Words of wisdom from an ancient Greek Philosopher, Aristotle.
Think about them before reading further.
'A likely impossibility is always preferable to an unconvincing possibility'.
'The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold'.
'Bring your desires down to your present means. Increase them only when your increased means permit'.
------------------------------
First a couple of definitions:
According to the online free dictionary, definition #5, a GAP means
a. A conspicuous difference or imbalance; a disparity: a gap between revenue and spending; the widening gap between rich and poor.
b. A problematic situation resulting from such a disparity: the budget gap; the technology gap.
Googling 'Gundecking', produces this definition;
In the modern Navy, falsifying reports, records and the like is often referred to as "gundecking." The origin of the term is somewhat obscure, but at the risk of "gundecking," here are two plausible explanations for its modern usage.
• The deck below the upper deck on a British sailing ship-of-war was called the gun deck although it carried no guns. This false deck may have been constructed to deceive enemies as to the amount of armament carried, thus the "gundeck" was a falsification.
• A more plausible explanation may stem from shortcuts taken by early Midshipmen when doing their navigation lessons. Each Mid was supposed to take sun lines at noon and star sights at night and then go below to the gun deck, work out their calculations and show them to the navigator. Certain of these young men, however, had a special formula for getting the correct answers. They would note the noon or last position on the quarter-deck traverse board and determine the approximate current position by dead reckoning plotting. Armed with this information, they proceeded to the gun deck to "gundeck" their navigation homework by simply working backwards from the dead reckoning position.
-----------------------------
Now, with all that preparation, does anyone remember Pete Kremen's 'State of the County' speech, way back in early June of 2008?
Listening to that sounded like everything was hunky-dory, peachy keen and superfine', didn't it to you?
What happened?
About 5 weeks later, Pete surprised the County Council and began what he called a 'hiring freeze', basing that decision on an impending financial crunch for the County.
Since then. the rhetoric has grown even more dire, with predictions of upwards of a $5 million shortage in the budget now being prepared.
At first, I thought this was just Pete's way of informing the County Council that there was no money available for the many important water projects they had deemed important to again prioritize and move forward.
Then, his cautionary pronouncements seemed to also be oriented to damning the proposed Mental Health Tax measure with faint praise.
But, surprisingly, that 0.1% sales tax increase did pass -and stay passed when Pete decided not to veto it!
Think maybe he saw that as a way to gain more revenues AND somewhat reduce the General Fund pressures by doing nothing himself?
That's what seasoned Kremen watchers may rightly conclude, which just adds to his mystique as 'Teflon Pete'.
In the face of these suddenly adverse developments, we are now faced with an expensive and -at best problematic- proposal by Pete to reconvey 8400 acres of DNR forest lands in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Where does this fit in the budget?
The County Council will have to rationalize for itself where this particular scheme fits into the greater scheme of things during their budget deliberations.
But here's a hint, converting revenue-producing forest administered by a State agency into a revenue-losing park administered by the County at additional cost would seem to be a no-brainer decision to most of us.
That is particularly true when the minor detail of protecting the Lake Whatcom Watershed could be compromised in the process.
But, that is at risk, if for other reason than no details regarding either what is intended or how these will be funded have been seriously discussed.
Even the 'Citizens' Committee, hand-picked by Pete to publicly vet this idea, was not given sufficient details or alternatives to evaluate the idea with any degree of objective confidence.
That is more than sad; it is borderline criminal!
But, Pete knows that folks really love their PARKS around here, never mind they will require more TAXES!
I believe that is the game; get people -particularly those not living in Bellingham- wanting something, so that later it's harder for them to say no to more taxes to pay for it.
Hopefully, enough members of the County Council will see through Pete's scheme to make sure it doesn't sail through without serious questioning.
And, right after the several important questions about 'what is proposed'? are answered, the enabling question of 'where will the money come from'? must also be answered. Likely, there would be no threat of veto if four of them wanted to raise THAT tax!
It's very interesting that the Council is being presented with an expensive proposal that many would term a 'frill', at the very time they are being told there is no money - even for essentials!
How'd you like to sit in on those work sessions?
Why don't you?
For those interested, the CITY Council has scheduled a brief work session to discuss the Reconveyance to Park proposal with a small panel representing diverse views.
This is planned to happen next Monday, August 4 about 1 PM in the City Hall Council chambers.
Be there if you can.
-----------------------------
One last definition:
'Bamboozle' means:
'In today's Navy, when you intentionally deceive someone, usually as a joke, you are said to have bamboozled them. The word was used in the days of sail also, but the intent was not hilarity. Bamboozle meant to deceive a passing vessel as to your ship's origin or nationality by flying an ensign other than your own -- a common practice of pirates.'
Is this proposal an old deception, or just a modern joke?
You get to decide!
---------------
'Humor is the only test of gravity, and gravity of humor; for a subject which will not bear raillery is suspicious, and a jest which will not bear serious examination is false wit.' - Aristotle
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Adapting Woodstock Farm: Home of Inspiration Point
A few years ago, the City was offered the rare and fortuitous opportunity to acquire -at well below market cost- a scenic tract adjacent to Chuckanut Bay and our southern City Limits. I'm pleased to say we were able to make that purchase with the help of the owners and grants from outside sources.
I thought then as I do now, that Woodstock Farm was a gem that future residents and visitors would enjoy immensely, and particularly for its scenic tranquillity and connection to nature. While our initial challenge was funding the purchase, now maintaining the property and determining how best to use it have become the main focus.
Recently, I was delighted to have been invited to participate in a brainstorming session along with about 50 or so others who represented diverse backgrounds and perspectives. I believe such an approach is a productive one that is likely to result in a plan that will respect the inherent qualities of this unusual site and be careful about how it is developed and used.
The product of this 'charrette' is now in the process of being summarized and depicted in sketches and conceptual drawings, which can then be used to guide further planning. I suspect future plans may be folded into some sort of a 'Master Plan' that may be adopted and developed in phases, each with an associated cost and incremental designed use.
But, the initial phase is what can reasonably be done now that also respects existing access and usage limitations on what is appropriate and affordable.
My former City Council colleague, Dr Grant Deger, who also attended the brainstorming session, made a comment that seemed to resonate with everyone present. When asked what had convinced him that Woodstock Farm ought to be acquired, he said simply, 'the tranquillity'.
What an unusually succinct and accurate statement! Just think about what practical limits that might entail. When is tranquillity impaired? To me it means 'less is more' when trying to decide what level of development is desired. Peaceful uses are to be preferred. Maybe not too many motorized vehicles. Quiet Interpretive trails that carefully preserve sensitive plant and biota habitat. Places like Inspiration Point, where one can actually become inspired! Day use only. Quiet meeting places for Council retreats, small corporate or non-profits meetings, studies of history & local culture and lore.
That's the kind of place this has been, is now, and probably ought to remain.
Even trail connections, as important as they are, need to be done very carefully to preserve what is becoming the rarest of things -tranquillity!
I hope something close to these concepts is the course of action that finally gets adopted for Woodstock Farm, because that is what will stand the best chance of preserving its essential nature.
But only time will tell.
-----------------------------
For those who are up to a few more words on this subject, the following references to the Proposed Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan dated May 12, 2008, also apply:
From Chapter 6 -Recommendations:
Paragraph 6.4 - Special Use Sites, under Specific Recommendations:
• Develop master plan for Woodstock Farm to include parking and access plan, maintenance plan, hand-carry boat landing site [no launching] and other improvements as feasible.
• Provide additional environmental education opportunities including a bird guide, native plant guide, interpretive signage, natural history, and/or other educational and stewardship related activities or programs to promote the value of the natural environment throughout the park system, distributed primarily in select open space areas or in conjunction with specific unique habitat features.
Other general language about proper use of sensitive areas can be seen under Paragraph 6.5 - Open Space and Paragraph 6.6 - Trails that also serve as guidelines for Woodstock Farm.
Appendix A 'Park Classifications' further amplifies these guidelines;
Under 'Special Use Sites':
General Description: .....Unique Sites - generally a single use, but smaller than a regional park and not necessarily of a significance that might draw from a larger regional base.
Acquisition Guidelines: As specialized, single use facilities, special use parks should be selected based on the function that they are intended to serve. They should be situated such that sufficient infrastructure could be developed or already exists to support the intended use, including major arterials, buses and other mass transit capabilities as necessary. They should also have access to multi-modal connections.
Development Guidelines: Special use parks should be developed to maximize their intended uses. They generally do NOT include the same activities as those found in other park types. Activities provided will depend solely on the type of intended uses for the park and the influence of the community or region as expressed through a public process......
In a real sense, we are lucky that Woodstock Farm pretty clearly qualifies as a special use park, because it may inherently require a lower level of funding to develop and operate than a more heavily and actively used Community, Regional or Neighborhood Park might.
We are doubly fortunate that what Woodstock Farm offers is -in a word- tranquillity!
-----------------
I thought then as I do now, that Woodstock Farm was a gem that future residents and visitors would enjoy immensely, and particularly for its scenic tranquillity and connection to nature. While our initial challenge was funding the purchase, now maintaining the property and determining how best to use it have become the main focus.
Recently, I was delighted to have been invited to participate in a brainstorming session along with about 50 or so others who represented diverse backgrounds and perspectives. I believe such an approach is a productive one that is likely to result in a plan that will respect the inherent qualities of this unusual site and be careful about how it is developed and used.
The product of this 'charrette' is now in the process of being summarized and depicted in sketches and conceptual drawings, which can then be used to guide further planning. I suspect future plans may be folded into some sort of a 'Master Plan' that may be adopted and developed in phases, each with an associated cost and incremental designed use.
But, the initial phase is what can reasonably be done now that also respects existing access and usage limitations on what is appropriate and affordable.
My former City Council colleague, Dr Grant Deger, who also attended the brainstorming session, made a comment that seemed to resonate with everyone present. When asked what had convinced him that Woodstock Farm ought to be acquired, he said simply, 'the tranquillity'.
What an unusually succinct and accurate statement! Just think about what practical limits that might entail. When is tranquillity impaired? To me it means 'less is more' when trying to decide what level of development is desired. Peaceful uses are to be preferred. Maybe not too many motorized vehicles. Quiet Interpretive trails that carefully preserve sensitive plant and biota habitat. Places like Inspiration Point, where one can actually become inspired! Day use only. Quiet meeting places for Council retreats, small corporate or non-profits meetings, studies of history & local culture and lore.
That's the kind of place this has been, is now, and probably ought to remain.
Even trail connections, as important as they are, need to be done very carefully to preserve what is becoming the rarest of things -tranquillity!
I hope something close to these concepts is the course of action that finally gets adopted for Woodstock Farm, because that is what will stand the best chance of preserving its essential nature.
But only time will tell.
-----------------------------
For those who are up to a few more words on this subject, the following references to the Proposed Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan dated May 12, 2008, also apply:
From Chapter 6 -Recommendations:
Paragraph 6.4 - Special Use Sites, under Specific Recommendations:
• Develop master plan for Woodstock Farm to include parking and access plan, maintenance plan, hand-carry boat landing site [no launching] and other improvements as feasible.
• Provide additional environmental education opportunities including a bird guide, native plant guide, interpretive signage, natural history, and/or other educational and stewardship related activities or programs to promote the value of the natural environment throughout the park system, distributed primarily in select open space areas or in conjunction with specific unique habitat features.
Other general language about proper use of sensitive areas can be seen under Paragraph 6.5 - Open Space and Paragraph 6.6 - Trails that also serve as guidelines for Woodstock Farm.
Appendix A 'Park Classifications' further amplifies these guidelines;
Under 'Special Use Sites':
General Description: .....Unique Sites - generally a single use, but smaller than a regional park and not necessarily of a significance that might draw from a larger regional base.
Acquisition Guidelines: As specialized, single use facilities, special use parks should be selected based on the function that they are intended to serve. They should be situated such that sufficient infrastructure could be developed or already exists to support the intended use, including major arterials, buses and other mass transit capabilities as necessary. They should also have access to multi-modal connections.
Development Guidelines: Special use parks should be developed to maximize their intended uses. They generally do NOT include the same activities as those found in other park types. Activities provided will depend solely on the type of intended uses for the park and the influence of the community or region as expressed through a public process......
In a real sense, we are lucky that Woodstock Farm pretty clearly qualifies as a special use park, because it may inherently require a lower level of funding to develop and operate than a more heavily and actively used Community, Regional or Neighborhood Park might.
We are doubly fortunate that what Woodstock Farm offers is -in a word- tranquillity!
-----------------
Saturday, July 26, 2008
In the Valley of Elah
At a friend's suggestion, we watched a Netflix DVD movie titled 'In the Valley of Elah', starring Tommy Lee Jones, who received an Oscar nomination for his role.
This was an excellent film about a very serious subject; the terrible impacts that are happening to our brave combat soldiers who have seen action in Iraq.
An exemplary soldier from a military family goes missing after returning from Iraq and his concerned parents get help from a police detective to investigate.
This is probably not something that young and impressionable Mary Poppins & Walt Disney fans might enjoy, but it is a powerful story -based on actual events- that needed to be told.
Many people may think they know about the horrors of war from their own service, stories from others, or just watching TV, video games & movies about it.
But, maybe not about the unnecessary horrors of an ill-conceived war, like Iraq, where our troops have been deliberately put in harms way from unseen enemies who operate on their own turf and use tactics that the Geneva convention never addressed.
Those conditions have such lethal and lasting effects on human beings, that we cannot even conceive of this 'war's' eventual costs!
Whether they believe that anything comes after life or not, the architects of this contrived conflict -I won't honor it by giving the title of war- may have created such a bad karma for themselves that they may burn in the hottest of hells for eternity!
A real war, resisting ruthless aggression by power hungry psychopaths -like Hitler- is rightly justified. But, even that is still a terrible thing that is to be avoided if possible by diplomacy, worldwide peace-keeping alliances and any other means available, providing of course one believes war is an outdated way of resolving anything, and an absolute last resort to be used only if all else fails.
Why do we elect, tolerate and not even question leaders who routinely act against this principle and against the lessons we ought to have learned long ago?
When will we learn that democracy is not a spectator sport for lazy people who prefer being pampered consumers instead of alert and hard working citizens?
I think that starts here at home, in our towns and districts that are the true wellsprings of freedom.
But these wellsprings also need to be nurtured, replenished and renewed by us to be sustained, so that what we get is bubble-up democracy and not some corrupted idea of trickle-down anything!
What we see with the Iraq situation is something that could have been avoided had we paid better attention!
We certainly could have paid better attention to the people we elected, and that starts at home.
So, go ahead and make my day and connect the dots.
You get what you pay for, so be careful how you spend your money, time and vote!
This was an excellent film about a very serious subject; the terrible impacts that are happening to our brave combat soldiers who have seen action in Iraq.
An exemplary soldier from a military family goes missing after returning from Iraq and his concerned parents get help from a police detective to investigate.
This is probably not something that young and impressionable Mary Poppins & Walt Disney fans might enjoy, but it is a powerful story -based on actual events- that needed to be told.
Many people may think they know about the horrors of war from their own service, stories from others, or just watching TV, video games & movies about it.
But, maybe not about the unnecessary horrors of an ill-conceived war, like Iraq, where our troops have been deliberately put in harms way from unseen enemies who operate on their own turf and use tactics that the Geneva convention never addressed.
Those conditions have such lethal and lasting effects on human beings, that we cannot even conceive of this 'war's' eventual costs!
Whether they believe that anything comes after life or not, the architects of this contrived conflict -I won't honor it by giving the title of war- may have created such a bad karma for themselves that they may burn in the hottest of hells for eternity!
A real war, resisting ruthless aggression by power hungry psychopaths -like Hitler- is rightly justified. But, even that is still a terrible thing that is to be avoided if possible by diplomacy, worldwide peace-keeping alliances and any other means available, providing of course one believes war is an outdated way of resolving anything, and an absolute last resort to be used only if all else fails.
Why do we elect, tolerate and not even question leaders who routinely act against this principle and against the lessons we ought to have learned long ago?
When will we learn that democracy is not a spectator sport for lazy people who prefer being pampered consumers instead of alert and hard working citizens?
I think that starts here at home, in our towns and districts that are the true wellsprings of freedom.
But these wellsprings also need to be nurtured, replenished and renewed by us to be sustained, so that what we get is bubble-up democracy and not some corrupted idea of trickle-down anything!
What we see with the Iraq situation is something that could have been avoided had we paid better attention!
We certainly could have paid better attention to the people we elected, and that starts at home.
So, go ahead and make my day and connect the dots.
You get what you pay for, so be careful how you spend your money, time and vote!
What Makes a Headline?
'If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him.' - Cardinal Richelieu [1585 - 1642]
'The power of the press belongs to those who own them' - A J Liebling
'The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.' - Winston Churchill
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that the 'presumptive' Presidential opponents have finally been determined, we've entered the phase where the real fun begins.
That is when each candidate tries to define himself in terms that will attract votes, period.
That's because without a majority of votes that translate into 270 Electoral Votes, no one can be elected.
If one is not elected, all the rhetoric, energy, expense and the promise of betterment will be for naught.
Only if a candidate is elected can he/she put into practice those campaign promises he/she values most.
So, a certain amount of gamesmanship, seemingly contradictory statements, flip-flopping and posturing is inherent in this process.
But, most keen observers can detect - through the fog of politics - those core values that best represent a candidate.
Whether these thoughtful and keen observers constitute a sufficient number to elect is another story, as history has proven so recently.
So effective have been the PR and marketing campaigns that candidates for National and State offices have waged, that they have been able to effectively mask essential weaknesses for some and greatly exaggerate them for others.
That's a danger I hope can be largely avoided in this Presidential race, and maybe the sheer length of the campaign will help that.
Campaigns should be about facts and honesty, not myths and lies, despite any Supreme Court ruling that disallows that distinction!
---------------
In this vein, the current, manufactured 'mini-flap' over the Press giving preferential treatment to Barack Obama is very amusing!
Why not apply a free 'Market' theory to that?
There is a dire lack of new forward-thinking ideas, candor, energy and hope in this country today, largely as a result of almost 8 absolutely debilitating years under President George W Bush, likely our worst in history.
Conversely, there is a huge oversupply of incompetence and gross deficiency, including lack of trust & confidence, absence of funding for essentials, declining world standing, no energy policy, broken healthcare system, deficient education programs, wrong-headed approaches to peace & security, tremendous waste & favoritism in support of a contrived 'war' in Iraq, and the like. This list is LONG!
Again, these are largely the result of our 2-term embarrassment under an abysmally poor leader, who was 'elected' using campaign tactics evocative of a world-class villain.
So, where do you imagine the 'Market' wants to go, under the laws of supply & demand?
For every whine from right wingers, there is an easy answer in simple economic terms; unmet needs attract new investment, and surplus extravagances do not.
The investors are -or ought to be- the voting public, which rightfully feels cheated, demeaned, and ready for change!
How do people who like to call themselves 'conservative' fail to understand even these basic economy-based principles?
[I had a financial advisor try to blame the threat of political change as an excuse for touting the status quo. Guess how long it took me to fire him!]
-----------------
A recent 'headline' from a so-called 'fair & balanced' talking head pronounces:
" Coverage of Obama trip almost embarrassing"
Why would the Press -especially the non-FOX variety- possibly want to cover Obama more than McCain?
I think he is more interesting for starters, partly because he is talking about real issues with good ideas.
Also, the Country -indeed the World- is very tired of our current Administration and its arrogant, unimaginative and ineffective antics.
Another headline from CNN reads:
"Young Republicans worry about McCain's appeal"
I think they mean his 'lack of appeal' don't you?
Most -non-Republican- young people have responded very enthusiastically to Obama!
And, why shouldn't they? He is addressing real problems that will impact them, but also inspiring them to get involved with insuring their own future destiny, and the heritage for which new generations will have to assume the responsibility.
Other folks are finally beginning to more seriously question FOX 'News', like the rapper Nas, who appeared the other night on 'The Colbert Report' - after being rebuffed at Fox. Nas had collected over 620,000 signatures on a petition that demanded 'FAUX' News cease and desist in its systematically racist remarks.
Nas' new song, Sly Fox, tooks direct aim at Fox;
"Watch what you watchin', Fox keeps feeding us toxins ... I pledge allegiance to the fair and balanced truth, not the biased truth, not the liar's truth," the song says.
"Fox poisons the country with racist propaganda and tries to call it news."
Good for you, Nas!
You know what? It's about time other people started calling out these jokers -Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, et al- on their tactics!
But, what do you expect from an organization owned and controlled by Rupert Murdock, and operated for the benefit of those he helps keep in power?
But why pick on Fox? Because that network suffers from the most egregious biases, that's why. Despite mouthing the words, 'Fair & Balanced', they are practicing just the opposite! Nothing a little quality control couldn't handle, but first you have to define what 'Quality' is to be controlled!
Of course, the other networks aren't perfect either, but most of them do try, especially PBS.
Ever wonder why Government support for PBS and NPR is shrinking?
Maybe its because they are more immune to crass advertising pressures and dare to present hard issues with facts and reasoned commentary.
Maybe its because PBS & NPR are more serious about respecting the value of honesty?
I think there are few values as lasting as basic integrity, and that applies regardless of political persuasion.
Then, there's that unfunny clown, Rush Limbaugh, who's been getting rich for years by spouting nothing but hateful propaganda over a plethora of private stations that are licensed by the FCC to use our public airways.
See anything wrong with that?
Would you call that privatizing the profits and socializing the costs?
But, we do have our rights according to several Amendments, don't we?
So, Mr Limbaugh may not be breaking any laws, except those that the Good Book warns about, pertaining to basic honesty, respecting others and unbounded greed.
Maybe its time we learned to follow the money?
That way, we might simply charge the campaigns of so-called 'conservatives' for the political value of this consistently biased, partisan reporting -on the public airways?
Bald-faced propaganda. I think it's called.
Of course, equal treatment would be expected across the entire political spectrum, too.
At least, the 'visible' spectrum.
Let's start creating our own headlines, by demanding more openness, honesty and accountability from our elected representatives!
Now, that would be a campaign reform I'd contribute to & vote for!
Out.
--------------------------------------
Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.
-William E. Gladstone
Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose.
- George Will
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. - Winston Churchill
'The power of the press belongs to those who own them' - A J Liebling
'The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.' - Winston Churchill
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that the 'presumptive' Presidential opponents have finally been determined, we've entered the phase where the real fun begins.
That is when each candidate tries to define himself in terms that will attract votes, period.
That's because without a majority of votes that translate into 270 Electoral Votes, no one can be elected.
If one is not elected, all the rhetoric, energy, expense and the promise of betterment will be for naught.
Only if a candidate is elected can he/she put into practice those campaign promises he/she values most.
So, a certain amount of gamesmanship, seemingly contradictory statements, flip-flopping and posturing is inherent in this process.
But, most keen observers can detect - through the fog of politics - those core values that best represent a candidate.
Whether these thoughtful and keen observers constitute a sufficient number to elect is another story, as history has proven so recently.
So effective have been the PR and marketing campaigns that candidates for National and State offices have waged, that they have been able to effectively mask essential weaknesses for some and greatly exaggerate them for others.
That's a danger I hope can be largely avoided in this Presidential race, and maybe the sheer length of the campaign will help that.
Campaigns should be about facts and honesty, not myths and lies, despite any Supreme Court ruling that disallows that distinction!
---------------
In this vein, the current, manufactured 'mini-flap' over the Press giving preferential treatment to Barack Obama is very amusing!
Why not apply a free 'Market' theory to that?
There is a dire lack of new forward-thinking ideas, candor, energy and hope in this country today, largely as a result of almost 8 absolutely debilitating years under President George W Bush, likely our worst in history.
Conversely, there is a huge oversupply of incompetence and gross deficiency, including lack of trust & confidence, absence of funding for essentials, declining world standing, no energy policy, broken healthcare system, deficient education programs, wrong-headed approaches to peace & security, tremendous waste & favoritism in support of a contrived 'war' in Iraq, and the like. This list is LONG!
Again, these are largely the result of our 2-term embarrassment under an abysmally poor leader, who was 'elected' using campaign tactics evocative of a world-class villain.
So, where do you imagine the 'Market' wants to go, under the laws of supply & demand?
For every whine from right wingers, there is an easy answer in simple economic terms; unmet needs attract new investment, and surplus extravagances do not.
The investors are -or ought to be- the voting public, which rightfully feels cheated, demeaned, and ready for change!
How do people who like to call themselves 'conservative' fail to understand even these basic economy-based principles?
[I had a financial advisor try to blame the threat of political change as an excuse for touting the status quo. Guess how long it took me to fire him!]
-----------------
A recent 'headline' from a so-called 'fair & balanced' talking head pronounces:
" Coverage of Obama trip almost embarrassing"
Why would the Press -especially the non-FOX variety- possibly want to cover Obama more than McCain?
I think he is more interesting for starters, partly because he is talking about real issues with good ideas.
Also, the Country -indeed the World- is very tired of our current Administration and its arrogant, unimaginative and ineffective antics.
Another headline from CNN reads:
"Young Republicans worry about McCain's appeal"
I think they mean his 'lack of appeal' don't you?
Most -non-Republican- young people have responded very enthusiastically to Obama!
And, why shouldn't they? He is addressing real problems that will impact them, but also inspiring them to get involved with insuring their own future destiny, and the heritage for which new generations will have to assume the responsibility.
Other folks are finally beginning to more seriously question FOX 'News', like the rapper Nas, who appeared the other night on 'The Colbert Report' - after being rebuffed at Fox. Nas had collected over 620,000 signatures on a petition that demanded 'FAUX' News cease and desist in its systematically racist remarks.
Nas' new song, Sly Fox, tooks direct aim at Fox;
"Watch what you watchin', Fox keeps feeding us toxins ... I pledge allegiance to the fair and balanced truth, not the biased truth, not the liar's truth," the song says.
"Fox poisons the country with racist propaganda and tries to call it news."
Good for you, Nas!
You know what? It's about time other people started calling out these jokers -Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, et al- on their tactics!
But, what do you expect from an organization owned and controlled by Rupert Murdock, and operated for the benefit of those he helps keep in power?
But why pick on Fox? Because that network suffers from the most egregious biases, that's why. Despite mouthing the words, 'Fair & Balanced', they are practicing just the opposite! Nothing a little quality control couldn't handle, but first you have to define what 'Quality' is to be controlled!
Of course, the other networks aren't perfect either, but most of them do try, especially PBS.
Ever wonder why Government support for PBS and NPR is shrinking?
Maybe its because they are more immune to crass advertising pressures and dare to present hard issues with facts and reasoned commentary.
Maybe its because PBS & NPR are more serious about respecting the value of honesty?
I think there are few values as lasting as basic integrity, and that applies regardless of political persuasion.
Then, there's that unfunny clown, Rush Limbaugh, who's been getting rich for years by spouting nothing but hateful propaganda over a plethora of private stations that are licensed by the FCC to use our public airways.
See anything wrong with that?
Would you call that privatizing the profits and socializing the costs?
But, we do have our rights according to several Amendments, don't we?
So, Mr Limbaugh may not be breaking any laws, except those that the Good Book warns about, pertaining to basic honesty, respecting others and unbounded greed.
Maybe its time we learned to follow the money?
That way, we might simply charge the campaigns of so-called 'conservatives' for the political value of this consistently biased, partisan reporting -on the public airways?
Bald-faced propaganda. I think it's called.
Of course, equal treatment would be expected across the entire political spectrum, too.
At least, the 'visible' spectrum.
Let's start creating our own headlines, by demanding more openness, honesty and accountability from our elected representatives!
Now, that would be a campaign reform I'd contribute to & vote for!
Out.
--------------------------------------
Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.
-William E. Gladstone
Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose.
- George Will
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. - Winston Churchill
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Reassessing this Blog
Lately, I've been reassessing the manner in which this blog might be continued.
And, comments from others have played a big part in that process.
More folks than I thought might have cared would like me to resume this blog on a more regular basis.
An even greater number have encouraged me to limit the length of future blogs.
And, some no doubt have wished this blog would just disappear!
Others -the huge majority- are probably blissfully unaware of it and/or could care less.
In the end, the determination of whether to blog or not is mine alone to make.
Already most of my files on the ongoing issues have been disgorged to the Internet, but whether or not these serve any useful purpose is unknown, especially since the indexing and search features are pretty basic.
And, now that I am no longer involved in the mandatory learning regimen that the Council packets provided, I'm definitely not as up to date on current matters.
With the additional free time I now have, I could always choose to use more of it for blogging, but I really don't want to.
However, I do remain interested in timely subjects and like the idea of communicating thoughts and opinions from time to time.
Also, the world of communications has changed, whether people acknowledge it or not.
With greater access to information, the exercise of figuring out what is of most interest in a timely manner is essential to keep from being overwhelmed with the sheer volume of stuff out there.
Then, there's the problem of quality control.
Who is telling you the facts, and who is coloring their version what color?
There has also been a contraction in local coverage, with the demise of the WIndy, cut-backs at the Herald, etc.
This has only been partly offset by better City Council coverage on BTV10, and the City website, plus several new blogs, including the new NW Citizen format and Herald's ongoing experiments.
Anyway, a different approach is needed for me to remain interested in maintaining this blog.
So, here's what I'm thinking;
I'll try to post something every week, maybe 1 to 3 times, depending upon travel.
I'll limit the length of each blog to a more readable size.
I'll mix up the topics better to reflect local, regional, national and international topics.
Plus, I'll throw in a few observations that happen almost daily from my own experience and perspective.
We'll see if this works.
I hope any readers left out there will like these changes.
If not, other changes can always happen.
And, comments from others have played a big part in that process.
More folks than I thought might have cared would like me to resume this blog on a more regular basis.
An even greater number have encouraged me to limit the length of future blogs.
And, some no doubt have wished this blog would just disappear!
Others -the huge majority- are probably blissfully unaware of it and/or could care less.
In the end, the determination of whether to blog or not is mine alone to make.
Already most of my files on the ongoing issues have been disgorged to the Internet, but whether or not these serve any useful purpose is unknown, especially since the indexing and search features are pretty basic.
And, now that I am no longer involved in the mandatory learning regimen that the Council packets provided, I'm definitely not as up to date on current matters.
With the additional free time I now have, I could always choose to use more of it for blogging, but I really don't want to.
However, I do remain interested in timely subjects and like the idea of communicating thoughts and opinions from time to time.
Also, the world of communications has changed, whether people acknowledge it or not.
With greater access to information, the exercise of figuring out what is of most interest in a timely manner is essential to keep from being overwhelmed with the sheer volume of stuff out there.
Then, there's the problem of quality control.
Who is telling you the facts, and who is coloring their version what color?
There has also been a contraction in local coverage, with the demise of the WIndy, cut-backs at the Herald, etc.
This has only been partly offset by better City Council coverage on BTV10, and the City website, plus several new blogs, including the new NW Citizen format and Herald's ongoing experiments.
Anyway, a different approach is needed for me to remain interested in maintaining this blog.
So, here's what I'm thinking;
I'll try to post something every week, maybe 1 to 3 times, depending upon travel.
I'll limit the length of each blog to a more readable size.
I'll mix up the topics better to reflect local, regional, national and international topics.
Plus, I'll throw in a few observations that happen almost daily from my own experience and perspective.
We'll see if this works.
I hope any readers left out there will like these changes.
If not, other changes can always happen.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Word Games: Taxes versus Fees
-----------------------------------------
'The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a big matter- it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.'
-Mark Twain
------------------------------------------
The recent consideration of a Stormwater Management District for Birch Bay by the Whatcom County Council has renewed the local 'debate' about the difference between 'taxes' and 'fees'.
I believe the Council is now being given accurate advice about this distinction, as well as its appropriate applicability to the measure being considered.
That is so largely because a previous iteration of the County Council was bullied into revising its use of the former Flood Taxes for County-wide water planning by a lawsuit filed by those against such planning efforts.
But, in retrospect, that lawsuit was probably as justified as it was instructive in helping the County determine the proper use of such funds, as well as learn about some other funding mechanisms available for its future needs.
One of those 'future' needs has become a current one - the very Stormwater Management District now being proposed for Birch Bay.
And, of course its appropriate to revisit what has been learned, even if some here remain in denial that any difference exists between taxes and fees.
A Google search of 'taxes versus fees' resulted in a total of 8,820,000 different results in only 0.15 seconds!
Since that number is far more than I needed to get a fair idea of the arguments, I decided to look at only the first ten references on page one.
Here's a brief synopsis of some Fees vs. Taxes findings, bearing in mind there are differences in State Laws.
---------------------------------------------
First, from the website of organization below:
The Orange County Taxpayers Association (OCTax) likes fees better than taxes. We prefer that the users of a service, rather than the general public, pay for the service.
• Fees are paid only by users of a service. Examples are toll roads, permits, licenses, public parking, small claims court, entertainment. Motor vehicle fuel “taxes” which are spent on roads are actually fees; motor vehicle fuel taxes that are diverted to general governmental services are true taxes.
• Taxes are paid by the general public for general governmental services, provided for the general public’s benefit, and for which it is infeasible for the users of the services to pay. Examples are jails, police and fire protection, municipal and superior courts, voter registration and elections.
Here is a summary of the differences between a tax and a fee in 5 different ways.
1. Tax: Pays for any government service. Nexus between payer and service not required.
Fee: Pays for a specific service,to regulate payer. Nexus required.
2. Tax: General public gets the primary benefit.
Fee: Payer gets the primary benefit.
3. Tax: Payment is mandatory.
Fee: Payment is contingent on use of service, or choice to engage in regulated activity.
4. Tax: May be levied in any amount.
Fee: Covers only cost of the service: construction, maintenance, regulation, permitting, inspecting.
5. Tax: Levied equally on all similar payers.
Fee: Levied in proportion to impact or extent of activity.
---------------------------
Next, from this website:http://everything2.com/e2node/Tax%2520vs.%2520Fee
Tax vs. Fee
You may opt not to require a fee. You must pay a tax.
tax: A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.
fee: A fixed sum charged, as by an institution or by law, for a privilege.
Within the state of Utah, it is illegal for municipal governments to levy taxes without the approval of the state legislature, or a ballot initiative.
Thus, every city in Utah has a proliferation of "fees" to meet budgetary needs. Within the development process, this includes fees for plat approval for subdivisions. Legal trials have been brought on the basis that such fees are taxes and thus illegal. However, their constitutionality has been upheld because the choice to subdivide is "voluntary" exercise of a privelege, and as such subject to fees.
The same thing applies to cell phone bills. Because cell phone companies cannot tax their users, they instead institute "variable fees", which are in effect taxes that have been enabled by your voluntary agreement to be party to the cell-phone contract.
--------------------------
From yet a third website:http://www.jointventure.org/PDF/taxworkbook.pdf
These folks don't care what name is used, they just want to know why its needed and whether the measure is effective and fair. [A pdf report]
-----------------------------
From a fourth source in Topeka, KANSAS, the THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL:
Semantics: Tax vs. fee
The state's most aggressive anti-tax organization Thursday defined a provision in a Republican-backed coal bill as nothing less than the three-letter word dreaded by politicians anxious to win re- election.
"It appears it would be appropriately framed as a tax," said Alan Cobb, Kansas director of the conservative group Americans for Prosperity.
He referred to a bill passed Thursday night by the House 78-46 that served as companion to a measure allowing expansion of the coal- fired electric plant in southwest Kansas. This side bill requires all Kansas utilities to pay the state 2 cents a month for each commercial or residential electric meter. Legislators suspect the additional cost would be passed to customers, but lawmakers disagreed on what to call the new assessment.
Republicans in favor of the proposed $3.6 billion coal-fired plant at Holcomb prefer the terms surcharge or fee, while Democrats opposed to the utility development like the word tax.
In this instance, however, Democrats had an unusual partner.
"If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck," Cobb said.
NOTE: This tells me that this word game can be played by either side, depending upon whether they FAVOR a measure!
What does that do to objectivity?
------------------------------
Next, from the same arch-conservative group that advocated for the Kansas measure abstracted above!
Rain taxes? Really?
Website of "americansforprosperity.org"
Governments often turn to “fees” in order to avoid the stigma of tax hikes or to circumvent restraints on their ability to raise taxes, but the savvy taxpayer can easily distinguish between a legitimate “fee” for a defined quid pro quo and a “tax.”
If citizens can opt to not pay the fee, and forgo the service provided for that fee as a result, it would appear to be a genuine fee. A fee is charged for a privilege that you can start or stop at will, whereas a tax is a contribution for the support of a government required from those who live within the jurisdiction of that government.
The latest outbreak of these pests to spread across the country are stormwater run-off fees, or as I like to call them, rain taxes. The eruption of these new taxes stems from stormwater management programs required by the EPA as a result of the Clean Water Act. These ridiculous newly-enforced regulations require small and large municipalities to process “non-point source pollution,” or in other words the water that spills off of your car, house, lawn, parking lot, property, etc. when it rains. Communities of 50,000 or more must create programs to address stormwater, but rain taxes will soon even be falling in less-populated towns.
------------------------------
Finally, from this lengthy, boring, but factual take at: www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/storm/chap4.asp
FUNDING AND GAINING SUPPORT FOR STORMWATER PROGRAMS
The best-designed stormwater pollution management plan will flounder without sufficient community support and funding. Community support is often necessary for official government support, although in many of the cases studies the government took the lead and the broader support followed. A major aim of many public education programs (and a critical task for local community and environmental organizations) is to build this political support. An equal emphasis is needed to establish a stable source of funding to keep a program moving forward, once implemented. While the two often go hand-in-hand -- adequate funding almost always requires political support and, conversely, a healthy community consensus on the need for runoff pollution control will generally lead to sufficient funds -- the traditional funding mechanisms available to local governments demand continuous political support, which can be difficult at times. Nonetheless, there are several approaches a municipality can take to establish a dedicated funding source. This chapter describes one of these approaches -- stormwater utilities -- and discusses the authority of local governments to implement them.
Traditional government funding sources may prove problematic for stormwater pollution program. Grants for water pollution from the federal government are far smaller than in earlier years. Low interest loans from the federal/state revolving loan fund many not be attractive, especially for the non-capital elements of a stormwater pollution program. Allocations from local taxes may be an unreliable means of generating revenue: though essential for ecological and public health reasons, community leaders are hard-pressed to divert adequate funds from general municipal budgets for stormwater pollution control, because the money comes from the same pool as more politically popular uses.
In light of these difficulties of traditional grant, loan, and tax funding, many local governments have successfully turned to alternative funding strategies. Local governments have funded stormwater pollution measures through charging inspection and permit fees, collecting dedicated contributions from land developers, taxing new development at an increased rate, forming regional stormwater management districts, and creating stormwater utilities. NRDC's research collecting these case studies, as well as work with specific municipalities on water pollution issues, suggests that one of the most effective and equitable funding mechanisms, and yet one of the least well-known, is the use of stormwater pollution utilities that operate stormwater measures entirely through self-funding entities.
The Utility Structure
Stormwater utilities are a well-established, efficient, and feasible financing option that provides a dedicated revenue source for stormwater management.
1 A stormwater utility operates similarly to water, sewer, or fire districts, which are funded through service fees and administered separately from the general tax fund, ensuring stable and adequate funding for these public services.
An EPA study identified three major advantages of stormwater utilities over funds generated through property tax revenues:
(1) increased stability and predictability,
(2) greater equity, and
(3) the opportunity for incorporating incentives for implementation of on-site stormwater management.
2 As of 1996 almost 300 stormwater utilities were in operation in at least 20 states. (By contrast, there are thousands of water, sewer, and irrigation districts in the country that work under a similar framework.) Experts now estimate that there are more than 500 stormwater utilities in communities through the country. These stormwater utilities serve cities with populations ranging from under 5,000 to over 3.5 million.
3 NRDC's survey found stormwater pollution utilities in localities of all sizes and types; however, utilities appear more prevalent in growing communities in metropolitan or suburban areas, where changes to the landscape and hydrology are occurring.
Stormwater pollution utilities differ from most other utilities such as power or drinking water utilities because consumers often do not see an immediate benefit from paying their fee. Since most consumers want, for example, electricity, they are willing to pay in advance to receive it on demand. On the other hand, stormwater ratepayers are being asked to pay to prevent something they don't want, water pollution. If residents have never thought about stormwater, they probably will not recognize or appreciate the benefits of preventing stormwater pollution, and therefore will not want it in the same way as a power utility. This will likely affect their willingness to pay. Moreover, there is less an individual can do to change the magnitude of the fee. Improving the public's knowledge and understanding of the benefits of stormwater pollution prevention can go a long way to increasing their acceptance of a stormwater utility. Nonetheless, these problems are even greater with respect to taxes, and can be minimized (and explained) by linking the fee to a property's contribution to stormwater pollution and by quantifying to the extent possible the benefit that the ratepayer derives from the improved stormwater management.
Creating a Stormwater Pollution Utility
Generally a municipality enacts two ordinances to create a stormwater utility, one to establish the various components of the utility and the other to determine the rate structure. Forming the utility through two separate ordinances allows the flexibility to alter the rate structure at a later date without having to revise the ordinance governing the basic structure of the utility. The components of a stormwater utility will often include administrative, planning, and programmatic elements:
1. An administrative structure to collect fees and implement stormwater pollution prevention measures.
2. Development of a stormwater pollution prevention plan and related ordinances.
3. Erosion and sediment control requirements and related inspections or enforcement programs.
4. Detection of illicit connections to storm sewers.
5. Water quality monitoring and/or treatment.
6. Maintenance of stormwater drainage systems.
7. Public education.
8. Flood protection.
The first ordinance may also include a statement of the goals of the utility, discussing the benefits of stormwater pollution prevention. The second ordinance tries to structure the service charges to create a logical and equitable relationship between the amount, and perhaps quantity, of stormwater leaving a property, the benefits received by the stormwater system, and the amount assessed.
------------------------------------
From the above excerpts, the semantic 'debate' picture is somewhat clarified.
There are essential, objective differences between Taxes and Fees, although both do cost the public something.
While it is always useful to have debate about fees and taxes, these discussions are dumbed down by the silly rhetoric that seeks to appeal to emotions, and only follows the wishes of whatever party is for or against the main issue at hand!
Our government, at all levels, is there because we need it, established it and have voter control over it. So, let's not pretend its there because of any other reasons. If our elected officials do things that are contrary to good sense, then our remedy is to vote for others who will carry out this task better.
But, to simply seek to paralyze government from taking those actions that are prudent and necessary, serves no one's interest well.
The ones who will most benefit or suffer from poor government decisions- including non-decisions- , are those who are too young to vote, or have not yet been born!
Please, let's keep that in mind.
====================================================
Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed; too severe, seldom executed. - Benjamin Franklin
Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose. - George Will
"You can't teach what you don't know, and you can't lead where you won't go" - Jesse Jackson
"Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome." – Samuel Johnson
"Those who would give up quality of their environment to purchase a little temporary 'good business climate' deserve, and will get, neither."
- Benjamin Franklin
"The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility. Let it be drawn upon largely, and they will then listen to truths which could not excite them through any other organ." -- Thomas Jefferson
------------------------------------
'The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a big matter- it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.'
-Mark Twain
------------------------------------------
The recent consideration of a Stormwater Management District for Birch Bay by the Whatcom County Council has renewed the local 'debate' about the difference between 'taxes' and 'fees'.
I believe the Council is now being given accurate advice about this distinction, as well as its appropriate applicability to the measure being considered.
That is so largely because a previous iteration of the County Council was bullied into revising its use of the former Flood Taxes for County-wide water planning by a lawsuit filed by those against such planning efforts.
But, in retrospect, that lawsuit was probably as justified as it was instructive in helping the County determine the proper use of such funds, as well as learn about some other funding mechanisms available for its future needs.
One of those 'future' needs has become a current one - the very Stormwater Management District now being proposed for Birch Bay.
And, of course its appropriate to revisit what has been learned, even if some here remain in denial that any difference exists between taxes and fees.
A Google search of 'taxes versus fees' resulted in a total of 8,820,000 different results in only 0.15 seconds!
Since that number is far more than I needed to get a fair idea of the arguments, I decided to look at only the first ten references on page one.
Here's a brief synopsis of some Fees vs. Taxes findings, bearing in mind there are differences in State Laws.
---------------------------------------------
First, from the website of organization below:
The Orange County Taxpayers Association (OCTax) likes fees better than taxes. We prefer that the users of a service, rather than the general public, pay for the service.
• Fees are paid only by users of a service. Examples are toll roads, permits, licenses, public parking, small claims court, entertainment. Motor vehicle fuel “taxes” which are spent on roads are actually fees; motor vehicle fuel taxes that are diverted to general governmental services are true taxes.
• Taxes are paid by the general public for general governmental services, provided for the general public’s benefit, and for which it is infeasible for the users of the services to pay. Examples are jails, police and fire protection, municipal and superior courts, voter registration and elections.
Here is a summary of the differences between a tax and a fee in 5 different ways.
1. Tax: Pays for any government service. Nexus between payer and service not required.
Fee: Pays for a specific service,to regulate payer. Nexus required.
2. Tax: General public gets the primary benefit.
Fee: Payer gets the primary benefit.
3. Tax: Payment is mandatory.
Fee: Payment is contingent on use of service, or choice to engage in regulated activity.
4. Tax: May be levied in any amount.
Fee: Covers only cost of the service: construction, maintenance, regulation, permitting, inspecting.
5. Tax: Levied equally on all similar payers.
Fee: Levied in proportion to impact or extent of activity.
---------------------------
Next, from this website:http://everything2.com/e2node/Tax%2520vs.%2520Fee
Tax vs. Fee
You may opt not to require a fee. You must pay a tax.
tax: A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.
fee: A fixed sum charged, as by an institution or by law, for a privilege.
Within the state of Utah, it is illegal for municipal governments to levy taxes without the approval of the state legislature, or a ballot initiative.
Thus, every city in Utah has a proliferation of "fees" to meet budgetary needs. Within the development process, this includes fees for plat approval for subdivisions. Legal trials have been brought on the basis that such fees are taxes and thus illegal. However, their constitutionality has been upheld because the choice to subdivide is "voluntary" exercise of a privelege, and as such subject to fees.
The same thing applies to cell phone bills. Because cell phone companies cannot tax their users, they instead institute "variable fees", which are in effect taxes that have been enabled by your voluntary agreement to be party to the cell-phone contract.
--------------------------
From yet a third website:http://www.jointventure.org/PDF/taxworkbook.pdf
These folks don't care what name is used, they just want to know why its needed and whether the measure is effective and fair. [A pdf report]
-----------------------------
From a fourth source in Topeka, KANSAS, the THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL:
Semantics: Tax vs. fee
The state's most aggressive anti-tax organization Thursday defined a provision in a Republican-backed coal bill as nothing less than the three-letter word dreaded by politicians anxious to win re- election.
"It appears it would be appropriately framed as a tax," said Alan Cobb, Kansas director of the conservative group Americans for Prosperity.
He referred to a bill passed Thursday night by the House 78-46 that served as companion to a measure allowing expansion of the coal- fired electric plant in southwest Kansas. This side bill requires all Kansas utilities to pay the state 2 cents a month for each commercial or residential electric meter. Legislators suspect the additional cost would be passed to customers, but lawmakers disagreed on what to call the new assessment.
Republicans in favor of the proposed $3.6 billion coal-fired plant at Holcomb prefer the terms surcharge or fee, while Democrats opposed to the utility development like the word tax.
In this instance, however, Democrats had an unusual partner.
"If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck," Cobb said.
NOTE: This tells me that this word game can be played by either side, depending upon whether they FAVOR a measure!
What does that do to objectivity?
------------------------------
Next, from the same arch-conservative group that advocated for the Kansas measure abstracted above!
Rain taxes? Really?
Website of "americansforprosperity.org"
Governments often turn to “fees” in order to avoid the stigma of tax hikes or to circumvent restraints on their ability to raise taxes, but the savvy taxpayer can easily distinguish between a legitimate “fee” for a defined quid pro quo and a “tax.”
If citizens can opt to not pay the fee, and forgo the service provided for that fee as a result, it would appear to be a genuine fee. A fee is charged for a privilege that you can start or stop at will, whereas a tax is a contribution for the support of a government required from those who live within the jurisdiction of that government.
The latest outbreak of these pests to spread across the country are stormwater run-off fees, or as I like to call them, rain taxes. The eruption of these new taxes stems from stormwater management programs required by the EPA as a result of the Clean Water Act. These ridiculous newly-enforced regulations require small and large municipalities to process “non-point source pollution,” or in other words the water that spills off of your car, house, lawn, parking lot, property, etc. when it rains. Communities of 50,000 or more must create programs to address stormwater, but rain taxes will soon even be falling in less-populated towns.
------------------------------
Finally, from this lengthy, boring, but factual take at: www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/storm/chap4.asp
FUNDING AND GAINING SUPPORT FOR STORMWATER PROGRAMS
The best-designed stormwater pollution management plan will flounder without sufficient community support and funding. Community support is often necessary for official government support, although in many of the cases studies the government took the lead and the broader support followed. A major aim of many public education programs (and a critical task for local community and environmental organizations) is to build this political support. An equal emphasis is needed to establish a stable source of funding to keep a program moving forward, once implemented. While the two often go hand-in-hand -- adequate funding almost always requires political support and, conversely, a healthy community consensus on the need for runoff pollution control will generally lead to sufficient funds -- the traditional funding mechanisms available to local governments demand continuous political support, which can be difficult at times. Nonetheless, there are several approaches a municipality can take to establish a dedicated funding source. This chapter describes one of these approaches -- stormwater utilities -- and discusses the authority of local governments to implement them.
Traditional government funding sources may prove problematic for stormwater pollution program. Grants for water pollution from the federal government are far smaller than in earlier years. Low interest loans from the federal/state revolving loan fund many not be attractive, especially for the non-capital elements of a stormwater pollution program. Allocations from local taxes may be an unreliable means of generating revenue: though essential for ecological and public health reasons, community leaders are hard-pressed to divert adequate funds from general municipal budgets for stormwater pollution control, because the money comes from the same pool as more politically popular uses.
In light of these difficulties of traditional grant, loan, and tax funding, many local governments have successfully turned to alternative funding strategies. Local governments have funded stormwater pollution measures through charging inspection and permit fees, collecting dedicated contributions from land developers, taxing new development at an increased rate, forming regional stormwater management districts, and creating stormwater utilities. NRDC's research collecting these case studies, as well as work with specific municipalities on water pollution issues, suggests that one of the most effective and equitable funding mechanisms, and yet one of the least well-known, is the use of stormwater pollution utilities that operate stormwater measures entirely through self-funding entities.
The Utility Structure
Stormwater utilities are a well-established, efficient, and feasible financing option that provides a dedicated revenue source for stormwater management.
1 A stormwater utility operates similarly to water, sewer, or fire districts, which are funded through service fees and administered separately from the general tax fund, ensuring stable and adequate funding for these public services.
An EPA study identified three major advantages of stormwater utilities over funds generated through property tax revenues:
(1) increased stability and predictability,
(2) greater equity, and
(3) the opportunity for incorporating incentives for implementation of on-site stormwater management.
2 As of 1996 almost 300 stormwater utilities were in operation in at least 20 states. (By contrast, there are thousands of water, sewer, and irrigation districts in the country that work under a similar framework.) Experts now estimate that there are more than 500 stormwater utilities in communities through the country. These stormwater utilities serve cities with populations ranging from under 5,000 to over 3.5 million.
3 NRDC's survey found stormwater pollution utilities in localities of all sizes and types; however, utilities appear more prevalent in growing communities in metropolitan or suburban areas, where changes to the landscape and hydrology are occurring.
Stormwater pollution utilities differ from most other utilities such as power or drinking water utilities because consumers often do not see an immediate benefit from paying their fee. Since most consumers want, for example, electricity, they are willing to pay in advance to receive it on demand. On the other hand, stormwater ratepayers are being asked to pay to prevent something they don't want, water pollution. If residents have never thought about stormwater, they probably will not recognize or appreciate the benefits of preventing stormwater pollution, and therefore will not want it in the same way as a power utility. This will likely affect their willingness to pay. Moreover, there is less an individual can do to change the magnitude of the fee. Improving the public's knowledge and understanding of the benefits of stormwater pollution prevention can go a long way to increasing their acceptance of a stormwater utility. Nonetheless, these problems are even greater with respect to taxes, and can be minimized (and explained) by linking the fee to a property's contribution to stormwater pollution and by quantifying to the extent possible the benefit that the ratepayer derives from the improved stormwater management.
Creating a Stormwater Pollution Utility
Generally a municipality enacts two ordinances to create a stormwater utility, one to establish the various components of the utility and the other to determine the rate structure. Forming the utility through two separate ordinances allows the flexibility to alter the rate structure at a later date without having to revise the ordinance governing the basic structure of the utility. The components of a stormwater utility will often include administrative, planning, and programmatic elements:
1. An administrative structure to collect fees and implement stormwater pollution prevention measures.
2. Development of a stormwater pollution prevention plan and related ordinances.
3. Erosion and sediment control requirements and related inspections or enforcement programs.
4. Detection of illicit connections to storm sewers.
5. Water quality monitoring and/or treatment.
6. Maintenance of stormwater drainage systems.
7. Public education.
8. Flood protection.
The first ordinance may also include a statement of the goals of the utility, discussing the benefits of stormwater pollution prevention. The second ordinance tries to structure the service charges to create a logical and equitable relationship between the amount, and perhaps quantity, of stormwater leaving a property, the benefits received by the stormwater system, and the amount assessed.
------------------------------------
From the above excerpts, the semantic 'debate' picture is somewhat clarified.
There are essential, objective differences between Taxes and Fees, although both do cost the public something.
While it is always useful to have debate about fees and taxes, these discussions are dumbed down by the silly rhetoric that seeks to appeal to emotions, and only follows the wishes of whatever party is for or against the main issue at hand!
Our government, at all levels, is there because we need it, established it and have voter control over it. So, let's not pretend its there because of any other reasons. If our elected officials do things that are contrary to good sense, then our remedy is to vote for others who will carry out this task better.
But, to simply seek to paralyze government from taking those actions that are prudent and necessary, serves no one's interest well.
The ones who will most benefit or suffer from poor government decisions- including non-decisions- , are those who are too young to vote, or have not yet been born!
Please, let's keep that in mind.
====================================================
Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed; too severe, seldom executed. - Benjamin Franklin
Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose. - George Will
"You can't teach what you don't know, and you can't lead where you won't go" - Jesse Jackson
"Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome." – Samuel Johnson
"Those who would give up quality of their environment to purchase a little temporary 'good business climate' deserve, and will get, neither."
- Benjamin Franklin
"The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility. Let it be drawn upon largely, and they will then listen to truths which could not excite them through any other organ." -- Thomas Jefferson
------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
