Op-ed: A Town Without Economic and Generational Diversity has no Character

Opinion by Dylan Quarles

I’ve spent years writing about Port Townsend’s character for my “Secret History of Port Townsend” series—a paranormal anthology that explores the dark and mysterious forces lurking beneath the idyllic surface of our far-flung Victorian seaport town.

Here’s what I know: character rolls off the tongue easily enough, but it is a complex and deeply subjective thing. Ask ten readers to describe a character, and you'll get ten varied answers. What some see as charming and befuddled, others find annoying. What rings authentic to you is maddeningly cliché to me. In short, character is interpretation. It’s personal. It’s shaped by your perspective, your experience, and what you value.

Port Townsend’s character is no different, which is why it frustrates me to hear folks invoke it with such reverence during discussions about the City’s comprehensive plan and proposed changes in density.

We can’t treat “character” as sacrosanct because it is too subjective. Yet, that is exactly what is happening in these debates. And worse still, some openly view exclusion as an essential component of Port Townsend’s character.

I grew up here, graduated from Port Townsend High School. I’m the son of a shipwright, and I’m raising my own son here now. I ran for City Council because I got tired of watching families—the people who build boats, and raise kids, and make art while working regular jobs—get priced out. To me, they are an essential component of Port Townsend’s character. And we’re losing them because we’re not building enough of the right kind of housing.

If things keep going this way, Port Townsend will flatten into a monoculture. A town without economic and generational diversity. A town where many of the houses sit empty for most of the year. A town that cannot sustain any kind of character, let alone the myriad personal definitions we all carry with us as we live, work, and play here.

Now, I’m not arguing for an open door, “all development is good development” solution. Towering condos, huge luxury homes, and Madrona Ridge-style housing deserve heavy criticism. They’re expensive, disconnected from community needs, and contribute nothing to affordability. That’s why, as a candidate, I argued that we should be fighting such development with impact fees and inclusionary zoning requirements.

But opposing density and making it harder to build more middle housing, all while using “character” as a cudgel, is equally harmful in my opinion.

Port Townsend is in a housing crisis, and character isn’t a planning framework. It’s aesthetic. It’s vibes. And we can’t let vibes override the concrete need for housing that working families can actually afford.

So what is the path forward? The city’s new comp plan prioritizes density. That’s good. Now we need to ensure growth serves our community through middle housing, affordability incentives, and requirements that luxury development contributes its fair share. We need both carrot and stick. Otherwise, we’re just replacing one form of exclusion with another.

This is the moment to show up. Attend Council meetings. Submit public comment. Support density increases paired with affordability protections. Port Townsend’s future can’t be held hostage by interpretations of its past. As a writer, I know character is complex and contested (exactly why it can't be our planning framework). We need housing. Let’s build it together.