Three Wise Men?

The Vision?
Three Wise Men?
Three Wise Men?
The holidays are behind us and it’s time to get on with the work of a New Year.
The Port of Bellingham has for over a century had a three member commission. These Three WIse Men's recent waterfront “gift” of ABC Recycling may be the gift that keeps on taking - for the foreseeable future. Our work this year is now unlikely to follow the vision outlined in the Waterfront Plan, labored over for years by citizens and officials trying to recover Bellingham’s central waterfront from the toxic legacies of the past. The millions poured into municipal infrastructure are unlikely to be recovered anytime soon. One “luxury condominium” project is already on the ropes and no one is coming to the rescue. Would you like your luxury digs downwind from a noisy, toxic mess?
Bad decisions are the root cause of these legacy problems - the smelly, toxic, hydric sludge creating a kill zone on the bottom of Bellingham Bay, the 40 years of toxic emissions and hundreds of tons of missing mercury G-P's chlorine plant spread to the bay, downwind of the site and illegally buried (directly under the metal pile), the plan to sacrifice a billion dollar water treatment facility to improve Port profits at public expense. From Blaine to Fairhaven, the Port's properties have become a huge public liability. Are any three people wise enough to balance the needs of our growing community?
The Waterfront Plan describes a “once in a century opportunity” to “restore public access” and create a healthy, vibrant and dynamic waterfront community that “will reflect the commitment of Bellingham citizens to environmental stewardship by remediating historic contamination and restoring degraded shorelines to provide habitat for fish, birds and small wildlife species, as well as, opportunities for public access to the water”.
The Three Wise Men behind the Port of Bellingham's 17+ year long-term lease to ABC Recycling for a toxic metal pile has signaled their intent to continue environmentally questionable activities at the expense of broader community goals to “Encourage a compatible mix of urban density commercial, residential, recreational, institutional, and light industrial uses…”. Instead, these will all be delayed indefinitely for a handful of “family wage” jobs - and an impressive revenue stream to the Port.
Not far into the Waterfront Plan, the narrative allows that the “natural environment has been devastated by more than a century of unregulated heavy industrial activity on the waterfront”, and lists “six state-listed cleanup sites…(that)…include contaminants at levels exceeding state standards in the soil, surface water, ground water and sediments caused by historic industrial activities”.
The Port of Bellingham, established 103 years ago, has been instrumental, for more than a century, in attracting, cultivating and sustaining activities responsible for the environmental damage the public is now cleaning up. Thanks to just Three Wise Men on the Port Commission, ABC Recycling’s toxic metal pile adds a seventh devastating industrial activity to the list.
The environmental health risks of scrap iron commingled with chromium, cadmium, zinc, the fugitive dust emissions, noise and toxic stormwater have already been discussed. But the opportunity costs to the community of a prime development site overshadowed by this noisome bulk have yet to be accounted. Similarly, who will account for the lost opportunities when a metal shredder is positioned to shield a defunct cement plant from closure, making potentially a billion dollars of taxable assessment on island view residential property unavailable in Bellingham’s western Urban Growth Area - close to the waterfront and downtown services?
The City’s failure to determine this activity as “Recycling” despite the company’s name, their industrial classification code, or succinct provisions in the City code describing such activities is also surprising. To do so would impose requirements for environmental review, full enclosure, screening, limits on noise and hours of operation, etc. Instead, ABC’s activity commenced without so much as an application or Determination of Consistency, without an environmental review and without a proper stormwater discharge permit - and continues to operate as such today.
It’s time we discuss the real problem: Our three member Port Commission.
In such a body, only two votes are needed to set the course and character of important community resources. A Three Wise Men commission has proven itself insensitive to adequate public notice or public engagement, and shown it can consistently make decisions that may be good for the Port’s bottom line, but are otherwise undesirable public outcomes: The exorbitant public costs of environmental clean ups, delayed or lost development opportunities, risks to human health and the environment.
In both theory and practice a five member commission - as provided for in State law - is the answer our dynamic community deserves. Broader representation and better access, more comprehensive debate, more circumspect consideration and better decision-making are the benefits we currently forego.
Our own former Senator Harriet Spanel in 1994 ushered the enabling State legislation through to approval. Her husband was a fisherman and both were acutely aware of how the Port selfishly benefits by remaining under the public’s radar. Many citizens misunderstand the Port to be a department of the City instead of a county-wide taxing jurisdiction. A five member commission will bring much needed sunshine to this darkest of local public agencies.
Concerned Citizens need not remain stymied by impervious officials or obtuse bureaucracies. With about 8,000 legitimate signatures from the registered electors of Whatcom County, citizens can nudge the course of this mercenary agency toward more democratic policy and better public outcomes. Without such action our waterfront will end up in private hands while it's value is monetized into the Port's coffers.
A Three Wise Men approach to Bellingham's waterfront future can no longer be trusted. The costs are too high.
6 Comments, most recent 1 year ago