EDITORIAL | Looking forward to a new Dog House (corrected)

Barring any new or unforeseen obstacles, the Dog House in Langley will get its fabled building permit this week.

The document, which has been years in the making, will green light about $1.2 million in renovations, and ultimately pave the way for the reopening of this much loved and missed First Street icon. This is great news. The Dog House’s future has long been in question, and the permit’s issuance will be an important first step toward ensuring a new future for the more than 100-year-old building.

But it’s been a long road, and the trials associated with the project are an excellent example of the difficulties of modern-day development when it comes to structures of historical significance. They’re old, expensive to save, and further complicated by public sentiment and opinion. Planners and saviors/developers (depending how you look at them) often have to wrestle the sometimes fine line of preserving a piece of the past while remaining financially realistic. It’s a recipe for friction, and certainly one that’s boiled up with the Dog House renovation.

Building owners Charlie and Janice Klein and officials at city hall have been doing this waltz for several years and it appears the dance is nearing an end. While some might be quick to say that Langley, a town with a reputation for being not-so-business friendly, made the process too arduous, we’d argue that’s a bit unfair. As we mentioned above, these are challenging projects that require a lot of balancing.

One thing the city should reflect on, however, is the use of improvement or maintenance sureties. Per city code, they are essentially monetary deposits that city officials can require of developers to ensure a project is completed. If they’re not, for whatever reason, then the city uses the funds to finish things up.

No doubt there are special circumstances that warrant such steps, but they should be outlined in the code and not subjectively enforced. Also, it seems risky to apply them to projects that are already dancing on the knife of financial viability.

Overall, however, both the Kleiners and the city should be congratulated for powering through this tough process. We’re eager for the reopening of the Dog House, as is the rest of South Whidbey.

Editor’s note: A previous version of this story contained incorrect information about the past use of sureties. They have been used in the past.

More in Opinion

Letter: Quoting Scripture proves nothing about immigration

Editor, Re: Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions quoting the Bible to support separating… Continue reading

Sound Off: Proposed Island Transit fares don’t add up

As a local leader, I work to improve regional mobility in support… Continue reading

Letter: Clinton beach AccessMats make beach accessible for everyone

Editor, Now that the winter weather is past, Island Beach Access has… Continue reading

County planning commission’s remarks were shameful

Homeless people like to live in the woods and should just stay… Continue reading

Letter: Trump’s immigration policy violates human rights

Editor, Trump’s new immigration policy is even worse than previously thought. Since… Continue reading

Road will keep island traversable if highway is blocked

Island County commissioners’ decision to spend $4 million to build a short… Continue reading

Letter: Island Transit fares should do no harm, minimize impact

Editor, Tom Walker, in a letter to the editor in the June… Continue reading

Letter: Rather than berate newspaper staff, why not educate others?

Editor, In reply to Captn Blynd: I was never even aware of… Continue reading

Letter: America should treat immigrants and children humanely

Editor, Trump’s immigration policy is treating it as a criminal problem in… Continue reading

Most Read