Lake Whatcom: Little Ducky Duddle's Fault?

The Ducky Duddle Song

Little ducky duddle
went wading in a puddle,
wading in a puddle quite small.

Said he "it doesn't matter
how much I splash and splatter
'cause I'm just a little ducky after all."
--------------------------
The current Weekly's GRISTLE poses some interesting background and observations about our RESERVOIR.
I recommend reading it.

Those who have followed this issue for a while know what a conundrum it is.
Even after a string of after-the-fact beneficial actions by City & County governments as well as the WA Dept of Ecology and other agencies, the rate of steady degradation of our drinking water supply has slowed slightly, but not stopped, much less reversed as the DOE has directed.

Recounting the long litany of well-intended past actions would fill a few pages and more importantly lead some into believing we've already done a lot, which lessens the need to do more.
Nothing could be less true!

Suffice to say that some of the bigger steps, like down-zong, restrictions on clearing and grading, watershed acquisition & preservation, storm-water regulations and mitigation, lake-friendly gardening & landscaping are working to some extent, but not nearly enough to actually reverse the trend of lake water degradation.

Believe me, I know how tiring it can be working on this issue! And expensive. And controversial. And frustrating.
But that is the nature of this beast.
Think of a long-term marathon race, not a 40-yard sprint -as many seem to prefer.

With that concept in mind, the new year brings in some new elected officials, who may or may not be able to do much more than has been done to benefit our Reservoir.
Time will tell, as it has up to now.
And the results are not nearly good enough.

Waiting for the DOE TMDL Study to tell us what is needed to be done is easy, because we're really good at waiting!
Actually taking the actions required is the hard part.

And its not easy to conceive of many more 'quick fixes', like the ones already put into place.
Only steady, incremental steps can be visualized that will largely depend on the voluntary efforts of enlightened watershed residents, property owners, users and concerned citizens.
Of course, government regulations, funding and enforcement are necessary to effectively support these -and prior- efforts.

Ideas like infiltration of storm-water, creating a large park & open space from former DNR forest lands, and the like do have the potential for adding more protection from pollutants rapidly entering Lake Whatcom.
But, these approaches need to be tested and evaluated for their efficacy.

As tempting as it is to wish for a 'silver bullet' to solve our Reservoir degradation problem, that is not likely.
Only the 'block & tackle' work of constant vigilance, political courage and steady effort is likely to be effective over time.
The degradation of our drinking water Reservoir has been caused primarily by unfiltered stormwater run-off, resulting from multiple acts over time; literally 'death by a thousand pin-pricks'.

Or a thousand Ducky Duddles?
That's the point; we are all Ducky Duddles, and it DOES matter how much we splash and splatter!

Under these circumstances, a quick and painless solution is not likely to occur.
Daunting as that outlook may seem, it should encourage more focused action, not less.
I hope the new elected officials will rise to this task and accept their share of accountability for Lake Whatcom.
After all, it is the drinking water source for half of the people in Whatcom County.
---------------------

Back to the Gristle's conclusion: Seth [Fleetwood], with feet on both sides of county and city water policy, chose not to step into that puddle.
Maybe that's not such a bad thing for Seth to not do, unlike Ducky Duddle?
After all, he's been there, done that and knows -first hand- the kind of irrational reaction that can be triggered by stepping into such a puddle with both feet.

Remember 'Boats Off', and the County Council's [and Seth's] unhappy experience with that?
It's intent was simply to restrict the use of older motorized watercraft that spewed 25% of their fuel directly into the water.
Doesn't that sound like a desirable thing to do?
Especially since the City's Water Treatment Plant isn't designed to remove harmful hydrocarbons?

So, it really makes no difference whether Seth volunteered for the City's Lake Whatcom Reservoir Watershed Committee -for several reasons:

(1) Unlike the County Council, the City Council Committees are 'weak' committees meant primarily to spread the early discussion workload, although these sessions are also inclusive of all other members, and all final decisions are made by the Council-As-A-Whole.

(2) Given the make-up of City Council, there is comparatively less resistance to considering, passing and funding programs to benefit Lake Whatcom. Seth does not need to be on this committee to stay informed or contribute ideas.
{My last 2 years I elected to not serve on this committee, because I thought others needed to become more involved.]

(3) Seth DID pick the Parks & Recreation Committee, whose activities he is familiar and comfortable with.
And, it's possible that Seth MAY use that position to help promote the County's proposed Reconveyance of 8400 acres of DNR forestlands to create a large park and open space in the Lake Whatcom watershed.

Some have already characterized this as a potential 'home run' for the Reservoir, and it could be, provided a careful, low impact plan is adopted -along with the long term funding to adequately manage it.
But, I remain a skeptic until I see those critical elements in place.
-----------------------

Seth has served us pretty well while a part of the County Council.
And, I suspect he will continue in that vein while on the City Council.
No one should doubt that Seth's new job will prove more comfortable to him, both in the scope of issues considered and better compatibility with his peers, not to mention a much more favorable atmosphere for being re-elected.

Of course, two years ago Seth did run for Mayor. Think he'll do that again?
Since his position is the only 2-year elected seat in the County, do you think he will support changing it to a 4-year seat?
His predecessor certainly fought that idea, but think of the possible ramifications for Seth.

By serving a 2-year term, Seth would have to pick which office he runs for in 2 years.
But, a 4-year term -on the same election cycle as Gene Knutson, Michael Lilliquist and Stan Snapp- would mean he could run for Mayor [or other office] without first relinquishing his Council seat.
Think about it.
--------------------------

Welcoming 2010

----------------------------
Tonight -December 31- traditionally marks the beginning of a New Year and the ending of the old, accompanied by joyous celebrations.
But, it will also be special for other reasons too, including a rare event involving the moon.

Even though local cloud cover may obscure it, tonight is the second full moon to occur this month -which makes it a so-called 'blue moon' .
And, because this is also happening on New Year's Eve, it is even more rare, with some cultures considering it a particularly auspicious event.

I am personally glad to see 2010 arrive because 2009 was mostly a time of discomfort, inactivity and stress for me.
Fortunately, I have now received a clean bill of health and am steadily regaining strength and a degree of normality in my life.

The year 2010 is considered another Chinese Year of the Tiger. [my 7th since I was born in 1938]
And, since I'm also a Sagittarius, the combination of these two zodiac signs may explain a few of my traits and preferences.
Horoscope aficionados might have fun analyzing that.

Also, this is the time of year for good football games, both college Bowls and professional play-offs.
[I wonder if you can get a mild concussion from just watching too much football?]

For the most part, the New Year means a time of renewal and reflection, a time to reset our priorities and outlooks.
Those things are clearly beneficial and do not constitute a real interruption to the continuity of life.

So, let's welcome this special time of year and use it to conceive of ways to improve our collective human condition in 2010.
Wishing all a Happy & Prosperous New Year!
---------------------------------

County Council: Appointment or Disappointment?

--------------------------------
As predicted by Dec 15th's Gristle column in the Weekly;

In any event, Pete—who has spent the last year cannily splitting the differences and then mending them on a variety of issues in front of County Council—will undoubtedly appoint someone who best benefits the aims of his administration.

Also, my own blog of December 12 supplied my logic and preferences to this process.

Herald articles from yesterday sum up what actually happened plus a few reactions

Turns out Pete picked Ward Nelson, an existing Council member who was to retire at the end of this month.
He did not pick Dan McShane, a previous Council member who ran for election this year for the other District 1 seat, but was narrowly defeated.
I believe - like others - that deferring this appointment to Pete allowed him to demonstrate his true political preference, and restructure the Council in a way that does not challenge his well-known 'do-nothing' agenda.

Not that Nelson is a poor choice, but his political leanings and history do NOT align very well with his predecessor, Bob Kelly, a progressive who resigned last month.

Also, Pete essentially ignored the fact that Nelson recused himself and therefore did not receive 3 votes of support from the current Council members. Instead, he simply substituted his own choice -as the Council in its dysfunction allowed him.

I am not surprised by Pete's action, since I have observed his management style and preferences fairy closely over the last 10 years.
He does not like to be challenged by either Council members or the Council itself, which has happened during the last year or so.
Just witness Pete's unusual step of endorsing Carl Weimer's opponent - and indeed the entire 'conservative' slate - during the last election.
Think that wasn't out of resentment for being out-maneuvered on the Flood Tax issue and a few other things?

But, Pete's recent veto of the budget changes recommended by the Council seemed to be the real tip-off as what he was up to.
[Only Nelson and Brenner opposed the Council's recommendations.]

With one conservative [Nelson] leaving the Council and two [Knutzen & Kershner] being elected, means a net gain of one.
And with three progressives [Kelly, Caskey-Schreiber, Fleetwood] leaving the Council and one [Mann] being elected, means a net loss of two - depending upon Pete's choice of appointment.

So, inside of one month, the political balance of the Council has shifted from a 4-3 majority favoring Progressives, to a 5-2 super majority favoring Conservatives -partly thanks to Pete's choice of Nelson.

Pete surely has to be more comfortable with the new political 'balance', don't you think?
He ought to be, because he now has tighter control over what that mischievous Council might do.

And, actually DOING something isn't anywhere near the top of Pete's agenda. At least that's been my observation.
After all, DOING something might further polarize this County!
-----------------------------
"it is wonderful how much may be done if we are always doing." - Thomas Jefferson 1787
-----------------------------

Hallelujah, Halleluyah and Alleluia!

--------------------------
The Senate's early Christmas Eve vote on healthcare reform was another step in this slow, but necessary and overdue process.
Although some folks disagree, I welcome this as tangible progress addressing an long-standing issue of great importance to millions of Americans, and therefore clearly a reason to rejoice.

But, more hurdles must be overcome before any of the anticipated benefits are manifested.
The Senate and House bills must be reconciled and the all-important final approving votes cast, before the measure can be sent to the President for his signature.
Then, the real work begins of explaining and implementing the changes over time.

Will this measure address all the identified problems to every one's satisfaction?
Of course not, but it is the best that could be agreed upon for now.

As likely improvements are proposed and defects are discovered, these will provide valuable impetus for further refinements.
Often, initial progress on an issue is the hardest part, and the difficulty witnessed during this year's debate certainly fits that profile.
But, like it or not, adversarial debate is the primary method by which this country changes its policies and regulations.

And, despite all the vitriol, posturing rhetoric and costly lobbying, a majority -actually a super majority- of our elected Congressional representatives have supported the respective House and Senate bills now awaiting melding into a single bill that both bodies can approve.

The process has been anything but pretty to watch, fueled by unusually nasty partisan politics, ideological arguments and outrageous claims and speculation.
But, this issue is one that our President prioritized during the past election, so its debate should been no surprise.
What was a surprise -at least to me- was the partisan ferocity exhibited by those calling themselves 'conservatives', who seized upon this issue as a way to stir up public anger and frustration to help sway voters during next year's elections.

That kind of mindset and motivation has become all too prevalent lately.
While elected members of Congress do represent different constituencies, they also share the responsibility for representing all Americans and what is in the best interest of our Country as a whole.

To achieve that goal, some degree of true bipartisanship is necessary to forge workable compromises.
I find it very hard to accept that there were NO Republican Senators willing to demonstrate the caring and courage to vote their conscience instead of political party line!

The three main elements of any healthcare reform are ACCESS, COSTS and QUALITY, with their priorities in the same order.

Who really believes its not important to make some level of healthcare access to over 30 million citizens who don't have it?
Whose interests are served by continuing to ignore this situation and deny no reform is necessary?

And, who doubts that healthcare cost effectiveness can be dramatically improved by more competition, less paper shuffling and less reliance on for-profit healthcare providers?
You know, government run healthcare in this Country is pretty well administered; just think of MediCare and the Veterans Administration.

I have had MediCare as my primary health insurance for the last 2 years and find it remarkably good and easy to use, despite my earlier, uninformed doubts.

As far as healthcare quality is concerned, that is generally considered pretty good.
But, as healthcare expands to cover millions of new people, more doctors, nurses and technicians will certainly need to be trained and qualified.
Perhaps equally important is the emphasis on healthy diets and habits and wellness programs which can help prevent many illnesses and disabilities before they become major health problems.

While there will remain healthcare gaps, inequalities, financing difficulties and new methods of providing timely care, I believe the first step now being taken, is a step in the right direction.
And, it is something for which most Americans can rejoice during this Christmas season!
--------------------------------

US Healthcare: Big Tent or Big Top?

--------------------
Doesn't it seem like the more things change, the more they stay the same?
Over 2 months ago it seemed like the national healthcare reform debate in Congress was nearing a conclusion, but here we are 2 days before Christmas and the Senate still has not voted on this issue.
Of course, the Senate bill now under discussion bears but limited resemblance to the collection of proposals that existed 10 weeks ago.

One constant is the vehement delaying tactics being employed by the 'Party of 'No', which is embarked on a scorched earth policy designed to obstruct, delay, water down and hopefully kill any measure that comes to vote.
And, if that doesn't work, expect more misinformation/scare campaigns backed by big money, phony 'Tea Parties' and election tactics to match.

For one party to opt for non-participation, then claim not having their views heard and considered is ludicrous!
Last time I witnessed such behavior probably dates back to elementary school, maybe kindergarten.
That our Congress has come to this type of spiteful dysfunction is a real pity, but the seeds of this type of conduct have been evident for a while.

Just look at how the current administration contrasts with the previous one.
The 'W' White House years in office never advocated anything approaching a 'big tent' philosophy.
Quite the contrary, W pursued his own agenda and R ideological dogmas from the very beginning.
And the D's gave him the benefit of the doubt, much to their later chagrin.

It was only after 6 years of W's damage had been done that the D's regained a majority in Congress.
And, two years after that when Obama was elected with an ambitious agenda and an inclusive, 'big tent' approach to governing.
That is an admirable goal, but also inherently difficult to achieve.
The R's have exploited this by essentially boycotting it and substituting a militant form of obstructionism, in hopes of political gain.

The public's prolonged exposure to the congressional 'sausage-making' around healthcare reform has managed to tarnish its original beneficial objectives.
Instead, what could have been an enlightened national discussion about a very important issue has been deliberately turned into a protracted ugly squabble, with an outcome not likely to not satisfy anyone.
We may be on the verge of seeing this debate turn into a debacle, which would be most regrettable - especially after 60-plus unproductive years of failure to significantly improve healthcare in the country.

Unfortunately, the 'big tent' envisioned is instead being used as a 'big top' to house a circus with several unfunny clowns competing to be the Ringmaster!
Maybe it has always been this way, but this time it's just more visible.
Democracy isn't always pretty to watch, but militant, mean-spirited obstructionism is really ugly, and demeans the public as well as the spirit of our Constitution.
I hope the art of compromise with civility can be restored, but that kind of reform might be even more difficult, unless, we -the public- demand it with our voices and votes!
----------------------------

Winston Churchill once said he admired the Americans because they always get things right... after they have tried everything else!
----------------------------

Affordable Housing Toolkit: Inclusionary Zoning

--------------------------------
Rarely has there been a topic that engenders more instant heat than zoning proposals.
And, whenever the word 'inclusionary' is included that heat is turned up to high.

It seems the development community, including land owners/speculators, builders and the real estate industry see inclusionary zoning as a threat to their very existence; a slippery slope to be avoided at all costs - despite the clear potential for generating some very tangible and beneficial results.

Actually, these folks are simply protecting the status quo, which they know and want to keep - and in the process, their profit margins.
That's OK, but it does externalize the often heard problem of housing affordability to 'others', including financially strapped local governments.

Here, I must make clear the definition of 'affordable housing' that I'm talking about; it is the HUD definition used by the US Government that is based upon actual household income, compared to local averages.

While there are some private developments that are built specifically for lower income households, our local Housing Authority, the city's Community Development Department and other non-profit organizations like Habitat for Humanity and Kulshan Community Land Trust [KCLT] provide for most of this housing, whether for rental or purchase, rehabilitated or new.

But these organizations chronically fall short of meeting affordable housing needs.
The Housing Authority generally has a waiting list of 2 years or more.
Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] funds from the US Government are inadequate and have steadily fallen most of this decade despite growing needs.
A few years ago, Habitat for Humanity reported the lack of building sites as its greatest single need.
Kulshan has been very successful in both raising grant monies and promoting the creation of opportunities for permanently affordable housing in our area, but the need far outstrips its ability to provide this type of critical housing.

Both Habitat and Kulshan have found their homeowners to be excellent citizens who truly appreciate the housing provided, which is largely scattered in neighborhoods throughout the city.

What inclusionary zoning [IZ] can provide is a more steady supply of building sites for affordable housing, concurrent with new development.
The State of Washington legally allows IZ as long as certain guidelines are followed, but it is up to individual municipalities to take advantage of this provision.
-------------

Two articles by Jared Paben appeared in the Bellingham Herald recently on this subject which illustrate some history and pro and con arguments.
The first dealt with a City Council proposal and related information at this URL.

The second listed a synopsis of a study on possible IZ impacts at this URL.
-------------

A few years ago the City Council considered inclusionary zoning as a fair and reasonable way to provide more building sites for affordable housing.
That effort morphed into a countywide task force which took about 18 months to conclude it couldn't agree on recommending IZ.
Instead, the task force ended up essentially reviving an old study done in 1991.

I think Bellingham should adopt a reasonable IZ policy on its own.
Here is a summary of my rationale:

• Up-zoning creates an instant windfall for landowners, sometimes increasing value by 10, 20 or 50 times.
Transfer of Development Rights [TDR] -based Zoning was proposed over 35 years ago as a means for sharing windfalls with municipalities to help pay for public improvements.
Unfortunately, this concept never caught on widely, but remains a useful potential tool.

• If the cost of growth is to be fairly shared by development, system development charges, impact fees and inclusionary zoning are mechanisms to help achieve this result.
Otherwise, the municipality, taxpayers and rate-payers end up over subsidizing new development.

• As onerous as permitting fees, sdc's and impact fees seem to be, they are preferable to having none, for the reason above.

• City policy is to create livable neighborhoods with ready access to schools, jobs, parks and transportation, not exclusive gated developments. IZ can help do this.

• Since the cost of a lot may cost up to one third [1/3] of home costs, setting aside lots for affordable housing can dramatically lower their cost.

• Setting aside 10% of lots in a multi-dwelling unit development is a reasonable policy that can greatly help insure affordability by effectively leveraging scarce public funding and charitable gifts.

• In lieu of land dedication, payment of a reasonable monetary amount could be allowed.

• Inclusionary Zoning should not be considered a panacea, but another tool in the city's toolkit to benefit the entire community.

• Inclusionary Zoning probably fits urban areas better than rural areas or small towns, so it is no surprise that the countywide CHAT Task Force failed to agree in recommending it.
That should not prevent the City from adopt this idea on its own.

• Scare tactics and misinformation loudly proclaimed by elements of the development community should be taken with a grain of salt.
There is no reason why a well-considered Inclusionary Zoning policy can not work for the greater good of Bellingham.
But, voluntary compliance doesn't work very well, which is why a fair, mandatory regulation is necessary.

There are likely other thoughts that could be added to this list, but this will suffice for now.

I'm glad the City Council has renewed its interest in this subject, but it will still take perseverance and courage to get a reasonable ordinance ready for public comment and eventual approval.
That is often the way it is with controversial issues.
============================

County Council: Who Would You Appoint?

------------------
A recent Herald blog reflected a brief interview with County Executive Pete Kremen about whom he might appoint to take Bob Kelly's place as interim Council Member for next year.

I suspect Pete already has an idea of who will be on his 'short' list, but may take his time to let the excitement simmer at reduced heat, plus further evaluate the political tea leaves.
There are several clues that may have bearing on what is now Pete's decision:

• Whoever is selected must have been nominated by the Council, per the list of 25 names shown below.

• Preference would likely be given to those applicants who attracted 3 Council votes. [no one got 4]
By my reckoning, 11 applicants received 3 votes - 8 'liberal-leaning' and 3 'conservative leaning'.
This would eliminate 14 applicants.

• Since Kelly was elected 2 years ago and considered 'liberal-leaning', maintaining the Council's voted political balance would mean appointing an applicant with similar views.
This would eliminate 3 additional applicants.

• Since this appointment is only for one year -until another 1-year election next November - there is little time for an appointee without prior experience as a Council member to adequately come up to speed on his/her responsibilities as well as the important issues under consideration.
Accepting this logic would eliminate 7 more applicants, leaving Dan McShane as the clear favorite.
Only McShane and Ward Nelson fit this criteria, but Nelson also did not get 3 votes since he abstained from voting for himself.
Also, I can't think of a better appointee than McShane if Pete wants the DNR Reconveyance of forest lands around the Lake Whatcom Reservoir to succeed. [unless he doesn't want to share the credit]

• The notion of barring whoever is appointed from running for reelection is not a good idea, and likely could not be enforced anyway. Not long ago, the City Council experienced a similar situation with the untimely death of Joan Beardsley. In that case the City Council was able to gather the 4 votes necessary to appoint a 1-year replacement, Don Gischer, a former Council member. Gischer ran for reelection the next year for a second 1-year term, but was unsuccessful as Stan Snapp was elected.
The following year Snapp ran for reelection to a full 4-year term and was unopposed.

Late in 2006 the City Council also had to appoint an interim mayor when Mark Asmundson resigned unexpectedly. At that time, some Council members did think it important NOT to give any new candidate the appointment because that might tend to create the advantage of incumbency later, considered an 'unfair' advantage over any challengers. We were fortunate that former Mayor, Tim Douglas, garnered the 4 Council votes required for the appointment. Also, he was not keen to run for reelection.
I believe that the position of Mayor was considered more demanding and has much more responsibility than the position of a single Council member.

I must say that I find it ironic that Barbara Brenner, the current longest serving County Council incumbent, should be the one so concerned about an appointee being allowed to run for reelection.
When I was appointed to the City Council over 10 years ago, I thought it important to convince that Council that I would take the job vary seriously and and at least be prepared to run for election the following year.
That did seem to work out OK, but I do understand the kind of disappointment and jealousy that politics can engender.

So, how about it Pete?
After all, McShane did run for office even though he lost narrowly to a newcomer.
And, he does know the County issues well, plus he closely reflects the voted political balance that has prevailed this year and last.
Please don't make this decision based on anything other than simple common sense.
And, make it sooner rather than later.
The citizens of Whatcom County deserve to know they will be well represented, at least until another election can occur next year.

============================
My tabulation of nominees:

* Beattie 3-3 L
* Dupre 3-3 L
Franklin 2-4 C
Gorman 0-6 L?
* Grah 3-3 L
* Hansey 3-3 C
Helm 2-4 C
* Hunter 3-3 L
Jacoby 0-6 ?
* Keys-Halterman 3-3 C
Kole 0-6 ?
* Lysne 3-3 C
* Melious 3-3 L
McRoberts 1-4-1 C?
* McShane 3-3 L
Nelson 2-3-1 C
Pros 0-6 L?
Quinlivan 2-4 C
* Schissler 3-3 L
Smith 2-4 C
Starcher 0-6 L?
* Starr-Culverwell 3-3 L
Sygitowicz 2-4 C
Thorndike 1-5 C
Ungern 2-4 C

* Applicants receiving 3 Council votes
L or C denotes my perception of political leaning
==============================