The thousand acre dilemma: Part 1

g.h.kirsch  //  Sun, Jul 20, 2008, 2:05 pm

I’ve been waiting some time for you to write this.  And you’re the one to do it.

We all knew that the planning process at the city had been gamed and corrupted to produce a result that rationalized UGA expansion.  City officials from A to Z went along with it.  An honorable minority of course objeted.

When caught and the game was exposed, the city had two choices: come clean, adjust the land supply analysis and forgo expansion; or fudge the park numbers.  The council voted to fudge.

We all knew that fudge would turn into a sticky mess.  We said the cost of the fudged LOS would create unacceptable tax burdens which, as it turns out, are actually unacceptable.  Surprise surprise.

You are entirely right.  Now the city is faced with amending their comp plan to adjust the land supply analysis, and the real need for expansion, given the some 1,000 acres they pretended they didn’t have for residential growth.

And the sooner the new mayor and council get it, the sooner they will see their duty to come to the county’s aid in the petition brought by Caitac et al challenging the decision that denied Bellingham’s unnecessary expansion.

There’s been plenty of mumbo jumbo about process, timing and whatever.  The city did the wrong thing.  Now’s the time to make it right.  Help the county.

Larry Horowitz  //  Mon, Jul 21, 2008, 5:32 pm

Thanks for your comments Greg.  Perhaps you should write Part 2 instead of me.  Seems like you’ve got the gist of the conspiracy theory down.

I was hoping to hear from some others by now.  Perhaps they nodded off while reading the article; it is a bit long.  The silence from our city officials – past, present, elected and appointed - is especially deafening.

In the meantime, I thought I’d throw out another suggestion.  How about implementing an interlocal agreement regarding impact fees in the UGA?  Greg, since you seem to be the only one willing to respond, what do you think?

g.h.kirsch  //  Mon, Jul 21, 2008, 8:22 pm

Well Larry, I’ll defer to you to wrap up the story in your inimitable style.  I’m just a generalist.  Your command of the details is most enjoyable.  I’ve enjoyed it since you and Susan and Donna hooked up.

Suppose I’d of been more surprised if any had raised their heads on this one.  But will confess I thought John Watts, if no one else, would have disagreed with you.

As to the present council members; it’s understandable that they don’t know what to say.  And then there’s the problem most electeds have “doing the publics business in public.”

Regarding your impact fee idea; when I see my friend Pete I’ll bring it up.  Am sure he’ll want to enter into agreements in the UGAs that have county codes coordinated with city requirements in anticipation of annexation.

Know he’ll want to see that the county contributes to the city budget for the impacts new development outside the city limits cause.

After that I’ll teach the pigs to fly!

L.S. King  //  Mon, Jul 21, 2008, 8:33 pm

Thanks for a great article. As a resident of the King Mountain area, I especially appreciate seeing this issue addressed.

The supposed need for additional land for development has been used to justify adding the undeveloped portion of King Mountain to the City’s UGA. Our neighborhood group has been making the case for years that the City does not need this land. This is further proof that the City does not need to rush to expand further into this area, with the huge, 700 unit development that has been proposed.

I wish we saw more of this kind of analysis in the Herald, but I am happy to be able to find it here.

For readers who do not know, part of the case that is being made for urbanizing the slopes of King Mountain is that the developer intends to “donate” acreage for a park. County Councilor Seth Fleetwood is quoted in the Bellingham Herald on July 18, as saying that the land “would otherwise cost government millions of dollars”.

I have news for Fleetwood: this acreage will NOT be free, it WILL cost taxpayers millions to provide services, schools, and roads that would be needed if this area is annexed. We might not pay directly for the park, but we certainly will pay indirectly.

Likewise, City Council member Terry Bornemann said in the same Herald article that “the project could help solve transportation problems on the north side”, because the project calls for a north/south arterial right through the heart of King Mountain.

Again, this fix will also not be “free”. And before the project can “solve transportation problems”, you first have to deal with the daily car trips of 700 households plunked down in the middle of an area that is already surrounded by heavily congested roads. I think the cure could be worse than the existing problem.

The City still needs to “solve the transportation problems” on north/south arterials such as James Street Road farther south towards Sunset Pond. The road here is narrow, with no bike lane and little room for bike riders or pedestrians. Last I checked, the area was listed as a needed road project, but no money was actually budgeted to do the work. Maybe that has changed, but I doubt it.

Residential development comes with costs to the community. And it seems that recent elections have shown Bellingham voters to prefer candidates who support growing slowly and carefully.

I hope that Bellingham leaders will take the implications of the change in LOS to the logical conclusion, and take action to rescind the addition of the King Mountain area into the UGA.

Thanks for a great article that once again points out that Bellingham already DOES have sufficient land for current and future growth needs.

Larry Horowitz  //  Mon, Jul 21, 2008, 11:03 pm

Thanks for taking on the interlocal agreement for impact fees, Greg.  Please say hi to your friend Pete… Wait a minute, aren’t interlocal agreements the purview of Council?  Perhaps you should contact your friends Carl and Seth instead.

Either way, please let me know when the pigs are flying.  I’d like to get some pictures of that.

John Watts  //  Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 1:37 pm

Not wanting to disappoint anyone, and because I’ve now been called out by name, here’s a quick 2 cents worth:

Predictably, I do have concerns with Mr Horowitz latest missive, which appears to merely amplify his past opinions, with which I also had serious concerns.
After one prior discussion with Larry, I said that I thought it was better to be approximately correct than precisely wrong. He didn’t like me saying that then, so he may not have learned to like it now.

But, let me think about this piece for while, then I might decide to respond in some manner- maybe in a blog of my own. And, maybe not. But, in any event, I’m not planning any new full scale review, especially since others have assumed the task of carefully considering the Parks Recreation & Open Space Plan and it’s 6-year update that is currently in progress. I do have great confidence the ongoing public process and new Council will do a fine job of that.

But on the subject of pigs, I can offer a few quotes, some of which may even fit this discussion:

“Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.” - George Bernard Shaw

“You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig” - Dick Cheney

“I like pigs. Dogs look up to you; cats look down at you; pigs treat you as equals.” - Winston Churchill

Larry Horowitz  //  Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 3:10 pm

John,

I have no desire to enter into a power struggle with you over this issue.  However, I will repeat what I told you earlier, “It is better to be precisely correct than approximately wrong.” Had Council taken the time to get it right the first time, the city would not be in the fudgy, sticky mess it’s in now and would not have wasted all of the resources to promote and defend an ill-conceived expansion of the UGA.

Apparently you haven’t read the staff report on the 2008 Park Plan update.  They have essentially agreed with what I have been saying for two years now: they cannot afford to provide parks for existing UGA residents.

Whether you are willing to admit it or not, you share in the blame for the city’s failure to get it right.

Best,
Larry