Keep downtown trees

Recently, a tree was cut down in a city right of way downtown.  Check out Teresa Wippel's story here.

This isn't the first time that downtown trees have become a controversy.   Last year, the council had a vigorous debate over trees at 5th and Dayton.  Unfortunately, a split council and the mayor decided to remove the trees.  A very disappointed citizen sent the council photos showing the impacts of that decision.  On the left, you see the intersection with the trees, and on the right you see the intersection with the new "stick" trees.

The vote to remove the trees was taken on October 20th, 2009, without any announcement to the public.  Council members Peterson, Wambolt, and Olson voted to remove the trees.  Council members Bernheim, Plunkett, and Orvis (that's me) voted to keep the trees.  D.J. Wilson was absent so the mayor voted to break the tie and take down the trees.

In the future, I hope our new council members will work with Council members Bernheim and Plunkett to save downtown trees.   The impacts of cutting downtown trees are great.

Will the Planning Board vote to shut you out of council appeals?

Tonight, the planning board will once again take up land-use appeals to the council. In the past, they have recommended to shut the public out of the council appeal process. Will they do so again, despite the fact that the city council has made it very clear that this is not going to happen?

I was still on the council when the planning board recommend shutting the public out of council appeals. When I analyzed their reasoning, it was based solely off a recommendation made by the Association of Washington Cities, who claim it's a legal liability. Yet, the planning board could not sight any evidence that the council had ever created a legal liability in its land-use decisions.

Folks who advocate for removing the council and the public from land-use appeals believe a hearing examiner will deliver better legal decisions that will save the city from costly law suites. What they fail to realize is that the hearing examiner has already made many costly legal mistakes.

And I can site examples:

Bauer V. Edmonds: The hearing examiner decided to approve a building which clearly failed to meet roof modulation requirements. The council went along (by only one vote), and the city was sued and the decision was overturned.

Day V. Edmonds: The hearing examiner applied code standards to a change of use when the code wasn't yet passed. The judge quickly overturned this decision.

Petso V. Edmonds: The hearing examiner approved a PRD that failed drainage and open space standards. This costs the city a bundle of cash. Petso is a very aggressive opponent.

If there was a legal liability issue with the council hearing appeals, then we should see cases where a council overturns a hearing examiner, and the judge restores the hearing examiner's decision, but there are no such examples to find.

When confronted with this basic reality, those who want to shut out the council and the public from the land-use process begin to grope for examples. One example is the appeal of an ADB decision regarding Old-Mill town. "Look," they say, "the council had to settle that case. Oh my, the council needs to be out of land-use process."

Actually, the ADB review process worked very well for the public regarding Old-Milltown. Thanks to that process, the council secured changes to the new design of Old-Milltown that the public clearly wanted. The citizens made dynamite arguments during the hearing, arguments that were based on law, not passion.

Most council members who voted to settle did so because it essentially locked in the improvements. The council was going to have to pay money anyway to defend the case, why not use it to get what the public wants?

In short, the Old-Milltown case is an example of why the council needs to be in the process. It is NOT an example for why the council should be out of the process.

And I am not the only one who thinks that: Look at what the Enterprise editorial board stated.

The public and the council need to remain in the land-use process. The planning board needs to look at the evidence and do their own thinking on this issue, because the evidence is more important than the recommendations.

Make room for the historic fire engine

This Tuesday, the council will discuss what to do with the historic fire engine, which can no longer be stored at fire station #1.

The council should tell the city and staff to keep it!

City staff will say " no we can't," and will give all sorts of reasons why...which the council should reject.

Tell staff no excuses, if you can't find room, MAKE room!

This is NOT the time to be giving away historic treasures. We should be finding ways to make them more accessible to the public. Edmonds' economy is highly dependent on its history.

Here are some ideas:

1) Park it under city hall until you can find out what to do with it. You may have to ask some city employees to park their cars elsewhere, but I would rather to do that than loose the fire engine.

2) Take whatever is currently occupying a city garage, put it outside, and put a tarp over it. Then put the fire engine inside until we can build something to put it on display.

3) Build a nice car port in a parking lot outside the public safety building so the public can actually view it. It will make a great attraction.

4) Build a nicer display garage, complete with walls, large glass windows, slab, and temperate control in the open space surrounding the public safety building. Again, it's a great attraction.

The city saved a bunch of cash moving the fire department to fire district 1, why not use a tiny bit of those savings to save the historic fire engine?

The city simply can't afford to loose it.

Mayor Cooper takes the oath.

Well, maybe this wasn't my best attempt at a clip art...And the humor is rather obvious, but at least I tried.

Mike, I wish you the best. Today, I read that you want to get staff and council working together, and that's a good goal. Just remember, there will still be disagreements, and there will always be folks who will take any little disagreement and make it look like the council and the mayor are at war. Sigh.

Congrats and Good Luck.

Congratulations Mayor Cooper

Way to go Mike! Welcome to Edmonds city government! I am sure you will serve us well.

Now that your're Mayor, I need to get a picture of you, isolate the head, and stick it on top of a screen bean. You will not escape the humiliation of the OrvisBlog! :)

Check back in a couple of days.

Mayor or Manager? Let the public decide.

The council is currently deciding on whether the city should have a Strong Mayor or a City Manager to head the executive branch.

Wait, that's wrong.

The council is actually deciding whether to let the public decide on whether the city should have a Strong Mayor or a City Manager to head the executive branch.

The council cannot impose a type of government on the public. The citizens must choose a form of government for themselves.

No matter whether you are for a Mayor or a Manager, most would agree the public should get its way on this issue. Few folks would insist on a mayor if the majority of citizens supported a manager. Likewise, few folks would insist on a manger if the majority of citizens supported a mayor.

The city is now "between" elected mayors. The council will appoint a replacement for Gary Haakenson, but that essentially makes the new mayor a city manager. Now is the time for the public to decide, before a new mayor is elected in 2011.

While I was on the council, I was approached many times by citizens who thought a manager would do a better job than a mayor. I think it's time to let these folks take their arguments to the public and let the folks who like the mayor argue back. The debate will lead to a stronger government, because it will be clear the public supports that form of government.

So I urge the council, let the public decide.

Trading seats?

I was very intrigued by a recent article in the Enterprise (click here) about allegations that D.J. Wilson and Mike Cooper were trading seats. According to the article, Mr. Cooper would get the Mayor seat, and D.J. Wilson would get the council seat.

What's interesting is that neither Cooper or Wilson explicitly denied the allegation.

Mike Cooper doesn't need D.J. Wilson to be a viable candidate for the appointment to Edmonds Mayor. He is the only one with the experience of holding regional office and his ability to win elections is awesome. He could easily remove whoever is appointed for that seat if he wanted too.

D.J. Wilson on the other has his eyes on bigger fish, fish he can't get by being elected. He ran a failed campaign for state legislature and county council. Mr. Wilson has also alienated many council members and is not neccessarily a good friend to have if you want to be appointed to Mayor.

I can believe D.J. Wilson initiated the conversation, I have trouble trouble believing Mike initiated it. And it troubles me that neither will deny it.

Mike, if you do get the mayoral appointment, it won't be because of D.J., it will be on your merits. And you've got lots of merits. My money is on you for getting the appointment, simply based on your qualifications.

I hope you won't lobby to put D.J. on the county council. There are better Democrats to choose from. Just look at our own council, I would rather have Buckshnis, AFM, or Bernheim, who actively fought for the small town charm of Edmonds, over D.J., who takes $3000 from a Seattle Waterfront Developer and votes to eliminate public comment during certain land-use decisions. And don't forget Deanna Dawson, maybe she'll return to take the county council post.

But not D.J., the thought of him sitting in Everett alarms me.

Congratulations Lora Petso!

I am glad to hear Lora was appointed to fill my seat. She will be a good steward of our small town charm. She has a solid record of opposing building height increases and she is passionate about acquiring land for parks. She's also awesome at quasi-judicial hearings, and she believes strongly that the public must participate in those hearings.

I also envy her. She can win an election without hardly doing a thing! Gosh darnnit, how does she do that?!

Way to go council!  Welcome back Lora!

High Tide at the Beach

I couldn't help but notice on www.myedmondsnews.com that they had a nice picture of low tide, so I decided to add a nice picture of high tide, that I took this evening. My wife and I like to drive down and see the sunsets.

Gary Haakenson Tribute

When I first heard the news of Gary Haakenson's resignation, I immediately realized that I hadn't turned his picture into a screen bean yet. No Gary, you're not getting away without becoming a screen bean!

I decided to make Gary's screen bean about his opposition to the citing of the Brightwater Treatment Plant in Edmonds.

King County needed a new sewer plant, but they didn't want to locate in a place where folks could vote against the county officials. They thought they could put it in Edmonds, but Edmonds already had a sewer plant to treats its own sewage. In fact, the Edmonds sewer plant treats sewage from Mountlake Terrace, parts of Snohomish county, and even portions of King County!

Gary took a decisive leadership role against the sewer plant, even before the council took a stand. He appealed to state legistlators to outlaw the act of putting a sewer plant outside King County's juristicition, and worked with citizens in the city to bring additional pressure. His staff even helped gum up the works as King County did its due dilligence. Gary made sure that King County knew it was in for a fight!

And it worked. Brightwater was located elsewhere.

Gary, I know you and I disagree on many issues, but I always respected you. And I haven't forgot what you did for our city. Good luck in your future endeavors!

A Pet-Peeve

The discussion on the "cat-leash" law has been a Pet-Peeve of mine for a long time, pun intended.  However, my annoyance with the issue has  nothing to do with whether folks think cats should be allowed to roam free or not.  It has to do with how folks use it to claim that pets are unimportant.

The debate over the free-roaming cats causes great passion in cat-lovers.  Pro-cat organizations such as PAWS argue that allowing cats to roam free shortens the life of the cat.  Other cat-lovers argue that keeping cats inside brings psychological damage to cats.  I sided with the former argument having lost a beloved family cat to a car, but I remember getting my ear chewed off by a cat-loving citizen who was very angry with me for voting to leash-cats.

I respect both sides of this debate because they come from the same place: a respect and love of cats.

However, I have a big problem with those who say things like: "Quit talking about cats, talk about my issue!", "The council wastes its time on leashing cats.", and "Look at the council, all they talk about is cats."

A few loud voices claim laws concerning cats (and pets) are unimportant, because cats (and pets) are unimportant.

Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more.  The majority of folks in Edmonds value their pets and they expect the council to have the same attitude.

One councilman understands the importance pets more than any other: Michael Plunkett.  He started an initiative effort to ensure strays were spayed and neutered before they were put up for adoption.  He and the citizens gathered 5000 signatures in support of his cause.  I have yet to see anyone pull 5000 signatures for any other cause.  Heck, the citizens and I only gathered 4,500 signatures opposing gambling.

Michael Plunkett also loves cats, but takes a different view than me, preferring to allow cats to roam free.  His last opponent tried to humiliate him for taking a stand on a cat issue. She was flattened in the election.  Michael Plunkett takes pet issues seriously, and the public rewards him.

I too was mocked during my re-election, but it didn't hurt me either.

Council member Bernheim recently sponsored an ordinance allowing folks to have a few hens.   I took a few fun pokes at him, which I felt I could do because he was a friend, but ultimately, I stopped the jokes and voted for his plan.  Again, the people of Edmonds like their pets, and I wasn't about to cross them.

In short, folks in Edmonds want the council to take pet issues seriously.  They do not reward council candidates who mock their pets and reward council members who deal wisely with laws concerning pets.

Michael Young makes his debut.

Let's face it.  It's easy to label your opponent, it's harder to debate them.

Which is why I find Michael Young's new blog so darn funny!  I am adding it to my links below.

Michael Young divides folks into two categories:  those who are agreeable, and those who are cranks.

And guess what category I fall into?  And guess what category he believes he falls into.

In fact, he has decided to name his blog, "The Anti-Crank Shaft".   Apparently, he plans on dealing with us "cranks."

I have watched Michael Young over the years.  He's a taller building proponent through and through, and he is clearly upset that he is not getting his way.

My recent encounter with him occurred during the interview to fill a concil vacancy.  Mr. Young applied for the position.  He made a point in the interview of criticizing the council for engaging in personal attacks, and then, after I asked him for an example, he engaged in a personal attack against me!

In short, Mr. Young isn't an "anti-crank", he just another crank posing as an anti-crank.  He wines about public comment being civil, yet he cannot seem to produce civil discourse on his own.

Mr. Young, I know that I sometimes let my passions get the better of me.  Maybe you should start by making the same confession, too.  Then, start arguing for what you think needs to be changed (which is the desire for taller buildings).  I think you'll find it's a more constructive way to deal with your frustrations.

John "Public": ashamed and anonymous.

I try to include other links on the left side of my blog, even if they disagree with me. Today, I am adding the blog of “John Public.”

Who is John “Public”? Don’t know, but I have my suspicions.

What I do know is that John “Public” knows nothing of Edmonds. In fact, sometimes I wonder if he (or she) even lives here.

Look at what John “Public” states:

• John “Public” criticized Bernheim, Orvis, Plunkett and Fraley-Monillas for overturning an ordinance that shut the public out of the land-use process. Why doesn’t John “Public” want the public to speak?
• John “Public” criticized Council president Bernheim for allowing a neighborhood to talk about a local issue that was affecting them. Shouldn’t a council be responsive to neighborhoods? Apparently, John “Public” has a problem with the neighborhoods where the public lives.
• John “Public” criticized council for listening to the public regarding the naming of a new local park.
• John “Public” called for the impeachment of council members who wanted to purchase more park land on the waterfront for the benefit of the public.

John “Public” does not believe the council should hear from the public on land-use matters, listen to the public about neighborhoods, defer to the public on park naming, or improve public life by purchasing more parks and open space.

With beliefs like that, no wonder the guy (or gal) blogs anonymously.

I am sorry, I must resign

To the citizens, the mayor, and my fellow council members,

It is with a sad heart that I must announce my resignation from the Edmonds City Council, effective May 31st, 2010.

As you are all well aware, my family is facing many challenges. I have determined that I cannot simultaneously rise to the challenges at home and rise to the challenges of serving as a council member. Therefore, I must choose, and I choose my family.

I will never forget the ten years that the citizens have allowed me to serve as their council member. I am deeply honored and I will miss hearing from them at council meetings.

P.S. I am not resigning from this blog. There will be some changes shortly.

Waterfront Purchase: The Skipper’s site

The two pictures above were presented to the council from Lora Petso. On the left, Lora showed the impact of a fully developed “Skipper’s” site and compared it the undeveloped site on the right. The view impact is stunning. Lora was warning the council of the impacts of doing nothing.

Skipper’s is a “Gateway site”: a site folks see when they enter or exit our town. A private developer which seeks to gain as much profit as possible will develop the site in a manner as Lora as shown. This hardly benefits the community as a whole.

The debate over the city purchasing the “Skipper’s site” is NOT an issue of fiscal responsibility as opponents have claimed. That’s just the excuse D.J Wilson has used to defend his inaction.

This clearly IS a debate over the citizens’ vision over the waterfront.

On one side are the folks that say the city needs taller buildings and numerous condos on the waterfront, or the city will be unable to “sustain” itself. They claim the city needs more “revenue”.

On the other side, folks claim that taller buildings undermine our historic small town charm, and hurt the city’s economic future in the long run. They point to the arts, our views, our parks, and our charm as the future of Edmonds. Taller buildings hurt, not help, the Edmonds economy. This is where I stand.

Purchasing the “Skipper’s property” allows the city to control the future of that gateway site. It guarantees that the building that Lora Petso wisely warned us about will not be built. Such a building hurts our economic future, it doesn’t help it. With bond financing, the city can easily afford it. Depending on the use, the city may be able to use off budget resources to pay for it as well.

The city also enjoys costs advantages by purchasing the property now. The real estate market has dropped prices on land and the city is getting a good deal. If the city waits, the price goes up, and the city looses the ability to shape the development of the waterfront. Waiting makes no economic sense.

I am proud of my vote to purchase the “Skipper’s site.” Our historic small town charm is our best economic asset. The city must take a direct role in shaping the development of the waterfront to insure that citizens’ vision of Edmonds' future becomes a reality.

Our Kissing Anniversary

17 years ago, Martha and I kissed for the first time.

Martha decided she wanted to cook my favorite dinner for me, so she asked me what my favorite food was.

When I told her, "Meatloaf!", she laughed. Anyway, she and a friend prepared meatloaf and I ate most of it. Yum. That night we kissed.

A year later, I asked her to marry me. That was the best decision I ever made. I love Martha and my love has grown and still grows for her.

Meatloaf can have a very powerful affect on relationships. I highly recommend it.

Martha, if you're reading this, that was a hint.