(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.

-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 MyEdmondsNews.com:
“As angry Bloom leaves meeting, Council punts Harbor Square issue to next
week.”

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
meetings.

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.

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.

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.

I also love the views of the water and mountains as I walk down Main or Dayton. I love thinking about how our views and gorgeous setting could be the key to the future of Edmonds, the key to figuring out how we can draw more people here to enjoy its beauty, while taking advantage of our shops, restaurants, and services.

At the Council meeting Tuesday night, fellow citizens were not talking about the excitement of the views, our environment, and our setting, they were talking about a proposal that would capture views for the profit and benefit of a few — the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan that includes mixed use, residential and retail, in buildings as high as 55 feet.

Think about that for a minute. We were discussing how a few could profit — with a debatable economic benefit to Edmonds — from a project that is projected to be in place decades from now, and only after thousands of city staff, legal, and council hours (paid for by the citizens of Edmonds) have been expended reviewing the thousands of pages of studies, reports, legal documents, proposals, applications, and what not.

This Master Plan would determine how the Harbor Square properties would look, not just twenty or so years from now, but decades into the future. Our gorgeous setting is a gift of nature. Why does one generation have the right to deface this gift for countless future generations, just to deal with a current downturn in the economy? What kind of stewardship is that? And it isn’t even practical, because the considerable construction period would hurt our local businesses, while the possible (but in no way guaranteed) benefits are a long way off. Responding to our current financial crisis with this plan is akin to responding to a 911 call by introducing the possibility of a new fire or police station.

And why are we even considering a plan that raises height limits near the waterfront — a consideration that has been turned down by Edmonds voters countless times?

The downtown is our heart. The waterfront is our future. The only reasonable way to guide the future is to take responsibility for what we can accomplish in the near term. That begins with discussions of what we want and will support now. Together, we can develop plans for the short term, and done right, the short term begets the long term.

Port Director Bob McChesney was gracious enough to give me a tour of the Harbor Square properties. The entire second floors of two of the buildings are vacant. Mr. McChesney explained that an investment of perhaps a few hundred thousand dollars would be required for the Port to upgrade those buildings to attract additional tenants.

With our fiber optics access, we could attract tech, engineering, environmental research, and/or consulting businesses. Or perhaps an artists’ cooperative, with studios for rent, on one of the floors. There are many possibilities.

I’m confused why Mr. McChesney and other Port officials have shown an unwillingness to consider anything other than a mega-project fraught with obstacles and uncertainties. The approval process will be lengthy, while reaching the end point of the Port’s proposal includes the assumption that there will be no obstructing appeals or lawsuits — a naive assumption considering our City’s recent history.

It will take effort to face our differences of opinion and come to agreement to implement immediate solutions. I believe that we are up to the challenge. Because, after all, we all love Edmonds.

There will be another public hearing on the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan on Tuesday, Dec. 18th in Council Chambers. The meeting starts at 7 PM. Please come, or write to council at Council@ci.edmonds.wa.us, and express your opinion.

Some years ago, the City of Edmonds determined that people travel primarily in cars: the City abandoned sidewalks, pedestrian signals, and wheelchair on-ramps. Citizens showed up at the next City Council meeting bearing torches and pitchforks.

Which incident above did not and will never happen? In contrast to businesses, governments must serve all, which translates to being inefficient in which services to provide. Where they can and should be efficient is in providing those services.

Unlike business persons, Council Members and the Mayor need to understand both necessary inefficiencies as well as necessary efficiencies.

My recent article on clustering brought out the unintended (but not unwelcome) consequence of support for a year-round public market. I have been thinking about and looking for a location for a public market since I scouted Edmonds with my toddler son (now 25), and posting about it for as long as my husband and I have hosted EdmondsForum.com.

I’m not the first and certainly not the only Edmonds resident who’s thought that a public market is perfect for Edmonds. When Mike Cooper was on the Snohomish County Council, he attended an Edmonds Council meeting that included a discussion of the future of the waterfront properties. He disclosed that Snohomish County was looking for a location for a year-round public market, having determined that this could easily be supported in the county. (See report, page A-57.) But even if lots of people agree that a year-round public market is a great idea, making it so will take the combined efforts of elected officials, City staff and, probably most important, a groundswell of interest from citizens.

It will also take getting ideas from examples where it’s already working, such as in Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver (and yes, those are far larger cities, but ours will be a regional market). It will take acknowledgment that even good projects have unintended consequences (several were expressed in the comments) and care should be taken to minimize them. We don’t want new businesses to harm current ones. And, as I said, most important, it will take community support. Below are ways to participate.

Edmonds is currently working on a Strategic Plan, a vision of the future of Edmonds. On May 3rd, from 5:30 – 8:30 PM, in the Library Plaza meeting room, an open house will be held on the Strategic planning process. Information on the open house and all data gathered is on the city’s website. If you’re not interested in participating in the Strategic Planning process, but do want to support a particular direction or idea for Edmonds, Here are other ways to get your point across.

(1) Edmonds City Council, the Edmonds Planning Board, and the Economic Development Commission all have audience comment time available at their meetings, when citizens have three minutes to present ideas and issues of concern. Time and agenda for these meetings is on the city’s website. (2) You can email all council members at council@ci.edmonds.wa.us. (3) You could form your own group. Before I ran for a Council seat, I started a group, with three like-minded citizens, which later became Imagine Edmonds.

If citizens want to form a group to support a public market in Edmonds, e-mail me at joan.bloom@edmondswa.gov. Put “market” in the subject space. So you can find each other, I will e-mail the collected addresses to all who e-mailed me.

I’m grateful for, and believe that Edmonds can sustain, most of the high-quality shops we’ve retained. However, unless or until (take your pick) the price of gas doubles or triples, the variety of shops that Edmonds and other small towns once enjoyed isn’t returning, and it would be futile to try to expect that.

If you’re a typical shopper, you want good prices and lots of choices. Where do you find lots of choices? The Mall — anchor stores, Nordstrom and Macys, surrounded by bunches of fashion shops. Want cheaper but nice clothing, or housewares and sporting equipment? Pennys, Target, Big 5, Ross, Costco, and many others. Hate to fight traffic, bad weather, and other shoppers? Amazon. How does Edmonds retail compete with choice and price? Not easily. Does that mean that small retail is doomed in Edmonds? That all retail storefronts must eventually be taken over by services? I hope not and don’t think so.

Drive down the northern Edmonds portion of Highway 99. You’ll see numerous auto dealers, new and used, which have survived the economic disaster of these last few years. These dealers are clustered, giving shoppers choice, competition, and convenience. Farther south on 99, you can shop at a cluster of Asian-themed markets. In better economic times, Edmonds was the destination for antiques, with shops all over town.

Clusters of similar shops don’t suffer from competition, they thrive on it, by being a destination for non-locals. That’s why stores pay big rents at malls or busy big-city downtowns. Rather than trying to fill vacant Edmonds storefronts with one of everything, why not develop Edmonds’s identity as the place to go for what’s already selling? As mentioned, on 99 it’s cars and Asian goods. Downtown, it’s women’s fashion, jewelry, housewares, travel (thanks, Rick!), art, and artistic crafts.

Leaving aside professional services (which don’t thrive on competition), what other cluster of products sells in Edmonds? Sports bars and small restaurants with happy hours (I think we’re close to saturation), and prepared food accompanied by entertainment, sold in a public marketplace — the Taste, the Father’s Day Arts Fair, and the Summer Market. I can’t think of anything that could get started quicker, and bring in steady revenue, than a year-around market — indoors, during the bad-weather months.

Edmonds needs increased revenue now, not just in 10 to 15 years, when a mega-project could get completed. If anything is the near answer, the evidence points to clustering similar retail, and a year-around market based on fresh and prepared food and causal entertainment.

More here and here.

To a large degree, the Tuesday-scheduled Council meetings fulfill the requirements to show our work, but executive sessions, which are held behind closed doors, not so much. The State of Washington code allows city councils to hold executive sessions for only specific issues — mostly those related to real estate purchase, potential litigation, and personnel. Furthermore, city councils are required to make what needed to be private, but no longer does (such as a settled lawsuit), open to public-records requests.

Currently, our City Council, the Mayor, and City Attorney, are grappling with the details of moving once-private discussions to public scrutiny. In 1996, the Edmonds City Council voted (City Resolution 853) to require the taking of minutes at executive sessions. At the Council retreat on February 2, 2012, we had a contentious discussion about whether or not we should continue to take minutes. We were advised by our city attorney that, if we chose to continue to take minutes, we should also record the sessions, and Council should approve the final version of the minutes. Another option was to stop all documentation of the sessions.

I strongly support the taking of minutes, and the recording of the executive sessions. Citizens must be able to trust that Council is holding executive sessions for only the reasons stated in Washington State Code. They must also be able to trust that, should they have questions in the future about a particular executive session and wish to make a public records request, there will be documentation of the sessions (subject to limitations of the law) available for their review.

Council will be discussing executive sessions in a March Council meeting. I would love to hear your thoughts. Also, consider expressing your opinion on this issue to all your council members by sending an email to Spellman@ci.edmonds.wa.gov. Ask us to show our work.

A discussion of the issues can be found following Harry Gatjen’s article on the Council retreat.

I want to congratulate new Council Member, Frank Yamamoto, retained Council Members, Diane Buckshnis and Lora Petso, and our new mayor, Dave Earling. I look forward to working with all of you to serve the citizens of Edmonds. That’s what it’s all about.