Barbara’s response

Jack,

I am encouraged by your assertion that you, and almost everyone you know, are opposed to the concept of development at Chuckanut Ridge!  Mayor Pike echoed your sentiments when he addressed the South Neighborhood Association on January 13.

This gives me great confidence as we approach the imminent release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Steve Wilson

Jack,

Thank you for taking time to prepare this column.  As you know, Barbara, Gene and Terry wrote their letter in response to a personal attack on their integrity.  Even the former councilman who attacked them claims, ?Most of the history and interpretations [in their article] appear to be accurate, although the article is by no means comprehensive.?  As you have pointed out, there are different interpretations about what happened historically.  As happens from time to time, verbal intent does not always get translated word-for-word into recorded documents.  We have all been involved in situations in which the final product does not fully represent everything that happened behind the scenes.

I am not writing to argue the points you have made; but does it really matter whether or not Chuckanut Ridge was the cornerstone of the 1990 and 1997 greenway levies, or how the 2006 greenway groups were formed, or whether certain meetings were videotaped, or even when the Greenways Strategic Plan was made public?  Aren?t you as sick of hearing about former mayor Asmundson as I am?

Ironically, I am writing today in my newly-adopted role as peacemaker.  (OK, stop laughing!)

Are there issues related to Chuckanut Ridge (CR) we can agree on?

As a former councilmember stated, ?No one I know is totally opposed to acquiring a reasonable portion of CR for the public good.?  Would you agree?

Isn?t it possible that the entire parcel might be acquired for much less than anyone ever considered realistic before?

Consider this:

?  The plans submitted by the developer (Horizon Bank & David Edelstein) all ignore the fact that at least four ? and likely six ? of the key wetlands impacted by this project are Category I mature forested wetlands which require minimum buffers of 150? rather than the 50? buffers provided in their plans. 

?  Horizon Bank & Edelstein have assumed they can ignore the key public safety & welfare regulations of the 3-year old Bellingham Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) because their application was submitted one business day before the CAO was adopted (Friday, Nov 18, 2005 vs. Monday, Nov 21, 2005).  However, since their application fails to correctly categorize the Cat I wetlands and fails to meet the legal buffer requirements, is it even vested?  More importantly, given Washington case law, does vesting even apply to regulations that govern public safety and welfare?  Should Horizon Bank & Edelstein be allowed to violate laws designed to protect the community from injury, loss of life and property damage as a result of environmental disasters like flooding, landslides, and steep slope failures?  The Washington Supreme Court doesn?t believe so.

?  Land prices have fallen drastically since Horizon Bank & Edelstein overpaid for Chuckanut Ridge in 2004.  Are there any potential buyers for a hilly swamp chock full of critical areas that comes with its own army of opponents?  Does anyone believe the greater fool theory applies to this property?

?  What about the astronomical costs of constructing a connector road between Chuckanut Drive and Old Fairhaven Parkway across the Interurban Trail?  Or the massive undertaking involved in widening the Fairhaven Bridge?

Wouldn?t we be better off working together to acquire this property at a price we can actually afford? 

I ask you to join me and others to accomplish this goal rather than continue the debate over Greenways 3.  Please, let?s work together and achieve something we can all be proud of.

I, too, applaud Jack’s disapproval of the Chuckanut Ridge development. But Jack, isn’t it time to demonstrate a little leadership on this issue?

After all, you don’t disagree that the parcel is ecologically important. You know it is the only land available to expand Fairhaven Park to meet the City’s own standard for populations targeted for this area. You probably would not oppose a “Gateway to the Chuckanuts” that adds value to our interurban acquisitions and a regionally significant feature to Bellingham’s destinational portfolio.

If the asking price is the only stumbling block - because you can get so much more elsewhere for less - then why not scrutinize that value? 

The only reason that swamp has any “development value” is the bogus city zoning that originally plopped nearly 1,500 units of density on the site.  This rezone was adopted without notice, hearing or review. It was inconsistent with every area goal, objective and policy duly adopted through bona fide public process. It was later amended via administrative memorandum - a method the Growth Management Hearings Board has ruled illegal.  You seem to be very good at records, Jack.  Look it up yourself.  The public record of the rezone consists solely of a couple planning department statements to the Planning COmmission indicating the bridge over Padden would need to be replaced “in the next few years” unless Chuckanut Drive is rerouted through the project to Old Fairhaven Parkway at 24th. The density was a quid pro quo to make development economically feasible including that requirement.

You know that is an illegitimate basis for zoning.  You know that is an improper method of rerouting a State Highway.  You know that the bridge did not, after all, require replacement. You know that dumping all that traffic at 24th will create expensive headaches for the City in Happy Valley’s substandard circulation network.  You know that the proposal of application doesn’t even include that prerequisite condition. So what gives?

Why not reject the non-compliant application and address the original zoning error?  I’m sure you actually believe in honoring the hours and hours of public involvement over years and years that created the policy framework for this area and the City. An analysis of this zoning’s consistency with that framework has never been done.  The zoning error, whether procedural, conceptual or both, has never been addressed.  City’s have clear authority to reexamine zoning errors, specifically to prevent the kinds of problems this development will create.  Yes, the city attorney will caution you otherwise.  But as many city officials have already indicated, this thing is ending up in court one way or the other.  So save the citizens you represent the time and expense of suing you.  Let the proponent bear that burden.

Put your mouth where our greenways money ought to be, Jack.  Instead of continuing to foment false divisions in the community, get busy and do the right thing.  Get busy and fix the zoning error that has already caused so much grief, before it causes irreparable environmental harm, and before important citywide opportunities are lost. Thanks, Jack.

There have been many e-mail exchanges and articles written on this issue that seem to focus on the recitation of the facts, and at NWC we are given a series of facts as remembered and as reported by a number of people and perspectives.  Of course facts are important and they are all valid in their own way, even if some minor details are incorrect.  But I don?t believe that the exact recall of facts is what is most important to people throughout this ordeal, because so much of the interaction included assurances, impressions, promises and appearances.  Sometimes these are just as important as hard facts ? maybe not in the legal realm, but certainly in the ethical.  The ethics of behavior between all involved parties is in the same as ?giving your word? or offering a ?handshake on the deal?, that often occurs before a final vote.  This is especially important when it is between citizens and public officials, because this interchange must be based on mutual trust.  Old fashioned as it may seem, when I last looked, trust is still the most important quality of any balanced and successful relationship. And isn’t that what we are supposed to have with each other?  I think the recounting of facts misses the heart of the matter.  It tends to cover over a most important judicial doctrine of public process - and that is, the appearance of fairness.  Too much about this issue does not appear fair to too many people!  Listening to and validating the real concerns of citizens, untangling where everyone went wrong, addressing and rectifying the situation with an honest and forthright attitude that is in the best interests of all citizens, of our City and of our local ecosystem, is now the fair and ethical road to take.  That is what people are watching and waiting for in our public process and with our public officials.

Donna Auer