Dear Ham,

It’s possible that a City Council Agenda could be published sooner than two business days before a meeting, and I support that. I know Council Members do have an idea of major issues coming up, and start studying it earlier, even if the final agenda and packet get to them later.

However, I do want to point out that those of us who are following the course of our Updates of Neighborhood Plans were well aware that the issue would come up in March or April, or soon after the February Planning Commission Meeting on the subject. This is the normal process that I personally learned about last year. Same thing every year, per the Bellingham Municipal Code.

At the March 5th and April 2nd Fairhaven Neighbors Regular, General Meetings, to which everyone was invited and encouraged to attend, we discussed the status of the neighborhood plan and where it was in the City’s docketing process. The neighborhood plan was also listed in the published agenda announcements for the meetings. (Sunday’s Herald prints neighborhood and civic meeting schedules, as does the Whatcom Independent) In addition, I publicized our April 2nd meeting especially noting that Planning Director Tim Stewart would be attending and would be discussing our neighborhood planning issues.

I think this is a very good example of how important it is for all of us citizens to attend our neighborhood meetings, whether where you work or where you live, or both, and if not every month, than at least some, to stay in the loop. You cannot depend on The Herald or emails or blogs, to get all of the news you need!

From my point of view, where I am repeatedly sending out notices of meetings or events and hoping more would attend, I have less patience with those who might cause a ‘kerfuffle’ about notification when the main issue of the merits of a proposed neighborhood plan update are ignored. If there’s something you don’t like about the plan, please speak up! (And don’t get me started about that other bugaboo side issue, who’s on the board. For Pete’s sakes, we just had openings on the board, and where were those who didn’t like the way it was? I invited everyone in early December and again in January, to please get yourselves nominated, and ...???)) Side issues, Ham. We do need communication, but two-way. And we do need creativity, but how do you get that in a vacuum?

And collaboration!!!  Ham, when is a good time to meet with you, Tip, John? I’ll be available any time after April 23rd. What’s in it for me? It will be good for my health. I don’t need these dust ups either, and I’m starting to get short-tempered; me, of all people. (I know, I need a vacation.) What’s in it for us? It will be good for the whole community!!!

Let’s start working on a plan for Fairhaven’s future without distracting side-skirmishes about notifications. Let’s get together, especially those who find fault with the plan, and work it out. If City Council dockets the plan, we get to work on it to iron out the kinks and Planning Staff may schedule us in in 2009. If City Council doesn’t docket it, some of us will continue to work on it, but there will be less enthusiasm, I suspect. We’ll just have to resubmit next Dec 1.

I think it’s in all of our interests to get it docketed and moving towards a final plan we can all support. But that does take getting out of the house on occasion, and talking to people face to face about what’s really the issue.

Thanks, John, for letting me finally vent on your blog. And thanks, Ham, for getting me started.
I’m serious though, about us getting together to talk about Fairhaven’s plan for the future. What will it take?

Vince

A very disarming comment.  But Vince glosses over the core issues while smoothly sort of saying ‘gee, if you were part of my club then you would know.’  The fact is the city is responsible for notifying the pubic of meetings and deadlines and public processes.

Indeed, in a phone conversation with me, she admitted she learned personally from a Planning Department staff person when the docketing would take place.  While Vince has been contributing to the Fairhaven Updates email notices which go to all Fairhaven businesses, she did not mention this docketing process in her last posts.  Indeed, she kept very quiet about it.  This is not a trail of openness. 

Vince submitted a 4 page letter dated April 4 supporting docketing of the Fairhaven plan and it is included in the planning packet for the council.  However, the legal notice did not print till April 6 - last Sunday, and said that written comments had to be submitted by 9 am Wednesday, April 9. We Fairhaven business folks only learned of this notice on Wednesday, April 9.  So much for Vince’s public process defense. 

Today’s Herald adds to the confusion.  Jared Paben reports that the city council will have a “hearing at 1 p.m. Monday”.  Hmmm.  That is not what the council agenda says.  So, maybe Jared also has a special communications line like Vince with the city council and planning.  One that is denied to us citizens of Fairhaven.  Or, perhaps his reporting is just another error.  Jared could have informed us all last Sunday of this city council action. 

In truth, the secrecy of this process was a deliberate decision by Barbara Ryan, council rep from the southside.  I have learned this from my own inside city hall sources.  She rejected both holding a public hearing and to giving timely notice.  However, her friends in the Fairhaven Neighborhood Association knew to submit their letter.  But not the business district.

In closing, a personal note about Vince’s style of explaining things.  She ends her post by writing “Thanks, John, for letting me finally vent on your blog.”  This implies there was some delay or rejection of her by me at some time recently or in the past.  However, she never applied before yesterday.  She never even asked me when at meetings together.  Yesterday afternoon, Saturday, she applied after 3 pm.  I spent that fine weather day working in the yard - and first saw her application after dinner.  I immediately contacted her, talked with her by phone to verify it was her, and enabled her to post comments.  It was some time later in the evening that she posted.  Vince likes to skew things to make others look like laggards and her like a person on top of events - and this shows throughout her post.

Sorry John, I meant the ‘finally’ to refer to myself finally deciding that I needed to log on and post to your blog. I’ve been tempted slightly before on different subjects, and just let it pass. I meant no slight towards you at all.

I still think, in the light of this morning, that the city could give more widespread and timely notice, but the onus remains on us citizens (isn’t that why you maintain this blog) to inquire and read and attend to stay informed.

I meant no secrecy in any lack of communications in the last months. I have a personal life and other obligations, and with my mother’s passing away March 26th, it’s possible I missed an opportunity to communicate more with my fellow southsiders recently. Please do not assume a conspiracy where there is none.

I don’t know what was up with Jared’s 1 o’clock announcement in today’s paper. I read the agenda from the city and noticed the Committee of the Whole will discuss nbhd plans at 3:50 PM. Unless you want to observe the earlier items, you don’t need to start at 1 PM.

And I really doubt Councilwoman Ryan intended any kind of secrecy. The code specifies how docketing should be handled. I am certain there will be multiple public hearings in the future, once the council decides whether to docket or not.

John, you didn’t answer my invitation to meet in the near future. I’m still open for that.

Vince

Vince - You continue to confuse public process with private efforts.  Supposedly the Herald provides us with accurate information on meetings.  This is unfortunately not the case.  The Independent does a better job.  Why you would say this website does that is beyond me.  This is a site for citizen writers and those who have the guts to sign their own name to their comments.  Not meeting notices.  Look around this page.  The Indy has meeting announcements - and this site links to there.  However, the city website is where this information is supposed to be posted.  It was only posted at noon on Thursday, April 11.

I have no interest in meeting with you.  The subject is public process, not planning.  The problem is the city council and secretive processes.  It is the responsibility of the city to inform us of meetings, deadlines and hearings.  My concern is the Planning Department going along with the Barbara Ryan’s desire to keep this docketing process secret.  The Planning Department informed you - and did so prior to the April 6 legal notice.  It could have informed the rest of us.  It chose not to.

Barbara Ryan did intend to keep this quiet.  The processes open to her allowed for more advance notice and allowed for a public hearing.  She made a decision to not have a hearing.  How she decided on short notice I do not information on.  She might have not even thought about it.  She did discuss and reject a hearing.  So - again your smooth suggestion that “the code specifies how docketing should be handled” is not truthful.  Code specifies options - and Barbara choose the route of least public involvement.  It is a good question whether she violated the code with too little public notice.  Perhaps someone can research that question.

Councilman Weiss’s proposed resolution being considered today without adequate public notice proposes all manner of innovative infill housing in our existing neighborhoods, then goes on the say we should have a public discussion about it.  Maybe we should have a public discussion first about whether we even want innovative infill housing in our single family neighborhoods before we start talking about where we are going to drop these bombs.

The docketing discussion today also includes possible docketing of zoning changes requested by developers which include these new and innovative housing types not yet allowed by the city.  If these are moved forward prior to those types of housing being deliberated on a city wide basis it will be another example of spot planning by developers rather than public planning by our city government.

Ultimately, Terry Bornemann was able to prevail and convince the council to remove language from the Weiss resolution having to do with ADUs.  Unfortunately, the whole resolution was unnecessary and will likely come back to bite them later.  Such sweeping declarations made in haste usually do. 

Moreover, I think the neighborhoods ought to gird themselves for a massive rezone which will grandfather existing illegal rooming houses and produce a plethora of additional means by which rental property owners will line their pockets while the character of our neighborhoods is reduced to make-believe, not that this is not already the case.  There is effectively no zoning in this city as long as even one type of zoning is ignored as is with single family zoning.  Unfortunately, I see no rage about all this from the neighborhoods or the Association of Bellingham Neighborhoods.  Instead, they are being led down the primrose path by the city council and the planning department like so many unsuspecting sheep to the abattoir of the Planning Academy.

As for agenda items for council meetings, I counted over 20 that were signed off by the mayor in the three days preceding the appearance of the agenda on the council website, i.e., 10 April.  More on this at my blog: http://www.zonemaven.blogspot.com.