WYSIWYG: tRump Revealed

After weeks of misery, shock & awe at facing the sorry reality of our latest Presidential Election, I at last found -at the bottom of my glass- a very toxic revelation. Empty. 

So, I had another in hopes that my mood might brighten right here, right now, in my own private Institute for Institute for Attitudinal Adjustment. That didn’t work either.

So, after a wee nap, I awoke with the ANSWER! Nothing weird like a vision, but simply cold, hard facts -not of the Alternate Variety. 

What You See Is What You Get. 

That’s right, WYSIWYG. So clear, so simple, it clears up everything! What took me so long? 

Hell, what took everyone so long! Even those stupids who voted for this 't'-creature, and those who didn’t vote at all, and those thought their vote was worth wasting by voting for someone NOT HILLARY. 

I’d better have another drink now, sorry. 

I’ll be quick. 

There, that’s better. 

Others may feel cheated by this short unnecessary delay, but get over it, neither you or I are likely to feel better in the morning…

Anyway, what was revealed to me was this: 

tRump never gave us any good reason to vote for him, except wishful thinking. 

He never spelled out any plan except in the most general, hazy way. 

He refused to answer any normal questions.
Neither the Press, nor his fellow candidates were able to penetrate his deviousness.

He bullied and intimidated his supposedly R competition, until they all dropped out, victims of poll tea-leaves reading, plus an epidemic of weak spines, fear and disgust. 

He still defies releasing something as American as Tax Returns, unlike Warren Buffett, et al. He claims the ‘unfairness’ of his releasing tax information because he is involved in ‘litigation’ 

-Huh? That ought to be a red flag, doncha think? Besides, the man is just plain litigious , with something like 3500 lawsuits reported.

Bottom line is ’t’ ain’t gonna change, unless he’s forced to. 

His colleagues have so far been too chicken to really press the issue, so partisan is their view that they hope he will become the ‘tip of the spear’ for pushing through selective legislation, or repeals thereof, that they want to impose on the rest of us. 

Until it proves too hot for the R’s to handle, they won’t do much about it, except the usual jawboning and posturing so typical of groups who operate as a block, desiring so mightily to stay in power. 

Unless, their rather high tolerance for shame is reached, ’t’ is their man, despite the chaos he causes daily. 

When that trigger point is reached, they will turn on ’t’ with a vengeance, and it won’t be pretty! 

The World will be treated to a spectacle it won’t forget, and hopefully not of the violent type. 

So, its up to you, Congress, to get this right -it’s not a PARTISAN issue!

Question is, what will it take to turn up the heat quickly enough so that the frog knows it’s being boiled?

Likely, that may be the Russian Connection which is NOT going away. 

If that is the trigger that impeaches ’t’, then so be it. 

But please let it happen sooner than later! 

Then, we get to figure out What Mr Pence brings to the Off-White House. 

Plus, all the excitement of finger pointing and scrambling for power seats.

I’ve already seen too much of this movie, which unfortunately, cannot be un-seen! 

So, go ahead little ’t’ and make my day; screw up just enough -but not too much- to flush that throne you’re trying to sit on. 

Go back to where you belong! 

Air Wick, anyone?

Maybe Fabreze…

Coal: GPT EIS Comment No. 31

Concerns Based on Reality

Several recent events and actions lend credence to concerns by citizens, including these:
• The coal conveyor & access damage at the nearby Westshore Coal Terminal in BC resulting from a late night collision by a large Bulk Carrier vessel with a pilot on board.
• The railroad bridge collapse south of Bellingham on the BNSF main line used by heavy coal trains.
• The derailment of a coal train east of Tri-Cities, spilling 34 loaded cars.
• The protracted delays of traffic in Skagit County due to a stalled coal train with brake problems.
• The unseemly acts by the GPT Applicant to recruit allies to pack public meetings designed to gather citizen concerns.
• The repeated dismissals of legitimately expressed citizen concerns as only NIMBYism by GPT spokespersons.
• The ongoing media advertising campaign designed to influence public opinion during the 120-day EIS Scoping period, which advocates multiple coal terminals -not just GPT- which seems like a concerted effort on behalf of an entire industry. Doesn't that justify a programmatic EIS approach is necessary?

There is likely available statistical information on the frequency and severity of both large bulk vessel and coal train accidents. I request that this information be researched and applied to the rail and marine traffic projected by the Applicant for GPT.
Additionally, the costs to the natural environment, existing businesses, residents, governments services and facilities need to be ascertained for inclusion into the EIS evaluation.
A programmatic EIS appears necessary to include all of the possible impacts, whether to the GPT site or anywhere along the proposed transport routes.
It would also include impacts to the atmosphere, the oceans and inland waterways, the land, human health and impacts to each ecosystem likely to be affected over time.

Coal: EIS Scoping Comment No. 29

Diminution in value of my home & other properties
Diminution in value is a legal term of art used when calculating damages in a legal dispute, and describes a measure of value lost due to a circumstance or set of circumstances that caused the loss. 
I am concerned that building GPT and attracting 18 additional coal trains per day will devalue my home, as well as the properties owned by many citizens, especially those near the BNSF railway through Bellingham.

I request that a baseline estimation of home, rental multi-family structures, commercial interests and industrial operations be officially documented by the Whatcom County Assessor, effective now, showing the aggregate Real Property Value of all properties in Bellingham and Whatcom County, with special emphasis on those property parcels falling -all or partially- within 600 to 1000 feet of the BNSF mainline route to and from the proposed Cherry Point Terminal. Since RCW 84.40.045 requires this information to be updated periodically, this calculation ought to be fairly simple and readily available.

The purpose of this baseline is for comparison with similar determinations to be made in the future, should GPT be permitted, built and operated as currently anticipated by the Applicant.

It seems common to believe proximity to a busy rail freight route tends to reduce property values, especially residential and commercial parcels. At least one professional report has been prepared recently that addresses this problem directly. This can be found at this URL: http://climatesolutions.org/nw-states/coal-train-study
This report considered the following factors, which are considered as harmful impacts and/or nuisances:

Access and Vehicular Traffic; Life Safety Issues; Vibration; Horn Noise; Pollution; Stigma and Perception; Property Types, Variables and Comments, and came to some general Conclusions:

• ".... the closer the distance of the property to the rail line or crossing, the greater the influence. Because of this, in general, the upper end of the range of diminution in value concluded would be expected to strongly correlate with properties located closest to the rail line or crossing. At the opposite end of the spectrum, although property with the least net total intensity of adverse influence might be expected to experience a diminution in value of less than five percent, such minimal impacts are generally considered so slight as to be effectively immeasurable; therefore, five percent has been used at the lower end of the range." 

• "Property located north of Everett with 18 new train trips daily: the applicable range of diminution in value for single family residences, the property type expected to suffer the most severe impacts, has been concluded to range from five to twenty percent of market value. Multi-family properties as a whole, are considered to be less intensely impacted for reasons discussed in this report and would be expected to suffer a loss in market value ranging from five to fifteen percent of market value. ....Commercial properties would experience loss in market value in the approximate five to ten percent range.....Industrial properties, considered the least impacted of the property types overall, would be expected to suffer a five to eight percent range of loss in market value. 

Although this report is not intended to be used to provide an aggregate loss in value for property that would be affected by the proposed increase in coal train freight rail traffic, it is felt that the total loss in value due to such influence would be substantial in terms of property market value and real estate tax revenues to taxing districts." 

• "The proprietary database provided and used in this assignment indicates a total of 21,548 tax parcels for properties identified as located within 600 feet of the BNSF main line railroad tracks in the subject area of interest, with a total aggregated assessed value of $26,556,663,168. If one were to assume these properties would suffer a loss in assessed value of one percent, the loss would be equal to approximately $265 million, which applied at a one percent millage rate is equivalent to an approximate $2,655,000 in annual tax revenue loss. In my opinion, the effects and impacts of the additional freight rail traffic not only affect the properties within 600 feet of the main line, but also potentially affect property beyond this identified zone. At the very least, this information indicates that the aggregate losses to market value and tax revenues could be quite substantial. 

I request the MAP Team take these expected impacts into careful consideration in the EIS Scoping process, because they represent very substantial tangible harm, especially to those living, working or owning property near the BNSF main rail line.

Coal: EIS Scoping Comment No. 20

Loss of Use of Parks & Trails

Public parks are widely enjoyed in Bellingham, and millions of dollars in additional, dedicated funding has been voluntarily supported by citizens for many years.
Visitors, including tourists also are drawn to these amenities that are recognized as world class.

Unfortunately, many of these facilities happen to be on the shoreline and are accessible only by crossing the BNSF tracks, the prime example of which is Boulevard Park, which is very frequently visited by families with small children and others who walk the Taylor Street Dock over water route from Fairhaven to Bellingham.

18 additional coal trains per day will significantly render these popular public places less usable with increased safety hazards at crossings, and considerably more noise from coal trains.
It is difficult to conceive of mitigation capable of negating all of these objectionable impacts unless a no action alternative is adopted.

Failing that, a grade-separated crossing at the north end of Boulevard Park, adequate to accommodate walkers, joggers, baby strollers, bicycles and other pedestrian traffic, needs to be constructed -prior to increasing rail traffic- at BNSF expense.
That would partially eliminate some danger and the noise of train horns at one crossing.
Similarly, the single vehicular access to Boulevard Park will need mitigation to allow deliveries, repairs, preparation for concerts and events and continuation of existing parking.

Another grade separated crossing will also be needed to allow Wharf Street traffic -both vehicular and pedestrian- to safely cross the BNSF tracks to access the waterfront south of Cornwall Street.
This would serve several purposes;

(1) mitigation of safety & noise impacts, 

(2) important access for activities related to the Waterfront Redevelopment undertaking, 

(3) access to the water for small craft, 

(4) access to the proposed future extension of the Taylor Street Dock over water walkway north from Boulevard Park to the south of Cornwall landing. 

A significant part of these costs should be borne by BNSF as well, since the City's planning process has focused on this future development area for many years.

There are several other Parks destinations that will also need careful attention, evaluation and funding for mitigation should BNSF increase rail traffic as has been proposed.
These include:
(a) Clayton Beach - a popular recreation area accessible via trail from a specially built parking lot on Chuckanut Drive.
(b) access road to Wildcat Cove boat launch area in north Larrabee State Park.
(c) Teddy Bear Cove accessible by steep trail crossing BNSF tracks.
(d) several informal track crossings between Chuckanut Point and the Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant.
(e) Port of Bellingham's Marine Park, another popular place that has become the finish line for the annual Ski to Sea race. 

== don't forget the Ferry Terminal, southern terminus of the Alaska State Ferry ===
(f) the public boat launch at the mouth of Padden Creek.
(g) proposed trail route through the waterfront redevelopment area accessed by Central Avenue from Roeder Avenue. [must cross BNSF tracks to reach Roeder]
(h) access to Bellwether Way business complex and Squalicum Marina & yacht basin via "C" Street or "F" Street to Roeder crosses BNSF tracks.

The MAP Team needs to take into account the well established long-term use of these shoreline access points and their importance to Bellingham.

Also, since the Port of Bellingham's purchase of the former G-P industrial site, both Port & City have invested or committed millions in public funding toward waterfront cleanup, rezoning for mixed use and a likely decades-long redevelopment to create suitable, desirable sites for business, jobs, residences and recreation for future citizens on its waterfront.

In sum, the waterfront is intended to become -again- Bellingham's front door and everyone's neighborhood.
When appraising the certain harm that increased BNSF coal trains bring to these goals, please remember they reflect the wishes of thousands of citizens over many years, and need to be fully respected as the highest priority for achieving the net public good.

----

Note: The title declares this to be Comment No 20, but prior to posting this I submitted 2 additional comments, using the online form at this URL.

No. 21 was about who has responsibility for liability at each stage of the coal shipping process, as I stated at the Scoping Meeting at Squalicum HS last Saturday.

No. 22 was about train noise.

Stay tuned.....

Going, Going, Almost Gone...Postal

"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.

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

Now, It's Come To This?

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

“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?

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

Budgets & Policy: Tomorrow's Just Your Future Yesterday

---------------------------------------
Craig Ferguson wrote a catchy theme song for his Late, Late Show:

It's hard to stay up
It's been a long, long day
And you got the sandman at the door
But hang on, leave the TV on
And let's do it anyway
It's ok
You can always sleep through work tomorrow, OK?
Hey hey
Tomorrow's just your future yesterday

That last line somehow stuck with me.
---------------------------------------
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. - Voltaire

“When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also add that some things are more nearly certain than others” - Bertrand Russell

The one unchangeable certainty is that nothing is unchangeable or certain. -John F. Kennedy

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are so confident while the intelligent are full of doubt. - Bertrand Russell
---------------------------------------

A leading blessing -and curse- of our political system is its very dynamics, which encourages constant change.
This makes some folks feel uncomfortable while giving others something to fight for and welcome.
But, since hope springs eternal, each change attempted or made carries with it a promise to help solve some problem or benefit some cause.
The problem comes when people have different ideas about what is good or necessary and what is not.
And, since all things are ultimately connected and fairly delicately balanced, it matters that an honest effort at fairness and sustainability be made in our decision making.

Just think for a moment about budgets, whether Federal, local, global or individual.
Why do we have them and why do they matter?

Isn't there a practical limit to our resources, whether fiscal, ecological or social?
Isn't there also the question of reliably meeting established needs and anticipating future requirements?

Even though most real time decisions are made in the present moment, shouldn't these consider the continuum of time?
After all, radical disruptions/dislocations to businesses, climate or society do cause painful and worrisome effects.

Wouldn't it be nice if a clear majority of citizens could agree, once and for all, what is truly essential in life and set that aside from tampering by greedy, short-sighted or criminal elements?
That way, at least some lasting degree of certainty could be established to benefit us all.

Businesses like certainty; just ask any owner, CEO or shareholder.
People like certainty; just ask any employee, family member or investor.
Nature likes certainty; just ask any farmer, hunter, seaman, aviator or species- for that matter.
---------------------------------------

Our current budget debates in Washington, DC simply reflect what is happening at other levels of government, as well as businesses, households, institutions and charities.
This is integral to our priorities; meaning those things we consider most essential.
But it is also about our ability -and willingness- to pay for what we get.
To expect otherwise is wishful thinking at best, and patent ignorance at worst.

When budgets are established, debated, approved and adopted, are they written in stone -never to be altered?
Maybe more like written in Jello, as my Oncologist once described experimental treatment protocols.
But regardless of where and how budgets are written, we don't expect having to repeat EVERY argument each time budgets are revisited in the future.
There simply has to be SOME degree of constancy that can be relied upon in matters of importance to our society.
Don't you agree?

---------------------------------------
All that seems indispensable in stating the account between the dead and the living, is to see that the debts against the latter do not exceed the advances made by the former. - James Madison

Each generation should be made to bear the burden of its own wars, instead of carrying them on, at the expense of other generations. - James Madison

In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority. - James Madison

There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong. - James Madison
---------------------------------------

When I started this post, linking to multiple articles to illustrate points crossed my mind, but I ditched that idea.
Too many words on a complicated subject are hard to write and even harder to read.
So, instead, a few more quotable sources are cited.
---------------------------------------
"The present is the only reality and the only certainty." - Arthur Schopenhauer

For all of its uncertainty, we cannot flee the future. - Barbara Jordan

If you aren't in the moment, you are either looking forward to uncertainty, or back to pain and regret. - Jim Carrey
---------------------------------------

Politics, Popularity & Priorities

-----------------------
"The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility.  Let it be drawn upon largely, and they will then listen to truths which could not excite them through any other organ." - Thomas Jefferson
-----------------------

There are {2} easy and {2} difficult things about politics as we know it;

Easy: cutting taxes & offering services, amenities & programs desired by citizens

Difficult: raising taxes & cutting services, amenities & programs desired by citizens

Can you identify any inherent conflicts with this situation?

[My blog of Saturday, November 22, 2008 also touches on this dilemma]

As Walter Cronkhite used to say; 'and that's the way it is'
-----------------------

Think what you will about politics, government and our ability to effectively deal with public problems in general, the system we have is what we -individually and collectively- make it to be.

Having a victim's mentality about politics helps nothing but perpetrating a perceived bad situation and discouraging good people from performing public service.
So, while complaints are OK, excessive complaints only exacerbate the problem.

Despite the obstacles, we do have a good number of dedicated public servants with the competence and courage to conceive, advocate and make the difficult decisions most likely to sustainably endure and benefit citizens.

Unfortunately, things often have to get bad enough that politicians have no choice but to really deal with the situation that has evolved.
Such seems to be happening now, and simultaneously at multiple levels of government.

A recent example is this opinion piece by Washington Governor, Christine Gregoire, in Crosscut.

You can read it and decide for yourself, but I think the Governor has very few options, given both legal restraints and inescapable realities.

Of course, this is also true of the situations which our local and federal governments are facing.
The main difference is the feds have much broader and more diverse responsibilities, plus no mandate to balance the budget.
Plus, the Fed can also legally print money.

Some may remember the well-intended, but tepid exercise the City of Bellingham underwent a few years ago.
It was called 'Priorities of Government' [POG]. and while most elected officials gave it lip service as 'an interesting concept', not many really wanted to seriously touch it to implement its clear implications.
Believe me, I know - I was there!

Anyway, it's too bad that an absolute crisis seems absolutely needed for governments to seriously confront such intractable questions as defining what is necessary, fair and sustainable as public policy.
Unfortunately -or otherwise- that is the situation we find ourself now.

-----------------------
"A good government implies two things; first, fidelity to the object of the government; secondly, a knowledge of the means, by which those objects can be best attained." - James Madison, The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 62 - 1788
-----------------------

Library: From Top Priority To Something Less

---------------------
About 8 years ago, the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee completed over 2 years of work in evaluating the City's future needs and methods available to fund them.
Public Works projects were excluded because these needs are generally met from revenues collected from services, like water, sewer, stormwater, etc.
The main focus was on public facilities that need to maintained or expanded and modernized for future needs, like libraries, museums, Mt Baker Theater and the like, which rely largely upon public funding approved by special public ballot.

As it turned out, the Bellingham Public Library was identified as the top priority in the Committee's final report, since the existing facilities were nearing capacity and in need of serious upgrading to handle modern electronic and Internet systems.
Also, libraries usually require a separate bond issue to build facilities as well as reliable revenues with which to hire staff and buy books, equipment and materials.

One unexpected finding was the possible availability of another funding mechanism for facilities which are deemed part of a 'regional center' that enhances economic development in our area.
For qualifying projects, the State of Washington actually rebates part of the sales taxes already collected from an area and makes these funds available to pay for them.

What happened here was that Bellingham & Whatcom County joined to create a Public Facilities District to sponsor improving our existing cultural center in the downtown, and over $10 million in funds were received to pay for projects to achieve this goal.
This has been quite a success story that uses taxes already paid.
The main beneficiaries have been the Museum and the Mt Baker Theater, each of which has been upgraded and improved after a very careful and public process.
The most recent and visible example is the new Children's Museum.
The Mt Baker Theater improvements aren't quite so visible, but the extensive electrical and HVAC improvements are necessary for its continued use and maintenance.

The Bellingham Public Library was not a part of the PFD projects, and must be addressed by its own process and funding sources.
It is unfortunate that the BPL has to wait through some tough economic times before necessary modernization and expansion can take place.
It is also unfortunate that the severe budget crunch has made it necessary to reduce the BP Library's staffing so drastically, but that does serve to point out the importance both of efficient building design and library system structure.
Both elements do impact operation costs, as well as capital costs, which is the main point of this posting

The main Library building, although too small for current needs, has two entrances which requires some duplicate staffing.
And, each branch library also requires its own staffing as well as separate facilities which must be maintained, built or leased.
The point is, any distributed system is more likely to be more costly than a basic centralized system, and that is true regardless of public preferences.
In any case, a central library facility, adequately sized and equipped, is the necessary heart of a library system.
BPL is trying valiantly to serve that function, but needs our understanding and help in doing so for the future.

Some have suggested that BPL and the Whatcom County Library system, with its 8 or 9 branches, combine for efficiency.
These libraries are already fully cooperating and collaborating, but because they are separate entities by law, can't simply combine.
First, these organizations have different levels of service, as might be expected when contrasting urban and rural areas.
Second, applicable laws and funding mechanisms would need to be significantly changed, and this would take time and considerable effort even it were deemed desirable.
Essentially, if combining the BPL and WCL were to happen, a new central facility would be needed even more to adequately service the various branches.
If that's what the public wants, its OK - but the public must find a way to pay for it.
That is the bottom line.

In the meantime, enjoy the debate. Who knows, you might be the one with the bright idea that help solve the problem!
-----------------------------

A few pertinent links:

Seattle's budget crisis forced Library closures, too.
Overdoing the Library's closure week

More Budget Cuts For Bellingham Library

With budget cuts, layoffs, Bellingham parks and library services decrease

Local Labor Boss Issues 11th Hour 'Warning'

----------------------
Yesterday's Herald carried an opinion piece by David Warren designed to not-so-subtlely dissuade our Mayor and City Council from seriously reconsidering the City's ill-advised 'Big-Box' ban.
You can read this article right here.

Of course, today - the 'ides of June' - is the day that public discussions will be held to reconsider the so-called 'big-box ban, along with other measures to help the City bring its General Fund budget back into a better semblance of balanced.
So, it's understandable that folks who are afraid their ox will be gored, show up to beg, cajole or intimidate our elected officials to do their bidding.
That's OK, and part of the process, as long as our electeds are careful to observe the fractured latin of 'petticoati tyrannus non bossanova', which roughly translates into 'don't let petty tyrants boss you around'

In his piece, Mr Warren:
• disagrees with the Herald editorial board that the 'big-box' was really targeting Wal-Mart [it was]
• tries on a 'green suit' in an effort to court sustainability fans [not his color]
• rails against any corporation who dares to get too big, resist unionization, go bankrupt, pay less than family wages & benefits, lays off workers, or leaves an 'empty' building behind [welcome to America]
• claims -unconvincingly- he is not an 'anti' Mayor Pike [huh?]
• applauds the City for searching for 'creative ways' to solve the current severe revenue shortfall, without offering any plan himself for reducing expenditures [kinda hard, isn't it?]
• avoids mentioning entirely the furlough plan now being considered by Whatcom County [inconvenient & unpleasant]

Can you see a pattern here?
-------------------------------

As the chief architect of the hasty and unwise so-called 'big-box ban', Mr Warren's response is predictable.
Perhaps, he has another remedy in mind for the city's major revenue shortfall, which is partly due to loss of sales taxes from big box stores, including Wal-Mart, itself the largest single sales tax source?

As president of the Northwest Washington Central Labor Council, Warren wields inordinate power, not only over the 85% of City employees who are members of nine different unions, but over elected officials dependent upon the support of organized labor.
Is he sending a 'message', designed to influence officials and candidates during the upcoming elections?
After all, union bosses are sometimes noted for their strong-arm tactics, as I personally experienced after my opposition to both the so-called 'living wage' ordinance, the 2004 budget shenanigans and the big-box ban.
Those tactics didn't work very well on me, but they did on 4 or 5 Council members, and the mayor at the time.

And, you know 4 of those Council members are still around.
[drumroll, please]
rat-a-tat: Louise Bjornson
rat-a-tat-tat: Gene Knutson
rat-a-tat-tat-tat: Barbara Ryan
rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat: Terry Bornemann

Of course, that's not to say other Council members, Mayors, mayor-wannabe's, or candidates couldn't be similarly 'persuaded' by Mr Warren to do his bidding, either

Hey, no one blames Mr Warren for doing what he is paid to do, but he is not an official who is elected by the public, or necessarily represents them as a first priority.

Maybe Warren does have a plan to reduce the substantial union contract wages & benefits that have been negotiated over time?
Something like that would certainly help the budget situation more than any other responsible act the City could take.
That's because the great majority of the General Fund is comprised of mainly employee wages & benefits.
Much as we might like to shift those monies around, there are laws and mandatory government accounting practices that prevent us from doing so.
Sometimes, it is possible to borrow from Peter to pay Paul. But Peter needs to be paid back. And, what about Mary?

I cannot imagine anyone doubting that the City's employees are its main asset!
That is why a voluntary wage & benefit reduction plan would respond best to the short-term problem, as well as long-term sustainability.
But, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
More likely, Mr Warren and his ilk will push to have any budget cutting happen 'somewhere else', even though there is 'no where else' that can be legitimately cut - to the extent needed.

And, I seriously doubt the City has ANY plans to sell real estate to big box stores.
That is simply ludicrous and designed to appeal to emotion, not facts.
Besides, most available property is not owned by the City, but by private interests.

The fact is, the big-boxes are already here, and have been here for some years.
Plus, I have heard NOTHING about totally rescinding big-box regulations, and Mr Warren should know that, if he doesn't already.

One other point, this article purports to be about so-called 'big-boxes, but that doesn't wash.
It IS about Wal-Mart, pure & simple, as it has been from the start.
Expanding Wal-Mart to 'big-boxes' was necessary for the legal cover needed to 'legitimize' the unwise measure initially approved by the City Council.

Citizens may wish to understand that our local 'big-boxes' also include Target, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, Fred Meyer and others, of course excluding the now defunct Circuit City and any others that may not yet survive these tough economic times.
But, methinks Mr Warren would really rather not open this discussion more widely, preferring instead to stonewall wage & benefit gains already achieved.

And, don't forget those 'big-box' bragging rights, either!
Hey, did you know Bellingham was the first city in Washington to adopt an anti-Wal-Mart -er, 'Big-Box' - ordinance?

One last question; If Warren feels so good about Costco, why include them in the 'Big-Box' ban?
Is it Catch-22 time?

This is the time of year when the heat starts getting turned up on the local government griddle!
Good luck, Council.
-------------------------------

More Library Volleys

-----------------------------
Back on May 4, I wrote this blog.

An article written by Fred Volz and published in the March issue of Whatcom Watch had sparked that particular blog because it contained so many errors and misrepresentations.

Subsequently, Pam Kiesner, our BPL Library Director, also responded to Mr Volz' comments in another article that appeared in the May, 2009 issue of Whatcom Watch

Now, in the June issue of Whatcom Watch, Mr Volz has again occupied printed space to spread misinformation and actually engage in personal attacks on Ms Kiesner.
I find that as offensive and mean-spirited, which may explain why Whatcom Watch has not chosen to publish this latest text in its online version.
Readers will need to obtain a hard copy of WW in order to read Mr Volz' latest sorry missive.
I suspect most regular WW readers will take Mr Volz with a large grain of salt, if they read him at all.
-----------------------

In related news, today's Herald ran this story

From the Whatcom County Library System website, information is readily available.
And, from this site, answers to 10 Frequently Asked Questions [FAQs] are listed.

The Bellingham Public Library website also contains much information on its services, budget and 4 locations, including its most recent user's survey.
Although BPL -by law- is funded separately from Whatcom County's 9 rural branch libraries, it has a very close working relationship with the Whatcom County Library System.
-------------------------

All of the public debate, questions and ideas on the future of our Library is legitimate, of course.
That is part of our system of checks and balances about priorities, as it should be.
And, no one doubts the dire financial straits that currently face our community and the restrictions that brings.
But, no one should doubt the hard work done over the last several years, either, to identify future needs and seek to scope them into a cohesive document that comprehensively addresses the challenges anticipated.

While it is a moot question as to the exact timing of the new library facilities required, their need is clear to any clear-eyed observer.
No amount of malicious or misinformed rhetoric can change our community's basic underlying need for adequate library facilities.
The time for asking citizens to support a library to meet more modern needs is coming, and when that occurs, it will be nice to have all the community input possible.
After all, that's how 'public process' is supposed to work, isn't it?

And, what is it about these arrant naysayers, that impels them to continuously bad-mouth ideas that clearly benefit our community?
Maybe they should just check out a good book to read, and learn something from it?
You can borrow one at any public library...
--------------------------

Growth Management: Choosing Our Sprawl & How To Pay For It

---------------------------
A recent article in Crosscut appears to question whether concentrating growth eliminates sprawl, or encourages it.
The answer is probably some of both, because any population increase at all just tends to squeeze us together.
Rather than ask a binary 'either, or' question -which is a false choice- we ought to simply inquire which type of sprawl is likely to be less insidious, more desirable, and less costly in the long run.

We all agree there are limits to land and water supplies, as well as limits to essential public services at affordable cost.
Remember, we were forced into funding our EMS unit, Whatcom Medic One, on a countywide basis a few years ago, to save it?
Too many intentional games get played between municipalities regarding who pays for public services and amenities; that silliness needs to end.

As far as growth is concerned, it's much better for each new development to be required to pay its full share of anticipated costs, without externalizing that burden to unsuspecting 'others'.
For example, why are there no B&O taxes or impact fees required for businesses locating outside of Bellingham?
And, why is there no agreement to consolidate the funding and management of public amenities such as Libraries, Parks and the like?
Why doesn't Whatcom County see completing the WRIA 1 [click on label below] process as absolutely necessary to plan its future land and water use?

To me, all of this means that fewer feuding fiefdoms and much better cooperation and collaboration between governmental agencies should be required.
Another example, why are separate 'planning departments' needed for County and City functions?
The same might be said for other public safety, public health, public welfare, and public utility services to varying degrees.

The severe budget difficulties that both City and County are now facing should be a clear tip-off that things, as they are, have become increasingly unsustainable.
It just doesn't hack it to react to such problems in an erratic, knee-jerk fashion that mainly serves to passing the buck to the next administration; haven't we had enough of that?
And, for services that citizens truly need, allowing them to lapse or become dysfunctional is shortsighted and irresponsible!

Here's an idea for a furlough policy: time off -without pay- for all elected executives and legislators, until they come up with viable plans to consolidate public services and adopt them!

That ought to instill a better sense of responsibility and urgency, don't you think?
It also might force some important decisions to be made that some folks would rather avoid!
That by itself might be the equivalent to term limits, who knows?

While I am glad to see several new candidates stepping up to our next local election, I hope some -or all- of them are up to this particular challenge.
And, it is a challenge!
But, hey, someone's got to do it...
---------------------------------

WAL-MART: Hate to Say 'I Told You So', but....

---------------------------------
My post on September 4, 2007, Big Box Theory: Attacking Mall-Wart, has proven to be anticipatory of a future reality.
And, that reality is now, if it is not already too late.
I hope it's not.

There are lots of things that people love to hate; bigness, low wages & benefits, lack of choice, high prices, brutal competition, cheap imports, large parking lots, strong central control, crowds of boorish shoppers, and the like.
Also, the opposites of many of the above.

Point is, you can't please everybody anywhere near all the time.
But having a relatively inexpensive place to shop for essentials, and maybe a few extras, is not inherently a bad thing.
In fact, it can be a very good thing for many, particularly in hard times, like these.

WAL-MART is now a $400 Billion company, every year - if not the largest, close to it.
And, it's culture and practices have changed somewhat, in response to both criticism and market pressure.
There are early indications that WAL-MART can't be everything to everybody, and must choose its strengths more carefully.
This has even begun to attract other business to locate close by to fill the lacks, while taking advantage of of the large volume of customers that WAL-MART regularly draws.
Big chains, like Target, for example.
If that trend were to continue we might literally begin to have malls of Big Boxes.
Municipalities might even be willing to plan for that to happen.
What a concept!
Better mass transit, land use and common public amenities.
Less sprawl, wandering traffic and congestion.

But, time will tell, as it always does.
-------------

So, back to the present, so we can revisit the past.
With that in mind, the Herald editorial of Saturday, May. 30, 2009 is reprinted below:

Mayor offers end to store-size mistake

It's time for the city of Bellingham to rescind its law limiting the size of stores.
Bellingham Mayor Dan Pike has proposed a plan to ease the city's ban on allowing stores larger than 90,000 square feet, as long as the buildings are developed in step with environmentally friendly building standards and only in the part of town where large retailing already exists. The City Council will take up the mayor's idea in June.

The City Council has limited the size of stores to 90,000 square feet and limited expansion of stores that are already larger than that. The limit was put into place after Wal-Mart expressed interest in expanding its Meridian Street store to a "Super Wal-Mart." The larger stores including full grocery offerings.

City officials, apparently upset about Wal-Mart's practices as an international conglomerate, decided to take a stand, even if their stand flew in the face of all of the hard work they had done to control and direct growth in our community.

The current location of Wal-Mart is the best location for Wal-Mart. If the company is going to put a "Super Wal-Mart" in our community it should be built where all of our county's major retailing, and the traffic that goes with it, is already located. Forcing Wal-Mart and other stories outside of Bellingham flies in the face of growth management efforts in our community.

Meanwhile the city's ordinance had unintended consequences when Costco also wanted to expand slightly. We are not aware that City Council members have anything against Issaquah-based Costco's retailing practices. But once the law was in place limiting Wal-Mart, it would have looked bad if the city made an exception for Costco. Such an exception would have exposed the store-size limit for what it is, an unfair restraint of trade aimed solely at a particular business.

If any city official tries to deny their intention was to limit Wal-Mart, ask them why they did not object to the creation of the Bakerview Fred Meyer, which is larger than 90,000 square feet, or a strip mall along Bakerview Road that is much bigger than 90,000 square feet when considered as a whole.

We are hopeful that enough time has passed for the council to consider the mayor's proposed changes to the store-size rules without council members feeling as if they have abandoned their convictions. What the mayor is proposing is what should have always been in place.

Big box stores should be limited by zoning to certain parts of the city. Certainly no one wants a giant store built in a historic neighborhood. The current areas along Meridian Street and Bakerview Road are the proper places for such development.
And requiring any new building to follow environmentally sensitive rules is common sense, whether for an expansion or an entire new store.

We hope the council takes the mayor's proposal seriously and moves quickly to modify the store-size rules. So far the council has been lucky. Wal-Mart, Costco and others have not started building new, bigger stores in some other location - such as in Ferndale or on the Lummi Indian Reservation.

But eventually , if Bellingham's leaders don't change their policy , they will force out these businesses and create the worst possible scenario - a big loss to the city's tax revenues and unsightly sprawl in parts of the county where it should not be.

-----------

Bravo, to the Herald and its editorial board for revisiting this issue, especially, in the cool light of projected City budget deficits!
And, do not doubt that the clear and serious threat to City revenue streams is the real reason for any reconsideration, despite all the other nice sounding rationale.
Once the financial dots are connected, most issues can be seen with more clarity.
And, that is without corrective lenses to combat political myopia, astigmatism, sensitivity to light or night blindness.
But, there is no simple answer for those who prefer to keep their eyes closed, or receptive only to what they want to see.
That's why 'wake-up' calls are sometimes necessary.
----------------------------------------

Waterfront Redevelopment: Changes in the Wind?

----------------------
Apart from the upcoming elections in which 2 of the 3 incumbent Port Commissioners are being challenged, Jim Darling, the Port's Executive Director for the last 15 years has now resigned, effective July 10.

Port commissioners are expected to name an interim replacement at a June 2 meeting, but the search for a permanent replacement is expected to take months.
Does this mean the new Director will be chosen after the elections?
I hope so!

Mr Darling has served well in his capacity, but the challenge presented by acquiring the G-P and other contaminated industrial properties, committing to their proper clean-up, and then redeveloping the 220-acres waterfront with the City's partnership, has proved to be large, protracted and contentious.
This, plus the prospect of a new job while remaining in the area would be tempting to anyone in a similar situation.
I wish Mr Darling well in his new endeavor, plus, I salute him for moving on and not becoming so entrenched that his effectiveness is adversely impacted.

But, my main concern is that the Waterfront Redevelopment continues to move forward!
There is too much at stake to let this ambitious, but important undertaking fail.
While there have been significant differences between Port and City about scope and procedures, these are minor when compared to the vision of our community.
And, the enormous expenses -actually investments- envisioned will be repaid many times over when that long-term effort is completed.
We should not worry about a good return of this investment; and the returns will not only be economic ones, but also ecological and social in nature -as they must be.

Mr Darling's departure may portend other timely changes as well, including the election of up to 2 new Commissioners - that would constitute a new majority!

I believe Scott Walker has done a good job, but has been in office too long at 18 years and counting- even longer than Darling.

John Blethen would make a very able replacement who who has demonstrated a long-term and active commitment to the Waterfront Futures Group, the current Waterfront Advisory Group and related community efforts for over 30 years.
Blethen gets it; his successful business experience combined with his remarkable volunteering services give him the kind of perspective I'd like to see in implementing a waterfront redevelopment that is truly sustainable and would be just right for Bellingham.

Also, Doug Smith's service has been commendable, but he's been there as long as Darling has as well.

Mike McCauley is my choice to succeed Smith, and has both the smarts and energy to come up to speed quickly.
In his time in Bellingham, Mike has been both active and effective in neighborhood and related issues, which is refreshing example for younger folks.
Mike does his homework, has technical training, thinks logically and carefully and is willing to spend the time necessary to the job.
-------------

Aside from the daunting fiscal crisis now facing our nation and community, which is a concern to everyone, the idea of creating a truly sustainable, 'triple bottom line' new waterfront neighborhood must be committed to.
That is the single concept that is most essential to the unqualified success of our new Waterfront District!
It means a lot of things that together save money, preserve the environment, create jobs with new businesses, provide enjoyable public space and access to the Bay, and add revenues to the City, Port and County that will both pay back their investment costs and sustain each jurisdiction's respective levels of service.

So, rather than fret and worry about these changes -both real and possible- as problems, I see them as distinct opportunities!
That is because sufficient good work has already gone into this concept, that it is no longer dependent upon only its initiators
for its execution.
And, with a 25-year project expectation, it never could have been!
Both Jim Darling and former Mayor, Mark Asmundson, knew that when the opportunity for this partnership presented itself.
And, since that time, several members of the City Council & Staff have also moved on -myself included.
So, having new elected officials should not be a problem in the greater scheme of things, particularly in a community enhancing project of long duration, and even longer benefits.

The point is, a well-conceived project definition is a difficult thing to achieve by itself, even without ever building anything.
That work is well underway, although there do remain some significant points to clarify and make more certain -that must be done to pin down the costs, which will have to fit both the Port's and City's budgets and timely pay-off their debts.

I can think of no better candidates for Port Commissioner, who can help do this, than John Blethen and Mike McCauley.
They have the skills, the interest, the time and the commitment, and will bring 'fresh eyes' to the task.

Hopefully, they will also have a say in who gets hired as the Port's new permanent Executive Director, after they take office.
---------------------------------

For those interested, here's a list, including my previous 13 posts on this subject, by date published:

Waterfront Redevelopment: Changes in the Wind? 5/27/09

Waterfront Redevelopment: Are Circadian Rhythms To... 4/29/09

Waterfront Redevelopment: A Grecian Flat Earth Day... 4/22/09

Waterfront Redevelopment: Can We Get On With It No... 11/19/08

Time for Big Changes at the Port of Bellingham! 11/16/08

Waterfront Redevelopment: Impasse or Opportunity? 11/10/08

Waterfront Redevelopment: A Rant About Election Ga... 8/19/08

On City Government, Football & Other Contact Sport... 1/12/08

Breaking Good News About NOAA 11/28/07

Waterfront Redevelopment: Mother Goose & the Docto... 9/9/07

Waterfront Redevelopment: Navigating Charbydis & S... 9/8/07

Waterfront Redevelopment: BEYOND LEED to a Triple ... 9/6/07

Waterfront Redevelopment: Incorporating Waterfront... 8/20/07

Waterfront Redevelopment: Mayoral Candidate Forum ... 8/1/07
------------------------------------

California: Terminal or Just Normal?

-----------------------------
Check out today's Timothy Egan column in the NYT: http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/california-will-survive-its-crackup/
-----------------------------
Not that it will make Bellingham, Whatcom County or the State of Washington feel any better, but the State of California is in worse shape.

More alarming is the fact that California voters, when given the chance to help the situation, have decided to whimp on every proposed measure, except limiting pay raises for State elected officials during deficit years.

Now, that ought to go a long way toward balancing their funny money budget!
Besides, it should discourage a few more people from even seeking public office; why would anyone want to serve in such a contentious and perpetually deficit-ridden State?
Doesn't sound like much fun to me.

Bad economy or not, the real problem has been expectations that are consistently way out of line with reality.
That inherently unsustainable pattern is guaranteed to produce deficits over time, whether its California, Washington DC or Bellingham.

What the 'Golden State' is experiencing now ought to provide a valuable lesson for every government entity.
But, will 'they' learn? And, who are 'they'?
And will the voters consistently help or hinder prudent budgetary practices, including raising additional taxes when necessary to pay for services?
What might be an upper limit on taxes before real TEA parties become rampant?

Just a few thoughts to brighten everyone's day....
-----------------------------
Reprinted from the Internet:
California Rejects Schwarzenegger’s Budget Measures

The May 20 Bloomberg News reports that California's 'Governator' was dealt a crushing defeat as voters rejected a series of six budget-balancing measures that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said were needed to keep a $15 billion deficit from widening to $21 billion. A proposal to limit lawmaker pay passed.

“I respect the will of the people who are frustrated with the dysfunction in our budget system,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement from Washington conceding defeat. “In order to prevent a fiscal disaster, Democrats and Republicans must collaborate and work together to address this shortfall.”

Five of the propositions were failing with 64 percent of the votes counted, according to California’s elections office. The losing proposals would have capped spending and extended temporary tax increases, directed future surplus money to schools, authorized bonds backed by lottery profits and diverted already dedicated revenue to the budget.

Lawmakers put the measures on the ballot in February as part of a compromise to close what was then a record $42 billion budget gap. Since then, the deficit re-emerged as California’s economy, which on its own would be the world’s eighth-largest, worsened amid the national recession.
"The longer we wait, the worse the problem becomes and the more limited our choices will be," Schwarzenegger said.

Rainy Day Fund [Also, a favorite of some local electeds]
• Proposition 1A, which was failing 36 percent to 64 percent, would have limited state spending to inflation plus 3 percent above a 10-year average. Revenue exceeding that cap would have been deposited in a rainy day fund that could only be spent during deficit years. Any surplus amounting to more than 12.5 percent of the general fund would have been available for one- time needs or to pay down debt. The measure also would have extended three temporary tax raises approved in February.

• Proposition 1B would have required the state to pay $1.5 billion from the rainy day fund to schools for six years starting in 2011. It was failing 39 percent to 61 percent.
-------------
• Proposition 1C, which would have allowed the state to sell $5 billion of bonds backed by future lottery proceeds and use the money for the budget, was losing 37 percent to 63 percent.

• Proposition 1D would have allowed the state to strip $600 million over five years from a program that spends tobacco tax revenue on children’s health. It was failing by a 36 percent to 64 percent margin.

• Proposition 1E would have allowed lawmakers to siphon $250 million a year from a mental health services program financed by an income-tax increase approved by voters in 2004. It was losing 35 percent to 65 percent.

• Proposition 1F, which prohibits state lawmakers and elected officers from salary raises in years when the state is running a deficit, was winning 75 percent to 25 percent.

“The fact is, right now, Californians do not trust Sacramento or the political process by which the budget is crafted, and they cannot afford higher taxes,” Meg Whitman, the former EBay Inc. chief executive officer who plans to run for California governor, said in a statement.
[Why does Meg want the job? Will she use e-Bay to auction off State assets?]

The budget approved in February raised $12 billion in taxes, cut $16 billion in spending and spent $8 billion of federal stimulus money. It also relied on $6 billion that would have been raised had the ballot measures won.

Credit Ratings
The three major credit rating companies, citing the magnitude of California’s deficits, reduced the grades on more than $46 billion of bonds in February and March. Now, California’s full faith and credit pledge is rated A by Standard & Poor’s and an equivalent A2 by Moody’s Investors Service, five grades below the top investment ranking. California is the lowest-rated U.S. state.

A California general obligation bond maturing in 2038, which traded for as little as 81.5 cents on the dollar on Dec. 4, went for 96.4 cents to yield 5.5 percent on May 19, according to Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board data. That compares with 5 percent for top-rated municipal general obligation bonds, as measured by a Municipal Market Advisors index.

Schwarzenegger proposed on May 14 cutting another $6 billion in spending, half from schools and colleges, to close the new gap. He said more cuts, such as releasing 19,000 illegal immigrants now held in state prisons, would be necessary with voter rejection of the ballots measures.

Schwarzenegger has also proposed that the state borrow $6 billion of two-year cash flow warrants. He said more short-term borrowing would be needed later in the year, especially if the measures were rejected.

California Treasurer Bill Lockyer petitioned U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to arrange for the federal government to become a standby purchaser of the short-term loans in the event of default.
[Hey, we bailed out Wall Street, GM, etc., so why not California?]
---------------------
Easy to see how economics got to be called the 'dismal science'.

And, how democracies may have a few inherent problems that only become visible or tangible over time.
---------------------

Thinking Globally, Acting Locally: Part III

---------------
Previously, Parts I & II of this discussion have addressed the role of the City in helping create and sustain its own economic fortunes, and the mixed economics associated with development in the UGA areas.
This Part III deals with a real life scenario of a potentially large in-fill development that is being strongly resisted by nearby residents.

Harry Truman once said he preferred one-armed economists because they weren't so inclined to say 'on the one hand this, but on the other hand that'.
And so it is with other people who develop strong preferences without necessarily considering all the pros and cons of an issue.

Such seems to be the case with a group of citizens who want the area known as 'Chuckanut Ridge' acquired and retained at significant public expense as yet another south-side park.

A few years ago, the group which calls itself 'Responsible Development' hired a consultant to 'prove' their case, that the CR development would cost the City about $12 million if it were allowed to proceed.
This, the consultant dutifully tried to do, but unfortunately he did not use all of the facts that should have been used regarding the City's impact fee structure.
I know this was the case because I supplied this information to the consultant well before his report was prepared -at least so I thought!

The reason a 'cost' of $12 million was important to the RD folks was that they thought an outright buy-out of the property in question might cost less than that amount, thereby resulting in a 'bargain' for the City.

The problem was that the property was valued at a significantly higher sum, and there was no funding source available from the City at the time.
Also, there was the little matter of there being no willing seller!
But these points are incidental to what follows.
-------------

As we know, this CR debate continues even as the issuance of developer's Draft Environmental Impact Statement nears.
And, as we also know the RD opponents are certainly not above waging their own version of economic warfare to achieve their goals.
But, that's OK because it's not only a part of citizen's rights, but legal.
My main problem with that tactic is that it simply ignores the other side of the economic balance sheet.

So, that is the focus of this piece; the economics that benefit the City.
I don't pretend to be an expert at accounting or to have any inside information that is not available to those with a passing interest, so please forgive any sins of omission or commission I may have made, because these are certainly not intended.

CNN Anchor Campbell Brown has the right idea with the concept of 'no bias, no bull'.
I'll try to follow those principles.
-------------------------------

First, the cost of the 85 acres in question has been variably report at upwards of $16 million.
The property was originally about 100 acres, zoned for 1478 dwelling units, back in the early 1980's, a time apparently typified by dim record keeping.

A few years ago, about 15 of the original 100 acres was transferred as wetland buffers, now maintained by the City.
After an unsuccessful attempt or two at development by the former owner, the property was sold to the current owners, a local developer and a local bank.

Also, at some point, a voluntary down-zone was effected which reduced the number of theoretical dwelling units by half, to 739 total.
Whether or not the intent is to build that many homes isn't known, but for the sake of argument, let's say 739 is the number.
If one divides 739 by 85, the resulting density is about 8.7 homes per acre, a very respectable urban density, especially for Bellingham, especaally at a time when land supply is scarce and costs relatively high.

At such a density it makes little sense to expect that each home will occupy the exact square footage of ground, particularly buildable ground, because probably half of the property consists of wetlands and disconnected parcels that effectively render them unbuildable.

This means the likelihood of multi-story housing is pretty high, much higher than some might prefer.
That is regrettable, but it is quite legal and likely to become a reality.
Such is the way our society is intended to work, with the greater community interest usually prevailing.

If anywhere near 739 homes are ever built, this would most certainly happen over several years time, say maybe 10.
And if these homes were in fact constructed -at say, a cost of $200 k each- that would amount to a total local investment approaching $150 million, a not insignificant sum!

Just think about the ramifications of that kind of investment circulating in our local economy in terms of wages as well as goods and services from local businesses.
It's not the same as a big, faceless multi-national corporation coming to town, but it's close, and in some respects it may be better.

After all, the developer is a long time resident of Bellingham with a good reputation, who hires locally and buys locally.
Think those concepts don't fit in with sustainability?
And, the bank is also an established local business which provides local employment as well as financial services to many in our town and area.
Hey, isn't retaining and growing local businesses part of our stated goals as a community?

Tell me again, how much does this actually 'cost' the City?
I think that amount is far less than the $12 million 'guesstimated' by RD's consultant.
And, if it does turn out to 'cost' the City that much, the City will likely receive -over time- much more than that.
So, let's talk about about what revenues accrue to the City, shall we?

Think about that for a minute.
Surely, no serious person believes there aren't some tangible advantages to the City for such an in-fill to occur!
And, if not here at CR, where would these homes be located?
The County has not shown any interest in granting the City additional Urban Growth Area, have they?
[Ironically, a new UGA with a 'clean zoning slate' might be the best opportunity for the City to actually get the density it wants and needs to meet its GMA goals.]
-----------------

Here are some concepts for readers to consider:

1. Sales taxes -now in decline along with the economy- @8% times $200k per home times 73.9 homes per year equals about $1.2 million per year - for 10 years.
Hey, that's about $12 million in total over 10 years, isn't it?
[Note: these revenues are shared]

2. B&O taxes - these are not paid unless business is conducted.
Wonks can figure this positive impact out if they care, but it will be a significant positive number - probably in the hundreds of thousands.

3. All infrastructure and internal improvements to the development are 100% paid by the developer.
This includes streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, lights and the like, all required to meet City standards.

4. Part of the external improvements needed to support transportation needs, like arterial widening, turning improvements, signals, crossings and the like would be paid by the developer, as part of Transportation Impact Fees [TIF].
Typically, just over half these City costs are covered by TIFs. I
Of course, improvements to State highways and bridges are the responsibility of the State of Washington.

5. A portion of the costs for owning and maintaining the City's Parks & Trails system is recovered via Parks Impact Fees [PIF]
Typically, this is apportioned on the basis of dwelling units, which for a single family house would amount to over $4000.
739 homes times $4000 equals almost $3 million, potentially.

6. A portion of the costs for maintaing the Bellingham School District's capital facilities is recovered via School Impact Fees [SIF]
Typically, a single family house would pay just over $1000, totaling about $750 k to the BSD.

7. ALL of the costs for extending the City's water & sewer systems is recovered through System Development Charges and Connection fees, at developer's cost -which of course is passed along to the eventual homeowner.
This amounts to 100% of these costs, a fact that RDs consultant conveniently missed.
This is a very big number, which also benefits every existing homeowner because it spreads the burden of ownership over a broader base, without substantially increasing operating costs.

8. Surface & stormwater facilities are 100% paid by the developer, using City standards,and as approved by the City.
This is typically not an inconsequential cost, although it varies widely by site.
It also may be easier to design for a larger site like CR.

9. And, lest we forget, there is the matter of Property Taxes, which are now being paid by the owners at a rate commensurate with undeveloped property.
As development occurs and value is added, these taxes also rises in proportion to value.
If we assume the average value of each newly built home is about $300 k, then approximately $2000 property taxes each would due the City each year, after it was sold.
Thus, at full build out, about 739 homes times $2000 equals almost $1.5 million per year -every year- would accrue to the City.
This is certainly not an inconsequential amount!
[Note: these revenues are shared; over half goes to schools and higher education, 25% to the City, 14% to the County, 6% to the Port]

10. As homes are sold and resold Real Estate Excise Taxes [REET] are generated which accrue to the City to be used for capital projects as approved by the City Council. Two one-quarter percent taxes apply and are collected which typically total well over $1 million citywide each year.

11. Finally, the City will likely receive over 40 acres of the CR site as the result of wetlands determinations, there by adding -at no capital cost- important buffers to the development, as well as more open space.
No one should question the intrinsic value of such a dedication to the City, and to the environment.

12. A placeholder:
Those interested and/or so inclined can advise me what they think I've left out, or what ought to be estimated differently. I will review these comments and will make adjustments, where appropriate.
------------------

Even if only half the potential 739 dwelling units on this property ever get built, that would amount to a very significant new source of revenue for the City.
And, to the extent my guesstimated figures are off, I'm sure that they are directionally correct.
This is despite my drafting of this piece comes entirely from memory that only some direct experience in such matters can produce.

So, I invite readers to comment if they will, but more importantly, to examine the ASSET side of the ledger and not just the negatives that have been so loudly trumpeted.
Who knows, when exposed to both sides of this debate, maybe some folks may be persuaded this development isn't such a bad idea after all.

Time will tell what happens at CR, just as time will have to tell what it's added value will have on City revenues.
But, to deny a potentially very large additional revenue stream to the City, is to deny reality itself!

There comes a time that we need to actually walk our talk about effective growth management.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt....
--------------------