Thoughts & Impressions: Sarah Palin as VP?

A friend sent me this link to an Alaskan Blog:
http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/what-is-mccain-thinking-one-alaskans-perspective/
---------------------------------------

It's come to this.
Again, the R's are now treating this election as they might treat a video game, designed to appeal to indolent kids attracted to random violence!
That probably ought not be a surprise to those who have watched our latest fearless leader bumble his way through the last 7-plus years.

Someone characterized this VP pick as a 'hail mary' pass, and that might be pretty close to the truth. But, it will attract attention away from the more serious discussion of issues that many people have trouble getting their heads around. We know how emotion regularly seems to trump rational argument. I think it's too bad when elections get dumbed down like that, to where they don't really mean anything except who wins. But, maybe that's just me.

Ms Palin deserves our respect, which may be more than her own party is affording her. She is to be the sacrificial lamb, recruited to enliven the moribund McCain campaign, attract donors & attention, and light the fuses of those dividing debates that have been the mainstay of R campaigns for decades. One other thing this gamble is likely to cause is multiple opportunities for D mistakes, gaffes and distractions. Watch out!

That McCain has bought into this scheme brings his desperation into plain sight and his judgement into question. At some level he must know he is likely to lose this election without such a gamble, and only the twisted mind of Karl Rove could have conceived such a plan and convinced McCain to swallow it. And, McCain had only met her once before he made his selection! Remind you of anyone? Like maybe when Bush 2 met Putin, looked into his eyes and understood his soul? Give me a break!
How would you feel if you were Pawlenty or Romney, both respected VP candidates with much greater real credentials who were passed over?

But strange things do happen in elections, and this one won't be over until its over - as Yogi Berra may have said. The D's must not be complacent, nor must they be overly drawn into phony fights that only run out the clock on debating the great issues that face this country. Like a desperate animal, the R's will hold onto their power by any and all means possible, meaning things are likely to get much uglier and less certain from here on.

I have to wonder if there aren't some subtle, secondary motives at work in this scheme, especially if the D's do win the election as expected. Both McCain & Palin are considered 'mavericks' within their own party, notwithstanding they do consistently follow a conservative path. That has to have produced powerful enemies who are more than willing to exact cruel political revenge on these two should they fail in their difficult mission of being elected.

Even with a voting record that is 95% in agreement with Bush2, McCain isn't well liked by some strong, far-right factions. Likewise, Palin, in her relatively short and provincial political life, has angered the entrenched powers that be -or were- in Alaska.

On the issue of opening ANWR to drilling, the two candidates appear to have differed, with Palin a strong supporter and McCain luke-warmly against.
Is Palin supposed to help convince McCain to support ANWR?
Is Palin seen as more of a pain to powerful R's in Alaska than a help?
If that were true, becoming a VP candidate, likely to lose, could turn into a skillful way of removing her from being Governor of Alaska.
Or, is she seen as a future candidate or effective spokesperson on the national stage?
With Ted Stevens, among others, under investigation and likely to be replaced soon, is Palin a possible heir apparent, who also happens to need some schooling in the art of procuring 'pork'? After all, that is something she has strongly opposed in Alaska.
It's too bad that someone with the energy and ethics of Palin has allowed herself to be used in this way, especially since she has expressed little interest in such a job as VP, which she calls undefined and unproductive. But, contestants in beauty pageants are often known to be a little vain, open to flattery and enamored of exposure to an admiring public.

Time will tell how this unscripted melee will actually play out, but D's ought to keep calm and play it hard and straight. If that's not good enough, then there are things more wrong with this country than its elections and orchestrated campaign marketeering.
One always has the choice of carelessly tripping over such monkey wrenches or carefully using them for their intended purpose - including the repair of leaky plumbing. I hope its the latter.

Lake Whatcom: Possible City Club Questions

Someone called me recently to inquire as what questions might be appropriate to ask each of the three panelists, who have been invited to the next City Club meeting, Wednesday, August 27 at Northwood Hall.

That started me thinking, and here's what I've come up with so far:

For Steve Hood, the Washington State Department of Ecology's co-author of the recently issued DRAFT Total Maximum Daily Load [TMDL] Study:

1. This sounds like our Reservoir has a serious problem that has gotten worse over the 9-plus years it has taken to write this report. Has it? If so, please share your opinion about what must be done immediately by the jurisdictions with responsibility for preserving this valuable public resource.

2. Are there measurements that can be periodically made which will give us a good indication of the pollutant loads -including Phosphorus- that are coming into the Reservoir from tributaries and other stormwater out-falls, including shoreline parcels? What are the main measurements -including suggested limits- that are needed, and what must be done to facilitate this data gathering? Will additional funding likely be required?

3. What effective steps can citizens and watershed residents take themselves -without waiting for government action- to minimize pollutant generation and run-off into the Reservoir? How can we get these citizens engaged?

For Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive and key member of the Lake Whatcom RESERVOIR Watershed Management Program:

1. About three years ago, at a Joint City/County/Water District review meeting, you made the statement that Whatcom County would take the lead in reducing the Phosphorus load going into the Reservoir. What has been done to accomplish that goal? Is there any data to support that this is an active and effective program?

2. According to your recent statements, Whatcom County is experiencing a shortfall in its revenues that may necessitate staff reductions and program curtailments. On top of this, the County Council is considering increasing the 'level of service' related to a number of water programs that are currently insufficiently funded. What will you do to insure the level of staffing -including the proposed Joint Watershed Manager position- and funding for the Reservoir is available, adequate and stable so that Phosphorus reduction becomes more than an empty promise?

3. You have been a vocal advocate for the reconveyance of about 8400 acres of Department of Natural Resources [DNR] forest lands in the Reservoir Watershed to Whatcom County for the purpose of becoming a Regional Park. How much funding will be lost and how will these lost revenues be replaced, given the financial plight the County finds itself facing? What assurances can you provide that any such reconveyance will actually benefit Reservoir protection efforts, given how popular Parks can be? What proportion of any reconveyed forest lands will protected -in perpetuity- by conservation easements or equivalent methods to insure only passive use?

For Dan Pike, Mayor of Bellingham and key member of the Lake Whatcom RESERVOIR Watershed Management Program:

1. In anticipation of the TMDL Report, the City of Bellingham imposed a 'moratorium' on all non-vested building in the City's portion of this watershed. What proven and effective actions are expected to be proposed and put in place prior to this moratorium being lifted?

2. The City has undertaken discussions with the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District with the objective of consolidating operations in the watershed to minimize the likelihood of future spills, realize potential savings to customers and provide better availability of resources. Where does this initiative stand now? Have any insoluble problems been identified? When do you expect a resolution?

3. The City has acquired to date, over 1200 acres of watershed property to help preserve water quality and help protect against unmitigated development. Future acquisitions are also planned. How does the City plan to manage these lands in the future? Has a response to the Watershed Acquisition Board questions on this issue been prepared? Is there a possibility that a joint City/County plan might be employed on some of this property?

To all three PANELISTS: How can we best get a serious Phosphorus Reduction Program up and running without further delay, equivocating and finger pointing?
-----------------

I'm sure there are many other questions that can be asked, but we probably ought to leave some time for the answers, don't you think?

Waterfront Redevelopment: A Rant About Election Games

"A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for." - – Grace Murray Hopper




Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper, the American computer pioneer, was the first woman to become a Distinguished Fellow of the British Computer Society. She was born in 1906 in New York.
By age seven, she was taking alarm clocks apart to see how they worked.
She worked for the U.S. Navy developing the first compiler, which allowed people to write computer programs in real language rather than machine code.
When she found a moth inside a computer, she coined the term "debugging." She died in 1992.
---------------

This piece is a little dated, since it was first drafted back in September of '07, during the heat of elections.
Had I published it back then, I might have called it something like 'Waterfront Redevelopment: Mother Goose & the Doctors of Spin Revisited -PART 2'

This one is also a little long, because it was already mostly written, and it does take me much longer to distill and write a short piece that people can read with only one cup of coffee!
But, maybe some folks will find much of it is still relevant.
---------------

From my Navy days, I learned first hand about the terms "skinny" and "scuttlebutt".

Skinny had the connotation of correct information, or poop, as in 'straight skinny'.

Scuttlebutt was a phrase used to describe gossip around the water cooler, and every ship had at least one 'biomass' artist whose mission in life it was to create rumors and misinformation.

Many things change over time, but the meanings of 'skinny' & 'scuttlebutt' seem to remain the same.
-----------

With this in mind, it's interesting to focus on some of the criticisms –legitimate, misguided or malignant- now circulating about the ambitious plan to first cleanup, and then redevelop our blighted Waterfront; and by what process and financial underpinnings that long-term project should follow.

No one seems to doubt the potential benefits of converting this particular ‘sow’s ear into a silk purse’, but questions of who subsidizes whose ‘pork’ with how many chests of public treasure, need answering before anything more than virtual sorties to hypothetical destinations are attempted.

Carrying the nautical theme a little further, this ship needs to sail with the tide, and not against it, as is customary outside dire emergencies.

And it needs to sail under a qualified Master, preferably a senior Captain, handpicked by the Admiral - us!

The right number crew needs to be seasoned, loyal, healthy and durable, and with the right mix of Junior officers, Petty officers and Rankings.

Of course adequate provisions for a long voyage need to be secured and safely stored.
The right equipment for propelling, steering and navigating are musts for any successful voyage.

But once the ship sails, the Captain is in charge, and mutiny is severely frowned upon!
At times, changes in command are needed, and new crewmembers recruited, because a good ship’s mission outlasts any one compliment of sailors.

Complicating all of this is the fact that the ship is still in the shipyard being designed, tested and its technical challenges and costs estimated.
Only after that can the vessel be built to careful specifications and launched for sea trials.

Hopefully the finished craft will, upon being commissioned, be fully seaworthy, operate as expected, fulfill its purpose and last a long time.

No Titanics!
I’d much prefer names like Enterprise or Constitution over something like Pequod, Turtle or U-anything, but that comes later.

-------------------------
Back to Landlubber talk for a bit.
This project is something Bellingham really needs to make happen.
It is literally the chance in a lifetime that we have within our grasp right now so let’s try our hardest to make he most of it!

Other coastal cities would give their eye-teeth for a chance like this one, because it carries the promise of redefining Bellingham’s potential for long into our future.
I’d go so far as to say that it would be patently irresponsible for us as a community to let this opportunity elude becoming reality.

Of course it's expensive, controversial and uncertain and therefore divisive to those with different agendas, fears or wishes.
If those concerns weren’t being expressed, that would be remarkable!
In fact, the project may not be worth considering at all if it failed to raise concerns.
But it is, and it does.

That’s what folks thought about the Space Program, too before Sputnik woke us up.

So, getting these concerns out there early, is actually good.

But, how concerns are expressed may not be so good and that has become more of a problem than it needs to be.
Already there is enough misinformation about to sink a lesser, un-seaworthy vessel.
But there are also serious concerns that both the City and Port are trying hard to address as soon as is realistically possible.

Let’s put it this way, until and unless we have good information as to what cleanup and redevelopment scenario will satisfy our ecological, social and economic needs adequately, no decision to go forward will be made.

Restating that another way: if we can’t be reasonably sure the project –whatever its configuration and timetable- is financially affordable, it will not be approved, and some other course of action will need to be pursued without the very substantial City participation that is currently envisaged.

That’s called adaptive management, or more simply, common sense!
It would be folly to do otherwise, and how senseless and insulting it is to be baselessly accused of such a thing!
But that is being done, isn’t it?
I think such behavior is irresponsible and reprehensible, but that’s just my opinion.

Now, who would get to decide if and when we arrive at that point?
We do.

For the City to commit any funds other than those already appropriated for planning, the City administration would need to make a public recommendation for these additional funds, and the City Council would have to approve them, but only after due process.
That is the way representative democracy works; your elected officials get to decide such things as part of their official duties.
If you trust them to do the right thing, let them do it.
If you don’t, speak up –or replace them!

That’s what elections are for!

Bingo!
Maybe that’s why all this rhetoric and fear mongering is happening!
Elections!

Why do elections get exempted from truth telling and civility?
Maybe, because people have the right to act as they please, up to some limit allowed by our Constitutional freedoms?

Hey, this is Amurica, we can screw things up anyway we want to – and get away with it too.
It’s the law of the jungle and the way the cookie crumbles.
If you don’t like dat, do somepin’ about it suckah!

Some version of that street talk seems to be operating here in the -former- City Of Subdued Excitement, doesn’t it?
Yeah, old COSE is a’changing, but growth isn’t the only thing messing it up!
--------------------

Perhaps adding yet another minnow of perspective to the swirling fishbowl of created -and very creative- public perceptions is in order.
While this particular minnow is not expected to survive for long amongst the various piranha, sharks, jellyfish, barracuda, blowfish and slippery eels that flourish in such environs, perhaps its DNA message can eventually bio-accumulate in the genes of these respective species.


But do we have that kind of time?
And would the genetics actually change in the direction hoped for?
Methinks chances are slim to none on both counts, human nature being what it is.

But some sort of evolutionary process is needed to allow a more balanced assessment of the merits of both the Waterfront Redevelopment [WR] actions taken to date -and those that are planned.
After all, the main purpose of WR is to stimulate and stabilize economic redevelopment on the very front door of our downtown - an area already recognized as a priority for revitalization and infill.

Economic redevelopment leads to jobs and prosperity, folks, and very close to our existing downtown, too.
That is what will eventually pay for the costs of the infrastructure needed to access and serve the Waterfront.
That, and the considerable funding expected from Federal & State sources, which actually seem happier than some folks here about the prospect of this project happening!
These governments see both the potential and our need to make WR succeed.
And, they also see the very positive local effort being made, which really acts to stimulate their support, which likely will come in the form of matching grants.

You see, even with government-sponsored projects like WR, it does take [investment] money to make [local prosperity] money.
Governments won’t just give money away just for the asking; it has to be for a good purpose and compete with other good proposals, so that some judgment of best value is obtained.
Yes, Virginia there can be a Santa, but he needs to know you’ve been a good girl and deserve his gifts!

-------------------
Not to be minimized in importance, are the clean-up efforts on what could otherwise remain a contaminated industrial site for a very long time.
Because without effective action by our local governments, neither the clean-up envisioned by the Whatcom Waterway and Bellingham Bay Demonstration Project, nor the remediation of the former G-P and other industrial sites and landfills to a higher standard cannot effectively proceed.
That first mentioned cleanup program has already been in planning for over 10 years -with all stakeholders involved- and is considered -nationally- to be the prototype model preferred over the endless litigation that is normally the case in such situations.

That kind of old, ineffective and stalemated non-action, causes the productive use of contaminated land & water bodies to be effectively limited –even sterilized- for many years to the detriment of anything positive.
That scenario helps no one, especially those citizens who have expressed so clearly their vision for what our Waterfront could become if we really tried to make it happen.

'A rising tide floats all boats' is an expression most often heard in connection with general economic conditions, but, it is equally applicable to the environment and to the well being and quality of life for people. By people, I mean real people, like you and me, and all the kids who would delight in enjoying our Waterfront, but can’t safely do that until we’ve done the hard work of cleaning it up properly.

I’m sorry, folks, but there is nothing productive or positive about insisting on something so hard to accomplish, that it prolongs and prevents other good outcomes from happening!

Setting up artificial, binary choices between this versus that, is a loser in this game!
I, for one, am not about to sit idly by and watch, while some people badmouth the entire scheme to oblivion, just because they can! Tearing down is always easier than building something, but why tear down something that hasn't been built?

Why not redirect all that negativity and back-biting energy into something we were all brought up to believe in!
There is always room for debate, compromise and hearing alternate ideas, but please let’s be civil about it, and try to be honest!
Let's act with a care for goodness sake, if no other reason.
And, goodness ought to be enough reason, because it’s the best reason.
If folks aren’t into goodness, for its own sake, we are in such a world of hurt that all the redevelopment in the world won’t help us!

This issue is real, positive action is critical and time is getting short, so it is time for us to come together in the same boat and pull on the oars in the same direction, strength and timing.

Winning crews do that, and Bellingham has all the ingredients to be a winning crew except one, the commitment to do it!
If we don’t train hard, those racing shells are pretty tippy, and I don’t know anyone who wants to be known as the crewmember who was responsible for losing the race on the WR ship we’re trying to build and launch for the betterment of our entire community.

Any mutineers out there should be thankful they weren’t sailor’s in the Queen’s Navy, where their punishment might range from 40 lashes with a cat-o-nine-tails, a proper keel-hauling or walking the plank into shark infested waters!
Just kidding, but barely.

--------------------------
As with many situations, the roots of the current WR controversy spring from seeds sown carelessly in the past, and these sometimes grow more like weeds, than the gardens that people actually enjoy.

Given the challenging circumstances our local governments face, one would think the prospect of such a beneficial enhancement to Waterfront would be an event to celebrate!

So, I am surprised at the cacophony of certain interests, who upon discovering yet another big complex issue with lots of moving parts, see it as cheap entertainment.
Is this behavior what engaging in the right of 'public process' is really about?

An alliance of the following seem to be actively trying to scuttle the WR ship before it is even built!

• Habitual nay-sayers who are again taking full advantage of an election year to frenetically spread their anti-government, anti-spending misinformation.

• Hard-core ‘special interest’ groups which have surfaced with competing ideas.

• Those who simply enjoy the controversy that others create, then respond randomly with instant, armchair quarterback solutions.

• Those who are cynically watching and waiting for the WR to sink or actually be completed and gain without making an investment.

• Worst are those political aspirants who believe tearing down something actually elevates them!
These people would make the situation immeasurably worse if they got elected.
Because, theirs would be the legacy that all the spin they could muster would not be good enough to mask the egregious harm they have eternally foisted on the City of Bellingham!

But, it is fair enough, that all these voices should heard, as well as the more positive and engaged others.
And, from that from the resulting discourse will come some truly excellent and enduring concepts that can be used to improve whatever WR project proceeds.

It is such a pity that so much of what the public hears about is based upon data-free analysis, speculation, disguised ideology and conspiracy theories - in other words, scuttlebutt!

In today's world, that seems to be expected.
To be hoped for are commentators who are willing report the straight skinny, not scuttlebutt, and to keep an open mind until the real facts can be triangulated and the overall situation and its costs can be put into truer perspective.
In the meantime, the work on the WR must proceed.

The WR project is important enough to require continued work on defining its various options, trade-offs and costs before making additional commitments of time, resources and funding. Undertaking a satisfactory resolution of these matters is our job to perform without further undue delay.

It is clearly the City Council’s duty and responsibility to obtain sufficient information developed to determine the next progressive steps toward advancing this project further by the most reasonable timetable that can be achieved.

The City Council has determined that the approach the WR is following now is a sensible one, arrived at only after obtaining expert advice and significant public input on various options.

Both Port and Council have listened to many ideas and different views on how to proceed from diverse interests before selecting the course of action now being pursued.

While it is clearly impossible to please everyone, the City does care about the public's ultimate satisfaction in what these revitalization efforts will produce.

Over time, the wisdom of the decisions made regarding the WR project will manifest, and citizens will enjoy the tangible benefits of a mutually beneficial public/private partnership, which will in turn stimulate additional investment and enjoyment of our downtown and Waterfront areas.

Sometimes, it's hard to see the forest for the trees in such situations.
But, in the end, actions that result from broader views are usually the ones that build communities that thrive.

It is to be hoped the WR Project and the experience gained in making it happen will become a model for future successes in downtown Bellingham and the entire community, and will fully justify our substantial investment in time, energy and resources.

Time will tell, but will citizens remember the Skinny or the Scuttlebutt?

Ever think April 1 should be election day?
--------------------------

Sun Tzu -The art of war: aim is invincibility, victory without battle; unassailable strength through understanding the physics, politics and psychology of conflict.

On Decision Making: Remembering a Colleague

Back in August of 2006, the so-called '10th Street Parking Issue' had become so disproportionately elevated in importance, that it that defied logic or good sense.
I thought is was a Lilliputian pretending to be Gulliver, but maybe that was just me.

But such things have been known to happen, and during that time frame it is likely that this particular 'issue' was influenced by other, more substantial debates on the subjects of the City's Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan, the Greenways 3 debate, and the protracted discussion of the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Supply Methodology.
Of course, the '07 local elections were already being discussed, too!

Ah yes, those were interesting times!
I'm glad these issues are mostly behind us now, but are they ever really 'over'?
That is doubtful, especially the lasting memories and impressions.
My September 24, 2007 Blog captured most of those temporary impressions, but I like a particular lasting memory much better.

The memory that I especially treasure was knowing and working with former Council member Joan Beardsley, who was tragically taken from us in early 2007, after only a little over a year in office.
What a champion she was!
I think the 'St Joan' label that a local weekly paper bestowed on her, posthumously, was pretty accurate.
Joan herself, did admit one or two missteps, one being a statement she made at a Greenways Advisory Committee meeting which she came to regret deeply.
But, true to form, she promptly and bravely corrected that by making a public statement at the August 8 Council meeting.

I was so proud of her that I e-mailed her my thanks later that night.
Here's a short excerpt, plus a few words on the 10th Street 'issue':

Thank you for your courage in making your statement this afternoon and again tonight. I know it was not an easy thing to do to admit a mistake and try to correct it. But, you did exactly the right thing and I support you fully.

Regarding tonight's discussion on 10th Street, you again showed the sort of reasoned thinking and backbone that I most admire. I believe this one little episode served as a real learning experience on how genuine concerns can be elevated and expanded to outlandish, entrenched positions, and the power of pressure exerted in just the right ways to influence what should have been a rather routine decision. It would be an overstatement to call this a clear case of micro-management, because some legitimate issues were thoroughly discussed and a number of good ideas presented that would have otherwise gone unheard.

Before that night had passed, I received her reply, in part quoted below:

John, I have printed this message to save in my "when I need to check my path" folder. You are most kind to have helped me and to give me this encouragement.
I also appreciated how Joan helped me by not minimizing the implications of what I had said. She was a good friend in the real sense and you have been also.

I want you to know that I also printed out that list of "principles" you sent me that you use in making good judgments. I used them as I analyzed what I thought best for my decision last night on 10th St.

I hope you feel proud to be able to share some of the wisdom you have gained in this job. No matter what the issue or how we both end up voting, I know you are doing the thing you think best for the best reason. Now that I am doing this work with you, I can see that one can't really anticipate the demands that it entails. It is true public service. I have always wanted to do that since I read a biography of John Adams in which he and Louisa spoke of their conviction that our country's future would require each person who could to do a term of public service. They didn't make a lot of it - it was a natural thing to give if you had the where-with-all to give it. Since I was not military oriented and didn't have to serve that way, I have always felt I wanted to respond in John Adams fashion if I had the chance. It is not a political aspiration; it is a desire that flows from my gratitude for the life my country and community has helped provide me.
I suspect we are on the same wavelength on this sense of commitment. It prevents this experience from being an exercise in ego because it requires disciplining ego to truly find the path to doing right service. But thinking clearly and wisely is hard, despite commitment to it; otherwise, our country wouldn't be in the mess it is! I am so grateful to have you for a colleague as we both try to do this work for the city we love.

-------------
Here is the excerpt, to Council Member Beardsley refers, above:

I do appreciate your struggles in attempting to come to a right decision, because that demonstrates you are trying to examine all aspects of this discussion, which has now become an issue. How refreshing! That is also what elected officials are supposed to do and no one can ask for more.

There is no set protocol or rule book with rigid criteria to guide us, and if there were it would be impossible to enforce.

Some of the general principles I have decided to follow -regardless of issue- are these:
• whether decisions are legal
• whether they are fair and consistent with policy and past precedents
• whether they reasonably comport with the process that developed them
• whether the decision is really my [Council's] responsibility
• whether arguments to overturn or change are factual or political
• whether new precedents will be set that will be difficult to sustain
• whether our professional staff supports specific options, and why
• whether the greatest possible community wide benefit is assured
• whether I have done sufficient homework to understand the rationale and reasonable options
• whether my decision honors the recommendations of the volunteer boards and commissions responsible for reviews and recommendations
• whether any adverse unintended consequences may result
• whether decisions are made in sunshine, with reasonable public involvement
• whether public funds are wisely used and benefits outweigh the costs
• whether conflict of interest or appearance of fairness violations may result, or perceptions of same

Note that none of these allow me much room for subjective whim or opinion, autocratic authority, or populism. None of these are things are sustainable, because voters and taxpayers rightfully expect consistently better justifications.

--------------
Joan Beardsley is no longer physically with us, but her spirit lives!
May our memory of that wonderful spirit help guide us in consistently making right decisions, no matter how 'important' they may be!

More on Land Use Efficiency: Chuckanut Ridge, Birch Street & Otherwise

From COSMOS website: "Piranhas have a fierce reputation - but it's a myth, say researchers who claim that the species shoals to evade predators not to engage in feeding frenzies.
"Previously it was thought piranhas shoaled as it enabled them to form a cooperative hunting group," said biologist Anne Magurran. "However we have found that it is primarily a defensive behaviour, and quite a complex one."
-------------------------------------

What is it about land use issues that evokes such strong feelings?
That a frisky group of cyber-piranhas should fuss over and decry my last Blog on another Blogsite, ought to be an honor!
And, based on the Orinoco Caribe-style frenzy exhibited, can there be any further doubt about what single issue has animated at least 2 of 'you guys' regarding the City's land supply deliberation?
It really DID start with Chuckanut Ridge for 'you guys', didn't it?
So, maybe a direct cyber-hit has been scored on your hidden CR 'battleship'!

But, I digress from more useful arguments.
--------------------------

A few points are listed below to further clarify the basis upon which I based my earlier Blog remarks on the same subject:

1. The city's Land Supply methodology that is being so vociferously decried, was certainly OK with the State agency in charge of Growth Management Act [GMA] oversight, the Department of Community Trade & Economic Development [CTED]! If folks still disagree, why not take it up with them?

2. Comparing the approximately 40 BUILDABLE RESIDENTIAL ACRES at CR with ANY number of acres to be considered in new UGA, is like apples to oranges! Can you guess why? OK, here's a hint. UGA land is grossed-up acreage, from which must come multiple deductions -for other uses & purposes- before zoning can be applied to any specific parcel. The number comparison I presented is directionally correct, but likely quantitatively inaccurate, given the very nature of estimates. More like approximately correct than precisely wrong, as was stated before.

3. The existing CR zoning applies to all 100 original acres, not just the estimated 40 that seem likely to be determined as suitable to actually build upon. Just consider the first 15 acres were taken out of service early. Since the property has been already deed restricted to 50% of its former -exceptionally high- density of 14.78, this former acreage makes no material difference to this discussion. Anyway, the new effective underlying maximum density is now about 7.39 homes per acre, or almost twice the minimum average that is considered 'urban'.

4. There is a concept called 'cluster zoning' that is widely considered to be a valuable tool in helping protect sensitive areas, while also allowing a much smaller than conventional development footprint. Not everyone understands cluster zoning, and some who do, still don't like it. But, it is a tool that can be very effective. [More about this below]

5. The City has been criticized -even by 'you guys', of all people- for its inability to use the land it has -within the City Limits- more efficiently. In other words, this means to insure that maximum assigned density is achieved, or at least something much closer to it than recent history has shown. I have consistently agreed with this concern, sometimes at the risk of being called 'pro development'. But, you know, one can't always have it both ways. It's hard enough to 'walk your talk' on these matters, but when you argue on both sides of the issue, what happens then?

But, there are many reasons for this failure to achieve 'maximum density', and many excuses too.
Consider these, for example:
No minimum density requirement, owner's preference, neighbors objections [including extreme NIMBYism], costliness, regulatory restrictions, height limits, challenging topography, mandatory buffers & setbacks, open space requirements, surprises -like environmental hazards, updated wetland determinations or new stormwater requirements, market factors, speculation, rezoning to a different use, vegetation considerations, desirability of location, redevelopment uncertainties, etc, just to name a few.

So, while the concept of always maximizing zoned density is a good one, the probability of that happening every time is slim to none.
Kinda like the concept of Entropy in thermodynamics, which always -by its definition- must increase every time work is done, whether it is efficient and useful work, or otherwise.

6. Notice the above paragraph was applied to ONLY that land within the CITY LIMITS, because ONLY that land is under City jurisdiction until annexation occurs, when these same factors do begin to apply.
But, before annexation, it is often a whole different ball-game, because the COUNTY has Urban Growth Area [UGA] jurisdiction, but not the obligation to abide by City codes, practices or levels of service. Yet, the City does get to influence the County, and must plan for these UGAs per Growth Management Act [GMA] requirements. And, that is what the City has been trying to do in the last update of its COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Hey, I know its a thankless job, but somebody had to actually do it! And, the point guy always takes a greater risk.

7, So, now we come to this point: If the City -for whatever reason- determines that it is prematurely running out of buildable land supply -including residential- and/or is attracting new population faster than it had anticipated, only two things -besides increasing land use efficiency- can happen for the city to obtain more future space in which to grow:

A. The City can accept proposals for annexation from property owners in the existing UGA to expand the land supply under its control AND receive additional revenues from it over time.

[Note, that when this occurs the City also usually obligates itself financially as well because of the increased level of urban services it must provide. Residential-only annexations rarely come close to paying for themselves, but Commercial & Industrial usually do. This is why a steady stream of smaller, multi-purpose annexations is the more desirable course of action.
A number of these proposals are now being considered by the City, partly due to a change in its policy for NOT extending water & sewer services outside of City Limits, without a commitment to annex.]

B. The City can request that some, or all, of the previously determined, County-approved and administered 'FIVE YEAR REVIEW AREAS' become new Urban Growth Areas that will also remain under County jurisdiction. That is what has happened during the latest COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, which seems to have attracted so much attention.

Maybe there are other options too, but these two are the main ones.

8. So, all of this leads to this question:
What does it mean when a good-sized chunk of buildable land, zoned for high-density residential use, within the City Limits, is taken out of that use - either completely or partially?

If you answered it would have to be replaced 'somewhere else', you would be correct!
And, where would that 'someplace else' be?
Another neighborhood?
The UGA?
Waterfront Redevelopment?
Hi-Rise buildings?
ADU's?
Apartment ghettos?
Shelters for the less fortunate?
The County?
Another town, county, state or country?
Or, if one thinks that any 'lost' density never really existed in the first place, it could just disappear into a psuedo spreadsheet netherland, accompanied by disingenuous fast talk?
Don't all of these options equate to someone's definition of SPRAWL?
Why pretend otherwise!

What we're looking at in the case of CR, is a virulent version of NIMBYism, pure and simple.
If everyone felt the same way about a piece of property they liked -but didn't happen to own- would that be OK, too?
Think about it.
What is fair to one, ought to be fair to all!
At least that's the way the law sees it, and fortunately most others, including me.

As stated before, all this armchair quarterbacking is not likely to make much difference in the final analysis, anyway!
So why the temptation to continue arguing about it as if it were some sort of sacred cow?
Maybe its just fun? Or just typical piranha behavior?

But, you know, just like everyone else, I am entitled to my own considered opinions - and fun!
Unlike most others, I gained my perspectives on applied Growth Management over several years while serving in public office - and working very hard at learning about it.
Not fun.
Applied Growth Management is not an easy subject, especially when one compares it to simple theory and wishful thinking!

I have concerns that some folks still prefer to think that selfish agendas, backed by money & attitude, will talk louder than the law, common sense and good judgement.
That has happened on occasion, and it is not a pretty sight to behold.
The power of self-serving agendas backed by money is -as it always has been- a threat to good government.
But, that kind of agenda is also part of our grand mix of interests, even though it is a poor substitute for the consistent & rational fairness that ought to be the highest goal of our governmental system.
I guess that's why Aristotle called politics a 'practical' science, as opposed the 'exact' kind.

Never settling for less than the very best solutions available on every issue, is the path by which the City's highest goals & aspirations will most likely be achieved.
The problem is, finding that path depends strongly upon being habitually factual, truthful and consistently fair & objective.
When the secret to solving that problem is found, we'll be getting somewhere!
------------------

Its easy to see I've missed communicating this story as clearly as it could have been; but, maybe some folks don't really want to read about it anyway.
When I first decided to write this Blog, it was to be able to tell things from my perspective.
In turn, my perspective does -pretty consistently- use facts, experience and reason as its basis for conclusions - right, wrong or indifferent.
If that formula isn't what someone else prefers, they are certainly not obligated to read it.
But, if they do read it and don't agree, that's OK too!

Spreadsheet math can be an important tool, but not as important as the understanding of the underlying principles, policies and realities that go into it's production.
So, please don't accept substitutes for the genuine, official version of the Land Supply spreadsheet!
After all, we really can't be too careful about authenticity these days, can we?
-------------------

Want to talk about another contentious Development?

How about the Birch Street Project, located in the Whatcom Falls neighborhood, south of the current street ends of Birch St., Portal Ave., Bonanza Way and Scenic Avenue, all off of Lakeway Drive and near the City Limits.

The Bellingham City Council, in accordance with Resolution 1999-50, signed on November 15th, 1999 approved this project as a 172-lot subdivision on 79 acres. That one turned out to be one of the few developments that actually achieved its maximum zoned density.

Like some other places, this site had stood undeveloped with its mostly second or third growth trees standing ever since it had been zoned for 1 dwelling unit per 20,000 SF, which equates to about a density of 2. That's about half of what is barely considered a city's average density.
It had not been built upon because it was a difficult site to develop, at least until a developer from eastern Oregon saw what he thought was a good opportunity. In retrospect, he probably wished he hadn't! There was much concern, as well as the heated controversy that usually comes with it. In the end, the Oregon developer decided to sell to one of our local developers, but not until after the tract was pretty well conditioned and its allowed density determined.

Long story short, this property has steep slopes that extend further up Galbreath Mountain, and two small, seasonal streams that eventually empty into Whatcom Creek. These streams and slopes conspired to create conditions that meant about 42% of the site qualified as un-buildable, including public ROWs, improvements, easements and buffers. Added to the list of burdens were a trail easement that saved the tree line and prevented several 'view' lots from being sold at whatever premium they might have commanded, plus adequate street connectivity and significant traffic impacts on already busy Lakeway Blvd. Then, a water reservoir had to be built, the streams crossed, and a large stormwater detention system installed. The cost of all these expensive improvements was borne by the developer.

But, none of these activities were looked upon with favor by the neighbors, some whom were also required to cut vegetation to allow sidewalks, curbs and steeper driveways. And, these neighbors certainly did let us know they were unhappy, but they also served as very effective watchdogs to make sure the developer abided by the rules!

Any of this beginning to sound familiar? It should, because some version of this happens in almost every development that happens in this city, particularly those of any size, that cut many trees and interrupt the relative calm that people desire where they live. And, it makes no difference who owns the property under development, most folks just don't welcome it being changed! Think that might act as a deterrent to achieving in-fill? It takes guts to make consistently good and fair decisions on land use matters! Actually, ALL matters, but land use certainly stands out.

So, what happened to allow this development to achieve its maximum density?
Although unexpected, this was a pretty reasonable result, considering the underlying burdens the site imposed. After all, the developer was responsible for agreeing to pay for all the necessary improvements and mitigations, before any permit was issued. And, in the city, regulations do tend to be more numerous and stringent than in unincorporated areas - a fact some conveniently choose to ignore. To recover his costs, the developer had to build and sell a sufficient number of homes. Like it or not, that is the way capitalism works.

A part of the answer in this case was the idea of 'cluster development', which did seem to fit a number of needs pretty well. The concept is to take the entire site acreage as the base, then fit in buildable footprints only where appropriate, as home sites. Of course, these building sites are significantly smaller than the conventional 20,000 SF lot sizes, but they are adequate for the purpose intended, plus they obviate the need for unnecessary disturbance of natural turf and vegetation. Effectively, the preserved natural surroundings act as lawns that do not require mowing, fertilizing and tending. That just seems a good idea to try anywhere, and especially if that feature is already designed into a home - before people choose to buy it. So, multiple benefits can accrue from cluster development, notwithstanding the expected objections to anything but conventional sized lots being required - which often does seem outdated and wasteful.

The point is that Birch Street, for all its problems and disappointments, does represent another way of achieving multiple desirable goals - at least partially. Unfortunately, that kind of exercise in compromise never pleases everyone 100%, but over time, does help implement efficient land use by in-filling. If folks are really serious about limiting sprawl, this is one technique that can help us achieve it. But, it does have to be applied wisely and consistently, which means NIMBYs will need to make their fair share of concessions.
-----------

Epilogue: The Birch Street story also had a few other pluses happen, like the City requiring a trail easement along its western bluff, then purchasing 40 acres on its southern border as open space, and the County purchasing another 20 acres behind that.
Also, the nearby Denke & Chen properties in the Geneva UGA were purchased by the City as part of its Lake Whatcom Watershed Acquisition program, which removed about 333 potential building sites that were even more problematic than Birch Street.
All of these purchases had the combined effect of essentially blocking the access route of the proposed 'Lake Whatcom Connector' project, an expensive new arterial intended to promote even more suburban sprawl into the Lake Whatcom Watershed, then simply dump the additional traffic onto existing City streets and impacting their levels of service.
So, maybe things didn't turn out as badly as people might have thought?

But, granted, there is currently no means by which the city can fully guarantee that the maximum allowable zoned density is built, either within its City Limits, or especially in the County's UGA. And, in some cases like the Lake Whatcom Watershed, this density is not appropriate anyway and ought to be reduced or removed.
But, just like the persistent CR 'kerfuffle', isn't the land supply situation only made worse when zoned density is removed -for any reason- from the land supply equation?
Think about it.
---------------

Ghandi's 7 sins

Wealth without work
Pleasure without conscience
Knowledge without character
Commerce without morality
Science without humanity
Worship without sacrifice
Politics without principle

Chuckanut Ridge: Land Supply Implications

Maybe it's my 'Eudora Syndrome' or similar condition that allows me to remember enough to write a column like this one.
Or maybe, the devil makes me do it, I don't know!
But some may find it interesting, and maybe even begin to understand some of the many competing interests and contradictions that had to be considered during the Land Supply analysis that was undertaken to help update the City's Comprehensive Plan.
----------------

The several recipients -you know who you are- who received the e-mail I sent on: Wed, 22 Feb 2006, may recall its contents, which were on the subject of 'Brief Summary of Land Supply' Recommendations:

Just for reference here is a brief analysis in tabular form that shows the impacts on our current land supply needs for four scenarios of build out for Chuckanut Ridge:

[Sorry, I haven't learned to make a table format work here.
But, if readers want to make their own, here are the 4 COLUMNS to work with, condensed as sequenced below]

Total Residential Units for CR;
1478; 739; 370; 0

Total Population Accommodated by CR;
3100; 1550; 775; 0

Total Population Shortfall for Land Supply;
3577; 5127; 5900; 6676

Total Add'l Acres Needed to Meet Demand;
1158 to 1545; 1292 to 1847; 1319 to 1958; 1347 to 2069

Deed restrictions on the property mean that the maximum density is 739, which is the current scenario being used.
If a density of 370 is used, this results in needing to have additional land to accommodate 15% more people than under the current scenario.
Reducing CR density to zero means 30% more people must be accommodated than the current scenario.

The last column [Total Additional Acres to meet demand] includes residential, parks and industrial with reductions for CAO and infrastructure.

Note that the current analysis scenario uses the set [column] comprised of 739, 1550, 5127 and 1292 to 1847.

--------------------------

While the City's overall estimated needed Land Supply numbers may have changed somewhat since Feb 22, 2006, the above analysis subset remains essentially unchanged.
What it means is that without a reasonable level of build-out on Chuckanut Ridge -now being called 'Fairhaven Highlands- the City will need considerable more additional space for its projected new population growth than any estimate that assumes build out of CR.
This information does not advocate for CR build-out, but it does spell out the Land Supply impact for NOT expecting building- out CR.
That would amount to between 1292 and 1847 additional acres needed for the City's UGA.

So, those who advocate for both no additional Land Supply AND no build out on Chuckanut Ridge may need a remedial course in simple arithmetic.
That's because CR is already within the City Limits and has been zoned for its allowed density since Mt St Helens erupted in 1980!
Failing to support what is clearly such a major in-fill development, these people will need to actively support any or all of the following; the creation of new Urban Centers, Waterfront Redevelopment, High-rises in the downtown, substantial Neighborhood in-fill, including ADUs, to even come close to satisfying the City's GMA planning.
And, it's not that any or all of those things are good, bad or indifferent.
I'm simply saying that satisfying everyone's no-change 'druthers' is a virtual impossibility, with one notable exception - a zero population increase scenario actually happens.
Think that will be likely?
Kinda like trying to squeeze Cinderella's slipper on her ugly step-sister's foot, except that was make believe and this exercise isn't!

The point of my original e-mail was to simply point out to those wanting the City to acquire all of Chuckanut Ridge for a park, what the Land Supply trade-off would be if that were to happen.
Can you spell S-P-R-A-W-L?

I don't believe this underlying arithmetic has changed much since it was first reported.
Of course, a few people's attitudes may not have changed much either.
What was that old song?
You know, something like 'when an irresistible force .... meets an immovable object...'
---------------------

The property in question has been euphemistically called 'The Hundred Acre Wood' by those seeking to keep it in its current undeveloped state. Actually, it's more like 85 acres, since about 15 acres were dedicated -years ago- to the Whatcom Land Trust as wetlands. Since then, these 15 acres were transferred to the City at nominal cost - likely with Pooh Bear's full approval!

Without attempting a lot of detail, the remaining 85 acres contains only about 40 or so acres that are actually suitable for building, with remainder likely to become some version of dedicated open space - at no charge to the City.
So, any development on this site will need to fit within that allowable footprint, and not infringe on areas protected by our Critical Areas Ordinance, at least without minor off-setting mitigation.
Of course, anticipated traffic impacts must be mitigated too, in whatever form(s) that may take.
The point is, this site is inherently heavily burdened for any full development scenario, with the great preponderance of costs to be borne by the developer.
The irony is, these very substantial costs of development must be met by enough development to cover their payment! That situation seems to create its own limitations, but we'll have to wait and see.
[Does anyone actually believe this build-out would cost the City upwards of $12 million, as one 'consultant' -hired by opponents- claimed?
I certainly don't!]

It will be interesting to follow what happens over time, as firmer CR development proposals come forward.
More excitement and entertainment, and some of it not so subdued?
-----------------------

Reconveyance & Park Plan: City Council Presentation by Tom Pratum

-------------------------------
Because the County Executive's proposal to reconvey DNR Lands to Whatcom County for use as a Park is now working it's way through a process that may lead to its adoption, the Bellingham City Council asked for diverse presentations from 3 individuals, each with a different perspective on that proposal.

These presentations were made on August 4. Presenters included Mike McFarlane, Director of Whatcom County Parks & Recreation Dept, Dave Wallin, WWU Professor of Environmental Science, and Tom Pratum, PhD Chemistry who also teaches at WWU and is a long time advocate for protecting Lake Whatcom.

While the first two individuals also participated in the County's Citizen Committee that was convened to assess this proposal, Mr Pratum was not invited to participate, despite -and maybe because of - his record of being an active and knowledgeable volunteer steward of our Reservoir, who also has been known to offer an occasional criticism when appropriate!

It is for the reason that Mr Pratum's perspectives have not -until now- been given the serious public consideration they are due, that I asked him to allow reproducing his presentation here.
Of course, I would gladly make the same offer to the others if they felt that might be helpful.

Since I believe the City Council is planning to separately deliberate this issue and likely try to support it in some form of their choosing, it is appropriate for citizens to give them the benefit of the community's best thinking - in advance of any City Resolution, suggestions, recommendations, or other actions that might be taken .
--------------------------

First, a few comments of my own:

• I have been a vocal critic of early versions of this proposal because of the manner in which it was announced, as well as the glaring lack of details about planned developments, park uses, funding and mitigating measures to protect this critical watershed.
Others have also been vocal critics along similar lines, including the so-called Interjurisdictional Coordinating Team [ICT], a group of combined County/City staff charged with recommending, implementing & monitoring progress on the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Plan, itself a joint effort.

• I have modified my earlier views as some of my concerns seem to have been considered and maybe even addressed. But, I remain a skeptic until I see a much clearer plan that proposes only minimal impacts, and that also contains the funding and written commitments in place to guarantee that the Reservoir will not be further harmed.
But, the devil is in the details, and that's where this process is right now -in the midst of determining those pesky details!
This might become a good proposal that is demonstrably superior to the one is designed to replace, but I'm not yet convinced of that.

• Tom Pratum presents some really good points and with clarity, and some of his suggestions are quite different from what we might have heard before. For example, his suggestion of an outside financial analysis does NOT mean the DNR exercise, nor the sketchy and overly rosy 'guesstimates' the County continues to tout! It means a careful assessment by a competent third party, that addresses more than one hazy scenario. Call it a kind of 'Peer Review' that impartially translates what plans actually mean into realistic costs that are projected over time.
[Note: If I were currently a member of either Council, I would call for such important information before agreeing to any decision to move forward. That is simply called due diligence!]
So, please pay careful attention to Pratum's summary of concerns, as well as his concluding suggestions to help alleviate these concerns.
These are the real meat of his presentation, and do make practical, fiscal & administrative sense.
Just reading this clearly illustrates the depth of thinking inherent in this presentation, and serves to underpin why both the listed concerns and the concluding suggestions are critically important ones.
---------------------

To: Bellingham City Council, August 4 Lake Whatcom Watershed Committee Meeting

From: Tom Pratum

Re: Reconveyance of Forest Board Land in Lake Whatcom Landscape Planning Area

Concerns:

1. Financial – what are the financial consequences and what effect will they have on other watershed preservation efforts?

* Loss of revenue to taxing districts.
* Park development and M&O costs.
* Use of Conservation Futures fund.
* Lack of an independent financial analysis.

2. Land use impacts – the effect on overall forest practice intensity will be relatively low, so will the park’s impact be greater than the impact of these forest practices?

* Park development
* Transportation/access
* Enforcement issues (off road vehicles, etc)
* Liability issues
* Effect on adjacent land uses (potential zoning issues).

3. Miscellaneous – other reasons it may not make sense to do this.

* Appropriateness of proposed land exchange as a park.
* Timeliness – is this the right time to do this?

4. Suggestions to help alleviate concerns.
-------------

Overview of Lake Whatcom watershed forest practices:

The proposal would transfer approximately 8,400 acres of Whatcom County Forest Board land managed by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in the Lake Whatcom Landscape Planning area from trust status to Whatcom County - note that the Landscape Planning Area extends somewhat beyond the watershed and covers 15,700 acres total. Of those 8,400 acres to be transferred, approximately 7,400 are in the Lake Whatcom watershed, with the remainder in the Friday Creek watershed.

These 8,400 acres are currently managed under the Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan, formally adopted in November 2004. Since that time (up to July 25, 2008), there have been 4 DNR forest practice applications covering 293 acres in the Landscape Planning Area as a whole - not all of these have been entirely contained within the watershed boundaries. Over that same time period, there have been 40 approved harvest related forest practice applications that were at least partially in the Lake Whatcom watershed [See Note 1 below]. These 40 applications cover a total of 1330 acres, therefore the four DNR applications make up less than 25% of the total. Note that the forest practice rules imposed by the Landscape Plan on DNR timber harvests are much more stringent than the rules to which private foresters must adhere. Even if the landscape plan were removed, the State timber harvests are conducted in a more environmentally sensitive manner than those on private land due to the DNR’s Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) requirements.

In order to see what effect the proposed reconveyance would have on the current level of DNR forest practices, we need only take a simple ratio of the proposed reconveyance acres to the total currently available for forest practices, and weight that relative to the proportion of the area that is in protected status under the Landscape Plan due to the presence of steep slopes, riparian areas, wind buffers, etc. When such an analysis is done [See Note 2 below] it is found that the current proposal is likely to result in a decrease of 44 acres of forest practices per year if no forest practices are conducted on the land after reconveyance. Of those 44 acres, 39 are within the Lake Whatcom watershed.

What have been the trends of forest practice activity over the past few decades and how do they relate to current water quality issues? To get an idea of how the current level of forest practice activity compares with that of past decades, I have looked for a previous analysis of this activity. In May 1990, the following figure was presented to the Lake Whatcom Forestry Forum. According to the figure, these data come from Whatcom County Planning.


It is apparent from this figure that the average number of acres of forest practices in the watershed was around 1,000 over the period 1987 - 1990. The current level - including those DNR forest practices referenced above - is approximately 400 acres per year. This decrease in forest practice activity has resulted in no concomitant increase in water quality - in fact, water quality has decreased substantially in the last two decades. This calls any strong linkage between forest practices and current Lake Whatcom water quality issues into question.

If no forest practices occur on the reconveyed land, the result of this proposal would be elimination of a portion of the DNR forest practices, conducted to the highest standards in the watershed, and accounting for approximately 10% of total watershed forest practices. Is it likely that reducing the current harvest level in the watershed in this way will result in any apparent water quality benefit?

As a final note: it is disingenuous to link the landslides that happened on private forest land in Lewis County with what may happen on DNR forest land in the Lake Whatcom watershed. Private forest practices are regulated by the same agency as State harvests, but they follow much different rules. To visibly see an example, take a look at the North side of Stewart Mountain where a sharp line of demarcation can be seen between the “scraped earth” forest practices of first Crown and now Sierra Pacific and those of the DNR in their recent North Olson cut. The best thing we can do to prevent more Lewis County like events is to make sure current Lands Commissioner Doug Sutherland is removed from office in November.

Financial consequences:

Loss of revenue: Any analysis of revenue loss depends on at least the following 4 factors:

* Acreage of forest practices approved.
* Price of timber when those forest practices are executed.
* Junior taxing districts serviced by the area of the forest practice (location dependent).
* Property tax levy rate of those junior taxing districts at the time the timber is cut.

Due to the uncertainty of the factors involved, it is not easy to say what the loss of revenue will be. However, we can look at a recent DNR timber sale in the watershed to get an idea of some real numbers. The “Look North” timber sale has occurred in the furthest North part of the DNR holdings on Lookout Mountain. Access to this timber sale is via a road across from Sudden Valley gate 13. In this timber sale, 47.3 acres of Whatcom County Forest Board timber were sold [See Note 3 below] for $829,598 (February 2008). This timber has been partially, but not entirely cut as of this writing. If we assume that the DNR Forest Development Account receives 25% of the proceeds, this leaves approximately $622,000 [See Note 4 below] to be distributed by the Whatcom County Treasurer to the junior taxing districts serving the location of this sale. This distribution follows that for property taxes, with the exception of fact that there is no deduction for fire protection. Based on the location of the sale [See Note 5 below] the following distribution is obtained: Bellingham School District: $222,000, County General Fund: $74,000, County Road Fund: $97,000, Port: $22,000, Library: $24,000, State General Fund and other recipients: $183,000. Thus, the sale of an amount of timber similar to, but somewhat larger than that we would expect to be harvested on the reconveyed land under current management, results in substantial funding for a number of taxing districts - over $170,000 directly to Whatcom County. Even if some of these districts forgo payment in the event the land is reconveyed, the impact to their budgets is a real cost that must be accounted for.

Park development and M & O costs: Development is estimated to be in the $millions. While grants may provide part of the funding, matching will be required in order for the grant applications to be competitive. Grant funding is unlikely to provide for all development costs - especially in the current era of very tight state and federal budgets. For M&O costs, we only have estimates provided by Whatcom County Parks of on the order of $150,000 per year.

Use of the Conservation Futures Fund: According to RCW 84.34.240, “Amounts placed in this fund may be used for the purpose of acquiring rights and interests in real property pursuant to the terms of RCW 84.34.210 and 84.34.220, and for the maintenance and operation of any property acquired with these funds.” While RCW 84.34.210 envisions using the funds for fee simple acquistion, and RCW 84.34.220 concerns using the funds to acquire development rights, RCW 84.34.240 restricts the amount of these funds that can be used for maintenance and operations to ”fifteen percent of the total amount collected from the tax levied under RCW 84.34.230 in the preceding calendar year.”

Reconveyance is not a fee simple acquisition - clearly, the Conservation Futures fund cannot be used for M & O of the reconveyed land. Can the Conservation Futures fund be used for any purpose with regard to reconveyance - including transaction costs, which are currently budgeted (2007 - 2008) from the Parks general fund budget?

The Conservation Futures fund is the only fund Whatcom County currently uses for land acquisition, and it must be available to fund acquisition of watershed, agricultural and other lands in the county.

Lack of an independent financial analysis: If we had an independent financial analysis, such as was done in regard to the merging of the City of Bellingham and the Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District, then many of these questions would be settled. However, Whatcom County has made no attempt to have such an analysis conducted.

It is very significant that a number of county departments have recently been asked for substantial budget cuts in the 2009 - 2010 budget cycle. For example, Parks has been asked for a $575,000 budget reduction. Planning and Development - responsible for enforcing watershed development regulations - has been asked for a whopping $1.5 million cut. The county will lose revenue as a result of this proposal, and it will incur additional costs - how will these revenue losses and costs be borne?

Land use impacts: The designation of the reconveyed land as park, and the increased recreational use of the watershed that will result, will have both direct and indirect impacts. Among these:

Park development impacts: Without a conservation easement, there is nothing to stop a future incarnation of county government from building watershed damaging parks facilities. These might include, but would not be limited to: asphalt parking lots, large scale boat moorages and launching facilities, community centers, and shooting ranges. Similarly, operational decisions - such as the allowance for camping, fires and off-road vehicles - need to be protected against.

Transportation and access: The proposed park area will be serviced primarily by Lakeway Drive, and Lake Louise Road on the Lookout Mountain side, and by North Shore Road on the Stewart Mountain side. Lakeway and Lake Louise are already severely impacted corridors. There is bus service along Lake Louise road that will allow folks to use non-automotive access. Additionally, there is the potential for access from Samish Way. The Stewart Mountain side is an entirely different story. Here, park users will access the park by driving all the way to the end of North Shore Road; there are no reasonable possibilities for other access. There is no bus service - all trips will be by car (or possibly boat), and this area will be impacted.

Enforcement: As a frequent visitor to both of the areas proposed for reconveyance, I can say there are already enforcement issues with regard to off-road vehicles, illegal trail building, and fires. Responsibility for policing these areas will rest with county government after reconveyance, and this is another cost to be accounted for.

Liability issues: Not only will Whatcom County assume liability for current uses of the reconveyed land after this proposal is executed, but they will assume liability for past uses. When there were previous slides in the watershed in 1983, residents sued the then owners of the land and were paid substantial sums - not because those owners were responsible, but because they owned land where previous forest practices issues were unresolved. This liability concern is one of the reasons reconveyance was not requested on this land after the land trade in 1993 that brought a large part of the current DNR holdings into the watershed.

Effect on adjacent land uses: If this land becomes a park, it will, at some point, be rezoned appropriately. Land that is no longer forest resource land used for commercial forestry will eventually lose that designation. If this were to occur today, this land would be rezoned - after reconveyance - Recreation and Open Space (ROS), as are all large Whatcom County Parks with the exception of the Canyon Lake Community Forest (which has been inaccessible for the past 2 years). What will this designation do to motivate adjoining land owners to request de-designation of their forest land? Could this reconveyance request be reconfigured to make such requests less-likely? By reconfiguring the request, could we reduce the possibility of development of adjoining rural lands?

Miscellaneous issues:

Appropriateness of the proposed land exchange as a park: While not everyone would agree with me, I personally think the Lookout Mountain park area makes sense. Transportation to the site is already impacted by Sudden Valley, it has bus service, it has logical connections to other park areas (e.g. Stimpson, Olsen, and Squires Lake). The park area would have many users who reside in Sudden Valley and would not travel through the watershed. There would be adjacent land use issues with regard to Trillium’s Galbraith Mountain area - this land should be targeted for acquisition with Conservation Futures funds.

The Stewart Mountain area makes no sense as a park. The only reasonable access is via North Shore Road, and there is no bus service - park visitors will drive over 10 miles through the watershed on their way to the park, as they now do for the North Lake Whatcom Trail. Additionally, there is a large utility corridor down the middle (the BPA right-of-way). If the reconveyance were reconfigured toward the Olson Creek area, some of these issues would be reduced, and the utility corridor would be avoided. Additionally, the Olson Creek area already has a substantial trail system, and more of that land is available for timber harvest, so the impact on forest practices would be greater if this area were reconveyed after appropriate intergrant transfers.

Timeliness: There is no reason reconveyance has to be executed now. The current configuration of DNR land in the watershed has been in place since 1993 - reconveyance could have occurred at any time in the past 15 years, and will continue to be available into the future. The land configuration of the current proposal comes from the DNR and reflects their desires with regard to intergrant transfers [See Note 6 below] rather than those of this community. The current DNR administration is the most environmentally unfriendly we have had in decades. This November, there is a good chance we can replace Doug Sutherland with Peter Goldmark. With such a change at the top, it is likely that we would see reduced timber harvest in the watershed under the current landscape plan, or, if the pursuit of reconveyance is still desired, it could be reconfigured to better serve the needs of this community.

Suggestions to help alleviate concerns:

* Conservation easement to prevent future governmental entities from making bad land use and operational decisions - for example, not only should damaging parks facilities be prohibited, but potentially damaging parks activities, such as off-roading, camping and building fires, should also not be allowed. The concept of a conservation easement that meets some of these requirements has been recommended by the “committee”.

* Financial analysis of the proposal by an independent, outside entity (such as FCS Group).

* Dedicated revenue stream (e.g. small property tax levy) to pay all costs of proposal (as determined above) - including losses to junior taxing districts. Only with a dedicated revenue stream can we be sure these costs are not borne by reductions in other programs.

* Scale proposal back to the Lookout Mountain area only. The Stewart Mountain area makes little sense as a park, and in the future, with a more environmentally friendly DNR administration, this may be reconfigured to make more sense. Scaling the proposal back will also reduce costs, greatly reduce transportation impacts, and will remove the objections from the Mt Baker School District. There is no rational reason the current DNR administration would object to the scaled down intergrant transfer required in this situation.
-----------------------
Notes:

1. Taken from the DNR Forest Practices Application Review System (FPARS), 2004 - 2008.

2. A simple calculation is done as follows: average DNR harvest per year in Landscape Planning Area = 293/3 = 97.6. Average harvest in reconveyed area assuming equal likelihood of harvest = 97.6*8400/15700 = 52 acres. Taking into account that more protected area under the Landscape Plan lies on Forest Board Land (60% opposed to 53% of Landscape Area as a whole (DEIS 2003; estimate based on Fig 5 on pg 122 and the consideration of Forest Board and Common School Trusts, which account for 84% of the land area)), and assuming intergrant transfer does not change this = 52*0.4/0.47 = 44 acres. The portion of this that is within the watershed = 44*7400/8400 = 39 acres.

3. Note that there is some incorrect information in your council packet regarding this, and the other timber sale that is in the area proposed for reconveyance (White Chantrelle). Both of these have been approved, and sold to Sierra Pacific.

4. This is close to the figure - $658,000 - given to Mike McFarlane by the DNR on March 20, 2008 as an estimate of the average yearly revenue obtained by county taxing districts from Forest Board Land in the Landscape Planning Area (3/17/2008 memo). It differs greatly from the figure of $185,000 given in your council packet.

5. The land covered by this sale is in tax code 1006, which determines this distribution.

6. The Board of Natural Resources was briefed on this exchange initially at their November 2007 meeting. A reading of that discussion is instructive. Among the revealing statements: a question from Jon Kaino, wondering “....if we would get the non 01 trust lands out on the perimeter where we can actually harvest them?” (this was answered affirmative by DNR Land Steward Bruce Mackey - note that “non 01” refers to other than Forest Board lands).
--------------------------

Giddy Gato: The Passing of a Dear Little Being

There are some things that are very hard to write about, and this is one.
But here goes.
In the wee hours of this morning our lovable, and beloved, Giddy Gato died.
That's it.
Sure, it happens all the time, but this is the first time it has happened to us.
And, while it's tough to take, it is reality in a relatively small dose.
Read the rest only if you want to test your emotions.
------------------------

My wife and I had returned home from visiting relatives on the east coast in mid-June, when it became apparent that something was wrong with our pet cat, Giddy, who normally looked, and acted, just like a mini-panther.
He was lethargic, had visibly lost weight, and wasn't responding to the usual irresistible enticements for food and fun.
We waited about a week, hoping his condition would improve, but when it didn't, took him to the vet for an examination.

The physical, blood and urine results were not overly good, but not especially bad either, so a different diet was tried, along with prescriptions for an antibiotic -Baytril 20- and another drug -Prednisolone- a steroid, plus the promise of closer observation in the future.
The combination of somewhat fuzzy results and the new recommended treatment made us hopeful, but then the X-Ray results did indicate some potential abnormalities that were troubling.
To gain more certainty, we scheduled an Ultra-Sound exam with a small animal specialist to further check out Giddy's X-ray, plus take biopsy samples as appropriate for tests.
Those biopsy results were not so good, but still we were in denial that the disease that Giddy had was so dire, that his chances of recovery were extremely low.

Armed with the rest results, new diet and prescriptions, we paid more attention to Giddy than even he could fully appreciate.
That seemed to work, at least initially, but then the downward trend resumed.
After almost two days of not eating or drinking and barely even moving, I took Giddy back to the vet again, this time for intravenous re-hydration, understanding full well that visiting the vet was definitely not his favorite activity, and that this was an act of semi-desperation.

This time, the vet was more blunt and definite in the diagnosis, and we finally got the full message. Giddy was dying, and it was only a matter of days or weeks. Further efforts at keeping him alive might result in maybe another 90 days, during which he would be lucky to actually enjoy 10% of that time.

While these implications had been right there in front of us all the while, we had chosen to hear only those parts of it we wanted to hear - that maybe, with treatment, he would improve. That, optimistically, might have meant extending his life up to about a year.
Now, we finally got the entire, unmistakable, truth and it hit us hard. We cried. Both of us in our own ways. And there will be other times that will happen too -like during the wonderful concert during which Beethoven's 6th Symphony was played.
Looking back, we have probably been lucky to have received the tough news by progressively larger doses, but the final reality is still the same.

Amazingly, Giddy did respond well to his new diet and medication level, and rallied strongly. He gained back some lost weight and generally acted closer to normal, but without his old strength and vitality. Looking back, we were probably the ones who mainly benefitted from this interlude, because we were able to enjoy his presence for another three weeks before he began his final decline, culminating with his peaceful death. It was us who had most needed that time, to get used to and accept the fact he would not -physically- be with us much longer. Giddy must have sensed that his time was approaching, and like most animals, was better prepared for it than humans. But, he was able enjoy a good part of his 'overtime' period. and this he readily demonstrated to us, in ways that only a cat can.

It has always been thus. Everyone will physically die, animals included. It is just the uncertainties of how, when and where that are missing. Each of those uncertainties has now been answered for Giddy.
But one -certain- thing will always remain in our hearts; our wonderful memories of the loving little creature that invited himself into our lives almost 11 years ago. Little Giddy Gato, who adopted us, enriched us, entertained us, brought us much gladness, was such a joy to the entire neighborhood. Isn't it amazing what emotions such a little being can inspire?

So, the cumulative joy that Giddy has brought us will eventually trump our sadness over his death, many, many, many times over! And, I imagine -as only humans can- that Giddy's eternal spirit would want it that way.
-----------------------

This morning, we took Giddy's remains to be cremated.
Later, we'll find a suitable urn in which to keep his ashes.
And, we'll keep the refrigerator door magnet in place that says;
'A House Is Not A Home Without A Cat'
This cat has become our teacher!


------------------------

On Student Housing

Note: I just received this link from a reader at Harvard: http://collegiateway.org
Might be interesting reading since this topic has apparently become a hot topic nationally
---------------------------------------

The continuing debate about adequate and/or affordable housing, landlord responsibility and how to deal with impacts on neighborhoods, like parking shortage, litter & noise nuisances, suggests all of these are, often, pretty well interrelated.
One factor, that of student housing, crops up frequently as a problem that needs addressing.

So, with that in mind, here is an example of how another University -Vanderbilt- is facing that issue:

From the Vanderbilt website;

All undergraduate students not living with relatives in Davidson County are required to live on campus all four years to the extent that on-campus student housing facilities can accommodate them. In practice, though, approximately 83% of undergraduates—freshmen, sophomores, nearly all juniors and most seniors—currently live on campus. The remaining undergraduates join graduate and professional students in living off-campus. Student life at Vanderbilt is consequently heavily intertwined with campus life.

However, the on-campus residential system is currently undergoing a radical change. The new system, announced by the administration in 2002, would change the current structure of quadrangle-based residence halls to a new system of residential colleges, to be called "College Halls". Similar to the residential structures at Caltech, Harvard, Rice, and Yale, the new College Halls system would create residence halls where students and faculty would live together in a self-contained environment, complete with study rooms, cafeterias, laundry facilities, and stores. This project is now underway and is scheduled to be completed within the next 20 years.

The first step in the College Halls system will be The Commons, a collection of ten residential halls on the Peabody campus that will house all first-year students beginning in the fall of 2008. While the university currently houses freshmen in three separate and distinct residential areas, it is hoped that The Commons will give first-year students a unified (and unifying) living-learning experience. Five existing dormitories on Peabody have been renovated, and the university is in the process of building five new ones. Two of the new residence halls have received LEED silver certification, making Vanderbilt the only university in the state to be recognized by the U.S. Green Building Council. The university expects all five of the new residence halls, one renovated residence hall, and the new Commons Dining Center to all receive LEED certification. The total cost of The Commons construction project is expected to be over $150 million.

With the addition of these new residence halls, the university will be able to house all undergraduate students on campus. Since university policy requires undergraduates to live on campus when possible, Vanderbilt's Office of Housing and Residential Education will no longer grant students permission to live off campus, beginning with the class graduating in 2009. Many current students who came to Vanderbilt with the understanding that seniors were generally allowed to live off campus are now disappointed that they must live on campus all four years. However, university administrators believe the undergraduate community receives the greatest benefit from living in on-campus residence halls, citing increased interaction with faculty, better academic performance, and stronger interpersonal relationships.
----------------------

Is that what we want?

While I haven't researched this much, Vanderbilt's plan probably resembles that of very few schools of higher education, that are either heavily endowed, elite universities, or much smaller schools that are set up for that style of learning. Therefore this idea probably represents one extreme on a spectrum of possibilities.

My own alma mater, the University of Virgina, only required 'on-grounds' housing for first-year students, although other dormitories were also provided for more senior students who preferred living in them.
That seems to be similar to the policy of WWU, though I'm not sure of that.

The point is, a requirement for any University to house all of its students is a major policy decision. And, it is a very costly proposition that is also contentious and likely to take years and substantial acreage to implement. So, that idea doesn't seem to be a viable answer in itself, but may be -directionally- a partial answer.

Then there is the question of who are the 'students' in question? Are they full-time, or part-time learners with jobs & families? Are they commuters? Are they exchange students or graduate students? Are they student instructors? Are they professors or university staff? Do they attend WCC or BTC instead of WWU? There is a need to quantify which groups of people we are talking about, as well as what future growth will likely contribute.

The clear alternate to University supplied student housing is the availability of rental properties, in and around the City. That is where most 'students' seem to live, and where most of the complaints come from. More importantly, whose responsibility is it to insure these complaints are addressed and don't get out of hand? Think that's a shared responsibility between WWU, the City, landlords and the neighbors affected? I do. And that is where this debate is rightfully centered. It is unrealistic in the extreme to expect desert island tranquillity in a vibrant urban area, which is what this City most essentially is. Citizens must learn to deal with that reality the best they can, without adding to it themselves. There are some very legitimate concerns which must be addressed in a timely and effective manner. But there are also some folks with 'victim' mentalities who choose to hyperventilate in their attempts to completely externalize this problem, too! Of perhaps even greater concern is the assumption that most complaints involve students at all!

There are some things the City can do better, like not allowing more 'four-plexes', like those in Happy Valley, among other things.
There are things that WWU can do better too, like maybe having students agree to certain standards of behavior, as is done at some other Universities.
There are things that landlords and property managers can do better, like better lease agreements and providing convenient avenues to redress reports of problems.
And, there are things that neighbors and individuals can do better, like getting to know those who habitually underperform in being good neighbors.

Only after all of these entities have given this issue their best 'college try' and conclude that more is clearly needed, should we consider more draconian steps, like licensing landlords to pay for enforcement of nuisance laws.
I think the Herald Editorial personnel have it right on this issue.
As Pogo said 'we have found the enemy, and it is us'.