There’s a large volume of misinformation being thrown around in regard to Camas Prairie at the Port Townsend Golf Park, which has informed some of the (mis)understanding evident in a letter and subsequent column published in The Leader by members of the Olympic Peninsula Chapter of the Washington National Plant Society (WNPS). [“Instead of rezoning Kai Tai Peninsula, city should protect it,” Sept. 11, A12.]  

As I wrote the WNPS, first and foremost, the City is dedicated to protecting and preserving the Camas Prairie at the Golf Park. It was and remains a core part of the City’s plan for the golf park land, which — together with the housing at discussion in our correspondence together — is memorialized in the existing 22-year lease with the current Golf Park operators.

They are correct that the (notably large, multi-acre) parcel of land where housing would be located contains a small portion of the Camas Prairie, but please note that a parcel is just a legal delineation and not a map showing exactly where the housing would be (more on this below). There is no plan or intention on the part of anyone involved in the City to adversely impact the Camas Prairie. Quite the opposite: We are all committed to maintaining the Camas Prairie.

Second, and directly related, housing is very likely to be situated on the opposite side of the existing golf park driveway, away from the Camas Prairie. If driveways, parking lots, and buildings cause adverse impacts to the prairie, then the existing clubhouse, driveway, and parking lot directly abutting the prairie all seem much more likely to cause harm than the housing, which will be notably further away from the prairie.

Is your organization concerned about the existing driveway, parking lot, and golf clubhouse? If not, then I have to wonder why you are concerned about the much-less-proximate housing proposal?

Third, the City’s efforts at Evans Vista (together with other, more diffuse efforts to address the broad need for housing supply in Port Townsend) remains the priority. Housing at the Golf Park will be built based upon need and availability of resources, very likely after Evans Vista is completed and— when coupled with other infill and density strategies we are exploring — after we can see the impacts on our housing crisis. I would anticipate building to be years down the road, perhaps a decade or more.

That said, we are going to continue our planning efforts to ensure that if and when the need arises and resources are available, the City is prepared to take action instead of being on the back foot, which has hampered our ability to proceed with Evans Vista. I want the City to be proactive and ready to address community needs.

Last, regarding your concerns that housing would be “market rate housing” (which seems incongruous with your organization’s mission and purpose, so I’m a little surprised to see you comment on it in your letter...), I refer to a piece I wrote in the August utility newsletter, where I talk about use of the term “affordable housing.” The City’s goal with housing at the Golf Park is to provide an income-level mix of “affordable” housing (in the technical, legal sense) and “workforce” housing (usually defined as middle-income housing for people like nurses, teachers, and firefighters).

I proposed elimination of the term “affordable” in the Golf Park lease specifically to stop it being weaponized by opponents of any housing on the Golf Park, which seems to have been the correct decision. Either way, the plan has never been to build mansions for wealthy people. Instead, the location of the housing along Blaine Street is ideal for lower- and middle-income people and families due to the existing Jefferson Transit bus line fronting the Golf Park, as well as the YMCA facility, food bank, and other community services directly across the street.

Fundamentally, we are in agreement that the Camas Prairie needs to be protected and preserved. Thankfully, however, the planning for housing at the golf park does not pose a threat to the Camas Prairie.

David Faber is mayor of the City of Port Townsend. This column was initially written as a letter response to members of the Olympic Peninsula Chapter of the Washington National Plant Society.