Thank you for taking the time and effort to create this thoughtful and inspiring post. I agree, it is important that those signed up to speak have equal probabilities to be able to do so. It is unfair to punish those who are signed up in opposition just because there are more of them!!!

This is a public interest issue. So the public ought to play in large when the matter is brought up for public comment before the council.

Thank you for making me aware of the Council's consideration, next Tuesday, of how to handle the September 16th Public Comment. I hope that the matter is well-represented at Tuesday's meeting. Maybe I'll see you there.

bert

... you just had to show up early enough??

I've read your post and Emmett's post and I'm trying to come up with actual solutions to the problem.

In my life, I've had amazing success with offering criticism by offering better ideas and solutions to problems.

At the last hearing I didn't feel the need to speak (even though my name was called after 10pm) because I listened to the people ahead of me and felt well-represented.

What real argument are you going to be able to make in 3 minutes anyway. Especially since written commenting is also accepted and considered.

Unless, of course we don't trust out city council to make good decisions on our behalf (and they are elected for that purpose) then we need to speak at those meetings or consider other political options of trying to replace the council.

Am I oversimplifying things?

mathias

einmaleins

A random draw would level every individual's probability of being chosen first, and would also lead to a representative sample of the various opinions represented, especially if at least 60 people were chosen (3 minutes each = 3 hours). The council could post the first 60 names drawn, and those picked would have the option of passing their turn to a friend, if they thought s/he would do a better job or otherwise needed to go earlier. The council could even set a rule saying that they would not be allowed to adjourn until at least 60 people had spoken.

The only element lost would be the "back-and-forth," but since such situations are usually far removed from the rigor of a formal debate, there's no need to go Pro-Con-Pro-Con in lockstep.

Thanks to all, especially Mr. McKinnon

A few points

1. The idea of referendum has been dismissed too soon. Our State constitution provides for initative and referendum. What's good for all Washington State citizens surely is good for Olympians. Seeing how the rezone is a very controversial proposal why not have a referendum vote on the issue.
2. All available metrics on this issue, sign up sheets, communication to the city council and the planning commission, letters to the editor etc. run two to three to one against the rezone. Any fair allocation of public hearing time needs to be cogent of this.
3. The theory that those who accept change do not participate in the input process is speculative at best, specious at worst.
   
4. A lottery is not Democracy, it's bad math.
   
5. The new city council members were not elected because of thier support of the Triway proposal. They may have recieved campaign contributions in hope they would support it, but not votes.
   
6. The rezone really is a bad idea. The majority of Olympians feel the same way and repeatedly have said so. The debate over representation and psychology of democratic participation are distractions from this fundamental truth.
   

As if-

-there is no "debate" (a formal argument to weigh the pros/cons of the re-zone).

The City of Olympia (CoO) should make the decision without public input, because the form of input that is taking place is just lobbing by proxy...anyone can shoot their mouth off, but only a few folks make the effort to address with correspondence (to say, "put-it-in-writing").

...this is a design issue, plain and simple...

...my main concern is occupancy of these suites and tax waivers.

Thanks for an opportunity to share-

but how about a caucus-like structure. People divide themselves into like minded groups, say pro, anti and undecided rezone proposal, then spend an hour or so talking at the end of which delegates are elected. While this goes on sign-in sheets are tallied and a limited number of spots, say 75 are proportionately allocated. This way all sides can present their best arguments while minimizing redundant, rambling, off-topic and profane testimony.

PS Saw the Batman movie this afternoon. Freakin' Awesome!   

Personally, I liked what Joan Machlis was getting at during the council hearing.

4 or 5 hours of public comment is probably enough. The problem is allowing all sides of the argument equitable representation. The 50/50 pro v. con isn't fair, because the issue is really more like 80 parts opposed to 20 parts supportive. (too bad the planning commission hearing didn't take this into account)

The rezone proposal is not popular. And that is important for the City Council to consider. The proportion of public comments should reflect the relative popularity of the proposal. The lottery system seeks to serve that need.

It won't be perfect. But it will be interesting (and experimental: hopefully educational and informative - both in terms of the rezone proposal itself, as well as the handling such a contentious issue and the related public comments thereon.) Again, it's important that since the oral testimony will carry over to a second hearing session, until everyone who wants to provide oral testimony gets a chance to do so, the representation of various sides of the issue will be proportional.

But back to Machlis's argument, it's important to consider the popularity (or in this case the lack thereof) of the rezone proposal. But it's also important that the Council base its decision not only on the popularity of the issue, but on the merit of the proposal and the merit of the arguments against the proposal.

Are 12 hours of oral testimony really necessary to get a handle on public opinion, as well as the relative merits of the arguments in support and in opposition to the proposal?