Dear Friends & Neighbors,
If you feel manipulated by the letter from Chuckanut Ridge developers (Horizon Bank chairman Laury Evans and Greenbriar Construction president David Edelstein), don’t be concerned - your instincts are still intact.
That “personal” appeal was carefully crafted for them by the Mercer Island-based Vander Houwen Public Relations firm, whose specialty is “reputation management” and who graciously sent an advance copy to several community members before it appeared in the Bellingham Herald’s Whatcom View on July 24.
Based on the critical information that Vander Houwen failed to disclose, it’s unfortunate that Evans and Edelstein didn’t spend their money locally and hire a Bellingham-based firm who might actually know the facts about Chuckanut Ridge. My guess is that no firm in Bellingham would touch this issue for fear of damaging their reputation.
I especially enjoy the sentence, “We are committed to being open and honest about our plans and listening to your suggestions and concerns.” First, Evans and Edelstein have an awful track record in this regard. They have demonstrated absolutely no interest in the community’s concerns or suggestions and have chosen to communicate with us through their lawyer rather than directly. Second, as we all know, anyone truly committed to being open and honest would never feel compelled to say so.
When Evans and Edelstein write, “We have retained some of the top traffic, environmental, water quality and geological experts in the region…” what they mean is, they have hired those experts who are most successful in getting development projects through the red tape of the permitting process.
For example, their attorney formally recommended Adolfson Associates to perform the so-called “independent” environmental impact statement. After reviewing Adolfson’s proposal and four others, the city haplessly granted the developer’s wish. Here’s a direct quote from Adolfson’s website:
“Since 1987, Adolfson Associates, Inc. has been working with clients throughout the Pacific Northwest to provide creative solutions to environmental, regulatory and permitting challenges.”
In other words, Adolfson’s expertise is in helping their developer clients get their projects approved by overcoming environmental and permitting challenges, not in assisting local governments to ensure that the environment is protected for the benefit of the community. Given that Adolfson was hand picked by the developer, the choice of Adolfson Associates provides absolutely no independence, neither in appearance or in fact. The same can be said for their other so-called experts who are all paid to ensure that permits are issued.
Regarding the history of Chuckanut Ridge, Evans and Edelstein fail to mention that the community has actively opposed development on this land for over 20 years. Had they done their due diligence, and had they not committed the fatal error of using the same attorney who represented the seller, they would never have purchased this land. Although Chuckanut Ridge is an environmental gem because of its highly valued mature forested wetlands, for purposes of development, it is basically a swamp with a few areas of dry land.
Evans and Edelstein also fail to mention that they plan to ignore the key wetland and stream protections in the City’s recently adopted Critical Areas Ordinance. They claim that their 2005 application vests them in the old rules, even though they won’t submit their real proposal until 2008. A true community bank would never attempt to sidestep key environmental protections.
Evans and Edelstein claim that it is inevitable that this site will eventually be developed. We disagree. We believe it is inevitable that this site will eventually be preserved through public ownership, and we are committed to working toward that goal.
Their sales pitch, which may be successful on the east coast but not here, basically comes down to “trust us.” The fact is, their actions belie their words, and they have not earned the community’s trust.
Anyone who claims to be committed to the community and to care about its future would listen to the thousands of community members shouting at the top of their lungs … “NO Development on Chuckanut Ridge.”
Larry, that was a magnificent response!
Thanks for parsing that garbage for us.
I just walked on the trail that goes by the Chuckanut Ridge and was reminded yet again of the terrible loss to all of us the proposed development would be. Imagine all of you, walking there or driving by and seeing the woods gone, the habitat ruined by Edelstein/Horizon's mega development.
Larry, your response to the Evans and Edelstein letter is great. It encourages me to keep on working to save the Ridge. About a week or so ago, I saw an interview of Edward O. Wilson by Bill Moyers. E.O. Wilson is a world renown naturalist, scientist and conservationist and a double Pulitzer Prize winner. He spoke of man as the only species to knowingly destroy nature and his own environment and the only species intelligent enough to stop doing so willingly. When he was asked what the average citizen can do to save his environment, he said that he/she can join a group in his/her own local area that is trying to save a forest or a wetland. Well, that is what we are doing here, working to save a mature forested wetland. I join those who shout "NO Development on Chuckanut Ridge."
Good points Larry!
I would just like to remind the readers that the South Neighborhood Association (the location of the 100 acre woods) went on record on June 9, 2005 asking for an EIS at Fairhaven Highlands.
By a unanimous vote of the board we were appealing to city officials to require an EIS because, at the time, we had received the message from Chris Spens that city planners would likely require only a 'mitigated determination of non-significance'.
We received NOT ONE acknowledgemnt from recepients of our letter, which was sent to Chris Spens, Mayor Mark, city council and Kathy Bell. How's that for representational government?
Apparently, however, the developers recognized the impending train wreck of ignoring our plea.
Well, if they understand the importance of addressing these issues in an EIS then they will probably also understand the following plea:
Horizon Bank, please address the environmental issues in light of 'best available science' and the current critical areas ordinance. DON'T HIDE BEHIND YOUR VESTING UNDER AN OUTDATED ORDINANCE!
Prove to the community that you didn't submit your application prematurely in order to get vested just weeks before the council was to adopt a new critical areas ordinance.
Thankfully, the whole world is watching your every move.
Steve Wilson
chair, South Neighborhood Association
The first point they make is historic - that housing at the site has been "...discussed...for more than twenty years". That's disingenuous. It hasn't been discussed so much as presumed - and opposed. The remarkable rezone that chief city planner, Chris Spens (and the original project's draft FEIS), called "...a mystery at best" still deserves closer analysis. There is no public record of the discussion to which the developers refer. This is important because it directly relates to two additional issues:
First, they state that they have not seen,"...any definite plan to buy...the property or the funds to do so". Why? Because that mysterious zoning - a public entitlement - created an outlandish value. This leaves the developers in the enviable position of thoroughly fleecing either the Greenways levy in the event of preservation or the public's general tax obligation as problems the development will create are addressed.
Second, it completely avoids the public's chief concern after the specter of environmental degradation, namely, the favoritism this project seems to enjoy at every turn: The speedy determination of completeness for a proposal that flouts every long-adopted policy in the neighborhood plan, that fails to address the prerequisite conditions in the plan's zoning table and that depends upon an exemption from the States concurrency requirement to proceed. The special treatment continues with the so-called environmental assessment, regardless of how "independent" the developers say the city is acting. The firm contracted to do the work is the firm the developers suggested. They propose to do it with a fraction of the effort other consultants proposed, and will mostly use data from other consultants already paid for by the developer for their own purposes. That doesn't sound independent to me.
There are indeed huge environmental concerns. Runoff from this development will pollute publicly owned wetlands that are now pristine, teeming with sensitive freshwater shrimp and which are a cornerstone of the foodchain supporting the Interurban corridor from the Chuckanuts to Sehome Hill. Will the developers and the City include an assessment of this natural resource in the environmental review? Will the developer and the City assume liability for natural resource damages stemming from the approval and development of this project? Not likely!
Then there is the issue of the social environment for rational civil discourse and our confidence in local government. These concerns will linger and fester as long as they remain unaddressed. How does a property with possibly fifty reasonable homesites get zoned for 1,500 units without a single public hearing? How does one of the most controversial projects in Bellingham's history obtain approvals in four days when a 350 square foot addition to an existing South Hill home took six months? Why did the City avoid updates to the comprehensive plan's critical areas elements until after the project was vested under the old rules? The history, if it is going to be used as an argument, ought to be clear. Who were the principals of the West Eden Corporation - hidden behind blind Delaware Corporate laws - that enjoyed the windfall value of this mysterious rezone. What is their relation to those who have steadfastly maintained the potential of this project in the face of massive public opposition?
The developer reasonably wants to profit from their project. But how much will it cost the public? Does it really have to be good for them and bad for us? Development of the property means that Fairhaven Park will never meet the existing city standard for the population planners have targeted for the area. It means we will never leverage our existing investments in Fairhaven Park and along the Interurban corridor into an impressive Gateway to the Chuckanuts. That's shortsighted - a product of the Administration's divisive greenways tactics, pitting underserved north-enders against supposedly selfish south-siders relative to the exorbitant phantom value created by the mysterious rezone. This goes to the heart of an issue of county-wide significance. It underscores the relation of land use, sprawl,urban villages and adequate public amenities. The project directly assaults our opportunities for the quality of life residents overwhelmingly support.
A powerful local bank and erstwhile local developer - who happens to have been a Planning Commissioner for many years - should not be afraid to answer these questions. As long as they don't, public skepticism and opposition are justified.
Why would anyone want to destroy Chuckanut Ridge? Don't realators and our Bellingham Chamber send the scenic pictures of Chuckanut onto sites and in ads around the country to bring people here?
I live in Whatcom County and find it offensive having to drive through crackerbox developments coming in from the northend to Bellingham. If CR goes, there goes one of our treasured jewels and we will just be another drive by housing development on the freeway. We as a community are more special than being a drive by. Let's keep Chuckanut Ridge for all of us, our children, grandchildren and all the generations of critters...
If Horizon Bank is genuine in their desire to fully examine the Environmental Impact of this project, then why isn't the company that they requested and the city eventually chose to do the EIS going to allow for peer review of the traffic analysis, re- delineation of the wetlands, stream impact analysis, etc. Items that should be done if a full scale EIS is to be done correctly. It seems to me that having the EIS simply review reports that were either done over 10 years ago or created by entities on Horizon Bank's dime – add in the fact that Adolfson Associates, Inc will only make one assessment trip to the site - makes this whole EIS a sham.
Without either a re-assessment of the various EIS elements or at least having a peer review of the reports used for the EIS, my guess is that the EIS will come back in support of the results of Horizon's paid experts – big surprise.
We need independent analysis and good faith examination of all aspects of this development - not just a rubber stamp on reports that have raised questions of thoroughness and correctness form other agencies and experts. Granted there is a chance that the EIS will be fair and true, but I am not optimistic that will happen.
It is unfortunate that our remaining city forests are going the way of the dodo bird, the Traffic problems that will eventually be caused by this project will require significant costs to fix at taxpayer’s expense and Horizon Bank – which claims to care about the local community – will make more money while we the existing citizens will have to subsidize the whole thing.
Horizon Bank – do the right thing.
If developers Horizon Bank (Laury Evans) and Greenbriar Northwest Associates (David Edelstein)are truly the good neighbors and community supporters they are paying a public relations firm to portray them as,they would:
1) Admit they bought this property and made plans to fully develop it knowing it is a locally significant habitat, that it is the last remaining forested wetlands ecosystem and unfragmented habitat corridor in the city, and knowing the majority of taxpayers and surrounding neighbors have been working together for 20 years to find a way to preserve its integrity (at lesser cost to taxpayers than development subsidy) for future generations.
2) Tell the truth -- that their original proposal, which requires 60% deforestation, Chuckanut Ridge slope-hazard blasting, and degradation and fill of Class I-III connected wetlands and adjoining publicly owned wetlands -- has not been changed since it was submitted; that no new proposal has been filed to date as a basis for the pending Environmental Impact Statement; and that this 739-unit proposal was purposefully submitted to the city just prior to the effective date of the more restrictive Critical Areas Ordinance in order to provide less than scientifically adequate habitat buffer zones.
3) Acknowledge that the development of this property is not "inevitable" -- that if they are truly willing sellers looking out for the best interests of this community, they would be leading the way to find a more ecologically and fiscally sound use of this property which would equally benefit taxpayers and their fiduciary interests.
Just a few better use options, which could simultaneously be accomplished here profitably for the same amount of long-term profit and public tax subsidizy as required for a housing development: expanding Fairhaven Park as is required based on increasing regional and citywide population; creating a regional urban ecology center and nature reserve for mature forested wetlands conservation and interpretive habitat and recreation corridor, research, education, and hands-on learning throughout the cooperative efforts of the Bellingham School District, WWU/Huxley College, private donor corporations such as Horizon Bank, and for the benefit of the whole community--all the schools, colleges, daycare facilities, local residents & tourists within walking & biking distance of this site; and Horizon & Greenbriar could use the funds generated from the sale to public ownership and partner with other South neighborhood landowners to re-invest in dense, mixed-use development of a smaller scale scattered throughout the neighborhood, in places where there is already adequate infrastructure in order to prevent such significant environmental destruction to habitat block 6 and existing public Greenways.
Good neighbors help each other find a win-win solution and recognize there is much more to a community than how much money you can squeeze out of it or how many houses you can build into it before it collapses on you! They don't strong-arm you by hanging onto a win-lose proposal which compromises your integrity on many levels.
Larry's letter goes right to the heart of the matter. I don't think I can improve on the many excellent comments that have been written, except to say that Horision Bank, as the majority owner should initiate discussions with the City themselves about a public purchase. City Council holds the purse strings and I know several of them would be willing to continue discussions. The bank has been approach twice in this reguard. They are fools if they don't follow up on it themselves.
I attended the annual Horizon Bank shareholders meeting that was held on the same day that this disingenuous editorial appeared. The editorial was read by bank president Laury Evans at that meeting. I was most put off by Evans statement to the gathered shareholders that Horizon had withdrawn original plans for 739 units (including 10 story high rises )due to 'neighborhood concerns' and that the bank was waiting for the completion of the EIS to prepare a new plan. Mr. Evans failed to mention that the EIS is based on the original 739 unit proposal. Clearly Horizon hopes to come out of the EIS process with their original destructive and costly to taxpayers plan intact.
I spoke personally to Mr. Evans at the meeting and found him to be a pleasant and fairly reasonable person. Perhaps he doesn't understand fully the communities' level of concern or the harmfullness of the planned development. He insists that only part of the land will ever be for sale for conservation, but he seemed to hold the door open to meeting to talk about a possible 'break even' solution. Let us hope that reason and community values prevail over the desire for profits from this just one of many many Horizon projects now in process.
Michael chiavario 671-3615
The Proposed destruction of Chuckanut Ridge is tantamount to a crime against nature and a blatant assault on the quality of life for All Bellingham Citizens. I believe Horizon Bank and developer David Edelstein know this and seems it is of little, if any concern to them. Clearly there is no value being placed on the EXISTING residents of this community. It is apparent to all of us who share a loyal commitment to our beloved city that Horizon Bank, it’s board members and major shareholders, Mr. Edelstein and Greenbriar Construction are not interested in nurturing or maintaining a good relationship with current residents/patrons. Are they counting on the idea that there will be enough uninformed newcomers to support the bank and the businesses of those responsible? Will people come (and stay) in numbers large enough to offset complete rejection? Chuckanut Ridge is not appropriate in any sense of the word to be a “unique local neighborhood”. It is a unique forested wetland and perhaps our greatest treasure. Please, Horizon Bank. There is still time to put community first and be our hero.
Kim Erickson
I worry about quality of life and character of place. I worry about the diverse creatures that make those woods their homes. I worry very much about the basic human greed that drives this sort of project.
But mostly I worry about all of that traffic in an area with so many children and pets. Fairhaven Middle School and Fairhaven Park will become perilous places for those who walk, cycle, run, and play.
I'd like to contribute two tidbits for the Record: Realtors as a trade association support preservation of the natural environment as part of our code of ethics. As a dues-paying Realtor and Fairhaven graduate "tree hugger," I urge eveyone not to paint Realtors with the same broad brush, or to blame us for development. Exponential population growth and the downsides thereof and the desirability of our area are the root causes of more people wanting to buy homes here. Both local population growth and in-migration increase demand for housing. Please join me in limiting breeding to procreation of one child to do our part in curbing exponential population growth. Do the math!
I believe that it's also important for everyone to know that the Fairhaven Highlands would-be developer is famous for selling his homes himself and for not listing them for sale with local Realtors. There will be little or no business incentive for local Realtors to support the proposals of this particular project or developer.
Best wishes and thanks to all for your efforts.
Fairhaven Highlands is NOT for the benefit of the neighbors, school children , wildlife, business community, etc. --- the ONLY benefits will be to those that DESTROY our last wildlife refuge -and their benefits will ONLY be financial --STOP THIS INSANITY NOW !!!
Bill and I cant add any thing better than the above comments. Thank you everyone for representing our views so eloqently.
Christa Simmons
It seems to me that local government officials and their actions will play a significant role in both the EIS and CAO processes. For example, where do McShane and Fleetwood stand on this development issue? Could someone tell me what they are saying. I havent heard. The next mayor could be an important ally. Also, more direct citizen involvement at local city offices, like the demonstration at the shareholders meeting, might be in order. I think all city political officeholders and government workers need to realize that they cannot be a unnoticable spectator on this issue. I think it is time to hold government accountable. Just a suggestion.
I am a homeowner at Robin Lane Court located at 425 Chuckanut Drive. I also am a Native American, being a member of the Lummi Indian Nation. Destroying the Chuckanut Ridge and building hundreds of new homes would be destroying something sacred to me. This is one of the last naturally wooded areas left in the county that is home to deer, cougar, bobcats, racoons, squirrels, porcupines, etc. I was always taught by my ancestors never to kill anything you don't need to eat to survive. Building on the Chuckanut Ridge would be killing all these animals senselessly. I also thought that the county and city had to protect what "wetlands" we have left in the area?
In a recent article, Horizon Bank and developer David Edelstein touted how fortunate Bellingham residents were to have Chuckanut Ridge destroyed by a community bank and a local developer instead of by strangers to the area. Apparently, they prefer fratricide to homicide. It does not matter who pulls the trigger, the end result would be the same: the destruction of one of Bellingham’s last remaining urban forests. Their plan would destroy over 82 acres of wetlands and mature forests. To me, this is a betrayal of community values.
Horizon Bank and Edelstein have demonstrated little regard for this community. While they congratulate themselves for requesting an environmental impact study, they are promoting the cheapest bidder who will charge half the cost, spend less than half the time of the nearest bidder, and would specifically exclude a wetland and stream survey and an updated traffic study. Such an EIS is completely inadequate for this sensitive ecological site.
There is a difference between “community-based” and “community-spirited.” The Larrabees, Clarks, and Stimpsons were community-spirited. They recognized the importance of preserving Bellingham’s green space and natural resources for future generations and donated land for public use. Horizon Bank puts profit ahead of community values.
Michael Botwin
One more thought regarding the EIS: Everything I have recently read about the timing of study indicates it will be happening soon. Strategically, this is a smart move on the part of the developers as the EIS will occur during the absolutely driest time of the year. Brilliant! First, let’s hope a truly unbiased firm is hired to do the study, and then, in the interest of both fair play and good science, let there be a second EIS conducted in February or March or April when Chuckanut Ridge is at its soggy best and the notion of “forested wetlands” will be much more apparent. Or require several studies over a 12-month period as it is highly likely that the property is seasonally dynamic in its hydrology and when considering T&E species.
Like Larry, I am struck by the line, "We are committed to being open and honest about our plans and listening to your suggestions and concerns." One would think that if that were true that they would read and respond to these comments. That they have not shows just how "open and honest and listening" they really are.
Commenting by HaloScan
