Citizens normally don't have that much to say in the ordinary course of local government. However, elections give us the opportunity, as UW history professor emeritus Giovanni Costegan approved, to get the "innies" out. As such, we can always hope for a change of direction. Here are some changes I'd like to see.

Jobs and Utility Rates
We have a waterfront redevelopment plan emerging, but it is based on entirely false premises. The Port commissioned a market analysis based on economic bubble presumptions that are now obsolete. It called for a new marina for 40 - 60 ft yachts and six Bellis Fair's worth of high-end waterfront condos, office, and retail development. In today's economy, the prospect of absorbing, much less financing, even one more Bellis Fair is unimaginable. The last one put the CBD into a tailspin for decades and our established tax base could not stand another such blow.

Now, a new port director and new mayor may share some important alignment on the relevant issues. The grapevine now hints that the marina is dying or dead. The Port has issued a new industrial lease at their shipping terminal. That's a change. With the treatment lagoon intact, we can preserve the utility of our industrial water supply and begin recruiting family wage jobs with the prospect of surplus water supply and treatment capacity. By preserving the treatment capacity of the lagoon, we save Bellingham's rate base the cost of siting and building additional capacity when needed. The treatment lagoon could prove instrumental in supporting value-added production for our fisheries and agriculture, or light manufacturing that could provide much needed, higher quality jobs. Keeping rates low and adding good jobs is the best thing we can do for our economy.

Union members and enthusiasts may find this more sustainable prospect even more appealing than the proposed coal terminal.

Neigborhoods Back in Planning
After decades of moving toward neighborhood-based planning, it took only two short-termed planning directors to strip neighborhoods out of the process. Since then, we have seen an increase in LULU (locally undesirable land use) proposals and the concomitant rise in NIMBY (not in my back yard) responses. This poisons the planning environment with distrust. We can do better.

With the adoption of our first comprehensive plan, neighborhood involvement was intended through neighborhood associations and the Mayors Neighborhood Advisory Council (MNAC). As neighborhood associations were formed and stabilized, they were to appoint MNAC representatives to advise the administration on comp plan amendments. However, subsequent mayors preferred to appoint their own representatives, instead.

Simultaneously, zoning was incorporated in neighborhood plans, requiring neighborhood participation in the formulation and adoption of goals, policies, and objectives. This intended system should still be tried. Many other communities are working to increase neighborhood planning responsibilities to good effect. Not doing so has led to some of our worst examples. Just on the southside, the secret zoning of both Albertson's and Chuckanut Ridge fall into this category - projects that were completely inconsistent with local objectives, but were shoved down neighbors' throats, under protest. Proposed expansion of WWU, and their phenomenally devious piecemeal planning strategy led citizens to the Growth Management Hearings Board, at considerable cost and conflict. Today, after years of suckering environmentalists' support for daylighting Padden Creek, we find it may not be for the fish at all, that it threatens to become a storm sewer for a proposed upzone along Padden Creek, east of the freeway. This type of planning only builds more conflict in the process.

Getting neighborhoods back into planning will provide a more stable framework and better certainty for proposals moving toward approval. A strong mayor, experienced at working with diverse interests, could easily implement these simple changes and help usher a new era of collaborative planning into Bellingham.

Accessory Dwelling Units
While housing values have declined precipitously, rents have held steady or increased. Starts are down and unlikely to increase as credit remains tight and tighter. Many mortgages are upside down, and many homeowners are otherwise in danger of losing their homes due to unemployment. We desperately need to add affordability and diversity to our housing stock.

It may not be right for every parcel in every neighborhood, but detached accessory dwelling units have a great potential for helping resolve many neighborhood problems. Small accessory cottages could provide revenue that would help people keep their homes. They could provide affordable rents that help people save for a down payment on their own home. They can be added without the large infrastructure burdens that new development entails. They would allow us to approach growth management densities without creating new crime warrens or Animal House style student ghettos. By integrating these units into sound neighborhood contexts, we get automatic supervision of rentals and invaluable eyes-on-the-yard security for all.

This type of initiative would be an ideal candidate for consideration through renewed neighborhood-based planning, and could go far in alleviating many stresses in our housing portfolio.

I could go on, but I'm sure you have your own ideas of where we ought to go. Let's hear them!