Development is significant for the future of our city, but careful planning and development are paramount. In so many cities throughout our country, there are ill-conceived and poorly planned projects that have been built for bad reasons, whether those reasons are development for development’s sake or the threat of lawsuit from moneyed interests.

Peaceful Valley is a quaint neighborhood, but that does not mean that its citizens are naïve about our city’s needs. In fact, many Peaceful Valley residents are proponents of density and infill, especially development that is sensitive to environmental and ethical issues.

I use the term ethical purposefully: Whenever a developer privileges profit over all other concerns, he or she is engaging in an unethical action that is counterintuitive to constructing cities that support community, to stimulating shared public discourse and human connection – what another era called neighborliness.

Last year, Spokane’s hearing examiner made a well-argued and clearly articulated decision that Mick McDowell’s Riverview condominium project falls into the category of a building that is not in the aesthetic, practical or ethical best interests of our city. Since that decision, McDowell has effectively blackmailed the City Council through legal action; his claim is that he was not given ample notification of the changes in height restrictions. His legal action – whether meritorious or not – does nothing to address the fact that his project was also rejected because it failed to integrate itself, as per the requirements of transition zone development, with the nearby neighborhood of Peaceful Valley.

There are other problems: Legitimate traffic studies have not been conducted, and shading studies clearly indicate that the project would shadow public property. Both of these problems are further proof that McDowell’s project has no concern for community; it is a human warehouse jutting into the sky. That he wants to build such an inhumane dwelling is his own business; that he wants to build such a dwelling and demands that the city compromise our legal codes is hubristic at best.

Although he (and his minions) continually repeat that he could build an even taller structure on Riverside Avenue, the truth of the matter is that he wants an exception to the city’s height requirement so that he can avoid the tremendous expenditure of trying to create a stable foundation out of a very unstable hillside.

Further, for him to pretend that his window dressing on the dilapidated staircase, his “artwork” on the concrete walls of a parking garage and his donation to a whitewater park that doesn’t even want to be associated with him are significant measures to alleviate the impact of a 17-story building is preposterous – nearly as preposterous as his threatening the city because the hearing examiner offered a just decision.

Our city needs development driven by foresight and motivated by the urge to connect people rather than barricade them in looming tubes of concrete. Urban density should be planned in order to create livable corridors where human interaction and community are emphasized.

A forward-thinking developer would recognize the need to address both aesthetic and integrationist concerns. For example, a quick Google search reveals dozens of projects that promote density – in Portland, Vancouver, Boise and even the Spokesman’s own Ms. Pia Hansen’s beloved Copenhagen – while still maintaining an ethical approach to surrounding neighborhoods, landscape and other features.

McDowell’s project does none of the above. I don’t blame him for trying to cash in on his property; I blame him for trying to leverage his wealth into privilege that few other citizens could hope to garner. I blame him for being so imaginatively bankrupt that he cannot come up with a better plan. I blame him for blackmailing the city into allowing his bidding to be done; I blame him for being the embodiment of the crass American ethos that is incapable of looking further into the future than the next possibility of a cash payout.

I hope that the City Council agrees with this assessment. More importantly, though, I hope that the City Council has the integrity and courage to stand up to his threats. Our city needs to see some – any – of its elected officials privilege what’s right over what’s expedient. To deny McDowell this settlement would be a just decision, but more importantly, it would show that the council envisions a future for the city that involves both progress and vision.