I've long supported a strong partnership with WWU. I have been pushing for a clean-tech campus on Bellingham's waterfront with Western as an anchor in partnership with the private sector. That is why I was disappointed with Western Crossing's board pushing forward on gaining control of waterfront property at this time. I'd like to explain my vote and value any feedback you had.
I voted against Western on the waterfront, in the currently proposed
location, for three reasons:
1. As of yet, Western does not have a concrete plan nor funding. They have had a decade to come up with a plan and it is concerning to me that they do not have one - in fact, all Western Crossing has is rough visions (see link below). The Port should have done an RFP for the property to let
the private market help determine the best and highest use for this parcel. That is the process being used on property adjacent to this one and is consistent with the master plan.
2. There is a clear conflict of interest. One of the port commissioners serves on the Western Crossing board and the Western Foundation Board. That commissioner should have
recused himself before this vote.
3. It's important to be consistent in all of our dealings. Without having a plan, or an RFP process, or fitting in with the Master Plan, we set a dangerous precedent for giving exceptions down the road.
If Western was and is the best and highest use for that parcel, they would win in an RFP process. I call on my fellow commissioners to revisit their vote and do an RFP so that the best proposal for our community and the
long term can be determined.
This vote tells the community that the port commission has double standards, that we can ignore procedures and plans, that we can tell one group of local investors they *must* go through an RFP process and another group with no plan or funding that they do not. This is exactly the sort of reason Whatcom County voters lost faith in the port.
http://media.bellinghamherald.com/smedia/2013/06/19/12/08/TKQTT.So.39.pdf#storylink=relast
They have no plan? Does the Port have a plan? Uh....
ReplyDeleteA conflict of interest? That means the commissioner stands to gain personally from his action. Is that true? Or was he networking toward a good community solution?
The Port has to be consistent? There can be no exceptions? Other times, usually while making exceptions, it is said the Port must be flexible. Which is it?
How did McGolly vote on Ebenal's 3 million dollar one-time payment for a lease that would have cost $30 million according to the rates published on the Port website at the time of the deal?
Was that an exception or consistent?
The private market does not determine the highest and best use of the land... it determines the most profitable use of the land.
ReplyDeleteI would like to see a lot more of the waterfront plan consider the public's interest... better clean up, more parks, mitigation for wildlife impacts, and more public ownership. And that will not result from a plan focused on short term profit.
I do not have a position regarding the university because I do not know enough, but I do think it is appropriate to hold public institutions and non-profits to a different standard than for-profit businesses.
Thanks for raising this issue, Mike.
Your thought is considerable and your services looks awesome. Thank you sharing this post.
ReplyDeleteRoof repair Bellevue NE