Greenways Levy Stirs Opposing Views

Sarah Kuck studies environmental journalism at WWU and is our Whatcom Watch intern. She is also the chief editor of The Planet.

The Vision

Rectangular posts marked with a yellow stripe indicate the direction of wood-chipped trailheads and pathways connecting parks and open spaces from north, central and south Bellingham—or at least that’s the vision.

The greenways concept is to link open space and parks with trails to connect the city for humans and wildlife so they can travel freely, without having to use the thoroughfares.

In 1990, Bellingham started collecting 57 cents per $1,000 of property value to purchase land for this concept through the Greenways levy. For the owner of a $200,000 house, that’s approximately $9.50 a month or less than the average price of a large pizza.

In 1990, when the levy was first proposed, 71 percent of voters supported the Greenways levy. When that lapsed in 1997, 58 percent voted to renew it for 10 more years. The 1997 Beyond Greenways levy is about to expire and will go to the voters for renewal next year.

The Greenways levy has acquired $27 million worth of land and connections, but this vision is far from complete. The pressures of development are decreasing land availability, as well as causing arguments about what lands to preserve first.

Two citizens groups, Greenways 2006 and Greenways Legacy, are going to propose plans to the City Council early next year. The council will either choose from the two or create a hybrid of both to put on the ballot.

Opposing Views

Greenways 2006 has 10 members with an interest in park, trail and open space specifically set up to pass the renewal of the levy, said Sue Taylor, a member of Greenways 2006 who used to serve on the city of Bellingham Parks and Recreation Board. Taylor said her motivation and dedication to the Greenways levy comes from a desire give back what the trails have given her.

“Because I am a user, I feel I need to pay back,” Taylor said. “I feel I need to return something to the community that I take advantage of.” The 2006 group’s proposal includes a 40- to 60-mile trail system throughout the city for hiking, biking and alternative transportation, Greenways 2006 member Jack Weiss said. Weiss used to serve on the Greenways levy advisory committee, which makes expenditure and acquisition recommendations to the city council regarding Greenways levy funds.

Weiss said the 2006 group’s plan focuses on purchasing land in the north part of the city.

“Those people have been waiting patiently for nearly 15 years to have those same opportunities for open space as the south side,” Weiss said.

The 2006 group also wants to make sure money is spent on park enhancements and maintenance, Weiss said.

“The city’s general fund pays for maintenance and operations of existing parkland, but doesn’t cover new land,” Weiss said. “Our package is designed to take care of itself.”

Greenways 2006 proposal is a 10-year proposal. Taylor said she believes it is important for the levy to go back to the voters often so they can decide whether it’s meeting their vision.

Taylor said she and other members do not want to include the purchase of the Chuckanut Ridge property in the proposal because the city shouldn’t use Greenways levy funds to purchase the property.

The owner of the Chuckanut Ridge property wants $20.7 million for total of 85 acres, Taylor said.

“$20.7 million for the property is extremely expensive for open space when we have great needs in other parts of the city,” Taylor said. “The south side has projects in our levy that we want to do as well, but the need is in the north side.”

The Greenways Legacy group is made up of 13 members whose goal is to engage the community in saying yes to corridors for wildlife, said Jody Bergsma, a Greenways Legacy member and local Bellingham artist.

Bergsma said the difference between the two proposals is philosophical. The Greenways 2006 group proposes parks and park improvement, while the Greenways Legacy group proposes acquiring land for preservation, and for humans in a tread-lightly way, Bergsma said. The Legacy proposal’s highest priority is preserving lands for habitat with a lesser amount going for park amenities.

“We believe our proposal is in greatest alignment with that idea,” Bergsma said. “I believe Greenways should be a greenway and follow what is suggested by the national example,” Bergsma said. “Renovation and management should come out of the general fund.”

A major difference between the two proposals is time and land acquisition. The Greenways Legacy offers a 15-year levy for $60 million with 68 percent being designated for acquisition, 26 percent for development and 6 percent for the endowment.

The Greenways 2006 group offers a 10-year levy for $41 million with 56 percent for acquisition, 35 percent for development and 8 percent for endowment.

“It’s more important to get the land while it is still available and worry about the improvements later,” Bergsma said. “What it really comes down to is do you want park improvements or trails and corridors? Do you want recreation fields or wildlife habitat and green space?”

Bergsma said the Legacy group feels it is important to fund the partial purchase of the Chuckanut Ridge property in the levy because it represents an important connector for wildlife to all of south Bellingham.

“This is the Whatcom Falls Park for the south side,” Bergsma said. “Nature is the critical defining element of American culture. Nature is our heritage.”

If fully developed the run-off from the development will destroy the wetland habitat on the property, Bergsma said.

“No one has ever taken down a building to rebuild a forest,” Bergsma said. “We will lose this forest.”

Both groups have been making presentations to neighborhood associations and user groups to gain support and get feedback. Although both groups said they do this to gain information about what the public would like to see happen with the levy, neither want to do what many community members and officials ask—compromise.

Kelly Pederson, of the Roosevelt neighborhood resource center steering committee, said the two groups proposed similar plans, with just a slight difference in opinion on where they would like to focus the majority of the funds.

“We felt strongly that it was a shame the groups couldn’t work together,” Pederson said. “One group with a unified approach would make better use of everyone’s time.”

Pederson said that from hearing the two presentations, the Greenways Legacy focused on greenways for wildlife purposes, while Greenways 2006 focused on greenways for commuter purposes.

Neither group has a majority of the levy funding projects in the center of the city, but Pederson said the Roosevelt neighborhood did not feel left out because not much land exists for purchase in the city center, and that the land being purchased is for everyone’s benefit.

“We understand that we are all residents of Bellingham,” Pederson said. “The Greenway levy is definitely necessary either way. I believe wholeheartedly that we need to buy land now for greenways and open space in the future because with the speed at which things are developing, there will be nothing left unless we preserve it.”

She said she hopes the City Council will try to take the best of both ideas, as she hoped both groups had been able to do.

She said for her the best of both ideas includes focusing on obtaining land that would otherwise be developed, as well as getting bike and pedestrian trails connected while it is still possible.

Leslie Bryson, design and development manager for Bellingham Parks and Recreation, said she thinks both groups would change their list depending on public input, with the exception of maybe one particular thing, referring to the Chuckanut Ridge property.

Bryson said she has two concerns with the Greenways Legacy group’s proposal. One is that the Legacy group has not met with Bellingham Parks and Recreation to discuss what projects the group proposes funding for. She said this might be a problem because the department might already have plans to fund some of their proposed projects.

The other concern is asking the voters to approve something that might not be doable (referring again to the Chuckanut Ridge property). The city can only buy land from willing sellers after an appraisal. The Chuckanut Ridge property owner rejected the city’s previous appraisal and offer, and refused to get his own, Bryson said.

“If we cannot come to an agreement with the buyer, then we wouldn’t be able to fulfill the levy,” Bryson said. “We would have to go back to the voters and have another vote to approve purchase of other projects.”

Bryson said if the City Council asks Parks and Recreation to make a recommendation, they would.

City Councilmember Grant Deger said the council is unlikely to formally discuss the levy until early next year. He did not allude to the council itself creating a hybrid.

“I hope they can find unity between these two groups, but I don’t think it will happen,” Deger said.

He said without a hybrid version from either Parks and Recreation or the two groups, the council will vote for one proposal or the other.

“It will be done in the usual manner,” Deger said. “These two groups will give their plea. We will receive a recommendation from an official staff in the city and then hold a public hearing. Then we vote. If it comes down to three against four, the four will win.” §