Council votes to kill controversial Edmonds Waterfront Connector project

    6950
    39
    Waterfront Connector opponents rally outside the Edmonds City Council chambers Tuesday night.

    As citizens packed the Edmonds City Council chambers Tuesday night, and an overflow crowd outside the room chanted “Save Our Beach,” the council voted 4-3 Tuesday night to kill a controversial overpass proposed to provide emergency access to the waterfront during train blockages.

    Opposition to the proposed structure had been growing in recent weeks, and a group of about 400 people gathered prior to the meeting for a rally against the project. The rally was led by Edmonds resident Cam Tripp, who started a petition drive opposing the connector that gathered several thousand signatures. Several citizens offered comments, as did a number of city council candidates who oppose the connector plus current Councilmember Mike Nelson, who is running for mayor.

    Another notable person to speak was Pamela Bond, a member of the Snohomish Tribal Council and the Snohomish Tribe’s fish, wildlife and environment director, who made it clear that the tribe opposes the connector. “It’s bad for the environment and it’s bad for the people,” she said.

    After the rally, participants filed in to the council chambers, where it was standing-room only long before the meeting started.

    Emotions ran high both in the crowd and among some councilmembers as Public Works Director Phil Williams presented the proposal before the council: To authorize Edmonds Mayor Dave Earling to sign a contract with consultant Parametrix to begin Phase 2 of the connector project.

    If approved, the proposal would have brought the project to 60 percent design, developed the environmental documents and prepared permit applications, at a cost of $2.35 million.

    Councilmembers each had their turn to ask questions of Williams, which focused on two main areas: Whether the project would negatively impact the marine sanctuary designation at Brackett’s Landing Beach and why the city wasn’t prioritizing increased safety in other areas of the city that had a much larger impact on citizens’ lives.

    In particular, Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas pointed to traffic-related injuries and fatalities along the Highway 99 corridor — and wondered why city officials weren’t spending more time working to raise money to fund that improvements there. And Councilmember Mike Nelson reiterated his frustration with the council’s decision in 2016 to support administration-proposed reductions in staffing at the city’s three fire stations  — a 6-1 decision (he was the lone vote against) that he says has increased emergency response times to residents.

    “There are Edmonds residents injured and waiting in pain, waiting to be saved, today — not in the future — because of the cuts that were made,” Nelson said. “The people of Edmonds are not buying this,” Nelson said of the connector, then made a motion to prohibit the mayor from signing a contract with Parametrix for the project, soliciting cheers from the audience.

    The motion was seconded by Councilmember Diane Buckshnis and then several additional minutes of discussion followed. Councilmember Tom Mesaros suggested that it would be important to first conduct an environmental study of the project before making a final decision to end it. Councilmember Kristiana Johnson — also a mayoral candidate — asked Williams the minimum amount of design work that could be done to determine environmental impacts, and how much that would cost. Williams replied that 30 percent design would be sufficient, at a cost of $1.55 million.

    Councilmember Dave Teitzel then moved to amend Nelson’s motion to do 30 percent design in order to assess environmental issues, and that was seconded by Johnson.

    In response to Teitzel’s amendment, Nelson retorted: “I’m confident to say that I don’t need an environmental study to determine putting a concrete overpass through the beach is not going to be helpful to the environment.”

    When a roll call vote was taken on the amendment, Councilmembers Johnson, Teitzel and Mesaros voted in favor. The audience gasped and then burst into applause when Tibbott, also a candidate for mayor and who in the past has supported the connector, indicated he would be opposing the amendment. Tibbott then voted to join with longtime connector opponents Buckshnis, Fraley-Monillas and Nelson to support Nelson’s motion to kill the project.

    At the end of the meeting, Tibbott said he wanted to explain his vote to oppose the connector because it “probably surprised a lot of people.” In speaking with citizens from a wide range of backgrounds and ages, Tibbott said, he heard a common theme: ” a desire to preserve the waterfront as a natural amenity for the city in perpetuity and the fear that a concrete structure manufactured along our waterfront would just destroy that.”

    In other action Tuesday night, the council:

    – Unanimously agreed to put on a future consent agenda an ordinance that would change the role of the council in quasi-judicial decisions. Under the ordinance, the council will retain its role in certain quasi-judicial decisions, but not for design review projects requiring a public hearing by the Architectural Design Board or for formal subdivisions and planned residential developments.

    – In a follow-up to what was discussed during the council’s April 11 Parks and Public Works Committee meeting, agreed to rule changes in city parks that would make smoking and vaping (of both tobacco and marijuana) illegal and also agreed to a pilot project that would allow dogs in all parks as long as they are on a leash. (The exceptions would be playgrounds, athletic fields and the spray pad area in City Park.)

    A discussion on utility rates was postponed to a future meeting.

    — Story and photo by Teresa Wippel

    39 Replies to “Council votes to kill controversial Edmonds Waterfront Connector project”

    1. Democracy at work, the people could not change the minds of 3 council members. This may be an issue that looses an election for some.

      Ignored

    2. Aid calls were answered faster in 2018 than the year prior according to the South County Fire annual report presented to Council last month. Basic Life Support calls were near 2016 levels; Advanced Life Support calls beat the city’s standard for a timely emergency response by a full minute (that standard was not even met in 2016). Nelson’s claim that people are waiting longer for aid after the staffing cuts is not supported by statistics.

      Ignored

      1. This is from the report that was posted on May 29 in My Edmonds News:
        “South County Fire’s standard for response time is 8 minutes from 911 dispatch to fire department arrival, with the goal of. meeting this standard on 90 percent of all calls. In 2018, the agency was able to respond to 75.72 percent of calls in Edmonds in 8 minutes or less, Dahl noted. This is a decrease from 79.99 percent in 2017.”
        Seems to show statistics that support Nelson’s claims.

        Ignored

        1. According to Nelson: “There are Edmonds residents injured and waiting in pain, waiting to be saved, today” Where was that stated in the report? I have personally used EMS several times in the past 3 years for my wife and they arrive almost instantly – in a couple of minutes.

          Ignored

        2. BLS response and ALS response graphs comparing the last 3 years to the City’s “standard” are shown on Slide 25 “Standards of Cover compliance” of the South County Fire presentation (ref. https://edmondswa.iqm2.com//Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=6647&MeetingID=2844).

          While it is true South County Fire acknowledged that in general their performance is inconsistent with the standards for emergency service responses set in the 2006 Resolution of our City Council, my comment was limited to those statistics regarding aid responses.

          For additional perspective, looking back to the annual report to council on July 21, 2015, the Fire District chief describes that the response time for the first engine to a fire has consistently been an issue in City of Edmonds.

          Ignored

      2. I am sorry to burst your bubble but this level of care is not the same that it was years ago. One ALS provider is arriving on scene within minutes, but its not the standard of two ALS providers, which was previously met faster. Nelson has a point that folks who call 911 are waiting longer, this is obvious because we are receiving far more aid than we are lending to our neighbors ( up to 100X more from Lynnwood). This means that units stationed in Lynnwood are responding to our calls much more than we are responding to theirs.

        in 2016 Edmonds had 12 Firefighter/ EMT’s or Paramedics staffing its 3 stations around the clock.
        Currently the city has 9 Firefighter/ EMT’s or Paramedics, doing the same work and running the same amount of calls. This causes a spike in mutual aid units responding deep into our city.

        Ignored

        1. As I said earlier my wife has needed EMS several times in the past 3 years. This past year they were called in August and again just 10 days ago. Each time 3 personnel arrived in about 2 minutes.

          Ignored

    3. This is great news and an impressive display of mindfulness for decisions that will affect many future generations.

      Was there ever a thought to build some sort of ‘connector’ from the Point Edwards condos? That location could be emergency and also nice for those residents to get to the waterfront without braving the sidewalk on HWY 104. The wetlands could be avoided by routing along the hillside that was ‘accidentally’ clear cut for views many years ago.

      It also seems for this money there could be a small emergency crew on the water side of the tracks for many years to come without any sort of connector road. This would ignore the ferry issue but if dire cars could route through Mukilteo or Seattle to Kingston.

      Thank you to those that saved a (mostly) natural beach that is also a bird reserve too.

      Ignored

      1. If the city continues to pursue this issue, this is a good suggestion and it would be nice if it could be further reviewed. A simpler access should be less costly and less offensive.

        Ignored

    4. Mr. Tibbott obviously realized last night that it would be political suicide to support the connector. But let’s remember, when it comes time to vote, that it took immense public pressure to convince him to follow Mike Nelson’s lead and oppose it. Tibbott had been a supporter of the project until faced with the passionate crowds at the council meeting. Based on his past voting record, we know that protecting the environment is not Mr. Tibbott’s usual priority.

      Ignored

    5. How does everyone feel about them ripping up Olympic beach south of the ferry for the new waterfront center and boardwalk across the beach? Seems like a double standard for environmental issues people care about.

      Ignored

      1. They are not “ripping up the beach” for a Boardwalk. They are removing an unsightly monstrosity of concrete to provide better beach access. I for one feel that the folks who live in those condos should not ‘own’ the beach in front of it. Beaches should be for everyone to enjoy.

        Ignored

        1. It used to be state policy to sell off some tide lands for income (until the 40’s or 50’s I believe). So the state acted on behalf of everyone at that time. For people who purchased the tidelands back then, the tide lands are theirs. Not the state’s. That applies in general for the state – I’m not speaking to the specifics of the property near the senior center (I don’t know the history of that property and tidelands). The state Department of Natural Resources can tell you for sure on this or any property.

          They have an excellent publication on “Aquatic Land Boundaries” that tries to make sense of this subject:

          https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/eng_plso_aquatic_land_boundaries.pdf

          Ignored

      2. They will actually be ripping up the parking lot and restoring the beach in front of the waterfront center. it will be better for the environment!!!

        Ignored

    6. In last night’s vote, three council members were obviously out of touch with the
      profound wishes of the community they represent. Might we
      not benefit from electing council members who are better attuned
      to the needs of the environment and protecting Edmonds’ irreplaceable resources? There are times when a single vote defines the suitability of a politician.
      “Councilmembers Johnson, Teitzel and Mesaros voted in favor”

      Ignored

      1. Too many assumptions are made here…one does NOT really know what a community of 40K+ people want.

        Using a small group as indicative of what the whole wants is fallacious!

        That includes the vote of the 3, or, the vote of the 4…

        Ignored

          1. Many of the signatures are not real signatures and are manipulated by change.org …they use BOTs…fake signatures.

            Ignored

    7. Great news! Now I hope the citizens of Edmonds remember who voted for and against the boneheaded Edmonds Waterfront Connector project when elections come around.

      Ignored

    8. Thank you Cam Tripp and everyone else who signed the petition, joined up at the rally and made it into Council Chambers to listen and speak. And as others are saying, don’t become complacent. This can be overturned with a switch of a vote from Council.

      I participated in over half of the public facing meetings, saw how the scores for the projects lined up (I’m referring to the multicolored table.) And then I trusted the process, because up to that point it had been a good one. Solid outreach and excellent public engagement. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that the end result would end up looking like a FREEWAY OFF RAMP on a FRAGILE BEACH! There were several of us from the Sierra Club recruited to speak at the Council meeting back in August against the placement of this project, the design was just coming out and it was awful.

      So, if you are watch Edmonds Council TV and you see someone testifying about something that you have some interest in, I hope that you dive deeper and ask questions, like Cam Tripp. Edmonds has had a few misfires lately and this is a good time to keep an eye on issues. A great way to stay involved is to participate on our Boards and Commissions. If time is tight, email the Council and your friends. But in any case, stay engaged. This battle was won with just one vote, and if you stayed around to hear Mr Tibbott’s comments, he was surprised by the outpouring of concern, anger and emotion.

      There is still an ongoing need for emergency access, I hope that we can get that project put together a viable project for our community and visitors.

      Ignored

    9. I’m impressed by the social media marketing campaign for “Save Edmonds Beach,” as paid ads showed up across my feeds in recent weeks. It’s a great case study in social marketing influence, and drove people to take action. “No Sunset Connector” messaging just didn’t have the same appeal and evoked no urgency. Many voters will remember that Tibbott flip-flopped only when the matter threatened his votes for Mayor. “Save Edmonds Beach” could be the social media campaign that keeps him out of the mayor’s office.

      From my perspective, Fraley-Monillas and Nelson summarized the most important reasons to kill the connector project:
      * “Adrienne Fraley-Monillas pointed to traffic-related injuries and fatalities along the Highway 99 corridor…”
      * “Nelson reiterated his frustration with the council’s decision in 2016 to support administration-proposed reductions in staffing at the city’s three fire stations…”

      I’m disappointed that the facts above were not enough for councilmembers Johnson, Teitzel and Mesaro, and Tibbott to reconsider their position. And as always, I truly appreciate Adrienne Fraley-Monillas for always thinking “outside the bowl,” which we need more of in this town.

      Ignored

    10. Well, after last night there are a few things that are apparent to me.

      1. Nice to see everyone awake last night, but not enough attention was paid by a good portion of the public to the numerous meetings, proposals, notices, information sessions, and other activities that have gone on in relation to this project over the past several years. I am with the people that wanted this thing killed, but I suspect that most of the (nice) people agitating against it over the past several months hadn’t heard much of it prior to last fall. This is the fault of the community, not that of the ones trying so hard to come up with a workable solution over a working time-span of years.
      2. It has to be heartbreaking to those who have worked so hard over the past several years, to see a project that they really thought the community would support, end up getting shot down in committee by one vote. These people meant well, and tried hard. They were motivated by sincere concerns regarding safety and community. There is good reason to thank them for trying, not to criticize them because a lot of us didn’t agree with them. So THANK YOU for trying. Many of us didn’t agree on your particular vision for the thing, but I don’t begrudge you for your effort or motives, and I do thank you for your commitment.
      3. There really isn’t much that I can find to agree with Councillor Mesaros on (I think that I agreed with him once on another thing, about four years ago, but I forget …), but his plea last evening for civility struck a chord with me. We are a community of diverse interests, ideas and outlook, but above all we are a community. We like to say that we love our community, so let’s act like it (I really mean this for people like the lady who was complaining in Council Chambers even after her side “won” last night – it’s hard to tolerate a sore loser, but a sore winner is even worse …).
      4. It was good to see so much passion and interest in this issue. Nice to see everyone come out on a Tuesday night with signs, chants, and speeches. So let’s keep it going. There is going to be someone who has to pick up the pieces of what was torn up last night, and it would surely help all concerned to see continued community interest in whatever “Plan B” is supposed to look like. You simply have no pants (or credibility) if you do not show up at future meetings on this issue.
      5. Finally, thank you to ALL of our Councillors, our Mayor, and to city staff for last night. It was obviously hard for some to say “Aye”, just as it was hard for some to say “No”, but this damn thing has been exhausting and as far as I could tell you all did your jobs and acquitted yourselves with dignity and grace. No way that everyone was ever going to be happy with a final outcome on that vote, but we can all be satisfied that voices were heard, and that misgivings were aired.

      I know that some are not going to agree with me here, but I love Edmonds, I love my friends and neighbours, and I love the people that work so hard to make this place such a great a place to live. Last night reaffirmed for me why it is that I live here. Peace out.

      Ignored

      1. I disagree with your concern about the feelings of those who worked on the Connector. I attended several of the public meetings and it was quite clear that the presenters were not interested in listening to the reasons why the Edmonds Street option was so problematic. As one presenter said, it came down to selecting what the Fire District preferred. No satellite station west of the railroad tracks and a “direct route” to the waterfront even though the trucks in the station face east not west. Thus, I was not surprised that Phil Williams ended his presentation with the endorsing letter from the acting director as his closing argument.

        To better understand why the proposal to build a concrete ramp on (not near) the Brackett Landing Marine Sanctuary predictably failed, I suggest that you read Tetra Tech’s report (www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Public_Works/Public_Works_Projects/Sunset_Ave_Walkway/Edmonds_Waterfront_Access_Study_-_1of2) and note that the midblock pedestrian overpass received a higher score (Table 4-6 on page 45) and the Dayton option was just slightly more expensive (Table 4-4). Neither of these options would require the extensive list of permits and approvals that Mr. Williams rattled off at the council meeting. Not to mention the high probability of litigation from various affected parties. Second, note in Table 4-5 that the committee judged that the Edmonds Street overpass would only “somewhat degrade the environment” when, in fact, it was a fatal flaw in the opinion of the 9,000+ persons who signed the Save Edmonds Beach petition and the hundreds who turned out for the Tuesday night rally. It is not widely known but as many as 3,000 persons contributed what looks to be around $25 each to promote the petition signing.

        I am disappointed that three members of the council voted to keep wasting money on something that was never going to be completed. Clearly, they are not representing the people of Edmonds who are serious about preserving our beaches and parks. I look forward to hearing from the candidates for mayor and city council as to their priorities for Edmonds and who among them wants to restart the Edmonds Street Overpass project. As a candidate for mayor, Kristiana Johnson now has the opportunity to demonstrate public support for her effort to pave over an historical beach.

        Ignored

    11. Nelson’s comments on response time were just politicking and had nothing to do with the topic. He should not be campaing at council meetings

      Ignored

    12. If this thing last night was so inconclusive of what 40K+ people really want in Edmonds, where were all the signs for the connector and where were all the signatures for the connector on a petition. Indeed, where was the petition in favor of the connector (as constituted in this plan)? How could anyone think it was smart to spend $2.5 million dollars just to get to the point where you could do an EIS that would, in all probability, tell us we shouldn’t build the connector on that sight. It doesn’t matter what the source of that money was, it was just a stupid idea to continue with the concept of building a viaduct in a Marine Sanctuary. The potential financial liability for the city, of this plan, was simply huge. Let’s just state it like it is, that Earling and the Planning Crews dropped the ball on this one and move on. Nelson was right and the three yes voters were just flat wrong. The fact that Nelson did an about face on this, is to his political credit, not a political liability as some would suggest.

      The person knocking Nelson here as just stating his “often typical bull” is the same person that wrote in the Beacon that you shouldn’t vote for Nelson because he is supported by Rick Steves and the Democratic Party and, since another past bad Mayor was a Democrat, that makes Tibbott the better choice for Edmonds. I guess Rick just hasn’t given City projects enough of his time and treasure to make him worthy of supporting someone for Mayor. And it really makes sense that, since one Democrat favored Mayor was a loser, another one will be too. Now
      that’s some high level logical; non-biased thought going on.

      The only reason Tibbott voted to nix this ill conceived Connector is because he’s currently running for Mayor. If not, he would have been lock step with the Mayor and Mesaros. I disagree with Johnson on her vote, but admire her for making it, as it isn’t going to enhance her Mayoral chances any. The election is about more of the same ‘ol vs. something different.

      Ignored

    13. If you are the Don Hall who is my terrific neighbor, of course I wasn’t referring to you (or any other Don Hall, for that matter). As far as I’m concerned, you have the nicest house and yard in our neighborhood, best business in town, and are two of the finest people I know in this town. I’m not for your candidate for Mayor that’s all, and I would disagree with you that Nelson was the only one “politicking” at the Council Meeting. (I do agree, he was “politicking” by the way). Your guy’s very vote was definitely “politicking” as it was a total about face on where he stood going in. I commend him for the vote he made, but I’m suspicious about why he made it. If he does become Mayor, I wish him the best, and I hope he realizes that not everyone in town is happy with how everything has gone down here the past 20 some years. I probably won’t vote for Tibbott, but I think he is head and shoulders above what we have had for so long. The guy I really admire from the protest is Shipley, who chose to just be one of us in the crowd with no speeches.

      Ignored

      1. Yup its me. Thanks for all the nice comments..Shipley is good candidate but need to know more. See you around the neighborhood

        Ignored

    14. “Civility” is one of those tricky concepts that can mean different things to different people. For example, Ghandi brought down the British Empire using what the British defined as “really uncivil disobedience.” At one point the British authorities, in India, herded a mass of non-violent but civilly disobedient protesters into a stadium, locked the doors and opened fire on them with automatic weapons. Hundreds of non-violent protesters died and World public opinion soon forced the British to give up colonial power over India. My point is, one should always be a little suspicious when people in power push the need for “civility.” Sometimes, one needs to be uncivil to get a point across.

      Ignored

    15. Emergency medical and fire services are currently blocked from the businesses and hundreds of people west of the train tracks. This is a matter of public safety. There must be a connection to the beach. It is the council’s responsibility to put something in place to address this ongoing problem before there is loss of life.
      The whole waterfront is a beach, so part of it will be affected… no way around it.
      Maybe a tunnel instead of an overpass?

      Ignored

      1. Tracy, if your comment that emergency services are blocked was made while a train was in motion through both crossings, then I agree with you, access is “currently blocked.” However, even none of the 11 “extended” instances of blocked crossings cited in the presentations alleging the “need” for the Waterfront Connector prevented emergency services personnel from reaching the waterfront. Delayed, yes. Blocked, no.

        911 responses to Advanced Life Support emergency calls 90% of the time in 2018 were more than a minute faster than the standard set by Council in 2006. That standard, together with the level of service provided by EFD before the agreement, is the benchmark in our agreement with South County Fire. Based on those criteria, it is challenging to make the case that the current level of fire/aid services is insufficient.

        This is especially true considering that 2006 standard does not limit the response time to 10% of 911 calls for fire or aid. So whether it’s a construction zone with flaggers, a school bus dropping off children, a downed tree blocking a road, a train in a crossing, or simply a remote location (or any combination), our Council has and is accepting delivery of emergency services to be tardy 10% of the time somebody calls 911 for fire or aid, which State of Washington allows per RCW 35.103.

        What we should all agree on is the 2016 report with 51 options, of which the Waterfront Connector (I use caps to distinguish the north Brackett’ Landing option; I think Chief Dahl’s letter did not capitalize those words in order to convey that providing a connection to the waterfront with vehicular access is “BEST”) was only one of 51, had 4 items for “Immediate Action.”

        One such immediate action recommended by the consultant in 2016, which involved a BNSF representative in the focus group, was to have 911 dispatchers call BNSF to stop trains when emergency access needed to be unimpeded to the waterfront. Since passing trains are still identified as justification for a waterfront connector, apparently that “Immediate Action” item is not yet in place.

        South County Fire is allowed to charge more if their level of services is increased. Some could say calling BNSF to stop trains is an increase in the level of service. However, it benefits the ferry, too. With the Kingston terminal, WSDOT has a 5 year agreement with North Kitsap Fire & Rescue where WSDOT pays NKFR over $8,300/year for protection of the terminal. Perhaps money from an agreement like that for the Edmonds terminal could help pay for increased emergency services west of the tracks.

        South County Fire is slated to come before Council this Tuesday. If residents want waterfront emergency calls (which account for 1-2%) to be given a higher standard of care than the rest of the city, and not be part of the 10% of calls, then that would be a great meeting to speak at during the public comment period, so your comment can be taken into consideration with the Fire District’s plan for compliance.

        Ignored

    16. I’m really having a hard time figuring out why it is the Edmond’s City Council’s responsibility to solve a problem that BNSF is creating. If a train blocks access, and someone dies as a result, is it really the city’s fault that help wasn’t readily available? Don’t you think a responsible business venture would want to address this problem, that they are causing, in the interest of good public relations, if not simple humanity? The fact is they don’t care, because paying for the fix would hurt their bottom line.

      It’s the same question I have about why is it the Edmond’s City Council’s problem to see that Woodway City has the adequate police and fire protection they need. Woodway just needs to be told, “you are welcome to come join us as a solution, or solve your own problems.” Hakkenson was right on that issue, in my opinion.

      We tax payers are also supposed to get all teary eyed and upset because a few city employees have hurt feelings by a City Council finally having the courage to represent all the people, not just the one’s who support whatever the Administration is selling them all the time. You know what, I say if the grass looks greener elsewhere, go for it. A new administration may well want new Directors anyway. It’s a good time to look around and watch out for number one. It amazes me how people always find a way to blame someone else for their own problems and concerns.

      Ignored

    17. Way to go in supporting our precious waterfront from those with short sighted and hidden agendas! There are many viable and less expensive alternatives including establishing an emergency aid unit on the west side of the tracks during high rail traffic, ect. We must collectively continue our fight against such nonsense which should include removal of those short sighted planners which includes Phil Williams as Public Works Director, Dave Earling as Mayor, Tom Mesaros as Council Member, Dave Teizel as Council Member and Kristiana Johnson as Council Member. None of them will ever get my vote of confidence!

      Ignored

    18. This major threat to human life and the general safety of the populace, as portrayed by the Mayor, might be solved by something as simple as better communication with BNSF. I notice those trains virtually all have engines at both ends. I suspect that’s for a logical reason. I also notice all those cars have couplers on them. How difficult would it be for a quick uncoupling of a car and an engine at the tail end of the train to pull far enough in the other direction to open a crossing? How difficult would it be to set up a hotline between BNSF and Edmond’s police and fire services? BNSF is causing the problem. How about giving them an opportunity they can’t afford to refuse for solving the problem. That’s what a good Mayor and City Directors would be advocating for, just as loud and obnoxious as they could make it for BNSF. Referring to suicides by train as “pedestrian deaths.” That miss-representation alone should get William’s fired, in my opinion.

      Ignored

    19. Hey everyone. Our collective success has been great, although most certainly not to be taken for granted given the high stakes at risk for our beautiful city. Being a numbers guy, this is the way I see it………… Dave Earling is out as Mayor the end of the year and it is he whom choose his final legacy of listening to the special interest agendas instead of the passions of the people. His three reasons for supporting that ridiculous structure were laughable and an embarrassment! Tom Mesaros is out as of the end of the year, same destiny as the Mayor! Dave Teizel is out as Council member as of the end of the year, although his has entered the Mayors race. Let’s send him packing for the same logic! This leaves Kristiana Johnson whom is also running for Mayor which we need to collectively send a resounding NO vote and while her council membership doesn’t expire until December 2021, …… let’s watch her closely being certain she doesn’t have any power that is not good for the people of Edmonds!

      Let’s be sure we know each perspective Mayor and City Council members position on Saving our Beach before we elect them into office!

      Please post a response if I have made any errors or incorrect assumptions here, as I too had not been following the city council as closely as I should have!

      Ignored

    20. Neil Tibbott is the other Counsel person running for Mayor, not Dave Teitzel. Tibott is endorsed and donated to by Dave Earling and former Mayor Gary Haakenson (according to information available elsewhere in MEN). Candidate Shipley was present in the crowd (personal observation) at the S.O.B. demonstration and did not present any formal speech or appearance to possibly capitalize on his presence. Mike Nelson’s and Kristiana Johnson’s actions at Council speak for themselves. I’m fairly certain that all of these statements are factual.

      Ignored

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *