Planning Ahead
"We need to make sure the redevelopment not only follows the Draft Framework Plan that reflects the public's best ideas for the waterfront, but also that redevelopment costs are fairly distributed and planned for."
What are your thoughts on the direction of waterfront redevelopment
planning between the city and Port of Bellingham? Would you do
anything differently? If so, what?
I think that some of the delays and differences between the City and
Port could have been avoided if the original vision of the Waterfront
Futures Group had been carried forward more clearly. I also think
there has been some confusion of roles and purposes, with the Port
taking on city planning responsibilities outside of its commercial
development expertise.
The Waterfront District presents an enormous opportunity for
Bellingham – to provide for healthy economic growth, to revitalize our
downtown, to set a standard for sustainable development, and to create
a shoreline park and trail system that will benefit everyone and add
enormous value to the entire project. A lot of attention has been
directed at issues such as the street grid and protecting the historic
buildings, but as important as these issues are, I think our biggest
hurdles lie elsewhere.
I remain concerned about costs to city taxpayers for building the new
infrastructure – roads, sewers, stormwater, streetlights. We need to
approach this carefully and at a pace we can afford, in phases,
preferably starting with the portion closest to the downtown
commercial district. I also remain concerned about the toxic clean-up
process. We need to remove any uncertainty that would hinder the
private investment that will be crucial for Waterfront success.
Fortunately, some of the most contaminated areas are at the southern
end, so it may be possible to begin early redevelopment nearer to
downtown, before final clean up of the far site is complete. This
allows for an affordable rate of cleanup and development, encouraging
private investment through confidence in clean property, while
supporting downtown businesses.
Let’s talk about the waterfront. Are you satisfied with the process so
far? Are there things you’d like to see improved in the master
planning process?
We’re inching forward, and that’s a good thing. And we also need to
keep in mind that this is a 20-year or 30-year project. There will be
opportunities for course corrections along the way. That doesn’t take
away from the importance of making sure that we start out on the right
foot. From my point of view, considering the Waterfront District as a
new neighborhood and as an extension of the downtown, we need to make
sure that the cleanup process is done right. This is a matter of
fiscal responsibility.
If there’s any uncertainty in the cleanup process, that will hinder
the private investment that is required
for that project to succeed. So I see cleanup as one of the most
important issues for the practical success of the downtown waterfront.
Right now we’re talking about street grids and park layout—and these
issues are very important, but I am waiting for the next important
phase, which is the port’s cleanup plan.
Given that the city has surrendered to the port the role of SEPA lead
in the environmental review, what role is left for the city to play?
The city has a responsibility to advocate on the public’s behalf,
which means we need to make sure in our discussions with the port as
they draft their plan that it serves the broad interests of the public
rather than the more narrow interests of waterfront-related
industries. It is very important that we get this done correctly
before the port has submitted its plan to the Dept. of Ecology for
review.