an army of one - or an army of a damn few...something like that

well, the US Army sure makes an "army of one" sound pretty good.
me, I never liked being at the barricades by myself.
I like to have someone to talk to.

looks to me like the neighborhood is not considering this as "their" issue.

I for one, don't mind putting down the burden.
I mean, what the hell?
we'll be dead in a few years, anyway.
and I don't see anyone stepping up with any concerns but the old peeps.

maybe we just don't get it.

time to go "vision" up the rest of my life.

am I sounding a bit bitter?

you should have been to the neighborhood plan update meeting the other day.
well, just to see who is envisioning what for you and your nabe.


good luck with that.

If only I had a brain...

does anyone know if the new "Fairhaven Neighborhood Association" name is too close to the "Fairhaven Neighbors" name?
It seems to me that this could be construed to be deliberately obfuscatory, trying to confuse people with the similarity of names.

Time to get to work!

Truth of the matter here is this: when the survey (questionnaire) was sent out, it was sent to the residents - all the property owners in the officially boundaried neighborhood area, all of the residents, who were not owners, all merchants.
there were over one thousand of these sent out to include all f these individuals.
as you may know, there was a thirty six percent return on the questionnaires.
this gave us a pretty good picture of the support for our proposal.
and, we spent grant money, and almost all of our treasury money to comply with the process that the city laid out for us to follow.

Phyllis McKee and Doug Robertson, property owners in the Fairhaven neighborhood, decided that they would get involved in the neighborhood plan update just then getting restarted, and encouraged other merchants and property owners to get involved.
Next, they joined Fairhaven Neighbors officially, and Doug Robertson proposed himself as a FN Board candidate.
he lost by one vote, after a first vote resulted in a tie.

During this same time period, unknown to any of the FN board, Doug Robertson filed papers with the state to incorporate another group called the Fairhaven Neighbors Association, which he, Phyllis McKee, and Fred Haskell hoped would become the "officially recognized" (by COB) as the representative neighborhood organization.

Meanwhile, Phyllis McKee, the putative head of Fairhaven Merchants group, collected from these merchants signatures from 90 of them, to oppose the process that we were following since last November. The attacks on the FN proposal have been completely orchestrated: very similar to the great republican wurlitzer, the same exact talking points were always raised in public forums, and in criticizing the process that the proposal was following, rather than the substance of it.
Doug Robertson, as an attorney, knows how to apply legalistic leverage to the city departments, and has done so with appeals and lawsuits.

more issues raised by the "requirement" by the COB for us to "revise" the neighborhood corporate bylaws, so that all property owners and merchants get to be voting members of the neighborhood. the concept that one votes where one lives, and one man, one vote are being trumped by this demand.

Our neighborhood organization is being hijacked by special interest groups, people.
do you hear me?
we will get exactly what we fight for.
and if we do not organize and fight, we will deserve to get whatever Fred and Doug and Phyllis decide is good for us.

I am not into this to be a dick.
we have not worked for this neighborhood for YEARS (ok, some years, not so hard) to throw this over because we're too lazy to get off our collective asses and get to work.

but YOU ALL decide what you want.
you have a hard working, dynamic board right now. with brilliant ideas.
If we cannot elect friendly council members, who understand neighborhood issues, and who will be willing to work on these issues with us, we are screwed.
NOW is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party.



and there is a meeting tonight at the Fairhaven Park pavilion at 7PM

THE LAWYERS ARE GATHERING

Well. looks to me like the table is set for the "business" community to hijack our neighborhood organization.
I can't believe that the merchants group is acting in their own interests in allying themselves with Doug and Phyllis.
Perhaps there is a bit of greenmail involved. do these merchants believe that the people from the surrounding neighborhoods will contuinue to support the fairhaven businesses if they participate in a coup d'etat to oust the long standing representatives of Fairhaven in favor of a puppet group headed by Doug Robertson and Phyllis McKee?

the stage being set by Doug is to have the City officials certify the proposed umbrella group proposed by Doug (he has applied for a charter from the state). and the city officials: what is the process that they wll follow having bowed to the pressure from threatened lawsuits?
I don't think that it would be too wise to wait and see how this plays out.

Doug is a lawyer
Doug is a developer
Doug wants to control the process
Doug has gotten the process derailed once
Doug is not sitting still

It isn't that I don't like Doug, it is just that he has no use for us.

my opinion.
migo

Ham Hayes Press Release

Improving Oversight - The Fairhaven Design Review Process

There is perceived tension in Fairhaven these days about a proposed Design Review change on building height limitations. There is a significant amount of concern in the community that the application process for the Design Review change may have been flawed, thereby preventing legitimate stakeholders from participating at critical times in the docketing process.

Notwithstanding the merits of the proposed Design Review change and concern about completeness of the Design Review code, any apparent failure in the process that prevents legitimate participation needs to be reviewed by the City and appropriate corrective action taken. Oversight of our governmental processes, whether by staff, elected officials or citizens is critical to effective government.

The good news is that most, if not all, of the neighbors, property owners, business owners, tenets, City officials and staff, and visitors that I have met consider Fairhaven to be one of the crown jewels of the region and are committed to preserving its unique character and sense of place and history. I believe that a sense of community and collaboration by all parties is also required to preserve these attributes and values, and therefore, it is doubly important that any failures in the process be corrected so that the issues can be addressed fairly by all.

As a concerned candidate for City Council (At Large), I would ask that: 1) the City Planning Department review the situation on the Fairhaven Design Review proposal and determine whether the process to date is valid or whether process changes are required on this specific proposal; and 2) the Planning Department review the general process to make sure that safeguards are in place to assure equal opportunity for participation by all stakeholders in applications of this type.

Respectfully,
Ham Hayes
Candidate for City Council At Large

Reply to Ham Hayes public statement on the Fairhaven Design Review process

Ham,

With all due respect, Ham, I think that you are gravely mistaken on a most central point. You are focusing on the bark of a particular tree, while ignoring the forest around you. There has been a fresh breeze running through the Planning Department, one which respects the citizens of Bellingham as they have not been respected for quite some time (if ever). I
am sorry that you do not appreciate this. As a result, your recent attempt to contribute, via press release, has not been productive or constructive.

Yes, the City initiated a process with the twenty-three neighborhood associations, and the City did not notify (or even advise notification) of any other stakeholders -- but you are completely off the target when you complain that this procedure prevented legitimate stakeholders from participating at critical times in the docketing process. By focusing on docketing, you miss the larger picture.

Property owners, renters, business operators -- nearly one thousand people in little old Fairhaven -- were asked to participate in a neighborhood questionnaire, were mailed full copies of the original and the revised proposals, and were given background information and additional informational materials. They were invited to a public meeting, where their comments were solicited. In the coming months, under City control, the proposal will proceed to the Planning Commission andthe City Council, providing may more opportunities for stakeholders to weigh in. Unfortunately, rather than celebrate this open process, a handful of people have taken to complaining about procedural matters, ignoring the important growth issues confronting Fairhaven while they play petty parochial politics. I have diminishing respect for them, and diminishing respect for you.

As I said, I think you are missing the forest when you focus on the procedure that led up to the docketing. Why do I say this? Quite simply, because the docketing process is perhaps the least important part of this entire process. Rather, the most important parts are the occasions and opportunities for meaningful public input, to help shape and guide the proposal as it goes forward. Many people have taken advantage of these opportunities already, and have stepped forward to support the proposal. I am perhaps most disappointed and frustrated that almost no one has offered anything in the way of constructive criticism of the proposal. I have yet to hear a persuasive criticism of even a single point of the proposal. Most criticisms is either focused on the process back in November, or they are based upon a misunderstanding of what has been proposed. Frankly, I doubt that some opponents have even read the proposal before developing their opinion. For example, you yourself mistakenly portray the Design Review as a height limits issue, when in fact height limits are only one component
among many, and only the few unregulated parts of Fairhaven are affected by the suggested height limits.

You count yourself among those people who value Fairhaven as a "crown jewel" of Bellingham, yet by your words you show me that your have been co-opted by those who serve narrower interests. I think your ill-considered and unconstructive comments are a powerful argument against anybody supporting you in your candidacy for city government. If you can't see the big picture, you don't deserve to lead. I think you've lost the people's vote, even if you gained the vote of a short-sighted few.

Michael Lilliquist