Uptown Streateries: A Reality Check

by Ana Wolpin | May 14, 2022 | General

In a letter to the Port Townsend City Council on May 2, 2022, I wrote:

“There is apparently a vision to eliminate or at least reduce use of the ‘personal automobile’ in our commercial districts… Those of you and others you know who are sold on this vision of a vibrant, car-free shopping/dining/recreating community experience have idealized a concept. You’ve seen it work in Europe or three blocks in Ithaca (where I recently learned a parking garage was built for every block closed to traffic) or during a festival…

A concept is one thing, Port Townsend’s reality quite another.”

My letter was one in a packet of 59 pages of submitted written comments—all negative—about making streateries permanent. At the city council meeting on May 2, following in-person and livestream public comments that with one exception also unanimously opposed the proposal, the notion of codifying streateries long-term was almost tabled. (Thank you, Ben Thomas and other council members who initially supported that motion.)

However, as reported in the Free Press on May 5th, the motion to table the initiative was withdrawn. Instead, what some have taken to calling “gutter dining” was extended in the downtown commercial district until December 31st as an ongoing temporary measure. An ordinance to allow permanent streateries uptown and in other business districts was put off for revisiting at the following council meeting on May 16.

So now, despite all the public backlash — talking about how toxic it is to eat in the street amid waves of exhaust fumes, how ugly and unused the tents are, how significant the loss of parking is, and how there is no longer an emergency threatening to put restaurants out of business — these temporary downtown installations are slated to remain for almost eight more months. And an ordinance to permit streateries permanently in other commercial areas is still on the table.

Do a search for streateries online and here are the kinds of images that come up:

These are streateries in Cincinnati, Ohio… Stamford, Connecticut… Bethesda, Maryland… Georgetown, DC. They embody the buzzwords we hear so often about the movement to eliminate personal vehicles in urban areas: friendly, walkable, bikeable, vibrant. What do these welcoming images all have in common? Shirtsleeve weather, roads closed off, no traffic.

What is the reality in Port Townsend? Weather is just one challenge. Safety is another. Not only has the long-lamented parking problem not been addressed for almost two decades, none of the kind of planning needed to reorient traffic patterns to make this kind of streetscape safe is in process. There is a complex set of factors that need to be considered.

But in service to an ideology, in a classic cart-before-the-horse move, the city council still appears intent on creating an ordinance to “just try” some permanent streateries in high-traffic zones. While permission for the downtown streateries is being extended—not eliminated—in temporary status pending the completion of a parking plan, there is a new version of the proposal to create permanent streateries uptown and in other commercial districts coming before council on May 16.

The uptown streatery on Lawrence outside the Seal Dog Coffee Bar appears to be driving this intent. When some of the councilors say “I love streateries,” beyond the ideology they are most often referencing that quaint, funky collection of tables uptown loosely contained by a picket fence where there used to be street parking that is pictured at top. It’s a place where regular patrons like to hang out on nice days, and they enjoy the community it creates.

But tables in the street? Though traffic is slowed coming to and from the corner of Tyler and Lawrence, the set-up along the road is still an accident waiting to happen. The exhaust pouring out of slow-traveling vehicles, often idling just feet away, is noxious. Will a permanent installation fix this?

And what will the visual impact actually be? As I wrote in my May 2nd letter:

“Has anyone actually looked at what a permanent structure would consist of at Seal Dog Coffee Bar uptown? If, as Steve King said, the width of the streatery would be limited to the tiny coffee house’s building frontage, that existing installation would be somewhere between a third and half the size it is now. Two tables if they are sufficiently distanced to pacify those now living in perpetual fear of a virus, three, possibly four small two-tops at a real squeeze. Is that worth a major investment for a small restaurateur?”

Here is that streatery on Thursday, May 12th, a cool, rainy spring afternoon.  Empty.  The coffee shop itself occupies the middle storefront with the lower neon OPEN sign. It’s 17 or 18 feet in width. While the 34-foot fenced streatery was vacant at about 12:30 pm, the warm and dry “tiny coffeehouse in uptown Port Townsend” with “welcoming cozy vibes” was hopping inside.

Of course customers will choose a cozy indoor space over sitting outside in the rain. To shelter customers from our weather nine months of the year, a tent or other structure will be necessary. We are told that granting permanent use of parking spots is incentive for the restaurant owner to invest in better structures than the open seating or tents. And we are to trust that because the permanent installations will go through HPC review, they will not detract from one of PT’s biggest draws, our nationally designated historic character.

Per the ordinance, a permanent streatery is to be no more than the width of the storefront unless neighboring businesses agree to encroachment. If a permanent streatery outside the Seal Dog consisted of a tent the width of the building frontage, here’s a facsimile of what that would look like (minus the picket fence):

It might have windows. It might not be a tent. But that is more or less the size it would be, intruding on our streetscape. Cars would be able to park on either end where the fence is.

If, as suggested at the meeting by Public Works Director Steve King, permission to encroach on the adjoining businesses was given, the streatery could expand to two allowable parking spaces. Here is what a 40-foot tent or other structure taking the maximum of two spaces might look like:

The window frontage of the Uptown Pub on the left and the Second Child Studio on the right is now obscured. And these sketches don’t depict the concrete barriers, industrial railing or other protective barricades around the tent or solid structure that will be critical to provide even a modicum of safety from vehicular traffic. A quaint picket fence is only a visual deterrent, not a long-term safeguard. The necessary barriers will add to the visual blight.

Are permanent streateries the right solution?

As previously reported, there are already more than forty outdoor dining areas in Port Townsend, nearly all in existence before the pandemic, that are not in the city streets, do not encroach on other businesses, and do not eliminate parking spaces. These include sidewalk cafes like The Old Whiskey Mill’s below, that have tables already allowed by existing city code.

Photo: Stephen Schumacher

At the May 2 council meeting, Ben Thomas pointed to these tables on the sidewalk as an example of other ways to achieve the same goal. Why not make it easier for restaurants to create sidewalk cafes?, he suggested.

But the council instead has an ordinance that was set in motion on March 14 before any public process, which staff and the council have put great time and effort into, offering restaurant owners the permanent use of public parking spaces for street dining installations within busy commercial roadways.

Permanent streateries not only require enclosed structures for all-weather use and high-impact safety barriers because of proximity to traffic, at the May 2 council meeting there was talk of wooden platforms to raise them off the street, and propane heaters to warm them. The whole construct then sits on the street alongside moving and idling traffic spewing toxic fumes. To snap that rainy day photo of the uptown streatery during the lunch hour, I had to wait for a break from a stream of cars and two buses that went by in those few minutes.

Over the course of three city council meetings where permanent streateries have been addressed, only one person has spoken or written in favor of them: restaurant owner Kris Nelson. The proprietor of both Sirens and The Old Whiskey Mill claimed in her public comment on May 2nd that her streatery on Water Street outside the Whiskey Mill had been used all but “approximately 27 days” last year. She acknowledged that the vaxx card requirements, no longer in place, likely accounted for most of that use. Still, we have to wonder what “used” means. Did her wait staff count people at the sidewalk tables which are not in the street and by definition not part of the streatery? Those are already a permitted use in the city code. Since indoor dining restrictions have been lifted, how many meals have been served in the street tent itself?

In the last few months, the tented streatery has been empty in every photo I’ve seen of it, every drive-by, regardless of time of day, level of traffic, rain or shine.

Here is the vacant Old Whiskey Mill streatery on the afternoon of March 30th:

Photo: Harvey WIndle

Again completely empty at 5:00 pm on April 29th:

Photo: Stephen Schumacher

On May 1st at 6:10 pm, the streatery and sidewalk seating looked like this:

That May Day evening, the dinner hour was relatively warm — no wind, no rain, pedestrians strolling the sidewalk. Stephen Schumacher, who sent the above photo to me just after he took it, wrote:

“There were a lot of folks walking around the sidewalk at that time… I had to cool my heels a minute then shoot quickly to avoid getting pedestrian faces in the photo. Strangely there was a guy eating a slice of pizza at the small round green table on the sidewalk NEAR the streatery but not IN the streatery.”

People certainly find al fresco sidewalk dining appealing on a beautiful summer day. They may even try a meal in a tent on the street with cars spewing exhaust just feet away when they have no other choice. But absent the restrictions that ban indoor dining, as I wrote in my letter:

“The streatery was being avoided. This is not a festival with streets blocked off… people do not want to dine in an active city street.”

With so many outdoor dining areas in Port Townsend already available, with sidewalk tables already allowed by existing city code, and with the possibility for our city council to encourage more sidewalk seating through easing of fees and/or regulations, why do we need to put diners in the streets?

At the May 2 meeting, Kris Nelson explained to council:

“My vision of our streatery would be a place… that you can sit outside and eat and drink that feels special and magical and different [her emphasis]… that adds to the fun experience of Port Townsend.”

This photo of a Washington, DC streatery during the pandemic is one of the few I could find that didn’t consist of open air tables in fine weather. It has a floor, propane heaters, draped walls and festive lighting… the kinds of amenities we can anticipate if streateries are allowed to be permanent here. And with heat radiating both down and beside the tables, still the diners are eating and drinking bundled up in their winter coats and hats, with cars driving by just beyond the veil. Is this the kind of special, magical, different dining experience we can look forward to?

Would the Seal Dog Coffee Bar want to invest in the kind of permanent structure pictured above? Would its neighbors permit encroachment of their storefronts? The Seal Dog’s existing tables with picket fence eliminate parking, but at least they do not obscure adjacent businesses.

There’s got to be a better solution than a streateries ordinance to allow modest places like the Seal Dog a few tables on the sidewalk where people can enjoy gathering outside in pleasant weather. Do we really need to gift public rights of way in perpetuity to select restaurants in order to achieve a few more outdoor drinking and dining spaces?

On Monday, May 16, the city council will discuss this proposal once again. Public comments can be given at the meeting or written in advance and emailed to publiccomment@cityofpt.us.

—————————————

Additional Streateries Reporting:

Strangulation by Streateries?, March 30, 2022

Public Streets and Public Process Subverted, April 17, 2022

Who is City Council Serving in Their Push for Streateries?, April 30, 2022

Council Backs Off From Downtown Streateries, Contrary to Leader Misreporting, May 5, 2022

Poplars Stakeholder Committee:
Hand-picked, with a Documented Bias

by Annette Huenke | May 12, 2022 | General

The following is an update from the Poplars Alliance, sent May 7th to the City’s Engage PT, Port and PUD electeds, The Leader, and the Port Townsend Free Press

——————————————

Dear Engage PT and Elected officials,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

It appears that the 9 member Stakeholder Committee that is supposed to have an open mind about our Gateway Poplars already has a predetermined bias against the Poplars. A majority are already on record to cut our community trees down.

The City’s website still says that one of the project goals is to cut the trees down.

• Replacement of Lombardy poplars, an emerging and eventual need for the City

The Port informed us that the selection process for the Stakeholder Committee was an open one, available to the general public. We were also told that all options were on the table. We subsequently requested copies and/or documentation of that notificiation to the general public for this committee formation…and the City was unable to provide us with any announcement for openings that was made available to the general public. The Stakeholder Committee members appear to have been hand-picked and with an existing bias against our poplars.

The Parks Board was able to choose 4 of the 9 members, and the City indicated from the outset that the Admiralty Audubon would be invited. The Port was guaranteed a spot as well. The general public was not allowed to serve on this hand-picked committee, which has been stacked with anti-poplar votes.

We expect our elected officials to engage in truly democratic processes backed by democratic principles. Clearly that is not what has occured.

Below are the slides from the Gateway Poplar Alliance workshop held on April 23, illustrating just this issue, one of many about this ill-conceived project. The entire presentation is available for download here.

By contrast, in a comment submitted ahead of the April 12 Stakeholder Committee meeting, committee member Joni Blanchard pushed back against the narrative that any future PUD trenching would need to kill the poplars.  (Consulting arborist Katy Bigelow was contracted by the Port to provide assessment reports in 2013 and again in 2022.)

Unhappy Birthday: Cherry Street Project Turns Five Years Old

by Jim Scarantino | May 9, 2022 | General

Port Townsend’s most ambitious, costliest “affordable” housing project. Barged from Victoria, B.C. the Carmel House, the building at the center of the Cherry Street Project, sits empty and blighted above PT’s golf course. The 2022 work plan for the City of Port Townsend includes no work on the Cherry Street Project except paying down the $1.4 million indebtedness the city incurred to get the thing rehabilitated. The building has been vandalized and is home to rats and raccoons.

The lessons of this abject failure run throughout our coverage since 2018. The first lesson is, simply, don’t believe what you read in The Leader. From the beginning, the newspaper “of record” has done nothing but act as a stenographer for city leaders and activists. It has been a willing participant in every PR effort to put lipstick on this pig. The Leader has never reported the true cost of this boondoggle, or any of its many failures.

Its most frequent tack was to proclaim “Progress!” even when failure was painfully clear to everyone. The Leader has never asked a hard question of the city or the housing activists — the former Homeward Bound Community Land Trust, recently rebranded as Olympic Housing Trust — who defaulted and wasted millions of dollars in public largesse. The Leader has never looked behind the candied words of the project’s backers, nor dug into public records that show taxpayers have been misled and lied to. Instead, the Free Press has done the work our city’s newspaper should have been doing.

The second lesson is in the dysfunction of an ideologically and politically homogeneous legislative body that operates by peer pressure and virtue signaling. The ultimate failure of this project was evident from the beginning. The city failed to inspect the building before purchasing and floating it across international borders.

Lo and behold, there was a Canadian hazardous materials inspection detailing the presence of asbestos and lead paint the city never saw until a couple years later. The project never could “pencil out” as a viable affordable housing project — not that numbers, which represent taxpayer dollars, seemed to matter to council members. It was more important to make a show of doing something grandiose and kind of artsy about affordable housing than it was to crunch numbers with an eye to reality.

Most shocking of all, the city’s own pro forma for the large loan it extended to the activists showed they would default in a couple years. Council shushed up the lone council member who noticed that and rushed the loan through. By the way, we found and reported that the loan contained a $400,000 hidden interest subsidy that was to be shouldered by taxpayers.

How could an unavoidable, predicted default not matter to City Council? That leads to lesson number three, the antidote to the problem observed as lesson number two.

There must be real diversity in a legislative body to make it work. The City Council that saddled taxpayers with the Cherry Street Project all came from the same political and ideological petri dish. They were a clique of the elite and the woke. It was more important to them to get along, reinforce a narrative, repeat feel-good/look-good buzz words, and nod in agreement than it was to get things right. Someone strong who stood outside the clique and didn’t seek their approval and friendship was needed on council to fight their headlong rush into failure.

The fourth lesson is that Port Townsend Free Press was needed back in April 2017 when council rushed into the Cherry Street Project by buying the Carmel House sight unseen. At least we’ve been hounding this story since we launched in May 2018 with our first article focusing on Cherry Street. Now taxpayers know the ride that has been their misfortune (there’s 17 years left on the bond that funded the defaulted loan, so the ride’s not done).

According to The Leader‘s uncritical reporting, the Cherry Street Project was to have been finished and occupied in the Fall of 2017 with a renovation price tag of only a couple hundred thousand dollars. We did the first of many public records requests and dug into the financial documents to get the real story, published May 28, 2018, just a little after the Cherry Street Project’s first birthday:  “Cherry Street “Affordable” Housing to Cost More than $2 Million.” The latest cost estimates put the total cost of the project above $3 million. With the spike in construction costs, count on the price tag being higher today and in the future.

Still a mystery is why the city turned down a $1 million cash offer in September 2020 to bail them out of this mess. Not one city council member ever publicly raised a question about why the city manager gave the back of his hand to Keith and Jean Marzan when they offered to take the mess off the city’s hands and actually build some affordable housing on the site.

The Leader‘s last article on Port Townsend’s hugely disastrous, most expensive, most ambitious affordable housing project was October 1, 2020, when it proclaimed that “Port Townsend will forge ahead with the troubled Cherry Street Project, but with a new nonprofit partner.” The paper accommodated the city’s need for some positive spin on the heels of the activists’ default on their generous loan.

Since that rosy proclamation by The Leader, the only work on the project has been repairing some of the vandalism when teenagers launched a refrigerator through a window and broke out almost all the glass in the blighted 1950s asbestos-and-lead contaminated derelict. Oh, and putting up some fake “this site under video surveillance” signs.

Here is the full list of our reporting on the Cherry Street Project since our first article:

The Tragedy of the Cherry Street Project, 12/12/18

What’s Happening With the Cherry Street Project? 10/29/19

“Completely Bogus” Numbers–More Problems and Delays for Cherry Street Project, 12/2/19

Multi-Million Dollar Fraud on Taxpayers: The Cherry Street Project Unmasked, 6/27/20

Cherry Street Welcomes First Tenants, 2/28/20

Default the Cherry Street Project Now, 4/22/20

Latest Cherry Street Giveaway Hits Taxpayers Harder, 10/2/20

Cherry Street Project Handover “Not a Done Deal,”10/19/20

Accomplished Developer Will Donate Time and Services for Cherry Street Project, 10/20/20

Cherry Street Handover: Red Flags About Bayside Housing, 3/3/21 (and related articles)

Happy Fourth Birthday, Cherry Street Project! 5/10/21

Cherry Street Project Costs Soar in Bayside Housing Proposal, 6/23/21

New Majority on Council Should Kill the Cherry Street Project, 11/27/21

Cherry Street Project Vandalized, 1/4/22

“Incredibly Expensive” Housing Project Follows Cherry Street Debacle, 1/6/22

Mayor Faber (Almost) Opens Up on Cherry Street Project Failure, 4/23/22

Council Backs Off From Downtown Streateries, Contrary to Leader Misreporting

by Stephen Schumacher | May 5, 2022 | General

PT Free Press is expediting publication of this council report in hopes of minimizing community confusion arising from inaccurate Leader reporting that PT City Council OK’s long-term streateries program. The opposite actually took place, as can be seen by viewing the May 2 meeting.

Here follows my emailed response to The Leader and city staff:
 

So for the second meeting in a row, The Leader completely misrepresented the decisions made by the Port Townsend City Council regarding streateries. Rather than okaying the program, the council spent much of its May 2 meeting reconsidering permanent streateries in thoughtful response to a tidal wave of near-unanimous negative public comment.

Ben Thomas kicked off council discussion by expressing that streateries seem to have gone from being a good thing to a touchstone for public process concerns, since a lot of people came out of the survey not feeling they were heard. The pushback was significant enough for him to move to table the ordinance for permanent streateries until a permanent parking plan could be developed.

Monica MickHager seconded, having grave doubts before last meeting related to the city not having moved on a parking management plan for 20 years. She’s thinking about alternatives like sidewalk cafes or restaurants with space in the back, given that downtown is just two streets with limited space between cliff and water.

Owen Rowe appreciated the public input and concurred that tabling the whole thing makes sense and was worth discussing. Riffing on putting the cart (streateries) before the horse (parking), he noted the argument that streateries don’t connect to our Victorian heritage, when sidewalks were mud with carts and horses so no one wanted to eat on the streets back then.

Libby Wennstrom agreed that a parking study should have come first, but was concerned that tabling now would just kick the same questions down the road, leaving us with multiple years of tents in the interim. Aislinn Diamanti was likewise inclined to let the few businesses wanting to invest in streateries move ahead with them at least uptown, but maybe removing downtown ones.

Mayor David Faber spoke about how before tonight’s meeting, he’d thought the council could still move forward with this program, taking responsibility that originally he (not staff) had wanted to fast-track streateries because he’d heard nothing but positive feedback about them so didn’t want to push this off. But now hearing every single public comment but one expressing massive frustration against the streatery program, he’s trying to give space to those opinions by maybe going forward with just uptown streateries at this time, or delaying permanent streateries until parking enforcement improves.

The council discussed pros & cons of tabling the ordinance versus amending it so that no streateries are allowed in the downtown historic district at this time, eventually coalescing on the latter approach, after which Thomas withdrew his motion to table. The council proceeded to brainstorm draft language for 5 amendments to address every point under discussion, which staff was encouraged to tweak as needed.

Rowe moved to approve staff bringing back a third reading of the ordinance with amendments to various paragraphs as discussed, Faber seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.

Since permanent streateries would not be approved this meeting, the next issue was the imminent expiration of temporary streatery authorization. Wennstrom noted that temporary streateries combine the worst of both worlds, since they’re ugly and sit on the street surface instead of platforms, while still negatively affecting other businesses and parking; Thomas said he was more worried about permanence.

MickHager moved to approve a resolution extending the special event authorizing temporary streateries, waiving special use fees, which carried unanimously.

Permanent streateries in the downtown are off the table now. The city council will revisit an ordinance allowing permanent streateries uptown and in other business districts at its upcoming May 16 meeting.

Who is City Council Serving
in Their Push for Streateries?

by Ana Wolpin | Apr 30, 2022 | General

“I don’t really see the need for streateries in our code. Many of the restaurants already have courtyards or some kind of space outside. We’ve spent a bunch of energy putting together public spaces where people can take take-out food and sit next to the water.

I believe that it’s probably unfair for me to be taking up [parking] spaces that we should be sharing with all of the rest of the downtown businesses. I agree that it’s not really fair to prioritize restaurants over other businesses…

Nine months of the year it’s raining and cold and miserable here. If we put permanent structures on the street, those nine months of the year are taking up parking spaces that keep people away from the doors of businesses and they’re only used for three months.”

– David Hero, Silverwater Cafe

—————————————

Public backlash over streateries continued at the Port Townsend City Council meeting on April 18. With one exception, the council’s determination to make them permanent installations continued as well.

As reported in earlier Free Press articles, when the health department restricted indoor dining during Covid, the local business community agreed to grant restaurants emergency use of public parking stalls for outdoor dining in the city streets: streateries. Local shop owners were assured that this private use of public rights of way would be a temporary measure. Then in March — prior to any public process — the city council directed staff to draft an ordinance making the streatery program permanent.

As described in “Strangulation by Streateries?” and “Public Streets and Public Process Subverted,” the fast-track process that was developed to meet requirements for public input looked to be after-the-fact window dressing on a done deal. Every step of the way since, the council majority has dismissed and overridden public opposition, apparently bent on codifying the program despite widespread objections.

First, a March 29 open house designed to promote the concept brought overwhelming dissent from approximately two dozen business owners who attended. That was ignored. Then a poorly distributed survey, also designed to boost support, deleted from its published results a portion of comments that had been submitted. Still, hundreds of negative comments did show substantial opposition. (Those survey results can be seen here and here). They, too, were dismissed. Mayor David Faber characterized them as a “loud and angry minority.”

Opposition continued at the April 4 council meeting. Without exception, all public feedback about making streateries permanent was again negative.

Two weeks later, the overt agenda to put a permanent streatery program in place regardless of public input persisted.

The April 18 City Council meeting

Discussion at the April 18 council meeting confirmed that the majority of councilors already had their minds made up long before any of this fast-tracked public process.

Again the public feedback — predominantly from business owners, both in written letters submitted to council and voiced in live public comments — consistently urged the council to drop the proposal. Every councilor except one, Ben Thomas, made it clear that they were determined to approve a permanent streateries program despite public objections. The discussion was not about IF it should move forward, it was about hashing out the details.

After City Manager John Mauro expressed appreciation for all the public feedback, Public Works Director Steve King presented an overview of a streatery “draft ordinance in preparation for its final adoption.”

Public Works Director Steve King at 4/18/22 City Council meeting. Click on image for the video of the meeting. Streateries agenda item starts at 24 minutes.

The proposed ordinance allowed six streateries downtown, three uptown and one per block in other business districts, he said. There would be a lottery process for annual permits. Once an applicant was approved, there would be an annual renewal process, but no need to reapply for the annual lotteries. A permitted streatery would have exclusive use of those former parking spaces during business hours in perpetuity. Each streatery granted would be allowed up to forty feet of street frontage — eliminating two parking stalls where there was existing parallel parking, more for angled. An annual fee of $2000, or possibly $1500, was suggested. King explained that “the principle behind streateries is that it’s a use of public space for some private use, but it’s mostly a public enhancement.”

Prior to public comments, council members reviewed the draft ordinance. Libby Urner Wennstrom kicked off the discussion with this inversion:

“There’s a lot of businesses that are fairly supportive of this and there’s a handful of businesses that are very vehemently opposed.”

That assessment is the opposite of what multiple sources who have been canvasing businesses have told the Free Press. They say that Port Townsend’s business community is overwhelming opposed. The “vehement” opposition was so worrisome to Wennstrom, she asked King if a restaurant could sabotage the unwanted program: “I could see someone putting in a proposal so that it’s going to kill a lottery slot,” she said.

Monica MickHager asked if a streatery could have the option of putting all their outdoor seating on the sidewalk rather than the street, redirecting pedestrians into the street itself. Essentially, could they swap a permitted take-over of the parking strip for commandeering the entire sidewalk instead? When told yes, that was an option, she said she was “excited”.

According to the proposed ordinance, this sidewalk seating in front of The Old Whiskey Mill (the streatery also pictured in the feature photo at top) could be expanded to completely cover the sidewalk, forcing foot traffic into the street where the tent now stands in order for pedestrians to get around the blocked sidewalk.

MickHager also asked if a restaurant sold their business whether the new owner was buying the right to have the streatery permit “as part of their private business.” That, too, was answered in the affirmative.

Receipt of letters written to council (grouped at links 1, 2, 3) were acknowledged by the City Clerk. All of them expressed opposition to continuing streateries. No letters were in support.

Harvey Windle, owner of Forest Gems wrote of the city’s long-time mismanagement of parking and of the streatery program taking public property, “given to a special class of people.” He shared a circulating petition titled “City Ordinance Change Benefiting Restaurant Special Interests.”

Michele Gransgaard, a concerned resident who has been canvasing businesses, criticized the survey used to help justify the program: “To report results from a sloppy, biased survey is disingenuous, anti-democratic, and clearly lacks integrity.”

She also warned of the toxic emissions diners in the street were exposed to: “The pollutants from car exhaust consists of lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone and airborne particulate matter.” Gransgaard additionally noted that there are already “many options for restaurants that offer outdoor dining.”

More than a few Port Townsend al fresco dining options have been in place for many years, off the city streets. Gransgaard has catalogued more than forty of them. They include Alchemy Bistro & Wine Bar, Aldrich’s (2nd floor outdoor patio), Batch Brothers, Bayview, Bishop Block Bottle Shop & Garden, Blue Moose, Cablehouse Canteen, Cafe Tenby, Cellar Door, Courtyard Cafe, Doc’s Marina Grill, Dogs-A-Foot, Elevated Ice Cream Co., Finistère, Hacienda Tizapan, Hudson Point Cafe, Ichikawa, Jen’s Marina Cafe, Key City Fish Tacos-to-Go, Lighthouse Cafe, Lila’s Kitchen, Mo-Chilli BBQ, O’Yummy Frozen Yogurt, Owl Sprit, Pho Filling, Port Townsend Vineyards, Pourhouse Beer Garden, PT Soda Fountain & Diner, Quench, Réveille Café, San Juan Taqueria, Sirens, Sea J’s Cafe, Spruce Goose Cafe, Sunrise Coffee, Taps, The Castle, The Cup, The Old Whiskey Mill, Tommyknockers, and Vintage by Port Townsend Vineyards.

PT Shirt Company owner Frank Iuro noted that as shown in the list above ALL of the current streateries downtown “already have outdoor seating areas that have been in existence since before the pandemic.” He wrote that the program would “rob other businesses of available parking for their customers.”

Seating under umbrellas off the city street seen at left provided outdoor dining for Alchemy Bistro & Wine Bar before a tented streatery was added in the public parking strip.

Alchemy’s street tent eliminated at least three angled parking spaces and is reported to have been largely empty for a minimum of the last five months.

Maestrale owner Jennefer Wood summarized the objections of many with these bullet points:

• Downtown parking has always been a major issue, taking more parking away only exacerbates the problem. A 2004 analysis of the problem in no way offers a solution like this;
• “Streateries” take away from badly needed downtown parking, adversely impacting businesses;
• They are unsightly, dangerous to see around, and too close to traffic – eating while breathing car exhaust does not sound appealing;
• They are not in alignment with any historical preservation of PT’s past;
• It is unjust and unlawful to allocate public land to private businesses;
• They block visual access to neighboring businesses, thus negatively impacting business;
• There are now “Parklets” available for the public to use for take out dining;
• A “public survey” was not widely advertised in order to receive public input, and negative feedback is being suppressed;
• Streateries were introduced under the covid emergency. The emergency is over.
• Let’s put this proposal in perspective of the larger parking problem and have a proper analysis from that point of view.

Several other PT residents, including a Water Street historic building owner who said the installations visually degrade the public space, also wrote letters in opposition. Letters from Annette Huenke and myself expanded on concerns described in the two Free Press articles linked above.

Public comments in person and by livestream also resoundingly opposed the program.

Gail Boulter and her husband own six long-standing shops downtown, The Green Eyeshade and The Clothes Horse among them. She said that when Covid first began restricting indoor dining in restaurants, City Manager Mauro called her.

“[He] wanted our impression about how we felt about the streateries… I said we would be happy to do anything we can to help our restaurants. However, under no circumstances would any of us merchants downtown want to see this to be a permanent situation. He assured me at that time Oh, no no no, this is a temporary fix.”

“Parking has always been the bottom line issue in Port Townsend,” she told the council. “Please take note of how the merchants feel about all this.”

Pat Louderback is owner of Getables downtown and a Main Street board member:

“During the last council meeting when discussing the downtown parking issues and the more than 300 discarded negative submissions about streateries,” he said, “it was stated by the council that the parking issues were a red herring designed to take us away from the real topic of streateries.”

“The red herring here is the streateries, drawing us away from the real problem, which is parking.“

Louderback pointed to comments in the survey from people who said if they can’t find parking downtown, they go home and order online. “This is all counterproductive to our often-heard Shop Local campaigns. So how do we as businesses and community TRUST the city, the council, which seemingly are influenced by special interests versus representing the community as a whole?”

“It’s the brick and mortar businesses, services, retailers and restaurants that draw consumers here,” he continued. “Further, reducing even ONE parking spot negatively impacts downtown businesses. You’re turning your back on these small businesses, slapping them in the face after they have struggled to survive, and supported this community.”

David Wing-Kovarik, owner of Frameworks Northwest, put aside his prepared statement after listening to the initial council discussion.

“$2,000 a year? That does not address the thousands of dollars lost in retail sales for those parking spaces for surrounding businesses. I’m in great support of restaurants; I send people to restaurants every single day. But every single day I have someone coming in complaining about the inability to park here… I have no idea what businesses you have been talking to that are in support of this.”

He said every business he has spoken to told him, We were told that this would be temporary by the city and by Main Street. “They’re NOT in support of this,” he emphasized. Of the many business owners he has talked to, only “ONE business said they were, and that was it.”

David Hero has co-owned the Silverware Cafe for 32 years. In addition to the statements he made in the quote featured at top — that there is already a plethora of outdoor dining options, that prioritizing public space for restaurants over other businesses is unfair, and that people only use al fresco facilities three months of the year — he pointed out that current code already allows restaurants to set up sidewalk dining with a minimum 6-foot right of way. The earlier photo of sidewalk tables outside The Old Whiskey Mill on Water Street is an example of that. We should encourage more use of “the already-existing sidewalk rules where we technically can put tables on our sidewalks,” he said.

Hero concluded: “I think it’s important to really think about how much use and how many people are actually going to use these outdoor facilities that are taking up valuable parking spaces during the nine months of the year when nobody can sit outside anyhow.”

Scott Walker commented:

“I have been involved in trying to advocate for parking management in this town for more than 20 years. I was on the Parking Advisory Group back in the early 2000s,” involved in the study council adopted nearly twenty years ago to institute managed parking downtown. “We haven’t done that yet and this proposal is getting the cart in front of the horse. You need to have an understanding of what the value of a parking space downtown IS before you give it up for $2000 a year, $1500 a year, or whatever number you come up with.”

“This proposal, I highly encourage you to kill it right now and get to work on the downtown parking management plan.”

Samantha Ladwig, owner of the Imprint Bookstore concurred:

“It is a frequent topic from customers who come in, the difficulty of parking, and how they have continually shopped less and less over time as it has become more and more difficult to find a space. I don’t think this is a good solution for tourists or the community to take away parking which is a growing issue.”

Not a single letter writer, in-person or virtual commenter expressed support.

The council deliberates

The discussion that followed all this public feedback demonstrates the disconnect between the citizens and those elected to serve them. (Full comments can be watched by clicking on any councilor photo.)

Ben Thomas expressed the only cautionary note, which was immediately argued against. He “likes the streateries,” he said, but agreed it is putting the cart before the horse. “I’m just really concerned listening to all these business owners… Some people may close businesses because of it, is my concern. I feel like there’s a social contract with our businesses that we don’t make it harder for them.”

Libby Wennstrom discounted his concern based on her experience 50 years ago in her hometown of Ithaca, NY. She said that when Ithaca closed off three blocks to make it pedestrian-only in 1972, there was “huge screaming from all the surrounding businesses” with similar objections to those “we’ve heard here tonight… but in that case it didn’t pan out… These streateries have been incredibly successful in towns all over Puget Sound.”

Wennstrom is so keen to remove parking, she suggested that the gift of public street space could expand to retailers as well. “It doesn’t necessarily have to be a restaurant that chooses to do this,” she directed at the objecting business owners present. “You could apply, with a business, to have a street space if you wanted to.”

Aislinn Diamanti expressed her commitment to the proposal: “We don’t want to go into another season that is likely to need these again as cases are going up.” They need to be given permanent status, she said, so that restaurant owners have incentive to invest in them over the next two years. Then, Diamanti suggested, after the council revisits the parking plan they “can come back” in two years and change the code again. “It would be a loss to go dark in that meantime because this use of twelve parking spaces isn’t known to be the highest and best use intrinsically.”

Monica MickHager worried that “we’re still in a pandemic… I think the streateries are a necessity for us, just on the mere fact alone that we’re still dealing with Covid.” She acknowledged the critical parking issues, however, and suggested reducing the numbers of streateries the ordinance allows, “until we have an adopted parking management plan.” She proposed that the downtown streateries be limited to their current number, not increased to six.

Owen Rowe opined that “we are not seeing the end of Covid. So I think there is a good case to be made for extending the temporary use of streateries.” But we can’t ask the restaurants to invest in better, more permanent structures, he said, without giving them the assurance of program longevity. “We need to commit to whether this is going to continue beyond Covid.” He agreed with the suggestion to reduce the number allowed.

Mayor David Faber apologized “for making uncharitable comments at last meeting to members of the public who have concerns about streateries.” His disparaging remarks reflected his thinking that they were minority views that don’t represent the community as a whole. “Ever since I was first elected to council, I’ve been hearing from an untold number of people about how we need to stop designing our public spaces around the personal automobile.”

He said that even though the city needs to address the parking issue “asap”, it can’t take on parking management right now. “I think the proposal is extraordinarily modest. It’s not taking very much, not taking away any significant amount of parking spaces. it’s only formalizing what’s been in place for over two years.”

He agreed that “the survey was imperfect, it was quick, we agreed to do a quick process which people are understandably upset about.” But then he again referenced the flawed survey results as evidence that most were in favor of the proposal. “Every single person I talk to outside of downtown business owners have said favorable things to me about creating a permanent streateries program.”

“I love these things. I love the concept of what they bring to the community.” He also voiced support of the suggestion to “lock in” what’s already in place. “I think we should proceed with this.”

Ben Thomas again expressed concern over the business community’s opposition. It’s hard “to ignore the public comment,” he said, “not just tonight.” But he agreed with other council members that he’d like to see streateries: “I do think they are potentially a positive thing for us… just not expanding it at this time when there’s all this public pressure against it.” He, too, supported limiting downtown streateries to the current number.

The final number agreed upon was four streateries downtown, two uptown, and one per block in other commercial districts. The remainder of the discussion was about other details of the ordinance the council is scheduled to vote on at the May 2 meeting.

Just what ARE those parking spaces worth?

During deliberations, Wennstrom disputed the statement from business owners that a $1500 or $2000 annual fee would not even begin to offset the value of two or more parking spaces, that they were worth at least $13,000 a month to the business community. “I want to know any downtown business that’s paying $13,000 a month for a Water Street storefront,” she challenged. A voice in the audience schooled her that it’s not the rental value of the frontage that is relevant, “it’s in generated sales for surrounding businesses.”

As Annette Huenke wrote in a previous article, Main Street estimated in 2004 that “each downtown parking space generates approximately $150 to $300 per day in retail sales revenue.” In addition to retail spending in shops, restaurants, at the theater and other recreational activities, revenue is also generated by service businesses as well, including medical, insurance, financial, and legal:

“Adjusting for inflation using government calculations, at $300 per day, a single space contributes to downtown’s fiscal vitality $169,987 annually. Two = $339,975; the triplets in front of Alchemy and in the Tyler St. lot are worth $509,962 per year.”

Michele Gransgaard, who has been researching parking management strategies, notes that the businesses most severely affected by the loss of parking from a streatery will be those in closest proximity. Her research has shown that “40% of people won’t shop at a store where parking is a hassle.”

Not only does a business adjacent to a streatery suffer from lost parking, the visual obstruction from tents or the more permanent structures encouraged by this program damages one of a retailer’s most valuable assets — storefront visibility. Can you identify which businesses are next to The Old Whiskey Mill in this photo?

There’s Quimper Sound on one side, Commoner on the other. These businesses pay a premium for main street storefronts. Their expensive, well-designed windows and signage are a large part of what draws shoppers to their stores.

Peekaboo… The hip Quimper Sound logo is barely visible on its window through The Old Whiskey Mill streatery tent. Their neon “OPEN” sign is completely obscured, along with other window attractions.

One of the benefits of creating a permanent streateries program, say its advocates, is that it will incentivize the restaurant owners to invest in better all-weather structures than the tents. Picture a permanent structure erected in the parking strip where Tommyknockers’ tables and umbrellas now stand. Not only will their own restaurant signage be obscured, but the major draw of the Jeanette Best Gallery next door — the gallery name and art on display through the window — gone.

All streatery photos taken Thursday, April 28, 2022 around 5 p.m. by Stephen Schumacher. Additional photos taken at 7 p.m. show every streatery downtown still empty.

Perhaps “public enhancement” from a bustling streatery on a lovely summer’s day will add to adjacent businesses’ foot traffic and increased vitality in commercial districts. But what of the other nine months of the year that David Hero alludes to?

In an April 28 letter to Mayor Faber, Annette Huenke wrote:

Sadly, it appears to be a waste of time attempting a dialogue with you, council, King and Mauro, since you determined on March 14th that we will have streateries because you all enjoy them. The parking issues that have plagued PT for over 30 years, the fact that we already have a viable parking plan, the loss of revenue from sacrificed parking, your perverted public process, the utter fallacy that this can ever be made fair and equitable among downtown businesses, let alone restaurants… none of that matters. You like streateries.

Automobiles are essential for travel to Port Townsend, even for people who live here. Jefferson County has the highest share of population age 65 and older in the state. New homes are going up all over the 3-mile and beyond range. There is a 58-lot subdivision going in on Cook Avenue. Most of those newcomers will not share city leaders’ fantasy of walking, biking or busing 6 miles into town. I can count on one hand how many of my North Beach neighbors do. Nearly all take their cars wherever they go. Port Townsend is already naturally inviting, as well walkable for those with the ability and desire to walk it.

As the Port Townsend City Council overrides citizen feedback opposing their plan to replace parking with outdoor dining areas in our public rights of way, many residents are asking Who are our elected officials serving? At Monday’s city council meeting, 6:30 pm on May 2nd, the council’s vote on authorizing a permanent streateries program should give us an answer to that question.

—————————————

May 2nd Port Townsend City Council meeting Agenda – Streatery ordinances are agenda items VII and VIII

Proposed Resolution 22-020 Establishing Public Works Department Street Use Permit fees

Public in attendance and webinar participants will be able to provide up to three minutes of public comment during the meeting. Public comment will also be accepted by email and will be included in the meeting record, provided emails are received two hours before the start of each meeting.  Please send public comment to: publiccomment@cityofpt.us.

Out and About in the Time of Lockdowns

by Stephen Schumacher | Apr 28, 2022 | General

I was never locked down.

I designated myself an “essential worker” and continued my office IT job as always, as did all my coworkers.  I continued shopping at the Food Co-op, where no one wore masks during those early months and few if any got sick (borne out by food worker union statistics). I continued participating in regular services inside my church as part of a skeleton livestreaming crew.  I found streets strange with few humans or cars but more wildlife.

When the initial extreme lockdowns eased, things paradoxically got harder for those never locked-down as mask and vax mandates began rolling out.  Soon after reopening, Room to Move Yoga and the Rose Theatre excluded everyone unwilling to “show papers”, maintaining restrictions above and beyond Health Department orders to this day.  

As even Farmers Markets set up checkpoints to impose outdoor masking, the unlocked-down responded with joyous weekly freedom rallies, walkouts, and protest marches. Community resistance continues through outlets like the Free Press and Health Freedom Information network gatherings.

Public arts took a nose dive, but a few venues provided relief.  Throughout much of the lockdowns, the only cinema open to all was the naturally (un)socially-distanced Wheel-In Motor Movie drive-in theatre, joined recently by its companion Uptown Theatre reopening with a brighter new screen.

When the Wooden Boat Festival was cancelled, the neighboring Artful Sailor stepped up with its “Woulda Been a Boat Festival” featuring music from classic rock band Greased Lightning. They are again offering a free Sock Hop by the skate park this Saturday, April 30 from 5-7pm.

Most heartening for me during this time of lockdowns has been my church continuing to keep its doors open with worship practices and soulful joyous choir music as unchanged as possible.  That has thankfully translated into strong parish growth both here and in churches around the country that stayed open and focused on in-person services.

These were a few of my personal touchstones that might still have general relevance today. Outwardly I’ve mostly had it easy due to my independent nature and circumstances, but inwardly these past two years have been extremely disillusioning and disconcerting, yet laced with silver linings.

Everybody has their own lockdown story. If you’d like to share yours, feel free to post it in the comments section or submit it as an article.