Barbara’s response

Jack Weiss, a member of the Bellingham City Council, has submitted this response to the Feb 27 post.
—————

Barbara, as the author of this piece, tries to state a history that, if it remains unchallenged, only perpetrates urban legend and separates us from the truth. Here are just some of the concerns:

1. She believes that Chuckanut Ridge spurred the formation of the first levy in 1990. This is not true. Based on documents I am willing to show anyone, the priorities established by the levy committee (that evolved into the Greenways Advisory Committee) on October 10, 1990 and graphically represented on a map on December 13, 1990 shows $350,000 for Arroyo Park (priority #5) and $375,000 for South Neighborhood (priority #17) highlighted graphically as the existing Interurban Trail. What is important is that in the 25 priorities shown, CR does not show up AT ALL.

Remember, CR owner, Roger Sahlin, brought forward his attempt at developing CR around 1994 and because of the good work of neighbors, was unsuccessful. What is true is that the Beyond Greenways group formed after that to pass the 1997 levy that included $1.6 M for PART of CR with the understanding that some folks would attempt to match it with private donors. When Jody Bergsma, with the help of Bobbi Vollendorf and Seth Fleetwood, worked with Parks staff, the best they could do was a commitment to lock up 45 acres of land that many would consider today as falling under critical areas and other set asides, in other words, land the public would get for free as a development requirement. Nonetheless, proponents were willing to offer up $1.6 M. This 45 ac was appraised at $1.47 M. Sahlin said he would only accept an offer between $6-7 M and the negotiations broke off soon after that. The $1.6 M was used to help leverage $2.292 M of acquisitions along the Interurban Trail totaling 97 acres and is arguably much more valuable as environmental habitat than the CR piece is. The history document of this purchase attempt in 1998 is also available.

(As a sidebar, it is interesting to list that the Beyond Greenways campaign materials note the following: in describing the 8 funding areas the primary campaign piece says “Chuckanut Ridge Area/Lake Padden Trailhead/Interurban Trail. To secure land in the South Neighborhood, Padden Gorge Area, and Chuckanut Ridge Area and develop tails and trailhead facilities with gateway connections to Lake Padden Park, Chuckanut Mountain, and the Interurban Trail. Includes new trail connections between the Interurban Trail and Lake Padden Park and in the Arroyo Park Area.”

CR is not listed - only the “area.” Further, the map on the piece shows “acquisition areas” squarely over Arroyo Park and completely missing CR.

Lastly, a June 1997 Q&A sheet produced by the Beyond Greenways campaign committee responds to this claim: “This levy effort is motivated by affluent people in south Bellingham who want to protect Chuckanut Ridge.” Their response is “Although the Chuckanut Ridge proposal has been an “eye-opener” as to the magnitude of the problem of open space preservation, it is not the driving force behind the levy.” Who do you believe when your own side works against you?)

2. Barbara contends that Mayor Mark appointed a levy campaign for the third levy. The truth is that John Blethen with the help of Del Lowery, had formed this group on their own two months prior to a public statement by Mark where he said that a levy committee should be formed and suggested John lead it. John told me yesterday he formed the group back then in response to what became the Greensways Legacy group that had formed a few weeks earlier.

To say that John “appointed” me to the Greenways 2006 group is wrong. John had already 8 people on this committee when I found out about it while on the east coast. I was in my fourth month of an extended vacation. I cut my trip short to come home and asked to be on this committee. I had never met John or Del prior to that, nor did they know of me. They took a risk accepting me into their group - hell - I could have been a mole.

3. March 10, 2006 was a Friday and a non-Council meeting day and no, afternoon work sessions were not video taped as asserted (that began on March 3, 2008). Audio on the March 6 and 13 meetings when these discussions were made are available, however.

4. Barbara’s “It’s all on tape” section is her perception and she is welcome to it. I would only hope that she would welcome my “perception” as I was present at that same meeting. In my review of the tapes Mayor Mark was clear in numerous statements that ANY spending under the scenarios presented in that meeting were guidelines that did not encumber future councils and that he was not authorized to make any decision.

In this he said-she said-she said-he said situation, a judge in a court of law would look to the written record. What did the voters approve? What ordinances and resolutions received the necessary votes to pass? Yes, Barbara, it was a “huge mistake” as you say not to include your language in these documents. Makes one wonder how seriously the levy would have failed if they knew that your intent was to load all southside money onto one property. Do you really think our community would support spending all of the northside allocation on one property? This narrow focus of interest is transparent.

5. I take offense in labeling the good people who have worked so hard on a balance of public funds for the ENTIRE community as “anti-Chuckanut Ridge”. There have been way too many personal attacks on both sides, including recently. As Council members, I would ask you treat others as you wish to be treated.

I have been clear from the beginning that I am opposed to the concept of the development at CR—as are most, if not all, others that have worked for the levy. We are not “anti-anything” except for unfair labels. It is the fair use of public funds I oppose in your arguments. Realize who your allies are and move-on from this disagreement. If you have four votes someday in the future for “$8 M for CR,” then I will abide by it. I trust you would do the same if the vote was not to your liking. Until then, work on solutions instead of nickel-and-diming the past. Go to the voters now if you wish for a clarification if you insist on traveling down this road.

6. Barbara, I am astounded that you would declare that the Greenways Strategic Plan was made public for the first time at the January 8 Council meeting packet! Council had a status report by the Greenways Committee in a public afternoon session on October 6, 2008. You showed up to your first Greenways meeting since your 1998 term started when the committee voted the plan forward (in public) on October 16, 2008. The Parks Board discussed and approved the plan as well, in public, on November 8, 2008. Three public airings of this plan before the January meeting, two of which you attended. I sent you, and many others, a fact-checked chronology of events leading up to that vote. I am sorry you chose not to read it.

It concerns me that Terry and Gene would have signed onto this blog entry of Barbara’s with this many mistakes. Is it so easy to spin history to reflect opinion instead of fact?

Five pdf files of Greenways documents.
Acquisition Priorities - Oct 10, 1990 Report
Preliminary Acquisition Priorities - Dec 13, 1990
Allocations for Acquisition - 1995 Report
Beyond Greenways brochure - Q & A - June 1997
Beyond Greenways brochure - Project Proposals - June 1997
Chuckanut Ridge History - 1997 to 2000 (written in 2005)