Update On the Brisbane Land Trade Proposal

Update On the Brisbane Land Trade Proposal

Citizen Testimony Does Make A Difference

by Sue Lorentz

Thanks to a large turnout at the April 18 hearing on the complex proposal by Steve Brisbane to trade land, development rights, and trail and ball park building for various pieces of city-owned land, the City Council, on a motion by councilmember Louise Bjornson, voted at their April 25 meeting to remove the 40-acre parcel across Lake Padden from the package of properties under consideration. (The property was not removed by Brisbane as reported by The Bellingham Herald.)

Articulate and sincere testimony by many Bellingham residents who value the property in question as future park/greenway space made it clear to the City Council that it would be foolish of them to trade away this cherished natural area. At their April 25th meeting, the City Council directed staff to assemble as much information as possible by Monday, May 9, as to values of properties and timber involved and other factors.

Apparently, late on Friday, May 6, Mr. Brisbane removed his land swap proposal from consideration only to return a few hours later with a proposal involving only the Levin’s Building, bringing it more in line with the other two proposals under consideration. At their meeting of Monday, May 9, the City Council decided to wait one more week to make a decision on the Levin’s Building since they felt they did not have enough information on Mr. Brisbane’s last minute submission. Many at the meeting felt that Mr. Brisbane was being given special consideration since his proposal has been constantly changing while the other two proposals met the specifications in the Request for Proposals from the beginning and have remained that way.

Mr. Brisbane has expressed the desire to further explore a modified land swap to accomplish his aims. Just which properties will be included is unknown at this time. One would hope that the 40 acres at Lake Padden would not even be considered, but we have no guarantee of that. Everyone who believes in preserving city-owned open space for parks and greenways should keep themselves informed on this possibility.

The New County Council’s Priorities:

How Fast Can You Testify?

….And Reflections on the Critical Areas Ordinance

by Sue Lorentz

[...]

The new county council, just elected on a platform of pledging to “listen to the people,” seems to be proceeding in the opposite direction. Look at the council agenda regarding testimony on the interim urban growth areas. Each affected city was allowed ten minutes of testimony, then ALL interested citizens had to pack their comments into the remaining 45 minutes so “generously allowed by this council for this public hearing.

[…]

Remember the former council (you know, the guys who were criticized by certain developers for being so unresponsive and insensitive), who sat through testimony at WWU on the Critical Areas Ordinance from early evening until long past midnight? That council, constrained by fire codes from packing any more people into the hall, then had electronic speakers installed outdoors so people waiting outside could hear. That council arranged to rotate people in as others finished their testimony, so that everyone would have a chance to speak. Former councilperson Dan Warner did not end that hearing until he wearily surveyed the remaining audience, called one more time for any additional testimony, paused, and finally brought the gavel down in the wee hours of the morning to end that marathon.

[…]

A little comparison and contrast between the old and the new county council yields some very good examples of campaign rhetoric. Maybe that’s why Americans are so cynical about politics.