0 to 933 MPH - #5 — Sightline Daily (formerly Tidepool)

0 to 933 MPH - #5

Posted by Eric de Place

05/31/2006 07:10 PM

Initiative would run down local decision-making.

nascar Note: This is part of a series.

Plenty of folks on Washington's Kitsap Peninsula are worried about a NSACAR track that's being pushed by a Florida corporation. At least two county commissioners think the deal is a rip-off for taxpayers, who would be responsible for financing $166 million of the project. Under the proposal, the corporation would also be exempted from certain taxes, be given land-use waivers, and be allowed keep taxes from ticket sales for NASCAR. In addition to the worrisome finances, a racetrack of that size--83,000 seats--would also strain roads and infrastructure in Kitsap County.

So it's not surprising that plenty of locals are less than happy about the prospect of a gigantic speedway in their backyards. The opposition is a time-honored American tradition: a gathering of neighbors who want a say in their community. They don't have corporate funding or a slick PR campaign, just a simple website, roots in the community, and a belief in local decision-making. "Our Board Room is the kitchen table of whatever member's home we happen to be in," their website says. They may just have a fighting chance.

But in a recent public hearing, county commissioners threw up their hands up at the mention of Initiative 933. If 933 passes, they admitted, land-use changes to accommodate the racetrack would be a fait accompli. Neighbors couldn't do a thing about it.

Start your engines, Kitsap County residents. If I-933 passes, your semi-rural county will likely soon be home to the largest stadium in the Northwest--25 percent larger than Qwest Field and 75 percent larger than Safeco Field.

Permalink

Comments

Posted by Roy Smith 06/01/2006 12:56 PM

I oppose both Initiative 933 and the proposed Kitsap County racetrack, but I think the last two paragraphs of this post are somewhat disingenuous, as they imply that passage of I-933 will automatically result in this boondoggle being built.

The far larger hurdle that the racetrack faces is convincing the legislature to cough up $166 million to subsidize professional sports. An idea similar to this already failed in Snohomish County, and I hope and believe that this proposal is headed toward a similar fate.

Posted by Eric de Place 06/01/2006 02:10 PM

Roy,

I'll admit that the last paragraph employs a bit of hyperbole--the racetrack proposal depends on more than simply land-use changes. It also requires legislative approval for the financing. (Which may not be a slam dunk, according to today's Sea Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003031854_nascar01m.html).

But I stand behind my penultimate graf. I'm simply describing what the county commissioners think I-933 would mean for Kitsap County. Under 933, the county leadership believes it would be forced to allow land-use variances for the racetrack, thereby precluding community opposition to it.

The Kitsap commissioners may be right: there's good reason to believe that 933 really would spell the end of neighborhood and community involvement in land-use planning.

Posted by denisenorman 06/04/2006 01:01 PM

I attended the presentation to Lt. Governor Brad Owen and the legislative economic development committee in Seattle last week. The opponents of the NASCAR project did not present ANY credible evidence of environmental destruction, and frankly, their presentation was a joke that did their cause more harm than good.

One of the legislators chastised them point blank, saying, "I have to make my decisions on issues based on facts. Where are your facts? I don't see any being presented here."

On top of that, they outright lied about the site itself, saying if the project is built it would destroy a "virgin forest." That is untrue. The majority of the 950-acre site consists of a 10-year clearcut of a Christmas Tree farm. Also, when you click on the link above to the CHECK site, you will find the site is rife with blatant and obviously intentional inaccuracies.

If oppnents want to stop this project, they are going to have to do it based on FACTS - not ouright lies. It's just that simple.

Posted by denisenorman 06/04/2006 01:16 PM

An added thought...

Your assertion that, "At least two county commissioners think the deal is a rip-off for taxpayers," is also inaccurate. Commissioner Chris Endresen has opposed the project from the outset. However, in a Letter to the Editor of the Kitsap Sun, Commissioner Patty Lent has clarified her position on the issue (http://blogs.kitsapsun.com/kitsap/letters/archive/2006/05/patty_lentmy_turn_reaffirming.html). Lent states that she believes the proposal has some merit, but there are still many questions to be answered, and she has no intention of taking a position until they are.

Also, realistically, Lent could be out of office by the time this comes to the commissioners for a decision. She is facing an uphill primary battle with Jack Hamilton, a strong property rights advocate who was motivated to run by Lent's broken campaign promises over property rights issues - especially her recent vote in favor of the Critical Areas Ordinance.

Posted by Eric de Place 06/05/2006 11:09 AM

denisenorman,
Thanks for writing. My purpose with this post is not to get bogged down in the debate over the NASCAR track. I'm just using it to illustrate my point out that if I-933 passes, it is precisely the sort of large-scale development activity that will be immune from community input and involvement. Community groups may sometimes be NIMBY or misinformed or selfish or what have you. Even so, it seems to me that for all of their sometimes faults, neighbors and local communities ought to have a say about how industrial development happens in their place.

Posted by Charlie Burrow 06/09/2006 10:38 PM

Denise, the big joke was the meeting. Given that opponents were only given 10 minutes out of three hours, the presentation’s focus was narrow, primarily on economic issues. Remember, the meeting was a legislative work-session of an economic development committee. The legislation at question is ISC’s proposal to finance half the cost of a racetrack with public money, plus exempt the project from various taxes and laws. Not much in the legislation about the environment, other than requiring expedited environmental review by the local jurisdiction. Also, remember that the opposition’s formal presentation was made by CHECK (middle name “economic”). The three other panel members (including myself) that were representing environmental groups were not allowed to make formal presentations.

Eric, my guess is that if I-933 passes, the Legislature may not be very receptive to requests for public subsidies of private projects like ISC’s racetrack proposal.

If the racetrack scenario did not involve the public funding issue, I’m not sure whether it would be easier for ISC to build under I-933 or not. It all depends how I-933 is interpreted and how local governments react to it.

Scenario: If 1996 zoning applies: The proposed Kitsap site is zoned about the same now as it was in 1996, i.e., rural forest land (minimum lot size 20 acres) with very limited development allowed – definitely not a racetrack. In this case, ISC would need a rezone, as it does under current zoning, to allow a racetrack. The question is, would the county be less/more likely to grant a rezone under I-933?

Bottom line: because of I-933’s ambiguous language, it’s very difficult to predict what it would mean in practice. It’s badly written law, no matter what your political position.

Posted by Dave Ewoldt 06/16/2006 11:03 PM

I think there's only one comment that needs to be made on the racetrack issue--Peak Oil.

This seems like an attempt to rob taxpayers of $166 million while the getting's still good. If the track does somehow actually get build, I doubt if it will ever see its first race.