Qualifications:
1. Strengths.
What makes you the best
candidate to be Mayor of Bellingham?
I have
the experience without the baggage, vision without the ego. I know the workings of government, administratively
and politically, and have a demonstrated ability to build consensus and get
things done. My commitment and
imagination helped implement intercounty bus service despite the doubts of
transit agencies. When the Bellingham
School District claimed that funding was the reason my son Gabe endured a
full-day-every-other-day-and-alternate-Fridays kindergarten schedule, I proved
they had funds for an every day schedule.
Consequently, my daughter Robyn—and her kindergarten peers—gets a better
academic start.
Bellingham
is a good place to live, with the ingredients to be great. To achieve greatness, we need elected
officials who can build consensus and implement a shared vision. I am the candidate who has proven those
skills repeatedly. Too often, we face
tough choices among candidates. Many
have vision, but lack administrative skills necessary to be effective. Others are skilled administrators, but unable
to articulate a vision. If you want a
Mayor more concerned with performance than public relations, join me in moving
Bellingham forward to a stronger economy and a cleaner environment. Working with my strengths in consensus
building, imagination, persistence, and implementation we will build a better Bellingham.
2. Weaknesses.
Many in our neighborhoods feel that the choice of Mayor this year will be between vision/leadership and administrative experience. What do you perceive as your weakest attribute of the two and how will you address this?
My
perceived weakness: a lack of elective experience. However, on examination this weakness becomes
strength. Without baggage or bruised
relationships in City Hall or County Council, I present an opportunity to build
positive relationships. Unconstrained by
past failures, I can build the meaningful partnerships required to move our
community forward, and build a better Bellingham. The reality of today is that no jurisdiction
can move forward alone. The financial
straitjacket the Iraq debacle puts on our country means all public sector
spending resources are severely constrained.
The good news is that this forces development of partnerships wherever
any significant outlays are required.
This results in better planning and implementation—if you do the hard
work of building the partnerships. I can and will do the necessary work.
I’m
running because current elected officials have failed to transform vision into
action. My skills promote success. I managed a $500 million project through a
60% funding loss after I-695, and kept it on track. I found funding for intercounty transit and
got it implemented despite professionals’ doubts. I have illustrated the benefits of building
bike lanes to auto-centric politicians, while countering the pie-in-the-sky
attitudes of some environmentalists. My
vision is reality-based.
Growth and Planning:
3. Consistent Development Process and
Neighborhood Input.
The spot rezone process that was recently
used for the Squalicum Lofts proposal created an unfair situation pitting
neighbors against the developer, Planning staff, and policy makers in an
unpredictable process. Without changes,
other neighborhoods and developers will be similarly affected in the
future. What are your observations of
this process and what would you propose as Mayor working with Planning staff to
protect the integrity of Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, neighborhood
plan updates, and a meaningful proactive exchange of ideas with stakeholders?
There are some significant problems in our current planning
and permitting processes. These will not
be addressed overnight, but with hard work and a commitment from the community,
we can make lasting, positive change.
The status quo can be unfair to neighborhoods, individuals, and to
developers and property owners. Current
zoning can allow certain uses by right which are at
times inconsistent with the desires of the community and neighbors, while at
the same time disallowing developments which most of us would applaud.
The current system too frequently favors the obstructionist
neighbor and the greed-driven developer over neighbors and developers who would
partner to build a more vibrant community.
By working together, neighborhood by neighborhood, to establish design
standards and aesthetic goals, we can revamp the code to steer us towards the
built community we want and deserve, rather than acceptance of whatever is
thrown our way.
As Mayor, I will bring together planning staff and
stakeholders to begin this effort.
Furthermore, I will not let this effort be process-only, as has happened
too often in our recent past, but rather will work to implement the process
outcomes, sooner rather than later.
4. Urban Center Infill.
Do you support the Comprehensive Plan’s direction of infill housing created through Urban Centers and if so, how can this method be expedited in order to take pressure off leap-frogging in inappropriate areas?
I support
the idea of infill housing through Urban Centers, but current approaches to how
development is implemented must be changed.
Most opposition to infill is tied to historical missteps in
implementation, and to ineffective incorporation of neighborhoods into the
planning effort. When closely examined,
neighborhood fears of density are more accurately characterized as fears of
badly designed structures being built next door, and to the deafness of
officials towards neighborhood input and concerns. We must revisit zoning codes with an eye
toward goal-based zoning, rather than ad hoc standards which serve neither the
neighborhoods, the development community, nor the city well.
By
empowering neighborhoods in a conversation about what their vision of their
neighborhood’s character is, meaningful design goals and standards can be
developed which maintain (and increase) a neighborhood’s desirability and
value, while also increasing predictability for developers who comply with the
vision and character of the community.
This ultimately allows for greater infill, and greater densities, while
preserving essential neighborhood attributes.
The
result of this approach is that we have a more efficient city, with
infrastructure and service costs held down, while livability is increased. A corollary benefit is that predictability is
increased for responsible development.
Lake Whatcom Watershed:
5. Watershed Comprehensive Plan.
How will you move the community to
embrace an overriding vision with specific goals for stormwater management and
land acquisition in the Lake Whatcom watershed that will effectively and
immediately maintain and then, eventually, further reduce pollution levels?
Getting consensus on critical, yet challenging issues
requires first identifying key areas of agreement. For a template, I recommend “Getting to Yes’
by Roger Fisher and Bruce Ury. For the
Lake Whatcom Watershed, there is overwhelming agreement that we must ensure the
long term purity and safety of our water supply. There is also outstanding research
demonstrating the degradation of the lake over time, and the recent acceleration
of that deterioration.
We know the causes of pollution in the lake: phosphorus intrusion from development and
stormwater runoff, failing septic systems, hydrocarbon pollution from road
runoff and abandoned vehicles, etcetera.
Not entirely clear—although becoming clearer—is the risk associated with
each of these and how to effectively mitigate them or eliminate the pollution
in the first place, particularly as it relates to the most problematic
pollutant, phosphorus. Partnering with
Whatcom County, I will facilitate a respectful conversation including all
stakeholders, outlining our knowledge and where it leads, and developing a
program of meaningful incentives and disincentives. The resulting policy must establish a program
which works to immediately begin addressing high benefit actions for the health
of the Lake and for the health of the people and creatures depending on it.
6. Funding Choices.
In last week’s Cascadia Weekly Gristle
Column, Tim Johnson declares Bellingham has two waterfronts demanding our
community resources. As Mayor, how will
you prioritize and provide direction for Lake Whatcom drinking water protection
versus cleanup and redevelopment of the salt waterfront?
What higher priority can a community have above clean
drinking water? While the acquisition of
the GP property offers incredible opportunities for our future, it should not
be above the needs of protecting and preserving Lake Whatcom as a viable source
of water for our community.
Unfortunately, that is what has happened to date with Lake Whatcom. City elected officials this year were
unwilling to partner with County Executive Pete Kremen to ask for federal help
in funding and acquisitions in the watershed, even as newer research was
demonstrating a faster than anticipated deterioration of water quality. City leaders apparently worried efforts to
fund Lake Whatcom land purchases would distract from waterfront funding
efforts.
Funding is rarely an either-or situation. Funds for economic development do not
directly compete with environmental funds, and emerging situations, such as
Lake Whatcom, are compelling enough that they can elicit essentially ‘new’
funds, in addition to other funding requests at the federal or state levels.
As Mayor, Lake Whatcom would be my highest priority, but I
will doggedly pursue effective planning and implementation for both Lake
Whatcom and the clean-up and development of New Whatcom, serving the long term
needs of the City and region.
Waterfront
Redevelopment:
7. Harbor Cleanup.
Describe, briefly, the key features of the cleanup plan favored by the Port of Bellingham for “New Whatcom,” the adjacent waterways, and the ASB and are you satisfied with this plan/agreement? Have you read the Interlocal Agreement (and the three Supplemental Agreements) between the City and the Port and is it a “fair’ agreement for both parties?
The
clean-up plan is a hybrid of dredging and capping of contaminated sediments.
The ASB would be developed as a marina to meet demand for additional
moorage. Having read the Interlocal and
Supplemental Agreements regarding New Whatcom, I find them troublingly
inequitable. From my perspective, the
major benefit the City gets is control over the area, but at a tremendous cost. The initial agreement between the Port and GP
was flawed to begin with, transferring risk which rightfully lay with the
private sector—e.g., GP—to the public, with insufficient safeguards. Ensuing agreements between the Port and
Bellingham favor the Port, allowing the Port to recoup its investment early,
while the City is on the hook until the redevelopment is substantially
complete. Additionally, the County is
largely of the hook altogether, contrary to indicated support at the start of
the process, taking a free ride at the expense of Port and City taxpayers.
The process needs to
slow down while critical questions about the cleanup, redevelopment and funding
are answered. The waterfront
redevelopment is a multigenerational investment; done poorly, our grandchildren
will be paying the price long after we are gone; done right, they—and we—will
reap tremendous benefits.
8. Infrastructure:
What is your “back of the envelope” list of Capital needs and your guess as to the cost? By how much would your list exceed the borrowing capacity of the COB? At what point would the amount borrowed lead to higher interest rates? What would be your priorities?
Obvious
capital needs for Bellingham include library expansion and upgrades, park
acquisition around Cordata; Lake Whatcom Watershed land acquisition, the
Chuckanut Highlands property and New Whatcom.
Any comprehensive list quickly exceeds Bellingham’s current funding
capacity. Current general obligation
bonding authority is about $172 million, with $34 million in outstanding
debt. ‘Bonding Capacity’ is a
theoretical limit; the practical limit is about half that amount, about $50
million in available bond capacity.
There
are also other revenue mechanisms:
Revenue bonds, such as guaranteed through utility payments, are one
option. New or increased streams of
general revenues, such as mitigation fees, can increase capacity. Regardless, there are more demands than
revenues. Prioritization is paramount. I’ll work with everyone—citizens, elected
officials, property owners, businesses—to establish priorities which work for
Bellingham. These conversations will
include funding choices; whether, how and when to spend available funds; and
situations calling for new revenue sources.
The
key to addressing these needs goes beyond Bellingham’s funding ability,
though. Building effective partnerships
with the County, State, and Federal governments is critical to meeting more of
our needs going forward—and I have the ability and persistence to develop these
in a manner producing positive results for everyone.
9. Redevelopment of the Waterfront:
Will the economic benefit exceed the cost for the average Bellingham taxpayer and under what conditions? What will the impact of this redevelopment be on the adjacent neighborhoods and how would you go about minimizing them?
Redevelopment
must follow the waterfront cleanup efforts at the Georgia Pacific site. The key question is: ‘Who benefits from the
redeveloped site?’ Clearly the proposed
rules exempting developers from impact or mitigation fees are untenable—except
to some developers. Additionally, why
not use this opportunity to reach out to our fishing community, and more fully
integrate fishing into our waterfront? This is an extraordinary opportunity to
create meaningful public space for our City and region, and we must use the
opportunity wisely.
We
should recognize the benefits of providing more—rather than less—public space,
as the larger ‘front porch’ creates a wider swath of improved, neighboring
commercial sites. In other aspects,
impacts on proximate neighborhoods will be mixed. For example, few neighbors would advocate for
the superfund site as preferable to a park or mixed-use development of park,
marina, and buildings. However, there
will be negatives, too. Traffic, in
particular, is a problem. We must build
here, as we need to do everywhere in the City, to prioritize the movement of
people over the movement of cars.
Transit, bike and pedestrian options need to be intrinsic to design, as
essential pieces—along with autos—of our transportation system.
Recreation:
10. Parks, Trails, and Open Space.
Besides the dedicated
funding of the Greenways III levy, how would you suggest the City balance its
parks, trails, and open space system so that north Bellingham is better represented? Is this a priority issue for you?
The under allocation of parks for the northern parts of Bellingham
is a critical issue. Geographic equity
needs to be established, and better maintained going forward. In order to facilitate getting where we
should already be, the City needs to work with developers to meet the intent of
past agreements and ensure the appropriate provision of open space in new
developments. Bellingham also needs to
think longer term. Current long range
planning horizons are typically 20 years, but we need an even longer
horizon. My administration will create a
community conversation about what open space is needed over fifty years or
longer, and then identify what are the most critical areas to purchase. This
analysis will examine equity, funding and service provision.
Over time the northern areas currently inadequately provided for
would gain balance. In addition, such a
look would enable development of a completion of a meaningful parks system,
including interconnected trails and wildlife habitat. This examination would also look at how we
might partner more effectively to provide parks, open space, and recreation for
Bellingham and the region in a manner which is fair and efficient. Likely partners include the County, the
Bellingham School District, and the Port.
Emergency Response:
11. Utility lines.
Our neighborhoods
have large industrial high-pressure gas pipelines and high voltage power lines
running through residential areas. There
are houses connected directly to the gas lines, still at high pressure. These were installed to service industries in
the area. They pose tremendous danger in
case of earthquake. The Cascade Natural
Gas franchise agreement will be renegotiated for a new term during your tenure as
Mayor. PSE's agreement can be reopened
after January 31, 2013. What should new
agreements with any utility company provide for to protect our neighborhoods? How important is this issue to you? Are you prepared to ask these companies to
reopen the contracts now to provide safe service?
Allowing
the installation of above-ground high voltage lines was a serious misstep by
the City. While it met with favor from
the developer, it exposes residents to potentially catastrophic failure risks. Burial of these should not wait for the PSE
repermitting period in 2013, but be negotiated immediately. Similarly, the CNG high pressure gas lines
with direct connections to residences need to be mitigated as soon as possible,
in advance of formal negotiating timeframes.
Future agreements with utilities should include standards for utility
treatment in residential areas.
In
addition, weather volatility is expected to increase as one of the unfortunate
by-products of global warming. This
year’s numerous storm events provide some measure of illustration of our
utilities’ current vulnerability. As
Mayor, I will initiate a program of coordinated utility work to bury all
utility lines over time. Utilities
companies will be asked to participate in a program to bury above-ground lines
as road and water projects offer opportunities to do so affordably, similar to
the pavement restriping program which has resulted in our extensive bike lane
system.
Safety
is a paramount concern of government, and we need to work now to create a safer
and more reliable utility system.
Personnel Management:
12. Finance Director Role.
What is the role you see of an
appointed Finance Director in decisions related to the large financial impacts of
the Lake Whatcom watershed and the waterfront redevelopment?
Both the Waterfront and the watershed pose significant
financial forecasting challenges. In the
former, clean-up and development costs are both vague, in large part due to the
uncertainties around current conditions and what the preferred options
are. The watershed faces similar
complexities, as even the ‘how’ of cleaning up phosphorus is murky, and the
tools to address the pollution, both from a policy and a technical perspective,
are in the formative stage.
The Finance Director’s role—whether elected (currently) or
appointed (beginning with the next Mayor)—in decisions related to the large
financial impacts of the Lake Whatcom watershed and the waterfront
redevelopment is two-fold: First, to
ensure the financial integrity and viability of proposed decisions regarding
the Lake Whatcom Watershed and the New Whatcom redevelopment; and Second, to
offer insights into the menu of financing mechanisms which might be used to
fund these needs.
It is critical that the Finance Director have the autonomy
to speak her or his mind regarding all funding issues, bringing understanding
of complex funding issues to the Mayor, the Council, and the citizens of
13. Advisory Committees.
What skill
set and geographic balance do you look for as a Mayor in the makeup of the
Planning Commission and other advisory boards?
Does it concern you that all current members of the Commission live
south of Whatcom Creek?
The makeup of advisory boards is critical to how well they
function. In the case of some bodies—the
Bicycle Advisory Committee, for example—a narrower focus might call for a
limited scope in the participants. For
bodies such as the Planning Commission, however, diversity of experience and
geography are almost essential.
Bellingham is a geographically large city, and to have a body’s members
concentrated into a limited area lends the perception that not all areas will
receive equal consideration. Some might
theorize that it could weigh on how issues such as park provision are viewed
when coming up in testimony.
Similarly, it is important to have diverse backgrounds on
these bodies. The perspective of a
retiree is different from that of a working parent; a professional may have
differing priorities from a blue-collar worker, while a college student may
feel differently than both. We speak of
honoring the richness and diversity in our community; putting those words into
action requires enlisting a broad array of backgrounds and experiences, and
welcoming the fact that this may, at times, challenge our own perspective. A community is made up of all its parts, and
all should have a voice.