Matthew Petty
Courtesy photo
Matthew Petty was the only incumbent to file for a seat on the Fayetteville City Council, entering the race for Ward 2 in the Nov. 6 general election.
Petty, 28, has held the Position 2 seat since January 2009 after defeating Mark Kinion in the 2008 election.
Since then, Petty has sponsored multiple successful initiatives including a resolution to increase the city’s use of social media, implementation of new residential energy codes based on the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code and a resolution opposing a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that overturned a century-old ban on corporate and union contributions to federal elections.
Petty said maintaining Fayetteville’s first-place status in Northwest Arkansas would be a top priority if re-elected.
“Our region is growing, and our neighboring communities have issued a challenge to Fayetteville,” said Petty. “I believe we are still the best community in Northwest Arkansas, but we need a strategy to keep it that way.”
Petty’s campaign website lists several ideas he’d focus on if re-elected including dedicating a funding source for festivals and arts organizations, designing and constructing a downtown outdoor civic space, enhancing Midtown by focusing on Township and Colt Square and building more bikeways to connect neighborhoods to one another and to the city’s trail system.
Petty will face Ryan Abshire and Adam Fire Cat in the Nov. 6 general election.
Profile
Name: Matthew Petty
Age: 28
Residency: Ward 2 resident since August 2002
Employment: Alderman at City of Fayetteville, full-time student, part-time web consultant
Education: Junior standing at University of Arkansas studying Political Science (major), Mathematics and sustainability (minor), High School: Arkansas School for Mathematics, Science, and the Arts
Political Experience: Ward 2 Fayetteville alderman, 2009 to present
Questions
What made you decide to seek election to the council? Is it something you’ve been considering for a while?
When I ran in 2008, it was because I had a passion for sustainability and I wanted to drive the conversation and decisions in that direction. I felt like I would be more effective on the inside than on the outside. It took me a while to learn important lessons, like how to be persuasive without being emotional, but still being passionate, how to pick my battles so I didn’t lose the most important discussions, and how to build relationships with my peers so we could move on after controversies passed.
I’m running for re-election because I still have the same passion for sustainability that put me in the 2008 race. I brought the idea of bikeways to Fayetteville and got the city’s first separated cycle track included in the Van Asche street design. I sponsored the new Residential Energy Code, which will create green jobs and lower the costs of living for new homeowners. I’m campaigning for true pedestrian urban development on Center Street and I’m bringing forward an ordinance to create a new food truck economy. Most of these items have only come up in the last two years, and I’m running again because I am excited about what I can accomplish with this momentum if I’m re-elected for another four.
Is there anything in particular that drove you to reside in Ward 2? How would you describe that part of town?
I live in Ward 2 because I can walk or bike almost anywhere I need to be. I can go to work, attend class, grab a drink, shop for groceries, and even buy a hammer without getting in the car. I barely have to leave the neighborhood.
Describing Ward 2 is difficult to do succinctly. We have both the newest citizens and the oldest neighborhoods. We have both downtown and midtown. We have Scull Creek Trail and Gregg and College avenues, the backbones of our vehicular and bicycling traffic networks. We have the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville High School, and UAMS. We have Dickson Street and the square. I guess what I’m trying to say is that no matter where you live in Fayetteville, Ward 2 is probably a part of your life. Chances are you work here, you play here, and maybe you live here. Ward 2 is important to every Fayetteville citizen, and no other Ward encapsulates so much of whatever it is that makes Fayetteville great.
Are there any recent citywide or Ward 2 council decisions you agree or disagree with?
Of course. I’ve voted on most of them and my record speaks for itself, so I’ll use this space to talk about some of the most controversial decisions.
I’ll start with the smoking ban. Last year, I co-sponsored an ordinance that would ban smoking in bars. It was probably the most controversial item the Council has considered since I was elected – even more than paid parking. I was disappointed when we lost that one, but I’ll abide by that decision. There may be an effort to put this on the ballot in the future, but I won’t bring the ordinance back to the Council because (this is going to sound silly) I believe in the righteousness of the democratic process. A lot of people weighed in with their opinions, and people on both sides made compelling arguments. I don’t trivialize anyone’s opinion on the issue, and I think the Council should honor the consensus that was reached last year. If the voters want to pass this, it is now up to the voters to put it on the ballot.
Since I already mentioned it, let’s talk about paid parking. I voted for it, and I did so for a reason that is different from most. Here’s my reason: the Walton Arts Center parking lot is like a desert and it needs to be something different. That parking lot fragments downtown into three distinct zones of activity, and no pedestrian crosses the desert to reach another zone. The WAC lot is a dead weight on Dickson St and we need to cut the chain. We do that by combining urban redevelopment with open-air civic space, a new streetscape for West Ave, and affordable housing marketed to artists. Most people will agree that is a great vision, but how is it tied to paid parking? I think the only reason paid parking is necessary is we can’t raze that parking lot until a parking structure is in place so our existing parking capacity can be maintained. I don’t think there is an emergency parking shortage and I don’t think downtown needs more parking spaces than it already has to thrive. I only voted for paid parking because I think we need to replace the 250+ spaces in the WAC lot before we transform them, and seeing that lot transformed will be my highest priority if I am re-elected. I have already helped write a grant to fund a design effort to that end.
Please vote for the other guy.
Really. After all, Mr. Petty is part of that Malthusian paid parking conspiracy.
You lost me at paid parking. And my vote too.
paid-parking whiners are so 2010.
Funny he speaks of still being in favor of the smoking ban. He was caught on video smoking a cigarette in Kingfish just weeks before the vote. Copy & past the address below to see for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XAjAbhyK_g
Typical do as I say not as I do. The city is not maintaining the brickwork downtown. A wall by Sydney’s is broken – 1/2 is missing for almost a year now, the brick trim is loose or missing in many flower beds & the brick crosswalks have large humps & swells. I’m seeing a lot of talk in the present city council & very little action. I find it very frustrating to our downtown when people (including myself) are getting tickets while waiting in line to pay for parking……doesn’t really say “welcome to downtown Fayetteville”.
But wait a minute. Much of the argument against the smoking ban was that it was supposedly demanded by a bunch of nonsmokers. Doesn’t the willingness of a smoker to support a smoking ban for the greater good show strength of character, rather than hypocrisy or a desire to meddle?
Bollocks. Total bollocks.
Explain.
Matt petty didn’t do anything illegal when he smoked at that bar. So he struggles with a bad habit. Who cares. He might have an easier time quitting if there wasn’t smoking in bars. it’s so easy to judge. It’s harder to get involved and actually try and do something. I admire Matt for his tenacity. He’s a good candidate who truly loves this town. And takes a ton of flack. And keeps at it, trying to make our town greener.
“caught on tape”? Gimme a break. He wasn’t doing anything wrong.
A midst all the discontented yammering, y’all are missing some pretty great and coherent ideas:
“We do that by combining urban redevelopment with open-air civic space, a new streetscape for West Ave, and affordable housing marketed to artists. Most people will agree that is a great vision, but how is it tied to paid parking? I think the only reason paid parking is necessary is we can’t raze that parking lot until a parking structure is in place so our existing parking capacity can be maintained. I don’t think there is an emergency parking shortage and I don’t think downtown needs more parking spaces than it already has to thrive.”
This is exactly what downtown Fayetteville needs. He’s talking about affordable housing geared towards artists, new green space, and new businesses.
At least he can articulate a vision for what comes next, unlike the current mayor(s) in charge.
Since most/many ‘artist’ types are broke or near it, what sort of housing geared toward them would we be building. Communal tents, barracks with cots…
Prisons, of course.
Hey, if we have a prison, can we let Bob Walker stay there?
Excellent idea. Instead of making license plates, he could make custom-fitted sandals and hiking bongs.
I would think that if there was a public/private partnership, the city could partially dictate the use of at least part of the development.
A mixed-use development offers a couple of options for the integration of artist space with relatively low rent. With a flat-deck parking garage, excess parking capacity could be partitioned off and used for temporary artist studio space (visual artists and musicians) until it is needed for parking. Relatively spartan apartments– actual studio apartments– or even dormitory-style housing could be included in the finished square footage, particularly in the parts of the development where views are not ideal and lower rent is justified. (Such an approach would make it easier to justify building an external ramp to a rooftop park.)
Why cover up a creek and put ground ond top of a building to water? Does this green space on top of a building have trees?
That creek is history. Sad, but true.
mmueller– A rooftop park most assuredly can have trees. Did you not bother to look at the photos at any of the links I posted a while back?
The City of Fayetteville proposal for the expansion of the WAC (which I also linked to a while back) contains an alternative proposal in which part of the creek is made a landscape feature.
I read where the new Hillside Auditorium on campus is going to have elm trees planted on the top level. A parking garage already has to have an insanely sturdy structure to handle the weight of cars. I’d think adding a few trees and some grass wouldn’t be too big a deal.
I’ll concede it is possible to put trees on top of a building, but is it sustainable? Doesn’t seem that we have gotten far enough away from nature? That maybe we should be getting back to it? Come on now covering up a stream. This generation can put a park downtown. A park, on the ground, back to nature with a stream. Why do we have this incessant need to park automobiles there? Are we so obese we can’t walk a block? Or out of shape from smoking? The stream was here long before any of us and will be here after we have gone. Try living with nature and not trying to reinvent it.
Since the top level of a parking garage is usually designed for parking– which imposes dynamic loads as well as static loads– the structure would not have to be beefed up much to accommodate a park rather than parking. Management of accumulated weight from water would probably be the primary consideration.
I like the idea of daylighting the stream, too. I wonder if the spring down there flows reliably enough that it could be dammed or made into a nice little pond with a weir. Its fun to dream.
Why not do both? It would add to the cost of the structure, but it would be feasible to build the lower levels of the deck in such a way that the stream area was exposed.
They may lose a stream, but gain a revenue stream.
Here are those links again:
http://www.lmu.edu/sites/Community_home/green/The_Campus/Built_Environment/Additional_Features.htm
http://www.ecolandscaping.org/08/green-roofs/the-mandarin-project-%E2%80%93-green-roof-garden-on-a-parking-garage/
http://www.explorechicago.org/city/en/about_the_city/green_chicago/Green_Roofs_.html
http://inhabitat.com/intexure-architects-transform-parking-garage-into-a-rooftop-zen-garden/
Search on Google (“green roof” trees):
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22green+roof%22+trees&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1097&bih=715&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=y_YyUJ_jBY-KrQHOnoDoDg&ved=0CFQQsAQ
See Appendix A, “Concept 2: Exploring Art Through Nature” on Page 26 of Fayetteville’s proposal for the WAC expansion. (I think more could be made of the stream feature.)
http://www.accessfayetteville.org/government/strategic_planning/documents/WAC_Expan_Proposal.pdf
@ glutenfree- That brings up a good point . Who does Petty support for Mayor?
I don’t think he has said. I think his ideas mesh much better with Coody’s though, for a public/private partnership for redeveloping the WAC lot.
By contrast, in 2011 mayor Jordan threw out some half-baked land-lease hotel proposal, and then a month later stated than “nothing” would be built at the WAC lot because it would disrupt parking revenues.
Mr. Petty has been one of our best and most productive council members. His greenway plan for Spring Street is a cost effective way to connect the Square with the bike trail and I appreciate his work to have the city consider wider sidewalks on Center Street.
I like Petty’s vision for Fayetteville and his track record shows he’s a man of action. I’ll proudly support his reelection.
Why would we use govermemt funds on housing for artist? If you do it for them you have to do it for everyone else.
Matt is heading in the right direction but the vision needs a wide-angle lens. We should not sacrifice a portion of downtown to do something that does not meet our standard of good urban design to build something next to it that does meet that standard. If we want to really make our city fulfill its potential, we should take a more holistic view. We should consider these steps : (1) Consolidate the disjointed, confusing parking programs into one that makes sense. (2) NOT sell bonds to build an uninspired parking garage we do not need yet, locking in this wacky system for 25 years.. (3) Follow the master plan and add more on-street parking, better utilize existing downtown parking decks and lots, and add sidewalks, street trees, street lighting to make downtown safer, more walkable, attractive. (4) Try using small electric shuttles like Crystal Bridges to let people hop on and off around the whole downtown area. (5) Have a major public push for citizen input and local architects and designers to create a vision for the WAC area focused on art, music, theater, film, and fun.(6) As we did in 2007, send out a request for proposals to major private civic partners so they can build out the public’s vision with more local retail, commercial , residential, public space, and all the parking that is needed for the job. They will build our parking deck for us and it will actually be needed at that point. There will be much more reason to come there than simply building a parking garage. All this is not just possible. it should be a priority.
I’m with MMueller, Matt Petty, and Dan Coody on this one. At least I like certain parts of what all three of them are saying about the wasteland of a parking lot on Dickson. My ideal use of that area is simply green space and sculptures and benches and a stream. I like when Dan Coody says that we need to make use of the parking decks we already have and I especially like the idea of hop on and hop off shuttles (In fact I wish we could do that down College Ave.). And I like pretty much everything Matt Petty has to say, including his reasoning for paid parking to get rid of the wasteland of a parking lot we have now. I still hope if the WAC still insists on needing a parking deck they build a 2 or 3 story one on top of Grubs and we turn the current lot into a park. Simply a park.
This is the first reasonable and sense-making explanation I’ve read for paid parking. I am a big fan of Petty. He thinks outside the small-town mentality that permeates some of the other members of the city council, is bright, passionate and clever.
I think he has the interests of both the business community and the art/hippie contingent that makes this town unique.
Whomever brought up the “caught on tape” stupidity, let me say that a smoker supporting a smoking ban shows that he understands that this would inconvenience him while making others very happy. Personally, coming home from Dickson reeking of cigarette smoke makes me literally physically ill. Smokers, can y’all smell yourselves?
Well said. Its frustrating to see truly intelligent leadership and great ideas being trashed and poo-pooed by the mediocre hillbilly contingent.
Can’t we just fix our roads?
Affordable housing specifically for artists? Why them?
Why artists?
— Dickson Street is an arts and music center for downtown.
— The WAC has no onsite housing for long-term or short-term visiting artists (It would be lovely if the WAC could buy a couple of the Legacy condos for this use, but it isn’t likely.)
— Diversity of compatible uses improves the quality of life in the area and increases the success of a mixed-use development.
— Artists are funky.
Well, I suppose we could design some financing principles that would encourage an enclave of “fly by night” capitalists, “Three card monte” financial dealers, shifty brokers, and a soothsayer or two. I’m only offering my two cents because I want to see vinyl-clad windows in all parts of Washington County.
Is it even legal to restrict housing by profession? Can a landlord rent out a house specifying “only artists will be considered as renters”? If it WERE legal, how would you define an artist?
People, relax. Petty never said anything about restricting housing to artists, or setting it aside. He said:
“affordable housing marketed to artists”
That’s it.
There are ways affordable housing can be made more appealing to artists, as in making shared studio space available, etc.
Yes, a landlord may rent to a specific market, but he has to be consistent in his renting practices, and within that market he cannot discriminate against the protected classes (race, sex, familial status, etc.). That said, it is even possible to rent only to singles, to couples without children, to older tenants, and other seeming violations of equal housing law– as long as guidelines are followed.
Where can I find these guidelines? Seriously. I’ve read this was not possible but would like to read an accurate account of the situation and would like to find out that you’re right: that one can rent only to a particular market.
You can start here:
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/housing_coverage.php
which has links to more information.
As a real estate lawyer friend of mine explains it, only protected classes are protected. It is legal, for example, to sell or rent a house only to a red-headed person, or to refuse to sell or rent it to a red-headed person, because red-headed is not a protected class. (I wonder if he had the Sherlock Holmes mystery “The Red-Headed League” in mind when he came up with this explanation.)
Fair housing law is straightforward in its intention and complex in its realization. I was posting from memory, so if you find that I have made an error, let us know. It is certainly the case that marketing may be directed as one sees fit– as long as actual business does not discriminate.
Damned redheads. Fear the gingy!
I have a dream that one day we will be judged not by the color of our hair, but by the contents of our follicles.
The contents of our follicles? So, you want drug tests?
The Kramer School does it in Little Rock. House artists, that is. At a reduced rate. I have to say, the word “artist” is pretty loose, from what I’ve seen of some of their tenants.
I support Alderman Petty’s idea to use arts as a mechanism for enriching and diversifying our downtown. Growing our arts community is also a great way to strengthen the residential and mixed-use components of Dickson Street in a way that is more compatible with it’s current use as a loud, alcohol-centric entertainment district.
I served as the Sustainability Consultant on Artspace Everett Lofts (http://www.artspace.org/properties/everettwa/), which provides 40 units of affordable live/work studios for individuals and families, as well as a home for the Schack Art Center in downtown Everett, Washington. By providing affordable live/work space for artists and arts organizations, the project supports the continued professional growth of arts, and enhances the cultural and economic vitality of the surrounding communities. A similar model could greatly benefit our community as well.
Sarah Marsh
Candidate for Fayetteville City Council, Ward 1
Facilitator, Fayetteville Forward Green Economy Group
I live in Ward 2 and have for 12 years. It’s the best place in the city. I’m also very interested in local government, and would love to run for the council. To do so, I’d be up against the two best members of the council. Especially Petty. Right now, he’s the best man for the job.
Anyone who thinks otherwise either has an axe to grind, or hasn’t been paying attention.
Nice one David. Lol. Just don’t mail em.
Matt Petty’s platform looks good. His answers to the Flyer questions are thoughtful.
Thanks for posting the Interviews and Profiles of the candidates.
You really can’t have the City market an Area of town to artist. Privates companies can do it, but let’s say a Banker wanted to move in the the loft the owner could not stop him/her.
Yes… yes you can. You can not “limit” or “restrict” who moves there, but you can market towards certain groups. Just as the Eco lofts are marketed towards environmental, eco-chic, younger renters with their modern design at a reasonable price. Just as higher end lofts off of Dickson are marketed towards those who make the money to afford them. You can market apartments/housing by the design itself and the amenities in which you choose to place inside them, like someone said before, shared studio space, etc…
glutenfree=dan coody
Lulz. No.
I often see Coody using “Lulz” LMFAO
Actually, I am confuzzled by internet shorthand. I prefer the more descriptive, archaic lexicon of my youth. Nothing quite conveys the full context of human thought as the classics; cool, hip, vibe, and my all-time favorite, “groovy.” Ah, vintage vocabulary…how I miss thee. Totally.
You dig glomming the grooviness. I’m hep– it’s the bee’s knees.
I was only pushing buttons in mockery Mr. Coody, I thought it was a silly conviction to make in the first place.
Mr. Petty has matured in office and I congratulate him for those strides. But his single stream trash collection proposal is disturbing on environmental, worker safety, efficiency, and fiscal levels.
I would listen carefully to what Adam Fire Cat has to say before deciding how to cast my vote.
Thank you for the compliment.t
The fact is I have never proposed single stream trash collection. I have routinely challenged proponents of our curbside sorting program to detail changes that would move our diversion rate from where it is (well below 50%) to 80+%. It is true that I the other communities I have cited as examples use a single stream + compost collection method, but my only interest is in getting better numbers.
The City often holds up the 67% participation rate in our recycling program as an achievement worth bragging about, but I don’t think there is any shame in admitting we should be doing better. The participation rate is not as important as the diversion rate, and our diversion rate clearly shows we send orders of magnitude more waste to the landfill than is necessary. We have millions of cash in our Solid Waste Fund and we can sell bonds backed by increased revenue from collecting more recyclable commodities. The only reason we don’t have a world class recycling program is that we haven’t come up with a plan to spend the money we already have to build one.
The goal of increasing recycling participation is laudable. Single stream effectively reduce the amount of recyclables acceptable to those who purchase the items, due to cross-contamination. We would have to buy a whole new fleet of vehicles and receptacles to switch to that system. Seems counter-intuitive and somewhat deceptive to even attempt a comparison. The weight of the recyclables may increase but the market viability decreases, it would cost a fortune to implement and poses dangers to those working the sorting line. Why should we waste time considering methods we know to be inferior? The city’s pilot programs for businesses and apartment recycling systems are encouraging and should yield higher diversion rates.