Why things may be happening the way they are.

I heard one time that a good law was one that everyone hated. Such is the case with the Washington State Growth Management Act. My friends on the left hate it for being too weak and my friends on the right think it's burdensome. Part of that Act let's us say so in public meetings whenever a change is made or a certain development will occur. For more than a year the Lettered Streets has been going through that long process over a rezone in Old Town. Last week's Guest Spot writer brought that to the attention of the rest of the city under the headline, “What ever happened to public process?”
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Growth Management sections 36.70A.140, .035 and .130 say in part, “The procedures shall provide for broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion, communication programs, information services, and consideration of and response to public comments.” The issue of public process is one of five top complaints about the GMA brought before the Growth Management Hearings Boards, usually when the people feel that they haven't been heard.
The question raised last week was about public process. As a person who interned in Lewis County while their Comp Plan battle was being fought and has since sat in scores of public meetings, I can attest that the process our Planning Department and, especially, the Community Development folks have gone through for Old Town was the most comprehensive I've ever seen or heard of. Whether I agree or disagree with the outcome is beside the point, their response to the general outcry in my neighborhood was outstanding.
City staff responded to the call from my neighborhood and gave us the meetings we wanted and that they could lawfully provide. And that is the real point. The outcomes from the meetings irked some folks because they want control over what Old Town will look like in the future. Unfortunately, there is no mechanism in place in the Bellingham Municipal Code (BMC) for the Lettered Streets to have ultimate control over redevelopment in Old Town, the Cradle of Bellingham.
The Lettered Streets has no covenants and our design guidelines are unenforceable, as they are in nearly every other neighborhood plan. Without enforceable guidelines that architects and developers can follow, all of us are at the mercy of a city-wide least common denominator rather than well planned and well placed, appropriate development. City staff have almost no power there and if anyone is to be blamed it us for not giving it to them. If we want to protect or create a certain appearance or function in our neighborhoods then we must give City staff the ability to carry out our wishes.
As much as we may wish no more people would come here, we have an ice cube's chance on a hot country road of stopping it. This is still a free country and by golly this is a great place to live, so can you blame newcomers for wanting a little of what we have? The bottom line is that people are coming and we voted for a law that says we have to accommodate them. So let's stop bickering about how we don't want more people and, instead, reach development solutions that look good and function well for Bellingham.
PS: I didn't even know they printed that. I sent it in but never got confirmation on it. Anyway, I sent them another since they got the facts of Marilyn and my positions incorrect in the Editors comments up front about me not being elected (I am annually) and Marilyn being elected (she can't be, our bylaws have no provision for that - she's appointed). A phone call to me would have straightened that out. I am, however, bugged about how they set me up as taking an opposite position from Marilyn, esp. since we agree on more than 90% of the topic. The only disagreement we have is she wants no growth and I don't mind - either way we both want whatever happens to work well and fit in. Hmmmmm...makes me wonder about the Indy.
Michael McAuley
mcauley@qwest.net