HamsterTalk

Storm Water: Who Decides What Is Good Sense?

2012-02-01T10:32:00.000-08:00

Repeating a phrase from yesterday's blog seems appropriate to this one, too:

The Principle of the Dangerous Precedent is that you should not now do an admittedly right action for fear you, or your equally timid successors, should not have the courage to do right in some future case, which, ex hypothesi, is essentially different, but superficially resembles the present one. Every public action which is not customary, either is wrong, or, if it is right, is a dangerous precedent. It follows that nothing should ever be done for the first time.

Today's Crosscut article addresses the latest attempt to delay -again- regulations that are more effective for storm water control. This seems like 'deja vu' all over again to me, so I posted this comment from my own experience:

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

The idea seems ironic to postpone doing something that is good sense just because the 'economy' isn't very good right now. With the historic stand taken by the Building Industry, no new regulations would ever be passed or implemented, particularly if developers are required to pay their 'fair share' of costs borne by all citizens, abide by required rules, or spend time explaining what is planned in return for a permit. That mentality is what got us into the present situation where the very quality of our own habitat is severely threatened!

DOE has a big responsibility and limited authority -or will- to act reasonably and in a timely manner to actually address solving the non-source pollution problem that is so problematic, yet its wings are repeatedly clipped by the slightest resistance to tighter and more effective regulations. Ecology has now developed such a reputation for wimping out and continual delay that, unfortunately, this behavior is no longer a surprise, but a frustration. Can you imagine any caring professional working for an organization like that? It's an unfunny joke, and a gross disservice to the public, which pays for reasonable services to help protect the air, water and soil we all depend upon.

Granted, that DOE can excel at its job if given necessary support from municipalities and the State Legislature, but without that support you can see what happens, repeatedly. The problem is that after-the-fact mitigation is always less effective and more expensive than getting things right from the first; which is why more delay won't help at all, but make the observed problems worse! Of course developers will play the deny, decry, delay game! That simply takes them off the hook and defers liability onto the home owner and municipality -at a higher environmental and social cost.

Several years ago, Bellingham was able to make its Surface & Storm Water Utility more effective by implementing the latest DOE/EPA rules and raising rates to pay for them. That was an understandably painful process, but it now seems to have worked. Guess who led the fight against that change? If you guessed the Building Industry, you'd be right -and that was during an economic boom period of record levels!

In fairness, the Storm Water permitting is often the most difficult to do, and the most expensive and time-intensive. Largely, this difficulty was due to several logical factors, among others; topography and vegetative cover become more important, interfacing with the already-built infrastructure can require ingenuity and expense, treating the storm water for pollutants is necessary, codifying new guidelines takes time and one size doesn't fit every situation. But, what is the excuse for not using the new rules for new development? There, one has a pretty clean slate to actually practice the art of low-impact techniques, thereby avoiding many of the problems outlined above.

In the end, more delay of storm water improvements for the asking doesn't help anyone, except the lobbyists -like the BIA- and that is a short-term, special favor that the rest of us -or our children- must pay for some day, in some way, but well after people forget the linkage to unwanted consequences.

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

PS. Today's Gristle further illuminates the problem of 'doing the right thing' at it's most basic level; following the existing law! Is there any hope for Whatcom County? No wonder DOE has problems!

Climate Politics & Microcosmographia Academica

2012-01-31T21:25:00.000-08:00

I came across a reference to Microcosmographia Academica (A Study of a Tiny Academic World) a pamphlet written by F. M. Cornford of Cambridge University and published in 1908 during an ALL class today at USF.

It struck me immediately as exceptionally humorous, but also apropos to politics other than those encountered in academia. Imagine discussing such things as "The Thin End of The Wedge" and "The Dangerous Precedent"

The Principle of the Dangerous Precedent is that you should not now do an admittedly right action for fear you, or your equally timid successors, should not have the courage to do right in some future case, which, ex hypothesi, is essentially different, but superficially resembles the present one. Every public action which is not customary, either is wrong, or, if it is right, is a dangerous precedent. It follows that nothing should ever be done for the first time.

One comparison came to mind, concerning the so-called 'debate' over climate change and what actions a responsible government might take to anticipate impending potential harmful effects and attempt mitigation. If you have witnessed the same level of denial on that issue that I have, you'd probably be tempted to just give up trying and let whatever happens, happen!

Today, this article on NASA's latest assessment of the causes of climate change appeared in USA Today. Note it directly refutes yesterday's Wall Street Journal article that named 16 'top' scientists who allowed themselves to be listed as dissenters from the view of 98% of 'top' scientists -what, 800 or so- that see clear adverse impacts from humans via greatly increased burning of fossil fuels during just the last 150 years.

It's difficult to understand anyone doubting carefully verified historical world temperature trends & cycles over the past 400,000 years, especially when these lengthy trends between successive ice ages have been so remarkably regular until just 150 years ago! What's up with that thinking? Do we get to believe science only when it suits us?

That surely wasn't the way we went about trying to land on the moon! That was an ambitious goal we used our best scientists to achieve, despite the many inconvenient uncertainties that had to be overcome.

NASA's motto then was NOT 'It follows that nothing should ever be done for the first time.'

If that sounds like the ultimate in modern 'conservatism', it is - at least for those things these 'conservatives' don't want!

Coal & Climate

2012-01-27T13:55:00.000-08:00

Floyd Mckay's Crosscut article posted today describes recent developments in Bellingham and Oregon regarding shipping US coal to China. It seems small Columbia River ports downstream of Portland want terminals to ship the coal, using huge Capesize vessels.

And, the Bellingham Herald published an article by John Stark about yesterday's launch of the Coal-Free Bellingham Initiative. Good support shown - and I am sympathetic - but is it likely to be adopted as an ordinance by the City Council? Sorry to disappoint, but I doubt it. Why? Because the City will be advised that it is illegal and will likely bring losing litigation that citizens will pay for.

Unlike the County, which willfully does stupid things that are unwise and unlawful -read Growth Management decisions- the City usually does bother to seek competent legal opinion on such matters, then follows it. I'd be surprised to see any Ordinance even dutifully considered, much less approved [by at least 5 votes], though another Resolution might be possible.

So, does coal really have a measurable effect on our climate? You bet it does! And certainly in our political climate, where divisions are already evident and solidifying into virtual abysses.

If nothing else, the coal terminal debate will serve to flush out those with opinions that are mostly ideologically -or selfishly- motivated and who see the prospect of a few local jobs and huge corporate profits as clearly outweighing any environmental or social harm that all citizens would have to accept - without their approval.

And, it will highlight the ridiculous ideas that corporations are people and money is free speech! Get serious, please, and use some common sense on these matters; I'm talking to you, Supreme Court, and all those that pay for such influence.

Capitalism is a system that does provide some real benefits, but like any other concept or system, there needs to be limits. Without those limits some very harmful and brutal things can happen for which the common citizen has no recourse.

For example, why should the people of Bellingham -and other communities along the RR route- be unilaterally saddled in dealing with the costs of mitigating the myriad safety issues, health issues and property value issues that will come with greatly increased railroad traffic through our town and waterfront?

And, why do we have to accept the idea that huge foreign registry ships will be allowed free access to our coastal waters and marine habitats for the sole reason of hauling a natural resource of our country to another to enable continued erosion of US manufacturing jobs, inevitable fouling of our waters and coastlines, increased pollution of the world's atmosphere, and enrichment of others at our expense?

I'm sorry, but I really find it hard to see what we get out of this proposal except much heartburn, additional expense and difficult new problems to solve. But, perhaps, our local Chamber of Commerce can illuminate us with its words of wisdom? Wait, that's already been attempted and it sounds like an echo reverberation from the proponents!

If this proposal was a matter of national interest or security, I might alter my opinion, but it is not. Or, maybe if there were significant clean, value-added, living wage jobs for area residents and a much more reasonable logistics plan that minimized harmful impacts, provided reliable taxes to local jurisdictions, and was managed by good corporate citizens, then the rewards would likely outweigh the penalties involved.

But, we haven't seen a proposal like that, have we?

I hate to keep bringing this up, but I will anyway; how do you think we got a safer pipeline and changes to pipeline safety rules, regulations and oversight, in response to the Olympic Pipe Line disaster?

We demanded it, that's how!

Of course, we had tangible leverage then, but only as a result of a terrible accident that could have been prevented. And, of course the pipeline crossed City right-of-way. But, most of all, because citizens united in the cause and our elected representatives heard them and actually did something about the underlying problem.

We can do the same thing, again, hopefully without experiencing a catastrophe first.

I hope we will at least try - real hard!

Getting back to climate; increased pollution of the world's atmosphere counts as our problem, too, no matter where it happens. What gets burned in China today will get blown our way tomorrow, and the next day, and the next. That is true whether one chooses to believe in climate change or not. That CO2, NOx, SO2, CH4 and particulate matter result from the combustion of fossil fuel has been known a long time; what has been more recently discovered is that these so-called Green House Gases [GHG] stay up there a long time and influence climate disruptions. Like that word better?

Since the Industrial Revolution, when the burning of fossil fuels began increasing dramatically, GHG's have been accumulating to the point that historic levels - 400,000 years - have become far surpassed, and the cause for international concern.

Of course, there are still 2% of recognized scientists who still doubt this proven fact, so its not exactly unanimous, is it? Actually, some doubt is undoubtedly attributed to the extension of this newer trend to educated guesses - speculation to some - that since humans have caused this increase in GHG's, they can also cause a decrease; that a decrease should be seriously attempted for us to avoid really bad climate change -er, disruption- in the fairly near future.

[Because, we all know Al Gore is up at the North Pole with his flame thrower!]

The point is, burning more coal -or fossil fuels- anywhere in the world contributes to the GHG problem, meaning unusual warming of our atmosphere and whatever that produces as a result.

It makes no sense for us to ban coal-fired power plants in the State of Washington, and instead ship it to China for its voracious consumption! And, in the process, deplete our own reserves, and cause the earth and water based disruptions described above.

So, if you don't think coal and climate are connected, think again!

Maybe, if we can warm our political climate enough, we can reduce warming our atmospheric climate, and save ourselves some real heartburn as a side product.

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

Climate: Homework For Dedicated Doubters

2012-01-22T21:30:00.000-08:00

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

Well, the Patriots & Giants both barely won, setting up the Super Bowl contestants two weeks from now. I'm actually glad this unusually long season will be ending soon

Maybe then I'll initiate a New Year's Resolution to give up watching football?

There really are better things to do, like reading, eating healthier, and lightly exercising more regularly.

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

This article captured my attention because it makes sense without having to accept any belief except economic good sense and practicality.

But, careful, because this is more than a sound byte, and it's got a few more links, too.

While the particular approach advocated can't possibly solve our entire complex problem -or the entrenched resistance to it- it would be an undeniably a good start that could be implemented relatively cheaply.

And, very likely, it would yield fairly quick results that would convince many of the existing doubters that broader and more expensive controversial remedies might also work!

Then, this one, by Michael Gerson, of all people! Why, he's actually calling a spade, a spade!

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

How we know why people do what they do, and even how one knows what one does oneself. -from Michael Frayn's Copenhagen

Coal: Specific Actions Bellingham Must Take

2012-01-01T23:05:00.000-08:00

Previous Blogs have documented several possible actions that the City of Bellingham should take.

This one gets more specific.

In addition to re-stating the City's concerns regarding the EIS, the City Council and Mayor need to request information for the public record on the following concerns, prior to completion of the EIS Scope of Work:

Regarding RR Crossings within City of Bellingham Limits:

1. Entrance to/from Marine Park public access & surrounding businesses

2. Entrance to/from Alaska Ferry Terminal & adjacent businesses

3. Entrance to/from public access, Boulevard Park & business adjacent

4. South Bay Multi-use Trail crossing to/from North end of Boulevard Park.

5. Wharf Street crossing to/from nearby businesses along Cornwall St, including old GP Waterfront Redevelopment site

6. Access to/from Central Ave crossing, nearby businesses & old GP Waterfront Redevelopment site

7. F Street crossing to/from waterfront business, including berthing area, access to Waterfront Redevelopment Site, entrance to Bellwether Hotel complex

8. Access to/from waterfront from Squalicum Parkway truck route & surrounding businesses, Yacht Basin, Port of Bellingham

------

A. Need assessment of costs & responsibility for mitigating these sites for pedestrian, cycling and vehicle safety, affected all waterfront area business impacts, impacts to Waterfront Redevelopment efforts, public access to its waterfront, Port of Bellingham offices & operations, including tenants, Yacht Basin, wharf usage, water taxi, cruise, fishing, COB firefighting capability, Coast Guard operations and public access to the entire impacted waterfront area.

B. Determine source(s) of funding for all the impacts created by a significant increase to freight train traffic, including possible adverse impacts to AMTRAK & other passenger service.

C. Show cause as to why the proposed Coal Terminal at Cherry Point and related additional freight train traffic is more appropriate than other alternatives. Clearly state the amount & timing of all funding that will be made available from the proponents to mitigate any harms identified.

Specifically estimate the anticipated revenues that will accrue to each impacted local governments over time that justify approval of this proposal. What financial commitment is anticipated from citizens to pay for necessary mitigations?

There may be additional specific questions that also need to be officially asked on the public record.

I am hopeful that concerned citizens will suggest their ideas in writing to the City Council and Mayor.

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

Coal: HamsterTalk Blogs from March 27 thru December 31, 2011

2011-12-31T17:30:00.000-08:00

Here are 27 previous Blogs with a 'Coal' label written from March 27, 2011 through December 30, 2011 on HamsterTalk

1. Those Thrilling Days of Yesteryear... Sunday, March 27, 2011

2. Coal Terminal: Mayor's Listening Session Wednesday, June 1, 2011

3. Good Mornin' America, How Are Ya? Wednesday, June 8, 2011

4. Climatology: Natural Science or Political Science? Saturday, July 9, 2011

5. Making Tracks To Where? Friday, July 15, 2011

6. Coal Terminal: A Pit & Pendulum Exercise? Thursday, July 21, 2011

7. Coal Terminal: Trains & Infrastructure Saturday, July 30, 2011

8. Coal Terminal: Bulk Carriers & Kayaks Sunday, July 31, 2011

9. Coal Terminal: Update on Developments Monday, August 1, 2011

10. Coal Terminal: Another Update Tuesday, August 2, 2011

11. Coal Terminal: Playing Defense Wednesday, August 3, 2011

12. Coal Terminal:Whatcom Watch Remembers Cherry Point Agreement Thursday, August 4, 2011

13. Coal: A Global Perspective Thursday, September 1, 2011

14. Coal: Floyd McKay's Latest Crosscut Article Wednesday, September 28, 2011

15. Coal: Green versus Gold? Wednesday, October 19, 2011

16. Coal: The Role of Politics Wednesday, October 19, 2011

17. Coal: National Geographic Article Friday, October 21, 2011

18. Coal: NPR Weighs In With Two Articles Thursday, October 27, 2011

19. Big Coal meets Cherry Point's tiny herring Friday, October 28, 2011

20. Coal: Where Does Bellingham Really Stand? Sunday, October 30, 2011

21. Coal: Location, Location, Location - For Whom? Monday, October 31, 2011

22. Coal: What Does Lake Whatcom, Waterfront Redevelopement & The Olympic Pipe Line Have to Do With It? Thursday, November 3, 2011

23. Coal: Possible Good News? Thursday, November 10, 2011

24. Energy: Update On Coal, Oil & Other Fossil Fuel Projects Wednesday, November 16, 2011

25. Impacts: Coal Versus Oil Sands Thursday, November 17, 2011

26. Trains: 'Here's Mud In Your Eye'Thursday, December 15, 2011

27. Coal: Why Can't We Citizens Have A Strong Voice? Friday, December 30, 2011

I Don't Give A Fig For This Newton

2011-12-31T11:00:00.000-08:00

"My way of joking is to tell the truth. It's the funniest joke in the world." - George Bernard Shaw

What is glibly advertised, gooey, prefers being wrapped - and baked - in dough, and could be confused with a toxic lizard?

Answer: A fig sandwich? No, wait, a Newt Gingrich!

The current traveling circus trying to disguise itself as the Republican Presidential Primary exhibits a number of truly freaky and sometimes scary characters, with 'Newt' being the latest flash-in-the-pan gladiator to be thrown into the big cat arena.

Good luck with that, Newt!

Think he'll survive?

Of course he will; but maybe not the way he'd prefer.

That would be just fine with me, too.

It is curious as hell that this Newt fellow is such a narcissist to even imagine he could win the support of American voters, unless most of them really do insist upon calling our Federal Guvmint a TV reality show.

Why, the prospect of Newt actually becoming '45' is more frightening than a loaded '45 that's being pointed at me!

So, let's get serious and settle down, let Romney -or whoever- run and lose; then get back to something like we have today, OK?

How does Newt do it, anyway?

He looks and acts like an over-grown Spanky (from Our Gang) and has enough baggage to make any airline profitable.

For 30 years he's hung around Washington, DC like a court jester, intent on collecting as much fame and fortune as that strange city will allow.

He could probably get a job with the Capitol Steps as a comedy act, if he were legitimately funny.

Maybe a character like a Government-Issue (GI) Grinch? (Count the letters in his name)

Or, better yet, the Big Fig! (check out the U-Tube)

I don't really dislike Newt, its what he's done to degrade my concept of an elected official that troubles me.

But, freedom -and free enterprise- being what it is, what Newt's does is certainly allowed, even though it may negatively impact what most of the world may think of us.

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

True to form, I have collected the URLs of a few articles written with NEWT as subject,

This one, from the NYTimes captures the essence of what many think about this fellow. It also includes the '8 Things Newt Likes'. Check it out.

Others, from Politico, The Nation (serial hypocrite?), BusinessWeek (is he really a G Washington crossing the Delaware?) and CBS News (shades of John Boehner!) also shed light on this character from different angles.

Then. of course the mandatory Wikipedia piece on Newts.

And, the salient witches chant from MacBeth to close the loop:

2nd Witch: (not a witch?)
"Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg, and howlet's wing,--
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble."

That's it from me on this sorry subject.

Out.

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

Coal: Why Can't We Citizens Have A Strong Voice?

2011-12-30T14:15:00.000-08:00

This article appeared in today’s paper and was forwarded to me:

Dec, 30, 2011

Activists plan initiative to outlaw coal trains in Bellingham

JOHN STARK / THE BELLINGHAM HERALD

BELLINGHAM - Ever since the plans for SSA Marine's coal shipping terminal at Cherry Point became public, city officials have been saying that they would have no direct control over the coal trains that would pass through the city if Gateway Pacific Terminal is built.

A new citizens' group plans to change all that, but they seem to face overwhelming legal odds.

Rick Dubrow, owner of A1 Builders, is one of the key organizers of a new political action committee called No Coal! On Jan. 26, Dubrow said the group will make public its draft of a proposed new city ordinance that would prohibit any transport of coal through Bellingham by rail or any other means.

In conventional legal terms, that doesn't seem to make much sense. The federal government regulates the interstate rail system, and BNSF Railway Co. has a legal right of way through the city. BNSF spokeswoman Suann Lundsberg said federal law requires the railroad to ship coal and other legal cargoes that shippers want to move via rail.

But Dubrow and Stoney Bird, a former corporate attorney working with the Bellingham group, say they are setting out to establish some new legal groundwork that would put the rights of communities and ecosystems on equal or greater footing with the rights of railroads and other corporations.

They are taking their cue from the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, which was involved in a successful 2010 effort to get the Pittsburgh, Pa., City Council to ban fracking for natural gas within the city limits.

On its website, that group's activists argue that existing environmental regulations do little more than slow the pace of ongoing environmental destruction. They envision a legal system that would recognize something they call the Rights of Nature.

In Pittsburgh, the council adopted a proposed anti-fracking ordinance without a citizen vote. Dubrow said he and his group would be open to that approach in Bellingham, as long as the council would be willing to pass their proposed ordinance as is.

"We don't want to give them (council members) the freedom to edit it,' Dubrow said. "We hesitate to allow editing because of the complexity of the legal aspects of the ordinance."

The group is also prepared to launch a petition drive to get the measure on the ballot if it comes to that, Dubrow said.

If such a petition drive were successful, BNSF or SSA Marine could challenge the initiative in court before a public vote is held. In the recent anti-traffic-camera initiative case in Bellingham, American Traffic Solutions went to court to get the initiative off the ballot. The courts eventually allowed the initiative to stay on the ballot, but judges ruled that it was not legally enforceable. Camera opponents are appealing.

In 2000, citizens collected enough signatures to get a referendum challenging a cut in Georgia-Pacific Corp.'s industrial water rates onto the ballot. But then-Mayor Mark Asmundson and the City Council refused to act on the matter, on grounds that prior court cases had clearly established that water rates were not subject to a public vote. Backers of the referendum expressed outrage but did not take the city to court, and no vote was held.

In 2001, a pro-business group tried to use a city referendum to challenge hefty new city storm water fees, but Whatcom County Superior Court Judge Steve Mura accepted city attorneys' argument that city utility rates were not subject to public vote. Mura's ruling kept the matter off the ballot.

Craig Cole, an SSA Marine spokesman, had little to say about the No Coal! ordinance plan. In an email, he indicated that railroad operations are beyond the scope of city authority.

"Such matters are governed by federal and state constitutions and laws," Cole said.

Reach JOHN STARK at john.stark@bellinghamherald.com or call 715-2274.

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

Personally, I'm glad this is happening, legalities notwithstanding.

Our community needs to step up and make itself heard on this controversial issue; indeed if we don't, who will?

My perspective is that of someone who has confronted matters like this one from the side of a concerned citizen, as well as an elected official whose term of office encompassed the cases cited -namely the water rate referendum and the storm water complaints.

In both instances, I heard the arguments pro & con, then decided what decision ought to have been made.

The water and storm water rates were clearly necessary to make the respective utilities sustainable, and also clearly the City Council's responsibility to decide. But, we did listen to citizen complaints and also appreciated the dialogue that was generated, because that was important to understand before a final decision was made.

The water rate 'issue' wasn't just about the GP process water rates, either; it was about two things -setting a less complicated formula for determining the GP rate [which was actually higher than the old one, not less] and responding to pressure from a public initiative to increase treated water rates in order to help protect Lake Whatcom, our drinking water RESERVOIR.

Neither the referendum or the initiative passed, but the latter raised public awareness enough for the Council to decide later to raise water rates by $5 per month [versus the $12 per month advocated by the initiative].

The storm water rate increase was necessary by State & Federal mandate, once the City decided to adopt new rules to cover not only flood and erosion damage, but treat pollution as well. Additionally, had the new storm water rates NOT been adopted, the impacts to the existing street funds was substantial, since the costs of storm water management were being simply deducted from those limited funds.

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

As far as Federal or State jurisdiction over local matters is concerned, the City of Bellingham, by taking the strong stand it did, was able to influence significant changes to safety regulations for Pipe Lines, both intra-state and inter-state, despite the claims of the Olympic Pipe Line Company, whose liquid petroleum products pipeline ruptured in its Right Of Way [through City property], and spilled toxic fuel into Whatcom Creek that resulted in the terrible explosion that killed three young people and caused much damage to property, the environment and social confidence.

So, don't tell me citizen outrage doesn't work!

It does work, but it shouldn't take a major catastrophe to prove it.

That is what much of the concern over coal trains & terminal is about; preventing terrible things from happening BEFORE THEY DO.

That is called simply the Precaution Principle, and it was early expressed by none other than our Founder, Ben Franklin, who put it this way; 'a stitch in time saves nine'.

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

I believe a strong expression of concerns -the more explicit the better- must be voiced by citizens so it can be heard and acted upon by our local elected leaders, namely the Mayor and City Council.

The earlier this happens, the better.

And the oftener it happens is also better.

The last thing we want to do as citizens with legitimate concerns is to keep quiet about them, leaving such 'external' decisions to a vague 'other' that prefers the comfort of status quo!

So, yes, I will support any well-conceived initiative that comes forth on this 'inconvenient' subject, and I will encourage our new Council and Mayor to do nothing less, notwithstanding any 'legal; arguments to the contrary.

If folks want to sue us or the City, let them sue!

This nasty subject needs to be dragged out into the arena for resolution in the sunshine, not in some dark place remote from us and our families.

And, if the judges should rule against it [us], we will then need to redouble our efforts to change these present 'legalities'.

If I am more than willing to suffer some 'inconvenience' over this matter; how about you?

So, answering the question in the title; 'we can if we will'!

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

This article on a related matter seems to chill the atmosphere regarding whether Federal or State rights & regulations prevail.

And, I'm sure that was the intent in seeking the judgement in question; to put 'corporate citizens' in charge of what can be done in the State of California.

California has huge and diverse problems, many of its own making, but fortunately it has also taken strong and progressive leadership in protecting its air, water and earth from continued poor stewardship from those who create these harms in the name of 'business'.

Thank goodness for California's lead in changing fuel economy and quality standards that have succeeded in changing the way corporations, institutions and people conduct their business! Without it's lead, do you think the Federal government would have done much on its own?

Air pollution got so bad in the LA Basin that it was affecting everyone's business -including their health- so much that something had to be done!

Now, years later, LA air is better; but it took strong action years ago to effect that change.

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

One last thought before this ends; if corporations have rights, do these include doing whatever they want, as much as they want, whenever they want and wherever they want?

What limits apply?

Do these claimed 'rights' extend beyond their own rights-of-way and property to the property, space and environment of those other citizens - people?

How about public property; like transportation systems and networks, waterways, airways and the like?

Where exactly do corporate rights end?

Aren't corporations supposed to provide public good? If so, how much? How much harm?

I'm only asking because something doesn't feel right about the arguments I'm hearing from the Coal proponents.

No, not right at all!

If I'm wondering, maybe others are experiencing the feeling, too.

And, maybe -just maybe- others will be willing to extend their wonderment into something more tangible; like action?

Citizens inherently do have strong voices; they just have to use them!

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

Going, Going, Almost Gone...Postal

2011-12-29T17:55:00.000-08:00

"Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds" - famous Pony Express motto

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

I was a little troubled by the recent announcement(s) of more major curtailments of the US Postal Service [USPS], formerly known as the US Post Office - an idea originated by Benjamin Franklin.

TIME Magazine in particular has printed detailed reports - here & here - of the problems being faced by the current USPS.

But, like many ideas, this one has unfortunately suffered from an accretion of baggage that is no longer deliverable.

One of the first divisions of the US Government, the Post Office was often used for political patronage purposes, rewarding supporters of a series of Presidents with desirable paid positions.

Remind you of anything? Like maybe certain trouble over time?

-----------

For about a year, I worked for the US Post Office in my home town; back in the early 1960's, to help pay my way through college.

But, it wasn't easy getting that relatively desirable job, mainly because the practice of local patronage by the Postmaster to relatives, friends and cronies.

I ended up taking a competitive Civil Service exam and scored high enough that I was selected, although for a duty that had relentlessly brutal hours and no 'seniority'; a concept I learned about very quickly!

It seems the desirable jobs with regular hours were reserved for those having more time in service, and these folks weren't about to relinquish any of their special rights and privileges!

Can't say that I blame them for that, either, although some were quite slow in performing their jobs and carried an 'attitude' approximating lazy arrogance.

Remember that point, because it will return.

My job paid $2.16 an hour, which wasn't bad when the going wage for unskilled labor was about $1 per hour. I was glad to get that job and busted my butt doing it well and efficiently; although some longer time employees actually seemed to resent my industry!

Guess they had their own reasons for that, but it didn't make much sense to me at the time.

My 'routine' -if it could be called that- went something like this: up @ 3:30 AM to pick up parcel post sacks at the train station and deliver them to the Parcel Post Annex; At P.O. at about 7:00 AM to sort incoming mail into carrier routes, clerk stations and mail boxes, then to collect the 8:00 AM mail, cancel it and sort it into outgoing pigeon holes; At P.O. @ 12 Noon to collect outgoing mail, cancel it and sort it into outgoing pigeon holes; At P.O. @ 5:00 PM to collect outgoing mail, cancel it and sort it into outgoing pigeon holes; then, same cycle 6 days per week.

During the time I worked a new Post Office building went into service, so after learning the old layout, I then was the first to learn the new one.

While the pay was good, my social life was pretty minimal due to the erratic work schedule, plus I missed a lot of meals at home with my family; but -hey- it was good for me anyway.

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

Now, years later, my situation has changed, as has my perception of a personal -selfish- need for the Post Office.

I am no longer employed by a business that regularly depends upon mail service;

I pay most of my bills via online banking and/or credit cards;

I've grown accustomed to e-mail and the almost instantaneous delivery it provides;

I abhor junk mail and throw it away without reading it;

I sometimes use delivery options that suit me, even if they are often much more expensive;

I dislike going to a -often poorly located- Post Office and standing in line for the most trivial of reasons;

I dislike keeping track of postage costs, stamps, envelopes and labels;

I dislike vehicles blocking my mail box and preventing deliveries;

I worry about mail theft and fraud, damaged or lost mail and packages left at the door.

If you haven't guessed, I am increasingly concerned that the USPS, as presently constituted, is a prototype of an inherently unsustainable institution - one that has intentionally - or unintentionally - developed practices that are not particularly satisfying for many of the purposes for which it was created and subsequently modified.

It is unfortunate that a similar fate accompanies other institutions as well that are often also associated with 'government'.

How we love to criticize and complain about our government(s) at any level!

But, is it untrue that government does play a big role in the creation and administration of agencies like the Post Office that were created out of national need and popular demand?

After all, we, the public are the ones that create that demand and communicate our needs to our elected government officials.

Then, we sometimes change our minds.

Government is often put at a severe disadvantage in correcting such situations that are either basically flawed or have otherwise outgrown their useful charter over time.

Other governmental created organizations like the military have similar problems, like excessive costs and bureaucracy, that require corrective action from time to time.

But, 'national security' seems to have a stronger hand in attracting ever-increasing Pentagon budgets, and more importantly, scaring people into supporting often questionable 'wars'.

And, just think of all the jobs that are actually created by government in the military-industrial complex, the several military services themselves, ensuing foreign aid requirements and, of course, essential medical services!

But, back to the USPS problem and its several probable causes; what could these be?

• A steady accretion of union work rules, wage & benefit demands?

• Unforeseen advances in technology, particularly the Internet?

• Private competition from FedEx, UPS and other more expensive/profitable services that 'cherry-pick' priority & so-called 'rush' parcels? [Note, the sender determines 'priority']

• The proliferation of Post Offices in often remote and sparsely populated areas?

• The decision to handle huge volumes of largely unwanted 'junk' mail?

• The lack of Congressional 'backbone' to dare do anything that could be construed as unpopular?

• Incompetence in administration?

• Simple inertia?

• Aging and lack of motivation in the workforce?

• Institutional complacency due to having a near monopoly in mail delivery?

• All of the above in some proportion?

It does seem symptomatic of our times to require a major dislocation to achieve any significant change, doesn't it?

But, such changes are not as simple to undertake as they may seem, are they?

What would you do?

How would this help maintain a valuable service that has come to be taken for granted?

What impact would a major curtailment of USPS service entail, particularly to ordinary people without the means to afford paying its full costs, or traveling long distances for routine matters?

Would this be equitable, particularly to those in need?

Could some portion of the USPS be managed as part of a program of mandatory or voluntary National Service?

Could rank and file USPS employees be organized and administered similarly to the military, where seniority and advancement is largely earned by merit?

Who is likely to be the agent of change benefiting the USPS and its many subscribers?

Government?

Think about it, because change is definitely in the wind - and overdue.

And, it's not an option just to cancel the USPS, or to accept continuous increases in the costs of delivery.

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

Trains: 'Here's Mud In Your Eye'

2011-12-15T23:25:00.000-08:00

The actual origins and meaning of the title quotation are debatable, but these three options seem to be favored; a reference to Jesus' healing of the blind man in the Bible; a common toast in a pub, perhaps reminding of the awful trench warfare in WW I; a reference to winning - as in a horse race on a muddy track ['mudders' were more surefooted in wet conditions].

Regardless of actual intent, nowadays the phrase is usually used lightly, to celebrate something, whether a win, enlightenment or simple pleasure.

Since we live in a relatively wet region we may be more used to mud than others.

And so it is with trains.

All kinds of trains; freight, passenger, heavy, light, fast & slow.

Trains and mud are the subjects of Floyd Mckay's Crosscut article that appeared today.

In it he addresses the frequent mudslides that occur every year along the coastline BNSF Railroad corridor between Seattle & Vancouver, BC; something that is a concern even during normal times of routine traffic.

The implications of greatly increased frequency, weight and length of 1.5 mile long unit trains hauling coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana to the proposed coal export terminal at Cherry Point are pretty clear if recent history is to be trusted.

Also, guess what rail service would be impacted the most?

If you guessed AMTRAK and passenger service in general, you'd be correct.

I can remember being fascinated with trains as a youth, and one Christmas received a toy Lionel electric train complete with cars, track, signals and switches.

How I loved playing with that train, but that antique has long since disappeared - much to my chagrin.

Sixty years ago trains seemed more of a reality than they do today, probably because we've gotten used to them and take them for granted.

But, maybe also because things moved slower then and we were more connected to where stuff came from how that stuff was somehow considered essential, not only to us, but the economy as a whole.

Now, things move much more frenetically, are pre-processed, packaged and made somewhere else - frequently not even in our country, thanks to the global trade that is today's reality.

I also remember going to the train station to actually travel somewhere on a train!

Or meet someone who came to visit, or pick up parcel post shipments for distribution at the Post Office, or just watch the trains come and go.

Yes, that was considered fun, then.

Now, its not so much, although the idea of taking a scenic, leisurely, long distance trip by train still carries great appeal.

That's probably the hitch; specifically the words leisurely and long.

I used to take trains into New York City to work most days during a 3-year period.

Was that fun? No, but is was convenient and quick, especially as compared to driving a car.

Once in NYC, I had a choice between mass transit systems that were equally convenient and quick; subway, bus, shuttles, etc.

Nothing about leisurely and long there, except in relative terms.

On my trips to Europe, I found trains and mass transit systems to very convenient and efficient means of transportation. Europeans rely on these, not only to get around, but to help eliminate sprawl by helping to define reliable boundaries between urban areas and farmlands.

Also, the balance between freight and passengers seems more equitable. But, maybe that's because those societies have long since learned lessons we are still struggling with?

Back to AMTRAK for a moment.

That it is heavily subsidized is known and necessary if we are to preserve any semblance of balance between freight and human passengers.

That will likely become even more important as gas prices rise along with the costs of owning and operating private vehicles.

And, already the costs of air travel are approaching prohibitive levels for many people.

Think about it.

Then, think about how you are going to get around when things really get tough.

Think maybe that might happen in your lifetime?

Someday soon, we'll need to use trains and other shared transportation methods to physically get to where we want -and need- to be.

At that time, we'll appreciate maintaining at least what we have now.

The problem is, by the time that kind of problem happens, it's too late to mitigate it.

After all, infrastructure projects do require large amounts of public funding, plus years to construct.

But aside from those rather dire prospects, what about the continued role of AMTRAK to bring visitors to and from our area?

This region's natural beauty makes it a treasure that people want to see, experience and live in. All of those bring benefits to our local economy that are lasting unless we allow our natural assets and rail links to be degraded.

From the Crosscut article, WSDOT plans to expand our regional AMTRAK service to three round trips per day from the current two - which are already impacted by mudslides and BNSF's policies, which favor freight.

And, remember future plans by WSDOT foresee the need for further expansion of AMTRAK to 4 round-trips per day.

Now, we have more reason for concern about AMTRAK; greatly increased freight traffic to ship coal to China.

Does that really make sense?

The Fifteen Century Spanish traded silver from the Americas to China for porcelain and silk.

Precious metal [to be used for currency by the Ming Dynasty] for value-added goods to be used by wealthy Europeans.

Six hundred years later, wealthy Americans want more wealth by shipping an non-precious natural resource fossil mineral [coal] to China to enable that country to ship cheap, value-added goods here.

What has changed?

Wealthy people are still trading with wealthy people, but by-passing working people here in the US, and in favor of those in China.

If that uneven exchange weren't bad enough, the proposed constant stream of heavy coal trains risks not only decent AMTRAK service, but any reliable passenger service at all, all potentially due to the unhealthy mix of mud and greed.

So, whose eye gets this mud?

Why yours and mine will, if the huge coal export scheme somehow happens.

And, remember, at least in racing parlance, the winner kicks mud in the loser's eye.

But, maybe the other definitions will apply instead.

Maybe there will be a legitimate cause for celebration, and possibly even healing.

Those would be infinitely better outcomes, although the issue remains in serious doubt and uncertainty.

Some of that uncertainty might be reduced if our community makes its preference strongly known, in timely and specific terms so that the Environmental Impact Study [EIS] now planned will include these preferences in its scope.

The scope itself must reflect the concept of full cost accounting, where Triple Bottom Line [TPL] principles are inherent.

Just as a three-legged stool balances better if the legs are of equal length, this analysis must include economics, ecology and social equity.

That brings me to a final point; how we communicate this community's concerns and desired outcomes to those who will eventually make this decision.

The Chinese warrior Sun Tsu would recommend achieving victory without war, by communicating our strengths and goals so clearly that the enemy loses his will to fight.

We can help do this by asking -or demanding- our local officials and elected leaders actually

act on our behalf, early and often, regardless of what power or influence they may believe

they have in this matter.

To this end, this week's Gristle in the Cascadia Weekly has a few suggestions that likely reflect the community's will.

Earlier this year, the City Council unanimously passed a Resolution that expressed its views about the Coal Terminal EIS. I had forgotten about that, as have many others, I'm sure.

Somehow, since then, little more has been officially expressed despite the fact that significant new information has been regularly discovered and dispensed.

Some apparently feel that the elections prevented a more candid discussion due to a concern that the issue might be unduly politicized.

Huh? Guess what? It was anyway!

That's history now; too late to fret over lost opportunities to express the City's concerns.

But, its not too late -or early- to do something more now!

Now is the time to round up the new gang at City Hall and get them to reaffirm the City's position on the proposed Coal Terminal again, for the record.

You can't really argue with regular persistence, can you?

So, if the prior Resolution - passed 6 months ago - was unanimous then, it should be again with the new Council.

And, if the current -soon to be former- Mayor still argues against the GPTerminal, likely he still will.

Same goes for the the new Mayor-elect, who rightfully chose not to make this issue the main one during the elections.

Think another unanimous and maybe stronger Resolution might reaffirm the City's will in this matter?

Like chicken soup, it won't hurt and might help.

After all, we're building a record on the City's position, whether we choose to speak out strongly again - or remain comfortably silent.

So, which will it be folks?

Just do the right thing, listen to citizens and then speak up again, and again, and again as necessary.

Until the 'decision makers' hear us loud and clear!

For a community like Bellingham, a request like this ought not to even be necessary, but I'm making it anyway.

And, I'm very sure many others feel the same.

Let's welcome the New Year properly with a display of such bright and unmistakable community intensity that people elsewhere can't help but notice!

"Git er done!"

Now, It's Come To This?

2011-11-20T18:45:00.000-08:00

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

“Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it ... he who doesn't ... pays it.” ― Albert Einstein

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

The gap between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' is getting wider and deeper, yet not many in our National politics seem to care enough to even acknowledge it, much less try doing anything about it.

This article confirms what some have felt was true; that a there are many more Americans in the near-poor category than we wanted to believe. Yet, at some level, many did know all along.

How else would you expect the constant -and sometimes irresistible- pressure to use easy credit to purchase what we want, but don't necessarily need? In turn, this leads to a reliance on credit to obtain even those things we do need!

Because compound interest is a really marvelous invention. - Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) called it the 8th Wonder - It can work for you, or against you. When you invest it works for you. When you borrow it works against you!

We do need credit, but not an overdose of it. Even more, we need honesty and effective action on the part of those who would be our political leaders!

The latter is certainly not happening, as tuning into any of the current 'debates' about how to reduce our Federal deficit, who will be the Republican candidate for President, how to 'create' jobs, how to repair our crumbling infrastructure, how to reform our increasingly unfair tax system, how to ensure affordable basic health care, how to deal with the proliferation of wars & terrorism, how to strengthen our public education system, how to curtail the rising dominance of corporate & monetary influence in politics, how to deal with climate change, and almost any other issue of universal importance to all citizens.

It should be getting pretty obvious -to everyone paying attention- who is serious about doing anything positive about any of these pervasive problems and who isn't.

Right now, to me, our great experiment in Democracy is on the verge of failure.

Consider for a moment this caution, issued many years ago, then tell me if it hasn't already come true:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

Now, tell me why you doubt this isn't coming to pass right now. It seems to me that we are having our freedoms constantly eroded by a tyranny of wealth & power that is controlled by the few. Whether that few equates to the 1% of very wealthy & powerful, I don't know, but that seems probable, particularly with the tremendous, growing gap between the few & the many.

That may constitute something of a 'dictatorship' by oligarchy, but by any name it amounts to a form of economic slavery.

I'm reminded of a cartoon which depicted a large, streaming herd of small Lemming-like animals rushing mindlessly toward falling off a big cliff. In the midst of this chaos, one animal raised its head and shouted; 'hey, we're Lemurs! LEMURS!'

At some point, we need to wake up to the signs that we are heading in a similar direction, toward a precipice from which it will become increasingly difficult to even slow down, much less reverse.

Did you know that the folks who used to be called Republicans are now called Democrats?

I don't know what present day Republicans used to be called, but it might have been Tories, a gentle version of King's dupes. That might be too harsh an indictment, but have you witnessed the current crop of Republican Presidential candidates? It's certainly true of most of them!

Newt Gingrich now is polling higher numbers than any of the others? Get serious! A more hypocritical political elite cannot be found. His recent quip about those involved in the 'Occupy' movement was 'they need to get a job, right after they take a bath' is an insensitive cheap shot, designed to appeal to the 'haves' from whom he wants support.

Lest you think I'm just picking on Republicans, there are plenty of folks who call themselves Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, T-Partyans and other names or non-names, who qualify as opportunistic, self-centered elites as well. You know the ones I mean, you see them or hear their screed every day on our public airways like TV, either as talking heads, the frequent guests of talking heads, the faceless owners of talking heads, or those paid by them, brainwashed by them, or otherwise in their thrall.

I'm really tired of the insidious line of propaganda, self-serving commentary and outright BS these people continually spout, but that is what dominates our media these days. That and constant, destructive criticism of the very leaders, institutions and values that are there to help knit us together as a nation. We are a nation, you know. But, we're acting like a bunch of spoiled brats that are constantly trying to climb over one another without regard for anything remotely resembling the greater good.

That type of trajectory is not leading us to sharing anything likely to be sustainable or worthy of our best intentions.

But, maybe that's not important to us any more?

More likely, we're too distracted with making ends meet, or in the case of the privileged 1%, making our next million?

The comparison of our gradual awareness of the effects of inequality to that of a frog being brought slowly to a boil, seems apt. Sometimes trends themselves are not noticed until some tangible benchmark is reached that gets our attention.

I believe the objective of the Occupy movement is to get our attention on matters than have steadily encroached upon us, like growing inequality and indifference to unnecessary suffering that could be significantly mitigated. When taken to their limits, these things will become intolerable, a point we are now beginning to reach.

For example, we hear many complaints about the fiscal stimulus measures taken to help jump start our economy. Here's a 'joke' I received recently from a friend, entitled What is a Financial Bail-Out ?:

It is a slow day in a damp little Irish town. The rain is beating down harshly, and all the streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt and everybody lives on credit.

On this particular day a rich German tourist is driving through the town, stops at the local hotel and lays a ¤100 note on the desk, telling the hotel owner he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night.

The owner gives him some room-keys and, as soon as the visitor has walked upstairs, the hotelier grabs the ¤100 note and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.

The butcher takes the ¤100 note and rushes down the street to repay his debt to the pig farmer. The pig farmer takes the ¤100 note and heads off to pay his bill at the supplier of animal feed and fuel.

The guy at the Farmers' Co-op takes the ¤100 note and runs to pay his drinks bill at the friendly neighbourhood pub. The pub owner slips the money along to the local prostitute drinking at the bar - who, in spite of facing hard times, has always gladly offered him her 'services' on credit.

The hooker then rushes over to the hotel and pays off her room bill to the hotel owner with the ¤100 note.

The hotel proprietor quietly replaces the ¤100 note back on the counter, so that the rich traveller will not suspect anything.

At that moment the traveller comes down the stairs, states that none of the rooms are satisfactory, picks up the ¤100 note, pockets it and leaves town.

No one has produced anything. No one has earned anything. However, the whole town is now out of debt and looking to the future with a lot more optimism.

And that, dear ladies and gentlemen, is how a basic financial bailout package works!

That joke is amusing, but its intent seems to be to take a shot at the very idea of any sort of bailout.

Is that necessary? After all, all the people involved were rewarded by paying off debts, and the investor got all his money back! What's wrong with that?

The debtors are relieved to no longer be in debt and the wealthy depositor got his money back. What would be a better ending than that? That the wealthy depositor got wealthier?

And, who is that depositor? A tycoon, a Good Samaritan, or a government?

To me, it's the thought -and action- that counts, not the fact that nothing was created but debt relief.

Being in debt is not fun; getting out of it is. It's that simple.

So, have we become so cynical that we discount intended good acts that do much good and little harm? And, do we now value wealth, power and intentional inaction in the face of clear need above basic human kindness, care of society's problems and degradation of our very nests here on earth?

If so, we are experiencing the compound impacts of excessive greed & cynicism, neither of which helps build upon our real values and freedoms.

I hope it hasn't come to this, but there are clear signs that is happening.

If it is, there's a better name for than the 8th wonder of the world!

When nearly one in three in our nation lives in near-poverty, maybe the correct name is more like the fatal wound of the world?

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

Impacts: Coal Versus Oil Sands

2011-11-17T12:40:00.000-08:00

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

Another article on Crosscut caught my eye this morning since it focuses on the impacts of coal export proposals versus the Canadian oil sands petroleum pipeline, called Keystone XL.

Check it out here.

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

The takeaway from this comparison is that both fossil fuel projects will have major new impacts on our shared environment.

If it comes down to a choice between these options, Keystone is the lesser of the two evils; mainly because it benefits the US by supplying oil for our habit from a near and friendly neighbor.

Also, the pipeline is a better conveyance method, providing a safe route is selected that avoids potentially catastrophic impacts to the huge Ogallala Acquifer, the primary source of fresh water over a multi-state area.

The fact that importing oil benefits us much more broadly than does exporting coal to China seems obvious, but in the end these are not competing ideas, they are separate proposals that have different impacts to widely different areas.

Sad, but true; both these reflect real world pressures that are difficult to avoid - at least for the present, until we can get serious about some other, more sustainable alternatives.

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

Energy: Update On Coal, Oil & Other Fossil Fuel Projects

2011-11-16T10:35:00.000-08:00

Good Morning.

Floyd Mckay has today posted another article on Crosscut regarding the GPT proposal and it's role in the latest local elections. Check it out.

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

Now, back to a more general discussion of fossil fuels and their pervasive influence in our lives and politics.

Here are two more links on the Canadian sponsored Keystone XL Pipeline, one on the increasing lobbying pressure being exerted, the other on Right-Of-Way changes being granted in response to the State of Nebraska' concerns.

Keep in mind that Canada is our No.1 source for imported oil, and that the US represents 97% of Canada's market for oil exports.

No wonder this is such a high profile issue!

Other than complaining about fossil fuels and the trains, ships and pipelines that carry them, what are you doing about reducing your dependence on them?

If that sounds like a unusually difficult question, it is; but it is one every one of us needs to answer.

Without those answers, why bother complaining?

My wife & I have been attending a WSU Extension course called 'Carbon Masters', in which we have been pleased, yet concerned to learn much about the pervasive role of carbon in our lives, and the accelerated rate of greenhouse gases being released into our atmosphere, especially since about 1850 when the Industrial Revolution began to dramatically change our lives, in more ways than one.

Being trained as an engineer with knowledge of thermodynamics, I probably ought to have a better grasp of these things, and maybe I do at times. But, that's the problem, I'm only thinking about it at times instead of always trying to walk my talk.

Think about it, then figure out what can be done better all the time.

A carbon tax to remind us might help, but then there are still those who choose to disbelieve that too much carbon can harm us. [Check out this article by Naomi Klein for her take on that situation]

And, how would we get around, and heat our homes?

Or, earn a living, or go on vacation, or have all that stuff, or unlimited choices of food?

These kinds of questions are important to even recognize the nature of the problem, much less begin to resolve it.

And, that assumes the problem even has a solution.

Maybe we're just talking about a shorter -or a longer- version of life as we know it?

Or, think we know.

You know, this could be the type of problem that just makes your head hurt!

But, we've got to start somewhere....don't we?

Don't we?

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

Local Elections Results & Related Topics

2011-11-15T20:45:00.000-08:00

"Bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant." - George Washington

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

Today, we celebrate the results of our local elections, which did produce some positive results in my view:

• Kelli Linville will be our next Mayor, by a margin of 164 votes - not exactly an overwhelming mandate, but good enough to give her the chance to do better for our community than her 1-term predecessor, whose political naiveté, ego and self-serving style managed to irritate more people than it satisfied in a series of missteps, largely of his own making.

• Cathy Lehman, a first-time candidate for City Council -Ward 3, was an overwhelming [2 to 1] winner and promises to be an intelligent and energetic voice on the issues which matter most to our community.

• Christina Maginnis, also a first-time candidate for County Council lost a closely contested race with a 12-year incumbent, but forcefully demonstrated that seat will be in play in future elections, and that her opponent in on notice to more carefully consider his obviously special interest agenda.

• Almost overlooked was Jack Louws' early and clear triumph over Doug Ericksen for County Executive. Louws is a proven elected official and an honest, reliable person with excellent credentials for this top job.

• While I am no fan of Pete Kremen, it is a good thing that he defeated Tony Larson for a County Council seat. Lesser of two evils.

There are other results which can be accessed here, but these 5 races are the ones I watched with most interest.

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

Before launching into relatively simple local budget matters, aren't we lucky to have such stellar examples of courage and ability to work together as the 'Super Committee'? Note the advice one CNN columnist reports that George Washington might have given the 'Super Committee'.

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

One of the issues of enduring importance to Bellingham is its municipal budget, which has been -and remains- stressed by the fiscal hard times. Not only is the overall budget critical, but so is each of the sub-budgets of which it is comprised. The workings and interrelationships of these various sub-funds are sometimes quite difficult to understand, but the City Council must make the decisions to keep these budgets - and the overall budget - in balance, thereby protecting the City's credit rating and the trust of its citizens.

There has been one notable occasion in which the City Council and the soon-to-be ex-Mayor have knowingly violated this trust; that was the appallingly unwise decision to purchase the entire so-called Chuckanut Ridge property, without a current appraisal and without sufficient funds designated for that purpose - and despite clear directions as to the proper use of the Greenways 3 funds, voluntarily voted by citizens!

Instead, the Mayor -preferring to listen to his vocal partisan supporters- deliberately, and with much fanfare, led the Council into making a decision that expressly violates the distinct words of another admonition by none other than the Father of our Country, George Washington in his farewell address:

'.....adding to their sense of urgency, determining not to ungenerously throw "upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear."

Perhaps, our new Mayor WILL have the courage to ask the erstwhile Council to do the right thing and sell sufficient of the unneeded property to bring this ill-considered purchase into budgetary balance, thereby honoring the wishes of citizens, volunteers, staff and prior elected officials.

Cleaning up someone else's messes are never fun, but this cleanup is necessary to preserve the integrity of the Greenways program, universally appreciated by the public.

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

New Developments in Local Elections, Fuels to Asia

2011-11-12T19:00:00.000-08:00

Checking today's election report shows Christina Maginnis now leads Sam Crawford by 601 votes!

An estimated 12,000 ballots remain to be counted.

Another development shows Dan Pike making up more ground against Kelli Linville, whose lead has shrunk to about 300 votes.

Next results are scheduled to appear 11/14.

========================

Yesterday's post on possible good news on the Coal Terminal is actually more questionable than might have been implied.

Additional articles have appeared which temper the resistance seemingly being offered by the US with some alternate plans by our neighbor, Canada, which remains interested in exporting energy to asian markets anyway, likely through BC.

The first article has more to say about the proposed $7 Billion Keystone XL Pipeline project, which was being resisted by various interests, including the State of Nebraska over concerns about the R-O-W.

The second subject concerns the shipment of Canadian natural gas to asia, likely through an LNG terminal at Kitimat, in northern BC. Articles here, here and here describe this increasingly likely possibility, which is partially fueled by the fairly recent discovery of vast new natural gas fields in US shale deposits -meaning decreased reliance of Canada, at least for the moment.

The huge investments in the Alberta Tar Sands have created a frenzy to market these expensive fossil fuels in order to pay for their investment. Competition from Australia and Southeast Asian is fierce to supply China's needs.

Seems these places are in a big hurry to sell off their natural -and not so natural -resources, too.

Coal: Possible Good News?

2011-11-10T23:25:00.000-08:00

Today, there appeared two articles that hint at hope that our local pending catastrophe might be averted. At least that's an inference I'd like to draw.

The first was the announcement that the Obama administration has delayed any decision on the Canadian-sponsored Keystone XL Pipeline until after the 2012 elections. Nice.

This project seeks to convey Alberta Tar Sands Oil to US refineries in Oklahoma & Texas.

Canada, already our No. 1 oil supplier, has counted on this huge project being approved to market a large portion of its ultra-expensive -and environmentally destructive- petroleum products to its nearest -and neediest- neighbor.

Predictably, these types of comments were made from the palpably angry, but still salivating proponents:

Jack N. Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said of the president’s decision, “This is all about politics and keeping a radical constituency, opposed to any and all oil and gas development, in the president’s camp in 2012. Whether it will help the president retain his job is unclear but it will cost thousands of shovel-ready opportunities for American workers.”
“If Keystone XL dies,” said Russell K. Girling, the company’s chief executive, “Americans will still wake up the next morning and continue to import 10 million barrels of oil from repressive nations without the benefit of thousands of jobs and long-term energy security.”

Nice. Petulance and pressure, combined with fear tactics to con, cajole or coerce the US to keep mainlining its fossil fuel addiction and subsidies for the same. Aren't we tired of those tactics?

====================

The second announcement was promulgated by Secretary of Interior Salazar, which included the San Juan Islands in a list of areas proposed for designation as worthy of protection as significant wildernesses of national importance.

Care to speculate on what that might entail as far as restrictions on ultra-large vessels navigating & hanging out in our fair waters? That gives me some hope that the Feds may actually be trying to help our side, but who knows?

=====================

On a related note, Floyd Mckay posted this article on Crosscut. Check it out.

The Sun Is Shining: That's Money In The Bank & Pollution Avoided

2011-11-08T14:45:00.000-08:00

Read an article yesterday that gave me extra encouragement to keep on counting on the sun.

Mr Paul Krugman, Economist & Columnist, has noticed a few telling arguments about the rising costs of energy from fossil fuels and the quickening downward trend of costs from renewable sources, like the sun we see every day - although sometimes through faith in what happens above the clouds.

I didn't need extra encouragement for myself as much as I did for the advancement of smart thinking in general. Whether one likes Mr Krugman's politics isn't important if you just pay attention to what he says.

In this case, he is citing information posted on a Seattle blog, written by a very intelligent student of advanced technology and what that can mean for us in the future, actually in the fairly near future.

I visited the blog mentioned in Krugman's article and was delighted with being reintroduced to Moore's Law, a tenet of science that seems to be currently manifesting in ways we can all understand and be happy about.

Clicking on the Solar Energy icon produced this list of blogs written on that subject, itself interesting.

Sometimes things do dovetail with actions one is considering, or in my case, doing.

Recently, I decided to triple the size of my solar panel array on my garage roof, since I was very pleased with the performance of the original PV system which was installed nearly 6 years ago.

The economics of the earlier system were gratifying, since the unit has increased its realtime value to me every time a power rate increase occurs. Now, the payout time has already decreased to about sixty five percent of what I initially expected.

So, with the Community Energy Challenge incentives available this year, plus improved technology & efficiency, the additional installation cost me less than the original -even at twice the capacity.

Now, that's arithmetic anyone can understand; essentially two for the price of one!

The new total PV capacity is expected to provide almost 70% of my typical electrical power needs each year. I like that, and so does Puget Power Energy, because they avoid the costs of installing more power production capacity.

The other things I like about this arrangement is that I own the Photovoltaic [PV] panels, inverters & mountings myself, and these things are mostly portable. But, left in place, the PV solar array adds to the value of my house, should I decide to sell it.

When you consider the simplicity of the PV system, the idea becomes even more appealing.

And, to think that only about 0.2% of the power needed nationally is currently produced by solar, means that a terrific upside potential is out there for anyone interested!

I hope a few folks will read this blog, check out the links given and make similar decisions themselves.

You know, PV technology was invented here, in the US, but most of the production is happening overseas in places like China -which wants to buy our coal.

Go figure!

I consider this an indirect investment in high tech with a huge upside potential, plus the ability to lock in earnings from the time of installation.

Instead of investing in a single corporation or stock, I'm investing in its broader, actual potential.

Rolling Our Rights & Freedoms; Backward or Forward?

2011-11-04T18:00:00.000-07:00

Has it occurred to you that our Constitution, and with it our freedoms, are under attack?

It seems to me that powerful interests are steadily making inroads with their money and influence in high places. These forces are relentless, and move incrementally so we don't notice too much, until their gains have been solidified.

One example is access to our elected officials in Congress, as well as in the Administration -almost regardless of who happens to be in power.

The current situation is egregious, allowing one party to just say 'no' to even the most basic things, like extending unemployment insurance or passing routine authorizations like paying our military personnel, allowing emergency funds to be used to mitigate natural disasters, like floods, hurricanes and shortages of vaccines and medical assistance.

What is that about?

The short answer is simple meanness, and the attitude of 'my way or the highway'!

How did we get to this awful place in our national politics?

For that matter, what about those States that decided to outlaw collective bargaining?

Hey, I know that organized labor can be extremely problematic, with it's single minded zeal to constantly demand more & more, even from financially strapped governments and institutions, but even that kind of greed doesn't justify taking away the right to collective bargaining!

Talk about blame games, that takes the cake - except for what we have come to call 'corporations' and their growing power over every lever of our economy.

Of course, corporations are an integral part of our economy, providing jobs, goods and services we need. But, in exchange for providing these basic essentials, corporations are now able to engage in practices that are downright harmful to our society.

Things like moving manufacturing jobs offshore, thereby creating unemployment here. Or, exerting financial influence over elections and prudent fiscal policy. Or, claiming the same rights as people! Can you believe it? You'd better, because its happening.

Back in the early 1900's, President Theodore Roosevelt had to deal with the exceptional growth of corporate power that was being used to abuse the public in several harmful ways. That led, among other things, to the breakup of the Standard Oil Trust - actually a virtual monopoly on oil and petroleum products. Can you imagine the result of the former Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, Texaco, and Standard Oil of Ohio companies still being part of the same gigantic corporation?

Before Roosevelt's time, this same phenomena had occurred before when the Mining, Steel production and Railroad industries were dominating trade and employment with their power, and the abuse of it. These were more than historical happenings, they were terrible times for many workers, consumers and ordinary citizens, too! Reviewing our history -and that of the world- such concentrations of power do occur, largely due to human nature and the lack of reasonable controls being exercised.

For those who believe that government is too big and pervasive, ask yourself if you'd like to live without a government strong enough to deal with big business and big labor! Then ask yourself how those selected to represent public interest can, themselves, be corrupted by these very powerful forces. Not so easy, is it?

Most of my adult life was spent working for corporations, so I am grateful for the good livelihood that -and a great education- has provided. But, there were times I didn't enjoy working for poorly managed companies, arrogant & incompetent bosses and working conditions that were inadequate or unsafe.

So, for all the good that corporations provide, there can also be a big, bad side, too! Corporations are not inherently good, and they can be used for purposes that harm people and the economy as well as the environment. We've seen enough examples of this to know with certainty, the truth about corporations.

My main concern about corporations is their potential for misuse. They are not people - as our Supreme Court has come to claim, do not have a conscience and always can be counted on to act in their own selfish, self interest. Other than that, very little to be concerned about!

Now, consider extending these concerns to the people who control corporations. They are people, but with a difference. These folks -the elite 1% among them and at the top- are in the habit of setting themselves up to be special; wealthy, protected from normal liability, well-connected to power, used to getting their way, prone to believe they belong to an exclusive, chosen class, exempt from normal duties of a citizen - think military service, entitled to the best of everything, beyond the influence of small shareholders, employees or servants, able to enjoy the trappings of high-life at will, etc

And, think about all the advertising oriented to appeal to those with lots of money; large gated estates, luxury cars, yachts & planes, jewelry fit for royalty, lavish & rare art, investment opportunities not generally available to most of us, legal, medical and money management services too expensive to imagine, vacations, cruises, galas, sports events, closed private clubs where the rich & famous hide out to enhance their exclusivity, casinos, elite schools, fancy spas and the like.

Can you honestly say that you are not influenced by this kind of opulent lifestyle? How do you feel about people flaunting what they have -and what you don't- in your face? My goodness, this stuff rivals those emperors, kings and potentates of old, who thought they were divine and had a right to take what they wanted, fight wars to expand or keep what they had, torture those who dared look at them crooked, and live lives of debauchery and excess.

Does what is happening today, sound much different? Materialism reigns, baby! Every act, thing or lavish service is treated better than motherhood, because it adds to what we have decided to call our Gross National Product!

Know any of these people? Maybe, but not personally. More likely from the media, urban legends or fame. To most folks, these titans of corporate - or inherited or stolen - power exist in a sort of never-never land, beyond our credible imagination. Occasionally, one of them crashes to earth, from one of their excesses, most likely. Then, we are inclined to castigate them, ridicule and despise them, or maybe actually revere them and hold them up as paragons of virtue! The choices ours, of course, of how we view these people of privilege and excess.

How do you feel about some of these folks earning as much in one day as you do in a year? Is that size of gap healthy? What would you say if you learned that some of these wealthy people pay essentially no taxes, while you are struggling to make ends meet? How about when they can get the finest medical care available on earth, and you're lucky to have health insurance? Or, they fly around in corporate jets while you are lucky to own a car, or be able to buy the gas to run it?

I don't mean to idly sow seeds of discontent; merely to point out a few inequalities that do not seem to be necessary or productive in our society. What does concern me is how such gross inequalities may harm our way of life, and what we can do about it.

First, the money problem. How much is enough? Is any limit necessary? What about the concept of fairness? Shouldn't the rich pay more than ordinary citizens? Shouldn't corporations? Don't they depend on our infrastructure, services, security and stability? Don't these essential benefits matter in tangible terms? Why can't these obvious disparities be reconciled? Who can we trust to do it?

By allowing our government to become so dysfunctional, we are unknowingly committing the error of undermining the very things we value. Think about it, if its not too painful. No, think about it anyway! Corporations are eroding the underpinnings of our Constitution by claiming person-hood and dodging important responsibilities and reasonable guidelines. Because they have the resources, constant and clever attacks are being made that grant corporations more 'rights' then they are entitled to.

And, by the expedient of 'incorporation' all manner of tax and identity dodges are being created that allow 'anonymous' donors to buy election votes and influence legislation without the public knowing what interests are being represented, or how rules are being skirted. That is unacceptable!

If these games continue to be played with ever wider impacts, there will come a time when public trust becomes history. Already, there is evidence that the trust so necessary to our way of life is being steadily eaten away by sharp practices designed to surreptitiously benefit schemers of all stripes, creating a virtual shadow government that usurps honest debate, discussion and elections.

Our Constitution is a great document, limited only by the ideas our Founders could conceive of and get approved by compromise in 1787. But, it acts as a general statement of policy, not a bible. And, it was considered obsolete before it was put in place by a relative handful of wealthy white men! Just imagine, the Bill of Rights was an afterthought! It's great that these 10 Amendments were adopted, but that didn't exactly solve the problem either to every one's satisfaction. That is why we continue to try and amend our Constitution, to address issues the Founders finessed. You know, little things like slavery, the right to vote for blacks, women and unhanded whites; just a few little details like that!

Now, we need to address the growing problem of wealth-enhanced influences that mainly serve to further enrich the rich! Anytime ordinary citizens like you and me suffer the loss of their influence to the rich, powerful and famous, that is a blow to the essence of what has made this country great. That is why squarely facing this growing problem of 'corporate' wealth & power that is so insidious, is so necessary.

Now, how do we do this? No short answers exist, but it will most assuredly be up to us, the citizens. We could start by coalescing around the idea that our freedoms are being eroded, and that we demand acceptability from our elected representatives. We could also recommend a few corrections that will be necessary to define what is broken and what needs fixing. And, we can certainly attract attention by speaking out and taking to the streets if necessary, like the 'Occupy' movement is doing now.

My only caveat is trying to be 'for' something, not just being 'against' it. But, that is always the catch in a democratic type of society, like ours; change is possible, but likely not easy. Like others, I counted upon the success of corporations to earn retirement income, so I don't lightly dismiss their importance. But, there has to be a better way!

So, that is our challenge; we don't have to reinvent the wheel, because that's already been done. Our task now is to decide which way that wheel needs to roll - backward or forward?

I choose the later, if we can overcome the inertia of the backsliding that seems to be accelerating, despite our wishes to the contrary. While I won't be around a whole lot longer, millions & millions of people will, and already I can see what the steady accretion of disastrous practices can wring the very life out of people! These people don't really want handouts, they want a more level playing field - in education, opportunity, nutrition, health and those basic freedoms that were fought for by our forefathers.

As the Buddhists say; we are born as well-favored beings, which is difficult to gain and easy to lose! Think they got it right? If so, what are you going to do about it? Maybe the 'Occupy' movement is a beginning of something we need. But, we need to identify what that is, then stand for something good, not just lash against what we dislike.

Who knows? But we all should care!

Coal: What Does Lake Whatcom, Waterfront Redevelopement & The Olympic Pipe Line Have to Do With It?

2011-11-03T12:00:00.000-07:00

This lengthy title precedes a more lengthy blog, with lots of moving parts and a call for action.

Even if the reader does not agree with the position taken, perhaps you will appreciate the importance of the challenge we are now facing as a direct result of the Coal Terminal -and its accompanying extra trains, large seagoing vessels, unanticipated costs -without funding, and everyday inconveniences coming to pass.

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

Mysteriously, an old and forgotten Chinese fortune -from a cookie- appeared as I was cleaning out old stuff.

For some reason, I picked it up, read it and saved it for future reference.

It said: "Before the beginning of great brilliance, there must be great chaos."

Wow, that seems to fit the world we're living in, doesn't it? And why not expect great brilliance later?

Today's headlines also featured at least two lead stories containing the word 'chaos'. One pertained to the 'Occupy' movement, which now seems to be more about what people don't like, rather than what they are for; I hope that changes. The other referred to the situation in Greece, where fiscal austerity seems very necessary for that country to save itself -and maybe Europe- from a fate worse than debt. [Yes, that pun was intended]

Point is that major chaos does exist, must be dealt with skillfully and effectively, and is up to people to force their chosen leaders to help them do something about it!

Is there ever any other way? Think about it.

That intro brings me to the meat of today's subject, which I'm just gonna put out there; the proposed GPT Coal terminal has galvanized chaos in our community; what are we going to do about it?

Pout? Fulminate? Complain? Point fingers [you pick which one]? Jawbone each other? Blame our corrupted Constitution? Blame corporations? Blame organized labor? Blame the ancient & vested 'right' of railroads to ship whatever they want to anywhere without asking permission? Blame Warren Buffet, Bill Gates for being unable to curb their appetite for big profits? Blame our elected members of Congress for daring to support such a project? Blame the State government for not nixing this idea out of hand? Blame Whatcom County for having a do-nothing Executive & Council that continues to lean hard right? Blame those idiotic planners of the past for suggesting Cherry Point be a terminal site? Blame each other? Blame China? Blame big Coal? Blame history that actually sought to make Bellingham a leading west coast rail terminus? Blame God for making the waters off Cherry Point deep enough for the largest vessels afloat? Blame WTO, NAFTA and other world trade agreements for greasing the skids for -gasp- world trade? Blame the current economic situation on creating an atmosphere conducive to grabbing any new job opportunity that comes along? Blame the Obama administration for whatever comes to mind that displeases some of us? Blame the previous administration for running up the national debt from unfunded wars & rebates to the rich, then sticking to us to pay for? Blame the Founders for being business friendly? Blame the Courts for interpreting the Constitution such that corporations have now achieved actual person-hood? Blame all the big money that appears around virtually every political contest or proposed change? Blame George Washington for not living long enough to continue being our President? Hell, blame everybody else but ourselves!

Get serious, people!

We have met the enemy, and it is us!

So, how do we go about corralling this churning chunk of local chaos and turning it into energy for positive change -or in the case of GPT- no change?

Let's see; we could buy the property and turn it into a park! You know, like the City did when it splurged and went into unfunded debt on the overly densely zoned area euphemistically known as Chuckanut Ridge.

Maybe that property could be traded back to its former owners -once or twice removed- in exchange for the Cherry Point property currently owned by the same people?

And, if that weren't enough, we could sweeten the pot by agreeing to rezone their other property known as Governor Point, provide them sewer & water and waive all impact fees so they can build an exclusive marina & living spot for the very wealthy.

That ought to jump-start our local economy and create more jobs than GPT, don't you think?

What say you, wealthy owners? A deal? Where do we sign?

Experts say that just by acknowledging it, one solves half the problem. If that's true, maybe a little Resolution -but preferably an Ordinance- along the lines suggested further below, will get us to the halfway point. Of course, our erstwhile Mayor and -as he is quick to point out- the lazy and irresolute Council would have to raise the tempo of our local chaos by getting off their collective keisters and doing something to demonstrate the dire mood of the populace on this issue!

Surely, that would be no problem, would it?

Don't kid yourself, Bellinghamsters, our fearless leaders aren't fearless when it comes to this sort of thing at all!

Ask me how I know.

OK, glad you asked: here's an instant replay of a little scenario that took place over 10 years ago, regarding what everyone said they thought was important, but had done very little walking of that talk. Yes, I'm talking about the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, our public water supply that needed more than talk. Fortunately, the City Council did take action to establish the Watershed Acquisition & Preservation Ordinance, but only after a vigorous public initiative demanded it, and over the objection of the Mayor and 2 or 3 Council members that were too lazy or timid to act!

Read about it here.

That, folks, was a struggle, but one that resulted in action that was badly needed and has been pretty effective.

Something like that will be needed again, but maybe without the luxury of an actual public initiative?

Tell me, why the City Council can't -or won't- represent citizens' interests and agree to pass a simple Resolution -not even a law- that clearly states Bellingham doesn't want the GPT, all those coal trains and the enormous tangible and intangible expense this proposal will burden us with?

Could it be that without a public initiative, they just don't pay attention? Does that mean they disagree with the widely held opinion that GPT is a really bad idea? Or, just lazy, risk adverse or simply clueless?

Maybe, you, -gentle reader- will agree to tell the City Council what you would like for them to do?

And, if they resist, tell them again and again until they get the message.

Tell them individually and forcefully. Tell them publicly and privately. Tell them you mean it!

If that doesn't work, then remember that during the next election; which unfortunately, may be too late to influence the decisions that others will undoubtedly make - whether Bellingham speaks up or not.

• Tell Terry Bornemann, the longtime henchman of organized labor, that you want him to think for himself, but this time to represent your wishes, not only those of his good buddies!

• Tell Gene Knutson, longtime union laborer, populist, sound-byte quipster and sometimes unreliable idol of lazy folks, that you want him to do something that gets him off his ass, and might make him unpopular to some in his audience!

• Tell Stan Snapp to get serious about something besides Lake Whatcom and the Budget while he's still in office!

• Tell Barry Buchanan, come on, what do you really have to lose? Make a lasting statement on an important issue before you go!

• Tell Seth Fleetwood, hey, your South Hill, Edgemoor & Fairhaven constituents need you to speak up on this issue, and with unaccustomed force - that they hope you do have!

• Tell Michael Lilliquist, wrap your carefully coiffed intellect around this issue all you want, but also follow the will of most all the citizens of Bellingham, and hurry up about it!

•Tell Jack Weiss to do what he knows is the right thing and resist this GPT scourge with every ounce of his considerable energy & wit!

And while you're at it, tell our current Mayor, and our new Mayor-to-be, to lead the parade only with the full backing of citizens -we've got your back- and get the hell out of the way if the trombones goose you, or the Majorettes want to strut their stuff, which they can always do better!

And, for god sakes, don't use the predictable advice the City Attorney will surely offer to cover your ass, because what will be proposed may seem slightly outside the bounds of what some may call 'legality'!

Remind this person that she really works for you, comfortably or not.

And, bullshit to any goal-line defense by 'Legal Man', that fictitious Super Hero who loves to stall, stymie and sink any action that doesn't fit pre-ordained protocol!

Hell, we fought a revolution over that crap!

Now, we need to do it again, if we are to regain our rights over a ridiculously stupid project designed to enrich a very few while impoverishing the rest of us.

I have never -at least rarely- been more serious about something in my entire life!

So, without further preamble, here's a few basic points that could be the gist of a Resolution our Council needs to pass, say, by the day after elections? That would be Wednesday, November 9, so next Monday would be a good time to publicly discuss and pass this subject Resolution and post-date its effective date by 2 days. Oops! My bad, today's the deadline for packet agenda items, but there's always the requirement for a mere 24 hours notice if the Council Pres is up to it.

Title and premise could include something like the following:

Bellingham's concern relates to direct impacts likely from tripling of train traffic through its entire shoreline which will create what amounts to an almost constant nuisance and safety hazard that will affect almost 40% of Whatcom County's population and over 60% of its jobs.

Then, the customary litany of whereases [feel free to add your own, see below for comparison to Lake Whatcom]:

• nuisance & noise expected to be tripled from current levels to a projected average of one train every 48 minutes

• safety hazards at all road & trail crossings and water channels [from ships]

• expensive costs of grade crossings & grade separations

• depreciation of public & private property values along Railroad Right-of-way, also affecting current jobs, and future jobs related to waterfront redevelopment and long planned for improved public access

• endangerment of surrounding marine waters, coastlines, aquatic life and inherent exceptional scenic beauty and jobs dependent on same. [tourists, fishers, watercraft, etc]

• arbitrarily wasting the thousands of hours this community has spent in envisioning a higher and better use for over 200 acres of prime waterfront property, plus the accrued expense to date, as well as depriving the City & Port of a viable means of recouping their substantial investment and achieving their anticipated goal of a vibrant mixed use area of universal appeal and value.

You get the idea, see how easy this is?

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

Now, we get to add what we want to happen, or in this case, what we don't want to happen.

Like, maybe a prohibition against trains over a certain frequency, length, weight, timing.

And, the precondition of paying for grade-separated crossings at all existing and planned traffic or trail crossings; sound walls & barriers, track & switching gear relocation and improvements.

And, secured insurance against damage from accidents, injuries, spills, excessive air particulates, etc

And, schedule assurance that AMTRAK trains will have priority access over freight between Portland, OR and Vancouver, BC, and all stops in between.

And, BNSF will assign an individual to be personally responsible for handling community concerns and resolving them on a timely, fair basis, without additional costs to the community, local businesses and property owners.

SSA, BNSF & partners will agree to share its profits from additional trains -full or empty- with Whatcom County and the City of Bellingham at a rate to be determined.

While these examples are meant to illustrate what could be demanded, a more inclusive approach could also be sought by asking the project owners & sponsors to agree to submit a proposal covering & committing to all the benefits, mitigations, infrastructure costs, dispute resolution mechanisms, insurable items, payments/penalties, job opportunities they offer our community.

Once in writing -and only then- can we have a real basis for negotiation, much like what we demanded before allowing the Olympic Pipe Line to be re-installed through City property and restarted under more stringent regulatory and management rules.

Note: That process took 18 months, and required active support from all levels of government agencies, citizens and the entire range of elected officials.

Something like that will also likely be necessary to bring the railroads under more reasonable control; this is not the 1800's, when the government opened the box that turned out to become Pandora's!

=================

{Early excerpts from the draft Watershed Acquisition Ordinance from the year 2000, which became effective on 1/1/2001]

WHEREAS, protection of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, the drinking water source for the City of Bellingham and others, is of the utmost public health importance to the citizens of Bellingham and others who obtain water from the lake; and

WHEREAS, a proven and effective method of protecting municipal water supplies, such as the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, is to acquire, for public ownership, lands within the watershed and protect them from development; and

WHEREAS, the City, County, and Water District 10 Joint Resolution No. 92-68, signed in 1992, recognized the importance of protecting Lake Whatcom and its watershed as a Reservoir and the major drinking water source for the County; and

WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that before-the-fact prevention take precedence over after-the-fact mitigation or treatment; and

WHEREAS, a Citizens' Task Force of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program is currently developing criteria to prioritize land for protection, determining options for preserving & enhancing high priority lands, and mechanisms for integrating these options with identified priority areas; and

WHEREAS, preserving and enhancing the quality of our drinking water supply has been identified as the top priority for the City Council for the past three years; and

WHEREAS, recognizing that a truly comprehensive program of education, land use regulation and enforcement, monitoring, and review as well as land acquisition is essential to preserving water quality in the Lake Whatcom Reservoir; and the City Council will continue its active support and encouragement of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program with Whatcom County and Water District #10. Therefore ........

======================

CONCLUSION:

We can do something to help at least condition and cope with the GPT proposal!

In fact, we are the only ones who can - but only if we will.

Our leaders desperately need us to tell them what to do; actually, we'll probably need to command them to do it! That is because most of our elected leaders are a lot like us, they wait until they have to do something to actually do it.

Unless, of course, they want to do something - with or without our advance approval.

This is a time when we need to give our leaders advance approval to stand up for what is essential to keep Bellingham a livable, welcoming and viable community.

Long past are the days when a few robber barons -or wannabes- could take over an area and strip it of its resources, beauty and livability!

Yet, something like that could be in the offing if the current crop of robber barons get their way.

It's time, folks!

It's getting close to past the time for us to get involved, other than jawboning.

We've got to do more than talk; we've got to speak up and take the names of those willing to actively help, and those better suited to laziness and bitching!

A really good way to get started is to pick on those we allow to call themselves elected officials; the City Council & Mayor of Bellingham, the County Council & Executive of Whatcom County, the State Representatives & Senator, the Federal members of Congress.

Get their attention! All of them, and take names of what they propose and what they oppose.

Then, we will have identified not only our enemies, but our allies!

At that point, we'll know who's got our back and who's acting behind our back -to our mutual detriment.

Choose sides wisely, then work to achieve your objective!

The world won't revolve around our little problem, but if we don't find a way to fight it, it may have us revolving around it!

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

Coal: Location, Location, Location - For Whom?

2011-10-31T07:00:00.000-07:00

A friend forwarded this draft OpEd, intended to attract sufficient support to be published as some sort of policy statement.

To date, it has not appealed to enough community-minded realtors to gain wide approval. Go figure! For a bunch who trumpet the virtues of location, location, location, one wonders if they really mean it.

Maybe, they had rather take their chances on 'tricking & treating' this Halloween?

===========================================

Whatcom Real Estate Professionals Against Coal Trains

When people buy a home or locate their business they look for good neighborhoods, strong schools, clean environments, accessible services, healthy local economies and appreciating property values.

They do not seek noise, pollution, traffic and major industry that negatively impacts the single largest investment they are ever likely to make.

As real estate and financial services professionals on the front-line of our local economy, we implicitly understand what makes for a strong quality of life and vibrant economy.

And chief among these is stable employment. Indeed, our very industry and livelihoods

depend on it.

As such, we do not take lightly our opposition to the proposed coal train terminal at Cherry Point.

While the promise of job creation in this struggling economy is very compelling, we are

gravely troubled by the undetermined costs of which our entire community will have to pay for these jobs, estimated at 89 to 213 at various stages of operation.

In addition to the 14 cargo and passenger trains currently running through Whatcom

County, the proposed additional 18 coal trains per day (perhaps more depending on

market demand), each estimated at one and a half miles long, will amount to upwards of

32 trains per day – one approximately every 48 minutes (if evenly spaced).

Excessive noise pollution from train horns and engines, dangerous air pollution from coal

dust and diesel fumes, and stifling traffic and pedestrian delays along our developing

waterfront and downtown Fairhaven will hugely detract from our quality of life, property

values and business opportunities at a time when we can least afford it.

Although a few people will benefit, it is clear to us that this project will be a net negative for the rest of us.

We implore our elected officials, policy makers and candidates for local office to join us

and countless numbers of concerned citizens in courageously standing against coal trains

and a sole source or multi-purpose coal train terminal at Cherry Point.

We simply can’t afford it!

####

Whatcom Real Estate Professionals Against Coal Trains is comprised of residential and

commercial brokers, mortgage lenders, contractors and affordable housing advocates.

===========================================

Coal: Where Does Bellingham Really Stand?

2011-10-30T16:43:00.000-07:00

'All hat and no cattle' is an expression I've heard that describes perfectly a person who consistently can't walk his talk.

Lately, I've been wondering if some of our elected leaders don't fit that definition in regard to reflecting our community's collective wishes on the proposed GPT Project and the exceptionally mixed - and mostly bad - impacts it might bring.

Hey, I know the so-called EIS hasn't been finished - or even completely scoped - yet, but what is your gut feeling about how it will benefit or harm you?

I'm not issuing a challenge for more campaign rhetoric here, so wait until after election results are known before expressing opinions oriented toward short term political gain.

No, what I'm seeking is the unvarnished thinking of people who live here, are invested in our community, and want to keep it a great place for people -not trains & huge foreign ships- to live!

Maybe we ought to think about acting the way some folks did up in Alaska recently when confronted with being forced to accept a huge, foreign-owned mining proposal that wants to extract easy profits from public mineral assets while degrading their livelihood from salmon and related biological resources?

Consider this headline: "The state of Alaska on Friday sued to invalidate the results of a voter initiative that could stop a massive gold and copper mine near one of the world's premier salmon fisheries."

Read on to discover the kind of jurisdictional dispute we could also experience here in Bellingham, whether we decide on a voter initiative or not.

We probably should have some sort of voter initiative on this matter, and likely will at some point.

But, don't you think our local government could help jump start this effort, whether they think its within their responsibility or not?

Explain to me why this would not be possible, or why it would be a waste of time!

It is something of a mystery to me why organizations like unions can persuade the City Council to pass stupid, feel good ordinances like banning Big Box Stores [couldn't just single out WAL-MART] and imposing the costs of providing 'Living Wages' on taxpayers for unskilled, out of town sub-contractors; and ordinary citizens can't get them to do squat about something with truly adverse impacts like allowing nearly continuous trainloads of coal to endanger, degrade and foul our roads & waterfront areas while supplying coal to monstrous foreign registry ships so they can clog our coastal waters to provide 18th century fossil fuel to our main competitor and creditor?

[That sentence was longish, but did say most of what I'm trying to convey.]

You know, Bellingham could also be a David and challenge the authority of a few senior Goliath jurisdictions, too, like Whatcom County, Washington State, the US Federal Government.

It shouldn't matter that Bellingham doesn't have the jurisdiction over this matter!

Hell, what other way would be as effective in clearly communicating what this community wants?

But, maybe it's too easy to not go there; to listen to the predictable legal advice; to avoid the certain escalation of controversy; to blame others; to tuck tail and hide?

I say we need better reasons than these to do nothing but sit on our hands like good little subjects!

My habit is usually to speak my mind, and sometimes this has affected unintended things to my detriment. But, what is the alternative? Really.

Recently, a little course I attended illustrated the potential of taking actions that are not expected, welcome, or technically legal.

Those actions can take the form of extraordinary ordinances, resolutions or voters initiatives.

Sometimes, they actually work; but always, they force questioning existing authority, practices and decisions.

It forces those existing authorities to listen, react, reconsider, try to intimidate, take legal action, listen to inputs unlikely to have been fully heard, wonder what is going on, expend unplanned energy & resources , delay taking routine action, inform and rally other stakeholders, etc, but never ignore them!

You know, our beloved Constitution was NOT carved in stone and carried down from the mountain.

Instead, it was hashed out the hard way, with compromises where possible, silence where prudent at the time, changes through Amendments, including the Bill of Rights.

All that stuff was not miraculously hatched in a bolt of lightening, and it is still subject to changes that fit the progress of humanity.

And, the way we change our Constitution hasn't changed either; it takes conviction, advocacy, courage and hard work. Period.

So here's what I'm asking;

The City Council -currently a moving target, I know- needs to address this issue very soon, since it has come to dominate community concerns and will likely continue to have enormous impacts whether the current GPT proposal succeeds or not.

There has been a great deal of information generated on this, as well as questions and concerns.

So far, the benefits of it proceeding have not been convincingly presented, and neither have its hidden costs been identified thoroughly or matched with funding sources.

We seem to be in some kind of holding pattern, where everything is in limbo except for jawboning, waiting for something called the EIS to be scoped, deliberated and decided upon -largely by others, non-citizens of Bellingham.

That idle, contentious and stressful waiting needs to be replaced by active debate and communication of Community expectations before it is too late.

Back in 1999, we had such a community discussion, when the Olympic Pipe Line disaster occurred.

Then, as now, other jurisdictions had responsibility for remedial action, including assessment of damages & reparations, creating mechanisms for restarting the pipeline, oversight and future regulations & enforcement.

Then, Bellingham & Whatcom County did not simply wait for 'others' to do their jobs and stick our community with whatever results that entailed.

No, instead, the community took charge and gave the various agencies in charge the clear and forceful idea of how we wanted the problem addressed and resolved!

We demanded -and got- the changes that were important for us to accept a replacement pipeline, including changes to State & Federal regulations, safer pipeline design, better management oversight, and reparations for damages to persons & property.

In short, that result was a testament to what communities can do to protect their citizens and livelihoods!

We can do this again, this time before the terrible, inevitable accidents actually happen and real impacts are felt.

As Ben Franklin said 'A stitch in time, saves nine'.

Preventing harm ought to be easier -and less costly- than reacting to predictable problems.

And, all those coal trains & huge colliers will undoubtedly produce problems, so don't kid yourself!

But, elected officials already know this stuff; they just don't want to try and do anything about it, except talk, wait and blame others.

Our Mayor was quoted not long ago as explaining why the City had not come up with a Resolution opposing the GPT proposal; it was that he didn't have enough support from the current Council to even get it on the Agenda.

Imagine that; couldn't even get such a thing on the Agenda for public discussion!

Amazing.

Of course, he did hold a public meeting at which many citizens were able to voice their concerns.

As a result, the Mayor got the clear message and modified his position -and campaign- accordingly, becoming a lightening rod in the process.

So, now, why not just draft up something for the Council to consider on his own initiative?

Or have a community group do it?

That has been a pretty normal method by which topics are introduced.

And, the Mayor and at least 3 Council members [Bornemann, Weiss, Lilliquist] are well aware of what methods the 'Democracy School' advocates, yet none of them seems to have bought into those ideas enough to do much that is visible to me.

Why not?

And why haven't the other 4 Council members bothered to find out what they could do, either?

If something has a chance of succeeding -or even being heard by the community- why not get it out there?

If all those little Townships in Pennsylvania can write ordinances opposing corporate pig farms, why can't little Bellingham oppose its own world-class dirty pig farm?

Inertia? Duplicity? Lack of Courage, Simple laziness?

You can decide what the hang-up is, and whether you can do anything about it.

From where I sit, a few of these folks have strong allegiances to organized labor, and we know pretty well where those organizations stand by what we see and hear in the media.

They are in favor of whatever gains they can make, whether it is at the overall expense of our community or not.

Let's just check the list of current Council members to see what the problem might be:

Bornemann - long time active advocate of whatever unions advocate; close connections with Labor Council {no opponent this election}

Knutson - long time union member and sympathizer

Snapp - long time union member [fire dept]

Buchanan - long time union sympathizer {has opponent this election}

[let's see, that's a majority, isn't it?]

Weiss -? {no opponent this election}

Lilliquist -?

Fleetwood -? {has opponent this election}

[a clear minority that could get even smaller if the right pressure is applied]

Well, I guess we can't count on our erstwhile Council to do much more but sit on their individual and collective keisters.

Guess somebody else will have to rally Bellinghamsters to join in some sort of cooperative effort to advertise to the real authorities what is expected to happen in the seemingly rigged process of determining how much expense, safety hazards, pollution, and general degradation of quality of life will be forced onto us.

Besides legitimately concerned citizens, local advocates & organizations that can provide wider expert legal advice, we may be out of luck.

What about you?

Think we're stuck with an unwelcome, dirty, corporate pig farm of international proportions?

Wait and see, or do something about it.

Big Coal meets Cherry Point's tiny herring

2011-10-28T14:47:00.000-07:00

Bob Simmons' latest offering on Crosscut deserves a read.

Alternatively, Hart Hodges' effort seems to favor forces that discount fish.

John Stark also chimes in reporting claims of transparency.

Here is my response to Stark's article:

jwatts Says:
October 28th, 2011 at 1:55 PM

By the explanations given, this deliberative process does seem somewhat more open than did the Constitutional Convention back in 1787, which is not saying much.
Maybe about the same as current ‘Executive Sessions’?
Transparency does beat translucency, which in turn beats opacity, but so what?

The process to be followed likely has a pre-ordained outcome, in favor of the so-called ‘commerce clause’ in our current Federal Constitution, which, has now been incrementally interpreted to mean that corporations are actually ‘persons’.
So, good luck with getting what you might expect to be a fair & impartial hearing, without resorting to extra-legal tactics on behalf of real people and existing taxpayers.

At least, this process may present the opportunity to identify the heretofore hidden social costs associated with egregious corporate greed masquerading as ‘jobs’. This entire proposal is nothing more than a ‘jobs bill’ for a few that is being forced upon the many by private interests, not the government.

Care to venture how much of these costs will be externalized for the citizenry to pay for?
Hint: Much more than any elected politician would ever dare advocate!

Coal: NPR Weighs In With Two Articles

2011-10-27T13:15:00.000-07:00

Lots of diverse activity lately has been stimulating; CarbonMasters course @ Cooperative Extension, Democracy School, books on Lincoln [Team of Rivals], James Madison [Richard Brookhiser] & pre-Columbus Americas [1491].

Follow that up with a flying trip back east to NC to visit son, Tom & to Tennessee to visit Brother-In-Law Richard.

Nice Fall weather everywhere, football season in full swing, good food, good rest equals good time.

But, the Internet just won't go away, which tends to bring me back to a reality I don't always enjoy.

For example, today's Internet provided two articles on Coal to China.

Here's the first link, and here's the second.

Read 'em and weep; but at least the word is getting out widely about the latest big scam of shipping coal to Newcastle -er, I mean China.

Too bad Dan Pike gets his kisser shown again free, this close to elections, but that goes with the territory I guess.

Wonder what he'll do once he's out of office as Mayor?

Probably, just use that as another 'skill set' to help find new work.

I do wish him well -in some other line of work..

Out.

PS - Another related link

And another, over at Crosscut, compliments of Floyd McKay

Coal: National Geographic Article

2011-10-21T11:59:00.000-07:00

This article appeared recently in a National Geographic publication.

It is worth a read since it also addresses this as a global issue.

Coal: Green versus Gold?

2011-10-19T14:55:00.000-07:00

This U-Tube speech deserves our undivided attention because it clearly spells out the phony battle now going on between well-established truth and the cleverly deceptive untruths being spun about climate change.

Would you seek 99 'second opinions' from Doctors on your child's health condition?

BTW, here's an article I posted in Whatcom Watch, the April, 2003 issue.

Similar arguments on a slightly different subject, growth management.

Coal: The Role of Politics

2011-10-19T11:30:00.000-07:00

Bob Simmons has done it again in publishing an article in Crosscut that explores the history of proposed development at Cherry Point.

This one refers to the CBI proposal back in the early 1980's that sought to produce large modules for drilling oil in the Arctic.

Much debated and as contentious as our current challenge, the proposed SSA Coal Terminal, this earlier battle raged and teetered on approval until a courageous Republican Governor -Spellman- vetoed a special legislative measure and killed it.

Imagine that, a high elected official actually listened to his conscience and then followed it!

That kind of scenario could happen again, at least in parts.

Depending upon our current process for examining such proposals -there are more ecologically justified hurdles to jump- a special measure may again gain sufficient support to approve it.

When, and if, that happens, who will be our Governor?

More importantly, will that future Governor have the courage to follow his conscience?

Our choices for next Governor seem to be between Mssrs Inslee and McKenna, with the former a Democrat and the latter a Republican.

How will these two view a Coal Terminal at Cherry Point?

Is one more likely than the other to support it?

Think about it before you vote -please!

Remember, there are links between how we vote and what we get.

Voting is important, not only in the Governor's race but in others!

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

For those interested, here are my choices in contested local elections:

County Executive: Jack Louws [over Doug Ericksen]

County Council:

Alan Black [over Barbara Brenner]

Christina Maginnis [over Sam Crawford]

Pete Kremen [over Tony Larson]

Sheriff: Bill Elfo [over Steve Harris]

Auditor: J Lynne Walker [over Debbie Adelstein]

Treasurer: Steve Oliver [over Brian Smith]

Bellingham Mayor: Kelli Linville [over Dan Pike]

City Council:

Cathy Lehman [over Barry Buchanan]

Larry Farr [over Seth Fleetwood]

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

God Save The Queen!

2011-10-01T14:20:00.000-07:00

Since we are now fully into Silly Season, maybe there are some candidates in need of a platform, motto or giggle.

If so, here's a Memo from Queen Elizabeth:

===================================

An important announcement regarding the USA

To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty

Queen Elizabeth II.....

In light of your immediate failure to financially manage yourselves, and
also in recent years your tendency to elect incompetent Presidents of the
USA and therefore not able to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of
the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. (You should look
up 'revocation' in the Oxford English Dictionary).

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over
all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas, which she does
not fancy).

Your new Prime Minister, David Cameron, will appoint a Governor for America
without the need for further elections.

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be
circulated sometime next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules
are introduced with immediate effect:....

1. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'colour', 'favour,'
'labour', 'neighbour' & so forth. Likewise, you will learn to spell
'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix '-ize' will be
replaced by the suffix '-ise.' Generally, you will be expected to raise
your vocabulary to acceptable levels (look up 'vocabulary').

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

2. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as
'like' and 'you know' is an unacceptable and inefficient form of
communication. There is no such thing as US English. We will let
Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be
adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter 'u'' and the elimination
of '-ize'.

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

3. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.

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

4. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or
therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows
that you're not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used
for shooting grouse. If you can't sort things out without suing someone or
speaking to a therapist, then you're not ready to shoot grouse.

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

5. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more
dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if
you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

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

6. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start
driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same time, you will
go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion
tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the
British sense of humour.

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

7. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been
calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.

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

8. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries
are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are
properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and
dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.

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

9. The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer
at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as
beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred
to as Lager. New Zealand beer is also acceptable, as New Zealand is pound
for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to
the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth- see what it did
for them. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine,
so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.

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

10. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good
guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play
English characters. Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English dialogue in
Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears
removed with a cheese grater.

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

11. You will cease playing American football. There are only two kinds of
proper football; one you call soccer, and rugby (dominated by the New
Zealanders). Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play
rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not
involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body
armour like a bunch of nancies).

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

12. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host
an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of
America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your
borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will
let you face the Australians (World dominators) first to take the sting out
of their deliveries.

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

13. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.

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

14. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's
Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies
due (backdated to 1776).

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

15. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, with saucers,
and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus
strawberries (with cream) when in season.

God Save the Queen!

PS: Only share this with friends who have a good sense of humour (NOT
humor)!__,_._,___

Greenways: Herald Article Reprise

2011-09-28T19:00:00.000-07:00

Right“"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit.

"No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it.

It's just that something happened to it along the way."” - Winnie the Pooh

==============================

Today's Gristle got it right, again, in assessing the Chuckanut Ridge acquisition.

Don't have the money, no problem; just leave that little detail to those who will follow to sweat through!

==============================

Here's the Herald Article link I thought I'd reprise, and here's the same article reprinted, with my comments -and emphasis- interspersed in red at intervals:

Bellingham council sees partial Chuckanut Ridge sale as last resort

JOHN STARK - THE BELLINGHAM HERALD

BELLINGHAM - The City Council is taking steps to clarify its strategy for covering the $8.2 million cost of the 82-acre Chuckanut Ridge purchase.

Right, after-the-fact from the action already taken!

On Monday afternoon, Sept. 26, the council finance committee met to discuss the matter and all seven council members attended. The key issue is finding a way to repay as much as $3.3 million of the purchase price that is being covered with a loan from a city parks Greenways endowment fund that is supposed to be used for maintenance, not land purchases.

If less than $3.3 Million is repaid, how will the balance be paid?

Even more importantly, how will the maintenance be paid for! Think that doesn't count? Why was it ever designated in the first place?

Attempts at verbal jujitsu seems in evidence here.

Councilman Seth Fleetwood said it was incorrect to say the council has no plan for repayment of that loan. Ultimately, Fleetwood said, the property itself serves as collateral for the loan, and some portion of it could be sold for residential development to pay the loan back, if no other revenue sources can be found.

Huh?

Of course some portion could be sold; that should be Council's first option!

"Nobody hopes that this happens," Fleetwood said.

I do, and so do many others who take City fiscal matters seriously!

Mayor Dan Pike agreed.

"The ultimate fallback plan is we sell off as much of the land as we need to," Pike said.

Huh?, again!

Does ultimate fallback mean the same as last resort?

Didn't these guys figure all the deficit monies would have to be paid back?

Go ahead, kick that last resort into the dim future and hope no one is watching!

Good luck with that.

Council members agreed to consider adding language to that effect to the ordinance authorizing financing for the Chuckanut Ridge purchase. The seller is Washington Federal, the bank that obtained the property through foreclosure. The property had previously secured loans made by Horizon Bank, and Washington Federal took over those loans after regulators shut down Horizon in early 2010.

The ordinance was slated to come before the full council for a final vote late Monday, with an addition that reads, "Until paid in full, the 82 acres of real property shall serve as collateral for any unpaid balance" from the $3.3 million loan from the endowment fund.

Big deal, stating the obvious; although with this bunch, just getting that into the ordinance was a step they could take and maybe save more criticism.

How's that working out?

The council has six years to repay the money.

Who says so? Why they do, of course! You see, they, and only they, are the deciders!

Don't forget that, especially at election time.

BTW, how many of these guys will still be in office 6 years hence?

Also at the Monday committee meeting, council members appeared to be backing away from any insistence that loan repayment could not come from a new Greenways IV levy that would, if voters approve, replace the current Greenways III levy that expires at the end of 2016.

Is that really surprising?

After all, that was their first option in the thin air of Council's exhilaration after the 'buy it all now' decision was first made.

At a Sept. 22 finance committee meeting, committee members recommended that the city not rely on potential Greenways IV revenue for Chuckanut Ridge, since that reliance might turn some city voters against the future levy.

You think? Count on it!

Pike said the content of the next Greenways levy would be up to a future Greenway advisory committee and City Council, and said the current council has no business trying to dictate that levy's possible uses, years in advance.

Huh? The first part of that almost sounded kinda - right!

But, notice he left any mention of his -or a future Mayor's- role out of this statement?

And, oh sure, a future Greenway advisory committee could be just as ignored as the current one has been!

But this is the kicker: ...the current council has no business trying to dictate that levy's possible uses, years in advance.

What is he saying by analogy?

Is it that the previous Council had no business trying to dictate what the current Council has now undone?

Well, that certainly clarifies this Mayor's thinking about things, like binding commitments, duly passed ordinances, carefully considered procedures, and all the heavy lifting done by those who have set the table for this current bunch to mess with, any way they want to, doesn't it?

No wonder Pike is having troubles; he doesn't even know what he's saying from one mouth-opening to another!

But, maybe my interpretation has more to do with semantics?

Like, the reporter didn't get it just right?

I don't think so!

The reporter got it right, but Pike often seems to need the last word, just to clarify what he means to those who weren't there to hear it for themselves!.

Bye, bye Pike!

Both also said they thought it was up to the mayor to develop a financing plan for the land purchase and to bring the plan to the council for review and approval.

Shouldn't this have happened before the Council voted to buy CR?

Where's the Council's due diligence in this?

And, why are they pointing fingers in any direction except the mirror?

Pike agreed, suggesting that the matter was becoming a political issue. [Yeah! It's always been a political issue!] He faces a re-election challenge from former state legislator Kelli Linville.

"I think what I would like to do is come back (with financing ideas) some time after the election is over," Pike said. "Everything will be calmer."

Think so? Why? Because we'll have a new Mayor, with better 'skill sets'?

That's one way things will be calmer for you!

Your unwise grandstanding about buying CR wasn't about trying to gain a political advantage?

Can't have it both ways, Pike!

He also took the opportunity to defend both the land purchase and the price. Many city residents had been urging public purchase of the wooded site for years, and the bank's asking price was a fraction of what previous owners had been quoting, Pike said.

True, but that fractional price was still much more [$3.5 Million] than the City could afford to keep, without spinning back a chunk of it!

Previous owners were concocting a virtual pyramid scheme that had to fail, unless the full 739 dwelling units were actually built and sold.

[Maybe the Twilight Zoning that a previous Council and Administration allowed, largely contributed to the current situation? You bet it did! Maybe THAT Council should not have had a binding impact on the current Council & Administration, either! So why didn't Pike and THIS Council simply ignore the grossly excessive zoning? You know, what goes around, comes around -at least according to Pike's reasoning!]

Also, a little bird told me that it was the City's Finance Director who took it upon himself to ask the Bank to consider reducing the price by 5 to 7%, which was the approximate property devaluation that occurred over the past year, since the first appraisal was done.

The Bank immediately responded to this request and lowered its asking price by 7.5%, or about $700 Thousand.

Now, that ain't exactly chump change, but even that reduction left a price of $8.23 Million that the Council chomped on like a hungry trout to a fly!

Not much time to have a repayment plan developed, was it?

If the city failed to move quickly, Washington Federal could have chosen to auction off the property, leaving the city to try to negotiate a deal with a less motivated seller, he said.

There may still need to be an auction!

How else will the $3.5 Million be ultimately repaid?

"This is just an example of 'No good deed goes unpunished,'" Pike said.

Exactly what good deed was that?

You were just doing your job, right?

Instead of moving toward some kind of firm commitment to a specific strategy for loan repayment, council members agreed to collect public input on the issue, using the city's website.

That's the ultimate takeaway here; no firm commitment to a specific strategy for loan repayment! The Council ate the dessert, but left their veggies untouched and the dishes for a future Council to wash!

And what good is asking for public input, after the fact!

Heck, they even ignored public input given before-the-fact!

Council didn't even have the common decency to hold a public meeting, instead ducking into their safe little internet!

Guess maybe it's not as hot that way?

Whimps, and irresponsible ones at that!

My 2 cents.....after the fact

Reach JOHN STARK at john.stark@bellinghamherald.com or call 715-2274.

SIMILAR STORIES:

OK, that's off my chest, but not out of my memory!

After all the jawbone baloney about not using future Greenways dollars to repay the $3.5 Million deficit, this remarkably stupid Council is apparently locked into doing just that!

Surprise, surprise.

If selling a bit of the property itself is considered 'a last resort', what -pray tell- are the earlier resorts?

Stay tuned.

It ain't over 'til its over.....

==============================

“Piglet sidled up to Pooh from behind. "Pooh?" he whispered.

"Yes, Piglet?"

"Nothing," said Piglet, taking Pooh's hand. "I just wanted to be sure of you.”

― A.A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh

==============================

“I'm not lost for I know where I am. But however, where I am may be lost.”

― A.A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh

==============================

Coal: Floyd McKay's Latest Crosscut Article

2011-09-28T16:20:00.000-07:00

Here is a link to Floyd McKay's recent crosscut article on this issue.

This discusses multiple locations where coal shipment projects are being proposed.

Politics: Finding The Sweet Spot Sour?

2011-09-28T00:20:00.000-07:00

Somewhere between the lazy liberals and the constipated conservatives, there's got to be a happier middle ground.

Today, an old acquaintance whom I seldom see, chanced upon meeting me at a local business that deals in technical toys, namely cell phones and accessories.

He recognized me from behind before I even saw him, possibly because he does follow local politics, including my wee stint in that arena.

He asked me if I missed being in politics, to which I replied 'yes, like I miss the measles'!

A little strong maybe, but what I meant was I missed being an active part of important decision-making.

With measles, one does develop a certain immunity, but with politics - not!

Once it gets in your blood, it remains there at some tangible concentration.

Somehow, this guy suggested that I was known as more of a 'radical moderate' in his thinking.

And, you know, he was right!

Actually, I was somewhat flattered by that label, because that is also how I choose to see myself.

He did pretty much nail me, for better or worse.

Of course, I did also manage to mention this blog, if he ever wanted to test his perception by things I've bothered to write and stand for, sometimes rather forcefully.

He may do that, or not; either way I do believe he actually got what I like to think is consistently aiming at whatever might be called the 'sweet spot' in deciding issues - particularly the hard ones that set lasting precedents that most folks seem to prefer over the long haul.

I thank him for that!

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

Recently, our local trusted City officials managed to not find anything close to a sweet spot in their less than admirable decision to pretend to be the Federal Government and purchase the property known as Chuckanut Ridge with money they do not have!

Yes, that's what I said - money they did not actually have to spend, $3.5 Million of it!

They did it because of silly politics and that undeniable urge to become heroes - cheaply, without earning it.

Remember that old E F Hutton Ad; 'We make money the old-fashioned way - we EARN It'!

Lord knows, I've done my best to argue, advise, cajole & reason with our current City Council and current Mayor on this matter, but I have failed - and miserably.

What they can't see themselves, all the king's horses won't lead them to understand, much less do.

That is truly too bad, not just for them, but for every citizen who expects consistent, good & fair decision-making from their elected officials.

So, what else can I do?

Roundly castigate these bums as incompetent laggards?

Continue to request better accountability?

Try to inform people of the unacceptable gap between what has happened and what should have?

Lower my expectations?

Actively campaign for replacing those officials who are so unlucky as to have political opponents?

Actively seek candidates to compete against those with no opposition?

If you think the answer to all the above is 'yes', you'd be correct!

So, let's get started.

Pike as Mayor has been a major disappointment who has promised, or seemed to promise, way too many things that he has not been able to deliver. Apparently being Mayor is not one of his 'skill sets'. Imagine a guy who has just waded through almost 4 years of fiscal austerity - including threatening to veto a minimal, routine 1% property tax increase - then sticking the public [us] with an unfunded Greenways purchase of about $3.5 Million - equivalent to a 17% property tax increase! Of course, there are several other beefs that I have with Pike, like the damage he has done to the City's relationships with Whatcom County, the Port of Bellingham, State of Washington, various businesses, etc. Plus, the loss of several very qualified City Department Heads & all their institutional memory and incurring the costs of recruiting replacements; the lack of tangible progress on preserving the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, the gross lack of rapport with valuable City employees, etc. One or two other things, he argues a lot, always seeming to need the last word. And, he likes to be seen leading the parade - never mind there isn't one. Ever noticed that? These things are not merely matters of smarts, but of attitude & judgement - traits that are not readily discernible at first glance, especially with relative newcomers! Is there any wonder that I am strongly supporting Linville, because I know she can do a much better job on all these fronts!

Buchanan hasn't impressed me much either, despite his rather ordinary credentials. He seems sleepy & doesn't do much to attract sincere plaudits; but maybe that's more of a strategy to keep a low profile and stay off the radar, except when the urge to pander becomes overwhelming? Its often a winning formula around here; not to create controversy, even when it might be the right thing to do. His opponent, Cathy Lehman, is the real thing, and deserves a chance to demonstrate it. Her work ethic, energy, knowledge of important issues, true caring and effective pursuit of key endorsements and voters, earn her my unqualified support, and I hope, yours!

Fleetwood, unfortunately, has turned out to be essentially, a nebbish-like cipher. Despite good credentials and visibility in the community, he very often fails to develop positions that are well-defined or compelling. Worse, he seems to suffer from a lack of self-confidence, backbone & energy, but an overabundance of a sense of elite entitlement - a bad combination for anyone seeking to earn the public trust. His opponent, Larry Farr, is a straight shooter, has the ability and served this community in a number of volunteer capacities, though none elective, so far. [pun intended] From observing his years serving with the Transportation Commission and its predecessors, it is obvious he can do the job well and is deserving of public support, including mine.

Two Council Members, Knutson & Weiss, have no opponents and will skate through the elections for another term. That's particularly too bad for Knutson, who relies on simple populism way to often; you know always against raising the money to pay for all the stuff he votes for, that kind of thing - Chuckanut Ridge is only the latest example. Also, his tendency to say one thing and do another is off-putting, as is his periodic grandstanding, at which he has clear ability. And, as one of the 4 co-conspirators who almost killed Greenways back in 2005/06, he participated in an illegal connivance that he finally owned up to - 3 years later - when most folks who might have known had forgotten. Knutson should have excused himself from even voting on the CR purchase! [as should have Bornemann, who never confessed] Think about it; with two recusals, the CR vote would have been 3 to 2, not enough for passage.

Two years hence, the positions occupied by Bornemann, Lilliquist, Fleetwood [only if reelected] & Snapp [probably not running again] will need to be filled again. The first two need opponents if they run, as does Fleetwood if he's still there. And, also time for a new face in Ward 4. That makes four good candidates are needed. Anyone game?

That's about it from here for now, but stay tuned for a little reprise to Tuesday's Herald story on the decision made Monday night to 'kick the can down the road' on actually paying for their purchase of the entire, discounted pricey CR property.

Cool, leave the $3.5 Million mess for others to clean up later; and maybe the stupid public won't even notice!

Is it any wonder this country got so deep in debt?

Hey, you know this crap has to start somewhere; this is just an example at the local level - Bellingham, the City of subdued something. Accountability?

On that cheery note, as Bugs Bunny used to say, that's all folks....

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

Greenways: Pooh Bear Cares

2011-09-22T23:59:00.000-07:00

When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it. -- Pooh's Little Instruction Book, inspired by A. A. Milne

Today is a rare two post day.

This is the second one, which along with the earlier one were both e-mailed & hand delivered to the City Council and Mayor.

The occasion for the hard copy delivery was the Council Finance Committee meeting to discuss 'funding options' that the Council failed to identify -with certainty- before it made it's very questionable decision to purchase the so-called 'Chuckanut Ridge' property for $8.23 Million, of which only about $5 Million was actually available.

So, now its the public's 'mission impossible' assignment to cover the Council's collective ass.

Fair enough, that's what this post tries to help do.

Several 'publics' like me were present to listen to the proceedings, take notes and -please the court- make a few comments, for which the Council extended 15 minutes -until 12:30 PM.

Four Councilors attended, supported by the Council Legislative Coordinator [who audio-taped the meeting] and David Webster, City Deputy Administrator.

Mssrs. Lilliquist, Fleetwood, Buchanan and Weiss participated and each had comments and ideas to share, with Lilliquist, often as not, expressing what seemed like contrary opinions.

It will require more time to make sense from this session, but my initial impression was that

more was discussed than we'll likely see in writing. Jawboning? Doublespeak? Maybe.

Councilors did seem mostly agreeable to the twin ideas of not committing any more Greenways funds toward this acquisition, both the current GW3 or any future Greenways levy that might be brought to ballot 6 years hence.

They also seemed inclined to 'clarify' language in the acquisition ordinance before it reaches its 3rd & final vote, currently scheduled for Council's September 29 meeting.

Actual closing with the Bank is set for October 11. So, theoretically, a meeting to record a 3rd & final vote and discussion could be scheduled for Oct 10 -the day before.

I did detect some odd reluctance to even add an addendum to the Council Agenda which is required to allow further discussion and/or amendments prior to the 3rd & final vote, since no Agenda Bill had been previously been anticipated for inclusion.

[A 24-hour notice is legally required to add agenda items]

Language for both the suggested ordinance clarification, plus any agenda addendum is likely to be drafted by David Webster for Council consideration.

More later on this, including a list of public visitors and summaries of their comments.

But, here is what I submitted -on Pooh's behalf- as an idea to raise private donations to help pay for this extravagance:

All;
This message adds to the public record comments submitted earlier regarding the City's options for raising sufficient, unencumbered funds to pay the significant, unfunded debt incurred in the unwise purchase of the property known as Chuckanut Ridge, aka Fairhaven Highlands.

These words were entirely inspired by the memory of the true Pooh Bear, a lovable character created for children by A A Milne years ago.
I know my son was particularly fond of Pooh, being gifted early with his own stuffed version, with which he played and slept with for s few years, until poor Pooh was well & truly worn out!

Several years ago, I was gifted my own Pooh Bear, a bright orangey-yellow version, by a generous owner of the property now owned by the City and named Woodstock Farm, home of Inspiration Point.
I was touched at the time, because of the fond memories Pooh had for me from my son's early childhood.
So, this smiling version of Pooh has graced my home for a time as a nice reminder of happy times. [See above]

But, more recently, Pooh has begun to remind me of some things that are not so pleasant, too.
So, being the inherently benign, happy & generous creature that he is, my Pooh wants to help make things right in the 'Hundred Acre Woods'.
Therefore, he has volunteered to became the property of the highest bidder in a public auction to raise funds to pay down the debt incurred on his former, local 'home'.

By copy of this e-mail, I hereby give custody of orangey-yellow Pooh to J Lynne Walker, Legislative Coordinator to the Bellingham City Council, to safely hold until such time arises that it is time to leave with another kind person who will care for him and his memory.
Should this kind person be so inclined, they may donate money to help pay for the large stone egg that Piglet wanted so badly.
That would be very nice, and I'm sure Pooh & his many admirers would like that very much!

Kind regards,
John

PS - I started the bidding for Pooh Bear at $100 to initiate this funding idea.
PPS - Here's Pooh's story.
===========================

The hardest part is what to leave behind, ... It's time to let go! -- Winnie the Pooh

Greenways: Comfortable? What Say You, Cardinal?

2011-09-22T01:52:00.000-07:00

“Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him” - Cardinal Richelieu
---------------
Today's public meeting seeks input on how to actually finance an $8.23 million purchase the City Council has already agreed to make.
Doesn't that seem a little backward to you?

But, the Council is entitled to a little fun, isn't it?
And now, we -the public- get to have the fun of helping them out of a really expensive predicament!
Sounds fair to me, as long as the Council not only listens, but takes the action recommended by common sense.

But, that does beg the question; why didn't they just listen to common sense BEFORE they went out and bought something they couldn't afford, had no reason -except political pressure- to swallow whole, and violated the trust of many in our community in their collective ability to make a rational and prudent decision?
Just asking....

Maybe a few written responses will help shed light on the mindset of our erstwhile Council Members.
--------------
Back on September 4, I had received this prompt response from the Honorable Council Member Michael Lilliquist to questions I had forwarded earlier:
[Note, he gave me more than six lines]

John,

Excellent questions, with some answers not yet available and still in the works. We have our job cut out for us.

If you watched City Council that night, you'll see I pointed out the problem of the $3.3 million+ funding gap, so that it would be out in the open from the start. No one is ignoring this.

You'll also recall that I lost some southside support for refusing to make the "$8 million dollar promise." And we did not use all $8 million, only $4.5 as in the most recent Greenways DRAFT plan (not approved, nor officially even passed by Greenway Comm). That leaves $3.5 for other past and future southside acquisitions, to say nothing of the $12 million for northside acquisitions. I'm comfortable with those numbers.

Yes, we have some big unanswered questions. But to be clear, I think this is a good purchase and a huge step forward. All things considered, $8.32 million for all 85 acres was commonly considered beyond our reach. We caught a lucky break.

Let me put it in a nutshell, if I can:

The question is not "should the City buy Chuckanut Ridge?" That question has already been answered when the Council voted "yes." We also have $5 million in appropriate funds, so we also know how most of the property will be paid for. That's not in question either.

So the real question is a narrow one: How do we cover the approximately $3.5 million remainder, and do so in a way that is realistic and does not compromise other important greenways and open space needs across the entire city?

Discussion to follow! :)

Yours,
Michael
from Blackberry of
Michael Lilliquist

------------------
Nothing new here, except the 'being comfortable' part.

I also received a copy of the Honorable Council Member Michael Lilliquist's response from two other constituents:
[Again, much more than six lines!]

[REDACTED],

Both of you tried to contact me prior to Monday night's vote, but unfortunately I was busy and did not receive your calls and/or have time to call you back. (I had a Lake Whatcom policy group meeting in the morning, then lunch, and then straight to the afternoon work session, etc.) I ask for your understanding.

As you know by now, the City Council passed the financing plan that came forward to us (including the loan), but we deleted the language that implied repayment of the loan from "all funds for park acquisitions" or some similar, all-inclusive language. I felt that that language promised a repayment scheme that we had not yet discussed let alone agreed upon. Being presented with an immediate purchase opportunity, we seized the opportunity -- albeit via a process that did not follow the usual order of things.

As you also know, as Finance committee chair I now find myself unexpectedly in the position to lead the discussion and exploration of repayment options for the $3.4 million interfund loan. I am improvising the process as I go along, in the hopes of taking the time (now that we have it) to follow an open and constructive public process. To that end, I have scheduled a special work session of the committee for next Thursday at 11:15 am in the Mayor's Boardroom. This will certainly not be the last meeting or the only opportunity for public input. One of my goals at the work session is to establish an outline of process the committee would like to follow. For my part, I am asking people to submit written comments, addressed to the whole council, with attn: to the Finance committee in particular. I want to establish a public record of ideas and comments, for all to see.

As I said on Monday, I believe this is not the time for a debate about the purchase or the purchase price. The Council has decided. Nor is this the time for another discussion of the Greenways levy or of Council's thoughts and intention years ago. That, too, has been decided by the current Council: $4.5 million from Greenways has been allocated and spent. The Council has decided.

The matter before us, as I see it, is both smaller and more difficult. The task before us is how to repay the loan in a way that respects the voter-approved Greenways allocation scheme and that does not harm important interests throughout our community. It is smaller, because now we have only a $3.4 million loan to consider. It is more difficult, because we have already used the funds available in Greenways and Park impact fees, and in my view we cannot draw water from those wells again.

I thought you might also appreciate hearing some of my personal thoughts on the matter, which I wrote in a reply to email from [REDACTED]:

"And so [on Monday] I drew a clear (I hope) distinction between the financing the purchase on the one hand and the repayment of the loan on the other hand. Last night we accomplished the former, and we have yet to grapple with the latter. That's the next step.

I don't think it is entirely accurate to say that we have "no repayment plan." Rather, I'd say that we have many repayment options, and no agreement yet on which to follow. At present we have at least three "fall back" options, some of which are not particularly attractive. The first option is to dig deeper into Greenways funds, which I oppose and which I believe a majority of this or any subsequent Council will reject. The Council (I sincerely believe) will not sacrifice the needs of other parts of our community. Period.

The second repayment option is a subsequent Greenways levy, which could retire a portion of the loan as part of broader package. As I am hearing people, one widely held view is that greater emphasis should be placed on development and maintenance. Each Greenways levy has been unique. I can imagine a fourth levy that is perhaps less than half the size of the current one, with maybe 1/10th devoted to retiring the debt, and the other 90% directed to other worthy purposes. But this is just my out-loud thinking, and I know that some on the Council and in the community don't like the idea of using a new levy to retire old debt. So let's call this 1/2 of a fall-back repayment option.

The third fall-back repayment option is sale of some portion of the property (or perhaps some other South neighborhood public property in the same general area) to recoup the balance owed. I see this as a valid option, but also as a measure of last resort. It has the advantage of being entirely within our control: we can rezone and repackage and draw boundaries as best serves the community. This is why I see that there is very little "down-side risk:" we possess valuable collateral that we can use to prevent any other "worse case scenario" from occurring. The public is protected; our basic Council responsibility is met. Also, given the current down market in real estate, there is every reason to hold off such a "fall back" plan for a few years. In fact, even if we wanted to sell some property, it is probably best to wait a while.

In other words, it is not that "we have all the time in the world" but it is true that since we are in control of the property, the Council does not need to act in haste. We can create the time and space to evaluate our options, to raise private funds, to seek institutional support or grants, to evaluate special assessment districts, etc. As Finance chair, I can't solve this problem alone, but I can re-start a public discussion and seek a full range of input and opinion. We know the "fall back" options. Now we need to hear the "move forward" options! Please direct any and all constructive suggestions to the Council's finance committee."

Thanks for your time, and I look forward to your suggestions and ideas on this subject.

Yours,

Michael Lilliquist
Bellingham City Council, 6th Ward
360-920-1583

---------------------
It seems to me that Mr Lilliquist has already figured everything out, that he really doesn't need more ideas from the public, and that if we all just cooled it and let things ride, ALL WILL BE MAGICALLY RESOLVED SOMETIME IN THE DIM FUTURE, EITHER BY DIVINE PROVIDENCE _OR MORE LIKELY AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER PRIORITIES!

I get it, Michael; you have no clue, no apology and no courage to settle this matter -in full- right now!
How's that for describing how COMFORTABLE I am with trusting you with screwing this up worse than it is now!

Please know that I am not singling only you out for criticism; the entire Council acted in very poor judgement on this matter!
Some have later admitted this, attributing it to 'buyer's remorse', or some other type of brain-fart.
Yours happened to be one of the more reasoned and candid responses, which I really do appreciate!
What I least appreciate is the arrogant silence and banal, on-camera C-Y-A pronouncements of some other members, which have mainly served to only make matters worse - our illustrious the Mayor included.
---------------------

Now that's off my chest, get on with spinning off sufficient property to balance the books on this poorly conceived acquisition.
No one really expected the City to acquire the entire property anyway.
It was only the depressed economic conditions that allowed the Bank to sell it for $8.23 million-still too big a bite to swallow.

Now, imagining property values to rise before unloading any part of it is called sheer speculation -something the City's fiscal policy has never called prudent.
Also, such a plan would AGAIN telegraph the City's intent and likely skew legitimate offers AGAIN!

Surely you can understand how this works by now, since all the ill-advised public jawboning by City officials about its intent to buy, undoubtedly acted to raise expectations of price that would be paid.
That was plain stupid, if not borderline illegal!
Even if the property value was believed to be relatively 'low', it is still outside the City's [prudent] ability to pay!

That's the exact kind of thinking that got us into the present dilemma!
Notice I said 'us', because you have now -unnecessarily- externalized this problem to every citizen in Bellingham.

I certainly hope this Council is NOT comfortable with its previous sorry decision; you are not elected to be comfortable!
You are elected to be uncomfortable, especially in making dumb decisions and not using normal advisory recommendations, or public input BEFORE committing more funds than you have on anything less than a true emergency.
----------------

OK, if selling an unneeded portion of the 82 acres does become officially recognized as the preferred option, here are a few ideas:

1. The entire property was purchased, which likely was the deal that was offered.
Now, that the City legally owns it, a rezone can be done much more easily, which would have to be done anyway for any portion that is to remain PUBLIC.
Some decisions must be made about what areas and acreage should remain protected as parks & wetlands.
There is a substantial portion -maybe 30%- that seems very well-suited for some development, and because it is inherently desirable property, it is valuable as undeveloped land.

Larger, attractive homes -already prevalent in the surrounding area- ought to be considered here.
Alternately, some affordable housing and/or charitable entities specializing in care/housing for disadvantaged citizens might be considered. [Habitat, Kulshan Land Trust, Halfway House, Homeless Shelter, Oxford House, etc
But, probably not the new County Jail, Public Works Palace or Mayor's Mansion.....

2. Along with this property comes a bundle of property rights, like development rights, timber rights, mineral rights, water rights, rights of way, etc.
These are valuable within themselves, especially the development rights -which apparently now total 739.
These can be sold in amounts to be determined and allocated to specific build able lots, or transferred [TDRs] somewhere else to a receiving area where higher density is more desirable [infill sites, waterfront, urban villages, UGAs, etc], or simply retired and rescinded.

Both designated lots and/or TDRs can be priced at market values to be purchased by anyone who might benefit [property owners, developers, charitable donations, conservation easements, various public uses and the like.
The main purpose of using marketable lots and TDRs is to recover value to the City to help pay down the excess debt incurred by this purchase.
Some simple arithmetic; 20 lots times $150,000 equals $3 million.
Fiddle with this to get the money needed!
Whatever gets built here pays its way, with low-impact standards required.
That's the deal, take it or leave it.

3. 'Other Sources' is too general a term.
REET money has got competing needs, so don't use it for something that is NOT needed.
Parks Impact Fees have already been tapped into big time, but is a few homes get built on excess property, why not also dedicate these PIFs?

A Local Improvement District [LID] might also work to ensure owners in the area are obligated to pay their fair share of costs toward roads, curbs & sidewalks, utilities, lighting, sanitary & storm sewers, and other amenities needed.

Donations would also be nice, but so far I haven't heard of much being volunteered by groups such as 'RD' or other vocal advocates.
Maybe selling inscribed bricks [like Fairhaven Village Green], commemorative icons [like Market Depot Square], benches [like Parks in multiple locations] would help raise a few bucks, too.

And don't forget naming rights!
How about 'Knutson's Kompromise Knoll', or 'Bornemann's Bog', or 'Ryan's Rock'?
Or, 'Fleetwood's Fir Fantasy', 'Buchanan's Botanic Bivouac', or 'Lilliquist's Little Lily Pond'?
Hey, what about 'Pike's Place'? Sorry, that's already sorta taken.
But, then again, how much could be raised from the principals, I mean by this idea anyway?

Seriously, if you can think of anything new that might work, please let me know -or better yet let our illustrious Council know that you expect much more than a list of ideas; you expect sufficient of these ideas to be ACTED upon to bring this expensive -and largely unnecessary acquisition- back within the realm of affordability!

Until then folks, we're stuck with a mostly unneeded property that has been euphemistically called 'ultimately and honestly, the solar system’s most splendid over- grown gravel pit.'
----------------------
"Show Me the Money"
- a well-known phrase uttered by characters in the 1996 film Jerry Maguire
================================

"Everything Counts" by Depeche Mode
Songwriters: GORE, MARTIN LEE

The handshake
Seals the contract
From the contract
There's no turning back
The turning point
Of a career
In Korea, being insincere
The holiday
Was fun packed
The contract
Still intact

The grabbing hands
Grab all they can
All for themselves
After all

The grabbing hands
Grab all they can
All for themselves
After all

It's a competitive world
Everything counts in large amounts

The graph
On the wall
Tells the story
Of it all
Picture it now
See just how
The lies and deceit
Gained a little more power
Confidence
Taken in
By a sun tan
And a grin

The grabbing hands
Grab all they can
All for themselves
After all

The grabbing hands
Grab all they can
All for themselves
After all

It's a competitive world
Everything counts in large amounts

The grabbing hands
Grab all they can
Everything counts in large amounts

The grabbing hands
Grab all they can
Everything counts in large amounts

Greenways: Read It & Weep, Or Demand Making This Right!

2011-09-15T17:00:00.000-07:00

--------------------
This morning I received this communication from Jack Weiss, a Council Member with a conscience, and, fortunately, a very good memory!

Please digest this for a pretty clear perspective of what has recently transpired around the so-called 'Chuckanut Ridge' property acquisition that has many in our community up in arms about the unfairness, arrogance and what borders on the gifting of public funds - funds that we don't have and funds that we have no credible plan for obtaining without seriously impacting other priorities!

I certainly share Council Member Weiss' concerns on this matter, which has been allowed to occur despite clear direction and guidelines hashed out over years ago, and now substantially ignored by our current crop of small town political opportunists!

Now, they need to make this right by the voters who thought they were voting for a result much more fair and responsible than what we've seen so far.
The idea of committing to a purchase for which the City cannot pay for without financial improprieties is absolutely repugnant in the extreme, and those responsible need to be held accountable now - before they make matters worse!

Either reduce the amount of property to be kept, or find another source from outside the City's coffers; that is the clear choice, so let's stop beating around the bush about it.
Much has been made of the City's intent to pay back any inter-fund loans that might be required to pay for this out sized purchase. Of course, these must be paid; but from what source? That is the question! Is the idea to keep loaning ourselves the money, accruing substantial interest to be repaid forever?

These guys need to solve this dilemma - which is of their making - right now, before any of them are re-elected, or just gone.
Do not even think about dodging this richly deserved heat and leaving it to others to make right!

Anyway, here's the Weiss statement:
-------------

I had two completely opposite speeches prepared tonight depending on if the Council was responsible in its dealings with financing the Chuckanut Ridge property. It pains me to read to you this version.

The Council has been given two explicit charges in the City Charter: to make and pass ordinances and to control City finances and properties. I would add that to carry out these charges the City Council has the obligations to facilitate public process and citizen input into its decision-making. To meet this obligation, the City has citizen advisory boards and committees that focus on specific city programs and provide recommendations to the council. In this case, Council decision to purchase all of Chuckanut Ridge, those groups were not consulted or allowed the opportunity to comment on this purchase, as was the case on all other approximately 125 Greenways acquisition transactions since 1990.

Here is the one question everyone in this community needs to ask: Is the Council meeting its fiduciary responsibility by choosing not to identify a fair and certain payback plan for the loan from the Greenways Endowment Fund as a condition of the loan appropriation ordinance? Council responded to an artificial deadline and entered into a purchase agreement that the City cannot afford without fulfilling its obligations to complete responsible due diligence.

Banks who are able to stay in business have rock solid and enforceable guarantees when they give out loans. Horizon Bank made exceptions to that model and look at what that got them. When we hear people and council members use confidence-building terms like “we have lots of time to figure this out” or “Greenways 4 is a sure bet” or “put faith in the community because they will fundraise the balance” or “don’t worry, be happy,” I begin to think the City is going down the Horizon Bank path with all of its unintended consequences.

Let’s be clear about Chuckanut Ridge. Look at the written record. Look at the language of the last two levies and the plans set forth by the levy stewards, the Greenways Advisory Committee. I am pleased that the goal of the Greenways Program to provide a trail corridor connecting Fairhaven Park with the Interurban Trail has been achieved through this purchase. While the critical areas such as the wetlands and buffers would have eventually been deeded to the City at no cost anyway, it is good to know that these areas are also preserved.

By buying this property, we did even more than that. A month ago, many Chuckanut Ridge supporters would have been ecstatic with a deal that would have acquired developable land on the northside of the property and include the wetlands. Other than an extremely small and vocal group mostly within spitting distance of the property, this would be considered success. The bottom line is that the taxpayers of Bellingham have done the hard work securing what we need.

Acquiring the ENTIRE property, however, exceeds the basic needs for Greenway trails and open space in this part of the City. The additional perk of land on the southside of the property is a want by nearby residents. The burden for its purchase should not fall on the entire Bellingham population or Greenways 3.

If the City is to be further involved with this want, then a financing plan must be put in place in a timely way to protect the assets of the Greenways 3 levy program that voters supported. I have provided ideas from others and myself to the Council that would ensure a proper finance plan. So far, the sentiment is ‘let’s kick the can down the road’ and some other Council will make the final decision on the source of funding for the additional purchase.

I want the whole property too, but as a councilmember and taxpayer, this attitude entering into a purchase agreement without a secure source of funding is unacceptable, irresponsible and fails to meet the Council’s fiduciary responsibility to control and ensure appropriate management of City’s financial resources.

Integrating the purchase of a need with the purchase of a want, places the city’s financial resources at risk. The City does not have a good track record for enforcing agreements with community groups. An example is the decision to allow the Caretaker House in Fairhaven Park to be a part of a community project to develop the Rose Garden into the Center for Local Self-Reliance instead of selling the house and allowing it to be moved. The City had a firm agreement that the group would do fundraising to finance the repair the house that never came to fruition. It is a great project idea and the volunteer contributions are commendable, but the bottom line is that we never enforced the fundraising agreement.

I look back on the past few years when the Council made mistakes or poor decisions. These oftentimes happen because the Council was rushed to a decision, they chose not to follow a plan or process set forth before them, or the loudest voices in the room got their way.

The most obvious examples concern the waterfront. We chose to give our responsibility for SEPA control over to the developer, the Port. We signed an Interlocal agreement with the developer absolving them of paying impact fees transferring these costs to the taxpayer. We did not question the basic assumptions surrounding the building of a marina for yachts and gave a regulatory pass on what could become a white elephant like it has for the City of Bremerton due to the economic failure of a similar yacht marina. Council was told in an emergency special meeting with the Port on April 20, 2009 that because of a grant application that was to be turned in within a few days, that public and advisory board review would be suspended. Further, we would need to approve a plan that was 180 degrees opposite of what was agreed to in 2006. The unsuccessful grant application for this emergency situation was not turned in within a few days but was actually submitted five months later. Through that 4-2 vote, the Council has created a mess that it has ignored during the last 2½ years while staff, with our blessing, digs us in deeper.

The new Museum offers a similar financing example that we should carefully consider if we think kicking the can down the road is a good idea. Because of the economy, the capital financing scheme of the Museum is a mess and most likely will require the City to bail them out in the near future. Kicking the can of our financial responsibility down the road has not been successful in the past. Why do we think it will be for this purchase?

For those with some memory, look at the process and decisions around buying Hoag’s Pond, over-designing the Alabama St pedestrian bridge, agreeing to unnecessary 10th Street parking, putting Caitac in the Comp Plan, and allowing tens of millions to be spent by others on infrastructure on Yew St Road without ever doing an annexation analysis. I have many others.

But the most glaring example of bad Council business is the misunderstanding of what the Greenways 3 levy said and what it didn’t say and it haunts us even today. Revisionist history has been lurking over the years about whether any written commitment to Chuckanut Ridge for $0, $2 M, $6 M, or $8 M was made by the Council or by the voters. To think, as a few people have convinced themselves, that the City Charter also allows a Mayor to commit financial promises for property in the heat of an afternoon long session in 2006 is simply absurd. Council never made this issue clear and in writing and it continues to create confusion and resentment. Yet, here we are, on the verge of making another squishy decision that will be misinterpreted for years to come.

With Chuckanut Ridge financing (actually the lack of financing for the $3.4 M loan), I don’t want to be part of this list of bad decisions made under bad timing, bad advice, and bad planning. Ever since I was a child, I always felt that I should learn from the mistakes of others and try not to make them myself. I have learned a lot over the last few Councils. And I certainly have been paying attention to national and global financial decisions to let someone else at some other time make the hard choices.

I am glad we are purchasing Chuckanut Ridge. I wish we could afford all of it – BUT WE CAN’T. It would be easiest course of action to ask voters five years from now to cover our backsides and pay for this decision – BUT WE SHOULDN’T. The financing plan for the loan repayment must be enacted sooner rather than later and be a secure revenue stream that is not a hope and a dream.

I wish that people who want to keep the property whole would raise the money to do so – BUT THEY WON’T. I say that with some experience. Of all of the people who have spoken up over the years claiming some sort of $8 million quid pro quo with Chuckanut Ridge commitments, only Jody Bergsma, Brad Rose, and Joe Yaver gave any money to the Greenways 3 campaign. $410 out of $12,383. 3% of the campaign. That’s it. (From the Council, Barbara Ryan and Joan Beardsley kicked in a total of another $300.)
Of all of those same people, only 6 of 796 signed campaign endorsements for the levy. These names were included in the only flyer during the campaign (Jody Bergsma, Michael Chiavario, Brad Rose, Gail Smedley, Bobbi Vollendorf and Joe Yaver). All 7 councilmembers at that time endorsed.

Telling, isn’t it. All the people that try to tell the community that black is white when it comes to the levy but it is obvious they (except for the above mentioned few) don’t believe in the levy enough to support it. And we are hitching our horse up to that post?

I have been working on this issue for 15 years. I have been on the Greenways Committee for 10 years and had close to 200 meetings and property site visits over this time, many of them with fellow committee members Seth and Stan who also have put in the time. By comparison, the rest of our Council, put together, has attended less than a handful of Greenways meetings and that was a result of invitations and begging by the Committee.

If I wanted to be smug, I would leave it at that. But I bring up this experience to say that a lot goes into a property purchase and we can easily make mistakes by thinking that some cool solution will come to us five years from now. Should we ask our Finance Director if he would prefer an air-tight financing plan now and not later? Why would not the Council prefer, no, demand the same?

I don’t believe responsible money management is too much to ask at a time when a northside neighborhood has to do a $600 fundraiser this year to pay for four-months use of a rental port-o-potty for its small neighborhood park. The rest of the year the park has no facilities. Or that a number of recent northside park acquisitions will stay a collection of weeds because the City has no development or maintenance money to provide the same recreational experience as southsiders have. Come up with your own list of northside deficiencies and southside excesses of things that make a livable community (not just Greenways) - it does not take long to understand the problem.

For recreational and open space opportunities, the City has a mechanism to review and rectify the problem. Unfortunately in this situation, this Council action has usurped the role of the Greenway levy stewards (citizen’s Greenway Advisory Committee) that has been honored since the inception of the Greenways Program and the goals approved by Council in the city Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The Greenways Advisory Committee has the responsibility to represent the “needs” of the community. These 11 volunteer community members spend the time necessary to evaluate each potential acquisition based on how critical it is for fulfilling the community’s vision of the creation of a community-wide system of trails that connect us with each other and with destinations - parks, open space, and other special places in all of our neighborhoods. Public oversight doesn’t stop there. The citizen’s Park and Recreation Advisory Board reviews every decision made by the Greenways Advisory Committee. Both of these groups forward their recommendations to the City Council. In this Chuckanut Ridge purchase the essential element of citizen oversight was bypassed. The Council took the driver’s seat and made the decision without ANY citizen review, putting community faith in this cherished program at serious risk.

This acquisition has already brought up a number of unintended consequences. Besides the breakdown in process as been described, there will be cries of property restoration soon. Who will do this and how will it get paid for? Will the restoration and the ongoing maintenance of Chuckanut Ridge be burdened to the already stretched Parks Department? You know, the staff that had to shut off water to another northside park setting up an unfair situation where adjacent neighbors pull garden hoses over to water parts of the park at their own utility expense.

This purchase has gutted our Greenways reserves and loan capacity. What will happen when acquisition and development opportunities elsewhere get lost?

How do we, as a community, instill empathy to some of the Chuckanut Ridge advocates that Bellingham has other issues and needs outside of this property? I read in the Herald a letter from a woman who says in part, “Please, City Council members, don't listen to the few loud complainers who possibly live in the north side of town. The south side does not have quick access to: an airport, BTC, Bellis Fair, industrial parks, etc., so should we shout that the distribution of conveniences (sic) isn't fair to the south side residents? Don't start complaining now.”

When I read something like this I just want to sit down and cry.

If fairness is to prevail in Bellingham concerning this purchase, we have a lot of work to do and soon.

[To have been read by Councilmember Jack Weiss on September 12, 2011.]
------------------

Greenways: Passion- Like A Moth To A Flame

2011-09-13T08:30:00.000-07:00

Yesterday's visitation to City Hall after almost 4 years of absence [abstinence?] left me thinking why I had bothered to show up at all.
I had taken tons of notes directly from the City Council proceedings in the afternoon and evening sessions, so as to inform myself on the details and status of the Chuckanut Ridge property acquisition, and was mulling this information around in my head trying to figure out what to do with it.
After all, I had elected to drive home early from a very pleasant vacation just to attend these meetings, leaving my wife behind to follow later.

It finally hit me last night about 3:30 AM when I awoke from a deep sleep.
It was my passion for the subject of our Greenways program which is a treasure to be nurtured, protected and sustained for the future -and present- enjoyment of all Bellinghamsters.

And, it was also about becoming well & truly bitten by local politics - a leftover from my 9 years as an elected City Council member.
For folks who have tried it, you know what I mean; once it gets in your blood, you can never really shake it.

Anyway, that's what's happened to me, and the proposed actions regarding Greenways woke me up to it anew.
I guess you might say I have a passion for politics, most particularly in due process, public process, honesty, fiscal responsibility and the overall good stewardship expected by the public - whether they trust government or not!

Think that isn't passion? Think again!

So, rather than fight my inability to go back to sleep after 2 hours, I decided to just get up and try to commit a few general thoughts to words. That's what I'm doing now, at 6 AM.

The Buddhists list three 'poisons' as the prime causes of suffering in all beings; passion, greed and ignorance,with ignorance the worst of the lot.
Of course, none of these is inherently bad, but an EXCESS of any one of them can be, and is from my experience.
The Buddhists therefore teach balance and moderation in all things as the antidote for suffering.
But, where's the passion in that?
That's the point; being serious about limiting suffering and actually doing something about it, is their passion!

Some examples of excessive passion are well known to us all; unwanted offspring, wars, injuries, financial deficits, criminal activity of all types, singed wings on moths, and on and on.
But, you do already know what I'm talking about from your own experience in this world, don't you?

So, when I hear people justify something -anything- on the basis of passion -either positive or negative- I have to stop and consider where this is coming from, but more importantly, where it is leading.
That pretty much sums up my concerns with the $8.23 million -plus acquisition of the Chuckanut Ridge property, too.

A vocal advocate of this purchase is Joe Yaver, a member of the organization that likes to be known as 'Responsible Development', and a nice guy, asked me in the hallway 'what my problem was' with this purchase happening just the way he wanted it.
That helped me see a big part of the problem; this is not a simple decision without 'unintended consequences; it does not have sufficient funding; its too big a bite to qualify as a need; public process -both past & present- has been intense and needs to be honored; it greatly impacts some other really desirable acquisitions in other areas of the City & its surroundings; etc.
You can see why a short, sound byte answer can't possibly do justice to such a question; but Joe's expectation, regardless of reality, obviously wasn't satisfied.

That's also a general problem, not just Joe's; citizens expectations need to be reasonably aligned with reality!

Among the audience, supporters of this purchase greatly outnumbered skeptics & opponents, lending an aura of public expectation that is sometimes irresistible to elected officials.
Seems passion is contagious, maybe even viral under such conditions.

The evening discussions were far more revealing than the afternoon meeting was, as to individual Council Members feelings and views.
The earlier meeting was muted, vague and mostly devoid of passion, under the almost directorial control of the Finance Committee Chair, Michael Lilliquist - a first term member, serious about his job.
A few concepts were mumbled, some passively agreed upon and the proposed ordinance amended, kinda, sorta.

Lilliquist decided to divide the discussions between agreeing to the purchase and then figuring out how to pay for it.
Seemed reasonable, except how do you really do that?
One part is inherently inseparable to the other!
No public comments were allowed in the interest of 'time'; yet this committee went 10 whole minutes past its scheduled plan! Big deal? You decide.

The evening session brought out more passion - MUCH more, in part, thanks to the audience and the opportunity to grandstand to those seated, as well as any who might stay awake to watch the film at 11.
Guess who were the most passionate grandstanders?
You guessed it; the two longest serving members -neither with an opponent this year- Gene Knutson & Terry Bornemann.

Gene passionately assured whoever was listening that this was a good thing to do; that he has faith the City will find a way to pay for it, because it always has; that citizens will step up again; that his fuzzy math really works; [fill in the bloviation of your choice here].
But, we've all heard Gene do this passion thing before....

Terry, of the waving arms, tried to outdo Gene with his brand of passion; quite a duel in a sense, except they were both on the same side!
Bornemann went a step further with his own brand of fuzzy history and tried to reconstruct for the current audience what had transpired 5 or 6 years ago.
Revisionist history can work as long as one tailors it to what the audience of the moment wants, but I was truly amazed at Terry's recollections, since it differed quite dramatically from my own - and I was there at the time!

But, no matter; our Supreme Court has decreed that political statements don't have to be truthful or accurate; that's for sissies and little goody two-shoes!
The Council discussions leading up to passage of the Greenways 3 levy in 2006 are a matter of record, if folks want to bother doing the research; but who wants to do that?

Suffice to say that both Terry & Gene again said what they said back then, too; when the levy almost didn't get on the ballot because of their complicity with partisan interests, who now loudly applaud this very purchase!
How's that for irony?
Following a predetermined path to a foregone conclusion.

Do you get the picture now of where my passion lies?
I certainly hope so, because I've lost enough sleep over trying explain it.

Fortunately and for the sake of some sort of balance, two Council Members, Jack Weiss & Stan Snapp voiced sufficient concerns to vote against the proposed slam-dunk acquisition ordinance.
This is largely symbolic at the moment, but important to what transpires next; how to pay for the obligation the City is on the verge of taking on.
That, my friends, is a very serious question which I have little confidence will be answered to my satisfaction.
After all, what couldn't be done before making a commitment, won't likely be done afterwards.

But, we'll see.
There are some ideas that can help us meet somewhere in the middle and not obligate future Councils, Administrations and citizens to clean up after any current, unwise decisions.
Don't you hate it when somebody leaves you a mess to clean up?
Whoops, sorry, another passions is being strongly expressed!

Well. as long as I'm on a roll, and not yet ready for a nap, let's add a little more to this ramble, shall we?
OK, I know you've got better things to do than read this stuff, but I don't.

A disappointment for me last night was Seth Fleetwood's measured, less passionate, response, which didn't add much of substance, despite his unique role in previous Greenways levies and experience with both the Greenways Advisory Committee and Parks & Recreation Board, both volunteer organizations that have greatly assisted the City without much notice, or thanks for that matter.

These good Greenways & Parks folks are probably feeling a little discouraged right now, since their recommendations have been deliberately ignored, at the Council's discretion of course.
Hey, you know, you guys are only advisory and Councils can do that if they want to!

But, smart Councils are careful about such things, but this purchase -$8,23 million -the largest in Greenways history- is so special and heated that this Council just flat trumped all that advisory rigmarole!
Take that volunteers!
Good luck on finding volunteers in the future, especially ones that have some history, knowledge and dedication to fairness.
It's now likely gonna be positively feudal out there, to our sad detriment!

Seth could have provided a teaching [learning?] moment for the two newest Council Members, Barry Buchanan and Michael Lilliquist, both relative beginners at this stuff, but to me, he clearly missed the opportunity.

Barry seems content to just go along with popular currents without paddling very hard, except when he wants to.
Unfortunately for him, these currents seem likely to make him a one-termer in office.
He's not a bad guy, but did have the lapse in judgement of allowing the Greenways Strategic Plan to remain unadopted repeatedly, until now.
That turned out to be pretty convenient for those favoring Chuckanut Ridge as the first priority -above all others!
But, that's not a very good legacy for poor Barry I'm afraid.

Michael, on the other hand, has obviously worked hard at learning his job and is getting pretty good at it.
Problem is, Michael is so smart he thinks he's got everything figured out, including street credibility.
That can become a problem for him, and for us.
I suspect he won't let that happen, but this Greenways matter could become the beginning of his undoing if he's not careful.

I'll be looking closely at what transpires in Lilliquist's Finance Committee, for example, and particularly at what options are generated that can either raise additional funding for the CR purchase, or bring down the amount of property that is kept to lower the cost to the City.
Ideally, some combination of both will happen to harmonize assets vs liabilities.
I hope Michael's intent will go well beyond taking us to an overtime period or out of time, before the commitment Ordinance is due for its 3rd and final reading.
That will become obvious in 2 weeks; excruciating, but mercifully short!

So, possibilities still remain for the City Council to come up with a plan that gets a substantial part of Chuckanut Ridge purchased, AND paid for before any of the current members term of office comes to an end.
That should be the objective here; do not create an unnecessary mess for future Councils [or Mayor] to deal with!
Please!
Honestly. doesn't that sound reasonable?
Like Larry the Cable Guy says; 'get 'er done'!

OK, enough passion for one day.
Cheery bye for now....

Greenways: Show Me The Money!

2011-09-12T22:10:00.000-07:00

I came back home early to attend today's City Council deliberations on the purchase of the entire Chuckanut Ridge property.
Unfortunately, the results were both predictable and substantially unsatisfactory, although the Council did agree to 'separate its actions regarding an Acquisition Ordinance from a Repayment Plan' - essentially opting to kick only a PART of the can down the road.
Hard for me to separate these topics, since they are inherently inseparable, but that's the temporizing placebo being offered by our often logic-challenged Council.

Without detailing my take on the proceedings and positions expressed in greater detail now, I will defer that until later.
But, rest assured, there will be more posted on this matter.
-----------

For those interested, here are my [cleaned up] remarks given during the Public Comment time:

City Council Members;

Tonight, your agenda states that you will consider voting upon an Ordinance that legally binds the City of Bellingham to purchase the subject property for a price of $8.23 million, plus ancillary costs directly associated with the purchase, which is presently set for closing on or about September 29, 2001 - about two weeks hence.

Please be careful about what you may pass tonight, because very clear & explicit language is necessary, both to explain your actions to the public and to protect the City's interests.

Even attending and listening carefully at this afternoon's Finance Committee discussion did not satisfy this critical concern to any real degree.
If I have doubts and questions unanswered, you can be sure many other citizens have them as well.

The Mayor addressed the 'confusion' among our community this afternoon, without ever acknowledging his role in creating this confusion.
Apparently, Council were not so 'confused' when they authorized the Mayor to initiate this purchase process, although now, some members may have become more aware of the widespread concerns being expressed.

There is good news and bad news here; the good news is that this property is preserved for City ownership and eventual use as an additional asset to our system of parks, trails & open space.
The bad news is the City has insufficient acceptable funding available to cleanly complete the purchase.
A deficit difference approaching $3.4 million or more is not a small deficiency!

Murphy's Law states that if anything can go wrong, it will - mostly at a most inappropriate time.
A corollary to this is that rushed and unclear decisions greatly speed up things going wrong!
That's what is happening here, unfortunately.

As far as clarifying the proposed Ordinance language, here are the concepts I suggest:

• Make this purchase to be made completely from Greenways 3 funding, plus any related funds specifically intended for this purpose, like Parks Impact Fees, etc.
A possibility of obtaining additional funds dedicated to Greenways 3 also exists, including but not limited to the following: future sale of a portion of the property purchased, gifts & donations, sale of property rights such as development rights [TDRs], timber rights, mineral rights, etc.

• Under no circumstances allow the use of other scarce City funds be used for this purpose, including but not limited to the General Fund, Rainy Day & Reserve Funds, and any future Greenways levies should they come to pass, etc.
If you do not specifically state this, these funds will most certainly need to be used.
Not acceptable, especially under the fiscal pressures that now exist!

• Greenways 3 funds tentatively allocated for other areas of the City need to be respected as closely as possible, with the understanding that 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' is not acceptable!
Such overages that might occur should also be corrected later in the event of future Greenways levies.
The Greenways endowment fund is critical to sustaining our Parks and should be restored asap.

These clarifications ought to clear up much, if not all, of the 'confusion' -as the Mayor calls it- over this acquisition.
The Council has an opportunity to make this property purchase much more palatable to our entire community, but only if these common sense ideas are incorporated into the Ordinance so that officially, the City will a definite repayment plan!

Please review these roles & responsibilities:

• The Council sets City Policy & approves all funding not officially budgeted

• The Mayor is charged with carrying out City Policy & respecting the rules & regulations in so doing

• City Staff has the duty to perform the necessary actions & tasks as outlined by City Policy & directed by the Mayor.

Council, this is your problem to resolve & it will be better for you to do it now, not later!

Do not opt to 'kick this can down the road'!

Do the right thing without additional delay and do not be 'jawboned' into silly, temporizing measures.
Otherwise, you will likely reap a whirlwind of citizen discontent.

The City has exhibited good fiscal restraint during the past few years, and you are to be commended for that discipline!
Don't risk that excellent track record on this potentially divisive issue!

I wish you well in these endeavors.
So do all responsible citizens, voters & tax-payers.

John Watts
------------

I neglected to report the Council voted to pass an amended ordinance, 5-2. [Weiss & Snapp opposed]
3rd & final passage likely to happen at the September 26 meeting.

Greenways: Shenanigans

2011-09-09T19:00:00.000-07:00

Lord knows, I could've used a few more enjoyable days in sunny, lazy Winthrop, but as luck would have it -just like in 2006, after Mayor Mark's resignation- I committed the error of checking voicemails at home.
This time, some forewarning had been available but in my retired state of mind, I hadn't given it much thought.

The messages were not pleasant, as the messages before were also. The City Council in its wisdom -or lack of it- had precipitously decided to fore go its usual good judgement and spring to a perceived 'deal' too good to pass up. Except, it wasn't.
My last blog or two had touched upon the subject at hand; it was the decision to purchase the ENTIRE property known as Fairhaven Highlands [aka Chuckanut Ridge] for a sum of $8.23 million {US} dollars, plus closing costs & c.

The problem was not the purchase, but the price offered -which could not be covered by funds readily available, which necessitated borrowing from other funds with the pay-back somewhat in question.
In fact, a LOT in question!

The other aspect of this was the rushed agenda to quick pass the Council's decision on next Monday [September 12, 2001] without any public meeting or consideration of alternate strategies.
That seemed a little presumptuous to me, and maybe a little arrogant, too, especially since the Council had acted without consulting either the Greenways Committee or the Parks & Recreation Board, both of which generally weigh in on such matters.
Additionally, Council spurned any input from its professional Parks & Recreation Staff, that bunch charged with carrying out their dictates, or maybe that's the Mayor's dictates - its often hard to say -[especially with a Mayor who likes to bypass normal channels and procedures to get his way.
In fairness, maybe that is just NOT one of Dan Pike's 'Skill Sets'?

Anyway, it seems the Council -at least 5 of the 7- are ready to give quick cursory attention to this subject next Monday afternoon and evening at their regular committee and committee-of-the-whole meetings, after which this deal could be done and over.
How's that for government efficiency?
The problem is that urgency isn't called for in this matter, which has been controversial to say the least.
A public meeting would allow different opinions and approaches to be heard and perhaps a better solution reached.

But that would be uncomfortable, wouldn't it?
Can't have the Council -and Mayor- be uncomfortable about such matters, can we?
Hell, we can't!
They need to be uncomfortable with the decision they have apparently made!
That's called public process, something we're supposed to value in a democracy!

So, I'm planning to go home early to attend the Monday meetings and express some views, which the Council -in its wisdom- ought to hear. Now, whether this will change anything remains to be seen, but its worth a try, don't you think?

Without dragging out too much history and personal opinion, I did learn a few things about the value of public process during my 9 years as an elected Council Member.
The important thing was that -especially on critical matters- to listen to citizens' concerns!
Now, I also know that if citizens are allowed to be heard, the chances are they are more likely to accept the actions ultimately accepted by the Council, thereby enhancing the credibility & fairness of that action, and NOT weakening faith in the considered actions of elected officials.
I'm hoping such an outcome might result from the Council welcoming comments from concerned citizens at the Monday meetings.
But, I'm not getting my hopes up about it either.

There is much to benefit from a short delay before any final decision, and perhaps a public meeting to respectfully consider alternate ideas.
And, there appears to be NO downside risk to such a plan!
There is no urgency on this matter, except for what the Council imposes upon itself, or allows the Mayor to impose upon it.

Why not talk to the Bank and see if they might agree to a short delay.
Certainly, an organization willing to reduce its asking price by over $600,000 a the drop of a hat, will likely accept such a reasonable idea -particularly, if it is in the interest of due process!
Is it likely that the Bank has a better offer?
Or, any other offer, with controversy that has surrounded this particular property?
Why not ask them?
We might be surprised at their response.

I continue to have serious doubts about these negotiations, burdened as they were by early, blatant and inappropriate commitments by 4 Council Members.
Two of those folks still represent us now, and probably ought to recuse themselves from even voting on this matter; but do you think they will have the integrity or courage to do that?
I don't, but maybe I'm wrong.

But thinking along these lines just a little further, the absence of those 2 tainted votes would result in 3-2 decision in favor of the purchase, not enough to ratify the deal in question.

Of, course, a similar result might be obtained if 2 of the other 3 'yes' votes were switched on either the 2nd or third ballots taken next Monday. That likely means that Barry Buchanan, Seth Fleetwood or and Michael Lilliquist may hold the key to considering a better deal for Bellingham and its citizens!
Oh, what pressure!
Oh, how to vote now?
Oh. who will accuse me of flip-flopping?
Oh, who won't vote for me next time?
Is it time to be a hero to some folks, or a model elected official to ALL citizens?
Oh, what to do? This wasn't supposed to be so hard!

Here's a hint; do THE RIGHT THING!
Delay a week or two in search of a better deal, and one that is not likely to compromise the entire Greenways program!
If no better deal then seems possible, at least you've done your best to allow it to happen.
Give this some thought before jumping to conclusions that may become even more undesirable.

Greenways: Important Questions for our Elected Officials

2011-09-04T16:25:00.000-07:00

------------------
Since yesterday's post, I've discovered several questions which deserve honest and complete answers - without delay!

If these have not been part of the public record, perhaps they will become so now:
---------------------------
I have some questions for you about Council's recent action to purchase Fairhaven Highlands:

1. Since the endowment fund is held in a nonexpendable trust, on what basis did Council determine that the City is permitted to borrow from the endowment fund?

2. What are the terms of the endowment fund loan?

3. When are principal payments due?

4. To have a bona fide loan, there must be a source and intention of repayment. The press release says no general fund money will be used in the deal, so what is the source of loan repayment?

5. When are interest payments due?

6. What is the interest rate?

7. From what source will interest payments be made?

8. Which neighborhoods have the new development that generated the $500,000 in park impact fees Council approved using for the purchase?

9. What is the date of the appraisal being relied on?

10. What effect did foreclosure of the property resulting in bank ownership have on Council's valuation of the property?

11. Prior to 2011, the Greenway Advisory Committee and the Parks Board recommended to City Council $4,145,000 for acquisition of a portion of Fairhaven Highlands. When did GAC and PRAB review and make recommendations to City Council on this current deal?
-------------------------

Since answers to these -and perhaps other questions citizens may have- may be critical to any final deal to be approved behind closed doors, I believe time is of the essence in receiving an official response.

I request that Mayor Dan Pike, Council Members Gene Knutson, Terry Bornemann, Barry Buchanan, Seth Fleetwood, Michael Lilliquist, Stan Snapp and Jack Weiss each individually and publicly acknowledge receipt of this urgent request.

To ensure timely receipt, I am e-mailing each of these individuals a copy of this entire communication, as well as the official offices of both Mayor and City Council.

The trusting public awaits your response!
-------------------------

Greenways: Largesse From The Public Treasury?

2011-09-03T19:00:00.000-07:00

-----------------------
"....a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury." - Attributed to Ronald Reagan, via Professor Alexander Fraser Titler and others
-----------------------
Wikiquotes provides interesting fodder for this blog, citing several quotes on this subject, either sourced, unsourced or misattributed.
You decide which fit better, or maybe just provide your own.
======================================

Over at Northwest Citizen, John Servais' article posted Sep 1 gushes 'A People’s Victory - and a Rare One'.
I beg to differ - maybe, mainly because of the inherent ambiguity.
What does he mean by 'a people's victory'?
Which people?
Certainly, not all the people; particularly the ones who will be stuck with the burden of paying for the $3 Million or so the Council & Mayor agreed to - over the amount they had to spend!

And what does he mean by 'and a rare one'?
Seems to me this type of victory isn't very rare for Bellingham; just look at the many parks, trails, developed playgrounds, open space and the like the citizens of Bellingham have enjoyed over the years as a result of Greenways funding.
Remember, this funding is dedicated to acquiring, developing, maintaining the properties and amenities we've come to expect here; and the kind that attracts others here, regardless of whether their money paid for any of it or not.
So, I don't think its very 'rare' to have a new property added to the City's already excellent collection.

No, I suspect Mr Servais' words are meant to ID a specific type of deal; one that didn't come easily or naturally into being.
One that had a large measure of controversy attached, some legitimate, some manufactured.
That's the kind of 'victory' he seems to prefer and to advocate/agitate for.
So, with these clarifications and within rather narrow parameters, I suppose he is correct.
But, please do not construe Mr Servais view as reflective of our entire community.

It gives me no pleasure in submitting what is to follow, but in the interest of understanding what has transpired in connection with the recent commitment to acquire the Chuckanut Ridge property, the public might like to know about a few little flaws in this particular ointment.
Unfortunately, without calling these out, our electeds might be tempted to remain silent about them, or, worse, attempt to spin them out of credibility.
Don't want that to happen, do we?

These flaws are correctable, but citizens may need to help the Mayor & Council actually MAKE those corrections, otherwise we all will have no choice but to live with them - or just kick them down the road.
That is the entire purpose of this writing.
-----------------------------------

At the time of our last local elections -4 years ago- one new candidate for City Council lamented the impending fiscal crisis this way; 'it won't be much fun serving in office with no money to spend'.
How correct he was!
It certainly was not fun making the painful cuts and layoffs necessary to balance a severely reduced City budget, which 4 years later still remains problematic.

Similar feelings were undoubtedly expressed by the other electeds, including our erstwhile current mayor. who have now burst out of their financial straitjackets with a breathless rush to expend as much Greenways funds as they thought might be possible it acquiring ALL of the highly controversial 'Chuckanut Ridge' property at the very moment it became available and unencumbered.

That must have felt great to these electeds, who have labored so long under fiscal deprivations due to drastically reduced revenues imposed by the reality of our protracted recession, plus a few excesses of the past!
And, how wonderful to have a large war-chest of publicly voted funds just waiting to be spent!
Never mind that the Greenways 3 monies voted in 2006, from which most of the funding must come, almost never made it to the ballot because of the unreasonable demands made by strident advocates of buying this exact property.

A related irony is that the emotional campaign to prevent any development on this property, dove-tailed with a terrible economy to bankrupt both the developer and his bank, in turn causing the property to be valued at one-third its former 'price'.
This, in turn, allowed our current 'Town Fathers' to feel better about venting their pent-up urge to splurge.
Hey, its only natural to try to make people happy, isn't it?

And, the proper, dedicated funding was there, wasn't it?
Wasn't it?

Sadly, the answer is 'most of it was'. The rest -a measly $3 Million or so, plus any accrued interest on inter fund loans (maybe another $500k?)- must be borrowed, begged, or stolen from ...where?
Future Greenways levies?
I don't think so!

This Mayor and Council have not been good stewards of our treasured Greenways Funds on this hasty deal, which were clearly insufficient to responsibly make this $8.23 Million(+) purchase.
They winged it in their fever to please/appease, and in so doing, knowingly committed additional scarce City resources to cover their tracks.
Most troubling, they seem to expect a future [Greenways 4?] levy to rescue their bacon by including these current excesses in it!
How arrogant, ignorant and irresponsible is that?

You know, 'kicking the can down the road' is a tried and true tactic, but only when we let our electeds get away with it!
But, that was not the way Greenways was established, and it is not a good way to enhance its popularity or ensure its continuance.

Many people are no doubt very pleased -even ecstatic- with the Chuckanut Ridge purchase, as evidenced by the large, hastily planned celebration held only days after the announcement -and days before the actual consummation of the deal.
But, likely as many, or maybe more are not happy with the way this has gone down, either.
It's not that some reasonable purchase was made, which was widely expected; but the clear over-reaching, grandstanding and stupid finessing of details likely to reveal flaws that could have been easily corrected.

Think the timing was politically motivated? I do!
Pandering always seems to deliver some votes, but in this case it may subtract some too.
I'm not as much worried about the votes cast this year as I am for the votes cast 4 years from now -on a future Greenways levy.
That's because the best of programs and traditions can be seriously undermined if they are not administered properly.

Mark my words, this hasty and ill-advised Chuckanut Ridge purchase has exactly the type of baggage and potential fall-out to adversely impact future Greenways undertakings.
The 2006 arguments over this same property almost prevented Greenways 3 from even getting on the ballot, for God's sake!
Fortunately, the compromises made then were enough to produce a ballot measure the voters willingly supported.
This unwise action has the potential to reopen those old wounds, but maybe the public won't even notice?
But I noticed, and so have others who have been strong supporters of Greenways for more years than I have!

There are some things the City can do -even now- to rectify the situation and restore essential confidence in the process of fairly evaluating Greenways opportunities, selecting properties for acquisition and allocating funds more responsibly.

Specifically for the Chuckanut Ridge acquisition:

• Require the Responsible Development [RD} organization to honor its promise of raising at least $1 Million privately, to be dedicated to this purchase.
Please recall these extensive discussions, including the failed attempt at establishing a special Parks District to obtain funding.
I and others believed this to be a good faith effort which now needs to be honored.

• Sell sufficient Chuckanut Ridge property to pay the roughly $3 Million in purchase costs not covered by Greenways and related funds.
Some estimate the southern one-third of this property is well-suited for limited development, similar to that existing in the immediate surroundings.
Perhaps, 15 to 20 large homes could be sited there without unreasonably disturbing the heavily treed areas and/or wetlands.

In general:

• Avoid allowing protracted public discussion and debates about ANY specific properties to precede Greenways deliberations.
There was so much smoke & mirrors at work regarding Chuckanut Ridge that reasonable solutions were made so difficult they were essentially obliterated. In this recent case, Mayor Pike could not resist that temptation - an obvious flaw in judgement.

• Ensure illegal shenanigans, especially among electeds are discouraged, and if they occur, are subject to public scrutiny and discipline as appropriate.
The 'promise' of 4 votes by current Council members Knutson, Bornemann and former members Ryan & Beardsley in 2006 ought to have been severely sanctioned then, and should never be allowed to happen again! Good luck with enforcing that.

• Remember the purpose of Greenways is to fairly benefit ALL citizens of he City and not just those that are more vocal, have more resources or are more politically connected.
In 2006, it was thought this policy was clearly and carefully communicated to voters. Turns out, the voters weren't the problem.

• Make sure the administration of Greenways and related funds are always above reproach and do not externalize costs elsewhere.
Remember these do represent 'largesse from the public treasury'!
----------------

In the interest of accuracy, here is what the City posted on its website;

Coal: A Global Perspective

2011-09-01T12:05:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while an article is published that deserves to be publicized more widely, without much added comment.

Here's an example from the latest NRDC publication, onearth, entitled Coal On A Roll:

It will be interesting to see what actions will be effective in helping decide the direction we take on the export of our natural resources taken straight from the ground, then shipped elsewhere without much additional value-added or new American jobs.

A Rant: Who Broke It & Who Owns It?

2011-08-05T17:40:00.000-07:00

--------------------------------------------
“The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.” - Lord Acton
--------------------------------------------
Secretary of State General Colin Powell is famous for making the statement “if you break it, you own it” in regards to the idea of invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Here's what he actually said: 'You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,' he told the president. 'You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You'll own it all.'
Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.

Of course, President George W Bush ignored this sage advice, since his mind was already made up, with false propaganda to convince the silly politicos that make up Congress, and gullible US citizens it was a good plan -because of 'WMD' [Weapons of Mass Destruction]. That there were no WMD didn't stop us then, which should be a cause for our continued concern.

Was it -the invasion- a good idea? Despite the current changed status of Iraq, was it really worth the costs?
Time will probably tell, but only if we assess this chapter of history truthfully.

Colin Powell was right; we did break Iraq and have had to own it for several years, with no final end in sight.
But, maybe rather than relying on sage advice and learning from history, we'd rather just do our thing, anyway?
Then, find out for ourselves what the 'unintended consequences' are?

That seems unnecessarily wasteful and risky to me, but hey, this is America! We can do whatever we want, and don't forget it!

Our founders would turn in their graves, if they haven't already.
---------------

A similar perspective can be applied to our struggling economy. If we break it, we own the results.

The expensive wars in Iraq & Afghanistan might have seemed necessary after 9/11, but how has that worked out?
The answer is it hasn't worked out very well, except to saddle the US with enormous debt, casualties and diminished international respect.
Remember, the cost of both wars in the Mid-East were not actually shown in our national budget; they were financed off the books, and contributed enormously to our 'debt ceiling'.
Talk about kicking issues & costs 'down the road'!
That's what the past administration has done to this one, isn't it?

And, of course, its happened before - both ways

All the recent talk about limiting 'spending' in Washington conveniently ignores the egregious excesses of the Republican ideologues who controlled our government for the first 8 years of this century, as well as the legitimate commitments made that need to be honored.
Now, again, the current administration is faced with cleaning up the mess left by others.

I hate that when its done to me, don't you feel the same way?

The major political fights we've seen all too frequently amount to mostly name-calling and finger pointing, without much regard for citizens in general.
The bail-out plans initiated by the Obama crowd have actually worked pretty well, despite the bad-mouthing by those who had no plan of their own.
But, what about TARP? That was Bush's giveaway, without any provision for repayment!
And, the tax cuts that have seriously reduced our ability to pay for other essential services.

It always amazes me how political spin remains so successful at fooling people, even despite the facts and common sense.

While we're at it, where does the so-called 'Tea Party' get to share in blame for the fine state of affairs we're faced with?
Why, they are just so proud of being difficult, even within their own party!
But, being very good at saying 'no' doesn't really help solve anything, does it?

Now that health-care reform has been initiated and the 'debt ceiling' debate is semi-settled for the present, they also relish kicking those cans down the road.
The sad thing is, it's not really about anything but partisan political preferences -and that goes both ways.
Some insist on wishing to impose their will upon the rest of us - the majority for god's sake!

That ain't gonna work out very well for any of these two-bit ideologues, as the polls are beginning to show.
Aren't they accountable, too?

The level of dysfunction that has developed recently will also have repercussions that we won't like down the road.
Just look at what has happened as a result of the 'debt ceiling' posturing and brinksmanship.
Confidence in America has dropped like a rock, by international entities and the financial sector.
Largely because Congress can't be trusted, the stock market experienced its 9th largest daily decline in history -513 points.
Is that an unintended consequence?; I think so!
Who's accountable for that?

And how about the prolonged recession; think that might be partly caused by lack of confidence too?
The jobs situation is genuinely troubling and at the root of many other ills our society faces.
But, we can't get Congress or the Administration to create a jobs program that puts people back to work doing things -like infrastructure construction and repair - that everyone agrees need doing!

Add to that the ridiculous FAA funding debacle, that succeeded in idling almost 80,000 workers and threatened untold impacts on air travel, tourism, and our business economy in general.
What's up with that? Another ideological chasm, that's what.

'I'm sick and tired of this ongoing BS, and I ain't gonna take it anymore!' Who said that? Howard Jarvis of California's Proposition 13 fame?
I wish more people would get so fed up with our dysfunctional system that they demand some meaningful changes in the way our representatives behave.
After all, that is probably the only thing that will get their attention.

And, I'm not talking about another hot-headed Tea-Party clone, either.
That just allows passions to cloud good sense.

I'm talking about good old fashioned righteous indignation, regardless of stupid party affiliations!
Where does the Constitution say anything that authorizes political parties to usurp the power of citizens?

While we're at it, what about all the silly rules and procedures Congress decides to use to do its business?
Some rules are necessary, so use Robert's or Sturgis, but not caucuses, filibusters, riders and clotures and all that baloney.

And do the work out in the open, with up or down votes that everybody can see and understand!

And find a way to get money and influence peddling under control, too.

I hope those games aren't included in any measure of our Gross National Product!

So who broke our system? We did, by degrees of neglect, un-involvement and private agendas.

Who owns it? We do, warts and all.

How does it get fixed? We fix it, by demanding changes and getting engaged and involved ourselves.

As much as I disagree with Tim Eyman on many of his public initiatives, he's got some things right; like the concept of a permanent offense that never lets up.
If he can be successful using that approach with some of his BS beefs, just imagine how successful we, the people, can be with effecting systematic change in our governments at all levels!

But, it ain't automatic, folks, so unless you really mean it, just sit back and quaff whatever you're drinking and hope that helps you stomach this mess we're in.

At least until next rant, have a nice day!
------------------------------------------
Political atheism: End justifies the means. This is still the most widespread of all the opinions inimical to liberty.” - Lord Acton
------------------------------------------

Coal Terminal:Whatcom Watch Remembers Cherry Point Agreement

2011-08-04T15:58:00.000-07:00

----------------------------
If you would understand anything, observe its beginning and its development. - Aristotle
----------------------------
One of our local treasures, the monthly publication known as Whatcom Watch, has archives that serve as a valuable institutional memory for folks who can't remember, or never knew anyway, about key environmental issues. A recent blog contains links to Whatcom Watch articles by Preston Schiller and Marie Hitchman. The Hitchman article, in turn references earlier articles as described following.

For example, the contentious Cherry Point issue that has recently demanded our attention, isn't really that new. It's roots go back before many current citizens even lived here. The December 1998 issue of Whatcom Watch contained two or three articles that captured the flavor of that time around the issue of how to utilize Cherry Point while preserving its surrounding environs.

Another salient archive is the first article here, also authored by Dave Schmalz in the August/September 1999 issue. It has to do with chronicling a settlement between multiple parties and SSA, which require 18 months to reach. The object was to focus on the one additional marine loading pier that might be permitted at Cherry Point, with special emphasis on safeguarding the shoreline and connected ecologies.

The parties did come agreement on several points, but that is now moot because SSA has decided to unilaterally terminate its part of this good faith effort. Why did they do this? Because they felt -knew- it would interfere with their current plans to build a much larger loading wharf to handle coal -48 million tons of it every year.
Is that OK with you?
Do you even have a voice in the matter?
Those are the questions that SSA would rather not be asked.

Maybe their latest unauthorized clearing and grading of access roads through known wetlands illustrate their preferred method of just doing things because they want to, then accepting a minimal slap on the wrist for it?
This Get Whatcom Planning blog wonders what mitigation might be required to retroactively repair the damage done.

Reading the Whatcom Watch article written by Dave Schmalz in the August/September 1999 issue summarizes what was agreed to back then, and who the parties to the agreement were.
Strange how all the parties, with the sole exception of SSA, want the essence of that agreement to remain in effect.
Maybe it also needs strengthening, too, especially in light of the current, much different SSA proposal.
Also, more stringent regulations have subsequently been adopted to more certainly protect our shorelines and critical areas.

Or, maybe you are one of those who think SSA's original scheme is somehow magically vested, and therefore exempt from further review?
That notion is a pipe dream that could easily turn into a nightmare, and probably ought to.

This article and embedded link was posted today by John Stark on the Herald's Politics blog.
----------------------------
History, to be above evasion or dispute, must stand on documents, not on opinions. - Lord Acton
----------------------------

Coal Terminal: Playing Defense

2011-08-03T17:33:00.000-07:00

Don't count your bowling balls before they're hatched, Fred - Barney Rubble
----------------------

Boy, these last few days have seen quite a spate of published articles related to the Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal.
The former trickle is turning into a torrent, as citizens' interest has definitely been aroused!

Its good that the public has finally gotten pretty engaged in this discussion, which is now also bringing into question what our State and National policies should reflect in matters involving energy and environment, and not just 'jobs'.
Jobs certainly matter a great deal, but every job is not necessarily very desirable or sustainable for everyone, is it?

Think about migrant workers, menial laborers and service workers of all sorts, and all manner of below minimum wage employment. These do fill some needs and help people survive, and of course they also save us from paying the real costs on many goods and services, but they are not anywhere close to 'livable wage' jobs - which are in great demand and scarce.
So, we have to be careful about what is meant by 'jobs'.
Not all are created equal.

But, back to the real GPT issue; several more articles have appeared today, some covering similar aspects of this issue that have been previously reported. The main difference with these more recent reports is that they further expand our understanding as an integral part of a much larger picture, plus a little corporate graffiti thrown in, meant to distract us from honest discourse.

For example, today's Herald story fits our local issue into the arena of National policy and its global implications. Do we get to claim concern over increased use of non-renewable resources, while allowing -and actually facilitating their export elsewhere?
That's called double-speak at best and other epithets at worst.

Rather than dumbing down the conversation to for & against jobs, the emphasis ought to be on what kind of jobs, how many, and how much value-added content can be incorporated into our exports.

The Herald's Political Blog carried this tardy AFTER THE FACT admission from SSA Marine that it 'had made a mistake'. That's not very comforting is it? If it doesn't enhance my confidence in SSA Marine's ability to get small, preliminary work done, what does it say about their ability -or commitment - to responsibly manage the impacts of a huge export terminal?

At some point, 'mea culpas' aren't nearly enough! That point is now past.

Today's Cascadia Weekly Gristle echoes the Herald Blog, averring SSA Marine has some 'splainin' to do.

But, The Weekly's Lead article is even more troubling since it indicates a persistent attitude of non-cooperation seems to pervade SSA, leading to the undoing of a negotiated agreement with several public interest groups, including Whatcom County, the Washington State Dept of Natural Resources and about a dozen other groups.

You know, if SSA Marine has thumbed its nose at an agreement designed to protect our own natural resources, why should we believe they will act as good corporate citizens once trainloads of coal descend on our community to load mega ships from somewhere else?

Seems to me that trust and good will must be earned and not just arbitrarily dismissed! Maybe SSA just thinks they have the power to impose their will on us, the public? That strategy doesn't work very well around here!

SSA is acting like a bunch of neanderthals who not only want to throw rocks at people, but sell them to other neanderthals as well. And all this time, I had hoped humans had evolved beyond that mentality!

Guess I watched too many cartoon figures like Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble, while I should have been reading more Sun Tzu: 'Invincibility lies in the defence; the possibility of victory in the attack'. and maybe Von Clausewitz.
--------------------------------

This afternoon again produced several more articles, including these:

• The Bellingham Herald reports on a curious telephone 'survey', that I also received on Monday.

• Another Herald report tells us that Whatcom County has fined SSA $2400 for the costs of investigating previous wetlands clearing misdeeds on their Cherry Point property.

• Yet a third Herald article reports that Skagit County has also decided to get involved with the GPT issue.

• From Bob Simmons at Crosscut is this corroboration of SSA's admission? of 'mistakes'.

So, from a late-blooming summer, the temperature has now risen considerably, both literally and figuratively.
'Bout time!

I'll hold off on more updates at least until morning.
Have a good read or two.
--------------------------------
Offense sells tickets, Defense wins championships
--------------------------------

Coal Terminal: Another Update

2011-08-02T23:43:00.000-07:00

--------------------------------
'When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber' - Winston Churchill
--------------------------------
As the ongoing debate continues, more views are being expressed, most of them by folks with names they are willing to reveal.
But, there are still some cowards out there who prefer using 'anonymous' or some other pseudonym as their nom de plume, cloak or shield.

While I can't blame folks for not wanting to paint targets on their backs, I can fault those media which continue to encourage those who seek to disrupt honest exchanges of facts and views.
Why some media promote poor behavior by allowing excessive anonymity and blatantly bad comments, I'll leave for them to explain - if they even care.

I felt strongly enough about this to have posted this blog about it. Embedded in that blog was this more humorous approach for promoting good netizenship.

But, enough on this sub-topic for now.
--------------------------------

Several more postings have occurred regarding the Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal:

• Bob Simmons offers this article in Crosscut. This reaches quite an audience in the Seattle area and beyond.

• Jean Melious has posted this piece in the blog Get Whatcom Planning. The area of discussion is the SSA Property
between Kickervile, Lonseth, Gulf, Henry Roads.

• John Stark published this writing in the Bellingham Herald. This attracted many 'public' responses, quite a few ugly and off-topic, as has become standard of the Herald. [They really do need to review their policy about 'public' responses, don't you think?]

It is apparent that this issue has attracted considerable attention, both locally and elsewhere, and that is good.

That's all for now folks, but stay tuned.....

OOOPS, Another article by Stark in the Herald.

Two more late additions from the August 2011 edition of Whatcom Watch:

• From Preston Schiller this article

• From Marie Hitchman this piece

And a new posting from Jean Melious on Get Whatcom Planning that shows clearly the areas on SSA property in question
--------------------------------
“My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on” - John F Kennedy
--------------------------------

Coal Terminal: Update on Developments

2011-08-01T03:39:00.000-07:00

Joel Connelly has weighed in on the Coal Terminal issue in the Seattle P-I.

John Stark just posted 2 articles on this subject in the Bellingham Herald.
The first relates to SSA's response to its unauthorized clearing on its property at Cherry Point.

The second announces the breakdown of discussions between SSA and a coalition of public interest groups over modifying an agreement initially completed 12 years ago regarding an earlier terminal proposed for Cherry Point.

Both these developments are troubling, since they seem to reflect a consistent arrogance and disdainful attitude on the part of SSA.

Now, a third posting by Stark reveals Whatcom County communications to SSA's contractor regarding clearing at Cherry Point.

And now, Carl Weimer's request for info from County Planning.

Also, I just got a phone survey call from a number in area code 253.
Two questions; Was I aware of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, and was I in favor of it or against.
That's it, short and sweet.

Think this thing is heating up?