Chuckanut Ridge: What Way Forward?
Chuckanut Ridge: What Way Forward?
Any public issue that garners nearly two decades of ardent citizen activism ought to eventually be perceived as significant. But a form of fatigue peculiar to public affairs tends to gradually margina
Any public issue that garners nearly two decades of ardent citizen activism ought to eventually be perceived as significant. But a form of fatigue peculiar to public affairs tends to gradually marginalize such issues and those involved. As frustrations grow and expressions become more strained, resistance to hearing the complaints deepens. It is an institutional phenomenon born of the ongoing press of events, changing characters less familiar or unconcerned with the past, and the general urge to move ahead. There seems to be much renewed interest in forgetting the many indiscretions of the past and moving forward on Chuckanut Ridge.
It is understandable that a new administration would want to avoid dwelling on past city errors. Pike was not in charge of the mysterious rezone that created unmanageable phantom value for the property and ignored adopted goals, objectives and policies. The project has indeed been sustained by many things the city should have done but didn't and shouldn't have done, but did. But these were before Pike's time. It is likewise understandable that newly elected council wish to advance the agendas upon which they ran, instead of trying to repair the past. But it is impossible to erase community memories of uncorrected errors, unfulfilled promises and inappropriate favoritism.
Even as it is difficult to redress these failings, it remains too easy to categorically dismiss the complaints they trigger. But a lack of interest in tedious, tiring past details does not justify ignoring important opportunities, packing committees, sneaking agendas, revising history or promulgating false divisions to ride roughshod over dissatisfied constituents.
So what way forward? Everyone agrees that Greenways cannot fund acquisition at the quoted price. Most acknowledge that it ought to be preserved, that development is not in the best interests of the public or the environment. Many accept that preserving critical areas is essential to saving Puget Sound and salmon. Most perceive the current application as unacceptable.
There is probably no hurry. No one is building 739 units of anything anywhere in Bellingham anytime soon. Time is on our side for now. The draft environmental review is due soon. We will have ample time to respond and see whether the new administration attends to their duty and authority to properly regulate. We will see if new council members will meet their statutory obligation to adequately condition the application in the community's best interests. We will see if the city prefers to place the burden of inevitable litigation on citizens or the developer. And new elections are always, pardon the pun, on the Horizon.
So what way forward? Some have suggested this forum might be a good place to forward this discussion. So let's see. Here's your chance!
Hint: For more background on the discussion try searching this site (top of page) for "chuckanut ridge" or "fairhaven highlands".
Note: Nwcitizen requires registration to encourage real dialog between real persons.
It is understandable that a new administration would want to avoid dwelling on past city errors. Pike was not in charge of the mysterious rezone that created unmanageable phantom value for the property and ignored adopted goals, objectives and policies. The project has indeed been sustained by many things the city should have done but didn't and shouldn't have done, but did. But these were before Pike's time. It is likewise understandable that newly elected council wish to advance the agendas upon which they ran, instead of trying to repair the past. But it is impossible to erase community memories of uncorrected errors, unfulfilled promises and inappropriate favoritism.
Even as it is difficult to redress these failings, it remains too easy to categorically dismiss the complaints they trigger. But a lack of interest in tedious, tiring past details does not justify ignoring important opportunities, packing committees, sneaking agendas, revising history or promulgating false divisions to ride roughshod over dissatisfied constituents.
So what way forward? Everyone agrees that Greenways cannot fund acquisition at the quoted price. Most acknowledge that it ought to be preserved, that development is not in the best interests of the public or the environment. Many accept that preserving critical areas is essential to saving Puget Sound and salmon. Most perceive the current application as unacceptable.
There is probably no hurry. No one is building 739 units of anything anywhere in Bellingham anytime soon. Time is on our side for now. The draft environmental review is due soon. We will have ample time to respond and see whether the new administration attends to their duty and authority to properly regulate. We will see if new council members will meet their statutory obligation to adequately condition the application in the community's best interests. We will see if the city prefers to place the burden of inevitable litigation on citizens or the developer. And new elections are always, pardon the pun, on the Horizon.
So what way forward? Some have suggested this forum might be a good place to forward this discussion. So let's see. Here's your chance!
Hint: For more background on the discussion try searching this site (top of page) for "chuckanut ridge" or "fairhaven highlands".
Note: Nwcitizen requires registration to encourage real dialog between real persons.
