Is the mayor pulling the wool over our eyes, or the Port pulling it over his? If both are pulling, it could be very bad news.

The Herald editorial board applauds this “agreement on a waterfront redevelopment plan” approved by a “slim majority”. Yet the mayor says they were merely “approving a proposed framework”. He says they “endorsed” the “Waterfront District Planning Framework”, although “adopt” was the term used in the documents in the April 20th meeting, as in “adopt the proposed Planning Framework”. So is it adopted, approved, proposed or endorsed?

Where did this framework originate? From citizen input gathered in a widely disseminated public participation process? Nope! From Officials at the Port and Western. It represents ideas that “leaders and staff from various stakeholders” have been discussing since 3/4/2009. How very inclusive!

What did they approve, adopt, propose or endorse?

Here are the most incredible elements of a most incredible piece of policy work in a nutshell:

- They quite remarkably agree to a marina in the the ASB lagoon.  Never mind that the marina is outside the scope of environmental review for the waterfront plan. It’s time to decide if the marina is part of the plan or not.  The word “marina” appears hundreds and hundreds of times in the environmental impact statement, yet no environmental review of the marina is taking place because they purposely put it the No-Action Alternative.

Perhaps Dan Pike was joking when he assured his supporters that he would insist on an independent scientific review of the so-called clean-up and look at alternative uses for the ASB.  After he was elected, he said his hands were tied because the City and Port already had an agreement on the marina.  In three months of public disclosure requests, I was unable to find any such agreement.  Well, here it finally is!  That’s beyond sneaky.  It’s downright duplicitous.

- They agree to a new “preferred alternative for completion of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Waterfront District”. It’s not clear whether that includes the marina they also agreed on. This constitutes a scoping document, as the mayor says, “a narrowing of choices”. Hey, isn’t scoping supposed to be done in public, with public notice?

- They also agree to “Create a draft Master Plan…based on the proposed planning framework and planning assumptions”. Gosh, that marina is as slippery as a camel and it’s nose is now definitely in the tent, thanks to Dan.

- They eviscerated the work of the waterfront Futures Group. In his guest editorial, Pike lays out sixteen “values” that he says were “core themes of the Waterfront Futures Group”(WFG):
+ Create multi-modal connections to downtown and surrounding neighborhoods,
+ Preserve historic structures,
+ Protect view corridors,
+ Restore natural habitat,
+ Create open space,
+ Scale streets for pedestrians,
+ Restore the health of the land and water,
+ Incorporate green design features throughout the site,
+ Support mixed-use development,
+ Reinforce a unique sense of place, respecting history, culture and the arts,
+ Support water-dependent activities,
+ Improve public access through parks and trails,
+ Promote a healthy, dynamic waterfront economy,
+ Strengthen ties between local resources and jobs of the future,
+ Create connections to maritime industries and markets,
+ Emphasize public ownership.

Unfortunately, in the documents for whatever was adopted, approved, proposed or endorsed, a carefully worded framework assumption actually reduces the WFG’s work to these four points:
“Waterfront Futures Group - Vision and Framework Plan, and Guiding Principles (below) represent the community vision for the Waterfront District.
(1) Reinforce the inherent qualities of each place on the waterfront
(2) Restore the health of land and water
(3) Improve waterfront access
(4) Promote a healthy and dynamic waterfront economy (via flexible
zoning and improved permitting)”

You can find a more thorough analysis of their action, with links to the documents in comments below another article here.

In any case, the handwriting is on the wall.  The official plan is emerging, the public be damned.  Pike’s promise of better public process has gone the way of his scientific review.  Now, he’s willing to keep inviting the public to meetings, but the scope is being defined in private.  I’m sure he is willing to listen until everyone has had so many meetings that no one shows up.  That’s how they can get their marina - even if it is a No-Action item and has not been reviewed. Is Dan shopping for a yacht?

It is very important to build a strong record for appeal to the adults who will be asked to finance this boondoggle.  Our Senators and Representatives must be apprised as to what a sham this whole “planning effort” has been and why the marina does not deserve to be funded, at the expense of a real cleanup of the mercury.

Many of the people now aghast at Dan Pike’s rush to implement the Port’s desires for our waterfront should review news stories of the mayor’s first few months in office. The new sign on the office door was still wet when he told council on more than one occasion that we need to get moving on the waterfront, opportunities were being lost, the first thing we need is that bridge-all the stuff recently approved by council.

You will also read that the councilors asked serious questions, were firm about not rushing into the unpopular port plans. The mayor back tracked and sternly announced that the people of Bellingham would not be rushed into any premature actions on the waterfront. “The Port has to realize…,” etc.

But time’s running short, the People have managed to stave off the Port for half of his term already. No matter what you may think of the mayor, a little research will clear it all up for everyone.

At risk of offending most of the house writers on this list, that history was the main reason I, and others, wanted to more about the unreported (and never really cleared up) benefit bash down on the waterfront.

Respectfully submitted.