Town Hall Meeting Concerning Winslow Way Streetscape Proposal Sept. 10, 2007: the comment sheet of Maureen and Thom

Here is the comment sheet that our Grow Avenue neighbors Thom McDonald & Maureen Newby submitted to the city and they have agreed to share with us :)
We think all comments should be made available.

Town Hall Meeting Concerning Winslow Way Streetscape Proposal Sept. 10, 2007

1. Does the streetscape design create a pedestrian environment that will support vibrant retail and encourage private investment in the vision of Winslow Tomorrow?

We believe, in general, it does create a pedestrian environment downtown.  However, the impact on Bijune, Grow, Erikson, and streets other than Winslow Way is not clear. For example, we believe the proposed left-turn lane on north-bound Madison Avenue at Winslow Way could severely aggravate the existing “cut-through traffic” problem on Winslow Way West, Wood Avenue and Grow Avenue by channeling more motorized vehicle traffic onto Winslow Way West, making Grow Avenue, a residential street and heavily used bicycle and pedestrian corridor, even more dangerous than it already is. North-bound Madison Avenue traffic should be channeled to continue north on Madison, a motorized vehicle arterial—not west into residential neighborhoods with narrow streets full of bicycles and pedestrians.   

What aspect of the streetscape design is most successful?

The general shift away from the existing automobile-centric atmosphere towards a more pedestrian-centric atmosphere within the confines of the existing geometry is commendable.

What needs more work?

Motor vehicle traffic channelization and the impact on streets surround Winslow and Madison.

2. Does the art concept embody the spirit of Bainbridge or Winslow?

Not sure.

3. Does the art concept reinforce Winslow’s “sense of place?”

I believe so.

4. Does the landscaping — trees, rain gardens, personalized planting beds — reflect

Bainbridge attitudes toward the natural environment?

I hope so.

5. Is the budget thorough and reasonable?

Under the circumstances, it appears reasonable.

6. Any concerns or thoughts or advice about dealing with 12% increase in construction costs each year?

I believe too much emphasis has been placed on this.  We need to “get it right” and make if fair, even if that takes a little longer and involves some additional cost. 

7. What percent of project costs do you think is fair to allocate to various islanders:

• all island residents    ____%

• downtown utility customers   ____%

• Winslow Way property owners   ____%

      Total. .....100%

We participated in the extensive discussion regarding the current cost allocation proposal at the Town Hall Meeting.  Once it became clear to everyone in the group that it would place a hugely disproportionate cost burden on the city utility customers, there was unanimous agreement that this cost allocation model was completely unacceptable.  Numerous reasons were given to justify this conclusion:

1. The explanation   given, that this was the “conventional” cost assignment model for   utility replacement projects, cannot be applied to a city where a small   minority of city residents are served by that city’s utilities, and   where the entire project is limited to the city’s commercial core   and gathering place for all the city’s residents.  As one participant   put it, The utility service area is   “an accident of history”.    It bears no resemblance to the “conventional” city utility service   area where all, or nearly all city residents are served by the city’s   utilities.
2. The close-in   neighborhoods that would be asked to absorb this unfair financial burden   include much of the city’s “modest” housing stock, often occupied   by fixed-income seniors and other residents of comparatively modest   means, while most of the city’s “up-scale” housing and wealthier   residents are outside the city’s utility service area.  One waterfront   home owner pointed out that the proposed cost allocation model clearly   amounted to a regressive tax increase. Other non-utility participants   agreed.
3. Winslow residents   have willingly agreed to absorb high density growth and the negative   impacts that come with that growth so that the remainder of the Island’s   residents can continue to enjoy living in   our Island’s rural areas.  The current cost allocation proposal   risks upsetting the delicate good will balance between Winslow and the   rest of the Island.
4. We are all residents   of the City of Bainbridge Island. The entire City should bear the burden   of the updating of the City’s “heart and soul”.    We all shop, attend events, and enjoy restaurants and other amenities   in downtown Winslow. Fairly sharing, among all Island residents, the   cost of improving our downtown community space builds a sense of shared   ownership and shared community.

It should be noted that there was little or no difference in the views expressed on the fairness issue by all the participants at our table, regardless of where they live on the Island.

8. Do you feel you have a right to say how Winslow Way should be rebuilt? For what reasons?

You have to be kidding……

9. Do other islanders have the same right to say how your street should be rebuilt? For what reasons?

See response 4 to question 7 above.

10. Is public deliberation concerning fairness in cost allocation worth the 12% annual increase in the cost of construction?

Definitely!

11. Is the default allocation a fair distribution of this project’s expenses?

No! We know of no one who doesn’t want the utility improvements made. Personally we believe that spending the extra money to add amenities is well worth it, but the allocation of the costs is inequitable .If the entire island paid for the improvements monthly that would be roughly $9 a month per household. An additional $30 cost for 25% of the island’s population is unfair.

Thom McDonald & Maureen Newby

164 Grow Avenue NW