Wave It Around

On May 24th, after a three hour hearing, Judge Lisa Sutton denied Michael Jenkins (developer)  and George Narozonick’s (owner) request to reconsider her decision on the 7-Eleven project. Jenkins attorney, Aaron Laing from Bellevue, immediately went on what only can be described as an injudicious rant.

This hapless man, acting more like a partner in Click and Clack’s firm of “Dewey, Cheatum and Howe”, started ranting on how the Westside community  will  “wave around” Judge Sutton’s decision and use it as a “sword”  for other “shenanigans” and began demanding that we  “solemnly swear before this court” that we will do no such thing. This was an embarrassment and Judge Sutton quickly adjourned the proceedings.

The Westside, the Olympia Community, the City Council, the Planning Commission and the Intercity Transit Authority should “wave around” Judge Sutton’s decision:

1. The City cannot change the designation of a street for the purpose of eliminating street side improvements that would otherwise be required, as they proposed to do on Division Street.

2.  In an High Density Corridor (HDC) zone designed to increase density and reduce dependence on autos, the requirement for multiple-story buildings means you can’t add more one-story buildings.

Continue reading


Court Reverses City of Olympia’s Approval of 7-Eleven Project

A great victory for the Westside neighborhood!

This morning Judge Sutton reversed the City of Olympia’s approval of a 7-Eleven project at Harrison and Division on all three of our arguments.

I’ll write more later, but thanks to everyone who stuck with this for the past year, to our Attorney Bob Shirley and to Rachel Lee who provided us with meeting space, coffee and pizza to keep us going.


Letter to City Council re:Discussion on 7-Eleven

January 14, 2012

Dear Mayor Buxbaum and Council Members Cooper, Hankins, Jones, Langer, Roe and Rogers,

Thank you very much for opening the discussion on 7-Eleven at your Tuesday, January 10, 2012 session.  I’m sure as this new Council establishes itself your collective voice will become stronger. We look forward to you placing this continuing discussion on the January 24th agenda so citizens will have advance notice and be present for your discussion.

Over 121 Olympia citizens in an open letter to you and in two full page advertisements in local newspapers asked you to settle the anti-7-Eleven Superior Court lawsuit in my favor, yet the settlement question was not addressed by your City Attorney nor by any of you on Tuesday evening.

Continue reading

Stand Up For The Plan: Reject the 7-Eleven at Harrison and Division

(January 3, 2012, Open Letter To The New Olympia City Council)

Honorable Mayor Stephen Buxbaum and Council Members Jim Cooper, Steve Langer, Nathaniel Jones, Jeannine Roe, and Karen Rogers:

We are among the thousand plus citizens of Olympia who oppose the City staff ’s approval of an auto-dependent, 7-Eleven convenience store adding to the traffic dangers at the intersection of Harrison and Division.

You, as the legislative body for the City of Olympia, have the authority to settle the 7-Eleven lawsuit.

Please stand up for the Comprehensive Plan and for the vision of Olympia that underpins the City’s commitment to a dense, pedestrian friendly and community oriented environment, one that creates “a safe, convenient, and attractive environment for pedestrians, transit riders and bicyclists, and which includes parking and access for vehicles.” (OMC 18.06.20).

Continue reading

Letter to Mayor Buxbaum

(December 31, 2011)

Dear Mayor Buxbaum:

I am writing to ask that the Council discuss and agree to settle the 7-Eleven lawsuit in my favor at your January 24th meeting.

While this lawsuit is in my name, it has both the financial and political support of a large cross section of citizens who live on the Westside.

I’m enclosed a proposed resolution and an offer of settlement. We think these deserve your careful attention.

I believe you can compare this issue to the Council’s decision to reject the Trillium Development for lack of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. In that decision, you rejected the CP&D recommendations that were in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.  You also rejected the Hearing Examiner’s recommendations that were in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.

Continue reading