and clearly lacks integrity.”
She also warned of the toxic emissions diners in the street were exposed to: “The pollutants from car exhaust consists of lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone and airborne particulate matter.” Gransgaard additionally noted that there are already “many options for restaurants that offer outdoor dining.”
More than a few Port Townsend al fresco dining options have been in place for many years, off the city streets. Gransgaard has catalogued more than forty of them. They include Alchemy Bistro & Wine Bar, Aldrich’s (2nd floor outdoor patio), 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., Finistère, 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, Owl Sprit, Pho Filling, Port Townsend Vineyards, Pourhouse Beer Garden, PT Soda Fountain & Diner, Quench, Réveille Café, San Juan Taqueria, Sirens, Sea J’s Cafe, Spruce Goose Cafe, Sunrise Coffee, Taps, The Castle, The Cup, The Old Whiskey Mill, Tommyknockers, and Vintage by Port Townsend Vineyards.
PT Shirt Company owner Frank Iuro noted that as shown in the list above ALL of the current streateries downtown “already have outdoor seating areas that have been in existence since before the pandemic.” He wrote that the program would “rob other businesses of available parking for their customers.”
Seating under umbrellas off the city street seen at left provided outdoor dining for Alchemy Bistro & Wine Bar before a tented streatery was added in the public parking strip.
Alchemy’s street tent eliminated at least three angled parking spaces and is reported to have been largely empty for a minimum of the last five months.
Maestrale owner Jennefer Wood summarized the objections of many with these bullet points:
- Downtown parking has always been a major issue, taking more parking away only exacerbates the problem. A 2004 analysis of the problem in no way offers a solution like this;
- “Streateries” take away from badly needed downtown parking, adversely impacting businesses;
- They are unsightly, dangerous to see around, and too close to traffic – eating while breathing car exhaust does not sound appealing;
- They are not in alignment with any historical preservation of PT’s past;
- It is unjust and unlawful to allocate public land to private businesses;
- They block visual access to neighboring businesses, thus negatively impacting business;
- There are now “Parklets” available for the public to use for take out dining;
- A “public survey” was not widely advertised in order to receive public input, and negative feedback is being suppressed;
- Streateries were introduced under the covid emergency. The emergency is over.
- Let’s put this proposal in perspective of the larger parking problem and have a proper analysis from that point of view.
Several other PT residents, including a Water Street historic building owner who said the installations visually degrade the public space, also wrote letters in opposition. Letters from Annette Huenke and myself expanded on concerns described in the two Free Press articles linked above.
Public comments in person and by livestream also resoundingly opposed the program.
Gail Boulter and her husband own six long-standing shops downtown, The Green Eyeshade and The Clothes Horse among them. She said that when Covid first began restricting indoor dining in restaurants, City Manager Mauro called her.
“[He] wanted our impression about how we felt about the streateries… I said we would be happy to do anything we can to help our restaurants. However, under no circumstances would any of us merchants downtown want to see this to be a permanent situation. He assured me at that time Oh, no no no, this is a temporary fix.”
“Parking has always been the bottom line issue in Port Townsend,” she told the council. “Please take note of how the merchants feel about all this.”
Pat Louderback is owner of Getables downtown and a Main Street board member:
“During the last council meeting when discussing the downtown parking issues and the more than 300 discarded negative submissions about streateries,” he said, “it was stated by the council that the parking issues were a red herring designed to take us away from the real topic of streateries.”
“The red herring here is the streateries, drawing us away from the real problem, which is parking.“
Louderback pointed to comments in the survey from people who said if they can’t find parking downtown, they go home and order online. “This is all counterproductive to our often-heard Shop Local campaigns. So how do we as businesses and community TRUST the city, the council, which seemingly are influenced by special interests versus representing the community as a whole?”
“It’s the brick and mortar businesses, services, retailers and restaurants that draw consumers here,” he continued. “Further, reducing even ONE parking spot negatively impacts downtown businesses. You’re turning your back on these small businesses, slapping them in the face after they have struggled to survive, and supported this community.”
David Wing-Kovarik, owner of Frameworks Northwest, put aside his prepared statement after listening to the initial council discussion.
“$2,000 a year? That does not address the thousands of dollars lost in retail sales for those parking spaces for surrounding businesses. I’m in great support of restaurants; I send people to restaurants every single day. But every single day I have someone coming in complaining about the inability to park here… I have no idea what businesses you have been talking to that are in support of this.”
He said every business he has spoken to told him, We were told that this would be temporary by the city and by Main Street. “They’re NOT in support of this,” he emphasized. Of the many business owners he has talked to, only “ONE business said they were, and that was it.”
David Hero has co-owned the Silverware Cafe for 32 years. In addition to the statements he made in the quote featured at top — that there is already a plethora of outdoor dining options, that prioritizing public space for restaurants over other businesses is unfair, and that people only use al fresco facilities three months of the year — he pointed out that current code already allows restaurants to set up sidewalk dining with a minimum 6-foot right of way. The earlier photo of sidewalk tables outside The Old Whiskey Mill on Water Street is an example of that. We should encourage more use of “the already-existing sidewalk rules where we technically can put tables on our sidewalks,” he said.
Hero concluded: “I think it’s important to really think about how much use and how many people are actually going to use these outdoor facilities that are taking up valuable parking spaces during the nine months of the year when nobody can sit outside anyhow.”
Scott Walker commented:
“I have been involved in trying to advocate for parking management in this town for more than 20 years. I was on the Parking Advisory Group back in the early 2000s,” involved in the study council adopted nearly twenty years ago to institute managed parking downtown. “We haven’t done that yet and this proposal is getting the cart in front of the horse. You need to have an understanding of what the value of a parking space downtown IS before you give it up for $2000 a year, $1500 a year, or whatever number you come up with.”
“This proposal, I highly encourage you to kill it right now and get to work on the downtown parking management plan.”
Samantha Ladwig, owner of the Imprint Bookstore concurred:
“It is a frequent topic from customers who come in, the difficulty of parking, and how they have continually shopped less and less over time as it has become more and more difficult to find a space. I don’t think this is a good solution for tourists or the community to take away parking which is a growing issue.”
Not a single letter writer, in-person or virtual commenter expressed support.
The council deliberates
The discussion that followed all this public feedback demonstrates the disconnect between the citizens and those elected to serve them. (Full comments can be watched by clicking on any councilor photo.)
Ben Thomas expressed the only cautionary note, which was immediately argued against. He “likes the streateries,” he said, but agreed it is putting the cart before the horse. “I’m just really concerned listening to all these business owners… Some people may close businesses because of it, is my concern. I feel like there’s a social contract with our businesses that we don’t make it harder for them.”
Libby Wennstrom discounted his concern based on her experience 50 years ago in her hometown of Ithaca, NY. She said that when Ithaca closed off three blocks to make it pedestrian-only in 1972, there was “huge screaming from all the surrounding businesses” with similar objections to those “we’ve heard here tonight… but in that case it didn’t pan out… These streateries have been incredibly successful in towns all over Puget Sound.”
Wennstrom is so keen to remove parking, she suggested that the gift of public street space could expand to retailers as well. “It doesn’t necessarily have to be a restaurant that chooses to do this,” she directed at the objecting business owners present. “You could apply, with a business, to have a street space if you wanted to.”
Aislinn Diamanti expressed her commitment to the proposal: “We don’t want to go into another season that is likely to need these again as cases are going up.” They need to be given permanent status, she said, so that restaurant owners have incentive to invest in them over the next two years. Then, Diamanti suggested, after the council revisits the parking plan they “can come back” in two years and change the code again. “It would be a loss to go dark in that meantime because this use of twelve parking spaces isn’t known to be the highest and best use intrinsically.”
Monica MickHager worried that “we’re still in a pandemic… I think the streateries are a necessity for us, just on the mere fact alone that we’re still dealing with Covid.” She acknowledged the critical parking issues, however, and suggested reducing the numbers of streateries the ordinance allows, “until we have an adopted parking management plan.” She proposed that the downtown streateries be limited to their current number, not increased to six.
Owen Rowe opined that “we are not seeing the end of Covid. So I think there is a good case to be made for extending the temporary use of streateries.” But we can’t ask the restaurants to invest in better, more permanent structures, he said, without giving them the assurance of program longevity. “We need to commit to whether this is going to continue beyond Covid.” He agreed with the suggestion to reduce the number allowed.
Mayor David Faber apologized “for making uncharitable comments at last meeting to members of the public who have concerns about streateries.” His disparaging remarks reflected his thinking that they were minority views that don’t represent the community as a whole. “Ever since I was first elected to council, I’ve been hearing from an untold number of people about how we need to stop designing our public spaces around the personal automobile.”
He said that even though the city needs to address the parking issue “asap”, it can’t take on parking management right now. “I think the proposal is extraordinarily modest. It’s not taking very much, not taking away any significant amount of parking spaces. it’s only formalizing what’s been in place for over two years.”
He agreed that “the survey was imperfect, it was quick, we agreed to do a quick process which people are understandably upset about.” But then he again referenced the flawed survey results as evidence that most were in favor of the proposal. “Every single person I talk to outside of downtown business owners have said favorable things to me about creating a permanent streateries program.”
“I love these things. I love the concept of what they bring to the community.” He also voiced support of the suggestion to “lock in” what’s already in place. “I think we should proceed with this.”
Ben Thomas again expressed concern over the business community’s opposition. It’s hard “to ignore the public comment,” he said, “not just tonight.” But he agreed with other council members that he’d like to see streateries: “I do think they are potentially a positive thing for us… just not expanding it at this time when there’s all this public pressure against it.” He, too, supported limiting downtown streateries to the current number.
The final number agreed upon was four streateries downtown, two uptown, and one per block in other commercial districts. The remainder of the discussion was about other details of the ordinance the council is scheduled to vote on at the May 2 meeting.
Just what ARE those parking spaces worth?
During deliberations, Wennstrom disputed the statement from business owners that a $1500 or $2000 annual fee would not even begin to offset the value of two or more parking spaces, that they were worth at least $13,000 a month to the business community. “I want to know any downtown business that’s paying $13,000 a month for a Water Street storefront,” she challenged. A voice in the audience schooled her that it’s not the rental value of the frontage that is relevant, “it’s in generated sales for surrounding businesses.”
As Annette Huenke wrote in a previous article, Main Street estimated in 2004 that “each downtown parking space generates approximately $150 to $300 per day in retail sales revenue.” In addition to retail spending in shops, restaurants, at the theater and other recreational activities, revenue is also generated by service businesses as well, including medical, insurance, financial, and legal:
“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.”
Michele Gransgaard, who has been researching parking management strategies, notes that the businesses most severely affected by the loss of parking from a streatery will be those in closest proximity. Her research has shown that “40% of people won’t shop at a store where parking is a hassle.”
Not only does a business adjacent to a streatery suffer from lost parking, the visual obstruction from tents or the more permanent structures encouraged by this program damages one of a retailer’s most valuable assets — storefront visibility. Can you identify which businesses are next to The Old Whiskey Mill in this photo?
There’s Quimper Sound on one side, Commoner on the other. These businesses pay a premium for main street storefronts. Their expensive, well-designed windows and signage are a large part of what draws shoppers to their stores.
Peekaboo… The hip Quimper Sound logo is barely visible on its window through The Old Whiskey Mill streatery tent. Their neon “OPEN” sign is completely obscured, along with other window attractions.
One of the benefits of creating a permanent streateries program, say its advocates, is that it will incentivize the restaurant owners to invest in better all-weather structures than the tents. Picture a permanent structure erected in the parking strip where Tommyknockers’ tables and umbrellas now stand. Not only will their own restaurant signage be obscured, but the major draw of the Jeanette Best Gallery next door — the gallery name and art on display through the window — gone.
All streatery photos taken Thursday, April 28, 2022 around 5 p.m. by Stephen Schumacher. Additional photos taken at 7 p.m. show every streatery downtown still empty.
Perhaps “public enhancement” from a bustling streatery on a lovely summer’s day will add to adjacent businesses’ foot traffic and increased vitality in commercial districts. But what of the other nine months of the year that David Hero alludes to?
In an April 28 letter to Mayor Faber, Annette Huenke wrote:
Sadly, it appears to be a waste of time attempting a dialogue with you, council, King and Mauro, since you determined on March 14th that we will have streateries because you all enjoy them. The parking issues that have plagued PT for over 30 years, the fact that we already have a viable parking plan, the loss of revenue from sacrificed parking, your perverted public process, the utter fallacy that this can ever be made fair and equitable among downtown businesses, let alone restaurants… none of that matters. You like streateries.
Automobiles are essential for travel to Port Townsend, even for people who live here. Jefferson County has the highest share of population age 65 and older in the state. New homes are going up all over the 3-mile and beyond range. There is a 58-lot subdivision going in on Cook Avenue. Most of those newcomers will not share city leaders’ fantasy of walking, biking or busing 6 miles into town. I can count on one hand how many of my North Beach neighbors do. Nearly all take their cars wherever they go. Port Townsend is already naturally inviting, as well walkable for those with the ability and desire to walk it.
As the Port Townsend City Council overrides citizen feedback opposing their plan to replace parking with outdoor dining areas in our public rights of way, many residents are asking Who are our elected officials serving? At Monday’s city council meeting, 6:30 pm on May 2nd, the council’s vote on authorizing a permanent streateries program should give us an answer to that question.
—————————————
May 2nd Port Townsend City Council meeting Agenda – Streatery ordinances are agenda items VII and VIII
Proposed Resolution 22-020 Establishing Public Works Department Street Use Permit fees
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.
Arriving in Port Townsend in 1975 in Sherpa, her Ford van, Ana Wolpin has watched a sweetly funky, diverse and tolerant community increasingly gentrify, polarize and lose its soul. After almost half a century engaged in local business, city politics, county organizations and community projects, she joined with fellow editors to revive the Free Press and bear witness to extraordinary times. For a short sketch of Ana's history in Jefferson County, see “About the Free Press."
It seems to me all this fighting is over too few parking spaces not streeteries.If there was enough parking who would object to the streeteries? The parking problem has been going on for over 20 years. So what is the solution? Build a large parking facility and then move on with more satisfied tourists and locals.
The Port Townsend Historic District is a National Historic Landmark District encompassing a significant portion of the waterfront and downtown area of Port Townsend, Washington. This area has many well-preserved late 19th-century buildings, owing to a building boom and crash in the 1880s. – Wikipedia
If Wikipedia is correct and Port Townsend is a National Historic Landmark District, the ugly tents are probably violating the landmark status. The city council can do whatever they want with parking but not with an historic district.
Looks like they got the sign-off from the Historic Preservation Committee, Marie.
https://cityofpt.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=4&event_id=1700&meta_id=200947
I can’t believe the city council is even having this conversation. Streateries as a TEMPORARY measure makes sense but it’s stupid to further cripple all downtown businesses by removing any parking spots permanently. Does anyone remember why there was a bus transfer station put in by Kah Tai? Why any new business would be required to provide a certain amount of parking? The council is obviously biased and made up their minds. Stacked the deck in their favor and ignoring real concerns by their constituents. Shameful.
Thanks for the link to the sign-off from the Historic Preservation Committee. There is obviously no official solution to the intentional destruction of this unique place. The Great Re-setters will do whatever it takes to destroy the heritage of the culture they despise. Streateries are just another tool for destruction like the drug camps in Seattle, Olympia and elsewhere.
The process has failed but there is no law against mercilessly ridiculing anyone who enjoys eating in the street. Let the memes begin.
King explained that “the principle behind streateries is that it’s a use of public space for some private use, but it’s mostly a public enhancement.”
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
(https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/Documents/WAConstitution.pdf)
ARTICLE VIII STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL INDEBTEDNESS
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, or become directly or indirectly the owner of any stock in or bonds of any association, company or corporation.
Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington (MRSC):
(https://mrsc.org/Home.aspx)
Gift of Public Funds
This page provides information about the Gift of Public Funds Doctrine in Washington State and how it applies to the local and state governments.
(https://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Legal/Ethics-Fairness-Conflicts-of-Interest/Gift-of-Public-Funds.aspx)
What is Prohibited?
In short, article 8, section 7 prohibits any local government entity from bestowing a gift or lending money, property, or the entity’s credit to a private party. At first glance, these prohibitions may seem fairly clear; however, there has still been some confusion over what exactly is barred. After all, what exactly is a gift and what does it mean for a municipality to lend its credit? The Washington courts have helped to clear up some of this ambiguity and to better define the prohibited conduct.
In assessing whether a gift has been bestowed to a private entity, the courts have used a two-step process. First, they determine whether the funds are being expended to carry out a fundamental purpose of the government. If so, then no gift of public funds has been made. Otherwise, the court looks to see whether the government entity had a “donative intent,” and whether it received an adequate return for the transfer.
What Happens if a Violation Occurs?
If a violation of article 8, section 7 occurs, or is suspected of having occurred, there are a few different types of consequences.
If a violation is found by the state auditor, then the auditor’s office will issue an audit finding. The exact consequences of such a finding can vary depending on the seriousness of the violation, but in any event, audit findings are best avoided.
If a lawsuit is filed and the court holds that a violation has occurred, then it is likely the court will void the contested transaction or issue an injunction prohibiting it. Litigating such cases can be very costly and can have political ramifications.
In cases where a municipality suspects it may have committed a violation, it should raise the issue with its legal counsel and discuss options for addressing the potential violation.
OFFICE OF THE WASHINGTON STATE AUDITOR
How to Report a Concern
(https://sao.wa.gov/report-a-concern/how-to-report-a-concern/)
Think public resources are being misused?
The State Auditor’s Office (SAO) conducts three types of investigations that begin with information reported by citizens or employees of state or local governments. Find out which fits your situation.
Thank you for this useful contribution to our conversation, Herepog2. Note how the messaging is shifting. This is how Steve King described the takings in his presentations to council in March: “a temporary use of public space for private purposes.” So now it’s “some private use…” More Newspeak. Here is the official document gifting so-called “temporary use” of the three parking spaces to the Cellar Door. That streatery was clearly designed to remain, at the city’s encouragement that it would most likely be granted permanence. One would need a backhoe to return those spaces to their former public use.
Corruption? Seems Council is being paid off to represent certain special interests rather than the majority voters. Can a recall be attempted?
Thanks to the Free Press and all the volunteer hours put in to show in real time over several articles how those who have taken over public process in Port Townsend operate.
This is but one example, but one that is easily seen and documented as it evolves and ignores actual public input.
Thanks also to those taking time to give public input on the record. I did distribute 25 flyers/petitions one day and discovered a real community silenced and covered over by layers of administration that have little connection to anything really impacting business here. Main Street has corrupted itself in the image of City power players.
The 3-part parking plan I have proposed for years, education, planning, and enforcement should be funded by the money Main Street is being given by the City from city taxes. Mari at Main Street is fully under City influence and City Manager Mauro’s mission to reduce parking and magically reduce the need for it.
His paycheck will not be impacted by lost business revenue by those who pay his wages. You failed to engage Port Townsend, Mr. Sound Bite. Your lack of actual qualifications and agenda are showing.
The Main Street board as with City Council should step up and look at what businesses are saying, as a group and independently. Main Street owes the visiting public much more than inviting them here and treating them like fools.
Yes you do, kids.
It is no coincidence that the past Main Street president of 6 years or so owned several restaurants. An employee is now on the board.
There is an Orwell quote regarding turning the cheek and getting harder and harder slaps. This community turned the cheek on parking chaos for profit by real estate interests on Council and in the Mayor’s seat for over 8 years now.
The next slap is streateries and ignoring public input which further ignores parking and business access while creating a “me first” attitude by those so inclined to hog all day 2 hour spots at a cost of millions of dollars over 8 years in lost revenue according to the 2004 parking study commissioned by the City and ignored by the City..
Square one which should never be ignored is slanted and limited public notice, and taking public property for private use by a newly defined special class.
Fascism with smiley faces. Faber defines himself. Mauro defines himself. Council like Libby Wenstrom define themselves. Just who are they serving if not the public and PT businesses that they purposefully ignore?
Some say this is but another test slap to see how far Government can push people before they push back. Just another slap with more and more, harder and harder to follow. As with the Fort Worden train wreck, which achieved more and more control by local special interests, and protected a key player from responsibility. Too complicated for most to follow.
Please attend Monday’s Council meeting and speak up. I will be there to look folks in the eye who steal the soul of a community and pretend to speak for it. As they cut off its life blood and sow discord, division, and inequity.
If I wear a mask it is to curb the stench of corruption.
As many say, the next elections for Council will be very interesting, with track records to highlight..
Harvey, I love it! “If I wear a mask it is to curb the stench of corruption”. You hit the nail right on the head.
You might also add that to be a tourist destination, businesses should remain open past 5pm during tourist season. I live in Chimacum and every time I go into PT there’s a solid stream of tourists and workers heading out of town. So, what are the tourists supposed to do, go back to their rooms and go to sleep or watch TV? Last Saturday I was in PT and the tent outside the Whiskey Mill was empty. By the way, some of these “eateries” should invest in a good cook as there only one or two I will go to. In the eighties I was managing the Cable House in Fort Worden. I had one visitor from Texas who came in and was very loudly unhappy with the fact that she had come to PT and everything was closed. I had to tell her that she was preaching to the choir and sent her on her way.
While I worked for the Seaside, OR Chamber of Commerce our Director held a Customer Service event for the e-board and staff from a Jeweler in Portland. The one thing that really stuck with me was he told us if a customer had a bad experience they would tell ten people and this might spread farther. A satisfied experience wouldn’t be likely spread unless asked. Something to think about if you don’t let them have enough parking.
Libby Wennstrom is wildly off target when she holds up Ithaca, NY’s pedestrian commons as something by which to judge the loss of parking spaces in downtown Port Townsend. Ithaca converted three blocks of a street to a pedestrian mall, but not without replacing the lost parking. Three parking garages–one for each lost block of street parking–are on site, along with other parking garages and parking lots on nearby streets. Here Council wants to eliminate even more of the already scarce parking without providing any replacement. Downtown is hemmed in by water, a cliff, and a historically protected neighborhood. Maybe put the Cherry Street Project building back on a barge and turn it into a floating parking deck moored at one of downtown’s docks? Here’s info on Ithaca’s downtown parking: https://www.ithaca.com/news/the-end-of-free-public-parking-in-ithaca/article_9a9c5d72-d0ac-11e3-8b7e-001a4bcf887a.html
When the divide between rich and poor gets too wide, an increase in crime is usually the barometer that signals that divide has reached a critical mass. What then is the signal that warns us that the gap between our local politicians representing ALL of the citizens that they serve verses the powerful few that might dictate their decisions? One answer is that rules and mandates that the politicians implement usually best suit those that hold the money and keys to their political position. We can see this when public discourse is a limited charade on an issue that was decided well before the public input.
Our community’s political response to the Covid question was the best example. Political decisions about how our community should handle the Covid question was based on limited voices of those that were unable to put aside their fears and so just listened to a robotic mimicking of a national dictated narrative. The voices of community members that were based on critical thinking were simply dismissed. The current decision on streateries is just a continuation of this policy of serving the few rather than the many.
The Covid response, the cutting down of 130 poplars, the housing crisis, the lack of affordable housing, the wasting of public funds on the Cherry Street Project, and now the question of streateries, all tell us something is wrong, something is terribly wrong. Our politicians have forgotten their oath to serve our community rather than their own self interests. Their feeling of elitist power has blinded them to their constitutional responsibility. It is us, the ones that read the PTFP, that must spread the word to those that think they are alone, We Are Community and community means a common interest. That common interest is Freedom and to be free we don’t follow we lead.
This is posted in the PDN under upcoming meetings. Why have they stopped reading the public comments into the public record? Anyone know?
The public comments are included in the public record but not read. Those of us on Council read them all. If someone from the public wants to make a strong impact, I would suggest they both write a public comment and show up in person. Remote public comment is also still possible.
Gotta hand it to officialdom — “Idiocracy” in full local bloom. Alice’s Wonderland made less nonsense.
Yet another PT rubicon’s being hastily developed & crossed — if not double-crossed, per usual — towards a final & trendy ‘un-livability’ quotient for regular & honest folks.
These apparently ubiquitous public-be-damned bureaucratic fiefdoms-as-amusement-parks, grafting grift onto power-trips, have morphed into a full-on mental olympics of deterioration, currently all the rage for u.n. agendas 20/30.
Hell, screw the locals (many who’ve long since fled PT over the decades for affordable & saner pastures), so now screw the tourists & shoppers as well. Hard to tell — suicide or homicide? Quelle stratagem, quelle damage, quelle dommage.
Given the rivers of corruption that have passed under Water St. since inception, is it too late to put a plain ol’ workin’ humpty dumpty town back together again… or are we just overdue in returning the area to native america?
Slight return to idiocratic exemplars — considering what many have been dealing with, local to global, particularly in the last 2.5 years, but not limited to that timeline:
Nina Jankowicz, the woman which President Biden recently appointed to head his “Disinformation Governance Board”, to be the government-sanctioned arbiter of truth, believes …. “there are many non-binary people who give birth.”
Wince.
Not sure Biden’s capable of appointing anything, outside the scope of his handlers’ teleprompter… nonetheless, that’s a doozy.
Apparently, still not in kansas anymore. Eyebrows permanently stuck in raised position — while reaching/exceeding 1984’s Winston Smith’s 2 + 2 moment.
The state tortures Smith to get him to concede that “Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once.” When his will is finally broken, Smith accepts that two plus two can equal five if the government says so.
Doing the globalist math, this more recent mass hypnosis/psychosis does not bode well.
Amidst a lifelong stretch to maintain perspective & humour in the human madhouse — a freshly discovered final tract in Darwin’s attic — ‘the devolution of the species’.
The real plague. And right in front of our wincing eyes.
The US is no longer in the “pandemic phase” of COVID-19 – Dr. Anthony Fauci
These streeteries are ugly, annoying, and 90% empty.
I can guarantee that we on Council are not being paid off, but I can’t blame you for wondering about that. Despite what it surely looks like, we are not a lock-step group of politicians who all see things the same way.
Public comment is important. We tend to have our social bubbles of our family, friends and coworkers, and believe it or not, we may not have heard enough opposing views on a given issue. I’ve made it a point to reach out to people who have different views than my immediate take on things. As a result, I’ve change my initial stance on some issues, including this one.
The reason I mention this is to encourage you and others to not assume the City Council is unreachable. Our email addresses are our first initial and last name at cityofpt.us. Mine is bthomas@cityofpt.us. To make public comment for a meeting there’s publiccomment@cityofpt.us. I think it’s worthwhile.
(My above reply was meant for Hildegard.)
Ana, thank you for putting together such remarkably detailed coverage of our last meeting and for putting the arguments against the streateries into clear and understandable terms. I know how much hard work is behind putting pieces like this together.
You accurately quoted me as voicing my support for streateries in general, but I want to clarify that what I meant was al fresco dining in general. The streateries are not the only way to do that, and you’ve documented well their drawbacks. I remember thinking during the meeting that I worded that wrong, so I wanted to use this opportunity to be more clear.
I have to admit that I’m still not comfortable speaking as a Council member and tend to fumble my words a bit. I’d like to think that as I get more comfortable in the role my ability to clearly communicate to the public will improve.
Ben, again many thanks for being willing to engage in this space. And for being open to other perspectives.
I am disgusted with these so-called “streateries” because they establish “separate but equal” segregatory devices for the next lockdown to divide the “clean vaccinated” from the “dirty unvaccinated,” reminiscent of earlier eras that we thought we had left behind. As well, they are ugly, unsafe, and take up public parking and/or walking space. Just for the record, healthy unvaccinated people have NEVER been the vectors of disease; au contraire, recently-vaccinated folks can spread and shed to others for six to eight weeks and even longer, and be asymptomatic. Everything we’ve heard about disease is completely inverted from the truth by our media charlatans. Do your research. https://thepulse.one/2022/03/31/the-specter-of-asymptomatic-spread/, https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/canadian-covid-care-alliance-destroys-myth-of-pandemic-of-unvaccinated/ Dr. Blaylock: The Covid Pandemic and the mRNA Vaccine: What is the Truth? https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-update-what-truth/5779037
I will be presenting this tonight 5/2 at Council meeting
A Municipal Code is to be passed and adopted. Why would anyone think this proposed Municipal Code would be fairly enforced when Municipal Code section 10.04.00 regarding parking is not?
Are some Municipal Codes “more equal”, as with this more equal new class of business people expected to betray other business people for self interest? Or, will this new Municipal Code be ignored and expanded contrary to the duties of the City Manager and Police Chief, both sworn to do specific jobs.
Laws and codes are how the public is supposed to be shielded from corruption.
Corruption ignores laws and codes. And down the slippery slope we go.
When parking issues were manufactured by defunding and decommissioning the volunteer parking enforcement over 8 years ago, I spoke with Jerry Speakerman who oversaw the parking enforcement volunteers.
His estimation was 50 spots per day were taken by all day parking in 2 hour zones.
There are about 308 days per year after removing Sundays and holidays from what should be enforced parking. Times $300 per day according to inflation adjusted numbers from the 2004 Parking Study is $92,400 per spot. Times the 50 spots according to Jerry Speakerman, who should know, is $4,620,000.
That is Four Million Six Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars per year lost to business. And proportionate losses to City B&O taxes. This according to the City’s own study numbers and expert personnel..
Everyone loses. The City Council never responded to my regular documentation of the problem. It is malfeasance on multiple levels. Key players find themselves not guilty.
This streaterie proposal should not have been moved forward. No real notice was given to those most impacted. A very bad faith move by Mauro and Faber using Main Street.
Giving public parking to private for profit individuals at considerable loss to the City and businesses will be challenged through the State Auditor and perhaps a class action lawsuit.
Division, discrimination, and strife is seeded. THE VOCAL MINORITY IS MAURO, FABER, AND SOME ON COUNCIL WHO DEFINE ONLY THEMSELVES, AND HAVE NO INTEREST IN REAL PUBLIC INPUT.
Still time to change course. Or double down.
Community. It is an often used word. And often abused in Port Townsend. I was always taught that in a community no one is, as Orwell put it, “more equal” than another in the community.
What is before the City Council is indeed establishing a “more equal” group of business owners, favored restaurant owners. This is simply discrimination by Municipal Code. Value is to be added to some lucky lottery winners businesses, for life, reducing parking and business access for all, including the lucky winners.
Discrimination, lack of real public notice, and taking public parking for special interests seem to be lost on some involved here. Hopefully the Council understands its duty is to protect and serve all equally.
City Manager Mauro had a big PR project with “Engage Port Townsend”. Why did he and Council members not engage actual businesses by visiting one afternoon and finding out if they approved of or needed his negative impact streateries?
Negative, causing division. Negative, taking limited mismanaged parking away. Negative, by increasing competition for a finite number of people needing a place to eat. Only the most successful will be able to afford fees, “nice” tents, and decorations that will sit empty the majority of the year.
The Vote will show who understands larger issues and who does not. It would seem that an Attorney sitting as the Appointed Weak Mayor would understand more and be held more accountable. But his costly Cherry Street and Visitor Center Plaza track record is negative, and he now thinks he can lead Council to another disaster with “engaged” City Manager Mauro, and a slanted poll purposefully not reaching the most impacted.
A slanted narrowly distributed poll put on by Main Street, which gets funding from City Taxes. Corruption? You bet!
The life blood of business is access, or parking. That is now proposed to be reduced even more than currently, with illegal all day parking being absolutely abandoned and neglected by other City Council compositions for over 8 years, including some currently serving all “equal” members of the public.
Orwell also said “What counts is that we don’t betray each other”. To sign up for this lottery is to betray other businesses for selfish self interest.
For Council members to vote for something whose false need and false “vitality” is invented, is to betray common sense and the broad and equal public you are sworn to serve.
We business folk who actually live the reality do not want or need what some shielded folk propose. We will be fine, as always. We are not broken. You are not the fix. Through parking chaos you have impeded resilience, recovery, and equality.
Some of Mauro’s favorite buzz words.
I have reminded you of parking losses with pictures and text for 8 years. For the record, lest anyone claim not to know.
Get and stay the hell out of the way and work on housing, streets, policing, and other city business.
Faber, Mauro, and others are not social engineers. They will pay nothing for their multi layer failures.
Think community. Think equality. Think for yourself. Don’t follow those who did not earn their positions.
Why don’t all of the businesses in town extend their business out to streetside kiosks? What makes restaurants special?
This is part of the agenda for tonight city Council meeting. Very interesting. Especially that second bit.
Gutter Dining. My contact in Greenport, NY claims the term originated there. Let the memes begin.
Monday evening 909 pm. Just back from Council Meeting. 6 to 0 vote to table the permanent streateries ordinance in the downtown Historic District and allow as proposed uptown and areas outside the Historic District where parking is not such an issue.
The extension of temporary streateries already in place is unclear. The tabling is at least until a parking management plan is in place. Wording on that is not clear, the words implemented and functioning full time would be necessary in my view.
Thanks to all of those paying attention and speaking up here and to Council.
Stay tuned.. Temporary status is unclear.
PT City Council: “Let them eat cake in the street.”
Did any of you notice last night after the motion to table the resolution was destroyed and made piecemeal, that Libby Windstrom had a conversation with Aislinn where Libby said, “The bad thing didn’t happen,” like she was calming a frightened child?
Last night proved that our city council is infantile and reprobate. Ben Thomas had the adult courage to motion to table, and it terrified the big babies so much even after they had admitted the public did not want the streateries and the business owners did not want the streateries, but they are going to shove ’em down our throats, anyway. Kris Nelson will have mystical
experiences in HER gutter tent. Hoo boy.
Monica MickHager’s take on commercial landlord
rights is curious, as well.
You know you’re in deep, when your elected officials consider representing you as The Bad Thing.
Let the lawsuits begin…
Amen Tammy !!!!
Responsibility and credit where due.
It has been a gift to watch Ben Thomas actually engage the community and without any ego whatsoever try to make sense out of what he is learning and seeing. He is seeing promises and assurances being broken. He is an innocent among those who lost or never had that.
He is learning to lead and serve with humility. If the system were fixed to allow term limits and an elected Mayor, he would get my vote. What you don’t know should not limit you. Reach out to those that do for guidance. That is leadership.
Watching Libby and Aislinn want to play and experiment with other people’s lives and livelihoods without any real on the ground experience or understanding of the true community is a lesson in how things go so badly with Council decisions at times.
Rewarding limited notice and a slanted poll seem not to matter.
The format where some can spew false information and not be immediately corrected or challenged by “the audience” adds to misdirected confused thinking.
At one point Libby said “we are not at war here”. I could not help but answer back from the peanut gallery that perspectives vary with who is getting shelled. The City has been at war with everyone’s parking and business access and promoted neighbor on neighbor disrespect for years. Figures based on their staff input and the value of each lost parking spot shows that they can’t afford not to deal with parking and have been costing themselves and business millions of dollars per year. Times 8 years now.
The “loud minority” is not the majority pushing back. It is those who coined the term.
Mr. Faber seemed to perhaps catch some humility from Ben and even said he may have been “myopic”. This elevates you Mr. Faber. It in no way diminishes you. Continue on that path. Owen Rowe seemed to actually process in real time what he was seeing with public comment and also showed some positive attributes.
Monica assisted Ben and also seemed to be actually processing input.
Mauro is oddly silent. Very silent. Seems he still has a streaterie he signed off on that was to be permanent. Wink. Nod. Keep an eye on that.
The community response is gratifying and gives hope. Unicorns and rainbows to not gush from mess tents set up in the gutters eliminating business access for all. It could make some folks a little more money. How much is enough money and success?
A gushy presentation fitting of a past Main Street influencer should be watched by all in the May 2 archives. Good on you for your success. Leave some for others.
Serious input is that any money from city taxes to Main Street should be funneled to a volunteer program of wandering information providers who also write tickets when absolutely needed and warranted. Karma repair for Main Street and Mari.
Or, hanging baskets and dysfunction.
https://cityofpt.granicus.com/player/clip/2404
43:35
Kris Nelson, re her FabervilleGutterTent:
“Anyone is welcome before and after
that we are open.”
Homeless advocates, did you hear her?
ANYONE IS WELCOME
BEFORE AND AFTER
THAT WE ARE OPEN
Absolutely- Now the employees have a safe place to sleep before getting up to serve another day. Hope she is kind enough to keep the heat on. I am in shock that this is even on the table for discussion when we have such longstanding parking and housing issues. Thank you to all who spoke up against the latest abuse of power.
Yes, the FabervilleGuttershacks are the only affordable housing in PT for employees of downtown shops. I wouldn’t blame employees at all, for sleeping in them.
As for Ms. Nelson, she can’t even find servers for Sirens, but she claims the guttershack @ WhiskeyMill has been used everyday. I guess whenever she stepped into the tent, it was immediately occupied by at least one person that day.
It’s also HMMM that both Kris Nelson and Libbie Winndstrum have made snide comments about the only lack of parking is on the “flat part of downtown”. Neither one of them park on the hill at Washington when they come downtown to work or play. Nor does Mari Mullen.
If everyone parks up the hill, that’s gonna mean that neighborhood up there becomes the defacto parking lot for downtown. Sure the neighborhood will love that like they love the speeding postal semi-trucks which still plow over the miniroundabouts.