Council inviting public comment on Skippers sale, city budget Tuesday night

339
8

The Edmonds City Council is scheduled Tuesday night to authorize a contract for the City’s annual Fourth of July fireworks display, but it’s likely that the council members will be experiencing some fireworks of the political variety. On the agenda: opportunity for  public comment on last week’s 5-2 decision to purchase the Skippers property near the Edmonds ferry terminal for $1.1 million, as well as the city budget.

The decision has been generating intense citizen opinion, for and against, with some calling for the Council to rescind the action given the city’s financial woes and others praising the purchase as a visionary move to begin transforming the Edmonds waterfront.

A complete schedule of agenda items can be found here.

8 COMMENTS

  1. I have a feeling that the Council members will be treated to a variety of colorful 4-letter words and hand gestures Tuesday night. I can’t make it but will look for the televised meeting, should prove entertaining.

  2. I propose that we keep our comments civil. They may have inspired justifiable outrage, but outrage doesn’t play so well in public.

    All opponents to this decision will be painted in the standard hues of “you’re in favor of tall buildings on the waterfront” from Orvis and Plunkett. Do not discuss building heights – as that’s not the issue here.

    1. This offer to purchase was made without public knowledge or consent.
    2. The Fiscally Foul Five have no financial plan, not even a simple spreadsheet, to show how this transaction can be shouldered by the people of Edmonds.
    2.a. Mr. Orvis, when asked where the money would come from, flippantly remarked that it would be “easy” with a bond. Hey. That’s OUR money you’re talking about.
    3. The offer price is outlandishly high. Someone has friends at the bank, or they’re just poor negotiators.
    3.a. The property is under bank ownership, after a foreclosure on the prior owner. The last owner paid $1 million for it in 2006, then went under. We are offering to pay MORE than the 2006 price, when there is no other interest in the property!
    3.b. You’ll hear that “we need to protect this property from development”. Um… from whom, exactly? What’s the big rush? Last time we were in a rush, we gave away our Fire Department. How’d that work out?
    4. The city finances, according to the FFF, are in disarray. Despite their leader, Mr. Plunkett, being the chair of the Finance Committee, they say repeatedly that they don’t trust the city’s financial projections. So, since they don’t believe that the City is on track to be broke in two years, they can spend as much as they want.
    4.a. If you don’t know how much is in the checking account, I’d recommend not writing another check.
    4.b. Your ringleader is responsible, as chair of the Finance Committee, to make the budget numbers accurate. Perhaps he should demonstrate a small measure of accountability – something he has yet to do.
    5. There was no conspiracy to slip tall buildings onto the waterfront before anyone noticed. Stop pretending there was. Stop slandering each other in campaign-style emails.
    5.a. Two of you campaigned on promises to operate in a cooperative, transparent Council. Funny, that’s not what I’m seeing.

    Should be a fun meeting. I’ll definitely be there.

  3. I agree with Todd let’s keep it civil. We should refrain comments like “fiscally foul five”, “the five horsemen”, and pretty much anything Todd said after the word “civil”.

    -Dave (a foul fiver)

    P.S. We are getting a good price. If we wait until the price goes up, we risk not be able to afford a key gateway property.

  4. @Dave, I think those are rather tame compared to the words you have used in your blog. Don’t dish it out, if you can’t take it.

    Additionally, in my mind the question is two-fold: (1) are we getting a good price; and (2) can we afford it? Assuming you are correct — we are getting a good price — how do we afford it? You have yet to answer that singular question. Saying “we got a good price” does not answer the second part of the test.

  5. Dave – thanks for your input. That really clarifies things.

    By the way – the tone of my post above was not civil, but intentionally a bit snarky. But I hadn’t promised anything different here. I was suggesting that we citizens would benefit from civility at the public hearing tonight. Please read all of the words.

    And no, you gave no explanations prior to committing us to yet another million in extra expenditures. (more like two to three million once you’re done with it, plus ongoing maintenance, minus the the current tax income). You started making wide-eyed assertions of how this is a low price, and that we could “easily run a bond”, and coined the suggestive phrase, “gateway property”, once you saw stiff public opposition.

    See you tonight.

LEAVE A REPLY