Dear Editor:
Mr. Phil Lovell wrote a letter that was published in the Edmonds Beacon in early January. Since then, I’ve been fascinated with his response/rebuke of Mr. Dave Buelow’s letter that was published in that paper. (Mr. Buelow’s comments were also published on My Edmonds News as a “thank you” to Councilperson Joan Bloom’s opinion piece on why she is against the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan.)
In his letter, Mr. Buelow lists his reasons why he supports Joan Bloom’s opinion. However, Mr. Lovell’s letter reads as an attempt to discredit Mr. Buelow’s opinions starting with; “I cannot (nor should anyone) accept the statements or allegations within Mr. Buelow’s letter that have no basis of reality or fact.”
What I find fascinating is that Mr. Lovell presents no facts that would discredit anything said by Mr. Buelow. He merely states that Mr. Buelow’s is irresponsible (3 times) and irrational in his opinions.
To give an example of what I mean, Mr. Lovell writes that, “Matters of geotechnical engineering are for the professional design engineers and consultants to solve when and if any project(s) should emerge in response to the master plan.” He also said: “Secondly, there is no reference whatsoever in Mr. Buelow’s letter as to published findings and/or facts regarding the subjects of liquefaction or tsunami potential that could prohibit successful redevelopment of the Harbor Square site.”
If Mr. Lovell had taken a couple of hours to do some research and fact check some of the “allegations” by Mr. Buelow, he would have found that both the Washington State and the Washington Department of Transportation geological survey maps clearly show that most of the of the waterfront is considered a high risk for liquefaction.
In fact on the Site Class Map of Snohomish County, the waterfront is shown to be “Site Class F – Requires site-specific investigation.”
One more detail, we on the West Coast live on the edge of the North American Tectonic Plate. According to Wikipedia, this plate is being pushed up by the Pacific Plate. Because of the collision of these two tectonic plates there are about a dozen fault lines in the Puget Sound area. The closest to ‘Our Fair City’ is the South Whidbey Island Fault. I can see the grey cliffs of the south end of Whidbey Island from my living room window.
The question isn’t “if” an earthquake will happen, but “when”.
To give another example of Mr. Lovell’s thinking: “Mr. Buelow’s assertion that the commuter rail station ‘will likely be re-located’ to the 220th and Interstate 5 area is completely without fact and a totally irrational statement.”
The supposed “irrational statement” of the commuter station being relocated to – actually it’s probably going to be at 236th and I-5 – has to do with Sound Transit’s development of a commuter light rail system. Here is the url for Sound Transit’s Long Range Map which show the location of the proposed stations. The Lynnwood extension is targeted to be operational in about 10 years.
The current railroad station will stay where it is as it services the Amtrak trains; unless WaDOT/Washington Ferry System moves the ferry dock to a proposed Point Edwards location as described in its 2004 ‘Multi-modal Plan’ document .
As for Sound Transit’s ‘Heavy Rail’ Sounder trains, I think that one might have reasonable cause to speculate if Sound Transit will continue operate the Sounder should ridership decline to where it becomes uneconomical to operate?
It is expected in a Ph.D. thesis or a peer reviewed journal one uses footnotes, endnotes and cites source materials. It would be an extremely absurd expectation that anyone who writes a letter to the editor or submits an opinion piece for publication to do the same.
But to claim that an individual’s opinion is unwarranted, irresponsible or irrational and then to not provide any factual support for those claims shows either a lack of credibility or a lack of academic integrity.
However, it also fascinates me (and I find it fairly disturbing) that any person, like Mr. Lovell, who volunteers his/her time and talents to a municipality, whose judgment is relied upon by a governmental body, like a city council, and is part of the political process, should allow his/her passions to get the better of oneself and use the media to publically upbraid a private citizen who merely wrote a letter to the editor in support of a council person’s opinion.
Paraphrasing Ashley Montegu Ph.D., ‘Personally, I’d rather have proof without certainty; rather than have certainty without facts’.
________________________________________
Additional readings regarding Edmonds’ earthquake potential:
https://www.esca1.com/data/_uploaded/file/mitigation_plan/section3_edmonds.pdf
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/ger_seismic_scenario_swif.pdf
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/Topics/GeologyPublicationsLibrary/Pages/pub_ofr04-20.aspx
https://www.pnsn.org/outreach/earthquakehazards/eq-hazard-maps/liquifaction
https://geology.com/articles/tsunami-geology.shtml
Eric Livingston
Bravo, Mr. Livingston! I completely agree with everything you said. I have been against the proposed development ever since it was presented – as it stands. I feel that if the city decides to allow the exception for height allowances as well as density issues, Edmonds will be very sorry in the future.
I love this city and do want the waterfront to be a showplace, but not this current plan. What other ideas have been presented? I don’t remember any! I still think that exploring other ideas that will draw people here to spend their lovely money and enjoy our beautiful town would be most welcome. How about a year-round farmer’s market? That would be a great balance to the new butcher shop on Main Street.
Oh well, just my opinion. Oh, and I don’t have any facts to back me up, just a gut instinct. Again, Mr. Livingston, thank you for your insighful rebuttal.
Thanks for your insights, Eric. Actually, I appreciated Mr. Lovell’s letter in the Beacon as the tone and content provide great examples of the evasive and bullying tactics being employed by the Port and some other HS re-development proponents to use facts when it is convenient and to avoid facts when inconvenient.
Their position is basically to shove their project into the City Master Plan and trust them to do the right thing in the future.
They have crafted enough details to get what they want and to entice a developer, but to suggest those same criteria be utilized to vet issues they don’t want to talk about generates a rebuff that “now is not the time” and to “wait for a real project.”
This ploy has successfully delayed meaningful discussion on details such as site suitability and safety for residential building, infrastructure expansion, and the impact on existing commercial and private property values as traffic, private views and parking elements change.
Is it a fact that whatever is allowed at Harbor Square will spill over to neighboring properties? We can’t know that yet, but demand for equal treatment is likely, and will be difficult to deny, if a tax supported public entity, such as the Port, is allowed to build five story residential buildings near the waterfront, on unstable and environmentally challenged soils, next to a sensitive wildlife area with an environmental cleanup site on the other side.
Of course, by the time liability or carryover issues and possibly litigation arise, members of the Council, Planning Board, City staff and attorneys will probably all be doing other things and whatever LLC is formed by a developer will have been disbanded as well.
That leaves the citizens holding the bag and new people trying to interpret, justify and defend the subtle wordsmithing and nuances employed.
That, to use several of Mr. Lovell’s terms, is irresponsible, irrational, unwarranted, misleading, disrespectful and an insult to the citizens of Edmonds. And, that’s a fact.
The Port’s motive for wanting to redevelop Harbor Square should be well known. The Port owns Harbor Square and the taxpayers within the port district own the Port. The five Port Commissioners and the Port staff are striving to better use its assets, and to fulfill one of its prime missions – economic development. It couldn’t be further from the truth, or more insulting, to suggest that the Port consists of a bunch of selfish bullies. I know those people; I attended ever weekly Port meeting for four years. Their actions are totally focused on improving the financial situation for our area and, of course, running an award-winning port.
Now what is the motive of the doom and gloom people posting on this site? I’m suggesting that they are only concerned about their personal situations – that the redevelopment may slightly impact the view from their homes. It doesn’t matter that often times the people concerned about their views live in homes that took away the views of others.
“Is it a fact that whatever is allowed at Harbor Square will spill over to neighboring properties?” If Mr. Buelow had attended last night’s city council meeting he would have heard our city attorney answer this “question”. The answer is no. If the Port’s proposal is approved, the Harbor Square property will retain some unique zone to which the approved development standards will apply. As I have said on previous occasions, if Mr. Buelow’s “question” was a valid concern, why hasn’t the 5-story Ebb Tide been duplicated?
Ron whats this about the taxpayers owning the port do they send you a check each month on the profits they make, I live in the so called district if I a taxpayer own the port how come I haven’t seen any money
Lots of charges and counter charges in this one. First a full disclosure. I worked on the levy committee, I serve on the Economic Development Commission and I was a member of the public streering committee working with the Port on the notion of redeveloping HS. My bias is to try to get as many facts as possible about an issue so people can make their decisions base more on facts and less on emotion. Tossing insults around does little to add value to the discussion.
In the Strategic Plan about 72% of the people were in favor of redeveloping HS.
The following data is taken form a just competed consultant’s report perpared to assess the revenue contributions to the city and other govt entities.
The construction costs for the concepts presents so far range from $90m to $140m. This would add during construction of between 385 and 616. The payroll would be between $17m and $28m.
When completed the development would kadd just for the City one time revenues of $1.3m to $1.8m. The on going revenue increase to the city would be between $276,000 and $$369,000. Taxes and fees to all govt entities would be between $1.5m and $1.8m per year. These are taxes that would other wise have to come of our citizens if the added development did not occur.
This does not suggest that we move forward with the redelopment for these reasons but it does suggest that if this money does not come from this development then the tax payer burden will be greater in the future. If we want to use the land for other purposes like a park, more marsh, or a public market that too is really very straight forward. Lets get our checkbooks out, tax and buy the property and make it something other then the ideas proposed in the HS redevelopment plan. It may cost us $20-$30M to accomplish such a plan. That would cost us only $1200-1800 on a one time charge for the average household to buy and improve the property. If the strategy is to make this a public project then that would take between $90-140m off the tax roles and we would have to make that up with inceased taxes as well. This is all doable but it may cost us some up front money and some ongoing tax inceases as well.
The redevelopment of HS will not solve the city budget problems but it would help the budget. Changing the charactor HS would put added tax burdens on the rest of us.
The small town charm that is often talked about has its price. If we want some form of status quo or reduced development, or a migration to make HS public lands then we can do that for a price. It may well be worth it but their will be a cost.
Darrol, well stated. Thank you for this info.