Don't be surprised the the Herald stands against the health of the community.
It is a group of young, smart wannabes that know fully well that to pander to money brings in money.
They run a business, not an advocate for Bellingham.
It's a natural confusion because, in the regular course of disseminating facts, occasionally they seem to be endorsing the public good over private profits.
But when push comes to shove, advertiser income is the main objective of every newspaper.
The man taking home the profit from the Herald doesn't give two shits about the welfare of our little town -
he doesn't need to.
I don't know anyone who's first blush reaction is to not want to preserve open space, but the Ridge is an area where necessary construction must occur to control sprawl. Too bad all those tofu eaters on the south side weren't so organized to save real open space like the entire side of the Chuckanuts. Your silence is coming back to haunt you. As for the lake, it is being saved and no thanks to the citizens of Bellingham who 's silence was deafening during all the years Sherilyn Wells went broke and begging for legal help while trying to control development in the city limits.
The reason that the Ridge has so much more attention is that the Chuckanuts were not the deadends and backyards of some of Bellingham's most vocal NIMBY blow hards. Develop it and maybe all the throwbacks will go somewhere else.
We rely on the Herald to not write stories about favoritism and corruption. That's how we get astounding deals like Chuckanut Ridge. They get the real estate advertising. That seems fair.
Besides, if they investigated the story, people would go to jail. That would take all the fun out of stealing from the public! You're just miffed that you don't belong to the club. Get a life!
Anyone watching the disasters in Seattle? Apartments being built on hillsides and the ground is slipping and erroding away underneath. Why would our hills (CR, King/Queen) be any different? We already have water and soil running off the hills, let's put people in apartments so they can turn around and sue the City/County for letting Black/Ebenal or whoever develop the hills. Good idea.
The main difference between Chuckanut Ridge and King/Queen Mts is that one is in the City and the other is not. Chuckanut Ridge is already zoned urban densities and its plan is held to the city standards. It wiil either be built out or not built and bought for a park, instead.
King/Queen Mts , on the other hand currenly have County zoning of 1 home to 5 acres. These areas will change no matter what. Do the Citizens want some say in how they are developed, green space preserved, public access legally gained (City,) or no say and no legal public access (County)? Tresspassing on these hillsides will no longer be tolerated as ownerships shift from a few owners to many individually owned 5 acre parcels whose tress have been cut down so they each have their views and their now established NIMBY privacy.
It is time for people to understand that King/Queen Mts. have the best chance of some identity saved by being masterplanned under city jurisdiction, than no planning/no parks under County allowed 5 acre buildout.
Develop it and get over it.
Larry,
I don't know who some of these anonymous comedians writing above are or where they live, but I want to say to you: a big thanks for repeating, yet again, the rational (read Comprehensive Plan) reasons for NOT developing Chuckanut Ridge.
I can only hope the Herald editorial board gets it some day.
Vince Biciunas
The issues surrounding Chuckanut Ridge are extremely complex and include zoning densities that were established more than 25 years ago under questionable circumstances and before the environmental sciences really appreciated the value of preserving mature forested wetlands, steep wooded hillsides and salmon bearing streams.
Since then, Goals 9 and 10 of the Growth Management Act were adopted to “encourage the retention of open space,” “conserve fish and wildlife habitat,” and generally “protect the environment.” Additionally, Bellingham’s Comprehensive Plan adopted more than 15 land use policies (including FLU 1, 6, 7, 8, 24, 26, 34, 55, 126, 127, 128, 144, 145, 146 and 147) that were established to incorporate best available science to preserve neighborhood character, protect environmentally sensitive and critical areas such as streams, wetlands, urban forests, scenic vistas, and the steep hillsides that provide the natural backdrop for the city, and preserve fish and wildlife habitats. The current zoning on Chuckanut Ridge violates GMA Goals 9 and 10 and each of these land use policies and results in an internal inconsistency between the city’s Comp Plan and the South Neighborhood Plan. Such an internal inconsistency violates §36.70A.070 of the GMA and must be corrected to bring both these plans into compliance with state law.
It is important to understand that these land use policies are designed to protect resource land WITHIN the City of Bellingham. It is clear that not every parcel of land within the city will be developed. Many will be set aside as critical areas and parks and to provide for public facilities. In an ideal world, the parcels set aside would represent the most ecologically valuable ones to preserve. There is absolutely no doubt that Chuckanut Ridge places at the top of the list of land that deserves to be preserved. Would anyone actually prefer that 85 acres of brownfield within the city be preserved rather than Chuckanut Ridge?
In a way, it is ironic that what makes Chuckanut Ridge so valuable for preservation purposes actually detract from its value for development. Essentially, Chuckanut Ridge is a swamp with mature trees and steep hills, and while it provides a habitat for fish and wildlife that is unrivaled in our city, it cannot be developed effectively to yield maximum profit. Virtually all the land surrounding Chuckanut Ridge has been developed for many years. If Chuckanut Ridge was a good candidate for residential development, this land would have been built upon long ago.
It’s time for the city to put its money where its mouth is. Preserve Chuckanut Ridge!
Larry,
Virtually everything you contend about Chuckanut Ridge also applies to most of the undeveloped lands on Samish ridge.....yet early on proponents of the "save Chuckanut Ridge" movement approached the city to trade the Chuckanut Ridge lands for city owned lands on Samish ridge. To me, that sounds like a classic NIMBY move.
Absolutely, a significant portion of the Chuckanut Ridge property should be and will be protected from development through existing laws and at little or no expense to the taxpayers. To expect the rest of us to buy more park lands for your backyard so you can be immune from growth issues is selfish to say the least.
If the City of Bellingham is going to accomodate growth, each neighborhood should accept their fair portion of the growth, not cram it down other neighborhood's throats.
HiGuy,
Thanks for your comments.
I had heard the rumor you mentioned about the Samish Ridge "trade", but when I checked it out, it turned out to be false. I believe the rumour was started by a developer; but I know that Tom Barrett was spreading it. No one I know would support such a trade. (If you have more info, I would be interested.)
No one is expecting "the rest of you" to buy parklands in my backyard. If you look at the Greenways tax revenues, you'll see that the revenue generated by taxpayers in the region surrounding Chuckanut Ridge (not including the Samish neighborhood) is more than adequate when combined with grants and private fundraising. I am not interested in your subsidy. Are you interested in a subsidy from me?
The South Neighborhood is currently working with the city to accommodate its share of growth and still preserve Chuckanut Ridge. In my opinion, that is the best way to approach this issue.
By the way, the term NIMBY is way overused. In fact, if you are not willing to protect your own neighborhood, how can you be expected to help protect our larger neighborhood, including the city and county? I am proud that I am active in protecting the quality of life throughout my greater community, including your neighborhood.
NIMBY? NIMBYs only emerge in response to LULUs. LULUs? Locally Undesirable Land Uses. That certainly describes the proposed development of Chuckanut Ridge.
Should good citizens stand idly by while their community gets wrecked? I guess our Founding Fathers were NIMBYs, too??
Just a few comments to set the record straight. Protecting Lake Whatcom and protecting Chuckanut Ridge are very similar goals. I was there for Lake Whatcom as those of you from this community will recall, likewise we all need to be here to protect Chuckanut Ridge and King and Queen Mountain and the Samish area. It is not a trade off that pits one neighborhood against another. That is a false dichotomy. The rumor that the CR folks were selling out the Samish Ridge folks is a classic example.
It is also crazy to think that preservation in town pits the city against the county. I am currently sitting in Hong Kong. 90 % of the land on this island has NOT been developed at all, just trees. The movies you see of the city is the most dense (and largely very pleasant place) you could imagine. The lowest density in our town is the Central Business District and Old Town EXACTLY were development should be taking place. It is where the jobs are and where people could live and not have to put our road system further into failure! Why not be rational and stop pandering to "developers" who simply want to take the cash out of our community based on the high quality of life we have built here and give us back a town that has been trashed and land values that plummet when the quality of life is gone.
Let stop fighting amongst ourselves and begin the real battle with those that would take our quality of life from everyone in the city and pave over every inch of it for profit and then move to a gated community in California.
It is time we had rational long term planning that followed the neighborhood plans that many worked very hard to develop.
It is time to stop the pork barrel politics of allowing developers to destroy our community for easy money like when The Mall was built on land that had been set aside in perpetuity. Like when the up zone of Chuckanut Ridge was done by a real estate agent at the end of a long night after the public had gone home. Like the selling out of the solid zoning for King and Queen Mtn. Like the mega development that will plunge the Guide into total collapse as a roadway in Larrabee Springs.
It is time for the people to say ENOUGH!
We have a small window of opportunity to save our quality of life here. People form all over the nation want to move here because it is such a lovely place. We are loosing that quality and will loose it entirely to become just another over grown suburban jungle if we dont come together as a community now.
Join the hundreds who already have spoken out. Go to your neighborhood meetings. Dont let those who want to destroy our community pit us against each other. Dont listen to those cowards to afraid to sign there own name to their emails. Speak up and get active today, the opportunity is now, once the building and roads are built there is no going back. Save the places that we love and put housing where it belongs, in our central downtown core.
Larry,
Thanks.....this is the first I have heard of activity in the South Neighborhood to accomodate growth other than the Chuckanut Ridge property. Want to share any details? I believe that is the crux of the issue....we all have to share equitably both in accepting growth and providing open space, or some of our neighborhood "characters" aren't going to survive.
As for the Samish Neighborhood, the neighborhood plan update due for final passage tonight accepts development in accordance with current zoning. Obviously, if Bellingham has to accept the amount of growth that is predicted the current zoning will be modified and probably re-modified.
Frankly, I think we are all going to feel the sting of Tip's LULUs before it's done.
Does anyone think that when the forefathers in Vancouver set aside Stanley Park, or in New York City when they set aside Central Park, that there was unanimous support from the developers and building trades and realtors?
We are hearing the same complaining now.
Is there anyone, who does not have a financial interest in developement, who is opposed to saving Chuckanut Ridge?
We realize that as crowding and congestion increases, people become more stressed and aggressive in their behavior.
Some of these opponents to Chuckanut Ridge have already shown that in their comments above.
I wonder how increased crowding can be of any benefit to them?
With all the new condos in Fairhaven, we need Chuckanut Ridge as open space and recreation for all residents.
I still am waiting to hear a valid argument from anyone, as to why saving Chuckanut Ridge is not a good thing?
take care,
craig moore
I have lived here my entire life. I hate what is becoming of my hometown and county. I have been to a number of council and planning meetings over the years to let those people know that we who live in the area between Lakes Padden and Samish don't want to be sucked into the city. In 1986 we were allowed a zoning change from one house per acre to five per acre. But, the county caves in for the developer of Sandstone Way allowing more density. Of course, they forgot about laws restricting city services and now those residents are suffering from low water levels from inadequate wells.
We did stop, after a five year fight, a developer/land speculator who wanted to be included in the Additional Areas for Consideration portion of the UGA discussions. Why he was even considered is beyond me. The only reason I can think of is that the property abutts Lake Padden Park but it is more than a mile from city services and city limits. His proposal originally was for a change to four houses per acre but somehow, his final request was for URMX which is dense residential and commercial. Finally his proposal was turned down by both city and county planning commissions and councils. Can you imagine 300 people next to the east end of Lake Padden? A spokeswoman for Bellingham Parks thought it was a wonderful idea to put that many people next to a relatively wild area of the city. Why this idea was even allowed to go forward by the county council is beyond me. But greed is a powerful motivator and he will be back.
My major point is why should someone who owns property be allowed to change the lives of people who live there while he lives miles away? Why should profit trump a way of life? It's all about more tennis bracelets and safaris and cruises.
HiGuy,
Thanks for continuing our dialogue. I appreciate that we are able to communicate openly without calling each other names.
I am concerned that you have swallowed the city’s bureaucratic nonsense that “each neighborhood MUST accept its fair share of growth.” This situation results from the city’s ridiculously ass-backward process for adopting its growth projection. Ideally, city staff, working with neighborhood input, would determine our “livable capacity” – the population target we could accommodate without crowding or inconvenience and without destroying our key habitats of local importance. Because neighborhoods would be involved from the start, this process eliminates the inter-neighborhood infighting we are now experiencing.
Unfortunately, the city adopted a growth projection that exceeds our livable capacity and forced upon its residents excruciating growth pains which could have been avoided, including the destruction of highly valued ecological treasures. I have been impressed with Dan Pike, and I hope he will change the city’s process when we adopt our next population forecast (which I believe will occur in 200
.
As you may know, the adopted growth projection for Bellingham of 31,601 is roughly twice the number needed to meet the State Office of Financial Management requirement. In other words, the city and county could have legally accepted about half the growth. As you might expect, there is substantial pressure by realtors and the building industry to adopt high-growth planning models. In fact, the WA Assn of Realtors contracted with well-known land use attorney Sandy Mackie to brief them on doing so (see links below).
Regarding the South Neighborhood, I have no information to share with you at this time; however, keep in mind that the primary urban village in southwest Bellingham is Fairhaven. Based on the number of buildings going up, it is likely that Fairhaven will end up accommodating significantly more than its fair share. The local recreational opportunities for these new residents are primarily in the South Neighborhood (Fairhaven Park, the Interurban Trail, Hundred Acre Wood, etc.). As a result, the final population accommodation in southwest Bellingham will likely involve some inter-neighborhood balancing between the Fairhaven and South neighborhoods.
Hope this helps. And thanks for keeping this dialogue civil.
Links to Sandy Mackie’s briefs for the WA Assn of Realtors:
Part I: http://www.warealtor.org/
governm...die_mackie1.asp
Part II: http://www.warealtor.org/
governm...ndie_mackie.asp
Part III: http://www.warealtor.org/
governm...die_mackie3.asp
Best,
I, too wish to endorse the credible analysis by Larry Horowitz of the reasons why Chuckanut Ridge deserves to be preserved and for absolutely no development be permitted. Here is an opportunity for the newly elected mayor Dan Pike to REALLY show the citizenry of OUR FAIR CITY how well he will endorse the vision for which he has been voted in to represent us.
Chuckanut Ridge is the ONLY property that could allow Fairhaven Park to expand to meet the City's own park standard consistent with the population targeted for the area.
And yet it is zoned for intense development.
Chuckanut Ridge is the only property that can connect Fairhaven Park with our substantial Interurban investments and leverage their value into a Gateway to the Chuckanut.
And yet the City failed to review the zoning after City planners called the public record of the rezone, "...a mystery at best."
Chuckanut Ridge might have at most fifty reasonable homesites, yet was zoned for 1500 units without any public notice or hearing, in contravention of numerous adopted neighborhood and citywide policies.
And so neighborhood plans were stripped of any authority in the land use code.
The City has repeatedly sustained Chuckanut Ridge by doing things they shouldn't and not doing things they should've.
Chuckanut Ridge began as a blind Delaware corporation officed in Lynden, reportedly involving elected officials of the time.
Chuckanut Ridge is either a comedy of government error and ineptitude, or something much worse.
Yet NO ONE will investigate! Horizon Bank is just the tip of this big rotten iceberg.
One more fact for the record is that the most dense neighborhood in the city is on the south side already. Happy Valley has the highest density in the city already.
Another is that these 'developments' are highly subsidized by tax payers. See the study by Eben Foder on the Responsible Development website for the entire set of facts (rdnow.org). We will subsidize Chuckanut Ridge with over $12 million in public spending and even worse for Larrabee Springs where the public costs will run over $30 million in public spending. Find out the fact before your tax bill goes up even higher.
Larry,
Thank you. Life is too short and precious to waste time on name calling. Also, for the record, I have no interests whatsoever in the development sector.
I couldn't agree more with your take on the growth projections that were adopted. That is the real villain. That's why people are taking sides. They are scared. Sadly, as it stands at the moment we are about to become obligated to meet those projections and I wonder if we can act fast enough to turn it around.
Maybe our neighborhoods need to spend more time as a single powerful force to demand a more reasonable approach to growth projections and requirements instead of what currently appears to be a focus primarily on defending our individual turfs.
The best available science is clear that if we want to preserve the Puget Sound and the salmon bearing creeks such as Padden and Chuckanut that flow into it, we must preserve their water sheds. Chuckanut Ridge is an undisturbed wet land forest with no human habitations or roads in its water shed. Any roads or development in the water shed will degrade the wetlands on and off the Fairhaven Highlands property, Chuckanut Creek, Padden Creek and to some extent, the Puget Sound. The Puget Sound Partnership is being put together at the state level to preserve such water sheds. It makes no sense to destroy Chuckanut Ridge with a high density development. Development should go where the natural environment is already destroyed, where adequate infrastructure and services already exist.
HiGuy,
You hit the nail on the head when you said, "Maybe our neighborhoods need to spend more time as a single powerful force..." If we allow ourselves to be divided, we will easily be conquered.
We should not allow certain members within our community distract us from, and prevent us from achieving, our common vision and goals. Let's work together to preserve the quality of life for all of Bellingham and Whatcom County and honor the legacy of those who came before us.
Best,
The notion of each neighborhood accepting the number of units as assigned by the the Planning department is as ludicrous as the overall numbers that the city submitted to comply with GMA. Our town and our earth do not make a checkerboard to be filled in mathematically. Our earth is a living system - a large organism that is critically ill. In order to heal her, we must treat her with new medicine, not the old carginogenic snake oil of endless destructive growth.First step in the treatment is to look at ways to remove the malignancy of our current property laws. They allow an undemocratic concentration of power in the hands of a few large landowners. Until these laws change, we may achieve of the cancer here and there, but the disease will ultimately kill all of us.
Whoops, please add the word 'remission' after 'cancer' in the last line of my entry.
Consider for a moment the idea of infill equity.
If Happy Valley can absorb the growth it has seen, along with the steadfast reduction of single family homes and concomitant increase in apartments, then (just as an example, not trying to start a war) what should Edgemore be required to contemplate?
Where is the equity?
If infill is important, why are 5,000 ft2 homes still being built on large view lots above Lake Padden? Shouldn't those be apartments or condominium complexes or zero lot line duplexes? That way, many, not a few, could enjoy the proverbial view.
Why is infill always required in lowland, moderate income neighborhoods, but never for view properties? If infill is a public necessity and each neighborhood should shoulder its share of the burden, then the southside should possibly be exempt from infill requirements for years to come.
It's stupidly easy to resolve the problem of infill. Simply undo the measures that have legislated affordability off the development map, especially for individual property owners.
Accessory Dwelling Units, for instance, could largely meet the citywide infill population targets while providing affordable housing, a mix of housing types, rental supervision that can't be attained in "animal house" developments, welcome assistance with homeowner payments, tenant opportunities for saving toward a downpayment and eyes-on-the-property" security that can't be matched by police patrols.
Most infill units ought to be placed in urban centers, like downtown, where a broad mix of services already exist. That improves the neighborhood and business climate alike while reducing transportation demand, as we have already seen.
Adopting policies, like ill-defined and poorly supported "urban villages", that implement transitional changes and destabilize neighborhoods - especially those with a mix of affordable housing types - only creates uncertainty, stimulates speculation and exacerbates the underlying problem: affordability.
But maybe Horizon Bank can show a profit, after the public's huge tax subsidy, and post results that buoy their stock. That might cost us a pretty piece, but would be a welcome change to them.
I live in the County, but replacing mature forested wetlands on Chuckanut Ridge with tons of asphalt, manicured lawns, and high density development when there is more appropriate land elsewhere on the southside makes absolutely no sense--environmentally, socially, or ethically. Eben Fodor estimated that $12M will be needed to pay for the infrastructure of this ill-conceived development. I would rather see our tax dollars spent on acquiring this urban forest, not subsidizing another developer while our quality of life is compromised.
I hear the argument, "If not there, then where?" If increased density is required in the south after all the density already planned for Fairhaven is factored in, then "brownfields" should be developed, perhaps on Old Fairhaven Parkway where the infrastructure already exisits, not in the middle of a forest!
I fervently hope that every citizen and all our neighborhood associations will get behind a movement to demand that City officials revise the population projections previously and erroneously adopted before it is too late. Not ackowledging this error is the real problem.
It is disgraceful that the neighborhood divisiveness created by Mayor Asmundsen with his false "north-south" dichotomy continues to be perpetuated by the Herald at every possible turn. We are ONE community. Traffic congestion, air pollution, rising taxes, loss of urban forests and wildlife, and the pollution of our lakes, streams, and Puget Sound will affect us ALL, not just one neighborhood. We need to listen to each other's legitimate concens, and stop using labels like NIMBYs. It's dismissive and intellectually lazy.
What we should be doing it letting Mayor Pike (and the Herald!) know that it is possible to preserve the "green lungs" of our city and still accomodate reasonable growth if the growth projections had not been set in the stratosphere!
Remember:
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."-- Native American proverb
"You don't know what you've lost till it's gone...They paved paradise and put up a parking lot"-- Joni Mitchell
Thanks to Larry Freeman for the excellent letter and thanks to many for the excellent dialogue.
As a member of the South Neighborhood Association (the neighborhood that surrounds Chuckanut Ridge) we have been working for months on a neighborhood plan amendment that strongly emphasizes urban conservation. It has to be acknowledged that to attain this we have to find suitable areas for growth within the city limits and within the neighborhood. Christopher outlines the basic thrust of the plan amendment above. While the plan amendment that was submitted to the City today is lacking in detail, it does provide enough overview so that as it moves forward, increase density can be found in appropriate areas. It has always been our, or at least my intent to do it this way. As a brief overview, areas just south of Fairhaven Parkway, that are already highly impacted are proposed for increase density. The southwest corner of I-5 and Fairhaven Parkway is proposed for an “urban village of mixed use higher density housing and neighborhood commercial center. We don’t want this area squandered for no stinkin freeway based fast food joints. Other areas have been proposed for possible increased density as well.
Sprawl is usually caused in a market economy by a decline in the perceived quality of life in urban areas. People have a strong passion for quality green space. As the City grows, preserving unique areas like CR, Samish Crest, Lake Whatcom and King Mountain and restoring, to the extent possible areas like Whatcom Creek, Squalicum Creek, Connolly Creek and Sehome Arboretum is critical to a more compact urban design. Without this connection to the natural environment, more people will want to leave the city in favor living in rural areas. It’s one thing to plan, but it is quite another to make your more compact urban design work in the context of that market economy where home buying decision are made by tens of thousands of people. As strange as it may seem, we still have a chance to save all of those areas. They each compliment one another.
As for the myth about wanting to trade Samish Crest properties for Chuckanut Ridge, one individual who lived in the Samish Neighborhood and also has been associated with RD had briefly suggested that one parcel that connects Lake Padden to Samish Crest might be traded for CR. The suggestion received the same strong negative response from RD and Chuckanut Ridge supporters at the time that it received from the Samish Neighborhood. It was a bad idea that was briefly aired and quickly died. That should have been the end of the story. Urban myths and regional resentments seem to have a life of their own however.
Personally, during the Greenways controversy and debates, I put a fair amount of time into trying to get the Greenways allocation for the Samish Crest area increased. I recognize that that Greenway needs significant support since it is also a valuable natural area. By being persistent, it was one of the areas where the Legacy group had some significant success and the 2006 group was willing to make some concessions before the issue went to council. I found it odd that almost no one from the Samish Neighborhood stepped forward at that time to advocate for that Greenway. While we did not get everything we were asking for, we were able to significantly raise the acquisition allocation for that area. More is needed I think. A fair amount of the critical land in that area is outside the city limits. This is an area where the CMPD can help out, especially since it would be taxing the residents of the Yew Street area outside of the city limits where many of the important environmental areas exist. I also remember being strongly in favor of including Samish Crest in the first Greenways levy in 1991. To some at the time, it seemed a long way out of town. Somehow it stayed in that levy proposal which is why we are even discussing it today. I would suggest that advocates for that Greenway should make it known to the city that they want the city to aggressively pursue additional acquisition dollar for that area through grant sources. This would allow for a wider, more complete corridor. Use of Park Impact Fees for acquisition for that area is also possible.
What a great outpouring.
Due to letters to the editor constraints, I was unable, along with the Herald's editing, ( so that the by-line was changed from "Misdirection 101") to stress the point that the Herald's own voice was itself ANTAGONISTIC to the city-wide set of principles that had been articulated to guide planning. The editorial did not "increase community understanding" in the issues pertinent to the "natural environment", did not advocate for the "preservation of the unique quality of neighborhoods", and does not respect "the best available science in the management of critical areas."
As a result we must ask" why not?"
The view that one should not expect more, while understandable, suggests that we should all just pack up and go home. But this is the whole issue: divide and conquer. Isolate the citizens.Encourge them to feel they do not share common values. Play upon their fears and old antagonisms, and let city planning, values, respect, and science be damned.
WHEN THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY DOES NOT SPEAK FOR THE COMMUNITY VALUES, IT MUST BE CALLED TO ACCOUNT.
Is the Herald the voice for the community. Not always, that is for sure. Yet it should speak truthfully.And if the position taken in an endorsement for policy is based on values NOT statutorily endorsed by the city's residents, and misrepresents the issues, the organ of communication that binds us as a community is lo longer working.
What if the Herald announced that there were no issues re pollution in the Bay as the City plans its approach to the waterfront? There would be no doubt that this is a falsehood.... And so is conjoining the issues of the Lake and the Ridge.
There are definitely those who are not interested in abiding by the rules espoused in the Belllingham Comprehensive Plan. I simply assert that when the dominant, most prevalent voice of the community speaks it has a responsibility to follow those rules, or to say that it is choosing not to do so.
Larry Freeman
I want to see the complete chain of custody and control of this property from the time of the secretive WestEden land corp to present.
Only with those facts can I know whether all the weird advantages this project has enjoyed are unbelievably good luck or something very fishy.
It deserves an investigation!
Thanks to Larry F. for writing his well thought out and acurate letter. It saddens me to see from reading the letters in this blog that the North/ South divide is still flourishing in our city, to the point of being downright hateful. We are one city, and the preservation of Chuckanut Ridge is critical to the quality of life for ALL of the people of Bellingham. Anyone that believes the Southside is not accepting it's fair share of "infill" has obviously not paid a visit to Fairhaven recently. Not only do we owe our support to the wedlands/ wildlife to be good stewards by protecting this priceless gem, but when we are through raping and pilaging the rest of our city, particularly Fairhaven, we better have some place for all of these Condo dwellers to go when they come out of their very expensive 800 sq. ft. boxes. People can only buy so much sclock, drink so much coffee and eat so much food before they require a little nature to balance all of the excess and still be decent human beings. And by the way, is the devolper paying any attention to the landslides and devastation to poorly thought out devolpments in the news? Why did the Herald give front page coverage to one car in a ditch when near Chuckanut Ridge there were eight cars and a tow truck in the ditch just beyond 16th street on Chuckanut Dr.? If you are reading this, Mr. Edelstein, have these dangers been taken into account for your so-called "traffic study?" You might want to consider that we are already overburdened with newcomers that can't drive in some conditions on the existing roads while figuring out how you plan to access this High Rise development.
[This is my third attempt to post to this thread, so if this is a duplicate, I apologize.]
Perhaps the most persuasive argument that I have heard in favor of developing all or part of Chuckanut Ridge is that we need to reverse the trend towards sprawl by providing for more growth and infill within city limits. If not here, the argument goes, then where?
The challenge before us all is to find and encourage attractive and livable forms of infill, and to do so in locations which are close to where people live, work, and play, and which are well-situated to take advantage of transit and alternative (non-car) transportation. Smart growth is pedestrian friendly and respects our natural environment and local character and sense of place.
So let's get this straight, if the forested wetlands of Chuckanut Ridge are built upon, it will be a case of growth and infill, but it will not be smart growth or wise infill. Rather, it will be an ordinary case of developer-driven suburban growth, and it will come at a high cost.
The old pattern of build and grow is unsustainable and is living on borrowed time. I believe it is time for us to get serious about preventing sprawl and encouraging smart growth. Permitting 700 houses on Chuckanut Ridge is a bad way to start.
Michael,
Thanks for taking time to post your excellent comments. I would just like to elaborate on the ‘sprawl’ vs. ‘infill’ argument as it relates to Chuckanut Ridge.
You state, “if the forested wetlands of Chuckanut Ridge are built upon, it was be a case of growth and infill, but it will not be smart growth or wise infill.” While I agree that this would not be ‘smart growth’, I suggest that such development actually represents ‘sprawl’ rather than ‘infill’.
Many people believe that only development outside of the city limits can be considered sprawl; however, the WA State Dept of Community, Trade & Economic Development (CTED) defines sprawl as,
“poorly planned URBAN development in the URBAN fringe that invades land important for environmental and natural resource protection.”
Since ‘urban’ means ‘of or relating to a city’, it is clear that CTED’s phrase “poorly planned urban development” relates to development WITHIN a city. It is also clear that Chuckanut Ridge is important for environmental and resource protection and that Horizon Bank’s Fairhaven Highlands project will destroy this land. Such destruction is the poster child for ‘sprawl’ and in no way represents or should be considered ‘infill’.
Let’s get this straight: Horizon Bank’s development is ‘sprawl’, not ‘infill’! Anyone who disagrees should take their case to CTED.
Link to CTED’s article, “Reducing Sprawl”: http://cted.wa.gov/site/404/default.aspx
Thanks again for your comments.
Best,
So, Where were you when we were fighting the Albertson's from going in on the truck route? Oh, Thats right it was not in your back yard and it gave you another choice for shoping. It also was on the beloved Southside, but there were no supporters from your group there? It ran a bunch of us out due to the lights and then they moved. We fought for them to put in water treatment from the parking lot's to save our streams. But see, It gave the mighty on Chuckanut another option so they wanted it. If you are serious about stopping the Chuckanut Ridge developement, I do not want to pay for it. Do not say a majority in this town do not want it, you need to get off the Southside to say what we on the Northside want. I grew up in this city on the Southside, Did you? I bet you are another transplant from somewhere that comes in and says I am going to live here and fight anyone who wants to change it. Did you fight against the new buildings in Fairhaven? If you want I think you can buy this Mountain for the cost of the property and all the exspense's the owner has put into getting this approved and then for what he would of made, So if you can get Bill Gates or someone on your shallow side, buy it and donate it as a poark with your name and let all the birds and wildlife and people use it in your perfect little world. But do not ask for help from others that the Chuckanut people refused to help orior and stop talking for me and what you call the majoity of the town when it is the majority of the Southside.
Mr. Horowitz tortures the language in his attempt to bend the legal definitions to suit his argument. The "urban fringe" is that part of the county outside the city limits, not presently part of the city.
While I can understand his frustration, that these lands should not be part of the city and might be more valuable to us for something besides residences, the line was drawn long ago.
Mr. Horowitz and his allies want to put those residences somewhere else. Where?? It was 35 years ago we opposed Fairhaven Parkway and the whole Imus Wonderland. We lost, we were literally beaten, and now it is what it is, suburbia surrounding an outdoor mall.
It is time to save what we still have, not dissipate our energy on something that was lost long ago.
I join Larry Freeman in believing that the Bellingham Herald editorial board misleads its community again about Chuckanut Ridge when it conjoins the issues of this property with those of Silver Beach.
I contiune to fight to save the mature forested wetlands, the wooded hillsides and the salmon bearing streams of the Chuckanut Ridge that would all be destroyed by its develpment. Both the Growth Management Act and the Bellingham Compresinsive Plan were written to encourage retention of open space, to conserve fish and wildlife habitat, and to protect the envronment and critical habitat areas.
We continue to destroy wetlands and streams in this state and then pay millions of tax dollars to fix problems that occur after development to restore habitats. It is time the City of Bellingham save this property to prevent the destruction of its habitat and any adverse affects on its valuable wetlands and salmon bearing streams.
We cannot continue to cut down forests, cover wetlands, destroy steep hillsides, and put salmon baring streams into jeapardy without paying highly for our selfishness in the future.
Chuckanut Ridge is part if my "back yard" even though I don't live accross from it or around it. It is there for me and you to enjoy and to save for future generations. Fighting for it is a very worthy cause and we should all continue to so.
i'd like to point out that Larry has NOT attended any planning commission (where the real change can and does happen) meetings other than those regarding CR or the Comp Plan - but he makes the comment that he is involved in every neighborhood. given his lack of attendance, that is not the case.
the truth of the matter, for most of those who posted comments today, you consider yourself involved, but don't REALLY know what is happening in the other 22 neighborhoods.
another example would be Frank James' comment that we need infill downtown - anyone who has attended an old town meetings, or the lettered streets NPA meeting, or the waterfront redevelopment meetings would fully understand that there are MANY 'hamsters that don't want infill for any of those areas. so if not downtown, then where? Mr James also comments that happy valley has achieved density, but that is only because of the huge number of college students that reside there.
so, what did you learn? being inviolved is more than posting a comment on the hearld website.
Just for the record...the South Neighborhood has accomodated several hundred new units of housing since the adoption of it's neighborhood plan in 1980. These have been built along our infrastructure corridor of Old Fairhaven Parkway, and include mobile home parks, senior residences, condominiums, assisted living complexes, apartment complexes and a smaller number of single family homes. We still have developable land along this corridor and would like to use the coming year to plan to accomodate our future growth in this area, in exchange for saving the wildlife and habitat treasure known as Chuckanut Ridge. Time will tell if we are successful.
Steve Wilson
President South Neighborhood Association
You only have to look at before and after photos of Sehome Village and the Lakeway Fred Meyer/Lakeway Center complexes to see what will happen if we don't STOP all this building on sensitive properties. Both were built on wetlands (I used to pick morels in the woods and remember wading through swamp) . These are just the ones I'm familiar with; there are probably others comparable. Of course, development, particularly commercial, near I-5 is going to happen because of zoning and accessibility.
And I will proudly call myself a NIMBY because I was BORN here, so don't expect me to pack up and leave. If you are concerned about the wayward growth here, I don't care where you came from originally. We need passionate, informed people to take up the cause.
And to "oh, my god":
I spent five exhausting years with my neighbors fighting Padden Park Village. When you work and have a family, it is difficult to do any more than fight what is proposed for your own back yard. When the fire is out near your own home, you help your neighbors. And, I'm not sure if our own particular fire is extinguished.
well, there are certainly big questions with regard to the "chain of custody" of the Ridge property, and it demands a proper investigation.
Timelines of changing ownership, names of those involved in transactions hidden by corporations or LLCs should be exposed, as well as the activities of "public officials" in making the changes that affect us all.
It would seem that the horsepower behind this investigation should be the Herald, but something tells me that that there is no hope of that forthcoming from those quarters.
I guess we are left with our newly elected officials.
Will the land acquisitions and zoning changes be investigated by them?
Sadly, I must say that I would be shocked if such a thing were to happen.
but I have my optimistic bunny hat on: watching, waiting...waiting, watching.
I am sorry that ‘gk’ (Greg Kirsch) is so semantically challenged; however the term ‘urban fringe’ refers to the small region of land adjacent to the border, inside OR out. In other words, the urban fringe includes land both inside and outside of the city's border, which includes Chuckanut Ridge.
As I stated previously, Horizon’s planned destruction of Chuckanut Ridge meets the CTED definition of ‘sprawl’ because:
1) It is a poorly planned development in the urban fringe; and
2) It invades land important for environmental and natural resource protection.
I agree with Mr. Kirsch that it is time to save what we still have. That is why so many of us are working to preserve this urban forest and wetland preserve. However, Mr. Kirsch fails to recognize that many parcels within the city will be preserved as parks and open space and that the city’s land supply analysis has already taken that into account. Preserving Chuckanut Ridge as open space will not force the city to expand its UGA.
As one of only a handful of parcels recommended for preservation in the city’s own habitat assessment, Chuckanut Ridge is high on the list of land to be preserved. In other words, contrary to Mr. Kirsch’s mistaken belief, this property is not lost.
Although Mr. Kirsch may prefer that the city develop every single parcel and not preserve any for parks or open space, he just doesn’t get make the rules. And, as a county resident, he has no say in which land the city chooses to preserve. I wonder if Mr. Kirsch is speaking as a steering committee member of Futurewise Whatcom or for himself only. Let’s hope it’s the latter.
to native whatcomite... you can participate in the public process, especially the planning commission and council without physically being there. my point is that larry hasn't made the effort to be involved in the other 22 neighborhoods although that is clearly what he said he is doing. there are many others that have commented in this blog that are in his same boat. that is why you here some people yelling "nimby"
Anonymous comments such as those of "oh my god" are interesting but not very useful. Why is there a need to hid behind a false name?
I well aware of the density issues and feelings that many people have in the community. I have worked with those who live and work in Old Town and am well aware of thier interests. The issue is where SHOULD density be place and the answer is where the jobs and other services are already to minimize impacts on roads and associated infrastructure.
The density in both Old Town and the Central Business Core are the LOWEST in the city the highest in the city is in Happy Valley. When the city core is left with the lowest density it is the least effective and efficient use of space. It IS a way to maximize the profit of those who do land development.
If "oh my god" is interested in a principled and reasonable discussion perhaps they would be happy to use a real name and participate in a civilized and honest manor in a meaningful discussion.
oh my god,
FYI: In my direct conversation with HiGuy, I stated, "By the way, the term NIMBY is way overused. In fact, if you are not willing to protect your own neighborhood, how can you be expected to help protect our larger neighborhood, including the city and county? I am proud that I am active in protecting the quality of life throughout my greater community, including your neighborhood."
My reference to "your neighborhood" refers to the HiGuy's Samish Neighborhood and my participation at a Samish Neighborhood meeting a year or so ago to oppose a rezone proposed by several developers. I never claimed that I am involved in every neighborhood; nobody is. If you have specific questions about my citywide involvement, including my appeal, with other local residents, of the city's Comp Plan to the GMHB, why don't you identify yourself and I'll contact you directly with more info.
Besides, this blog is about preserving Chuckanut Ridge, not about my civic involvement. Let's try to stay on topic rather than attack those participating.
Wow! Good to see this thread still has legs.
Chuck Crawford mentioned the Albertson's debacle. Guess what? It happened the same night as Chuckanut Ridge! Yes, both were spawned of the exact same corruption.
You see, down there, we had thought to avoid a commercial freeway exit and retain Fairhaven as the southside "central business district" - pretty forward thinking for the late seventies! All the citizens who attended meetings, before both the planning commission and the council, believed that we had created a new zoning category called "auto-commercial". The important part of the auto-commercial zone was that it allowed each such area to distinguish itself with unique prerequisite conditions. Then we developed conditions that allowed for essential services, like gas stations, but restricted building size to prevent a development like Albertson's.
On the same night that the council ( some of whom may have been involved with the secret West Eden Development Corporation that became Chuckanut Ridge) waited until the hearing had been closed and folks were invited to go home, and then indulged in a host of secret plan revisions, including adopting the Exit 250 auto-commercial zone, except with NO prerequisite conditions. That left it zoned exactly the same as general commercial - even though nobody knew it for about a decade. But somebody knew and eventually recruited a buyer - Albertson's. It's another "mystery at best".
Chuckanut Ridge started in exactly the same corrupt way. And it doesn't seem to have changed, no matter the potential devastation, lost opportunity or public outcry, even though the City has the right and duty to review zoning errors.
Folks in all these fights have far fewer differences and much more in common than they sometimes think.
They should work together, not fight!
Chuckanut Ridge is an environmental treasure unique to Bellingham, and part of what makes Bellingham a wonderful place to live. Larry is correct. It is not infill to cut a thousand trees, destroy a wetland forest ecosystem, degrade salmon bearing streams, and the Puget Sound. It would be folly for Bellingham to let it be destroyed. According to the 2000 census South Neighborhood had 1550 people and the Central Business district had 806, just over half the population of South. Downtown has jobs, shops, services, and infrastructure. It would be beneficial for the CBD to have infill. Horizon Bank wants to build 739 units (1500 People) who would be isolated from jobs and services by inadequate roads. Horizon Bank and the developer should build 739 units downtown.
to be honest, when i chose that name for myself i did it for selfish reasons. it's something my "age group" said. i wanted to not put my identity out there for my own fears (because bellingham is a small town with small town talk), but i realize now that if i dont speak out, others will not. i was the planning commission secretary for the last 3.5 years. i have seen site specific plans that i would love to be developed on my own property (17 acres total with an absolutely gorgeous view of baker, in case you wanted to know). i have seen developers burned at the stake for bringing progressive INFILL ideas to this town (and some than have made this a better place). it's only the "bad developer and the planning department" that support those ideas that the neighborhoods hear - hate to break it to you, but if you didnt hound your neighbors in the negative, they might support it too. i have had the bellingham police on "stand by" because of the caustic nature of the planning commission meetings. more to the point, larry, tip, frank, vince, et al HAVE NOT been at pertinent planning commission meetings (or WAG meetings since i was on that group too). michael m of the lettered streets can confirm that none of these indivials were there when he brought the nbrhd proposal forward (which by the way, still needs to be addressed, although it is now snarled in the old town re-development process- there goes mr james' claim to infill in old town!!!). although they SAY they are involved! ask jack weiss - where these people present when there were NPA's for your neighborhood? NO. i was there! i dont want to pit one neighborhood against another, but i do want people to know what is REALLY going on. in my experience, those that shout the loudest that they are YOUR supporters, usualy are not. there's more to say, but i'm sure i've shot myself in the foot by now.
to dr. james,
i'm glad you are writing this blog from another country... it will give you a shield to hide behind. your arguments about infill suggest that you have been away from bellingham for awhile. if you had attended the WAG meetings or planning commission meetings on the waterfront as i have, you would know that to this date there is no clear answer on infill or the citys desire for this area. in regard to the waterfront site, many blame the unstable land of the GP site. if you move from that site because you cannot build and go to old town (and don't end up burned by the residents) you find yourself against the "changing zoning" monster that exsitst in this town. if you dare to move further up, you enter the lettered streets - and you might as well give up (the fight is very ugly).
Mr. James,
Why is it that anonymous contributors that are respectful and comment within the context of the discussion are labled "interesting but not very useful" and "cowards" by you? You do not know me and I do not know you, but I am every bit as entitled to my opinions as you are to yours despite the fact that I remain anonymous as a courtesy to others who share the same name and are better known in the community. If my comments were marked by name calling and derogatory remarks that would be another issue. Your derogatory labels are not a useful contribution to this discussion.
oh my god,
Based on your recent comments, I assume you are Cheri. If not, please let me know.
Either way, it appears your logic goes something like this: "Only those citizens who attend pertinent planning commission meetings can be considered well-informed and well-intentioned. If you don't attend these meetings you are either ignorant or evil."
I'm sorry; but, I simply don't agree with that logic. Many very well-informed and well-intentioned residents don't attend any planning commission or City Council meetings. Have you considered that many of us are so disillustioned that we would rather have our teeth pulled without anesthesia than attend these meetings?
I admire those citizens like Mike McAuley and Jack Weiss who continue to plug away. However, for every Mike and Jack there are hundreds of us who attended these meetings until we couldn't stand it any longer. To claim that all of us are uninformed or have bad intentions is an unfair generalization.
yes, larry. that's me. but you missed my logic completely. i never said the ONLY way to be informed is to attend pc or council meetings. i was just stating that in my opinion, it would be hard to know what is going on in other neighborhoods without attending those (and other) meetings. as for you being disillusioned, i'm disappointed in that statement - only for the sheer fact that i personally tried to mend the break between the planning department and the public - remember the emails i sent out to inform those that wanted to be informed? has that been happening since i left the city? NO. lastly, i NEVER said you or anyone else had bad intentions. i just wanted the other bloggers to know that being involved in a neighborhood other than your own takes EFFORT (in person, email or snail mail). i think julianna guy would be amazed if any southsiders showed up for meetings about the cordata area - a place that needs a park (or 10) more than the south. this city is devided - if it isn't happening in your area, it's very unlikely that you will get involved. (and by "you" i don't mean you personally larry - i mean the citizens of b'ham).
let it snow!!!
Oh My God,
Oh my god! Please name one person in Bellingham that has attended more meetings on more issues, both neighborhood and city-wide, than I have over the last thirty years - except perhaps those like yourself who are paid to attend or those who have financial stakes in the results.
After thirty-some years, I know which meetings to attend and which documents to request. I know what is involved in retaining standing through early and continuous involvement and timely testimony. I pick my issues and do my homework. I present my opinions is carefully reasoned, supportable proposals. I don't complain without offering alternatives.
It's time to get out of government when you harbor such a disrespectful attitude toward folks who just want to earn a living and raise their families instead of wasting their lives in stupid meetings that wouldn't even be necessary if it weren't for a bunch of phony public process, phony planning and downright shenanigans.
Give me a break!
In addition to its questionable zoning history, Chuckanut Ridge has repeatedly been documented to be a fragile wetland, critical to the health of several watersheds, ecological habitats and of course Puget Sound itself. It is essentially a swamp area that includes steep slopes, hardly appropriate for infill. Rather, as the city looks to secure GMA required parkland for our future, it is an obvious site for protection and preservation.
The second Greenways was passed with the clear understanding that Chuckanut Ridge would be purchased and protected. Logistical difficulties made this difficult and it was never accomplished. City officials committed funds toward purchasing it during the third Greenways campaign, and still that is questioned. The city has a moral imperative to step up and accomplish what all the studies and best available science conclude, and what they have been asked by voters and agreed to do in the past: it is time to preserve Chuckanut Ridge!
omg (Cher),
I have long ago given up on the city's planning department and planning commission. In fact, I didn't even know you no longer worked for the city. I do appreciate your attempts to mend the break between the planning department and the public; but that chasm is so wide, you really had no chance for success without support from the top.
I won’t try to explain why I am disillusioned; but I assure you my reasons are many and varied. If you think you’re disappointed, you should see how city residents feel.
I understand that being involved in citywide issues takes effort. Do you not think that my appeal of the Bellingham Comp Plan to the GMHB to address the city’s fatally flawed land supply analysis took some effort?
It’s interesting you bring up the Cordata park issue. On Aug 19, 2005 I attended the Guide Meridian / Cordata Assn meeting, along with Joan Beardsley and one or two other non-residents. After that meeting, I sent an email to Edie Norton and Julie Guy asking them to call on me if I could help them overcome the incredible learning curve that I had faced myself. I also sent a letter to the Herald supporting the acquisition of park land in north Bellingham, which I copied to Joan Beardsley. This is Joan’s Aug 20, 2005 reply to me:
“I hope you are successful in getting this letter printed, Larry. There have been mighty few opportunities for guest columns in the Herald lately. This united approach is the one that will work because it restores to the issue the strength that is Bellingham's. Joan”
I will be happy to forward this email to you if you are interested.
I have also worked with residents from the Lettered Street, Whatcom Falls, Columbia, South Hill, South, Fairhaven and Happy Valley neighborhoods, not to mention my work at the county level; however, none of this work was done at planning commission meetings. There is a lot going on behind the scenes that city employees are not aware of.
It’s really unfortunate that the city is divided and people feel the need to attack first and ask questions later. I wish you would have asked me about my involvement with other neighborhoods before you implied that I do not know what is going on outside of my own.
Let it Snow!!
Best,
I found the following Wikipedia definition of ‘infill’ enlightening:
“In the urban planning and development industries, infill is the use of land within a built-up area for further construction, especially as part of a community redevelopment or growth management program or as part of smart growth. It focuses on the reuse and repositioning of obsolete or underutilized buildings and sites. This type of development is essential to renewing blighted neighborhoods and knitting them back together with more prosperous communities.”
This definition simply does not apply to Horizon Bank’s planned destruction of Chuckanut Ridge. It is clear that the Fairhaven Highlands project represents ‘sprawl’ in its ugliest sense.
As every new development goes up, Chuckanut Ridge becomes more precious. It deserves to be preserved for its rare pristine nature and we, as a community, deserve to have it preserved that we might experience and learn from its beauty.
Great discussion. Yes, I do think the crux of the CR problem is a broad misunderstanding of the concept of infill. Even the media and a number of local electeds will often boil the debate down to infill at its most simplistic level--yer either fer it or agin it. If it isn't already paved over, built upon, or designated as a park or reserve area of some kind, then it must be vacant, and therefore, prime ground for infill. This kind of short-sighted thinking screws things up in at least three basic ways:
1. It ignores opportunities for redevelopment (consistent with neighborhood planning) as a means of increasing density in appropriate locations, as determined by the neighborhoods.
2. It ignores the need to protect high-value lands that provide signicant benefits to the community other than density--density being just one key element of an overall neighborhood planning effort. Lands to be set aside for parks, trails, open space, habitat, stream and wetland protection, critter corridors, general open space, historic/cultural sites, lands for schools and civic services, etc., etc. all need to be identified, not just in terms of what is needed today or next year, but with a super-sensitive vision toward the kind of community we intend to leave for the bums who come after us. More simplistic concepts of infill do not account well for these diverse needs, particularly when you consider how limited the choices are.
3. Simplistic infill (and NIMBY) arguments also fail to account for urban environmental systems and connectivity--something that we could be addressing a little more agressively through the city's greenways program. The environmental benefits available at CR are substantial and pretty well established through site studies and an objective rating system.
I don't live anywhere near Chuckanut Ridge but I know this city's dwindling natural landscape about as well as the next person and it won't be easy to convince me that this place isn't one of the last real gems we have left. Is it worth acquiring at any price? No. But it is darn well worth a serious public investment to acquire a major chunk of it, especially when you compare that with the multi-million $$ cost to taxpayers who get to bankroll the infrastructure needed to serve the development. Why aren't the antis freaking over that? I'm glad to see that southside neighborhoods remain committed to the cause.
False information like HiGuy's suggestion of some kind of "secret" public land swap at the expense of the Samish Neighborhood is what created much of the so-called "controversy" over Chuckanut Ridge which has inflamed and continues to a small group of uninformed citizens regarding the best and highest use of this property--for both the landowners, taxpayers, and the community at large. I was a resident of the Samish Neighborhood when this false rumor started more than four years ago, when a meritless rumor was published as fact in the neighborhood newsletter and then republished and widely distributed on the front page of a local weekly newspaper.
I personally contacted the elected neighborhood association leaders and newspaper editor responsible for publishing without verifying the accuracy of the so-called information, and although one elected Samish board member eventually apologized for such reckless disregard for the truth, both the board and the newspaper refused to publish a correction or disseminate the facts regarding alternative proposals the South Neighborhood Association, the Greenways Legacy Committee, the Coalition of South Neighborhoods, and other concerned citizen-based community groups were actually proposing to the city regarding the Chuckanut Ridge property. The only remedy on behalf of the community for the publishing and continued spread of this rumor was through letters to the editor, which are regarded as opinion.
The heart of this issue for all involved is based on:
The identified nature and public value of the property as a high-quality, locally significant habitat, as confirmed by the Bellingham Wildlife & Habitat Assessment, the Department of Natural Resources best-forest management practices, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetlands regulations, and our own Shoreline Master Plan public comment, Critical Areas Ordinance testimony, Greenways and Parks public surveys, and the past two decades worth of advances in watershed and forest science, riparian ecology, full-cost environmental accounting, and wetlands and indicator species studies.
A comprehensive fiscal study of the specific cost to taxpayers of developing Chuckanut Ridge was undertaken at great volunteer expense, and its conclusions were clear: The best return on investment for taxpayers is to preserve this significant habitat block (the last remaining mature forest wetlands habitat on the edge of the city) as the keystone it is for the entire southern region of the city and public investments already incurred here which will otherwise be devalued, including: Sehome Arboretum, the Interurban Trail system, southernmost urban Greenways corridor, Fairhaven Park, Padden Gorge, Padden & Chuckanut Creeks (salmon and cutthroat trout spawinging grounds), Chuckanut Bay, Connelly Creek, to name a few of the most commonly known.
All available economic, scientific, social, recreational, and real estate research shows that this property will only retain its high public value if its integrity is protected so that it will continue to function as the air producing, soil stabilizing, water filtering, salmon spawning ecosystem that it is.
The record also shows what the South Neighborhood Association (in which this property is entirely situated)has been attempting for three years to implement on the ground in the form of an updated neighborhood plan which reflects modern economics, science and public values: that there are many suitable locations within the South Neighborhood itself which can collectively provide the dense infill (739 residential and mixed-use commercial units) Fairhaven Highlands development proponents are advocating, but without the adverse impacts on the most ecologically significant portion of the neighborhood.
What seems to be conveniently forgotten in this rush to create division and controversy is that the landowners have a basic property right to sell this parcel at fair market value--at far less cost to taxpayers than the infrastructure required to build in this environmentally sensitive location. And the city has an obligation to taxpayers to work with the landowners and ensure this property is placed permanently in public ownership and that the landowners are provided with every reasonable opportunity to invest their development millions at a profit elsewhere within the boundaries of this neighborhood.
This is the only reasonable and feasible option for us all--regardless of what was considered viable land use 10, 20, 30, 100 years ago. We know better now!
How fortunate Bellingham and Whatcom County are to even have the opportunity to debate which--if not all--of its open spaces to preserve. On a recent trip to San Francisco, I was talking to folks there about the efforts to create more green areas *and* respond to population growth. Most opportunities for new parks are on near or near Superfund sites or other pretty nasty industrial areas. Things are better in outlying counties, but not great. Compare that to here.
The neighborhoods can work together to get beyond the Us vs. Them mode of operating (which of course only plays into the hands of those wishing to develop natural areas for their own financial gain) and protect all the areas threatened by unchecked development.
I suppose I should read what everyone else has said, so I don't repeat, but I feel like writing "off the cuff". That we are even still discussing this Chuckanut Ridge development is beyond comprehension. With numbers coming out in the press like, 70% decline in average populations of common birds, 70-90 % reduction in world fishing stocks by 2040, I am surprised they are not paying us to protect the 100 acre woods. Not to mention global warming. Lisa Marcus
Shannon has it right, these are indeed unique opportunities for an urban area to even consider saving.
First of all, the correct name is Fairhaven Highlands, not Chuckanut Ridge. Next, that area is not that special, and it has portions set aside for wetlands anyway. Next, you people are not the land's saviors, nor are you the only ones that can save the world.
The city has to put people somewhere, and that is the next slated place that has followed the requirements to develop there. Get over it.
Ron is correct. The portions set aside for wetlands in "Fairhaven Highland" will be more than adequate to handle all of the wildlife that could possibly want to live on the property and also handle all of the runoff from the development. Get real.
Perhaps you want to live in a community that is entirely buildings, roads and containment ponds called "wetlands" but I do not.
As for being the land saviors, if we dont try, who will? Horizon Bank? Ha! They only care about their stockholders. Dave Edilstein? Ha! he only cares about his business. The city? Ha! They are just trying to get by without being sued - environment be damned.
In 100 years none of us will be here, but the Fairhaven Highlands skyscrapers will be - what a vision....
I'm surprised that Whatcom Land Trust is never mentioned when these discussions arise. It seems like this would be a logical undertaking given their track record and credibility. Anyone have any knowledge if it's an acquisition they are considering? Or if not, why not?
The few people that are opposed to protecting Chuckanut Ridge - in my opinion - are not thinking clearly about the future of this city. Imagine if Houston, Phoenix (substitute your "favorite" city that has stumbled into sprawl) had preserved some sizable chunks of natural land inside the city and controlled growth in intelligent ways. They would be different places today - not the poster children of unplanned sprawl development run amok.
With Chuckanut Ridge we have a real gem - a beautiful natural forest with with wetlands, old growth trees, wildlife, hiking trails, etc. right here within city limits. So back to the future - imagine Bellingham in 10 years. We will continue to grow - hopefully with Dan Pike in office we will do so with more intelligence. And in 10 years as Bellingham grows Chuckanut Ridge will, even more than today, be seen as an incredible resource where any citizen can take a stroll through a real, functioning forest, see an owl, hear coyotes howl, where your children can try to catch frogs, build forts, play hide and seek....
What would other cities that have nothing like this left give to have a natural area like Chuckanut Ridge within their city limits? A lot. And everyone living in Bellingham will be thankful to the legacy that protecting this incredible piece of land will leave.
Todd
It's interesting you mention the Whatcom Land Trust (WLT). Some years ago, WLT prepared an outstanding white paper to promote the preservation of large tracts of land in the Chuckanuts, funded by Paul Allen’s foundation. Unfortunately for us, Paul Allen’s sports franchises dominated his attention, and the funding dried up. I believe that WLT would be interested in pursuing this again; however, I expect they have no interest in taking hold of this political hot potato.
Part of the problem is that Horizon Bank substantially overpaid for this land and failed to do its own due diligence, over-relying on the seller's attorney who now represents the bank. It's quite astonishing that they actually stepped into this land mine at all. I guess Dave Edelstein must have said, "Trust me." Most of us would have known better.
There are some interesting comments on the Horizon Bank message board at Yahoo Finance (see link below). Look for the following topics:
"Chuckanut Ridge: Horizon Bank's own Waterloo"
"Chuckanut Ridge: Challenge or Opportunity"
"An Open Letter to Horizon Bank"
"Customers abandon Horizon Bank over Chuckanut Ridge"
My favorite comment is from a Horizon Bank investor who owned more than 15,000 shares before he dumped them all. He said:
"I had been accumulating for the past two years, until today, was up to 15,000 + shares, liked the indigenous population growth, the dividend, the almost non-existent npl's, and the steady growth and good management.
However, this [Chuckanut Ridge] land deal has soured me, not a word of it in the cc, called investors relations never got a reply, try and email them can't be done. Started unloading today and will get out, how any community bank could be so stupid to stir up anything in a community giving them negative pub is too arrogant as to be beyond realm of reason.”
Link to this message:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.co...t=2&frt=2&
off=1
Link to Horizon Bank message board at Yahoo:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.co...hoo.com/mb/
HRZB
The ongoing blog discussion--fascinating. Democracy in motion. I've followed the CR issue for several years now, and in that time, the Herald's editors have expressed no sensitivity to the problems that development on CR will entail. In the past year, Herald editor Scott Ayer has, to my mind, written very intelligently on the Noosack River pollution (and WHO did that?), on traffic issues, on the waterfront. But he has penned nary a word showing that he's even a little informed about CR issues: traffic congestion, loss of wildlife habitat and green cover, pollution of streams, of the Bay, degradation of south neighborhoods.
Would Mr. Ayer like to expose himself to a bit of education? Has he the humility, the sense of responsibility, to meet with people who oppose the FH project? In the past two years, he could at any time have sought out these people for dialogue. Instead he and the editorial board of the Herald have stigmatized as foolish and hyprocritical people who have spent hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars trying to protect their city.
I call on Mr. Ayer to initiate contacts with people who want to help him.
John Brown
I own a lake ha ha losers.
I own a lake losers
I urge Mr. Bryce to spend a few thousand hours (as many of us have done) reviewing all the city's files on Chuckanut Ridge (including the current Fairhaven Highlands development proposal) in the context of all the best available local science on urban wetlands, mature forests, and vernal pool ecology. Then read and review the city's Comprehensive Plan in context with the Growth Management Act and the public hearings record on our local Shoreline Master Plan, Critical Areas, and Greenways Ordinance.
When you've digested all that information and raised money from tax-conservative volunteers across the city to have the findings peer-reviewed by experts in the various fields (as we have also done and continue to do), then take those findings regarding habitat block 6 (Chuckanut Ridge property) as described in the City's Wildlife & Habitat Assessment and conduct an environemntal full-cost analysis of which of the following options will provide the greatest long-term benefit to the community at large (without creating sprawl):
1) Develop the property to a density of 739 units requiring a minimum of 60% deforestation and impervious pavement, significant unmitigated sursurface water flow adverse environmental impact on the remaining soil structure, adjacent residential homes, existing salmon streams and spawning areas, Category I wetlands, steep-slope hazard areas, and essential habitat of several state-listed species of concern.
2) Transfer the property into public ownership to provide a scientifically adequate habitat corridor connection between the Chuckanut Mountains (Arroyo Park) and the city's urban Greenways (Interurban Trail System and wetlands connecting to Connelly Creek, Sehome Arboretum, and Lake Padden)while utilizing remaining suitable undeveloped land in the South Neighborhood along the existing major arterial (Old Fairhaven Parkway) and neighborhood commercial zone for high-density, mixed-use and residential development.
If you do all that you will see that the greatest long-term economic and ecological benefits to taxpayers, neighborhoods, and informed urban infill advocates clearly give weight to the latter reasonable option with regard to the wisest use of this specific parcel of land.
Perhaps if you and other skeptics would regularly attend the ongoing meetings and volunteer work within the South Neighborhood Association, the Coalition of South Neighborhoods, and the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Committee, you might comprehend the greater depth of land-use consideration and environmental accounting standards the majority of residents and landowners here are proposing, and why they are in your best interests to understand as well.
Cathy,
You might want to get off your pedestal long enough to read more than the first paragraph of Mr. Bryce's comment.....and then offer him a big apology for your outburst.
After re-reading Mr. Bryce's comments, I understand his concerns and apologize for not catching the subtle nuances. It is clear we share a concern for the future of our community and our public tax investments to ensure there is a balanced quality of life which reflects the priorities of citizens in both urban and rural areas. However, I don't apologize for my "outburst" and continuing efforts to engage the community in informed dialogue regarding the actual public costs and benefits associated with developing our few remaining significant habitat areas, when there are so many other more suitable and feasible infill development sites in our urban core where adequate publicly subsidized transportation and utility infrastructure already exists.
If you would have indeed read Mr. Bryce's comments the first time you would have easily understood the points he was making. Instead you rushed to condemn him with an outburst directly pointed at him. Now you defend rolling over him because you're blessing the community with your intelligence and knowledge . How arrogant you are!
It appears to me that Cathy just apologized to Wayne Bryce. Isn't that exactly what you suggested she do in your first blog?
I know Cathy. She is admired in the community and very respected for her passion to preserve the quality of life for all residents in Bellingham and Whatcom County. But she is NOT arrogant.
I'm glad Cathy took the time to apologize to Wayne Bryce for not immediately understanding his tongue-in-cheek comments about Ron Morton, and I hope Wayne accepts Cathy's apology.
I am sure that Cathy is a fine person with great passion for her cause(s), but when passion becomes condescending it likely will be perceived as arrogance.
To personally flame Mr. Bryce and then give a conditional apology ("I don't apologize for my "outburst") seems arrogant, and not really much of an apology.
The core issues about Chuckanut Ridge is that it will cost us all a great deal in tax subsidies for it to go forward, it will permanently destroy the support system for two of the three salmon streams in Bellingham and it will create a traffic nightmare for much of the south side by forcing the traffic beyond the ability of the roadways to handle the traffic. We need to say NO to this development BUT we need to say NO to all such developments EVERYWHERE in our community. There does need to be infill in Bellingham and there are literally thousands of places to do that infill that will not create these kinds of problems within the city, BUT they will not be as profitable for those who do the development, they will not be the 'easy' developments that make literally hundreds of millions of dollars in profits for those that have been able to send their land use attorneys to every Planning Commission meeting and every City Council meeting on the topic.
It is time for all of us in Bellingham to say NO to this type of public welfare for the few rich people who manipulate the process for their personal gain. If you doubt the analysis look at the study by Eben Fodor of t