|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 30
Location: Bellingham
|
Blue Swede, 1974... "Hooked on a Feeling":  UGA CHAKA UGA UGA
UGA CHAKA UGA UGA
UGA CHAKA UGA UGA
UGA CHAKA UGA UGA
I can't stop this feeling...
Deep inside of me....
Girl you just don't realize...
What you do to me......
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/9/2008
Posts: 51
Location: Bellingham
|
Michael,
U G A stands for Urban Growth Area and is a concept within the State's Growth Management Act and the City Comprehensive Plan that has become a bit controversial as folks struggle with deciding whether we should expand Bellingham or draw a line in the sand and call everything on one side "Bellingham" forever more. Briefly, the process is, the County, anticipating where Bellingham might want to grow establishes under the Growth Management Act where the U. G. A. boundaries will be. Over time the County then builds within that area to City standards, things like roads, traffic signals, etc. Then, the City, as it may need to will annex that are and won't in doing so, inherit the burden of upgrading the infrastructure to City standards.
Currently, the City is considering on a chunk by chunk basis whether to annex area's currently defined as U. G. A.'s What we have declared is that we don't want the County to establish a new set of U. G. A.'s for even further expansion. Their decision to not add but a tiny amount is now being challenged so the issue is a hot potato and thus Damon's reference to it here. WHEW
Mail and email continue to pour into the City Councilmembers as we prepare for the staff presentation and the Public Hearing on the Cornwall Parking verses Bike Lane issue which will happen at our June 23 Council meeting. As a wild guess, I will be surprised if this is a unanimous vote. The volume of input has surpased all other issues in my short six month stint, at least ten to one....... no kidding, it's been and continues to be a huge outpouring from the entire community, not just the neighborhoods effected.
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/15/2008
Posts: 7
Location: Lettered Streets, Bellingham
|
Thank you for the thoughts and information.
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administrator
, Member
Joined: 1/11/2008
Posts: 256
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
Michael Nichols wrote:DJGray wrote: Some may say resolving UGA issues should trump your car-to-bicycle issue. What is "UGA" ? <deleted>I had an answer posted here, but note that Stan answered the question before I got to it. Now, Andy Stimkin, so far, you have had me laughing harder than anyone here. That was just funny!
Mark Twain wrote:
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on.
Mark Twain
Baron Miller wrote:
Grace ruins the idea that you are fully in charge.
Baron Miller
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administrator
, Member
Joined: 1/11/2008
Posts: 256
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
Michael Nichols wrote:Thank you for the thoughts and information.
Don't give up!  You have beliefs and convictions. Take your shot. We're a friendly bunch here!
Mark Twain wrote:
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on.
Mark Twain
Baron Miller wrote:
Grace ruins the idea that you are fully in charge.
Baron Miller
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/19/2008
Posts: 3
Location: Bellingham
|
The decision to put Bike Lanes on Cornwall is obviously generating a lot of interest.
The reason to do it are many. I manage a business dependent on visitation in downtown. Downtown should be Bellingham's most dynamic urban village. With excellent transit service, it is the neighborhood best suited to compete in a world where people are driving less. Increasing the options for folks to get into and out of downtown makes sense.
Downtown businesses should support this as well. They will never be able to compete in a car only world. new developments and mall will always have the advantage here. So encouraging alternatives to the car reduces the impetus to build in new, green fields on the edge of town...
With the cost of driving so high (someone driving a typical SUV or large truck has take and equivalent of a $20,000 pay cut!) encouraging new less costly modes of transportation will increase people's buying power. Power they can use downtown.
But this change only makes sense, or makes better sense, if two things occur
1. The City, law enforcement and the biking community coordinating a public education and enforcement campaign to ensure cycling, as it becomes a more formal part of our transportation system, is done in a law abiding and predictable way. We can not act like 5-year olds on our bikes on the public streets.
2. The Mayor and City Council move quickly to foster public private partnerships to build new structured parking downtown. As a dedicated cyclist and alternative transportation advocate I do not come to this conclusion lightly. But, current major employers (DIS or Logos) cannot expand due to lack of parking (and these companies have fabulous recored of getting their staff to use alternatives). WE cannot attract new employers downtown without more capacity and current employees are forces to park on the street, thus taking spots from potential patrons. No more study, no more commissions. Get moving on this.
Regards,
Frank
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/9/2008
Posts: 51
Location: Bellingham
|
Frank,
Excellent post on, what's turned into; "parking verses bike lanes". You recognize how important the multi-model concept is to our transportation future. We need a Transportation Commission, in some form, to work on policy suggestions and we need it now. It's more that just parking, or just bike/ped, it's the future of everyone needing to move from place to place successfully.
I am aghast at the volume of input Council has received on this issue. I'm guessing because I haven't counted but I have at least, AT LEAST, 300 pieces of email or snail mail and countless phone calls from all over our city. Considering how important issues like growth (UGA), watershed protection, downtown economic health plus the Waterfront District, they have all been a drop in the bucket compared to the outpouring on the Cornwall issue. I fully expect a packed house at our meeting Monday with TV's out in the hallway for the overflow. It's amazing the interest this has generated. I just received my packet yesterday and it's not being presented as a "staff issue" it's coming to us as a "recommendation from the Parking Commission". I know you folks weighed in but so did a bunch of neighborhood associations. The Broadway folks are still smarting from the licking they took on their street improvement project so they are very emotional over this issue. Several have called to tell me not to get hoodwinked. Several Councilmembers were at the Association of Washingto Cities Annual Conference in Yakima this past week and there wasn't a whisper on the Cornwall subject. This Open Meeting Act legislation really has our attention; as it should. I have no problem with it but I could feel that Cornwall was the elephant in the room that no one would acknowledge. Thanks for a very thoughtful post, Frank. Warm regards, Stan Snapp
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/19/2008
Posts: 3
Location: Bellingham
|
Thanks for your reply Stan.
I was disappointed to see this represented as an initiative of the Parking Commission. This was presented to us as an initiative of the Mayors office and Public Works. It was presented as the implementation of multi-model transportation improvements goals that are part of the City's Comprehensive plan. Cornwall was identified as a primary route for bike lanes.
It is a continuing pattern of the Parking Commission's work getting distorted, which is disappointing.
I do stand by my vote and the Parking Commissions support for this effort regardless of these shenanigans.
I also support the idea of the Transportation Commission. My primary concern is how the formation of the commission might delay the provisioning of new parking resources downtown. People are paying more and getting less, not a good mix. It is hard to justify the flush parking fund when there is no cogent plan for its use to increase parking resources downtown. Does Terry's proposal for a PDA focused on parking have any support?
You mentioned the ton of interest in the Cornwall issue. How do the letters and emails you have received break down?
Thanks for your public service Stan.
Regards,
Frank
P.S. I had knee surgery on Friday and will probably miss the meeting. I wish I could be there.
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administrator
, Member
Joined: 1/11/2008
Posts: 256
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
Stan, I don't envy your task at tomorrow's meeting. I'm in Kansas City right now, and cannot be there, but will check the streaming video when it is available. I'm confident you will give thoughtful consideration to the facts before you as you and the council wrestle with what to do on this. Frank, thank you for your thoughtful post as well. I don't know that we would end up in the same place, but I like the way you reasoned through your thoughts and ideas.
Mark Twain wrote:
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on.
Mark Twain
Baron Miller wrote:
Grace ruins the idea that you are fully in charge.
Baron Miller
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/19/2008
Posts: 3
Location: Bellingham
|
Mr. Gray,
Thanks for setting up this forum. Great place to have illuminating conversations on the issues of the day. Enjoy Kansas City, I was always pleasantly surprised by KC.
This is an interesting issue. As a regular cyclist I am comfortable with no bike lanes on many of our streets. But evidence shows that dedicating space for bikes or transit, is the only way to use our current infrastructure efficiently. Concrete and paving are getting so expensive and larger portions of any transportation project must be paid by local taxes entirely. A car only approach will break the back of local government. Using our current infrastructure more efficiently is key to keeping the cost of our transportation system in check.
No house will loose their parking. Just as many cars will be able to use Cornwall as they do now. Yes one business, with two crosswalks within a half a block, bus stops within 100 feet will lose a spot in front of their store. But even they testified that currently most of their patrons park on the other side of the street anyway.
I still think that this makes sense IF we can get moving on new multi-use structured parking downtown. When I say multi use, I mean buildings that house offices, stores and parking. Not just a big ugly garage. We need to foster public-private partnerships to foster these developments in what should be Bellingham's most dynamic urban village.
As for Social Engineering, this is a red herring. How did we get to where we are now? A concerted effort of public investment over 80 years to ensure the automobile was accommodated. Would you call that social engineering? No, it was a coordinated public funding effort to produce a specific outcome. AN outcome that has had many benefits for all of us. But now, the car only system is clearly not a sustainable one.
All we are taking about here is investing in public resources a little differently to produce a more diverse and sustainable transportation marketplace. If someone wants to drive, please continue to do so. But their choice should not preclude others from making theirs.
Regards,
Frank
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administrator
, Member
Joined: 1/11/2008
Posts: 256
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
Frank Ordway wrote:Mr. Gray,
Thanks for setting up this forum. Great place to have illuminating conversations on the issues of the day.
You're most welcome, sir. I'm glad you like it and are finding it useful. Frank Ordway wrote:Enjoy Kansas City, I was always pleasantly surprised by KC.
I was born and raised in Kansas, though not Kansas City. But my family is all still out here, so I journey back every so often for visits. Frank Ordway wrote:This is an interesting issue. As a regular cyclist I am comfortable with no bike lanes on many of our streets. But evidence shows that dedicating space for bikes or transit, is the only way to use our current infrastructure efficiently. I get the first part of that. More experienced cyclists (which I'm not) would probably agree with that. But for others, there are safety concerns, and I understand that. What I find puzzling is the second part of your statement; "evidence shows." What evidence? Can you give me a citation or reference? I'd be interested in seeing the research that was done, because the "only way to use our current infrastructure efficiently" part of the statement is very strong. That excludes all other possibilities, and sounds very final, so I'd like to see the evidence that elicits such a strong position from you. Frank Ordway wrote:Concrete and paving are getting so expensive Very true. In fact, that is one of the primary reasons Councilman Snapp objected to my creative suggestion above. It would require widening the road (costs) and acquiring adjacent property (more costs) to pull it off. Frank Ordway wrote:A car only approach will break the back of local government. Again a strong stance. How will it break the back of local government? Are you referring to the costs of widening existing arterials what whatnot? I would agree that this is costly. But "back breaking?" Probably not. Particularly when one considers the variety of options for funding such projects. Frank Ordway wrote:No house will loose their parking. We are in complete agreement here. This is an oft-used argument that sounds good on the face of it, but in reality is misleading. The parking on the street does not belong to the house closest to it. The roads are owned by the public and the parking is as well. The homeowner, or renter, has enjoyed a privilege of parking there, but it it not their private parking space. Frank Ordway wrote:I still think that this makes sense IF we can get moving on new multi-use structured parking downtown. When I say multi use, I mean buildings that house offices, stores and parking. Not just a big ugly garage. A multi-use structure (as you've outlined above) is probably more feasible, though I'm speaking from a rather uninformed position in saying that. I've not really studied the issue. But at this point, I'm even open to the single use facility. Parking in the downtown area is a significant problem. Frank Ordway wrote:We need to foster public-private partnerships to foster these developments That's the angle I'm looking at when I say "more feasible." Frank Ordway wrote:As for Social Engineering, this is a red herring. How so? Frank Ordway wrote:How did we get to where we are now? A concerted effort of public investment over 80 years to ensure the automobile was accommodated. Accommodating a modality is not the same thing as structuring an environment to force the use of one. I see the argument you are trying to make, but I believe it is invalid. The comparison cannot be made. Now, I don't think that what is being proposed with these bike lanes falls into the realm of social engineering. It is more an accommodation, and I'm fine with that, if we can establish the need, and establish that this is the best, most cost-effective solution.
Mark Twain wrote:
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on.
Mark Twain
Baron Miller wrote:
Grace ruins the idea that you are fully in charge.
Baron Miller
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/9/2008
Posts: 139
Location: Zeta Reticuli
|
Looks like the bicycle lanes are a done deal. For you guys who pedal, what has been your experience with road conditions in the bicycle lanes? Seems to me like all the sand and debris gets swept into 'em by passing cars etc. I see lots of areas where cyclists aren't using them. I'm presuming that's road conditions?
You better laugh at yourself, Everyone else is. www.parkenfarkergroup.blogspot.com
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 30
Location: Bellingham
|
2 things strike me as being odd here:
1. Why is the new bike lane going to be for people riding in to downtown, but not for people riding out of downtown? Parking issues are the same on both sides of the street, the traffic is the same, the lane widths are the same. If the issue is safety, the City will create a liability for itself the next time an accident occurs involving a bicyclist traveling in the non-bike-lane direction. There is no rationale for a half-measure of safety, when it comes to courts and juries.
2. An update on the Herald blogs says Louise B. is confused about the voting. Not surprising, if she made the original motion to "retain the parking". That attempt at a motion should have been ruled out of order, since there is no such thing as a motion to do nothing... motions must describe a changing action of some sort. If she was just trying to get a vote going, she still would be required to move the "change" for purposes of discussion, speak against her own motion, and then vote against it. Motions for inaction just don't work, and are not proper.
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/9/2008
Posts: 139
Location: Zeta Reticuli
|
Louise is no more confused than the folks who continually keep re-electing her... ...I wonder if they are as confused about why they keep voting to re-elect her, as she is as to what or why she votes...? 
You better laugh at yourself, Everyone else is. www.parkenfarkergroup.blogspot.com
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/27/2008
Posts: 1
Location: Bellingham
|
What an unkind thing to say about Louise. She has done many good things for this city, including helping to provide facilities for bicycles and pedestrians. We vote for her because she does her best to make sure the City serves all the people of Bellingham rather than jerking us around at the whim of special interest groups. Unfortunately, she is not always successful.
Is Louise confused about this Cornwall issue? Everybody should be confused. I know I am.
Here are some things about this issue that confuse me:
- When parking space is at a premium in this town and our so-called Parking Commission advocates eliminating parking as a solution to anything
- When recommendations made by the BPAC--an unelected, voluntary advisory group--can be arbitrarily interpreted by Public Works and the City Council as City mandates
- When the City is willing to blindly implement BPAC recommendations that are not supported by studies, statistics, or any other kind of documentation
- When cyclists who for years have been using Cornwall for an unexpectedly safe commute into town all of a sudden decide it is too dangerous without bike lanes
- When the issue concerns three distinct areas of Cornwall: (1) York-Ohio, a downtown business area, (2) Ohio-Alabama, a mixed business and residential area, (3) Alabama-Illinois, an exclusively residential area, and the City insists on treating all three areas the same: "one plan fits all"
- When the issue concerns both business and residential parking and the City refuses to consider the similarities or the differences in the two uses of parking
- When the issue concerns on-street parking which serves as both private vehicle "storage" as well as a means of public access to homes and businesses that do not have an alternative for public access, and the City refuses to differentiate between these two functions of on-street parking
- When the City turns a deaf ear to warnings about the real danger to people who will feel obliged to dodge traffic when crossing Cornwall because of the elimination of on-street parking
- When all suggestions for compromise solutions which might satisfy the requirements of both cyclists and residents are rejected out-of-hand by Public Works at their so-called "public input" meetings
- When we have been living peacefully in our neighborhood for years and all of a sudden, without warning, the City decides to punish us, our families, and our friends by obstructing public access to our homes.
If you are not confused about this issue, maybe you haven't given it enough thought.
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administrator
, Member
Joined: 1/11/2008
Posts: 256
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
Doug, Just a few thoughts here: 1. Thank you for your thoughtful post. I appreciate posts like that, whether I agree with them or not. I just like it when I see people who have "movement in the mind." 2. I like Louise Bjornson. I frequently disagree with her take on issues, but I like her personally. She is one of those people that is easy to like. That's why she keeps getting re-elected, and I suspect she will continue to be re-elected for as long as she wants to occupy that chair. 3. It is true that PPP took a bit of a dig at Louise Bjornson that was prompted by something Andy Stimkin said. Now, as a rule, we work hard to keep the discussion civil here, and I think we do a bang-up job of that. However, Louise is a very public official, and as such has set herself up to be the target of criticism. As I'm sure councilman Snapp will attest, it comes with the job. Just as criticism comes, praise comes as well, as you have done. You like some of the things Louise has done, and you are free, and encouraged, to say so. In that spirit, what Andy said was right on target. Louise made a motion for inaction which is out of order. She was confused. 4. PPP took that concept of confusion and used it as an opportunity to make his dig at Louise. I would agree that he could make his point with more tact, but that's PPP, and we have learned to give him a little more leash here than most of us require. His point, however made, is valid, and that is that Louise frequently seems to not understand what she is doing as a member of council. One would think that after 20 years, Louise would have a better handle on such things as Parliamentary Procedure, but I can recall countless times that Bob Ryan would let out a big sigh at some procedural violation on Louise's part, and have to gently (and sometimes not so gently) correct her. Finally: Some of your issues of "confusion" are very much on target, and I believe merit discussion, and presentation to council. I would recommend, and even urge, that you take your list, very much as it is, and present these concerns to council during the opening public comment period. Getting your concerns raised as a part of the public record would be a good use of time, I believe.
Mark Twain wrote:
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on.
Mark Twain
Baron Miller wrote:
Grace ruins the idea that you are fully in charge.
Baron Miller
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/9/2008
Posts: 139
Location: Zeta Reticuli
|
What ever gave anybody the idea that I am or should be as kind as Louise. She is one of the nicest people that I have met in the political spectrum. However, let me know when anybody can find a polite way to state that someone who is elected to public office is continually confused over the issues that that individual is voting on. On the other hand, her latest opponent who stated many socialist views was excessively nasty to her during the entire campaign. And I think that the reason she got re-elected was not due to the rank and file democrats who appeared to throw her under the bus, but for the many conservatives that voted for and who like Louise but disagree with her and often find her confused over issues. I like Louise, and she does have an ability to laugh at herself, unlike the many experts who find me to be unkind. ...and if you find me to be unkind, you ought to meet the gentle folks that I ride motocycles with...
You better laugh at yourself, Everyone else is. www.parkenfarkergroup.blogspot.com
|
|
|
Guest |
