My request for things you see going well, is like this:

I like some of the points you bring up, but I also find myself looking to nurture new things that are growing.

I hear what’s not working. Hell I hear that all the time. If the leftist blogs and the dead tree reporters are the only one reporting on things to support, then I am given the option of supporting them, tearing them down or spending my time supporting the things they are not talking about.

Again, I ask what are the good things? Things, from your point of view, you see as positive.

I’m tring to get a feel for what make you tick, not just ticked off.

Reasons for redrawing boundaries have to make sense for something. I can’t see a reason, whether it’s for 5 years or 50.

If govt. were to expand the downtown then back of, it wouldn’t make much sense. They’re the only ones who care about where the downtown line is drawn. F

Government doesn’t create jobs. The private sector does, and in particular small businesses. Not eight figure projects that go nowhere (Link-to-nothing Light Rail, Convention center that duplicates existing businesses and services such as the Dome, the Russell deal.)

You must have a very narrow view of Christianity if you think that moving people into neighborhoods that have old churches will somehow be a benefit. Most churches that are growing in numbers were started in the last 30 years or so and grew from almost nothing. But on a personal level, I’m never impressed with growing numbers in churches. I’m more concerned with personal growth in Christians’ personal relationship with their Lord.

As for your snide, back-handed criticism, I focus on the problems on this blog for a few reasons:
1) the problems need to be fixed, not brushed under the carpet and ignored,
2) there are plenty of people focusing on how they perceive the city is doing well (politicians, leftie-blogs, dead-tree reporters),
3) what I perceive as improvement might be viewed by others as something else and I really don’t want to get bogged down in values discussions that deteriorate into name-calling,
4) most of the real improvements that I see are in the private sector or in efforts outside of local government’s purview.

As for growing those things, it won’t happen until the city stops spending 8 figures on project after project that won’t solve the real problems. I’m all for growing the things that the city is doing well, but I’m troubled that city government isn’t doing the same.

The redrawing may not have been for economic development reasons you mentioned.

The new boundries encourage us to look many years into the future. Where will downtown be in 20, 30 , 50 years? What will it look like.

What if we expand the area and as a goverment, back off? (less goverment).

What if we increase the footprint for creating more business and jobs?(good for business)

What if we increase the density of housing near many of our historical churches? (more peeples in the steeples)

Hummm, odd your would oppose this.

Just wondering, and I mean this, what do you see the city doing well?

I know I ‘m giving you a bit of a hard time here, but if there are things the city is doing well how can we focus on growing them?

In the case of Tacoma’s redrawn downtown boundaries it’s difficult to find any common thread, especially one of great enough importance that it overshadows so many others.

Even the level of development needed isn’t consistent. Stadium doesn’t really need much in the way of develoment (unless someone wants to completely change the current nature of the area. The health area at the top of the hill is doing fine with hospitals, doctors offices, clinics and support businesses. The Dome district may need development but it already has a focus and to abandon or dramatically change that would be foolish. Retail looks for foot traffic which is only created by certain industry sectors and the study didn’t include the issue of how having the 38th St. retail district so close impacts the nebulous ‘downtown’.

If the scope was going to be expanded, then it should have been expanded to include the entire city, rather than just coral a few blocks into it. There was very limited space in the survey to compare downtown to nearby areas (such as 38th St., the Port or South Tacoma). Competition for businesses and residence is an important factor to consider when deciding where to focus a city’s marketing plan.

As for mixing areas the difficulty comes in trying to find complementary pairings. Industry creates noise an traffic that is difficult to deal with in residential, hospital or even Class A office areas, and vice-versa. This appears to be a hodge-podge that makes little sense to an onlooker like myself.

There are a variety of reasons to expand the downtown area. One reason is to be sure that densities are managed. I believe the intent of the study is to provide economic development opportunities, so why not expand the scope? There is not one place in the city of Tacoma that does not need more economic development.

Also, you seem to object that industrial uses may be close to other uses. Euclidean zoning laws to separate land uses are the reason that many of our country’s downtown areas are in such bad shape. Downtowns are meant to be a mixture of uses.