Another View Of Clinics, Social Services In Metro Everett

Publisher’s Note: After our Monday story on the options given to Everett City Council for clinics in Metro Everett I received the following note:

As always, I appreciate the vast time and effort you put into your site.

I thought your new piece about Metro Everett clinic zoning is the most unfairly slanted article you’ve ever posted on your site. You make no mention of the fact that it applies only to new clinics, not existing ones, nor the fact that Everett already has more clinics and social services per area than just about any other city in Washington.

Will you provide an opportunity for a rebuttal?

Because of the significance of the decisions being made regarding Metro Everett and their impact not only on the city’s core but all of Everett I agreed to present the following rebuttal from Mr. Patrick Hall:

Both the Herald and My Everett News have recently published stories about clinic zoning in Metro Everett. The story in M.E.N. was misleading, more of an opinion piece really, and showed a sign saying “Stop Saying NIMBY”. That moniker (Not In My Back Yard) is ironic since it more commonly describes those who seek to bolster their own property values by demanding preferential zoning, at the expense of density and affordability for others. The possible limitation of new clinics seeks the opposite, to increase density and therefore affordability and livability for many. Density is critical to limiting urban sprawl, reducing auto and road use, and increasing property tax revenues.

There are already 56 clinics and 39 social services in downtown Everett, so many that it is almost a “clinic district” instead of a “business district”. All will be allowed to operate as before. If new clinics would be limited to above the main floor, this would hardly inconvenience patients. It would free the main floor for retail or restaurant space, businesses that would draw residents, tourists, and developers. Even if new clinics are banned, the restricted area is small. Many other uses are also restricted downtown, including pawnshops, junk stores, and tattoo parlors, but there isn’t any outcry about those. The point is to reserve downtown retail space for uses that contribute to its vitality.

Don’t be misled – this is not a “clinic or no clinic” issue; this is simply a land use question of where to allow clinics.

Thanks to Patrick Hall and all who reached out with many opinions on Metro Everett. Today the Everett City Council will be giving final direction to city staff on the options they would like to see for several ordinances covering multiple aspects of Metro Everett. There will be no action taken today but the final public hearings and vote on Metro Everett will happen Wednesday August 29th at 6:30 PM in the Everett City Council Chambers.

The city has a comprehensive listing of all of the options being considered, diagrams and modeling of how things may look, a review of the process all here on the Metro Everett Plan Website. The website is easy to navigate and if you want to know what your council member knows about Metro Everett you can likely find it there.

Again a reminder that the council has promised to consider all feedback from the public and anything sent to one council member is being shared among all so if you would like to have a say in any portion of the Metro Everett Plan there is still time. Here is a link to the Everett City Council page on the city’s website. You can see the various ways to contact a council member on the page. Leland Dart, Publisher.