Do we think up projects primarily to give our Public Works Director and City Engineer something to sink their spreadsheets into, because I don’t know another reason why the City should consider yet another mega-project, when a modest one can solve a crucial problem — getting emergency vehicles to the waterfront.
The Mayor and staff are promoting a plan that includes changing the very nature of the waterfront, a plan that could include building an expensive tunnel under the tracks, moving the ferry dock, and possibly even moving the Senior Center. We're talking tens of millions of dollars in State funds, with a solution that will arrive five to ten years from now. It will be fun living in a construction site for years.
The first step will be explained as asking the State for (merely) two million dollars to study the options. Remember how this goes: Today: “It's just a study.” Tomorrow: “We spent all this staff time and money on the plan, and can't throw that away.” Sound familiar? Keep that in mind when you hear the mantra — “It's just a study.” This is the same song as the Port proposal — getting us used to the idea of building on the waterfront — the band is just taking a break between sets.
There's an alternative that doesn't move the Senior Center, doesn't move or expand the ferry dock, doesn't dig an expensive tunnel under the tracks, and doesn't obstruct the business and recreational interests on the waterfront for years — a simple emergency vehicle and pedestrian overpass. At a fraction of the cost.
If the Council and Mayor can unite on a plan, our state legislators are ready to support our decision. But we do not have the luxury of time to come up with a plan that solves ferry and train access, as well as emergency access. Voice your opinion at the November 4th public hearing, or by email to Counciladmin@ci.edmondswa.us.
I do not support Randy Hayden for the U.S. Congress. I need to make that statement, because some citizens of Edmonds, including some of my recent supporters, are confusing the Edmonds City Council with federal and state offices. Randy Hayden, as luck will have it, is not running for any office other than for the Edmonds City Council. His views on guns, the Affordable Care Act, or the President will have precisely the same effect on the future of Edmonds as his choice for the best Spielberg movie — none.
I do support Randy Hayden for the Edmonds City Council. He desires to conserve the best aspects of Edmonds: current building heights; conserving trees in critical areas; preserving and enhancing the waterfront marsh, for enjoyment by residents and visitors; support for small businesses; and holding small and large developers to our code restrictions. He also supports low-impact development techniques, such as rain gardens and green roofs. And, Mr. Hayden matches my goal of increasing transparency in Edmonds government practices.
Mr. Hayden has been a resident of Edmonds for 25 years, and wishes to preserve the beauty and ambience of our city for future generations. That’s what matters. Randy Hayden for Edmonds City Council.
The saying, “it takes all kinds,” is usually accompanied by a roll of the eyes, but for incumbent Council Member, Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, I mean it in the best possible light. While some of us are more outspoken during Council Sessions, Ms. Fraley-Monillas is adept at collaboration, while still taking a clear stance in negotiations. For example, One of the most difficult issues that faces cities, in these times, is balancing fair pay and benefits for union workers, with the limited revenue available. In her negotiations with unions — rugged work done outside the public’s eye — I believe that all interests would regard Ms. Fraley-Monillas as tough but fair.
In general, my respect for Council Members is based on several criteria: (1) They come prepared. Council Members must sift through a tremendous number of reports, e-mails, oral communications, as well as do our own research. Ms. Fraley-Monillas comes to meetings with a full understanding of the issues. (2) They respect all citizens’ interests. Ms. Fraley-Monillas understands that, while comments during Council Sessions reflect important points of view, thousands of citizens have backed candidates and their stated viewpoints during the election period. (3) They understand that sometimes the best interests of business owners and of the pro-development advocates are aligned with the best interests of Edmonds’ citizens, and sometimes they are not; Ms. Fraley-Monillas takes pains to understand the difference. Despite tremendous pressure to favor development to the detriment of the ambiance of our city, Ms. Fraley-Monillas consistently casts her votes on behalf of the citizens. (4) They know when to hold ‘em, when to fold ‘em. Not every issue needs to be debated forever. Sometimes, the citizens have clearly spoken (in elections, comments, e-mails, and other forms of communication), and we should move on. I could learn something from Ms. Fraley-Monillas is that regard. (5) They understand that Edmonds is a gift of nature, and of previous generations of stewards. Ms. Fraley-Monillas’s votes balance the immediate needs of our city with stewardship for future generations.
While I don’t always vote with Council Member Fraley-Monillas, I have always found her open to discuss differences and her reasoning behind her votes. She is a model of courtesy, collaboration, and balance. I believe that her role on the Council is essential, and I back her 100 percent for re-election.
Progress, sustainability experts say, is not growth or change, progress is improvement, and improvement comes in flavors: economic, social, and environmental. The Harbor Square Master Plan, as currently being pushed, equates progress with just one kind of improvement – economic – while the social and environmental effects aren’t merely being ignored, they’re being victimized. If that’s not bad enough, the Port, and the proposal advocates, are using unsubstantiated points to back their concept of economic progress. As follows:
(1) We need residential units to increase our tax base.
So 350 units, 15 to 20 years from now, is our best solution to current economic woes — not to mention how the construction will make economic matters worse in the meantime?
(2) Young professionals will flock to these condos so they can take Sounder to work in the morning.
Perhaps, in 15 to 20 years, young people will find Edmonds more attractive than they do now. No one can predict either way. What we do know is that in 15 to 20 years, light rail will have come to Lynnwood and a modest urban village isn’t going to save Sounder as a commuter passenger service.
(3) Housing over retail is an economic sure thing.
No, it isn’t. How will buying a dress in an urban village rather than in downtown help Edmonds? It’s not as if we’re hurting for retail space. Will we need more retail space in 15 to 20 years? There’s a problem we hope to have, and one we should deal with if and when it happens.
(4) The Harbor Square Master Plan has been an open process.
No, it hasn’t. I was a member of the original citizen group. Our choices were limited to variations on a theme of increasing the height-limit and changing the zoning to allow residential. Opinions that diverge from those of the Port have been ignored.
(5) The people want it.
No, they don’t. Edmonds citizens have voted against candidates who advocate relaxing height limits, time and time again. In his campaign literature, Mayor Earling stated that the height-limit debate was settled long ago. What happened to that assurance?
Advocates of the Port proposal have proceeded with blinders, a total unwillingness to consider options, to look in any direction but up, at taller buildings. A total unwillingness to stray from a mega-project that entails tons of concrete and threatens our environment. A total unwillingness to assist the entrepreneurial spirit that exists with thriving businesses such as the micro-breweries, athletic clubs, the summer market, our arts community, the spread of happy hours. In sum: a total unwillingness to respect market forces over central government planning.
Anyone can criticize, I get that, so what do I believe the people of Edmonds want? That’s not a hard question. What do people like about Edmonds? What are we already supporting? How can we expand on that? What do we want more of? Is there something you see in other cities and environments that you want for Edmonds?
The easiest way to predict what people will support is to create more of what they already support. Look, for example, at the many happy hours in Edmonds. Did someone from Edmonds government say what we need are happy hours? Nope, some restaurant owner thought they’d bring in more customers during these hard times, by charging less during their less-crowded hours. Better to have lower margins for a couple of hours than an empty restaurant. Nearly every restaurant/bar in town followed suit and, suddenly, Edmonds is a destination, including for the seldom seen, around here, young adults.
Here’s what I don’t get: Officials from Edmonds have touted the ideas of Roger Brooks — there’s a link to his presentation for Edmonds on EdmondsWA.gov — but the Port plan is the antithesis of what he advocates. Brooks states that thriving cities don’t thrive because of top-down planning, but from bottom-up entrepreneurialism; that cities don’t thrive from mega-projects, they thrive from community gathering spots such as plazas and public markets.
Here’s why I won’t lend credibility to the Port’s approach. By focusing on building heights, zoning, and liquefaction zones, our minds are still occupied by the details of a project to nowhere. Our thoughts are being colonized by a plan conceived and promoted by a handful of advocates who have pretended to listen to the community, and have pretended to listen to an expert, Roger Brooks, on what makes downtowns work. As long as we talk about modifying this plan, rather than looking at entrepreneurial and bottom-up community ventures, we will be playing on their turf.
Let’s abandon this waste of time and money; let’s abandon what people have said, over and over, they don’t want, and return to the ideas that even city officials say we should be promoting.
It’s worth stating, again: it’s not about building heights, not about zoning, not about liquefaction, it’s about creating a place for community, for participation by the people of Edmonds, and a destination for those who will be attracted to our public spaces and creative business community. Edmonds is a gift — let’s show our appreciation.
Don’t bite my finger, look where I’m pointing
An Edmonds citizen requested that I explain why I left the Council
meeting, of January 29, 2012, before it was over. His concern may have
stemmed from the characterization of events reported on MyEdmondsNews.com:
“As angry Bloom leaves meeting, Council punts Harbor Square issue to next
Apparently, I’m not a frustrated Council Member trying to shine light on
what I believe to be serious financial, environmental, safety, and
quality-of-life concerns regarding the Port’s proposed Harbor Square Master
Plan. No, I’m starring in a soap opera.
I left the meeting not, as MyEdmondsNews.com reported, as “Council punts,”
but following a lengthy, contentious discussion, and after our
decision had been postponed to February 5th. In yet another attempt to get
answers to what I felt was being glossed over, I had asked many questions of
Port Director, Bob McChesney, and of the City staff and our attorney. I was
exhausted and informed Council President Petso that I needed to leave.
There was only one agenda item left to discuss, one that I knew had the
four votes to pass; my presence would not have made a difference. Aside from
those missed minutes, I have a perfect attendance record in Council
Did I show frustration during Council proceedings? Guilty as charged. Did
I leave in a huff, shirk my duty, or kick a puppy? If you care about faux
soap operas, or the Harbor Square proposal, you can decide for
yourself by watching it here.
I’ve received a small amount of criticism and much support for my essay on why I’m against the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan, an outcome about which I’m pleased. I’ve also received a small amount of criticism for posting the statement — that is, having an opinion — prior to the public hearing.
For several reasons, I regard criticism for stating a relevant opinion prior to a public hearing as silly:
First, I’ve been expressing similar sentiments, as I did in my post, for nearly a decade. Starting in 2003, I began offering my vision for Edmonds on EdmondsForum.com. After announcing for the Council election, in June of 2011, I posted a series of opinions on the development of downtown and the waterfront. And, along with other candidates, I was asked to state, in writing, interviews, and live forums, my positions on many issues. Hence, nothing in my essay on the Harbor Square Master Plan should surprise anyone who paid even minimal attention to my campaign.
Second, it would be impossible to be neutral prior to public hearings. Before a public hearing is held, Council Members educate themselves by reading reports, doing independent research, gathering viewpoints from e-mails, phone calls, and meetings with citizens, and getting relevant legal opinion from the City Attorney. Would citizens prefer that Council be sequestered like a jury before public hearings? I doubt it. I’m sure that the residents of Edmonds want Council to have as much information as possible when we make law, and most of that information will be available before a hearing. Need I add that it’s impossible not to form a viewpoint after digesting all that material?
Third, it would be unfair to regard public hearings as a referendum on an issue. Approximately 16,000 voters cast their preferences in the last Edmonds election — choosing candidates that reflect (that’s the idea, at least) voters’ preferences on issues and viewpoints expressed during the campaign. Approximately 20 – 100 (being generous) people show, speak, write e-mails, letters, and/or otherwise participate in public hearings. Given the discrepancy of these numbers, the participants in a public hearing cannot be considered a referendum on how Edmonds residents feel about a particular issue, and hence, how Council Members should vote. It’s our responsibility to balance input at pubic hearings with the much larger input of election results.
If public hearings are not referendums, what is their purpose? That they’re legally required is not a sufficient answer. I can think of two major purposes for public hearings: First, exposure to new information. Public hearings give one more opportunity to expose Council to issues of which we might otherwise remain ignorant — issues that can and have (in my case, anyway) changed minds and votes. Second, transparency. Public hearings are the only legal gathering of all seven Council Members in which legislation may be discussed. These hearings give citizens — that is, you — the opportunity to monitor discussions among all the Council Members, and among Council, the Mayor, and City Attorney, and between City officials and the employees. Please participate.
Proponents are contending that changing the Comprehensive Plan to include the Harbor Square Master Plan is about giving more choice. They suggest we can include residential and increased heights at Harbor Square in our Comp Plan then negotiate heights with the applicant through a development agreement. However, everything incorporated into the Comp Plan is no longer under the control of the Council (legislative body) because the applicant can challenge restrictions through appeal(s) to the court (judicial body).
Here is an article on the Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington website — The Unassailable Right to Make Any Decision You Want: Avoiding Judicial Intervention in Local Land Use Decision Making
Wonky, but excellent reading to further understand why this is not a decision that Council should make without carefully considering the ramifications.