Question for Futurewise: Where Do You Stand?
This is a tough e-mail to send, but it appears as though a leader at Futurewise is fighting the basic principles of growth management: density in our cities. We need to hear from Futurewise about where they stand. You can contact their interim ED at Chris@futurewise.org
———————-
Hello Chris and Chuck,
While Smart Growth Seattle has the view that the recently passed and appeal legislation affecting Detached Accessory Dwelling Units (DADUs) doesn’t go far enough, we are still disappointed at the ruling of the Hearing Examiner today.
We’re also concerned about the positions taken and the role being played by Futurewise in our ongoing efforts to build a sustainable, dense, and affordable city.
Let me say up front that the fact that Jeff Eustis from your board is a lawyer and takes on cases is really his own business, literally. As a private attorney he can take whatever cases he wants.
Second, I don’t think that this appeal was much more than a “process foul” appeal; that is, the City can simply go back and do the work over again and answer the questions the Hearing Examiner said they didn’t in the first effort. You both know that courts and judicial review give great discretion to legislative bodies to enact legislation. The City will have to decide what it does next, but the Council and the Mayor ultimately set policy for the City, not a Hearing Examiner.
However, it is of increasing concern not just in this case but in other instances that there appears to be a divide among Futurewise board members and staff about where the organization is headed as we consider serious policy issues in the year ahead.
Mr. Eustis was not only the lead Council against the DADU legislation but also against microhousing against microhousing, a form of housing that the Executive Director at the time supported.
Many people waging a fight for affordable housing find it strange that a boardmember of the State’s premier growth management advocate would be actively fighting efforts that support the Growth Management Act (GMA) and also profiting from it. Just a imagine a boardmember of NARAL or Planner Parenthood filing cases against legislation that supports wider access to health care for women in our state. It doesn’t make sense.
How you manage your organization and internal conflicts of interests is entirely your own affair. However, many people rely on Futurewise as a leader on issues of growth management. We think it would be helpful if you issues a clarifying statement on DADUs, microhousing and perhaps what you think of this whole issue.
Again, you’re not obligated to do this, but I’d really appreciate clarification. More importantly, we need Futurewise to be the clear and decisive voice on behalf of growth it has been both today and in the years to come.
Sincerely,
Roger Valdez
