I usually don’t post on Fridays since traffic tends to fall off as people get ready for the weekend. But an interesting exchange took place on Facebook last night. When asked a direct question about proposed rezones in the Grand Bargain–an exchange of upzones for mandatory inclusion of rent restricted housing in new buildings–Councilmember O’Brien appeared to be changing the framework agreed upon earlier this year. A friend, City Builder Rob Harrison, asked a question about something he’d heard O’Brien say about rezones. Harrison thought he’d heard O’Brien say that neighbors could negotiate the rezone to be done in some places in a zone (i.e. LR, NC, MR) and not others.

Here’s the exchange.

 

Yep, that’s me in there. And it is true, O’Brien more or less said exactly what Harrison said at 22:35 on our Seattle Channel panel discussion on the Grand Bargain.

Harrison found this exact moment on the program and pointed this out, quoting what O’Brien said.

I think O’Brien has blocked me on Facebook so I am not sure if he saw what I posted next, the section of the Grand Bargain Final Framework that clearly outlines the fact that rezones would be “zone-wide” rezones. So along with exposing the bargain to what Harrison calls “a slog of a process” what O’Brien is suggesting goes against the letter of the Bargain. He seems to be unilaterally reframing the whole Bargain, suggesting that neighborhoods have a say in where upzones will happen and where they won’t.

So to sum up, O’Brien was asked whether he had publicly said that rezones would include two stories here, one story there, and no stories over there. He denied he ever said that. But then, when confronted with the evidence that he had in fact said this in public, he proceeded to say that doing exactly what he denied saying was what he really thinks should be done, which is essentially spot zoning, something considered, generally, to be illegal. To O’Brien “no zoning changes” is like “having a say in shaping it.” What? Will this work with the IRS? Can “not paying taxes” be like “having a say in how much I pay?”

Aside from the slithery double speak in O’Brien’s saying he didn’t say something, then trying to say that no zoning changes is like shaping a zoning change, the comment is in direct conflict with section 2G of the Grand Bargain’s framework document which he signed. I thought maybe O’Brien’s busy work trying to redistribute wealth in Seattle maybe made him forget the section and the document and maybe even that he signed it. So I posted a picture of that too.

A wise source told me a while back that the question isn’t whether the Grand Bargain will unravel, but who does the unraveling. What O’Brien already appears to be doing is pulling the thread, promising that neighborhoods will have a say where upzones happen, while also saying he never said that at all, but also suggesting that upzones don’t mean that upzones will happen everywhere in spite of having signed a document saying that they will. Maybe, like David spared Saul, O’Brien will relent and give the neighborhoods the bad news, upzones will happen zone-wide, and he’ll spare the Bargain a death by process. Or maybe he’ll he look for a reward from the neighborhood and kill the bargain on the neighborhoods’ behalf. Maybe he doesn’t  know himself.