AI disclosure. The analysis and framing on this page were
substantially AI-drafted from the primary sources cited throughout, then reviewed and edited by the
site operator before publication. See the site's
standing AI use
disclosure for how that process works generally.
Update, July 2026: the city's own staff schedule now pencils the surplus declaration in for the weeks around the election — see Racing the ballot.
On Feb. 10, 2026, city planning staff proposed a schedule to select a preferred developer and declare
the parking plazas surplus land — months before the November election that will ask voters whether
the City will have the ability to do exactly that without an affirmative public vote. Here's Mayor
Betsy Nash, responding to a colleague's objection to that sequencing:
"I guess I would add one other piece, and that is I actually think it's very valuable for residents and
business owners and businesses, to see what this would look like, and hear from the various
developers, hear what, go through the process which has been outlined, which is actually have a
community feedback forum, and learn more about these projects, because I think that, people will…
may react differently. It may sway some people. Some people may think it's better, some people may
think it's worse, but I think more information is a benefit, regardless of the HCD piece. I just think
the more information people can have, learn about what they're voting on, learn about what actually is
being proposed, learn about what's possible, what about the funding, all of this is… are all pieces of
information that will go into a voter's decision."
Mayor Betsy Nash, City Council meeting, Feb. 10, 2026
- Staff's proposed schedule, presented that same night, pushed an agenda whereby the Council would
select a preferred proposal by late March/early April 2026; approve a Surplus Land Act resolution
30–45 days later (~May); and notify the state of intent to enter an exclusive negotiating agreement
with the selected developer, also in May — all before the Nov. 3 election. That schedule has since
slipped, but the push by Nash to move quickly remains.[1]
- Councilmember Drew Combs objected directly, before Nash's remarks above: he is "generally
opposed to the idea of the Council giving direction on a particular proposal before the
election," warning it would make the election "about that proposal" rather than about the
measure itself, and would "engender a lot of unnecessary ill will."[1]
- Councilmember Jeff Schmidt sided with Nash, citing risk that HCD could decertify the Housing
Element if the schedule slips further.[1]
- Combs later clarified he isn't opposed to information-sharing itself — "I am very supportive of...
developer presentations to Council, even a study session on this item" — only to the Council formally
selecting and negotiating with a specific developer before voters decide the measure.[1]
- At the same meeting, Karen Grove spoke in public comment thanking the Council for moving forward:
"housing delayed is housing denied."[1]
Why it's worth a second look
Nash's "regardless of the HCD piece" framing is doing real work: it detaches her preference for
"moving forward" from Schmidt's stated rationale (decertification risk) and grounds it instead in
voter education. That's a defensible position, on its own terms. But the sequencing she's defending
isn't neutral information-sharing — it's a schedule that has the City selecting a developer and
formally declaring the land surplus before voters decide whether the City should be allowed to do
that without a vote. Combs's distinction — support presentations, oppose Council picking a winner
first — is the more precise position, and it's the one Nash and Schmidt voted down.
