The Mark and Brett Show at the Bellingham Herald Forum, Oct 2, 2003
Commentary by Tip Johnson
While these candidates definitely have their differences, they also share quite a few similarities. They both want the best possible community, quality of life, livability.
Everyone wants livability, but what does that mean?
Mark led with a question defending the Housing Authority's largesse in the local rental market, suggesting Brett had earlier questioned their credibility. Brett explained that even if the Housing Authority is doing a good job, "...it's too bad we don't have the jobs...so people can afford to buy homes". Mark finished his response with, "It's a hot market. Not everyone can buy. I wish they could".
On the Watershed, the mayor seized upon the old crutch that only 10% is under the City's jurisdiction, saying, "The Mayor can't do it". Bonner immediately stepped up to the Lake, asserting, "We will make the Lake our top priority. The City must take the lead".
Both agreed Civic Field needs work. Mayor Mark took credit for the progress that has been made. Bonner used words like "crumbling" and "wreck" to describe the neglected facility. Both avoided discussion of the new Public Facilities District that ignored funding Civic Field with Regional Facility dollars, favoring an ambitious project at the Mount Baker Theater instead.
Both agreed Public Safety is tops, but Brett thought not enough was being done to keep downtown safe. Mark stumbled a little, perhaps because of the recent baseball bat attack, saying, "To say downtown is unsafe... Bad people do bad things. We have an excellent police force".
Both agreed that EMT services would remain top drawer, no matter what, though they disagreed on how to manage the General Fund.
Both agreed that development impact fees should probably rise, agreeing further that they should be fair and balanced - meaning some of the costs should be born by the public at large.
Both agree Downtown is flourishing. Mark took credit for "priming the pump", while Brett gave credit to entrepreneurs taking their risks downtown.
The Mason Building Site came up as an example of government meddling Vs private enterprise. This is a favorite subject of mine - a classic Mark - because the City radically limited participation, violating state and city provisions for surplus property to effect a deal that subsidized an asset valued at under $200,000 with possibly more than a $1,000,000 - after consulting and administrative costs. Even though the process declared the property surplus to any future City need, the City built an expensive seismic building pad and ended up keeping the property and, presumably, earthquake liability for the new building built atop it. Even the State Auditor, who refused to address the procedural defects of the transaction, still questioned the sweetheart lease agreement that required no rental payments until the building was fully occupied.
Mark seemed somewhat condescending throughout the debate, jabbing at Bonner's soft underbelly of inexperience in public affairs. Bonner called Mark "disingenuous", saying he may "say what he thinks" but questioning if he "does what he says". Eventually Bonner quipped, "You can have eight year's experience driving a car, but if you're on the wrong road, you're not going to get anywhere".
It's too bad Bonner hasn't been more involved. If he had, he could have scored big points when Mark took credit for convening the Downtown Development Workshops. Mark emphasized that the hundreds of workshop participants wanted more housing as justification for huge subsidies to developers. Those who were involved know full well that the top priority was additional parking to support the shift from retail to office (in the wake of the mall) and for anticipated increases in residential use. Brett could have easily illustrated Mark's method by detailing the appointment of the Mayor's own Downtown Steering Committee and the steady revision of the workshop recommendations - stonewalling parking improvements while increased business activity and residential construction further crimped an already short supply.
Interestingly, the Mason Building Site was the cornerstone property of the proposed downtown parking garage that was the workshop's top priority. The mayor tonight asserted that soils studies showed it would be expensive to build a parking garage at the site. Nevertheless, a large portion of the subsidy for development of the property was providing a building pad that extended the foundation to solid soils. So far, nothing has been done to increase parking supply and more than 500 jobs have left downtown for better parking during Mark's administration.
The Mayor leaned quite heavily on the wrong end of his sword when it was revealed that a lot of his campaign money was being spent in Seattle. Brett took pride in spending his locally.
The Mayor also tried to take credit for passing a balanced budget in each of his eight years, leaving it to Brett to point out that, "it's the law"
On the other hand, Bonner's voting record, always a litmus test of candidate credibility, came under Mark's scrutiny, with Bonner having to deny he had failed to vote in any general election.
An audience question asked Mark why he thought residents don't feel respected in the neighborhood planning process. Mark admitted there had been "bad communication" and said the Planning Department was "ground zero" for the tough task of implementing new ideas. "People are afraid of the unknown", he said. He proposed a "Qualitative Growth Summit" to talk about how needed changes can work.
Brett responded by asserting that Mark's administration tends to ask the public only after the decisions have been made. He said, "The whole approach needs to change. Ask the public first. That will be my top priority". Mark replied with a lecture on government process that unfortunately failed to include the actual public.
Another question from the audience recalled Bonner stating on his talk show that, "Mark and Bellingham are a perfect fit". Bonner explained that his opinion changed in 1999 when Mark made the election promise of "no new taxes", only to raise them shortly after the election - making the excuse that he had found a "mistake" in the budget. Mark rebutted this with, "He misremembers. I have always said I would never say I would never raise taxes", pointing out that Bellingham's taxes aren't as high as some Washington communities. Brett quoted the Herald editorial of that day which described Mark's ploy as "suspicious".
On the whole, Mark took a patronizing tone, gently chiding Bonner for his naiveté in government affairs. Bonner repeatedly challenged that the administration was out of touch with the citizens, and not too interested in making honest contact.
Both candidates agreed that no one wants us to become like Los Angeles. How to avoid it was not discussed.
Both agreed that Bellingham is at a crossroads.
I agree. And I think it is time for a change. An attitude of challenge is preferable to one that is smug and condescending. Frankly, democratic government always benefits from rather more than less challenging.
Beware those who would limit debate, punishing detractors on the basis of loyalties and avoiding a comparison of merits.
Tip Johnson was on the Bellingham City Council for 8 years as the representative from the 6th Ward. He served on the council with Mark for several of those years. Send email comments to: editor@nwcitizen.us
To Top of page | To Contents of this section | To NwCitizen home