Ironies With the Park District

“If you limit your actions in life to things that nobody can possibly find fault with, you will not do much.”
Lewis Carroll.

Do vote to perserve this land for future generations. It makes sense to do that and it make sense to do it now. Dedicated community members have worked for many years, some for decades to get to where we are now. It will be a legacy for the entire community for many, many years to come. Lake Padden, Hovander, the Arboretum, these are all places we love as a community. The price that we will each pay individually is small for what what we and our children and grandchildren will get is a true legacy.

VOTE YES for the Park District, do it today and put that ballot in the mail. Thanks for providing this forum John.

Voting NO is a very positive step.  Some of that land is so perfectly suited to homes and not needed at all for the sensitive goals of the park.  We could create a low income housing area there and that would be a very positive, imaginative and community based project.  Or we could sell off 20 high quality lots and recoup the entire $3 million to pay off the loan and not harm the park or environment a bit. 

Frank, you make a very emotional appeal.  My entire article was how you proponents refuse to address the practical issues we opponents keep bringing up.  You keep it emotional.  I have been fighting for the woods and south side environmental issues for far longer than you - and we have known each other for over 40 years.  I think when we have enough park then we should be able to say we have enough and not be greedy for more and more.  This is not fair to the rest of our community - the city of Bellingham.

Mr. James,
Lake Padden was donated and I’m betting Hovander was too.  If you are suggesting that the proponents donate their land to be a park…...heck yea I"m all for that:)

Nope, encumbering a small segment of the population to benefit the entire community is exactly the wrong thing to do. In my opinion, and mine only, if you wish a benefit for everyone, then everyone should share the burden. We are in the position of making that happen at this point in time. To place the properties in question, at great risk of value loss and over taxation, is short sighted at best. And an injustice, as most who might implement this park district will probably not inhabit it five years from now.

Interesting that after noting his heightened sense of responsibility to offer a fair forum on this site, John engages in ad hominem attacks on the folks who did the heavy lifting to get the Chuckanut Forest initiative this far:

“The core backers - the steering committee members - tend to live very very close to the woods they want the rest of us to ensure is never used for any housing.  The passage of this park district will, in some cases, greatly increase the value of their homes and property.  Several live in the very area where they say no one should build a home.  Some built their homes there in the 1990s - after we started trying to save the woods from development.  Now they want the rest of us to tax ourselves to prevent anyone else from building next door to them.  A bit ironic.”

Of course, it depends on how you define “very close,” but the vast majority of public supporters of the initiative (listed on the post above) don’t live “very close” to the forest.

David, I have never known John to attack anyone(governments excepted), over anything. What he posted made a lot of sense. YOU have listed enough people to have bought the land thenselves, except some perhaps twice? Business/assocation and then personally, very impressive, I still think the obligation should be city wide. Just my opinion.

RC

The long list of endorsers are listed on the website of the advocates - which is linked from this page.  The list was not a comment that contributed to a discussion of issues.  Indeed, advocates could post all their pages here as comments if this is accepted. 

We have spirited comments here and welcome them.

The list of endorsers of the Chuckanut Community Forest is very much pertinent information about this debate. The whole purpose of endorsement in a democracy is for citizens to express their viewpoint to other community members.

By posting the list of endorsers, I provided readers of this blog with information very much related to the issue.

What you see here is the censorship of the publisher. So much for providing a “fair forum.”

I have repeatedly invited members of the steering committee to submit more articles and to respond to the criticisms.  They have remained silent.  This goes back to December.  In spoken conversations and in writing and over beer in a Fairhaven establishment.  With the exception of the one from Dan Remsen, they have declined.  They have no obligation to post to NWCitizen.  But it is legitimate for us to ask why the silence and draw the obvious conclusion.  The facts are against the park district.

The link to their website has been posted at the top right for many weeks.  It contains their list of endorsers.  I see many endorsements that are double - one for the person and another for their business.  The two opposing websites provide valuable information for those seeking answers on how to vote.  This website provides discussion - or tries to.  To post entire pages from one website to this discussion is out of bounds.  Yes, it is censorship - and I stand by it.  This website has guidelines - and if you do not like them you are free to start your own website and do better.  I will promptly post a link to your website so all can go to it.  David, you want to spend your money and time and do it better than is done here? 

Re the endorsement list.  The members of the steering committee all have their names on the list but do not identify themselves as being on the steering committee.  Again, in my opinion, this is another facet of the proponents being less than transparent in this whole process of trying to rush through the park district.  I can only urge readers to vote NO and let us take our time finding a best solution to our wonderful dilemma of having too much parkland.