Note: This piece appeared earlier this week on NWCitizen.
As a result of receiving notification of the plans to rezone
two properties in the Samish Neighborhood, I found that the company
spearheading each of these rezones was owned by a member of our seven-member
Planning Commission. In and of itself, this was not a problem, if the
particular Planning Commission member recused him/herself from the
consideration and vote on these rezones when they came before the
commission. However, on further investigation, I learned that every
member of the our present Planning Commission is involved with or has/had close
ties to businesses that owe their existence to development, i.e., real estate,
consulting, construction, architecture, etc. Here is the rundown of the
current members and their affiliations/employment:
Tom Grinstad – Architect with Grinstad and Wagner
Jeff Brown - Assistant Executive Director at
Bellingham and Park Lane at Bellingham, a nursing home. However, his wife
works for Northwest Ecological Services which advises clients on wetland and
shoreline permits for development.
Garrett O'Brien – Volonta Corp. - A construction firm
Ali Taysi – AVT Consulting – Land use and permitting
(His company is involved in the two rezones I mentioned above.)
Phyllis McKee - Investment real estate management
Steve Crooks – Petrol NW Consulting (He spent several years
in Bellingham in the 1970s and returned in 2007. He is a retired real estate
project manager. He was responsible for handling eminent domain and zoning
appeal cases for BP Exploration Oil’s retail and distribution sites. He served
as BP's information officer for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response team
in the summer of 2010. He is currently president of the Cordata Neighborhood
Association.)
Cerise Noah - Realtor/broker with Windermere
I must state up front that this discovery by no means
suggests any member of the Bellingham Planning Commission is involved in
nefarious activities based on his or her affilitation and appointment to the
commission. What I do suggest is that we can surely have a more diverse
body involved in our planning process. Of the tens of thousands of adults in
Bellingham, are only those involved in development available to serve on the
Planning Commission? How wide a net is cast at the time of an opening on
the commission? Five of the current members will serve until at least 2017
(exceptions are Brown and O'Brien) thus ensuring an imbalance with
development-related members.
Unfortunately, the one assured means of code-mandated
neighborhood input into the planning process was rendered useless in 2012. The
Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission (MNAC) was, by city ordinance, written
into the process of neighborhood and comprehensive plan amendments. The
concept of discontinuing the involvement of MNAC (by ordinance) was proposed by
Mayor Linville in late 2012, at which time the MNAC representatives foolishly
voted themselves out of the planning process. (Note: I am a member of MNAC and
voted against the mayor's recommendation.) With that single vote, they gave up
one of the few opportunities for the neighborhoods, as a body, to officially
weigh into planning and serve as a counterbalance of sorts to the preponderance
of development-related representatives on the Planning Commission. The new city
ordinance on the duties of MNAC (BMC 2.33.040) allows MNAC to merely offer
advice: "The MNAC may elect to review proposed changes to the city's
comprehensive plan and neighborhood plans and provide comment on those proposed
changes for the Mayor to consider." The agenda bill (19808) of early
2013 that was presented by the mayor to the City Council stated that dropping
the requirement to review these plan ammendments would allow MNAC members to
focus on "broader, city wide issues." I am not sure what is more
broad, city-wide or vitally important than neighborhood and comprehensive plan
ammendments.
Not surprisingly, there also seems to be some confusion over
the actual name of the commission. The city ordinance that authorizes the
commission (BMC 2.24) refers to it as the Planning and Development Commission. The
commission's bylaws, adopted in 2011, begin by saying, "The official name
of the organization shall be the Bellingham Planning Commission."
The name, Bellingham Planning Commission, was expressly selected with the
adoption of the commission's 2011 bylaws and the Bellingham Municipal Code was
to have been updated at that time. It appears council action is still
necessary. Although there is a small difference in wording, the
implication of dropping "development" from the title reflects where
the emphasis should be, i.e., directly and emphatically on planning.
Perhaps the future composition of the Planning Commission will reflect that
emphasis.
4 comments:
Who is on the planning commission is largely a function of who applies for the position. To get more balance, people with environmental, smart-growth or no-growth aspirations need to throw their hats in the ring.
Yes, Ralph, that is unfortunately true...it is also a cop out on the part of the mayor. She can say no to a candidate. She can do outreach if she sees an imbalance, however, with the last 4-5 appointees the imbalance was not evident to her or was not of consequence. That is not acceptable.
Thanks for the observation Dick. In a short time the mayor has shown leadership in dismantling the primary function of MNAC. I was an MNAC member from 2004-2007 (representing South n'hood) during the last comprehensive plan update. At that time MNAC members reasserted their role in commenting on this important update, among other things; we prompted the hiring of a Neighborhood Services coordinator (since eliminated), advocated for the mayor's office to support the creation of n'hood associations that were not represented at MNAC, and generally raised the status and viability of community input into issues that affected all neighborhoods. I viewed these achievements as moving the democratic process forward. The recent changes at MNAC and the 'Development' Commission have slammed this process into reverse to the detriment of Bellingham residents.
Thanks Steve. You are right on.
Post a Comment