Editor:
As the Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission concludes this Thursday, the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds (ACE) thanks the Commissioners and alternate Commissioners, for volunteering their time, committing to this aspirational process. Understandably, the process was made more difficult for all involved due to Covid-19 restrictions, mandating virtual meetings and eliminating the original promise of neighborhood meetings throughout all of Edmonds.
The Commission did, however, offer one in-person Open House and survey before Covid restrictions, followed by 3 more surveys combined with 3 prerecorded virtual Open House viewing options and one Zoom Webinar. ACE followed with optimism and high hopes this 16-month process. However, we are concerned that input the Commission received at each public engagement touchpoint, in the form of hundreds of questions, comments, emails and feedback from local folks, was disregarded. Edmonds’ citizens were not given their promised place at the table in this citizen-driven process.
The Edmonds City Council formed this Citizen Housing Commission (CHC) via Resolution No. 1427 which stated in part:
“…options should be revised to include greater public input and balanced representation.” In addition, an expanded timeline was created “to enable direct citizen involvement in this important process.”
Neither Edmonds’ Development Services Director Shane Hope, who is in charge of this Commission, nor the contracted consultant group, prioritized citizen input although it was solicited by the Commission as each round of its proposed policy ideas were put forward. Commissioners should have been better directed to consider and incorporate citizen feedback, particularly as it often overwhelmingly contradicted policy ideas put forward, such as adding duplexes, triplexes, and townhome developments into single-family neighborhoods citywide, local sales tax increases, and most disturbingly, the elimination of current single-family zoned neighborhoods. CHC policies will be voted on this Thursday. We are concerned that, if these policies receive the votes in the Commission to move forward, the Planning Board and City Council will be asked to vote on many policy ideas that discounted and ignored community input throughout the process.
Examples of lack of response to questions/comments by the public are as follows:
- 26 families in one neighborhood targeted as a “Transition Zone”, wrote a letter to the Commission, Council, Mayor and Tree Board, outlining concerns about losing the single-family character of their neighborhood. They were told their concerns would not be discussed by the CHC, with one Commissioner saying: “Historically inequities develop because you have a group of people that feel more privileged to be vocal for multiple reasons… holding a special discussion on letters we received not in the context of all of the feedback that we’ve gotten feels like we’re perpetuating that sense of privilege.”
- The above example, coupled with the 78% in the first survey who agreed that it is important to preserve single-family zoning, is evidence that citizen input has, selectively, been dismissed by the CHC.
- The above further indicates that one Commissioner’s use of the subjective term “sense of privilege” has influenced how citizen input is addressed by the Director, who controlled the public engagement process with the paid public engagement consultant.
- Although there were 68 citizen questions and comments posed live by written option only at the January 7, 2021 online Open House public outreach event, only 8 questions from the attendees were selected by Staff/consultant to be discussed.
- There is no indication that there has been, or ever will be, a public response to any of the remaining 60 questions/comments.
- Before Covid restrictions, Edmonds’ citizens were encouraged to make in-person comments on record at live meetings. After Covid restrictions, citizens were instructed to engage with this Commission’s process only via email to the CHC. These emailed comments were seldom discussed during CHC meetings, resulting in no transparent public record of these emails, not even in the meeting packet or notes.
Examples of citizen input being discounted or ignored are significant enough to red flag unanswered questions about CHC recommendations to Council, to be finalized at their January 28, 2021 meeting. Some of ACE’s clarifying questions are:
- Where is the evidence that urbanized density in single family neighborhoods will drop property values and thus create more affordability?
- Has the CHC received significant feedback and support from our community to justify citywide up-zoning of all single-family zoning in Edmonds, as their specific “Inclusionary Policy” recommends?
- Why, under the Director’s leadership, have they facilitated a discussion by the CHC of relaxing State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) guidelines in the context of developing affordable housing options in Edmonds?
- In support of relaxing SEPA thresholds, one Commissioner stated: “SEPA is used by people who don’t want housing built in a location. It’s weaponized by people who don’t want housing and poor people, or people who aren’t homeowners, or whatever other NIMBY BS.” How are the biased terms “weaponized” and “NIMBY” of use in a thoughtful discussion of SEPA thresholds?
- What evidence has been presented to the CHC that the Multi-Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) project at Westgate has provided affordable housing that justifies 12-years tax-free on ALL 81 residential units, in exchange for 20% so-called “affordable” units?
- Given the fact that our code has been in need of a re-write since 2000, why is the Development Services Director facilitating introduction of “policy options” that would require drastic alteration of existing inadequate code?
- What evidence has been provided by the Director/Staff that our existing Chapter 20.21 Accessory Dwelling Units code, is insufficient to both retain single family quality and provide additional affordable housing?
There are points where Edmonds’ citizens agree with the CHC, such as concentrating density closer to transit and conveniences, simplifying code language, creating low-income home repair programs and other creative ideas. Greater collaboration between Edmonds’ citizens and the Housing Commission should have been facilitated by the Director, Staff, and the consultant group to have further developed those common ideas. As we move forward, ACE encourages open, transparent processes-a true back and forth discussion-about this critical issue: what is the best way to add additional types of housing in Edmonds and what will Edmonds look like in the future?
ACE recognizes the hard work of the Citizens Housing Commission. We sincerely hope that there will be further extensive citizen engagement as the Commission’s final recommendations move to the Planning Board and City Council. We also ask any steps taken by Council on this issue be paused until we can again gather in person.
Dr. Michelle Dotsch, ACE President
On behalf of the board of the Alliance of the Citizens of Edmonds
**References:
Resolution 1427: Resolution+1427+(1).pdf (squarespace.com)
Code 20.21 ADU: Chapter 20.21 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (codepublishing.com)
WA State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA): Chapter 220-600 WAC:
Link to CHC 1/14/21 meeting SEPA discussion begins at 1hr26min: Video Outline – Edmonds, WA (iqm2.com)
Thank you Dr Dotsch for a well-written, well thought out summary of what is happening with the Housing Commission. If anything your words were too PC. A more accurate representation of the situation is that the words “didn’t prioritize citizen input” would be replaced by “completely ignored citizen input”. The fact that Shane Hope facilitated this ignoring of citizen input and guided the commission to discuss relaxing SEPA regulations makes me question what her motivations are–certainly not to get input from the citizens of Edmonds. Mayor Nelson keeps talking about “inclusion”–the people who are being systematically excluded in this process are we the citizens of Edmonds. Covid 19 unfortunately has made operating out of the spotlight easier. I would encourage people to join ACE and get involved–once the Soul of Edmonds is destroyed and make no mistake—that is what is going on–it will be impossible to get it back.
Thank you ACE for your work reviewing the actions of the Edmonds Housing Commission. It is most disturbing that a Commission has the power to change our lives here in Edmonds while ignoring the public’s concerns. Please keep us updated on the actions of this Commission.
The behavior by this Commission shows the same disregard of public comments that the Mayor has demonstrated in his past decisions. It implies the Commission has been directed to reach a goal regardless of public comment and based on a select demographic as stated by the Mayor that all City decisions will be made through the lens of Equality and Inclusion.
Government’s job is to listen to all citizens, not to organize society based on a select demographic.
I took the housing survey two weeks ago, but not before doing some research on its claims.
From all I saw, we are in full compliance with regulations the state has mandated, so this project seems to be a wish, but not a “must” of some people on the City Council.
While Edmonds is pretty, it doesn’t offer nor is it close to jobs that offer training, advancement tracks, benefits, unions for people to advance professionally and financially. We’re pretty much a bedroom community with a lot of service businesses.
Most jobs with the above profile are found in the Seattle-Bellevue-Tacoma corridor (SBT).
Let’s compare : SBT. Edmonds
Area. (Sq mi) 5,869 10, of which 2 are water
Population. 3,979,845. 45,605
Pop Sq/mi. 678. 4778
Guess what, Edmonds is the 3rd most populous town by pop/Sq mi in WA!
Why are we trying to add more people here who need the sort of jobs that we don’t have, increase our taxes, (not just the 0.1%, but also increases due to wear and tear) and have less space, less parking, more wear and tear because people on the council FEEL that it’s a good thing, when the numbers show that it is not?
Well said.
I am alarmed by the idea that housing commission members would consider the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) as an obstacle instead of a protection, as evidenced in this quote from a commission member: “SEPA is used by people who don’t want housing built in a location.” Edmonds already has an extremely low bar on SEPA, as shown in multiple questionable development approvals.
This statement in the letter also caught my attention:
“Where is the evidence that urbanized density in single family neighborhoods will drop property values and thus create more affordability?”
If the housing commission is using the argument that increased density will increase affordability by reducing property values, I think they are right. We can make our lovely city so dense that it will no longer be attractive to live here. Is that the goal??
I’ll suggest one more time that people give the commission a chance here. These people are your volunteer neighbors and are not “decision makers”. The council are the decision makers on this process. I’d like to see ACE stand down and cease trying to stir things up by throwing criticism at how the public input was handled…maybe offer some constructive ideas instead.
If Edmonds does not get ahead of this issue (planning for growth) we will be stuck with whatever rules come down from the federal or state government. Observation of how this issue has been talked about in Olympia and WA DC should tell all of us that growth will be forced on Edmonds from on high if we do not exert some local plans for well controlled and well planned infill. Which would you rather have. some new zoning rules that are imposed on us from Olympia “for the greater good” or new plans that our council deliberates and legislates?
We are the 3rd most populous town in WA., with 4778 people/Sq. Mile. In comparison, the Seattle-Bellevue corridor, where most industrial and union jobs are, has population density of 678 people /square mile.
We have 710% more people than that whole area, which is 586. 99 times LARGER than Edmonds.,
Look it up!!!
We are in compliance with everything Olympia has set out. Where would we put these people? There are other towns close by that do not have our high population density, so why is Edmonds so eager to lose its beauty? And who is eager to pay more taxes?
Puget Sound can’t stand down – we’re running out time – there are plenty of places to live that can withstand greater density, wear and tear.
This a tremendously well written and informative letter from ACE by Dr. Dotsch.
I am pretty surprised that the commission would claim that basic environmental reviews are “weaponized BS.” I am sure that they may not agree with everyone on the tree commission or other environmental organizations, but I would expect more professionalism from a commission that clearly had a specific agenda and were eager to attack the community to do it.
This is a serious decision that needs data and clear level headed understanding to tackle. Data like the ones presented from Patricia Evulet and Dr. Dotsch are desperately needed to promote rational and informative decisions rather than generalizations and assumptions from the CHC.
A lot more serious review is needed before moving forward on these under analyzed plans from the CHC.
I appreciate your thoughtful analysis. Thank you.
Thank you for putting everything in writing, your letter is well thought out and addresses problems that we as citizens have a right to know and vote upon. How dare a small committee makes decisions that affect all the citizens in Edmonds. Thank you for all the time and effort that went into this letter.
Dr. Dotsch’s letter points out areas where actual future growth issues must be addressed in Edmonds. Furthermore, she indicates areas of agreement with the commission. However, she also reveals the problems faced by the residents of Edmonds in accepting the recommendations of the Citizen Housing Commission (CMC) and their often ideologically driven solutions to issues relating to our future growth. Dr. Dotsch clearly demonstrates the lack of adequate and accurate data which the Commission uses to support their recommendations. Moreover, Edmonds is well beyond the 2050 expectations of the GMA which has often been used as the primary impetus to force the proposed changes.
More importantly is the condescension and dismissiveness of the CMC toward the citizens of Edmonds and their valid concerns. Judgmental terms words such as “privilege” and “nimby” have no place in their deliberations. Ignoring questions and comments from citizens who disagree is not democratic, it’s despotic. Their ideology, coupled with their sense of moral superiority, is offensive to the citizens of Edmonds and could well be detrimental to the city. With the specter of Ballard, Kirkland, Seattle and countless other cities in the country ruined by similar ideological policies, we have a good reason to have reservations about the Housing Commission and their proposals
Having participated in the public part of the Housing Commission process since the beginning, I’m actually proud that the public input was disregarded, considering how awful much of it was. When the survey results were made public (for the first big survey, I believe), more than half the comments could be boiled down to “Poor people don’t deserve to live in Edmonds, I’d rather they live in hovels elsewhere than see my holy property value go down!” The unabashed selfishness and classism was depressing to say the least.
Our region is growing, and Edmonds needs to find a way to grow with it, not wall ourselves off and pretend that only the wealthy deserve to live here.
How many times do we have to see this? Every time a group is formed and they ignore public input, it doesn’t end well for them. ACE made valid points. Address them or rely on censorship and closed door hearings. The “fact” that Edmonds needed more density was simply assumed, and soundly debunked by statistics above.
Did we expect them to? I see comments about “not wanting poor people to live here” and “not my property values” – I have not heard any of that. At the same time, it is true, much of the wealth and generational wealth is tied up in the homes people have sacrificed and scraped to live in (I am one of them).
My questions went unanswered. The point about the Council being in control is true – and the way the Council is going right now, that scares the hell out of me. Good thing, nothing ever happens quickly in Edmonds, we will conduct 7 more studies, hire six consultants, go through 4 election cycles, and decide to start over.
Actually George, there is a state requirement to update our housing strategy for the GMA. Not sure of the details of timing or the full extent of the update needed but it will put some pressure on Council to get that update done.
George, your work along with Matt Waldron’s on moving city hall is getting some traction. The city is finally considering a branch office along 99. It would be better for all sorts of reasons to move our DT city functions outside the bowl as was proposed. Frees up useful building space that can go back on the tax roles, frees up a ton of parking and reduces the trips to DT to do business with the City.
I like the branch office, but would like a new building that houses the City Offices and Jumpstart development. But I ain’t gonna look a gift horse in the mouth…
That is what Seattle has done for years. Consultants every year on same issues and needs or wants. Very expensive these brains for hire! I dated a man who does this for cities…he made a fortune.
It made Seattle look busy trying to show people..that new bridge we need, that tunnel situation. years wasted with smoke and mirrors. Those studies could have saved enough cash to prevent the total mess they have now. Same here a bit. The bottom line in Edmonds is that the bowl thinks it is the City of Edmonds and the rest of Edmonds also the city, are the suburbs. Ha. Its true. It does not take a genius to see this.
Thank you Dr. Dotsch for providing this excellent Letter.
City Councilmembers are Legislators. Our seven Councilmembers constitute a Legislative Body that is given authority by the State Constitution and State Law to make City of Edmonds Law.
Councilmembers do NOT have the authority to direct City Staff. As such, why was Development Services Director Shane Hope placed in charge of this Commission and given an opportunity to have such great impact on this Legislative process?
Who placed her in charge? Resolution 1427 does not call for any involvement by City Staff.
City Staff, including Ms. Hope, have evidenced they think they possess the privilege to not even respond to citizen emails. Having directly experienced this many times, I am not surprised that portions of community input have been discounted and/or ignored throughout this process.
I believe City Staff’s role in policy making should be kept to a minimum. City Council was elected to represent the citizens, not the City Staff and what City Staff wants.
City Staff has a huge advantage over citizens in the Legislative process. For example, City Staff are not limited to 3 spoken minutes or 450 words of public comment to Councilmembers during public meetings. City Staff are often allowed the last word prior to a Council vote. I believe citizen voices should be the last words heard by Council before Council votes.
What if Planning Board extends greater respect to all community input when this process moves from CHC to Planning Board? That may not be enough. City Staff showed us during the October 1, 2019 Council Meeting that they do not believe they even have a duty to present Planning Board advisory decisions without bias to City Council. City staff are willing to continue to advocate their own position if it differs from the Planning Board’s advisory decision.
Edmond’s city government as now constituted is a convoluted mess that pretty much favors administration and staff over the citizens and the legislators. Everyone, including some of the current City Council members, think they work for the mayor (past and present) and his/her great visions for our city and the world at large. At any given time, at least 50% of the citizens don’t feel represented or as having a voice in what’s going on.
Elections alone are not going to make it much better, I suspect. Short of a petition for a change in government format, the best we can hope for is a couple more independent minded Council persons who aren’t married to the past or a prisoner of some half baked political party philosophy going on in the present; or some mythical vision of a more perfect future. City government should be about maintaining the roads, sidewalks and parks and making sure the water flows and the toilets work. Let’s get back to basics in Edmonds.
Thanks to Dr. Dotsch and ACE for presenting a thoughtful and insightful synopsis of what has transpired to date. Too many times I hear people wonder “how in the heck did that happen?” or “wish I had known about it sooner!”. Well, more information is now out there, and whether you agree with it, think it is incomplete or misleading, or not politically correct and fair, at least people are talking about it, can form a timely opinion and let City leaders know their opinions before and while decisions are being formulated and made, not after they are made, it is too late, and we all have to live with the consequences.
Yes! Thank you Dr. Dotsch for writing this helpful letter. Also, many residents who publicly encouraged the Council in 2019 to create the current citizens housing commission also requested that with regards to a facilitator to assist with the process, the City, “recruit a local, experienced person who is committed to an unbiased process.”
https://myedmondsnews.com/2019/03/letter-to-the-editor-we-support-creation-of-citizens-housing-commission/ (3/25/2019)
With all public comments being filtered first by Ms. Hope rather than the consultant, she has controlled whose questions and what questions have been asked. With Ms. Hope acting as a gatekeeper to public comments and input, her participation by nature of her position as a city employee, will bias the outcome of this process and so that any recommendations from this commission will be tainted.
As one resident so eloquently stated in her Letter to the Editor, let’s “help make Edmonds “The City that Did Growth Right.”
https://myedmondsnews.com/2019/05/letter-to-the-editor-the-new-housing-commission-selection-process/ (5/7/2019)
MOST IMPORTANTLY (capitalized for emphasis) – with the wide-reaching, catastrophic disruption due to the response to COVID which continues to gravely affect almost every aspect of our lives – including the public’s ability to have full access to our elected officials, city commissions and boards – I do not think it wise to rush through something as important as housing in Edmonds.
Like those who want to maintain the natural beauty and aesthetics of Edmonds’ tree canopy, which once cut down is gone, making radical zoning changes to our city will result in irreversible, long term damage to Edmonds’ character and quality of life for those living here now and in the future.
Thank you.