Process Puts Peaceful Valley Decision On Hold Talbott Joins Greene, Higgins In Move That Delays Vote On Tax Exemption For Developers

It was an intriguing night for watchers of Spokane City Council politics.

While the most significant votes Monday were on the mundane business of deferring an item - specifically, if a tax exemption program should be extended to a tiny section of Peaceful Valley - the interesting part was who voted for what and why.

Mayor John Talbott broke with Councilman Steve Eugster and the council majority to side with council members Roberta Greene and Rob Higgins to vote against extending the tax exemption. Their threatened “no” vote forced a deferral, and the hope of an eventual compromise.

While Talbott almost always sides with Eugster, particularly on matters concerning River Park Square, on some issues, the mayor indicated Monday, Eugster will not get his way.

Talbott, Greene and Higgins all said they supported the tax program in principle, but all said they had deep reservations about the process with which it was brought before the council.

“I believe the process that we followed has shown to be an embarrassment,” Talbott said. Essentially a minor modification of a tax-incentive ordinance the council passed in March, the extension was introduced by Eugster at the behest of developer Robert Cooke.

The program is designed to promote the development of multifamily housing in and around the downtown area by giving developers a 10-year exemption from state property taxes.

Cooke is planning a 12-unit condominium development on Riverside Avenue at the far western edge of Browne’s Addition. His development, as well as others proposed for Riverside, would overlap into Peaceful Valley, hence the extension.

Dozens of Peaceful Valley and Browne’s Addition residents spoke against extending the tax break Monday and at last week’s council meeting, complaining not only about the tax program’s impact on their neighborhoods but how there had been almost no notification of the proposed change.

It was those concerns that led to the three council members’ opposition.

“My quandary is that while I support this, I never wanted to ram it down the throats of a neighborhood,” said Greene. “Process is very important.”

Eugster, however, said no one should have been surprised by his proposal.

“I made it very clear what I was trying to do,” he said.

Because Phyllis Holmes, who generally votes in the minority, was absent, the three “no” votes would have resulted in a tie. Under council rules, a tie means the motion fails.

That vote never occurred, however. Councilman Steve Corker suggested a deferral so that Cooke could meet with community members to work out a compromise. Earlier, when it appeared he had the votes he needed, Cooke argued against the deferral, saying any delay could endanger his project.

Referring to the votes lined up against the proposal, Corker told Cooke, “You don’t have to be a mathematical genius to see what’s going on here.”

After some hesitation, Cooke agreed to meet with the neighbors, and the council voted unanimously to defer the issue until Sept. 11.

In a council recess after the vote, Talbott and Eugster were seen arguing vigorously over what had transpired. It was the council’s second vote on the deferral. The first, which occurred over an hour earlier, failed with a 3-3 vote, with the mayor again joining Greene and Higgins.

It was Higgins who proposed that deferral, which prompted an annoyed response from Eugster.

“I appreciate the suggestion as to how I’m supposed to legislate,” Eugster said.

Things got testier when Higgins said, “I move that we defer and instruct Mr Eugster to meet with the neighborhood …” “You don’t instruct me to do anything,” Eugster interrupted.

In resisting the deferrals, Eugster argued that he had already modified his initial ordinance to very narrowly define the affected area. He wasn’t proposing a zoning change, he said, and therefore the nature of the new developments would be no different than what is currently allowed by law.

Further, he argued that the neighborhoods were simply opposed to change.

“Our community will not evolve unless we bring new housing stock to downtown,” Eugster said. “I own a house in Browne’s Addition. I care about it. But I care about the neighborhood. If things don’t change, they die.”

Resident after resident, however, complained as much about the process by which the issue reached the council as the contents of the proposal.

“Right now, it looks like neighborhood residents are not being supported while special interests are, and that’s really unfortunate,” said Janet Anderson.

James Red Jr., a Spokane County planner, questioned the methods by which the neighborhoods had been chosen for the tax program.

“What process was undertaken by the city of Spokane to target this area?” Red asked. “How did you determine this was a good idea? There was a total lack of process in this whole issue.”