Stand and Deliver!
Stand and Deliver!
The title phrase will remind many of the 1988 film portraying the work of Jaime Escalante, a dedicated high school mathematics teacher, starring Edward James Olmos. Historians will recognize it as th
The title phrase will remind many of the 1988 film portraying the work of Jaime Escalante, a dedicated high school mathematics teacher, starring Edward James Olmos. Historians will recognize it as the standard demand of 17th century British brigands, meaning, "Stop and hand over your valuables".
The Port of Bellingham has recently demonstrated that city residents should take note of both meanings. Not only should we, as always, be wary of getting robbed, but we would also be well advised to 'do the math' before we suddenly realize we've been fleeced.
Most are aware that the Port is planning to redevelop the central waterfront, a toxic blight left behind by Georgia-Pacific. The Port bought the land for ten bucks when G-P left, assuming responsibility for cleaning up the mess. That, of course, is the first big rip-off, but not the focus of today's comment (For a little previous background, type "G-P" or "waterfront" in the searchbox at the top of this page).
The Port entered into agreement with G-P and troubled insurance giant AIG to cover the cost of clean up. Another rip-off to be sure, but also not for today. It is worth noting, however, that the Port agreed to the lowest cost remedial alternative, to pay for any more stringent measures, not to look for any more environmental liabilities and to defend G-P from any claims. This provides a valuable and critical context for the entire waterfront project.
The situation became considerably more interesting last week when the Port apparently withdrew from the project's inter-local agreement with the City. Maybe. On November 10th, the Port issued a letter expressing dismay that the City might be critical of their regulatory process, asserting that the City was not holding up their end of the bargain and telling the world that they were going to take their ball and go home, unwilling to play until the City got in line. Con artists will recognize this as "the takeaway", a gambit used to galvanize the 'mark' should they start to feel jittery about the scam.
See for yourself. The City's comments are here. The Port's response is here.
It's worth noting that the City's comments were directed to the Port and copied to relevant local departments and committees. The Port's childish reply was, in contrast, copied to our entire congressional delegation, a host of outside agencies - and probably God. Notice also that the Port, in typical fashion, responds to none of the substantive issues raised by the City. Get used to it!
The Port letter sports the signatures of all three commissioners and introduces a significant policy decision. Again in typical Port style, there are no meeting minutes or agendas indicating any consideration of this decision was ever noticed to the public or any open meeting held where citizens might offer input on the Port's business. How many secret meetings do they get to have? Get used to it!
O.K., the whole mess hinges around a couple of fairly petty sticking points - where roads ought to go, whether historic buildings will be razed, etc. Believe me, there are much more important underlying issues to consider, but concurrent with the subject exchange of correspondence, the City, under Dan Pike's direction, sponsored a couple meetings to get feedback from the community on the questions. The first meeting, last week, was well attended by the public, but the Port was noticeably absent. Get used to it!
Well, this week the Port showed up! So did the City. So did the public, and it's evident that they still have a number of grave concerns about the direction the project has taken. Area author, academic, all-round expert and genius George Dyson rose to express that he was uncomfortable with the business model, pointing out that successful Granville Island in Vancouver was a similar brownfield redevelopment, but is entirely leased public land. The Port intends to sell our waterfront into private ownership.
A woman with whom I am unfamiliar thoughtfully asked about the fate of tax revenues from improvements on the site. The answer to her question involved quite a bit of mumbling about the County tax base and school districts, but entirely missed her basic concern.
Here's the rub. The Port expects the City (taxes) to provide all the development infrastructure and entitlements. The upshot of their letter is that they expect the City to deliver these on the Port's terms and without question. Development thus enabled, the Port will sell the land to private interests, tucking the proceeds tidily away in their own account. Property tax revenues from the project will, as always, go to the County for disbursement - including the roughly $8 million a year the Port already siphons off. Stand and deliver! Get used to it.
There are plenty of other concerns. Many feel that there should be a real clean-up, not a continued cover-up. Nine different clean-up options were discussed for nearly ten years before the Port bought the land and quickly cooked up a tenth, less extensive alternative. Few locals have any use for the Port's proposed mega-yacht basin. Our boats tend to be somewhat less than sixty feet in length. Some feel that family-wage jobs could be attracted with G-P's now surplus industrial water supply and treatment capacity which will be squandered with development of the Port's proposed marina. Some feel waterfronts are better reserved for water-dependent and public uses, that private housing and shops might not be the best use of our shoreline. There is concern that 6 million feet of mixed-use zoning on the waterfront could adversely affect the health of downtown and other commercial areas. Even some home builders worry that the Port will hijack years of Bellingham's growth and development. The potential recession confronting our economy gives rise to justified concern that it may take a long time to convert this "asset" into productivity.
How much mercury is safe to leave in the ground? Should the city allow the Port to forever foreclose on family-wage industrial opportunities on the waterfront? Will the Port participate in replacing the treatment capacity their marina destroys in the event we ever do want to support some jobs, or if the state requires better stormwater treatment to protect Puget Sound? Not likely! The Port's Environmental Impact Statement included the marina in its "No Action" alternative precisely in order to prevent any such analysis of this question. They are on record as refusing to consider it. Is selling off the waterfront really the best option? What impact will such a large project have on existing commercial properties? Why should the City shell out many millions in services when it is the Port that is going to bank profits from the sales?
There is a bottom line to this rambling affair: The Port's leadership of this project is not in the best interests of Bellingham. Mayor Pike would be wise to accept the Port's withdrawal and commence proceedings to seize control of the property. Heck, offer the Port twenty dollars, twice what they paid, take over the insurance policy with AIG and work directly with the state to manage the project for Bellingham's bright future. The Port has shown they do not understand the value of the waterfront to our community. They have shown that they cannot be trusted to work in good faith and the public's interest. Their plan is seriously, irrevocably flawed. They are robbing the City to enrich themselves – and offended that the City might complain. Stand and deliver!
It is already the City's responsibility to decide where streets go, and when and how they should be built. It is already the City's duty to designate land use according to the community's needs. Taking control of the project would allow Mayor Pike to follow his "early action" strategy of commencing development at locations requiring a minimum of improvement. The City could be in control of phasing improvements and construction at a pace Bellingham can absorb. The area could grow naturally, according to sound planning principles, creating a more interesting and functional outcome than any paid Port lackey consultant could ever devise. The City could retain opportunities for jobs and waterfront uses. Heck, it could even keep the waterfront in the public domain!
It has been a mistake to lump the properties together as one mixed-use planned development and trust the Port to manage it in the best interests of Bellingham. They've shown their true colors. Let's take them at their word and let the City get on with it!
The Port of Bellingham has recently demonstrated that city residents should take note of both meanings. Not only should we, as always, be wary of getting robbed, but we would also be well advised to 'do the math' before we suddenly realize we've been fleeced.
Most are aware that the Port is planning to redevelop the central waterfront, a toxic blight left behind by Georgia-Pacific. The Port bought the land for ten bucks when G-P left, assuming responsibility for cleaning up the mess. That, of course, is the first big rip-off, but not the focus of today's comment (For a little previous background, type "G-P" or "waterfront" in the searchbox at the top of this page).
The Port entered into agreement with G-P and troubled insurance giant AIG to cover the cost of clean up. Another rip-off to be sure, but also not for today. It is worth noting, however, that the Port agreed to the lowest cost remedial alternative, to pay for any more stringent measures, not to look for any more environmental liabilities and to defend G-P from any claims. This provides a valuable and critical context for the entire waterfront project.
The situation became considerably more interesting last week when the Port apparently withdrew from the project's inter-local agreement with the City. Maybe. On November 10th, the Port issued a letter expressing dismay that the City might be critical of their regulatory process, asserting that the City was not holding up their end of the bargain and telling the world that they were going to take their ball and go home, unwilling to play until the City got in line. Con artists will recognize this as "the takeaway", a gambit used to galvanize the 'mark' should they start to feel jittery about the scam.
See for yourself. The City's comments are here. The Port's response is here.
It's worth noting that the City's comments were directed to the Port and copied to relevant local departments and committees. The Port's childish reply was, in contrast, copied to our entire congressional delegation, a host of outside agencies - and probably God. Notice also that the Port, in typical fashion, responds to none of the substantive issues raised by the City. Get used to it!
The Port letter sports the signatures of all three commissioners and introduces a significant policy decision. Again in typical Port style, there are no meeting minutes or agendas indicating any consideration of this decision was ever noticed to the public or any open meeting held where citizens might offer input on the Port's business. How many secret meetings do they get to have? Get used to it!
O.K., the whole mess hinges around a couple of fairly petty sticking points - where roads ought to go, whether historic buildings will be razed, etc. Believe me, there are much more important underlying issues to consider, but concurrent with the subject exchange of correspondence, the City, under Dan Pike's direction, sponsored a couple meetings to get feedback from the community on the questions. The first meeting, last week, was well attended by the public, but the Port was noticeably absent. Get used to it!
Well, this week the Port showed up! So did the City. So did the public, and it's evident that they still have a number of grave concerns about the direction the project has taken. Area author, academic, all-round expert and genius George Dyson rose to express that he was uncomfortable with the business model, pointing out that successful Granville Island in Vancouver was a similar brownfield redevelopment, but is entirely leased public land. The Port intends to sell our waterfront into private ownership.
A woman with whom I am unfamiliar thoughtfully asked about the fate of tax revenues from improvements on the site. The answer to her question involved quite a bit of mumbling about the County tax base and school districts, but entirely missed her basic concern.
Here's the rub. The Port expects the City (taxes) to provide all the development infrastructure and entitlements. The upshot of their letter is that they expect the City to deliver these on the Port's terms and without question. Development thus enabled, the Port will sell the land to private interests, tucking the proceeds tidily away in their own account. Property tax revenues from the project will, as always, go to the County for disbursement - including the roughly $8 million a year the Port already siphons off. Stand and deliver! Get used to it.
There are plenty of other concerns. Many feel that there should be a real clean-up, not a continued cover-up. Nine different clean-up options were discussed for nearly ten years before the Port bought the land and quickly cooked up a tenth, less extensive alternative. Few locals have any use for the Port's proposed mega-yacht basin. Our boats tend to be somewhat less than sixty feet in length. Some feel that family-wage jobs could be attracted with G-P's now surplus industrial water supply and treatment capacity which will be squandered with development of the Port's proposed marina. Some feel waterfronts are better reserved for water-dependent and public uses, that private housing and shops might not be the best use of our shoreline. There is concern that 6 million feet of mixed-use zoning on the waterfront could adversely affect the health of downtown and other commercial areas. Even some home builders worry that the Port will hijack years of Bellingham's growth and development. The potential recession confronting our economy gives rise to justified concern that it may take a long time to convert this "asset" into productivity.
How much mercury is safe to leave in the ground? Should the city allow the Port to forever foreclose on family-wage industrial opportunities on the waterfront? Will the Port participate in replacing the treatment capacity their marina destroys in the event we ever do want to support some jobs, or if the state requires better stormwater treatment to protect Puget Sound? Not likely! The Port's Environmental Impact Statement included the marina in its "No Action" alternative precisely in order to prevent any such analysis of this question. They are on record as refusing to consider it. Is selling off the waterfront really the best option? What impact will such a large project have on existing commercial properties? Why should the City shell out many millions in services when it is the Port that is going to bank profits from the sales?
There is a bottom line to this rambling affair: The Port's leadership of this project is not in the best interests of Bellingham. Mayor Pike would be wise to accept the Port's withdrawal and commence proceedings to seize control of the property. Heck, offer the Port twenty dollars, twice what they paid, take over the insurance policy with AIG and work directly with the state to manage the project for Bellingham's bright future. The Port has shown they do not understand the value of the waterfront to our community. They have shown that they cannot be trusted to work in good faith and the public's interest. Their plan is seriously, irrevocably flawed. They are robbing the City to enrich themselves – and offended that the City might complain. Stand and deliver!
It is already the City's responsibility to decide where streets go, and when and how they should be built. It is already the City's duty to designate land use according to the community's needs. Taking control of the project would allow Mayor Pike to follow his "early action" strategy of commencing development at locations requiring a minimum of improvement. The City could be in control of phasing improvements and construction at a pace Bellingham can absorb. The area could grow naturally, according to sound planning principles, creating a more interesting and functional outcome than any paid Port lackey consultant could ever devise. The City could retain opportunities for jobs and waterfront uses. Heck, it could even keep the waterfront in the public domain!
It has been a mistake to lump the properties together as one mixed-use planned development and trust the Port to manage it in the best interests of Bellingham. They've shown their true colors. Let's take them at their word and let the City get on with it!
10 Comments