City should make the most of it | In Our Opinion

  • Saturday, January 27, 2018 10:53am
  • Opinion

It was a surprise that should have surprised no one.

At a Bainbridge Island City Council meeting earlier this month, council members approved a six-month moratorium on development.

The building ban — which was not on the agenda — passed on a 6-0 vote. Citing conflicts, Councilwoman Sarah Blossom abstained.

The council enacted the building ban without public notice, but Councilman Ron Peltier, the main sponsor of the moratorium, said that was by design.

Peltier said public knowledge of the impending moratorium could have prompted a rush of applicants, with developers vesting their projects before the ban went into effect.

Pardon us if we’re a bit skeptical on the “rush to the permit counter” claim. While that may have been true many years ago, cities and other jurisdictions have piled on so many application requirements on builders that it’s hard to imagine an applicant showing up with all the mandatory plans, studies and related documents on their first visit to the planning department and walking away with the coveted stamp of a complete application.

The council, in its ordinance adopting the moratorium, said growth and development are causing “adverse impacts” under the city’s existing regulations and “requires immediate attention by the council and city staff.”

They declared that a “public emergency” existed and so, the ban went into immediate effect.

Make no mistake, this is not a public emergency, but a political one.

Peltier, some readers may recall, proposed a very similar moratorium when he first got on the council two years ago — without success. Now, with new members on the dais, the building ban sailed through.

The moratorium ordinance decries the loss of trees, forests and potential adverse impacts to our island’s water supply given continued development under the city’s existing regulations.

Those concerns are ours, too, but such worries do not a factual basis for a moratorium make.

In one way, at least, the moratorium may serve some good. It will give the city time to revise its heavy-handed rewrite of Bainbridge’s critical areas ordinance, and give city staff more time on the public education end.

The city has failed so far on its public outreach effort on the new rules. Hopefully, staff will use this time-out period to better explain how these far-reaching regulations will impact property owners.

More in Opinion

Today’s cartoon for Saturday, Feb. 17

Today’s cartoon is by Adam Zyglis, The Buffalo News.… Continue reading

Today’s cartoon for Friday, Feb. 16

Today’s cartoon is by Bill Day, Cagle Cartoons.… Continue reading

Are Your Old Photos a Ticking Time Bomb? | Tyrades!

For most of my adult life, I kicked myself because I had… Continue reading

Was There Really a Breakthrough in US-North Korea Relations? | Mel Gurtov

In the aftermath of the “Korean spring” at the Winter Games, some… Continue reading

Republican Cherry Picking | Raging Moderate

We all know what “cherry picking” is. Sifting through available evidence to… Continue reading

Great walk but a boondoggle | Letter to the editor

To the editor: I recently found the new 305 trail open so… Continue reading

Bainbridge needs more safety, not less | Letter to the editor

To the editor: I wanted to write in response to Kent Scott’s… Continue reading

Signs of Hope | Lee H. Hamilton

Call me a contrarian. Or even a Pollyanna. But when everyone around… Continue reading

Clarification on levy funds | Letter to the editor

To the editor: In the League of Women Voters/Kitsap press release about… Continue reading

Most Read