Monday, July 23, 2007
More on the Moratorium
The recent moratorium in Tillicum did indeed get people talking. This morning's editorial in The News Tribune can be found here.
I've received a number of thoughtful reactions that show how much there is to consider, and how much is at stake. I thought I would include excerpts of a couple of thought-provoking emails so you can see what's on the table.
If you have not read the post below about the moratorium itself, you might want to do so, or the references to 25-foot lots will be very confusing.
The names were changed, as the saying goes, to protect the innocent.
From one correspondent:
My experience with ancient, usually turn of the century 25' lots
whether in (four different places) is they are never
grandfathered as a given to build on. (The Lakewood city staff) seem to think
otherwise. It may be that there are precedents in Lakewood that would give
an attorney a good argument. Our question to a planner elsewhere is how
many of the 25'ers does it take for a building lot. Some will tell us they
mean nothing if the plat was done on a hillside and most will say 3 or 4 25'
lots for a building permit.
I have come to the conclusion ... that there is no protection from the whims
[or good thinking]of a planner or engineer if they decide at any time that a
new standard must be met. Therefore there is no such thing as vesting.
This is confirmed by a development specialists who had argued many cases trying to
establish a vesting right, and the courts will not give it to them if a new
standard has good health and safety reasoning. And they all do. Much (of what results is not) bad, just very expensive to redo a
development after it is completed under old rules.
So that's one perspective, and it shows we have a lot to talk about in terms of property rules within Lakewood. Here is a note from someone who contacted me awhile ago about one of the underlying issues:
"I live (in Lake City) and I had the opportunity to write to you and the other council members a year or so ago. One rambler house was torn down and three huge two story homes were built. I asked you why there was no warning to the neighbors, no chances provided to speak before counsel, no yellow signs posted etc. and you and John Arbeeny and Doug Richardson took the time to explain to me that there was nothing we could do. What a helpless feeling. Even now, looking at those homes towering over mine just disgusts me.
I'm happy that the council has unanimously ... instituted a moratorium on new building in Tillicum and furthermore looking at future development throughout Lakewood. I would hope you take it a step further and ban homes from being torn down just to build two or three new homes that don't fit in with the old neighborhood homes and add congestion to our side streets.
I have no idea how this will all end up ... only that we will be much better informed, and thus a stronger community, when it is all over. More comments are always welcome -
Forward this post
I've received a number of thoughtful reactions that show how much there is to consider, and how much is at stake. I thought I would include excerpts of a couple of thought-provoking emails so you can see what's on the table.
If you have not read the post below about the moratorium itself, you might want to do so, or the references to 25-foot lots will be very confusing.
The names were changed, as the saying goes, to protect the innocent.
From one correspondent:
My experience with ancient, usually turn of the century 25' lots
whether in (four different places) is they are never
grandfathered as a given to build on. (The Lakewood city staff) seem to think
otherwise. It may be that there are precedents in Lakewood that would give
an attorney a good argument. Our question to a planner elsewhere is how
many of the 25'ers does it take for a building lot. Some will tell us they
mean nothing if the plat was done on a hillside and most will say 3 or 4 25'
lots for a building permit.
I have come to the conclusion ... that there is no protection from the whims
[or good thinking]of a planner or engineer if they decide at any time that a
new standard must be met. Therefore there is no such thing as vesting.
This is confirmed by a development specialists who had argued many cases trying to
establish a vesting right, and the courts will not give it to them if a new
standard has good health and safety reasoning. And they all do. Much (of what results is not) bad, just very expensive to redo a
development after it is completed under old rules.
So that's one perspective, and it shows we have a lot to talk about in terms of property rules within Lakewood. Here is a note from someone who contacted me awhile ago about one of the underlying issues:
"I live (in Lake City) and I had the opportunity to write to you and the other council members a year or so ago. One rambler house was torn down and three huge two story homes were built. I asked you why there was no warning to the neighbors, no chances provided to speak before counsel, no yellow signs posted etc. and you and John Arbeeny and Doug Richardson took the time to explain to me that there was nothing we could do. What a helpless feeling. Even now, looking at those homes towering over mine just disgusts me.
I'm happy that the council has unanimously ... instituted a moratorium on new building in Tillicum and furthermore looking at future development throughout Lakewood. I would hope you take it a step further and ban homes from being torn down just to build two or three new homes that don't fit in with the old neighborhood homes and add congestion to our side streets.
I have no idea how this will all end up ... only that we will be much better informed, and thus a stronger community, when it is all over. More comments are always welcome -
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Tough Call in Tillicum, II
The News Tribune has put a story online about the moratorium; you can find the link here.
Forward this post
A Tough Call in Tillicum
Those people who cry out for leadership heard an answer last night.
A Lakewood City Council best known for moving slowly and for squabbling voted unanimously to impose a moratorium on any new permits for major residential and commercial development in Tillicum. The request came from the city's planning department. You can read the report here either in Word version or as a PDF.
The way moratoriums work is that they take effect immediately, but the council will hold a hearing Aug. 20 to hear from the public about the move. The council shortly thereafter has to either confirm its decision or let the moratorium end.
This has traditionally been a council that does not mess with the private sector. Why a moratorium?
First, the quick background is that the Tillicum neighborhood, which now has a reputation for being underdeveloped, is going to be getting sewer service in 2009. Currently, most of the area is on septic systems, which limits how many homes and businesses can be there. The presence of sewers will open up a floodgate of development. Tillicum is located between Interstate 5 and American Lake. The potential is incredible. The private sector is already speculating on potential developments; rumors abound. The Tillicum of 10 years from now is going to be incredibly different than the Tillicum of today. Obviously, we all hope it will be for the better.
A local group of volunteers, based in a Tacoma architectural firm, interviewed people throughout the city and came up with a vision grounded in large part on what current Tillicum residents hope for.
The reason for the moratorium is that people are beginning to plan projects that would not be feasible under the community's vision and could also cause big problems. For example, the plan recommends undergrounding utilities along Union Avenue. Someone who filed a permit today might not have to underground utilities.
There are many other issues:
- Tillicum is a very old area. Staff have found old maps that show roads in different places. That raises huge questions about whether what we think are current boundaries of streets and properties are indeed the correct boundaries.
- At the recent meetings of the Tillicum neighborhood association, citizens have expressed concern that someone could build a 5,000-square-foot casino on Union Avenue. Is that possible? I'm not sure. But if a moratorium helps us preserve the neighborhood's right to address that issue, it's a good moratorium. Most people envision that area, so close to Fort Lewis, either anchored by major hotels or retail and office centers ... not a casino.
- Speaking of Union Avenue, the word "patchwork" comes to mind (if you drive there now, you know what I mean). There are no special rules for its buildout now; but if you don't do things right, you could end up like we are in Ponders, where property owners and businesses are similarly constrained by oddly shaped lots sandwiched between the railroad, the highway and the city road. Does Tillicum and does the rest of Lakewood want a new Union Avenue to look like present-day Ponders? There needs to be some planning before the permits start flooding in.
- And then there are the lots. Lots and lots of lots. In some ways, this is the most important - and the most unsettling - reason. Let me explain.
Tillicum has a number of small rectangular lots, mostly 25 by 100. These date back to shortly after the turn of the century, when what we now call Lakewood was a series of lakeside camping communities. It was common practice back then throughout the West for people to buy such rectangular lots sight unseen even from as far away as the East Coast. It was the way they did things then. But the challenge is that today, if you built on each and every such lot, Lakewood's population could explode in a patchwork basis.
This goes to the heart of a major concern. Right now, throughout Lakewood, there are all sorts of these turn of the century lots (particularly in Lake City). These lots are gradually being developed. For the years I have been on the council, I have met a number of people who are concerned about houses that go up next to them. The one neighbor I remember most vividly is in Lake City, while the most recent lives near Park Lodge School. Invariably, these folks begin the conversation by saying the new city failed to protect them from overdevelopment. Instead, the real cause has been those turn of the century lots.
Got your attention yet? No? OK.
There are 800 acres of these lots in Lakewood.
800 acres. None of us have any concept of what would happen if people suddenly built out everything they are entitled to build under the existing rules ... and that goes throughout the city.
What the Tillicum situation will do is force the city to make some extremely tough decisions that will have implications beyond Tillicum. If you own one house on a couple of these lots, you have under current property rules every right to develop the lots to a higher density and get the maximum value for your property. However, very few of your neighbors know of this potential. Those 800 acres are going to gradually get developed; and then more and more people will realize that somehow the Lakewood that they incorporated so it could take control of its destiny is losing control.
The council is going to have to task its staff to come up with alternatives to deal with the turn-of-the-century lots. The likely alternative, of course, is that there will be a battle. The battle will pit fundamental property rights against neighborhood concerns about overcrowding and development. But maybe those really are the concerns at stake.
You could make the case that this will be one of the toughest decisions that the people of Lakewood will have to grapple with in this decade. But we need to do so.
I believe strongly in fundamental property rights. But I get heartfelt notes and calls and have other encounters with citizens throughout Lakewood who don't understand why the city let their neighborhood change so much. These people don't know about the turn-of-the-century lots, and the potential for more change. We need to all start talking in the open about these things.
Problems never go away when you ignore them; they just get worse. And it is corrosive for houses to appear out of nowhere. It is corrosive for citizens to not know the real reason why. And it is corrosive for citizens, whether they are the potential builders or the recipients of more homes in their neighborhood, to be ignorant of the underlying situation and what they can do about it.
So that's my first take on the subject. The moratorium and underlying issues are extremely complex, but blog postings are supposed to be short. Feel free to ask questions and I will try to fill in what I missed.
But in the meantime ... So you want leadership? You got it. And now will come tough decisions. Stand by. We will have much more to discuss.
Forward this post
A Lakewood City Council best known for moving slowly and for squabbling voted unanimously to impose a moratorium on any new permits for major residential and commercial development in Tillicum. The request came from the city's planning department. You can read the report here either in Word version or as a PDF.
The way moratoriums work is that they take effect immediately, but the council will hold a hearing Aug. 20 to hear from the public about the move. The council shortly thereafter has to either confirm its decision or let the moratorium end.
This has traditionally been a council that does not mess with the private sector. Why a moratorium?
First, the quick background is that the Tillicum neighborhood, which now has a reputation for being underdeveloped, is going to be getting sewer service in 2009. Currently, most of the area is on septic systems, which limits how many homes and businesses can be there. The presence of sewers will open up a floodgate of development. Tillicum is located between Interstate 5 and American Lake. The potential is incredible. The private sector is already speculating on potential developments; rumors abound. The Tillicum of 10 years from now is going to be incredibly different than the Tillicum of today. Obviously, we all hope it will be for the better.
A local group of volunteers, based in a Tacoma architectural firm, interviewed people throughout the city and came up with a vision grounded in large part on what current Tillicum residents hope for.
The reason for the moratorium is that people are beginning to plan projects that would not be feasible under the community's vision and could also cause big problems. For example, the plan recommends undergrounding utilities along Union Avenue. Someone who filed a permit today might not have to underground utilities.
There are many other issues:
- Tillicum is a very old area. Staff have found old maps that show roads in different places. That raises huge questions about whether what we think are current boundaries of streets and properties are indeed the correct boundaries.
- At the recent meetings of the Tillicum neighborhood association, citizens have expressed concern that someone could build a 5,000-square-foot casino on Union Avenue. Is that possible? I'm not sure. But if a moratorium helps us preserve the neighborhood's right to address that issue, it's a good moratorium. Most people envision that area, so close to Fort Lewis, either anchored by major hotels or retail and office centers ... not a casino.
- Speaking of Union Avenue, the word "patchwork" comes to mind (if you drive there now, you know what I mean). There are no special rules for its buildout now; but if you don't do things right, you could end up like we are in Ponders, where property owners and businesses are similarly constrained by oddly shaped lots sandwiched between the railroad, the highway and the city road. Does Tillicum and does the rest of Lakewood want a new Union Avenue to look like present-day Ponders? There needs to be some planning before the permits start flooding in.
- And then there are the lots. Lots and lots of lots. In some ways, this is the most important - and the most unsettling - reason. Let me explain.
Tillicum has a number of small rectangular lots, mostly 25 by 100. These date back to shortly after the turn of the century, when what we now call Lakewood was a series of lakeside camping communities. It was common practice back then throughout the West for people to buy such rectangular lots sight unseen even from as far away as the East Coast. It was the way they did things then. But the challenge is that today, if you built on each and every such lot, Lakewood's population could explode in a patchwork basis.
This goes to the heart of a major concern. Right now, throughout Lakewood, there are all sorts of these turn of the century lots (particularly in Lake City). These lots are gradually being developed. For the years I have been on the council, I have met a number of people who are concerned about houses that go up next to them. The one neighbor I remember most vividly is in Lake City, while the most recent lives near Park Lodge School. Invariably, these folks begin the conversation by saying the new city failed to protect them from overdevelopment. Instead, the real cause has been those turn of the century lots.
Got your attention yet? No? OK.
There are 800 acres of these lots in Lakewood.
800 acres. None of us have any concept of what would happen if people suddenly built out everything they are entitled to build under the existing rules ... and that goes throughout the city.
What the Tillicum situation will do is force the city to make some extremely tough decisions that will have implications beyond Tillicum. If you own one house on a couple of these lots, you have under current property rules every right to develop the lots to a higher density and get the maximum value for your property. However, very few of your neighbors know of this potential. Those 800 acres are going to gradually get developed; and then more and more people will realize that somehow the Lakewood that they incorporated so it could take control of its destiny is losing control.
The council is going to have to task its staff to come up with alternatives to deal with the turn-of-the-century lots. The likely alternative, of course, is that there will be a battle. The battle will pit fundamental property rights against neighborhood concerns about overcrowding and development. But maybe those really are the concerns at stake.
You could make the case that this will be one of the toughest decisions that the people of Lakewood will have to grapple with in this decade. But we need to do so.
I believe strongly in fundamental property rights. But I get heartfelt notes and calls and have other encounters with citizens throughout Lakewood who don't understand why the city let their neighborhood change so much. These people don't know about the turn-of-the-century lots, and the potential for more change. We need to all start talking in the open about these things.
Problems never go away when you ignore them; they just get worse. And it is corrosive for houses to appear out of nowhere. It is corrosive for citizens to not know the real reason why. And it is corrosive for citizens, whether they are the potential builders or the recipients of more homes in their neighborhood, to be ignorant of the underlying situation and what they can do about it.
So that's my first take on the subject. The moratorium and underlying issues are extremely complex, but blog postings are supposed to be short. Feel free to ask questions and I will try to fill in what I missed.
But in the meantime ... So you want leadership? You got it. And now will come tough decisions. Stand by. We will have much more to discuss.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Re-examining Human Services
Here's information about an upcoming City Council meeting. At the council's July 9 meeting, we will re-examine, at Councilman Pad Finnigan's request, how the city funds human services programs for youth.
Since cityhood, the city has set aside one percent of the general fund for grants to groups that help people. Most of the funding, though not all, goes to groups that help youth. The funding supports what is generally known as the Lakewood's Promise movement. In 2007, the money went to help a variety of groups. You can see the actual amounts of money at this link.
By way of full context, I should quickly note that there are two pools of human services funding. The other pool comes from federal community block grants. Most of that money goes to fix houses or to housing-related expenses, or to the Tillicum/American Lake Community Center (which got $68,000 of federal grants passed through the city - you can see the full list of these grants here).
Some of you may recall we had a heated discussion some months ago about Pad's desire to deny funding to groups that otherwise met the published ground rules. A number of people criticized him for bringing this up after we had publicly stated months before what the grant criteria would be, and long after groups had applied in good faith.
The blank applications have not yet gone out this year. Two meetings ago, Pad asked to again bring up human services funding. This time, he said one thing we might do is make it easier for groups that help senior citizens to qualify.
Several council members worried that changing the ground rules would undercut Lakewood's commitment to America's Promise and youth, but I supported Pad's right to ask the question. This time, he asked the question before we sent out the grant applications. So you will see the council grapple with fundamental questions about human services funding on July 9.
Whatever your point of view, feel free to attend or feel free to write the council , and let us know if you think we should continue funding groups as we have in the past ... or if we should support Lakewood's Promise ... or whether we should do something different. And I should quickly note that the applications will be screened publicly by a citizens' advisory committee, so there will be other opportunities to discuss specific applications.
Forward this post
Since cityhood, the city has set aside one percent of the general fund for grants to groups that help people. Most of the funding, though not all, goes to groups that help youth. The funding supports what is generally known as the Lakewood's Promise movement. In 2007, the money went to help a variety of groups. You can see the actual amounts of money at this link.
By way of full context, I should quickly note that there are two pools of human services funding. The other pool comes from federal community block grants. Most of that money goes to fix houses or to housing-related expenses, or to the Tillicum/American Lake Community Center (which got $68,000 of federal grants passed through the city - you can see the full list of these grants here).
Some of you may recall we had a heated discussion some months ago about Pad's desire to deny funding to groups that otherwise met the published ground rules. A number of people criticized him for bringing this up after we had publicly stated months before what the grant criteria would be, and long after groups had applied in good faith.
The blank applications have not yet gone out this year. Two meetings ago, Pad asked to again bring up human services funding. This time, he said one thing we might do is make it easier for groups that help senior citizens to qualify.
Several council members worried that changing the ground rules would undercut Lakewood's commitment to America's Promise and youth, but I supported Pad's right to ask the question. This time, he asked the question before we sent out the grant applications. So you will see the council grapple with fundamental questions about human services funding on July 9.
Whatever your point of view, feel free to attend or feel free to write the council , and let us know if you think we should continue funding groups as we have in the past ... or if we should support Lakewood's Promise ... or whether we should do something different. And I should quickly note that the applications will be screened publicly by a citizens' advisory committee, so there will be other opportunities to discuss specific applications.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Crime stats for May
This is from a report by Lakewood's police chief about May, the latest month for which stats have been crunched:
"Violent crime remains 21.7% below the same period for 2006, property crime is 8.9% below the 2006 rate through May, with overall crime down 10.6% for this period. These decreases are slightly less than declines seen in April - 22.6%, 10.6% and 12.1% respectively.
"We continue gang emphases at least weekly, with 4 gang related arrests in May and 37 for the year thus far. We will continue these through June and then assess if this is the best use of police overtime funds. A heavy focus on park security and bike patrols in high crime areas may net the same benefit and provide more broad security payback as well.
"Accidents reports taken are down from April and at about the same rate for May 2006. Year to date accidents have declined 2.2% over 2006 - and recall we had a very healthy decline in 2006 of 16.3%. There has been some discussion to Council that accident data may be skewed because police only investigate accidents with injury or property damage more than $1,500 ( a policy standard in most jurisdictions). In future crime stat reports to council, LPD will also report 911 calls reporting accidents - whether investigated by police or not. In 2006, that number dropped by 7.6% from 2005. In 2007 year to date, that number has dropped another 13%. "
Forward this post
"Violent crime remains 21.7% below the same period for 2006, property crime is 8.9% below the 2006 rate through May, with overall crime down 10.6% for this period. These decreases are slightly less than declines seen in April - 22.6%, 10.6% and 12.1% respectively.
"We continue gang emphases at least weekly, with 4 gang related arrests in May and 37 for the year thus far. We will continue these through June and then assess if this is the best use of police overtime funds. A heavy focus on park security and bike patrols in high crime areas may net the same benefit and provide more broad security payback as well.
"Accidents reports taken are down from April and at about the same rate for May 2006. Year to date accidents have declined 2.2% over 2006 - and recall we had a very healthy decline in 2006 of 16.3%. There has been some discussion to Council that accident data may be skewed because police only investigate accidents with injury or property damage more than $1,500 ( a policy standard in most jurisdictions). In future crime stat reports to council, LPD will also report 911 calls reporting accidents - whether investigated by police or not. In 2006, that number dropped by 7.6% from 2005. In 2007 year to date, that number has dropped another 13%. "
