With the hundreds of teams, dozens of conferences and the multiplicity of opinions, it is nothing short of amazing how much agreement has been garnered on which teams are considered the favorites, and make up the so-called 'sweet sixteen' in the NCAA MEN'S BASKETBALL TOURNAMENT now in full swing.
While the winners and losers of individual games are difficult to pick with any consistency, the degree of agreement on which teams comprise this surviving field of 16 is quite remarkable.
Consider this;
After two elimination rounds of games, during which the field has been reduced from 64, all the teams remaining were initially seeded among the top four of their respective brackets, except for 2 teams.
That means the 'experts' were right in their selections 87.5% of the time!
The two exceptions were Purdue [a 5 seed which beat Washington, a 4 seed] and Arizona [a 12 seed which beat Cleveland State, a 13 seed, which had beaten another 4 seed, Wake Forest]
To be able to sort through all these teams and seed them that accurately is nothing short of amazing!
Of course, any further predictions are problematic at best, but remember last year? All four number 1 seeds made it to the Final Four! That could easily happen again this year, but who knows?
Today begins the next contests, as per below:
Midwest
1 U Louisville
12 ARIZONA
3 Kansas U
2 Michigan State U
West
1 CONNECTICUT
5 PURDUE
3 MISSOURI
2 MEMPHIS
East
1 PITTSBURGH
4 XAVIER
3 VILLANOVA
2 DUKE
South
1 U NORTH CAROLINA
4 GONZAGA
3 SYRACUSE
2 OKLAHOMA
Care to make any predictions?
---------
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
March Madness & Gladness
------------
It's that time of year again, when college basketball rules the airways.
I always look forward to this time, and this year's tourneys have already had their share of surprises.
Even with several obviously superior teams there has been a raft of upsets, which seems to mean some basic underlying parity.
Soon, we'll find out who survives the NCAA and NIT tournaments, and who gets the bragging rights for this year.
I've got my favorites, and it should be no surprise that the ACC is the apple of eye.
But, even if my teams don't win, there will be some good games, and that's the main point.
---------
But, March always has other significances, too.
It is the time that Spring begins its renewal process, bringing seasonal changes that are so important to this planet.
In like a Lion, out like a Lamb, as the saying goes -which isn't always true.
'Wild as a March Hare' is a term that fits most kids that aspire to being sports heroes, too.
They have a ton of desire and energy, but haven't quite mastered the control and discipline needed to become truly skilled and adept and valuable at sports.
----------
Beware the 'Ides of March'
Julius Caesar's bloody assassination on March 15, 44 B.C., forever marked March 15, or the Ides of March, as a day of infamy. It has fascinated scholars and writers ever since.
For ancient Romans living before that event, however, an ides was merely one of several common calendar terms used to mark monthly lunar events. The ides simply marked the appearance of the full moon.
-----------
My personal favorite date in March is the 17th - Saint Patrick's Day!
Aside from the wearin' of the green and good natured gaiety, it's just a fun time that millions of people like to share.
While my enjoyment of a wee drop of Guinness may be curtailed for a while, my memories do last -without filling.
At some level, I suspect the time around St Paddy's day also resonates for a deeper and more personal reason for me, and my son.
That is because we were both likely conceived about that time in our respective years of birth.
Not a bad way to associate this time of year with our very essence, is it?
-------------
It's that time of year again, when college basketball rules the airways.
I always look forward to this time, and this year's tourneys have already had their share of surprises.
Even with several obviously superior teams there has been a raft of upsets, which seems to mean some basic underlying parity.
Soon, we'll find out who survives the NCAA and NIT tournaments, and who gets the bragging rights for this year.
I've got my favorites, and it should be no surprise that the ACC is the apple of eye.
But, even if my teams don't win, there will be some good games, and that's the main point.
---------
But, March always has other significances, too.
It is the time that Spring begins its renewal process, bringing seasonal changes that are so important to this planet.
In like a Lion, out like a Lamb, as the saying goes -which isn't always true.
'Wild as a March Hare' is a term that fits most kids that aspire to being sports heroes, too.
They have a ton of desire and energy, but haven't quite mastered the control and discipline needed to become truly skilled and adept and valuable at sports.
----------
Beware the 'Ides of March'
Julius Caesar's bloody assassination on March 15, 44 B.C., forever marked March 15, or the Ides of March, as a day of infamy. It has fascinated scholars and writers ever since.
For ancient Romans living before that event, however, an ides was merely one of several common calendar terms used to mark monthly lunar events. The ides simply marked the appearance of the full moon.
-----------
My personal favorite date in March is the 17th - Saint Patrick's Day!
Aside from the wearin' of the green and good natured gaiety, it's just a fun time that millions of people like to share.
While my enjoyment of a wee drop of Guinness may be curtailed for a while, my memories do last -without filling.
At some level, I suspect the time around St Paddy's day also resonates for a deeper and more personal reason for me, and my son.
That is because we were both likely conceived about that time in our respective years of birth.
Not a bad way to associate this time of year with our very essence, is it?
-------------
Monday, March 9, 2009
Lake Whatcom: Reservoir or High Rent District?
-------------------
Remember when John McCain couldn't recall how many homes he -and/or his wife- owned?
Well, there are others like him who'd like to have home #3 -or higher- right here in Whatcom County.
Thanks to the County's incredible incompetence, these wealthy, seasonal imports will have an easier time finding the right spot to impress their friends.
Folks, a nightmare scenario is happening -at a quickening pace- before our eyes, assisted by the County's re-issuance of its so-called Environmental Impact Statement, which says it is of no consequence if a private road is gouged from the end of Academy upward, to serve 26 more mega homes, each surrounded by its own 20-acre forested woodpile.
At least, that is what we think we now know, thanks to Mr Kirsch's post at NW Citizen, and I doubt he has this wrong.
If this act of gross negligence and stupidity is allowed to stand, our Executive's powerful developer friends will benefit mightily from the precedent being set.
It's OK with the County if one buys forestry land, subdivides it, gouges roads, obtains water and sewer from a friendly water district -or worse, wells and septics, then pays the County enough baksheesh to be technically legal.
Is that really OK?
I don't think so!
And, many others don't think so either.
It's time we as citizens take some strong action on this matter, as well as the future planned degradations the County's power brokers may have in mind!
I think it's time to call in Legal Man, plus the Dept of Ecology and anyone else who can help reverse this terrible decision!
And, I will volunteer to help pay these costs, because folks fighting this kind of crap will require some bucks.
I'm reminded of Judas Iscariot, who received -what? 30 pieces of silver for betraying Christ.
Can you imagine a more crass act, committed at a time of such budget problems that the County would allow this to happen?
Can you visualize the Lake Whatcom watershed a few years hence, when almost all of Squalicum and Stewart Mountains -maybe even Galbrath- will be covered by mega homes, daisy-chained together by new, gouged new roads, traveled by SUVs, off-road vehicles and fun seekers trying out the County's new 8400-acre 'Park', which it can't pay for any other way?
And, there will probably be a few more planes, maybe helicopters, landing in the water or near it, too.
Hey, this is our drinking water supply!
Think these things will do anything to help us protect our municipal water supply?
If you do, there is a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
You know, no one begrudges folks making a legitimate buck or two, but this scheme really begs the question in my book.
It pits the most basic needs of people directly against the excessive greed of a few, in a way that is truly disgusting.
But, that's the way things are in a democracy, isn't it?
Unless there are clear rules and regulations -that are enforced -you can end up, well, with a Wall Street crash for gosh sakes!
Is that what's happening here?
If it is, let's fix it -and fast!
I invite the Dept of Ecology to fully review the County's EIS and the methodology utilized in rubber-stamping it.
If the bureaucrat responsible is correct in his assessment, I'll stand corrected.
But something really stinks about this!
And, the DOE does have a big dog in this fight, who's initials are TMDL!
I would like to see this potentially precedent-setting decision stopped in its tracks, using all means available.
Maybe actions are already being considered that I don't know about, in which case I applaud those initiatives.
Just let me know to whom I should write my check.
There aren't going to be many more chances as good as this one to take a firm stand on Lake Whatcom.
Fiddle around the edges all you want, but this one is a big one!
---------------------
Remember when John McCain couldn't recall how many homes he -and/or his wife- owned?
Well, there are others like him who'd like to have home #3 -or higher- right here in Whatcom County.
Thanks to the County's incredible incompetence, these wealthy, seasonal imports will have an easier time finding the right spot to impress their friends.
Folks, a nightmare scenario is happening -at a quickening pace- before our eyes, assisted by the County's re-issuance of its so-called Environmental Impact Statement, which says it is of no consequence if a private road is gouged from the end of Academy upward, to serve 26 more mega homes, each surrounded by its own 20-acre forested woodpile.
At least, that is what we think we now know, thanks to Mr Kirsch's post at NW Citizen, and I doubt he has this wrong.
If this act of gross negligence and stupidity is allowed to stand, our Executive's powerful developer friends will benefit mightily from the precedent being set.
It's OK with the County if one buys forestry land, subdivides it, gouges roads, obtains water and sewer from a friendly water district -or worse, wells and septics, then pays the County enough baksheesh to be technically legal.
Is that really OK?
I don't think so!
And, many others don't think so either.
It's time we as citizens take some strong action on this matter, as well as the future planned degradations the County's power brokers may have in mind!
I think it's time to call in Legal Man, plus the Dept of Ecology and anyone else who can help reverse this terrible decision!
And, I will volunteer to help pay these costs, because folks fighting this kind of crap will require some bucks.
I'm reminded of Judas Iscariot, who received -what? 30 pieces of silver for betraying Christ.
Can you imagine a more crass act, committed at a time of such budget problems that the County would allow this to happen?
Can you visualize the Lake Whatcom watershed a few years hence, when almost all of Squalicum and Stewart Mountains -maybe even Galbrath- will be covered by mega homes, daisy-chained together by new, gouged new roads, traveled by SUVs, off-road vehicles and fun seekers trying out the County's new 8400-acre 'Park', which it can't pay for any other way?
And, there will probably be a few more planes, maybe helicopters, landing in the water or near it, too.
Hey, this is our drinking water supply!
Think these things will do anything to help us protect our municipal water supply?
If you do, there is a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
You know, no one begrudges folks making a legitimate buck or two, but this scheme really begs the question in my book.
It pits the most basic needs of people directly against the excessive greed of a few, in a way that is truly disgusting.
But, that's the way things are in a democracy, isn't it?
Unless there are clear rules and regulations -that are enforced -you can end up, well, with a Wall Street crash for gosh sakes!
Is that what's happening here?
If it is, let's fix it -and fast!
I invite the Dept of Ecology to fully review the County's EIS and the methodology utilized in rubber-stamping it.
If the bureaucrat responsible is correct in his assessment, I'll stand corrected.
But something really stinks about this!
And, the DOE does have a big dog in this fight, who's initials are TMDL!
I would like to see this potentially precedent-setting decision stopped in its tracks, using all means available.
Maybe actions are already being considered that I don't know about, in which case I applaud those initiatives.
Just let me know to whom I should write my check.
There aren't going to be many more chances as good as this one to take a firm stand on Lake Whatcom.
Fiddle around the edges all you want, but this one is a big one!
---------------------
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Parks: Their Care & Feeding
------------------
Another worrisome article appeared in the papers recently, this one concerning our State parks and their viability.
Here's a partial quote:
I know our fiscal crisis is dire in the State of Washington, but wonder what long term effects will occur as a result of this proposed action.
Will the State permanently lose these parks, which were acquired and developed for the benefit of citizens?
I do understand pretty clearly the hierarchy of services priorities that responsible governments must sustain.
At the top of the list are matters of public safety, health and welfare.
Then, come the rest, including amenities such as parks.
----------------
Similar realities exist for other government entities, like Counties, Cities and other municipalities.
Which brings me to a point that ought to be of interest to folks here in Whatcom County.
Recently, the County decided to cease operating the historic Roeder Home , due to 'lack of funding'.
That decision has caused consternation among many who value maintaining worthwhile public amenities.
But, the lack of funds is something that everyone understands.
To date, the County seems to have done nothing to raise additional funds, as has been their habit for at least a dozen years -about the length of time our current Executive has exerted his particular brand of non-leadership.
Of greater concern is the fact that the County has requested the State Dept of Natural Resources [DNR] reconvey 8400 acres of timberlands in the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Watershed for the purpose of -get this- creating a County park!
As desirable as some may think this idea may be, consider this:
Under DNR, these lands were subject to more stringent management, and also produced some revenues to benefit various schools and other public trusts.
Under Whatcom County's management, this 'Park' would -like the Roeder Home- have no stable funding source!
This could be remedied, at least in part, if the County decided to create a Park District, or some other management entity that could also provide necessary funding.
Good luck on that happening!
Sorry to be so skeptical of what is undoubtedly a popular idea, but realities do tend to conflict with such things at times!
To date, I have heard no definitive, or convincing arguments that give me confidence in the County's ability to manage and maintain such a Park, even one that offers minimum activities and impacts.
Where is the plan?
If the State of Washington finds it necessary to rid itself of one-third of its Parks, how is it that little Whatcom County can decide to create such a huge Park around our municipal water supply, with no visible means of support?
That simply boggles my mind!
Maybe others can figure this one out.
Populism is good, but at some point it needs to pencil out, without the use of fast-talk and crayon art!
-----------------
Another worrisome article appeared in the papers recently, this one concerning our State parks and their viability.
Here's a partial quote:
People who went to a Parks and Recreation Commission meeting to protest plans to close 13 state parks heard the state may have to close or transfer as many as 40 parks.
State Parks Director Rex Derr told Thursday's meeting in Tumwater that agency has been asked to prepare for a 23 percent cut. The Olympian reports the news stunned people waiting to comment.
Washington has 121 state parks.
The state Parks Commission will make a final decision on closures after the Legislature passes the budget for the 2009-2011 period.
I know our fiscal crisis is dire in the State of Washington, but wonder what long term effects will occur as a result of this proposed action.
Will the State permanently lose these parks, which were acquired and developed for the benefit of citizens?
I do understand pretty clearly the hierarchy of services priorities that responsible governments must sustain.
At the top of the list are matters of public safety, health and welfare.
Then, come the rest, including amenities such as parks.
----------------
Similar realities exist for other government entities, like Counties, Cities and other municipalities.
Which brings me to a point that ought to be of interest to folks here in Whatcom County.
Recently, the County decided to cease operating the historic Roeder Home , due to 'lack of funding'.
That decision has caused consternation among many who value maintaining worthwhile public amenities.
But, the lack of funds is something that everyone understands.
To date, the County seems to have done nothing to raise additional funds, as has been their habit for at least a dozen years -about the length of time our current Executive has exerted his particular brand of non-leadership.
Of greater concern is the fact that the County has requested the State Dept of Natural Resources [DNR] reconvey 8400 acres of timberlands in the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Watershed for the purpose of -get this- creating a County park!
As desirable as some may think this idea may be, consider this:
Under DNR, these lands were subject to more stringent management, and also produced some revenues to benefit various schools and other public trusts.
Under Whatcom County's management, this 'Park' would -like the Roeder Home- have no stable funding source!
This could be remedied, at least in part, if the County decided to create a Park District, or some other management entity that could also provide necessary funding.
Good luck on that happening!
Sorry to be so skeptical of what is undoubtedly a popular idea, but realities do tend to conflict with such things at times!
To date, I have heard no definitive, or convincing arguments that give me confidence in the County's ability to manage and maintain such a Park, even one that offers minimum activities and impacts.
Where is the plan?
If the State of Washington finds it necessary to rid itself of one-third of its Parks, how is it that little Whatcom County can decide to create such a huge Park around our municipal water supply, with no visible means of support?
That simply boggles my mind!
Maybe others can figure this one out.
Populism is good, but at some point it needs to pencil out, without the use of fast-talk and crayon art!
-----------------
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Thinking Globally, Acting Locally: Part III
---------------
Previously, Parts I & II of this discussion have addressed the role of the City in helping create and sustain its own economic fortunes, and the mixed economics associated with development in the UGA areas.
This Part III deals with a real life scenario of a potentially large in-fill development that is being strongly resisted by nearby residents.
Harry Truman once said he preferred one-armed economists because they weren't so inclined to say 'on the one hand this, but on the other hand that'.
And so it is with other people who develop strong preferences without necessarily considering all the pros and cons of an issue.
Such seems to be the case with a group of citizens who want the area known as 'Chuckanut Ridge' acquired and retained at significant public expense as yet another south-side park.
A few years ago, the group which calls itself 'Responsible Development' hired a consultant to 'prove' their case, that the CR development would cost the City about $12 million if it were allowed to proceed.
This, the consultant dutifully tried to do, but unfortunately he did not use all of the facts that should have been used regarding the City's impact fee structure.
I know this was the case because I supplied this information to the consultant well before his report was prepared -at least so I thought!
The reason a 'cost' of $12 million was important to the RD folks was that they thought an outright buy-out of the property in question might cost less than that amount, thereby resulting in a 'bargain' for the City.
The problem was that the property was valued at a significantly higher sum, and there was no funding source available from the City at the time.
Also, there was the little matter of there being no willing seller!
But these points are incidental to what follows.
-------------
As we know, this CR debate continues even as the issuance of developer's Draft Environmental Impact Statement nears.
And, as we also know the RD opponents are certainly not above waging their own version of economic warfare to achieve their goals.
But, that's OK because it's not only a part of citizen's rights, but legal.
My main problem with that tactic is that it simply ignores the other side of the economic balance sheet.
So, that is the focus of this piece; the economics that benefit the City.
I don't pretend to be an expert at accounting or to have any inside information that is not available to those with a passing interest, so please forgive any sins of omission or commission I may have made, because these are certainly not intended.
CNN Anchor Campbell Brown has the right idea with the concept of 'no bias, no bull'.
I'll try to follow those principles.
-------------------------------
First, the cost of the 85 acres in question has been variably report at upwards of $16 million.
The property was originally about 100 acres, zoned for 1478 dwelling units, back in the early 1980's, a time apparently typified by dim record keeping.
A few years ago, about 15 of the original 100 acres was transferred as wetland buffers, now maintained by the City.
After an unsuccessful attempt or two at development by the former owner, the property was sold to the current owners, a local developer and a local bank.
Also, at some point, a voluntary down-zone was effected which reduced the number of theoretical dwelling units by half, to 739 total.
Whether or not the intent is to build that many homes isn't known, but for the sake of argument, let's say 739 is the number.
If one divides 739 by 85, the resulting density is about 8.7 homes per acre, a very respectable urban density, especially for Bellingham, especaally at a time when land supply is scarce and costs relatively high.
At such a density it makes little sense to expect that each home will occupy the exact square footage of ground, particularly buildable ground, because probably half of the property consists of wetlands and disconnected parcels that effectively render them unbuildable.
This means the likelihood of multi-story housing is pretty high, much higher than some might prefer.
That is regrettable, but it is quite legal and likely to become a reality.
Such is the way our society is intended to work, with the greater community interest usually prevailing.
If anywhere near 739 homes are ever built, this would most certainly happen over several years time, say maybe 10.
And if these homes were in fact constructed -at say, a cost of $200 k each- that would amount to a total local investment approaching $150 million, a not insignificant sum!
Just think about the ramifications of that kind of investment circulating in our local economy in terms of wages as well as goods and services from local businesses.
It's not the same as a big, faceless multi-national corporation coming to town, but it's close, and in some respects it may be better.
After all, the developer is a long time resident of Bellingham with a good reputation, who hires locally and buys locally.
Think those concepts don't fit in with sustainability?
And, the bank is also an established local business which provides local employment as well as financial services to many in our town and area.
Hey, isn't retaining and growing local businesses part of our stated goals as a community?
Tell me again, how much does this actually 'cost' the City?
I think that amount is far less than the $12 million 'guesstimated' by RD's consultant.
And, if it does turn out to 'cost' the City that much, the City will likely receive -over time- much more than that.
So, let's talk about about what revenues accrue to the City, shall we?
Think about that for a minute.
Surely, no serious person believes there aren't some tangible advantages to the City for such an in-fill to occur!
And, if not here at CR, where would these homes be located?
The County has not shown any interest in granting the City additional Urban Growth Area, have they?
[Ironically, a new UGA with a 'clean zoning slate' might be the best opportunity for the City to actually get the density it wants and needs to meet its GMA goals.]
-----------------
Here are some concepts for readers to consider:
1. Sales taxes -now in decline along with the economy- @8% times $200k per home times 73.9 homes per year equals about $1.2 million per year - for 10 years.
Hey, that's about $12 million in total over 10 years, isn't it?
[Note: these revenues are shared]
2. B&O taxes - these are not paid unless business is conducted.
Wonks can figure this positive impact out if they care, but it will be a significant positive number - probably in the hundreds of thousands.
3. All infrastructure and internal improvements to the development are 100% paid by the developer.
This includes streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, lights and the like, all required to meet City standards.
4. Part of the external improvements needed to support transportation needs, like arterial widening, turning improvements, signals, crossings and the like would be paid by the developer, as part of Transportation Impact Fees [TIF].
Typically, just over half these City costs are covered by TIFs. I
Of course, improvements to State highways and bridges are the responsibility of the State of Washington.
5. A portion of the costs for owning and maintaining the City's Parks & Trails system is recovered via Parks Impact Fees [PIF]
Typically, this is apportioned on the basis of dwelling units, which for a single family house would amount to over $4000.
739 homes times $4000 equals almost $3 million, potentially.
6. A portion of the costs for maintaing the Bellingham School District's capital facilities is recovered via School Impact Fees [SIF]
Typically, a single family house would pay just over $1000, totaling about $750 k to the BSD.
7. ALL of the costs for extending the City's water & sewer systems is recovered through System Development Charges and Connection fees, at developer's cost -which of course is passed along to the eventual homeowner.
This amounts to 100% of these costs, a fact that RDs consultant conveniently missed.
This is a very big number, which also benefits every existing homeowner because it spreads the burden of ownership over a broader base, without substantially increasing operating costs.
8. Surface & stormwater facilities are 100% paid by the developer, using City standards,and as approved by the City.
This is typically not an inconsequential cost, although it varies widely by site.
It also may be easier to design for a larger site like CR.
9. And, lest we forget, there is the matter of Property Taxes, which are now being paid by the owners at a rate commensurate with undeveloped property.
As development occurs and value is added, these taxes also rises in proportion to value.
If we assume the average value of each newly built home is about $300 k, then approximately $2000 property taxes each would due the City each year, after it was sold.
Thus, at full build out, about 739 homes times $2000 equals almost $1.5 million per year -every year- would accrue to the City.
This is certainly not an inconsequential amount!
[Note: these revenues are shared; over half goes to schools and higher education, 25% to the City, 14% to the County, 6% to the Port]
10. As homes are sold and resold Real Estate Excise Taxes [REET] are generated which accrue to the City to be used for capital projects as approved by the City Council. Two one-quarter percent taxes apply and are collected which typically total well over $1 million citywide each year.
11. Finally, the City will likely receive over 40 acres of the CR site as the result of wetlands determinations, there by adding -at no capital cost- important buffers to the development, as well as more open space.
No one should question the intrinsic value of such a dedication to the City, and to the environment.
12. A placeholder:
Those interested and/or so inclined can advise me what they think I've left out, or what ought to be estimated differently. I will review these comments and will make adjustments, where appropriate.
------------------
Even if only half the potential 739 dwelling units on this property ever get built, that would amount to a very significant new source of revenue for the City.
And, to the extent my guesstimated figures are off, I'm sure that they are directionally correct.
This is despite my drafting of this piece comes entirely from memory that only some direct experience in such matters can produce.
So, I invite readers to comment if they will, but more importantly, to examine the ASSET side of the ledger and not just the negatives that have been so loudly trumpeted.
Who knows, when exposed to both sides of this debate, maybe some folks may be persuaded this development isn't such a bad idea after all.
Time will tell what happens at CR, just as time will have to tell what it's added value will have on City revenues.
But, to deny a potentially very large additional revenue stream to the City, is to deny reality itself!
There comes a time that we need to actually walk our talk about effective growth management.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt....
--------------------
Previously, Parts I & II of this discussion have addressed the role of the City in helping create and sustain its own economic fortunes, and the mixed economics associated with development in the UGA areas.
This Part III deals with a real life scenario of a potentially large in-fill development that is being strongly resisted by nearby residents.
Harry Truman once said he preferred one-armed economists because they weren't so inclined to say 'on the one hand this, but on the other hand that'.
And so it is with other people who develop strong preferences without necessarily considering all the pros and cons of an issue.
Such seems to be the case with a group of citizens who want the area known as 'Chuckanut Ridge' acquired and retained at significant public expense as yet another south-side park.
A few years ago, the group which calls itself 'Responsible Development' hired a consultant to 'prove' their case, that the CR development would cost the City about $12 million if it were allowed to proceed.
This, the consultant dutifully tried to do, but unfortunately he did not use all of the facts that should have been used regarding the City's impact fee structure.
I know this was the case because I supplied this information to the consultant well before his report was prepared -at least so I thought!
The reason a 'cost' of $12 million was important to the RD folks was that they thought an outright buy-out of the property in question might cost less than that amount, thereby resulting in a 'bargain' for the City.
The problem was that the property was valued at a significantly higher sum, and there was no funding source available from the City at the time.
Also, there was the little matter of there being no willing seller!
But these points are incidental to what follows.
-------------
As we know, this CR debate continues even as the issuance of developer's Draft Environmental Impact Statement nears.
And, as we also know the RD opponents are certainly not above waging their own version of economic warfare to achieve their goals.
But, that's OK because it's not only a part of citizen's rights, but legal.
My main problem with that tactic is that it simply ignores the other side of the economic balance sheet.
So, that is the focus of this piece; the economics that benefit the City.
I don't pretend to be an expert at accounting or to have any inside information that is not available to those with a passing interest, so please forgive any sins of omission or commission I may have made, because these are certainly not intended.
CNN Anchor Campbell Brown has the right idea with the concept of 'no bias, no bull'.
I'll try to follow those principles.
-------------------------------
First, the cost of the 85 acres in question has been variably report at upwards of $16 million.
The property was originally about 100 acres, zoned for 1478 dwelling units, back in the early 1980's, a time apparently typified by dim record keeping.
A few years ago, about 15 of the original 100 acres was transferred as wetland buffers, now maintained by the City.
After an unsuccessful attempt or two at development by the former owner, the property was sold to the current owners, a local developer and a local bank.
Also, at some point, a voluntary down-zone was effected which reduced the number of theoretical dwelling units by half, to 739 total.
Whether or not the intent is to build that many homes isn't known, but for the sake of argument, let's say 739 is the number.
If one divides 739 by 85, the resulting density is about 8.7 homes per acre, a very respectable urban density, especially for Bellingham, especaally at a time when land supply is scarce and costs relatively high.
At such a density it makes little sense to expect that each home will occupy the exact square footage of ground, particularly buildable ground, because probably half of the property consists of wetlands and disconnected parcels that effectively render them unbuildable.
This means the likelihood of multi-story housing is pretty high, much higher than some might prefer.
That is regrettable, but it is quite legal and likely to become a reality.
Such is the way our society is intended to work, with the greater community interest usually prevailing.
If anywhere near 739 homes are ever built, this would most certainly happen over several years time, say maybe 10.
And if these homes were in fact constructed -at say, a cost of $200 k each- that would amount to a total local investment approaching $150 million, a not insignificant sum!
Just think about the ramifications of that kind of investment circulating in our local economy in terms of wages as well as goods and services from local businesses.
It's not the same as a big, faceless multi-national corporation coming to town, but it's close, and in some respects it may be better.
After all, the developer is a long time resident of Bellingham with a good reputation, who hires locally and buys locally.
Think those concepts don't fit in with sustainability?
And, the bank is also an established local business which provides local employment as well as financial services to many in our town and area.
Hey, isn't retaining and growing local businesses part of our stated goals as a community?
Tell me again, how much does this actually 'cost' the City?
I think that amount is far less than the $12 million 'guesstimated' by RD's consultant.
And, if it does turn out to 'cost' the City that much, the City will likely receive -over time- much more than that.
So, let's talk about about what revenues accrue to the City, shall we?
Think about that for a minute.
Surely, no serious person believes there aren't some tangible advantages to the City for such an in-fill to occur!
And, if not here at CR, where would these homes be located?
The County has not shown any interest in granting the City additional Urban Growth Area, have they?
[Ironically, a new UGA with a 'clean zoning slate' might be the best opportunity for the City to actually get the density it wants and needs to meet its GMA goals.]
-----------------
Here are some concepts for readers to consider:
1. Sales taxes -now in decline along with the economy- @8% times $200k per home times 73.9 homes per year equals about $1.2 million per year - for 10 years.
Hey, that's about $12 million in total over 10 years, isn't it?
[Note: these revenues are shared]
2. B&O taxes - these are not paid unless business is conducted.
Wonks can figure this positive impact out if they care, but it will be a significant positive number - probably in the hundreds of thousands.
3. All infrastructure and internal improvements to the development are 100% paid by the developer.
This includes streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, lights and the like, all required to meet City standards.
4. Part of the external improvements needed to support transportation needs, like arterial widening, turning improvements, signals, crossings and the like would be paid by the developer, as part of Transportation Impact Fees [TIF].
Typically, just over half these City costs are covered by TIFs. I
Of course, improvements to State highways and bridges are the responsibility of the State of Washington.
5. A portion of the costs for owning and maintaining the City's Parks & Trails system is recovered via Parks Impact Fees [PIF]
Typically, this is apportioned on the basis of dwelling units, which for a single family house would amount to over $4000.
739 homes times $4000 equals almost $3 million, potentially.
6. A portion of the costs for maintaing the Bellingham School District's capital facilities is recovered via School Impact Fees [SIF]
Typically, a single family house would pay just over $1000, totaling about $750 k to the BSD.
7. ALL of the costs for extending the City's water & sewer systems is recovered through System Development Charges and Connection fees, at developer's cost -which of course is passed along to the eventual homeowner.
This amounts to 100% of these costs, a fact that RDs consultant conveniently missed.
This is a very big number, which also benefits every existing homeowner because it spreads the burden of ownership over a broader base, without substantially increasing operating costs.
8. Surface & stormwater facilities are 100% paid by the developer, using City standards,and as approved by the City.
This is typically not an inconsequential cost, although it varies widely by site.
It also may be easier to design for a larger site like CR.
9. And, lest we forget, there is the matter of Property Taxes, which are now being paid by the owners at a rate commensurate with undeveloped property.
As development occurs and value is added, these taxes also rises in proportion to value.
If we assume the average value of each newly built home is about $300 k, then approximately $2000 property taxes each would due the City each year, after it was sold.
Thus, at full build out, about 739 homes times $2000 equals almost $1.5 million per year -every year- would accrue to the City.
This is certainly not an inconsequential amount!
[Note: these revenues are shared; over half goes to schools and higher education, 25% to the City, 14% to the County, 6% to the Port]
10. As homes are sold and resold Real Estate Excise Taxes [REET] are generated which accrue to the City to be used for capital projects as approved by the City Council. Two one-quarter percent taxes apply and are collected which typically total well over $1 million citywide each year.
11. Finally, the City will likely receive over 40 acres of the CR site as the result of wetlands determinations, there by adding -at no capital cost- important buffers to the development, as well as more open space.
No one should question the intrinsic value of such a dedication to the City, and to the environment.
12. A placeholder:
Those interested and/or so inclined can advise me what they think I've left out, or what ought to be estimated differently. I will review these comments and will make adjustments, where appropriate.
------------------
Even if only half the potential 739 dwelling units on this property ever get built, that would amount to a very significant new source of revenue for the City.
And, to the extent my guesstimated figures are off, I'm sure that they are directionally correct.
This is despite my drafting of this piece comes entirely from memory that only some direct experience in such matters can produce.
So, I invite readers to comment if they will, but more importantly, to examine the ASSET side of the ledger and not just the negatives that have been so loudly trumpeted.
Who knows, when exposed to both sides of this debate, maybe some folks may be persuaded this development isn't such a bad idea after all.
Time will tell what happens at CR, just as time will have to tell what it's added value will have on City revenues.
But, to deny a potentially very large additional revenue stream to the City, is to deny reality itself!
There comes a time that we need to actually walk our talk about effective growth management.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt....
--------------------
Friday, March 6, 2009
Thinking Globally, Acting Locally: Part II
------------------
Our local economy has been pretty sensitive to growth pressures in recent years, which has in turn, mainly served to increase City revenues.
Now, that our local growth has flattened, and even gone somewhat negative in areas, the City is now having difficulty in making ends meet.
While slower growth may please some folks, this revenue reduction reality does present the other side of the growth and prosperity coin, which is also not so easy to deal with.
Finding the proper balance between the two growth extremes is a trick our society has not yet mastered despite, futile attempts to find a silver bullet.
And, don't forget the role that growth does play in local job creation, as well as its impact on the prosperity of local businesses!
In accommodating reasonable growth, as with most investments, a certain amount of capital must be risked up front.
For the City this investment takes several forms;
• For 'brownfield' or redevelopment sites, like our waterfront, substantial investment in clean up costs, new infrastructure and planning is required, but over time this is expected to pay large dividends.
• In the Urban Growth Areas similar investment is required, much of which will hopefully prior to the time that these areas are actually annexed into the City. These investments include roads, streets, parks & trails, plus the commitment to provide for police, fire and other public services forever.
• Within the City limits, most of these infrastructure improvements and services are already available, which should make the cost of development somewhat cheaper for the City. That is part of the rationale behind emphasizing in-fill, because it more efficiently uses the existing available land supply.
In practice, a combination of these basic growth scenarios is generally followed, depending upon land supply and developer economics.
------------------------
This section will focus upon growth in the UGA.
One example of how growth can impact our local economy can be seen from what happens in our Urban Growth Areas.
UGAs are actually a part of the County's jurisdiction, but are intended to be the next areas in which to focus urban levels of growth before being annexed into a city.
The concept of annexation is not one that seems well understood by many, yet it can be an important tool for managing growth properly.
Annexation really means two things; which jurisdiction will a) provide services and set the rules and regulations, and which will b) receive the main revenues derived from development in the annexed area.
[For those interested, an earlier blog was devoted to this subject, and can be found at: http://bellinghamstertalk.blogspot.com/search?q=annexation+asset+or+liability]
When the County sets the rules & regulations, these may not be compatible or comparable with city rules & regulations.
Likewise, the level of services for law enforcement, firefighters and similar services is significantly lower in the County.
But revenues derived, even from just residential development, are usually more than enough to compensate the County for its costs of administration.
In other words, building in the UGA is a cash cow for the County, and this explains why the County hasn't been so keen on having Bellingham annex its UGAs regularly.
The County would just rather continue to eat the City's lunch -and collect more in taxes and fees than it must spend- to put it bluntly.
For years, Bellingham has been extraordinarily lax in NOT systematically annexing portions of its UGA, largely because it merely allowed extension of services without requiring it.
Why this has been allowed to happen is unclear, because other Washington cities seem to be much more aware of the benefits of timely and systematic annexation - as a REQUIREMENT for extending water & sewer utilities and thereby facilitating urban levels of density.
Until a few years ago, Bellingham routinely granted extensions of it utilities into the UGA, under the condition that a 50% surcharge was added to its rates.
That practice created the expectation that the City would continue to do the same thing every time a developer requested it.
It also created a somewhat artificial revenue stream for Public Works that it began to rely upon, so that the true basis for setting water and sewer rates was masked and therefore also somewhat artificial, and unfair.
Public Works actually began to see itself a LOSING REVENUE every time an annexation was proposed or considered!
What is wrong with that picture?
Suffice to say that as long as the practice of extending of utilities for the asking persisted, there was no incentive for developers in the UGA to coordinate their plans with the City, pay City fees or willingly offer to annex UGA areas into the City.
This frequently has resulted in discontinuous -or absent- streets and sidewalks and no provision for parks and other amenities that could become park of the City's system.
If annexation then later occurred, the City became the recipient of a piecemeal development that often missed necessary connecting parts, all of which had to be fixed -after the fact- at City expense.
Doesn't seem fair, or smart, does it?
After persistent effort to examine the annexation question more closely, the City eventually did so.
The initial findings were that Industrial development more than paid its way; that commercial also paid its way; that residential development doesn't come close to paying its way.
Unfortunately, the City simply had already chosen to simply 'cherry-pick' those developments that more than paid their way!
That decision explains the malls, big boxes and small business parks being annexed along arterials for their revenue, while residential areas were largely left alone to congeal into clumps of unattractive, disconnected pockets of mainly apartments that oddly remained outside the City.
Fortunately, this situation is now changing, but not without encountering other problems.
A large number of annexations were proposed recently, which in total, clearly exceeded the City's ability to deal with the additional services that would have been required.
That the City approved only those annexation proposals that made the most sense was wise.
Future annexations probably ought to be conditioned by some sort of quota system, so that a steadier flow of smaller parcels are proposed that can be more readily accommodated, pacman-like.
Another difficulty lies in estimating the cost of services the City must provide to UGAs that petition to be annexed.
When the City attempted to estimate the cost of annexing the entire UGA, some serious problems were encountered.
First, costs were prohibitively estimated at over $130 million, due primarily to 2 factors; the Level Of Service and cost of projected parks & trails, and the difficulty of replacing revenues from the loss of the 50% surcharge on Public Works water and sewer utilities.
Subsequently, these excessive costs have been reassessed, determined to have been over estimated, and their value greatly reduced.
The Parks Level of Service had been inadvertently set at an artificially high level, which has now been modified to a more realistic and affordable level.
Also, the new Parks Plan automatically includes ALL of the UGA, so much of the previously projected additional costs simply do not apply because they are already included.
The Public Works surcharges on water and sewer services in the UGA do disappear when annexation occurs, meaning lesser revenues for the City.
But, by recalculating the true cost basis for these utilities, and by charging the full System Development Charges and connection fees applicable in the City, these large disincentives to annexation also largely appear to be significantly overstated.
The bottom line is that it is NOT nearly as expensive for the City to annex than was initially thought, but there are still significant costs, particularly those of an ongoing nature, like police, fire and the like.
It is not that any of these estimated costs simply vanished, but that a more rational approach of seeing things as part of a whole gave new perspective to the problem.
A bigger City also has greater resources to pay for its services.
And, as long as we don't get greedy about too much annexation at one time, the balance between revenues and costs ought to remain fairly stable.
--------------
An example of old-fashioned stupidity:
A few years ago the City was petitioned by a developer to extend water & sewer services to a proposed 68-home development.
This development was in the UGA, but was bounded on two side by the City Limits, meaning it could easily have applied for annexation, which the developer was willing to do.
But, for reasons still unexplained to me, the City Council went ahead and approved extending water and sewer services -just like they had been doing for years- WITHOUT REQUIRING ANNEXATION!
Don't ask me why, but this did happen.
Of more interest to our local -CITY- economy is the fact that this one -relatively small- but hasty decision cost the City about $2 million in lost sales taxes alone!
Instead, those revenues mostly went to the County.
Question: Why would the City voluntarily give up such significant revenue when it didn't have to?
Answer: Habits established over time are hard to break. Then there is simple ignorance.
In the future, we need to think through every such decision -very carefully- before making it.
There is always some other entity waiting to eat our lunch if we aren't careful.
A large part of our task is to simply understand the economic forces at work in our region, then take full advantage of opportunities when they present themselves.
While there are usually significant added costs to the City with every annexation considered, this is a way of efficiently controlling growth within defined boundaries, which seems much preferable to every other option, with one exception - infill within existing City Limits.
To act locally in a responsible manner requires paying attention to the opportunities that present themselves.
And, it helps to have a reasonable growth management plan or Comprehensive Plan- as we do -that clearly spells out what is needed and planned in an internally consistent manner.
After that, all we need is eternal vigilance to follow the plan!
----------------------
Part III on this topic will deal with a potentially large in-fill development project and attempt to estimate its pro forma and other potential economic impacts on the City.
Our local economy has been pretty sensitive to growth pressures in recent years, which has in turn, mainly served to increase City revenues.
Now, that our local growth has flattened, and even gone somewhat negative in areas, the City is now having difficulty in making ends meet.
While slower growth may please some folks, this revenue reduction reality does present the other side of the growth and prosperity coin, which is also not so easy to deal with.
Finding the proper balance between the two growth extremes is a trick our society has not yet mastered despite, futile attempts to find a silver bullet.
And, don't forget the role that growth does play in local job creation, as well as its impact on the prosperity of local businesses!
In accommodating reasonable growth, as with most investments, a certain amount of capital must be risked up front.
For the City this investment takes several forms;
• For 'brownfield' or redevelopment sites, like our waterfront, substantial investment in clean up costs, new infrastructure and planning is required, but over time this is expected to pay large dividends.
• In the Urban Growth Areas similar investment is required, much of which will hopefully prior to the time that these areas are actually annexed into the City. These investments include roads, streets, parks & trails, plus the commitment to provide for police, fire and other public services forever.
• Within the City limits, most of these infrastructure improvements and services are already available, which should make the cost of development somewhat cheaper for the City. That is part of the rationale behind emphasizing in-fill, because it more efficiently uses the existing available land supply.
In practice, a combination of these basic growth scenarios is generally followed, depending upon land supply and developer economics.
------------------------
This section will focus upon growth in the UGA.
One example of how growth can impact our local economy can be seen from what happens in our Urban Growth Areas.
UGAs are actually a part of the County's jurisdiction, but are intended to be the next areas in which to focus urban levels of growth before being annexed into a city.
The concept of annexation is not one that seems well understood by many, yet it can be an important tool for managing growth properly.
Annexation really means two things; which jurisdiction will a) provide services and set the rules and regulations, and which will b) receive the main revenues derived from development in the annexed area.
[For those interested, an earlier blog was devoted to this subject, and can be found at: http://bellinghamstertalk.blogspot.com/search?q=annexation+asset+or+liability]
When the County sets the rules & regulations, these may not be compatible or comparable with city rules & regulations.
Likewise, the level of services for law enforcement, firefighters and similar services is significantly lower in the County.
But revenues derived, even from just residential development, are usually more than enough to compensate the County for its costs of administration.
In other words, building in the UGA is a cash cow for the County, and this explains why the County hasn't been so keen on having Bellingham annex its UGAs regularly.
The County would just rather continue to eat the City's lunch -and collect more in taxes and fees than it must spend- to put it bluntly.
For years, Bellingham has been extraordinarily lax in NOT systematically annexing portions of its UGA, largely because it merely allowed extension of services without requiring it.
Why this has been allowed to happen is unclear, because other Washington cities seem to be much more aware of the benefits of timely and systematic annexation - as a REQUIREMENT for extending water & sewer utilities and thereby facilitating urban levels of density.
Until a few years ago, Bellingham routinely granted extensions of it utilities into the UGA, under the condition that a 50% surcharge was added to its rates.
That practice created the expectation that the City would continue to do the same thing every time a developer requested it.
It also created a somewhat artificial revenue stream for Public Works that it began to rely upon, so that the true basis for setting water and sewer rates was masked and therefore also somewhat artificial, and unfair.
Public Works actually began to see itself a LOSING REVENUE every time an annexation was proposed or considered!
What is wrong with that picture?
Suffice to say that as long as the practice of extending of utilities for the asking persisted, there was no incentive for developers in the UGA to coordinate their plans with the City, pay City fees or willingly offer to annex UGA areas into the City.
This frequently has resulted in discontinuous -or absent- streets and sidewalks and no provision for parks and other amenities that could become park of the City's system.
If annexation then later occurred, the City became the recipient of a piecemeal development that often missed necessary connecting parts, all of which had to be fixed -after the fact- at City expense.
Doesn't seem fair, or smart, does it?
After persistent effort to examine the annexation question more closely, the City eventually did so.
The initial findings were that Industrial development more than paid its way; that commercial also paid its way; that residential development doesn't come close to paying its way.
Unfortunately, the City simply had already chosen to simply 'cherry-pick' those developments that more than paid their way!
That decision explains the malls, big boxes and small business parks being annexed along arterials for their revenue, while residential areas were largely left alone to congeal into clumps of unattractive, disconnected pockets of mainly apartments that oddly remained outside the City.
Fortunately, this situation is now changing, but not without encountering other problems.
A large number of annexations were proposed recently, which in total, clearly exceeded the City's ability to deal with the additional services that would have been required.
That the City approved only those annexation proposals that made the most sense was wise.
Future annexations probably ought to be conditioned by some sort of quota system, so that a steadier flow of smaller parcels are proposed that can be more readily accommodated, pacman-like.
Another difficulty lies in estimating the cost of services the City must provide to UGAs that petition to be annexed.
When the City attempted to estimate the cost of annexing the entire UGA, some serious problems were encountered.
First, costs were prohibitively estimated at over $130 million, due primarily to 2 factors; the Level Of Service and cost of projected parks & trails, and the difficulty of replacing revenues from the loss of the 50% surcharge on Public Works water and sewer utilities.
Subsequently, these excessive costs have been reassessed, determined to have been over estimated, and their value greatly reduced.
The Parks Level of Service had been inadvertently set at an artificially high level, which has now been modified to a more realistic and affordable level.
Also, the new Parks Plan automatically includes ALL of the UGA, so much of the previously projected additional costs simply do not apply because they are already included.
The Public Works surcharges on water and sewer services in the UGA do disappear when annexation occurs, meaning lesser revenues for the City.
But, by recalculating the true cost basis for these utilities, and by charging the full System Development Charges and connection fees applicable in the City, these large disincentives to annexation also largely appear to be significantly overstated.
The bottom line is that it is NOT nearly as expensive for the City to annex than was initially thought, but there are still significant costs, particularly those of an ongoing nature, like police, fire and the like.
It is not that any of these estimated costs simply vanished, but that a more rational approach of seeing things as part of a whole gave new perspective to the problem.
A bigger City also has greater resources to pay for its services.
And, as long as we don't get greedy about too much annexation at one time, the balance between revenues and costs ought to remain fairly stable.
--------------
An example of old-fashioned stupidity:
A few years ago the City was petitioned by a developer to extend water & sewer services to a proposed 68-home development.
This development was in the UGA, but was bounded on two side by the City Limits, meaning it could easily have applied for annexation, which the developer was willing to do.
But, for reasons still unexplained to me, the City Council went ahead and approved extending water and sewer services -just like they had been doing for years- WITHOUT REQUIRING ANNEXATION!
Don't ask me why, but this did happen.
Of more interest to our local -CITY- economy is the fact that this one -relatively small- but hasty decision cost the City about $2 million in lost sales taxes alone!
Instead, those revenues mostly went to the County.
Question: Why would the City voluntarily give up such significant revenue when it didn't have to?
Answer: Habits established over time are hard to break. Then there is simple ignorance.
In the future, we need to think through every such decision -very carefully- before making it.
There is always some other entity waiting to eat our lunch if we aren't careful.
A large part of our task is to simply understand the economic forces at work in our region, then take full advantage of opportunities when they present themselves.
While there are usually significant added costs to the City with every annexation considered, this is a way of efficiently controlling growth within defined boundaries, which seems much preferable to every other option, with one exception - infill within existing City Limits.
To act locally in a responsible manner requires paying attention to the opportunities that present themselves.
And, it helps to have a reasonable growth management plan or Comprehensive Plan- as we do -that clearly spells out what is needed and planned in an internally consistent manner.
After that, all we need is eternal vigilance to follow the plan!
----------------------
Part III on this topic will deal with a potentially large in-fill development project and attempt to estimate its pro forma and other potential economic impacts on the City.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Thinking Globally, Acting Locally: Part I
-------------------------
Our last Presidential election was largely won in a battle of ideas, literally about war & peace and prosperity & poverty.
Those subjects are old as history itself and important as ever, interrelated as they inevitably are.
These days, at the local level, civil discourse remains essential to achieving worthwhile ends to benefit our entire community, like the waterfront redevelopment, preservation of our drinking water reservoir, responsible growth management and the maintenance of our wonderful public amenities that so enhance the quality of life here.
But, you know, these thing haven't just happened by chance!
Neither have they come about without tremendous effort and expense.
While our national economy -and the world economy- are hurting big time, our local economy hasn't suffered quite as much, at least so far.
But the signs are ominous as municipal revenues have plummeted and have already necessitated drastic budget reductions that may well continue to be required.
That is actually quite worrisome, because soon some public amenities may have to be reduced in favor of maintaining more essential services, like police, fire and EMS.
I hope this does not happen, but we have to be aware of these possibilities.
While there are always some who prefer a bare bones city, most people prefer a good suite of amenities, like libraries, museums, theaters and a functional parks & trails system.
The problem is being able to continue paying for these things.
What can the city do to stabilize its revenues so that services do not have to be severely cut?
That seems a question that ought to be an active community discussion.
So, here goes my attempt at starting such a discussion:
Economics has been called 'the dismal science', because -well it can be pretty dismal, both to learn and to use in real time.
Many factors are unknown, hard to discern and difficult to use in any analysis that is intended to convince others of projections and conclusions.
I suspect our local economists can verify that from their own experience, especially when economic studies are used to influence public policy.
Sometimes, facts and ingrained beliefs and habits just don't mix very well.
And so it will probably be with the specific example I will use a little later, maybe in Part II.
During a prior election, the Chamber of Commerce asked candidates a few questions about what they thought the role of local government was, or should be, in stimulating the local economy.
I remember that group of questions because it was so out of the ordinary that it really forced to think hard about the answers I submitted.
I still have that questionnaire somewhere, but won't attempt at finding it because I think I remember the basic answers, which were these:
• The primary role of municipal government's support of its businesses is to provide a stable, fair and predictable set of rules and regulations that can be relied upon.
• Another role is to provide those essential services, and amenities that residents and businesses alike can count on to provide for their needs and basic enjoyment.
• Overarching the above, the local government need to consistently subscribe to the idea of fiscal responsibility and reasonable restraint, so that in good times and bad, services are reliably maintained.
That's about it, but think about what this really means.
Folks, these things aren't that easy, especially when bad times hit suddenly!
But, Bellingham has some characteristics that seem to insulate it somewhat from the radical fluctuations seen some other places, many of which have attained a reputation for being 'business friendly'.
For one thing, something like 5 or 6 of the top 10 employers here are institutions, like WWU, the school districts, St Joseph's Hospital and the 2 biggest local governments.
That alone provides a measure of stability for employment that private enterprises sometimes have difficulty approaching.
Also, there are many smaller businesses that have loyal customers, especially since our 'Buy Local' campaign has galvanized such interest.
And, as a regional center, the mall and surrounding Big Box stores provide a steady influx of customers that greatly add to government revenues.
That is a fact whether one prefers malls and Big Boxes or not!
Just look at the revenue figures available from the City Finance Director if you don't believe me.
Anyway, the point is our local economy is what it is and apart from another building boom -not likely - it is not likely to change dramatically anytime soon.
At least let's hope it doesn't, because a big shift could easily be a negative one.
That would not be helpful to anyone.
So, what do we do to help the situation, besides hoping and praying?
I think getting a little more serious about the three essential functions of local government, listed above, can help.
That is because businesses are no different from any resident in their desire to have stability, fairness and predictability to rely upon.
Folks, business -or 'bidness'- is not inherently bad!
It has been and continues to be the engine that fuels our entire economy, especially including jobs that provide income for families.
Local government and institutions do pay relatively good wages and benefits, but they get most of their revenues from businesses, property owners and consumers.
Only the Federal government can legally print money, and they haven't always used that privilege very well either!
So, this will serve as an introduction to a new topic, and one I will spend some time in researching more.
I hope readers find this discussion timely, interesting and maybe even a little entertaining.
So, please stay tuned for the next episode -exciting or not.
Our last Presidential election was largely won in a battle of ideas, literally about war & peace and prosperity & poverty.
Those subjects are old as history itself and important as ever, interrelated as they inevitably are.
These days, at the local level, civil discourse remains essential to achieving worthwhile ends to benefit our entire community, like the waterfront redevelopment, preservation of our drinking water reservoir, responsible growth management and the maintenance of our wonderful public amenities that so enhance the quality of life here.
But, you know, these thing haven't just happened by chance!
Neither have they come about without tremendous effort and expense.
While our national economy -and the world economy- are hurting big time, our local economy hasn't suffered quite as much, at least so far.
But the signs are ominous as municipal revenues have plummeted and have already necessitated drastic budget reductions that may well continue to be required.
That is actually quite worrisome, because soon some public amenities may have to be reduced in favor of maintaining more essential services, like police, fire and EMS.
I hope this does not happen, but we have to be aware of these possibilities.
While there are always some who prefer a bare bones city, most people prefer a good suite of amenities, like libraries, museums, theaters and a functional parks & trails system.
The problem is being able to continue paying for these things.
What can the city do to stabilize its revenues so that services do not have to be severely cut?
That seems a question that ought to be an active community discussion.
So, here goes my attempt at starting such a discussion:
Economics has been called 'the dismal science', because -well it can be pretty dismal, both to learn and to use in real time.
Many factors are unknown, hard to discern and difficult to use in any analysis that is intended to convince others of projections and conclusions.
I suspect our local economists can verify that from their own experience, especially when economic studies are used to influence public policy.
Sometimes, facts and ingrained beliefs and habits just don't mix very well.
And so it will probably be with the specific example I will use a little later, maybe in Part II.
During a prior election, the Chamber of Commerce asked candidates a few questions about what they thought the role of local government was, or should be, in stimulating the local economy.
I remember that group of questions because it was so out of the ordinary that it really forced to think hard about the answers I submitted.
I still have that questionnaire somewhere, but won't attempt at finding it because I think I remember the basic answers, which were these:
• The primary role of municipal government's support of its businesses is to provide a stable, fair and predictable set of rules and regulations that can be relied upon.
• Another role is to provide those essential services, and amenities that residents and businesses alike can count on to provide for their needs and basic enjoyment.
• Overarching the above, the local government need to consistently subscribe to the idea of fiscal responsibility and reasonable restraint, so that in good times and bad, services are reliably maintained.
That's about it, but think about what this really means.
Folks, these things aren't that easy, especially when bad times hit suddenly!
But, Bellingham has some characteristics that seem to insulate it somewhat from the radical fluctuations seen some other places, many of which have attained a reputation for being 'business friendly'.
For one thing, something like 5 or 6 of the top 10 employers here are institutions, like WWU, the school districts, St Joseph's Hospital and the 2 biggest local governments.
That alone provides a measure of stability for employment that private enterprises sometimes have difficulty approaching.
Also, there are many smaller businesses that have loyal customers, especially since our 'Buy Local' campaign has galvanized such interest.
And, as a regional center, the mall and surrounding Big Box stores provide a steady influx of customers that greatly add to government revenues.
That is a fact whether one prefers malls and Big Boxes or not!
Just look at the revenue figures available from the City Finance Director if you don't believe me.
Anyway, the point is our local economy is what it is and apart from another building boom -not likely - it is not likely to change dramatically anytime soon.
At least let's hope it doesn't, because a big shift could easily be a negative one.
That would not be helpful to anyone.
So, what do we do to help the situation, besides hoping and praying?
I think getting a little more serious about the three essential functions of local government, listed above, can help.
That is because businesses are no different from any resident in their desire to have stability, fairness and predictability to rely upon.
Folks, business -or 'bidness'- is not inherently bad!
It has been and continues to be the engine that fuels our entire economy, especially including jobs that provide income for families.
Local government and institutions do pay relatively good wages and benefits, but they get most of their revenues from businesses, property owners and consumers.
Only the Federal government can legally print money, and they haven't always used that privilege very well either!
So, this will serve as an introduction to a new topic, and one I will spend some time in researching more.
I hope readers find this discussion timely, interesting and maybe even a little entertaining.
So, please stay tuned for the next episode -exciting or not.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Eschewing Obfuscation & Espousing Elucidation
---------------
Please pardon the title, which is intended as a mild spoof of an e-mail which invites recipients to view another blog piece, entitled 'Greenways III: Policy and Practice Disaster'.
This e-mail, from Barbara Ryan on the subject of:'Chuckanut Ridge Exigesis', invites comments, and calls the GW3 the most divisive issue in her eleven years on the Council.
And, as she avers 'there are many lessons to be learned'.
I certainly do agree with that statement!
But first, why use an unusual word like 'exigesis'?
I had to look it up.
After doing that, I wondered why the word 'hermeneutics' wasn't used instead, because it seems have a somewhat wider -and less Biblical- sounding application.
But I digress.
Instead, the below is offered:
--------------------------
From Wikipedia:
▪ "Eschew obfuscation", also stated as "eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation", is a common humorous saying of English teachers and professors when lecturing about proper writing techniques.
▪ Literally, the phrase means "avoid ambiguity, adopt clarity", but the use of relatively uncommon words causes confusion, making the phrase an example of irony, and more precisely a heterological or hypocritical phrase (it does not embody its own advice).
▪ The phrase has appeared in print at least as early as 1959, when it was used as a section heading in a NASA document.
▪ An earlier similar phrase appears in Mark Twain's Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses, where he lists rule fourteen of good writing as "eschew surplusage".
--------------------------
On a issue as hotly debated as GREENWAYS why not make the discussion as simple to understand and fact-based as possible?
I know that different people subscribe to different definitions and versions of 'facts', but we should all be able to agree on what is simple to understand and is reasonably verifiable.
With this in mind, let me share what I think might have been -or should have been- some 'lessons learned':
1. Always be truthful, because that way individuals -and the public- can remember not only what was said, but the context of it, as well as likely results.
2. Avoid unnecessarily taking firm sides too early in a public discussion, especially one that will eventually require the broad consensus of the community, and may involve the 'earmarking' public funds.
3. Respect -in word and deed- the concepts of transparency and fairness, particularly when tempted or pressured to make any back-room deals with constituents. Do not consciously avoid openness!
4. Rather than reaching questionable -or even illegal- agreements outside of public meetings, rely instead upon clearly stated goals and not verbal -or 'fine print'- nuances which so often can lead to problematic misunderstandings.
5. Always strive for a Council consensus that can last and unite, not forced simple and divisive majorities, especially on matters of wide community interest and scarce voluntary funding.
That's about it for me, but others may have other ideas.
--------------------
Now, a brief comment on the aforementioned other blog entry:
• Most of the history and interpretations therein appear to be accurate, although the article is by no means comprehensive.
There are significant gaps, either dictated by space & time limitations, or by design, or ignorance.
• The statement that I had nothing to do with the idea of freeing up an additional $2million for acquisition purposes is NOT accurate, and I invite the author to reconsider this particular statement.
• The comments on omission of clear language from the legislation authorizing the GW3 levy strain any serious attempt at logic, and are patently incorrect. One can try to reconstruct history -which can be healthy- but revisionism is a different matter!
• I don't believe for one moment that former Councilor Beardsley was 'bullied' into anything. That statement simply demeans her independent spirit, her astounding logical and intellectual abilities, and most of all, her personal integrity.
• Then, this interesting statement:
I don't believe these concerns necessarily need to be focused on any one group, especially so-called CR OPPONENTS! Look into the mirror before making such comments if you intend to be taken seriously!
• Finally, regarding this statement:
The Greenways Strategic Plan is something the Council requested be done following passage of the levy.
It has taken over 2 years for these carefully considered RECOMMENDATIONS to come forward.
They are not decisions, because those are made exclusively by the Council and no one else.
The fact that the number '$8 million' does not appear in any one place ought to be instructive.
What it probably means is there are other competing priorities for the guaranteed $6 million in south-side property acquisition money.
It is easier to understand the author's attitude on this when one takes into account her single minded focus on Chuckanut Ridge, but, wouldn't it be great if none of this money would need to be spent on CR?
Think about it.
The City will likely obtain 40+ acres of the 85 total for NOTHING after issuance of the developer's DEIS.
Any additional land needed for public right of way can likely be procured for less than $4, or maybe even $2 million,
unless, of course, there is yet another secret back-room deal in existence.
• No one I know is totally opposed to acquiring a reasonable portion of CR for the public good.
And, the author is certainly correct that whoever comprises the Council at the time any CR acquisition proposal is offered will determine that outcome.
So, why the attempt at forcing the issue now?
Is there some deadline looming that the author fears, or doesn't she trust future Councils to do the right thing?
There is more wisdom in a calmer approach now, and certainly one that doesn't try to intentionally inflame old animosities.
The author is correct that GW3 is one of the -maybe the most- divisive issues of the last decade or so.
But, she also needs to examine closely the role she, herself, has played in making that statement true!
After all, what goes around does come around....
-------------------
This will -likely- end my commenting upon this particular subject, because I believe enough has now been said by me publicly, and I have some other personal priorities.
For those offended by my rather forceful and pointed comments, I do apologize for your your discomfort.
But, I am not one to remain silent when I feel things need to be said, or when I do also happen to be knowledgeable on an issue.
It is unfortunate that my relationship with the author, and the other Council Members in question, have come to this state of hard feelings.
Earlier in our respective, local political careers, we seemed to agree on much more than we disagared upon.
And, we were able to achieve some great things that have the prospect of enduring to the benefit of future generations of citizens.
Just to name a few:
The Silver Beach Ordinance, for example, and the Watershed Preservation & Acquisition Ordinance.
Pipe Line Safety reform, on a national and state level.
Enhanced public access to local government meetings.
Budgetary reform, of which more is desirable.
Charter review and revision.
Land use planning policies, including annexation requirements before extending water & sewer utilities.
Transportation policies, and implementation thereof.
Why not remember these significant successes instead of focusing on GW3's problems?
Actually, the fact that a $44 million GW3 levy was PASSED ought to be a wonderful cause for celebration!
But, as a Buddhist philosopher might say, 'your own mother will become your worst enemy'.
That seems a little extreme, but also directionally accurate.
At any rate, I wish the Councillors with whom I have served nothing but the best, despite any differences we might have had.
If I had to do it all over again, I would, but maybe with a little more forbearance than before, but one never knows.
This business of politics doesn't require a lot of training or qualifications.
What one learns, one learns on the job, for the most part.
I hope this piece helps to "eschew obfuscation and espouse elucidation", and not the opposite.
But, one can only hope that will happen.
--------------------
Please pardon the title, which is intended as a mild spoof of an e-mail which invites recipients to view another blog piece, entitled 'Greenways III: Policy and Practice Disaster'.
This e-mail, from Barbara Ryan on the subject of:'Chuckanut Ridge Exigesis', invites comments, and calls the GW3 the most divisive issue in her eleven years on the Council.
And, as she avers 'there are many lessons to be learned'.
I certainly do agree with that statement!
But first, why use an unusual word like 'exigesis'?
I had to look it up.
After doing that, I wondered why the word 'hermeneutics' wasn't used instead, because it seems have a somewhat wider -and less Biblical- sounding application.
But I digress.
Instead, the below is offered:
--------------------------
From Wikipedia:
▪ "Eschew obfuscation", also stated as "eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation", is a common humorous saying of English teachers and professors when lecturing about proper writing techniques.
▪ Literally, the phrase means "avoid ambiguity, adopt clarity", but the use of relatively uncommon words causes confusion, making the phrase an example of irony, and more precisely a heterological or hypocritical phrase (it does not embody its own advice).
▪ The phrase has appeared in print at least as early as 1959, when it was used as a section heading in a NASA document.
▪ An earlier similar phrase appears in Mark Twain's Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses, where he lists rule fourteen of good writing as "eschew surplusage".
--------------------------
On a issue as hotly debated as GREENWAYS why not make the discussion as simple to understand and fact-based as possible?
I know that different people subscribe to different definitions and versions of 'facts', but we should all be able to agree on what is simple to understand and is reasonably verifiable.
With this in mind, let me share what I think might have been -or should have been- some 'lessons learned':
1. Always be truthful, because that way individuals -and the public- can remember not only what was said, but the context of it, as well as likely results.
2. Avoid unnecessarily taking firm sides too early in a public discussion, especially one that will eventually require the broad consensus of the community, and may involve the 'earmarking' public funds.
3. Respect -in word and deed- the concepts of transparency and fairness, particularly when tempted or pressured to make any back-room deals with constituents. Do not consciously avoid openness!
4. Rather than reaching questionable -or even illegal- agreements outside of public meetings, rely instead upon clearly stated goals and not verbal -or 'fine print'- nuances which so often can lead to problematic misunderstandings.
5. Always strive for a Council consensus that can last and unite, not forced simple and divisive majorities, especially on matters of wide community interest and scarce voluntary funding.
That's about it for me, but others may have other ideas.
--------------------
Now, a brief comment on the aforementioned other blog entry:
• Most of the history and interpretations therein appear to be accurate, although the article is by no means comprehensive.
There are significant gaps, either dictated by space & time limitations, or by design, or ignorance.
• The statement that I had nothing to do with the idea of freeing up an additional $2million for acquisition purposes is NOT accurate, and I invite the author to reconsider this particular statement.
• The comments on omission of clear language from the legislation authorizing the GW3 levy strain any serious attempt at logic, and are patently incorrect. One can try to reconstruct history -which can be healthy- but revisionism is a different matter!
• I don't believe for one moment that former Councilor Beardsley was 'bullied' into anything. That statement simply demeans her independent spirit, her astounding logical and intellectual abilities, and most of all, her personal integrity.
• Then, this interesting statement:
'What concerns us most is the question that Chuckanut Ridge opponents have sown about their government and this process. The secretive property acquisition process itself is rife for these accusations. These are among the very few discussions that can be held in Executive Session, without public scrutiny. In order to continue to set aside land for parks and open spaces, some confidentiality must be maintained.'
I don't believe these concerns necessarily need to be focused on any one group, especially so-called CR OPPONENTS! Look into the mirror before making such comments if you intend to be taken seriously!
• Finally, regarding this statement:
'On January 12, the Greenways and Parks Boards decided that no more than $4 million of the $44 million levy should be spent on the Fairhaven Highlands property, known as Chuckanut Ridge. They made their recommendation public, for the first time, in the Council packet published Thursday, January 8'.
The Greenways Strategic Plan is something the Council requested be done following passage of the levy.
It has taken over 2 years for these carefully considered RECOMMENDATIONS to come forward.
They are not decisions, because those are made exclusively by the Council and no one else.
The fact that the number '$8 million' does not appear in any one place ought to be instructive.
What it probably means is there are other competing priorities for the guaranteed $6 million in south-side property acquisition money.
It is easier to understand the author's attitude on this when one takes into account her single minded focus on Chuckanut Ridge, but, wouldn't it be great if none of this money would need to be spent on CR?
Think about it.
The City will likely obtain 40+ acres of the 85 total for NOTHING after issuance of the developer's DEIS.
Any additional land needed for public right of way can likely be procured for less than $4, or maybe even $2 million,
unless, of course, there is yet another secret back-room deal in existence.
• No one I know is totally opposed to acquiring a reasonable portion of CR for the public good.
And, the author is certainly correct that whoever comprises the Council at the time any CR acquisition proposal is offered will determine that outcome.
So, why the attempt at forcing the issue now?
Is there some deadline looming that the author fears, or doesn't she trust future Councils to do the right thing?
There is more wisdom in a calmer approach now, and certainly one that doesn't try to intentionally inflame old animosities.
The author is correct that GW3 is one of the -maybe the most- divisive issues of the last decade or so.
But, she also needs to examine closely the role she, herself, has played in making that statement true!
After all, what goes around does come around....
-------------------
This will -likely- end my commenting upon this particular subject, because I believe enough has now been said by me publicly, and I have some other personal priorities.
For those offended by my rather forceful and pointed comments, I do apologize for your your discomfort.
But, I am not one to remain silent when I feel things need to be said, or when I do also happen to be knowledgeable on an issue.
It is unfortunate that my relationship with the author, and the other Council Members in question, have come to this state of hard feelings.
Earlier in our respective, local political careers, we seemed to agree on much more than we disagared upon.
And, we were able to achieve some great things that have the prospect of enduring to the benefit of future generations of citizens.
Just to name a few:
The Silver Beach Ordinance, for example, and the Watershed Preservation & Acquisition Ordinance.
Pipe Line Safety reform, on a national and state level.
Enhanced public access to local government meetings.
Budgetary reform, of which more is desirable.
Charter review and revision.
Land use planning policies, including annexation requirements before extending water & sewer utilities.
Transportation policies, and implementation thereof.
Why not remember these significant successes instead of focusing on GW3's problems?
Actually, the fact that a $44 million GW3 levy was PASSED ought to be a wonderful cause for celebration!
But, as a Buddhist philosopher might say, 'your own mother will become your worst enemy'.
That seems a little extreme, but also directionally accurate.
At any rate, I wish the Councillors with whom I have served nothing but the best, despite any differences we might have had.
If I had to do it all over again, I would, but maybe with a little more forbearance than before, but one never knows.
This business of politics doesn't require a lot of training or qualifications.
What one learns, one learns on the job, for the most part.
I hope this piece helps to "eschew obfuscation and espouse elucidation", and not the opposite.
But, one can only hope that will happen.
--------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
