By Maggie Fimia
Councilmember Joan Bloom’s commentary — Let’s not play on their turf — greatly disappoints those of us who believe the main job of elected officials is to pull people together rather than provoke divisiveness.
Most people in Edmonds probably do not support a wall of high-rise apartments along our waterfront. However, a carefully planned mix of townhomes, apartments, retail and commercial, with gathering spaces and trails along the Marsh, is something many would welcome at the Harbor Square site. A good model we have near us is the Mill Creek Town Center. They’ve done a nice job of creating a very walkable community adjacent to a large and healthy wetland. It has attracted all age and income groups and has a hometown feel. Using that model, the Port embarked on its mission to provide a vibrant, attractive environment for the Edmonds community and to promote economic development without obstructing views.
The City’s December 11 Comprehensive Plan, the guiding legal document for land use, policies and planning, describes on pages 54-57 the vision for nine different Downtown Waterfront Districts. One of those Districts includes the properties from Harbor Square to Main Street between the railroad tracks and SR 104. It is (a little confusingly) called the “Downtown Master Plan” and states:
This area is appropriate for design-driven master planned development, which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between the waterfront and downtown. The location of existing taller buildings on the waterfront, and the site’s situation at the bottom of the Bowl, could enable a design that provides for higher buildings outside current view corridors.
The Port has done the heavy lifting to date to make this vision a reality. Adopting the Port Plan will demonstrate accountability and trust in our own process and is the logical next step for the Edmonds City Council.
Here are five specific reasons the Council should adopt the Port’s Plan
Reason 1 – It’s a Good Plan
It will not impact views. Currently, Harbor Square has great businesses and access to the Marsh. The Port can currently build there under existing land use and zoning but the City could not require public amenities, quality design standards, restoration of the Marsh, low impact development or connections to our historic downtown. Current zoning does not allow any residential. This plan, if adopted, would actually require those elements.
Reason 2 – This Was a Good Process
In order to satisfy the requirements of the City, the Port has spent three years and $200,000 to produce this conceptual plan. The public, Port and City have spent hundreds of hours crafting the plan now before the Council. Every household received two mailers describing it and invited comments. The City’s Planning Board studied it, made 14 recommendations that the Port accepted, and passed it with a 6-1 vote in favor. The City Council held numerous public hearings. Relatively few comments were received. The bottom line? There are over 40,000 people in Edmonds. If this is not the vision most of us have, the City would be hearing from hundreds of people, not a few dozen.
Reason 3 – It has Broad Support
The City Planning Board, Friends of Edmonds Marsh, the Chamber of Commerce and many citizens strongly support it. Having diverse groups on board signals good legislation. Opponents have not shown how the Port’s plan is not consistent with our existing City Comprehensive Plan, and argue, with absolutely no data, that the “the people of Edmonds want to keep things the way they are.” Or, “if we allow tall buildings here, we will have them everywhere.” It’s important to listen to all voices, but policy cannot be dictated by passion alone, it must be backed up by facts and analysis.
Reason 4 – There are Numerous Environmental, Social and Financial Benefits
The Friends of Edmonds Marsh and the Washington State Department of Ecology support this Plan. Wetlands biologist Jon Houghton, PhD, sent in a strong letter of support and Keeley O’Connell, Restoration Ecologist and member of Friends of Edmonds Marsh, served on the Port’s Harbor Square steering committee. According to them, by using ecologically sound development, the plan will provide improvements to water quality and ecological function, improve flood control for the lower Edmonds Bowl and replace invasive species with native ones. One of the biggest benefits will be restoring Willow Creek so salmon runs can return.
The Port plan will be consistent with the soon to be adopted Edmonds Shorelines Master Program and State and Federal laws regarding wetlands. The less height a development is allowed, the more it has to spread out. This means more impervious surface, which increases flooding and contaminated runoff into the Marsh.
The Chamber of Commerce supports it because it will improve sustainable economic vitality now and in the long term. Increasing our tax base will reduce the need for tax increases for health, schools, police and other human services. It will support the quality of life residents value and bring visitors and employers to Edmonds.
The Port plan includes elements that promote and provide for pedestrian and bike access and public gathering spaces.
According to a recent analysis by BST Associates for the Port, the City’s share of total construction-related taxes and fees is projected to range between approximately $1.4 million and $1.9 million.
Construction of Harbor Square is projected to generate employment of 385 to 616 direct, full-time equivalent jobs.
The direct payroll associated with these jobs is estimated to range between $17.9 million and $28.7 million.
The annual net revenue generated for our City alone by redevelopment is projected to range between $321,000 and $369,000. These figures take into account taxes generated by the existing uses at Harbor Square.
Reason 5 – It is the Responsible Thing to Do
This plan did not come out of the blue. The existing Edmonds Comprehensive Plan describes the scope of what the Port needed to include in any Port Plan. City staff and the City Planning Board have determined that the Port’s plan is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
A few Councilmembers want to unilaterally change the rules in the middle of this process and ignore language that is in their own Comprehensive Plan. That sends terrible signals to current and future partners of the City. The State Growth Management Act requires cities to have Comprehensive plans and to follow them.
Rejecting this Port plan out of hand is not a responsible reaction. Instead, together with the Port, the Council now needs to identify any feasible changes and ways to strengthen intent and desired outcomes. For instance, some of the “Whereas” statements, which are non-binding, could be amended to be in the “Sections” of the legislation, which are binding.
Elections in Edmonds tend to be very close. The notion that winning by much less than 1 percent gives a councilmember a mandate is erroneous and arrogant. It is all the more reason councilmembers must strive to study each issue before taking a firm stand. We expect all our councilmembers, not just a few, to be respectful, to work together constructively, to be informed, to find common ground and to move forward responsibly.
Please see links below to the documents referenced.
Maggie Fimia received a master’s degree in public administration from the University of Washington. She was appointed to the Metro Council from 1992-1994. She served on the King County Council from 1994 to 2001 and the Shoreline City Council from 2003-2007. She is the Co-Chair of CETA, the Coalition for Effective Transportation Alternatives. She lives in Edmonds with her husband, Don Moe MD and runs a new business called Welcome Home Family History Services.
Links:
Flyer sent out to all households in Edmonds by the Port
Information about the Harbor Square Master Plan on the City website
Port of Edmonds Harbor Square Plan
Chamber of Commerce support
Friends of the Marsh support
Letter from Department of Ecology
Doug Lofstrom & Carol Kinney support this well thought out proposal Let’s get started on implementing the Harbor Square Master Plan.
Maggie, thank you for bringing perspective and through analysis to the Harbor Square Master Plan. Not only is it backed up by FACTS it also points to the STRONG PERSONAL AGENDAS that some of our council members take which does not reflect the desires of Edmonds citizens whom they represent, but only a small negative group.
As a citizen I am extremely disappointed in our councils inability to function as a group and the lack of cooperation between themselves. They do not show respect nor cohesiveness for their fellow council members nor representation of our citizens of whom elected them. In the business world they would have driven the business into bankruptcy.
5 Reasons the plan should not be passed
1. Height…
2. Limits ( Lets respect the fact that the citizens in our town don’t want taller buildings. Some seem to need a history lesson on what our town wants and likes!)
3 Harbor Square offers an amazing tennis center, which keeps all ages active and healthy. Hundreds are members and many more come to our little, friendly, low height town, for tournaments. The only problem for the tennis center on this plan is… well… they arnt on it!
4. 350 units for condos and apartments… Id hate to think about traffic during the Waterfront Festival.. or any of the weekends in the sunny months.
5. When this was on the table a few months back, wasn’t it clear from the out pour of our citizens that most don’t want this. Seems to me that it’s clear as mud for some folks!
Maggie, this is quite comprehensive. Thank you. Those that oppose this plan, I am curious to see the alternative plan – can someone direct me to the alternative plan?
Peter, what do you propose?
Its simple. Compromise with “us”.Yes the citizens they get their money from.
Some Examples: reasonable heights, tennis center, less housing, ect…
3,219 REASONS WHY THE PLAN SHOULD BE PASSED
The elected officials who appear not to support the Port’s proposal are: Bloom, Buckshnis, Fraley-Monillas, and Petso. Those who do support it are: Peterson, Yamamoto, and Mayor Earling. When elected, those opposing the proposal had an average margin of victory of 414 votes. Those supporting the proposal had an average margin over their opponents of 3,633 votes – 3,219 more than the opposition! Councilmember Johnson has not been included in this analysis, since she has not been elected.
So, as Maggie Fimia has rightfully said: “The notion that winning by much less than 1 percent gives a councilmember a mandate is erroneous and arrogant”. Clearly, the “no taller buildings” advocates do not have any kind of a mandate.
And Peter, there will be a tennis center. Its exact location is not yet known – perhaps on the roof of a parking structure.
Peter, I’m unclear how many you are defining in “us.” Please understand, I’m not trying to be cute with the question. Ron, thank you for this data – extremely powerful. Cities across America are having to re-visit “business/life as usual” in today’s changing economic environment.
While some may be opposed to the younger generation finding Edmonds to be home, it is important to note that they (the Millennials) are “vital to an urban economy.” As TIME states, “they’re young, cheap and willing to work many of the jobs that help cities grow – medicine, tech, service, engineering.”
There was a recent study provided to us at PSRC detailing how the development of housing around transport services aided in raising property values and that neighborhood quality went up, not down.
Any sort of compromise needs to be based on fact and data, not emotion.
Ms. Fimia,
I am trying to determine whether your commentary contain opinions, assumptions and/or facts. For example, you strongly state that: “It will not impact views.”
Is your statement factual?
Let’s assume for a moment that the Edmonds City Council does pass the Harbor Square Master Plan. We’ve been told many times that the project design phase and related building permit approvals will come much later. I make a simple request – Please offer PROOF that future development under the Harbor Square Master Plan will not impact any views whatsoever.
I would appreciate it if you would make it clear to your fellow citizens which portions of your commentary are opinions, assumptions, and/or facts.
Is the following an opinion, assumption or fact?:
“Relatively few comments were received. The bottom line? There are over 40,000 people in Edmonds. If this is not the vision most of us have, the City would be hearing from hundreds of people, not a few dozen.”
Can a similar argument be made that if the Port’s vision is indeed the vision most of us have, the City would have heard from hundreds of people supporting it?
I make these requests as a citizen who has remained neutral on the Harbor Square Master Plan concept from day one. I see both side’s desire for Edmonds. My biggest concern so far relates to Mayor Earling’s intervention so late in the Legislative Process. The Mayor had many opportunities to have his voice heard, including the Recommendation attached to the January 29th Harbor Square Agenda item. Approximately 27 minutes of City Council discussion had taken place related to Ms. Petso’s main motion. All seven (7) City Council members participated in the discussion and no other comments were pending. I strongly believe it was the Mayor’s job to put the question on the floor to vote at that critical point in time. As you have been a City Councilmember, I’d be interested in your opinion: Did Mayor Earling have a duty to put the question on the floor to vote at that critical point in time?
Finally, near your conclusion, you state the following:
“Elections in Edmonds tend to be very close. The notion that winning by much less than 1 percent gives a councilmember a mandate is erroneous and arrogant. It is all the more reason councilmembers must strive to study each issue before taking a firm stand. We expect all our councilmembers, not just a few, to be respectful, to work together constructively, to be informed, to find common ground and to move forward responsibly.”
Please identify the “few” councilmembers that you appear to be implying are respectful, working together constructively, INFORMED and are finding common ground to move forward responsibly. Again, I don’t want to guess who these “few” are and would appreciate it if you would clearly identify them.
Once I know who the “few” are, I want to investigate how much each of them has STUDIED this issue and compare their efforts to those councilmembers who are not part of the “few”.
I wonder how lovely and inviting the Mill Creek Town Center would be if it had a BNSF coal train rumbling by every hour. How near to the tracks are you going to build condos and will the land support those buildings? Are you sure?
We are moving to Edmonds soon — and one of the reason is to get away from growth! No growth! Only the greed-heads gain from it.
Many of us who believe that a residentially intense redevelopment with building heights allowed up to 55 feet is not right for the Harbor Square area greatly appreciate Council Member Bloom’s perspective. Regarding Ms. Fimia’s commentary, there are just as many reasons in each offered category that support rejection of the Port Master Plan.
It’s a Bad Plan – It will impact views, both in view corridors and those of numerous private citizens in the bowl. The heights are unreasonable and should be limited to the existing heights of 35ft, which are greater than the other properties to the North. It also does not take advantage of what could be an exciting destination area immediately adjacent to the waterfront (along with the Antique Mall and Skippers properties that could draw citizens, visitors and tourists of all ages to Edmonds.
This Has Always Been a One-Sided Top Down Process – From the outset, and including efforts in 2007 by the owners of Harbor Square, the Antique Mall and Skippers along with the City via the “Group of 33”, a pre-conceived “vision” by the property owners of massive residential redevelopment with some ground floor mixed use has always been promoted, and other alternative suggestions have never been seriously explored. Public financing options can make some of these other choices feasible.
Opposition to This Plan Is Substantial – Many citizens have commented both publicly and in writing stating significant opposition and a wide variety of reasons for their positions. Many believe that this property is best suited by its location to be a “destination” for citizens, tourists, visitors and shoppers. Questions about suitability for significant residential redevelopment, with respect to train noise, the affect of traffic on the only existing waterfront access and infrastructure impacts are valid.
Environmental, Social and Financial Questions Also Exist – No studies or facts supporting the Marsh benefits have been presented, and valid questions about possible negative impacts on the Marsh of tall buildings and their shadows have been raised. The projected ongoing tax benefits are nominal related to the magnitude of the general fund, and may be offset or possibly even exceeded by infrastructure costs associated with a redevelopment of this magnitude. Questions exist as to whether buildings this massive can even be built or if they are, whether the cost associated with that effort will destroy the economic viability of the concepts in the Plan.
It is Not the Right Thing to Do – This is not the right plan for this property at this location. Intense residential redevelopment should be rejected and replaced with something that draws people to the area from within and outside. Many valid arguments exist for redevelopment to turn Harbor Square into a destination in Edmonds. The responsible thing for the council to do is to reject this plan and initiate a true planning process beginning with significant citizen input and serious evaluation of all reasonable suggested alternatives from all perspectives – pros, cons, benefits, detriments, financing and costs.
Ken, I encourage you to visit the links provided by Ms. Fimia – some of your questions will be answered. Some assumptions are made – “Relatively few comments were received…the City would be hearing from hundreds…” the assumption is that this is such an important issue that more than just a few would invest the time to make their opinion known.
What is unfortunate is that this issue has become divisive at the encouragement of at least one on council. An environment of being solution-oriented, of working together is what is required moving forward.
I believe our city leaders should and can exemplify the best of government – to model servant-leadership; not model what is taking place in WA DC.
We have individuals with talent, gifts, and abilities on our council – unfortunately, some of that talent, those gifts, and those abilities (speaking strictly from my personal experience in business leadership) are mis-aligned and better served in other capacities.
Ron, re your post #6 above . . .what does Mayor Earling’s margin of victory have to do with this? I thought the 7 councilmembers were the one’s voting on the Harbor Square Master Plan. You state that Mayor Earling supports the Port’s proposal. If true, why did he not relinquish the moderator’s chair to the mayor pro tem before he chose to become actively involved in the debate rather that calling for a vote on the motion on the floor?
The following is found in AWC’s Mayor’s Handbook:
The mayor as meeting participant:
A basic tenet of Robert’s Rules of Order holds that the moderator not engage in
debate. However, the mayor is also an elected official charged by state law to
vote in many situations and otherwise participate in deliberations. Under these
circumstances, the mayor has two competing goals – as moderator, to make sure that the group achieves its goals; yet, as an elected official, to participate in the debate on controversies and help determine policies.
This balancing act requires that at times the chief elected official assume the
traditional moderator role, while at other times it may be necessary to relinquish the
chair to the mayor pro tem in order to become actively involved in debate.
Thanks for your thoughts Mike. As Ms. Fimia authored this commentary, I’d prefer to hear directly from her. I hope she answers all my questions.
I believe that “the assumption is that this is such an important issue that more than just a few would invest the time to make their opinion known” applies both ways. It appears that very few of our 40,000 citizens voiced their support of this plan.
I think your implication that “at least one on council” has encouraged this divisiveness is very misguided. I think the Council was functioning very well and properly up to the point the Mayor intervened instead of calling for the vote. The intervention caused so much confusion that the City Attorney had to advise the City Council a week later as to what exactly the City Council had voted on. How often do you see that? My opinion is that this was a crazy development at such a critical point in this lengthy process.
I’ll try and be less “cute” with this comment. If you look from 9th and Walnut down the hill to the water (West), you can see how tall the current tennis center stands. It is a pretty obvious landmark.. the big white tent, which is about three stories tall. So lets say we had some 5 story buildings down there… they would obviously be set back from the street… so that would make them less of an obstruction to the view? Makes total sense, mind blown! Also Mr. Reidy, obviously knowing how many votes they mayor receives really sways this whole thing.. duh!
Ron Wambolt, I am confused as to what connection you are trying to make between the amount of citizens who voted for the council members who approve the plan, and the amount of citizens who are behind the Harbor Square Master Plan. Are you trying to say that the citizens who voted for these council members automatically agree with the stance they take on *every* issue?
Another way to gauge public opinion is to view the results of the Strategic Plan. The January update to Council, Planning Board and Economic Development Commission can be found at this link:
https://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Economic_Development/Strategic_plan/Agenda-retreat_7_-_white.pdf
There are more than 20,000 voters in Edmonds and their households received a couple of informational pieces from the Port about the redevelopment of Harbor Square.
One of the work steps in the SP plan was to create a statistically valid survey of the voters on a number of issues. There were 466 voters surveyed and more than 70% supported the HS redevelopment. That represents 326 people in the survey showing support. Yes 140 people did not show the same level of support.
Translate these results to the full voter population and applying a plus or minus 5% range would suggest that between 13,300 and 14,700 supported the HS Plan.
Edmonds is made up of 40,000 folks in about 20,000 households and sadly much of the public discussion either in these blogs or at the “3 minute mike” discussion is from just a few folks in town. I am guilty on both counts. The link above will give you a glimpse of people are saying about a number of issues in town and the full and final reports is in the final “tweaking” stage and will come before council shortly. I would urge us all to read and “think” about what people are saying about issues with an open mind and not just through our own bias about issues. I was surprised about some of the results but not by others.
The SP was designed to provide a road map for our town and after reading it several times I believe it does a great job. We should all look at it and sort out the issues one by one and take to heart what the people are saying about our future.
Thanks Darrol. This is quite helpful. And being open-minded is critical as we move forward.
The links I included at the end of the article include my sources. I tried to avoid opinions but did, after looking at all the sources, (including a read of the Comprehensive plan chapters which applied), summarized my findings. The pamphlet sent out by the Port includes pictures and information about impact on views. There are virtually no impacts because any taller buildings are positioned on the southeast corner and because this area is the lowest in Edmonds. Hope this helps. Darrell Haug’s comments include some great data about Public opinion.
Darrol, Are you saying that 70% supported the specific Harbor Square Master Plan or are you saying that 70% supported Harbor Square redevelopment in general? Would it be possible for you to post the actual related survey question or questions? That would be helpful. Thanks.
Darrol, Rich Senderoff stated the following in January:
Finally, it has been stated that the Strategic Plan surveys suggested over 70 percent of the Edmonds citizenry support redevelopment/renewal of the Harbor Square property. While this may be true, it does not mean that over 70 percent support incorporation of THIS plan into the Comprehensive Plan. I would be considered one (of many) who agree we should continue considering opportunities for Harbor Square redevelopment, but think we can do much better.
Was Rich correct?
Ken, 20 I am traveling and do not have all my files along but will try to get more insight to the questions on the survey. I know when I attended some input sessions the actual plan was discussed by the group I was in. We had all seen the ports material and the folks I interacted with seemed to understand very well the design principles being proposed. If I can get more insight into the specific questions I will share them. This is an opinion here, but I believe we should listen to the vast number of people who support the development of HS and not just find reasons to say no without trying to generating alternative ideas that will actually be able to be funded. This land belongs to the public who are a part of the port district, about half of Edmonds. When I attended the public hearings and heard people talk there were a very large number of folks that spoke in favor of the plans that are not traditional “3 minute mike” types. I was frankly amazed by the “new” people talking at the mike. Most of the objections were raised by the same people who traditionally oppose things that may involve development. Here is a thought and an opinion. We are already funding the ECA to the tune of $2-300,000 per year and that loan will grow to around $3m in 10 years or so or about $150 per household. The added revenues from the HS development would cover the whole bill for the ECA.
Ken, 21. I am not going to get into a discussion about if Mr. Senderoff, or Mr. Wambolt, or you or anyone commenting on this is correct. We all can have our opinions and discuss them openly and honestly. My opinions are only 1 of about 40,000 of our citizens so it matters little what I have as an opinion when it comes to the whole town. I have always tried to offer ideas and thought for us to consider was journey to the future of Edmonds. The SP is not an end all but it seems to provide some really good information about the public views of issues.
My opinion about a lot of things is simply this: If we want something done then we ought to be able to rally support for it and put our money up to fund it. Offering ideas that use the other guys money to pay for it seems to be a thing of the past in our modern climate of tight budgets going forward. There is no free lunch. Things cost money and if we want them we ought to be willing to pay for them or do without.
Ken, you always offer good thoughts and I enjoy reading them. Keep writing and if you want to discuss privately you have my email.
After reading the results of the Stategic Plan,it seems the Port and the City should be following the strategic objectives, priorities, stategic action tasks and processes outlined concerning Harbor Square re-development.I’m not sure they have done that.
Yes ,economic sustainability for the Port was rated very high as an action item by this report, but it does not state that the plan proposed by the Port is the desired action to take.
Ken#13. I included the Mayor into my analysis because his name was included in councilmember Bloom’s comments about building heights – which have now been removed from this site – and he is an elected official who could possibly vote on the proposal. You asked: since the Mayor supports the Port’s proposal, why did he not relinquish the moderator’s chair to the mayor pro tem? I would assume because there would still be a biased moderator.
Peter #16: I included the voting results to illustrate that the “no taller buildings” advocates do not have any kind of a mandate.
Hi Darrol, I simply requested clarification as to whether or not the SP survey indicated support for the SPECIFIC Harbor Square Master Plan or if the survey indicated support for redevelopment of Harbor Square in GENERAL. Right after I asked this the first time in my post # 20, I found Dr. Senderoff’s article written in January. His statement (copied above in my post #21) seemed relevant so I posted the information and asked if he was correct.
I think these are fair questions. The questions are important partially because Ms. Fimia referred to it as great data about Public opinion in her post #19 and Mr. Schindler stated your information is quit helpful in his post #18.
Since you brought up the survey in post #17, I simply think it important that the SP survey results be clarified. I hope you find this a reasonable request and I hope you know I greatly respect your hard work on behalf of the city and its citizens.
Ms. Fimia, you conclude your commentary by stating that a “few” Councilmembers want to unilaterally change the rules in the middle of this process and ignore language that is in their own Comprehensive Plan.
Since you named Councilmember Bloom in your opening paragraph, I think it would be fair for you to name these “few” Councilmembers also. Furthermore, as I stated in post #8 above, I don’t want to guess who the “few” INFORMED, etc. Councilmembers are and would appreciate it if you would clearly identify them.
Ms. Fimia, you chose to include these points about Councilmembers in your commentary as opposed to simply sticking to the Five reasons why Edmonds City Council should pass Harbor Square Master Plan.
I will conclude by expressing my opinion that your commentary would have been much less divisive had you left out your opening paragraph as well as your closing arguments about those referred to as a “few”.
Hi Ron . . . regarding your post #25 above, the public hearing had closed. As such, the 7 Councilmembers including the Mayor Pro tem had been provided tons of information and they had heard all the public’s comments. They needed to be in the final stages of deciding how they would vote!
I doubt that whether or not the Mayor Pro tem had bias at that point in the process excused the Mayor from relinquishing the chair in order to become actively involved in the debate. My opinion is that he had a heightened duty to not engage in the debate at that critical point in time, especially since the public hearing had closed.
And look at the mess that followed. Councilmembers voting on something without truly knowing what they were voting on. Following is just part of the confusion documented in the January 29, 2013 City Council Meeting Minutes:
Sandy Chase: Two yes, five no, motion fails.
Mayor Earling: Thank you. Any further avenues we want to consider here and perhaps some other action? Councilmember Fraley-Monillas.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas: So we have, I’m sorry, we have to put a motion on the floor to, what is the motion then, Mr. Taraday?
City Attorney Jeff Taraday: I’m sorry, what’s your question?
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas: Well what’s the motion to put it on the floor to amend, the Comp Plan
amendment? Do we just…
Mayor Earling: It was just defeated.
Jeff Taraday: Well what you, I thought you just voted on the calling of the question. You didn’t, that wasn’t the vote on the motion, that was the vote on the calling of the question.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas: No, that was before that.
Jeff Taraday: There’s only been one vote.
Mayor Earling: Okay, so we need a vote on the motion itself.
Jeff Taraday: Well but the vote to call the question failed so now you’re continuing debate.
Councilmember Yamamoto: Well then we were confused on that part.
Councilmember Johnson: I disagree.
Councilmember Yamamoto: No.
Councilmember Johnson: I believe that you stated the motion and we all voted on it.
Ron . . .as I said before, a week later the City Attorney had to explain to the Council what they had voted on a week before. I think the Mayor’s request to participate in the debate without relinquishing his Moderator’s role was a big deal.
As a citizen in the audience the evening of January 29th, I stood up and left the meeting the minute Mayor Earling started speaking instead of calling for a vote– I simply didn’t have the heart to watch the Legislative process take a curve in the road.
What a mess.
How unfortunate that the Mayor of Edmonds can give a State of the City Address on a Wednesday Morning urging us to put down our swords and begin to work together. . . and then less than four days later Ms. Fimia can submit her commentary which includes strong criticism of a “few” Edmonds City Councilmembers.
I believe this type of commentary incites divisiveness. I believe response #2 to Ms. Fimia’s Commentary is an example of such. I wonder what is gained by labeling fellow citizens “a small negative group?” Aren’t they EQUALLY entitled to their own personal vision for Edmonds? Is there a small positive group whose opinions are more important than the so called small negative group? Ms. Fimia’s commentary and some of the responses to it have made me look at this Harbor Square Master Plan with a much higher degree of caution.
During the same State of the City Address, Mayor Earling commented on the lack of trust in this City. In all honesty, the January 29th City Council Meeting is the type of thing that impairs my trust in my City Government. Why didn’t Mayor Earling simply call for the vote? Why was he allowed to voice his opinion so extremely late in the process and cause so much confusion?
We need very strong leadership to rebuild TRUST in our City. This will be a major challenge as I fear the lack of Trust runs very deep in this City.
I hope strong leadership and integrity are both on hand during this evening’s City Council Meeting.
Ken, I have been following your comments and I cant help but see that no matter the subject it always gets back to the mayors comments at the council meeting. If memory services me right the council president allowed him to speak and no other council member objected and the city attorney didnt way in. If the mayors comments distracted the council so that they didnt know what they were voting on then that speaks volumes about the council. Isnt it time to move on from past issues and work for being positive and not critizie people for expressing opinions that you are not in agreement with . The Mayors address to the city was extremely positve . I cant help from reading your posts that you are biased arent we all
Hi Don, nice to hear from you.
You don’t have to rely on memory to determine what took place the evening of January 29th. The video is available on the City’s website and the January 29th City Council Meeting Minutes document most of what took place that evening.
I am a person who believes much can be learned from the past. If you disagree, I respect your right to have an opinion. My opinion is studying the past and using what is learned to make future improvements can be a very positive act. I believe ignoring the past often has negative consequences.
In my post #30 directly above, I implied strongly that all citizens are EQUALLY entitled to their own personal vision for Edmonds.
I’ll admit, I have a strong bias related to how I believe a City should be governed. I feel that this specific bias is a reasonable consequence of my personal experiences. I hope my related efforts will be of benefit to the City and its citizens.