Laserfiche WebLink
Public input was requested and given, after the City put moratoriums on the sale/redevelopment of the property. <br /> I attended meetings where passionate pleas for environmental clean-up and good jobs were of foremost concern. <br /> Although the public is aware this will not be Everett's beachfront, some sort of public access/viewpoint was also <br /> requested. <br /> When the planning department made it's decision for alternative#4, which the Port of Everett endorsed and has a vested <br /> interest in, it became clear that the public process was once again carried out by the letter of the law, but not followed by <br /> the spirit. <br /> How do Port of Everett's security concerns trump security concerns of the Navy? The Navy stated that public access <br /> would require appropriate setbacks, POE states no public access because of security concerns. <br /> Pandering to the Port of Everett, whose ability to purchase the property is questionable, limits the possibilities for viable <br /> development of this site for manufacturing and research jobs. <br /> Citizens of Everett would be better served long range by adopting option#3. <br /> This is a more sustainable option for the Kimberly Clark site which would provide flexibility for a variety of business <br /> development, more (potentially higher paying)jobs, extensive environmental clean up, and a better tax base for the city of <br /> Everett. It also allows for a public viewpoint/access to our waterfront. <br /> I urge you to reconsider adopting alternative#4 and instead, think towards the future, and choose alternative#3. <br /> Marilyn Boyd <br /> 1620 Hoyt Avenue <br /> Everett, WA <br /> 2 <br />