Skip to content

Why I Left the Council Meeting Early

by on 02/12/2013

Don’t bite my finger, look where I’m pointing

-Warren McCulloch

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
“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 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.

From → Edmonds

  1. Denise Hie permalink

    Thank you for bring this to citizen attention, as not everyone is aware that we can see for ourselves, the meetings on video. Indeed, clear questions were still left unanswered. Had I been on the council, I too, would not have had my name on a vote for something worded with obscurity.

    • Jeanne Amundsen permalink


      My thoughts exactly, Ms Hie. When I see that much double-speak, vague & ambiguous explanations, and dubious conclusions from the Port and several council members, it tends to make me very suspicious of their intent and their motives. The city attorney also produced some very mixed messages; on the one hand telling the council members to ‘definitely not vote for this project if it’s not YOUR vision’…and then turning around and saying…in effect…’feel free to add this to the Comprehensive Plan and make any changes to this that you desire’. Unfortunately, the vote wasn’t taken right then and there after his first comment.

      But alas….the dubious explanations didn’t stop there; a Port feasibility study that didn’t even bother to take into account the extra structural engineeting costs ($$$) of securing a 5- 6 story behemoth into the underground bedrock so that it’s safe from seismic liquefaction?! Now that in itself probably doubles the structural engineering costs of the project. And when Ms Bloom (and several other councilwoman) asked pointed questions to the Port to ascertain how much ‘wiggle room’ they had for changes to their plan, and the Port responded, basically, with ‘none!’…I found it peculiar that several councilmen were ‘stunned’ (Mayor’s words) that the rest of the council was not ‘willing’ to continue with negotiating the Port project. Personally, I’M stunned that the Port would spend that much time and that much of our public money to only come up with what they should have known all along would create a huge pushback (once again) by the folks of Edmonds! The Port was either extremely naive, or extremely arrogant if they thought they could once again try to ramrod through an increase of building heights without resistance.

      Thank you, Ms. Bloom, and several other council members… for holding the Port’s feet to the fire; for coming back again… & again… & again… and asking them to clarify and explain the many things that just didn’t add up!

Comments are closed.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 59 other followers

%d bloggers like this: