By Joe Scordino
Posted: March 17, 2024
Do the citizens of Edmonds really want changes made to the city’s Comprehensive Plan (which dictates municipal operations in the city) so that we become known as “Edmonds – Where the Sewer Meets the Sea”?
The city is trying to force growth alternatives into the Comprehensive Plan update process without starting with consideration of: Can our sewer system and capacity in some/all areas to withstand increased toilets?
We already have terrible stink coming out of the sewer manholes in some areas of town due to increased sewage in the pipes. Shouldn’t that be taken into account in developing alternatives on where to put increased housing and people’s poop? If sewer line pumps and sewer pipe size will need to be increased – who is going to pay? Is it the senior citizens who are already being taxed out of their longtime homes or is it the developers who will just pass on the costs to new residents thus making new housing further unaffordable? Or should Edmonds start this planning with the premise that some of the state growth requirements and restrictions are unfunded mandates that the city has every right to say no to!
The Edmonds sewage treatment plant is already discharging too high levels of nutrients into Puget Sound (in violation of the city’s sewage discharge permit). More housing, more people, more toilets will only confound the problem. Don’t we need to take this into consideration first in developing housing and growth alternatives?
Can the city’s stormwater system in some/all areas withstand increased flows without causing flooding or further damage to our creeks and wetlands?
The Edmonds stormwater infrastructure is already well over capacity in many areas of town and causing serious documented problems in several watersheds in Edmonds (Perrinville, Shell and Shellabarger Creeks).
Do we really want to take the risk of contaminating our aquifers by placing additional housing on them?
People’s health is dependent on good, safe drinking water – do we want to intentionally change Edmonds into a bunch of sick senior citizens and infants (i.e., those most susceptible to bad drinking water)?
Do we really want all our current and/or future trees and greenery everywhere (or maybe just somewhere) replaced by concrete and asphalt?
Does the city have any idea of the impacts to the health of our watersheds (and current citizens) from more impervious surfaces (especially in the wrong place)? That consideration should be step one in developing a city growth alternative – – not some misaligned ideology that should not be applied to a dity that is already built-out in some cases beyond its capacity.
If any readers of this agree with me that we must have a totally new growth/housing alternative that takes into account our existing infrastructure and desire to preserve our living style and what’s left of our natural environment — please speak up during the public comment session of this coming Tuesday’s council meeting.
This is the only way I can think of — other than protests, boycotts or ‘walk-outs” at public meetings — to stop the crazy!
The council can/should direct city staff on the alternatives that city staff prepares on the behalf of the council, since it is the council that has to approve the changes to the Comp Plan.
— By Joe Scordino
Author Joe Scordino is a 44-year resident of Edmonds.