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.