Washington State Water Law

Last Wednesday, May 22, the Bellingham City Club speaker was Tom McDonald, an experienced expert, who spoke on the subject of Washington State Water Law: Whose Water Is It Anyway? And Who Decides? And When? And Will It Be There When I Turn On The Tap? 

This was a timely presentation since water law will impact upcoming decisions on who has rights to water in the 14 river-sheds in Western Washington. Water is essential for human life and is becoming more scarce and polluted as our population grows. Water will limit growth before our land supply will.

(The presentation outline is reproduced below) 

Coming up next Thursday & Friday at the Hampton Inn: Water Supply: Searching for Certainty in Uncertain Times will discuss What is at risk if water issues are not resolved? 

This two day symposium will focus on water supply issues including the factors influencing availability for in-stream and out-of-stream uses as well as the current status of the water supply in Whatcom County.

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. 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.....

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

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!

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

Cycles & Recycles

--------------------
Here we are almost to another Earth Day on the way to Cinco de Mayo.
Left behind since the last post are April Fool's Day, IRS Day and the day Congress passed Healthcare Reform.
Before that, the Ides of March and St Patrick's Day and March Madness, amid 6 relaxing weeks in San Francisco and between here and there.

Life has been mostly good from my personal perspective, partly because I was able to largely tune out the steady din of petty -and not so petty - arguments involving politics, of which the local variety is but a relative blip on the screen.
But, our local blip has much in common with the other blips that combine to fill the screen.

The endless debate about priorities, for example.
And the continued attempts to substitute personal agendas for sound public policy.
Or, the rancor, ignorance, disingenuous rhetoric and appearance of back-room deals.
Not to mention the continuous recycling of issues and debates that never seem to be settled.

One reason I started this blog was to document some earlier discussions and perspectives on local issues.
Those 350 or so blogs are still around to read for those interested.
Just search by label, date or key words to get a crude sorting.
Or, simply allow these words to continue their repose in silent cyberspace.

Before long, I will again explore other geography and peaceful pursuits, but before I do, a few comments on the latest political cycle:

Whatcom County

* This year's Council edition is -not surprisingly- a disappointment. First, Ward Nelson's 11-month 'appointment' seemed a deliberate ploy to pack the Council with enough 'yes men' to allow new Chair 'Scheming Sam' Crawford his way in negating prior Council decisions he didn't like, plus throw a few rewards to his puppeteers.
Newbies Knutzen and Kershner are, well, acting like newbies with attitudes, and voting the way 'Scheming Sam' wants them to.
We'll need to elect Nelson's replacement later this year, and hope it is someone with a more progressive bent.
Then, keeping a close eye on 'Scheming Sam's' shenanigans, which have the appearance of being cooked up with cronies outside of Council meetings, will be a full-time job for watchers.

Bellingham

* This year's single gender Council faces unrelenting fiscal realities, which can have some useful opportunities to cut accreted frills and rethink how services can be provided more efficiently and sustainably. Not fun, but necessary every few years.
Some City issues are also being recycled, like the misguided 'Big Box' ban, adoption of the South-side Parks Plan [read 'Chuckanut Ridge'], the ongoing UGA & Annexation debate, TMDL Action Plan for the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, generating real progress in Waterfront Redevelopment, Landlord 'accountability', etc. Just a few items of perpetually unfinished business...

Washington State

Despite desperate economic hard times and draconian budget cuts, the State appears to be better off than most other states, and positioned for a more sustainable recovery.
Re-emergence of the State Income Tax question, long known as the 3rd rail of politics, is a sign that the time for rational discourse is approaching, albeit in a phased fashion.
A few years ago, a Commission chaired by Bill Gates, Senior, concluded that a State Income Tax would provide a fairer, more stable source of revenue, particularly if coupled with limits and reductions on other taxes.
Those conclusions have not changed, although the motivations for such a debate occurring soon have.
This Governor and the current Legislature have proven themselves under intense fire and budget pressures, so perhaps that experience can be built upon for the future.

US Congress

Hope springs eternal for the so-called Republican Party, which has acted so outrageously obstructionist since Obama was convincingly elected President on a platform of 'Big Tent' unity.
Now, they are hoping to benefit in the coming elections by voters discontent with the economy, plus the contentiousness over Healthcare Reform, etc, which they -themselves- actively promoted!
Maybe they will gain seats, but will it be worth it to a country that deserves true leadership instead of continuous acrimony, misinformation campaigns and political games of 'gotcha'?
At least the Obama supporters demonstrated their resolve in achieving tangible progress on health reform that most will come to support once they understand what will be gained!
That could be enough to encourage the so-called 'R's' to change their despicable -and failed- strategy. But don't count on it! It might be easier to just change their name, to something like the Limbaughians, or something containing the letters F-O-X.

Planet Earth

So far, our international relations in the world have noticeably improved under President Obama.
But, time will tell whether balanced diplomacy can succeed under the conditions existing today.
Having help as the world's policeman is essential, and not an option.
But, extricating ourselves from our current wars and conflicts is not an option either.

Barring a series of set-backs, Iraq now seems on its way toward a more stable and reliable government.
But, US and UN assistance will likely be necessary for some years.

Afghanistan is different, and has less prospects for stability'
It might be simpler and more effective for the US to purchase all the opium or poppy production [90% of world supply] and thereby deprive the Taliban or al Qaeda of the major source of their revenues.
This course of action would likely require use of these funds for essential infrastructure and health/education services for the benefit of the populace at large.

Keeping peace and prosperity will always be a big job, but someone's got to do it.
I hope it involves us, both domestically and internationally.
-----------------------------

Waterfront Redevelopment: How Long Can You Tread Water?

----------------------
Years ago a Bill Cosby album contained some of his funniest creations.
One of the best was a pretend conversation between Noah and the Lord.
In response to Noah's complaint about cleaning up after the animals he was supposed to gather in the Ark, the Lord said 'Noah, how long can you tread water'.
That definitely got Noah's attention!

Now, another NOAA has a tough assignment, that of explaining it's choice of Newport, OR as its new base for 4 research vessels.
How long can this NOAA take to reassess its site evaluation process and factor into it the fact that Newport is burdened by being in a 100-year flood plain?
Not that the ships won't lift with higher water, just like the Ark was designed to do.
It's the shore facilities that support the ships which seem to be the problem, because Federal law disallows them to be in a flood plain.

Think that little detail isn't important?
We're about to find out, now that Bellingham, Seattle and maybe others as the links below report:

Port of Bellingham will appeal NOAA selection of Newport, Oregon

NOAA's move to Newport hits a legal snag

Appeal filed over plan to move NOAA's fleet

Failing to follow the law is almost always a game changer, but we'll have to wait and see on this one.
Interesting to see the Seattle folks also thought they were the favorites.

Important decisions that threaten produce changes are almost always contentious, but the requirement to follow the law ought not to be.
If an applicable law has been broken or overlooked, that is a fair and objective reason to reopen the NOAA site selection process.
After that legal determination what remains is whether the entire site evaluation process will be redone, or if the second highest rated site is selected.
Bellingham could still become NOAA's new base for its vessels, and if that should occur it would be our great benefit.

Sometimes treading water is necessary, and it is definitely preferable to sinking.
But, having to wade through a flood plain to even reach a ship doesn't sound right, does it?
Maybe NOAA will come our way after all, and that would be a good thing.
-----------------------

Growth Management: An Exercise In Futility?

------------------------
We constantly hear reams of blather about minimizing sprawl by densifying urban centers, but when you get down to it people living in those urban centers don't want changes that affect their 'neighborhood character' and their 'quality of life'.

So, are the concepts of sprawl and infill mutually exclusive?
Are the real games being played 'drive until you qualify' and 'somebody else's problem musical chairs'?

Lot's of folks get excited about these discussions, but the answer almost always means 'somebody else' gets to shoulder the responsibility, an externalization that has become ludicrous.
No one benefits from this constant 'push-me-pull-you' exercise, except maybe those cynics who enjoy seeing incessant senseless turmoil that is almost always non-productive.

Just look at the planning efforts that have been undertaken for years.
How many have realized what was intended?
How many have become dusty, forgotten and expensive shelf art?
Mostly they seem to be palliatives and placebos that do reflect some desirable outcomes, but lack the commitment -and teeth- to meet the objectives intended.

And, after repeated failings to produce results that seem reasonable, fair and predictable, who can be faulted for losing confidence in the process used to determine these growth planning exercises?

Bellingham's current debate with Whatcom County about what proportion of projected growth it should plan to accommodate is just the latest example.
Whatcom County thinks the City ought to do a better job of infilling existing neighborhoods, and -of course- they are correct.
But, do these folks have a clue as to what that simple concept entails?
I don't think so!

If you think existing neighborhoods are likely to willing embrace significant new density, there is a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
Of course, there are exceptions; high-rise buildings in downtown areas; redevelopment areas like the waterfront; newly annexed areas -accepted on the condition of urban levels of development are the main three that come to mind.
Yet, each of these also has hurdles to negotiate.

• Downtown becomes an attractive living place for folks who like walking to work, shopping and entertainment, and who don't opt for home and lawn maintenance.
Then, there's the little matter of high-rises impacting someone else's view and/or solar access. Otherwise, they are creating a new neighborhood character that is inherently denser and vertical.

• Redevelopment sites like the Waterfront require major investments from public and private funds, and they take time to materialize. Until necessary cleanup, construction and connections are settled, these sites wont likely be fun places to work, live, shop or recreate, all of which make infill uncertain. But, a new neighborhood character will eventually emerge that will utilize access to our shoreline and conveniently connect with the existing downtown.

• Newly annexed areas that are zoned for urban development also must be built in phases and require transportation corridors to connect them with existing urban centers. But, that can certainly be done even though some may think it strange that it happens on the outskirts of the City. Just think of all those ancient and medieval towns where abrupt walls were all the rage to keep out the barbarians and protect the residents! Since there is no existing neighborhood, its character gets a chance to be created, and its density can be determined with more certainty to be urban.

• Of course, there are a few areas that already exist within the City where significant infill is not only possible, but logical.

Several years ago, the Birch Street development was approved with the potential for its maximum allowable 176 new dwelling units, providing a second, full-time access road was provided. That process was painful, particularly to existing neighbors who had grown accustomed to relative quiet and uncongested living next to a forested area that they, or the City, did not own.

REMIND you of another place? Chuckanut Ridge? If the City doesn't allow infill where zoning allows it, then the County is right in its assessment that more land supply is wasteful and unjustified. But, the County can't force the City to take infill, just like the County can't force itself to prevent rural sprawl.
---------------------

Recently, a number of articles on Crosscut have addressed this issue, using Seattle and its surrounds as examples.
Readers may enjoy links to some of these treatises, especially today's piece by Douglas MacDonald entitled Our region is losing the race against sprawl on the related transportation issue.

Other Crosscut links are Dense, denser, densest and
Why Seattle won't grow as fast as planners say
---------------------

The close connection between Transportation and Growth Planning is well established, at least in principle.
The problem is in actually understanding and achieving what is meant by concurrency.
To that end, I'm pleased that the City of Bellingham has now bought into the idea of a Transportation Commission to advise it on how best to fully utilize the Transportation tools it has in planning for future growth.

The Herald's article 'Bellingham seeks applicants for new Transportation Commission' explains this idea further.
I'm glad the City has decided to go forward with more focus on Transportation Oriented Development, as was discussed over 2 years ago.
I may even apply myself for one of the 9 seats envisioned.
-----------------------------------

Three Topics: Healthcare, Climate, NOAA

-----------------------------
Ever tried to figure out what your health insurance policy says?
healthcare terminology

-----------------------------
Think climate change might impact national security?
climate & security

-----------------------------
More on Bellingham's NOAA loss from Crosscut
noaa loss explanation

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

A Potpourri Of News: Port Primary & County Growth Management

---------------------
Things are happening all the time, but significant results and their reporting tend to bunch up at intervals.
That's what has happened this week.
Since I was out of pocket yesterday, here are comments on two issues of local interest:
---------------------
'In war, you can only be killed once, but in politics, many times.' - Winston Churchill

'My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on.' - John F. Kennedy
--------

Local Primary Elections

An updated Auditor's Report will be issued today, but preliminary results were posted Tuesday evening, and can be found at this URL.

KGMI and The Herald also posted summary articles at their respective links, with some commentary.

I am particularly delighted with the Port of Bellingham results, which show challengers John Blethen and Mike McAuley as leading vote-getters.
But caution must be offered since the General Election is coming, which is time the big money comes into play to attract what should be a larger turnout.
That is the race that really counts, so let's not be lulled into thinking this election is over!

BTW, I appreciate today's NWCitizen blog labeling me as 'conservative'. I take that in the best sense of the word, just as I do the word 'liberal' which has also been applied to me with some frequency.
Too often these terms are tossed off as lazy and over-simplified pejoratives, which is a disservice to everyone, especially readers.
So, I guess being called both terms may qualify me as somewhat 'balanced' in my views? Hope so.
The quotes cited above come from a Conservative and a Liberal.
------------------------

Growth Management

Both The Herald and KGMI reported on our County Executive's recommendations on Whatcom County land use, information that has been very slow in coming, at least until the County Council requested it while recognizing a real deadline is coming on December 1.
The County is over 2 years tardy in correcting and completing its Comprehensive Plan, and these recommendations -along with any Council modifications and eventual approval- are needed necessary to avoid actual State penalties, in the form of lost opportunities for grants, and possibly even fines.

Directionally, the County now seems to be on a better trajectory, at least in updating its Comp Plan under last-minute pressure. But, will this make any difference? Only time will tell.

The idea of reducing the size of Urban Growth Areas [UGAs in Govt jargon] isn't all bad, either for zoning purposes or for their eventual annexation to cities.
Often, disparate areas were lumped together without much thought it seems. One example is the Dewey Valley area which applied for annexation to Bellingham, but was rejected due to its overall size, location, disparate uses and potential fiscal impacts on the city. That particular result might have been avoided had the Dewey Valley area been more compact and easier and cheaper to serve.

I am assuming that the County's recommendations will also extend to the so-called '5-year Review Areas', which the County also designates from time to time. This designation is preliminary to an area even becoming an UGA.

It remains to be seen whether existing UGAs [county's jurisdiction] can be easily downsized without administrative, legislative or legal challenge.
Also, presumably, the respective cities would have to agree.
-----------

In the case of the Geneva and Hillsdale UGAs, I believe the City of Bellingham might agree to a change in designation, but only after an in-depth discussion about whether equal or better protections to Lake Whatcom could result.

Years ago, when the decision was made to include Geneva and Hillsdale as UGAs, there were clear pluses AND minuses involved, but in the end they were designated UGAs.
Now, with more stringent land use regulations -especially STORMWATER requirements- and the fact that significant buildout, facilitated by the independently operated Water District, and restrictive land preservation acquisitions and easements, have occurred may change these weighting factors.
Also, there is the little matter of compliance with mitigating and remedial requirements of the TMDL Study issued by the Dept of Ecology.
Of particular concern are those areas with Geneva and Hillsdale that are unusually susceptible to runoff from upslope development, either in the UGA or in unincorporated areas -like Squalicum Mountain, Toad Lake and Galbraith/Lookout Mountain.

The net effect of downsizing county controlled UGAs may include the following;

• general reduction in areas zoned for high density use of any type- could be positive, unless buildable land supply reduction unduly increases prices.

• gradual slowing of growth and development, either real or perceived -could be positive, unless concurrency of housing and transportation infrastructure is thrown more out of balance.

• more unincorporated land retained, whether for agricultural, forest, open space -could be positive, unless more sporadic county rezoning and low density development occurs [already a known problem].

• appearance of compliance with GMA guidelines - a definite positive.

• a likely net reduction in county annual revenues from development, but also longer retention time of lands in county jurisdiction.
-------

Regarding the proportion of countywide growth to be accommodated by the City of Bellingham, the debate between 38% and 42% probably brackets the best number available.
And since actual growth rates and land absorption are only known from history, why quibble?
A 1.4% long term growth rate is likely OK; but 2.something is excessive.
This seems to be largely about asserting more control over another jurisdiction than is necessary or justified.

The County is charged with the responsibility of countywide planning, with the cities part of that plan.
The individual cities certainly know their history of growth, limitations and expectations better than the County ever could.
So, just make these elements fit!

From the report it appears that some cities prefer more projected growth than does Bellingham.
And, the estimated numbers are not so big as to be impossible to change around a little and still total the amount approved.
Why not do this?

[Alternatively, the County might want to reconsider supporting the Waterfront Redevelopment, which itself might accommodate the difference between County & City preferences. Here, I know the County's EDI [Economic Development Incentive] funds are not supposed to go for 'residential development', but is a dense mixed use redevelopment of a blighted area and expected to create hundreds of new jobs, intended to be included in this definition?]
----------------------------------

'All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions.' - Adlai E. Stevenson

'Society, community, family are all conserving institutions. They try to maintain stability, and to prevent, or at least to slow down, change. But the organization of the post-capitalist society of organizations is a destabilizer. Because its function is to put knowledge to work -- on tools, processes, and products; on work; on knowledge itself -- it must be organized for constant change. - PETER F. DRUCKER
-----------------------------------

Entertainment: Pulp Fiction & Port Sport

-----------------------
I greatly enjoy a good suspense novel or movie.
Really good tales inspire both widespread attention and revenues.
Three that come to mind are Tom Clancy's The Search For Red October; John Grisham's The Pelican Brief; and Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code.

None of these are true stories, but pretend to be so well that folks buy into the fabric of myths that is so cleverly woven together.
There is just enough that is true, or at least plausible or tantalizingly so, to engender belief in the story told.
That relative rarity of a successful storytelling inspires copy-catting on a massive scale.

Of course, trying to reduce a unique success into a formula that can be replicated is tricky business.
While repetition of statements and concepts is critical to driving home a point, there comes a time when this effect is lost.
Also, credibility can peak and then fall off dramatically once people cease settling for merely being entertained and seek other perspectives.
When that happens, most of the audience moves on to its next entertainment event.

So-called 'infotainment' seems to be what sells easiest these days.
That's because it can be dispensed by quick sound bytes that demand little time, attention and critical thinking from the audience - us, the 'buyers'.

It seems so much easier to tear down than to build something, particularly something big, complex and controversial.
And, it doesn't take expensive tools and explosives to accomplish such destruction.
It just takes a series of lies, entertaining myths and half-truths, often repeated.
Just look at the current healthcare reform 'debate' for example.

Or, maybe even our own ambitious Waterfront Redevelopment?
--------

The current issue of the Cascadia Weekly offered this Gristle, which was quickly supported by a blog on NWCitizen.
Both of these publications have been vocal critics of the Waterfront Redevelopment for years, which is certainly their prerogative.
For that matter, I have been critical of certain WR twists and turns myself, although I continue to support the basic idea as necessary to our long-term prosperity.

But, there is always room for improvement in any undertaking, especially those that rely on public support and funding.
And that brings us to what the Weekly, NWCitizen -and I- all share; we need this year's election to produce meaningful change in the leadership at the Port of Bellingham.
The best result we can expect is to replace the two long-time incumbents, Scott Walker and Doug Smith.
While that result would be desirable in itself, it would mainly serve to reconnect the Port of Bellingham to the broader goals and objectives that citizens of both City and County want and expect.

Gone are the days when any special district or agency can simply go its separate way without due consideration of the big picture, that includes the overall welfare of our area and region.
Social, fiscal and ecological realities are inextricably intertwined and must be addressed simultaneously as best we can.

While my view is that the social and ecological aspects to the proposed Waterfront Redevelopment are basically OK, the fiscal part -the financing and management- still leave much to be desired.
At least two important concepts have been totally rejected by the Port; permanent public ownership of its waterfront, and the establishment of an independent Public Development Authority to provide oversight the project.

Why the Port has so strenuously rejected these concepts is a mystery, but may be due to its desire to maintain sole control over its admittedly large commitment.
Maintaining public ownership would mean the Port could not recoup its investment as quickly as waiting for leases to be secured and paid over time.
But, it is ironic that public ownership MUST be retained long enough for the clean-up to be completed!
That's because no sensible private entity wants that liability, nor can it likely even get access to the State & Federal funds necessary to pay for it.

And, don't forget, the Waterfront Redevelopment is not just about the Port either.
The City of Bellingham has former landfills, at or near the water's edge, which also must be remediated concurrent with the former G-P site and other industrial sites.
That this clean-up is both necessary and desirable should not be a matter of debate!
And, the clean-up Plan that has been approved is adequate for the purpose.
It is as senseless to advocate for returning the waterfront to an unrealistic pristine state, as it is to claim that the type and variety of remediation methods proposed are not effective.

You know, at some point there is a limit to what can be done with the resources available.
I would rather do what is feasible than simply delay further progress 'to starve out the Port'.
That is an unacceptably poor result, which carries its own dire consequences.

When you get down to it, this 'debate' is really about who gets to own this potentially very valuable waterfront property.
Of course, the thing that would make it even more valuable is the clean-up, which must be done with public funds.
Once that gets done, I'm sure the Port would enjoy a nice bidding competition among private developers, both to pay off its clean-up and redevelopment promotion efforts, and maximize it's future returns.

But, don't forget, it's not the Port's money! It's ours.
Whoever we elect as Port Commissioners will have the responsibility of managing the Port's funds in the best interests of the public it serves.
Please keep that in mind, regardless of what redevelopment scenario you may favor.
-----------

Some folks have had a great time criticizing the Port and the City, advocating outlandish ideas and concocting all manner of misinformation about what is being proposed and attempted on our waterfront.
Fair enough, have your fun.
Pretty cheap entertainment that fits our current economy.

At some point, the fun ends and the real work begins, as it already has - since 2004 and before.
And, maybe some folks will eventually tire of the same litany of beefs, phony or otherwise, and move on to their next entertainment.
All through this, the real hard work of preparation will continue - as it must, albeit at a somewhat slower rate.
Boring, I know, but necessary.
But, when it nears completion, watch out!
New fun will begin as the competition for ownership, use and public subsidies heats up.

Until that new fun begins, we still have a big, important job to do, and it must be done competently, and in sunlight.
Let's elect new Port Commissioners and get on with it!
---------------------------

N.O.A.A: Crying In Our Beer?

---------------------
I'm sure there will be some disagreement with these views, but what's new about that?
While it is a disappointment for NOAA to decide against relocating to Bellingham, it never was a certainty.
And, to set our expectations unrealistically high only invites more disappointment at a time when what is needed is resiliency and rededication to the formidable task of seriously rejuvenating our waterfront.
So, if Plan A doesn't pan out, what is our Plan B?
If no Plan B exists, THAT is a problem!

If things hold to form, many folks will feel honest pain, but some may use this as an excuse to say things like 'I told you so', and cheer for degrees of failure out of jealousy, spite or just, old-fashioned, plain ill-will.
Remember those folks who have nay-sayed waterfront redevelopment all along?
Or, those who make a hobby out of second-guessing everyone, including the Port?
It may be a temporary field day for some of these folks, but it will be temporary.

Bellingham is capable of achieving good results in whatever it sets its mind to do.
If you don't believe that, check out what happened with the Olympic Pipe Line explosion.
Of course, for the waterfront, it may take a little longer, require a different mix of politicians, more mature ideas, and an improved economy with a little unexpected good luck throw in.
But, we will get there.
Believe it!
--------------

Yesterday and again today, articles on the NOAA decision appeared in Crosscut, authored by Floyd Mackay and Bob Simmons.
Both have interesting takes, which readers can access through the links provided.
One other Crosscut article by Jean Godden.

Today's Herald article combines some of this info with local reactions.

It is fascinating how the NOAA development coincides so closely with the upcoming elections, especially since the Port incumbents can't deny some of the inherent weakness of their suppositions.
Of course, they can also blame the failure to land NOAA on 'vocal locals', their loud and outspoken opposition.
But, will that help?
I don't think so.

One way or the other, it won't affect my voting for John Blethen and Mike McAuley as new Port Commissioners.
Nothing personal, but it is definitely time for new blood and new thinking at the Port of Bellingham!
And, that is true -in my opinion- of ALL elected offices, local and otherwise.
----------------

One other point, which does not exclusively relate to the Port, concerns the continued beefs expressed about the legitimate use of executive sessions and/or lawyer/client privilege.
Neither of these are, of themselves, inherently illegal, no matter what may be claimed, suspected or spoken by those who enjoy using 'guvmint' for target practice sport.
In fact, as citizens, business owners or government entities, executive sessions and lawyer/client privilege are essential elements in our system of laws and representative government.
To be without them entirely would constitute real stupidity that would not be in anyone's best interest.
It would essentially paralyze many government decisions we generally take for granted, and that would not be a good thing!

If excesses or improprieties are suspected, then by all means we need to take the appropriate legal steps, especially if a government entity and/or monies are involved.
Of course, as citizens in this country, we are always entitled to freedom of expression, including speech and written statements.
But as RESPONSIBLE citizens, it is preferable that we are careful not to MISUSE this freedom either.

If more open public meetings and discussions are desired, let's require that our local governments record them for airing in public, whether people will choose to watch these or not.
That way, we actually get to see and hear what is said.
BTW, even though most City meetings are being televised, its hard to see many more people paying anymore attention to what's going on.
It seems it may be more fun for some to continue to speculate, listen to somebody else's biased opinion, or remain blissfully ignorant.
But, that's just my opinion.
-----------------

Regarding the adverse NOAA decision, there is no use to cry over spilt milk, especially when it didn't belong to us anyway.
But, its probably OK to cry in our beer, at least for a few days.
Then, it will be time to buckle down, suck it up and get on with the real work of figuring out where we go from here.
That's a job better undertaken with with fresh Port Commissioners and executive Director.

It may also be instructive to examine the reasons why Newport, OR was selected, and how that may have differed from what Bellingham had to offer.
Things like a more central location on the Pacific coast, direct access to the ocean- without excessive water traffic, proximity to major league, existing technical expertise, a less congested and growing area, and just possibly a more coordinated approach by local, regional, state and federal authorities, more certainty about what incentives are offered, etc.
Just a few things like that.
--------------------

Triple Bottom Line: What Does TBL Mean?

---------------------------
"An invasion of armies can be resisted...But not an idea whose time has come..." - Victor Hugo
---------------------------

In Real Estate, the concept of a 'Triple net lease' is fairly common:

'A triple net lease (Net-Net-Net or NNN) is a lease agreement on a property where the tenant or lessee agrees to pay all real estate taxes, building insurance, and maintenance (the three 'Nets') on the property in addition to any normal fees that are expected under the agreement (rent, etc.).
In such a lease, the tenant or lessee is responsible for all costs associated with repairs or replacement of the structural building elements of the property.'

Why not extend this concept more widely?
For example, to our Waterfront?
----------------------------

Likewise, in economics, an externality or spillover of an economic transaction is an impact on a party that is not directly involved in the transaction.
In such a case, prices do not reflect the full costs or benefits in production or consumption of a product or service.

Why not also use this concept in trying to help estimate a full cost accounting approach to Waterfront Redevelopment?
Think that might mean a different mind-set for the Port of Bellingham?
----------------------------

This is where the TBL concept can be helpful, not just a idle talk and shallow promises, but as a purposeful strategy.
Here, I've paraphrased several points from Wikipedia:

The so-called triple bottom line ("TBL" or "3BL") refers to "people, planet, profit" and captures an expanded set of criteria for measuring success; not just counting economics, but also impacts on ecological and social values.

With the ratification of the United Nations and ICLEI* TBL standard for urban and community accounting in early 2007, this became the dominant approach to public sector full cost accounting.
In the private sector, a commitment to corporate social responsibility and ecological issues implies a commitment to some form of TBL reporting.

[• ICLEI was founded in 1990 as the 'International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives']

The concept of TBL demands that a company's responsibility be to stakeholders rather than shareholders, where "stakeholders" refers to anyone who is influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the actions of the firm.
According to the stakeholder theory, the business entity should be used as a vehicle for coordinating stakeholder interests, instead of just maximizing shareholder (owner) profit.

"People, planet and profit" succinctly describes the triple bottom lines and the goal of sustainability.

"People" (human capital) pertains to fair and beneficial business practices toward labour and the community and region in which a corporation conducts its business.

A triple bottom line enterprise seeks to benefit many constituencies, not exploit or endanger any group of them, but trying to actually quantify this different bottom line is relatively new, problematic and often subjective.

"Planet" (natural capital) refers to sustainable environmental practices.
A TBL endeavor reduces its ecological footprint by, among other things, carefully managing its consumption of energy and non-renewables and reducing manufacturing waste as well as rendering waste less toxic before disposing of it in a safe and legal manner. Literally, this implies a responsible "cradle to grave" approach.

"Profit" is the bottom line shared by all commerce within a sustainability framework, and the economic benefit enjoyed by the host society.

Not to be confused with the limited internal profit made by a company or organization, it is the lasting economic impact the organization has on its economic environment.
A true TBL approach can't be interpreted as traditional corporate accounting tempered with social and environmental impact reports
--------------.

The following business-based arguments support the concept of TBL:

• Reaching untapped market potential: TBL companies can find financially profitable niches which were missed when money alone was the driving factor. Examples include:

• Adding ecotourism or geotourism to an already rich tourism market such as the Dominican Republic

• Developing profitable methods to assist existing NGOs with their missions such as fundraising, reaching clients, or creating networking opportunities with multiple NGOs

• Providing products or services which benefit underserved populations and/or the environment which are also financially profitable.

• Adapting to new business sectors: Since many business opportunities are developing in the realm of social entrepreneurialism, businesses hoping to reach this expanding market must design themselves to be financially profitable, socially beneficial and ecologically sustainable or fail to compete with those companies who do design themselves as such.

• Fiscal policy of governments usually claims to be concerned with identifying social and natural deficits on a less formal basis. However, in a democracy at least, such choices may be guided more by ideology than by economics.

With the emergence of an externally consistent green economics and agreement on definitions of potentially contentious terms such as full-cost accounting, natural capital and social capital, the prospect of formal metrics for ecological and social loss or risk has grown less remote through the 1990s.

While many people agree with the importance of good social conditions and preservation of the environment, there are also many who disagree with the triple bottom line as the way to enhance these conditions.
Imagine that!

Some main arguments against TBL are:

• Division of labour is characteristic of rich societies and a major contributor to their wealth, leading to the view that organisations contribute most to the welfare of society in all respects when they focus on what they do best. .

• Effectiveness: It is observed that concern for social and environmental matters is rare in poor societies (a hungry person would rather eat the whale than photograph it).
Thus by unencumbered attention to business alone, Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand' will ensure that business contributes most effectively to the improvement of all areas of society, social and environmental as well as economic.

• Nationalism: Some countries adopt a nationalistic approach with the view that they must look after their own citizens first. This view is not confined to one sector of society, having support from elements of business, labour unions, and politicians.

• Libertarian: As it is possible for a socially responsible person to sincerely believe that the triple bottom line is harmful to society, the libertarian view is that it would be arrogant to force them to support a mechanism for the improvement of society that may, or may not, be the best available.

• Inertia: The difficulty of achieving global agreement on simultaneous policy may render such measures at best advisory - and thus not enforceable.

• Application: According to Fred Robin's The Challenge of TBL: A Responsibility to Whom? one of the major weaknesses of the TBL framework is its ability to be applied in a monetary-based economic system. Because there is no single way in monetary terms to measure the benefits to the society and environment as there is with profit, it does not allow for businesses to sum across all three bottom lines.

Legislation permitting corporations to adopt a triple bottom line is reportedly under consideration in some jurisdictions, including Minnesota and Oregon.
Some businesses have voluntarily adopted a triple bottom line as part of their articles of incorporation or bylaws, and some have advocated for state laws creating a "Sustainable Corporation" that would grant triple bottom line businesses benefits such as tax breaks.
-------------------------

A few years ago, a group of about 75 community leaders assembled for the purpose of hearing about the new proposed LEED Standards for Neighborhoods from its author, a Seattle architect.
The presentation was very well received, building as it did on the more limited LEED standards for single buildings, and extending the sustainability concept to entire areas.

After the presentation, each table of attendees was given the assignment of rating Bellingham's Waterfront Redevelopment Project's potential for achieving the proposed new LEED* standard.

[The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), provides a suite of standards for environmentally sustainable construction.]

The results were nothing short of astonishing!
Every table saw that the Waterfront Redevelopment had the clear potential for meeting the highest LEED Standard - Platinum!

I don't know what happened to that finding, because it is hard to find it among the things the Port has said and done since then.
Briefly, the idea did reappear when the developer of Victoria, BC's 'Dockside Green' Project came to Bellingham to explain how that undertaking had been conceived.
Fortunately, it's first phases have now achieved the highest LEED standards yet seen anywhere - 63 out of a possible 70 points!
Again, nothing but dead silence from our Port about even trying to put similar goals into practice.

Except, I do recall some claims about the Waterfront becoming a model 'green' redevelopment that would attract national and international attention, become a learning center and generate new businesses.
Such hopeful talk now seems only a fading echo, with the stance our Port has taken with advancing its 'partnership' with the City.

Hey, I know doing a big TBL project ain't easy, especially one that will require major clean-up costs, and still be over 10 times the acreage and 2 to 4 times the developed square footage of Dockside Green [a mere 15 acres].
And, I know the current economic hard times don't help either.
But, externalizing excessive costs to the City, seeking exemptions from developers for impact fees, and trying to cut corners in applying the Waterfront Futures Group Recommendations are NOT the solution!

The Port needs to change its thinking on how to go about achieving its Waterfront Redevelopment using true TBL concepts.
Thank goodness we have an opportunity to elect 2 of 3 new Port Commissioners this year!
Hopefully, a new Commission majority can then search for and find a new Executive Director with the experience and vision to get the Waterfront job done in a true TBL fashion.

I'm voting for John Blethen and Mike McAuley to replace Scott Walker and Doug Smith as Port Commissioners.
I hope you will do likewise.
----------------------------

" While an upgrade that cuts energy use in half can save one dollar per square foot in annual energy costs, it can generate more than ten dollars per square foot in new profits every year if it boosts productivity even five per cent!" - Joseph Romm

" One reason we are in so much trouble is that our modern culture is paradoxically behind the times, still assessing the world the way it did in the nineteenth or even eighteenth centuries: as a place of inexhaustible resources, where man is at the pinnacle of creation, separate from and more important than anything around him." - David Suzuki
---------------------------

• The LEED rating system currently has 6 categories:

1 - Energy & the Atmosphere - 17 points maximum

2- Water Efficiency - 5 points maximum

3- Materials & Resources - 13 points maximum

4- Indoor Air Quality [most complex] - 15 points maximum

5- Sustainable Sites [adjacencies] - 14 points maximum

6. Innovation [ideas outside the box] - 5 points maximum
-----------------------------