Friday, January 25, 2008
The difference between a park and access
The longtime chairman of the Lakewood Parks and Recreation Commission writes, with justification, to gently chide me about some of my word selection. I think I am guilty; when you write volumes of words for newspapers, you sometimes forget the power of a word. Roger Laybourn's note follows.
The upshot of his point is that when I say there may be a 'park' at a street end, it sounds like we are planning a parking lot, soccer fields, and a big signs that says "teen-agers come here to drink." In fact, the only concrete ideas I have heard - and again, these are just ideas - involve maybe a place to sit and to launch a kayak. Anyway, here is Roger's note:
Walter, the Parks Board has tried to clarify the idea of what to do with the street ends and what not to do with them. There is no plan to make parks out of any of them. Enhance public access to those where that is possible but not to turn them into parks. That misconception is at the heart of much of the anxiety expressed at the public meetings even though the statement is presented both orally and on the slide that states the purposes of the meetings. I hope this helps clarify the issue. I know it's a fine point but one that we've been trying to make since we started this series of meetings. Thanks for your interest and support. Roger
Forward this post
The upshot of his point is that when I say there may be a 'park' at a street end, it sounds like we are planning a parking lot, soccer fields, and a big signs that says "teen-agers come here to drink." In fact, the only concrete ideas I have heard - and again, these are just ideas - involve maybe a place to sit and to launch a kayak. Anyway, here is Roger's note:
Walter, the Parks Board has tried to clarify the idea of what to do with the street ends and what not to do with them. There is no plan to make parks out of any of them. Enhance public access to those where that is possible but not to turn them into parks. That misconception is at the heart of much of the anxiety expressed at the public meetings even though the statement is presented both orally and on the slide that states the purposes of the meetings. I hope this helps clarify the issue. I know it's a fine point but one that we've been trying to make since we started this series of meetings. Thanks for your interest and support. Roger
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Deepening Waters
Many of you will be aware that the Lakewood City Council has finally decided to confront the difficult question of what to do about public property that might or might not be used to improve access to the lakes. If you are unfamiliar with the question, my earlier column, while even yet more material on the subject, might be useful background at this point. And reader Travis Lauricella kindly made up a map of the sites awhile back.
The Lakewood parks board has been holding meetings to discuss what to do about the street ends that dead end into lakes. Right now, there is some vague language in official city documents that call for someday maybe somehow turning some of the sites into parks.
This council wants to let people know if particular street ends would never be suitable for parks, and whether any might be.
There are have been three public hearings and Wednesday was the fourth, focusing on several sites around Lake Steilacoom, Not surprisingly, there is a lot of stress at the meetings. Many people who live at or near the street ends have understandable visions of crowds showing up at their homes. You can tell from the edge in their voices that this whole process has unsettled a lot of neighbors. That’s never comfortable.
For example, one person who lives near a street end asked, ‘What if kids are down there drinking and screwing - what are you going to do about that?”
On the other hand, another citizen said he had biked to one of the locations during the daytime to read a book, and been driven away from public property by an adjacent landowner.
The recent meetings have tended to draw a majority of people who are critical of increasing public access, since they are understandably motivated by their passion for their privacy and property to show up. However, in some cases, people who live down the street did show up; and there were exchanges about people who wanted to protect their privacy and people who want to be able to walk to the lake.
As I have written earlier, there are lots of other questions. There’s the whole question about whether the city can even afford to do much improving, which makes this whole process a little worrisome. One option is to sell some of the lots, presumably to adjacent homeowners, to pay for improvements at others.
To try to be measurable about it, the current idea is to look at each property and rank it by number to see what sites may be suitable for changes. That's what the meeting took a stab at Wednesday night. There are 11 categories that include the width of the street end parcel, how much of the area is useable, how steep the lot is, and so forth. A impossibly steep and narrow lot with no potential parking and other problems would get 1 point of value for a lowest possible score of 11. But a site that would make a perfect park would be 5 points for each of the 11 categories, or a total of 55. It’s unlikely any of the lots would be 55 since most are narrow or have other problems.
As the meeting went on approaching the third hour, it became pretty clear that the scale was more subjective than some people might have wanted. Very naturally, people who lived near the street ends were eager to request that their land be ranked as a 1. They were able to do so easily in various categories that were quite subjective, such as “how easy would it be to provide security for the site?” Who could know that, now, except by educated guess influenced by the tone of the audience?
In fact, as the evening wore on, the ranking of each park changed as the meeting moved to each specific site counterclockwise. People got much better getting sites ranked with 1s. The first lot to be discussed by the group, on Westlake, got a ranking of 34; by the end of the evening, the last lot was ranked 14.
I'm going to get ahold of the numbers and try to pull out some of the more subjective categories, and let you know how the sites might rank.
The good news is that there will be a lot more discussion. Staff will prepare more reports about individual sites, and the parks board will have a big discussion about them on Feb. 26. No decisions will be made without more discussion. There will be articles in the city newsletter about any proposal or increased focus before the whole subject goes to the City Council.
As I told the audience last night, if we do pick out some parcels for consideration for improvements, the sites will become the most studied, walked on and discussed land in all Lakewood.
Forward this post
The Lakewood parks board has been holding meetings to discuss what to do about the street ends that dead end into lakes. Right now, there is some vague language in official city documents that call for someday maybe somehow turning some of the sites into parks.
This council wants to let people know if particular street ends would never be suitable for parks, and whether any might be.
There are have been three public hearings and Wednesday was the fourth, focusing on several sites around Lake Steilacoom, Not surprisingly, there is a lot of stress at the meetings. Many people who live at or near the street ends have understandable visions of crowds showing up at their homes. You can tell from the edge in their voices that this whole process has unsettled a lot of neighbors. That’s never comfortable.
For example, one person who lives near a street end asked, ‘What if kids are down there drinking and screwing - what are you going to do about that?”
On the other hand, another citizen said he had biked to one of the locations during the daytime to read a book, and been driven away from public property by an adjacent landowner.
The recent meetings have tended to draw a majority of people who are critical of increasing public access, since they are understandably motivated by their passion for their privacy and property to show up. However, in some cases, people who live down the street did show up; and there were exchanges about people who wanted to protect their privacy and people who want to be able to walk to the lake.
As I have written earlier, there are lots of other questions. There’s the whole question about whether the city can even afford to do much improving, which makes this whole process a little worrisome. One option is to sell some of the lots, presumably to adjacent homeowners, to pay for improvements at others.
To try to be measurable about it, the current idea is to look at each property and rank it by number to see what sites may be suitable for changes. That's what the meeting took a stab at Wednesday night. There are 11 categories that include the width of the street end parcel, how much of the area is useable, how steep the lot is, and so forth. A impossibly steep and narrow lot with no potential parking and other problems would get 1 point of value for a lowest possible score of 11. But a site that would make a perfect park would be 5 points for each of the 11 categories, or a total of 55. It’s unlikely any of the lots would be 55 since most are narrow or have other problems.
As the meeting went on approaching the third hour, it became pretty clear that the scale was more subjective than some people might have wanted. Very naturally, people who lived near the street ends were eager to request that their land be ranked as a 1. They were able to do so easily in various categories that were quite subjective, such as “how easy would it be to provide security for the site?” Who could know that, now, except by educated guess influenced by the tone of the audience?
In fact, as the evening wore on, the ranking of each park changed as the meeting moved to each specific site counterclockwise. People got much better getting sites ranked with 1s. The first lot to be discussed by the group, on Westlake, got a ranking of 34; by the end of the evening, the last lot was ranked 14.
I'm going to get ahold of the numbers and try to pull out some of the more subjective categories, and let you know how the sites might rank.
The good news is that there will be a lot more discussion. Staff will prepare more reports about individual sites, and the parks board will have a big discussion about them on Feb. 26. No decisions will be made without more discussion. There will be articles in the city newsletter about any proposal or increased focus before the whole subject goes to the City Council.
As I told the audience last night, if we do pick out some parcels for consideration for improvements, the sites will become the most studied, walked on and discussed land in all Lakewood.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
To quote Bruce Springsteen: "No Retreat, No Surrender ..."
My regular readers, both of you, will know that the Lakewood City Council held a two-day retreat late last week. I actually had my laptop up and running most of the two days, but frankly, as an old newspaperman, even I could not identify a bunch of news to share in any sort of post-it-now-on-the-Internet sort of breathless way.
At the end of the day, the summary sounds strange to write. But here’s the news: The Lakewood City Council was united in deciding that we are in favor of what we are already doing. And if you follow Lakewood politics, that was not a given.
For those of you with an interest in politics, these were the keywords the council agreed on as a vision for the community:
Military
Diversity
Cultural
Safety
Good schools
Jobs
Recreation
Economic
Neighborhoods
Partnerships
Family
History
Activities
Frankly, you would have trouble getting anyone to disagree with any or many of those. So maybe it’s not meaningful except nobody put up the words ‘growth moratorium’ or many of the other words heard in various cities these days.
Here’s the meat of the matter. These are the priorities for the city, as recommended by the council:
The most votes:
Develop infrastructure of Tillicum, American Lake Gardens, Pacific Highway
Better prevention and intervention and suppression of crime
Nearly as many votes:
Neighborhood leaders/revitalization of neighborhoods
Work plan for ongoing capital projects
(Protect the bases future)
Validate vision through goal-setting through community vision process
And these each had two votes:
Cultural development
Take leadership role in creating relationships such as those with the school district
Performance audits
So what did the retreat accomplish? I think what it accomplished was exposing that our council, so bitterly divided at times, basically agrees on the big issues facing the city. And there are no strong proposals to move things in a radically different direction.
Instead, what we discussed was how to do what we are doing, but better. For example, nothing is as important as getting Tillicum and American Lake Gardens right. If we do them right, in partnership with private owners, these neighborhoods will be productive places to work and good places to live. If we squander this opportunity, the city will continue to pour tax dollars into patchwork solutions to problems.
So maybe the word ‘retreat’ was the wrong word. Maybe the word is ‘progress.’
Forward this post
At the end of the day, the summary sounds strange to write. But here’s the news: The Lakewood City Council was united in deciding that we are in favor of what we are already doing. And if you follow Lakewood politics, that was not a given.
For those of you with an interest in politics, these were the keywords the council agreed on as a vision for the community:
Military
Diversity
Cultural
Safety
Good schools
Jobs
Recreation
Economic
Neighborhoods
Partnerships
Family
History
Activities
Frankly, you would have trouble getting anyone to disagree with any or many of those. So maybe it’s not meaningful except nobody put up the words ‘growth moratorium’ or many of the other words heard in various cities these days.
Here’s the meat of the matter. These are the priorities for the city, as recommended by the council:
The most votes:
Develop infrastructure of Tillicum, American Lake Gardens, Pacific Highway
Better prevention and intervention and suppression of crime
Nearly as many votes:
Neighborhood leaders/revitalization of neighborhoods
Work plan for ongoing capital projects
(Protect the bases future)
Validate vision through goal-setting through community vision process
And these each had two votes:
Cultural development
Take leadership role in creating relationships such as those with the school district
Performance audits
So what did the retreat accomplish? I think what it accomplished was exposing that our council, so bitterly divided at times, basically agrees on the big issues facing the city. And there are no strong proposals to move things in a radically different direction.
Instead, what we discussed was how to do what we are doing, but better. For example, nothing is as important as getting Tillicum and American Lake Gardens right. If we do them right, in partnership with private owners, these neighborhoods will be productive places to work and good places to live. If we squander this opportunity, the city will continue to pour tax dollars into patchwork solutions to problems.
So maybe the word ‘retreat’ was the wrong word. Maybe the word is ‘progress.’
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Looking Back: To 2007 and to last night
First of all - sure, while there were a few folks anticipating the final Harry Potter book, you are going to see some real excitement now that the Lakewood Annual Report is out. The report is for 2007, and you should definitely look it over for a comprehensive review of a lot that has, and will, go on. There is an enormous amount of detail for people interested in Lakewood. Check out the crime stats toward the end of the booklet.
Just a quick update on the last post below. The council voted to approve the interim rules for Tillicum, though understanding that there will be more discussions with the community and the planning commission, among others. I voted no, because I am concerned we are penning ourself in by firmly agreeing at this early stage to go for a 60-foot roadway the way called for in the regulations. The roadway is presently 40 feet wide, and the regulations call for taking 10 feet of the lots from either side of the road to get to 60. I think it's pretty early to make that call. It may well be that after further consideration, it might be better to take 15 from one side and 5 from the other, or something like that. But the council majority felt it was a reasonable decision to make now, and that's fair.
You know, my earlier reference to the planning commission reminds me of something. We have a shortage of applicants for the most powerful nonelected body in this city, the planning commission. That's actually sort of sad. It tells me either we are not getting the word out, or the people who want to volunteer are already volunteering.
If you have any interest in subjects like how many houses and businesses go where, you should either apply for the Planning Advisory Board or recruit someone else to. You can find the application for volunteering at this web site. Please don't be intimidated. Regular citizens like you and me volunteer.
Let me know if you apply, and I will keep you posted. The flip side of this is that usually, not everyone can be chosen. That's unfortunate, but it is good to throw your name into the ring. It's a call that you are interested in being involved, and everyone appreciates that.
Forward this post
Just a quick update on the last post below. The council voted to approve the interim rules for Tillicum, though understanding that there will be more discussions with the community and the planning commission, among others. I voted no, because I am concerned we are penning ourself in by firmly agreeing at this early stage to go for a 60-foot roadway the way called for in the regulations. The roadway is presently 40 feet wide, and the regulations call for taking 10 feet of the lots from either side of the road to get to 60. I think it's pretty early to make that call. It may well be that after further consideration, it might be better to take 15 from one side and 5 from the other, or something like that. But the council majority felt it was a reasonable decision to make now, and that's fair.
You know, my earlier reference to the planning commission reminds me of something. We have a shortage of applicants for the most powerful nonelected body in this city, the planning commission. That's actually sort of sad. It tells me either we are not getting the word out, or the people who want to volunteer are already volunteering.
If you have any interest in subjects like how many houses and businesses go where, you should either apply for the Planning Advisory Board or recruit someone else to. You can find the application for volunteering at this web site. Please don't be intimidated. Regular citizens like you and me volunteer.
Let me know if you apply, and I will keep you posted. The flip side of this is that usually, not everyone can be chosen. That's unfortunate, but it is good to throw your name into the ring. It's a call that you are interested in being involved, and everyone appreciates that.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Back to Business
After a slow start to the year, Lakewood public policy roars back to life tonight at 7 in City Hall. Among the important questions is whether to extend a moratorium on several kinds of new development in Tillicum. The council will hold a formal hearing, so we will likely hear from some landowners, businesspeople and residents. The fundamental decision is whether the city needs more time to make decisions, or whether to temporarily adopt some or all or modified rules that are suggested by staff in their recent staff report:
- Limiting the height of buildings on the freeway side of Union Avenue to 40 feet high, instead of the 60 feet normally allowed in that commercial zone. The staff's thinking there is that it's better to have shorter buildings on the freeway side so people driving by can see the buildings on the lake side of Union Avenue.
- Restricting drive-throughs to only the freeway side of Union Avenue. This should be a lively point, since many drive-throughs are presently located on the lake side of the avenue. Staff's thinking for this recommendation is that maybe we want to encourage businesses on the lake side to be more pedestrian-friendly, and channel the busy driving areas to one side of the road. Should be an interesting discussion.
- Dealing with small lots by new design rules. This one is a biggie because how we deal with this is going to have implications for the rest of Lakewood. Regular readers of this column know that Lakewood is combed with turn-of-the-century lots that, if fully developed, would dramatically change Lakewood's character. Some of the lots are as small as 2,500 square feet, and somewhere out there are lawyers who are going to argue that such a lot is perfectly fine for a stack of condos. (well, or maybe just a house)
- Widening Union Avenue to 60 feet, to allow for more walking and biking options.
Bear in mind, NONE of this is final. The discussions about Tillicum will continue.
Meanwhile, two other subjects should also generate discussion tonight. One subject is whether to allow residents to park in the right of way for 48 hours, instead of 24 hours, after getting a notice to move their car. The issue here is folks who park cars and leave them there in the right of way. Obviously extending the time by 24 hours would give people more options.
And finally, the police are asking whether the council would be willing to require people who own a total of five or more rental properties to get a business license (the current requirement is for folks who own eight or more - either as apartments or a total of individual properties).
The idea is that if you do so, then police have greater leverage if someone is renting to a lot of criminals because police can approach the landlord about their business license. But of course people who have been renting properties for many, many years might join the council in asking a lot of questions about this one. What we can expect the police to say is that some of the smarter criminals are figuring out that they should move into smaller complexes in order to avoid police interaction with their landlord.
And really really finally, you probably already saw it, but there was a comprehensive review of another Lakewood police anti-crime program in today's News Tribune.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Hidden History, Endangered
Those of us who love Lakewood history will face some tough questions, and relatively soon. My loyal readers, both of you, know that the area occupied by Fort Steilacoom Park and Western State Hospital was once a British pioneer farm. It was then a U.S. pioneer fort established in 1849. So that's why I often tell people that these particular properties represent the most historic ground in the city.
Part of that history includes some of the grand old buildings of Western State.
Western State - and more specifically, the land management group of DSHS - is working on a master plan that would take down some of their older buildings. Before you panic, they have no plans to mess with the original fort buildings or the grand old main building.
But their plans do involve taking down some other older buildings.
Some, to be honest, I have trouble getting up a head of steam about. There are some small houses from the 1930s and 1940s that are starting to fall apart. The hospital wants to demolish them. I mention them because certainly some people might be accustomed to them being there. You can argue that their use by many, many patients makes them historic.
Here's an example of one of those. If you look the next time you will drive past, you will see a whole row of these guys:
I feel more passion about the old chapel building, which does indeed have a couple of old chapels in it that are still being used. Like the cabins, this building is also visible from Steilacoom Boulevard. Take a look the next time you drive past. If you are like me, you usually do not look around too much on this stretch of road because some moron is tailgating you because they want to drive 50 mph. But look for this building the next time you pass by:
The biggest challenge, though, is that the oldest and most historic building that would be torn down is hidden from Steilacoom Boulevard by the main building. It sits near the historic pioneer cemetery in which rest the remains of, among others, Idaho's first territorial governor. This building, known as the bakery, is simply falling apart.
We're not entirely sure when the building went up, but it is probably as old as the mortuary nearby. But at least there is no hole in the roof of the mortuary. Not so for the bakery. Below you will see a photo of me gazing at a hole in the roof that, on the day of our tour, was allowing large amounts of rain to get in.
What this means in practical terms, of course, is that DSHS has every reason to tear this building down because it is unsafe. Historic preservationists call this situation "demolition by neglect." You've probably heard of demolition by neglect occurring with some of the privately owned buildings in or near downtown Tacoma. In this, case though, at least in theory, there's a complication. We are not aware of any big buckets of tax dollars that DSHS has to throw at non-functional historic buildings that do not serve patients or staff. So here is our problem. Here is our question.
Do we, as a community, care about a hidden historic building surrounded by a mental health care facility?
There will be much more discussion about land use planning for Western State Hospital, so don't worry about any final decisions being made soon. In the meantime, I welcome your thoughts about what you think of any or all of these structures.
Forward this post
Part of that history includes some of the grand old buildings of Western State.
Western State - and more specifically, the land management group of DSHS - is working on a master plan that would take down some of their older buildings. Before you panic, they have no plans to mess with the original fort buildings or the grand old main building.
But their plans do involve taking down some other older buildings.
Some, to be honest, I have trouble getting up a head of steam about. There are some small houses from the 1930s and 1940s that are starting to fall apart. The hospital wants to demolish them. I mention them because certainly some people might be accustomed to them being there. You can argue that their use by many, many patients makes them historic.
Here's an example of one of those. If you look the next time you will drive past, you will see a whole row of these guys:
I feel more passion about the old chapel building, which does indeed have a couple of old chapels in it that are still being used. Like the cabins, this building is also visible from Steilacoom Boulevard. Take a look the next time you drive past. If you are like me, you usually do not look around too much on this stretch of road because some moron is tailgating you because they want to drive 50 mph. But look for this building the next time you pass by:
The biggest challenge, though, is that the oldest and most historic building that would be torn down is hidden from Steilacoom Boulevard by the main building. It sits near the historic pioneer cemetery in which rest the remains of, among others, Idaho's first territorial governor. This building, known as the bakery, is simply falling apart.
We're not entirely sure when the building went up, but it is probably as old as the mortuary nearby. But at least there is no hole in the roof of the mortuary. Not so for the bakery. Below you will see a photo of me gazing at a hole in the roof that, on the day of our tour, was allowing large amounts of rain to get in.
What this means in practical terms, of course, is that DSHS has every reason to tear this building down because it is unsafe. Historic preservationists call this situation "demolition by neglect." You've probably heard of demolition by neglect occurring with some of the privately owned buildings in or near downtown Tacoma. In this, case though, at least in theory, there's a complication. We are not aware of any big buckets of tax dollars that DSHS has to throw at non-functional historic buildings that do not serve patients or staff. So here is our problem. Here is our question.
Do we, as a community, care about a hidden historic building surrounded by a mental health care facility?
There will be much more discussion about land use planning for Western State Hospital, so don't worry about any final decisions being made soon. In the meantime, I welcome your thoughts about what you think of any or all of these structures.
Monday, January 07, 2008
New Year, New Decisions
I just fired this off to my email list:
News about Lakewood, January 2008
(Man, that was fast. Whatever happened to 2006?)
Welcome to 2008, everyone. And welcome to a new year of public policy in Lakewood.
Councilmembers Don Anderson and Claudia Thomas were sworn in tonight, as was yours truly. You have four years of us to look forward to. The council unanimously elected Doug Richardson as mayor and Don Anderson as deputy mayor.
To their credit, The News Tribune is launching into e-reporting in a major way so the paper can help fill you in. As an example of how news stories on the Web can affect participants directly, I myself learned Claudia Thomas did not plan to run for mayor from a blog posting earlier today. Now there's a story up already about our choices : http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/updates/story/248305.html
If nothing else, stop to read that last link. Yes, me calling Don Anderson a 'talented newcomer' to the council is like William Seward telling Abraham Lincoln that Lincoln has great potential. Hey, you try to sound intelligent to a newspaper reporter. What I should have said is that Don's deep experience on various elected and nonprofit boards has given him the experience to help lead our cantankerous cast of characters. Or something like that. What I most find effective about Don in the short time I've known him is his ability to quickly summarize and capture what's been said and then advance the subject.
We could use some disciplined discussions in Lakewood.
As an aside, the question of how we pick a mayor is one of the strangest that courses through Lakewood right now. If you have not seen it yet, you might check out my earlier blog posting on the subject(below) Maybe everything I wrote then is moot, but I still say Lakewood has more things to do than tie itself up into knots over who is mayor.
I’ll be picking up my newsletter again so you will hear more from me. You can argue I have been negligent. My mother-in-law returned from long travels this week and told me she was very disappointed that she’d had to hear from the neighbors, and not her son-in-law, that we have a new police chief. Well, of course, we don’t have a new police chief ... but her neighbors thought otherwise. So this story reminds me that without a local weekly paper that delves into all the minutiae of a city, emails like this one are important.
I need to send out some calendar information, because a lot of interesting events are coming up including the annual Martin Luther King Day celebration at 10 a.m. this Saturday at Clover Park Technical College.
In the meantime, to help tee up a New Year in Lakewood, here’s Walter’s list of some of the most important decisions and events to happen in 2008. That we know of.
1. New superintendent: The most important decision scheduled to be made in Lakewood is not going to be made by the City Council. The question of who will lead and manage the Clover Park School District is incredibly important to adults and especially the children. Pray for the Clover Park School District board, but first please pray that they get good candidates. There is a national shortage of good superintendents. Whoever takes Clover Park and Lakewood is going to have to thirst for a challenge.
2. New police chief: There will be a national search for a police chief to replace Larry Saunders, who this spring will be going to Iraq to serve our country in what has to be one of the most amazingly dramatic and brave stories of 2007. Since public safety is so important to this council and more importantly, to our community, this job will be very, very important.
3. New economic development director: Joe Hannan, our economic development director, left to be city administrator of Mukilteo. The economic development director has the important role of recommending how to keep jobs and grow jobs within Lakewood. The economic development director advocates for existing and potential businesses within City Hall and the community.
4. A chamber leadership program: I’ve written about this before, so the short version is that every other significant community around here has a formal community leadership program. These programs put 20 to 30 people through a yearlong series of activities and ‘graduates’ them onto the boards of nonprofit groups, onto city advisory committees, and onto schools boards and city councils. As part of my day job, I’ve become convinced that the big difference between Lakewood and places like Lacey, Auburn and Federal Way is that those places have thriving adult leadership training programs.
Just as a matter of process, I should note this is also not a decision of the City Council. I’m chairing a Lakewood Chamber of Commerce board committee that is looking into the question of how to start such a leadership program.
5. Tillicum: So we as a community are paying to extend sewers into Tillicum in 2009, with the potential of allowing some real improvements in the community. There is a development moratorium on right now that the council will discuss next Monday.
Will the council and city staff create land use regulations that allow for both the rights of private landowners AND the right of the community to expect the best possible employers and the best and safest housing? Or will Tillicum just rebuild a newer version of what's already there?
To my mind, this is the most lasting of the big questions facing our council. If we do this right, Tillicum could attract major businesses like hotels and nice restaurants, and a wide range of decent housing, that could last for decades after we’re all long buried. Imagine the wonderland that could develop at the edge of a major employer (the military) and sandwiched between the state’s busiest freeway and a beautiful lake. Improvement works to everyone's benefit, because the residents of Tillicum themselves want a safer and more livable community.
There’s a lot at stake.
6. Accountability. Perhaps partly because Lakewood is a relatively new city, many people are very suspicious of how the city spends tax dollars. To me, it's a matter of familiarity breeding contempt. In that case, though it seems to me that we should make lemonade from lemons. All the suspicion should give extra energy to those of us who don't think Lakewood is better or worse than anywhere else, but should find ways to demonstrate to citizens whether and how they are getting more services and the right services for their bucks. Once again, I commend anyone interested in this subject to the book, 'The Price of Government.'
Forward this post
News about Lakewood, January 2008
(Man, that was fast. Whatever happened to 2006?)
Welcome to 2008, everyone. And welcome to a new year of public policy in Lakewood.
Councilmembers Don Anderson and Claudia Thomas were sworn in tonight, as was yours truly. You have four years of us to look forward to. The council unanimously elected Doug Richardson as mayor and Don Anderson as deputy mayor.
To their credit, The News Tribune is launching into e-reporting in a major way so the paper can help fill you in. As an example of how news stories on the Web can affect participants directly, I myself learned Claudia Thomas did not plan to run for mayor from a blog posting earlier today. Now there's a story up already about our choices : http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/updates/story/248305.html
If nothing else, stop to read that last link. Yes, me calling Don Anderson a 'talented newcomer' to the council is like William Seward telling Abraham Lincoln that Lincoln has great potential. Hey, you try to sound intelligent to a newspaper reporter. What I should have said is that Don's deep experience on various elected and nonprofit boards has given him the experience to help lead our cantankerous cast of characters. Or something like that. What I most find effective about Don in the short time I've known him is his ability to quickly summarize and capture what's been said and then advance the subject.
We could use some disciplined discussions in Lakewood.
As an aside, the question of how we pick a mayor is one of the strangest that courses through Lakewood right now. If you have not seen it yet, you might check out my earlier blog posting on the subject(below) Maybe everything I wrote then is moot, but I still say Lakewood has more things to do than tie itself up into knots over who is mayor.
I’ll be picking up my newsletter again so you will hear more from me. You can argue I have been negligent. My mother-in-law returned from long travels this week and told me she was very disappointed that she’d had to hear from the neighbors, and not her son-in-law, that we have a new police chief. Well, of course, we don’t have a new police chief ... but her neighbors thought otherwise. So this story reminds me that without a local weekly paper that delves into all the minutiae of a city, emails like this one are important.
I need to send out some calendar information, because a lot of interesting events are coming up including the annual Martin Luther King Day celebration at 10 a.m. this Saturday at Clover Park Technical College.
In the meantime, to help tee up a New Year in Lakewood, here’s Walter’s list of some of the most important decisions and events to happen in 2008. That we know of.
1. New superintendent: The most important decision scheduled to be made in Lakewood is not going to be made by the City Council. The question of who will lead and manage the Clover Park School District is incredibly important to adults and especially the children. Pray for the Clover Park School District board, but first please pray that they get good candidates. There is a national shortage of good superintendents. Whoever takes Clover Park and Lakewood is going to have to thirst for a challenge.
2. New police chief: There will be a national search for a police chief to replace Larry Saunders, who this spring will be going to Iraq to serve our country in what has to be one of the most amazingly dramatic and brave stories of 2007. Since public safety is so important to this council and more importantly, to our community, this job will be very, very important.
3. New economic development director: Joe Hannan, our economic development director, left to be city administrator of Mukilteo. The economic development director has the important role of recommending how to keep jobs and grow jobs within Lakewood. The economic development director advocates for existing and potential businesses within City Hall and the community.
4. A chamber leadership program: I’ve written about this before, so the short version is that every other significant community around here has a formal community leadership program. These programs put 20 to 30 people through a yearlong series of activities and ‘graduates’ them onto the boards of nonprofit groups, onto city advisory committees, and onto schools boards and city councils. As part of my day job, I’ve become convinced that the big difference between Lakewood and places like Lacey, Auburn and Federal Way is that those places have thriving adult leadership training programs.
Just as a matter of process, I should note this is also not a decision of the City Council. I’m chairing a Lakewood Chamber of Commerce board committee that is looking into the question of how to start such a leadership program.
5. Tillicum: So we as a community are paying to extend sewers into Tillicum in 2009, with the potential of allowing some real improvements in the community. There is a development moratorium on right now that the council will discuss next Monday.
Will the council and city staff create land use regulations that allow for both the rights of private landowners AND the right of the community to expect the best possible employers and the best and safest housing? Or will Tillicum just rebuild a newer version of what's already there?
To my mind, this is the most lasting of the big questions facing our council. If we do this right, Tillicum could attract major businesses like hotels and nice restaurants, and a wide range of decent housing, that could last for decades after we’re all long buried. Imagine the wonderland that could develop at the edge of a major employer (the military) and sandwiched between the state’s busiest freeway and a beautiful lake. Improvement works to everyone's benefit, because the residents of Tillicum themselves want a safer and more livable community.
There’s a lot at stake.
6. Accountability. Perhaps partly because Lakewood is a relatively new city, many people are very suspicious of how the city spends tax dollars. To me, it's a matter of familiarity breeding contempt. In that case, though it seems to me that we should make lemonade from lemons. All the suspicion should give extra energy to those of us who don't think Lakewood is better or worse than anywhere else, but should find ways to demonstrate to citizens whether and how they are getting more services and the right services for their bucks. Once again, I commend anyone interested in this subject to the book, 'The Price of Government.'
