Vocal Point: Rezoning change a radical move for this writer

“I want it to be really radical,” said the young lady to the hairdresser. The 20-something blonde sitting in the stylist’s chair next to mine wanted black with pink highlights, or something like that. “That will bring out my eyes”, she said. She was picking colors to frame her face with the same eye Deborah and I would use when picking mat colors for an art print.

I have grown to think that hair is a wonderful medium for personal expression. It can be shaved off, sculpted like a topiary bush, or layered, tied, ironed, bleached and painted, even “varnished” with hairspray. And, no matter how poorly it turns out, given enough time it grows right back to its original state. I marvel at the creativity youth invest in their hair.

How I wish the undeveloped parts of the Spokane Valley were like that young lady’s tresses. Sure, a house painted “roaring red” can be repainted “too-dark brown”, “depressing khaki”, “baby-poop gold” or some other color popular among the we-like-it-gloomy crowd, but the house itself will remain for all to see many decades into the future. Today’s house will still be here in the 22nd century and beyond.

And if that house is located in Greenacres and it’s one of 4.9 per acre, even if it gets replaced someday it is still going to be among 4.9 others on the same acre.

Why 4.9 houses per acre, you ask? Because a majority of our illustrious Spokane Valley City Council felt that “4.9” had better feng shui then the number “4.” They voted recently to allow most residential lots north of 16th to have a minimum size of 7,500 square feet. The council, however, failed to explain how you build nine-tenths of a house. Presumably the remaining tenth would be in your neighbor’s yard.

If you think dying hair jet black with scarlet red highlights is radical, consider this: the council agreed to turn its back upon an earlier rezone agreement made with Greenacres residents to keep minimum lot sizes at 10,000 square feet, or four houses per acre.

The justification for this truly outrageous turnabout was that the previous agreement was made before implementation of the comprehensive plan and, according to Councilman Steve Taylor, because “we have a responsibility to the entire city.”

Three council members had the courage and integrity to suggest that the rules be amended to support the earlier agreement, and they will be remembered for it next election day. Councilman Gary Schimmels said “We do not want to change what we had promised earlier.” Bill Gothman said “I define that as going back on your word.” Gothmann also demonstrated a savvy rarely seen in local politicians when he said “The political cost of rezoning this is, to me, much, much higher than any possible benefit I can think of.” Additional wisdom came from Rich Munson, who said “Just leave it the way it is and let the process take care of itself.”

Indeed, how would abandoning the previous agreement benefit the rest of the city? Or, put another way, how would embracing the previous agreement hurt the rest of us? I’d like to hear an answer to that one. Councilman Taylor’s brush off sounded awfully cold and patronizing. Was he suggesting that Greenacres’ citizens aren’t interested in the good of the city?

This decision will have a long-lasting and far-reaching impact on our community. Compared to a stunning about face like this, changing one’s hair color seems pretty trivial. Would a woman treat her hair like play-dough if there was even the slightest possibility it would forever be asphalt black with dashing white stripes?

So, as I left the hairdresser’s I turned to the soon-to-be-former blonde and told her I hope she enjoyed her new look. And I meant it.

I wish I could say the same thing to the residents of Greenacres.