Below is an article I had published in the Cascadia Weekly not long ago. Since then, I'm pleased to report that the City Council has agreed to have City staff prepare three items for Council review and approval, as follows:
1. A Resolution stating that Council policy will be to require holding a public hearing on the subject of Charter Review, at least once every five years, although it could happen more freqeuntly. Council must still approve this Resolution, in some version.
2. Language appropriate for a ballot measure that would consider changing Charter language to gender neutral. Council must approve this in some version before it is submitted to the ballot this year.
3. Information to be brought forward for Council consideration concerning a proposed Code of Ethics covering elected City Council members and possibly other elected officials. This will become a topic of deliberation and determination of what further action might be taken.
All three items respond positively to different aspects of Charter issues, but none will occur without further Council or public deliberations and appropriate voting. Each of these proposed changes represent small, but significant departures from past practice, that should be seen as the cautious first steps that could enable future Charter reviews and revisions to occur more regularly and easily. Stay tuned!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Our City Charter was first adopted over 35 years ago in 1972, and has remained relatively unchanged since then. I think our Charter ought to contain a provision for periodic review by the City Council and the public. Some changes have been made to the Charter, by City Council action and public ballot.
Curiously, there has been resistance to even doing the basic research needed for Council to debate this issue. Until Joan Beardsley came to office in 2006, the Council did not have four members who agreed to have staff research how Charter Revisions could be made! Now, that research has been done and, in early June, a Council work session will determine whether additional action will be considered in time for this year’s ballot.
Charter Changes
From time to time Charter changes have been made, motivated by changes in State law, and clarification necessity. Several public initiatives and referenda have interpreted the Charter inaccurately, which has caused unnecessary confusion and contention. Our Charter is not always very clear in its brevity, and does sometimes require legal opinions for clarification. To achieve more Charter clarity, some sort of regular review is necessary.
Minor Charter changes have been enacted by Council action. Others have been placed on the ballot for the voters to decide, like the appointment of Finance Director. Several other Washington cities have undertaken Charter reviews and changes by various methods. Everett, Tacoma and Vancouver offer good examples of what Bellingham might consider doing in reviewing its Charter. All three cities approved a provision that their Charters must be reviewed every 5 or 10 years.
Methods of Charter Review & Costs
A range of review options exists, from doing nothing to a process that requires electing a Charter Review Committee and submitting their recommendations to a public vote, like Whatcom County did recently. Estimated costs for this latter option range between $20,000 and $220,000, depending upon scope of effort, and excluding any fiscal impacts of changes that might be adopted.
Intermediate options, such as Council review and approval based upon necessity or cosmetics; Council submission of ballot measures; Council review and submission of ballot measures from recommendations of an appointed advisory committee; Public initiative, and others are all possible. Depending upon the Council’s perception of need, each option has both a price tag and an associated staff and public input requirements.
Resistance to Charter Review Proposals
Aside from simple inertia; denials - like the sometimes heard remark to the effect ‘if it’s not broken, don’t fix it’; concerns over costs [including staff time]; potential for political discord; and blind fear of change, there are no reasons for not reviewing our Charter periodically! Are these concerns sufficient to prevent us from beginning a simple and prudent review process? Charters – including our own Constitution - are intended to be living documents that establish the framework for the policies of government, not static monuments to the status quo of long ago. Does simple reference to ‘applicable law’ mean anything that can be understood by the average citizen?
Some people are afraid of what might change, and prefer the status quo because it is the system they are used to. Others fear ‘hidden’ agendas, like changing the form of local government to a Strong Council/City Manager, for example. No system is a universal panacea; about 70% of cities use a form of Strong Mayor system, with the remaining 30% of cities using Strong Council forms of government. Both systems work, but contain different allocations of power. In every case, it is the people -elected representatives and citizens- that make any system work.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Rather than a costly, full scale Charter Review like Whatcom County’s process, I believe there are better options for Bellingham. First, simply decide to have the idea of periodic Charter Review on the November ballot. Such a ballot measure proposed by Council would specify only the frequency for Charter Reviews, leaving the method to be determined by future Councils according to adaptive management principles. The public needs a voice in deciding whether to have regular Charter reviews, and what future changes ought to be made. Let them have it!
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
BTV10: Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants
Good morning Hamsters,
Here's an earlier version of a piece I had published in the Cascadia Weekly, the subject of which remains in progress.
Those who agree could help by letting the City know your wishes!
Credit for the title goes to former Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis.
-----------------------------
Improving public communications by televising Council meetings on BTV10 has been surprisingly successful. How many people do you hear talking about something they saw on the City’s educational and governmental cable channel lately, since the audio-visual capabilities of Council Chambers were upgraded, the quality of the broadcasts improved and the number of viewers increased?
As successful as BTV10 has become in making our local government more transparent and inclusive, it can become even better - providing some minor additional funding is dedicated from cable franchise fees to pay for it.
I believe we need to televise the Council afternoon Work Sessions, because these are often earlier, more candid exchanges that inform the action the Council takes at it’s evening regular meetings. For one example, PowerPoint presentations made in the afternoon don’t always get repeated at night, despite their importance. Citizens have a right to that kind of information, at their convenience!
To make additional funding available to televising all Council meetings will require four Council votes to slightly increase the cable franchise fee. Currently, the City is using only 4.25% of the 5% that is available to it. The first 3% goes to the General Fund, and all funding over that is dedicated to BTV10 use. By contrast, the County uses its entire 4%, all of which goes into its General Fund.
Each additional 1/4% is currently equivalent to about $35,000 in revenues per year, so something in excess of $100,000 per year is now not being used, which means this funding source is permanently forfeited.
Determining how much additional funding is needed to cover the expense of televising and airing all Council work sessions is needed to define how much additional revenue is needed. Each 1/4% increase would cost cable TV subscribers about 20 cents each month or $2.40 per year. But, Council needs to decide to direct staff to determine the information needed before considering any increase.
Some other options exist to provide coverage of the afternoon work sessions.
One is to film them and produce reference DVDs for viewing by anyone unable to attend the meetings, or wanting to review it again. Already, the City has this capability, since all recorded images are captured digitally. The City would likely need some extra manpower to extend production editing to cover all the extra afternoon meetings not now being filmed.
Also, Streaming Video files could be made available via Internet on the City’s web site. But, without the afternoon sessions being actually filmed, none of these options is possible.
Some have suggested that Council meetings could be broadcast live and this too is possible. Another option might be to show heavily attended meetings in progress on monitors located outside Council Chambers. Seattle does this now, and it is useful with those meetings or events that attract extraordinary interest. Space in the Council Chambers is limited, and other venues are not equipped for the same quality of filming.
One of the Council goals, when it decided to upgrade its audio-video capability in 2004, was to make these Chambers a preferred venue for important public meetings. In the same way that installing artificial turf at Civic Stadium increased that facilities usage by as much as six times, the enhanced audio-visual capability in Council Chambers is now having a similar effect. Still, a significant increase in the number -and type- of televised public meetings there is still possible.
Despite the steady stream of complaints from local corporate media about costs to taxpayers and allegations of city ‘spin’ on issues, these televised meeting broadcasts do capture important presentations, announcements, discussion of issues and Council voting in unadulterated form, for use at viewers’ convenience. That feature alone, is a huge improvement over any coverage that corporate media could possibly provide, in terms of accuracy, completeness or candor. It remains a mystery why some local media continue to disparage BTV10, because they –and the public- are such obvious major beneficiaries of it!
Maybe the media is as uncomfortable with such unforgiving public scrutiny as some decision-makers appear to be? Information is power, so why not provide it to people, unadulterated, and un-spun by anyone or any organization?
WYSIWYG means 'what you see is what you get'. Seems like a good goal to me, but that's just my opinion!
Here's an earlier version of a piece I had published in the Cascadia Weekly, the subject of which remains in progress.
Those who agree could help by letting the City know your wishes!
Credit for the title goes to former Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis.
-----------------------------
Improving public communications by televising Council meetings on BTV10 has been surprisingly successful. How many people do you hear talking about something they saw on the City’s educational and governmental cable channel lately, since the audio-visual capabilities of Council Chambers were upgraded, the quality of the broadcasts improved and the number of viewers increased?
As successful as BTV10 has become in making our local government more transparent and inclusive, it can become even better - providing some minor additional funding is dedicated from cable franchise fees to pay for it.
I believe we need to televise the Council afternoon Work Sessions, because these are often earlier, more candid exchanges that inform the action the Council takes at it’s evening regular meetings. For one example, PowerPoint presentations made in the afternoon don’t always get repeated at night, despite their importance. Citizens have a right to that kind of information, at their convenience!
To make additional funding available to televising all Council meetings will require four Council votes to slightly increase the cable franchise fee. Currently, the City is using only 4.25% of the 5% that is available to it. The first 3% goes to the General Fund, and all funding over that is dedicated to BTV10 use. By contrast, the County uses its entire 4%, all of which goes into its General Fund.
Each additional 1/4% is currently equivalent to about $35,000 in revenues per year, so something in excess of $100,000 per year is now not being used, which means this funding source is permanently forfeited.
Determining how much additional funding is needed to cover the expense of televising and airing all Council work sessions is needed to define how much additional revenue is needed. Each 1/4% increase would cost cable TV subscribers about 20 cents each month or $2.40 per year. But, Council needs to decide to direct staff to determine the information needed before considering any increase.
Some other options exist to provide coverage of the afternoon work sessions.
One is to film them and produce reference DVDs for viewing by anyone unable to attend the meetings, or wanting to review it again. Already, the City has this capability, since all recorded images are captured digitally. The City would likely need some extra manpower to extend production editing to cover all the extra afternoon meetings not now being filmed.
Also, Streaming Video files could be made available via Internet on the City’s web site. But, without the afternoon sessions being actually filmed, none of these options is possible.
Some have suggested that Council meetings could be broadcast live and this too is possible. Another option might be to show heavily attended meetings in progress on monitors located outside Council Chambers. Seattle does this now, and it is useful with those meetings or events that attract extraordinary interest. Space in the Council Chambers is limited, and other venues are not equipped for the same quality of filming.
One of the Council goals, when it decided to upgrade its audio-video capability in 2004, was to make these Chambers a preferred venue for important public meetings. In the same way that installing artificial turf at Civic Stadium increased that facilities usage by as much as six times, the enhanced audio-visual capability in Council Chambers is now having a similar effect. Still, a significant increase in the number -and type- of televised public meetings there is still possible.
Despite the steady stream of complaints from local corporate media about costs to taxpayers and allegations of city ‘spin’ on issues, these televised meeting broadcasts do capture important presentations, announcements, discussion of issues and Council voting in unadulterated form, for use at viewers’ convenience. That feature alone, is a huge improvement over any coverage that corporate media could possibly provide, in terms of accuracy, completeness or candor. It remains a mystery why some local media continue to disparage BTV10, because they –and the public- are such obvious major beneficiaries of it!
Maybe the media is as uncomfortable with such unforgiving public scrutiny as some decision-makers appear to be? Information is power, so why not provide it to people, unadulterated, and un-spun by anyone or any organization?
WYSIWYG means 'what you see is what you get'. Seems like a good goal to me, but that's just my opinion!
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Annexation: Asset or Liability?
Yesterday, I attended a Futurewise event along with some like-minded folks who are very interested in managing our growth better here in Whatcom County. These are people dedicated to 'walking their talk', and I am gratified they are! Since Bellingham represents about 40% of Whatcom County, the City represents a big dog in that hunt. As the biggest population center in these parts, and therefore the strongest potential ally of the County, it is in both the City's and County's interest to work together closely on reasonably resolving how future growth will be managed.
Growth and its management has been a dominant issue during my nearly 9-year tenure on the City Council, so I have learned much about it. But, Lord knows, I don't claim to have all the answers. What I do have is a good grasp of the principles that can lead us in the right direction, and some of the obstacles that work against them.
One topic I have researched and written about is annexation, that oddly obscure, but potentially valuable tool in the GMA toolkit. The article below was published in The Whatcom Watch early last year, which I believe explains the role annexation can play in sorting out what course of action the City and County ought to take. It's lengthy, but the 'Sidebar' is excerpted -at the end of my writing- straight from the Annexation Handbook, published by the Municipal Research Service Center [MRSC] one of our State's most valuable resources in understanding our relatively complex system. These comprise a very good summary of the Pro & Con arguments regarding annexation.
-----------------------------------------
Annexation is a concept that provides two important functions; it determines which jurisdictional rules and regulations will govern development, and it determines how revenues from development will be split. If annexation decisions are prudently and consistently made over time, growth can be concentrated in appropriate urban areas as the Growth Management Act [GMA] requires, minimizing costly sprawl.
Periodically, the County and City agree on those areas, contiguous to city limits that are best suited for future urban levels of growth. These areas are deemed “Urban Growth Areas” [UGA] and remain in the County until annexation to the City occurs. Now, during our periodic Comprehensive Plan update, it has been determined that the city has insufficient build-able land for its fair share of future growth, which means additional UGA land must be identified.
It has also been determined that existing UGA land has not been used as efficiently – as densely - as it should have been. Part of the reason is directly attributable to the city’s continuing practice of discouraging or not requiring residential annexations, particularly at the time when water and sewer services are extended - the time of its greatest leverage! Unnecessary sprawl, loss of revenue to the city, poor traffic circulation and lack of amenities like parks and trails in developing neighborhoods are all part of the cumulative results of this habitual short term thinking.
Every city or town in Whatcom County besides Bellingham annexes residential areas as a condition of extending utilities. The same is true for cities and towns in the entire state of Washington! What ‘secret’ does Bellingham know, that other municipalities in the State of Washington do not seem to know?
Pro and Con Arguments
Annexation always has its advantages and drawbacks, and these are supposed to be weighed in a thorough cost/benefit analysis whenever an opportunity presents itself.
During 2004, the City of Bellingham sponsored and facilitated a study by an intern, which examined the various factors that contribute to whether annexations can be fiscally justified. The results of this study verified what we already knew; that industrial and commercial annexations usually have a demonstrable fiscal payout for the city, while residential-only annexations do not. Another finding was that early annexations result in less cost to the city and more certainty for the city, developers and future inhabitants and business owners that the area will be used efficiently with urban service levels provided.
What has consistently not been factored into this analysis is the future potential livability of the UGA developing area. If quality of life [QOL] is important to folks, shouldn’t this also be considered, along with the more easily quantifiable economics? After all, shouldn’t people who will work and/or live in a newly developing area have a voice in city issues that will impact them? In the spirit of ‘full cost accounting” maybe we need to factor in future QOL. There is a responsibility under the GMA for cities to adequately plan for accommodating future growth and provide urban levels of service. Nowhere is there a requirement that this exercise must be economically attractive to cities, particularly for residential areas. By carefully combining mixed uses and timing annexations, financial drains on cities can be minimized or eliminated. This requires cities to exercise consistent good judgment in realizing their adopted plans and goals.
Common Pro and Con Arguments about annexation have been summarized by the Municipal Research Service Center and posted on its website. This information is shown in the sidebar for reference. [http://www.mrsc.org/Publications/textah.aspx]
The City’s Annexation Practice
The City of Bellingham’s practice has been to treat annexations as a mixed blessing; choosing those judged to have a projected financial payout as desirable and those without to be avoided. This ‘cherry-picking” approach has resulted in the build-out of commercial and industrial areas first, with residential areas often relegated to pockets of urban density located on County land. The city has allowed this level of development to occur by extending its water and sewer lines outside city limits.
Extending limited water and sewer services outside the city limits means new water and sewer facilities will have to be built sooner, financed by city residents. A significant aspect of the economic equation is that the Public Works Department has come to rely on the additional revenues generated by charging 150% of city costs to water and sewer customers living outside the city limits. This seems a shortsighted and extremely regressive policy, falling heavily on those essential services needed by people, many of whom live in multi-family housing.
The cumulative result of these practices is that about 12,000 residents [17% of Bellingham’s population] now live in the UGA, more than enough to form another Ward if the entire area were annexed. At current ratios of people per household this is equivalent to almost 5400 homes or apartments, all dependent upon city services at some level without paying taxes to the City. In terms of property taxes alone, about $2.5 million per year is not being collected by the City. Could this be part of the reason the County has not raised its property taxes in 10 years?
About two years ago, the City Council changed its former policy of not requiring annexation upon extending water and sewer services, but the effects of this change have not yet been evidenced in results. Extensions for residential development are still being granted without requiring annexations under a few “loopholes” in the adopted policy. In one recent case, a developer was willing to annex a contiguous area where 68 new homes were to be built, but was allowed water and sewer extensions without annexing. This decision alone was estimated to cost the City about $2 million in lost sales taxes.
On the positive side, some developers do seem to have gotten the message and are now actively advocating annexation concurrent with extension of utilities - in return for including new areas into the UGA. Perhaps this change in perspective will result in a more rational approach toward annexation over time, as new neighborhoods are developed with more careful planning and amenities that are conducive to our valued quality of life. Another kicker is that the City’s overall tax level is actually lower than taxes in the UGA, outside City limit! Go figure.
Future Direction
It seems logical that the City of Bellingham will soon meaningfully change its policy regarding annexation in the future, but there are still those who will oppose this change for questionable reasons. By not requiring the use of urban planning standards in the UGA, the City has effectively doomed those areas to a life without affordable urban amenities. The annexation laws in Washington are relatively weak and largely depend upon both property owners and the community instinctively doing the right thing, consistently and in a timely fashion. To best knowledge, every other community in the state already does this in some version. Why Bellingham - considered a leader in many areas - has lagged so far behind in the area of annexation policy and planning is largely inexplicable. Perhaps it is because the realities of explosive growth have only recently been in evidence here.
By actually seeing the failures resulting from its past annexation policy, Bellingham may benefit in ways that other communities might not. The need for regional planning is now more critical than ever before if we are to sustain our desirable QOL, and there are clear signs that this is under threat. Developing neighborhoods need to have a voice in determining what their “character” will be, and this can best be done by giving residents of our UGA true citizen status; allowing them to vote in City elections and bond issues, run for office, and have a stronger voice in deciding how Bellingham will develop in the future. One would expect most UGA residents want to make decisions on issues like fluoride, a new Library, Greenways levies and their elected representatives. Hopefully, our current citizenry will see the merit in such an approach and help our elected officials get on with the business of including UGA residents as legitimate, full membership in the Bellingham community.
=============================================================
Sidebar:
[Quoted from the Municipal Research Service Center website @http://www.mrsc.org/Publications/textah.aspx]
Annexation: The Pro and Con Arguments
There are certain basic arguments, pro and con, that invariably surface during the course of an annexation attempt. Some of these may be based on fact, such as, "the annexing city, by extending its services to the new area, can avoid duplication of facilities." Some concerns may be more difficult to demonstrate, such as, "urban areas must develop as a unit because their social and economic parts are interrelated." Others may be related to partisan interests, such as, "Special Districts and their attendant influence must be retained." Still other arguments may reflect fear of change: "the community to be annexed may lose its individuality and identity." As noted above, however, many of these arguments will no longer be applicable in GMA counties after the establishment of urban growth areas.
The following list of arguments should assist in anticipating issues that may arise during annexation proceedings. City officials may want to carefully consider what facts exist to prove or disprove each argument, what special interests underlie some arguments, and what misconceptions may require correction.
A. Arguments Favoring Annexation
1. After annexation, the new territory will obtain its necessary services from city departments that are professionally staffed and experienced. Duplication of services can be avoided. Considerable economies can result from the coordination of services over a larger area.
2. When the interrelationship between the city and the fringe area is close, there is need for unified planning and zoning. By means of annexation, a city's zoning ordinances can be extended to adjacent areas in a logical manner, thus helping to assure orderly growth. Coordinated action is much easier to achieve if the fringe community becomes part of the city.
3. Annexation gives suburban residents a voice in the government of the larger community in which they live. County dwellers can be substantially affected by actions of the central city, but they have no participation in its affairs.
4. Business, professional, and community leaders who live in the fringe area can have a more direct role in community affairs by being elected or appointed to public office in the city.
5. Annexation eliminates the need to form a new city government with its attendant "start-up costs," or to continue reliance on costly special districts.
6. Annexation leads to a unified community and can prevent the fragmentation of local governmental authority among a large number of special districts. Fragmentation may cause "conflicts of authority and the absence of cooperation, political irresponsibility, a long ballot, duplication of services, inadequate service levels, lack of effective area-wide planning and programming, financial inequities and other problems."
7. Political boundaries will, after annexation, more nearly reflect the true and existing sociological, economic, cultural, and physical boundaries of the city. The fringe and the city are inextricably bound together.
8. Annexation increases a city's size and population, and in some instances raises its level of political influence, its prestige, and its ability to attract desirable commercial development. It may also increase its ability to attract grant assistance.
9. Annexation can protect, or enhance, a city's tax base. The increased valuation of the city will result in a greater bonding capacity.
10. Annexation may force new industry to develop in the city, and thus create additional jobs, revenues, and commercial opportunities.
11. Unified political representation, sound economic development, enhancement of property values, and high service levels at minimum costs can best come from total comprehensive planning that avoids duplication and conflict of authority.
12. City and county boundaries can be squared off and made orderly and logical, eliminating a hodgepodge and resulting confusion as to whether a particular parcel should look to a city or to the county to obtain services. Fire and police departments, in particular, can determine whether calls are within their respective jurisdictions.
13. Annexation may bring about lower utility rates, since city utility surcharges to unincorporated territory would be lifted. Annexation also often results in lower fire insurance premiums. As more improvements and urban utilities are made available, real estate values and marketability may improve.
14. Additional services may become available, such as sewer, water, ambulance, transit, and drainage control.
B. Arguments Opposing Annexation
1. Annexation may be considered unnecessary if the community's needs, or resources, are limited. It may be unwise if the community is not physically, economically, or socially related to the annexing city.
2. Residents outside the city may argue that they chose to build and live there in order to avoid taxes for services they do not want. Industry and commercial businesses may state that they located outside the city to avoid certain business and property taxes.
3. Residents may wish to retain the community's "rural" character and, for this reason, may oppose annexation as a step toward greater urbanization. There may, for example, be a strong opposition to municipal animal controls-both leash laws and restrictions on large animals.
4. The city's ordinances, regulations, and license requirements may not be appropriate for a particular fringe community.
5. Residents may desire a higher degree of community identity than they believe they will enjoy as part of a large city. They may want to retain special districts and their attendant influence. A larger municipal government may be less accessible to the people.
6. There may be distrust of the government and politics of the city to which annexation is proposed.
7. The city may not be able to finance the additional services expected by residents of the area proposed for annexation, and territory that is annexed to a city may be a financial drain upon it for many years. Services may not be available for extension without adversely affecting in-city service levels or without utility rate increases. Existing police or fire forces may be overextended, reducing the level of protection to the entire community.
8. There may be fear that annexation may lead to a geometric progression of municipal problems. It cannot be presumed that it will be more economical for a city to provide services to a larger area. Extending the service area may cost much more for each unit than the existing per unit cost.
9. Since most annexations are very small, annexation does not satisfactorily address community and regional concerns.
10. Interest in annexation may be limited to a select group of citizens and not shared at the grass roots level.
=============================================================
Growth and its management has been a dominant issue during my nearly 9-year tenure on the City Council, so I have learned much about it. But, Lord knows, I don't claim to have all the answers. What I do have is a good grasp of the principles that can lead us in the right direction, and some of the obstacles that work against them.
One topic I have researched and written about is annexation, that oddly obscure, but potentially valuable tool in the GMA toolkit. The article below was published in The Whatcom Watch early last year, which I believe explains the role annexation can play in sorting out what course of action the City and County ought to take. It's lengthy, but the 'Sidebar' is excerpted -at the end of my writing- straight from the Annexation Handbook, published by the Municipal Research Service Center [MRSC] one of our State's most valuable resources in understanding our relatively complex system. These comprise a very good summary of the Pro & Con arguments regarding annexation.
-----------------------------------------
Annexation is a concept that provides two important functions; it determines which jurisdictional rules and regulations will govern development, and it determines how revenues from development will be split. If annexation decisions are prudently and consistently made over time, growth can be concentrated in appropriate urban areas as the Growth Management Act [GMA] requires, minimizing costly sprawl.
Periodically, the County and City agree on those areas, contiguous to city limits that are best suited for future urban levels of growth. These areas are deemed “Urban Growth Areas” [UGA] and remain in the County until annexation to the City occurs. Now, during our periodic Comprehensive Plan update, it has been determined that the city has insufficient build-able land for its fair share of future growth, which means additional UGA land must be identified.
It has also been determined that existing UGA land has not been used as efficiently – as densely - as it should have been. Part of the reason is directly attributable to the city’s continuing practice of discouraging or not requiring residential annexations, particularly at the time when water and sewer services are extended - the time of its greatest leverage! Unnecessary sprawl, loss of revenue to the city, poor traffic circulation and lack of amenities like parks and trails in developing neighborhoods are all part of the cumulative results of this habitual short term thinking.
Every city or town in Whatcom County besides Bellingham annexes residential areas as a condition of extending utilities. The same is true for cities and towns in the entire state of Washington! What ‘secret’ does Bellingham know, that other municipalities in the State of Washington do not seem to know?
Pro and Con Arguments
Annexation always has its advantages and drawbacks, and these are supposed to be weighed in a thorough cost/benefit analysis whenever an opportunity presents itself.
During 2004, the City of Bellingham sponsored and facilitated a study by an intern, which examined the various factors that contribute to whether annexations can be fiscally justified. The results of this study verified what we already knew; that industrial and commercial annexations usually have a demonstrable fiscal payout for the city, while residential-only annexations do not. Another finding was that early annexations result in less cost to the city and more certainty for the city, developers and future inhabitants and business owners that the area will be used efficiently with urban service levels provided.
What has consistently not been factored into this analysis is the future potential livability of the UGA developing area. If quality of life [QOL] is important to folks, shouldn’t this also be considered, along with the more easily quantifiable economics? After all, shouldn’t people who will work and/or live in a newly developing area have a voice in city issues that will impact them? In the spirit of ‘full cost accounting” maybe we need to factor in future QOL. There is a responsibility under the GMA for cities to adequately plan for accommodating future growth and provide urban levels of service. Nowhere is there a requirement that this exercise must be economically attractive to cities, particularly for residential areas. By carefully combining mixed uses and timing annexations, financial drains on cities can be minimized or eliminated. This requires cities to exercise consistent good judgment in realizing their adopted plans and goals.
Common Pro and Con Arguments about annexation have been summarized by the Municipal Research Service Center and posted on its website. This information is shown in the sidebar for reference. [http://www.mrsc.org/Publications/textah.aspx]
The City’s Annexation Practice
The City of Bellingham’s practice has been to treat annexations as a mixed blessing; choosing those judged to have a projected financial payout as desirable and those without to be avoided. This ‘cherry-picking” approach has resulted in the build-out of commercial and industrial areas first, with residential areas often relegated to pockets of urban density located on County land. The city has allowed this level of development to occur by extending its water and sewer lines outside city limits.
Extending limited water and sewer services outside the city limits means new water and sewer facilities will have to be built sooner, financed by city residents. A significant aspect of the economic equation is that the Public Works Department has come to rely on the additional revenues generated by charging 150% of city costs to water and sewer customers living outside the city limits. This seems a shortsighted and extremely regressive policy, falling heavily on those essential services needed by people, many of whom live in multi-family housing.
The cumulative result of these practices is that about 12,000 residents [17% of Bellingham’s population] now live in the UGA, more than enough to form another Ward if the entire area were annexed. At current ratios of people per household this is equivalent to almost 5400 homes or apartments, all dependent upon city services at some level without paying taxes to the City. In terms of property taxes alone, about $2.5 million per year is not being collected by the City. Could this be part of the reason the County has not raised its property taxes in 10 years?
About two years ago, the City Council changed its former policy of not requiring annexation upon extending water and sewer services, but the effects of this change have not yet been evidenced in results. Extensions for residential development are still being granted without requiring annexations under a few “loopholes” in the adopted policy. In one recent case, a developer was willing to annex a contiguous area where 68 new homes were to be built, but was allowed water and sewer extensions without annexing. This decision alone was estimated to cost the City about $2 million in lost sales taxes.
On the positive side, some developers do seem to have gotten the message and are now actively advocating annexation concurrent with extension of utilities - in return for including new areas into the UGA. Perhaps this change in perspective will result in a more rational approach toward annexation over time, as new neighborhoods are developed with more careful planning and amenities that are conducive to our valued quality of life. Another kicker is that the City’s overall tax level is actually lower than taxes in the UGA, outside City limit! Go figure.
Future Direction
It seems logical that the City of Bellingham will soon meaningfully change its policy regarding annexation in the future, but there are still those who will oppose this change for questionable reasons. By not requiring the use of urban planning standards in the UGA, the City has effectively doomed those areas to a life without affordable urban amenities. The annexation laws in Washington are relatively weak and largely depend upon both property owners and the community instinctively doing the right thing, consistently and in a timely fashion. To best knowledge, every other community in the state already does this in some version. Why Bellingham - considered a leader in many areas - has lagged so far behind in the area of annexation policy and planning is largely inexplicable. Perhaps it is because the realities of explosive growth have only recently been in evidence here.
By actually seeing the failures resulting from its past annexation policy, Bellingham may benefit in ways that other communities might not. The need for regional planning is now more critical than ever before if we are to sustain our desirable QOL, and there are clear signs that this is under threat. Developing neighborhoods need to have a voice in determining what their “character” will be, and this can best be done by giving residents of our UGA true citizen status; allowing them to vote in City elections and bond issues, run for office, and have a stronger voice in deciding how Bellingham will develop in the future. One would expect most UGA residents want to make decisions on issues like fluoride, a new Library, Greenways levies and their elected representatives. Hopefully, our current citizenry will see the merit in such an approach and help our elected officials get on with the business of including UGA residents as legitimate, full membership in the Bellingham community.
=============================================================
Sidebar:
[Quoted from the Municipal Research Service Center website @http://www.mrsc.org/Publications/textah.aspx]
Annexation: The Pro and Con Arguments
There are certain basic arguments, pro and con, that invariably surface during the course of an annexation attempt. Some of these may be based on fact, such as, "the annexing city, by extending its services to the new area, can avoid duplication of facilities." Some concerns may be more difficult to demonstrate, such as, "urban areas must develop as a unit because their social and economic parts are interrelated." Others may be related to partisan interests, such as, "Special Districts and their attendant influence must be retained." Still other arguments may reflect fear of change: "the community to be annexed may lose its individuality and identity." As noted above, however, many of these arguments will no longer be applicable in GMA counties after the establishment of urban growth areas.
The following list of arguments should assist in anticipating issues that may arise during annexation proceedings. City officials may want to carefully consider what facts exist to prove or disprove each argument, what special interests underlie some arguments, and what misconceptions may require correction.
A. Arguments Favoring Annexation
1. After annexation, the new territory will obtain its necessary services from city departments that are professionally staffed and experienced. Duplication of services can be avoided. Considerable economies can result from the coordination of services over a larger area.
2. When the interrelationship between the city and the fringe area is close, there is need for unified planning and zoning. By means of annexation, a city's zoning ordinances can be extended to adjacent areas in a logical manner, thus helping to assure orderly growth. Coordinated action is much easier to achieve if the fringe community becomes part of the city.
3. Annexation gives suburban residents a voice in the government of the larger community in which they live. County dwellers can be substantially affected by actions of the central city, but they have no participation in its affairs.
4. Business, professional, and community leaders who live in the fringe area can have a more direct role in community affairs by being elected or appointed to public office in the city.
5. Annexation eliminates the need to form a new city government with its attendant "start-up costs," or to continue reliance on costly special districts.
6. Annexation leads to a unified community and can prevent the fragmentation of local governmental authority among a large number of special districts. Fragmentation may cause "conflicts of authority and the absence of cooperation, political irresponsibility, a long ballot, duplication of services, inadequate service levels, lack of effective area-wide planning and programming, financial inequities and other problems."
7. Political boundaries will, after annexation, more nearly reflect the true and existing sociological, economic, cultural, and physical boundaries of the city. The fringe and the city are inextricably bound together.
8. Annexation increases a city's size and population, and in some instances raises its level of political influence, its prestige, and its ability to attract desirable commercial development. It may also increase its ability to attract grant assistance.
9. Annexation can protect, or enhance, a city's tax base. The increased valuation of the city will result in a greater bonding capacity.
10. Annexation may force new industry to develop in the city, and thus create additional jobs, revenues, and commercial opportunities.
11. Unified political representation, sound economic development, enhancement of property values, and high service levels at minimum costs can best come from total comprehensive planning that avoids duplication and conflict of authority.
12. City and county boundaries can be squared off and made orderly and logical, eliminating a hodgepodge and resulting confusion as to whether a particular parcel should look to a city or to the county to obtain services. Fire and police departments, in particular, can determine whether calls are within their respective jurisdictions.
13. Annexation may bring about lower utility rates, since city utility surcharges to unincorporated territory would be lifted. Annexation also often results in lower fire insurance premiums. As more improvements and urban utilities are made available, real estate values and marketability may improve.
14. Additional services may become available, such as sewer, water, ambulance, transit, and drainage control.
B. Arguments Opposing Annexation
1. Annexation may be considered unnecessary if the community's needs, or resources, are limited. It may be unwise if the community is not physically, economically, or socially related to the annexing city.
2. Residents outside the city may argue that they chose to build and live there in order to avoid taxes for services they do not want. Industry and commercial businesses may state that they located outside the city to avoid certain business and property taxes.
3. Residents may wish to retain the community's "rural" character and, for this reason, may oppose annexation as a step toward greater urbanization. There may, for example, be a strong opposition to municipal animal controls-both leash laws and restrictions on large animals.
4. The city's ordinances, regulations, and license requirements may not be appropriate for a particular fringe community.
5. Residents may desire a higher degree of community identity than they believe they will enjoy as part of a large city. They may want to retain special districts and their attendant influence. A larger municipal government may be less accessible to the people.
6. There may be distrust of the government and politics of the city to which annexation is proposed.
7. The city may not be able to finance the additional services expected by residents of the area proposed for annexation, and territory that is annexed to a city may be a financial drain upon it for many years. Services may not be available for extension without adversely affecting in-city service levels or without utility rate increases. Existing police or fire forces may be overextended, reducing the level of protection to the entire community.
8. There may be fear that annexation may lead to a geometric progression of municipal problems. It cannot be presumed that it will be more economical for a city to provide services to a larger area. Extending the service area may cost much more for each unit than the existing per unit cost.
9. Since most annexations are very small, annexation does not satisfactorily address community and regional concerns.
10. Interest in annexation may be limited to a select group of citizens and not shared at the grass roots level.
=============================================================
Candidate Questionnaire & Decision Making
Appointments are unusual, but desirable. I know because over 8 eight years ago I was initially appointed to the City Council. Unusual because those appointed are chosen quickly by their peers, mostly based upon their written qualifications, their reputation and service in the Community. Desirable because appointments happen without the up-front burden of a political campaign, which means easier campaigning for re-election, because incumbents usually do enjoy a powerful advantage.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could more easily compare a candidate’s basic qualifications with other candidates before every political campaign or appointment? That is the purpose of the Candidate Questionnaire outlined below.
While specific 'Issues' may come and go, there are some underlying ‘Basics’ that every elected official has, should have, or needs to learn, which support each decision made by our local government. Knowing as much as possible about each candidate's 'Basics', before they are elected or appointed, seems a very useful exercise that might benefit voters. Perhaps some version of these ideas could be adopted for use in both future appointments and election forums.
At the end, I've also added some guidelines I try to use in making Council decisions. Every elected official will find that reason, fairness and consistency is expected of them, regardless of political or idealogical stripe. Often, the temptation will be strong to do what seems popular and pander to to the issue or audience 'du jour'. But, in the end, that strategy is a poor one, because of the high potential for consequences -either intended or not- that cannot be sustained.
Public officials are elected to serve primarily for the benefit of the community as a whole, and it is those benefits that last and define Bellingham.
============================================================
General questions to help evaluate candidates for elected or appointed office.
• Have you read and understand the implications of the oath of office each Council member must take? Do you understand each Council member is also considered an officer of the Bellingham Municipal Corporation?
• Are you familiar with the Public Disclosure Commission [PDC] and its requirements of all candidates and elected officials?
• What is your understanding of the term 'non-partisan'? Are you aware that the City Charter specifies that all Council members be non-partisan?
• Are you aware that Council members are expected to devote an average of 20 hours per week on signed time-sheets in connection with their duties of office? Are you committed to devoting at least this amount of time if you are selected to serve?
• Are you aware of the Council Committees and other assignments that this office brings with it, in addition to special work sessions, presentations and the like? Can you fulfill these requirements?
• What preparation for this office have you done, or are you prepared to do, in order to 'get up to speed' on both Council procedures and current issues? Any relevant experience in public office? Any voluntary local civic involvement?
• Have you read, reviewed or otherwise become aware of the function of the following documents: Comprehensive Plan; Consolidated Plan; 23 Neighborhood Plans; Budget; Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [CAFR]; Council Goals & Objectives; City Charter; Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan; Waterfront Redevelopment - Vision & Framework Plan, and Strategic Guidelines & Design Concepts?
• Are you willing to commit to intensive training to learn the basics of serving in public office? ['Welcome to City Hall' Maual; Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Annual & Legislative conferences; meet key City staff; understand legal constraints]
• Have you actively participated in or supported any major issues or campaigns of Community-wide significance? What is your history of activity with Neighborhood Associations? Any written opinions on local issues?
• What is your understanding of the Open Public Meetings Act, and what was intended by this State 'Sunshine' Law? How would this influence your personal decision-making?
• Are you familiar with the purpose and proper use of Executive Sessions and the reasons for strict confidentiality of the information discussed in them?
• Are you familiar with the Parliamentary Rules and procedures adopted by the Council to control its meetings and deliberations?
• Is it your plan to carefully weigh all decisions, make them independently and explain your reasons for support or non-support of any measure? Are you accustomed to operating under pressure and in a fishbowl?
• What are the criteria which you would personally use to consistently arrive at fair, legal and fiscally sustainable decisions for the benefit of the entire community? Would you consistently respect all citizens and viewpoints?
• Are you comfortable with approving controversial legislation with a 4-3 margin? Would you expect this to occur often? What areas would deserve more consensus building? How does an elected Council Member's duties compare to those of a juror?
• Do you have any affiliations with organizations, investments or persons which might become, or be considered, as conflicts of interest?
• Do you have any existing relationships with Council members that either you - or the public - might find problematic if you are selected? Could appearance of fairness become an issue, if you are seen as being unduly influenced by another member?
• What are your personal goals and aspirations for attaining this office? Only until elections produce an elected member? Run for office until the next election. Longer-term after that? Would you run only if appointed? Would you run if not appointed?
• Do you know what remuneration and benefits are due to each Council member?
• Please briefly summarize your personal code of ethics and conduct.
• Any personal references that you wish to cite?
• What relevant experience do you have regarding budgeting in general? Are you familiar with Government budgeting and financial processes? Are there differences that you can explain?
* In your opinion, what is the single most important issue facing the City?
In your estimation. is this being adequately addressed?
* What do you want to see the City accomplish that isn't now being
adequately addressed or is not currently considered a high priority?
DECISION MAKING
There is no set protocol or rulebook with rigid criteria to guide Members in making Council decisions, nor can there be one that would cover all situations possible, or necessarily bind future Councils. Even if such criteria existed, they would be difficult to impossible to enforce. In the interest of making consistently wise decisions, here are some of the general principles I have decided to follow, regardless of the issue:
o whether decisions are legal
o whether they are fair and consistent with established City policy and past precedents
o whether they reasonably comport with the information gathering and/or decision process that developed them
o whether the decision is really my [Council's] responsibility
o whether arguments to overturn or change are factual or political
o whether new precedents will be set that will be difficult to sustain
o whether our professional staff supports specific options, and why
o whether the greatest possible community wide benefit is assured
o whether I have done sufficient homework to understand the rationale and
reasonable options
o whether my decision honors the recommendations of the volunteer boards
and commissions responsible for reviews and recommendations
o whether any adverse unintended consequences may result
o whether decisions are made in sunshine, with reasonable public
involvement
o whether public funds are wisely used and benefits outweigh the costs
o whether conflict of interest or appearance of fairness violations may
result, or perceptions of same
Note that none of these 'filters' allows much room for subjective whim or opinion, autocratic authority, or populism. None of those are things are sustainable, because voters and taxpayers rightfully expect consistently better justifications.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could more easily compare a candidate’s basic qualifications with other candidates before every political campaign or appointment? That is the purpose of the Candidate Questionnaire outlined below.
While specific 'Issues' may come and go, there are some underlying ‘Basics’ that every elected official has, should have, or needs to learn, which support each decision made by our local government. Knowing as much as possible about each candidate's 'Basics', before they are elected or appointed, seems a very useful exercise that might benefit voters. Perhaps some version of these ideas could be adopted for use in both future appointments and election forums.
At the end, I've also added some guidelines I try to use in making Council decisions. Every elected official will find that reason, fairness and consistency is expected of them, regardless of political or idealogical stripe. Often, the temptation will be strong to do what seems popular and pander to to the issue or audience 'du jour'. But, in the end, that strategy is a poor one, because of the high potential for consequences -either intended or not- that cannot be sustained.
Public officials are elected to serve primarily for the benefit of the community as a whole, and it is those benefits that last and define Bellingham.
============================================================
General questions to help evaluate candidates for elected or appointed office.
• Have you read and understand the implications of the oath of office each Council member must take? Do you understand each Council member is also considered an officer of the Bellingham Municipal Corporation?
• Are you familiar with the Public Disclosure Commission [PDC] and its requirements of all candidates and elected officials?
• What is your understanding of the term 'non-partisan'? Are you aware that the City Charter specifies that all Council members be non-partisan?
• Are you aware that Council members are expected to devote an average of 20 hours per week on signed time-sheets in connection with their duties of office? Are you committed to devoting at least this amount of time if you are selected to serve?
• Are you aware of the Council Committees and other assignments that this office brings with it, in addition to special work sessions, presentations and the like? Can you fulfill these requirements?
• What preparation for this office have you done, or are you prepared to do, in order to 'get up to speed' on both Council procedures and current issues? Any relevant experience in public office? Any voluntary local civic involvement?
• Have you read, reviewed or otherwise become aware of the function of the following documents: Comprehensive Plan; Consolidated Plan; 23 Neighborhood Plans; Budget; Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [CAFR]; Council Goals & Objectives; City Charter; Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan; Waterfront Redevelopment - Vision & Framework Plan, and Strategic Guidelines & Design Concepts?
• Are you willing to commit to intensive training to learn the basics of serving in public office? ['Welcome to City Hall' Maual; Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Annual & Legislative conferences; meet key City staff; understand legal constraints]
• Have you actively participated in or supported any major issues or campaigns of Community-wide significance? What is your history of activity with Neighborhood Associations? Any written opinions on local issues?
• What is your understanding of the Open Public Meetings Act, and what was intended by this State 'Sunshine' Law? How would this influence your personal decision-making?
• Are you familiar with the purpose and proper use of Executive Sessions and the reasons for strict confidentiality of the information discussed in them?
• Are you familiar with the Parliamentary Rules and procedures adopted by the Council to control its meetings and deliberations?
• Is it your plan to carefully weigh all decisions, make them independently and explain your reasons for support or non-support of any measure? Are you accustomed to operating under pressure and in a fishbowl?
• What are the criteria which you would personally use to consistently arrive at fair, legal and fiscally sustainable decisions for the benefit of the entire community? Would you consistently respect all citizens and viewpoints?
• Are you comfortable with approving controversial legislation with a 4-3 margin? Would you expect this to occur often? What areas would deserve more consensus building? How does an elected Council Member's duties compare to those of a juror?
• Do you have any affiliations with organizations, investments or persons which might become, or be considered, as conflicts of interest?
• Do you have any existing relationships with Council members that either you - or the public - might find problematic if you are selected? Could appearance of fairness become an issue, if you are seen as being unduly influenced by another member?
• What are your personal goals and aspirations for attaining this office? Only until elections produce an elected member? Run for office until the next election. Longer-term after that? Would you run only if appointed? Would you run if not appointed?
• Do you know what remuneration and benefits are due to each Council member?
• Please briefly summarize your personal code of ethics and conduct.
• Any personal references that you wish to cite?
• What relevant experience do you have regarding budgeting in general? Are you familiar with Government budgeting and financial processes? Are there differences that you can explain?
* In your opinion, what is the single most important issue facing the City?
In your estimation. is this being adequately addressed?
* What do you want to see the City accomplish that isn't now being
adequately addressed or is not currently considered a high priority?
DECISION MAKING
There is no set protocol or rulebook with rigid criteria to guide Members in making Council decisions, nor can there be one that would cover all situations possible, or necessarily bind future Councils. Even if such criteria existed, they would be difficult to impossible to enforce. In the interest of making consistently wise decisions, here are some of the general principles I have decided to follow, regardless of the issue:
o whether decisions are legal
o whether they are fair and consistent with established City policy and past precedents
o whether they reasonably comport with the information gathering and/or decision process that developed them
o whether the decision is really my [Council's] responsibility
o whether arguments to overturn or change are factual or political
o whether new precedents will be set that will be difficult to sustain
o whether our professional staff supports specific options, and why
o whether the greatest possible community wide benefit is assured
o whether I have done sufficient homework to understand the rationale and
reasonable options
o whether my decision honors the recommendations of the volunteer boards
and commissions responsible for reviews and recommendations
o whether any adverse unintended consequences may result
o whether decisions are made in sunshine, with reasonable public
involvement
o whether public funds are wisely used and benefits outweigh the costs
o whether conflict of interest or appearance of fairness violations may
result, or perceptions of same
Note that none of these 'filters' allows much room for subjective whim or opinion, autocratic authority, or populism. None of those are things are sustainable, because voters and taxpayers rightfully expect consistently better justifications.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Straight Talk About Lake Whatcom
Folks might be interested in my 'Political Commentary' published in the July 2007 Issue of NW Business Monthly:
Straight Talk About Lake Whatcom
Gerald Baron's 'Political Commentary' in the June issue invited a response. I'll try to state the case for preserving our Water Supply Reservoir clearly and in plain language, so folks can understand this controversial issue a little better.
Ben Franklin expressed the 'Precautionary Principle' in simple terms -'a stitch in time saves nine'. Essentially, that is the approach both the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County adopted as their official policy regarding Lake Whatcom and its surrounding watershed.
All best thinking is welcome in determining how to implement this policy, but the main goal should be clear and not under debate - the long-term preservation of our Municipal Water Supply. To make any headway on this challenge means we -individually and collectively- need to change some habits we've developed over the past several decades. Talking about this is good, but actions are better. That's why both City and County have agreed on a program containing multiple actions that start us in the right direction. Unfortunately, the actions taken so far have not been sufficient to even slow down the rate of documented water quality degradation in the lake, much less stop it or reverse it. This warrants serious concern - and additional action, including doing no more harm!
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
- Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
In many respects the lake situation mirrors our human experience. For example, if we are diagnosed with a serious ailment or disease, most of us listen to our Doctor's expert advice and try hard to follow it. Sometimes, a second opinion is sought, but eventually we get the message and actively strive to extend our normal lives as pain-free as possible. If one medicine or therapy doesn't work, we try others, with surgery used only as a last resort. Rarely, do we humans consciously give up on our own health! Most of us don't depend on the advice of quacks or rely on placebos, although sometimes, alternative techniques do work pretty well. The point is we really try hard to stay alive and healthy, don't we? That just seems to be part of our nature!
Why not extend the same kinds of health awareness -and positive actions- to taking care of our exceptionally pure - and essential - water supply? Do you know that nearly 97% of the world's water is salty or otherwise undrinkable; that another 2% is locked in ice caps and glaciers; that only 1% can be used for all agricultural, residential, manufacturing, community and personal needs?
"Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over." - Mark Twain
Worldwide scarcity of potable water is already a problem, which is projected to get progressively worse as population grows and polluting practices continue. Future water wars may occur to rival or surpass wars over other scarce resources, like energy from petroleum. Knowing the scarcity of clean water sources will get worse over time, why don't we value water more than we do? Three reasons come to mind - the oldest ones in recorded history: ignorance; greed and attachment to old habits; anger or fear over the need to change old habits.
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.”
- Albert Einstein
So, why exactly should we even try to keep Lake Whatcom as clean as possible? Not necessarily pristine, mind you, because we're already past that point, and without time travel we don't get to go back in history again. I'm talking about holding the line on the water quality we have right now, then seeing if we can improve on that slightly. There are two very good reasons to set that as a serious goal - our health and our pocket books.
First, we know our health can be harmed by contact with dirty water, whether from raw sewage spills, excessive algae growth, or poisonous runoff. Swimmers, boaters and fishermen don't consider dirty water much fun either.
"We never know the worth of water 'til the well runs dry." - Benjamin Franklin
Also, we know costs are always increased by having to treat dirtier water for drinking and bathing purposes, although this is possible to do. The US Navy makes its shipboard potable water from seawater by desalination and various advanced filtration methods. Our Astronauts use super high tech systems to recycle their own body fluids! Care to guess how much these types of water treatment systems would cost the citizens of Bellingham and Whatcom County? The answer is millions of dollars to buy and install the equipment and more millions to operate and maintain it annually. It might even become cheaper for us just to buy bottled water to drink, which of course, comes from somewhere else, but the people living 'somewhere else' also need to keep their water clean, too!
“You can pay me now, or you can pay me later.” - Midas Muffler Ad
Buying water to drink is one thing, but buying enough to also cook with, bathe in, wash clothes, fill hot tubs and pools, wash cars and water lawns, tends to get a little expensive, don't you think? Yet, water degradation is slowly happening in our lake, right now, as you are reading this! Every new home that is built and occupied by new people, every lot that is cleared and graded, every vehicle that leaves its poisonous residue, and every clear-cut that is done carelessly, all add incrementally to our lake becoming dirtier. If that continues, at some premature time, these cumulative impacts will face our children, their children and all future generations. These people will not be happy with our legacy to them - a problem beyond fixing without rationing, big bucks and Space Age high tech equipment. Let’s don't let that happen! .
"If we are to solve the problems that plague us, our thinking must evolve beyond the level we were using when we created those problems in the first place."
- Albert Einstein
Straight Talk About Lake Whatcom
Gerald Baron's 'Political Commentary' in the June issue invited a response. I'll try to state the case for preserving our Water Supply Reservoir clearly and in plain language, so folks can understand this controversial issue a little better.
Ben Franklin expressed the 'Precautionary Principle' in simple terms -'a stitch in time saves nine'. Essentially, that is the approach both the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County adopted as their official policy regarding Lake Whatcom and its surrounding watershed.
All best thinking is welcome in determining how to implement this policy, but the main goal should be clear and not under debate - the long-term preservation of our Municipal Water Supply. To make any headway on this challenge means we -individually and collectively- need to change some habits we've developed over the past several decades. Talking about this is good, but actions are better. That's why both City and County have agreed on a program containing multiple actions that start us in the right direction. Unfortunately, the actions taken so far have not been sufficient to even slow down the rate of documented water quality degradation in the lake, much less stop it or reverse it. This warrants serious concern - and additional action, including doing no more harm!
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
- Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
In many respects the lake situation mirrors our human experience. For example, if we are diagnosed with a serious ailment or disease, most of us listen to our Doctor's expert advice and try hard to follow it. Sometimes, a second opinion is sought, but eventually we get the message and actively strive to extend our normal lives as pain-free as possible. If one medicine or therapy doesn't work, we try others, with surgery used only as a last resort. Rarely, do we humans consciously give up on our own health! Most of us don't depend on the advice of quacks or rely on placebos, although sometimes, alternative techniques do work pretty well. The point is we really try hard to stay alive and healthy, don't we? That just seems to be part of our nature!
Why not extend the same kinds of health awareness -and positive actions- to taking care of our exceptionally pure - and essential - water supply? Do you know that nearly 97% of the world's water is salty or otherwise undrinkable; that another 2% is locked in ice caps and glaciers; that only 1% can be used for all agricultural, residential, manufacturing, community and personal needs?
"Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over." - Mark Twain
Worldwide scarcity of potable water is already a problem, which is projected to get progressively worse as population grows and polluting practices continue. Future water wars may occur to rival or surpass wars over other scarce resources, like energy from petroleum. Knowing the scarcity of clean water sources will get worse over time, why don't we value water more than we do? Three reasons come to mind - the oldest ones in recorded history: ignorance; greed and attachment to old habits; anger or fear over the need to change old habits.
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.”
- Albert Einstein
So, why exactly should we even try to keep Lake Whatcom as clean as possible? Not necessarily pristine, mind you, because we're already past that point, and without time travel we don't get to go back in history again. I'm talking about holding the line on the water quality we have right now, then seeing if we can improve on that slightly. There are two very good reasons to set that as a serious goal - our health and our pocket books.
First, we know our health can be harmed by contact with dirty water, whether from raw sewage spills, excessive algae growth, or poisonous runoff. Swimmers, boaters and fishermen don't consider dirty water much fun either.
"We never know the worth of water 'til the well runs dry." - Benjamin Franklin
Also, we know costs are always increased by having to treat dirtier water for drinking and bathing purposes, although this is possible to do. The US Navy makes its shipboard potable water from seawater by desalination and various advanced filtration methods. Our Astronauts use super high tech systems to recycle their own body fluids! Care to guess how much these types of water treatment systems would cost the citizens of Bellingham and Whatcom County? The answer is millions of dollars to buy and install the equipment and more millions to operate and maintain it annually. It might even become cheaper for us just to buy bottled water to drink, which of course, comes from somewhere else, but the people living 'somewhere else' also need to keep their water clean, too!
“You can pay me now, or you can pay me later.” - Midas Muffler Ad
Buying water to drink is one thing, but buying enough to also cook with, bathe in, wash clothes, fill hot tubs and pools, wash cars and water lawns, tends to get a little expensive, don't you think? Yet, water degradation is slowly happening in our lake, right now, as you are reading this! Every new home that is built and occupied by new people, every lot that is cleared and graded, every vehicle that leaves its poisonous residue, and every clear-cut that is done carelessly, all add incrementally to our lake becoming dirtier. If that continues, at some premature time, these cumulative impacts will face our children, their children and all future generations. These people will not be happy with our legacy to them - a problem beyond fixing without rationing, big bucks and Space Age high tech equipment. Let’s don't let that happen! .
"If we are to solve the problems that plague us, our thinking must evolve beyond the level we were using when we created those problems in the first place."
- Albert Einstein
Mea Culpa and Apologies
George Burns once said ‘The secret of a good sermon is to have a good beginning and a good ending; and to have the two as close together as possible’. That is also good advice for an apology.
So, ‘mea culpa’ to anyone who felt harmed by my –undelivered- promise of a blog on the subject of a certain established rumor. It was an unwise thing for me to have even mentioned that particular subject as I did. It was also unnecessary, because anyone could Google it to find, among other search results, a WIndy article in the March 30 2007 issue.
Because apologies really are better –and briefer- than explanations or excuses, I offer these to all who felt poorly served by what I wrote at the end of my second blog posting. The actual size of that readership is unknown and but really makes no difference, because if only one person was harmed, that’s one too many.
I have exchanged communications with two persons who called me to say my blog statement did not make them happy. That's more than enough for me, and I sincerely hope my apology was enough for both of them.
One was my friend, Don Keenan, who e-mailed me the following: [used with his permission]
-------------------------------
To: jwatts@nas.com,
editor@nwcitizen.us
Subject: Positive Campaigning
From: Don Keenan
Date: Fri, 27 July 2007 12:42:15 -0700
Dear John,
Someone just pointed out to me John Servais’ comments today on NwCitizen.US regarding a blog you recently started. I just tried and your blog appears unavailable for me to read at this time on the Internet, but John Servais’ comments indicate his belief that you were acting on behalf of my campaign, which is clearly not the case. What you do or say is certainly a matter of your own choice, but I’d like to reaffirm for the record my opposition to negative campaigning as stated on July 4th.
Here’s an excerpt from the e-mail I sent July 4th to you and over 100 others who are supporting my candidacy for whom I had e-mail addresses:
“Unfortunately we have seen the beginning of negative campaigning. Don’t be troubled. It’s likely to continue, but I hope you will join in my commitment to a positive campaign. I’ve worked on many campaigns and I’ve never seen personal attacks win. Voters want candidates to stick to issues and that’s what I plan to do. Believe me, it takes discipline not to respond, but in the end nobody benefits from participating in negative exchanges. I have a long record of public service and a positive vision for the future of Bellingham. I am proud of that service and desire to continue to be of service to the people of our community.”
I know anyone who serves in a high profile leadership position winds up being a ready target for criticism, but Bellingham has too much at stake to have this or any other campaign sidetracked by negativity.
Today’s Bellingham Herald has a positive letter to the editor from City Council member Gene Knutson supporting my candidacy for mayor. You also wrote a positive letter about me a couple of months ago. I appreciate support from city council members and others in the community who know my work as Deputy Administrator and I continue to ask that the focus remains positive throughout the campaign.
Sincerely,
Don
------------------------
My next blog will be on an entirely different subject, to be determined. Until then, I’ve got other things to do.
Note: The ‘promised’ controversial blog was not posted, and it won’t be.
So, ‘mea culpa’ to anyone who felt harmed by my –undelivered- promise of a blog on the subject of a certain established rumor. It was an unwise thing for me to have even mentioned that particular subject as I did. It was also unnecessary, because anyone could Google it to find, among other search results, a WIndy article in the March 30 2007 issue.
Because apologies really are better –and briefer- than explanations or excuses, I offer these to all who felt poorly served by what I wrote at the end of my second blog posting. The actual size of that readership is unknown and but really makes no difference, because if only one person was harmed, that’s one too many.
I have exchanged communications with two persons who called me to say my blog statement did not make them happy. That's more than enough for me, and I sincerely hope my apology was enough for both of them.
One was my friend, Don Keenan, who e-mailed me the following: [used with his permission]
-------------------------------
To: jwatts@nas.com,
editor@nwcitizen.us
Subject: Positive Campaigning
From: Don Keenan
Date: Fri, 27 July 2007 12:42:15 -0700
Dear John,
Someone just pointed out to me John Servais’ comments today on NwCitizen.US regarding a blog you recently started. I just tried and your blog appears unavailable for me to read at this time on the Internet, but John Servais’ comments indicate his belief that you were acting on behalf of my campaign, which is clearly not the case. What you do or say is certainly a matter of your own choice, but I’d like to reaffirm for the record my opposition to negative campaigning as stated on July 4th.
Here’s an excerpt from the e-mail I sent July 4th to you and over 100 others who are supporting my candidacy for whom I had e-mail addresses:
“Unfortunately we have seen the beginning of negative campaigning. Don’t be troubled. It’s likely to continue, but I hope you will join in my commitment to a positive campaign. I’ve worked on many campaigns and I’ve never seen personal attacks win. Voters want candidates to stick to issues and that’s what I plan to do. Believe me, it takes discipline not to respond, but in the end nobody benefits from participating in negative exchanges. I have a long record of public service and a positive vision for the future of Bellingham. I am proud of that service and desire to continue to be of service to the people of our community.”
I know anyone who serves in a high profile leadership position winds up being a ready target for criticism, but Bellingham has too much at stake to have this or any other campaign sidetracked by negativity.
Today’s Bellingham Herald has a positive letter to the editor from City Council member Gene Knutson supporting my candidacy for mayor. You also wrote a positive letter about me a couple of months ago. I appreciate support from city council members and others in the community who know my work as Deputy Administrator and I continue to ask that the focus remains positive throughout the campaign.
Sincerely,
Don
------------------------
My next blog will be on an entirely different subject, to be determined. Until then, I’ve got other things to do.
Note: The ‘promised’ controversial blog was not posted, and it won’t be.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
2nd Posting - The UGA Land Supply Debate
I WAS wrong, and in my first posting too! That could be embarrassing, but somehow, I'm not.
The County Council actually wimped on a planned Resolution to 'negotiate' with the City on additional UGA lands. Instead, they equivocated and agreed on another 'public hearing' event on August 7. That should be interesting, a room full of angry people and 'special interests' demanding that the Council accept the responsibility to do something creative to help the City -supposedly their biggest constituent and ally- actually achieve the goals the two parties ostensibly wanted to achieve, in good faith! By the way, that is the same night that Bellingham neighborhoods host National Night Out Against Crime' events, present company included. Good way of involving the public?
Will this additional 'public hearing' achieve its stated purpse, or will it merely serve as cover to a County Council that has essentially abrogated its elected responsibility to its very vocal -appointed- advisory Planning Commission? It has been said that to claim a virtue, one only has to assume it. Has that happened? Is it a virtue? One wonders. Is David Hunter now the acting County Council Chair? He sounded like it, and it may be a post he might enjoy, but he was not elected to it! Will the County Council simply accept the edict of its appointed -not annointed- Planning Commission? Or, will the Council do its duty and have the fortitude to independently analyze the situation, even without any PC recommendations? That is the question. I am informed that after 47 -count them- public meetings the County Planning Commission did not even agree on recommendations to the County Council! If that is true, is it acceptable? What is wrong with this picture?
On to other stuff. The Bill MIze Forum is tonight, but I won't attend this one. Instead, I did consider the 7 questions posed and answered them to my own satisfaction. Anyone interested can contact me for the answers.
Tomorrow, I take up another concern; that of whether there is anything to the buzz that there may exist, a conspiracy between The Cascadia Weekly, Conservation Northwest and the McShane Campaign, all sponsored by Trillium. Speculation? Maybe. Proof? Remains to be seen. Questions to be posed and answered? Certainly! Let the process begin!
I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.
-Rudyard Kipling
The County Council actually wimped on a planned Resolution to 'negotiate' with the City on additional UGA lands. Instead, they equivocated and agreed on another 'public hearing' event on August 7. That should be interesting, a room full of angry people and 'special interests' demanding that the Council accept the responsibility to do something creative to help the City -supposedly their biggest constituent and ally- actually achieve the goals the two parties ostensibly wanted to achieve, in good faith! By the way, that is the same night that Bellingham neighborhoods host National Night Out Against Crime' events, present company included. Good way of involving the public?
Will this additional 'public hearing' achieve its stated purpse, or will it merely serve as cover to a County Council that has essentially abrogated its elected responsibility to its very vocal -appointed- advisory Planning Commission? It has been said that to claim a virtue, one only has to assume it. Has that happened? Is it a virtue? One wonders. Is David Hunter now the acting County Council Chair? He sounded like it, and it may be a post he might enjoy, but he was not elected to it! Will the County Council simply accept the edict of its appointed -not annointed- Planning Commission? Or, will the Council do its duty and have the fortitude to independently analyze the situation, even without any PC recommendations? That is the question. I am informed that after 47 -count them- public meetings the County Planning Commission did not even agree on recommendations to the County Council! If that is true, is it acceptable? What is wrong with this picture?
On to other stuff. The Bill MIze Forum is tonight, but I won't attend this one. Instead, I did consider the 7 questions posed and answered them to my own satisfaction. Anyone interested can contact me for the answers.
Tomorrow, I take up another concern; that of whether there is anything to the buzz that there may exist, a conspiracy between The Cascadia Weekly, Conservation Northwest and the McShane Campaign, all sponsored by Trillium. Speculation? Maybe. Proof? Remains to be seen. Questions to be posed and answered? Certainly! Let the process begin!
I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.
-Rudyard Kipling
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
My First Blog Posting: GMA & Comprehensive Plan Update
"Responsibility does not only lie with the leaders of our countries or with those who have been appointed or elected to do a particular job. It lies with each of us individually. What is important is that we each make a sincere effort to take seriously our responsibility for each other and for the natural environment."
~ From His Holiness, the Dalai Lama
I have always taken inspiration from this quote from a man whose religion is lovingkindness.
So, now with the start-up of my first blog, it seems appropriate to set the tone for this space.
In anticipation of retirement from elected public office, I am beginning a new career - that of a concerned citizen with knowledge to be shared as widely and respectfully as I can reasonably do it. Never again will I be able to sit back and just let local politics just happen in our town! That would be irresponsible, particularly in the midst of a chaotic election in which truth has already suffered enough neglect! How I wish that more folks would learn from Mark Twain, 'to always tell the truth, that way you can remember what you said'!
With the complex and controversial issues facing Bellingham and Whatcom County, there will be no shortage of subject matter! After nearly nine years as a member of the Bellingham City Council, I do have much to share, including insights into current happenings and some older issues that are now seeing their next iteration.
I want to be fair and accurate to the best of my knowledge, but some things I have to say may not be comfortable to read or hear for some people. Controversy does come with the territory with local government, and our system does depend upon an informed electorate.
The opinions I will offer will be informed ones, based on facts and my personal observations and logical deductions. They will not please everyone! If a reader believes I am mistaken, that's OK. But it's my Blog!
I hope people find the regular postings here of sufficient interest for further discussion in our community. All content is my sole responsibility, and the views expressed my own. Enough preliminaries.
Now, where to begin?
How about Growth Management?
Specifically, will the County approve a reasonable new City UGA land supply to facilitate compact urban growth, or will they opt for business as usual? Based on the current buzz, I'm betting the County Council will follow a predetermined path to a foregone conclusion and severely cut back on the City's proposal, instead, imposing a 'punishment' on the City for its 'sins of the past'. Some members will likely pander, posture and equivocate, but in the end they will simply ignore the years of careful, 'bottom's up' analysis the City made and make that effort a colossal waste of time.
I hope I'm wrong on this, but we will know in the morning.
If the answer is as anticipated, the City can do any or all of the following:
1. re-examine its good faith commitment to the County of trying to accept over 50% of the Countywide growth until 2022.
2. complain and maybe appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board.
3. sit back and count its blessings that the County did something the City wouldn't do for itself.
The combination of 1 & 3 sounds like the easiest course to follow, doesn't it?
Would the County feel good about pulling rank on the City? Probably, because it wouldn't have to change a thing, except throw GMA intent out the window and continue to collect the revenues. Why should the County worry, it wouldn't need to share its revenues with the City, deal with City codes and standards as much, hire enough competent and experienced planners to do the job necessary for a true 'collaboration' [there's that word again] with the City. After all, the County ALREADY HAS enough vested 5-acre lots to accommodate ALL the projected countywide growth until 2022, without a single new home being built in any city! How'd you like them apples? Also, some County Council members -one even lives in town- actually delight in 'sticking it to the City'.
Does it sound like the pot might be calling the kettle black? You bet it does! Added bonus, the County can brag about not having to raise property taxes for the 12th -or 13th. I forget- straight year, because enough sprawl will occur to fill the County coffers, and maybe even provide a surplus! Follow the money, then use it for good purposes.
More later, after the County Council actions are known.
~ From His Holiness, the Dalai Lama
I have always taken inspiration from this quote from a man whose religion is lovingkindness.
So, now with the start-up of my first blog, it seems appropriate to set the tone for this space.
In anticipation of retirement from elected public office, I am beginning a new career - that of a concerned citizen with knowledge to be shared as widely and respectfully as I can reasonably do it. Never again will I be able to sit back and just let local politics just happen in our town! That would be irresponsible, particularly in the midst of a chaotic election in which truth has already suffered enough neglect! How I wish that more folks would learn from Mark Twain, 'to always tell the truth, that way you can remember what you said'!
With the complex and controversial issues facing Bellingham and Whatcom County, there will be no shortage of subject matter! After nearly nine years as a member of the Bellingham City Council, I do have much to share, including insights into current happenings and some older issues that are now seeing their next iteration.
I want to be fair and accurate to the best of my knowledge, but some things I have to say may not be comfortable to read or hear for some people. Controversy does come with the territory with local government, and our system does depend upon an informed electorate.
The opinions I will offer will be informed ones, based on facts and my personal observations and logical deductions. They will not please everyone! If a reader believes I am mistaken, that's OK. But it's my Blog!
I hope people find the regular postings here of sufficient interest for further discussion in our community. All content is my sole responsibility, and the views expressed my own. Enough preliminaries.
Now, where to begin?
How about Growth Management?
Specifically, will the County approve a reasonable new City UGA land supply to facilitate compact urban growth, or will they opt for business as usual? Based on the current buzz, I'm betting the County Council will follow a predetermined path to a foregone conclusion and severely cut back on the City's proposal, instead, imposing a 'punishment' on the City for its 'sins of the past'. Some members will likely pander, posture and equivocate, but in the end they will simply ignore the years of careful, 'bottom's up' analysis the City made and make that effort a colossal waste of time.
I hope I'm wrong on this, but we will know in the morning.
If the answer is as anticipated, the City can do any or all of the following:
1. re-examine its good faith commitment to the County of trying to accept over 50% of the Countywide growth until 2022.
2. complain and maybe appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board.
3. sit back and count its blessings that the County did something the City wouldn't do for itself.
The combination of 1 & 3 sounds like the easiest course to follow, doesn't it?
Would the County feel good about pulling rank on the City? Probably, because it wouldn't have to change a thing, except throw GMA intent out the window and continue to collect the revenues. Why should the County worry, it wouldn't need to share its revenues with the City, deal with City codes and standards as much, hire enough competent and experienced planners to do the job necessary for a true 'collaboration' [there's that word again] with the City. After all, the County ALREADY HAS enough vested 5-acre lots to accommodate ALL the projected countywide growth until 2022, without a single new home being built in any city! How'd you like them apples? Also, some County Council members -one even lives in town- actually delight in 'sticking it to the City'.
Does it sound like the pot might be calling the kettle black? You bet it does! Added bonus, the County can brag about not having to raise property taxes for the 12th -or 13th. I forget- straight year, because enough sprawl will occur to fill the County coffers, and maybe even provide a surplus! Follow the money, then use it for good purposes.
More later, after the County Council actions are known.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
