Open letter to Bellingham Planning Director Jeff Thomas re: Fairhaven Highlands application deadline

Larry, as usual your article is well researched and articulated. 

I would hope that Bellingham city officials show some transparency by providing a timely response to your letter.  Please keep us apprised!

Ham

Larry,

Thanks for the well-researched article.  I agree the extension is unwarranted. 

Aside from this immediate decision, the city owes its citizens a thorough review of the zoning for this parcel, which in the opinion of many is total inappropriate.  When we first moved to town in 1985, we could not fathom why such a steep and environmentally important piece of land would be zoned for high density development.  Add to that, its inaccessibility if the 12th Street bridge were to be blocked for some long or short span of time, the current zoning simply doesn’t make any sense. 

Our city administrators and elected officials can make this right if they so choose.  Let’s hope they do.

Thank you Larry for an excellent letter to Acting Planning Director Jeff Thomas.

I agree with every point you have made and plan to send that message directly to Mr Thomas today.

There is no defensible reason for a third extension to this application.

Larry, thanks for your continued work on this project.

Eben Fodor observes in his book “Better, Not Bigger” that planners support the growth machine:

“Support for the growth machine often comes from professionals whose jobs are directly connect with growth. . . .The business of planning has become primarily the process of accommodating growth.  With out growth, the role of the urban planner would need to be greatly refined.  When planners are called upon to evaluate growth management policies, it?s not surprising tat they are often less than enthusiastic about policies that might actually slow or stop growth.?

It wasn?t always so.  During the 1960s and 1970s a rich theoretical literature grew up featuring a serious critique of planning and the profession.  In part this took the form of increasing citizens? involvement in planning decisions.  A loose coalition of essentially liberal-minded planners rallied under the banner of a choice theory of planning, emphasizing citizen choice in, and even determination of, planning decisions.  The rise of Reaganism and Thatcherism, among other trends, soon caused a retreat from the ?radical? idea that planning should emphasize citizens? choice.  Planners soon returned to ?disciplinary traditions? with ?direct attacks on social theories that are perceived as harming the professional credibility of planning, and a renewed emphasis on public-private partnerships in the development process? (Michael J. Dear, The Postmodern Urban Condition, p. 122).  The planners? role is to assist government in the administration of ?government intervention in the private land-development process? (id., at 123).

And Wendell Berry writes: ?That human limitedlessness is a fantasy means, obviously, that its life expectancy is limited.  There is now a growing perception, and not just among a few experts, that we are entering a time of inescapable limits.  We are not likely to be granted another world to plunder in compensation for our pillage of this one.?

Thanks again for your comments Larry, and thanks John S. for your work on this blog.

Dan Warner

Some might be wondering why I waited until Oct 27 to respond to the Oct 12 letter from the developer?s attorney, especially in light of the Oct 29 deadline. 

The answer is actually quite simple.  Those of us who contacted the planning dept were told ? incorrectly it turns out - that the city had not received any letters from the developers or their attorney.  Even when I called on Oct 25, I was told that the city had not received any letters.

None of us had any clue the city had received the Oct 12 letter until it was placed on the city?s website on the afternoon of Oct 26.

How’s that for transparency, Ham?

Methinks our governments think we work for them, rather than the opposite case. 

The unwillingness or inability of our government to respond in even a nominal way to legitimate concerns is what drives the current anti-incumbent mood of our country.

From Plato, “Excess generally causes reaction, and produces a change in the opposite direction, whether it be in the seasons, or in individuals, or in governments.” In this case, either excess secrecy or excess incompetence…or perhaps a bit of both.

Larry,

Thomas asked that Tull and his client provide further detail on the “crucial issues” facing the project by October 22nd.  Have you seen the response?

Besides objecting to the project’s reliance on archaic critical areas regulations, I agree with Vince Biciunas that it is past time to review the phony zoning.

The DEIS adequately demonstrated that even half of the zoned density cannot be built without unacceptable adverse consequences to public health and the environment.

A normal zoning review was never done.  A former top City planner once described the assignment of the land use designation as “a mystery at best”.  The project furthers not one neighborhood goal or objective, instead hampering many.

It is clear from the record, or lack thereof, that this zoning was implemented specifically to make development of the property feasible in view of prerequisite conditions considered imperative at the time. That is not a legitimate basis for zoning. The project’s failure to contemplate these prerequisite conditions further argues for a review of the zoning and necessary conditions.

Beyond that, the City’s miraculous and erroneous Determination of Completeness, upon which this projects “vesting” rests, should be reviewed and the citizen appeal processed.

It is time for City planners to do their job:

1) Retroactively review the project’s Determination of Completeness and process the citizen appeal,
2) Insist on current development regulations,
3) Assure that zoning is rationally derived, not invented to benefit a single landowner at tremendous cost to the community, and
4) In the interest of regulatory consistency, adopt a policy that no project may be extended unless it meets all current development regulations.

Tip,

The only response to Jeff Thomas? request for more information that I have seen is the attorney?s Oct 22 letter in which he states that he is ?working on providing additional information and will be in touch early in the week.?

I just spoke with Jeff Thomas who stated that as of 12:30 today he had not received any additional information.  He was on his way to check today?s incoming mail.

Here?s a link to Oct 22 letter:
+ Link info/eis-correspondence/2010-10-22-tull-ltr-to-thomas.pdf

BREAKING!

I?m sorry to report that it appears the city is too afraid to enforce its own application extension law and will ONCE AGAIN approve another 120-day extension.  Veiled threats of a lawsuit seem to have made the difference.

Pitchforks, anyone?

Seems to me that “on or before October 22nd” was pretty clear and Tull definitely missed it.  That should kill the extension, shouldn’t it?

That would presume that the public?s business is being handled in public.  The attorney has personally visited with Mr. Thomas on more than one occasion.  There is no paper trail of these meetings, so no one knows what?s being discussed.  When I asked for meeting notes, I was told, ?We generally don?t take notes at these meetings.?

Sounds very ?Mission Impossible? to me.  Perhaps they have recordings that self-destruct?

This continues the City’s pattern of not doing what it is supposed to do whenever it might interfere with this project and doing things it shouldn’t if it might help.

Planning of by and for the developers?