Basing decisions on clear public benefits

Last week’s paper closed the chapter and maybe the book on the Maple Avenue ballfield controversy. It is now in the past. Or is it? (“The past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past.” William Faulkner.)

The Town’s decision has permanent effects and it may leave the council and administration open to future dispositions of public property to the benefit of private interests and real estate brokers. In the purchase and disposition of Maple Field – and as was the case with the sale of the Kirsch property – the council, the mayor and his staff, made, at best, token attempts to identify “better uses for the benefit of the community.”

They settled on their idea of a “best use” of the ballfield as a sale that provided for expensive housing, a smaller park – and the netting of a portion of the sale proceeds for the Town to use in other ways.

So it may be over, but we need to be clear about the nature and extent of the public vs. very private benefits of this purchase and sale. Chapter 3.70 (Disposition of Public Property) of the town’s municipal code clearly allows the sale of public property if the property is not needed.

But the thrust of the Chapter 3.70 is that it is incumbent upon the Town to first consider putting it “to a better use for the benefit of the community.” And in doing so the code requires that the administration “review all recommendations and proposals.” The ballfield sale didn’t appear to follow the code and the result was at least a missed opportunity to do something creative that would be of lasting public benefit.

If it had to be housing – rather than a ballfield, green space or a park – wasn’t it worth considering block grant funds and assistance from Skagit Land Trust to address a clearer public benefit called for in our comprehensive plan’s housing goals and policies: “6C-4 Encourage the development of affordable housing which is compatible with the density, character and scale of existing residential areas”?

In the mid-1990s La Conner Housing Solutions, with Town support, was able to do just that, orchestrating investment in the construction of affordable housing in what is now Channel Cove, an exceedingly valuable addition to our community and an example of enlightened housing policy.

Many who care deeply about the community and its future were, admittedly, “asleep” on this one. Some of us are now awake and hope we can encourage broader and more timely public involvement in all of the important Town decisions that affect the community’s future.

Working closely with other citizens, Raymond has questioned the wisdom of various council and hearing examiner decisions.