To help voters decide where candidates stand on various ideas to help Protect Lake Whatcom - our drinking water source - the citizen sponsored organization 'People for Lake Whatcom' [http://www.pflw.org] developed a well-conceived, questionnaire [June 12, 2007] which asked these 10 excellent questions: [shown below, after the candidate response summaries]
The responses received from Primary Election Candidates ranged from 'All Yes's' for most to 'No Response' for some. In between there were some interesting differences between individuals and questions.
Now, with The Primary Election results known, we can focus on the General Election, with a shorter list of finalists.
Here's a synopsis of Candidates positions taken directly from the Whatcom Watch, August 2007 Issue, plus a few comments and direct questions for those Candidates, who could not see the wisdom of answering 'YES' to all 10 questions.
Feel free to scroll down to read the questions as needed.
=================
Whatcom County Executive:
Lois Garlick - answered all 10 questions with YES
Pete Kremen - answered 8 questions with YES, but ABSTAINED on Number 3 & Number 6.
I wonder why?
[Number 3] Pete publicly advocated a Phosphorus Reduction Program 2 years ago, but that was back when he had professional staff to work on it, and maybe before he knew how difficult that might be. I hope his answer has nothing to do with the watershed property he owns!
[Number 6] Why wouldn't Pete support a ban on extending water & sewer into and OUTSIDE of UGAs WITHIN the Lake Whatcom Watershed? Again, I hope his answer has nothing to do with the watershed property he owns!
-----------------------
County Council - District 1:
Bob Kelly - answered all 10 questions with YES
Chris Hatch - REFUSED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS! Not a good sign!
-----------------------
County Council - District 2:
Ken Mann - answered all 10 questions with YES
Sam Crawford - answered 8 questions with NO, and 2 questions with YES [Number 2 & Number 3]
At least Sam was honest by voting NO instead of ABSTAINING like Pete did.
[Number 2] Sam was honest by agreeing that actions taken to date to protect our drinking water have been inadequate, because they certainly haven't been!
[Number 3] What is puzzling is that Sam disagreed with Pete on this one by voting YES!
Maybe Sam hasn't figured out that Phosphorus Reduction is so difficult that most of the other questions he voted NO on will likely also be necessary?
-----------------------
County Council - District 3:
Barbara Brenner [Unopposed] - answered 5 questions with YES, 2 questions with NO [Number 6 & Number 7], 2 questions with ABSTAIN [Number 4 & Number 5], and 1 question with Y/N [Number 9].
Barbara was all over the map on this, but no surprise there.
Her NO apparently agreed with Pete's 'abstention' on Number 6, with agreeing that a ban on water & sewer OUTSIDE the UGAs in the Watershed were not necessary.
But, she carried this thinking even further by voting NO on Number 7 [which would tell Water Districts 7 & 10 to NOT extend services to 'new developments'] You figure that out!
Her Y/N vote on Number 9 says she must feel strongly both ways?
Her 2 ABSTAIN votes on Number 4 & Number 5 seem quasi-mysterious ways of 'taking the 5th amendment' on simple questions about raising fees from property owners to protect the Lake, and considering additional downzoning in this Watershed. If not the property owners, who? Why not downzone? Too much trouble?
-----------------------
Bellingham Mayor -
Dan Pike - answered all 10 questions with YES
Dan McShane - answered 9 questions with YES, and 1 question with Y/N [Number 9]
Does this mean he feels strongly both ways, like Barbara Brenner?
-----------------------
Bellingham City Council - At Large:
Michael Lilliquist - answered all 10 questions with YES
Louise Bjornson - answered all 10 questions with YES
-----------------------
Bellingham City Council - Ward 1:
Jack Weiss [Unopposed] - answered all 10 questions with YES
-----------------------
Bellingham City Council - Ward 3:
Barry Buchanan - answered all 10 questions with YES
Larry Farr - answered 7 questions with YES, 3 questions with ABSTAIN [Number 6, Number 7 & Number 9]
Larry seems to somewhat agree with Barbara Brenner and Sam Crawford on Number 6 & Number 7, about extending water & sewer OUTSIDE UGAs in the Watershed, and allowing Water Districts 7 & 10 to service 'new development'.
Does his Abstention on Number 9 mean he might feel strongly both ways, or just doesn't know?
-----------------------
Bellingham City Council - Ward 4:
Stan Snapp - answered all 10 questions with YES
Damon Gray - REFUSED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS! Not a good sign!
-----------------------
Bellingham City Council - Ward 5:
Terry Bornemann - answered 9 questions with YES, and 1 question with ABSTAIN [Number 10]
Does Terry have another #1 priority for Federal Earmark Funds? If so, what is it?
Bill Geyer - answered 2 questions with YES [Number 2 & Number 3], and 8 questions with ABSTAIN
Since Bill's answers are identical with Sam Crawford's answers, I'll just repeat what I said about Sam, by substituting Bill:
At least Bill was honest by voting NO instead of ABSTAINING like Pete did.
[Number 2] Bill was honest by agreeing that actions taken to date to protect our drinking water have been inadequate, because they certainly haven't been!
[Number 3] What is puzzling is that Bill disagreed with Pete on this one by voting YES!
Maybe Bill hasn't figured out that Phosphorus Reduction is so difficult that most of the other questions he voted NO on will likely also be necessary?
-----------------------
So there you have it, folks; the Candidates have made their positions clear on Lake Whatcom protection, and on which of the 10 good ideas presented they either favor, oppose, or simply duck with an 'ABSTAIN'.
Maybe reviewing these positions again will help inform voters on what these candidates really think about preserving our Drinking Water Reservoir, and which are just mouthing the words because they are expected to!
=====================================================
LAKE WHATCOM QUESTIONNAIRE:
Please respond to the following ten statements about the Lake Whatcom Reservoir and its surrounding watershed. Indicate your agreement or disagreement with the item by circling “YES” or “NO” at the end of the statement. It is important that you answer all ten.
1. I support the WWU Institute for Watershed Studies' almost thirty years of research on Lake Whatcom and believe they have been and still are the most credible and professional scientific source of information on the lake's water quality.
YES NO
2. I believe the actions taken by our elected officials to protect Lake Whatcom and our drinking water source have been inadequate, as evidenced by the continued development allowed to occur in the watershed and resulting accelerated decline in the lake's water quality.
YES NO
3. I pledge to take substantive actions to reverse the decline in the lake's water quality that includes committing the necessary resources to reduce net phosphorus loadings to the lake by 2009.
YES N O
4. I believe and will work to implement a drinking water protection fee paid by property owners of new homes being built in the watershed to use specifically for offsetting the harmful effects of that development on the lake's water quality.
YES NO
5. I believe additional downzoning in the Lake Whatcom watershed is necessary to protect the lake.
YES NO
6. I support and will sponsor a ban on extending any future water and sewer services into and outside of the urban growth areas within the Lake Whatcom Reservoir watershed.
YES NO
7. I believe the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District (formerly Water District #10) and Water District #7 should not extend services to new developments and only provide service to existing homes.
YES NO
8. I support the use of some flood tax revenue and utility funds to assist willing homeowners in the Lake Whatcom watershed who want to implement on-site stormwater runoff infiltration projects (e.g., rain gardens, rain barrels, replanting lawns with native plants, etc.) on their own property (existing homes only).
YES NO
9. I believe that land-based recreation in the Lake Whatcom watershed should be low-impact passive in nature and prohibit motorized recreational vehicles and watercraft.
YES NO
10. Because purchasing the remaining developable properties in the watershed provides the most cost effective protection to our community’s drinking water source, I believe and will support having Lake Whatcom as the #1 priority for Federal Appropriation (Earmark) Funds to purchase the remaining undeveloped properties in the watershed and thereby provide the most cost effective protection for our community's drinking water source.
YES NO
--------------------------
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
