In time, ordinance language evolved. By July of 2003, Planning Commission and City Council changed the wording to, "Any building the main use of which is retail business, wholesale business, or a combination of the two, shall not exceed 20,000 square feet of floor area," and during adoption of the ordinance in April 2004, wording again changed to read, "The total square feet of floor area of retail and wholesale business uses within a single building shall not exceed 35,000 square feet."

Obviously, a lot has happened since January 2003. At the time the citizen initiative was issued, February 2004, the city was still under the 20,000-square-foot cap, and at the time, the initiative was worded correctly and addressed the issues. The adopted ordinance in April (developed after the citizen initiative) contained new, additional sections and language that now creates the problem according to those opposing retail and wholesale business greater than 35,000 square feet in a single building. This group takes the position that the initiative "vote will have no effect on present use limits," and "so it seems this vote may wind up being a waste of time and money."

The problem is not with initiative language. The issue that language of the initiative does not parallel adopted ordinance language is a facade. There can be no denying that the "intent" of the initiative is correct and that it properly addresses the issue of size. Why is it that the Planning Commission, City Council, and others are so opposed to results of the citizen survey or the possible outcome of a citizen vote?

Now to clarify some confusion: 1.) The word footprint was used rather than square footage. This was done because it is an easier way to monitor the building size and would allow a second story that preserves open space surrounding the structure. This language supports many of the site development conditions or standards. 2.) It should also be made clear that ordinance size restrictions only impact a certain user group. There is no size limit for hotels and motels, public buildings, and many other uses. This in itself seems to be discriminatory and hints of protectionism. 3.) Both the Planning Commission and City Council were provided development plan scenarios by the University of Washington for the CBD. One such plan depicted a 66,000 square foot building placed on a CBD parcel of property that appeared to fit well. The 66,000-square-foot figure came from this report; the initiative was never drafted in such a fashion to fit the needs of any potential developer.

The citizen initiative is about listening to and providing citizens the opportunity and choice regarding retail and wholesale building size as well as business size. The city now has well developed standards that address issues such as site development, building development and more. It is right to accept the intent of the initiative and provide citizens "choice."

Ray E Kranich and Bruce Turkington co-sponsored the voter initiative regarding the size cap.