In the first of what are supposed to be round table with the city council, approximately 16 citizens showed up to yak with the city council. Almost all of the councilors were there: Susan Gookin, Mayor Francis Gaddis, Brad Roberts, John Mayo and Timi Keene. Tom Smith from city works was there also. Ricky Marx reportedly had car trouble and was absent.
The circle was comprised of all of the councilors on one side except Mayo who was in with 'the people" around the rest of the circle. Councilor Brad Roberts, in his usual gruff way opened with "Well, here we are, any questions?". Mayo interjected with a plug for this blog, stating that it was great format for dialogue (we think so). Then the citizens, given a free rein at last, began to voice a series of concerns, questions and solutions.
The exchange was free flowing and open between the citizens themselves and Mayo, Roberts and Keene, with Keene taking the lead on almost all responses. Gaddis and Gookin were noticeably silent.
Among issues brought up was the apparent massive 30,000 gal./day water leak from the city swimming pool. A great discussion followed including Mayo's idea of a parks and recs levy district to help pay for the pool in a wider area. Another was the filling up of parking spaces downtown by downtown business employees. Crashes at the bottom of Dock Grade was discussed. The treacherous middle turn out from the park and ride was hashed out. The issue of the actual price on the 'cottages' of the Wyers End (Tim' s Trailer Park) and workforce housing was brought up.
When a citizen asked if the round table was going to be a regular occurrence Councilor Keene pointed out that if she had been there she would have heard Mayor Gaddis read the statement that this was to happen before every regular council meeting. Wake up, citizen.
In sum, it was good for the citizens to hear from each other and voice a few of their concerns and ideas for solutions. It was a fairly non-threatening environment. Highly recommended to attend, even if you are a shy person.
29 comments:
Why does there have to be such a negative tone with your comments, such as the reference to Brad as being gruff, when your own comments make it sound as if he was simply trying to get the conversation started? You have to admit that most of the "concerned citizens" have a fairly negative and suspicious attitude toward the city in general and your tone indicates that bias. Let's try and show our appreciation for these hard-working individuals who have devoted so much of their lives to keeping this city functioning. Sure, many mistakes have been made in the past. Let's get over it and move ahead.
PLEASE let's all focus on solutions rather than whine about the past and obvious problems that we have no control over, such as complaining about pricing of the cottages at Wyers End and Salmon Run. The prices will be decided by the marketplace - what buyers want, and what they are willing to pay. Economics 101, supply and demand. The citizens and the city government have NO control over pricing in free market developments.
Many small towns are coming up with plans to create affordable housing. Form a task force! If people want affordable housing to happen, they must get involved and work for it. It won't be handed to them. Sitting around whining does not solve problems. Start thinking outside the box and get your butts in gear.
Limiting density within the city limits and trying to stop growth will have the effect of making existing properties and homes even more expensive. It's economics 101 again. Think about this as a possibility: expand the city limits to include less expensive land that could be responsibly zoned for higher density that could only be used for affordable housing. Habitat for humanity is always looking for situations like this to help people help themselves using sweat equity.
We have so many problems to solve (such as the water shortage) so local employers can continue to create higher paying jobs so our young people actually have a future in the community.
Please let's all take a positive approach to finding solutions. More citizens would probably get involved in helping with our community's problems if they didn't feel they were up against such a negative group of whiners.
Attitude IS everything!
I agree with all your points. Anyone that disagrees with those comments is just bitter.
Touche! The two previous comments are right on. Choose to help rather than hinder. NIMBY attitudes do nothing to move the community forward.
I agree completely with your comment. I also feel that Brad is just a gruff person, maybe that's the only way he knows how to communicate. That aside I think more people are beginning to get involved, which we should have been doing all along. We would just sit back and gripe thinking we had no other recourse, thankfully that seems to be changing.
Blue Bell
Affordable Housing Task Force? What a great idea! I'm curious to know just how expanding the city limits would help create affordable housing. Would it allow builders to build more townhomes on little tiny lots for an "affordable" price of $300,000? I wonder just how many jobs around provide the $6,000 income needed to make those $1800 a month payments. Yes, we do need a task force to explore affordable housing, i.e. maybe a mobile home court for owner-occupied homes only. Habitat for Humanity is a good project but it would take it a hundred years to meet the needs of all the people in our town who need affordable housing. And, you are right that we need some county re-zoning but I would suggest going up Snowden Rd past the cemetery (and taking the sewer and water lines along) to do any re-zoning for affordable homes. But, keep in mind that as soon as land is rezoned, it takes on a new value no matter where it is located(Economics 101). When forming a task force, I would like to see professional people involved who have been in the community for some time rather than those who are new to the community and they don't have to reside in the city limits, i.e. Bob Blades, Dave Crumpacker, Jim Herman, Robin Knoke to name a few.
I don't mean to sound negative, but I don't think a task force can do much to make housing affordable around here, unless they first help a few people in this community understand some basic economics.
This issue will be decided by supply and demand as with any commodity.
The funny thing is that the solution to this problem is what many people are complaining about on this board. That being DEVELOPMENT.
What we needed is the help of developers to build townhomes, fourplexes, triplexes and duplexes to increase the number of rental properties available, and at the same time, help drive the cost of rents down so lower income people can afford them. With all the negative sentiment towards developers how are you going to entice them to come to the aid of the party if we get the reputation of being hostile and difficult to work with?
To think that someone in this community is going to be benevolent enough to donate property or sell it at a price far less than market value just to be a good guy, is a little unreasistic to say the least.
Can anyone out there enlighten me if there is another way around this issue? Agree? Disagree? I don't mind it if you tell me I am crazy.
Beatledawg
There are some good ideas coming out here. Going up Snowden Rd., identifying land that could be used for lower income housing is a great idea. It's a matter of working with all the involved government agencies as well as the "concerned citizens" to rezone but mainly to keep development costs down by reducing the requirements for expensive infrastructure that not only is not necessary, but also is detrimental to the envirnment. One example is: wide-paved, heavy-duty roads to nowhere that create a lot of run-off are irresponsible. They don't contribute to the livability or the affordability of a development.
Since most of these roads being created are private anyway, the city and/or county is not responsible for maintainence and they shouldn't need these requirements. Plus, in many cases, the roads that access them are generally substandard anyway.
The cost of the land is just one factor. It can be developed affordably with smaller lots, and manufactured housing is definitely one good answer to affordable construction. Additionally, putting deed restrictions on the property or coming up with another legal solution that limits investor profits on resales to keep it affordable for the long haul is another potential solution. Perhaps coming up with a points system for qualifying by some measure of "need" to be the beneficiary of whatever "affordable housing" solution evolves will be necessary. Perhaps there is a grant that can be applied for that can provide "affordable" financing. Other communities are doing some or all of these things. There is no reason why it can't be done here. This is a very worthy focus for the "concerned citizens" group.
Beatledawg is on point with his comment that what you need is to WORK with developers, not be hostile to them. The right developer might be able to pull this off with a reasonable profit and fill a crucial need in the community. It is guaranteed that a hostile environment will NOT attract that type of developer. Beatledawg's suggestion for the potential members of such a task force is a really good idea. How about the Enterprise promoting an idea like this?
Beatledawg,
I don't think it is development per se but rather that the cost of the homes they are constructing are beyond the financial ability of the majority of citizens in this community. As a result, a lot of homes will be used only for the weekend by outsiders. I believe that any negative feelings toward developers has come about over the water issue and the variances provided to some projects. My daddy use to say "it may be legal, but is it the right thing to do?" The taking of all those water hookups by one developer may have been legal, but I don't think it was the right thing to do.
One person taking a large number of water hook-ups may not have been "right" (and isn't "right" defined by the ordinances in the first place since it's the community that makes those ordinances?) but where do you draw the line? Does it become "more than one"? If so, how do you then encourage someone who wants to build more affordable housing? And by the way, what is affordable housing? How does one define that? These are all difficult conversations and decisions for everyone. The discussion here has been good. What's the best way to develop some consensus?
One more thought - moving people away from a central area creates more problems because of lack of transportation, more car usage, more roads to nowhere, increased infrastructure and service costs and less per person return on that investment, etc.
Squeeky,
You bring up some really good points and I agree with you especially about what your dad said about legal vs right. We now entering the philosophical relm, because there are a lot of injustices in this world that relate to things other than affordable housing like healthcare and education. Here is another wrinkle to this issue.......our location......we have only so many contractors in this area, and there is so much work they are spread pretty thin.....back to the supply and demand theory here in that the average contractor can charge a premium because they can afford to turn down projects......in my opinion. So a 1000 sq ft home that used to cost $100 a sq ft 5 years ago might cost as much as $135 - 140 or more if you like granite!
Beatledawg
A 1000sq ft home 5 years ago might have cost a guy $150k. $100k for the house and $50k for the lot. These days that same place might cost you $390k. $140k for the house and $250k for the land.
Speaking of White Salmon water hook-ups, does anyone know the status on when the city will secure more water rights?
Ask this guy...........
His name is Jay Manning
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/message_from_director.html
I bet if he starts getting calls and emails on a daily basis from concerned citizens maybe things might loosen up a little.
Beatledawg
Temporary water rights are currently available for lease to the City of White Salmon through Klickitat County PUD and the old Goldendale Aluminum plant.
We have water rights. What's the hold-up?
Temporary water rights are currently available for lease to the City of White Salmon through Klickitat County PUD and the old Goldendale Aluminum plant.
We have water rights. What's the hold-up?
Leasing water rights is probably a new concept to most of the people on this board......it sounds like a geat idea.....how does it work......what are the costs? Why haven't many people done it if it is so easy and why are so many complaining about water hook ups if the solution has been there all along?
Beatledawg
Good question. I wish the City would shed some light on the hold-ups. The water is available.
Well, I don't doubt what you say, but if you are going to make a statement that rights are available, I think it is helpful to offer proof or documentation.....otherwise it's just an unsubstantiated opinion. How about a little more to nibble on?
Beatledawg
These people can provide direct information:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/directory_cro.html
http://www.klickpud.com/
The City of Bingen apparently also some some extra water rights that could be temporarily transfered.
Anonymous said...
These people can provide direct information:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/directory_cro.html
http://www.klickpud.com/
The City of Bingen apparently also some some extra water rights that could be temporarily transfered.
Again no concrete details,
This is just a link to the PUD website and the State Department of ecology directory in Yakima. There are no details as to how to aquire those rights.....how much they cost......does a municipality like White Salmon or an individual citizen apply for these rights? You make it sound so easy but I'm not convinced by what you say.......if it IS that easy then step up and tell us how. You can hear simplistic solutions on this board all the time. I'm not drinking your koolaid until I know what's in it!
Beatledawg
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/directory_cro.html
Email/Call the Water Resources contact, he will be able to answer some of your questions.
On Aug 12, Anonymous said "One person taking a large number of water hook-ups may not have been "right" (and isn't "right" defined by the ordinances in the first place since it's the community that makes those ordinances?)" Well, "right" is not defined by the ordinances. What is "right" is what is ethically acceptable behavior in our community. The "legal" ordinances are not approved by the community, but rather by the city council members who are suppose to represent the community but are sometimes swayed by their pocketbook or personal gain rather than what is "right". If multiple hookups aren't addressed in the ordinances, then the city council should ask for the communities input rather than just selling them to a single developer. That would have been the "right" thing to do. If there is a single parking space and I have my blinker on to park there, but a little sports car with a young teen whips into the parking space ahead of me - legally she was there first, but was it "right"?
Anonyous said in a previous post:
"Think about this as a possibility: expand the city limits to include less expensive land that could be responsibly zoned for higher density that could only be used for affordable housing."
Question: Do you think you could legally post restrictions on zoning like that?
Anonymous said...
The "legal" ordinances are not approved by the community, but rather by the city council members who are suppose to represent the community but are sometimes swayed by their pocketbook or personal gain rather than what is "right".
I really don't think council members are in it for the money or personal gain. I believe that when the decision was made to allow 29 hookups to one developer, the people on the council acted in what they thought was the best interest of the city.
Furthermore, had they known a moratorium would be placed on new construction permits, their decision might have been different as far as Salmon Run was concerned. That is my opinion.
Besides.......no one foresaw the biggest issue facing the city, that being water supply. It's not even a question of water rights at this point......we probably don't have enough water in the aquifir to handle current needs, let alone growth. Where do you (figuratively speaking) lay the blame for that?
Beatledawg
Any idea how long it will take to get the water supply sorted out? Is it a money issue? There's got to be plenty of water available in this area.
Water has been found??
http://www.whitesalmonenterprise.com/WSENews1.shtml
Beatleawg: "It's not even a question of water rights at this point......we probably don't have enough water in the aquifir to handle current needs, let alone growth. Where do you (figuratively speaking) lay the blame for that?"
I lay the blame on a few past city council members who listened to Will Keyser and spent millions drilling wells instead of putting in a filter system for Buck Creek. Buck Creek would be able to provide an endless supply of water. And, at the public meetings I went to at that time, I got the feeling that no one in the community was behind the wells.
Anonymous said...
"Beatleawg: "It's not even a question of water rights at this point......we probably don't have enough water in the aquifir to handle current needs, let alone growth. Where do you (figuratively speaking) lay the blame for that?"
You know what......I agree with you about past decisions, and now the current council has to clean up the mess.......and I support them in handling a difficult task in a deliberate and thoughtful manner.......so why do they get so much flack from some individuals on this board and in the community?
Do we really want them to rush into a course of action that we might regret later on down the road?
Beatledawg
Beatledawg: "Do we really want them to rush into a course of action that we might regret later on down the road?"
Absolutely not. So when I hear Mike Wellman say that he located a spring up on Buck Creek that has almost the same amount of water coming out of it that we have water rights for from Buck Creek, and he has plans to monitor it for quality and quantity for a year, it is a refreshing sound indeed. And, capturing the water as it is coming out of the ground could very well take care of the problem we use to have with Buck Creek water in the winter when it rained so hard. I'm encouraged with Mike Wellman's attention and dedication to making this happen!
Post a Comment