Ahhh... A Right To A View?
Peter Callaghan’s column today responds to the Department of Ecology’s decision from two weeks ago that opens the doors for building towers on the Thea Foss. Callaghan reminds us that the path to development isn’t wide open yet.
Thankfully, then, the master plan is only the first regulatory step. Once building plans are final, the developer must seek shoreline permits. The appeal path for those is not Ecology but the state Shorelines Hearings Board. And in every single case where public views competed with private profit, that board has sided with the public.
This debate isn’t going to end any time soon.
Link to The News Tribune
Previously on Exit133
Filed under: The-Politics-of-Development
8 comments
E Erik B. September 9, 2008
There is no right to a view in Washington State.
The thought that one has a right to a view in while located in the central business district is especially absurd. Other cities are building one tall building after another. Only in Tacoma is a new tall building downtown seen as radical.
C crenshaw sepulveda September 9, 2008
I think you’ll find the people in Olympia even more radical regarding water views from downtown. If water views exist in the year 2008 I think they are worth saving for the benefit of the public. What a travesty it would be to allow the developers to block the views from the public for the benefit of a few fat cats. What would be even worse would be to give these fat cats 10 year property tax abatements, talk about adding insult to injury. If we have some views remaining in downtown Tacoma they should be preserved. At the very least there should be some pretty big concessions from the developers to obtain these views for the benefit of a very few.
There may be no “right” to a view but if we have sensible people in government to govern the use of land we will continue to have these views well into the future. If this project does get built with the increased height limits I would hope there would be no tax abatement involved. Plenty of pot holes around here that need to be fixed. For crying out loud the sidewalk in front of 747 St. Helens is covered with tar paper. There are holes in 9th street big enough to lose a small dog in.
I I'm for Change (for tacoma) September 9, 2008
Why is it ok to preserve the views from downtown/hilltop only? McKinley will lose some of its water views if that stupid car museum goes in, but I don’t hear anyone saying that’s not the right thing to do.
A altered chords September 9, 2008
OK – Here’s the compromise. Let the potholes remain unrepaired. During the fall/winter/spring they will fill with water.
Then everyone will have a water view.
C crenshaw sepulveda September 9, 2008
We’ve got plenty of museums that are poorly attended. What makes anyone think a LeMay car museum will do any better. If we are going to have a car museum I think the LeMay people should foot the entire bill.
I would feel bad if this museum blocks views from McKinley Hill, especially if tax payer money is involved with the project. Existing views, in my book, are more important to Tacoma than some monument to the obsession of a trash collector.
S Squid September 9, 2008
Pete is on the right side of this issue, it’s just that “view protection” is the wrong reason. Every major city protects its shorelines from high-rise development, not for view protection, but because having high rises on a shoreline would ruin the public’s “experience” of being on the shoreline (for lack of a better term) whether that is actually on land or in the water. It is generally accepted and practiced to have gradually increasing building height limits as you move back from the actual shore.
Tacoma should have a discussion as whether or not the importance of the Foss Waterway developments supercede this consideration, but let’s be talking about the right reasons here – and it ain’t view projection. We could in fact decide that we are so desperate for development that we go counter to what is generally accepted practice in most world-class cities (including Seattle, Vancouver, San Francisco and Portland). Upon deliberation, that could be a decision that reasonable people make.
As long as we are at it, is there still time to get Old Country Buffet into the Heidelberg hotel development? That could be a package deal.
T TheGulag September 10, 2008
one of the largest collections of automobiles in the world”.
It IS the worlds largest private car collection.
S Stanford Speck September 10, 2008
Peter is correct that private developer and Tacoma city government are collaborating to re-zone precious public waterfront (Thea) to maximize the profit potential for a singular investor. Gone are the days of government supporting the commons and enter the days of selective rezoning and irrevocable poor public land use decisions.
This is another case of city bureaucrats losing their way and acting as surrogates for powerful moneyed interest rather than the public. Why stop with the wall of skyscrapers on the Thea? There is a lot of room for high rise luxury condos on Ruston Way. I sure that the City Council could apply the same logic they used in their brief in support of this rezoning:
“WHERAS the City Council finds that the revitalization of the Waterway to a vibrant people place with an abundance of amenities and public access to the shoreline is dependent, in part, on the investment of the private sector. Without development, these amenities would not be built and maintained….”