In Cashmere, a full house — and a lesson in how local power works

CASHMERE — The Cashmere City Council chambers were packed at the Jan. 26 meeting as residents turned out in unusually large numbers, many of them carrying deep concerns about the future of their town and what kind of development should, and should not, be allowed within its limits.

Speaker after speaker stood and addressed the council from their seats, talking about local character, small businesses, and the fear that Cashmere could lose something essential if it begins to look like everywhere else. But as the evening unfolded, a different and more complicated reality came into focus: the city’s ability to control what businesses locate in town is far more limited than many residents realized.

The meeting was prompted by community concern over a proposed commercial development, but the conversation quickly widened into something more fundamental, a discussion about zoning, property rights, and the boundaries of municipal authority.

Several residents urged the city to take a stand against what they described as “outsider” businesses and to protect Cashmere’s small-town identity. Beth Beck said she was worried about the precedent large outside retailers could set for the community and what that could mean for the future of locally owned businesses in Cashmere.

Others spoke about the strength of Cashmere’s existing business community. Joanne Carr, vice chair of the Cashmere Planning Commission, said she was “mostly impressed by the entrepreneurial spirit in this town” and worried that large, outside retailers could “take away from the talent that’s in this town that I want to honor.”

As the comments continued, Mayor Jim Fletcher listened carefully, but returned again and again to a difficult message: as long as a project complies with zoning and other legal requirements, the city does not have the authority to simply say no based on the type of business or who owns it.

“A corporation is just a form of business,” Fletcher told the audience. “Martin’s Market Place is a corporation. Crunch Pak is a corporation. Liberty Orchards is a corporation. They’re all corporations. It’s just a form of business.”

Fletcher said that while he personally shared much of the community’s preference for locally rooted businesses, the city cannot legally control ownership.

“We can’t control who owns the corporation,” he said. “We’d rather have locally owned corporations. We all agree on that. But that’s not something that the city government can control.”

Councilmember Chris Carlson warned against trying to write laws that exclude specific kinds of businesses.

“If you try writing discriminatory laws that exclude certain businesses, you’re going down a kind of a slippery slope,” Carlson said. “Where do you stop at? No corporations? Well, Leavenworth has Starbucks. That’s a huge corporation.”

For many in the room, the realization was a sobering one.

What began as an evening of passionate opposition gradually turned into something closer to a civics lesson, a recognition that the city government residents were appealing to does not actually hold the power they hoped it did.

Fletcher explained that because the property in question is privately owned, the city cannot tell the owner who they can or cannot sell it to.

“As a city, we’re kind of stuck by what our rules are,” he said. “Because they’re private property, we cannot tell them who to sell their property to. That’s entirely on them.”

Councilmember John Perry summed up the tension bluntly.

“We do need business,” Perry said. “We do not need this business.”

Rather than dismissing residents’ concerns, Fletcher and councilmembers pointed them toward where that influence does exist, the Port of Chelan County and the property owners who control the land. Fletcher encouraged residents to attend the Port’s next meeting and make their concerns known there.

In doing so, the meeting became something more than a protest. It became a moment of civic orientation, with residents learning not just how to voice their concerns, but where those concerns might actually be heard.

By the end of the night, the tone in the room had shifted from anger toward something more focused and determined. People did not leave satisfied, but many left better informed and better aimed.

In a small town that cares deeply about its future, the Jan. 26 meeting was less about a single project and more about a community discovering how its own system of governance really works.

Andrew Simpson: 509-433-7626 or andrew@ward.media