Op-Ed: Time to bridge rift between city and neighborhood
Monday, September 9, 2013
by Susan Will, Richmond Beach Community News editor
Communications between the City of Shoreline and the Richmond Beach neighborhood are broken. There is a vacuum – a black hole – where too much information disappears and critical, long-term knowledge seems to have been lost.
Who does this serve when it comes to Point Wells?
Let me be blunt. There are uncomfortable facts both sides need to swallow whole and without bitterness if we want a shot at something even a bit more palatable.
The good news? Neither side is satisfied with the status quo. So let’s say what needs to be said and lay it to rest so we can move forward with more purpose.
Being clear on basic premises would focus Richmond Beach residents on better impacting how the project unfolds. May not be fluffy tap-dancing kittens, but neither is it really news.
Development at Point Wells has been inevitable for some decades now. Inevitable because this is a rare piece of Puget Sound waterfront and there are property owner rights protected by law. No jurisdiction – no county, city or town – can unduly delay or limit development permitted by law.
This is not the City of Shoreline’s project. It has no official role and essentially has the same input devices afforded individuals under the environmental review process.
The only access is through Shoreline. The City of Shoreline has primary responsibility (now and in perpetuity) for maintaining public amenities in our neighborhood. As Shoreline taxpayers, it will cost us even more if Point Wells is not annexed by the City of Shoreline.
Public rights-of-way, regardless of how they appear, are owned by all of us as members of the public. Property owner encroachment into adjacent right of way by way of landscaping or building is at that property owner’s (and subsequent property owners’) risk.
The good and bad news for the City of Shoreline is that this is its problem to solve. If the city can’t get those circled wagons out of the way fast enough to consider the following, it has already failed. Again.
Start focusing on public education. It is insufficient to simply announce facts. You must explain in plain language what the community needs to know for it to effectively participate in the decision-making processes available to it.
Your neighborhoods deserve respect; they’ve supported the city since incorporation. To have any one of them so distrustful and up in arms is shameful. To have one of the oldest, most organized and formerly supportive in this condition should be alarming.
Addressing why residents don’t think the city is on their side should be the first step, quickly followed by preparing residents for the scoping process and traffic corridor study.
Yet there is hope to be found here that we can move forward together.
The city and community do have common goals.
The city and community both want improved communications.
The time to identify impacts and potential mitigation for those impacts is ahead, not behind, us.
The developer does have cause to negotiate with the city and neighborhood if for no other reason than to provide predictability on costs.
The Richmond Beach community has a long history of effectively participating in these types of situations. The neighborhood is thirsty for information that will help it successfully navigate the Point Wells issue.
The City of Shoreline has a good reputation for working with individual property owners during the design of road improvements to successfully minimize impacts property by property, street by street. The Aurora Corridor Project is an excellent example. Fortunately, some of the key staff that made that project successful are also working on Point Wells.
Now is the time for everyone to do their part in moving back to working together.
Once we get past this communications rift we can better meet the challenges and make the most impact on the significant change on the horizon presented by development at Point Wells.
9 comments:
The Shoreline City Council has proven through many actions that they are more concerned with raising every penny of revenue that they can than they are with the quality of lives of the residents...the homeowners who are the lifeblood of our community. Point Wells just happens to be one example.
As long as our city's future can be held hostage by outside interests like Blue Square real Estate, our system is broken. It never should have come to this point. Do some background research on BSRE and you'll find their oily fingers are greedily impacting many communities around the world, even the Gaza strip. Creepy.
The City of Shoreline has a good reputation for working with property owners street by street for design improvements during the Aurora Corridor Project? In what parallel universe does the author exist? Wait, I know, she used to work for the City of Shoreline.
If the City of Shoreline worked so well with property owners in designing Aurora, why did they file suit against the City of Shoreline on SEPA/NEPA in order to force the city to make design improvements?
The City of Shoreline turned a deaf ear to the property owners and businesses on Aurora during the design of the Aurora Project, all you have to do is look at all the vacant properties in the first two miles. In fact, Top Foods/Haggen Grocery is closing because of the Aurora Project, but the City doesn't seem to care about businesses or neighborhoods.
If the City is so good at working with businesses, why are they ignoring the business, non-profits, and governmental agencies in the Aurora Square CRA? They told them by being included in the CRA they would have a greater say in its design and development and then completely ignore them.
The City is planning on doing more of the same to Richmond Beach on the Point Wells issue.
Instead of the wailing and gnashing of teeth that RB is doing, perhaps they would be better served to break away from Shoreline so they can manage their own affairs. RB has a retail core, of sorts, and the neighborhoods of affluence to support their own city hood. Then, they could dictate what they believe to be appropriate for property not even in their county. It's a win-win in that Shoreline can divest itself of some noisy voices while focusing on retail and quality of life issues while RB can focus on staying the sleepy community it wishes it could stay as.
The City can divest itself of noisy voices? That means the city should divest itself of any neighborhood that should dare to try protect itself. On that list would be Aldercrest - they spoke up when City Hall tried to dump a jail on them. It would be Crista when City Hall violated SEPA during the Master Plan process. It would be the folks in the Town Center who demanded a public process when the City tried to alter the development code with no public process. It would be Ridgecrest, which demanded development code guidelines when a developer tried to build a 6 story building with no infrastructure, it would be the neighborhoods along Aurora who demanded changes to the development code for RB/MUZ to protect the character of the neighborhoods, just to name a few.
You have a good idea @11:42 am -- many of those neighborhoods have a good retail core, each could form their own urban village, so why don't we just disincorporate Shoreline since our present City Hall doesn't seem interested in listening to the public? The new council goal of communication seems like their plan is to push their agenda onto the people by fiat, treating them like the proletariat while the regime rules from their Supreme Soviet City Hall.
@11:42 has mistaken tranquil for sleepy and vocal for noisy. As for wailing and bashing, RB cannot secede from Shoreline without a vote of the whole city. I checked. We can't very well make lemonade out of our lemons when we are being forced to drink the Kool-Aid.
I don't completely agree that Haggens is a victim of the Aurora project. I believe that Haggens is a victim of a failed business strategy to take Top Foods upscale and lost the competition with Central Market. As Top Foods, it had the prices, selection and service that we wanted.
You present a rational argument with strong evidence to back it up. Too bad the members of the mutual City back-patters club can only see you (and others) as a nasty sty rather than a corrective lens.
Top Foods rebranding to Haggens only took up the recent past six months, the Aurora Project impact was years.
There was a period of months in which customers could not even get into the store parking lot. During the two years of construction people didn't even travel Aurora, they used Meridian. And now that the project is finished, face significant rerouting in terms of traffic that wasn't there before.
Post a Comment