Onrushing Civic Improvements for "Vancouver's Pearl" (New Waterfront Development)

FINALLY, SOMETHING HAPPENING AT VANCOUVER'S "NEW PEARL" WATERFRONT SITE

I'm pleased to report that SOMEONE (Councilmember Anne McEnerny-Ogle) has finally listened to my plea for some sort of civic improvement at the former Boise-Cascade pulp mill site (slated to be Vancouver's new "Pearl", or waterfront development). This site, which currently features a graded and open gravelly landscape clear from the train tracks to the Columbia river (and is accessible to the public at both Esther and Grant Streets), is slated for around 24 condominium/apartment towers, retail development, a waterfront park, and (if rumors are correct) a STREETCAR. In short, Vancouver's "new Pearl". 

However, the site currently features a vast blank open-to-the-public expanse, and has done so since contractors finished the cleanup of mill pollution and debris in late May. In June, I posted on here about the City of Vancouver's FAILURE to either block off public access to the site or develop it with minimal civic improvements, along the lines of the Vancouver Downtown Association's development of Heritage Square, at 8th and Washington Streets. Ideally, I said at the time I'd like to see gravel cul-de-sacs for turnaround of cars (instead of orange barricades at the Esther and Grant underpasses) as well as possibly a dog park, or a grassy field, with limited or NO river access (due to liability issues, and possible injuries). 

Eric Holmes, City Manager, indicated to me at the time that the City was waiting for the Port to agree to allow public access (and extension of) Columbia Way from Columbia Street (where the road goes down to the Terminal One amphitheater, just north of Red Lion at the Quay). The Port had held up til July granting the city access to develop this road due to their fits over City Council denying zoning permits for their much bally-hooed oil-by-rail terminal. However, as The Columbian reported, its clear now that City and Port have made kissy-faces (due to the waterfront developers' threats to PULL OUT of the site altogether if the oil-by-rail terminal was built). 

So, Eric, what's the deal? How slowly does the City's planning department and (new) parks department move in either developing the site infrastructure (streets, lighting, paths, landscaping, and the like, including Mayor Leavitt's dream of a lil' streetcar tootling down W Columbia Way)? How much longer does the public have to wait for at least minimal developments to occur on this prime 27-acre site within VIEW of City Hall? 

Currently, what we have are two lovely landscaped and artistically lighted dead ends (Esther and Grant Street underpasses, under the train tracks). These dead ends even feature extensive seating areas (as well as the aforementioned art deco lighting), along with tasteful native landscaping. However, the public at large does NOT use said areas - given they end in orange barricades to nowhere. 

Who does use said dead ends are homeless folks - to drink, eat, sleep, etc. I have NOTHING against anyone homeless (having been recently homeless myself). What I do have trouble with is the City allowing full public access to a 27-acre empty site, including the river, since June - thankfully with no injuries, deaths, muggings, or rapes that I know of. I presume the VPD is "on the job" patrolling the area - but I also have seen firsthand large encampments of somewhat inebriated folks underneath the train tracks at both underpasses. 

Again, I'm NOT being anti-homeless. I am, however, worried about the City's liability in leaving this 27-acre site completely open and accessible to the public - including river access. I'm also worried about someone getting hurt. Finally - and this is where Councilmember Anne McEnerny-Ogle comes in - I'm concerned that the City has SAT ON ITS HANDS on this site, doing NOTHING (presumably they're waiting on funds). Anne, who has recently extolled the virtues of good street landscaping through her virtual presence, found my suggestion comment to DO SOMETHING with the Esther and Grant dead ends to be timely - AND, PER HER, SHE IS GOING TO MOVE AHEAD ON THE MATTER WITH CITY COUNCIL AND MANAGER.

HOW much planning is necessary to put in a gravel cul-de-sac? My business, The Sacred Garden, could likely put one in for the City in a week (if the City were so inclined), at a reasonable price (and NO, Eric, I'm not making a bid for the work). How difficult is it to at least put in a fenced dog park on part of the site (encompassing both street dead ends) so that folks have a destination near to other downtown locales (and there's quite a few folks living in and around the site who would have need of a dog park)? Washougal had NO TROUBLE putting a simple dog park in on a former industrial site there (by the Bi-Mart at 32nd and B). I'm not sure why the City Manager, and city planners, with all their powers at their disposal, can't seem to get it together.

So, Eric: my question to you (and please respond on here if you respond at all) is WHAT GIVES? Why does it take my suggesting it to Anne in a non-public online forum four months after I first bring the issue up to get any sort of movement on the City's part to address this glaring oversight to our downtown core?