Councilman Barry Peters has accused critics of the Winslow Way project of intentionally fostering “misconceptions” in order to rouse fears of the community and increase opposition to the project.
It is Mr. Peters and other members of the council majority who have hidden behind convenient omissions and careful turns of phrase to diffuse the difficult realities surrounding the project.
Defending the inclusion of the project in the 2009-2010 budget, Councilman Chris Snow said in December, “The budget does not include any taxpayer funds for the Winslow Way project.”
While utility ratepayers may not be technically classified as “taxpayers,” the city’s plan to increase rates for the sole purpose of paying for the commercial upgrades on Winslow Way is surely nothing less than a tax by another name. And wouldn’t a reasonable “taxpayer” – a term often used interchangeably with “citizen” – be surprised to learn of these rate increases in light of Mr. Snow’s statement? Some might conclude that the statement was intended to foster “misconceptions” in order to prevent dissent among ratepayers.
Perhaps the council majority has realized that some clarification of the funding scheme might be in order if it wishes to continue to assert that no “taxpayer funds” will be used. In January, Mr. Peters said “not one dollar of our local taxes will go to the project from now to completion” and the “cost to our three utilities” would be a mere $5 million.
What’s not said is that $5 million does not exist in a bank account at American Marine, nor will it ultimately be paid by “the utilities.” Rather, it will be raised through revenue bonds that must be repaid by… that’s right, increasing rates for utility ratepayers. This will be in addition to the millions more needed for the wastewater treatment plant also to be paid for by ratepayers.
Mr. Peters noted $5 million “from now until completion.” Well-chosen words, as the city has in fact already spent many millions of taxpayer dollars on Winslow Tomorrow and the Winslow Way Streetscape.
Peters wants the community to believe that the current “reconstruction” project has nothing at all to do with Winslow Tomorrow and that critics of the project are making unfounded connections among the current project, Winslow Tomorrow and increased building heights. He says that “the project will not involve any zoning changes.”
While this statement is technically true, it avoids the underlying issue: the community’s concern that the project will lead to tall buildings and a loss of character on our Main Street. It turns out that there is no longer any real need for zoning changes. Under current zoning, once the pipes in the street are upgraded, and now that the current council majority had reduced onsite-parking requirements by 50 percent, nothing will prevent downtown property owners from putting in 45-foot-high buildings. In fact, this project is the only thing left standing between us and a Winslow Way lined with three- and four-story buildings.
Kirsten Hytopoulos
Bainbridge Island
