Letter to the Editor: From Robin McClelland
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Dear Shoreline Citizens:
I have always opposed BSRE’s attempt to tack an international resort onto a two-lane road at the expense of the Richmond Beach neighborhood and those beyond, including my own – Richmond Highlands. My stance on the current proposal does not, in any way, conflict with my comments on the draft 2009 Point Wells Subarea Plan.
In December 2009 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft Point Wells Subarea Plan. I was among four speakers (along with Caycee Holt, Jack Malek, and Don Ding) who commented on the draft. Most of the discussion focused on ways the City of Shoreline would be able to mitigate traffic impacts. I went to remind the commissioners that at one time a service road climbed from Point Wells to Woodway; in other words, in previous years there had been more than one way in and one way out of Point Wells. I also went to say, that in addition to limiting traffic through mitigation, the city should seek every type of mitigation possible to provide economic, recreational, and social facilities and amenities that would benefit the city. I said then, and believe now, that whatever is developed on the site should be a welcome destination for Shoreline residents.
In fact, the adopted Point Wells Subarea Plan calls for a new subarea consistent with City objectives for economic development, housing choice, and waterfront public access and recreation. “…this site has unparalleled opportunity for public access, environmental restoration, education and recreation oriented to Puget Sound”. (Comprehensive Plan page 263; paragraph 2)
It is important to note that the subarea plan, environmental impact mitigation, and annexation remain three of our strongest legal tools to gain control over any proposed development at Point Wells.
The subarea plan was prepared following the April 2009 City Council Resolution 285 opposing the pending Snohomish County designation of Point Wells as an “Urban Center”. The city stated in a letter to the Snohomish County Council its support for a mixed use development of a more reasonable scale and pointed out that the designation would be inconsistent with the Growth Management Act. (Comprehensive Plan, page 261)
Make no mistake: from the start, our officials and the community have opposed the inappropriate and out-of-scale project supported by Snohomish County.
Rather than perpetuate an attempt to distort my comments on record, my opponent might take the time to read the city’s Point Wells Subarea Plan to understand the position taken by our city council and citizens. I’ve been told he has lived in Shoreline fewer than two years. By my calculation, that means he was probably unpacking when I was at the Planning Commission Public Hearing participating in the process to shape public policy.
Robin McClelland
Shoreline
Shoreline
Posts
11 comments:
Interestingly enough, you didn't say anything at the meeting where Julie Underwood (City Manager) when asked about Planning & Development Director Joe Tovar's leaving his post and the impact it will have on the Point Wells negotiation (Joe Tovar is an expert on SEPA & the GMA), Ms. Underwood responded that the city no longer had any need for Mr. Tovar's unique skills as they were merely involved in negotiation for infrastructure and that public works could handle it with the lawyers.
Furthermore, during a period when the city is experiencing a fiscal downturn, your proposal to turn a property that is worth millions of dollars and would require millions of dollars in brownfield cleanup into a park (you were the first candidate to propose this solution) is fiscally irresponsible. Exactly where do you propose these funds come from - the citizens are tapped out, there are more important things for the remainder of the city to spend money on, and you want another park on land that is contamination so Woodway can keep it's view.
Hit the ground running sure, but with what agenda?
Jesse is also a former planning commissioner. He is well versed in the laws surrounding GMA, SEPA, and other land use laws.
Robin thinks that we can build a road through Woodway, an unrealistic and difficult engineering feat that will still dump traffic on Shoreline roads. What are her proposals for mitigation for Richmond Beach residents? As a former planning commissioner, she should have known that this issue would come before the City. What did she do as a planning commissioner to put Shoreline in a better position to stop this rampant development?
I am curious as to why the apparent supporters of Jesse are unwilling to put their names on their comments. I don't think these comments are the place I want to enter into a debate, but I'm proud to say I support Robin McClelland, and I WILL include my name.
Anonymous#2 per your comment, "Robin thinks we can build a road through Woodway, an unrealistic and..."
Would you please read Ms. McClelland's letter before commenting on it? I've read it three times and cannot find anywhere that she suggests building a road through Woodway. She said she testified that there used to be a road from Point Wells to the property, which is true. Apparently it washed out many years ago and was never built for a number of reasons. Everybody in Richmond Beach hears about that road at one time or another because, believe it or not, access to Point Wells is not a new issue in our neighborhood. When we complain about the tankers going though our neighborhood, invariably someone will mention the washed out road and everyone bemoans that it wasn't rebuilt to handle some of the traffic. For someone like me who has lived in RB for almost 20 years, saying someone mentioned that road in terms of access like it's a shocking thing is, at best, really comical.
Also for Jesse to say he has "always" opposed development at Point Wells is also light weight. Always? Like for the whole two years he's been here? We all oppose development there. But that train has left the station and is well on down the tracks. I would rather hear what he can add to the discussion that is already ongoing between Save Richmond Beach, Shoreline's planning department and Council, and the developer. That would be meaningful.
What's more, though this is a big issue for the northwest corner of Shoreline, it is not necessarily the most pressing for the city overall. I'd like to hear about what he brings to the city as a whole. For example, the budget continues to tighten. What would his guidance be? What services would he cut or would he prefer to ask for more taxes? What experience does he have that will help him with these other issues and responsibilities?
I understand that discussing these hard issues is not as exciting as grasping for straws to find something negative about your opponent. It would serve the community members who are trying to decide on who to vote for much better.
Because I think we are all savvy enough to realize that if you can only talk about your opponent it means you probably don't have much to say about yourself.
Tina, being anonymous is fun! You can say whatever you want without having to worry it will follow you around or someone will question you in person about it. You also don't have to worry that people will weigh what you say against what they know about you. And you don't have to worry if everything you say is true (worrying about those darn facts messes up a good rant you know). It's so much easier all around to be anonymous. You simply don't have to stand behind anything you want to say in public -- how freeing is that?!
Less than a week to go...just how crazy will the behavior get? Run on your agenda and values and stop the negative verbiage...you lose more than you gain.......when supporters of one candidate or the other behaves badly.....voters associate the candidate with them.... thus, tarnished they become....
Note the Municipal League ratings:
• Outstanding: Robin McClelland, Chris Eggen
• Very Good: William Hubbell
• Good: Doris McConnell
• Adequate: Jesse Salomon, Janet Way
Evan Smith's bias has been so obvious for so many years. We would not expect him to say anything different. But "consistency is the hobgoblin or small minds" as was said so long ago. Whatever happened to journalism is this town?
Anonymous at 7:06 p.m. (since I think there are likely more than one). Thanks for getting my point.
If people are not certain enough of their opinions to put their names on them, they shouldn't be sharing them. C'mon people, be proud of your thoughts. I may not agree with you, but at least I won't think you are cowards (or the candidates themselves).
My biases are the same as the biases of the Municipal League. The League says that it has a bias for competence.
Post a Comment