America's best read urban weekly | Learn More »
Don - Whether you agree with the recommendation of the Inlander regarding Prop 1 isn't the issue at hand. It's the rationale used without adequate fact finding by the editorial board to come to their recommendation that I take issue with. With even a minor amount of seeking the facts, they would have discovered that much of what they stated simply isn't accurate. I don't particularly care if they endorse it or not but I do object to a conclusion drawn on faulty, or lack of, facts leading to whatever recommendation made.
As for what else you wrote, I'm not sure of your point but will say this. This isn't a GSI issue, it's about FAFB and the contacts we've had with the local contingency as well as numerous trips and conversations with AMC HQ and those in control at the Pentagon. GSI happens to be the community lead organization involved in these discussions through Forward Fairchild but the direction, in terms of what constitutes encroachment, etc. comes directly from the DoD, AF, and their planners. Anyone interested in learning more about all this simply has to Google it and it will all be found, should one be so inclined.
It would be great if Airway Heights could clear this encroachment out but they don't have the means to do so. These developments have been there since the sixties, prior to the conditions in place today. This isn't anyone's fault these development are there but, they are there and they need to be moved. Catholic Charities is prepared to deal with the relocation effort and will be working with the County to resolve that element. While CC may or may not have built the same level of affordable housing as you, they've done quite a bit. GSI isn't doing this, only helping to inform and facilitate community discussions directed toward resolving this issue. Heck, with your background in affordable housing, perhaps you would like to join the conversation, get involved, and help the entire community in making FAFB's future more secure.
Regarding your opposition to Prop 1:
1. It's an $18M ask, not $20M.
2. Spokane County is working with these same nonprofits to establish relocation into safe and affordable housing, not in the APZ. The coupling you mention is still in place. Further, it is clear to the County that the purpose of moving people out of harm's way doesn't include making them homeless, arguably much more in harm's way than if they were left in the APZ. To that end, the County will work with the nonprofits to find suitable housing. There has been no time frame put on this to get these folks moved. The cooperative element between the County and the nonprofits is working and a detailed plan to respectfully move these folks is emerging.
3. Incompatible use in the APZ isn't just a 'might happen' scenario. Perhaps you didn't read Col. Newberry's press release from last week? It clearly identifies this encroachment as just that; an encroachment. From that PR:
"One of those developments is located in the Fairchild Air Force Base Accident Potential Zone II on the approach to runway 23 and is located in Airway Heights. This has become a high density residential development and greatly exceeds the allowable standard of two units per acre for that zone, which is a non-compatible use within an Accident Potential Zone."
Beyond that, we clearly identified 4 lost points in the KC 46 basing decision related to this encroachment. It is a basis of decision that we can control. And we should do what we can to make our areas around the base compatible to their missions. Right now, this area is deemed a non-compatible use and is correctable. We can, and should, correct this.
4. The determination of light-industrial with density limitations as being a compatible use by the DoD is by their ruling. We don't make the rules and, agree with them or not, need to take heed to their determinations. I may not like certain laws or rules in life but that doesn't give me the green light to disobey them. They are what they are and whether we agree is immaterial.
This recommendation to vote no on Prop 1 lacks any base level of research that I would expect a responsible journal to undertake in making a recommendation to its readers. Contacting any of a number of resources to validate your views would have been easy but no such effort was made, so far as I can tell. I would advise the Inlander to review this recommendation, talk to some people who are closer to the issue, then reconsider your stated view. You have done your readers and yourselves a disservice by publishing this 'unbaked' recommendation.
Website powered by Foundation