| Briefly Western seeks city council approval to vacate South College Way. Western plans to build a new road behind Fairhaven College on the hillside of the Sehome Aboretum. Western is not being honest and forthright about its plans. This would spend millions of dollars wrecking a valuable road, tearing up the arboretum and not add a single classroom. Western's Institutional Master Plan (IMP) shows the new road through the Arboretum on page III-23. This pdf is 33 MB. Or, we have posted pictures of the relevant plan on another page.
| Vacating South Campus Drive Home | Contents | Links | Info | Writers | ©2002NWCitizen.com Why South Campus Drive Vacation request should be denied - June 26, 2002 Mr. Tom Walsh, of the Seattle law firm of Foster, Petter & Shuffleman has been entering testimony as if he was Western Washington University. He is not. Further, this hearing is not quasi-judicial. Therefore, his testimony should not be allowed into the record. Western has employees and a planning department. They should present Western's case for planning decisions. Mr. Walsh is a several hundred dollar an hour hired gun who's purpose appears to be to cite legalese and intimidate the city administration and citizens alike. If Mr. Walsh wants to be a government agency then he should explain himself to the Hearing Examiner and the public. I speak for others who resent his presence at our city of Bellingham public hearings. It is amazing that his submissions are not on Western's letterhead but rather on his law firm's letterhead - a further intimidation factor. Further, Mr. Walsh's presence and confrontational tactics rather contradict the public relations pitch from Western that the University is trying to work with neighbors and the city to reach planning solutions that benefit all of us. The Hearing Examiner can and should require Western to use their staff planners for making presentations to public hearings. If Western wants to work with city residents and neighbors then it should call off the attorneys, quit wasting thousands of dollars of tax dollars, simply tell the truth and talk with the adjoining neighborhoods. Now to the items submitted by Mr. Walsh dated June 20, on the basis that the Hearing Examiner may not disallow his testimony. Regarding his item #1. Mr. Walsh (er, Western) goes through verbal gymnastics to say that "in place" does not mean in place. Western says that quotes from the IMP that say "A" actually don't mean "A" but mean "B". He descripton of the IMP process appears to be a false and non existant history of the IMP process as I observed it. As an example, he says the process considered to "improve" the road behind Fairhaven. This never happened in any serious way. Rather, a new road on the hill was considered. The record of the IMP does not support the contention. This appears to be a fabrication. Throughout this paper the citing of facts is so loose that it appears to me that Western is conveniently fabricating in order fit "facts" to fit their arguments. In over two years of drawn out processes, hidden from public participation and conducted by the proponent, most every possible project was probably mentioned at least once. That is not the same as saying something was considered and rejected. Mr. Walsh (Western) says on page 2 that different possible road projects on campus are not "linked" and therefore there is no need to consider all of them before permitting one of them. The Growth Management Act (GMA) is a wonderful law. It does not say that separate projects need to be linked. There is no causal linkage needed for all pieces of a project to all be considered before any of them are permitted. The GMA does not allow piecemeal planning - period. Indeed, while Mr. Walsh denies in other places of his paper that there is piecemeal planning, this page 2 contains his statements that piecemeal planning is taking place. His statement that linkage is not needed is the factual proof of this piecemeal planning. As such, the vacation should be denied. City planning laws must comply with the GMA. Where city planning laws do not comply, they cannot be enforced - and can be challenged. The code for street vacations does not address concerns of the GMA that an entire traffic plan be considered and approved before a street is vacated. Therefore, the street vacation code is in non-compliance with the GMA. The GMA by state law takes precedence in this situation. Item #2. Western (Mr. Walsh, actually) says that the IMP dictates that new traffic be located on streets on the edges of Campus. This is not being done. 21st Street is no closer to the west edge of campus than is S. College Drive to the east edge of campus. Rather, we are vacating a boulevard that has cost millions of tax dollars to build, improve and maintain only to build another boulevard located a mere hundred yards to the left. The glowing statements are not matched by truth on the ground. Item #3 is our main concern. This street vacation will shift traffic to 21st street - now deceptively renamed Bill McDonald Parkway. This will overload 21st and will later force the straightening of 21st to the south, extending an arterial through the south side. A shift of the main entrance to the campus will not be far behind. This move by Western is deceptive, sneaky and unbecoming of a state agency. Western should be ashamed of itself. And city planning should be equally ashamed of itself. Western is on record in numerous planning meetings over the past 5 years as recognizing the hill curve on West College Way to be unsafe. Instead of a modest cost change of the curve, Western plans to blast 21st street straight up to the Water tank at the top of the hill. This plan directly relates to Western's desire to vacate S. College Drive and shift all traffic over to 21st to over load it and make easier the push through of a plan to straighten 21st. As such, the current street vacation directly impacts the Happy Valley and South Hill neighborhoods. Again, the GMA must come into consideration here. Western remain silent throughout this hearing on this very important piece of their road plan. In closing, I would like to mock Mr. Walsh's demand (he uses the word 'entitled') that he and Western get the last word. Where does he think he is - in court? Again his heavy legal approach to what should be a planning process. He gives as a reason that Western is the proponent. So? In a court, the defense is given the last word. Any analogy would allow the impacted citizens to have the last word on this planning process. We need the chance to counter the lies from Western, er, Mr. Walsh, no - Western. Whomever.
|