I posted a couple of comments on Peter Alden Stroble's OLY 2012's Final Position Paper Endorsing the Urban Waterfront Rezone post (about the Isthmus rezone.) I want to separate them and post them here. The first comment is in response to my effort to deepen the discussion about OLY 2012's advocacy of Smart Growth in regard to the furtherance of sustainability. Can "Smart Growth" further the goal of "sustainability?":

Deepening the Discussion

Yes, I would like to deepen the discussion. It's not easy for me. This is really difficult. I don't want this to get personal, because I know there are good people on both sides of this issue, and most people on both sides are honest and genuine when they think their way is the best way.

I would love to respond to every point in your paper. I would love to respond to every point in your above statement. I just don't think that I have it in me. I don't right now. I might not anytime soon. Maybe it will be easier for me to approach these points one by one after Tuesday's Council Meeting.

I just looked up Smart Growth today. I don't know all the details. I just know what it said on wikipedia - my understanding of which is that Smart Growth basically is a meme that seeks sustainability through dense urban living. That sounds great to me. And I am glad that we don't have any disagreement here.

One of my major disagreements with OLY 2012 is that I simply do not think, or believe, that the rezone (assuming it would result in Larida Passage) would truly serve the vision of dense urban growth. I think Larida Passage will have the tendency to divide the community - perhaps even cause a gentrification that would drive out the "natives."

The Counter Culture of Olympia needs affordable housing - not luxury condominiums. The counter culture - which I believe is a very valid and special aspect of this unusual town - will not benefit from a few more retail shops and restaurants.

What Olympia needs is housing of all types, luxury included - just not on the Isthmus. What Olympia needs is industry. It needs manufacturing. We cannot have sustainability so long as we are shipping in the basic necessities from far away places. We need to find ways to localize manufacturing and production of the basic goods and necessities - I am talking about construction materials, clothing, food, etc. - Those things need to be locally sourced as much as possible. That is sustainability.

This is a deepening of the discussion on sustainability.

OLY 2012 says that Larida Passage would jumpstart the economy to advance the cause of Smart Growth. An admirable cause I agree! - However, the facts just don't pan out. I don't see how it will work. There are already housing projects moving ahead. What this town needs is affordable housing. What this town needs is a return to manufacturing (environmentally conscious of course), to serve the cause of truly functional sustainability.

We can. Change is possible. The park is important because it would add to the novel and forward thinking character of Olympia. It would increase the likelihood of attracting visitors, residents and investors (in the housing and industrial sectors.)

bert

The second comment is a response to a request to explain my criticism of OLY 2012's position (in re: Smart Growth and sustainability) as somehow Orwellian and reminiscent of DoubleThink:

part one:

Doublethink

Actually, it sounds a whole lot like doublethink, to me.

Doublethink as defined in the novel 1984 by George Orwell:

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them . . . . To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

part two (in response to a request to explain the above (part one)):

Transcribing Orwell

Hey, thanks. I didn't do the transcription. I found it on a web-site. The whole book is published online. Here's a link to a blog I wrote about it on In the Course of Events: 1984, In the Course of Events

I hope that I didn't offend Peter, or anyone else from OLY2012 when I accused the group of Double Think. I really don't want to get into a personal fracas with anyone. I don't know Peter very well, but I am friends with one of the steering members of OLY2012, and I am sad to say that all of this arguing over the rezone and Larida Passage has put some strain on.

Okay. I'll explain. First off, the concept of "Smart Growth." The term itself sounds Orwellian. It sounds like doublethink, or newspeak, or crimethink. smart growth. smartgrowth.

Secondly. I simply cannot believe that the rezone, and Larida Passage - subsequently, will meet the stated goals of Smart Growth.

This is a luxury condominium development that would be affordable for only the richest element in society. To paint that in a cloak of sustainability strikes me as simply disingenuous. I am sorry if that's offensive. But that is the honest truth of how I see it.

Rich people have the biggest impact on the planet and society. Rich people leave the biggest footprint. Rich people, sorry to say, cause the most environmental degradation. That's the way it is. It's sad, but true.

So I don't want to see this turned around - to reward rich people with the best views. Reward rich people for causing degradation to the environment, whether through recreational activities or business activities. (Wars of aggression very much included - reference G. Smedley Butler "War is a Racket." This may seem like a non sequitor, but it is not. War and the corporations it serves, are very much part of the problem - and part of the issue with this project.)

That said, let me make it clear that I don't hate rich people. I know a lot of rich people. In some ways I am a rich person. I have rich friends whom I love. So please don't understand this as an attack on rich people. It's a critique of some of what some rich people do (sometimes.)

Maybe it's classism. But you have to understand that from the perspective of the poor that this project is just another example of a battle in the war on poor people.

Trying to deepen the discussion,
Robert Whitlock

[p.s. additionally: Are the concepts of "Growth" (even if it is "Smart Growth") and Sustainability (if it is truly functional and global sustainability) mutually inclusive?

Now, there might be a line of questioning to deepen the discussion about growth and sustainability.]