The Gristle
Oz and Ends
OZ AND ENDS: In their May 3 joint meeting with Bellingham City Council, Port Commissioners took a decade of public process and public comments that might fill 20 volumes, ground it all into a fine powder mixed with a greasy lubricant of dissembling nonsense, caustic lies and shameless disinformation, and flung it into the face of Bellingham and its citizens and taxpayers. The port’s bait-&-switch hijacking, the hostage-taking, the swindling of public process continues unabated.
Clearly, one commissioner hasn’t got a brain, one hasn’t a heart, and while the third is lion enough in his courage, one lonely junior commissioner does not a wizard make. And as for the Munchkins on City Council? The house fell in on them.
Thousands of hours of public testimony and involvement by numerous committees and collectives were swept into the rubbish heap by port staff. Architectural renderings and advanced planning documents, some reportedly costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, were thrown into a sewer. And six years of redevelopment effort that has cost the City of Bellingham an estimated $8 million thus far and the Port of Bellingham undoubtedly at least that amount were reset to zero.
Gone are promises of public spaces and mixed-use development. Gone are plans of parkland access along the waterway. Gone are offers to adaptively reuse the few remaining buildings on site, including the historic Granary Building at the corner of Central Avenue and Roeder, which will be torn down in the agency’s demented vision. Gone, understandably, is the university. Institutionalized is more stalling and ass covering and heel dragging by a corrupt and useless port authority without the slightest clue how to move forward, even on their beloved luxury yacht marina. The centerpiece of the site, City Council members were told by port staff, is now a diseased and failing barnacle-encrusted wharf collapsing into Whatcom Waterway.
“The agreement with the community and the Waterfront Advisory Group by the port stated the Log Pond dock was to be demolished,” Council member Jack Weiss commented. “This proposal counters previous port commitments and now as proposed, the dock would stay and a substantial amount of acreage would be taken out of previous set asides for park uses.
“I find it ironic and disturbing that the port believes the only historic building worth saving is the dock and two decorative, unusable silos,” he said. “Would the city enter into an agreement with any developer today where the developer can socialize the costs of infrastructure yet when they want to flip parcels later, then privatize profits? How is this deal or any other similar developer deal in the best interests of the community?”
Economic downturn may delay or diminish near-term expectations for the central waterfront. Why must the long-term vision be welded to the lowest horizon?
Here is the obvious and essential takeaway from their joint meeting: The City of Bellingham could and would do the job better, more satisfactorily for the people of Bellingham: Credit the port for technical success to date; leave the vision to a wider community.
That the broken toy has not been seized from the gooey hands in the playpen by the adults in the room is perhaps the most glaring unused remedy for the port’s savage, unyielding incompetence.
Denied that remedy, discussion is underway to expand the Port Commission from three to five members to improve their decisionmaking. Honestly, a more fruitful effort might be to drive the three in office (one in particular) from office with clubs, and fold up and set fire to their circus tent. Seems counterintuitive to expand the commission when what it really deserves is to be collapsed and hosed greasily into the bay along with the other toxins left open to the environment.
Yet given expansion is more sensibly achieved than contraction, and breaks the twin tyranny of heartless brainlessness, how might citizens expand their port commission?
Former state Sen. Harriet Spanel laid the groundwork. In 1991, the 40th District senior lawmaker convinced a majority of the state Legislature to allow for expanded commissions, believing more members equals more deliberation equals better public outcomes.
Her law lays it out: “A ballot proposition shall be submitted to the voters of any port district authorizing an increase in the number of port commissioners to five whenever the port commission adopts a resolution proposing the increase in number of port commissioners or a petition proposing such an increase has been submitted to the county auditor of the county in which the port district is located,” the law reads. New commissioners may be installed at the next election following the expansion approved by voters.
Port of Bellingham is among the eight largest in the state, Spanel said. Neighboring Anacortes, which boasts a well-managed port, expanded their commission to five members.
“I don’t believe Anacortes wanted to at first,” Spanel recalled, “but I don’t think they’ve regretted it, and their organization is stronger for it. I believe the Port of Bellingham would be stronger for it, too.”
Reportedly, lion-hearted Port Commissioner Michael McAuley favors placing the topic on the agenda of the next meeting of the commission. It is unclear whether the proposal has the support of a commission majority.
Yet the ballot measure can either be placed on the ballot by the commission, or forced on to the ballot by a countywide initiative already underway. Conceivably, if the ballot measure were approved in the August 2012 primary, two additional Port of Bellingham commissioners could be elected in November and take office in 2013.
Frankly, draining the swamp, driving off the snakes and their snake oil, cannot happen soon enough.
blog comments powered by Disqus
