It will be unfortunate to have to go through this exercise again. When city staff colluded to vacate right-of-ways around Hoag’s Pond to benefit a retiring public works administrator, citizens mounted a referendum to overturn the decision. Mere notice of the referendum caused then Mayor Asmundson to take a closer look. He then vetoed the measure. The council overruled the veto, but when the referendum was easily qualified, voted to rescind rather than suffer the embarrassment of a public campaign.

This case features a disturbingly cozy relationship between Planning staff and a land use consultant and member, until only recently Chair, of the Planning Commission.  It doesn’t meet the City’s own policies for vacation and ignores relevant state statutes. The Hearing Examiners findings include conspicuous errors of fact. 

And it importantly tries to establish a precedent for essentially up zoning property without public review. In this case an undevelopable right-of-way, already opened as a public way, could add up to seven units to an already approved ten units. The trail would become private and subject to the whims of the now and future owners. 

Why are private property rights frequently championed by the city , while public property rights receive little attention or support?  If we are to succeed in creating connected, walkable neighborhoods, we will need to challenge and correct this lopsided oversight. 

“P.U.!,” short for Latin puteo “that stinks,” and it certainly does.

Since when does a small progressive city go through the plannning and review process to end up taking away a publicly-created and city-sanctioned trail and greenspace that have been enjoyed for decades?  As Bellingham continues to grow and fill in, we should be creating pocket parks, greenspaces, community gardens and pedestrian byways—not removing them, especially in densifying neighborhoods.  I don’t pretend to understand all the ins and outs of the statues that were invoked by those on both sides of this issue, but I do understand the value of trails and trees.  I use the Douglas trail myself and find the mature trees, bird song, and shade a very welcome respite from the concrete and bustle.  It’s called quality of life.

So our only recourse now is for Mayor Fleetwood to veto the city council’s decision that will effectively take away this public good for a developer’s private gain?  Then, as has been popularly said before, Mayor Fleetwood, please make it so.

Most of us who supported Seth for mayor did so because we thought he would be more helpful in fighting vulture capitalist developers than histrionic April Barker.   So far,  I’m not seeing much difference,  but there is still time.    We raised almost $2000.00 in Sehome and York neighborhoods in 48 hours to stop the teardown of the historic town of New Whatcom by Hammer Properties on Billy Frank Jr. Street,  and appealed to the Mayor,  Council,  and Hearing Examiner to stop this crime by big money.   (These houses on BFJ street were the early homes of prominent Bellingham citizens,  each unique in architecture,  built from old growth timbers now in the landfill).   Nothing came of it of course,  as developers rule.   Once they end single family zoning,  I expect Hammer and Hansen will own everything,  from which they will extract huge profits as absentee landlords,  and we can expect more teardowns for expensive student housing.   On the other hand,  the old Aloha Motel project is truly affordable housing from which there will be neither private extraction or teardowns of beautiful old places.   It is around the corner from my house,  and I welcome these new neighbors.   Some research I did noted that Hammer has several LLC’s,  one of which is “Billy Frank Jr. LLC”(!).   What an egregious twist on the name of this saint who believed in historical preservation; he must be rolling in his grave.

Though it was long ago, I still remember Hugh Fleetwood leading the opposition to Syre’s mall project, Bellis Fair, in a protected wetlands.  I hope Seth does too.

I am in favor of maintaining pedestrian friendly rights-of-way, but it seems to me that we are trying to find solutions to a housing crisis right now. Is there not a way to increase density (which, if I’m not mistaken, improves housing options) while maintaining a trail in this location?

That was a surprising vote from the Council; ought to have gone the other way.  I hope Mayor Fleetwood vetoes the Council decision.

Lessons from the Hoag’s Pond episode say gear up for a referendum now.

Lessons from the other end of Happy Valley Neighborhood, at 15th and Harris, say nearby neighbors might be wiling to support of a ROW vacation ONLY IF the requester offers to build high-quality homes that are owner-occupied and permanently affordable for people with incomes less than the median income. The City agreed to vacate 15th between Harris and McKenzie ONLY IF Kulshan Community Land Trust found more community investment to add five more homes so that Matthei Place would have 14 homes on less than one acre. And the City retained perpetual easements for pedestrians, bike, and utilities throught the former ROW. 

Lessons from us over at Fairhaven Neighbors say City Hall will pay more attention when you hire an attorney to raise questions on your behalf. 

And really, does that appraisal of the Douglas ROW pass the smell test? I guess the appraised amount is not an issue for the Hearing Examiner process, but how much does land for that many homes cost, usually?

The hearing examiner should have her salary examined.  The council has forgotten, and I think Pinky Vargas never knew it; that what’s good for the Neighborhood is good for the city. I watched the deliberations on zoom and would like to commend Councilwoman Lisa Anderson for seeing thru the charade and voting to deny the vacation.

I’d like to address Aaron Brand’s comments on affordable housing. A small increase in density as proposed regarding the property abutting the ROW in question will NOT impact affordability in B’ham. It will create more profit for the developer.

There’s only truly one way to actually impact affordability in B’ham and that is to address the white elephant in the room, WWU. Western has externalized its obligation for housing students onto the community, creating the landlord and property management cottage industries. Until WWU builds a sizeable number of beds over the climate damaging paved parking lots, B’ham will suffer the students occupying family housing in our neighborhoods. To be clear, sizeable is 5000 additional beds. Along with the requirement for most students to live in them until over 21 years old.

If we want affordable housing, that’s how we do it. It isn’t by nickel and diming our greenspaces and cramming in more student housing on a crowded and unmaintained alleyway as in the Douglas ROW development.

Let’s hope the Mayor is listening to the Citizens and those that helped him get elected.

Submitted as a private citizen on matters of public concern.

Has the Vacation Ordinance now become law without a veto?