...and I don't mean boxer shorts! The Big Box stores are heading to Ferndale. City Council voted 7-0 to let them build as big as they wanna. Even newly elected mayor Jensen is on-board.

It was bound to happen, and now it will be very interesting to see what effect this has on the BHam economy. Of course, we won't know for years, and those who analyze it will be able to spin the stats however they want, but I'm betting a lot of BHam purchasing power will end up going to Ferndale, making BHam the big "L"...

---

Brat,

That's a great question, and it is very astute of you to post it. This is one of those terms or phrases that gets bandied about when it is opportune for the user of the term, and since this is a political context, the term can mean whatever the user wants it to mean. Because it is so vague, those in power can come back later and use it for leverage. Not only can we not define what is a "living wage," as markets fluctuate, the definition we decide on today may be wholly inadequate (in someone's opinion) next year, or the year after. So, whatever determination is made, it becomes a moving target.

Emotionally loaded terms, bathed in subjectivity, are all over the place, and fabulous tools for political manipulation. Aristotle classified emotional appeals (pathos) as one of the most effective means of influencing others. So, some terms are very loaded, but others, such as the "living wage" you ask about here, are just vague.

Consider:

Living Wage (as you note here)

The Rich (as in taxing "the rich" or "soaking" the rich. Who's rich?? )

Mandate (as in a vote margin that equates to "a mandate" from the voters)

Family Values ????

Other vague terms/phrases lend themselves to use as weaponry:

extremist

bureaucrat

Use of vague political terminology allows the audience to identify with the speaker who "agrees with me" even though an objective analysis demonstrates that the speaker said absolutely nothing. But I ascribe meaning, whatever meaning I want, to what the speaker said.

For example, consider this line from a recent political speech: "The American people don't want to play the same games, they don't want the cheap shots, they don't want the negative ads. What they are looking for are solutions and bringing people together." Or this line: "You can choose speeches or solutions." I can identify with and agree with the literal content of each of those, because they really say nothing specific. And, they could have been said by anyone, but the first one was from Obama, and the second from Hilary.

So, when the Ferndale City Council or Mayor want to prohibit a given vendor from expanding, they can point to the vague "living wage" stipulation and halt whatever they want to.

---

Mark Twain wrote:

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on.

Mark Twain

The Herald is reporting this morning that Costco is considering bailing out as well. Bellingham City Council has made a grievously huge error with the Box Store Ban (Anti-WalMart ban), and needs to correct it ASAP. It is worthy of note that this decision was made by the previous council, not the current one, but it is one the current council needs to correct.

According to the Herald, Costco is in the very early stages of negotiations with Alliance Properties who owns a property of interest on Slater Road. Ferndale is sitting in a sweet spot right now.

---

Sam,

Yes, sort of, because history has shown us that it worked. But it's not as simple as that may sound.

Bellingham Municipal Code (BMC 20.38) outlined the Planned Commercial Zone, which is aimed primarily at development on vacant properties which are designated for commercial usage. This code establishes a mutually beneficial relationship between the City of Bellingham and the developer of a given property, wherein the city gets what it needs and the developer gets what they need. Essentially, the developer was able to build what their studies told them the market would bear, and in exchange the city was able to define the engineering standards of the infrastructure which the developer must build to sustain that development, and the developer was required to build the infrastructure that standard. This system worked beautifully since the early 1980s, and while following it, everyone wins!

Now, some may play the debating game and pretend to cry that the developers are having to pay for this infrastructure and should not have to do so. I assure you, while they may be frowning on the outside, they are smiling all the way to the bank. If the developer cannot make a return on the investment because the infrastructure requirements are too costly, then the developer will walk away from the project.

I'm not a developer, but in speaking with local development professionals, I have learned that, say a new 25,000 sq. ft. grocery store will require an 8" to 12" water main. The developer is required to install that main at his cost, and the water main is then "dedicated" (read given) to the City of Bellingham. Now, when we move to a larger project, say Bellis Fair Mall, at over a million sq. ft. we are looking at a much larger water main, which is, again, dedicated to the city. This same formula is applied to sewer lines, stormwater capture, buffer zones. This has been the relationship for more than 20 years, and it has worked well for as long as the city kept its focus on those assets the city owns; the infrastructure.

So, what has caused the anger and the debate over the last year and a half? The city has begun trying to control assets it does NOT own; the structures themselves.

I spoke with a local developer yesterday, and he gave me a little history lesson that outlines this rather well. Shortly after the 1980 Comprehensive Plan was proposed, plans to build K-Mart were put forward. As you might imagine, downtown property owners opposed this move and attempted to push through a 25,000 sq. ft. size limitation, similar to the 90,000 sq. ft. maximum we now enjoy. The thinking was, this would prevent the K-Mart store from being built. In the ensuing battle, complete with lawsuits and involvement by the Chamber of Commerce, the city backed down when faced with the evidence that they were constraining the economy.

The local market was suffering badly in the early 80s. There was nothing to speak of in Bellingham for retail, and shoppers would regularly drive south for their desired products, taking with them a substantial pile of revenue. Enter the scene, David Syre with the proposal for Bellis Fair Mall. As you can imagine, the same fight emerged, but this time the suggested limit on square footage was 50,000. Yet, the rezone for the project did not include a limit on store sizes, because the protection offered by the Planned Commercial Zone did not allow the city to specify such. As a result, Bellis Fair Mall was built, the infrastructure that it require was built and given to the city, and HUGE tax revenue resulted.

Suddenly, Bellingham had a booming retail sector. This same principle applied to the Cordata development, Barkley Village, Sehome Square, Sunset Square, and really, every commercial development since the 1980s. Not until February of 2007 did this relationship screech to a halt, when the city butted in where it does not belong by trying to control assets it does not own, namely, the buildings. And that leaves us with Bellingham Municipal Code (20.38) as we have it today.

Thus endeth my friend's history lesson.

Just as the City of Bellingham needs to focus on city issues rather than federal or international issues, the City of Bellingham needs to concern itself with assets it owns rather than assets that are privately owned. If the city wants to follow the lead of Ferndale and require certain aesthetic accouterments, then I can live with that, because the profitability of such construction today is unquestioned, and it is already happening. Look at the recent upgrades done on the corner of James and Alabama, or Sehome Village, business park on Iowa, or Barkley Village.

---