The Gristle chews on the Port for trashing years of plans.  Ironically, that’s probably the one thing they are doing right. 

Those years of planning were based on completely irrelevant assumptions and some very bad public policy.  Assumptions, because their highly touted market analysis - vainly proselytizing the burgeoning bubble for high-end condominiums and yacht basins - no longer applies. Bad policy because it’s been a soak-the-ratebase scheme from the start.  The Port’s plan has been to saddle the public with every possible cost and fund itself by selling off our waterfront.  Bad policy.

And it’s bad planning.  It’s absurd to even suggest building six million square feet of ritzy residential, boutique shopping and professional offices down there.  One million feet of retail at the mall wrecked downtown for a couple decades. I don’t see demand for that much of those uses anywhere in our foreseeable future. That makes adopting the proposed zoning pretty hard to justify.

There must be better uses.  It’s possible that landscaping and leaving it vacant as an attraction would create more county-wide value than a spurt of tax base from development that causes displacement and other problems.  Maybe it takes RV camping to make it work, I don’t know.  I’m just saying that a foo-foo waterfront does not look like the best choice at this juncture, and we might want to explore some alternatives.

Unlike some, I am unafraid of a light industrial environment for the waterfront.  We need jobs and small business creates them.  Bellingham hasn’t tapped the full potential of the Puget Sound/Salish Sea trade because for decades a toxic beast has effectively fended off most comers.  Those the stench and poison could not repel, the Port discouraged with their monopoly control of the remaining waterfront.

Waterfronts without such beasts are often inviting, even as they are diverse. Try LaConnor or Port Townsend, for instance.  There is industry and there are jobs.  The shoreline is usefully accessible and genuinely productive.  For me, an organic working waterfront has much more appeal than urban designers can ever achieve with all their concrete frosting.  I believe Charlie Sheldon was pursuing this direction when he raised the ire of the boss commissioner, who thence, citing hidden knowledge and the issue of direction, commanded, “Off with his head.”

The Port may be doing the right thing by trashing some really stupid plans, but tossing Charlie shows they are doing it for the wrong reasons.  It is cause for concern.  If they don’t like the direction of their plans and they don’t like Charlie’s direction, then no one has really any idea what direction they might head.  History suggests it will aim to first benefit the Port.  The point is that the Port again reveals it can’t help acting like a real-estate holding company, that it does not think like a public agency charged with benefiting the citizens it taxes. 

It is exactly why a structural change is necessary at the Port.  All three commissioners were once elected with hopes of reform that has yet to occur at the Port.  It’s time to try something else, quick, before we end up with more 20, 30 and 40+ year incumbents.  Try Five4thePort!  Five4thePort means more deliberation and better public outcomes.  It’s simple. The sooner the better!

The Port Of Bellingham’s hubris is not limited to the waterfront, but also includes a vision for airport expansion that ignores resident input - and they admit the airport expansion mostly serves Canadian residents looking for cheaper flight options than Vancouver.

Any and all “development” of the former Georgia Pacific site should be put off until and if the downtown ever recovers from the mall debacle.  Most of the site should be park anyway - a natural extension of the existing park and trail system linking Fairhaven to downtown Bellingham.  No city has ever regretted adding additional park lands in the long run.

We could also focus more energies on traditional wooden boat festivals and the like; yacht and kayak racing, and other similar activities as Port Townsend does.  We already have a traditional schooner docked in Fairhaven and annual visits by the Lady Washington.  More of this type of waterfront activity would be good.  How about a school for shipwrights?

In any case it is inappropriate to let urban developers or large development corporations have any input at all into how our waterfront areas are developed.  Those decisions should be made by the citizens of Bellingham who must live with the results.  We have the ability and expertise within our own community to decide the best use of the former G.P. site.  There is certainly no urgency.  Let it sit as is until we are sure of best use.

Maybe like Gasworks Park in Seattle the best use might be as a park and a permanent reminder to the city of what can happen when large profit motivated corporations are allowed to do as they wish with little public oversight.