City of Bellingham Proposes New Economic Development Policy

Wendy Harris is a retired citizen who comments on development, mitigation and environmental impacts.

The Bellingham City Council is considering a proposed new Economic Development Chapter for the City Comprehensive Plan.1 It was discussed at the April 22, 2013 Council meeting and will be reviewed again at the May 13, 2013 meeting. The new policy is being promoted by Mayor Linville on the City website and in a May 5, 2013 Bellingham Herald editorial opinion.

I have serious concerns about this new economic policy. First, it was developed through consultation with hand picked members of the business community, with a heavy emphasis on developers. When was the last time the city developed a new environmental policy and consulted only environmental activists? Comprehensive Plans should reflect the values of the entire community, and this can not be accomplished by obtaining input from only one group of stakeholders.

A primary defect with the proposed Economic Development Chapter (ED Chapter) is that it reflects an outdated and failed economic theory premised on the belief that all growth is good and that we must continue grow by developing land and consuming more natural resources. Growth is a financial liability and leads to greater environmental degradation and lower quality of life. The public is best served by an updated economic policy that incorporates the new reality of depleted natural resources, climate change, and increasing economic disparity.

The ED Chapter is being drafted to comply with the Growth Management Act (GMA), although the city is adopting this Comprehensive Plan change early, prior to state funding that would become available if the city waited. That funding could be used to update the city’s economic analysis. Instead, the new ED Chapter is based on outdated data and analysis from 2008 and 2009, at a time when projected growth and the need for economic development was higher. Why is the city in such a hurry? As contrast, the city’s updated SMP, due in 2005, was just finalized this year, in 2013.

At the same time, the ED Chapter does not closely track the GMA policy goal for economic development. The GMA economic policy goal focuses on economic opportunity for all citizens of the state, especially the unemployed and disadvantaged. RCW 36.70A.020(5). Bellingham’s proposed ED Chapter fails to contain a single reference to the unemployed and disadvantaged. I do not believe this reflects our community’s values, or our prior policy contained in the City Council’s 2009 Legacies and Strategic Commitments.

Nor does this proposal emphasize the pre-requirements for economic development pursuant to the GMA. Under state law, economic development is a goal subject to consideration of the capacity of the state’s natural resources, public services and public facilities. RCW 36.70A.020(5). The city’s proposal incorrectly treats environmental goals and economic goals as of equal weight. In general, the new chapter fails to reflect the importance of a healthy environment with regard to long term economic viability or the health of our community.

Another GMA related concern that I have regards the use of the term “employment lands.” It is not a violation of the GMA to use this term, but it is not a GMA term, nor is it a term otherwise used in the planning community. Creating and using a fabricated term creates an unnecessary layer of complexity and confusion. How many people will be misled into thinking that “employment lands” is some type of GMA protected category, like agricultural lands, forestry lands or mining lands? “Employment lands” suggests something permanent and inherent to the land when, in fact, GMA employment numbers change over time, requiring frequent updates. (A prior version of the ED Chapter actually required mitigation for lost jobs when “employment lands” were rezoned, underscoring the type of problems that result from the use of inexact terms.) It is more appropriate to refer to land that is zoned for commercial, industrial or mixed use.

The ED Chapter attempts to aggressively expand the city’s role in economic development, so that a primary duty becomes the promotion of business interests. For example, the city will now partner with business associations and other agencies in Whatcom County to enhance economic opportunity, reduce regulatory restrictions, and increase business incentives. Quality of life is defined in terms of a variety of job opportunities, an expanding tax base, incentives for business, and more and more growth. These are not the same public values reflected in the 2009 Legacies and Strategic Commitments, which placed greater emphasis on sustainability, and economic assistance for our citizens.

I believe that the private sector should be primarily responsible for creating economic opportunity in Whatcom County. The responsibility of local government is to assure that economic development activities are carried out in a manner that is consistent with defined community and environmental values. I do not want to see public funds and staff resources being spent to provide an increased subsidy to the private business sector. Greater accountability is required before assuming that job creation is positive for the community as a whole.

A strong and healthy environment is the foundational lynch-pin of a sustainable economy. It is disappointing that city policy is not keeping up with best available science, and instead, appears to be attempting to more strongly align itself with traditional business and development interests. This is not the right direction for Bellingham.

Endnote

1. http://www.cob.org/web/council.nsf/0/98AD358A694D0CD688257B43005FEAE5/$File/08apr2013_AB19918.pdf?OpenElement. (Warning: this is a very lengthy file.)