Greenacres zoning laws need to be amended
I’ve begun to wonder if the City Council has mistaken north Greenacres as the Spokane Valley’s Gaza Strip, an ideological war utilizing legal fiat.
A focused effort to control this area and drive out existing lifestyles has defied all reason. Zoning is the newest tyranny. We feel held hostage by interests wanting control of the land who don’t even live here.
Last fall, City Council majority – Steve Taylor, Dick Denenny, Mike DeVleming and Mayor Diana Wilhite – showed their contempt for the process and citizen input by revoking north Greenacres zoning, approved in 2005.
Since that time our neighborhood has doubled in size. The landscape next to me has been dubbed the “east bank.” Its incongruent shape obliterates the once-scenic horizon. As in any battle, lives of innocent, peace-loving citizens have been disrupted, their neighborhood changed beyond recognition.
Last Tuesday, a new City Council majority went to work. Mayor Munson reopened the zoning discussion. Councilman Gary Schimmels stated, “We encouraged them to petition, pay, and then changed it in the end. I don’t think we were honest to those people. It troubles me more than anything.”
More troubling was the belligerent stance of councilmen Taylor and Denenny considering the betrayal felt by north Greenacres. “What’s the difference we’re only adding 18 or 19 more homes?” Denenny countered, confirming change was about power, not lot sizes.
North Greenacres looked beyond houses to work for development regulations to protect all Spokane Valley neighborhoods. The present and future needs of our roads were brought before the council, begging for a transportation study and prioritizing Flora Road improvements due to highly increased traffic. We were ignored.
This November, a teenager walking on Flora Road was killed in a hit and run. Poor visibility and lack of sidewalks were contributing factors. I’ve been told his death will add points in applying for grants to upgrade Flora Road. Experts use pre-development accident patterns rather than neighborhood “expert” testimony. The social inequity is glaring. That’s the difference.
Taylor posed restoring larger lot sizes would send bad signals to the development community. This is not a minor but a “sweeping change.” Denenny worried developers would respond to council’s action with, “What the hell are they doing?”
Councilwoman Diana Wilhite sided with Taylor while aware of the issues. Problems so acute in 2006, while the city ignored neighborhood outcries, Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich stepped in to re-establish order due to public endangerment.
Taylor persisted it is arbitrary and discriminatory to restore the zoning. “This is a legislative decision.” Taylor subscribed to the idea of the “larger good” rather than a mere neighborhood, while sanctioning the suppression of neighborhood input. Councilwoman Rose Dempsey was undaunted,stating this was one of the reasons she was elected, to correct the initial injustice.
An astute French philosopher and sociologist, Jacques Ellul, maintained this “larger good” notion is deeply influenced by the immediate self-interests of individuals or communities in power. “History is replete with occasions in which persons in power have defined what is the good of a “whole” in such a way that tyranny has been justified and the overriding of individual rights and liberties warranted.”
Councilman Gothmann’s motion placed zoning of north Greenacres on the calendar for May 13 but the process extends into 2009. Clearly the balance of the council has changed and hopefully caution will be exercised to protect individual and group interests. James Bovard aptly said, “A man’s home is his castle; except if a politician covets the land the house is built on.”
It’s time for amends.