On Monday, April 8, 2013, the Bellingham City Council will hold a public hearing on a proposed new Economic Development Chapter of the City Comprehensive Plan. http://www.cob.org/web/council.nsf/0/98AD358A694D0CD688257B43005FEAE5/$File/08apr2013_AB19918.pdf?OpenElement. (Warning: this is a very lengthy file.)

I have serious concerns about this new economic policy.  First, it was developed through consultation with hand picked members of the business community, with a heavy emphasis on developers.  When was the last time the city developed a new environmental policy and consulted only environmental activists?  Comprehensive Plans should reflect the values of the entire community, and this can not be accomplished by obtaining input from only one group of stakeholders.

A primary defect with the proposed Economic Development Chapter (ED Chapter) is that it reflects an outdated and failed economic theory premised on the belief that all growth is good and that we must continue grow by developing land and consuming more natural resources.  Growth is a financial liability and leads to greater environmental degradation and lower quality of life. The public is best served by an updated economic policy that incorporates the new reality of depleted natural resources, climate change, and increasing economic disparity.

The ED Chapter is being drafted to comply with the GMA, although the city is adopting this Comp. Plan change early, prior to state funding that would become available if the city waited.  That funding could be used to update the city’s economic analysis.  Instead, the new ED Chapter is based on outdated data and analysis from 2008 and 2009, at a time when projected growth and the need for economic development was higher.  Why is the city in such a hurry?  As contrast, the city’s updated SMP, due in 2005, was just finalized this year, in 2013.  

At the same time, the ED Chapter does not closely track the GMA policy goal for economic development.  The GMA economic policy goal focuses on economic opportunity for all citizens of the state, especially the unemployed and disadvantaged.  RCW 36.70A.020(5). Bellingham’s proposed ED Chapter fails to contain a single reference to the unemployed and disadvantaged. I do not believe this reflects our community’s values, or our prior policy contained in the City Council’s 2009 Legacies and Strategic Commitments.

The ED Chapter attempts to aggressively expand the city’s role in economic development, so that a primary duty becomes the promotion of business interests. See Section II, the City’s Role in Economic Development, and policies ED-1, 2, 3, 4,7,8,10 indicating that the city should partner with business associations, and other agencies in Whatcom County, to enhance economic opportunity, reduce regulatory restrictions, and increase business incentive. Quality of life is defined in terms of a variety of job opportunities, an expanding tax base, incentives for business, and more and more growth.  These are not the same public values reflected in the 2009 Legacies and Strategic Commitments, which placed greater emphasis on sustainability, and economic assistance for our citizens.   

I believe that the private sector should be primarily responsible for creating economic opportunity in Whatcom County. The responsibility of local government is to assure that economic development activities are carried out in a manner that is consistent with defined community and environmental values. I do not want to see public funds and staff resources being spent to provide an increased subsidy to the private business sector.  Greater accountability is required before assuming that job creation is positive for the community as a whole.

A strong and healthy environment is the foundational lynch-pin of a sustainable economy. It is disappointing that city policy is not keeping up with best available science, and instead, appears to be attempting to more strongly align itself with traditional business and development interests.  This is not the right direction for Bellingham.