From Stark
(updated version)
Clayton Petree has announced he will run for mayor of Bellingham, setting up a three-way race with incumbent Mayor Dan Pike and former state legislator Kelli Linville, who was anointed as the front-runner in the race even before she confirmed her candidacy.
Petree, 36, portrayed himself as an alternative to two other candidates who tend to share similar views.
“The only core difference between the two candidates who have offered themselves so far is gender,” Petree wrote in his announcement.
In a race featuring an incumbent mayor and a prominent former legislator, Petree might look like a longshot at best. But he said he isn’t running just to raise issues.
“I think I have a shot,” he said. “I’m running because I want to be mayor and I think I can do a good job.”
Among other things, he pledged to reexamine the city policy of spending millions on land in the Lake Whatcom Watershed.
He thinks that programs to transfer or purchase watershed development rights could be more productive.
He also indicated that he wants to make Bellingham more receptive to new and existing businesses.
He also pledged not to use yard signs, calling them “visual and environmental pollution.” He plans to distribute window signs to supporters instead.
More details will be available in print and online Saturday, March 19.
Contact: claytonformayor@gmail.com
Mayor Pike,
With respect, you pick your clause, and I’ll pick mine. Nothing I wrote contradicts your choice, but, in my opinion, policies adopted by the City of Bellingham have played a role in the development of land use patterns in contravention of the Act in Whatcom County.
Kirsch,
You didn’t answer my 8:48 question. You seem to want to blame me for where we are, when I would observe that I didn’t have a role in that. I would prefer to look forward, and I can assure that I have definite ideas about the proper identification and protection of resource lands.
Interestingly, a planner for the Washington State Department of Commerce stated that the act grew out of the desire to reduce traffic congestion, an assertion that I thought was interesting. I am duly impressed however, by the importance of the source of your information.
Gosh!
Bricklin!
Here’s how I am handicapping the mayor’s race for the primary:
Kelli will be getting a bunch of votes because she is Kelli and not Dan Pike.
Dan Pike will be getting a bunch of votes because he is Dan Pike.
Clayton will be getting a bunch of votes because he is neither Dan nor Kelli.
Who’s bunches are the biggest still remains to be seen!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
We can always count on our friend AFY to help us keep things in perspective, don’t ya know.
I’m straying from the topic a bit, but since we swerved into growth management, here’s an excerpt from a discussion on Newgeography.com- Economic, demographic, and political commentary abut places:
“Ignoring the reality of high job dispersal, the background paper says “a key challenge is to reduce dependence on motor vehicles while maintaining access between and within locations … the Australian Government recognises that it has a role … in investing in major mass transit systems, identifying and protecting new transport corridors and supporting means to shift from private vehicles to public transport”. But as McCloskey, Birrell and Yip explain, “the high level of job dispersal around Melbourne [and other cities] cannot be easily unwound.” In those conditions, Mr. Albanese’s strategy is doomed to failure.
Alternatively, when diseconomies from congestion start to outweigh economies from centrality, firms and commuters will move to other, less congested sites, easing congestion all-round. This is the only effective, long-term solution to congestion. However by mandating concentration rather than enabling dispersion, evidenced by a dim view of road-building, green planning stymies this process. The documents want to end it altogether.
According to the background paper, “connectivity within cities can also be achieved by placing people closer to the jobs, facilities, goods and services they desire – or putting these closer to where people live. This highlights the important role of integrated land-use and infrastructure planning in managing the need for physical travel”. But this notion, that firms and residences can be “placed” by a central authority, is logically flawed. It suffers from something akin to a “coordination problem” (a concept from game theory).
Suppose household A has, in existing circumstances, chosen its optimal location relative to (1) affordable housing, (2) employment and (3) services. How can the government arrange things so that A ends up in a more optimal location? Moving A closer to work may push it further from affordable housing and services. Moved closer to services, A may end up further from other factors, and so on. It’s unlikely that the government can ever place A in a better location relative to all three factors.
Then suppose household B has chosen its own optimal location relative to the three factors, some distance away from the point chosen by A. How does the government improve the outcome for both households? Action benefiting A may hurt B and vice versa.”
The column is about proposed changes in land use law in Australia, but the issues are applicable here, as well.
Here’s another sentence for you: “Embarrassed to champion intervention at the macro level, progressives resort to carving chunks out of the national economy and relabeling them “the environment”, “social capital” or “urban planning” before turning reality upside down.”
Any time the government restricts something, there will be a shortage.
Basic economics 101, but all too often ignored, or unknown to a politician.
Many acts of government have unintended consequences, which is really what we are dealing with, when it comes to a law written so long ago by folks whose main goal then, was not traffic, but really to get re-elected at the time.
@AFY
Do you understand what “handicapping” a race means?
Handicapping by its very nature involves odds.
I’d like to see AFY offer some odds.
We bet on dice, cards, and where the little ball drops; why not a political horse race.
Maybe for a good cause like the Lighthouse Mission.
Dave was appointed by a County Council that has become famous for doing end runs around process and opposing views while running the county council as a serfdom….and they appointed Dave…big surprise, even though he is often railing against such “corruption”…
Again, Pike and Linville will be the top two and anyone betting AFY will have a sure thing IMO….
Australia is certainly not anyone’s idea of an ideal. They are a huge, diverse, but primarily right leaning country and environmentalists are a minority….more so than here. After watcing 3 months of Australian news, I can tell you most of it is akin to Faux News, they call it SKY News here…and Faux has not cornered the market on ignorance by my observations….
I simply have to commend Mayor Pike’s 9:08 post.
An absolutely butt kicking, concise explanation of his position.
As for those who have mentioned Kelli’s absence from this blog… I assure you 100% that she reads it. She really just doesn’t like computers and email and blogs and Facebook and the like. I don’t know if she would have gotten the extra 160 votes last November if she had embraced Twitter and Facebook, but I wouldn’t rule it out.
As for “being hip on the ‘net”, Pike and C.Petree are leading so far.
Come on Kelli, jump into the 21st century.
So who is Kelli’s campaign manager Riley?
Unsure of where the comma is supposed to go in that sentence Shaun. I’m not working on any campaigns at the moment, except my campaign to finish washing all the dishes in my kitchen sink right now. Due to my lack of a dish-washing machine, I too live in the 20th century.
Mayor,
You wrote, “That reading clearly emphasizes the need for sustainable development, not any development. In other words, in does not support sprawl. ‘Within the capacity’ does not mean ‘at whatever public subsidy is required for private profit.”
Nothing I wrote in that post, which was about economic development, suggests that I encourage sprawl, so you’re raising a red herring.
I think that you might be insufficiently attentive to the nexus between economic development and the tax revenues necessary to fund the “public services, and public facilities ” that might encourage the investments that might lead to a job or two around here.
Next, I wrote of private investment, not, “…public subsidy.”
It is my opinion that the City of Bellingham, of which you are mayor, stands in the way of business investment.
Dave,
I am very aware of the nexus between City revenues and the businesses whose taxes paid in large part support them. I support businesses being successful in the City.
On another point, subsidy may not be what you expressed, but it is in fact what has been occurring on the ground. Sprawl costs all of us, to the benefit of the few.
My job is to look out for the interests of the citizens of Bellingham, not those of a few special interests.
@ glasshoppah,
you must learn to understand the dish tao.
Mayor,
You wrote, ” I am very aware of the nexus between City revenues and the businesses whose taxes paid in large part support them. I support businesses being successful in the City.”
I wrote, “It is my opinion that the City of Bellingham, of which you are mayor, stands in the way of business investment.
I offer two business names: Costco, and WalMart, which I do not think have been supported, and out of whose way the city has not stayed.
Next, you wrote, “My job is to look out for the interests of the citizens of Bellingham, not those of a few special interests.”
In whose interest were roadblocks laid in the path of additional investments by Costco and WalMart, if not special interests, rather than the interests of the residents who wish to shop at those business in their latest and best stores, representing their current business models?
Costco and WalMart asked for no subsidy, and in their present respective locations, certainly do not represent sprawl.
Let me repeat: if Costco and WalMart expand in their current locations, they do not represent sprawl. Rather, they represent the kind of compact development that you profess to encourage and respect, and which is mandated by the Growth Management Act.
I suggest that you begin the process of planning for life after Costco and WalMart for the City of Bellingham.
Since Mayor Pike raised the awful specter of sprawl, I offer this:
Land Use and Real Estate Bubbles
An excerpt: “Some land-use restrictions—those that aim to preserve undeveloped natural land—have a clear environmental rationale that should be weighed against the economic cost. But most land-use restrictions don’t prevent development, they just force it to be inefficiently low-intensity. Such laws are bad for the environment, chewing up space and wasting energy, as well as economically harmful.”
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/land-use-and-real-estate-bubbles/
Of course, we haven’t seen any of that around here, where about 1000 residential building permits were issued in Whatcom County, while something like 74 were issued in the City of Bellingham.
Of course, the policies of the city of Bellingham, where the impact fees for a single house start at about $32,000, don’t have anything at all to do with that, do they?
It’s the greedy developers.
My figures are for 2010.
Dave,
I don’t blame the developers. Developers act within the templates that we as a society give them. When Bellingham has reasonable impact fees, but the County, in part because of willful noncompliance with GMA has none, developers will act rationally and develop where they can transfer more of their externalities–read costs–from themselves to the public at large.
The County Planning Commission identified a path to getting on the right side of the law, but a change in the County Council–and perhaps a corresponding change in the County Planning Commission–derailed that, so development outside city limits continues to get a free pass on appropriate fees.
Just because the County is acting inappropriately does not mean the City should, too.
Mayor,
I would suggest that the county’s capital facilities budget and record of concurrency is a better indicator of whether the county’s policies are reasonable.
There are many junior taxing districts that distort a direct comparison, but I argue that the raw building permit numbers are a better basis for that comparison.
You wrote, “…so development outside city limits continues to get a free pass on appropriate fees.”
With respect, that’s just rhetoric, and I think that you might be less than the best judge of “appropriate fees,” considering how growth has stopped (My word, of course) in Bellingham.
Of course, we’ve had an election or two, and there’s another coming up, isn’t there? Life is interesting.
I notice that you didn’t respond to my argument about Costco and WalMart.
Dave,
As regards Costco and Walmart, maybe you were asleep at the wheel when I successfully worked to lift the Big Box lid. I worked with several Big Box stores, including Costco, to ascertain what worked for them while also working for the community.
What they choose to do in the future will reflect their own interests, as it should, but they appreciated my administration reaching out and working with them.
Mayor,
You might have noticed that, in any comment about the city’s policies, I addressed the criticism to the city and not to you.
I was not “asleep at the wheel” when you unsuccessfully (my term, of course.) worked to lift the big box lid in a way that worked for the big box stores, and when the council laid huge impediments in the path forward for Costco and WalMart.
You used the phrase, “…worked for them while also working for the community.”
It might have worked for the “community” in which you have to function, but I doubt that it worked for “them.” In place of the term, “the community” I would use the term “special interests.”
I don’t criticize you, because I think that you probably see the future with some clarity, but I don’t think that your efforts were sufficient.
Mayor,
Frankly, I think you were shafted by the council.
Mayor,
You don’t have to drive very far south to see a WalMart Supercenter directly across the freeway from an empty Walmart store. Nearby is a Costco with a deli that puts our Costco to shame.
Walmart’s and Costco’s business models drive them to continually expand or abandon.
Bellingham has made it impossible for them to expand in a way that fits their respective business models.
What I don’t understand is why?
Where is your leadership?
Dave – Isn’t the supercenter in the same jurisdiction as the black box store across the way?
By the way – I’m pretty sure Bellingham’s lift, which Mayor Pike was directly responsible for in terms of convincing a council not necessarily fully interested in lifting a big box ban, was specifically to help our Costco expand, yes?
Isn’t that still in the works?
I think it’s important to remember that the big box ban in Bellingham occurred before Mayor Pike was in office. I recall a campaign in which he stumped for lifting that ban. And he worked toward that with a group of council members not necessarily all fully interested in that.
I guess I’m a bit confused, Dave, why you’re mad that the mayor doesn’t have full control over other human beings. It just doesn’t seem like a realistic stance.
I think it’s also important to know that there is a hefty population and philosophical base in Bellingham that was completely fine with the big box ban, and it appeared especially because of Wal-Mart. I know that local conservatives have had some good success in the rural county in recent years, and they’ve done an excellent job with elections, but I’d caution you to remember Bellingham isn’t the same as the north part of the county, and you could see that in the voting for the TBD, for WTA support and in the 42nd LD race with Kelli Linville.
You want something to happen in a city that appears to have a sizeable majority of people that don’t want what you do. I operate as a realist, I suppose. It keeps my sane.
By the way – I should add that I don’t agree with the big box ban personally, and I think Ferndale (oh no, here I go, stumping for my job again
has it right in that they don’t get worked up about sizes, instead they’ve outlined a responsible set of guidelines for *how* those businesses should look and build, etc. It’s a welcoming atmosphere, and I think a responsible way to protect the character of the city while encouraging economic development.
Like the Ferndale Polish Penis Tower mansion?
Pure Art.
Richard, good one!
Camille – Of course you must know I’d never call it that (actually, I’ve never even heard the term), but the building does comply with regulations that have nothing to do with the EAGLE retail development standards adopted by the council a few years ago and created by the amazing Community Development Director Jori Burnett, a hometown product of Ferndale who the community is very lucky (and I’m pretty sure very pleased), to have on their city’s staff.
City staff works diligently with the property owner of that residential unit and is ensuring they’re complying with regulations and requirements of their building permit.
Man I was really hoping for a response from Davesix this evening. I’m sad there’s nothing. Maybe my comments were too late in the evening last night.
You would never have called it that, Sam, but you knew which tower I was referring too, lol.
I do indeed. It’s outside my office at work. Hard to miss.
Is that Arti’s clock tower you guys are discussing?
@ shaun,
Yes, it is.
I apologize for being absent, but I was at a birthday celebration. (Pretty kewl, actually.)
Sam Taylor,
You wrote, “Dave – Isn’t the supercenter in the same jurisdiction as the black box store across the way?”
It is, but that’s irrelevant. It is my opinion that Bellingham has imposed conditions on WalMart’s expansion that will drive WalMart to (probably) Ferndale. I don’t care if it was Mayor Dan, who accused me of favoring sprawl, who was at fault, or the council, on whom I place the blame. The fact remains that Bellingham’s policies result in sprawl, or at least growth in places other than Bellingham.
The history is clear.
I don’t care about the details.
Then you wrote, “I guess I’m a bit confused, Dave, why you’re mad that the mayor doesn’t have full control over other human beings. It just doesn’t seem like a realistic stance.”
Earlier, the mayor wrote, “On another point, subsidy may not be what you expressed, but it is in fact what has been occurring on the ground. Sprawl costs all of us, to the benefit of the few.”
That was in response to my statement, “Nothing I wrote in that post, which was about economic development, suggests that I encourage sprawl, so you’re raising a red herring.”
Do you see now how I found the mayor to be disingenuous in his argument?
Sam taylor,
You wrote, “I think it’s also important to know that there is a hefty population and philosophical base in Bellingham that was completely fine with the big box ban, and it appeared especially because of Wal-Mart.”
How does that affect my argument?
In fact, my argument is reinforced: Bellingham’s policies result in sprawl and in the flight of investment capital to the county and to other cities in the county.
If that’s what the citizens and the government in Bellingham wish, that’s fine, as long as the council and the Mayor are clear with the voters about the consequences of their actions.
I’ve written it here before: the Bellingham City Council is possessed of the conceit that it can control the business plans of WalMart and Costco.
They cannot.
They can only modify the business plans of WalMart and Costco in the City of Bellingham.
Many shoppers from Bellingham drive south to shop at the WalMart Supercenter in Mount Vernon and to shop at the excellent Costco there as well. Those retailers mine the data from their customers, and they know exactly where their customers live.
Apparently, that’s just fine with Mayor Dan and with the City Council.
As I wrote, I think that Mayor Pike may be insufficiently attentive to the nexus between tax revenues and the construction and maintenance of the public facilities necessary to accommodate the economic growth necessary for a vibrant economy.
Sam Taylor, You wrote, “I guess I’m a bit confused, Dave, why you’re mad that the mayor doesn’t have full control over other human beings. It just doesn’t seem like a realistic stance.”
Read my posts again, please.
In about three successive posts, I laid responsibility on the Council, not on the mayor, other than to fault him for failing to clearly explain the consequences of the Council’s actions to the electorate. I think that’s a serious failure.
Just for emphasis, I wrote, “Let me repeat: if Costco and WalMart expand in their current locations, they do not represent sprawl. Rather, they represent the kind of compact development that you profess to encourage and respect, and which is mandated by the Growth Management Act.
I suggest that you begin the process of planning for life after Costco and WalMart for the City of Bellingham.”
It’s clear to me that both companies are going to leave town, because they must.
Not much time now with some downtime at this conference, but I do want to respond to say that I disagree that retail establishments building in another municipality with clearly-defined boundaries, UGAs, etc., is sprawl. Those areas, especially within the boundaries of another city, are obviously places we should be encouraging any new growth, and I think most people agree with that.
I do agree with there is only so much the Bellingham City Council et. al. can accomplish with their rules. But I don’t agree it’s “sprawl” if a retail outlet wants to build in another city anywhere in this county. That’s reasonable and a business decision, and it’s not sprawl.
If anything, it discourages sprawl and more car trips, as I believe the stat I’ve heard is that more retail in Ferndale can help prevent 12 million car trips annually leaving our cities to shop in Bellingham. Good for Ferndale, the community and good for the environment!