Posts tagged ‘Snohomish County Political Commentary’

February 19, 2011

How Will Light Rail Come to Snohomish County?

by Steve Dana

I had reason to be at SeaTac Airport this week.  The landscape there is still evolving with the completion of the light rail station there.  It got me thinking about how light rail would wend its way into Snohomish County. 

I know light rail is not expected in our county for another decade or more, but I was thinking about land-use decisions we should be making in our county to be ready when our day finally arrives.

The last I heard, the plan was to serve Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood but what does that mean?

Long range planning for a project like this requires that we establish likely routes so we can begin right-of-way acquisition and upgrades to our comprehensive plan that will steer the right kind of development into the vicinity that will increase population density to a point where light rail begins to make sense. 

The Urban Center concept would work for the area around a light rail stop; High Rise development that incorporates shopping, professional services, residential units and adequate parking for commuters who live away from transit lines.

Think about a light rail station in the middle of Bellevue Square or the Mall of America.

The Sound Transit – North Link plan calls for an underground station between NE 45th Street and NE 43rd Street on Brooklyn Avenue in the University District; heading north from the U District in a tunnel to a station at 65th NE and Roosevelt Ave then over to the I-5 Freeway and up to the Northgate Transit Station south of the Mall.  The train comes out of the tunnel just north of NE 85th Street and runs on the surface a short distance then elevated to the Northgate Station.

The North Link is scheduled to start in 2012 so it would be a good idea for us to start talking about where the line will go when it leaves Northgate.

If the decisions about Sound Transit are made in cooperation with the communities to be served, then I would assume there is a process in place to gather input, I just can’t find it.

The Puget Sound Regional Council’s Transportation 2040 shows light rail in the Alderwood Mall vicinity but is clearly not a priority for them.

Interestingly, PSRC also shows Commuter Rail serving the Woodinville – Snohomish Corridor but it doesn’t show any extension of rail service north of Snohomish. 

Wouldn’t that be a good idea if we are engineering projects along SR-9 to Arlington?  I have argued that we should be developing alternative rail capacity as a back-up to the main line that runs along the water.  Since there are frequent landslides during the rainy season, having alternatives for both freight and commuter service might be a good idea.  But what do I know?

October 2, 2009

The Cost of Fish is Going UP!

by Steve Dana

I have written in the past about the uncontrolled conversion of farm land here in Snohomish County and how the county had to play a role in stopping it from happening because the preservation of farm land was a stated goal of both the county and the state.

Reader response has been consistently in favor of preserving farm land for that reason alone.

Subsequent to my post last month about Leque Island, I have learned a lot more about the Ag land issue here in Snohomish County that is much more than troubling. I had the opportunity to tour the Snohomish River Valley and the Snoqualmie River Valley south to the county line. I was stunned when I was informed that more than 2/3 of the land in the Snoqualmie Valley was already owned by either the State of Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife or the Nature Conservancy. In the Snohomish River Valley, it isn’t quite that bad yet, but it’s getting worse. We are losing thousands of acres of prime farm land because the government is sponsoring the action.

The county encourages the DFW and Nature Conservancy to buy thousands of acres of farm land to convert to “habitat” for Ducks Unlimited while we are also spending more tax dollars to buy development rights to prevent the loss of Ag land. What’s wrong with that picture?

Talk about defrauding the public! Our State Legislature and County Council are up to their armpits in this sham. If voters thought it was time for a change last fall, what is coming out right here in Snohomish County will cause most thinking people to “vote out the bums” again this year.

Read on if you really want to pucker your you know what!

Ebey Slough starts at Marysville and winds along the base of the upland on the east side of the lower Snohomish River delta to a point on the Snohomish River just upriver from Lowell. To the south, Ebey Slough and other sloughs form Ebey Island.

Along the east side of the slough at the foot of Fobes Hill in what either is or was Diking District 6, there is a patch of farm land now owned by Snohomish County and a man named John Spoelstra. For the past couple years, this is the land we see as we drive along Bickford Avenue looking toward Everett. It is often flooded because the County wants to convert three hundred more acres of former farm land to “fish habitat”. Because Snohomish County wants even more swamp land, this farm land is being destroyed. Not just the land owned by the county, but also the land owned by Mr. Spoelstra. In my book, that is not right.

So why should the rest of us really give a damn about this land? That’s a good question.

Well, truth be told, I don’t. What I do care about is the other damage that was done when the county chose to flood Spoelstra’s 140 acres and their own 300 acres. In addition to damaging Mr. Spoelstra, every one of us took a hit because two public utilities had to shell out $27,000,000 to secure their investments crossing the land. Snohomish County spent another $3,000,000 of our money to make all of it happen.

Last summer we saw the project where the helicopters brought in the new high rise /high voltage towers to place on those fancy new concrete bases installed every couple hundred feet. It seemed like routine maintenance until you hear the other part of the story.

The county’s decision to remove flood controls guaranteed that the land would become saturated even more than normal. That saturation destroyed the wood power poles owned by Puget Sound Energy along that section of land. The power company explained to the county the adverse impact it suffered because of their plan and asked the county to repair the dike, the county declined.

The power company relies on those power lines to carry electricity to a significant service area so they couldn’t just abandon the line. They would either move the power lines to higher privately owned land on the hill or they would retrofit the towers to exist in the harsh saturated environment. The chosen option was to retrofit. That little project cost Puget Sound Energy $17,000,000 that will be passed on to all of us in higher rates. $17 million paid to protect vital assets of a public utility so the county could create “habitat”.

The city of Everett also has a huge water line that crosses this land. The city of Everett also informed the county that saturating the land was damaging their water line. As noted, the county declined to change their plan or pay to mitigate. The city of Everett paid $10,000,000 to protect their water line. Another cost that will be borne by tax payers in the name of “habitat”.

And finally, the county itself has shelled out $3,000,000 of our tax dollars to create the whole mess. Their own willful action destroyed farm land and damaged vital public energy assets to create “habitat”.

That’s $30 million dollars spent by rate payers and tax payers to create 300 acres of “habitat”.

In the middle of all this controversy, Dave Somers acknowledges the county plan to create “habitat” has come with a price tag he is willing for us to pay.

I am running for County Council because Dave Somers’ agenda does not serve the people of Snohomish County.

Where do you come down on this issue? Which is your highest priority; people or fish? If you think people should be higher on the list VOTE FOR STEVE DANA!

January 14, 2009

Even A Sharp Pencil won’t help that Annexation!

by Steve Dana

Who is surprised that Everett is rethinking the annexation of Eastmont/Hilton Lake neighborhoods east of Silver Lake?

Even with a possible $10 million sales tax rebate, annexing developed areas not consistent with their own planning strategy does not pencil out. That should not be a surprise.

I don’t care one way or another about whether Everett annexes. I do care about the reasons Everett is reluctant to move forward with annexation. It is all about the money.

Over the years, cities have been accused of “cherry picking” commercial properties in annexations because they represented a revenue stream for the city taking them in. In some cases the resulting criticism has been that they left the existing residential areas out because they represented a financial liability.

There is no doubt they are both true. My question would be “Why is the county planning and permitting urban subdivisions in unincorporated areas?” It would seem to me that cities would be better able to gauge the need and the corresponding ability to render services.

In rural counties, cities drive development because they provide the services. The character of development is clearly different comparing areas with services to areas without services. In this case services are water and sewer. Development emanates from the central service provider to neighborhoods on the fringe. More dense residential and commercial development in the city is contrasted to less of both across the city line.

The availability of water is the first major obstacle to development. In most cases, drinking water is available to most areas through public water providers. In unincorporated areas water districts do the job.

With sewers, the situation is a little more difficult. Traditionally, septic systems with drain fields provided the means for residential development inside and outside of cities. When lots are large, this is a workable technology. As residential lots have gotten smaller, the need for public sewer systems has increased. The same is true with businesses. When a mom and pop business opened, it could function on a septic and drain field. As businesses got bigger, they also needed public sewers.

Today we can still find business enterprises in rural non-sewered areas, but they have significant land allocated for drain fields. Drain field technologies enable some larger businesses to exist in areas not served by sewers, but more often than not, they are too expensive.

As cities do their comprehensive planning, they address all the needs of a city as they proceed. They recognize that residential development creates burdens on all the utilities, the police, the fire and the schools. At one time, property tax revenue was a reliable source of government funding. We used to have the ability to raise revenue by as much as 6% per year. When the 6% was reduced to 1%, residential development became a liability. The change was good for tax payers; it wasn’t good for service providers.

In order to offset the liability of residential neighborhoods, comprehensive plans need revenue producing land uses that do not create undue burdens on municipal services. If you want to characterize them as cherries, that works for me. Planners need to be mindful of long term financial needs of the greater community when they do their work.

Snohomish County paid little attention to long term needs of the area when they adopted the plan for Silver Firs and the properties east of the Bothell-Everett Highway. Until just recently, there were no businesses east of 35th Ave SE. I don’t know how many homes have been built in the thousands of acres east of Everett and Mill Creek, but if there are only six to the acre, there are about ten thousand homes built outside anyone’s Urban Growth Area.

There is probably a standard that suggests how much General Commercial area a city needs for every hundred acres of residential, but I don’t know what it is. Whatever that number might be, the area east of Everett and Mill Creek is definitely short.

If all those homes represent a liability, why would either city annex the land? Then if you take into consideration the shortage of vacant land suitable for commercial development you can see there are problems for much of that area.

Snohomish County will tell you that they are the one government agency with the expertise to do “Comprehensive Planning” because they have the resources to do the job right. There is no doubt they had the resources, but they didn’t have the long term view of the area in mind when they “planned” for the area.

If they had considered the long term needs of the community when they developed the area, it might make sense for either Everett or Mill Creek to take on the residential liability along with the commercial benefit. With Snohomish County, “long term planning” is a misnomer.

The potential Everett annexation is/was huge, but the remaining urban development that already exists but not included in the current consideration is the really big gorilla. What sense will there be for any city to take on that area?

Mukilteo faces the same issue in their recent declaration to annex south to Norma Beach Road. Is there enough of an asset to take on the liability?

Lake Stevens faces a similar dilemma around Frontier Village. How will the city pay for services in a huge geographic area with limited ability to expand commercial? Why would they take on responsibility for residential areas as far away as Calvalero’s Corner without the ability to pay for them with some form of commercial revenue stream?

For Snohomish County, selling building permits was the short term revenue source they needed to cover their budget. Approving plats and collecting fees was their motivation. As far as I can tell, it has always been about getting the money before a city. If they were really concerned about the long term health of the area they would have been doing joint planning with the cities to make sure there was continuity with other local plans. That didn’t happen. They just picked the cherries.

So many negative images come to mind when I think about how painful it will be to fix all that damage. There needs to be some incentive for cities to take on these unfunded liabilities, but there don’t seem to be too many on the horizon.

If you think that we can just go on without addressing this issue just wait until the new roads need to be repaired or the residents ask about other urban services.

I am open to suggestions.

January 13, 2009

I’m Dreaming of a Dry Christmas!

by Steve Dana

Excuse me for taking the past month off for the holidays. It is not like me to be at a loss for words. In spite of that, there is no doubt that things have been happening.

On the morning of December 13, 2008 we received a fresh blanket of snow that started a month of bad karma. Here in Snohomish County we received the longest and coldest snow storm in most of our memories. There were some of our customers that talked about snow fall in their yards a couple feet deep. Thankfully, in town the snow was only a foot or so deep. For those among us who wanted a White Christmas, their wish was granted. We had fresh snow for Christmas. For those who needed to get around for holiday functions with family and friends, the snow was a pain in the rear.

For the most part, the snow limited our mobility and restricted our customers’ ability to get to our restaurant and that left me cool. You know what happens when Steve’s customers cannot get to The HUB, Steve gets really cranky.

If the snow had been the extent of the bad news, we all could have been okay with it; there were not too many seriously adverse impacts from the snow. The unfortunate thing was that was only the half of it. The bad stuff was yet to come.

Everyone looks forward to the melt after a snow event. We can’t wait for the slush to clear and the roads to get back to normal. After snow plows and shovels moved great quantities of the white stuff around, there were some really big piles of if left. Even today, there are residual piles of snow from the last snowfall around Christmas.

I have been critical of Snohomish County in the past, but when the snow falls, our County public works crews are saviors. My friend Doug F works for the county in the equipment maintenance section and he works his butt off to make sure the snow removal equipment is ready if and when the snow comes. His work paid off this year. There is no doubt that the county equipment did a marvelous job during the snow event this year. My hat is off to all those workers who went out to face the storm to make life better for the rest of us.

Much criticism was leveled against almost every city for their failure to clear snow from city streets. It seems that citizens look for their government to solve every problem that comes up. Having been one of those city officials myself, I can tell you that budgeting for snow removal is a really low priority. When it happens at the end of a budget cycle, there is no spare dough lying around. In addition, most small cities have limited budgets at the start of the year and most don’t have capable snow removal equipment.

As a citizen, I was frustrated with the snow. As a former elected official, I understood that there were limited options. There were a couple times when I saw a city truck with a snow blade and a sanding box that wasn’t blading or sanding. Even if the truck is heading across town, blade the street on the way.

If we are lucky following a snow storm, the temperature stays low at higher elevations preventing the mountain snow from melting as well. This was not one of those years. Sadly, the warm rains that came following the thaw compounded the troubles of a normal melt.

Near record “snow pack” for us low-landers and wave after wave of huge warm rain systems assaulting our beaches set the stage for a real catastrophe. Flooding has always been our nemesis in our low lying areas. This year brought incredible amounts of rainfall in a very short time frame. Some areas were getting sustained rainfall of 1.5 inches per hour for eight to ten hours at a time. Some of the areas on the coast expect “rain forest” type numbers, but most of us are not prepared for them.

I have talked about flooding on a number of occasions. For many of us that have lived in this area for a long time, we can look back at different years and remember certain aspects of a flood event. In 1975 we had a flood that was devastating to a lot of people since the high water caused a catastrophic dike failure at the French Creek pump station. The breach blew out the dike around the flood control facility and so quickly swept across the valley to the east it allowed no meaningful warning to residents. The resulting flood killed thousands of farm animals and destroyed millions of dollars worth of property. In my mind I can still see what seemed like hundreds of dump trucks filled with dead cows in a convoy to the landfill. That was a tragedy!

In 1990 there was another catastrophic dike failure near Stockers farm on the south side of the river. The water level was record setting in height already. The dike had been built many years before and had not been properly maintained over the long term. Critters had burrowed through the dike over the years creating a network of small tubes. All it took was for a few of them to erode together to cause a small path with incredible pressure to quickly wash away the section of dike. The resulting flow of river water into the valley created a new river with devastating force as far west as the Bicycle Tree. Springhetti Road was washed out and SR-9 was nearly washed away as well.

There is no doubt that dike failures cause significant damage. The force of a great volume of water gushing into and through an area is perilous. The greatest fear during a flood event is a dike failure.

What we all hope during a high water event is that our plans and infrastructure improvements do their jobs.

For the flood of 2009, the Snohomish River overtopped the dike in a number of places, but it did not fail. Clearly thought, the Pilchuck River made a statement this year. The only tributary to the Snohomish River poured humongous volumes of muddy destruction down its’ course this year. Some residents had probably forgotten how surprising the Pilchuck could be. A good deal of the water filling the valley to the east came from Pilchuck river flows.

The Western Washington area in general suffered greatly during this years’ event. Urban flooding demonstrated how poorly prepared our cities are for flood. Rural areas being consumed by development aggravate the problem by reducing the natural systems that have historically protected us. Urban development along with poorly devised forest practices has created dangerous conditions for flooding in our drainage systems.

We need to use the information we gather to better plan for the future in our flood prone areas. That information might suggest that we ban development in the flood zones. It might also suggest that we look at better flood control measures.

One suggestion worth considering addresses two problems at the same time. Building a dam on the Snoqualmie River would create storage capacity for King County drinking water in one role and serving as a flood control device in another.

Since the Snohomish River is formed when the Snoqualmie River and the Skykomish River meet southwest of Monroe, this idea could play a big part in protecting investments in our area.

Sometimes we need to step back from devastating events like floods to look at the big picture. What are our priorities for the future? Should we be planning for future floods by banning development in floodway fringe areas and flood plains or should we be looking for ways to control flood waters before they reach the river valleys? Clearly the erosion control measures relating to development and forest practices need to be considered and improved regardless of the more controversial issues associated with a dam. My hope is that we can have a discussion about the larger issues to consider all the aspects of the choices.

Another thing to consider in our area is dredging. Failing to maintain flow capacity in rivers compound the problems when events occur. Dredging does not need to be a negative thing. We need to look at everything.

What do you think?