Two controversies brewing on the Open Space Commission raise questions about much more than the process by which the City selects and negotiates potential land acquisitions. They are representative of a disturbing trend in Bainbridge Island politics. From Winslow Tomorrow to the 2025 Growth Advisory Committee to the Open Space Commission, the City seems to take a casual approach to preserving an appearance of fairness when it comes to involving potential or even current, financial stakeholders in policy development and planning.
The Inside Scoop
The most troublesome of the recent Open Space incidents involves the relationship between Tim Bailey, a member of the Open Space Commission, and developer Kelly Samson. Bailey, an Island realtor, is Samson’s partner in at least two real estate investment companies, including Bainbridge Community Development LLC, which pulled off a real estate coup earlier this year when it purchased the much sought after Government Way property before anyone even knew it was on the market.
At some point during the time that the Commission was contemplating its most recent, and somewhat controversial, open space recommendation, known as the Williams Property, Samson was notified of the potential purchase and was presumably informed that the Commission was considering working with a developer to make the purchase possible. The subject property was neither on the market, nor did the Commission openly seek participation in the purchase from the community, the Land Trust or any other developers, investors or organizations. Yet somehow, Mr. Samson had knowledge of the proposal, made an offer the property, and the Commission looked no further for a purchaser with whom to partner.
Under the most recently publicized version of the deal, the city would buy a portion of the property in conjunction with Samson’s purchase and agree to numerous restrictions that will benefit the developable lots on Samson’s portion. (That deal, which was turned down by Council in August, is currently being renegotiated.)
While we may never know if it was Bailey who brought the deal to Samson, the fact that there is any question about a potential conflict of interest on such an influential commission is troublesome. We will also never know what other possible scenarios might have been available to the City with the involvement of another developer, the Land Trust or any other potential community partner in the purchase.
In other cities, the business relationship between Mr. Bailey and Mr. Samson might be considered an unacceptable conflict of interest. However, one need only look to the membership rolls of certain key citizen Commissions, Committees and Boards to see that this is simply business as usual on Bainbridge Island.
So Many Familiar Faces
Winslow Tomorrow, heralded by its supporters as a broad-based community effort, is in fact arguably another circumstance where the lines between private and public interests have been blurred. At the project’s inception, the Winslow Tomorrow Community Congress was the focus. While there have been some allegations that portions of the Congress were overly directed or predetermined, in particular the Parking Committee, the Congress appears to have included a reasonably fair cross-section of direct stake holders and other citizens.
Unfortunately, as critics have noted, the process became increasingly exclusive and non-public as it progressed into the "recommendations" phase, where citizen involvement was largely distilled down to staff, consultants and the Feasibility Group. Given the significance of this phase, where specific goals were to be set based upon interpretations of the earlier processes, the composition of the Feasibility Group is worth noting.
While it is not easy to discern the real estate holdings or other relevant financial interests of every participant in the Winslow Tomorrow project, or any other City endeavor, a cursory search reveals that at least three of the eleven members of the feasibility group are major Winslow landowners with plans to develop their properties, and another of the eleven is a land use attorney who has represented at least one of the landowners on the committee. Of the remaining seven, at least six are either planning, development or real estate professionals, work for the City or have another direct financial tie to the Winslow Core.
It’s worth asking whether this group, which appears to have operated largely out of the public eye, is a reasonable mix of community interests. How can City staff and consultants working day in and day out with the same financial stakeholders*, and other interested parties, maintain a reasonable professional distance and properly evaluate their participation in light of the potential, or obvious, conflicts of interest? Should our City staff and consultants, and indeed our elected officials, be put in the position of having to make these evaluations?
Who you gonna call?
All of this leaves one wondering what checks and balances exist for vetting potential conflicts of interest within any of the Citizen Commissions, Committees or Boards. The recently empaneled ethics board will not have jurisdiction over these appointed citizen advisors, so it will have to be by some other mechanism that alleged conflicts of interest or improprieties are investigated and resolved.
This brings us back to the other simmering controversy on the Open Space Commission. The last open space purchase proposed by the Commission and approved by Council, the Meigs Farm property, has come under some scrutiny following the release of a new appraisal suggesting the property may be worth less than 50% of the value paid by the City. The Open Space Commission has appointed two of its own members, Tim Bailey and former mayor Dwight Sutton, to investigate the conflict between the two appraisals. Some in the community have raised concerns regarding a possible fox guarding the hen house scenario. We’ll have to wait and see what the investigation reveals and whether the Mayor or Council will call for an additional independent study. In any case, the broader issue remains, and demands that the community take a much closer look at how the deals are being made and who is pulling the strings.
* Tim Bailey : 2025 Growth Advisory Committee (chair), Open Space Commission, Winslow Tomorrow Feasibility Group
Tom Haggar: Winslow Tomorrow Congress, Winslow Tomorrow Streetscape Committee, Haggar-Scribner/City Garage Study
John Waldo: 2025 Growth Advisory Committee, Winslow Tomorrow Congress – Committee Chair, Winslow Tomorrow Feasibility Group, Winslow Tomorrow Streetscape Committee
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Saturday, September 22, 2007
The State of the City
A compelling assessment of the state of our city by the Bainbridge Resource Group, originally published as a Guest Editorial in the Review (9/22/07) republished here with permission of the authors.
Our City Government is not just dysfunctional, it is broken. Communications between the Executive and the City Council are irreparably fractured. Decision-critical information and analyses are withheld, acrimony has replaced collaboration, and power grabbing is the default form of governance style as competitive parties seek dominance in the decision making process. Forget the statutory distinction in the roles for the Mayor and Council!
The longstanding power struggle between the Mayor and Council over policy setting dominance is exposed. Recent actions by the Mayor appear to be an escalation, evidenced by the withdrawal of staff support to council committees.
For its part, the Council has abrogated responsibility in its acquiescence. The escalation in city spending has resulted in pushing revenue and expense so close to one another that any perturbation in the economy could result in serious financial peril. Over $5M a year has been spent on outside consultants without an accountability check and the Council has allowed the hiring of consultants with obvious financial stakes in the outcome of their reports.
Earlier this year Administration severely curtailed staff support to Council. This led to the unhealthy elimination of checks and balances, tolerated by the Council, which has no independent staff and therefore limited ability to perform relevant analyses outside the context established by the Administration. This circumstance essentially removes the Council and the community from the democratic process. In this milieu our broken government seeks to pass a 2008 budget and adopt a more than $100M Capital Plan-a daunting task in any year.
Complicating things, Winslow Tomorrow, is the most capital intensive undertaking in city history. With its many complex components, WT is now being forced into this impaired, overburdened and ill-informed decision chain by the Executive. The bewildering challenges of determining who pays for what and with what form of borrowed money needs careful deliberation.
Parking illustrates the complexity of just one element of WT. At Administration’s behest, which seems to have bypassed the many less costly alternatives suggested by the WT Parking Group, the Council authorized a feasibility study for a parking garage. Though it is early in the process, there are concerns that need to be addressed. Estimated costs now far exceed the original $20,000 per space, and don’t include the cost to purchase additional land for road access or account for the cost of losing 129 spaces at City Hall.
Ease of access will be important if the garage is to have the intended benefits. Tucked away in the Capital Plan is $2M for acquisition of the Classic Cycle Shop to make way for improved street access to the garage from Winslow Way-the same street that is envisioned to be less car intensive and pedestrian friendly. Further, the consultants advise early discussions with the owners of Madrone Lane (a privately owned street with considerable parking) to add another access into the garage. If it could be bought, the cost is unknown, but the impact is obvious.
Ten years ago Team Winslow merchants banded together to block a variance that would have permitted a curb cut opposite Madrone Lane for parking access. If one was a bad idea then are two now an improvement? When Council meets next Wednesday they are expected to approve the Streetscape Project and its funding sources. Does this imply approval of these new intersections which have yet to be discussed at the Council? Will they have the engineering studies to back the assertions made by the Administration?
The garage is only one example of the dozens of controversial elements to emerge from Winslow Tomorrow following the disbanding of the community volunteers. Its potential impacts and complexity require a very thorough vetting. Can that happen in this environment? Will we trade WT off against Affordable Housing, or other capital projects? If so, how will we make those decisions?
As if there were not enough projects under consideration, the Gateway Project at the Ferry Terminal was announced this week. It too is redevelopment with implications for Downtown with additional residential and commercial space being proposed. Driven by the Ferry System it has now entered the imperiled decision chain!
A broken government cannot effectively prepare balanced information, conduct open deliberations with the input of citizens or arrive at satisfactory decisions that resonate with stated community values and vision. Projects in the decision chain are gargantuan in their appetite for capital, have long term implications that are poorly analyzed and are based on assumptions yet to be thoroughly vetted. None should be authorized.
A broken government should not be permitted to do anything more daunting than pass an operating budget to assure continuity of basic city functions until balance is restored. Decisions in the current environment have the potential to be counter to the long term interests of the community.
The time has come for the community of Bainbridge Island to insist that its government be representative and respectful of its values. This means that the Mayor and Council adhere to statutatory responsibilities and collaborate, communicate, compromise and commit. Not-with-standing the many good qualities and intentions of these individuals, this is unlikely to occur after the recent consultant led effort to improve relations failed. Nor is the election of new members to the council the long-term solution, since the flawed governmental structure will still be in place.
In the short term, the Council has the legal authority to insist on processes that are open and subject to appropriate deliberation. At a minimum the Council should have the courage to vote itself analytical staff to assist in processing the paper storm.
In the long term, if our City Hall cannot regain balance, integrity and fiscal sanity, the community may need to seriously consider changing to a more accountable and responsive Council-Manager form of government.
Our City Government is not just dysfunctional, it is broken. Communications between the Executive and the City Council are irreparably fractured. Decision-critical information and analyses are withheld, acrimony has replaced collaboration, and power grabbing is the default form of governance style as competitive parties seek dominance in the decision making process. Forget the statutory distinction in the roles for the Mayor and Council!
The longstanding power struggle between the Mayor and Council over policy setting dominance is exposed. Recent actions by the Mayor appear to be an escalation, evidenced by the withdrawal of staff support to council committees.
For its part, the Council has abrogated responsibility in its acquiescence. The escalation in city spending has resulted in pushing revenue and expense so close to one another that any perturbation in the economy could result in serious financial peril. Over $5M a year has been spent on outside consultants without an accountability check and the Council has allowed the hiring of consultants with obvious financial stakes in the outcome of their reports.
Earlier this year Administration severely curtailed staff support to Council. This led to the unhealthy elimination of checks and balances, tolerated by the Council, which has no independent staff and therefore limited ability to perform relevant analyses outside the context established by the Administration. This circumstance essentially removes the Council and the community from the democratic process. In this milieu our broken government seeks to pass a 2008 budget and adopt a more than $100M Capital Plan-a daunting task in any year.
Complicating things, Winslow Tomorrow, is the most capital intensive undertaking in city history. With its many complex components, WT is now being forced into this impaired, overburdened and ill-informed decision chain by the Executive. The bewildering challenges of determining who pays for what and with what form of borrowed money needs careful deliberation.
Parking illustrates the complexity of just one element of WT. At Administration’s behest, which seems to have bypassed the many less costly alternatives suggested by the WT Parking Group, the Council authorized a feasibility study for a parking garage. Though it is early in the process, there are concerns that need to be addressed. Estimated costs now far exceed the original $20,000 per space, and don’t include the cost to purchase additional land for road access or account for the cost of losing 129 spaces at City Hall.
Ease of access will be important if the garage is to have the intended benefits. Tucked away in the Capital Plan is $2M for acquisition of the Classic Cycle Shop to make way for improved street access to the garage from Winslow Way-the same street that is envisioned to be less car intensive and pedestrian friendly. Further, the consultants advise early discussions with the owners of Madrone Lane (a privately owned street with considerable parking) to add another access into the garage. If it could be bought, the cost is unknown, but the impact is obvious.
Ten years ago Team Winslow merchants banded together to block a variance that would have permitted a curb cut opposite Madrone Lane for parking access. If one was a bad idea then are two now an improvement? When Council meets next Wednesday they are expected to approve the Streetscape Project and its funding sources. Does this imply approval of these new intersections which have yet to be discussed at the Council? Will they have the engineering studies to back the assertions made by the Administration?
The garage is only one example of the dozens of controversial elements to emerge from Winslow Tomorrow following the disbanding of the community volunteers. Its potential impacts and complexity require a very thorough vetting. Can that happen in this environment? Will we trade WT off against Affordable Housing, or other capital projects? If so, how will we make those decisions?
As if there were not enough projects under consideration, the Gateway Project at the Ferry Terminal was announced this week. It too is redevelopment with implications for Downtown with additional residential and commercial space being proposed. Driven by the Ferry System it has now entered the imperiled decision chain!
A broken government cannot effectively prepare balanced information, conduct open deliberations with the input of citizens or arrive at satisfactory decisions that resonate with stated community values and vision. Projects in the decision chain are gargantuan in their appetite for capital, have long term implications that are poorly analyzed and are based on assumptions yet to be thoroughly vetted. None should be authorized.
A broken government should not be permitted to do anything more daunting than pass an operating budget to assure continuity of basic city functions until balance is restored. Decisions in the current environment have the potential to be counter to the long term interests of the community.
The time has come for the community of Bainbridge Island to insist that its government be representative and respectful of its values. This means that the Mayor and Council adhere to statutatory responsibilities and collaborate, communicate, compromise and commit. Not-with-standing the many good qualities and intentions of these individuals, this is unlikely to occur after the recent consultant led effort to improve relations failed. Nor is the election of new members to the council the long-term solution, since the flawed governmental structure will still be in place.
In the short term, the Council has the legal authority to insist on processes that are open and subject to appropriate deliberation. At a minimum the Council should have the courage to vote itself analytical staff to assist in processing the paper storm.
In the long term, if our City Hall cannot regain balance, integrity and fiscal sanity, the community may need to seriously consider changing to a more accountable and responsive Council-Manager form of government.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Settling for Less and Losing Even More
There have long been indications that City Hall is overly susceptible to litigation pressure from the moneyed interests on the Island. Unfortunately, as non-elected citizens, we are at a disadvantage when it comes to monitoring how the City manages its litigation portfolio, as virtually all discussion and negotiation occur behind the veil of executive session. However, sometimes the results of these efforts to appease the disgruntled citizen come to light and demand our attention. Last year, it was docks on Blakely Harbor. This year, it’s patio houses along the Wing Point Ravine.
As a community we are deeply affected by the financial realities of handling constant litigation. Frivolous, legitimate, malicious or well-intentioned, lawsuits bleed the coffers and are a distraction from the real business of running a city government. Therefore, they should be settled when appropriate. But not at all costs. Re-writing laws, manipulating public policy or making special exceptions to satisfy a complainant jeopardizes the integrity and viability of the government and its policies.
Quid Pro Quo
Capstone Partners, dissatisfied with the Hearing Examiner’s (HEX) decision denying its application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to build 11 houses along a ravine near Wing Point Country Club, filed a lawsuit for damages against the City in August of 2006, one week after filing an appeal of the HEX decision. In July of this year, in an apparent attempt to settle the damages claim, the Mayor authorized the attorney for the City to enter into a stipulation of facts in support of and calling for a remand of the CUP matter to the HEX. The Superior Court accepted the stipulation and remanded the case.
The legal authority to authorize the stipulation to the remand, the subject of an earlier article on this blog, is not dispositive of the question of whether this remand and the context in which it occurred are appropriate. The facts available to the public suggest that even if the mayor had had the authority to agree to a legitimate remand, the decision to remand in this case, in the absence of newly discovered evidence and in the context of a settlement agreement, was at best contrary to the public good. Furthermore, it remains unclear as to whether the Mayor had authority to settle the damages claim at all.
As discussed previously on this blog, there appears to be neither newly discovered evidence nor a clear mistake justifying a remand to the hearing examiner. The issue could have been appropriately litigated before the Superior Court, with the City advocating for its Hearing Examiner’s application of its land use code, and with the Court making a decision as to the appropriateness of a remand. But instead the City, at the behest of the Mayor, agreed to the remand in consideration for the dismissal of the damages claim.
Money Changes Everything
As a general rule, the City Council has final authority over the settlement of lawsuits. In March of this year, the City Council, at the request of the administration, granted the Mayor the authority to settle claims by or against the City “in an amount of $50,000 or less”. In the damages claim at hand, Capstone sought relief under RCW 64.40.020 and alleged that the HEX had acted in an “illegal and/or arbitrary and capricious” manner (a high standard consistent with the deference generally granted to governmental action). The damages alleged included “expenses and losses, including lost sales and profits, enhanced construction costs...” and “costs and attorneys fees”.
Clearly, were the plaintiffs to prevail, potential damages would far exceed $50,000. Clearly, Capstone would never have considered settling for an amount less than $50,000, as that would not have even paid their legal bills. And so the question remains: Under what authority did the Mayor act to settle the Capstone lawsuit?
Even if the Mayor had had the authority to settle the damages claim, a critical public policy question remains. Should the outcome, or even status, of a land use decision ever be on the negotiating table when the Mayor, or Council, is contemplating settling a claim against the City? There can be no dispute as to the answer to that question. We are a society of laws. We expect laws and policies to be applied as fairly and consistently as possible. We expect those we entrust with applying the law to correct mistakes made in the application of the law (to reverse, remand or withdraw) but not to change the rules of the game arbitrarily for privileged members of the community. Aside from the fundamental unfairness to the rest of the community who must abide by the rules, and the implications for whatever public good the law was attempting to protect, what message does this send to those with the financial ability and will to sue over any legal action that causes them inconvenience or discomfort?
Whatever the outcome of the Capstone controversy, perhaps it’s time for the City Council to take another look at the scope of authority that it actually granted to the Mayor to settle claims. Was it ever intended that the Mayor, independent of Council, could settle claims, like Capstone, where the actual relief sought is not in the form of monetary damages but in a favorable land use decision? And perhaps Council should revisit the associated grant of authority to the Mayor to approve contracts valued up to $100,000 (recall the $25,000 no bid contract to Capstone for the parking garage). Surely, decisions concerning such significant amounts of our tax money and critical legal issues should be vetted by more than one person and through a more transparent process.
The HEX is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the Capstone matter on September 27th.
As a community we are deeply affected by the financial realities of handling constant litigation. Frivolous, legitimate, malicious or well-intentioned, lawsuits bleed the coffers and are a distraction from the real business of running a city government. Therefore, they should be settled when appropriate. But not at all costs. Re-writing laws, manipulating public policy or making special exceptions to satisfy a complainant jeopardizes the integrity and viability of the government and its policies.
Quid Pro Quo
Capstone Partners, dissatisfied with the Hearing Examiner’s (HEX) decision denying its application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to build 11 houses along a ravine near Wing Point Country Club, filed a lawsuit for damages against the City in August of 2006, one week after filing an appeal of the HEX decision. In July of this year, in an apparent attempt to settle the damages claim, the Mayor authorized the attorney for the City to enter into a stipulation of facts in support of and calling for a remand of the CUP matter to the HEX. The Superior Court accepted the stipulation and remanded the case.
The legal authority to authorize the stipulation to the remand, the subject of an earlier article on this blog, is not dispositive of the question of whether this remand and the context in which it occurred are appropriate. The facts available to the public suggest that even if the mayor had had the authority to agree to a legitimate remand, the decision to remand in this case, in the absence of newly discovered evidence and in the context of a settlement agreement, was at best contrary to the public good. Furthermore, it remains unclear as to whether the Mayor had authority to settle the damages claim at all.
As discussed previously on this blog, there appears to be neither newly discovered evidence nor a clear mistake justifying a remand to the hearing examiner. The issue could have been appropriately litigated before the Superior Court, with the City advocating for its Hearing Examiner’s application of its land use code, and with the Court making a decision as to the appropriateness of a remand. But instead the City, at the behest of the Mayor, agreed to the remand in consideration for the dismissal of the damages claim.
Money Changes Everything
As a general rule, the City Council has final authority over the settlement of lawsuits. In March of this year, the City Council, at the request of the administration, granted the Mayor the authority to settle claims by or against the City “in an amount of $50,000 or less”. In the damages claim at hand, Capstone sought relief under RCW 64.40.020 and alleged that the HEX had acted in an “illegal and/or arbitrary and capricious” manner (a high standard consistent with the deference generally granted to governmental action). The damages alleged included “expenses and losses, including lost sales and profits, enhanced construction costs...” and “costs and attorneys fees”.
Clearly, were the plaintiffs to prevail, potential damages would far exceed $50,000. Clearly, Capstone would never have considered settling for an amount less than $50,000, as that would not have even paid their legal bills. And so the question remains: Under what authority did the Mayor act to settle the Capstone lawsuit?
Even if the Mayor had had the authority to settle the damages claim, a critical public policy question remains. Should the outcome, or even status, of a land use decision ever be on the negotiating table when the Mayor, or Council, is contemplating settling a claim against the City? There can be no dispute as to the answer to that question. We are a society of laws. We expect laws and policies to be applied as fairly and consistently as possible. We expect those we entrust with applying the law to correct mistakes made in the application of the law (to reverse, remand or withdraw) but not to change the rules of the game arbitrarily for privileged members of the community. Aside from the fundamental unfairness to the rest of the community who must abide by the rules, and the implications for whatever public good the law was attempting to protect, what message does this send to those with the financial ability and will to sue over any legal action that causes them inconvenience or discomfort?
Whatever the outcome of the Capstone controversy, perhaps it’s time for the City Council to take another look at the scope of authority that it actually granted to the Mayor to settle claims. Was it ever intended that the Mayor, independent of Council, could settle claims, like Capstone, where the actual relief sought is not in the form of monetary damages but in a favorable land use decision? And perhaps Council should revisit the associated grant of authority to the Mayor to approve contracts valued up to $100,000 (recall the $25,000 no bid contract to Capstone for the parking garage). Surely, decisions concerning such significant amounts of our tax money and critical legal issues should be vetted by more than one person and through a more transparent process.
The HEX is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the Capstone matter on September 27th.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Out of the Loop and Out in the Cold
They’ve been denied meeting space, they’ve been denied information and they’ve been denied staff time. Now they will be denied the right to convene committee meetings. Here is the response of one City Councilor to this latest blow to Council authority and autonomy (Originally e-mailed to the administration and Council, forwarded to us by a contributor):
“This is absolutely astonishing. The administration has unilaterally decided to cancel meetings of the standing committees of the city council. It has also gone ahead and put out public notices that it has done so. All without consulting with council or with the committees who set their own agendas. We have seen several instances of the administration unilaterally including things on or pulling things from committee meetings agendas over the last four years. In each instance that I was aware of they were reminded that they do not have the authority to do so without the consent of the committee members. This one steals the prize for audacious and improper conduct. Whether you look for separation of powers or checks and balances or you believe in simple courtesy and cooperative processes this is outrageous. Have a nice weekend”.
Nezam (Tooloee)
“This is absolutely astonishing. The administration has unilaterally decided to cancel meetings of the standing committees of the city council. It has also gone ahead and put out public notices that it has done so. All without consulting with council or with the committees who set their own agendas. We have seen several instances of the administration unilaterally including things on or pulling things from committee meetings agendas over the last four years. In each instance that I was aware of they were reminded that they do not have the authority to do so without the consent of the committee members. This one steals the prize for audacious and improper conduct. Whether you look for separation of powers or checks and balances or you believe in simple courtesy and cooperative processes this is outrageous. Have a nice weekend”.
Nezam (Tooloee)
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Big Concrete for Little Winslow
What has 1,000 parking spaces, is one and a half football fields long and runs from Madrone to Ericksen? How about a mega- parking garage proposed for the heart of Winslow. If anyone had any doubts left about the vision for our City shared by a small group of property owners, urban planners, realtors and architects, surely this will be the nail in the coffin of that doubt.
The “Winslow Core Parking Feasibility Study” will be presented to Council this Wednesday night and will suggest the building of a city funded parking garage on City property immediately south of the Farmer’s Market plaza and possibly connected to an even larger private garage, for a total length of 600 ft. To be fair, the study does not “suggest” the garage, it presumes the garage. Despite it’s title, the sole purpose of the study was to determine how to build the proposed garage, not to study “parking” in the Winslow Core. The study is the result of a public-private partnership between the City and two major property owners, Haggar-Scribner Properties and Sandstrom Properties.
With cumulative ownership of half the property fronting the north side of Winslow Way between Ericksen and Madison, these property owners have much to gain by City participation in a parking garage adjacent to their holdings, not the least of which would be facilitation of redevelopment under proposed upzoning. But what would the community gain, and what would it lose with this venture?
For Love of Parking
According to the Feasibility Study, “The Winslow Tomorrow planning process concluded that downtown Winslow is deficient in parking supply.” This premise has been a driving force behind downtown planning for years, despite the fact that the on-the-street experience of most Islanders has been to the contrary. Why this insistence that a problem exists, and that the community is in dire need of a comprehensive solution? When we consider the origin of the claim and the identity of the parties that will most benefit most from increased parking capacity, at least one possible explanation arises.
Of all the Winslow Tomorrow committees, it seems that the Parking Committee has been the target of the most criticism in the community. A number of former participants have described the process as “predetermined” and exclusively focused on the opinions and goals of a key minority. Among the members of the committee were Winslow property owners Tom Haggar (of Haggar-Scribner properties), his wife Priscilla Zimmerman and Larry Nakata (of T&C) as well as a number of other individuals with professional ties to the downtown core.
Tom Haggar is now a key player in the proposed parking garage. Why would Haggar and other property owners have such an intense interest in establishing a phantom need for a massive parking garage?
Promises, Promises
In 2005 Dr. Haggar sought and was granted “The Haggar- Scribner Comprehensive Plan Amendment” which rezoned his holdings to allow property fronting Ericksen to share the much higher density zoning status of his adjacent Winslow Way parcels. The goal was to facilitate the redevelopment of the 5 contiguous parcels together. At the time Haggar-Scribner proposed the rezoning (upzoning) of their property, concerns were expressed by some about the effect on the Ericksen District of a structure built to maximize height and density allowances. Dr. Haggar reassured the Land Use Committee and the Planning Commission that parking restrictions for the site would effectively prohibit maximum development, and that the upzoning was sought to allow increased “design flexibility” and to “allow a greener, more energy-efficient structure”.
Two years later, the Haggar-Scribner position on the development of the property has gone from reassurances that maximizing building size would not be likely given parking restrictions, to soliciting the participation of the City in the building of a massive parking structure that would in fact allow that full expansion. The feasibility report cites the “future” building of a 30-50,000 sf clinic as the motivation behind the Haggar-Scribner participation in the garage.
B.Y.O.C. (Bring Your Own Cart)
Whatever the forces were at play on the Winslow Tomorrow Parking Committee, it actually proposed a number of alternatives to address the presumed “parking problem”, including short term parking zones, increased enforcement, smaller satellite parking lots, employee shuttles and non-motorized improvements (aka: the poor stepchild of city projects)
As citizens we must ask how the City came to spend tens of thousands of dollars (or more?) on a “Parking Feasibility Study” focused on only a parking garage concept and only one location for that garage. Certainly a more candid name for the study would be “The Haggar-Scribner Parking Garage Feasibility Study”.
Why isn’t the City partnering with Larry Nakata in his consideration of developing a garage at the post office site? If we were to locate a garage downtown, and ask patrons to “park once” and walk, wouldn’t we put the garage adjacent to the business most frequented by Island citizens, and where the most volume is purchased, on a site with excellent existing ingress and egress? Maybe T&C can put a shopping cart rack up at the Haggar-Scribner garage instead.
Hint, Hint, Nudge, Nudge
On the subject of ingress and egress to the monster garage, there’s a bit of a wrinkle in the proposed design. Not surprisingly, Madrone Lane is seen as an obvious access route for the project, what it surprising for most in the community to learn, is that Madrone is a private road. This would not be a problem for the garage lobbyists if the owners were willing to hop on board the Winslow Way Urban Planning Express along with the rest of the North of Winslow Way gang. But apparently the owners have other ideas. They are considering closing off the lane and further emphasizing the quiet courtyard feeling that has naturally developed among the bordering businesses.
But the fact that these folks are seeking to protect the sanctity of this space from traffic and noise isn’t going to stop Haggar-Scribner et al. They propose somewhat cryptically that “the City should develop a strategy for what it needs to accomplish in the Madrone Way corridor and engage in discussions with the property owners to resolve future direction.” Some might say that sounds rather ominous. Maybe it’s just optimistic, after all, all eight of the drawings showing ingress and egress to the garage, show Madrone Lane as open and in use.
For a community that claims to be seeking to discourage reliance on the automobile, parking has played an incredibly prominent role in most aspects of our downtown planning. Perhaps that is because the vision for downtown has been written not by the community but by a few individuals who have more than a small conflict of interest with regards to issue like parking, height and density and whether or not benefiting properties pay their fair share.
To read the entire feasibility study go here.
The “Winslow Core Parking Feasibility Study” will be presented to Council this Wednesday night and will suggest the building of a city funded parking garage on City property immediately south of the Farmer’s Market plaza and possibly connected to an even larger private garage, for a total length of 600 ft. To be fair, the study does not “suggest” the garage, it presumes the garage. Despite it’s title, the sole purpose of the study was to determine how to build the proposed garage, not to study “parking” in the Winslow Core. The study is the result of a public-private partnership between the City and two major property owners, Haggar-Scribner Properties and Sandstrom Properties.
With cumulative ownership of half the property fronting the north side of Winslow Way between Ericksen and Madison, these property owners have much to gain by City participation in a parking garage adjacent to their holdings, not the least of which would be facilitation of redevelopment under proposed upzoning. But what would the community gain, and what would it lose with this venture?
For Love of Parking
According to the Feasibility Study, “The Winslow Tomorrow planning process concluded that downtown Winslow is deficient in parking supply.” This premise has been a driving force behind downtown planning for years, despite the fact that the on-the-street experience of most Islanders has been to the contrary. Why this insistence that a problem exists, and that the community is in dire need of a comprehensive solution? When we consider the origin of the claim and the identity of the parties that will most benefit most from increased parking capacity, at least one possible explanation arises.
Of all the Winslow Tomorrow committees, it seems that the Parking Committee has been the target of the most criticism in the community. A number of former participants have described the process as “predetermined” and exclusively focused on the opinions and goals of a key minority. Among the members of the committee were Winslow property owners Tom Haggar (of Haggar-Scribner properties), his wife Priscilla Zimmerman and Larry Nakata (of T&C) as well as a number of other individuals with professional ties to the downtown core.
Tom Haggar is now a key player in the proposed parking garage. Why would Haggar and other property owners have such an intense interest in establishing a phantom need for a massive parking garage?
Promises, Promises
In 2005 Dr. Haggar sought and was granted “The Haggar- Scribner Comprehensive Plan Amendment” which rezoned his holdings to allow property fronting Ericksen to share the much higher density zoning status of his adjacent Winslow Way parcels. The goal was to facilitate the redevelopment of the 5 contiguous parcels together. At the time Haggar-Scribner proposed the rezoning (upzoning) of their property, concerns were expressed by some about the effect on the Ericksen District of a structure built to maximize height and density allowances. Dr. Haggar reassured the Land Use Committee and the Planning Commission that parking restrictions for the site would effectively prohibit maximum development, and that the upzoning was sought to allow increased “design flexibility” and to “allow a greener, more energy-efficient structure”.
Two years later, the Haggar-Scribner position on the development of the property has gone from reassurances that maximizing building size would not be likely given parking restrictions, to soliciting the participation of the City in the building of a massive parking structure that would in fact allow that full expansion. The feasibility report cites the “future” building of a 30-50,000 sf clinic as the motivation behind the Haggar-Scribner participation in the garage.
B.Y.O.C. (Bring Your Own Cart)
Whatever the forces were at play on the Winslow Tomorrow Parking Committee, it actually proposed a number of alternatives to address the presumed “parking problem”, including short term parking zones, increased enforcement, smaller satellite parking lots, employee shuttles and non-motorized improvements (aka: the poor stepchild of city projects)
As citizens we must ask how the City came to spend tens of thousands of dollars (or more?) on a “Parking Feasibility Study” focused on only a parking garage concept and only one location for that garage. Certainly a more candid name for the study would be “The Haggar-Scribner Parking Garage Feasibility Study”.
Why isn’t the City partnering with Larry Nakata in his consideration of developing a garage at the post office site? If we were to locate a garage downtown, and ask patrons to “park once” and walk, wouldn’t we put the garage adjacent to the business most frequented by Island citizens, and where the most volume is purchased, on a site with excellent existing ingress and egress? Maybe T&C can put a shopping cart rack up at the Haggar-Scribner garage instead.
Hint, Hint, Nudge, Nudge
On the subject of ingress and egress to the monster garage, there’s a bit of a wrinkle in the proposed design. Not surprisingly, Madrone Lane is seen as an obvious access route for the project, what it surprising for most in the community to learn, is that Madrone is a private road. This would not be a problem for the garage lobbyists if the owners were willing to hop on board the Winslow Way Urban Planning Express along with the rest of the North of Winslow Way gang. But apparently the owners have other ideas. They are considering closing off the lane and further emphasizing the quiet courtyard feeling that has naturally developed among the bordering businesses.
But the fact that these folks are seeking to protect the sanctity of this space from traffic and noise isn’t going to stop Haggar-Scribner et al. They propose somewhat cryptically that “the City should develop a strategy for what it needs to accomplish in the Madrone Way corridor and engage in discussions with the property owners to resolve future direction.” Some might say that sounds rather ominous. Maybe it’s just optimistic, after all, all eight of the drawings showing ingress and egress to the garage, show Madrone Lane as open and in use.
For a community that claims to be seeking to discourage reliance on the automobile, parking has played an incredibly prominent role in most aspects of our downtown planning. Perhaps that is because the vision for downtown has been written not by the community but by a few individuals who have more than a small conflict of interest with regards to issue like parking, height and density and whether or not benefiting properties pay their fair share.
To read the entire feasibility study go here.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Future of Destroyed Wetlands Still On Hold
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Urban Renewal, Bainbridge Style
Breaking news: Winslow Way is dead and someone forgot to tell us.
And to think most of us thought we had a pretty good thing going on down there. Apparently, it’s in truly dire straights, because an internationally renowned consulting firm has been hired to manage it’s “redevelopment” while the City administration is angling for grant money aimed at revitalizing “economically challenged communities”.
Heery International was retained, to the tune of $1 million, not only to help the City create a shiny new main street, but also to convince the public of a pressing need to borrow $21 million dollars to rip out the entire street and risk bankrupting our local merchants. We’re not talking about broken pipes here. We’re talking about replacing every single element of the street. And we’re talking about each and every one of us paying for it, though some will pay much more than others and it won’t be the Winslow Way property owners.
The Parking Space Pyramid Scheme
At least we’ll finally have “enough” parking. Well, not exactly. Ironically, amidst declarations as recently as this week that “on-street parking along Winslow Way is vital to the economic viability of downtown Bainbridge Island,” 12 key on-street parking spaces have been slated for removal in the Streetscape plan. After years of decrying the (not universally accepted) dearth of downtown parking spaces, the City had already responded to it’s own call to action by reducing by half the number of required on-site parking spaces and now will shift 12 centrally located on-street spaces westward toward Grow. Because the spaces are still along Winslow Way, the result is generously described as resulting in “no net loss.”
Why this latest loss of parking? Putting aside any connection with the desire of certain downtown property owners to convince us that we need a $12 million dollar parking garage off Madrone, it appears to be the result of the City’s hunger for wider sidewalks and other “amenities”.
At some point it was decided that we must have wider sidewalks (9 feet) at all costs, and so, as moving buildings back is not an option, we are left with a narrower street. A narrower street means no more deliveries in the middle of the road, and that means creating delivery zones for trucks ranging up to and beyond 50 ft in length in our tiny downtown shopping district.
The current proposal is to permanently dedicate 2 extra-large spaces for UPS style deliveries, and for small business owners to ask that large truck deliveries only occur in the morning (Note to Mom and Pop: good luck telling a huge distributor to re-schedule it’s route). And when the big trucks do deliver, up to three at a time will park by each straddling 5-8 standard diagonal parking spaces in designated temporary loading zones on Winslow Way.
Thus, between dedicated loading zones, two new accessible spaces and other unspecified “design elements and code requirements... consistent with the goals and desires of Winslow Tomorrow”, 12 spaces will be lost between Ericksen and Madison.
Visions of Carmel Dance in Their Heads
Our city planners and consultants have oft described the Winslow Tomorrow Streetscape plan as “trying to put 50 pounds worth of stuff into a 10-pound bag”. They proudly embrace this challenge of trying to fit a big city’s worth of “amenities” into a small-town shopping district. Perhaps we would do better to heed the warning inherent in that concept. Is putting 50 pounds worth of something into a 10-pound bag a wise proposition? Is it not by definition unrealistic and awkward? Might we be happy with our 10 pounds of “stuff”. Even if we would like all the bells and whistles proposed, do we want to pay for them?
The City is proposing to pay for the project with Councilmanic Bonds. This is debt that the City may authorize without a vote from the general public – some describe it as the City’s credit card. Like a credit card, reserve Councilmanic Bond capacity serves as an invaluable emergency funding source and helps maintain a good bond rating. As such, it is considered prudent to leave a fairly substantial portion of that capacity in reserve. A City’s Councilmanic Bond debt is limited by statute to 1.5% of the value of taxable property in the jurisdiction, in our case that is approximately $84 million. To date we have used approximately $21 million of that capacity. Assuming we aim to leave a modest 35% in reserve, using $21 million for the Streetscape would leave just $13 million for all other proposed or desired projects. While some jurisdictions look to Councilmanic bonds for exceptional circumstances and essential capital projects, it seems that our City is looking to them increasing as just another tool for financing everything from capital projects to open space to Winslow Tomorrow soft costs.
Stickin’ it to the (Common) Man
So how will those bonds be repaid? The City points to possible grant money, the largest by far being a State Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) grant which, according to the Streetscape consultants, is available for up to $5 million. Just two small problems: (a) CERB grants are intended to provide “funding assistance to economically challenged communities for public facilities to foster the creation and/or retention of jobs by industry, and (b) grants for water, sewer and/or roads appear to have ranged between $100,000 and $500,000 from 1999-2006 – and generally toward the lower end of that spectrum. It appears quite unlikely that the proposed grants will make a meaningful dent in the $21 million debt.
Surprisingly, there is no plan to create a Local Improvement District (LID) to recover costs from Winslow Way property owners. LID’s are imposed on properties directly benefiting from an improvement – including street paving, streetlight installation, sewer installation and the undergrounding of overhead utility wires. For some reason, the properties fronting Winslow Way will not be paying their proportional share of the project costs.
Here’s where the rest of us come in. Depending upon how much outside funding can be found, every Island household not on City water and sewer could be assessed as much as $8.30 per month for 20 years, or nearly $2,000. Those unfortunate enough to be on City water and sewer could face an increase in their utility bills of up to $39.20 per month for twenty years (that’s a total of more than $9,000 per household).
The questions the community needs to be asking now, and which deserve honest answers, are how much of what is being proposed is truly essential and are the consultants and administration really exploring the least costly alternatives? It doesn’t take an expert to see that Winslow Way is not crying out for “economic revitalization”, and given the City’s current financial situation and other pressing community needs what is currently being proposed is not a realistic option. We need a simple public works directed sewer project, not a state of the art urban design project, and we should expect those most directly benefiting from the project to pay their proportional share.
For the complete recommendations presented to Council for discussion tomorrow night, go here.
For a look at who sits on the Streetscape Advisory Committee, including several Winslow Way property owners, go here.
For a brief discussion of the City’s financial situation, check out Althea Paulson’s new blog and her links to several useful documents including the infamous BRG Memo
And to think most of us thought we had a pretty good thing going on down there. Apparently, it’s in truly dire straights, because an internationally renowned consulting firm has been hired to manage it’s “redevelopment” while the City administration is angling for grant money aimed at revitalizing “economically challenged communities”.
Heery International was retained, to the tune of $1 million, not only to help the City create a shiny new main street, but also to convince the public of a pressing need to borrow $21 million dollars to rip out the entire street and risk bankrupting our local merchants. We’re not talking about broken pipes here. We’re talking about replacing every single element of the street. And we’re talking about each and every one of us paying for it, though some will pay much more than others and it won’t be the Winslow Way property owners.
The Parking Space Pyramid Scheme
At least we’ll finally have “enough” parking. Well, not exactly. Ironically, amidst declarations as recently as this week that “on-street parking along Winslow Way is vital to the economic viability of downtown Bainbridge Island,” 12 key on-street parking spaces have been slated for removal in the Streetscape plan. After years of decrying the (not universally accepted) dearth of downtown parking spaces, the City had already responded to it’s own call to action by reducing by half the number of required on-site parking spaces and now will shift 12 centrally located on-street spaces westward toward Grow. Because the spaces are still along Winslow Way, the result is generously described as resulting in “no net loss.”
Why this latest loss of parking? Putting aside any connection with the desire of certain downtown property owners to convince us that we need a $12 million dollar parking garage off Madrone, it appears to be the result of the City’s hunger for wider sidewalks and other “amenities”.
At some point it was decided that we must have wider sidewalks (9 feet) at all costs, and so, as moving buildings back is not an option, we are left with a narrower street. A narrower street means no more deliveries in the middle of the road, and that means creating delivery zones for trucks ranging up to and beyond 50 ft in length in our tiny downtown shopping district.
The current proposal is to permanently dedicate 2 extra-large spaces for UPS style deliveries, and for small business owners to ask that large truck deliveries only occur in the morning (Note to Mom and Pop: good luck telling a huge distributor to re-schedule it’s route). And when the big trucks do deliver, up to three at a time will park by each straddling 5-8 standard diagonal parking spaces in designated temporary loading zones on Winslow Way.
Thus, between dedicated loading zones, two new accessible spaces and other unspecified “design elements and code requirements... consistent with the goals and desires of Winslow Tomorrow”, 12 spaces will be lost between Ericksen and Madison.
Visions of Carmel Dance in Their Heads
Our city planners and consultants have oft described the Winslow Tomorrow Streetscape plan as “trying to put 50 pounds worth of stuff into a 10-pound bag”. They proudly embrace this challenge of trying to fit a big city’s worth of “amenities” into a small-town shopping district. Perhaps we would do better to heed the warning inherent in that concept. Is putting 50 pounds worth of something into a 10-pound bag a wise proposition? Is it not by definition unrealistic and awkward? Might we be happy with our 10 pounds of “stuff”. Even if we would like all the bells and whistles proposed, do we want to pay for them?
The City is proposing to pay for the project with Councilmanic Bonds. This is debt that the City may authorize without a vote from the general public – some describe it as the City’s credit card. Like a credit card, reserve Councilmanic Bond capacity serves as an invaluable emergency funding source and helps maintain a good bond rating. As such, it is considered prudent to leave a fairly substantial portion of that capacity in reserve. A City’s Councilmanic Bond debt is limited by statute to 1.5% of the value of taxable property in the jurisdiction, in our case that is approximately $84 million. To date we have used approximately $21 million of that capacity. Assuming we aim to leave a modest 35% in reserve, using $21 million for the Streetscape would leave just $13 million for all other proposed or desired projects. While some jurisdictions look to Councilmanic bonds for exceptional circumstances and essential capital projects, it seems that our City is looking to them increasing as just another tool for financing everything from capital projects to open space to Winslow Tomorrow soft costs.
Stickin’ it to the (Common) Man
So how will those bonds be repaid? The City points to possible grant money, the largest by far being a State Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) grant which, according to the Streetscape consultants, is available for up to $5 million. Just two small problems: (a) CERB grants are intended to provide “funding assistance to economically challenged communities for public facilities to foster the creation and/or retention of jobs by industry, and (b) grants for water, sewer and/or roads appear to have ranged between $100,000 and $500,000 from 1999-2006 – and generally toward the lower end of that spectrum. It appears quite unlikely that the proposed grants will make a meaningful dent in the $21 million debt.
Surprisingly, there is no plan to create a Local Improvement District (LID) to recover costs from Winslow Way property owners. LID’s are imposed on properties directly benefiting from an improvement – including street paving, streetlight installation, sewer installation and the undergrounding of overhead utility wires. For some reason, the properties fronting Winslow Way will not be paying their proportional share of the project costs.
Here’s where the rest of us come in. Depending upon how much outside funding can be found, every Island household not on City water and sewer could be assessed as much as $8.30 per month for 20 years, or nearly $2,000. Those unfortunate enough to be on City water and sewer could face an increase in their utility bills of up to $39.20 per month for twenty years (that’s a total of more than $9,000 per household).
The questions the community needs to be asking now, and which deserve honest answers, are how much of what is being proposed is truly essential and are the consultants and administration really exploring the least costly alternatives? It doesn’t take an expert to see that Winslow Way is not crying out for “economic revitalization”, and given the City’s current financial situation and other pressing community needs what is currently being proposed is not a realistic option. We need a simple public works directed sewer project, not a state of the art urban design project, and we should expect those most directly benefiting from the project to pay their proportional share.
For the complete recommendations presented to Council for discussion tomorrow night, go here.
For a look at who sits on the Streetscape Advisory Committee, including several Winslow Way property owners, go here.
For a brief discussion of the City’s financial situation, check out Althea Paulson’s new blog and her links to several useful documents including the infamous BRG Memo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
