-----------------------
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
- George Orwell
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
“Demagoguery beats data in making public policy."
- US House of Representatives Majority Leader
==================
Warning: If you are adverse to reading something longer than a few sound bytes, you will not be able to complete this blog at one sitting.
==================
I thought that disclaimer might help those who don't have the time or attention span to take on this writing all at one time.
And, I know there are folks out there who fit that description!
Why, just today, a reporter linked to yesterday's blog with the warning that it was 'long', as is 'usual' with my submittals.
A week or so ago, I got a similar response from a member of the County Planning Commission, who had e-mailed to ask me what I meant by 'reducing uncertainty' in growth planning.
In response I sent him a link to blog on that subject, to which he complained it was 'too long' and he didn't have time to read it!
Obviously, there is a perceived difference is how 'long' an article must be to cover any given subject.
Running the risk of being called 'sexist' or worse, I once heard that a speech -or a writing- should be like a woman's skirt; long enough to cover the subject, but short enough to arouse interest.
Let me state again for the record, the object of this blog is more about the former than the latter.
It is about providing some background, facts and reasoning on issues that have already attracted attention.
It is written for those who wish to know more, not less.
It is written to demonstrate the basis upon which my conclusions and opinions are based.
That's it.
I'm not trying to become famous, controversial, witty, entertaining or difficult; I am merely trying to communicate what I know and have come to believe as a result of serious study, reflection and resulting decision-making, that might be of interest to others.
Of course, this blog also serves as a place I can record and store information for future reference, kinda like an electronic filing system.
If folks don't want to rummage through my files, that's OK with me.
Hope this is clearer now, because I don't plan to mention it again.
If you still want to read more, maybe just reading between the dashed divisions at one sitting will help.
I'll try to make them a little closer together.
-----------------------
Meantime, the drumbeats continue, leading up to the Whatcom County Council's decision expected following its Dec 4 meeting.
'Sprawl or Infill' are the false choices being offered, despite the City's EIS that concluded some of each was necessary if the City is to accommodate the 51.4% of the growth projected by 2022.
Let's see, the City's 51.4% equates to 31,601 new people
So, if the City agreed to accept new population proportional to its existing share of 37%, it would only need to accommodate about 22,748 new people, which would be doable by infill alone.
That is certainly an option, and it would be much easier to accomplish.
So why not just do that, you might ask?
Well, I think the City may be forced to do that, depending upon what the County decides, just to remain honest about what is likely possible to achieve.
But, initially, the thought was to take a larger proportion -if possible- to further the goal of densifying existing urban areas, of which Bellingham is clearly the largest.
That goal was always ambitious, but it was undertaken in a good faith effort.
-----------------------
But, that goal was undertaken before the City decided to require annexation before extending water & sewer utilities.
The County didn't like that, because it reduced County revenue from sprawl in the UGA.
That goal was also set before some of the people who now represent the County on the Planning Commission and Council were on board and paying attention.
That goal was also set at a time when a bunch of former County Planners were still working for the County.
Of course, most of them are now gone and unavailable for consultation with the current decision-makers.
But now is the time the growth decision will be made, so recent history has little role to play.
Instead, opinions based on data-free analysis are seen as more appropriate.
I think that approach is a one-way ticket to disaster.
Under the circumstances, its hard to determine whether ignorance or arrogance is predominant in the rhetoric being heard.
At a minimum, a lack of consistency, good faith, common sense, and decent leadership is clearly lacking.
And, I don't really care whether the recommendations given to the County by the City are followed or not!
Except, I do resent the monumental waste of time in trying to arrive at a growth management plan that makes sense.
-----------------------
I have absolutely no financial interest either way, except if unnecessary sprawl is allowed by County action, I will have to pay for it along with every other citizen of Whatcom County!
Those impacts will likely take time to be felt, so they won't be clearly linked to current actions -meaning current decision-makers won't be held accountable.
And, those costs will undoubtedly include significant legal costs -the absolute epitomy of avoidable waste.
That bothers me a lot!
It bothers me that the County decision-makers don't seem to realize the true importance of the decisions they are about to make.
They don't realize it because they seem to lack the curiosity, time, expert advice and long term vision necessary to make a wise decision.
But, then all those things do take time, don't they?
Maybe even a long time.
That means some folks won't want to read about it, because it can't be covered in short sound bytes!
-----------------------
"If the nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson
"You can't teach what you don't know, and you can't lead where you won't go"
- Jesse Jackson
"Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome." – Samuel Johnson
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." -Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Robert Louis Stevenson once said that politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is considered necessary. It was true then -- it's true now.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.
==================
"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
'Always tell the truth. That way you can remember what you said.'
- Mark Twain
Dijon vu - the same mustard as before.
'To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.'
-- Abraham Lincoln
==================
I am reprinting today's BELLINGHAM HERALD 'OUR VIEW', which pontificates the following:
"City should bow to county on growth-area boundaries
It is ridiculous that Bellingham City Council and Whatcom County Council couldn’t negotiate an agreement to solve their impasse over the size of the city’s future growth areas.
Bellingham’s comprehensive plan calls for adding 2,128 acres to the city’s urban growth area, an area outside the current city limits that would eventually be annexed into town and receive city services. The County Council is responsible for the countywide growth plans and believes Bellingham’s planned expansion is much too big. The county suggested that only 250 acres near King and Queen mountains are needed in Bellingham’s growth area.
After the county made its suggestion, the two groups talked of working together for a compromise both sides could support. The thought was that it would be better if the councils spoke with a single voice, especially with the possibility that someone might appeal the plans saying they were not completed correctly.
The County Council invited the City Council to a joint meeting to discuss the possibilities, but City Council members refused. Some of them were reportedly upset that the County Council told its staff not to negotiate during meetings with city staff and to leave the negotiating only to council members.
We’re not sure why the two councils ended up not being able to get along. But we’re certain they should be able to do so. It requires maturity and a desire to put the needs of the community ahead of your own emotions. Those are both traits we would like to think all of our elected officials possess.
It should come as no surprise to regular readers of our editorials that we support the county’s plans to limit Bellingham expansion. The city has proposed more sprawl than is necessary to deal with potential population growth.
Sprawl outside the current city limits should be resisted wherever possible. City Council members should recognize this and support the county’s plan."
===================
As you might expect there were several comments posted in response to this editorial.
These are not reprinted here, but the one I submitted is shown below
===================
" It is not at all surprising that the Herald has issued an opinion on this subject.
What is surprising is the apparent lack of understanding of what has happened and what will happen.
There is no question about the County's right to make the final determination, because that is set by law.
What is in question is whether the County has any hard information that indicates the City has the ability to accept all the growth it offered to accept, without sufficient new UGA land supply.
Here, the key thing to remember is the growth projections are mandated by the State, with the County responsible for adopting a final number and apportioning it among the various municipalities, including its own unincorporated areas.
All that has been done by the City is to spend almost 4 years trying to determine where its alloted growth can and will occur. This exercise involved an Environmental Impact Study from which it was found that a combination of infill AND new UGA land supply would be required to achieve this goal.
Further, based upon history and best ideas, the City determined it needed about 1400 additional acres from the 2200 acres currently included in the County-approved '5-year Review Areas'.
I believe this determination was done as fairly and accurately as possible, because I sat through the entire proceeding. No one did from the Herald or the County! And neither of those organizations has undertaken the effort required to really understand how the City's estimate of land supply shortfall was determined.
It's OK to wish for something, and we all do it sometimes. But, to challenge careful work with nothing more than wishful thinking is the epitomy of hypocrisy!
No Joint Council meeting is able to simply negotiate away these results! Instead, the County needs to make its own determination, using the City's input - which has already been given in writing. There are distinct choices the County alone must make. If those choices are undertaken in good faith of the City's efforts, there should be no substantial problem.
If there are wide differences, the City must examine its commitment to a goal that cannot be reasonably reached. That's it!
No municipality should be required to accept something it just cannot do, whether it is growth related or otherwise. Failing a reasonable decision by the County to either (a) upzone its UGA to higher a MINIMUM density, (b) allow the City to use it's planning rules & regulations in the UGA, or (c) grant more UGA lands to the City -from the 5-year Review Areas, the City's only remaining choice will be to adjust the amount of growth it agrees to take to more closely fit the reality of land supply.
That is how I see it and I believe how the situation may be mitigated. Tampering with safety factors is better done by removing the layers of uncertainty that are curently inherent in the GMA land supply planning process.
Please notice I am using my own name here, not initials or pseudonyms. And, I have been consistent in these views ever since I understood the dynamics at work. Political dynamics are everyone's individual choice; I prefer to determine the facts first so that my political opinion has something solid under it as a foundation.
I hope this is adequate to explain a complicated issue in a few short paragraphs. Sound bytes don't do the job!
BTW, if the City is unable to accommodate the 51.4% of County growth its projections are based upon, where do you imagine it will go?
If you guessed rural sprawl, you'd be correct!"
John Watts | 11.29.07 - 11:29 am | #
====================
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism.- Winston Churchill
They are decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent. - Winston Churchill
====================
"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
'Always tell the truth. That way you can remember what you said.'
- Mark Twain
Dijon vu - the same mustard as before.
'To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.'
-- Abraham Lincoln
==================
I am reprinting today's BELLINGHAM HERALD 'OUR VIEW', which pontificates the following:
"City should bow to county on growth-area boundaries
It is ridiculous that Bellingham City Council and Whatcom County Council couldn’t negotiate an agreement to solve their impasse over the size of the city’s future growth areas.
Bellingham’s comprehensive plan calls for adding 2,128 acres to the city’s urban growth area, an area outside the current city limits that would eventually be annexed into town and receive city services. The County Council is responsible for the countywide growth plans and believes Bellingham’s planned expansion is much too big. The county suggested that only 250 acres near King and Queen mountains are needed in Bellingham’s growth area.
After the county made its suggestion, the two groups talked of working together for a compromise both sides could support. The thought was that it would be better if the councils spoke with a single voice, especially with the possibility that someone might appeal the plans saying they were not completed correctly.
The County Council invited the City Council to a joint meeting to discuss the possibilities, but City Council members refused. Some of them were reportedly upset that the County Council told its staff not to negotiate during meetings with city staff and to leave the negotiating only to council members.
We’re not sure why the two councils ended up not being able to get along. But we’re certain they should be able to do so. It requires maturity and a desire to put the needs of the community ahead of your own emotions. Those are both traits we would like to think all of our elected officials possess.
It should come as no surprise to regular readers of our editorials that we support the county’s plans to limit Bellingham expansion. The city has proposed more sprawl than is necessary to deal with potential population growth.
Sprawl outside the current city limits should be resisted wherever possible. City Council members should recognize this and support the county’s plan."
===================
As you might expect there were several comments posted in response to this editorial.
These are not reprinted here, but the one I submitted is shown below
===================
" It is not at all surprising that the Herald has issued an opinion on this subject.
What is surprising is the apparent lack of understanding of what has happened and what will happen.
There is no question about the County's right to make the final determination, because that is set by law.
What is in question is whether the County has any hard information that indicates the City has the ability to accept all the growth it offered to accept, without sufficient new UGA land supply.
Here, the key thing to remember is the growth projections are mandated by the State, with the County responsible for adopting a final number and apportioning it among the various municipalities, including its own unincorporated areas.
All that has been done by the City is to spend almost 4 years trying to determine where its alloted growth can and will occur. This exercise involved an Environmental Impact Study from which it was found that a combination of infill AND new UGA land supply would be required to achieve this goal.
Further, based upon history and best ideas, the City determined it needed about 1400 additional acres from the 2200 acres currently included in the County-approved '5-year Review Areas'.
I believe this determination was done as fairly and accurately as possible, because I sat through the entire proceeding. No one did from the Herald or the County! And neither of those organizations has undertaken the effort required to really understand how the City's estimate of land supply shortfall was determined.
It's OK to wish for something, and we all do it sometimes. But, to challenge careful work with nothing more than wishful thinking is the epitomy of hypocrisy!
No Joint Council meeting is able to simply negotiate away these results! Instead, the County needs to make its own determination, using the City's input - which has already been given in writing. There are distinct choices the County alone must make. If those choices are undertaken in good faith of the City's efforts, there should be no substantial problem.
If there are wide differences, the City must examine its commitment to a goal that cannot be reasonably reached. That's it!
No municipality should be required to accept something it just cannot do, whether it is growth related or otherwise. Failing a reasonable decision by the County to either (a) upzone its UGA to higher a MINIMUM density, (b) allow the City to use it's planning rules & regulations in the UGA, or (c) grant more UGA lands to the City -from the 5-year Review Areas, the City's only remaining choice will be to adjust the amount of growth it agrees to take to more closely fit the reality of land supply.
That is how I see it and I believe how the situation may be mitigated. Tampering with safety factors is better done by removing the layers of uncertainty that are curently inherent in the GMA land supply planning process.
Please notice I am using my own name here, not initials or pseudonyms. And, I have been consistent in these views ever since I understood the dynamics at work. Political dynamics are everyone's individual choice; I prefer to determine the facts first so that my political opinion has something solid under it as a foundation.
I hope this is adequate to explain a complicated issue in a few short paragraphs. Sound bytes don't do the job!
BTW, if the City is unable to accommodate the 51.4% of County growth its projections are based upon, where do you imagine it will go?
If you guessed rural sprawl, you'd be correct!"
John Watts | 11.29.07 - 11:29 am | #
====================
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism.- Winston Churchill
They are decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent. - Winston Churchill
====================
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Breaking Good News About NOAA
===============
"The breaking of a wave cannot explain the whole sea.” - Vladimir Nabokov
===============
This afternoon's gathering & event at the warehouse down at the Port's Deepwater facility definitely warrants some quick mention.
U.S. House Representative Rick Larsen announced he supports NOAA's relocation of it's Homeport to Bellingham from Seattle.
Larsen chose Bellingham because of the benefits NOAA would bring to our area in achieving multiple goals, one of which is providing an anchor tenant for our Waterfront District Redevelopment.
Larsen believes Bellingham would be a better fit for NOAA than Everett, which already has an established Naval Base there, as well as plan for expanding it.
His endorsement is a distinct plus for Bellingham, and we should thank him for it! Now, it's time to ask our other elected officials at all levels to help us attract NOAA to Bellingham.
This latest news, combined with the ongoing Community Master Planning efforts now underway, the recently approved Whatcom Waterway Cleanup Plan and Governor Gregoire's designation of the Waterfront District as an 'Innovation Partnership Zone', are continued signs that progress is being made toward realizing our goal of clean, vibrant and enjoyable waterfront!
-------------------
Here are a few thoughts on why Bellingham & NOAA are 'good fits' for each other:
Why Bellingham is a "good fit" for NOAA:
• Our Marine Trades Industry provides support for NOAA's vessel operations
• Good technical labor pool
• Ready to go facilities
• Strong connection to education and research at our Institutions of Higher Learning
• Port is a reliable development partner
-------------------
Why NOAA is a "good fit" for Bellingham:
• Economic
- $19 Million generated locally
- 188 permanent full-time jobs created
- living wage jobs
• NOAA's presence will jumpstart the Waterfront Redevelopment and will be a good neighbor
• NOAA's presence will stimulate a multitude of economic, research and educational opportunities thriughout the region
-------------------
As a kayaker, I know that surface waves range in size from small ripples to huge tsunamis.
This news rates as more than a ripple and far less than a tsunami, which is good news.
And, it has the distinct potential to become a steady, reliable wave action that can bring very constructive benefits to our area for many years into the future.
Let's work hard to make that happen!
---------------
Breaking Waves - In physics, a breaking wave is a wave whose amplitude reaches a critical level at which some process can suddenly start to occur that causes large amounts of wave energy to be dissipated. At this point, simple physical models describing the dynamics of the wave will often become invalid, particularly those which assume linear behavior.
--- http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Breaking+wave
===============
===============
"The News Business: changes, challenges.....and do we care?"
=====================
"In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind."
- Louis Pasteur
"Serendipity. Look for something, find something else, and realize that what you've found is more suited to your needs than what you thought you were looking for." - Lawrence Block
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!', but 'That's funny …'" Isaac Asimov
=====================
It's remarkable how plans sometimes come together, without being consciously planned.
Call it serendipity, I guess, but 2 blogs in a row on the topic of 'news' means that a rich vein of valuable discourse may have been discovered.
Maybe not a Mother Lode, mind you, but something definitely worth more digging into a bit deeper.
At the Bellingham City Club meeting at Northwood Hall today, this was the general topic addressed by a panel of four news professionals:
"What’s behind declining newspaper circulation and TV news audiences? And what does the future hold for traditional news outlets?"
Panel members who offered their views on the future of the news business included:
• Jack Keith, former city editor of the Bellingham Herald and now a member of the Journalism faculty at WWU;
• former Bellinghamite and now columnist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Joel Connelly;
• Mike Fancher, editor-at-large at the Seattle Times; and
• Glen Nardi, Bellingham Herald publisher
Each of these news pros offered interesting insights into what is going on in the news business, and why.
It would have been nice to have had this panel discussion recorded because most of responses to the questions posed were well spoken and thought out, but it is not my point to summarize this event with minutes.
Rather, a few observations and comments of my own are offered.
One thing all agreed upon was that we are in the midst of an era of massive change and challenge for the news business.
And, it is a business!
The news business is historically a very profitable one at that is now facing declining profits from declining traditional readers.
REMIND you of any other businesses? Auto manufacturing for example?
It seems to me that many businesses share that problem these days, particularly with industry consolidation, technological change and globalization occuring rapidly.
Suddenly, there are a plethora of new competitors, modes of access and exponentially expanded - and diverse- subject matter and categorization taking place.
Not only that, but challenges of trust, ideological preference, interest and time to absorb everything that is offered.
Almost like a miniature 'Big Bang' Theory scenario, change is happening so quickly with the 'news' business that we humans are being challenged in real time to accept and come to grips with it.
One panelist described the situation as addressing infinite possibilities with finite resources, which seemed to fit.
Another talked about the news business taking on the character of a portfolio of products ranging from targeted magazines to newspapers to Internet based products. The latter products have been particularly difficult to find ways of making profitable.
A question from the audience related to combining available information from multiple sources at one common access point.
Maybe links to government data bases, sports, international news, national issues and the like from a local news source?
Another question went to what is the main point of news; is it to inform or entertain?
If it is to entertain and gain readership, is it really 'news'?
Good question!
Throughout the discussion was woven the essential theme of credibility, upon which 'hard' or fact-based news must be based before opinions are drawn. Also, that concept of credibility is inextricably linked to the concept of 'quality'.
That is just another way of saying trust remains very important!
Difficult to gain, easy to lose!
That is the quintessential quality control dilemma - how to maintain a consistent level of news coverage that is credible to any reasonably objective person.
And, it applies to more things than just the 'news'!
Government maybe?
One last thought: When considering any venture I have come to believe that the classic 3-legged stool analogy applies.
• Economics
• Ecology
• Social Equity
In this context, should the 'news industry' be any different from any other business?
Doesn't a benefit to the common good matter, especially in a democracy?
If so, how can this be assured?
Doesn't the 'news' being fair, reasonably complete and placed in proper context and perspective matter?
If so, how can this be accomplished with consistency?
When these two questions are being answered as consistently as the profitablility question, we may be on the right track toward consistent and reliable 'news' reporting.
Why not get those questions answered before allowing the FCC to give away any more of our airwaves?
Or, allowing the Rupert Murdochs, et al to further monopolize corporate media?
Or, allowing ANY single owner to dominate the media of any locality?
Or, allowing Congress -any Congress- to abrogate our First Amendment rights?
Think about it.
But, that's just my opinion.
Out.
===================================
"In reality, serendipity accounts for one percent of the blessings we receive in life, work and love. The other 99 percent is due to our efforts."
-Peter McWilliams
"Serendipity is looking in a haystack for a needle and discovering a farmer's daughter."- Julius Comroe Jr.
"Serendipity is putting a quarter in the gumball machine and having three pieces come rattling out instead of one—all red." Peter H. Reynolds
"--- you don't reach Serendib by plotting a course for it. You have to set out in good faith for elsewhere and lose your bearings ... serendipitously.
- John Barth, The Last Voyage of Somebody the Sailor
Serendip (also Serendib) is the old Persian name for Sri Lanka.
=====================
"In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind."
- Louis Pasteur
"Serendipity. Look for something, find something else, and realize that what you've found is more suited to your needs than what you thought you were looking for." - Lawrence Block
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!', but 'That's funny …'" Isaac Asimov
=====================
It's remarkable how plans sometimes come together, without being consciously planned.
Call it serendipity, I guess, but 2 blogs in a row on the topic of 'news' means that a rich vein of valuable discourse may have been discovered.
Maybe not a Mother Lode, mind you, but something definitely worth more digging into a bit deeper.
At the Bellingham City Club meeting at Northwood Hall today, this was the general topic addressed by a panel of four news professionals:
"What’s behind declining newspaper circulation and TV news audiences? And what does the future hold for traditional news outlets?"
Panel members who offered their views on the future of the news business included:
• Jack Keith, former city editor of the Bellingham Herald and now a member of the Journalism faculty at WWU;
• former Bellinghamite and now columnist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Joel Connelly;
• Mike Fancher, editor-at-large at the Seattle Times; and
• Glen Nardi, Bellingham Herald publisher
Each of these news pros offered interesting insights into what is going on in the news business, and why.
It would have been nice to have had this panel discussion recorded because most of responses to the questions posed were well spoken and thought out, but it is not my point to summarize this event with minutes.
Rather, a few observations and comments of my own are offered.
One thing all agreed upon was that we are in the midst of an era of massive change and challenge for the news business.
And, it is a business!
The news business is historically a very profitable one at that is now facing declining profits from declining traditional readers.
REMIND you of any other businesses? Auto manufacturing for example?
It seems to me that many businesses share that problem these days, particularly with industry consolidation, technological change and globalization occuring rapidly.
Suddenly, there are a plethora of new competitors, modes of access and exponentially expanded - and diverse- subject matter and categorization taking place.
Not only that, but challenges of trust, ideological preference, interest and time to absorb everything that is offered.
Almost like a miniature 'Big Bang' Theory scenario, change is happening so quickly with the 'news' business that we humans are being challenged in real time to accept and come to grips with it.
One panelist described the situation as addressing infinite possibilities with finite resources, which seemed to fit.
Another talked about the news business taking on the character of a portfolio of products ranging from targeted magazines to newspapers to Internet based products. The latter products have been particularly difficult to find ways of making profitable.
A question from the audience related to combining available information from multiple sources at one common access point.
Maybe links to government data bases, sports, international news, national issues and the like from a local news source?
Another question went to what is the main point of news; is it to inform or entertain?
If it is to entertain and gain readership, is it really 'news'?
Good question!
Throughout the discussion was woven the essential theme of credibility, upon which 'hard' or fact-based news must be based before opinions are drawn. Also, that concept of credibility is inextricably linked to the concept of 'quality'.
That is just another way of saying trust remains very important!
Difficult to gain, easy to lose!
That is the quintessential quality control dilemma - how to maintain a consistent level of news coverage that is credible to any reasonably objective person.
And, it applies to more things than just the 'news'!
Government maybe?
One last thought: When considering any venture I have come to believe that the classic 3-legged stool analogy applies.
• Economics
• Ecology
• Social Equity
In this context, should the 'news industry' be any different from any other business?
Doesn't a benefit to the common good matter, especially in a democracy?
If so, how can this be assured?
Doesn't the 'news' being fair, reasonably complete and placed in proper context and perspective matter?
If so, how can this be accomplished with consistency?
When these two questions are being answered as consistently as the profitablility question, we may be on the right track toward consistent and reliable 'news' reporting.
Why not get those questions answered before allowing the FCC to give away any more of our airwaves?
Or, allowing the Rupert Murdochs, et al to further monopolize corporate media?
Or, allowing ANY single owner to dominate the media of any locality?
Or, allowing Congress -any Congress- to abrogate our First Amendment rights?
Think about it.
But, that's just my opinion.
Out.
===================================
"In reality, serendipity accounts for one percent of the blessings we receive in life, work and love. The other 99 percent is due to our efforts."
-Peter McWilliams
"Serendipity is looking in a haystack for a needle and discovering a farmer's daughter."- Julius Comroe Jr.
"Serendipity is putting a quarter in the gumball machine and having three pieces come rattling out instead of one—all red." Peter H. Reynolds
"--- you don't reach Serendib by plotting a course for it. You have to set out in good faith for elsewhere and lose your bearings ... serendipitously.
- John Barth, The Last Voyage of Somebody the Sailor
Serendip (also Serendib) is the old Persian name for Sri Lanka.
=====================
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
The 'News': Breaking or Broken?
=================
"When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often.
But if a man bites a dog, that is news."
-Quote attributed to New York Sun editor John B. Bogart.
The function of the press in society is to inform, but its role in society is to make money. - A. J. Liebling
----------------
Here's some local 'breaking' news: This afternoon's swearing in ceremony at 4:30 PM, for our new Mayor and Ward 4 City Council Member will be the first time BTV10 has filmed a public event 'live'!
I hope no one feels 'scooped' by this revelation, but it does mark another significant milestone in the evolution of the City's Education & Government Television, Channel 10.
When the City Council decides to do it, every afternoon Council Work Session can also appear 'live'.
Of course, if the meetings are actually filmed, copies will be available for review as well, although maybe not as the fully edited versions currently being televised for the Evening Meetings.
I consider this to be very good news for citizens, including the local media, because it makes important information and discussions much more readily available to the public, and in a timely fashion
But, that's just my opinion.
=================
With all the stuff floating around posing as 'news', maybe its time to question who makes that determination?
And, what about all the latent 'news' that doesn't get reported?
Is it only 'news' because it gets reported?
It has been my observation that the media has a lot of control over what gets reported, and what doesn't.
Maybe the 'media' is not always up to the job?
What is the media's real job anyway? And who makes sure this is being done consistently?
Notice, I have no comment about 'news' being done 'well' - meaning accurately and timely.
No, my concern is whether the 'news' is being covered at all!
And, when it is covered is it being used to titillate or inform?
Please do not construe this as an attack, but an observation that is shared by many I have talked to.
It just seems too easy to cherry-pick controversy, gossip and relatively minor issues at the expense of serious news coverage.
Maybe this tendency is in response to what sells consumers?
If so, do people want to be treated more as consumers than citizens?
Is the em-PHA-sis being placed on the wrong syl-LA-ble here?
Anyway, this subject struck me as something useful to blog about today.
Not because of any one one thing, but because of the cumulative effect of inconsistent reporting on things I consider 'newsworthy' over time.
This has become a problem which seems to be getting more serious, particularly in the fuzzing of the boundary between fact and opinion.
And, in the inconsistency or absolute neglect of subjects that ought to matter more to people.
---------------
Here's a short definition of NEWS from the Internet:
See if you agree.
1.a. Information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by newspapers, periodicals, radio, or television.
1.b. A presentation of such information, as in a newspaper or on a newscast.
2. New information of any kind: The requirement was news to him.
3. Newsworthy material: “a public figure on a scale unimaginable in America; whatever he did was news”.
--------------
Some more excerpts from Wikipedia to describe what is meant by the word 'news':
Hard news and soft news are terms for describing a relative difference between poles in a spectrum within the broader news trade—with "hard" journalism at the professional end and "soft" infotainment at the other. Because the term "news" is quite broad, the terms "hard" and "soft" denote both a difference in respective standards for news value, as well as for standards of conduct, relative to the professional ideals of journalistic integrity.
The idea of hard news embodies two orthogonal concepts:
• Seriousness: Politics, economics, crime, war, and disasters are considered serious topics, as are certain aspects of law, science, and technology.
• Timeliness: Stories that cover current events—the progress of a war, the results of a vote, the breaking out of a fire, a significant public statement, the freeing of a prisoner, an economic report of note.
The logical opposite, soft news is sometimes referred to in a derogatory fashion as infotainment. Defining features catching the most criticism include:
• The least serious subjects: Arts and entertainment, sports, lifestyles, "human interest", and celebrities.
• Not timely: There is no precipitating event triggering the story, other than a reporter's curiosity.
-----------------
Again, from Wikipedia: Concerns and criticisms:
The label "infotainment" is emblematic of concern and criticism that journalism is devolving from a medium which conveys serious information about issues that affect the public interest, into a form of entertainment which happens to have fresh "facts" in the mix. The criteria by which reporters and editors judge news value - whether something is worth putting on the front page, the bottom of the hour, or is worth commenting on at all - is an integral part of this debate.
Some blame the media for this perceived phenomenon, for failing to live up to ideals of civic journalistic responsibility. Others blame the commercial nature of many media organizations, the need for higher ratings, combined with a preference among the public for feel-good content and "unimportant" topics (like celebrity gossip or sports).
A specialization process has also occurred, beginning with the rise of mass market special-interest magazines, moving into broadcast with the advent of cable television, and continuing into new media, like the Internet and satellite radio. An increasing number of media outlets are available to the public that focus exclusively on one topic such as current events, home improvement, history, movies, women and Christianity. This means that consumers have more choice over whether they receive a general feed of the most "important" information of the day, or whether they get a highly customized presentation that contains only one type of content, which need not be newsworthy, and which need not come from a neutral point of view. Some publications and channels have found a sizable audience in the "niche" of featuring hard news. But controversy continues over whether the size of that audience is too small, and whether those outlets are diluting content with too much "soft" news.
What counts as journalism?
Some journalists define "journalism" to include only reports on "serious" subjects, where common journalistic standards are upheld by the reporter. The larger "news business" or news trade encompasses everything from professional journalism to so-called "soft news" and "infotainment", and support activities such as marketing, advertising sales, finance and delivery.
Professional journalism is supposed to place more emphasis on research, fact-checking, and the public interest than its "non-journalistic" counterparts.
-----------------
"Breaking" or non-routine news is defined as hard, unplanned news that takes the newsroom by surprise, such as a plane crash or earthquake. Breaking news cannot be predicted. However the industry is using breaking news as a label for more than just unplanned, hard news.
Weather and politics are the most frequent breaking news stories.
Celebrity news also makes a strong appearance.
Breaking news
1) is reported immediately,
2) contains new information (expected or unexpected) and
3) is most often market-based (chosen to increase ratings).
This study shows that breaking news stories do not have to be surprising or even important – but they do need to include new information. If this is the case, any story can be breaking news at any time when new information is introduced. Thus, labeling a story as breaking raises a question of credibility for the individual news outlets. Can viewers trust news outlets to emphasize the stories that are immediately important to them? If the practitioners cannot define breaking news for viewers consistently, viewers are sent conflicting messages. The difficulty lies then in viewers trying to establish for themselves what stories are important and relevant.
---------------
Adding to the distinction between journalists and anchors and reporters are "human interest", personality, or celebrity news stories, which typically are directed by marketing departments based on a demographic appeal and audience share. It's commonly accepted that anchors are also media personalities, who may even be considered celebrities.
---------------
Think its time for more debate and discussion on the subject of what constitutes 'news' and what constitutes 'journalism'?
Let it begin!
=====================
Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one.
A. J. Liebling
I can write better than anybody who can write faster, and I can write faster than anybody who can write better. - A. J. Liebling
I take a grave view of the press. It is the weak slat under the bed of democracy.
A. J. Liebling
People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news.
A. J. Liebling
------------------------
"When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often.
But if a man bites a dog, that is news."
-Quote attributed to New York Sun editor John B. Bogart.
The function of the press in society is to inform, but its role in society is to make money. - A. J. Liebling
----------------
Here's some local 'breaking' news: This afternoon's swearing in ceremony at 4:30 PM, for our new Mayor and Ward 4 City Council Member will be the first time BTV10 has filmed a public event 'live'!
I hope no one feels 'scooped' by this revelation, but it does mark another significant milestone in the evolution of the City's Education & Government Television, Channel 10.
When the City Council decides to do it, every afternoon Council Work Session can also appear 'live'.
Of course, if the meetings are actually filmed, copies will be available for review as well, although maybe not as the fully edited versions currently being televised for the Evening Meetings.
I consider this to be very good news for citizens, including the local media, because it makes important information and discussions much more readily available to the public, and in a timely fashion
But, that's just my opinion.
=================
With all the stuff floating around posing as 'news', maybe its time to question who makes that determination?
And, what about all the latent 'news' that doesn't get reported?
Is it only 'news' because it gets reported?
It has been my observation that the media has a lot of control over what gets reported, and what doesn't.
Maybe the 'media' is not always up to the job?
What is the media's real job anyway? And who makes sure this is being done consistently?
Notice, I have no comment about 'news' being done 'well' - meaning accurately and timely.
No, my concern is whether the 'news' is being covered at all!
And, when it is covered is it being used to titillate or inform?
Please do not construe this as an attack, but an observation that is shared by many I have talked to.
It just seems too easy to cherry-pick controversy, gossip and relatively minor issues at the expense of serious news coverage.
Maybe this tendency is in response to what sells consumers?
If so, do people want to be treated more as consumers than citizens?
Is the em-PHA-sis being placed on the wrong syl-LA-ble here?
Anyway, this subject struck me as something useful to blog about today.
Not because of any one one thing, but because of the cumulative effect of inconsistent reporting on things I consider 'newsworthy' over time.
This has become a problem which seems to be getting more serious, particularly in the fuzzing of the boundary between fact and opinion.
And, in the inconsistency or absolute neglect of subjects that ought to matter more to people.
---------------
Here's a short definition of NEWS from the Internet:
See if you agree.
1.a. Information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by newspapers, periodicals, radio, or television.
1.b. A presentation of such information, as in a newspaper or on a newscast.
2. New information of any kind: The requirement was news to him.
3. Newsworthy material: “a public figure on a scale unimaginable in America; whatever he did was news”.
--------------
Some more excerpts from Wikipedia to describe what is meant by the word 'news':
Hard news and soft news are terms for describing a relative difference between poles in a spectrum within the broader news trade—with "hard" journalism at the professional end and "soft" infotainment at the other. Because the term "news" is quite broad, the terms "hard" and "soft" denote both a difference in respective standards for news value, as well as for standards of conduct, relative to the professional ideals of journalistic integrity.
The idea of hard news embodies two orthogonal concepts:
• Seriousness: Politics, economics, crime, war, and disasters are considered serious topics, as are certain aspects of law, science, and technology.
• Timeliness: Stories that cover current events—the progress of a war, the results of a vote, the breaking out of a fire, a significant public statement, the freeing of a prisoner, an economic report of note.
The logical opposite, soft news is sometimes referred to in a derogatory fashion as infotainment. Defining features catching the most criticism include:
• The least serious subjects: Arts and entertainment, sports, lifestyles, "human interest", and celebrities.
• Not timely: There is no precipitating event triggering the story, other than a reporter's curiosity.
-----------------
Again, from Wikipedia: Concerns and criticisms:
The label "infotainment" is emblematic of concern and criticism that journalism is devolving from a medium which conveys serious information about issues that affect the public interest, into a form of entertainment which happens to have fresh "facts" in the mix. The criteria by which reporters and editors judge news value - whether something is worth putting on the front page, the bottom of the hour, or is worth commenting on at all - is an integral part of this debate.
Some blame the media for this perceived phenomenon, for failing to live up to ideals of civic journalistic responsibility. Others blame the commercial nature of many media organizations, the need for higher ratings, combined with a preference among the public for feel-good content and "unimportant" topics (like celebrity gossip or sports).
A specialization process has also occurred, beginning with the rise of mass market special-interest magazines, moving into broadcast with the advent of cable television, and continuing into new media, like the Internet and satellite radio. An increasing number of media outlets are available to the public that focus exclusively on one topic such as current events, home improvement, history, movies, women and Christianity. This means that consumers have more choice over whether they receive a general feed of the most "important" information of the day, or whether they get a highly customized presentation that contains only one type of content, which need not be newsworthy, and which need not come from a neutral point of view. Some publications and channels have found a sizable audience in the "niche" of featuring hard news. But controversy continues over whether the size of that audience is too small, and whether those outlets are diluting content with too much "soft" news.
What counts as journalism?
Some journalists define "journalism" to include only reports on "serious" subjects, where common journalistic standards are upheld by the reporter. The larger "news business" or news trade encompasses everything from professional journalism to so-called "soft news" and "infotainment", and support activities such as marketing, advertising sales, finance and delivery.
Professional journalism is supposed to place more emphasis on research, fact-checking, and the public interest than its "non-journalistic" counterparts.
-----------------
"Breaking" or non-routine news is defined as hard, unplanned news that takes the newsroom by surprise, such as a plane crash or earthquake. Breaking news cannot be predicted. However the industry is using breaking news as a label for more than just unplanned, hard news.
Weather and politics are the most frequent breaking news stories.
Celebrity news also makes a strong appearance.
Breaking news
1) is reported immediately,
2) contains new information (expected or unexpected) and
3) is most often market-based (chosen to increase ratings).
This study shows that breaking news stories do not have to be surprising or even important – but they do need to include new information. If this is the case, any story can be breaking news at any time when new information is introduced. Thus, labeling a story as breaking raises a question of credibility for the individual news outlets. Can viewers trust news outlets to emphasize the stories that are immediately important to them? If the practitioners cannot define breaking news for viewers consistently, viewers are sent conflicting messages. The difficulty lies then in viewers trying to establish for themselves what stories are important and relevant.
---------------
Adding to the distinction between journalists and anchors and reporters are "human interest", personality, or celebrity news stories, which typically are directed by marketing departments based on a demographic appeal and audience share. It's commonly accepted that anchors are also media personalities, who may even be considered celebrities.
---------------
Think its time for more debate and discussion on the subject of what constitutes 'news' and what constitutes 'journalism'?
Let it begin!
=====================
Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one.
A. J. Liebling
I can write better than anybody who can write faster, and I can write faster than anybody who can write better. - A. J. Liebling
I take a grave view of the press. It is the weak slat under the bed of democracy.
A. J. Liebling
People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news.
A. J. Liebling
------------------------
Monday, November 26, 2007
Is The Only Thing Constant, Change?
======================
Alfred North Whitehead:
The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve change amid order.
Arthur Schopenhauer:
Change alone is eternal, perpetual, immortal.
Charles Darwin:
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
George Bernard Shaw:
Some men see things as they are and say, "Why?" I dream of things that never were and say, "Why not?"
Henri Bergson:
To exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly.
Margaret Mead:
Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
William Shakespeare:
We know what we are, but know not what we may be.
Woodrow Wilson:
If you want to make enemies, try to change something.
======================
This morning I got up and looked for my favorite hiking shirt before remembering it was stolen last Wednesday in Vancouver, BC, along with some other gear.
Bummer!
I really liked that shirt, shabby as it had become.
It will be hard to find a replacement that I will like as much.
And a replacement will also cost something.
But, finding replacements is part of life.
We expect to have to replace things because they do not last forever, although some are very durable.
And, we may see something else with more modern features that appeals to us.
Even so, the comfort and familiarity of an old garment that you have gone places with and enjoyed will take some getting used to.
It will not be difficult for me to find a replacement life style to serving on the Council.
But, in some respects I will miss it.
I doubt it will take people very long to become accustomed to dealing with other elected representatives either.
Likely, it will be more difficult for them to deal with the change they will experience in lifestyle.
Regardless of needing replacements at times, there are some things that ought not to change much.
Things like focusing on priorities that are necessary and for which funding and resources must be provided.
Or, like being as transparent as possible in dealing with every issue, whether it is viewed as a challenge or an opportunity.
And, like setting up a 'big tent', then inviting people of every persuasion inside to contribute their ideas, concerns and energy to the public process.
None of those things are really easy to do, although each does sound simple enough.
We often hear the phrase 'The Only Thing Constant Is Change', but is it?
Do the needs and expectations of people really change that much?
How about the values that endure?
I'm willing to concede that change is a big fact of life.
We have to deal with it the best we can.
But, I'm also convinced that there are also some things that don't change, despite perceptions to the contrary.
How to balance change with permanence is a feat difficult to even comprehend, isn't it?
======================
More Quotes-
Abraham Lincoln:
The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.
Albert Einstein:
Technological change is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.
Alvin Toffler:
In describing today's accelerating changes, the media fire blips of unrelated information at us. Experts bury us under mountains of narrowly specialized monographs. Popular forecasters present lists of unrelated trends, without any model to show us their interconnections or the forces likely to reverse them. As a result, change itself comes to be seen as anarchic, even lunatic.
Andy Warhol:
They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself.
Charles Kettering:
If you have always done it that way, it is probably wrong.
Emily Dickinson:
All but Death, can be Adjusted—
Dynasties repaired—
Systems—settled in their Sockets—
Citadels—dissolved—
Wastes of Lives—resown with Colors
By Succeeding Springs—
Death—unto itself—Exception—
Is exempt from Change—
Eric Hoffer:
In times of change, learners inherit the Earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.
Felix Adler:
We cannot adopt the way of living that was satisfactory a hundred years ago. The world in which we live has changed, and we must change with it.
Georg C. Lichtenberg:
I cannot say whether things will get better if we change; what I can say is they must change if they are to get better.
Henry David Thoreau:
Things do not change, we change.
Heraclitus:
You cannot step twice into the same river, for other waters are continually flowing in. ca. 500 BCE
Heraklietos of Ephesos:
Whosoever wishes to know about the world must learn about it in its particular details.
Knowledge is not intelligence.
In searching for the truth be ready for the unexpected.
Change alone is unchanging.
The same road goes both up and down.
The beginning of a circle is also its end.
Not I, but the world says it: all is one.
And yet everything comes in season.
Irene Peter:
Just because everything is different doesn't mean that everything has changed.
John F. Kennedy:
Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.
Leo Tolstoy:
Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.
M. Scott Peck:
The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers.
Marian Wright Edelman:
If you don't like the way the world is, you change it. You have an obligation to change it You just do it one step at a time.
Nelson Mandela:
Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.
Ovid:
All things change; nothing perishes.
Pablo Picasso:
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it.
Pearl S. Buck:
I am comforted by life's stability, by earth's unchangeableness. What has seemed new and frightening assumes its place in the unfolding of knowledge. It is good to know our universe. What is new is only new to us.
Peter F. Drucker:
Society, community, family are all conserving institutions. They try to maintain stability, and to prevent, or at least to slow down, change. But the organization of the post-capitalist society of organizations is a destabilizer. Because its function is to put knowledge to work -- on tools, processes, and products; on work; on knowledge itself -- it must be organized for constant change.
Ralph Waldo Emerson:
Life is a progress, and not a station.
Robert F. Kennedy:
Few will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation.
Robert Frost:
Most of the change we think we see in life
Is due to truths being in and out of favor.
Thomas Jefferson:
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
Unknown:
Change is inevitable, except from vending machines.
Washington Irving:
There is a certain relief in change, even though it be from bad to worse! As I have often found in travelling in a stagecoach, that it is often a comfort to shift one's position, and be bruised in a new place.
------------------------------------
Alfred North Whitehead:
The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve change amid order.
Arthur Schopenhauer:
Change alone is eternal, perpetual, immortal.
Charles Darwin:
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
George Bernard Shaw:
Some men see things as they are and say, "Why?" I dream of things that never were and say, "Why not?"
Henri Bergson:
To exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly.
Margaret Mead:
Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
William Shakespeare:
We know what we are, but know not what we may be.
Woodrow Wilson:
If you want to make enemies, try to change something.
======================
This morning I got up and looked for my favorite hiking shirt before remembering it was stolen last Wednesday in Vancouver, BC, along with some other gear.
Bummer!
I really liked that shirt, shabby as it had become.
It will be hard to find a replacement that I will like as much.
And a replacement will also cost something.
But, finding replacements is part of life.
We expect to have to replace things because they do not last forever, although some are very durable.
And, we may see something else with more modern features that appeals to us.
Even so, the comfort and familiarity of an old garment that you have gone places with and enjoyed will take some getting used to.
It will not be difficult for me to find a replacement life style to serving on the Council.
But, in some respects I will miss it.
I doubt it will take people very long to become accustomed to dealing with other elected representatives either.
Likely, it will be more difficult for them to deal with the change they will experience in lifestyle.
Regardless of needing replacements at times, there are some things that ought not to change much.
Things like focusing on priorities that are necessary and for which funding and resources must be provided.
Or, like being as transparent as possible in dealing with every issue, whether it is viewed as a challenge or an opportunity.
And, like setting up a 'big tent', then inviting people of every persuasion inside to contribute their ideas, concerns and energy to the public process.
None of those things are really easy to do, although each does sound simple enough.
We often hear the phrase 'The Only Thing Constant Is Change', but is it?
Do the needs and expectations of people really change that much?
How about the values that endure?
I'm willing to concede that change is a big fact of life.
We have to deal with it the best we can.
But, I'm also convinced that there are also some things that don't change, despite perceptions to the contrary.
How to balance change with permanence is a feat difficult to even comprehend, isn't it?
======================
More Quotes-
Abraham Lincoln:
The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.
Albert Einstein:
Technological change is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.
Alvin Toffler:
In describing today's accelerating changes, the media fire blips of unrelated information at us. Experts bury us under mountains of narrowly specialized monographs. Popular forecasters present lists of unrelated trends, without any model to show us their interconnections or the forces likely to reverse them. As a result, change itself comes to be seen as anarchic, even lunatic.
Andy Warhol:
They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself.
Charles Kettering:
If you have always done it that way, it is probably wrong.
Emily Dickinson:
All but Death, can be Adjusted—
Dynasties repaired—
Systems—settled in their Sockets—
Citadels—dissolved—
Wastes of Lives—resown with Colors
By Succeeding Springs—
Death—unto itself—Exception—
Is exempt from Change—
Eric Hoffer:
In times of change, learners inherit the Earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.
Felix Adler:
We cannot adopt the way of living that was satisfactory a hundred years ago. The world in which we live has changed, and we must change with it.
Georg C. Lichtenberg:
I cannot say whether things will get better if we change; what I can say is they must change if they are to get better.
Henry David Thoreau:
Things do not change, we change.
Heraclitus:
You cannot step twice into the same river, for other waters are continually flowing in. ca. 500 BCE
Heraklietos of Ephesos:
Whosoever wishes to know about the world must learn about it in its particular details.
Knowledge is not intelligence.
In searching for the truth be ready for the unexpected.
Change alone is unchanging.
The same road goes both up and down.
The beginning of a circle is also its end.
Not I, but the world says it: all is one.
And yet everything comes in season.
Irene Peter:
Just because everything is different doesn't mean that everything has changed.
John F. Kennedy:
Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.
Leo Tolstoy:
Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.
M. Scott Peck:
The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers.
Marian Wright Edelman:
If you don't like the way the world is, you change it. You have an obligation to change it You just do it one step at a time.
Nelson Mandela:
Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.
Ovid:
All things change; nothing perishes.
Pablo Picasso:
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it.
Pearl S. Buck:
I am comforted by life's stability, by earth's unchangeableness. What has seemed new and frightening assumes its place in the unfolding of knowledge. It is good to know our universe. What is new is only new to us.
Peter F. Drucker:
Society, community, family are all conserving institutions. They try to maintain stability, and to prevent, or at least to slow down, change. But the organization of the post-capitalist society of organizations is a destabilizer. Because its function is to put knowledge to work -- on tools, processes, and products; on work; on knowledge itself -- it must be organized for constant change.
Ralph Waldo Emerson:
Life is a progress, and not a station.
Robert F. Kennedy:
Few will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation.
Robert Frost:
Most of the change we think we see in life
Is due to truths being in and out of favor.
Thomas Jefferson:
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
Unknown:
Change is inevitable, except from vending machines.
Washington Irving:
There is a certain relief in change, even though it be from bad to worse! As I have often found in travelling in a stagecoach, that it is often a comfort to shift one's position, and be bruised in a new place.
------------------------------------
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Growth: Are You Ready For Some Bootfall?
==========================
Let our advance worrying become advance thinking and planning.
Winston Churchill
It is a mistake to look too far ahead. Only one link of the chain of destiny can be handled at a time. - Winston Churchill
==========================
Something might have been inadvertently proven today that I had often thought was true.
That is that veto power is almost always stronger than the power to achieve something positive.
It started out innocuously enough when I tuned into the Seahawks game against the Rams.
Aside from an improbable kick-off return that resulted in a Seahawks touchdown, the home team played miserably in the first half, making the lowly Rams look more like champions than they have for a long time.
The game was going so badly for the Seahawks that I decided to do something more enjoyable, like turning off the TV and going for a hike in the sunny, cool weather.
I'm really glad I did, for multiple reasons.
First, the walk was exhilarating.
Second, when I got home I found that the Seahawks had miraculously come alive in my absence and pulled ahead of the Rams.
They were driving for another score when I tuned in again, but as soon as it was again detected that I was watching, they stalled, missed another field goal and turned the ball over to the Rams near mid-field with about 3 minutes to play.
I should have tuned out again, immediately!
But, instead I watched as the Seahawks were called for pass interference and the Rams were put into the 'Red Zone' with a first down.
Bummer!
I watched with dismay and a growing sense of doom as the Rams moved closer and closer to the goal line, knowing they were motivated to score that go-ahead touchdown with little or no time remaining.
After 2 or 3 time-outs the moment of truth arrived, and I found myself averting my eyes from the TV.
It was fourth down at about the 1-foot line, and I could see a standard dive play easily getting that winning TD for the Rams.
But wait!
The Rams quarterback fumbled the snap from center and the Seahawks quickly covered him to take over the ball with seconds remaining!
I couldn't believe it!
The second my eyes were averted, something good happened and the Seahawks snatched victory from the jaws of defeat - just the opposite of what I had expected!
Did the Seahawks deserve to win?
You bet they did, because over the course of the season the breaks tend to average out.
But I felt like I deserved the game ball!
Anybody else feel that way?
========================
I'm pretty sure the game of football was invented to provide comic relief from real life.
It just has so many aspects that are similar to what we experience every day.
By somehow distracting us from reality, while still illustrating life's aspirations and futilities, football -like the ancient gladiators- constitutes real entertainment value.
And, combined with the medium of TV, football becomes the masculine equivalent of soap opera and movies - the opiate of the masses!
What would we do without our opiates?
More importantly, what would we do without our 'armchair' quarterbacks?
That is a role that anyone can perform, without any knowledge, training or understanding.
And, it can also become the ultimate in veto power if enough vocal people practice it!
========================
A case in point to illustrate the above:
It has become a very popular pastime to advocate -or simply wish for- no additional UGA area be awarded to the City, despite a 3-plus year rigorous analysis based upon assumptions rooted in fact and history.
The City's EIS clearly described its capacity for infill, neighborhood by neighborhood and UGA by UGA, and concluded that some combination of infill and UGA expansion was necessary, especially since the City agreed to accommodate 51.4% of the anticipated growth projection adopted by County and City.
Yet, there are some who ignore or discount this costly and time consuming exercise!
Instead, they prefer to substitute some version of armchair quarterbacking based on wishful thinking.
Have these advocates ever been watching the game?
If so, which one; the real game, or the fantasy game?
Ironically, the no-UGA advocates could get their wish, AND the City be able to satisfy its GMA goals through infill alone, IF more certainty can be attained in land use efficiency.
The following need to be accomplished:
• Minimum densities of the existing UGAs raised to 8 dwelling units per acre [County action]
• Parks level of service reduced to 28 acres per 1000 population [City action]
• Continue requiring annexation prior to extending water & sewer services [City action]
That's about it.
Points 2 & 3 are slam-dunks as long as the City Council doesn't wimp out.
Point 1 will require the County to act, which would be the biggest change.
Of course there are other things that ought to be done, like monitoring progress, requiring City standards and holding the line on not converting lands zoned for industrial use to other uses.
-------------
At the November 19 Council meeting, City Planning Director Tim Stewart was astounded that the GMA debate had been reduced down to just discussing land supply and growth projections.
Instead, these discussions ought to be focused on Master Planning large single owner parcels, applying City standards in the UGA, figuring out how to regionally plan and finance arterial concurrency, annexation strategies, using TDRs & PDRs to achieve GMA objectives, providing affordable housing, using sustainable Parks LOS, considering building heights and developing infill through multi-family, and developing urban village designs that appeal to people, including the Waterfront District.
Those discussions are the ones likely to prove beneficial in efficiently using the land we have available and in providing housing and jobs for people who will live here.
I really don't know how we got so far off track in planning for growth.
But, it might have something to do with the fact we don't understand the rules that ought to govern such things.
We don't really understand the 'game'.
And, even if we do know the game, we don't have the discipline to exercise good judgement in consistently applying the rules.
I'm frustrated enough to just walk away from watching this GMA fiasco game play out so poorly.
Maybe, just maybe, that strategy will pay off - like me NOT watching the Seahawks did?
I don't know, but I'm looking forward to NOT watching this game pretty soon now.
I hope that will make a positive difference, but I'm not counting on it!
We'll see when I tune in again, maybe in about a year from now.
========================
What It Was Was Football
By Andy Griffith (1953 ?)
It was back last October, I believe it was. We was going to hold a tent service off at this college town, and we got there about dinner time on Saturday. Different ones of us thought that we ought to get us a mouthful to eat before we set up the tent. So we got off the truck and followed this little bunch of people through this small little bitty patch of woods there, and we came up on a big sign that says, "Get something to Eat Here."
I went up and got me two hot dogs and a big orange drink, and before I could take a mouthful of that food, this whole raft of people come up around me and got me to where I couldn't eat nothing, up like, and I dropped my big orange drink. Well, friends, they commenced to move, and there wasn't so much that I could do but move with them.
Well, we commenced to go through all kinds of doors and gates and I don't know what- all, and I looked up over one of 'em and it says, "North Gate." We kept on a-going through there, and pretty soon we come up on a young boy and he says, "Ticket, please." And I says, "Friend, I don't have a ticket; I don't even know where it is that I'm a-going!" Well, he says, "Come on out as quick as you can." And I says, "I'll do 'er; I'll turn right around the first chance I get."
Well, we kept on a-moving through there, and pretty soon everybody got where it was that they was a-going, because they parted and I could see pretty good. And what I seen was this whole raft of people a-sittin' on these two banks and a-lookin at one another across this pretty little green cow pasture.
Somebody had took and drawed white lines all over it and drove posts in it, and I don't know what all, and I looked down there and I seen five or six convicts a running up and down and a-blowing whistles . And then I looked down there and I seen these pretty girls wearin' these little bitty short dresses and a-dancing around, and so I thought I'd sit down and see what it was that was a-going to happen.
About the time I got set down good I looked down there and I seen thirty or forty men come a-runnin' out of one end of a great big outhouse down there and everybody where I was a-settin' got up and hollered! And I asked this fella that was a sittin' beside of me, "Friend, what is it that they're a-hollerin' for? Well, he whopped me on the back and he says, "Buddy, have a drink!" I says, "Well, I believe I will have another big orange. I got it and set back down.
When I got there again I seen that the men had got in two little bitty bunches down there real close together, and they voted. They elected one man apiece, and them two men come out in the middle of that cow pasture and shook hands like they hadn't seen one another in a long time. Then a convict came over to where they was a-standin', and he took out a quarter and they commenced to odd man right there! After a while I seen what it was they was odd-manning for. It was that both bunchesfull of them wanted this funny lookin little pumpkin to play with. And I know, friends, that they couldn't eat it because they kicked it the whole evenin' and it never busted.
Both bunchesful wanted that thing. One bunch got it and it made the other bunch just as mad as they could be! Friends, I seen that evenin' the awfulest fight that I ever have seen in all my life !! They would run at one -another and kick one- another and throw one another down and stomp on one another and griiind their feet in one another and I don't know what- all and just as fast as one of 'em would get hurt, they'd take him off and run another one on !!
Well, they done that as long as I set there, but pretty soon this boy that had said "Ticket, please." He come up to me and said, "Friend, you're gonna have to leave because it is that you don't have a ticket." And I says, "Well, all right." And I got up and left.
I don't know friends, to this day, what it was that they was a doin' down there, but I have studied about it. I think it was that it's some kindly of a contest where they see which bunchful of them men can take that pumpkin and run from one end of that cow pasture to the other without gettin' knocked down or steppin' in somethin'.
========================
If we open a quarrel between past and present, we shall find that we have lost the future. - Winston Churchill
Kites rise highest against the wind - not with it. - Winston Churchill
Let our advance worrying become advance thinking and planning.
Winston Churchill
It is a mistake to look too far ahead. Only one link of the chain of destiny can be handled at a time. - Winston Churchill
==========================
Something might have been inadvertently proven today that I had often thought was true.
That is that veto power is almost always stronger than the power to achieve something positive.
It started out innocuously enough when I tuned into the Seahawks game against the Rams.
Aside from an improbable kick-off return that resulted in a Seahawks touchdown, the home team played miserably in the first half, making the lowly Rams look more like champions than they have for a long time.
The game was going so badly for the Seahawks that I decided to do something more enjoyable, like turning off the TV and going for a hike in the sunny, cool weather.
I'm really glad I did, for multiple reasons.
First, the walk was exhilarating.
Second, when I got home I found that the Seahawks had miraculously come alive in my absence and pulled ahead of the Rams.
They were driving for another score when I tuned in again, but as soon as it was again detected that I was watching, they stalled, missed another field goal and turned the ball over to the Rams near mid-field with about 3 minutes to play.
I should have tuned out again, immediately!
But, instead I watched as the Seahawks were called for pass interference and the Rams were put into the 'Red Zone' with a first down.
Bummer!
I watched with dismay and a growing sense of doom as the Rams moved closer and closer to the goal line, knowing they were motivated to score that go-ahead touchdown with little or no time remaining.
After 2 or 3 time-outs the moment of truth arrived, and I found myself averting my eyes from the TV.
It was fourth down at about the 1-foot line, and I could see a standard dive play easily getting that winning TD for the Rams.
But wait!
The Rams quarterback fumbled the snap from center and the Seahawks quickly covered him to take over the ball with seconds remaining!
I couldn't believe it!
The second my eyes were averted, something good happened and the Seahawks snatched victory from the jaws of defeat - just the opposite of what I had expected!
Did the Seahawks deserve to win?
You bet they did, because over the course of the season the breaks tend to average out.
But I felt like I deserved the game ball!
Anybody else feel that way?
========================
I'm pretty sure the game of football was invented to provide comic relief from real life.
It just has so many aspects that are similar to what we experience every day.
By somehow distracting us from reality, while still illustrating life's aspirations and futilities, football -like the ancient gladiators- constitutes real entertainment value.
And, combined with the medium of TV, football becomes the masculine equivalent of soap opera and movies - the opiate of the masses!
What would we do without our opiates?
More importantly, what would we do without our 'armchair' quarterbacks?
That is a role that anyone can perform, without any knowledge, training or understanding.
And, it can also become the ultimate in veto power if enough vocal people practice it!
========================
A case in point to illustrate the above:
It has become a very popular pastime to advocate -or simply wish for- no additional UGA area be awarded to the City, despite a 3-plus year rigorous analysis based upon assumptions rooted in fact and history.
The City's EIS clearly described its capacity for infill, neighborhood by neighborhood and UGA by UGA, and concluded that some combination of infill and UGA expansion was necessary, especially since the City agreed to accommodate 51.4% of the anticipated growth projection adopted by County and City.
Yet, there are some who ignore or discount this costly and time consuming exercise!
Instead, they prefer to substitute some version of armchair quarterbacking based on wishful thinking.
Have these advocates ever been watching the game?
If so, which one; the real game, or the fantasy game?
Ironically, the no-UGA advocates could get their wish, AND the City be able to satisfy its GMA goals through infill alone, IF more certainty can be attained in land use efficiency.
The following need to be accomplished:
• Minimum densities of the existing UGAs raised to 8 dwelling units per acre [County action]
• Parks level of service reduced to 28 acres per 1000 population [City action]
• Continue requiring annexation prior to extending water & sewer services [City action]
That's about it.
Points 2 & 3 are slam-dunks as long as the City Council doesn't wimp out.
Point 1 will require the County to act, which would be the biggest change.
Of course there are other things that ought to be done, like monitoring progress, requiring City standards and holding the line on not converting lands zoned for industrial use to other uses.
-------------
At the November 19 Council meeting, City Planning Director Tim Stewart was astounded that the GMA debate had been reduced down to just discussing land supply and growth projections.
Instead, these discussions ought to be focused on Master Planning large single owner parcels, applying City standards in the UGA, figuring out how to regionally plan and finance arterial concurrency, annexation strategies, using TDRs & PDRs to achieve GMA objectives, providing affordable housing, using sustainable Parks LOS, considering building heights and developing infill through multi-family, and developing urban village designs that appeal to people, including the Waterfront District.
Those discussions are the ones likely to prove beneficial in efficiently using the land we have available and in providing housing and jobs for people who will live here.
I really don't know how we got so far off track in planning for growth.
But, it might have something to do with the fact we don't understand the rules that ought to govern such things.
We don't really understand the 'game'.
And, even if we do know the game, we don't have the discipline to exercise good judgement in consistently applying the rules.
I'm frustrated enough to just walk away from watching this GMA fiasco game play out so poorly.
Maybe, just maybe, that strategy will pay off - like me NOT watching the Seahawks did?
I don't know, but I'm looking forward to NOT watching this game pretty soon now.
I hope that will make a positive difference, but I'm not counting on it!
We'll see when I tune in again, maybe in about a year from now.
========================
What It Was Was Football
By Andy Griffith (1953 ?)
It was back last October, I believe it was. We was going to hold a tent service off at this college town, and we got there about dinner time on Saturday. Different ones of us thought that we ought to get us a mouthful to eat before we set up the tent. So we got off the truck and followed this little bunch of people through this small little bitty patch of woods there, and we came up on a big sign that says, "Get something to Eat Here."
I went up and got me two hot dogs and a big orange drink, and before I could take a mouthful of that food, this whole raft of people come up around me and got me to where I couldn't eat nothing, up like, and I dropped my big orange drink. Well, friends, they commenced to move, and there wasn't so much that I could do but move with them.
Well, we commenced to go through all kinds of doors and gates and I don't know what- all, and I looked up over one of 'em and it says, "North Gate." We kept on a-going through there, and pretty soon we come up on a young boy and he says, "Ticket, please." And I says, "Friend, I don't have a ticket; I don't even know where it is that I'm a-going!" Well, he says, "Come on out as quick as you can." And I says, "I'll do 'er; I'll turn right around the first chance I get."
Well, we kept on a-moving through there, and pretty soon everybody got where it was that they was a-going, because they parted and I could see pretty good. And what I seen was this whole raft of people a-sittin' on these two banks and a-lookin at one another across this pretty little green cow pasture.
Somebody had took and drawed white lines all over it and drove posts in it, and I don't know what all, and I looked down there and I seen five or six convicts a running up and down and a-blowing whistles . And then I looked down there and I seen these pretty girls wearin' these little bitty short dresses and a-dancing around, and so I thought I'd sit down and see what it was that was a-going to happen.
About the time I got set down good I looked down there and I seen thirty or forty men come a-runnin' out of one end of a great big outhouse down there and everybody where I was a-settin' got up and hollered! And I asked this fella that was a sittin' beside of me, "Friend, what is it that they're a-hollerin' for? Well, he whopped me on the back and he says, "Buddy, have a drink!" I says, "Well, I believe I will have another big orange. I got it and set back down.
When I got there again I seen that the men had got in two little bitty bunches down there real close together, and they voted. They elected one man apiece, and them two men come out in the middle of that cow pasture and shook hands like they hadn't seen one another in a long time. Then a convict came over to where they was a-standin', and he took out a quarter and they commenced to odd man right there! After a while I seen what it was they was odd-manning for. It was that both bunchesfull of them wanted this funny lookin little pumpkin to play with. And I know, friends, that they couldn't eat it because they kicked it the whole evenin' and it never busted.
Both bunchesful wanted that thing. One bunch got it and it made the other bunch just as mad as they could be! Friends, I seen that evenin' the awfulest fight that I ever have seen in all my life !! They would run at one -another and kick one- another and throw one another down and stomp on one another and griiind their feet in one another and I don't know what- all and just as fast as one of 'em would get hurt, they'd take him off and run another one on !!
Well, they done that as long as I set there, but pretty soon this boy that had said "Ticket, please." He come up to me and said, "Friend, you're gonna have to leave because it is that you don't have a ticket." And I says, "Well, all right." And I got up and left.
I don't know friends, to this day, what it was that they was a doin' down there, but I have studied about it. I think it was that it's some kindly of a contest where they see which bunchful of them men can take that pumpkin and run from one end of that cow pasture to the other without gettin' knocked down or steppin' in somethin'.
========================
If we open a quarrel between past and present, we shall find that we have lost the future. - Winston Churchill
Kites rise highest against the wind - not with it. - Winston Churchill
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Municipal Budgeting: Care & Feeding of the Fiscal Monster
--------------------------
"The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility. Let it be drawn upon largely, and they will then listen to truths which could not excite them through any other organ." -- Thomas Jefferson
--------------------------
An AWC* CONFERENCE Work Session I attended back in 2005 was titled 'TACKLING TOUGH BUDGET CHOICES'
[*= Association of Washington Cities]
This session first focused on what some of the toughest budget issues are and then developed ways to address those choices.
While it is true that 2005 is history, this kind of history does repeat itself in every community, every year in some variation.
See if you can recognize which of the issues summarized are 'unique' to Bellingham, and which are shared by many communities.
HINT: 'unique' is very rare!
--------------------------
TOUGHEST BUDGET ISSUES
• The cost of operating budget items (salaries, benefits) increasing at a rate faster than inflation, particularly health care benefits
• The cost of infrastructure, such as transportation, sewer/water, and the need to respond to growth by providing more of these
• The property tax increase cap at 1% per year vs. 3% annual inflation
• The need to educate Council, staff and citizens
• Unfunded mandates
• Impacts from UGA residents outside the city limits being served but not paying
• The tax structure
• Disconnects – distrust of government, perceived lack of value for taxes paid
• Fee increases with service cuts
• Deferred maintenance
--------------------------
SUGGESTIONS
• Communicate more effectively with the public •••
o Be honest
o Frame the issues carefully
o Unify the Council before going out to the public
o Go to the public; don’t expect them to come to you
o Use all available tools (web site, etc.)
o Use polls to determine public opinion rather than basing it on what those who attend a hearing say
o Recognize that “complainers” care; connect with them
o Remember the audience
o Educate ourselves with “The Price of Government”
• Mid- to long-term: Change the tax structure •••
o Some possibilities for changes short of full scale changes:
• Designate the sales tax to the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides (e.g., by tracking internet sales)
• Look at the AWC proposal to replace impact mitigation fees with additional .25% REET
• Lift the levy lid
• Identify cross-jurisdictional economic regions and the facilities needed to support the region and identify different ways to pay for them (no city can handle the full cost of regional facilities established by other jurisdictions, such as ports)
• Set up an opportunity fund for leveraging grants, etc.
• Focus REET truly on capital, rather than diverting it indirectly
• Use the private sector as well as government comparables when setting salaries and benefits
• Set up an equipment replacement fund
• Make fee increases incrementally (more regularly), rather than making larger increases less often
• Maintain good relationships with the Legislators who represent you
• Don’t miss grant opportunities
o But be careful when using grants for operating costs because there can be unintended consequences, such as establishing a service that must be sustained after the grant period
• Establish a vision for the city.
o Use a public process to engage the public in confirming the vision
o Use the vision to prioritize the budget and do long-range planning for economic development
--------------------------
Other comments :
• Cost of significant sewer extension with few people to pay the cost
• Private developments (e.g., in one community, a Big Box Store) pay for capital projects
• Can’t fund police and fire strategic plans. Unions view significant public safety problems.
• Impact on utility tax on proposed annexation area not used to paying that cost; impact on city to suddenly annex area with nearly same population as existing city.
• Cost of programs such as EMS with small population base
• Need 10-11% increase in utility taxes
• Half of the sales tax is allocated to the street fund by ordinance
• 40% growth rate for 20 years
• Lots of folks in the UGA who get water and sewer without annexing; need moratorium to stop that
• Growth in community, with changing demographics, has hit fire services and created very expensive capital and operating costs
• Growth has brought lots of one-time revenue, and the city has to avoid putting it into O&M that can’t be supported in the long-run
• Traffic, traffic, traffic – the city is most impacted by traffic from other communities over which it has no control
• Suggestion for utility costs: have the storm water utility help pay the costs of storm water infrastructure associated with transportation projects
• Need to educate people about costs that are imposed by others, esp. mandates
• To fund major regional projects, we need to identify areas of risk in our regional economy and target investment
• Focus revenue on maintenance, because in the long term, the deferred maintenance will become major capital projects
• Give high priority to funds to be used for matches (the “opportunity fund”)
• In growing areas, focus funds on areas where developers are doing a lot of work
• Create a budget advisory committee
--------------------------
Common perceptions are that municipal budgets are very simple, like household budgets.
Folks, they aren't, except in general principles!
Despite the City's winning national awards for excellence in accounting and budgeting for the last several years, this is a topic that is still about as clear as muddy water for most people.
A municipal budget is made up of multiple parts, some of which are relatively simple because they are self-balancing -like so-called enterprise funds [Water, Sewer, etc]
Other budget components are accounting devices to hold designated reserves, inter-departmental transfers and long-term obligations -like the LEOFF-1 Pension fund. [LEOFF refers to 'Law Enforcement & Firefighters]
The key budget component to watch is the so-called 'General Fund' which currently is being proposed at just under $82 million for 2008.
That compares with just over $77 million adopted for 2007, about a 6% increase.
In recent years, the General Fund has represented about a third of the total City Budget.
A 12% Reserve is established for augmenting the General Fund for use in case of emergency or other needs that are OKed by the City Council.
A brief explanation is offered in the 2008 Preliminary Budget for how these Reserves are expected to be impacted;
- a slowing of revenue growth
- a change in B&O tax rules [reduction of $890 k per year]
- some funds to be used for Fleet replacement
- some funds to be used for LEOFF-1 pension liability
Although General Fund monies are considered as more 'discretionary' than other public funds, this is largely a misconception.
That is because almost half [48%] of the General Fund is used to pay for essential Public Safety services like the Police and Fire Departments.
No one I know considers those services as discretionary!
Of the remainder;
- 19% goes to pay for Parks, Library, Museum and the like
- 14% goes to pay for General administrative services
- 7% goes to pay for Debt service & Capital projects
- 6% goes to pay for Judicial Services
- 6% goes to pay for Planning
General Fund revenue sources are broken down like this:
- 19% comes from B&O taxes
- 19% comes from Utility taxes
- 16% comes from grants, interest and other sources
- 15% comes from sales taxes
- 13% comes from property taxes
- 12% comes from inter-fund transfers
- 6% comes from various charges
Note the proposed '1%' Property Tax increase for 2008 will raise about $170 k in new revenues, all of which will be dedicated to help pay for the City's LEOFF-1 Pension obligation, which is estimated to total about $47 million.
--------------------------
The annual City Budget process is always interesting and often controversial.
But, more than anything else, it should be viewed as an opportunity to learn by anyone interested.
It is the time when comparisons can be drawn between what was expected and what actually happened.
And, it is a time to take into account the new demands, challenges and opportunities that are always changing.
The City has made great strides in being transparent about its budget process, but that alone can not be expected to adequately explain the inherent complexities involved to every citizen in a way that is completely understandable.
That is a much longer process which even intelligent professionals can have trouble understanding, without more direct experience with government accounting procedures and requirements.
With these comments in mind, now imagine how often the Municipal Budgeting mystery is encountered everywhere -not just in Bellingham.
That is the beauty of having associations, like the AWC, convene to bring public officials together periodically so that common problems and issues can be addressed and discussed in common.
Fortunately, common problems are often amenable to common solutions, notwithstanding the inherent differences between jurisdictions and times.
The Monster can be tamed, but it's still a Monster and will need taming again and again!
--------------------------
"We are what we do repeatedly. Excellence is not a single act but a habit."
- Aristotle
--------------------------
"The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility. Let it be drawn upon largely, and they will then listen to truths which could not excite them through any other organ." -- Thomas Jefferson
--------------------------
An AWC* CONFERENCE Work Session I attended back in 2005 was titled 'TACKLING TOUGH BUDGET CHOICES'
[*= Association of Washington Cities]
This session first focused on what some of the toughest budget issues are and then developed ways to address those choices.
While it is true that 2005 is history, this kind of history does repeat itself in every community, every year in some variation.
See if you can recognize which of the issues summarized are 'unique' to Bellingham, and which are shared by many communities.
HINT: 'unique' is very rare!
--------------------------
TOUGHEST BUDGET ISSUES
• The cost of operating budget items (salaries, benefits) increasing at a rate faster than inflation, particularly health care benefits
• The cost of infrastructure, such as transportation, sewer/water, and the need to respond to growth by providing more of these
• The property tax increase cap at 1% per year vs. 3% annual inflation
• The need to educate Council, staff and citizens
• Unfunded mandates
• Impacts from UGA residents outside the city limits being served but not paying
• The tax structure
• Disconnects – distrust of government, perceived lack of value for taxes paid
• Fee increases with service cuts
• Deferred maintenance
--------------------------
SUGGESTIONS
• Communicate more effectively with the public •••
o Be honest
o Frame the issues carefully
o Unify the Council before going out to the public
o Go to the public; don’t expect them to come to you
o Use all available tools (web site, etc.)
o Use polls to determine public opinion rather than basing it on what those who attend a hearing say
o Recognize that “complainers” care; connect with them
o Remember the audience
o Educate ourselves with “The Price of Government”
• Mid- to long-term: Change the tax structure •••
o Some possibilities for changes short of full scale changes:
• Designate the sales tax to the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides (e.g., by tracking internet sales)
• Look at the AWC proposal to replace impact mitigation fees with additional .25% REET
• Lift the levy lid
• Identify cross-jurisdictional economic regions and the facilities needed to support the region and identify different ways to pay for them (no city can handle the full cost of regional facilities established by other jurisdictions, such as ports)
• Set up an opportunity fund for leveraging grants, etc.
• Focus REET truly on capital, rather than diverting it indirectly
• Use the private sector as well as government comparables when setting salaries and benefits
• Set up an equipment replacement fund
• Make fee increases incrementally (more regularly), rather than making larger increases less often
• Maintain good relationships with the Legislators who represent you
• Don’t miss grant opportunities
o But be careful when using grants for operating costs because there can be unintended consequences, such as establishing a service that must be sustained after the grant period
• Establish a vision for the city.
o Use a public process to engage the public in confirming the vision
o Use the vision to prioritize the budget and do long-range planning for economic development
--------------------------
Other comments :
• Cost of significant sewer extension with few people to pay the cost
• Private developments (e.g., in one community, a Big Box Store) pay for capital projects
• Can’t fund police and fire strategic plans. Unions view significant public safety problems.
• Impact on utility tax on proposed annexation area not used to paying that cost; impact on city to suddenly annex area with nearly same population as existing city.
• Cost of programs such as EMS with small population base
• Need 10-11% increase in utility taxes
• Half of the sales tax is allocated to the street fund by ordinance
• 40% growth rate for 20 years
• Lots of folks in the UGA who get water and sewer without annexing; need moratorium to stop that
• Growth in community, with changing demographics, has hit fire services and created very expensive capital and operating costs
• Growth has brought lots of one-time revenue, and the city has to avoid putting it into O&M that can’t be supported in the long-run
• Traffic, traffic, traffic – the city is most impacted by traffic from other communities over which it has no control
• Suggestion for utility costs: have the storm water utility help pay the costs of storm water infrastructure associated with transportation projects
• Need to educate people about costs that are imposed by others, esp. mandates
• To fund major regional projects, we need to identify areas of risk in our regional economy and target investment
• Focus revenue on maintenance, because in the long term, the deferred maintenance will become major capital projects
• Give high priority to funds to be used for matches (the “opportunity fund”)
• In growing areas, focus funds on areas where developers are doing a lot of work
• Create a budget advisory committee
--------------------------
Common perceptions are that municipal budgets are very simple, like household budgets.
Folks, they aren't, except in general principles!
Despite the City's winning national awards for excellence in accounting and budgeting for the last several years, this is a topic that is still about as clear as muddy water for most people.
A municipal budget is made up of multiple parts, some of which are relatively simple because they are self-balancing -like so-called enterprise funds [Water, Sewer, etc]
Other budget components are accounting devices to hold designated reserves, inter-departmental transfers and long-term obligations -like the LEOFF-1 Pension fund. [LEOFF refers to 'Law Enforcement & Firefighters]
The key budget component to watch is the so-called 'General Fund' which currently is being proposed at just under $82 million for 2008.
That compares with just over $77 million adopted for 2007, about a 6% increase.
In recent years, the General Fund has represented about a third of the total City Budget.
A 12% Reserve is established for augmenting the General Fund for use in case of emergency or other needs that are OKed by the City Council.
A brief explanation is offered in the 2008 Preliminary Budget for how these Reserves are expected to be impacted;
- a slowing of revenue growth
- a change in B&O tax rules [reduction of $890 k per year]
- some funds to be used for Fleet replacement
- some funds to be used for LEOFF-1 pension liability
Although General Fund monies are considered as more 'discretionary' than other public funds, this is largely a misconception.
That is because almost half [48%] of the General Fund is used to pay for essential Public Safety services like the Police and Fire Departments.
No one I know considers those services as discretionary!
Of the remainder;
- 19% goes to pay for Parks, Library, Museum and the like
- 14% goes to pay for General administrative services
- 7% goes to pay for Debt service & Capital projects
- 6% goes to pay for Judicial Services
- 6% goes to pay for Planning
General Fund revenue sources are broken down like this:
- 19% comes from B&O taxes
- 19% comes from Utility taxes
- 16% comes from grants, interest and other sources
- 15% comes from sales taxes
- 13% comes from property taxes
- 12% comes from inter-fund transfers
- 6% comes from various charges
Note the proposed '1%' Property Tax increase for 2008 will raise about $170 k in new revenues, all of which will be dedicated to help pay for the City's LEOFF-1 Pension obligation, which is estimated to total about $47 million.
--------------------------
The annual City Budget process is always interesting and often controversial.
But, more than anything else, it should be viewed as an opportunity to learn by anyone interested.
It is the time when comparisons can be drawn between what was expected and what actually happened.
And, it is a time to take into account the new demands, challenges and opportunities that are always changing.
The City has made great strides in being transparent about its budget process, but that alone can not be expected to adequately explain the inherent complexities involved to every citizen in a way that is completely understandable.
That is a much longer process which even intelligent professionals can have trouble understanding, without more direct experience with government accounting procedures and requirements.
With these comments in mind, now imagine how often the Municipal Budgeting mystery is encountered everywhere -not just in Bellingham.
That is the beauty of having associations, like the AWC, convene to bring public officials together periodically so that common problems and issues can be addressed and discussed in common.
Fortunately, common problems are often amenable to common solutions, notwithstanding the inherent differences between jurisdictions and times.
The Monster can be tamed, but it's still a Monster and will need taming again and again!
--------------------------
"We are what we do repeatedly. Excellence is not a single act but a habit."
- Aristotle
--------------------------
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Photos: A Few Favorite Places
------------------------
'Home Sweet Home' with Giddy Gato
------------------------
'Moose Lodge' Cabin - Winthrop
------------------------
VW Eurovan - Home Away From Home
------------------------
Ferry to Port Townsend
------------------------
Glen Park House - San Francisco
------------------------
California Alpine Club - Mt Tamalpais
------------------------
Echo Summit Lodge - Lake Tahoe
------------------------
Skokie Lodge - Banff National Park, Canada
------------------------
Twin Falls Lodge - Yoho National Park, Canada
------------------------
Sperry Chalet - Glacier National Park
------------------------
Many Glaciers Lodge - Glacier National Park
------------------------
'Home Sweet Home' with Giddy Gato
------------------------
'Moose Lodge' Cabin - Winthrop
------------------------
VW Eurovan - Home Away From Home
------------------------
Ferry to Port Townsend
------------------------
Glen Park House - San Francisco
------------------------
California Alpine Club - Mt Tamalpais
------------------------
Echo Summit Lodge - Lake Tahoe
------------------------
Skokie Lodge - Banff National Park, Canada
------------------------
Twin Falls Lodge - Yoho National Park, Canada
------------------------
Sperry Chalet - Glacier National Park
------------------------
Many Glaciers Lodge - Glacier National Park
------------------------
Friday, November 16, 2007
Growth Management: Options for Closing the 'Gap' on UGA Boundaries
---------------------------
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
“Opinion is power.” - Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1816
`Tunnel' history, is the kind that can lead an investigator to know more and more about less and less. - Anonymous
------------------------------------------------------
Note: This subject is to be discussed at the City Council's Monday, November 19th meeting as part of the Planning Committee's agenda, estimated to start no sooner than 2:25 PM.
The map and information given later appears in printed form on pages 149-151 of the Council packet issued yesterday.
------------------------------------------------------
At City Council request, the City Staff has summarized Options for Closing the 'Gap' on UGA Boundaries.
This 'gap' refers to the difference between assessments of new UGA land supply needs between the City and the County.
The County has requested a 'reconciliation' meeting with the City to come to agreement on its future land supply, because in its opinion the City's requests are excessive.
Of course, this is a decision to be made by the County, supposedly with City 'input'.
The City's 'input' has already been duly approved with its Comprehensive Plan last year [2006], and has also withstood a legal challenge and was declared compliant with the Growth Management Act by the Growth Management Review Board.
By contrast, the County has not completed its GMA work and is under threat for both legal action and penalty for its protracted tardiness.
Therefore, the County is in a self-inflicted big hurry, and wants the City to simply obey its land supply wishes, notwithstanding the fact-based diligence behind the City's efforts to date!
What is wrong with that picture?
But that is where we are now.
The City's land supply estimate was the result of over 3 years of painstaking effort in analyzing actual land use efficiency and problems encountered in insuring the anticipated urban density and associated design features are achieved.
There exist several barriers to achieving optimal densities with the City Limits and Urban Growth Areas, and these have been pretty well identified and taken into account.
Some of these barriers will require significant time and effort to fix because existing zoning cannot be easily adjusted, particularly within the City Limits.
The same barriers also exist in the County-controlled UGAs, partly because past City policy regarding annexation before extending water & sewer services has been excessively lax, allowing the UGAs to develop in a piecemeal fashion without addressing all urban needs consistently and concurrently.
Rather than addressing these underlying barriers to achieving optimal urban density -a daunting task- some people would rather just 'fudge' the so-called 'safety factor' which is an accepted device for addressing the basic uncertainties in estimating land supply needs.
While doing that is certainly tempting and not illegal, it is also lazy, simplistic and does not help resolve the underlying problems in any reasonable way.
Proponents of the 'fudging' approach rationalize reducing the 'safety' by saying it 'rewards inefficiency'.
That may be true, but it also recognizes the inherent -and growing [due to increasing critical areas]- uncertainty in developing land supply estimates.
The 'safety' factor adopted by the City was 25% for most areas and 0% for others, resulting in an overall value of 17%.
The Growth Management Review Board routinely allows up to a 25% 'safety' factor without even needing to review its basis!
That should say something about it reasonableness, don't you think?
The City's last adopted Comp Plan allowed up to a 50% 'safety' factor and that was hotly debated and thought to be too low at the time.
In actuality, 50% was excessive and a lesser figure was applied, which did allow the City & County to continue being lax in doing something to actually achieve optimal density.
But, even with all these things considered, the City is still close to being essentially on track in meeting its earlier land use projections.
That is remarkable only for its proving that setting easy goals means you are more likely to meet them!
So, some tightening up is definitely needed, but is it likely this can be achieved all at one time?
Without any underlying changes?
Are we to believe that some sort of 'immaculate conception' is going to happen just because we wish for it?
I don't think so!
Let's get serious.
The proposed 'reconciliation' exercise may close the gap, or part of it.
But what will remain to be closed will become the truest sense of sprawl, and it will happen in the County, not the City.
Just like Cinderella's slipper did not fit her ugly step sister, an artificially low land supply estimate will not accommodate all the growth the City -in good faith- committed itself to take!
So, whatever population 'shortfall' is left over from this exercise will just be treated as an accounting adjustment - a reconciliation in that parlance- that will solve nothing but the purposes of the lazy idealogues who prefer to substitute whim for facts.
The City will be able to cover its butt for the number of new folks it accepts, but the rest will undoubtedly go elsewhere - likely into unincorporated areas of the County.
That's called SPRAWL folks, and for all the ranting to the contrary we've heard, the County -by its actions- actually loves it!
I'm sorry to feel like the land supply determination has been monumental waste of time, but I do.
I am tempted to resent the effort the City expended toward a fact-based analysis, for the simple reason that effort is not being shown the respect it serves.
As someone trained in the discipline of science-based reasoning, it is offensive to see it so casually dismissed by people who ought to know better and value information that is grounded in actual experience!
It almost seems as if some sort of 'faith-based' planning is being substituted for the real thing, doesn't it?
But, with the County's Planning Staff gutted and the type of leadership being demonstrated from that jurisdiction, maybe its not so surprising after all.
Even at that, we have learned some things from this exercise, like what needs to be fixed, and maybe who doesn't want to bother fixing it.
But, that's about it.
And, the pot does get to call the kettle black,
Anyway, here's the outline of the land supply 'reconciliation' exercise.
Care to bet on where we'll end up?
Your guess is as good as mine.
For you wonks out there, you may wish to revisit my August 16 blog, on Growth Management 102.
There are some commonalities with this article.
------------------------
The information below lists options for closing the 'gap' between the City's and Whatcom County's proposed UGA boundaries.
The document presents the recommendations of County Council, County staff, and City staff, and is based upon conditions that exist at this moment in time.
An annotated map of the Northern UGAs and 5-Year Review Areas accompanied this writing, and is crudely reproduced here.
Click on it to enlarge the image.
Those interested can also view this map when City staff reviews this information with the City Council at its November 19, 2007 meeting.
------------------------
City Staff - suggested options for closing the gap between the City of Bellingham & Whatcom County proposed Urban Growth Areas – November 12 th, 2007
The land supply analysis generated for the City of Bellingham’s 2006 Comprehensive Plan identified shortfalls in land necessary to accommodate 5,215 people, and 225 net acres for future employment.
The following list includes UGA expansion areas proposed through a County Council resolution, additional areas suggested by City & County planning staff, and a further list of options suggested by City staff to close the gap in population accommodation and net acres for future employment.
It is important to note that the additional City staff options include the Bear Creek area, and the 80-acre northern portion of King Mountain.
These areas do accommodate some population and employment infill, but are also critically important for construction of future east-west transportation links.
The Slater, Horton, and Van Wyck links are vital to the growth allocated to the King Mountain, Aldrich Rd, and Cordata areas.
These links will also provide much needed relief for already overburdened east-west arterials inside Bellingham to the south, and in the rural County to the north.
---------------
UGA expansion areas included by County Council in their resolution:
• Add King & Queen Mtn. 5 Year Review areas accommodating @2,000 people & @40 net acres for commercial/industrial land.
---------------
Additional UGA expansion areas suggested by City & County staff:
• Add 20 acres of the Bear Creek 5 Year Review area recently purchased by the City for Parks.
• Add the northerly remaining 80 acres of King Mtn. 5 Year Review Area accommodating 5 net acres of commercial/industrial land & the west portion of the Horton/Van Wyck transportation corridor.
---------------
If all the above are accepted, then:
Remaining population left to accommodate = 3,215 people
Remaining land left to accommodate future employment = 185 net acres
---------------
Additional options suggested by City staff for closing the gap:
• Add remainder of the Bear Creek 5 Year Review area accommodating @500 people & the Horton & Slater transportation corridors, and
• Add Stuart Smith 5 Year Review area up to 1,320 feet north of Kelly Road accommodating @80 net acres of commercial/industrial land, and
• Complete further review (possibly through a supplemental EIS) of the following areas:
o The 80 acre Meas/Lipscomb ownership potentially accommodating @600 people & the central portion of the Horton/Van Wyck transportation corridor.
o The 80 acres north of City Limits on either side of Hannegan Rd. potentially accommodating @35 net acres of commercial/industrial land, and
• Rezone URMX areas in Aldrich Road, Bakerview/James, & Dewey Valley UGA’s (maps 5, 7, 8, & 9) from minimum 6 to minimum 8 units per acre accommodating an additional 2,700 people.
-- Or --
• Reduce Bellingham’s 20-year 31,600 population forecast.
---------------------------
That's all we know right now folks.
Stay tuned for the next exciting episode, and hopefully the conclusion of this particular exercise
==============================================
"For humans, honesty is a matter of degree. Engineers are always honest in matters of technology and human relationships. That's why it's a good idea to keep engineers away from customers, romantic interests, and other people who can't handle the truth." [Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle]
"What's the use of a house if you haven't got a tolerable planet to put it on?" -Henry David Thoreau
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." – Thomas Jefferson
"The era of procrastination, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences." - Winston Churchill
'Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.'
- Matthew 7:5 - The Bible [King James Version]
---------------------------
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
“Opinion is power.” - Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1816
`Tunnel' history, is the kind that can lead an investigator to know more and more about less and less. - Anonymous
------------------------------------------------------
Note: This subject is to be discussed at the City Council's Monday, November 19th meeting as part of the Planning Committee's agenda, estimated to start no sooner than 2:25 PM.
The map and information given later appears in printed form on pages 149-151 of the Council packet issued yesterday.
------------------------------------------------------
At City Council request, the City Staff has summarized Options for Closing the 'Gap' on UGA Boundaries.
This 'gap' refers to the difference between assessments of new UGA land supply needs between the City and the County.
The County has requested a 'reconciliation' meeting with the City to come to agreement on its future land supply, because in its opinion the City's requests are excessive.
Of course, this is a decision to be made by the County, supposedly with City 'input'.
The City's 'input' has already been duly approved with its Comprehensive Plan last year [2006], and has also withstood a legal challenge and was declared compliant with the Growth Management Act by the Growth Management Review Board.
By contrast, the County has not completed its GMA work and is under threat for both legal action and penalty for its protracted tardiness.
Therefore, the County is in a self-inflicted big hurry, and wants the City to simply obey its land supply wishes, notwithstanding the fact-based diligence behind the City's efforts to date!
What is wrong with that picture?
But that is where we are now.
The City's land supply estimate was the result of over 3 years of painstaking effort in analyzing actual land use efficiency and problems encountered in insuring the anticipated urban density and associated design features are achieved.
There exist several barriers to achieving optimal densities with the City Limits and Urban Growth Areas, and these have been pretty well identified and taken into account.
Some of these barriers will require significant time and effort to fix because existing zoning cannot be easily adjusted, particularly within the City Limits.
The same barriers also exist in the County-controlled UGAs, partly because past City policy regarding annexation before extending water & sewer services has been excessively lax, allowing the UGAs to develop in a piecemeal fashion without addressing all urban needs consistently and concurrently.
Rather than addressing these underlying barriers to achieving optimal urban density -a daunting task- some people would rather just 'fudge' the so-called 'safety factor' which is an accepted device for addressing the basic uncertainties in estimating land supply needs.
While doing that is certainly tempting and not illegal, it is also lazy, simplistic and does not help resolve the underlying problems in any reasonable way.
Proponents of the 'fudging' approach rationalize reducing the 'safety' by saying it 'rewards inefficiency'.
That may be true, but it also recognizes the inherent -and growing [due to increasing critical areas]- uncertainty in developing land supply estimates.
The 'safety' factor adopted by the City was 25% for most areas and 0% for others, resulting in an overall value of 17%.
The Growth Management Review Board routinely allows up to a 25% 'safety' factor without even needing to review its basis!
That should say something about it reasonableness, don't you think?
The City's last adopted Comp Plan allowed up to a 50% 'safety' factor and that was hotly debated and thought to be too low at the time.
In actuality, 50% was excessive and a lesser figure was applied, which did allow the City & County to continue being lax in doing something to actually achieve optimal density.
But, even with all these things considered, the City is still close to being essentially on track in meeting its earlier land use projections.
That is remarkable only for its proving that setting easy goals means you are more likely to meet them!
So, some tightening up is definitely needed, but is it likely this can be achieved all at one time?
Without any underlying changes?
Are we to believe that some sort of 'immaculate conception' is going to happen just because we wish for it?
I don't think so!
Let's get serious.
The proposed 'reconciliation' exercise may close the gap, or part of it.
But what will remain to be closed will become the truest sense of sprawl, and it will happen in the County, not the City.
Just like Cinderella's slipper did not fit her ugly step sister, an artificially low land supply estimate will not accommodate all the growth the City -in good faith- committed itself to take!
So, whatever population 'shortfall' is left over from this exercise will just be treated as an accounting adjustment - a reconciliation in that parlance- that will solve nothing but the purposes of the lazy idealogues who prefer to substitute whim for facts.
The City will be able to cover its butt for the number of new folks it accepts, but the rest will undoubtedly go elsewhere - likely into unincorporated areas of the County.
That's called SPRAWL folks, and for all the ranting to the contrary we've heard, the County -by its actions- actually loves it!
I'm sorry to feel like the land supply determination has been monumental waste of time, but I do.
I am tempted to resent the effort the City expended toward a fact-based analysis, for the simple reason that effort is not being shown the respect it serves.
As someone trained in the discipline of science-based reasoning, it is offensive to see it so casually dismissed by people who ought to know better and value information that is grounded in actual experience!
It almost seems as if some sort of 'faith-based' planning is being substituted for the real thing, doesn't it?
But, with the County's Planning Staff gutted and the type of leadership being demonstrated from that jurisdiction, maybe its not so surprising after all.
Even at that, we have learned some things from this exercise, like what needs to be fixed, and maybe who doesn't want to bother fixing it.
But, that's about it.
And, the pot does get to call the kettle black,
Anyway, here's the outline of the land supply 'reconciliation' exercise.
Care to bet on where we'll end up?
Your guess is as good as mine.
For you wonks out there, you may wish to revisit my August 16 blog, on Growth Management 102.
There are some commonalities with this article.
------------------------
The information below lists options for closing the 'gap' between the City's and Whatcom County's proposed UGA boundaries.
The document presents the recommendations of County Council, County staff, and City staff, and is based upon conditions that exist at this moment in time.
An annotated map of the Northern UGAs and 5-Year Review Areas accompanied this writing, and is crudely reproduced here.
Click on it to enlarge the image.
Those interested can also view this map when City staff reviews this information with the City Council at its November 19, 2007 meeting.
------------------------
City Staff - suggested options for closing the gap between the City of Bellingham & Whatcom County proposed Urban Growth Areas – November 12 th, 2007
The land supply analysis generated for the City of Bellingham’s 2006 Comprehensive Plan identified shortfalls in land necessary to accommodate 5,215 people, and 225 net acres for future employment.
The following list includes UGA expansion areas proposed through a County Council resolution, additional areas suggested by City & County planning staff, and a further list of options suggested by City staff to close the gap in population accommodation and net acres for future employment.
It is important to note that the additional City staff options include the Bear Creek area, and the 80-acre northern portion of King Mountain.
These areas do accommodate some population and employment infill, but are also critically important for construction of future east-west transportation links.
The Slater, Horton, and Van Wyck links are vital to the growth allocated to the King Mountain, Aldrich Rd, and Cordata areas.
These links will also provide much needed relief for already overburdened east-west arterials inside Bellingham to the south, and in the rural County to the north.
---------------
UGA expansion areas included by County Council in their resolution:
• Add King & Queen Mtn. 5 Year Review areas accommodating @2,000 people & @40 net acres for commercial/industrial land.
---------------
Additional UGA expansion areas suggested by City & County staff:
• Add 20 acres of the Bear Creek 5 Year Review area recently purchased by the City for Parks.
• Add the northerly remaining 80 acres of King Mtn. 5 Year Review Area accommodating 5 net acres of commercial/industrial land & the west portion of the Horton/Van Wyck transportation corridor.
---------------
If all the above are accepted, then:
Remaining population left to accommodate = 3,215 people
Remaining land left to accommodate future employment = 185 net acres
---------------
Additional options suggested by City staff for closing the gap:
• Add remainder of the Bear Creek 5 Year Review area accommodating @500 people & the Horton & Slater transportation corridors, and
• Add Stuart Smith 5 Year Review area up to 1,320 feet north of Kelly Road accommodating @80 net acres of commercial/industrial land, and
• Complete further review (possibly through a supplemental EIS) of the following areas:
o The 80 acre Meas/Lipscomb ownership potentially accommodating @600 people & the central portion of the Horton/Van Wyck transportation corridor.
o The 80 acres north of City Limits on either side of Hannegan Rd. potentially accommodating @35 net acres of commercial/industrial land, and
• Rezone URMX areas in Aldrich Road, Bakerview/James, & Dewey Valley UGA’s (maps 5, 7, 8, & 9) from minimum 6 to minimum 8 units per acre accommodating an additional 2,700 people.
-- Or --
• Reduce Bellingham’s 20-year 31,600 population forecast.
---------------------------
That's all we know right now folks.
Stay tuned for the next exciting episode, and hopefully the conclusion of this particular exercise
==============================================
"For humans, honesty is a matter of degree. Engineers are always honest in matters of technology and human relationships. That's why it's a good idea to keep engineers away from customers, romantic interests, and other people who can't handle the truth." [Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle]
"What's the use of a house if you haven't got a tolerable planet to put it on?" -Henry David Thoreau
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." – Thomas Jefferson
"The era of procrastination, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences." - Winston Churchill
'Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.'
- Matthew 7:5 - The Bible [King James Version]
---------------------------
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Lake Whatcom: Is It Time to Consolidate Water & Sewer Services?
-----------------------
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." – Thomas Edison
-----------------------
I haven’t blogged in a few days, preferring instead to do a little reflection and thinking about some things that might make sense to consider now.
These elections have been interesting and have resulted in some changes, but also some sameness. That is probably not all bad, because when too much change happens at once it can as much a distraction as it can a good thing. There does need to be some institutional memory left to inform and condition new ideas that come forward.
When new ideas do come forward they must be assimilated into the fabric of what exists, recognizing there is a practical limit to what degree of change the public will tolerate and accept.
One idea has persisted recently as something whose time may have come to seriously consider. It has been considered before, but not with as much urgency or promise.
That idea is that it may be time to consolidate water and sewer services in the Lake Whatcom Watershed under a single administrative control.
Aside from the fact that is considered a basic good idea in Watershed Management 101, here are four or five things that are now under discussion which together make this idea propitious for serious discussion:
1. Every elected official and candidate for City or County office recognized Lake Whatcom as a top priority that should be dealt with sooner rather than later. Bellingham has elected a new Mayor and three new Council Members who are committed to making progress on this issue.
2. The County Executive & Interim City Mayor have proposed a new collaborative, joint management plan to be headed by those two primary jurisdictions, with more comprehensive stakeholder involvement.
Some version of such a plan is likely to be adopted.
3. The City of Bellingham is in the midst of adopting updated Comprehensive Plans for its Water & Sewer Utilities, which will include 20-year Capital Improvement projections as well as System Development Charges and Rate adjustments to meet anticipated needs.
4. The City of Bellingham is in the process of updating its Inter-local Agreement with the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District.
5. Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District is now considering the major expense of building a new Administrative Headquarters at considerable expense, currently estimated at $5 to $7 million.
----------------
Why not take a ‘time-out’ and think about how all of those things could be combined to produce a synergistic result that far exceeds continuing the status quo?
Then, we might also see how the following could also be achieved:
• Improved financial stability of the Water District by being absorbed into the City’s much larger system.
• Improved operation & maintenance of the Water District’s system, resulting in less risk of sewage spills into the Lake.
• Substantially lower Water & Sewer Rates to Water District customers, taking into account economies of scale and reduced utility rate mark-ups.
• Elimination of need for new Water District Administrative Headquarters building, saving $5 to $7 million in capital costs to be paid by its customers.
• Retention of Water District Staff with equal or better wages & benefits.
• Consolidates utility functions within one jurisdictional entity, thereby promoting efficiency and better use of manpower and financial resources.
• Adds to value of overall utility systems and enhances access to credit rating and probability for receiving matching State & Federal grant funds.
• Allows better long-term facilities planning, including emphasis on spill prevention.
• Obviates the need for Inter-local agreement.
• Enhances joint management plan’s efficacy.
There may be other advantages possible in addition to these.
Also, there may also be some drawbacks that are currently not obvious or anticipated which must be carefully considered.
Notwithstanding any difficulties, this idea ought to be investigated and pursued if it is deemed viable to the parties.
It certainly seems to have the real potential of becoming a true ‘win-win’ situation, but we won’t know unless we take the next step to find out.
There is no question that the City would retain a ‘duty to serve’, just as the Water District is now obligated to do.
But, the City might also have some other tools to work with to make sure all vested rights are served fairly and efficiently and with due regard to risks and costs.
It’s time we tried a more cost-efficient, safer approach that is more holistic in nature, don’t you think?
If the parties agree to exploring this concept, expert consulting assistance will most certainly be required.
We’ve got a lot to gain and nothing to lose, except the same problems experienced in the past.
And, if something like this can work with the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District, it’s possible we might want to explore a similar approach with Water District 7 as well.
Just a few thoughts on my way to re-retirement...
-----------------
"..... leadership is all about making things happen that might not otherwise happen, and preventing things from happening that ordinarily might happen..... it is a process that helps people transform intentions into positive action, vision into reality." - Thomas A. Cronin
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." – Thomas Edison
-----------------------
I haven’t blogged in a few days, preferring instead to do a little reflection and thinking about some things that might make sense to consider now.
These elections have been interesting and have resulted in some changes, but also some sameness. That is probably not all bad, because when too much change happens at once it can as much a distraction as it can a good thing. There does need to be some institutional memory left to inform and condition new ideas that come forward.
When new ideas do come forward they must be assimilated into the fabric of what exists, recognizing there is a practical limit to what degree of change the public will tolerate and accept.
One idea has persisted recently as something whose time may have come to seriously consider. It has been considered before, but not with as much urgency or promise.
That idea is that it may be time to consolidate water and sewer services in the Lake Whatcom Watershed under a single administrative control.
Aside from the fact that is considered a basic good idea in Watershed Management 101, here are four or five things that are now under discussion which together make this idea propitious for serious discussion:
1. Every elected official and candidate for City or County office recognized Lake Whatcom as a top priority that should be dealt with sooner rather than later. Bellingham has elected a new Mayor and three new Council Members who are committed to making progress on this issue.
2. The County Executive & Interim City Mayor have proposed a new collaborative, joint management plan to be headed by those two primary jurisdictions, with more comprehensive stakeholder involvement.
Some version of such a plan is likely to be adopted.
3. The City of Bellingham is in the midst of adopting updated Comprehensive Plans for its Water & Sewer Utilities, which will include 20-year Capital Improvement projections as well as System Development Charges and Rate adjustments to meet anticipated needs.
4. The City of Bellingham is in the process of updating its Inter-local Agreement with the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District.
5. Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District is now considering the major expense of building a new Administrative Headquarters at considerable expense, currently estimated at $5 to $7 million.
----------------
Why not take a ‘time-out’ and think about how all of those things could be combined to produce a synergistic result that far exceeds continuing the status quo?
Then, we might also see how the following could also be achieved:
• Improved financial stability of the Water District by being absorbed into the City’s much larger system.
• Improved operation & maintenance of the Water District’s system, resulting in less risk of sewage spills into the Lake.
• Substantially lower Water & Sewer Rates to Water District customers, taking into account economies of scale and reduced utility rate mark-ups.
• Elimination of need for new Water District Administrative Headquarters building, saving $5 to $7 million in capital costs to be paid by its customers.
• Retention of Water District Staff with equal or better wages & benefits.
• Consolidates utility functions within one jurisdictional entity, thereby promoting efficiency and better use of manpower and financial resources.
• Adds to value of overall utility systems and enhances access to credit rating and probability for receiving matching State & Federal grant funds.
• Allows better long-term facilities planning, including emphasis on spill prevention.
• Obviates the need for Inter-local agreement.
• Enhances joint management plan’s efficacy.
There may be other advantages possible in addition to these.
Also, there may also be some drawbacks that are currently not obvious or anticipated which must be carefully considered.
Notwithstanding any difficulties, this idea ought to be investigated and pursued if it is deemed viable to the parties.
It certainly seems to have the real potential of becoming a true ‘win-win’ situation, but we won’t know unless we take the next step to find out.
There is no question that the City would retain a ‘duty to serve’, just as the Water District is now obligated to do.
But, the City might also have some other tools to work with to make sure all vested rights are served fairly and efficiently and with due regard to risks and costs.
It’s time we tried a more cost-efficient, safer approach that is more holistic in nature, don’t you think?
If the parties agree to exploring this concept, expert consulting assistance will most certainly be required.
We’ve got a lot to gain and nothing to lose, except the same problems experienced in the past.
And, if something like this can work with the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District, it’s possible we might want to explore a similar approach with Water District 7 as well.
Just a few thoughts on my way to re-retirement...
-----------------
"..... leadership is all about making things happen that might not otherwise happen, and preventing things from happening that ordinarily might happen..... it is a process that helps people transform intentions into positive action, vision into reality." - Thomas A. Cronin
Friday, November 9, 2007
All Elections Are Important: Some More Than Others
----------------------
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan
"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go! " - Oliver Cromwell
----------------------
Previous blogs have introduced the unpleasant subject of 'taxes' to any readers brave enough to read them.
Taxes are a necessary tool that local governments need to do their job of protecting the public health, safety and welfare.
Everyone knows that, or should.
Where the controversy starts is where the government's 'job' begins and ends, and how it is paid for.
Those decisions get made directly and indirectly by the public, and most particularly by those citizens who vote.
Elections are about choosing those officials who will represent us in making decisions about policy and the use of public funds.
Since a large chunk of public funds come from some form of taxes that are paid by citizens, the public has a big stake in what decisions are made by its elected officials.
Some of those decisions do involve taxes, either having them or not having them.
Imposing taxes is a serious matter that should be undertaken very carefully.
But deciding not to impose taxes is also a serious matter, and it should be treated as such
It means either something is not deemed important enough, or that the political will to do something potentially unpopular is lacking.
In the case of one individual this blog focuses on, both elements seem to be always lacking.
That is a problem for me, because such representation is a disservice to voters and demeans the whole idea of a dynamic and engaged democracy.
Such representatives could be replaced with robots at both less expense and expectations.
Adding some real-time perspective to this topic, it is important to get past the demogoguery, entrenched special interests, and the propaganda and scare tactics that are being used to fool voters.
If we can't do that, we're stuck on having to endure representation that is not serving us well.
We can do better than that, and we must!
-------------------
On Nov 8, a CNN Headline trumpeted: "Twenty-three percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Thursday say that compared to other presidents in American history, President Bush is the worst ever."
No kidding! Only 23%? Seems low to me.
How about this Hamstertalk poll: "100% of it's editors say Sam Crawford is public enemy No.1 on the Whatcom County Council."
-------------------
Now that voting is over and election results are still in the process of being determined, here's my two cents worth on one race that is critical.
I'm hoping that Ken Mann does take out Sam Crawford, because it is way past time for him to go!
Mann has certainly turned a bright spotlight onto Mr Crawford, but has miraculously refrained from negative attacks with a steady diet of positive messages focused on real issues that people care about.
He has run one of the most effective campaigns I've seen in recent years, and deserves to be elected.
By contrast, Mr Crawford has tried to run under the radar, depending mostly upon some underlying political demographics that favor him, plus his usual financial support from his usual supporters.
His has been a lazy campaign that has relied upon extrapolating past voting into the present.
While Mann's comment that Crawford has not 'humiliated' himself while in office may be true, I must respectfully disagree.
Like the 'death by a thousand pin-pricks' that our farmlands, forests, water resources and sensitive areas have experienced, Crawford's 'humiliation' is the cumulative result of the constant application of his very 'unbalanced' ideology, which basically panders to his benefactors -the BIA, extreme right-wing anti-'guvmint' ideologues, and others fearful of changing a 'status quo' that continues to dumb down decision-making into false choices and inaction.
His steady record of non-support for necessary actions to sustain our future have compounded over the last eight years, until the cumulative result amounts to a huge 'humiliation' in the eyes of many citizens who expected much better of him.
My first and lasting impression of Mr Crawford came during his very first County Council meeting, where he actually nominated himself to be Council Chairperson!
Even his closest colleagues on the Council wouldn't drink that kool aid then, and they still haven't developed a taste for it now.
Crawford was reported to have said, prior to knowing the election results:
“My first priority will be to continue to add balance to a council that in many ways is very lopsided.”
Huh?
As one of many witnesses to Mr Crawford's habit of deliberately undermining discussions on serious issues, it seems he still thinks of himself as a self-appointed 'chairperson' of tyrannical minority.
So far, that tactic has been remarkably successful - at least for Mr. Crawford and his cronies.
But, Mr Crawford is there to represent everyone, including those yet to be born.
If he doesn't represent them, and their future needs, who will?
Ken Mann will, that's who!
For example, Crawford has 'expressed concern and opposition to a possible tax increase for the flood fund proposed by Councilor Carl Weimer'.
Does everyone understand what that is about?
I doubt it, because if they did, Mr Crawford would never get away with making such a statement!
Previous blogs have discussed the County's use of Flood Taxes for funding the major WRIA-1 effort [Water Resource Inventory Area-#1] which addresses water planning and allocation County-wide.
Whatcom County has already spent over $4 million on WRIA-1, before the program was put on hold.
Since then key staff have left for 'greener pastures' as Pete likes to say.
Talking with some of them reveals how they define 'greener pastures'.
It means working toward an important goal with the idea of achieving it!
They got tired and disillusioned with the non-action agenda of the current County Administration, which prominently featured the County Executive and Mr. Crawford, among others.
I'm sure Mr Crawford is still 'smiling behind his fan' at undermining WRIA-1 and wasting years of effort costing millions.
Here's a little 'secret' I've shared before - the availability of water will limit growth before land supply will!
Got it?
Crawford is one of those in denial that we need to do anything to manage our growth.
If you agree with him, you are getting the government you deserve!
But the rest of us aren't, and that isn't OK.
Fifty percent, plus 1 vote is all it will take to throw this rascal out, and get someone who will represent all of us.
I sincerely hope the numbers are there!
Crawford was also quoted by a Herald reporter as saying
“Another day, another thousand ballots. Is this like a root canal or what?”
Actually, having to endure Crawford sitting on the Council has been a lot like having an 8-year root canal.
The pain is constant, the expense is real, but the problem is not corrected.
Crawford's tenure has made an absolute mockery of what 'non-partisan' government is intended to mean.
That in itself should be considered a 'humiliation'!
-------------------
If Ken Mann wins, and Bob Kelly wins, we might again have 4 votes we can count upon to get Pete Kremen's attention on some important issues.
Then, with Laurie as a more regular 5th vote on a few important issues, it would have the effect of actually forcing Pete & his Administration to do what he needs be doing.
And, it's a long list, that includes WRIA-1 and its impact on growth management!
But, if we don't start getting those things done now, it just keeps getting more difficult and expensive later.
You know, like the Midas Muffler ad.
I imagine that Lois Garlick and the rest of the concerned public will be so happy with a Mann & Kelly outcome, it would almost amount to a clear victory for her.
Thanks for running, Lois!
You are a dear, and you really do care.
--------------------
"The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility. Let it be drawn upon largely, and they will then listen to truths which could not excite them through any other organ." -- Thomas Jefferson
"The era of procrastination, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences." - Winston Churchill
----------------------------------
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan
"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go! " - Oliver Cromwell
----------------------
Previous blogs have introduced the unpleasant subject of 'taxes' to any readers brave enough to read them.
Taxes are a necessary tool that local governments need to do their job of protecting the public health, safety and welfare.
Everyone knows that, or should.
Where the controversy starts is where the government's 'job' begins and ends, and how it is paid for.
Those decisions get made directly and indirectly by the public, and most particularly by those citizens who vote.
Elections are about choosing those officials who will represent us in making decisions about policy and the use of public funds.
Since a large chunk of public funds come from some form of taxes that are paid by citizens, the public has a big stake in what decisions are made by its elected officials.
Some of those decisions do involve taxes, either having them or not having them.
Imposing taxes is a serious matter that should be undertaken very carefully.
But deciding not to impose taxes is also a serious matter, and it should be treated as such
It means either something is not deemed important enough, or that the political will to do something potentially unpopular is lacking.
In the case of one individual this blog focuses on, both elements seem to be always lacking.
That is a problem for me, because such representation is a disservice to voters and demeans the whole idea of a dynamic and engaged democracy.
Such representatives could be replaced with robots at both less expense and expectations.
Adding some real-time perspective to this topic, it is important to get past the demogoguery, entrenched special interests, and the propaganda and scare tactics that are being used to fool voters.
If we can't do that, we're stuck on having to endure representation that is not serving us well.
We can do better than that, and we must!
-------------------
On Nov 8, a CNN Headline trumpeted: "Twenty-three percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Thursday say that compared to other presidents in American history, President Bush is the worst ever."
No kidding! Only 23%? Seems low to me.
How about this Hamstertalk poll: "100% of it's editors say Sam Crawford is public enemy No.1 on the Whatcom County Council."
-------------------
Now that voting is over and election results are still in the process of being determined, here's my two cents worth on one race that is critical.
I'm hoping that Ken Mann does take out Sam Crawford, because it is way past time for him to go!
Mann has certainly turned a bright spotlight onto Mr Crawford, but has miraculously refrained from negative attacks with a steady diet of positive messages focused on real issues that people care about.
He has run one of the most effective campaigns I've seen in recent years, and deserves to be elected.
By contrast, Mr Crawford has tried to run under the radar, depending mostly upon some underlying political demographics that favor him, plus his usual financial support from his usual supporters.
His has been a lazy campaign that has relied upon extrapolating past voting into the present.
While Mann's comment that Crawford has not 'humiliated' himself while in office may be true, I must respectfully disagree.
Like the 'death by a thousand pin-pricks' that our farmlands, forests, water resources and sensitive areas have experienced, Crawford's 'humiliation' is the cumulative result of the constant application of his very 'unbalanced' ideology, which basically panders to his benefactors -the BIA, extreme right-wing anti-'guvmint' ideologues, and others fearful of changing a 'status quo' that continues to dumb down decision-making into false choices and inaction.
His steady record of non-support for necessary actions to sustain our future have compounded over the last eight years, until the cumulative result amounts to a huge 'humiliation' in the eyes of many citizens who expected much better of him.
My first and lasting impression of Mr Crawford came during his very first County Council meeting, where he actually nominated himself to be Council Chairperson!
Even his closest colleagues on the Council wouldn't drink that kool aid then, and they still haven't developed a taste for it now.
Crawford was reported to have said, prior to knowing the election results:
“My first priority will be to continue to add balance to a council that in many ways is very lopsided.”
Huh?
As one of many witnesses to Mr Crawford's habit of deliberately undermining discussions on serious issues, it seems he still thinks of himself as a self-appointed 'chairperson' of tyrannical minority.
So far, that tactic has been remarkably successful - at least for Mr. Crawford and his cronies.
But, Mr Crawford is there to represent everyone, including those yet to be born.
If he doesn't represent them, and their future needs, who will?
Ken Mann will, that's who!
For example, Crawford has 'expressed concern and opposition to a possible tax increase for the flood fund proposed by Councilor Carl Weimer'.
Does everyone understand what that is about?
I doubt it, because if they did, Mr Crawford would never get away with making such a statement!
Previous blogs have discussed the County's use of Flood Taxes for funding the major WRIA-1 effort [Water Resource Inventory Area-#1] which addresses water planning and allocation County-wide.
Whatcom County has already spent over $4 million on WRIA-1, before the program was put on hold.
Since then key staff have left for 'greener pastures' as Pete likes to say.
Talking with some of them reveals how they define 'greener pastures'.
It means working toward an important goal with the idea of achieving it!
They got tired and disillusioned with the non-action agenda of the current County Administration, which prominently featured the County Executive and Mr. Crawford, among others.
I'm sure Mr Crawford is still 'smiling behind his fan' at undermining WRIA-1 and wasting years of effort costing millions.
Here's a little 'secret' I've shared before - the availability of water will limit growth before land supply will!
Got it?
Crawford is one of those in denial that we need to do anything to manage our growth.
If you agree with him, you are getting the government you deserve!
But the rest of us aren't, and that isn't OK.
Fifty percent, plus 1 vote is all it will take to throw this rascal out, and get someone who will represent all of us.
I sincerely hope the numbers are there!
Crawford was also quoted by a Herald reporter as saying
“Another day, another thousand ballots. Is this like a root canal or what?”
Actually, having to endure Crawford sitting on the Council has been a lot like having an 8-year root canal.
The pain is constant, the expense is real, but the problem is not corrected.
Crawford's tenure has made an absolute mockery of what 'non-partisan' government is intended to mean.
That in itself should be considered a 'humiliation'!
-------------------
If Ken Mann wins, and Bob Kelly wins, we might again have 4 votes we can count upon to get Pete Kremen's attention on some important issues.
Then, with Laurie as a more regular 5th vote on a few important issues, it would have the effect of actually forcing Pete & his Administration to do what he needs be doing.
And, it's a long list, that includes WRIA-1 and its impact on growth management!
But, if we don't start getting those things done now, it just keeps getting more difficult and expensive later.
You know, like the Midas Muffler ad.
I imagine that Lois Garlick and the rest of the concerned public will be so happy with a Mann & Kelly outcome, it would almost amount to a clear victory for her.
Thanks for running, Lois!
You are a dear, and you really do care.
--------------------
"The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility. Let it be drawn upon largely, and they will then listen to truths which could not excite them through any other organ." -- Thomas Jefferson
"The era of procrastination, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences." - Winston Churchill
----------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
