Topic: Planning & Development (339)
When Is Less More?
When Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) are prepared, more than one development model might be evaluated. But a no-action alternative is always required as a baseline reference. Convention
When Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) are prepared, more than one development model might be evaluated. But a no-action alternative is always required as a baseline reference. Convention
Recently, both the Port's waterfront plans and the Fairhaven Highlands project offer examples of how valuable a meaningful no-action alternative analysis could be to the community. The trick is, of course, getting anyone to do it.
With Fairhaven Highlands, we see the only property that could be used to expand Fairhaven Park to a size consistent with the City's own standard for the population targeted for the area, the only property that can connect to and leverage the value of our substantial Interurban investments, the only property that can sustain the food chain of a valuable habitat corridor and associated salmon streams, and the only property that could transform Fairhaven Park into a Gateway to the Chuckanuts, to become a regionally significant recreational and educational resource. Wow, imagine adding all that up!
Of course, no one will. Surely not Horizon Bank. After all, they are adept accountants. They certainly know better than to account for what they rob from the community they are chartered to serve. Likely, we will not even get them to address the estimated $12 million tax subsidy their project will require. But if they would add up these values to the community in the no-action alternative, the sums would be impressive, indeed.
Down on the Waterfront, the situation is similar, but worse. Here, the developer is their own lead environmental agent in charge of overseeing the EIS. We actually pay them $7 million a year to do what they do. And the pay is enough that they can hire an "official" in charge of the environmental review who is an expensive commercial litigator out of Seattle who specializes in getting controversial projects through the regulatory process. O.K., so at least we know where we stand.
There are some interesting features to the waterfront plan. First, in the wake of GP's departure, the public currently owns a large industrial water supply to the project site and a treatment lagoon designed to receive the capacity of that supply. The Port plans to build a marina in the lagoon, rendering it useless for water treatment, leaving the water supply useless, too. A couple of points here:
You might think they would feel obliged to account for the value of the public facilities they intend to ruin. But they refuse. One might guess they would be interested in the future costs of replacing the treatment capacity we know we will eventually need. They refuse. One might wonder what it costs the community to be unable to recruit family wage jobs because that treatment capacity was squandered. They won't even talk about it. The Port has decided that commercial real estate development is more exciting than their traditional role of supporting commerce and trade. They've come a long way, baby!
These are all things that might reasonably be quantified in a meaningful no-action alternative. But they probably won't, and there's more!
Downtown suffered for decades from the development of Bellis Fair Mall. It now seems to be on the mend. How will more than 200 acres of spanking new commercial development on the waterfront affect it? Will downtown get pushed into another localized recession? What will happen to Bellis Fair, already showing signs of strain from the proliferation of other area malls? Will the Port suck the lifeblood out of existing commercial areas? Many of those do not enjoy the amenities of a waterfront, or the luxury of a tax base subsidy.
Of course, it will be a miracle if any of these questions are meaningfully addressed, but the ones they will avoid at all costs would be even more revealing:
What about doing nothing? What would a broad public waterfront add to downtown, or to places like Bellis Fair, to the City and all of Whatcom County? Is there a long-range advantage to retaining the waterfront for public and water-dependent uses? What is the value of a regional attraction that lifts all boats in our economic harbor, not just the Port's?
It could be that less is more. But it will be tough getting anyone to do a true community-based analysis.
To comment, please log in.
When Is Less More?
When Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) are prepared, more than one development model might be evaluated. But a no-action alternative is always required as a baseline reference. Convention
Library planning versus needs
Tomorrow the Bellingham Library Board of Trustees meets and will probably produce a plan for a new grand downtown library building and a bond issue of between 20 to 60 million dollars to pay fo
Herald editorial on Lake Whatcom land deal
The Bellingham Herald editorial today is excellent. It raises the basic questions about the newly proposed Lake Whatcom land reconveyance deal to make a park on the very steep hillsides at the south e
Lake Whatcom land deal; “technicality” loses Herald’s letters
Tom Pratum has some good information on the proposed - and still mostly secret - Lake Whatcom land reconveyance plan. He posted it on the North Cascades Audubon Society website, which he runs. It outl
My posts here were accurate
The October surprise is a week early. Today’s Herald has the carefully managed news of the land swap that John Watts alerted us to on Sep 11 - and which was then denied by the McShanes, Mitch Friedman
No denials in land swap accusation
Rather than answer several emails individually, this post will clarify a couple things. First, why is yesterday’s post by John Watts that I praised any different from his late July post that I critici
Prediction of an October Surprise
An astounding post by John Watts this afternoon on his HamsterTalk website. He has what amounts to a prediction of an October Surprise - implying strongly that it is intended to affect the election. H
Public hearing started well after 9 pm
It is not bad enough that the city council schedules the public hearing on our future Shoreline Master Plan for the middle of July - a plan many years in the making and one with two time extensions fr
Forums and blogging and pits, oh my!
The Herald does not even follow its own mandates. On Sunday, the editorial said the candidates “…must address 6 big issues.” Must. Then they sent out their own list of 8 questions to council candida
Only a government agency would do this.
The Herald ran an ad for the State Department of Ecology informing us of the web site where we could find the Draft Consent Decree for our waterfront cleanup. Well, it isn’t there. Upon inquir
Last Chance - Steal this Waterfront!
In a Bellingham Herald article dated May 4, Interim Mayor Tim Douglas “said it’s
The Port’s Plan to Poison
Why the Log Pond cap won’t work
An article in a recent Bellingham Business Journal detailed the debate over whether the toxic muck in the Whatcom Waterway ought to be dredged or capped.
The So-called News
Independent media? Freedom of the press? Peoples friend, tyrants foe? It was a good idea while it lasted, educating the electorate and forming a mainstay of our democracy. Now, we’ve either elected Bu
Poisoning the Public - A treacherous legacy
According to the Bellingham Herald, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources has recently approved leaving tons of mercury buried in Bellingham Bay. The documents are not yet readily avail
Your Waterfront - Up for grabs
New Whatcom Redevelopment Project - The City and Port of Bellingham will hold public information a meeting. Bellingham Cruise Terminal. 355 Harris Ave., Bellingham. WA Times: 6:00 PM.
Also, th
Response to Bellingham Herald editorial
Today’s Bellingham Herald editorial invites an answer. The editorial is good in that it reflects on past bad practices, like allowing GP to dump mercury into Bellingham Bay, and the editorial goes on
Library/garage
If you have arrived at this website for the first time as a result of the link posted in today’s Bellingham Herald article about branch libraries, then I welcome you and hope you return occasionally.
Moving Target
One of the more momentous public hearings in Bellingham’s history appears to be ready to pass with more than the ordinary confusion. We wrote about some of the mis/disinformation earlier.
On th
Public meeting & hearing rescheduled
Notice:
Relative to the last post:
Ecology has rescheduled the public meeting for:
December 7th, 6:30 p.m. ñ 8:30 p.m., Bellingham Cruise Terminal, 355 Harris Avenue, Bell
Public Process - Lots of it (kind of),
or I lied (sort of!)
In the previous post I complained that the biggest rip-off in Whatcom County history was happening without even being discussed or making it into the news. Well, I lied. To