On this special night and during this propitious time, I have been again inspired by the inherent beauty of the season and what it signifies.
Listening to Christmas music tonight on PBS Channel 9 recalled all those wonderful Christmases past, from my earliest memories to the present.
Despite the problems of individual moments in time, the one thing that remains constant and up-lifting is the spirit of love and compassion, which too often seems to be missing from our lives.
But, these things are never really missing, just temporarily obscured by our more worldly pursuits and distractions of the moment.
They are always present, patiently waiting for us to reconnect with what is eternally important in our lives!
All it takes is a single moment to understand this truth, again and again.
For me tonight, that moment came when I listened to a carol, 'The First Nowell'.
Although focused on telling the story of the Nativity, a few verses struck me as transcending that simple function.
'They looked up and saw a star, shining in the East beyond them far.
And, to the Earth it gave great light, and so they continued both day and night.'
Maybe it was my elevated emotional state that allowed me to see these short verses in broader perspective;
that constantly seeking to elevate our inherently good hopes and aspirations is the single act we need to achieve goodness in the world;
that this single act can illuminate the path we need to realize world peace, if we will just continue to do that night and day!
Not really so much to ask, is it?
Just imagine if enough of us tried it more often!
That is my single wish for the citizens of our community of life, which starts with family and friends, but extends much, much further.
Since we are in this life together, why not make it as good as possible for as many as possible?
Blessings to all, and to all a good night....
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
On Becoming a Septuagenarian
--------------------------
'I was born for a storm, and a calm does not suit me.'
- Andrew Jackson, 7th President of the US
--------------------------
Some folks have noticed that I haven't been keeping up this blog very regularly, and asked if I intend to keep doing it.
To them, I acknowledge -and explain- my laxity as well as my intention to resume blogging from time to time.
After all, there is certainly no scarcity of timely subject matter.
Nor have I become bereft of thoughts and opinions on such subjects.
No surprise there!
So, here goes:
---------------------------
Today is my 70th birthday, which makes me a full-fledged septuagenarian!
That 50-cent word literally means 'one who is between the age of 70 and 79, inclusive'.
Seen another way, I've just entered my 8th decade.
But, being older really ain't so bad, especially when you consider the alternative!
And, a less desirable alternative now seems to have been avoided, thanks to the fortuitous early discovery of a serious medical condition that required major abdominal surgery two weeks ago.
Without burdening readers with too much unwanted detail, let's just say that my bile flow from my liver was being impeded by a growth on my pancreas.
Had that condition gone untreated much longer, it would have done me in.
But excess bile in the bloodstream does leave a tell-tale clue; jaundice, or a yellowing of the skin.
So, after multiple tests, procedures and a better diagnosis, a world-class, pancreatic surgeon agreed to perform a 6-plus hour surgery to rearrange my internal plumbing, remove objectionable parts, and allow me to recover and maybe even -eventually- enjoy life as an octogenarian!
This surgery was performed on Monday, December 1 at Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle.
Details for those interested -and with the stomach for it [pun intended] - can be found by Googling 'Whipple' as an established, fairly radical operation.
The surgery required hospitalization for an additional week, and walking the halls the very next day, before coming home for several weeks of physical recovery.
After 2 weeks, I'm pleased to report good progress, thanks to lots of rest, divine Providence, and the loving care of my wife, Joan, plus the good thoughts and wishes of many friends and relatives.
Next, comes another evaluation complete with tests, plus my first session with a leading Oncologist at Virginia Mason.
Although the surgery was considered successful, because some evidence of cancer was found, and prudence dictates that a protocol of chemotherapy and radiation be undertaken.
Likely, this stage of treatment will begin after mid-January and continue for about 5 weeks.
Such a protocol is considered more of a preventative nature, because of the chance that some malignant cells may have already packed up and are trying to set up residence in some other part of my body.
For those interested in learning more about pancreatic cancer, Googling 'pancan' will produce all the information -and then some- that one would want to know.
This website also offers to mail packets to those requesting them.
So, assuming all goes as hoped, about March 1, I should be good to go again, although likely to require more frequent follow-up exams the rest of my life.
While I would not recommend undergoing such an operation without need, there may be a few unanticipated advantages from having it, like losing 20 pounds, eliminating my former cholesterol problem, and greatly reducing the effects of my Type 2 diabetes.
All of this assumes I'm a good boy and watch my food intake more carefully, by eating more, smaller meals that emphasize proteins over carbs and fats, and getting regular exercise.
That sounds pretty good to me, especially considering the alternative!
--------------------------------
One activity that has interested me these last few weeks are the 2 books written by our President-Elect, who has inspired such good expectations -both in the US and worldwide.
While it will be difficult to deliver on all of the goals he has in mind, at least we will begin to seriously focus on them.
So, I hope folks will be patient with President Obama as he takes on a job that has to be the most difficult in the world today!
-------------------------------
Now, I've begun reading "American Lion", Jon Meacham's biography of our 7th President, Andrew Jackson.
An early excerpt neatly states our condition, that certainly still exists today:
----------------------------------
'I was born for a storm, and a calm does not suit me.'
- Andrew Jackson, 7th President of the US
--------------------------
Some folks have noticed that I haven't been keeping up this blog very regularly, and asked if I intend to keep doing it.
To them, I acknowledge -and explain- my laxity as well as my intention to resume blogging from time to time.
After all, there is certainly no scarcity of timely subject matter.
Nor have I become bereft of thoughts and opinions on such subjects.
No surprise there!
So, here goes:
---------------------------
Today is my 70th birthday, which makes me a full-fledged septuagenarian!
That 50-cent word literally means 'one who is between the age of 70 and 79, inclusive'.
Seen another way, I've just entered my 8th decade.
But, being older really ain't so bad, especially when you consider the alternative!
And, a less desirable alternative now seems to have been avoided, thanks to the fortuitous early discovery of a serious medical condition that required major abdominal surgery two weeks ago.
Without burdening readers with too much unwanted detail, let's just say that my bile flow from my liver was being impeded by a growth on my pancreas.
Had that condition gone untreated much longer, it would have done me in.
But excess bile in the bloodstream does leave a tell-tale clue; jaundice, or a yellowing of the skin.
So, after multiple tests, procedures and a better diagnosis, a world-class, pancreatic surgeon agreed to perform a 6-plus hour surgery to rearrange my internal plumbing, remove objectionable parts, and allow me to recover and maybe even -eventually- enjoy life as an octogenarian!
This surgery was performed on Monday, December 1 at Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle.
Details for those interested -and with the stomach for it [pun intended] - can be found by Googling 'Whipple' as an established, fairly radical operation.
The surgery required hospitalization for an additional week, and walking the halls the very next day, before coming home for several weeks of physical recovery.
After 2 weeks, I'm pleased to report good progress, thanks to lots of rest, divine Providence, and the loving care of my wife, Joan, plus the good thoughts and wishes of many friends and relatives.
Next, comes another evaluation complete with tests, plus my first session with a leading Oncologist at Virginia Mason.
Although the surgery was considered successful, because some evidence of cancer was found, and prudence dictates that a protocol of chemotherapy and radiation be undertaken.
Likely, this stage of treatment will begin after mid-January and continue for about 5 weeks.
Such a protocol is considered more of a preventative nature, because of the chance that some malignant cells may have already packed up and are trying to set up residence in some other part of my body.
For those interested in learning more about pancreatic cancer, Googling 'pancan' will produce all the information -and then some- that one would want to know.
This website also offers to mail packets to those requesting them.
So, assuming all goes as hoped, about March 1, I should be good to go again, although likely to require more frequent follow-up exams the rest of my life.
While I would not recommend undergoing such an operation without need, there may be a few unanticipated advantages from having it, like losing 20 pounds, eliminating my former cholesterol problem, and greatly reducing the effects of my Type 2 diabetes.
All of this assumes I'm a good boy and watch my food intake more carefully, by eating more, smaller meals that emphasize proteins over carbs and fats, and getting regular exercise.
That sounds pretty good to me, especially considering the alternative!
--------------------------------
One activity that has interested me these last few weeks are the 2 books written by our President-Elect, who has inspired such good expectations -both in the US and worldwide.
While it will be difficult to deliver on all of the goals he has in mind, at least we will begin to seriously focus on them.
So, I hope folks will be patient with President Obama as he takes on a job that has to be the most difficult in the world today!
-------------------------------
Now, I've begun reading "American Lion", Jon Meacham's biography of our 7th President, Andrew Jackson.
An early excerpt neatly states our condition, that certainly still exists today:
And yet, Meacham hastens to add, while the personal shapes political culture, it does not preclude the pursuit of principled policies. Jackson, he argues, agreed with Adams's "central point: politics is brutal because it engages the most fundamental human impulses for affection, honor, power and fame. Great principles and grand visions are ennobling, but at its best politics is an imperfect means to an altruistic end."
----------------------------------
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Triaging Detroit
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results" - Albert Einstein
--------------------------------
Being faced recently with my own health crisis has, in some respects, helped me put the so-called Auto Industry crisis into better perspective.
Here are a few additional thoughts:
• The 'problem' has not just happened overnight! There has been a long history of missteps and mismanagement which are not likely to be quickly or easily resolved by government rescue plans.
• Many solutions are already known, which for various reasons have not been implemented sufficiently to address the root causes of the 'problem'.
• A 'hands-off' approach - as advocated by so-called 'free market' advocates - would certainly efficiently remove some problems, but might also create other problems that could prove worse.
[Such an approach might be analogous to rejecting any medical treatment, thereby relegating the patient to die a 'natural' death]
• Government will get blamed for any demise of the Auto Industry, regardless of who is in power, or what action is -or is not- taken. That is a given that needs to be understood.
But, this problem should NOT be externalized to the government for resolution, nor should citizens be so burdened.
• Before any government funds are granted, they ought to be invested in viable solutions that are proposed by the individual Auto Companies themselves, because they need to become part of the solution, too, and be accountable, both for results and for repayment of government investments.
• The United Auto Workers are the common thread that unite the Big Three auto makers, because that union has historically played the companies against each other in a corporate blackmail scheme to get ever-higher wages and benefits. The UAW is a big part of the 'problem', and would like this to be seen as an 'Industry' problem, not a 'company' problem.
• Republican Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota has recently characterized the 'Big Three' this way:
- Chrysler is owned by some of the wealthiest people in the world, who recently bought it with their eyes wide open.
- Ford is in trouble, but doesn't need funding now, only a future line of credit.
- GM is simply a 'basket case'
By this assessment, and if government has to pick winners and losers, we could cut GM loose to fend for itself, ask Chrysler for an iron-clad payback plan on any viable proposal they develop that seems reasonable, and set aside funding a Ford line of credit.
• Comparing the Banking and Auto industries -and any 'deals' that might be provided - is like comparing apples and oranges, but understanding they are both fruits.
Each industry -and each company- needs to be responsible for diligent management, paying back any government funds provided and protecting citizens interests!
------------
If we agree that keeping a viable auto industry is in our country's best interests -like the Aluminum Industry- then, there are some things the government can do to help.
For example, we could commit to buy AMERICAN produced vehicles for government use, and offer incentives for others to do the same, like tax credits, or contractor requirements.
The government could/should buy all of its military vehicles, trains, buses, SUV's for Secret Service use and General Service Administration fleets, with the caveat that producers reasonably compete with worldwide prices in the future.
The government can set aggressive standards for fuel efficiency, use of sustainable materials, ease of maintenance, longer obsolescence goals, lesser frills and the lower costs that would accrue to these type of standards.
The auto industry has been notoriously slow to grasp; accept and innovate safety, fuel efficiency and environmental improvements for decades, and this behavior must be reversed!
Some of these changes can be eased greatly by the simple introduction of true competition between manufacturers, and others
by being realistic and forward-looking goals and standards.
Most of these things don't require the outlay of much Federal funding, and only outdated policy, special interest political power and inertia seem to be standing in the way of real progress.
it's time these obstacles are overcome, but only the Federal government can make it happen.
Let's get this done without further delay!
-----------------------
Incidentally, for those interested, I am recovering from major surgery and expect to be back home by early next week.
I appreciate the good wishes and concerns expressed by many people, and expect to further clarify my situation soon.
-----------------------
--------------------------------
Being faced recently with my own health crisis has, in some respects, helped me put the so-called Auto Industry crisis into better perspective.
Here are a few additional thoughts:
• The 'problem' has not just happened overnight! There has been a long history of missteps and mismanagement which are not likely to be quickly or easily resolved by government rescue plans.
• Many solutions are already known, which for various reasons have not been implemented sufficiently to address the root causes of the 'problem'.
• A 'hands-off' approach - as advocated by so-called 'free market' advocates - would certainly efficiently remove some problems, but might also create other problems that could prove worse.
[Such an approach might be analogous to rejecting any medical treatment, thereby relegating the patient to die a 'natural' death]
• Government will get blamed for any demise of the Auto Industry, regardless of who is in power, or what action is -or is not- taken. That is a given that needs to be understood.
But, this problem should NOT be externalized to the government for resolution, nor should citizens be so burdened.
• Before any government funds are granted, they ought to be invested in viable solutions that are proposed by the individual Auto Companies themselves, because they need to become part of the solution, too, and be accountable, both for results and for repayment of government investments.
• The United Auto Workers are the common thread that unite the Big Three auto makers, because that union has historically played the companies against each other in a corporate blackmail scheme to get ever-higher wages and benefits. The UAW is a big part of the 'problem', and would like this to be seen as an 'Industry' problem, not a 'company' problem.
• Republican Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota has recently characterized the 'Big Three' this way:
- Chrysler is owned by some of the wealthiest people in the world, who recently bought it with their eyes wide open.
- Ford is in trouble, but doesn't need funding now, only a future line of credit.
- GM is simply a 'basket case'
By this assessment, and if government has to pick winners and losers, we could cut GM loose to fend for itself, ask Chrysler for an iron-clad payback plan on any viable proposal they develop that seems reasonable, and set aside funding a Ford line of credit.
• Comparing the Banking and Auto industries -and any 'deals' that might be provided - is like comparing apples and oranges, but understanding they are both fruits.
Each industry -and each company- needs to be responsible for diligent management, paying back any government funds provided and protecting citizens interests!
------------
If we agree that keeping a viable auto industry is in our country's best interests -like the Aluminum Industry- then, there are some things the government can do to help.
For example, we could commit to buy AMERICAN produced vehicles for government use, and offer incentives for others to do the same, like tax credits, or contractor requirements.
The government could/should buy all of its military vehicles, trains, buses, SUV's for Secret Service use and General Service Administration fleets, with the caveat that producers reasonably compete with worldwide prices in the future.
The government can set aggressive standards for fuel efficiency, use of sustainable materials, ease of maintenance, longer obsolescence goals, lesser frills and the lower costs that would accrue to these type of standards.
The auto industry has been notoriously slow to grasp; accept and innovate safety, fuel efficiency and environmental improvements for decades, and this behavior must be reversed!
Some of these changes can be eased greatly by the simple introduction of true competition between manufacturers, and others
by being realistic and forward-looking goals and standards.
Most of these things don't require the outlay of much Federal funding, and only outdated policy, special interest political power and inertia seem to be standing in the way of real progress.
it's time these obstacles are overcome, but only the Federal government can make it happen.
Let's get this done without further delay!
-----------------------
Incidentally, for those interested, I am recovering from major surgery and expect to be back home by early next week.
I appreciate the good wishes and concerns expressed by many people, and expect to further clarify my situation soon.
-----------------------
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Lake Whatcom: A Thanksgiving Blessing
-------------------
Sometimes we take for granted those blessings which are in plain sight.
An example is Lake Whatcom, our municipal water supply and natural reservoir.
It has been known for years that Lake Whatcom is under threat from development pressures, which are prematurely degrading what has been an exceptionally pure source of drinking water.
Despite the actions taken by local and state governments, raw water continues to be degraded, and at an accelerated pace!
This ought to be a clear sign that we need to get more serious about preserving this irreplaceable resource, but still there are those in denial, those without a sense of responsibility or urgency, and those without a clue, who serve as inert deadweights on the efforts needed to correct the situation.
With hard times now upon us, even the City Council -which loudly touts Lake Whatcom as its NUMBER ONE PRIORITY- has proven unreliable when it comes to appropriating sufficient funds for this important work, including critical TMDL study work that we have already waited years to initiate.
Fortunately, the County Council has now found the courage to act, as described below.
Thank you County Council!
Maybe the City Council will take a cue from your action and consider finding better funding for its NUMBER ONE PRIORITY?
Who knows?
Christmas is coming!
----------------------------
The Nov. 25, 2008, THE BELLINGHAM HERALD published a story with this headline;
"County approves property tax increase for flood and water projects"
To help pay for flood-protection and water-quality projects, the County Council - acting in its capacity as the board of supervisors for the countywide flood control district - voted to increase property taxes by 4 cents for every $1,000 of a property's assessed value.
This decision was made by the County Council only after sparring over whether to raise taxes in a faltering economy, by a 4-3 vote, with council members Bob Kelly, Seth Fleetwood, Carl Weimer and Laurie Caskey-Schreiber voting for the increase and Sam Crawford, Barbara Brenner and Ward Nelson opposed.
In recent years, that particular split has become predictable, particularly when it comes to decisions involving Lake Whatcom.
The new taxes are expected to generate an additional $940,000 in 2009 and roughly $960,000 in 2010, about a 31 percent increase in the tax for the flood fund.
To put this into perspective the tax increase means the owner of a $300,000 property would pay an extra $12 a year.
As has become usual in matters of long term importance, many residents, as well as other elected county officials, actually criticized this courageous and badly needed decision!
Think maybe a little political pandering is going on?
Get used to it!
In a county where there are so many legitimate needs, this lack of political courage has become appalling, irresponsible and even bordering on criminal.
Those who claim they are concerned for the taxpayers have actually got it right, but for the wrong reason!
They should be concerned that the taxpayers are not being well represented by do-nothing elected officials who deliberately choose to ignore important issues, or simply not deal with them effectively.
These new monies are proposed go toward everything from Nooksack River flood projects to Lake Whatcom storm-water projects and revising county law to add rules for low-impact development; a long list of badly needed water-quality projects that haven't been funded, even though there is agreement on their importance.
Thank goodness that 4 members of this Council is taking the long-term view and protecting the environment for future generations!
As one advocate put it 'this is a time in our lives when I think we all learned that doing nothing can cost you more in the long run, and that's what we're trying to avoid here."
Amen to that sentiment!
And, thank you County Council.
-----------------
Actually, the additional funds raised represents only a fraction of what will be needed to complete the countywide water resource planning that was begun several years ago, then halted when certain interests put pressure on officials to delay that effort.
Called WRIA-1 [Water Resource Inventory Area #1], Whatcom County's effort was at the time cited as the leading example of how to structure such a comprehensive planning effort.
One strategy that opponents used to slow and then practically stop WRIA-1 was to question the legality of using the former funding method, the former County 'Flood Tax' for such planning purposes.
Faced with that challenge, an earlier County Council acted to change the funding method -and amounts- to that currently in use.
Once that was done, the County apparently felt more comfortable about its legal footing and made few, if any, additional actions to restore funding for water-related projects, including WRIA-1.
That is why this latest action is notable; it again recognizes the need for critical stormwater and other water projects of countywide significance.
------
An earlier blog -July 2007- of mine also touched on this subject:
http://bellinghamstertalk.blogspot.com/search?q=flood+tax
Sometimes we take for granted those blessings which are in plain sight.
An example is Lake Whatcom, our municipal water supply and natural reservoir.
It has been known for years that Lake Whatcom is under threat from development pressures, which are prematurely degrading what has been an exceptionally pure source of drinking water.
Despite the actions taken by local and state governments, raw water continues to be degraded, and at an accelerated pace!
This ought to be a clear sign that we need to get more serious about preserving this irreplaceable resource, but still there are those in denial, those without a sense of responsibility or urgency, and those without a clue, who serve as inert deadweights on the efforts needed to correct the situation.
With hard times now upon us, even the City Council -which loudly touts Lake Whatcom as its NUMBER ONE PRIORITY- has proven unreliable when it comes to appropriating sufficient funds for this important work, including critical TMDL study work that we have already waited years to initiate.
Fortunately, the County Council has now found the courage to act, as described below.
Thank you County Council!
Maybe the City Council will take a cue from your action and consider finding better funding for its NUMBER ONE PRIORITY?
Who knows?
Christmas is coming!
----------------------------
The Nov. 25, 2008, THE BELLINGHAM HERALD published a story with this headline;
"County approves property tax increase for flood and water projects"
To help pay for flood-protection and water-quality projects, the County Council - acting in its capacity as the board of supervisors for the countywide flood control district - voted to increase property taxes by 4 cents for every $1,000 of a property's assessed value.
This decision was made by the County Council only after sparring over whether to raise taxes in a faltering economy, by a 4-3 vote, with council members Bob Kelly, Seth Fleetwood, Carl Weimer and Laurie Caskey-Schreiber voting for the increase and Sam Crawford, Barbara Brenner and Ward Nelson opposed.
In recent years, that particular split has become predictable, particularly when it comes to decisions involving Lake Whatcom.
The new taxes are expected to generate an additional $940,000 in 2009 and roughly $960,000 in 2010, about a 31 percent increase in the tax for the flood fund.
To put this into perspective the tax increase means the owner of a $300,000 property would pay an extra $12 a year.
As has become usual in matters of long term importance, many residents, as well as other elected county officials, actually criticized this courageous and badly needed decision!
Think maybe a little political pandering is going on?
Get used to it!
In a county where there are so many legitimate needs, this lack of political courage has become appalling, irresponsible and even bordering on criminal.
Those who claim they are concerned for the taxpayers have actually got it right, but for the wrong reason!
They should be concerned that the taxpayers are not being well represented by do-nothing elected officials who deliberately choose to ignore important issues, or simply not deal with them effectively.
These new monies are proposed go toward everything from Nooksack River flood projects to Lake Whatcom storm-water projects and revising county law to add rules for low-impact development; a long list of badly needed water-quality projects that haven't been funded, even though there is agreement on their importance.
Thank goodness that 4 members of this Council is taking the long-term view and protecting the environment for future generations!
As one advocate put it 'this is a time in our lives when I think we all learned that doing nothing can cost you more in the long run, and that's what we're trying to avoid here."
Amen to that sentiment!
And, thank you County Council.
-----------------
Actually, the additional funds raised represents only a fraction of what will be needed to complete the countywide water resource planning that was begun several years ago, then halted when certain interests put pressure on officials to delay that effort.
Called WRIA-1 [Water Resource Inventory Area #1], Whatcom County's effort was at the time cited as the leading example of how to structure such a comprehensive planning effort.
One strategy that opponents used to slow and then practically stop WRIA-1 was to question the legality of using the former funding method, the former County 'Flood Tax' for such planning purposes.
Faced with that challenge, an earlier County Council acted to change the funding method -and amounts- to that currently in use.
Once that was done, the County apparently felt more comfortable about its legal footing and made few, if any, additional actions to restore funding for water-related projects, including WRIA-1.
That is why this latest action is notable; it again recognizes the need for critical stormwater and other water projects of countywide significance.
------
An earlier blog -July 2007- of mine also touched on this subject:
http://bellinghamstertalk.blogspot.com/search?q=flood+tax
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Beggars Banquet: A Lesson for Bellingham?
------------------
I came across this recent editorial by Timothy Egan in the New York Times.
Because it does have some universal applicability to other municipalities, I decided to reprint it here.
Where will this sort of domino theory end?
But more importantly, how do we begin to deal with this sort of problem?
After all, ignoring it just postpones the reckoning that will be coming, whether a cataclysmic bankruptcy like Vallejo, or by degrees over time with the net result heading in the same direction.
Indexing salary increases to historic growth and inflation seems easy and fair, but what happens in a protracted downturn?
Will municipal employees -the major component of our annual budget- be expected to share that pain?
----------------
Today's headlines also quoted a statement by Warren Buffett about how we might deal with the $25 billion auto industry loans being requested by the big 3's top executives, all of whom had the audacity to arrive in Washington, DC in separate private jets.
You think, perhaps, there are some seed ideas embedded in this sage advice that could be applied to collective bargaining processes?
---------------
While I strongly doubt there will be immediate vocal support from our elected officials for this sort of idea, it is a concept that begs consideration at some point.
And, if we can't talk about these things when faced with an economic downturn of major proportions, when can we begin to talk about it?
Maybe, when enough staff reductions are necessary so that these cuts really begin to be felt by the public?
Or, when we can no longer afford 'non-essential' staff that don't happen to be only full-time public safety employees, like firefighters and police officers?
I know this kind of talk will not be popular, particularly among those who have worked and bargained so hard for so long to gain consistently better wages and benefits for public employees.
Those folks would rather lay off people than rescind their hard-won gains on wages and benefits.
But, is that fair either?
If we are all in this together, we have a better chance to sustain our levels of service, both in good times as well as bad.
If we truly believe that sustainability is the key to long term stability, then we will need to start using sustainable methods in everything we do, including determining wages, benefits, staffing levels and the very priorities of our local government.
Hey, its a tough job, but someone's got to do it, or at least start writing the 'playbook'.
We can pay now, or just 'kick the can down the road' and let another administration decide when to pay later.
But, that's just my opinion.
------------
I came across this recent editorial by Timothy Egan in the New York Times.
Because it does have some universal applicability to other municipalities, I decided to reprint it here.
Where will this sort of domino theory end?
But more importantly, how do we begin to deal with this sort of problem?
After all, ignoring it just postpones the reckoning that will be coming, whether a cataclysmic bankruptcy like Vallejo, or by degrees over time with the net result heading in the same direction.
Indexing salary increases to historic growth and inflation seems easy and fair, but what happens in a protracted downturn?
Will municipal employees -the major component of our annual budget- be expected to share that pain?
----------------
VALLEJO, Calif. — This city is broke. Bankrupt. A ward of the courts. The police have pared their ranks, and every day two fire stations temporarily close, a rolling blackout of basic services.----------------------
Do we bailout Vallejo?
What about Philadelphia, Atlanta or Phoenix? They want $50 billion in emergency loans.
Years ago, when a close friend of mine lost his 75-year-old family retail business in Pittsburgh with the collapse of the steel industry, the federal government was nowhere to lend a hand to small business owners.
When aluminum factories in Spokane, Wash., folded after a corporate raider picked them to the bone, destroying the best middle-class jobs for blue collar workers in the city where I grew up, the government’s advice to people losing their homes, cars and dignity was: Learn how to say, “You want fries with that?”
And when this city of 120,000, one of the few places in the Bay Area where someone with a middle income could live well, filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, it became little more than a talking point in the debate over bloated public employee unions.
We like to think the free market picks our winners and losers. In its purest form, this is only true in Republican Disneyland. What was left of that illusion was swept away with words that will begin many a master’s in business theses in future years: “When President Bush nationalized the banking industry back in 2008 …”
So, now we have arrived at that moment where taxpayers will play God with the American economy. What has been going on in Washington over the last month makes European-style planned economies look entrepreneurial by comparison.
Let’s be honest about this monumental exercise we’re going through. These are not Band-Aids or bridge loans or bridges to a new tomorrow we’re talking about here. A trillion dollars, more or less, is moving from Us to Them because they’re supposed to keep Us from going under like Them.
Get it? Nobody else does, especially the people running it. Thus far, the bailout has been a disaster, in keeping with the Bush practice of abject incompetence in everything they touch — a final kiss-off from The Decider.
The blue-suited beggars in the Capitol this week were executives of the Big Three American auto-makers, the humbled dinosaurs who gave us Hummers and S.U.V.’s for every suburbanite to drive two miles to Trader Joe’s.
See how they squirmed: dodging questions about whether they should get taxpayer money when they build cars overseas, about why they continue to make vehicles that nobody wants, about their overspending on Super Bowl bling.
Ford Motor stock was trading near $1 on Wednesday — you want fries with that? When even Mitt Romney, who famously pandered to Michigan voters this year about not losing another job, is willing to throw America’s auto-makers under the bus, you know the bell has tolled for thee, Detroit.
They will likely get nothing from this lame-duck Congress. The bankers and insurance companies were lucky they came before bailout fatigue — some getting theirs, others walking away empty-handed, off to cash the bonus check before it’s seized by creditors.
Next week it’ll be somebody else — universities, state governments, maybe even newspaper owners crushed in the move of readers to the Web.
“Everybody’s lining up now,” New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said last week. “There’s no industry that that isn’t saying, ‘We need a bailout.’ ”
The auto companies, and cities like Vallejo, are in trouble for a couple of reasons. The foreclosure crisis and the credit squeeze are freezing money everywhere, at a time when companies and governments are responsible for employee benefits well beyond what they can carry.
Nearly 300 employees in this city 30 miles from San Francisco make more than $100,000 a year in pay and benefits. After a mere five years on the payroll, all police and firefighters are guaranteed lifetime health benefits.
This was never sustainable. And now, with stores boarded up here and realtor flags flapping over empty, abandoned housing developments, the pyramid has crumbled.
All of which points to the need for a so-called Big Bang solution when a new administration and fresh Congress start to govern. Incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has indicated that a President Obama may do just that, saying that the administration would “throw long and deep.” If business, or even mid-sized communities like Vallejo, were free of some of their social burdens they would be more nimble when downturns occurred, the argument goes.
General Motors supports more retirees than current workers. If you’re a taxpayer without health insurance, or paying $12,000 a year on the open market to cover your family’s health, you wonder why you should offer bailout billions for somebody with a rich safety net.
The arguments are endless loops, turning citizen against citizen, the haves against the have-nots.
Why not go green, go for universal health care, go for economic stimulus — all with one big vision? Imagine if the $700 billion were there for a fresh overhaul of the American economy, rather than being siphoned off by the very people who created the problem?
“There is no playbook for responding to turmoil we have never faced,” said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson this week, by way of explaining that everything he’s tried so far has failed, and he’s making it up as goes along.
So, maybe we should cut the spigot off while there’s still water in the tank. Save it for tomorrow, for January, for fresh thinking. Otherwise, the beggars banquet will only get more crowded.
Today's headlines also quoted a statement by Warren Buffett about how we might deal with the $25 billion auto industry loans being requested by the big 3's top executives, all of whom had the audacity to arrive in Washington, DC in separate private jets.
You think, perhaps, there are some seed ideas embedded in this sage advice that could be applied to collective bargaining processes?
Warren Buffett's great advice for the Detroit bailout
BloggingStocks: Posted Nov 23rd 2008 3:40PM by Zac Bissonnette
The Associated Press reports on Warren Buffett's advice on how the bailout should be structured: "The government should insist top executives at Ford (NYSE: F) General Motors (NYSE: GM) and Chrysler invest a significant percentage of their own net worth in the Detroit-based companies, Buffett said, ensuring both executives and taxpayers would share in any profits or losses."
What a great idea! GM CEO Richard Wagoner and the rest of Detroit's top executives have expressed confidence that any loans would be paid back. Great! So they shouldn't have any problem with investing their entire net worth in the deal -- or at least every dime that they've made running these companies into the ground.
Back in August I wrote about the tiny stake that so many of the decision-makers at General Motors have in the company's future. The company's lead outside director, George M.C. Fisher, has a .000839% stake in the company.
If he wasn't willing to take a bigger stake when times our good, how can he ask taxpayers to invest when the company is on its deathbed and the economy is in the toilet?
I'm skeptical of a big bailout of the auto industry, but insider participation would do a lot to win the battle for the hearts and minds.
---------------
While I strongly doubt there will be immediate vocal support from our elected officials for this sort of idea, it is a concept that begs consideration at some point.
And, if we can't talk about these things when faced with an economic downturn of major proportions, when can we begin to talk about it?
Maybe, when enough staff reductions are necessary so that these cuts really begin to be felt by the public?
Or, when we can no longer afford 'non-essential' staff that don't happen to be only full-time public safety employees, like firefighters and police officers?
I know this kind of talk will not be popular, particularly among those who have worked and bargained so hard for so long to gain consistently better wages and benefits for public employees.
Those folks would rather lay off people than rescind their hard-won gains on wages and benefits.
But, is that fair either?
If we are all in this together, we have a better chance to sustain our levels of service, both in good times as well as bad.
If we truly believe that sustainability is the key to long term stability, then we will need to start using sustainable methods in everything we do, including determining wages, benefits, staffing levels and the very priorities of our local government.
Hey, its a tough job, but someone's got to do it, or at least start writing the 'playbook'.
We can pay now, or just 'kick the can down the road' and let another administration decide when to pay later.
But, that's just my opinion.
------------
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Taxes: A Parallel Universe?
A recent Herald carried a story that predicted Whatcom County would pass a property tax increase for next year.
After 14 years of bragging about NO property tax increases, that tends to get one's attention, doesn't it?
Why would the County want to break its string of no additional property taxes now?
Anything to do with a slow down in growth, which usually lines the County's pocket without any Council action?
Or not being able to count on the City increasing its property taxes again, which also increases the County's revenues.
How about some folks realizing that just bragging about no new taxes won't pay the bills?
Or, maybe the extra money was needed to pay Pete's wind-fall salary increase?
But, that news also comes on the heels of the Bellingham City Council's action to NOT increase its property taxes by 1%, but instead to 'bank' that amount for future use.
This action occurred despite a looming large deficit projection for the City, that only worsens every time new estimates are made.
Ever wonder what else the City might decide do to bring its expenditures closer to revenues?
Of course, by law, the City must balance its budget every year
-----------
Most City General Fund expenses go to pay the salaries & benefits of its employees, who are the ones citizens depend upon to provide both essential and desired services.
Without all those employees doing their jobs, life in Bellingham would be very different - and likely not to make any top ten lists.
And, be aware that it is the General Fund that is by far the most challenged, every year that revenues do not increase.
That City revenues are largely also pegged to growth is a perennial problem for the City just as it is for the County.
Fortunately, it isn't every year that the City has more employees than it has revenues to pay for them.
Here's a few comments and ideas about options the City has in balancing its budget:
Eliminating unnecessary authorized staff: Earlier, the Council approved the Mayor's recommendation of reducing staff by 13 Full Time Equivalents [FTE's].
Even if all those positions were unfilled, this was a good move, because 13 new hires are now not possible without Council approval.
At about $75k per FTE, this action has the effect of reducing potential expenditures by up to $1 million per year.
Even if these hires were not made, they have had to be accounted for in the budget. Now, they aren't.
Sales Taxes: Currently these revenues split 50/50 between General Fund and Street Fund. Total amount ~ $16 million/year [2 years ago].
If the Council decides to make the split 60/40 in favor of the GF, then about $1.6 million per year could be transferred to the GF at the expense of the Street Fund.
That amount would significantly reduce the projected shortfall for the GF.
But what would it mean to the Street Fund, which is already challenged to fund its 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan [TIP] projects, including pedestrian/bike improvements, annual street resurfacing, and sidewalks & curbs upgrades?
Other cities already do this split in a different proportion, but once that move is made, is a return to the old split likely?
Would that be sustainable, particularly if new arterial roads, bridges and other improvements are needed?
While on this subject of Sales Taxes, don't forget the major economic downturn that is upon us and likely to continue for the indefinite future.
That would mean normally anticipated annual increases simply won't be there, perhaps for years.
What else might happen to impact Sales Taxes?
Remember when the City Council voted to ban 'Big Box' Stores?
Actually, they were targeting a WAL-MART expansion to provide groceries, but in doing so, also managed to collaterally damage ALL the existing stores in Bellingham which happened to exceed 90,000 SF in floor area.
Whoops!
Think that ill-advised decision might come back to haunt us?
It seems to me that there were several Big Boxes already established in the City, which together were returning over $4 million per year in sales taxes, plus B&O taxes.
Some of those non-WAL-Mart stores complained that their future viability was impaired by this arbitrary move.
Like Costco for example, which the City Council grudgingly allowed an additional 2,000 SF for more refrigerated space.
Or, Mervyn's in the Bellis Fair Mall, which may wish to expand at that already developed area.
The point is, what if one, or more, Big Boxes decide to go elsewhere to build larger facilities than the City allows?
Or, maybe closer to an Interstate 5 interchange?
Like maybe to the Lummi Reservation?
What might that do to Bellingham's future tax collections?
What would it do for congestion?
For additional driving time for customers who will continue to shop where they wish?
OK, I'll stop there.
The point is made I think for anyone who is paying attention.
Hopefully, those with budget balancing responsibility will keep these things in mind.
But don't count on it!
At least until they have no other choice.
-------------
Utility Taxes: Another idea is tinkering with utility taxes, like water, sewer and stormwater all paid as rates, not taxes.
A few years ago, during another budget crunch, the City decided to raise the amount from these collections that goes directly to the General Fund.
The increase proposed and passed was from 9.5% to 11.5%, which brought about $220,000 per year in new revenue to the General Fund, always the one that is most stressed.
Of course, once these additional funds were removed from their respective Enterprise Funds, rates had to be raised to compensate.
Not taxes, mind you, but rates.
Thing is, rates are also paid by citizens, and usually are considered a more regressive method of raising funds than taxes.
So, I hope the City doesn't significantly fiddle with this idea again, unless the decision is made to raise more revenue for protecting the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
----------------
B&O Taxes: Not likely to change for several reason, the first being what we have now is pretty fair and predictable, after some adjustments were made a few years ago to reduce the amounts charged, plus oversee collections better.
St Joseph's Hospital retained its exemption a few years ago, because of the free medical services it provides to our community.
Additional B&O taxes can be collected only if existing businesses expand, or new businesses are attracted into the City, or annexed.
Because neither the County or the Port levy B&O taxes, this acts as a disincentive for businesses to locate within the City, a situation that ought to change if we are serious about developing compact business centers that are close to services, hosing and public transit.
If County or Port agreed to B&O taxes, that would raise additional revenues for those entities as well.
If additional business incentives are desired, these can still be offered on a case-by-case basis, and possibly on a time-certain basis.
--------------------
Real Estate Excise Taxes [REET]: With real estate sales down, these collections will also be reduced, which mainly reduces funds for capital projects, like streets. parks and other facilities.
----------------------
Impact fees are another potential source of additional funds for the City, but during a building downturn aren't likely to produce very much predictable and ongoing revenue.
Also, because the City has already increased most of its allowed impact fees to levels that are reasonably high, there may not be much potential revenues likely from this source.
An exception might be the Parks Impact Fee, which could be raised from its current 35% level to 45 or 50%.
-----------------
User fees are another source of revenue from which the City could expect additional revenues.
But generally, these do not amount to sufficient sums to do much balancing of the books, and sometimes raising a user fee actually reduces revenues because people stop doing those activities that cost more.
-----------------
Travel, Grants & Discretionary Outlays: There always seems to be room for some reduced spending here, but not enough to count for much.
-----------------
Wages, Salaries & Benefits: Since about 85% of City staff is represented by various collective bargaining units, the pressure on WSB is constant and upward. There is not much that can be done to reduce these pressures other than good bargaining oversight and keeping staff levels at lean and efficient levels. While it is important to honor the collective bargaining process, all City employees need to understand that there is a balance toward which all have a responsibility. The City needs to retain productive employees by paying competitive wages, and not wasting time and money by continuously hiring and firing.
-------------------
Budget time is not a fun part of being on the City Council, regardless of what year it is.
But, those years when deficits are projected are far worse!
Also, government budgeting is complicated and significantly different from household or business budgets.
And these are public funds which are at stake, not private money.
As one aspirant candidate for Council said to me not long ago, 'being in office with no funds to spend doesn't sound like any fun at all'.
And it isn't fun!
That is why paying attention during the good times is so critical.
It's why making sure sufficient reserves must be set aside for hard times.
It's why 'feel good' expenditures aren't in anyone's best interest.
And, sometimes it's why established programs must sometimes be cut, in the interest of keeping services which are considered more critical.
Believe me, that's the hardest work!
So, good luck to the Mayor and City Council in their efforts to balance next year's budget.
It's not fun, but it is a very necessary exercise!
Thank goodness, you folks are there to do this for us.
--------------------
After 14 years of bragging about NO property tax increases, that tends to get one's attention, doesn't it?
Why would the County want to break its string of no additional property taxes now?
Anything to do with a slow down in growth, which usually lines the County's pocket without any Council action?
Or not being able to count on the City increasing its property taxes again, which also increases the County's revenues.
How about some folks realizing that just bragging about no new taxes won't pay the bills?
Or, maybe the extra money was needed to pay Pete's wind-fall salary increase?
But, that news also comes on the heels of the Bellingham City Council's action to NOT increase its property taxes by 1%, but instead to 'bank' that amount for future use.
This action occurred despite a looming large deficit projection for the City, that only worsens every time new estimates are made.
Ever wonder what else the City might decide do to bring its expenditures closer to revenues?
Of course, by law, the City must balance its budget every year
-----------
Most City General Fund expenses go to pay the salaries & benefits of its employees, who are the ones citizens depend upon to provide both essential and desired services.
Without all those employees doing their jobs, life in Bellingham would be very different - and likely not to make any top ten lists.
And, be aware that it is the General Fund that is by far the most challenged, every year that revenues do not increase.
That City revenues are largely also pegged to growth is a perennial problem for the City just as it is for the County.
Fortunately, it isn't every year that the City has more employees than it has revenues to pay for them.
Here's a few comments and ideas about options the City has in balancing its budget:
Eliminating unnecessary authorized staff: Earlier, the Council approved the Mayor's recommendation of reducing staff by 13 Full Time Equivalents [FTE's].
Even if all those positions were unfilled, this was a good move, because 13 new hires are now not possible without Council approval.
At about $75k per FTE, this action has the effect of reducing potential expenditures by up to $1 million per year.
Even if these hires were not made, they have had to be accounted for in the budget. Now, they aren't.
Sales Taxes: Currently these revenues split 50/50 between General Fund and Street Fund. Total amount ~ $16 million/year [2 years ago].
If the Council decides to make the split 60/40 in favor of the GF, then about $1.6 million per year could be transferred to the GF at the expense of the Street Fund.
That amount would significantly reduce the projected shortfall for the GF.
But what would it mean to the Street Fund, which is already challenged to fund its 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan [TIP] projects, including pedestrian/bike improvements, annual street resurfacing, and sidewalks & curbs upgrades?
Other cities already do this split in a different proportion, but once that move is made, is a return to the old split likely?
Would that be sustainable, particularly if new arterial roads, bridges and other improvements are needed?
While on this subject of Sales Taxes, don't forget the major economic downturn that is upon us and likely to continue for the indefinite future.
That would mean normally anticipated annual increases simply won't be there, perhaps for years.
What else might happen to impact Sales Taxes?
Remember when the City Council voted to ban 'Big Box' Stores?
Actually, they were targeting a WAL-MART expansion to provide groceries, but in doing so, also managed to collaterally damage ALL the existing stores in Bellingham which happened to exceed 90,000 SF in floor area.
Whoops!
Think that ill-advised decision might come back to haunt us?
It seems to me that there were several Big Boxes already established in the City, which together were returning over $4 million per year in sales taxes, plus B&O taxes.
Some of those non-WAL-Mart stores complained that their future viability was impaired by this arbitrary move.
Like Costco for example, which the City Council grudgingly allowed an additional 2,000 SF for more refrigerated space.
Or, Mervyn's in the Bellis Fair Mall, which may wish to expand at that already developed area.
The point is, what if one, or more, Big Boxes decide to go elsewhere to build larger facilities than the City allows?
Or, maybe closer to an Interstate 5 interchange?
Like maybe to the Lummi Reservation?
What might that do to Bellingham's future tax collections?
What would it do for congestion?
For additional driving time for customers who will continue to shop where they wish?
OK, I'll stop there.
The point is made I think for anyone who is paying attention.
Hopefully, those with budget balancing responsibility will keep these things in mind.
But don't count on it!
At least until they have no other choice.
-------------
Utility Taxes: Another idea is tinkering with utility taxes, like water, sewer and stormwater all paid as rates, not taxes.
A few years ago, during another budget crunch, the City decided to raise the amount from these collections that goes directly to the General Fund.
The increase proposed and passed was from 9.5% to 11.5%, which brought about $220,000 per year in new revenue to the General Fund, always the one that is most stressed.
Of course, once these additional funds were removed from their respective Enterprise Funds, rates had to be raised to compensate.
Not taxes, mind you, but rates.
Thing is, rates are also paid by citizens, and usually are considered a more regressive method of raising funds than taxes.
So, I hope the City doesn't significantly fiddle with this idea again, unless the decision is made to raise more revenue for protecting the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
----------------
B&O Taxes: Not likely to change for several reason, the first being what we have now is pretty fair and predictable, after some adjustments were made a few years ago to reduce the amounts charged, plus oversee collections better.
St Joseph's Hospital retained its exemption a few years ago, because of the free medical services it provides to our community.
Additional B&O taxes can be collected only if existing businesses expand, or new businesses are attracted into the City, or annexed.
Because neither the County or the Port levy B&O taxes, this acts as a disincentive for businesses to locate within the City, a situation that ought to change if we are serious about developing compact business centers that are close to services, hosing and public transit.
If County or Port agreed to B&O taxes, that would raise additional revenues for those entities as well.
If additional business incentives are desired, these can still be offered on a case-by-case basis, and possibly on a time-certain basis.
--------------------
Real Estate Excise Taxes [REET]: With real estate sales down, these collections will also be reduced, which mainly reduces funds for capital projects, like streets. parks and other facilities.
----------------------
Impact fees are another potential source of additional funds for the City, but during a building downturn aren't likely to produce very much predictable and ongoing revenue.
Also, because the City has already increased most of its allowed impact fees to levels that are reasonably high, there may not be much potential revenues likely from this source.
An exception might be the Parks Impact Fee, which could be raised from its current 35% level to 45 or 50%.
-----------------
User fees are another source of revenue from which the City could expect additional revenues.
But generally, these do not amount to sufficient sums to do much balancing of the books, and sometimes raising a user fee actually reduces revenues because people stop doing those activities that cost more.
-----------------
Travel, Grants & Discretionary Outlays: There always seems to be room for some reduced spending here, but not enough to count for much.
-----------------
Wages, Salaries & Benefits: Since about 85% of City staff is represented by various collective bargaining units, the pressure on WSB is constant and upward. There is not much that can be done to reduce these pressures other than good bargaining oversight and keeping staff levels at lean and efficient levels. While it is important to honor the collective bargaining process, all City employees need to understand that there is a balance toward which all have a responsibility. The City needs to retain productive employees by paying competitive wages, and not wasting time and money by continuously hiring and firing.
-------------------
Budget time is not a fun part of being on the City Council, regardless of what year it is.
But, those years when deficits are projected are far worse!
Also, government budgeting is complicated and significantly different from household or business budgets.
And these are public funds which are at stake, not private money.
As one aspirant candidate for Council said to me not long ago, 'being in office with no funds to spend doesn't sound like any fun at all'.
And it isn't fun!
That is why paying attention during the good times is so critical.
It's why making sure sufficient reserves must be set aside for hard times.
It's why 'feel good' expenditures aren't in anyone's best interest.
And, sometimes it's why established programs must sometimes be cut, in the interest of keeping services which are considered more critical.
Believe me, that's the hardest work!
So, good luck to the Mayor and City Council in their efforts to balance next year's budget.
It's not fun, but it is a very necessary exercise!
Thank goodness, you folks are there to do this for us.
--------------------
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Waterfront Redevelopment: Can We Get On With It Now?
------------
Now that some folks have gotten riled up, maybe cooled off a bit, and now are hopefully listening to good sense again, perhaps we can get on with the essential task of continuing progress on actually realizing the worthy goals envisioned by this community for redeveloping its blighted waterfront.
Last Monday night's City-sponsored meeting at the Market Depot Square seemed to help by airing comments in a public setting, after a somewhat rocky start as reported by the Herald.
At least, members of the Port's management team decided to attend this meeting!
Information that had been communicated more bluntly than some preferred, was again communicated, perhaps more nicely and more importantly, more tellingly with a listening public audience.
But, time will tell, as it usually does.
Then, Tuesday afternoon's regularly scheduled Port Commission meeting attracted more than usual attention -and input- from the public, including Bellingham Mayor Dan Pike, who reiterated two letters that he and former Mayors Mark Asmundson and Tim Douglas had signed and sent on November 14 and 17.
Both letters were brief and to the point, and may be be posted soon on the City's website.
But, here are the contents of both letters that I have retyped from copies:
November 14, 2008 - letter to Governor Christine Gregoire:
Copies of this letter were sent to those listed below:
Bellingham City Council
Port of Bellingham Commissioners
Jim Darling, Executive Director, Port of Bellingham
U.S. Senator Patty Murray
U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell
Congressman Rick Larsen
State Senator Harriet Spanel
State Senator Dale Brandland
Representative Kelli Linville
Representative Doug Ericksen
Representative Jeff Morris
Representative Dave Quall
Commissioner of Public Lands Doug Sutherland
County Executive Pete Kremen
President Bruce Shepard, Western Washington University
President Tom Eckert, Bellingham Technical College
Jay Manning, Director, Department of Ecology
--------------
November 17, 2008 - letter to Port of Bellingham Commissioners and Jim Darling, Executive Director:
Today's Cascadia Weekly got it exactly right in both its Gristle and its Feature Article entitled RETRENCHMENT.
But, so have the scores of citizens, elected officials, City staff got it right, because they also attended the many meetings, discussions and work sessions that have brought us to where we are in the process of carefully scoping this visionary and inherently worthwhile redevelopment undertaking.
These are the people who know what is the desired outcome of this project, and they will not be easily persuaded to accept a poorer substitute for it.
Good for them, and good for us!
People do know something about what's been going on, because they have participated in it and remember what transpired.
Now, we should not be put into a position of accepting less than what was determined to be best for this community.
That's the power of public process; the kind that is properly done with thoroughness, inclusiveness and integrity.
I salute Bellingham for a job well done - up to now.
---------------
The 2004 Interlocal Agreement agreed to by the City and Port was essentially 'an agreement to agree', but it also went further than that and actually did agree on those principles which the parties shared, or were the result of majority compromises on other points.
Two of the points, which I preferred, did not survive these year-end compromises; permanent public ownership of the redeveloped property [lease, not sale to tenants], and the creation of a Public Development Authority to oversee the faithful implementation of whatever plan was agreed to by the parties.
Public ownership might have eliminated the Port's concern about the possible future need for an EIS every time it sold redeveloped land to a private party.
It also would have assured a continuous revenue stream well into the future, at the sacrifice of a heavier infusion of up-front cash from direct sales.
The PDA idea is not a new one, but a proven method of accomplishing major, long-term projects with predictability and professional -and public- oversight.
It is interesting that both the City and WWU have decided to establish PDAs to oversee their projects on the waterfront, while curiously, the Port has strongly objected to that concept.
One has to wonder why.
Surely, a desire for credit, or avoidance of blame are not the reasons for this stance.
Because, who at the Port is likely to still be around in 25 years.
The people who will be around in 25 years are those citizens of Bellingham who are younger than me, and their children and grandchildren.
Those are the people for whom this effort is really meant.
Let's don't lose sight of that.
--------------------
Now that some folks have gotten riled up, maybe cooled off a bit, and now are hopefully listening to good sense again, perhaps we can get on with the essential task of continuing progress on actually realizing the worthy goals envisioned by this community for redeveloping its blighted waterfront.
Last Monday night's City-sponsored meeting at the Market Depot Square seemed to help by airing comments in a public setting, after a somewhat rocky start as reported by the Herald.
At least, members of the Port's management team decided to attend this meeting!
Information that had been communicated more bluntly than some preferred, was again communicated, perhaps more nicely and more importantly, more tellingly with a listening public audience.
But, time will tell, as it usually does.
Then, Tuesday afternoon's regularly scheduled Port Commission meeting attracted more than usual attention -and input- from the public, including Bellingham Mayor Dan Pike, who reiterated two letters that he and former Mayors Mark Asmundson and Tim Douglas had signed and sent on November 14 and 17.
Both letters were brief and to the point, and may be be posted soon on the City's website.
But, here are the contents of both letters that I have retyped from copies:
November 14, 2008 - letter to Governor Christine Gregoire:
Dear Governor Gregoire:
We write today in follow up to a letter you recently received from the Port of Bellingham Commissioners. Our goal with letter is to affirm that the City of Bellingham is committed to moving forward with the Port as a partner on the waterfront redevelopment project.
Throughout each of our administrations, the City has recognized the complexity of this ambitious project. City officials remain committed to honoring our agreements with our partners and moving forward on this project.
The Port, as a special purpose district, by statute, has a different focus than the city. The broad responsibilities of a city require consideration of a vocal and diverse constituency and involve a wider range of municipal functions and goals. It is not surprising that our two governmental entities differ in the approach to this project. Undoubtedly over the decades during which this project will be fully implemented, there will be differences between the city and the port. We believe that both the city and the port will retain an ongoing commitment to resolving issues as they arise. The current city administration is committed to working through these issues. Studying the options before us and understanding what is at stake is essential to the success of this project. Adding to this complexity is the period of unprecedented fiscal uncertainty.
What we are facing - and what you have been apprised of - is essentially a difference of opinion between two well-intentioned local governments. The City is committed to continuing this local process, along with the corresponding community dialogue. Compromises will be made, and the end result will serve the citizens and taxpayers of Bellingham and Whatcom County, as well as those of the region, the state, and the nation for many decades to come. We will continue to keep you informed as we move forward on this ambitious project. We reiterate our gratitude fr your continued support of the city and the port as we move forward on this project.
Copies of this letter were sent to those listed below:
Bellingham City Council
Port of Bellingham Commissioners
Jim Darling, Executive Director, Port of Bellingham
U.S. Senator Patty Murray
U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell
Congressman Rick Larsen
State Senator Harriet Spanel
State Senator Dale Brandland
Representative Kelli Linville
Representative Doug Ericksen
Representative Jeff Morris
Representative Dave Quall
Commissioner of Public Lands Doug Sutherland
County Executive Pete Kremen
President Bruce Shepard, Western Washington University
President Tom Eckert, Bellingham Technical College
Jay Manning, Director, Department of Ecology
--------------
November 17, 2008 - letter to Port of Bellingham Commissioners and Jim Darling, Executive Director:
Dear Jim and Commissioners:--------------
We are writing today to make sure that you are aware in advance of a letter we are sending to state and federal representatives and officials. That letter, addressed to those who received your letter of Nov. 10, is enclosed.
Please know that we send this letter in a good faith effort to ensure that these leaders, many of whom are key partners in our waterfront progress to date, understand that the differences our organizations are facing are neither insurmountable nor deal-breaking. We believe strongly that Port and City officials are acting with the best of intentions on behalf of their constituencies, and we look forward to each agency working hard to resolve their differences.
Throughout each of our administrations, the City has recognized the complexity of this once-in-a-lifetime project. City officials have in the past and remain committed to honoring our agreements with the Port of Bellingham. A strong, collaborative partnership between the City and the Port is essential to the successful redevelopment of Bellingham's waterfront. City officials today remain poised and eager to continue this partnership, complete a mutually acceptable master plan, and move forward with the many steps awaiting our joint leadership.
We expect this process, along with our interjurisdictional and community dialogue, to continue in earnest, with the end result serving the citizens and taxpayers of Bellingham, Whatcom County and beyond for generations to come.
Today's Cascadia Weekly got it exactly right in both its Gristle and its Feature Article entitled RETRENCHMENT.
But, so have the scores of citizens, elected officials, City staff got it right, because they also attended the many meetings, discussions and work sessions that have brought us to where we are in the process of carefully scoping this visionary and inherently worthwhile redevelopment undertaking.
These are the people who know what is the desired outcome of this project, and they will not be easily persuaded to accept a poorer substitute for it.
Good for them, and good for us!
People do know something about what's been going on, because they have participated in it and remember what transpired.
Now, we should not be put into a position of accepting less than what was determined to be best for this community.
That's the power of public process; the kind that is properly done with thoroughness, inclusiveness and integrity.
I salute Bellingham for a job well done - up to now.
---------------
The 2004 Interlocal Agreement agreed to by the City and Port was essentially 'an agreement to agree', but it also went further than that and actually did agree on those principles which the parties shared, or were the result of majority compromises on other points.
Two of the points, which I preferred, did not survive these year-end compromises; permanent public ownership of the redeveloped property [lease, not sale to tenants], and the creation of a Public Development Authority to oversee the faithful implementation of whatever plan was agreed to by the parties.
Public ownership might have eliminated the Port's concern about the possible future need for an EIS every time it sold redeveloped land to a private party.
It also would have assured a continuous revenue stream well into the future, at the sacrifice of a heavier infusion of up-front cash from direct sales.
The PDA idea is not a new one, but a proven method of accomplishing major, long-term projects with predictability and professional -and public- oversight.
It is interesting that both the City and WWU have decided to establish PDAs to oversee their projects on the waterfront, while curiously, the Port has strongly objected to that concept.
One has to wonder why.
Surely, a desire for credit, or avoidance of blame are not the reasons for this stance.
Because, who at the Port is likely to still be around in 25 years.
The people who will be around in 25 years are those citizens of Bellingham who are younger than me, and their children and grandchildren.
Those are the people for whom this effort is really meant.
Let's don't lose sight of that.
--------------------
Monday, November 17, 2008
Auto Rescue: Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down?
The latest crisis to appear before Congress is one that has been a crisis before, and deservedly so.
The auto industry, for all its importance, has also been a poster child for denial and a model for how to practice unsustainable business tenets.
It has consistently been an industry that appeals to waste, luxury and the power of advertising, instead of efficiency, practicality and common sense.
But are these sufficient reasons to only watch as this industry self immolates and goes down the tube of failure?
Much as I'd like to say good riddance to Detroit and the excesses it represents, there are good reasons to extend a publicly supported life raft to this industry.
Not an outright gift, mind you, as the Big Three seem to be begging, but the kind of considered loan with strings attached that allow a business to right itself without dictating any specific formula.
With carrots and sticks, government could fashion a rescue plan that gave Detroit the incentives to finally put into practice those steps it could have -should have- done years ago by itself.
You know, little things like settling on a reasonable number of vehicles and models to produce and sell, standardizing basic lines to eliminate re-tooling every year or two, incorporating efficiency into production methods, fuel usage and materials selection, renegotiating excessive labor contracts, offering more honest and straightforward sales contracts and financing options, accelerating innovation and eliminating fat-cat bonuses and perks for its top management.
Just a few things like that.
Congress, the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC now have more powerful tools to work with in dealing with financial issues of several stripes.
But just having new tools doesn't mean we know how best to use them.
As Henry Paulson has stated, there isn't any playbook for dealing with problems, the likes of which we haven't seen before!
And, it doesn't help that we're in a big hurry all of a sudden, with everyone clamoring for whatever they feel like clamoring for.
But, that is the hand we've been dealt, so we play the cards we have as best we can.
Actually, it's kind of good that there is a sense of urgency because that will goad us to action.
And, maybe the many ideas and concerns being tossed around can result in a sort of serendipity, like open architecture software development, where consistent improvements can be incrementally provided.
I hope so, because we need some good solutions!
Yesterday's headline proclaimed 'Battle over Big Three bailout looms in lame-duck Congress'
Swift action urged on help for Detroit, Opponents say $700B in bailout funds is for financial institutions, not auto industry, etc
But should this be a partisan battle over the fate of the nation's Big Three automakers?
And what about the role played by the current administration; and the one that will have to be played by the new administration?
New legislators convened in Washington for orientation and leadership elections, as the 110th Congress met in its last session before passing the baton January 6.
Senate Democrats tried to earn GOP support for their proposed bailout of the Big Three automakers because they would like to see a vote this week, but some concede they probably don't have the support.
"The Treasury Department has acknowledged that they could provide the auto companies the temporary assistance to keep automakers solvent by taking money out of the $700 billion we've already provided to the Treasury Department," Senator Harry Reid said. "If we move forward, we can protect American jobs, help American families and prevent our economy from falling further into a recession," he said. "In the event there is objection to passing this important legislation, we'll have the opportunity to vote on a second piece of legislation ... that consists solely of unemployment insurance and relief for the auto industry and the auto industry's work force."
House Democratic leaders and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts met with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Monday.
The meeting, in in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office -included an update on the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, the $700 billion measure that was passed last month to help bail out financial institutions.
Here are the arguments -pro and con- in favor of an auto industry rescue:
• One out of 10 jobs in this country are auto-related.
• Twenty percent of retail sales are auto-related or automobiles, so this is a national problem
• A proposed 'lifeline' of up to $25 billion in loans to carved out of the $700 million in TARP funds, already available but in dispute as to how they should be used.
• Symptomatic of the automakers hard times of late;
Ford announced this month that it lost $3 billion last quarter.
General Motors is trading at about $3 a share, the lowest figure at which its stock has traded in more than 60 years.
Chrysler has announced numerous plant closings and thousands of job cuts as its sales have plummeted over the last year.
• The Center for Automotive Research, a think tank in Ann Arbor, Michigan, that is pushing for a bailout, estimates about 2.5 million job cuts if just half of the Big Three's manufacturing capacity shuts down.
• About 240,000 of those job losses would be at the automakers;
800,000 would be at various suppliers and dealerships;
and another 1.4 million job losses would come from businesses that rely on automaker spending, the think tank estimates.
• A letter is being circulated by Sens. Levin and George Voinovich, R-Ohio, to all senators for their signatures in support of the auto industry bailout.
The letter -- written to Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell -- said the automakers "face rapidly evaporating operational liquidity" and "soon may not be able to continue to operate."
• Jobs that rely on the auto industry are diverse and can range from media outlets that depend on the Big Three's advertising dollars to local stores and restaurants in towns where auto plants would be shuttered.
• Supporters of the bailout say the demise of Ford, GM and Chrysler would be a devastating blow to an already ailing American economy. But opponents of bailing out the industry -- including the Bush administration and top Republicans -- say TARP funds weren't intended for automakers.
• "There's a line of companies, of industries waiting at Treasury just to see if they can get their hands on that $700 billion," Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said on CNN's "Late Edition" on Sunday.
"That is for the financial system. It's to stabilize the financial system. That should not be used."
• Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pennsylvania, said last week that he concurs with his congressional rivals because he can't condone using TARP funds for the auto industry when the money has yet to help homeowners facing foreclosure.
• Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, is one of the most vocal critics of the proposed lifeline and suggested Sunday that bailing out the Big Three would be a waste of taxpayer dollars because it would reward the companies for mismanagement.
Shelby, the ranking member on the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, further said in his remarks on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the government should allow the companies to file bankruptcy.
"They would be, in a lot of people's judgment, a lot better off to go through Chapter 11, where they could reorganize, get rid of the management, get rid of the boards -- the people who've brought them where they are today," Shelby said.
• President Bush and GOP leaders in Congress say they'd be willing to lift some restrictions on an already-approved program to dole out $25 billion in loans meant to help U.S. automakers design more fuel-efficient vehicles.
The funds are now tied up in Energy Department red tape, but the GOP says it would be willing to approve legislation to force their prompt distribution.
• GM executives -- who say that without help, GM's cash will reach the operating minimum by year's end -- have said the loan money would have so many strings attached that they are not sure it can be used to solve their cash crisis.
Democrats say the automakers need the existing $25 billion in loans and an additional bridge loan just to survive through the year. However, many Democratic leaders say they realize the folly of bailing out Detroit without specifying Congress' expectations of the industry.
• President-elect Barack Obama told CBS' "60 Minutes" on Sunday that Detroit needed help, but he opposes writing a "blank check."
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, who heads the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, said last week, "Clearly we shouldn't be writing checks without some clear conditionality of what's going to happen with that industry -- if they're going to change and get back on their feet again."
• Democratic leaders probably do not have the 60 votes needed in the Senate to avoid a GOP filibuster.
• There is a view expressed that Congress should consider waiting for Obama to take office, so that the Treasury could act without legislation.
--------------
So there you have it, citizens.
What would you do with this particular hand of cards?
As the Gambler, Kenny Rogers advised, 'you gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em; you gotta know when to walk away, and know when to run.'
I think we have to play these cards as best we can, and forget about folding, walking away or running -because those are not responsible options.
It may not be a winning hand, but you never know until you play it!
Some years ago, I stopped buying American cars, but that doesn't make me immune to the fall-out if Detroit is not able to be rescued.
1 out of 10 jobs could be lost or at risk.
20% of all retail sales could be lost.
2.5 million jobs at risk if only 50% of auto industry fails.
Then there's the little matter of National security; what happens if we lose the ability to produce essential vehicles, parts and associated software in the US?
Think about it.
Be careful in the decision you make in playing this hand!
And good luck -you'll need it.
---------------------
The auto industry, for all its importance, has also been a poster child for denial and a model for how to practice unsustainable business tenets.
It has consistently been an industry that appeals to waste, luxury and the power of advertising, instead of efficiency, practicality and common sense.
But are these sufficient reasons to only watch as this industry self immolates and goes down the tube of failure?
Much as I'd like to say good riddance to Detroit and the excesses it represents, there are good reasons to extend a publicly supported life raft to this industry.
Not an outright gift, mind you, as the Big Three seem to be begging, but the kind of considered loan with strings attached that allow a business to right itself without dictating any specific formula.
With carrots and sticks, government could fashion a rescue plan that gave Detroit the incentives to finally put into practice those steps it could have -should have- done years ago by itself.
You know, little things like settling on a reasonable number of vehicles and models to produce and sell, standardizing basic lines to eliminate re-tooling every year or two, incorporating efficiency into production methods, fuel usage and materials selection, renegotiating excessive labor contracts, offering more honest and straightforward sales contracts and financing options, accelerating innovation and eliminating fat-cat bonuses and perks for its top management.
Just a few things like that.
Congress, the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC now have more powerful tools to work with in dealing with financial issues of several stripes.
But just having new tools doesn't mean we know how best to use them.
As Henry Paulson has stated, there isn't any playbook for dealing with problems, the likes of which we haven't seen before!
And, it doesn't help that we're in a big hurry all of a sudden, with everyone clamoring for whatever they feel like clamoring for.
But, that is the hand we've been dealt, so we play the cards we have as best we can.
Actually, it's kind of good that there is a sense of urgency because that will goad us to action.
And, maybe the many ideas and concerns being tossed around can result in a sort of serendipity, like open architecture software development, where consistent improvements can be incrementally provided.
I hope so, because we need some good solutions!
Yesterday's headline proclaimed 'Battle over Big Three bailout looms in lame-duck Congress'
Swift action urged on help for Detroit, Opponents say $700B in bailout funds is for financial institutions, not auto industry, etc
But should this be a partisan battle over the fate of the nation's Big Three automakers?
And what about the role played by the current administration; and the one that will have to be played by the new administration?
New legislators convened in Washington for orientation and leadership elections, as the 110th Congress met in its last session before passing the baton January 6.
Senate Democrats tried to earn GOP support for their proposed bailout of the Big Three automakers because they would like to see a vote this week, but some concede they probably don't have the support.
"The Treasury Department has acknowledged that they could provide the auto companies the temporary assistance to keep automakers solvent by taking money out of the $700 billion we've already provided to the Treasury Department," Senator Harry Reid said. "If we move forward, we can protect American jobs, help American families and prevent our economy from falling further into a recession," he said. "In the event there is objection to passing this important legislation, we'll have the opportunity to vote on a second piece of legislation ... that consists solely of unemployment insurance and relief for the auto industry and the auto industry's work force."
House Democratic leaders and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts met with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Monday.
The meeting, in in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office -included an update on the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, the $700 billion measure that was passed last month to help bail out financial institutions.
Here are the arguments -pro and con- in favor of an auto industry rescue:
• One out of 10 jobs in this country are auto-related.
• Twenty percent of retail sales are auto-related or automobiles, so this is a national problem
• A proposed 'lifeline' of up to $25 billion in loans to carved out of the $700 million in TARP funds, already available but in dispute as to how they should be used.
• Symptomatic of the automakers hard times of late;
Ford announced this month that it lost $3 billion last quarter.
General Motors is trading at about $3 a share, the lowest figure at which its stock has traded in more than 60 years.
Chrysler has announced numerous plant closings and thousands of job cuts as its sales have plummeted over the last year.
• The Center for Automotive Research, a think tank in Ann Arbor, Michigan, that is pushing for a bailout, estimates about 2.5 million job cuts if just half of the Big Three's manufacturing capacity shuts down.
• About 240,000 of those job losses would be at the automakers;
800,000 would be at various suppliers and dealerships;
and another 1.4 million job losses would come from businesses that rely on automaker spending, the think tank estimates.
• A letter is being circulated by Sens. Levin and George Voinovich, R-Ohio, to all senators for their signatures in support of the auto industry bailout.
The letter -- written to Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell -- said the automakers "face rapidly evaporating operational liquidity" and "soon may not be able to continue to operate."
• Jobs that rely on the auto industry are diverse and can range from media outlets that depend on the Big Three's advertising dollars to local stores and restaurants in towns where auto plants would be shuttered.
• Supporters of the bailout say the demise of Ford, GM and Chrysler would be a devastating blow to an already ailing American economy. But opponents of bailing out the industry -- including the Bush administration and top Republicans -- say TARP funds weren't intended for automakers.
• "There's a line of companies, of industries waiting at Treasury just to see if they can get their hands on that $700 billion," Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said on CNN's "Late Edition" on Sunday.
"That is for the financial system. It's to stabilize the financial system. That should not be used."
• Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pennsylvania, said last week that he concurs with his congressional rivals because he can't condone using TARP funds for the auto industry when the money has yet to help homeowners facing foreclosure.
• Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, is one of the most vocal critics of the proposed lifeline and suggested Sunday that bailing out the Big Three would be a waste of taxpayer dollars because it would reward the companies for mismanagement.
Shelby, the ranking member on the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, further said in his remarks on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the government should allow the companies to file bankruptcy.
"They would be, in a lot of people's judgment, a lot better off to go through Chapter 11, where they could reorganize, get rid of the management, get rid of the boards -- the people who've brought them where they are today," Shelby said.
• President Bush and GOP leaders in Congress say they'd be willing to lift some restrictions on an already-approved program to dole out $25 billion in loans meant to help U.S. automakers design more fuel-efficient vehicles.
The funds are now tied up in Energy Department red tape, but the GOP says it would be willing to approve legislation to force their prompt distribution.
• GM executives -- who say that without help, GM's cash will reach the operating minimum by year's end -- have said the loan money would have so many strings attached that they are not sure it can be used to solve their cash crisis.
Democrats say the automakers need the existing $25 billion in loans and an additional bridge loan just to survive through the year. However, many Democratic leaders say they realize the folly of bailing out Detroit without specifying Congress' expectations of the industry.
• President-elect Barack Obama told CBS' "60 Minutes" on Sunday that Detroit needed help, but he opposes writing a "blank check."
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, who heads the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, said last week, "Clearly we shouldn't be writing checks without some clear conditionality of what's going to happen with that industry -- if they're going to change and get back on their feet again."
• Democratic leaders probably do not have the 60 votes needed in the Senate to avoid a GOP filibuster.
• There is a view expressed that Congress should consider waiting for Obama to take office, so that the Treasury could act without legislation.
--------------
So there you have it, citizens.
What would you do with this particular hand of cards?
As the Gambler, Kenny Rogers advised, 'you gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em; you gotta know when to walk away, and know when to run.'
I think we have to play these cards as best we can, and forget about folding, walking away or running -because those are not responsible options.
It may not be a winning hand, but you never know until you play it!
Some years ago, I stopped buying American cars, but that doesn't make me immune to the fall-out if Detroit is not able to be rescued.
1 out of 10 jobs could be lost or at risk.
20% of all retail sales could be lost.
2.5 million jobs at risk if only 50% of auto industry fails.
Then there's the little matter of National security; what happens if we lose the ability to produce essential vehicles, parts and associated software in the US?
Think about it.
Be careful in the decision you make in playing this hand!
And good luck -you'll need it.
---------------------
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Time for Big Changes at the Port of Bellingham!
"Management is doing things right. Leadership is doing the right thing."
- Warren Bennis
It is no use saying, 'We are doing our best.' You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary. - Winston Churchill
'To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.' -- Abraham Lincoln
"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
----------
Readers need to understand this blog is targeted directly at the Port of Bellingham, and specifically at what I consider to be an error and miscalculation of major proportions that the Port appears ready to make -if they have not already done so.
All citizens need to take note of what is happening and speak up!
Below, I've listed some steps that may be necessary to change the culture and public conduct of the Port of Bellingham, an important entity in helping to create new jobs and economic prosperity in our region.
I sincerely hope this writing will be taken in the spirit it is being written; that failure to proceed prudently on the Waterfront Redevelopment Project should NOT be an option!
On October 28, 2008, Port of Bellingham Commissioner Scott Walker posted this statement on the Port's glitzy & glitchy website:
--------------------------
Commission Asks City to Recommit to Waterfront Partnership by Dec. 16
Port Commissioner Scott Walker's Speech to City Waterfront Workshop October 28, 2008
Well, December 16 is still a month away, yet the Port, in its wisdom, has decided to issue an ultimatum to the world that it is suspending its commitment to the entire Waterfront Redevelopment Project, as envisioned by years of painstaking and carefully considered public process!
And, demanding that the City of Bellingham reconfirm its 2004 commitment to this joint undertaking, despite the fact the City has never wavered in its commitment to exactly that goal!
It sounds as if the Port has already decided what it will do, and the December 16 'deadline' is just another red herring, doesn't it?
What the heck is going on?
Is anyone else as tired of the Port's constant posturing, bullying and lack of public accountability as I am?
If the answer is yes, or maybe, I invite you to help make some changes that are long overdue!
What, you may ask, has suddenly awakened me from my state of subdued complicity in tolerating what has become increasingly unacceptable in the Port's mode of operation?
That would have to be the stupid, arbitrary and unilateral decision by the 'Port' to declare the Waterfront Redevelopment project as a waste of time.
Huh?
Are you kidding me?
Something of that magnitude, upon which the future viability of our City and region might depend, ought not to be the sole decision of four people -only 3 of which are elected- to so arrogantly write off an endeavor which has already consumed millions of public dollars, thousands of hours of time from public employees and citizens, major financial support from State & Federal agencies, and the worthwhile vision of our entire community?
Say again, Port, what your justification entails?
A fit of pique in not getting all the myriad concessions you wanted so badly from the City of Bellingham and its taxpayers?
An imperial fiat that you failed to have the citizens who elected/appointed you even hear, understand, and express their support for before the edict was proclaimed?
A temporary loss of sanity?
A group-think decision made using hard feelings instead of cool reason supported by facts.
A lack of imagination in how to achieve something much more ambitious than the Port is actually capable of dealing with?
A personal vendetta against a Mayor who dares question the Port's questionable assertions?
A political death wish?
All of the above?
This time, our illustrious Port has gone too far with its imperial, provincial, unimaginative and obstinate style, so well-developed over decades of relative obscurity from normal public oversight and scrutiny.
----------------
Here are a few things we as citizens can decide to do:
• Start by informing the Port that a true partnership can exist only when the parties treat each other with mutual trust and respect; and that we expect the Port to abide by rules of conduct that are prudent and acceptable in such important matters as the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds for the future betterment of our waterfront, including the creation of thousands of jobs, businesses and opportunities for the public to fully access and enjoy its connection to Bellingham Bay.
• Again, request the Port and City immediately sit down together, with or with facilitation, to discuss and mutually agree to a reasonable course of action to return to progressing the intended steps to realize the broad objectives that have been so painstakingly developed by citizens of this community over the last several years. Some concerned citizens have already joined in such an effort, but this can greatly benefit from larger numbers getting involved - and soon!
• Recruit and support viable candidates to run for the two Port Commission seats that are up for election next year [2009];
From District 1: Scott Walker
From District 2; Doug Smith
Citizens should know that the Port of Bellingham is governed by three nonpartisan commissioners who come from the 3 different districts in Whatcom County and are elected in countywide elections. They supposedly oversee policy decisions at the Port, but the Port's Executive Director, Jim Darling -the real puppeteer behind the curtain- oversees all day-to-day operations of the entire Port. Very competent Division directors and managers who oversee individual Port operations, all report to Mr Darling and are expected to carry out his bidding. In total, about 85 people are employed at the Port of Bellingham, one of 75 such Port Authorities in this State that are primarily charged with economic development responsibilities to create benefits for the people of Washington using the taxing authority with which it is entrusted.
Voters don't decide issues, they decide who will decide issues. - George Will
• Support a public initiative to increase the number of Port Commissioners from three to five, with the additional seats being elected as At-Large representatives, with no more than two Commissioners coming from any one District. This ought to provide better representation of, as well as accountability to citizens, plus involve some badly needed new blood.
• Make clear to the Port of Bellingham that citizens of Whatcom County expect greatly improved cooperation and collaboration with other municipalities than currently exists; that the idea of separate entities dedicated to enhance certain desirable objectives -like economic development- was the intent of Washington's founders, not another layer of feudal bureaucracy that pursues its own selfish interests at the expense of the greater public good. No more Lilliputian responses to Gulliver problems!
• Register a public outcry at the autocratic, self-serving management style of the Port's current Executive Director, the consistent lack of credible feedback to public questions, and the entrenched culture of command and control and non-transparency in its operations. It boggles the mind that better leadership can't be provided at the Port than what Mr Darling has demonstrated, despite his excellent technical and management credentials. It is in the role of true leadership in dealing with ambitious and visionary projects that we need the most improvement.
-------------------
A few concluding comments:
• Port Mission Statement
The Port of Bellingham’s mission is to fulfill the essential transportation and economic development needs of the region while providing leadership in maintaining Greater Whatcom’s overall economic vitality through the development of comprehensive facilities, programs, and services. In so doing, the Port pledges to work cooperatively with other entities — within the framework of community standards — and to be a responsible trustee of our publicly owned assets.
Sounds good. Is this being done?
• Redevelopment Partners
The successful redevelopment of Bellingham's waterfront can only be done with authentic and lasting partnerships. To date those partnerships have been strong and reflect the commitment of the many stakeholders with an interest in a successful outcome.
These partnerships include:
Strong and ongoing financial support from the State of Washington for significant portions of cleanup costs, demolition costs and early development actions.
Federal support for early development actions and transportation improvements.
Regulatory agencies such as the State Departments of Ecology, Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife, and the federal Corps of Engineers, and many others;
Local industry and labor such as the ILWU, real estate community and business leaders;
Lummi Nation and Nooksack Tribe;
Development partnerships with Western Washington University and the Bellingham-Whatcom Housing Authority;
And involvement by all of the area's educational institutions.
Why no mention of the City of Bellingham?
Doesn't the Port consider the City a partner?
Is this intentional or just another Freudian slip?
• The third Port Commissioner, Jim Jorgenson, is the relative newcomer and seems to have a more balanced perspective toward the Port's responsibilities than the other two, who have served since 1991 and 1992 respectively - too long a time in my view.
Jim Jorgensen has lived in Whatcom County for more than 40 years. In 1994, he retired after 30 years of teaching science at Blaine High School. Jim has owned and operated Jim's Salmon Charter in Blaine for nearly 40 years. He is married with two adult children. Jim began serving on the Port Commission in 2004. He chose this community role because he wanted to be involved with the diverse operations of the Port and in communicating the Port's role with the community.
• ROLE OF U.S. PUBLIC PORTS
U.S. public ports provide the vital link for getting goods to the nation's consumers and in transporting U.S.-made products overseas for export.
In the U.S., 126 public seaport agencies have jurisdiction over 185 public ports (some agencies control multiple ports). These ports are located along the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf and Great Lakes coasts, as well as in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Established by enactments of state government, public port authorities develop, manage and promote the flow of waterborne commerce and act as catalysts for economic growth. These agencies include port authorities, special-purpose navigation districts, multi-state authorities and departments of state, county and municipal governments.
Public ports develop and maintain terminal facilities for intermodal transfer of cargo between ships, barges, trucks and railroads, and for ferry and cruise ship passenger loading and unloading.
In addition to maritime functions, port authority activities may also include airports, bridges, tunnels, commuter rail systems, inland river or shallow-draft barge terminals, industrial parks, Foreign Trade Zones, world trade centers, terminal or short-line railroads, shipyards, dredging, marinas, and various public recreational facilities.
Public ports also play a critical role in our national security, peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts around the world. In particular, ports support the mobilization, deployment and resupply of U.S. military forces.
Ports on the coasts and inland waterways provide a total of about 3,200 berths for deep-draft ships.
WORLD TRADE
Deep-draft ports, which accommodate oceangoing vessels, move 99 percent of U.S. overseas trade by volume and 61 percent by value, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
The U.S. Department of Transportation projects that, compared to 2001, total freight moved through U.S. ports will increase by more than 50 percent by 2020 and the volume of international container traffic will more than double.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
Public ports generate significant local and regional economic growth, including creation of jobs. Total direct and indirect annual impact of the U.S. port industry includes:
4.9 million jobs, accounting for $44 billion in personal income (Martin Associates, Lancaster PA, 2002);
Nearly $2.9 trillion in international trade for an all-encompassing range of goods and services, with 1.4 billion tons, valued at $1.3 trillion, in waterborne imports and exports alone (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006);
More than 1 billion tons of domestic goods valued at over $312 billion moved via water in the U.S. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001);
Nearly $21.4 billion in U.S. Customs duty revenues in fiscal 2006, representing 70 percent of all Customs duties collected (U.S. Customs & Border Protection, 2006).
MAJOR ISSUES
Seaport security
Navigation maintenance and new construction
Freight congestion/intermodal road/rail access
Marine facility expansion and modernization
Coastal environmental protection
Ability to secure funding and financing
Competitiveness and diversified revenue sources
Land acquisition and site development
PORT INFRASTRUCTURE
In the last 60 years, U.S. ports have invested more than $33 billion in capital projects to enhance their facilities. In the foreseeable future, ports are projected to spend an estimated $2.1 billion more annually. In addition to the economic impacts already mentioned, public ports serve as coastal environ-mental stewards and are incubators for industrial, manufacturing, commercial and retail businesses.
CRUISE INDUSTRY
The fast-growing cruise industry is dependent upon public ports. The Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) estimates that cruise passenger embarkations at U.S. ports totaled 8.6 million in 2005, an increase of 21 percent over 2003. U.S. ports continue to lead the world in cruise embarkations, handling approximately 75 percent of all global cruise passengers.
The total economic impact of the cruise lines, passengers, and their U.S. suppliers in 2005 reached $32.4 billion, according to a study commissioned by CLIA and conducted by Business Research and Economic Advisors (BREA).
The U.S. cruise industry's impact now extends well beyond its traditional South Florida base, with cruises departing or calling on 43 ports in North America. There is also a positive economic impact in all 50 states since over 75 percent of cruise industry expenditures are made with U.S. businesses, including airlines, travel agents, food and beverage suppliers, and ship maintenance and refurbishers.
PORT SECURITY
The U.S. Coast Guard in 2003 projected that port facilities would need $5.4 billion to pay for security requirements over the next 10 years. Since 9/11/01, America's seaports have invested hundreds of millions of dollars of their own money into facility security enhancements while the federal government has provided ports approximately $876 million for security funding. For FY'07, Congress appropriated an additional $210 million for the Department of Homeland Security's Port Security Grant fund, although $9 million is for administrating the program.
NAVIGATION CHANNELS
Since 1789, the federal government has authorized navigation channel improvement projects. The General Survey Act of 1824 established the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' role as the agency responsible for the navigation system. Since then, ports have worked in partnership with the Corps of Engineers to maintain waterside access to port facilities.
Regular maintenance dredging is required by more than 90 percent of the nation's 50 busiest ports.
More than 300 million cubic yards of dredged material are removed from navigation channels each year. Another 100 million cubic yards are dredged from berths and private terminals. The total, 400 million cubic yards of dredged material, would form a four-lane highway, 20 feet deep, stretching from New York to Los Angeles.
CARGO
Ports handle a variety of cargoes, including bulk, or loose, cargo; breakbulk cargo in packages such as bundles, crates, barrels and pallets; liquid bulk cargo like petroleum; dry bulk such as grain; and general cargo in steel boxes called containers, which are measured in 20-foot equivalent units, or TEUs. Leading commodities shipped for domestic and foreign trade through U.S. ports include:
Crude petroleum and petroleum products, including oil and gasoline;
Chemicals and related products, such as fertilizer;
Bituminous, metallurgical and steam coal;
Food and farm products, including wheat and wheat flour, corn, soybeans, rice, and cotton;
Forest products, such as lumber and wood chips;
Iron and steel;
Soil, sand, gravel, rock and stone;
Automobiles, auto parts and machinery; and,
Clothing, shoes, electronics and toys.
Learn more about ports from the American Association of Port Authorities.
------------------------------------
Frequently Asked Questions
How many ports are in Washington State?
There are 75 ports in the state, located in 33 of the 39 counties. Currently, 69 ports are members of the Washington Public Ports Association, along with 108 associate members. Visit our port map to see where the many ports are located.
Can you have a port without water?
In a word, yes! For instance, many airports are port districts. The primary purpose of a port district in Washington State is economic development - and you don't need a navigable waterway to do that. The Legislature has given ports broad authority to promote economic development - they can build and operate airports, marine terminals, marinas, railroads, and industrial parks, and in some cases, promote tourism.
Where do Washington's ports rank nationally?
Washington has the world's largest locally controlled port system. Though we only comprise two percent of the world's population, we handle seven percent of the country's exports and six percent of imports. The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma comprise the nation's second largest "load center", behind the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
What are the state's leading exports and imports?
Washington's leading exports are a terrific example of the state's changing economy: forest products, airplanes and aircraft parts continue to comprise a large percentage of exports from the state. But now, they're joined by high-tech products, computers, computer parts, and software.
Imports also vary. Washington is a major importer of forest products, high-tech equipment, and aircraft engines; but cars and auto parts are now key imports as well.
How do ports use my taxes?
Ports use tax revenues to invest in infrastructure designed to grow the economy - ports serve as economic engines for their communities. Examples of port investments include marine terminals, airport facilities, improved rail infrastructure, industrial parks, and marinas. Ports then lease facilities or charge a fee for their use, using the new facilities to generate jobs and economic development.
---------------------------
"A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for." - Grace Murray Hopper
- Warren Bennis
It is no use saying, 'We are doing our best.' You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary. - Winston Churchill
'To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.' -- Abraham Lincoln
"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
----------
Readers need to understand this blog is targeted directly at the Port of Bellingham, and specifically at what I consider to be an error and miscalculation of major proportions that the Port appears ready to make -if they have not already done so.
All citizens need to take note of what is happening and speak up!
Below, I've listed some steps that may be necessary to change the culture and public conduct of the Port of Bellingham, an important entity in helping to create new jobs and economic prosperity in our region.
I sincerely hope this writing will be taken in the spirit it is being written; that failure to proceed prudently on the Waterfront Redevelopment Project should NOT be an option!
On October 28, 2008, Port of Bellingham Commissioner Scott Walker posted this statement on the Port's glitzy & glitchy website:
--------------------------
Commission Asks City to Recommit to Waterfront Partnership by Dec. 16
Port Commissioner Scott Walker's Speech to City Waterfront Workshop October 28, 2008
Thank you City of Bellingham for inviting us to take part in this series of waterfront planning discussions. It is great to see this room filled with members of city boards and commissions who volunteer their time to help our community. We really appreciate all that you do in your community service.-------------------
We're here tonight to discuss the street grid and other issues related to the waterfront redevelopment.
There are differences between the street plans, but they are things that can be worked out.
Both are walkable;
Both have bike paths and trails
Both create more than 30 acres of new parks
Both set the stage for new jobs and opportunities for our community.
An exchange of ideas can be positive.
The technical questions about the grid pattern will be answered by staff during the question & answer period.
-------------------------------------------------
I'm here to talk about where I believe the Port Commission stands on this redevelopment.
It's instructive to remember how we got to this point.
The Waterfront Futures Group developed a clear vision for this property to be redeveloped as a mixed use project.
In 2004 the Port and City Council unanimously approved the first of a series of interlocal agreements for a lasting and comprehensive redevelopment partnership.
This was after a year of due diligence, and before the Port committed to buy this property.
And I'll tell you, without the commitment by the city, I would not likely have agreed to purchase the property.
Over the years, key partners have stepped up to help bring us where we are today:
• Senator Patty Murray, $14 million
• Ecology committed $45 million to the cost of cleanup.
• Rep. Kelli Linville, the LIFT bill, $20 million of state money, tax increment financing
• DNR, piling removal and harbor line adjustments
• WWU $2 million planning
• Burlington Northern - commitment to relocate the tracks
Over this time the Port and its redevelopment partners have already spent or committed to spend nearly $100 million. The Port's share alone is $32 million.
And we don't want to forget that our most important partner are the taxpayers. This entire project was started to benefit our stakeholders, the tax payers of Whatcom County.
----------------------------------------
Tonight the conversation is about the angle of a road grid and whether the development begins on one block or on another that is just two blocks away.
But the over-riding issue is whether the city is committed to move forward with the other partners and honor the agreements that are in place.
Further, does the city have the economic resources to live up to the commitments it has made?
We need to know where we are going with this before the new Legislature and the new federal Congress meets.
Our partners are growing concerned.
Delay is expensive to the taxpayers, and our partners have other obligations that command their attention.
In our dealings with the DOE, we are often asked if we still have a partnership.
We are uniquely positioned to be at the head of the lists of each our partners for the assistance we need to move forward.
But we are going to lose that position if we can't provide a unified front in a positive plan moving forward. Some other community is going to get these resources.
For example, we are weeks away from developing our final proposal to NOAA and other communities are competing with us for NOAA.
There will be a federal economic stimulus bill in just a few months and it requires a unified plan that is supported by all of the project partners.
We need to tell our federal delegation what economic stimulus project is most essential for our community.
How long can Western wait?
Will our state and federal delegations move on to other projects?
Will these delays jeopardize NOAA's interest in Bellingham?
The Port is going to deliver a master plan to the City Council by early December as well as a proposed schedule of infrastructure investments.
The longer this project is delayed, the more it costs the taxpayer and if this descends into an argument between the project partnership and the city, then the taxpayer pays twice.
We cannot go back and revisit every decision.
Are we going to move forward and are we going to move forward together?
Only the city of Bellingham and the Port of Bellingham are uniquely focused on this project. Our other partners have competing projects in other communities.
The Port of Bellingham is willing to be quite flexible with final details. But we need to know whether we can move forward without further delays.
_______________________________
We are asking that -- no later than December 16th -- the City Council and the Mayor formally reconfirm their commitment to the original agreement of 2004.
At the same time, we are asking that the city provide us and our other partners specific assurances that the city will be able to meet the financial and other commitments it has made.
This timing is essential so that our community can present a united front and a shared vision to the Legislature and Congress when they convene in January.
I encourage you to have a good dialogue tonight, and we look forward to hearing the results of this process.
But the street angles will not matter if we delay this project to the point that we cannot meet our commitments to our partners.
Well, December 16 is still a month away, yet the Port, in its wisdom, has decided to issue an ultimatum to the world that it is suspending its commitment to the entire Waterfront Redevelopment Project, as envisioned by years of painstaking and carefully considered public process!
And, demanding that the City of Bellingham reconfirm its 2004 commitment to this joint undertaking, despite the fact the City has never wavered in its commitment to exactly that goal!
It sounds as if the Port has already decided what it will do, and the December 16 'deadline' is just another red herring, doesn't it?
What the heck is going on?
Is anyone else as tired of the Port's constant posturing, bullying and lack of public accountability as I am?
If the answer is yes, or maybe, I invite you to help make some changes that are long overdue!
What, you may ask, has suddenly awakened me from my state of subdued complicity in tolerating what has become increasingly unacceptable in the Port's mode of operation?
That would have to be the stupid, arbitrary and unilateral decision by the 'Port' to declare the Waterfront Redevelopment project as a waste of time.
Huh?
Are you kidding me?
Something of that magnitude, upon which the future viability of our City and region might depend, ought not to be the sole decision of four people -only 3 of which are elected- to so arrogantly write off an endeavor which has already consumed millions of public dollars, thousands of hours of time from public employees and citizens, major financial support from State & Federal agencies, and the worthwhile vision of our entire community?
Say again, Port, what your justification entails?
A fit of pique in not getting all the myriad concessions you wanted so badly from the City of Bellingham and its taxpayers?
An imperial fiat that you failed to have the citizens who elected/appointed you even hear, understand, and express their support for before the edict was proclaimed?
A temporary loss of sanity?
A group-think decision made using hard feelings instead of cool reason supported by facts.
A lack of imagination in how to achieve something much more ambitious than the Port is actually capable of dealing with?
A personal vendetta against a Mayor who dares question the Port's questionable assertions?
A political death wish?
All of the above?
This time, our illustrious Port has gone too far with its imperial, provincial, unimaginative and obstinate style, so well-developed over decades of relative obscurity from normal public oversight and scrutiny.
----------------
Here are a few things we as citizens can decide to do:
• Start by informing the Port that a true partnership can exist only when the parties treat each other with mutual trust and respect; and that we expect the Port to abide by rules of conduct that are prudent and acceptable in such important matters as the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds for the future betterment of our waterfront, including the creation of thousands of jobs, businesses and opportunities for the public to fully access and enjoy its connection to Bellingham Bay.
• Again, request the Port and City immediately sit down together, with or with facilitation, to discuss and mutually agree to a reasonable course of action to return to progressing the intended steps to realize the broad objectives that have been so painstakingly developed by citizens of this community over the last several years. Some concerned citizens have already joined in such an effort, but this can greatly benefit from larger numbers getting involved - and soon!
• Recruit and support viable candidates to run for the two Port Commission seats that are up for election next year [2009]; From District 1: Scott Walker
Scott was raised in Montana and served as a Marine in Vietnam. He moved to Whatcom County in 1985 and has three children. Scott has served on the Port Commission since 1991. An ARCO employee for 28 years, Scott retired in 2002. He serves on other local boards, and chose the Port Commission as a way to take responsibility in the community where he lives.
From District 2; Doug SmithDoug was born and raised in Whatcom County. After "retiring" from Anvil Corporation in 1990, Doug began Com-Steel, L.L.C., a design-construct steel building firm he and his partners currently own and operate. He joined the Port Commission because he felt it was a good way to work directly with the community to promote economic viability and increase access to the Port's publicly owned facilities. Doug has been a Port Commissioner since 1994.
Citizens should know that the Port of Bellingham is governed by three nonpartisan commissioners who come from the 3 different districts in Whatcom County and are elected in countywide elections. They supposedly oversee policy decisions at the Port, but the Port's Executive Director, Jim Darling -the real puppeteer behind the curtain- oversees all day-to-day operations of the entire Port. Very competent Division directors and managers who oversee individual Port operations, all report to Mr Darling and are expected to carry out his bidding. In total, about 85 people are employed at the Port of Bellingham, one of 75 such Port Authorities in this State that are primarily charged with economic development responsibilities to create benefits for the people of Washington using the taxing authority with which it is entrusted.
Voters don't decide issues, they decide who will decide issues. - George Will
• Support a public initiative to increase the number of Port Commissioners from three to five, with the additional seats being elected as At-Large representatives, with no more than two Commissioners coming from any one District. This ought to provide better representation of, as well as accountability to citizens, plus involve some badly needed new blood.
• Make clear to the Port of Bellingham that citizens of Whatcom County expect greatly improved cooperation and collaboration with other municipalities than currently exists; that the idea of separate entities dedicated to enhance certain desirable objectives -like economic development- was the intent of Washington's founders, not another layer of feudal bureaucracy that pursues its own selfish interests at the expense of the greater public good. No more Lilliputian responses to Gulliver problems!
• Register a public outcry at the autocratic, self-serving management style of the Port's current Executive Director, the consistent lack of credible feedback to public questions, and the entrenched culture of command and control and non-transparency in its operations. It boggles the mind that better leadership can't be provided at the Port than what Mr Darling has demonstrated, despite his excellent technical and management credentials. It is in the role of true leadership in dealing with ambitious and visionary projects that we need the most improvement.
-------------------
A few concluding comments:
• Port Mission Statement
The Port of Bellingham’s mission is to fulfill the essential transportation and economic development needs of the region while providing leadership in maintaining Greater Whatcom’s overall economic vitality through the development of comprehensive facilities, programs, and services. In so doing, the Port pledges to work cooperatively with other entities — within the framework of community standards — and to be a responsible trustee of our publicly owned assets.
Sounds good. Is this being done?
• Redevelopment Partners
The successful redevelopment of Bellingham's waterfront can only be done with authentic and lasting partnerships. To date those partnerships have been strong and reflect the commitment of the many stakeholders with an interest in a successful outcome.
These partnerships include:
Strong and ongoing financial support from the State of Washington for significant portions of cleanup costs, demolition costs and early development actions.
Federal support for early development actions and transportation improvements.
Regulatory agencies such as the State Departments of Ecology, Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife, and the federal Corps of Engineers, and many others;
Local industry and labor such as the ILWU, real estate community and business leaders;
Lummi Nation and Nooksack Tribe;
Development partnerships with Western Washington University and the Bellingham-Whatcom Housing Authority;
And involvement by all of the area's educational institutions.
Why no mention of the City of Bellingham?
Doesn't the Port consider the City a partner?
Is this intentional or just another Freudian slip?
• The third Port Commissioner, Jim Jorgenson, is the relative newcomer and seems to have a more balanced perspective toward the Port's responsibilities than the other two, who have served since 1991 and 1992 respectively - too long a time in my view.
Jim Jorgensen has lived in Whatcom County for more than 40 years. In 1994, he retired after 30 years of teaching science at Blaine High School. Jim has owned and operated Jim's Salmon Charter in Blaine for nearly 40 years. He is married with two adult children. Jim began serving on the Port Commission in 2004. He chose this community role because he wanted to be involved with the diverse operations of the Port and in communicating the Port's role with the community.
• ROLE OF U.S. PUBLIC PORTS
U.S. public ports provide the vital link for getting goods to the nation's consumers and in transporting U.S.-made products overseas for export.
In the U.S., 126 public seaport agencies have jurisdiction over 185 public ports (some agencies control multiple ports). These ports are located along the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf and Great Lakes coasts, as well as in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Established by enactments of state government, public port authorities develop, manage and promote the flow of waterborne commerce and act as catalysts for economic growth. These agencies include port authorities, special-purpose navigation districts, multi-state authorities and departments of state, county and municipal governments.
Public ports develop and maintain terminal facilities for intermodal transfer of cargo between ships, barges, trucks and railroads, and for ferry and cruise ship passenger loading and unloading.
In addition to maritime functions, port authority activities may also include airports, bridges, tunnels, commuter rail systems, inland river or shallow-draft barge terminals, industrial parks, Foreign Trade Zones, world trade centers, terminal or short-line railroads, shipyards, dredging, marinas, and various public recreational facilities.
Public ports also play a critical role in our national security, peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts around the world. In particular, ports support the mobilization, deployment and resupply of U.S. military forces.
Ports on the coasts and inland waterways provide a total of about 3,200 berths for deep-draft ships.
WORLD TRADE
Deep-draft ports, which accommodate oceangoing vessels, move 99 percent of U.S. overseas trade by volume and 61 percent by value, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
The U.S. Department of Transportation projects that, compared to 2001, total freight moved through U.S. ports will increase by more than 50 percent by 2020 and the volume of international container traffic will more than double.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
Public ports generate significant local and regional economic growth, including creation of jobs. Total direct and indirect annual impact of the U.S. port industry includes:
4.9 million jobs, accounting for $44 billion in personal income (Martin Associates, Lancaster PA, 2002);
Nearly $2.9 trillion in international trade for an all-encompassing range of goods and services, with 1.4 billion tons, valued at $1.3 trillion, in waterborne imports and exports alone (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006);
More than 1 billion tons of domestic goods valued at over $312 billion moved via water in the U.S. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001);
Nearly $21.4 billion in U.S. Customs duty revenues in fiscal 2006, representing 70 percent of all Customs duties collected (U.S. Customs & Border Protection, 2006).
MAJOR ISSUES
Seaport security
Navigation maintenance and new construction
Freight congestion/intermodal road/rail access
Marine facility expansion and modernization
Coastal environmental protection
Ability to secure funding and financing
Competitiveness and diversified revenue sources
Land acquisition and site development
PORT INFRASTRUCTURE
In the last 60 years, U.S. ports have invested more than $33 billion in capital projects to enhance their facilities. In the foreseeable future, ports are projected to spend an estimated $2.1 billion more annually. In addition to the economic impacts already mentioned, public ports serve as coastal environ-mental stewards and are incubators for industrial, manufacturing, commercial and retail businesses.
CRUISE INDUSTRY
The fast-growing cruise industry is dependent upon public ports. The Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) estimates that cruise passenger embarkations at U.S. ports totaled 8.6 million in 2005, an increase of 21 percent over 2003. U.S. ports continue to lead the world in cruise embarkations, handling approximately 75 percent of all global cruise passengers.
The total economic impact of the cruise lines, passengers, and their U.S. suppliers in 2005 reached $32.4 billion, according to a study commissioned by CLIA and conducted by Business Research and Economic Advisors (BREA).
The U.S. cruise industry's impact now extends well beyond its traditional South Florida base, with cruises departing or calling on 43 ports in North America. There is also a positive economic impact in all 50 states since over 75 percent of cruise industry expenditures are made with U.S. businesses, including airlines, travel agents, food and beverage suppliers, and ship maintenance and refurbishers.
PORT SECURITY
The U.S. Coast Guard in 2003 projected that port facilities would need $5.4 billion to pay for security requirements over the next 10 years. Since 9/11/01, America's seaports have invested hundreds of millions of dollars of their own money into facility security enhancements while the federal government has provided ports approximately $876 million for security funding. For FY'07, Congress appropriated an additional $210 million for the Department of Homeland Security's Port Security Grant fund, although $9 million is for administrating the program.
NAVIGATION CHANNELS
Since 1789, the federal government has authorized navigation channel improvement projects. The General Survey Act of 1824 established the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' role as the agency responsible for the navigation system. Since then, ports have worked in partnership with the Corps of Engineers to maintain waterside access to port facilities.
Regular maintenance dredging is required by more than 90 percent of the nation's 50 busiest ports.
More than 300 million cubic yards of dredged material are removed from navigation channels each year. Another 100 million cubic yards are dredged from berths and private terminals. The total, 400 million cubic yards of dredged material, would form a four-lane highway, 20 feet deep, stretching from New York to Los Angeles.
CARGO
Ports handle a variety of cargoes, including bulk, or loose, cargo; breakbulk cargo in packages such as bundles, crates, barrels and pallets; liquid bulk cargo like petroleum; dry bulk such as grain; and general cargo in steel boxes called containers, which are measured in 20-foot equivalent units, or TEUs. Leading commodities shipped for domestic and foreign trade through U.S. ports include:
Crude petroleum and petroleum products, including oil and gasoline;
Chemicals and related products, such as fertilizer;
Bituminous, metallurgical and steam coal;
Food and farm products, including wheat and wheat flour, corn, soybeans, rice, and cotton;
Forest products, such as lumber and wood chips;
Iron and steel;
Soil, sand, gravel, rock and stone;
Automobiles, auto parts and machinery; and,
Clothing, shoes, electronics and toys.
Learn more about ports from the American Association of Port Authorities.
------------------------------------
Frequently Asked Questions
How many ports are in Washington State?
There are 75 ports in the state, located in 33 of the 39 counties. Currently, 69 ports are members of the Washington Public Ports Association, along with 108 associate members. Visit our port map to see where the many ports are located.
Can you have a port without water?
In a word, yes! For instance, many airports are port districts. The primary purpose of a port district in Washington State is economic development - and you don't need a navigable waterway to do that. The Legislature has given ports broad authority to promote economic development - they can build and operate airports, marine terminals, marinas, railroads, and industrial parks, and in some cases, promote tourism.
Where do Washington's ports rank nationally?
Washington has the world's largest locally controlled port system. Though we only comprise two percent of the world's population, we handle seven percent of the country's exports and six percent of imports. The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma comprise the nation's second largest "load center", behind the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
What are the state's leading exports and imports?
Washington's leading exports are a terrific example of the state's changing economy: forest products, airplanes and aircraft parts continue to comprise a large percentage of exports from the state. But now, they're joined by high-tech products, computers, computer parts, and software.
Imports also vary. Washington is a major importer of forest products, high-tech equipment, and aircraft engines; but cars and auto parts are now key imports as well.
How do ports use my taxes?
Ports use tax revenues to invest in infrastructure designed to grow the economy - ports serve as economic engines for their communities. Examples of port investments include marine terminals, airport facilities, improved rail infrastructure, industrial parks, and marinas. Ports then lease facilities or charge a fee for their use, using the new facilities to generate jobs and economic development.
---------------------------
"A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for." - Grace Murray Hopper
Freedom or Free Dumb?
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."
-Thomas Jefferson, Author of the declaration of Independence and 3rd President of the United States.
----------------------------------------
As Americans we pride ourselves on the freedoms our Constitution guarantees us, and that is good.
But, are we using those 'freedoms' as best we can?
For example, did our founders intend to encourage the practice of 'freedoms' like these?
• Freedom to remain uneducated, untrained and unskilled
• Freedom to remain indolent, ignorant and uninvolved in civic affairs
• Freedom to exploit divisive ideological games in the pursuit of power
• Freedom not to vote, run for office or not expect the best from those who do
• Freedom to expect good things will somehow be provided to us because we deserve them without working for them
• Freedom to ignore changes in the world's political, climactic and economic conditions
• Freedom to even try to comprehend the consequences which will result from consistently practicing the above 'freedoms'
I'm sorry I have come to feel this way, and apologize to those who do not deserve to be so categorized.
But, to a large extent these observations contain a ring of truth which we are 'free' to ignore at our peril!
If you don't agree with this conclusion, then by all means try to disprove me.
There is no 'free' lunch and there never has been, but this has been largely masked in our land of relative plenty.
----------------
I have been so very fortunate to have been born and raised during the last 70 years, which history may prove were our halcyon days as a Country.
Too young to serve in WWII, privileged with a hard working family with good values, educated in a range of subjects at a time of demand for such learning, employed by several well-managed companies who provided excellent products and services, surrounded by a loving family and friends, sustained by a faith that encouraged an ecumenical, humane approach to life, and blessed with good physical and mental health, I fully recognize that mine has been a life of fantastic opportunity, enjoyment and achievement.
For these things I am truly most grateful.
But looking outside myself, I must conclude the promise of such a life seems now more difficult to obtain for a great many people.
Difficult, but certainly not impossible.
There are still great opportunities in this world, but these are no longer available to those who whose main effort is wishful thinking!
That is why I am concerned about which of our 'freedoms' we choose to emphasize.
I hope that amidst the myriad distractions, that more people -particularly the young- will begin to get back to those same basics that have brought this great land to its enviable status in our era.
That the shining hope which America represents is based upon exercising our freedom to emphasize those principles which lead to enlightenment, achievement that is beneficial to all, awareness of what true sustainability entails, and a dedication to long-term peaceful prosperity.
In the words of Winston Churchill [and more recently, Ben Affleck] , I have also come to the conclusion that we really have no choice but to drastically change from a defeatist attitude based upon fear, anger, greed and ignorance to some standard that is much better suited to us as a country and a people!
"It is the Fear and the Tyranny Up With Which We Dare No Longer Put"
------------------------
-Thomas Jefferson, Author of the declaration of Independence and 3rd President of the United States.
----------------------------------------
As Americans we pride ourselves on the freedoms our Constitution guarantees us, and that is good.
But, are we using those 'freedoms' as best we can?
For example, did our founders intend to encourage the practice of 'freedoms' like these?
• Freedom to remain uneducated, untrained and unskilled
• Freedom to remain indolent, ignorant and uninvolved in civic affairs
• Freedom to exploit divisive ideological games in the pursuit of power
• Freedom not to vote, run for office or not expect the best from those who do
• Freedom to expect good things will somehow be provided to us because we deserve them without working for them
• Freedom to ignore changes in the world's political, climactic and economic conditions
• Freedom to even try to comprehend the consequences which will result from consistently practicing the above 'freedoms'
I'm sorry I have come to feel this way, and apologize to those who do not deserve to be so categorized.
But, to a large extent these observations contain a ring of truth which we are 'free' to ignore at our peril!
If you don't agree with this conclusion, then by all means try to disprove me.
There is no 'free' lunch and there never has been, but this has been largely masked in our land of relative plenty.
----------------
I have been so very fortunate to have been born and raised during the last 70 years, which history may prove were our halcyon days as a Country.
Too young to serve in WWII, privileged with a hard working family with good values, educated in a range of subjects at a time of demand for such learning, employed by several well-managed companies who provided excellent products and services, surrounded by a loving family and friends, sustained by a faith that encouraged an ecumenical, humane approach to life, and blessed with good physical and mental health, I fully recognize that mine has been a life of fantastic opportunity, enjoyment and achievement.
For these things I am truly most grateful.
But looking outside myself, I must conclude the promise of such a life seems now more difficult to obtain for a great many people.
Difficult, but certainly not impossible.
There are still great opportunities in this world, but these are no longer available to those who whose main effort is wishful thinking!
That is why I am concerned about which of our 'freedoms' we choose to emphasize.
I hope that amidst the myriad distractions, that more people -particularly the young- will begin to get back to those same basics that have brought this great land to its enviable status in our era.
That the shining hope which America represents is based upon exercising our freedom to emphasize those principles which lead to enlightenment, achievement that is beneficial to all, awareness of what true sustainability entails, and a dedication to long-term peaceful prosperity.
In the words of Winston Churchill [and more recently, Ben Affleck] , I have also come to the conclusion that we really have no choice but to drastically change from a defeatist attitude based upon fear, anger, greed and ignorance to some standard that is much better suited to us as a country and a people!
"It is the Fear and the Tyranny Up With Which We Dare No Longer Put"
------------------------
Saturday, November 15, 2008
The Wild Wordsmith of Wasilla
It isn't often that I am tempted to print someone else's writing without adding my own comments, but yesterday provided an exception, as reprinted from the blog below from the New York Times:
http://cavett.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/the-wild-wordsmith-of-wasilla/?ei=5070&emc=eta1
November 14, 2008, 10:00 PM
------------------------------------
The Wild Wordsmith of Wasilla
Electronic devices dislike me. There is never a day when something isn’t ailing. Three out of these five implements — answering machine, fax machine, printer, phone and electric can-opener — all dropped dead on me in the past few days.
Now something has gone wrong with all three television sets. They will only get Sarah Palin.
I can play a kind of Alaskan roulette. Any random channel clicked on by the remote brings up that eager face, with its continuing assaults on the English Lang.
There she is with Larry and Matt and just about everyone else but Dr. Phil (so far). If she is not yet on “Judge Judy,” I suspect it can’t be for lack of trying.
What have we done to deserve this, this media blitz that the astute Andrea Mitchell has labeled “The Victory Tour”?
I suppose it will be recorded as among political history’s ironies that Palin was brought in to help John McCain. I can’t blame feminists who might draw amusement from the fact that a woman managed to both cripple the male she was supposed to help while gleaning an almost Elvis-sized following for herself. Mac loses, Sarah wins big-time was the gist of headlines.
I feel a little sorry for John. He aimed low and missed.
What will ambitious politicos learn from this? That frayed syntax, bungled grammar and run-on sentences that ramble on long after thought has given out completely are a candidate’s valuable traits?
And how much more of all that lies in our future if God points her to those open-a-crack doors she refers to? The ones she resolves to splinter and bulldoze her way through upon glimpsing the opportunities, revealed from on high.
What on earth are our underpaid teachers, laboring in the vineyards of education, supposed to tell students about the following sentence, committed by the serial syntax-killer from Wasilla High and gleaned by my colleague Maureen Dowd for preservation for those who ask, “How was it she talked?”
My concern has been the atrocities there in Darfur and the relevance to me with that issue as we spoke about Africa and some of the countries there that were kind of the people succumbing to the dictators and the corruption of some collapsed governments on the continent, the relevance was Alaska’s investment in Darfur with some of our permanent fund dollars.
And, she concluded, “never, ever did I talk about, well, gee, is it a country or a continent, I just don’t know about this issue.”
It’s admittedly a rare gift to produce a paragraph in which whole clumps of words could be removed without noticeably affecting the sense, if any.
(A cynic might wonder if Wasilla High School’s English and geography departments are draped in black.)
(How many contradictory and lying answers about The Empress’s New Clothes have you collected? I’ve got, so far, only four. Your additional ones welcome.)
Matt Lauer asked her about her daughter’s pregnancy and what went into the decision about how to handle it. Her “answer” did not contain the words “daughter,” “pregnancy,” “what to do about it” or, in fact, any two consecutive words related to Lauer’s query.
I saw this as a brief clip, so I don’t know whether Lauer recovered sufficiently to follow up, or could only sit there, covered in disbelief. If it happens again, Matt, I bequeath you what I heard myself say once to an elusive guest who stiffed me that way: “Were you able to hear any part of my question?”
At the risk of offending, well, you, for example, I worry about just what it is her hollering fans see in her that makes her the ideal choice to deal with the world’s problems: collapsed economies, global warming, hostile enemies and our current and far-flung twin battlefronts, either of which may prove to be the world’s second “30 Years’ War.”
Has there been a poll to see if the Sarah-ites are numbered among that baffling 26 percent of our population who, despite everything, still maintain that President George has done a heckuva job?
A woman in one of Palin’s crowds praised her for being “a mom like me … who thinks the way I do” and added, for ill measure, “That’s what I want in the White House.” Fine, but in what capacity?
Do this lady’s like-minded folk wonder how, say, Jefferson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, et al (add your own favorites) managed so well without being soccer moms? Without being whizzes in the kitchen, whipping up moose soufflés? Without executing and wounding wolves from the air and without promoting that sad, threadbare hoax — sexual abstinence — as the answer to the sizzling loins of the young?
(In passing, has anyone observed that hunting animals with high-powered guns could only be defined as sport if both sides were equally armed?)
I’d love to hear what you think has caused such an alarming number of our fellow Americans to fall into the Sarah Swoon.
Could the willingness to crown one who seems to have no first language have anything to do with the oft-lamented fact that we seem to be alone among nations in having made the word “intellectual” an insult? (And yet…and yet…we did elect Obama. Surely not despite his brains.)
Sorry about all of the foregoing, as if you didn’t get enough of the lady every day in every medium but smoke signals.
I do not wish her ill. But I also don’t wish us ill. I hope she continues to find happiness in Alaska.
May I confess that upon first seeing her, I liked her looks? With the sound off, she presents a not uncomely frontal appearance.
But now, as the Brits say, “I’ll be glad to see the back of her.”
**********
PS: Lagniappe for English mavens: A friend of mine has made you laugh greatly over the years. David Lloyd is a comic genius (I can hear you wince, David) who wrote for “The Mary Tyler Moore Show,” “Cheers,” “Taxi,” “Frasier,” Jack Paar, Johnny Carson and me, not necessarily in that order. As a language fan, he has preserved many gems for posterity in his prodigious memory bank. Here comes my favorite:
A Navy lecturer was talking about some directives on the blackboard that he said to do something about, “except for these here ones with the asteroids in back of.”
Even David couldn’t make that up.
----------------------------------
About Dick Cavett
The host of “The Dick Cavett Show” — which aired on ABC from 1968 to 1975 and on public television from 1977 to 1982 — Dick Cavett is also the coauthor of two books, “Cavett” (1974) and “Eye on Cavett” (1983). He has appeared on Broadway in “Otherwise Engaged” “Into the Woods” and as narrator in “The Rocky Horror Show,” and has made guest appearances in movies and on TV shows including “Forrest Gump” and “The Simpsons.” Mr. Cavett lives in New York City and Montauk, N.Y.
http://cavett.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/the-wild-wordsmith-of-wasilla/?ei=5070&emc=eta1
November 14, 2008, 10:00 PM
------------------------------------
The Wild Wordsmith of Wasilla
Electronic devices dislike me. There is never a day when something isn’t ailing. Three out of these five implements — answering machine, fax machine, printer, phone and electric can-opener — all dropped dead on me in the past few days.
Now something has gone wrong with all three television sets. They will only get Sarah Palin.
I can play a kind of Alaskan roulette. Any random channel clicked on by the remote brings up that eager face, with its continuing assaults on the English Lang.
There she is with Larry and Matt and just about everyone else but Dr. Phil (so far). If she is not yet on “Judge Judy,” I suspect it can’t be for lack of trying.
What have we done to deserve this, this media blitz that the astute Andrea Mitchell has labeled “The Victory Tour”?
I suppose it will be recorded as among political history’s ironies that Palin was brought in to help John McCain. I can’t blame feminists who might draw amusement from the fact that a woman managed to both cripple the male she was supposed to help while gleaning an almost Elvis-sized following for herself. Mac loses, Sarah wins big-time was the gist of headlines.
I feel a little sorry for John. He aimed low and missed.
What will ambitious politicos learn from this? That frayed syntax, bungled grammar and run-on sentences that ramble on long after thought has given out completely are a candidate’s valuable traits?
And how much more of all that lies in our future if God points her to those open-a-crack doors she refers to? The ones she resolves to splinter and bulldoze her way through upon glimpsing the opportunities, revealed from on high.
What on earth are our underpaid teachers, laboring in the vineyards of education, supposed to tell students about the following sentence, committed by the serial syntax-killer from Wasilla High and gleaned by my colleague Maureen Dowd for preservation for those who ask, “How was it she talked?”
My concern has been the atrocities there in Darfur and the relevance to me with that issue as we spoke about Africa and some of the countries there that were kind of the people succumbing to the dictators and the corruption of some collapsed governments on the continent, the relevance was Alaska’s investment in Darfur with some of our permanent fund dollars.
And, she concluded, “never, ever did I talk about, well, gee, is it a country or a continent, I just don’t know about this issue.”
It’s admittedly a rare gift to produce a paragraph in which whole clumps of words could be removed without noticeably affecting the sense, if any.
(A cynic might wonder if Wasilla High School’s English and geography departments are draped in black.)
(How many contradictory and lying answers about The Empress’s New Clothes have you collected? I’ve got, so far, only four. Your additional ones welcome.)
Matt Lauer asked her about her daughter’s pregnancy and what went into the decision about how to handle it. Her “answer” did not contain the words “daughter,” “pregnancy,” “what to do about it” or, in fact, any two consecutive words related to Lauer’s query.
I saw this as a brief clip, so I don’t know whether Lauer recovered sufficiently to follow up, or could only sit there, covered in disbelief. If it happens again, Matt, I bequeath you what I heard myself say once to an elusive guest who stiffed me that way: “Were you able to hear any part of my question?”
At the risk of offending, well, you, for example, I worry about just what it is her hollering fans see in her that makes her the ideal choice to deal with the world’s problems: collapsed economies, global warming, hostile enemies and our current and far-flung twin battlefronts, either of which may prove to be the world’s second “30 Years’ War.”
Has there been a poll to see if the Sarah-ites are numbered among that baffling 26 percent of our population who, despite everything, still maintain that President George has done a heckuva job?
A woman in one of Palin’s crowds praised her for being “a mom like me … who thinks the way I do” and added, for ill measure, “That’s what I want in the White House.” Fine, but in what capacity?
Do this lady’s like-minded folk wonder how, say, Jefferson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, et al (add your own favorites) managed so well without being soccer moms? Without being whizzes in the kitchen, whipping up moose soufflés? Without executing and wounding wolves from the air and without promoting that sad, threadbare hoax — sexual abstinence — as the answer to the sizzling loins of the young?
(In passing, has anyone observed that hunting animals with high-powered guns could only be defined as sport if both sides were equally armed?)
I’d love to hear what you think has caused such an alarming number of our fellow Americans to fall into the Sarah Swoon.
Could the willingness to crown one who seems to have no first language have anything to do with the oft-lamented fact that we seem to be alone among nations in having made the word “intellectual” an insult? (And yet…and yet…we did elect Obama. Surely not despite his brains.)
Sorry about all of the foregoing, as if you didn’t get enough of the lady every day in every medium but smoke signals.
I do not wish her ill. But I also don’t wish us ill. I hope she continues to find happiness in Alaska.
May I confess that upon first seeing her, I liked her looks? With the sound off, she presents a not uncomely frontal appearance.
But now, as the Brits say, “I’ll be glad to see the back of her.”
**********
PS: Lagniappe for English mavens: A friend of mine has made you laugh greatly over the years. David Lloyd is a comic genius (I can hear you wince, David) who wrote for “The Mary Tyler Moore Show,” “Cheers,” “Taxi,” “Frasier,” Jack Paar, Johnny Carson and me, not necessarily in that order. As a language fan, he has preserved many gems for posterity in his prodigious memory bank. Here comes my favorite:
A Navy lecturer was talking about some directives on the blackboard that he said to do something about, “except for these here ones with the asteroids in back of.”
Even David couldn’t make that up.
----------------------------------
About Dick Cavett
The host of “The Dick Cavett Show” — which aired on ABC from 1968 to 1975 and on public television from 1977 to 1982 — Dick Cavett is also the coauthor of two books, “Cavett” (1974) and “Eye on Cavett” (1983). He has appeared on Broadway in “Otherwise Engaged” “Into the Woods” and as narrator in “The Rocky Horror Show,” and has made guest appearances in movies and on TV shows including “Forrest Gump” and “The Simpsons.” Mr. Cavett lives in New York City and Montauk, N.Y.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
