On Wednesday, a joint Bellingham/Port meeting was held to update the City Council, the Port Commission and the public on waterfront redevelopment. After watching the meeting, I am concerned that relevant information was not disclosed.  This is not the first time I have witnessed the city staff withholding information during a work session intended to inform Council and the public.

The Staff and Port indicated that development of the Cornwall Overwater Walkway and Cornwall Beach was proceeding, without mention of complication.  It was my understanding that the Overwater Walkway was on hold pending resolution of Lummi Treaty rights.  After the meeting, I confirmed with a Lummi official that there has been no settlement with regard to this project, or indeed, the entire waterfront.  Later this week, Staff sent an email to a small group of interested citizens indicating that the Overwater Walkway has been on hold for such a long time, WSDOT has placed it on its “inactive” list.  The email indicated the funding implications of this situation were unknown.  This situation should be clarified immediately.

The waterfront development depends on resolution with the Lummis.  The public should be informed of this because the City and Port are continuing to commit public funds and staff resources without securing the right to redevelop. Earlier belief that the Lummis would “settle cheap” has proven to be incorrect, and the additional cost of settlement, assuming it is achieved, needs to be added to the estimated development costs. 

Moreover, there was not ONE mention of dioxin-contaminated sediment being spread over the Cornwall Landfill, or of how this reflects a significant reduction in the normal amount of carcinogenic material that may be left on a public redevelopment site.  There was not ONE single mention of fish and wildlife, despite the significant impact that redevelopment will have on threatened salmon species and dwindling wintering seabirds. To date, the Port and City have not proposed any compensatory mitigation for the significant impact to shoreline habitat that will result from the increased use of the shoreline.

The City and Port are making waterfront development plans prior to enactment of a master plan and public input.  A master plan has little value when important decisions regarding the use of the waterfront, including the siting of roads and rail lines, has already been determined. It is clear that public opinion will be solicited only after the waterfront plans are developed, rendering public comment meaningless.

I hope City Council will take corrective action, as they have attempted to do with the Bloedel dock, to protect tribal and public interests in the waterfront, as this is not being done by Port and City employees focused on a pre-determined and partisan outcome.