Four the Future - SARP

The Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan (SARP). For those who are unfamiliar with it, SARP is a plan adopted by the Spokane Valley City Council. There were several controversial aspects to it, including "down-zoning" areas along Sprague Avenue east of the Sprague/Appleway couplet, and converting Sprague back to two-way traffic. Several of the city councilmembers who supported the SARP were turned out of office in the following election by a group calling themselves the "Positive Change" coalition.

• SARP Opposition
  Summary: At the west end of the SARP area, officially called the Gateway Commercial Avenue and Gateway Commercial Center zones, the rules for mixed-use development were changed by the "Positive Changes" coalition to allow Harlan Douglass and Elephant Boys operate an auto-sales business. This amendment occurred after Douglass had sued the city, but the city successfully defended the original denial. The planning commission had recommended that wall signs be banned above the first floor. Councilmember Rose Dempsey indicated support for that recommendation, but Councilmember Dean Grafos "abruptly shut down discussion" (Spokesman-Review, "Ordinance allows vehicle sales in mixed-use avenue zone", September 16, 2010) and the council overturned the commission's recommendation. A month later, in a 5-2 vote, the City Council voted to kill SARP with Bill Gothmann and Rose Dempsey in opposition. Gothmann argued that some plan needs to be in place, even if it's not SARP. Councilmember Bob McCaslin argued that there is a plan: private enterprise. Carlos Landa, who owns a strip mall that is 80% vacant at the corner of Sprague and Pines, said that he won't commit to invest $250,000 in improvements without a plan to revitalize the corridor.
  Opinion: The advantage of planning is that people can make commitments with the confidence that the plan will be executed. In other words, plans reduce risk and that encourages investment. In a wider context, the problem is more than mixed use area codes and down zoning, etc.:
  • Spokane Valley is totally lacking in identity, so they can't leverage that into a vision for the future. The absence of neighborhood councils contribute to this problem.
  • Spokane Valley is the definition of sprawl, with far more authority to develop than the economy could possibly support. As a result there is no guidance as to where people should invest in the community. It used to be that transportation and communications were limitations where a person would develop. But, with Spokane Valley's history of indiscriminate public "improvements," the aphorism "location, location, location" means nothing and Bob McCaslin's misguided denial of responsibility all the more disappointing.
• Commission won't back zoning change
  Source: Spokesman-Review; December 16, 2010
  Summary: The new Spokane Valley City Council wanted a change to the comprehensive plan to allow an automobile dealership in the area the previous city council wanted to more walkable, more densely built city center. The city council declared an emergency declaration to change the plan out of cycle, and sent the change to the planning commission. The planning commission, however, did not see that there was an emergency and voted against the amendment.
  Opinion: The commission was responding to the changes the City Council requested on behalf of Pring Corporation between Sprague and Appleway on Dartmouth. One of the commissioners stated that they existed in order to assist the city council, and should consider the council’s recommendation. Another observed that they should not just rubberstamp everything. The second is correct. Congratulations to the Spokane Valley Planning Commission on having a backbone. Too bad the council will likely ignore them. Clearly, the city council has no idea what an "emergency" actually is. It's not a convenience for political considerations, but used for the adoption of regulations to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare.
  
• Couplet likely to remain
  Source: Spokesman-Review; October 30, 2010
  Summary: While the Spokane Valley City Council has begun the process of discarding SARP, one of its elements, converting Sprague back to a two-way street, is still on the table. Except, there's no money. It would cost $1 million to restripe and change stop lights. Additionally, it would cost millions more if landscaping other tweaks are included. Mayor Towey believes that it will take 9 to 12 years to gather the funds to do such a thing. Business owners in the SARP area, pedestrians, and the fire district are opposed to the couplet, while many drivers prefer the wide open driving experience.
  Opinion: The article didn't mention the possibility that the state would force the City of Spokane Valley to repay the millions of dollars the state gave in grants to reconfigure Sprague in the first place. Spokane County engaged in some shenanigans to get that money in the first place, bypassing the Spokane Regional Transportation Council and spending money not authorized by the regional plan, so the other local governments will be less than excited to spend even more regional dollars on authorizing the change anyway.
• Emergency ordinance Jan. 11 would bury vision of SARP
  Source: Spokesman-Review; January 1, 2011
  Summary: With apologies to Shakespeare, City Councilmember Rose Dempsey adapts Mark Antony’s oration at Julius Caesar’s funeral ("Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears") to plead for public involvement in the upcoming hearing regarding SARP’s fate. She points out that recently deceased King Cole had a vision for the City of Spokane, and great things happened. She says that disposing of SARP, which is intended to encourage the economy of a low-performing area of the city, is happening merely for the advantage of one person (presumably Pring).
  Opinion: In choosing Mark Antony’s speech to imitate, Councilmember Dempsey not only appears to supporting the SARP as a platform from which a reasonable plan can emerge, but also appears to be encouraging people to question the honor of the "Positive Change" coalition. After all, how many times can one person say that the "council is honorable and just" without others considering whether it is true or not? This is no mean disagreement. These are people fighting over the plan, and it has become highly political as important plans tend to become. But, it has also become personal, which is simply embarrassing.