The Marina Question
As has been proven definitively, the majority of Whatcom County residents do not want a marina in the ASB. There are a wide array of possibilities for that site—including residential development, parks, stormwater, tall buildings, and so on—that could easily generate vastly more funds for the community at large than a marina. The notion that a marina would have a significant positive financial effect on the community (cf. Mike Stoner’s letter to Ecology [May 2004], among other sources) is simply misleading. The fact of the matter is that the development of the marina, scheduled to begin in 2008, will immediately kill hundreds of year-round, family-wage jobs at the Tissue Mill (it needs the ASB to operate) to be replaced years later by 59 seasonal nonfamily-wage jobs. Given that no City or Port official has raised alarm about this impending crisis does not augur well for the future of New Whatcom.
As of June 2006, there was not one legal or nonlegal document that committed the Port or the City to building a marina in the ASB. We encourage you to read David Bricklin’s letter about this matter here.
Without a public hearing or any real public notice whatsoever (it showed up quietly in the agenda just a few hours before the vote), the City Council voted unanimously to endorse the 1st Supplemental to the New Whatcom ILA that explicitly stated a commitment to a 300–450 slip marina in New Whatcom. But there are some apparent problems with that commitment:
1. It does not state where the marina will be built.
2. It does not state whether the "slips" are in-water or on land.
3. It does not reference the ASB at all.
4. It concurrently stipulates that the Port's Director of Environmental Programs [Mike Stoner] will be the SEPA lead. Problem: Mike Stoner is a Port employee. As such, he's obligated to follow "Item 11" of the Purchase & Sale Agreement with Georgia-Pacific. As such, he cannot act impartially or objectively in his State-authorized capacity to approve environmental standards for the Whatcom Waterway site in particular. This throws a serious and potentially problematic legal dilemma on the entire document.
5. No permits have been issued to change the status of the ASB from upland to aquatic.
6. No permits have been issued that would allow for a marina in the ASB.
So, once again, the "marina question" remains an open one. The ASB still just "might" be a marina, but it "might" not. For the sake of a cost effective cleanup of the inner Whatcom Waterway, the use of the ASB as an upland CDF (Confined Disposal Facility) may prove to be unavoidable and necessary. And as page 34 of the 2002 FS on the Waterway stated, the ASB, when capped, would still be one of the cleanest sites on our waterfront and be suitable for residential development—it would be far below MTCA "B" sediment standards for an upland area. It may not even need institutional controls or restrictive covenents. Furthermore, the ASB is likely to be the only area in the NWSDA that could safely handle the development of tall buildings. Imagine that scenario under public ownership. Imagine buildings, a habitat corridor, wastewater treatment capabilities, and parks—all publically owned. Imagine.
As has been proven definitively, the majority of Whatcom County residents do not want a marina in the ASB. There are a wide array of possibilities for that site—including residential development, parks, stormwater, tall buildings, and so on—that could easily generate vastly more funds for the community at large than a marina. The notion that a marina would have a significant positive financial effect on the community (cf. Mike Stoner’s letter to Ecology [May 2004], among other sources) is simply misleading. The fact of the matter is that the development of the marina, scheduled to begin in 2008, will immediately kill hundreds of year-round, family-wage jobs at the Tissue Mill (it needs the ASB to operate) to be replaced years later by 59 seasonal nonfamily-wage jobs. Given that no City or Port official has raised alarm about this impending crisis does not augur well for the future of New Whatcom.
As of June 2006, there was not one legal or nonlegal document that committed the Port or the City to building a marina in the ASB. We encourage you to read David Bricklin’s letter about this matter here.
Without a public hearing or any real public notice whatsoever (it showed up quietly in the agenda just a few hours before the vote), the City Council voted unanimously to endorse the 1st Supplemental to the New Whatcom ILA that explicitly stated a commitment to a 300–450 slip marina in New Whatcom. But there are some apparent problems with that commitment:
1. It does not state where the marina will be built.
2. It does not state whether the "slips" are in-water or on land.
3. It does not reference the ASB at all.
4. It concurrently stipulates that the Port's Director of Environmental Programs [Mike Stoner] will be the SEPA lead. Problem: Mike Stoner is a Port employee. As such, he's obligated to follow "Item 11" of the Purchase & Sale Agreement with Georgia-Pacific. As such, he cannot act impartially or objectively in his State-authorized capacity to approve environmental standards for the Whatcom Waterway site in particular. This throws a serious and potentially problematic legal dilemma on the entire document.
5. No permits have been issued to change the status of the ASB from upland to aquatic.
6. No permits have been issued that would allow for a marina in the ASB.
So, once again, the "marina question" remains an open one. The ASB still just "might" be a marina, but it "might" not. For the sake of a cost effective cleanup of the inner Whatcom Waterway, the use of the ASB as an upland CDF (Confined Disposal Facility) may prove to be unavoidable and necessary. And as page 34 of the 2002 FS on the Waterway stated, the ASB, when capped, would still be one of the cleanest sites on our waterfront and be suitable for residential development—it would be far below MTCA "B" sediment standards for an upland area. It may not even need institutional controls or restrictive covenents. Furthermore, the ASB is likely to be the only area in the NWSDA that could safely handle the development of tall buildings. Imagine that scenario under public ownership. Imagine buildings, a habitat corridor, wastewater treatment capabilities, and parks—all publically owned. Imagine.
