As we struggle to evaluate what is going on in City Hall today it is useful to look at where the City has been and what roles the various players have played throughout the City’s brief history. The Bainbridge Review, in its endorsement of John Waldo for City council, extols the fact that Waldo’s list of supporters includes two former Councilpersons "whose very names recall a time when councils forged consensus and got things done”. In the following piece, written in response to former Council Member Norm Wooldridge’s recent attack on incumbent candidate Bill Knobloch, former Councilperson Debbie Vann gives her perspective on how things “got done” in the “good old days”.
Republished with permission of the author.
It is truly unfortunate that Mr. Wooldridge has now chosen to attack Bill Knobloch by twisting what really happened during the first year he was on the Council. I feel that the record needs to be set straight. It is true that during Bill’s first year on Council, things were being shaken up and people who were in charge, the previous Mayor and some previous Council members, had strong negative reactions. The “Good ole’ boy” machine was being challenged and they didn’t like it. Mr. Waldo, then reporter for the Bainbridge Island Review newspaper, actively supported them.
At that time, the City administration was in bad shape. The City had never passed a state audit and in fact, the auditor told us that they couldn’t even begin to audit the books, they were such a mess. The Planning Department was completely dysfunctional due to poor leadership. Everyone, the development community and the environmental community, had been calling for a change for several years. Some bills to be invoiced through the Planning Department had not been sent out for two years, totaling over $250,000 of potential city income.
Contracts were awarded with no Council oversight to “friends of the City”, a direct quote from the then City Administrator. There was no citizen input into the budget and in fact, Council had one meeting to review and rubber stamp the Mayor’s budget. The City Administrator was at war with the finance director and they had not spoken to each other for two years.
The Council itself rarely allowed any citizen involvement in the legislative process. Council members didn’t even have their own email addresses. Council members sat on the boards of non-profits and still voted for City funding for them, a clear ethical violation. They were stalled over public works projects like getting sidewalks and bike lanes on Ericksen and the South End Sewer. As new Councilmembers, we were told by Mr. Wooldridge that we should have no input into legislation until we had been there for a year. He reacted strongly to our changes that increased citizen involvement and increased Council involvement in the budget process.
It was unfortunate that the newly elected Mayor, Darlene Kordonowy, was getting poor advice from those in charge of the City, the previous Mayor and long-term Council members like Mr. Wooldridge. She was encouraged to oppose attempts from Bill, Debbie Vancil and myself when we began to expose the mess in City Hall. However, the Mayor was also very concerned over the failed audits and began to see for herself the serious problems within the City. In her second year and with our strong support, she began to clean house and we got a new City Administrator, Planning Director, Finance Director, and Telecommunications Director.
The Mayor and Council began to work collaboratively with each other. We established a system where the Directors and Council agreed on work loads and together set up a list of legislative priorities for the year. We put in place a new Council manual that detailed Council and Administrative responsibilities.
Those were tumultuous times, but out of that came a City that now passes the state audits with accolades from the auditors, a more efficient Planning Department and City Administration. During Bill’s first three years on Council numerous public works projects were completed, the public became actively involved with legislative issues and some great legislation was passed. One moment stands out for me. At the end of our first year, Bill brought in several large stacks of paper that held all of the legislation we had passed and plopped them down on the podium. We really got things done.
Today, Bill is not the problem with the City Council and the Mayor and in fact, he works quite well with the Mayor and staff. The people responsible, Council members Llewellyn, Scales and Tooloee, are the very people that were supported by the “Good ole’ boys”, including Mr. Wooldridge. Now, they want to put yet another one of their group on Council, John Waldo. I have seen enough of their impact on the City to know that the last thing we need on City Council is yet another voice for dissent, disruption, and poorly planned and thought out legislation.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Dismantling a Community to Build a City
As the written expression of our community’s values and goals, one would expect to find in our Bainbridge Island Comprehensive Plan* the ammunition to stop the advancing army of consultants, planners, designers and downtown property owners determined to undertake a massive redevelopment of our downtown. Unfortunately, our Comp Plan no longer offers the protection and guidance it once did, following what might be described as a protracted stealth attack – a piecemeal dismantling that has resulted in the codification of policies that many feel are inconsistent with the goals and vision of the Plan, and the community that created it.
One of the sections of the Plan most acutely hit by this concerted effort to redefine the character of Bainbridge Island is the Winslow Master Plan, which was hijacked by an extensive codification of dozens of Winslow Tomorrow recommendations last November that few citizens are aware of. (That’s right, Winslow Tomorrow is adopted policy.) As this year draws to a close, those amendments to the Plan are coming to fruition in the form of several controversial projects including proposed height and density increases for the Winslow Core District, the Streetscape, Parking Garage and plans for the upzoning and commercialization of the Ferry/Gateway Districts.
A review of the 2006 updates to the Master Plan and the proposed amendments now before the Planning Commission leaves us wondering how the Administration managed to so quietly slip detailed plans for the redevelopment of Winslow into our Comprehensive Plan. It also raises the question of whether the public will demand a stop to the expansion and implementation of these plans before it is too late.
Transit Villages and Core Extensions
The Planning commission is currently reviewing a series of Comp Plan amendments that would further amend the Winslow Master Plan, less than a year after its radical revision in November 2006. These proposed ordinances are said to “provide the policy platform” for the Ferry/Gateway Districts, yet we are assured by City staff and the Planning Commission that this is “just policy” and that no final decisions regarding the design of the districts will be made until the public has weighed in on the alternative Urban Design Plans for the districts during the “Implementation” phase next year.
With all due respect to staff, now is in fact the critical time for public comment. By definition, policy directs action. The policies being added to the Winslow Master Plan, along with those that were embedded there last November and other proposed code changes, may not finalize all of the details, but they surely preclude many alternative visions for the districts, including any that could be legitimately called “do nothing”.
When Citizens, or even Council Persons for that matter, come forth in 2008, to protest the basic assumptions of the proposed designs, staff will be the first to point to the Winslow Master Plan to demonstrate that most of the significant assumptions have already been adopted as policy. (Witness recent discussions between staff and Council regarding the implementation of Winslow Tomorrow policies in the Core District)
One of the policy changes currently under consideration, which addresses a very basic assumption, is the following:
WMP 2-10.2 “The district should be redeveloped to function as an extension of downtown Winslow, with complimentary uses, streetscapes, pedestrian amenities, public gathering spaces and unique design features.” (emphasis added)
This extension of the Core district east to Ferncliff would directly contradict the current policy stated in the Master Plan. The Plan states that new development in the Ferry/Gateway districts “is not envisioned as an extension of the Core, but rather a new neighborhood.” That language will be stricken by the proposed amendments, as will provisions limiting development to “residential with small amounts of service retail and office development.” Instead, it is proposed that this extension of the Winslow Core will be “a pedestrian transit oriented, mixed use neighborhood with higher density residential development, commercial development and some retail” or, as consultants describe it, a “Transit Village”.
The proposed amendments also suggest removing the 2,000 square foot limit for retail services in the district. A 100-foot transition area – landscaping buffer and lower heights – currently mandated by the Master Plan to protect adjacent residential neighborhoods, would be reduced to an area of an unspecified width.
Outside of the Comp Plan amendment process, the City's consultants call for zoning changes to increase building heights and density in the Ferry/ Gateway districts identical to those recently proposed for the Core District– up to 55-foot building heights and up to 2.5 FAR (density). Maximum lot coverage in the Gateway District would go from 35% to 75%.
Looking to the Urban Design Plan alternatives prepared by the City’s consultants, who note on their website that they aim to “add a sense of place” to the Island, it would appear that these extensive changes to the Comp Plan and zoning ordinances are all but presumed.
Going Backward to go Forward
When the original Winslow Master Plan was drafted in 1998, it was understood that the committee formed to draft it and the public meetings held to invite public comment on it were creating real policy that would determine the future of Winslow. By contrast, the Winslow Tomorrow effort, comprised of an appointed “community congress” was never described to the community as creating development policy for Winslow. In fact, former Winslow Tomorrow project director Sandy Fischer was quoted as saying that Winslow Tomorrow was not a development plan and should not be used as one. And yet, to date, dozens of select recommendations of Winslow Tomorrow have been inserted with great detail into the Winslow Master Plan, and thus are now City policy.
So is that it then? Has the boat sailed? Not necessarily. Our City Council can choose not to adopt the Ferry-Gateway Comp Plan amendments in November (yet another significant and potentially controversial public hearing planned for the holiday season) and not to adopt proposed increases in height, density and other zoning changes as they are presented. The Council can also choose not to implement the policies already adopted, and could even reconsider them. Of course none of these actions are likely to occur, unless and until the public makes it known that these policies do not reflect our vision for the Island and that we will no longer tolerate the wholesale redrafting of our Comprehensive Plan and dismantling of our community by planners, consultants and a handful of property owners.
The Planning Commission will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the currently proposed Comp Plan amendments on Thursday October 25, 7:00 pm, in the City Council chambers.
The deadline to comment on the draft Environmental Impact Study for the Ferry/Gateway will be November 9, 2007.
*The City's Comprehensive Plan guides the growth and establishes the long-range vision for the Island, identifying important characteristics that the community desires to retain, promote or foster. The Comprehensive Plan incorporates goals and policies that guide the community toward that vision, including the Five Overriding Principles of the Plan:
One of the sections of the Plan most acutely hit by this concerted effort to redefine the character of Bainbridge Island is the Winslow Master Plan, which was hijacked by an extensive codification of dozens of Winslow Tomorrow recommendations last November that few citizens are aware of. (That’s right, Winslow Tomorrow is adopted policy.) As this year draws to a close, those amendments to the Plan are coming to fruition in the form of several controversial projects including proposed height and density increases for the Winslow Core District, the Streetscape, Parking Garage and plans for the upzoning and commercialization of the Ferry/Gateway Districts.
A review of the 2006 updates to the Master Plan and the proposed amendments now before the Planning Commission leaves us wondering how the Administration managed to so quietly slip detailed plans for the redevelopment of Winslow into our Comprehensive Plan. It also raises the question of whether the public will demand a stop to the expansion and implementation of these plans before it is too late.
Transit Villages and Core Extensions
The Planning commission is currently reviewing a series of Comp Plan amendments that would further amend the Winslow Master Plan, less than a year after its radical revision in November 2006. These proposed ordinances are said to “provide the policy platform” for the Ferry/Gateway Districts, yet we are assured by City staff and the Planning Commission that this is “just policy” and that no final decisions regarding the design of the districts will be made until the public has weighed in on the alternative Urban Design Plans for the districts during the “Implementation” phase next year.
With all due respect to staff, now is in fact the critical time for public comment. By definition, policy directs action. The policies being added to the Winslow Master Plan, along with those that were embedded there last November and other proposed code changes, may not finalize all of the details, but they surely preclude many alternative visions for the districts, including any that could be legitimately called “do nothing”.
When Citizens, or even Council Persons for that matter, come forth in 2008, to protest the basic assumptions of the proposed designs, staff will be the first to point to the Winslow Master Plan to demonstrate that most of the significant assumptions have already been adopted as policy. (Witness recent discussions between staff and Council regarding the implementation of Winslow Tomorrow policies in the Core District)
One of the policy changes currently under consideration, which addresses a very basic assumption, is the following:
WMP 2-10.2 “The district should be redeveloped to function as an extension of downtown Winslow, with complimentary uses, streetscapes, pedestrian amenities, public gathering spaces and unique design features.” (emphasis added)
This extension of the Core district east to Ferncliff would directly contradict the current policy stated in the Master Plan. The Plan states that new development in the Ferry/Gateway districts “is not envisioned as an extension of the Core, but rather a new neighborhood.” That language will be stricken by the proposed amendments, as will provisions limiting development to “residential with small amounts of service retail and office development.” Instead, it is proposed that this extension of the Winslow Core will be “a pedestrian transit oriented, mixed use neighborhood with higher density residential development, commercial development and some retail” or, as consultants describe it, a “Transit Village”.
The proposed amendments also suggest removing the 2,000 square foot limit for retail services in the district. A 100-foot transition area – landscaping buffer and lower heights – currently mandated by the Master Plan to protect adjacent residential neighborhoods, would be reduced to an area of an unspecified width.
Outside of the Comp Plan amendment process, the City's consultants call for zoning changes to increase building heights and density in the Ferry/ Gateway districts identical to those recently proposed for the Core District– up to 55-foot building heights and up to 2.5 FAR (density). Maximum lot coverage in the Gateway District would go from 35% to 75%.
Looking to the Urban Design Plan alternatives prepared by the City’s consultants, who note on their website that they aim to “add a sense of place” to the Island, it would appear that these extensive changes to the Comp Plan and zoning ordinances are all but presumed.
Going Backward to go Forward
When the original Winslow Master Plan was drafted in 1998, it was understood that the committee formed to draft it and the public meetings held to invite public comment on it were creating real policy that would determine the future of Winslow. By contrast, the Winslow Tomorrow effort, comprised of an appointed “community congress” was never described to the community as creating development policy for Winslow. In fact, former Winslow Tomorrow project director Sandy Fischer was quoted as saying that Winslow Tomorrow was not a development plan and should not be used as one. And yet, to date, dozens of select recommendations of Winslow Tomorrow have been inserted with great detail into the Winslow Master Plan, and thus are now City policy.
So is that it then? Has the boat sailed? Not necessarily. Our City Council can choose not to adopt the Ferry-Gateway Comp Plan amendments in November (yet another significant and potentially controversial public hearing planned for the holiday season) and not to adopt proposed increases in height, density and other zoning changes as they are presented. The Council can also choose not to implement the policies already adopted, and could even reconsider them. Of course none of these actions are likely to occur, unless and until the public makes it known that these policies do not reflect our vision for the Island and that we will no longer tolerate the wholesale redrafting of our Comprehensive Plan and dismantling of our community by planners, consultants and a handful of property owners.
The Planning Commission will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the currently proposed Comp Plan amendments on Thursday October 25, 7:00 pm, in the City Council chambers.
The deadline to comment on the draft Environmental Impact Study for the Ferry/Gateway will be November 9, 2007.
*The City's Comprehensive Plan guides the growth and establishes the long-range vision for the Island, identifying important characteristics that the community desires to retain, promote or foster. The Comprehensive Plan incorporates goals and policies that guide the community toward that vision, including the Five Overriding Principles of the Plan:
- Preserve the special character of the Island;
- Protect fragile water resources;
- Foster diversity;
- Consider costs and benefits to property owners when making land use decisions;
- Promote sustainable development.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Downtown Conspiracy 101
Take one part over-representation of financial stakeholders in downtown planning, add a series of proposed projects that remove all hindrances to increased height and density, sprinkle in a few “amenities” to woo the public – be sure to leave all public comment in a box on the shelf – and stir it up with a few threats and misrepresentations. Bake in an oven warmed by a rush to beat the 2008 Council. Voila: Winslow Tomorrow Surprise.
If Saturday’s editorial page is all the Winslow Way gang and their good friends at the Review can come up with to dispute allegations of a “downtown conspiracy” (their words, not ours) then perhaps we’re on to something.
The exact ingredients may vary – only the cooks know the secret recipe – but what is clear is that there are many individual pieces of information and series of events that don’t add up, and the spin and blatant “errors” on last week’s editorial page haven’t explained any of them.
The Secret of the Hidden LID
The feigned shock from property owners and the City Administration (not to mention the editor of our fine paper of record) to the suggestion of an LID (Local Improvement District) to help finance the Streetscape would be comical, were it not so serious a matter for the rest of us.
We have been told that (1) an LID would not be appropriate for the Streetscape because we all benefit from it and that (2) an LID would fail because property owners won’t go for it. Winslow Way property owner Bruce Weiland goes so far as to state, in his op ed piece attacking Bob Fortner and the BRG in last Saturday’s Review, that “the City, by law, cannot impose an LID; it must be approved by 60% of the parcels being taxed”. That statement is wrong on so many levels, that one has to wonder why Weiland, a lawyer, would not do his homework before publicly admonishing a fellow citizen’s understanding of the law.
An LID can indeed be imposed by a municipality, though it can be blocked if it’s opposed by property owners representing 60% of the of the dollar amount assessed (not % of parcels). In other words only 41% of the affected financial interests need be in favor of the LID. Thus, in this case, the City could impose an LID and leave it up to the property owners to determine how essential this project really is. Unless of course we want to capitulate to the threat of LID protests in the same manner the City has been seen as capitulating to the threat of lawsuits.
In response to the argument that an LID is not fair because the Streetscape benefits us all, we need only look to Seattle where LID’s have been considered for both the Alaskan Way Tunnel and the Lake Union Streetcar. LID’s are standard operating procedure for financing a broad range of capital improvements that confer a special benefit to adjacent landowners even as they may provide a benefit to the entire community.
So, if LID’s are so ubiquitous, why the claims of impossibility from the City administration and why the disinfomation campaign in the Review? The answer may lie in a plan to reserve that funding mechanism to fund the proposed parking garage.
Streetscape project Manager Chris Wierzbicki told a friend of the PostScript in August, that an LID would not be appropriate for sidewalks and street trees, but would be appropriate for, say, a parking garage. Lo and behold, the funding recommendations for the Haggar-Scribner/ City parking structure, to be presented to Council tonight, include a special assessment for benefited properties. Recall that Tom Haggar, his wife Priscilla Zimmerman and Don Audleman (of Capstone Partners, technical consultant on the $127,000 parking garage feasibility study – yes that’s taxpayer money) are all members of the Streetscape Advisory Committee, and that Dr. Haggar also sits on the committee that created the Streetscape funding strategy.
It will certainly be interesting to see how this apparent hypocrisy is finessed at tonight’s meeting.
The Case of the Missing Fire Flow
Within the Water Resources Element of our Comprehensive Plan is a discussion of “fire flow”, and other water storage requirements, for the downtown water system. According to that discussion, the Winslow Water System will not be able to provide adequate service (including fire flow) for projected growth without replacement of “undersized distribution pipelines in the system”. Specific recommendations are given for Winslow Way upgrades, and Winslow Way Streetscape documents cite those Comp Plan recommendations as the basis for current plans.
Why does “fire flow” matter? Inadequate fire flow means no redevelopment of the affected properties and the word on the street is that what has kept heights down on Winslow Way for so long has been fire safety issues – fire department ladder height, the need to underground power lines and inadequate fire flow. The fire department now has the truck it needs, and in 2009, the Streetscape project will take care of the last two requirements. And so the argument goes that even the basic utility work on Winslow Way will create a special benefit to property owners and should be subject to an LID.
City staff has refuted this claim, stating that the same diameter pipes would be needed for current zoning as would be needed for proposed 5-story building heights. Putting aside proposed upzoning (a potential red herring), is the relevant issue current zoning capacity, or the actual ability to build to that capacity? Is it the City’s responsibility to use our tax dollars to provide a property owner with the additional infrastructure needed to maximize the use of his property? Or are such upgrades valuable improvements to his property?
This is how the Water and Sewer Report, produced by City consultants for the Streetscape project, describe the situation:
“The proposed improvements are the minimum required to meet projected growth along Winslow Way as discussed in the Comprehensive Plan. It is important to note the improvements are not being dictated by future multi-story build-out along Winslow Way but are needed regardless of redevelopment to meet projected domestic and fire demands.”(emphasis added)
Clearly, the infrastructure need is for future development along Winslow Way – whatever sized structures are used to accommodate the projected growth. Thus, we are talking about an improvement that is a prerequisite to redevelopment. It’s incontestable that such an improvement confers a measurable, and, in this case, substantial benefit to Winslow Way property owners.
Something untoward seems to be going on downtown. Has the administration played a role in deceiving Council and the public about the viability of LID financing for the Streetscape project in order to reserve that option for the financing of the Haggar-Scribner parking garage? Has the administration played a role in misleading the community about the relationship between the Streetscape project, the proposed parking garage and the ability of Winslow Way property owners to build taller and bigger buildings, whether under current or proposed zoning?
Without credible answers to such important questions, increasing numbers of reasonable citizens will find themselves wondering whether there might not indeed be a "conspiracy" directing the redevelopment of our downtown.
If Saturday’s editorial page is all the Winslow Way gang and their good friends at the Review can come up with to dispute allegations of a “downtown conspiracy” (their words, not ours) then perhaps we’re on to something.
The exact ingredients may vary – only the cooks know the secret recipe – but what is clear is that there are many individual pieces of information and series of events that don’t add up, and the spin and blatant “errors” on last week’s editorial page haven’t explained any of them.
The Secret of the Hidden LID
The feigned shock from property owners and the City Administration (not to mention the editor of our fine paper of record) to the suggestion of an LID (Local Improvement District) to help finance the Streetscape would be comical, were it not so serious a matter for the rest of us.
We have been told that (1) an LID would not be appropriate for the Streetscape because we all benefit from it and that (2) an LID would fail because property owners won’t go for it. Winslow Way property owner Bruce Weiland goes so far as to state, in his op ed piece attacking Bob Fortner and the BRG in last Saturday’s Review, that “the City, by law, cannot impose an LID; it must be approved by 60% of the parcels being taxed”. That statement is wrong on so many levels, that one has to wonder why Weiland, a lawyer, would not do his homework before publicly admonishing a fellow citizen’s understanding of the law.
An LID can indeed be imposed by a municipality, though it can be blocked if it’s opposed by property owners representing 60% of the of the dollar amount assessed (not % of parcels). In other words only 41% of the affected financial interests need be in favor of the LID. Thus, in this case, the City could impose an LID and leave it up to the property owners to determine how essential this project really is. Unless of course we want to capitulate to the threat of LID protests in the same manner the City has been seen as capitulating to the threat of lawsuits.
In response to the argument that an LID is not fair because the Streetscape benefits us all, we need only look to Seattle where LID’s have been considered for both the Alaskan Way Tunnel and the Lake Union Streetcar. LID’s are standard operating procedure for financing a broad range of capital improvements that confer a special benefit to adjacent landowners even as they may provide a benefit to the entire community.
So, if LID’s are so ubiquitous, why the claims of impossibility from the City administration and why the disinfomation campaign in the Review? The answer may lie in a plan to reserve that funding mechanism to fund the proposed parking garage.
Streetscape project Manager Chris Wierzbicki told a friend of the PostScript in August, that an LID would not be appropriate for sidewalks and street trees, but would be appropriate for, say, a parking garage. Lo and behold, the funding recommendations for the Haggar-Scribner/ City parking structure, to be presented to Council tonight, include a special assessment for benefited properties. Recall that Tom Haggar, his wife Priscilla Zimmerman and Don Audleman (of Capstone Partners, technical consultant on the $127,000 parking garage feasibility study – yes that’s taxpayer money) are all members of the Streetscape Advisory Committee, and that Dr. Haggar also sits on the committee that created the Streetscape funding strategy.
It will certainly be interesting to see how this apparent hypocrisy is finessed at tonight’s meeting.
The Case of the Missing Fire Flow
Within the Water Resources Element of our Comprehensive Plan is a discussion of “fire flow”, and other water storage requirements, for the downtown water system. According to that discussion, the Winslow Water System will not be able to provide adequate service (including fire flow) for projected growth without replacement of “undersized distribution pipelines in the system”. Specific recommendations are given for Winslow Way upgrades, and Winslow Way Streetscape documents cite those Comp Plan recommendations as the basis for current plans.
Why does “fire flow” matter? Inadequate fire flow means no redevelopment of the affected properties and the word on the street is that what has kept heights down on Winslow Way for so long has been fire safety issues – fire department ladder height, the need to underground power lines and inadequate fire flow. The fire department now has the truck it needs, and in 2009, the Streetscape project will take care of the last two requirements. And so the argument goes that even the basic utility work on Winslow Way will create a special benefit to property owners and should be subject to an LID.
City staff has refuted this claim, stating that the same diameter pipes would be needed for current zoning as would be needed for proposed 5-story building heights. Putting aside proposed upzoning (a potential red herring), is the relevant issue current zoning capacity, or the actual ability to build to that capacity? Is it the City’s responsibility to use our tax dollars to provide a property owner with the additional infrastructure needed to maximize the use of his property? Or are such upgrades valuable improvements to his property?
This is how the Water and Sewer Report, produced by City consultants for the Streetscape project, describe the situation:
“The proposed improvements are the minimum required to meet projected growth along Winslow Way as discussed in the Comprehensive Plan. It is important to note the improvements are not being dictated by future multi-story build-out along Winslow Way but are needed regardless of redevelopment to meet projected domestic and fire demands.”(emphasis added)
Clearly, the infrastructure need is for future development along Winslow Way – whatever sized structures are used to accommodate the projected growth. Thus, we are talking about an improvement that is a prerequisite to redevelopment. It’s incontestable that such an improvement confers a measurable, and, in this case, substantial benefit to Winslow Way property owners.
Something untoward seems to be going on downtown. Has the administration played a role in deceiving Council and the public about the viability of LID financing for the Streetscape project in order to reserve that option for the financing of the Haggar-Scribner parking garage? Has the administration played a role in misleading the community about the relationship between the Streetscape project, the proposed parking garage and the ability of Winslow Way property owners to build taller and bigger buildings, whether under current or proposed zoning?
Without credible answers to such important questions, increasing numbers of reasonable citizens will find themselves wondering whether there might not indeed be a "conspiracy" directing the redevelopment of our downtown.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
As Easy as ... One, Two, Three
The process by which the Winslow Tomorrow Streetscape has been developed and is currently heading toward implementation, is providing a crash course in the brutal realities of Bainbridge Island politics for those who are paying attention. Unless Council takes a dramatically new course soon, it appears that the Mayor will be well on her way to implementing an agenda that threatens to have grave and widespread consequences for us all.
Those familiar with how business is done at City Hall will recognize the three cardinal rules at play over the last few months. The question before the Council, and the community, is whether this time Council will have the political stamina to break the rules.
Rule #1: Citizens Shall be Seen and Not Heard
In prior articles, we have discussed the heavy influence of a handful of Citizens, many of them downtown property owners, in the latter stages of the Winslow Tomorrow process and on other downtown related committees. Not only are these special interests heavily represented on the Streetscape advisory committee, but amazingly, the controversial, and arguably self serving, funding scheme for the Streetscape was crafted by these same individuals working alongside redevelopment consultant Chuck DePew and Councilperson Kjell Stoknes (see sidebar for more on Mr. Stoknes).
But what about the other 24,000 voices on the Island? To be sure, an incredible amount of lip service is given to public process at City Hall. From the comments made by many advocates for Winslow Tomorrow, you’d think dissenting Citizens had hijacked the process. In fact, a consistent pattern has developed of highly structured “open houses” and other “town meetings” where the message is tightly controlled and the outcome appears to many attendees as a forgone conclusion.
The Streetscape group boasts heartily of the support shown for its preliminary plans at the 4th of July festival. But what about the other two citizen meetings conducted for the project since July? Might not the community, and Council, be interested in the opinions of average citizens provided with details – including costs and funding strategies – and the time to reflect and ask questions?
Unfortunately, we haven’t heard much in the way of an actual summary of public comment from these events, neither have we heard from the Winslow Way business owners (the tenants) nor specifically from the Winslow water and sewer ratepayers.
Perhaps these two questions from a City comment sheet provided at the last public Streetscape meeting say it all (See here for one couple’s responses.):
“8. Do you feel you have a right to say how Winslow Way
should be rebuilt? For what reasons?
9. Do other islanders have the same right to say how your street should be rebuilt? For what reasons?”
Ouch.
Rule #2 The Mayor Shall get her Way
There’s a reason that the Mayor opened last night’s budget presentation looking like the cat that ate the canary. In effect she did when she managed to push her legacy building agenda forward last Wednesday night despite a lack of support by a majority of the seated Council.
The dance between Council and the Administration around the Capital Facilities Plan last month created an ideal opportunity to witness the results of this total disregard of the Administration for Council’s attempts to set policy consistent with community priorities.
At that September 12th meeting, Councilperson Tooloee, often criticized for the tenor of his presentation, but arguably one of the strongest voices on Council, contrasted the spending priorities Council had presented the Administration with those the Administration offered back to Council in the Capital Facilities Plan. According to Tooloee:
“Council directed that total investments in open space, non motorized transportation, affordable housing, and community facilities over the next six years be set at $18 million, $18 million, $11 million, and $5 million, respectively.
The Administration has ignored that policy and drastically slashed the total investments in these areas in the next six years to $10 million, $10 million, $3 million, and $1 million, respectively. These cutbacks are not in line with community values or needs.”
Tooloee went on to demonstrate that the Administration had also chosen to disregard Council’s direction as to the ratio of Voter approved bonds to Council approved (councilmanic) bonds:
“When council adopted the CFP last year by a unanimous vote it limited council-approved bonds to $15.5 million over six years (down from over $35 million as proposed by the Administration) and slated $31 million of voter-approved bonds, to be approved by the voters in 2008 to be sure that they agreed with the priorities established by Council.
The proposed CFP hikes reliance on council-approved bonds (which some disparage as credit card debt!) by 20% to $18 million and cuts voter-approved bonds (the best way for voters to say if they agree with the City) by almost 70% to $10.5 million. The funding mix should give a much greater voice to the voters.”
These fundamental splits between the majority of the Council and the Mayor and Administration, on both spending priorities and funding mechanisms, and the Administration’s attempts to thwart Council’s efforts to set the policy it believes to reflect community values, resulted in some trouble for the Winslow Tomorrow Streetscape Project funding proposal when it was first presented to Council on September 5th. Staff was directed by Council to provide alternatives to the controversial proposal, which relied on council approved bonds, significantly increased fees for Winslow water and sewer users and required no contribution from the owners of benefited properties.
Last Wednesday, Council was presented a barely modified version of the original funding proposal. This time, however, Councilperson Bob Scales was not present due to a planned absence. The result was a foreseeable tie (for those on the inside who knew which Councilpersons would be present) and the Mayor was able to cast the, marginally legal, deciding vote. What is most amazing about the vote is not the incredible fortuitousness of the timing of the vote, but the incredible care that had been taken to craft a motion that the mayor, who cannot break ties to expend funds, could legally vote upon.
Rule #3 Council Shall Bear all Blame
And so, as has often been the case before, the Mayor has placed those on Council who do not support her agenda in a politically untenable position. They can choose to fund the $20.6 million option using the Administration’s preferred funding strategy, or they can refuse to fund the project, a decision which will be billed by the Administration, and the(ir) Bainbridge Review, as a querulous and irresponsible refusal to fund the necessary replacement of leaking pipes.
This is where the breakdown at City Hall has cost us dearly in the past. As much as the Administration has been expert at depriving Council of information and staff, manipulating process, timing and the law to pressure and confuse Council into approving the Mayor’s agenda, Council could have, and indeed has a duty to, refuse to cooperate until the terms are changed.
The result of not stopping the Mayor’s agenda earlier, has been a slow painful descent into a special interest version of Winslow Tomorrow, with the Streetscape being the first of a impending series of expensive and monumental decisions that will change the face of the City forever.
And so, faced with a politically painful decision – to fund or not to fund the Streetscape – what will our Council do?
Time to Break the Rules
That self-satisfied look on the Mayor’s face last night, quickly dissolved when her own loyal (and impeccably professional) finance director made cautionary remarks about the funding of these “extremely large projects for a city of this size.” Mr. Konkel’s remarks when taken in conjunction with the failure of the current process to fairly assess and consider the public will, give great credibility to the position taken thus far by a majority of Council. Council must be called upon to continue to put the community’s best interests before any personal or political concerns.
The mayor’s vote also occurred in a time of increasing calls for a change to a Council-Manager form of government (a thinly veiled attack on her performance), and has incited more than a few of those voices to call outright for a recall election. This decline in support for the Mayor’s agenda also serves to strengthen the mandate for Council’s refusal to cooperate
Councilperson Bill Knobloch, has correctly pointed out that “this is where the rubber meets the road” when addressing the fact that there is only so much money for so many projects. This is also where the rubber meets the road for Council’s success or failure as a political body tasked with representing, and indeed defending, the interests of the community above all else.
Those familiar with how business is done at City Hall will recognize the three cardinal rules at play over the last few months. The question before the Council, and the community, is whether this time Council will have the political stamina to break the rules.
Rule #1: Citizens Shall be Seen and Not Heard
In prior articles, we have discussed the heavy influence of a handful of Citizens, many of them downtown property owners, in the latter stages of the Winslow Tomorrow process and on other downtown related committees. Not only are these special interests heavily represented on the Streetscape advisory committee, but amazingly, the controversial, and arguably self serving, funding scheme for the Streetscape was crafted by these same individuals working alongside redevelopment consultant Chuck DePew and Councilperson Kjell Stoknes (see sidebar for more on Mr. Stoknes).
But what about the other 24,000 voices on the Island? To be sure, an incredible amount of lip service is given to public process at City Hall. From the comments made by many advocates for Winslow Tomorrow, you’d think dissenting Citizens had hijacked the process. In fact, a consistent pattern has developed of highly structured “open houses” and other “town meetings” where the message is tightly controlled and the outcome appears to many attendees as a forgone conclusion.
The Streetscape group boasts heartily of the support shown for its preliminary plans at the 4th of July festival. But what about the other two citizen meetings conducted for the project since July? Might not the community, and Council, be interested in the opinions of average citizens provided with details – including costs and funding strategies – and the time to reflect and ask questions?
Unfortunately, we haven’t heard much in the way of an actual summary of public comment from these events, neither have we heard from the Winslow Way business owners (the tenants) nor specifically from the Winslow water and sewer ratepayers.
Perhaps these two questions from a City comment sheet provided at the last public Streetscape meeting say it all (See here for one couple’s responses.):
“8. Do you feel you have a right to say how Winslow Way
should be rebuilt? For what reasons?
9. Do other islanders have the same right to say how your street should be rebuilt? For what reasons?”
Ouch.
Rule #2 The Mayor Shall get her Way
There’s a reason that the Mayor opened last night’s budget presentation looking like the cat that ate the canary. In effect she did when she managed to push her legacy building agenda forward last Wednesday night despite a lack of support by a majority of the seated Council.
The dance between Council and the Administration around the Capital Facilities Plan last month created an ideal opportunity to witness the results of this total disregard of the Administration for Council’s attempts to set policy consistent with community priorities.
At that September 12th meeting, Councilperson Tooloee, often criticized for the tenor of his presentation, but arguably one of the strongest voices on Council, contrasted the spending priorities Council had presented the Administration with those the Administration offered back to Council in the Capital Facilities Plan. According to Tooloee:
“Council directed that total investments in open space, non motorized transportation, affordable housing, and community facilities over the next six years be set at $18 million, $18 million, $11 million, and $5 million, respectively.
The Administration has ignored that policy and drastically slashed the total investments in these areas in the next six years to $10 million, $10 million, $3 million, and $1 million, respectively. These cutbacks are not in line with community values or needs.”
Tooloee went on to demonstrate that the Administration had also chosen to disregard Council’s direction as to the ratio of Voter approved bonds to Council approved (councilmanic) bonds:
“When council adopted the CFP last year by a unanimous vote it limited council-approved bonds to $15.5 million over six years (down from over $35 million as proposed by the Administration) and slated $31 million of voter-approved bonds, to be approved by the voters in 2008 to be sure that they agreed with the priorities established by Council.
The proposed CFP hikes reliance on council-approved bonds (which some disparage as credit card debt!) by 20% to $18 million and cuts voter-approved bonds (the best way for voters to say if they agree with the City) by almost 70% to $10.5 million. The funding mix should give a much greater voice to the voters.”
These fundamental splits between the majority of the Council and the Mayor and Administration, on both spending priorities and funding mechanisms, and the Administration’s attempts to thwart Council’s efforts to set the policy it believes to reflect community values, resulted in some trouble for the Winslow Tomorrow Streetscape Project funding proposal when it was first presented to Council on September 5th. Staff was directed by Council to provide alternatives to the controversial proposal, which relied on council approved bonds, significantly increased fees for Winslow water and sewer users and required no contribution from the owners of benefited properties.
Last Wednesday, Council was presented a barely modified version of the original funding proposal. This time, however, Councilperson Bob Scales was not present due to a planned absence. The result was a foreseeable tie (for those on the inside who knew which Councilpersons would be present) and the Mayor was able to cast the, marginally legal, deciding vote. What is most amazing about the vote is not the incredible fortuitousness of the timing of the vote, but the incredible care that had been taken to craft a motion that the mayor, who cannot break ties to expend funds, could legally vote upon.
Rule #3 Council Shall Bear all Blame
And so, as has often been the case before, the Mayor has placed those on Council who do not support her agenda in a politically untenable position. They can choose to fund the $20.6 million option using the Administration’s preferred funding strategy, or they can refuse to fund the project, a decision which will be billed by the Administration, and the(ir) Bainbridge Review, as a querulous and irresponsible refusal to fund the necessary replacement of leaking pipes.
This is where the breakdown at City Hall has cost us dearly in the past. As much as the Administration has been expert at depriving Council of information and staff, manipulating process, timing and the law to pressure and confuse Council into approving the Mayor’s agenda, Council could have, and indeed has a duty to, refuse to cooperate until the terms are changed.
The result of not stopping the Mayor’s agenda earlier, has been a slow painful descent into a special interest version of Winslow Tomorrow, with the Streetscape being the first of a impending series of expensive and monumental decisions that will change the face of the City forever.
And so, faced with a politically painful decision – to fund or not to fund the Streetscape – what will our Council do?
Time to Break the Rules
That self-satisfied look on the Mayor’s face last night, quickly dissolved when her own loyal (and impeccably professional) finance director made cautionary remarks about the funding of these “extremely large projects for a city of this size.” Mr. Konkel’s remarks when taken in conjunction with the failure of the current process to fairly assess and consider the public will, give great credibility to the position taken thus far by a majority of Council. Council must be called upon to continue to put the community’s best interests before any personal or political concerns.
The mayor’s vote also occurred in a time of increasing calls for a change to a Council-Manager form of government (a thinly veiled attack on her performance), and has incited more than a few of those voices to call outright for a recall election. This decline in support for the Mayor’s agenda also serves to strengthen the mandate for Council’s refusal to cooperate
Councilperson Bill Knobloch, has correctly pointed out that “this is where the rubber meets the road” when addressing the fact that there is only so much money for so many projects. This is also where the rubber meets the road for Council’s success or failure as a political body tasked with representing, and indeed defending, the interests of the community above all else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
