John Waldo’s Trojan Horse

It was sad enough to see to see John Waldo’s temper tantrum over the 23rd legislative district’s endorsement in a letter to the Islander, but it was truly ridiculous to see it promoted to front-page news in Wednesday’s Review. Of course, editor Doug Crist is a big time Waldo fan, and we know from experience that when determining the prominence of a story for the Review, friend-of-the-editor is sure to trump newsworthiness

So aside from an endorsement, and access to Page One, is Waldo getting any other special treatment from The Review? That depends on whether or not you believe it's our local paper’s responsibility to investigate and report on a candidate’s potential conflicts of interest, or to at least scratch the paint on a candidate’s shiny new campaign platform.

John Waldo takes on the Comp Plan

In 2005, John Waldo wrote a legal analysis of the implications of the Growth Management Act (GMA) for our Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and its goal of preserving our rural density outside of Winslow. Waldo’s position was that, while admitting our population allocation is not a “quota”, nonetheless “Bainbridge will need to engage in substantial upzoning sooner or later”. Why is upzoning inevitable? That Waldo does not explain.

Waldo admits, the law is in flux. Thus, he could have stated that the City should stand firmly by our Comp Plan mandates. But like many others at the helm of our city today, and those acting behind the scenes, Waldo chooses not to advocate for our unique circumstances as an Island and a rural city. Is this because he feels strongly that it is the correct and unavoidable interpretation of the GMA that we eventually upzone the entire Island to accommodate an endless stream of population growth? Or is it, perhaps, that Waldo has no interest in upholding the goals and intentions of our Comp Plan?

Consider Waldo’s recommendation in that 2005 memo:

“Any way we look at it, then, we will have to upzone portions of the Island sooner or later. To me it makes sense to begin that process now. We could turn the process into a real positive by linking at least some of the upzoning to affordable housing.”

The Wind Beneath his Wings

Now, why would Mr. Waldo advocate for preemptive upzoning? Especially when he acknowledges that development today at one housing unit per 1 –2.5 acre lot would “effectively thwart future development at urban densities.” (Isn’t that what a majority of Islanders have asked for?)

Perhaps the explanation lies in who John Waldo is and what interests he serves. Check out his profile on Lawyers.com which lists as his “representative clients”, Samson Family Land Co, Madison Avenue Development and Hillandale Homes, and his areas of practice as Zoning, Planning and Land Use, Real Estate and Environmental Law, in that order. Any guesses as to which side he represents when the issue is the environment?

Who Needs Zoning Laws Anyway?

It so happens that Waldo currently has before the Planning Commission a proposed amendment to the Comp Plan that may shed some light on what he means by turning upzoning into “a real positive”. With the stated goal of creating a new affordable housing program, it sounds downright altruistic at first blush. That is until you take a closer look at what is being proposed.

It turns out that the plan is to:

“provide an incentive to build affordable housing on Bainbridge Island by allowing such projects to be exempt from the development standards applied to the underlying zone in which the project is sited”.

Just in case you are thinking that that couldn’t mean what it sounds like (a complete gutting of our zoning laws), take a look at this section of the proposed amendment:

“Qualified Affordable Housing Projects may be exempt from the development standards of the BIMC Title 17 Subdivision and Title 18 Zoning, including density, lot coverage, permitting requirements for a specific type of housing ... building-to-building setbacks, building height, on-site parking requirements, tree clearing requirements and required open space.” (emphasis added)

In other words, today you may reside next to a vacant five-acre parcel, zoned one single family home per 2.5 acres, with mandatory setbacks, limited building heights and limits on tree clearing, but under Waldo’s proposal, you could wake up to a three-story, multifamily complex on a clear-cut lot.

And who will benefit from this affordable housing development (besides the developer)? We don’t know. As City staff points out in its analysis of the amendment:

“Typically affordable housing programs specify which household income groups are targeted to benefit from the program...The proposed (amendment) does not indicate what level of affordability would be required for a Qualified Affordable Housing Project.”

Nor does the proposal “identify how the relevant properties would remain affordable over time.” Apparently Waldo saw no need to work out those minor details before submitting the amendment to the City.

So what’s the moral of the story? If it walks and talks like a representative of the development community, it probably is one.