Post in A bad place for a good project

Jan 08 19:40 UTC

What faces us here is a regulatory decision, where the city will reach a "hard
power" judgment over the outcome of the decision.  Those decisions tend by
their nature to be polarizing, which is what spurs me to write.

Here's a missing observation: most developers also respond to the "soft power"
at the City's disposal.

Soft might include meetings with the developer before applying for rezoning,
where specific development sites are encouraged or discouraged.   One of the
interesting dynamics here is that often a developer forms their idea with one
Councilmember and Ward's needs, which can hinder the City from taking a "big
picture" assessment of what's best for the City broadly.

Soft power might include meetings with the developer to discuss what kind of
impacts on adjacent homeowners would be appropriate, and what would not.  Soft
power might mean getting the developer and community stakeholders together for
constructive meetings before any formal application is made.

Soft power might include financial incentives to locate the project in areas
where the public benefits are perceived as greater (like using a grocery store
to directly leverage other new taxpaying development) and drawbacks fewer (in
an area better able to handle traffic).  Of course, those incentives often
bring controversy, but that controversy can be softened by involving the public
up front.

Soft power is usually not as visible to the public, but it's potential is real.
I don't know exactly how that soft power played out here, and importantly, I'm
intending no judgment on it.

But it is clear that in reality, when you pull back from the current moment,
there's a lot of ground between the rather unhelpful designations of being
"pro-development" and "anti-development".   Reliance on those designations
tends to mask legitimate points of disagreement, and creates a less fruitful
discussion as a result.