Letter to editor: Council shouldn’t be ‘guilt-tripped’ into Harbor Square decision
Dear Editor:
At the City Council meeting of January 29th, I was reminded what some mothers – supposedly – say to encourage their children to eat vegetables, “Eat your (fill in your choice of vegetable) or I’ll kill myself”.
Obviously, the mother has no intention of committing suicide, but is trying to ‘Guilt Trip’ their children into eating something they don’t like.
Over the past several weeks the rhetoric of the supporters of the Harbor Square Master Plan has changed from the constant reminders of the benefits of the Port’s proposed plan, to stating that by opposing the HSMP one is being disrespectful/insulting to the City’s staff and the people who volunteered their time and have spent thousands of man hours over the past few years. Like the mothers trying to get their children to eat what they don’t like, the HSMP supporters are trying to ‘Guilt Trip’ the Council Members into voting for the proposed Comp Plan amendment.
The consultants, the Port’s staff and the City’s staff, who worked on the HSMP in the preparing the HSMP for review by you, the Council Members, have received compensation for their efforts and time. They have been acknowledged and thanked by all who have reviewed this Comp Plan amendment. These people are permanent employees and have other important work on which to focus their efforts.
The citizens who have volunteered their time and input to the development of the HSMP have also been acknowledged and thanked. Edmonds has plenty of other issues that need their attention.
If any person feels that their efforts have been disrespected or have been insulted by those who have spent a great deal of time and effort researching and presenting opposing opinions – Welcome to municipal politics. The HSMP has brought to center stage the best and the worst that democracy has to offer.
As for the Mayor’s comments about this “opportunity” possibly being wasted – well not to worry, Harbor Square isn’t going anywhere. If the Port decides to simply sell the property to a developer, and they every right to do so (albeit the voters might disagree), the new owner will be back in front of, the City Council, with their proposed plan(s) and a brand new opportunity.
The point is that to openly ‘Guilt Trip’ elected representatives into voting one way or the other – like the mother trying to get their children to eat vegetables – is an act of desperation.
To the members of City Council – don’t do the people’s business out of desperation or be ‘Guilt Tripped’ into casting a vote against your better judgment.
Eric Livingston
Eric, once again, I completely agree with you. And one though has occurred to me repeatedly and I may be wrong: but if the property is sold to a developer, I wouldn’t be surprised if they come to the council with essentially the same plan the Port has presented.
I find it amazing that those against the taller buildings (while in favor of redeveloping the site) are criticized as being ‘backwards’, not ‘forward thinking’, etc. Why is it that tall buildings are considered ‘progress’? We are already seeing a request for a taller building up above Harbor Square to the south. It will not end once one is approved.
What is wrong with wanting our city to remain peaceful, at a slower pace and as a comfortable place to visit, live, work? I want so badly to enjoy this wonderful city with a ‘home town’ atmosphere.
And, once more, the water views from 3rd Ave. S. and most likely 4th Ave. S. will be lost. All in the name of progress.
“me, too !”
Is the cost benefit analysis and ROI between 3 and 5 floors significant enough to warrant the request for taller builders? Perhaps it isn’t that “taller builders” are considered progress but rather economic sense? I don’t know…just posing the question at this point.
It is quite possible to keep our peaceful, slower and comfortable place as is – we can do nothing – and you’ll see the town emerge as more of a high scale living area than it is already (it will not be a mixed economic demographic and those who shop in Edmonds will be those who have discretionary income); if you want to attract young talent that keeps a city alive (economically and socially – think Bellevue and Kirkland), you need to attract young talent – you do that either through lower real estate costs (which we don’t have) or through innovative and progressive job opportunities (which we don’t have). OR, we can continue to explore the Port’s plan – understand why they think it needs to be 5 stories instead of 3 – look at what type of economic drivers Edmonds needs to consider to stay relevant and alive (if you think the recession is over you need to revisit the numbers), and understand that progress and tradition (which I value both) can live together.
Mike:
The Port is proposing to offer horizontal space in exchange for more height. To have a ROI that will attract developers requires a certain amount of developed space. If a 35′ height limit is maintained there would be very little open space remaining. Citizens want an abundance of open space, so the remedy is to reduce sprawl and go higher.
Ron: thank you. This makes sense – I’m assuming at this point other options have been reviewed, debated, and exhausted so the proposal is a joint compromise.
Yes, many options have been considered over the past several years by a group consisting of the Port’s staff, consultants and a citizens’ steering committee. Their proposal was then rigorously reviewed by the city’s Planning Board and sent to city council.
Love It
I puzzled how building taller buildings is making Edmonds “relevant.” I’m okay with a little faster way of life and the redevelopment of the area, but I just don’t think taller buildings are the way to do it. I walked the trail along the marsh the other day and there was an oil sheen on the water. Some of the rear doors to the buildings are sandbagged so clearly the water table is high. As the economy improves I’m guessing that other proposals will come along that can manage a great ROI without exceeding the existing zoning. That property is a jewel and it should be developed along with the Waterfront Mall area. Nothing says it has to be developed NOW. I say we wait for a better proposal.
I’m not sure anyone is saying taller buildings makes Edmonds “relevant.” It is a matter of compromise and ROI. We can keep this issue in committee indefinitely or we can move forward and explore what the benefits of the proposal are that we have before us. In order for Edmonds to avoid insolvency we need to create a “demand” that attracts people and business. Sorry folks, we have to move beyond art galleries, ladies’ clothing, and coffee shops. This can be done while staying “true” to Edmonds – but there will be change. Submit a better proposal Tracy. I see this “let’s wait” approach in government committees here in Washington State and Washington DC quite often – folks want to wait for something better – and so nothing gets done.
If Edmonds needs to be more than “galleries, ladies’ clothing, and coffee shops” what are you imagining for these mixed use buildings? All they usually house in their lower floors is just what you are disparaging. Right now Harbor Square is home to a variety of small businesses – none of which I saw to be “galleries, ladies’ clothing, or coffee shops.” There is Compass training, the hotel, the health club, light industrial, and office space. So if we need something different, lets just stick with what we have and perk it up a bit. Harbor Square isn’t really very old, it could be renovated without sacrificing the flavor of Edmonds. And I still don’t see anything connecting it to downtown Edmonds…
Respectfully….
Please understand I’m not disparaging the variety of small businesses – what I’m suggesting is that we need to add more than galleries, ladies’ clothing and coffee shops. We need to attract businesses that drive jobs – be a tech center – add industry that pulls in talent, yet preserves what we all love about Edmonds. If we stick with “just what we have,” we will see an increase in taxes, a decrease in services, and the slow decline of a beautiful city.
Is there some component of this project that will move Edmonds toward becoming a tech center? I think your ideas are great, I just don’t see how what is being planned will help us move in that direction. Maybe there is something I’m not getting. All I’m seeing is more expensive condos and coffee shops, hair styling places, dog grooming etc.
I just took another look at the Plan documents and this is their goal (amongst others):
E.11: Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, downtown commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region.
No mention is made of tech or anything but a new, separate residential community.
I think we agree, but this plan as proposed doesn’t seem to contain any of the goals you say are paramount to Edmonds.
What we have is opportunity to propose as long as the project isn’t killed in its tracks. We need mixed used – a blend of new residential and commercial. I’ve not thoroughly looked over the planning documents but do intend to do so. We likely do agree Tracy.
Ron, you say many plans have been presented…I have yet to see anything published other than the current plan with taller buildings. I’ve love to see in the Beacon what plans were presented to the public.
Pat:
In #6 I said that many options were considered and ruled out by those involved. The preferred option is what the Port has proposed.
From what Ron is saying it seems the “committees” have made their decision. Time to move forward and continue what businesses to attract.
The city Council was ready to vote the motion on the table last Tuesday when the Major asked to speak.
The confusion that followed the Major speaking, is what he intended. He scolded the Council and guilt tripped them with intimidating comments about the “Port having to go back to the drawing board, and start again”. What difference does that make to the Major, who is he representing? He deliberately sabotaged the Council voting.
Maybe next Tuesday on February 5th, he will get out of the way and let the Council decide on this issue.
I agree with jenny the council should disreguard everything the mayor said, what the port spends has nothing to do with any of this.
I was disappointed in the Mayor’s conduct and comments by Council Members Peterson and Yamamoto. The proposal needs to be judged on its merits, not on effort. The Port’s proposal is not ready for inclusion into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. There are too many outstanding considerations and the correct and appropriate process is to address them before marrying the Port’s plan to City’s Plan. We need development but, we need to do it right and not push forward a plan with so many unanswered questions and allowances with the hope they will be addressed appropriately at a later date after they are already a part of the comprehensive plan. There is something risky, disingenuous, and a bit underhanded about taking that approach.
I would like to point out that the discussions, considerations, expert testimonies, etc have all been engaged in over the last three years. Before I was on the Planning Board, I went to Port meetings to hear about the ideas being considered. I cared about the development of the waterfront area, so I got involved. There were many opportunities for interested citizens to contribute to the HSMP concepts. The Port spent valuable time and resources evaluating the economic impacts, development options, public amenities and much more. Even during the recent public hearings at the Planning Board level the Port listened and refined their final concepts to incorporate input from citizens and the Board. To scrap all of that effort and ask them to start over because some people missed or skipped the opportunity to get involved is not a good use of city or port resources. While I can’t speak for the Port, I think it unlikely that they would want to go through the process again, knowing that our collective past behavior is to wait until the last step to get involved. We are now at a point of decision where the City Council can allow or not, a concept to go forward that provides a parenthesis, not a plan. Let’s be more productive with our efforts. Let the HSMP become incorporated with the vision for our city and then get involved with the public process for a plan for an actual development when that time comes, but please let’s not wait until the end.
Mr. Tibbott is correct in one respect. The Port’s proposal is a concept, not a detailed plan, and it sets parameters for future development. But, that is exactly the problem. Developers will use the far reaches of those parameters to formulate their pro-formas. They too will spend time and money at their personal risk to develop plans based on those pro-formas. Would you then expect the City Council to re-negotiate, re-examine, or deny permits that fall within those stated parameters at a later point in time? I doubt it.
Greg:
As another informed citizen, involved from day one, I know that all of Mr. Tibbott’s facts are correct. Aren’t you one of those citizens who has waited until the last step to even voice an opinion?
Oh, I see, comments are not longer welcome! Is that your point?
I know that you would not be critical of most of what Mr. Tibbott said if you had taken the time to be involved. By the way, are you a resident of the port district?
Ron Greg right once you change the rules the developers will take the new building heights and run with it and since the rules would be changed there is nothing the city can do to stop them, my vision is 45 and 55 foot buildings through that whole harbor square area Ive seen it in other places trust me if this thing passes it will happen here too, anyways enjoy the super bowl
Ron, yes, I live in the Bowl. Just moved here last August. I’ve attended several council meetings and like everyone, was a bit dismayed by what I observed at the last meeting. I’ll see you folks next Tuesday.
Now people are guilt-tripping others in this comment chain because they weren’t involved in the beginning and a bunch of people spent a bunch of time working on this project knowing it would have to go before the council for a comprehensive plan change. I’m sure it was discussing during this process that people wouldn’t be too agreeable to the heights being planned. The council is now supposed to roll over backwards because so many people spent so much time. I’m not buying it. As a citizen of Edmonds I don’t want those tall buildings and I think it is possible to have a plan that doesn’t include them. I for one am glad the council is standing up to those who thought this was all a done deal. We voted for them and it is their job to consider all the possibilities.
Isn’t it true that there already is an EXISTING VISION for what is desired at Harbor Square? Hasn’t that VISION and the related zoning been in place for many years?
The proposed Harbor Square Master Plan wants to CHANGE some of that VISION and zoning. I believe citizens still have every right to SUPPORT or OPPOSE these proposed changes – whether they got involved on day one or even if they missed or skipped the opportunity to get involved earlier in the process.
My recollection of this process is that many, many citizens did not miss or skip the opportunity to get involved. Many citizens voiced support during the process. At the same time much opposition was voiced during the process.
This is a very difficult decision for our Council – an opinion supported by the number of Council Meetings spent on this issue. Next up is Tuesday night, February 5th.
In my opinion the Port has be responsible and proactive in their planning process. Knowing that most of the buildings at Harbor Square are nearing the end of their life cycle and knowing that expensive repairs are less desirable than redeveloping the property, they have invited citizens to have voice in what they’d like to see on that site. Some of what we have said we want is more public space and we’d like to see something done to preserve natural habitat, among other things. Their proposal incorporates those ideas with some parameters for how they might be accomplished with alternative development schemes than currently exist for that property. For that reason, a master plan revision is required. If we want to keep the same asphalt covered, flood prone, vacant building approach in effect, then we should block the amendment process. AND before you agree that blocking it is a good idea, please review the list of supporters of the HSMP. The names will surprise you.
Thanks for your comments Neil. I am of the opinion that the Port has the option of being responsible and proactive under the Existing Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. I may be wrong and naive, but I have a hard time visualizing that a Comprehensive Plan Revision and Zoning change is absolutely required. I can certainly see that such may be strongly preferred and desired by some – but that is different than required.
Please know that there are supporters of HSMP that I have much respect for. I also have much respect for some of those who oppose changes to the Comprehensive Plan at Harbor Square. I believe those on both sides of the issue have a right to be heard right up until the last public hearing closes.
My recent interest in this situation mainly concerns City Council rules and procedures. I support the City following its rules and procedures and consistent City government. I think the last 20 minutes or so spent on this topic during the January 29th City Council Meeting was problematic and confusing. Hopefully, clarification will be provided the City Council and citizens before this Tuesday night’s City Council meeting.
The reason the Comp Plan amendment is desirable is that it will need to be done at some point, either now or when a developer brings a project. It is highly unlikely that a developer would want to take the risk of purchasing a property without knowing its prospects for improvement. The Port is being proactive in creating a scenario in which developers would consider Harbor Square as an investment prospect in an economic environment where lending rates and construction costs are historically low. So you are right, it is NOT required, but it is a good first step to breaking up some asphalt and creating a desirable connection between our downtown and waterfront.
Neil:
Thank you for continuing to add much value to the discussion of this important issue.
Citizens need to also realize that even if the Port obtains the changes they are seeking, it still could be a long time before any developer acquires the site. Firdale Village was rezoned 4 or 5 years ago to make that site more attractive to a developer, but the owner still hasn’t been able to get it sold. And if a developer does acquire Harbor Square, complete redevelopment is expected to take 15 to 20 years.
So Ron, are you saying we shouldn’t worry about the issue because we probably won’t be around to see it to fruition?
Typically I don’t participate in the comment chain as I feel that I said what I had to say in the letter or opinion piece that was posted/published.
However, as this comment chain is much longer than I thought it would , so I thought that maybe I should add a couple of additional thoughts and bits of information.
The following has to do with some comments in the chain as to options discussed:
1) Last March 12th, at the Port meeting, I had the privilege of sitting next to an elegant woman. Mr. Wambolt sat two chairs to my left and one row back. A landscape architect, from Forterra, sat directly in front of the woman next to me. In a conversation we had, she said that she was a member of the Steering Committee of the Harbor Square Plan. I asked her if there had been any other concepts discussed. Her response was basically no other concepts were really discussed and that it was always about the money.
2) I tend to believe her statement is correct because of the notes and minutes of the steering committee – that were requested by Planning Board member, Mr. Clarke – show that no other concepts were discussed during those 3 meetings.
3) During the 8/22/12 Planning Board meeting, Executive Director Mr. McChesney, when asked if the Port ever studied the feasibility of having a public market, Mr. McChesney said that a public market was discussed but never studied -(http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Boards_and_Commissions/Boards/Planning_Board/Minutes/2012/PB120822f.pdf page 13).
4) Then there is the – Edmonds Harbor Square and Antique Mall Redevelopment Study – Economic Analysis – Phase 1 of Secondary Research for The Stratford Company (http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Boards_and_Commissions/Commissions/Economic_Commission/Plans/EdmondsHarborSquareAndAntiqueMallRedevelopmentStudy.pdf ) by Herbert Research, Inc., done in 2007. This lengthy study is a largely a compilation of data to evaluate market and economic demand as well as create a 5 year forecast of these values. Whatever happened to Phase 2 of Secondary Research or the Primary Research of the economic analysis for the Stratford Company, I don’t know. I can only guess that the 2008 economic crash ended The Stratford Company’s interest in both Harbor Square and the Antique Mall. – The Stratford Company is a real estate investment and development company that acquires, develops, markets and manages real estate investments for its partners and investors.
5) On April 25th 2006, a little more than three weeks after the Port completed the purchase of five Harbor Square buildings, the City Council and the Port held a joint meeting to discuss public/private development opportunities. At that meeting the Maritime Trust presented information regarding their work with the Port of Everett with that Port’s property into a “mixed use environment”. Port Commissioner Faires and City Council Member Wambolt were selected to chair a ‘redevelopment committee’ to study both the Harbor Square and the Antique Mall properties.
You may draw your own conclusions as to what options were discussed, studied or not.
The problem is, and this will be true of all marinas (public or private); not just the Port of Edmonds, that will have to be faced in the not too distant future is that Boating or Yachting, as a leisure activity, will grow at a slower pace than in the past.
The ‘Baby Boomers’ were big boaters. Their children, not so much and the grand-kids even less. Boats tend to be perceived as polluting and require more maintenance time than those less than forty years old are willing to spend.
Those less than thirty years old don’t see a secure financial future; therefore buying a boat isn’t a high priority.
Then there is the cost of replacing marina equipment which is aging beyond the projected life expectancy.
So that revenues will grow, just slower. The costs of operation and maintenance, however, will grow much faster.
But these problems are the Port’s problems, not the City of Edmonds’ problems.
But the main purpose of this letter was to point out , as it was obvious to me, that a couple of Council Members, and the Mayor, weren’t truly deliberating but rather ‘Guilt Tripping’ other Council Members, into voting for something that they were obviously uncomfortable voting for in the first place. Its not how I want my elected leaders to behave.
The Council will vote in less than 24 hours and then we will see what we will see.
I like Mr. Livingston’s comment that “it was always about the money”. Of course it is. I thought the Port was supposed to be about supporting and promoting boating. If what Mr. Livingston says about boating becoming a thing of the past, it might be better if the Port District is abolished with the Port buildings being demolished and a public boat ramp being installed. Then the land there could be used for a parking lot for boat trailers. And then nobody will have to deal with the Port anymore. The whole area could then be under the control of the City of Edmonds Council making there to be only one governmental agency with which to contend. Anyone being taxed because of the Port District that has nothing to do with boating probably would be in favor.
After the Council meeting last week, we need to keep focused on what happens tonight. Will it be more orderly with less “guilt tripping” and the Major not obviously representing the Port? Will the Council finally begin the meeting and vote on the issue still on the table, or be confused yet again with side issues. They need to focus.