-------------------------
Our last Presidential election was largely won in a battle of ideas, literally about war & peace and prosperity & poverty.
Those subjects are old as history itself and important as ever, interrelated as they inevitably are.
These days, at the local level, civil discourse remains essential to achieving worthwhile ends to benefit our entire community, like the waterfront redevelopment, preservation of our drinking water reservoir, responsible growth management and the maintenance of our wonderful public amenities that so enhance the quality of life here.
But, you know, these thing haven't just happened by chance!
Neither have they come about without tremendous effort and expense.
While our national economy -and the world economy- are hurting big time, our local economy hasn't suffered quite as much, at least so far.
But the signs are ominous as municipal revenues have plummeted and have already necessitated drastic budget reductions that may well continue to be required.
That is actually quite worrisome, because soon some public amenities may have to be reduced in favor of maintaining more essential services, like police, fire and EMS.
I hope this does not happen, but we have to be aware of these possibilities.
While there are always some who prefer a bare bones city, most people prefer a good suite of amenities, like libraries, museums, theaters and a functional parks & trails system.
The problem is being able to continue paying for these things.
What can the city do to stabilize its revenues so that services do not have to be severely cut?
That seems a question that ought to be an active community discussion.
So, here goes my attempt at starting such a discussion:
Economics has been called 'the dismal science', because -well it can be pretty dismal, both to learn and to use in real time.
Many factors are unknown, hard to discern and difficult to use in any analysis that is intended to convince others of projections and conclusions.
I suspect our local economists can verify that from their own experience, especially when economic studies are used to influence public policy.
Sometimes, facts and ingrained beliefs and habits just don't mix very well.
And so it will probably be with the specific example I will use a little later, maybe in Part II.
During a prior election, the Chamber of Commerce asked candidates a few questions about what they thought the role of local government was, or should be, in stimulating the local economy.
I remember that group of questions because it was so out of the ordinary that it really forced to think hard about the answers I submitted.
I still have that questionnaire somewhere, but won't attempt at finding it because I think I remember the basic answers, which were these:
• The primary role of municipal government's support of its businesses is to provide a stable, fair and predictable set of rules and regulations that can be relied upon.
• Another role is to provide those essential services, and amenities that residents and businesses alike can count on to provide for their needs and basic enjoyment.
• Overarching the above, the local government need to consistently subscribe to the idea of fiscal responsibility and reasonable restraint, so that in good times and bad, services are reliably maintained.
That's about it, but think about what this really means.
Folks, these things aren't that easy, especially when bad times hit suddenly!
But, Bellingham has some characteristics that seem to insulate it somewhat from the radical fluctuations seen some other places, many of which have attained a reputation for being 'business friendly'.
For one thing, something like 5 or 6 of the top 10 employers here are institutions, like WWU, the school districts, St Joseph's Hospital and the 2 biggest local governments.
That alone provides a measure of stability for employment that private enterprises sometimes have difficulty approaching.
Also, there are many smaller businesses that have loyal customers, especially since our 'Buy Local' campaign has galvanized such interest.
And, as a regional center, the mall and surrounding Big Box stores provide a steady influx of customers that greatly add to government revenues.
That is a fact whether one prefers malls and Big Boxes or not!
Just look at the revenue figures available from the City Finance Director if you don't believe me.
Anyway, the point is our local economy is what it is and apart from another building boom -not likely - it is not likely to change dramatically anytime soon.
At least let's hope it doesn't, because a big shift could easily be a negative one.
That would not be helpful to anyone.
So, what do we do to help the situation, besides hoping and praying?
I think getting a little more serious about the three essential functions of local government, listed above, can help.
That is because businesses are no different from any resident in their desire to have stability, fairness and predictability to rely upon.
Folks, business -or 'bidness'- is not inherently bad!
It has been and continues to be the engine that fuels our entire economy, especially including jobs that provide income for families.
Local government and institutions do pay relatively good wages and benefits, but they get most of their revenues from businesses, property owners and consumers.
Only the Federal government can legally print money, and they haven't always used that privilege very well either!
So, this will serve as an introduction to a new topic, and one I will spend some time in researching more.
I hope readers find this discussion timely, interesting and maybe even a little entertaining.
So, please stay tuned for the next episode -exciting or not.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Eschewing Obfuscation & Espousing Elucidation
---------------
Please pardon the title, which is intended as a mild spoof of an e-mail which invites recipients to view another blog piece, entitled 'Greenways III: Policy and Practice Disaster'.
This e-mail, from Barbara Ryan on the subject of:'Chuckanut Ridge Exigesis', invites comments, and calls the GW3 the most divisive issue in her eleven years on the Council.
And, as she avers 'there are many lessons to be learned'.
I certainly do agree with that statement!
But first, why use an unusual word like 'exigesis'?
I had to look it up.
After doing that, I wondered why the word 'hermeneutics' wasn't used instead, because it seems have a somewhat wider -and less Biblical- sounding application.
But I digress.
Instead, the below is offered:
--------------------------
From Wikipedia:
▪ "Eschew obfuscation", also stated as "eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation", is a common humorous saying of English teachers and professors when lecturing about proper writing techniques.
▪ Literally, the phrase means "avoid ambiguity, adopt clarity", but the use of relatively uncommon words causes confusion, making the phrase an example of irony, and more precisely a heterological or hypocritical phrase (it does not embody its own advice).
▪ The phrase has appeared in print at least as early as 1959, when it was used as a section heading in a NASA document.
▪ An earlier similar phrase appears in Mark Twain's Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses, where he lists rule fourteen of good writing as "eschew surplusage".
--------------------------
On a issue as hotly debated as GREENWAYS why not make the discussion as simple to understand and fact-based as possible?
I know that different people subscribe to different definitions and versions of 'facts', but we should all be able to agree on what is simple to understand and is reasonably verifiable.
With this in mind, let me share what I think might have been -or should have been- some 'lessons learned':
1. Always be truthful, because that way individuals -and the public- can remember not only what was said, but the context of it, as well as likely results.
2. Avoid unnecessarily taking firm sides too early in a public discussion, especially one that will eventually require the broad consensus of the community, and may involve the 'earmarking' public funds.
3. Respect -in word and deed- the concepts of transparency and fairness, particularly when tempted or pressured to make any back-room deals with constituents. Do not consciously avoid openness!
4. Rather than reaching questionable -or even illegal- agreements outside of public meetings, rely instead upon clearly stated goals and not verbal -or 'fine print'- nuances which so often can lead to problematic misunderstandings.
5. Always strive for a Council consensus that can last and unite, not forced simple and divisive majorities, especially on matters of wide community interest and scarce voluntary funding.
That's about it for me, but others may have other ideas.
--------------------
Now, a brief comment on the aforementioned other blog entry:
• Most of the history and interpretations therein appear to be accurate, although the article is by no means comprehensive.
There are significant gaps, either dictated by space & time limitations, or by design, or ignorance.
• The statement that I had nothing to do with the idea of freeing up an additional $2million for acquisition purposes is NOT accurate, and I invite the author to reconsider this particular statement.
• The comments on omission of clear language from the legislation authorizing the GW3 levy strain any serious attempt at logic, and are patently incorrect. One can try to reconstruct history -which can be healthy- but revisionism is a different matter!
• I don't believe for one moment that former Councilor Beardsley was 'bullied' into anything. That statement simply demeans her independent spirit, her astounding logical and intellectual abilities, and most of all, her personal integrity.
• Then, this interesting statement:
I don't believe these concerns necessarily need to be focused on any one group, especially so-called CR OPPONENTS! Look into the mirror before making such comments if you intend to be taken seriously!
• Finally, regarding this statement:
The Greenways Strategic Plan is something the Council requested be done following passage of the levy.
It has taken over 2 years for these carefully considered RECOMMENDATIONS to come forward.
They are not decisions, because those are made exclusively by the Council and no one else.
The fact that the number '$8 million' does not appear in any one place ought to be instructive.
What it probably means is there are other competing priorities for the guaranteed $6 million in south-side property acquisition money.
It is easier to understand the author's attitude on this when one takes into account her single minded focus on Chuckanut Ridge, but, wouldn't it be great if none of this money would need to be spent on CR?
Think about it.
The City will likely obtain 40+ acres of the 85 total for NOTHING after issuance of the developer's DEIS.
Any additional land needed for public right of way can likely be procured for less than $4, or maybe even $2 million,
unless, of course, there is yet another secret back-room deal in existence.
• No one I know is totally opposed to acquiring a reasonable portion of CR for the public good.
And, the author is certainly correct that whoever comprises the Council at the time any CR acquisition proposal is offered will determine that outcome.
So, why the attempt at forcing the issue now?
Is there some deadline looming that the author fears, or doesn't she trust future Councils to do the right thing?
There is more wisdom in a calmer approach now, and certainly one that doesn't try to intentionally inflame old animosities.
The author is correct that GW3 is one of the -maybe the most- divisive issues of the last decade or so.
But, she also needs to examine closely the role she, herself, has played in making that statement true!
After all, what goes around does come around....
-------------------
This will -likely- end my commenting upon this particular subject, because I believe enough has now been said by me publicly, and I have some other personal priorities.
For those offended by my rather forceful and pointed comments, I do apologize for your your discomfort.
But, I am not one to remain silent when I feel things need to be said, or when I do also happen to be knowledgeable on an issue.
It is unfortunate that my relationship with the author, and the other Council Members in question, have come to this state of hard feelings.
Earlier in our respective, local political careers, we seemed to agree on much more than we disagared upon.
And, we were able to achieve some great things that have the prospect of enduring to the benefit of future generations of citizens.
Just to name a few:
The Silver Beach Ordinance, for example, and the Watershed Preservation & Acquisition Ordinance.
Pipe Line Safety reform, on a national and state level.
Enhanced public access to local government meetings.
Budgetary reform, of which more is desirable.
Charter review and revision.
Land use planning policies, including annexation requirements before extending water & sewer utilities.
Transportation policies, and implementation thereof.
Why not remember these significant successes instead of focusing on GW3's problems?
Actually, the fact that a $44 million GW3 levy was PASSED ought to be a wonderful cause for celebration!
But, as a Buddhist philosopher might say, 'your own mother will become your worst enemy'.
That seems a little extreme, but also directionally accurate.
At any rate, I wish the Councillors with whom I have served nothing but the best, despite any differences we might have had.
If I had to do it all over again, I would, but maybe with a little more forbearance than before, but one never knows.
This business of politics doesn't require a lot of training or qualifications.
What one learns, one learns on the job, for the most part.
I hope this piece helps to "eschew obfuscation and espouse elucidation", and not the opposite.
But, one can only hope that will happen.
--------------------
Please pardon the title, which is intended as a mild spoof of an e-mail which invites recipients to view another blog piece, entitled 'Greenways III: Policy and Practice Disaster'.
This e-mail, from Barbara Ryan on the subject of:'Chuckanut Ridge Exigesis', invites comments, and calls the GW3 the most divisive issue in her eleven years on the Council.
And, as she avers 'there are many lessons to be learned'.
I certainly do agree with that statement!
But first, why use an unusual word like 'exigesis'?
I had to look it up.
After doing that, I wondered why the word 'hermeneutics' wasn't used instead, because it seems have a somewhat wider -and less Biblical- sounding application.
But I digress.
Instead, the below is offered:
--------------------------
From Wikipedia:
▪ "Eschew obfuscation", also stated as "eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation", is a common humorous saying of English teachers and professors when lecturing about proper writing techniques.
▪ Literally, the phrase means "avoid ambiguity, adopt clarity", but the use of relatively uncommon words causes confusion, making the phrase an example of irony, and more precisely a heterological or hypocritical phrase (it does not embody its own advice).
▪ The phrase has appeared in print at least as early as 1959, when it was used as a section heading in a NASA document.
▪ An earlier similar phrase appears in Mark Twain's Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses, where he lists rule fourteen of good writing as "eschew surplusage".
--------------------------
On a issue as hotly debated as GREENWAYS why not make the discussion as simple to understand and fact-based as possible?
I know that different people subscribe to different definitions and versions of 'facts', but we should all be able to agree on what is simple to understand and is reasonably verifiable.
With this in mind, let me share what I think might have been -or should have been- some 'lessons learned':
1. Always be truthful, because that way individuals -and the public- can remember not only what was said, but the context of it, as well as likely results.
2. Avoid unnecessarily taking firm sides too early in a public discussion, especially one that will eventually require the broad consensus of the community, and may involve the 'earmarking' public funds.
3. Respect -in word and deed- the concepts of transparency and fairness, particularly when tempted or pressured to make any back-room deals with constituents. Do not consciously avoid openness!
4. Rather than reaching questionable -or even illegal- agreements outside of public meetings, rely instead upon clearly stated goals and not verbal -or 'fine print'- nuances which so often can lead to problematic misunderstandings.
5. Always strive for a Council consensus that can last and unite, not forced simple and divisive majorities, especially on matters of wide community interest and scarce voluntary funding.
That's about it for me, but others may have other ideas.
--------------------
Now, a brief comment on the aforementioned other blog entry:
• Most of the history and interpretations therein appear to be accurate, although the article is by no means comprehensive.
There are significant gaps, either dictated by space & time limitations, or by design, or ignorance.
• The statement that I had nothing to do with the idea of freeing up an additional $2million for acquisition purposes is NOT accurate, and I invite the author to reconsider this particular statement.
• The comments on omission of clear language from the legislation authorizing the GW3 levy strain any serious attempt at logic, and are patently incorrect. One can try to reconstruct history -which can be healthy- but revisionism is a different matter!
• I don't believe for one moment that former Councilor Beardsley was 'bullied' into anything. That statement simply demeans her independent spirit, her astounding logical and intellectual abilities, and most of all, her personal integrity.
• Then, this interesting statement:
'What concerns us most is the question that Chuckanut Ridge opponents have sown about their government and this process. The secretive property acquisition process itself is rife for these accusations. These are among the very few discussions that can be held in Executive Session, without public scrutiny. In order to continue to set aside land for parks and open spaces, some confidentiality must be maintained.'
I don't believe these concerns necessarily need to be focused on any one group, especially so-called CR OPPONENTS! Look into the mirror before making such comments if you intend to be taken seriously!
• Finally, regarding this statement:
'On January 12, the Greenways and Parks Boards decided that no more than $4 million of the $44 million levy should be spent on the Fairhaven Highlands property, known as Chuckanut Ridge. They made their recommendation public, for the first time, in the Council packet published Thursday, January 8'.
The Greenways Strategic Plan is something the Council requested be done following passage of the levy.
It has taken over 2 years for these carefully considered RECOMMENDATIONS to come forward.
They are not decisions, because those are made exclusively by the Council and no one else.
The fact that the number '$8 million' does not appear in any one place ought to be instructive.
What it probably means is there are other competing priorities for the guaranteed $6 million in south-side property acquisition money.
It is easier to understand the author's attitude on this when one takes into account her single minded focus on Chuckanut Ridge, but, wouldn't it be great if none of this money would need to be spent on CR?
Think about it.
The City will likely obtain 40+ acres of the 85 total for NOTHING after issuance of the developer's DEIS.
Any additional land needed for public right of way can likely be procured for less than $4, or maybe even $2 million,
unless, of course, there is yet another secret back-room deal in existence.
• No one I know is totally opposed to acquiring a reasonable portion of CR for the public good.
And, the author is certainly correct that whoever comprises the Council at the time any CR acquisition proposal is offered will determine that outcome.
So, why the attempt at forcing the issue now?
Is there some deadline looming that the author fears, or doesn't she trust future Councils to do the right thing?
There is more wisdom in a calmer approach now, and certainly one that doesn't try to intentionally inflame old animosities.
The author is correct that GW3 is one of the -maybe the most- divisive issues of the last decade or so.
But, she also needs to examine closely the role she, herself, has played in making that statement true!
After all, what goes around does come around....
-------------------
This will -likely- end my commenting upon this particular subject, because I believe enough has now been said by me publicly, and I have some other personal priorities.
For those offended by my rather forceful and pointed comments, I do apologize for your your discomfort.
But, I am not one to remain silent when I feel things need to be said, or when I do also happen to be knowledgeable on an issue.
It is unfortunate that my relationship with the author, and the other Council Members in question, have come to this state of hard feelings.
Earlier in our respective, local political careers, we seemed to agree on much more than we disagared upon.
And, we were able to achieve some great things that have the prospect of enduring to the benefit of future generations of citizens.
Just to name a few:
The Silver Beach Ordinance, for example, and the Watershed Preservation & Acquisition Ordinance.
Pipe Line Safety reform, on a national and state level.
Enhanced public access to local government meetings.
Budgetary reform, of which more is desirable.
Charter review and revision.
Land use planning policies, including annexation requirements before extending water & sewer utilities.
Transportation policies, and implementation thereof.
Why not remember these significant successes instead of focusing on GW3's problems?
Actually, the fact that a $44 million GW3 levy was PASSED ought to be a wonderful cause for celebration!
But, as a Buddhist philosopher might say, 'your own mother will become your worst enemy'.
That seems a little extreme, but also directionally accurate.
At any rate, I wish the Councillors with whom I have served nothing but the best, despite any differences we might have had.
If I had to do it all over again, I would, but maybe with a little more forbearance than before, but one never knows.
This business of politics doesn't require a lot of training or qualifications.
What one learns, one learns on the job, for the most part.
I hope this piece helps to "eschew obfuscation and espouse elucidation", and not the opposite.
But, one can only hope that will happen.
--------------------
Friday, February 27, 2009
A Remarkable Week
------------
Every week has its own flavor of remarkable events, whether political or otherwise.
This week has been no exception, with 2 major speeches from our new President.
The address to a joint session of Congress was an unqualified success that served to inspire, define policy and set new goals and directions.
Of special note is that for the first time, the costs of war in Iraq and Afghanistan were actually included in the budget!
That is a very good start, because if we can't even understand our obligations, how can we possibly gain control over them?
On such a difficult and daunting subject, that President Obama was able to show such leadership bodes well for our country.
But, this is just the beginning and many battles remain to get from where we are to where we want to be.
Not the least of these battles will be over spending priorities, and resistance from Democrats will likely be every bit as strong as that coming from the Republicans.
I wish the President well in exerting more discipline in federal spending, because that is an area that legislators, bureaucrats and other power brokers will not easily give up control.
The President's address about the Iraq war at Camp LeJeune was yet another unqualified success that seemed to rally our troops in a way they must have been hungry to hear.
It seems that most Americans are quite willing to let our volunteer military personnel bear the complete brunt of brutal conflict and tough assignments.
Meantime, we take it for granted that all we need to do is let others do this hard job, while we continue to live lives of ease and pursuit of comfort.
Time will tell how these twin speeches become manifest in our national policy and influence our financial recovery, but they are a good start in the right direction.
Suffice to say, I took great pleasure in hearing our President's well-considered new direction, which most assuredly are ambitious but necessary.
---------------
A few years ago, the City sponsored a training course designed to help focus on and achieve worthwhile goals.
It was called the 'Systematic Development of Informed Consent', a course developed and taught by an older couple named Bleiker.
The lessons of this methodology are valuable, based as they are on real life examples.
Without going into too much detail, a simple, 4-step 'Bleiker Life Preserver' summarizes the essential parts of the method;
1. A serious problem exists which requires immediate action to address it.
2. It is our job to address this problem and bring it to satisfactory resolution as soon as practicable.
3. Our plans will be developed carefully and reasonably and then be presented clearly before implementation.
4. In developing these plans, we will listen to people's concerns, because we do care and value their input.
Pretty simple, huh?
Not necessarily, because no problem is ever easy to solve.
But, at least this method is an honest and inclusive one that enhances the chances of success to stated goals.
I think this is similar to the process being proposed by our President on matters of great national concern.
Let's all wish him well, whether we agree with every detail or not.
That is what it will take to extract ourselves from the gridlock we are in now.
There is only one way we can go from here, and that is up, so why not climb as high as possible?
Every week has its own flavor of remarkable events, whether political or otherwise.
This week has been no exception, with 2 major speeches from our new President.
The address to a joint session of Congress was an unqualified success that served to inspire, define policy and set new goals and directions.
Of special note is that for the first time, the costs of war in Iraq and Afghanistan were actually included in the budget!
That is a very good start, because if we can't even understand our obligations, how can we possibly gain control over them?
On such a difficult and daunting subject, that President Obama was able to show such leadership bodes well for our country.
But, this is just the beginning and many battles remain to get from where we are to where we want to be.
Not the least of these battles will be over spending priorities, and resistance from Democrats will likely be every bit as strong as that coming from the Republicans.
I wish the President well in exerting more discipline in federal spending, because that is an area that legislators, bureaucrats and other power brokers will not easily give up control.
The President's address about the Iraq war at Camp LeJeune was yet another unqualified success that seemed to rally our troops in a way they must have been hungry to hear.
It seems that most Americans are quite willing to let our volunteer military personnel bear the complete brunt of brutal conflict and tough assignments.
Meantime, we take it for granted that all we need to do is let others do this hard job, while we continue to live lives of ease and pursuit of comfort.
Time will tell how these twin speeches become manifest in our national policy and influence our financial recovery, but they are a good start in the right direction.
Suffice to say, I took great pleasure in hearing our President's well-considered new direction, which most assuredly are ambitious but necessary.
---------------
A few years ago, the City sponsored a training course designed to help focus on and achieve worthwhile goals.
It was called the 'Systematic Development of Informed Consent', a course developed and taught by an older couple named Bleiker.
The lessons of this methodology are valuable, based as they are on real life examples.
Without going into too much detail, a simple, 4-step 'Bleiker Life Preserver' summarizes the essential parts of the method;
1. A serious problem exists which requires immediate action to address it.
2. It is our job to address this problem and bring it to satisfactory resolution as soon as practicable.
3. Our plans will be developed carefully and reasonably and then be presented clearly before implementation.
4. In developing these plans, we will listen to people's concerns, because we do care and value their input.
Pretty simple, huh?
Not necessarily, because no problem is ever easy to solve.
But, at least this method is an honest and inclusive one that enhances the chances of success to stated goals.
I think this is similar to the process being proposed by our President on matters of great national concern.
Let's all wish him well, whether we agree with every detail or not.
That is what it will take to extract ourselves from the gridlock we are in now.
There is only one way we can go from here, and that is up, so why not climb as high as possible?
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Greenways: Lies, Damn Lies & Plain Levy Language
--------------
I must say that I got incensed all over again last Saturday when a friend confirmed a recent public admission made by Gene Knutson that he had -after 3 years of denial - actually agreed to collude with 3 other Council members to spend $8 million of Greenways funds on that pricy and dicy piece of real estate known as Chuckanut Ridge.
Are you kidding me Gene?
Please say it isn't so!
But then, who'd believe you now?
It is going to take much more than a gratuitous admission of lying, or an apology to the public to put this wrong right!
For starters, how about a public statement that you will henceforth recuse yourself from voting on any Greenways measure or proposal that directly impacts the south side of Bellingham.
Then, follow that up by announcing you will not be seeking re-election.
That ought to do it, at least as far as the public is concerned, but maybe not your own credibility.
I'm sorry to sound so harsh in condemning the lie you have kept silent for so long, but how else can it be truly corrected?
---------------
Like a lot of things, the roots to my concern go back a ways.
I always liked Gene despite some differences, because he is a likable person.
I know Gene got really frustrated at me sometimes, either because of my penchant for examining the pros and cons of issues too thoroughly for his liking, or by simple differences in opinion or style.
That's OK, because legislative debate is healthy.
I got exasperated with Gene at times because of his habit of always seeming to test the political winds before casting a hard vote.
And, I don't remember many -maybe any- occasions in which Gene supported tax or rate increases without the need for a public vote.
Yet, once funds were made available, he was glad to spend them, even from rainy day funds or reserves.
But, these types of differences are as normal as treating complicated things as simple and making hasty, uninformed decisions.
Hey, no one ever said that being a good elected representative ought to be easy!
And, if they did, I didn't buy it.
---------------
One moment in time that I remember so well happened back when the Council was trying to name an Interim Mayor to replace the suddenly departed Mayor Mark Asmundson.
Gene wanted that job badly and campaigned for it vigorously.
But, much to his embarrassment, he was unable to garner the 4 votes -including his own- to win that appointment, which instead went to former Mayor Tim Douglas.
Right after that vote, Gene, who was Council President, called a short recess.
He came up to me and said that he wanted me to know that I was the only Council member who had not lied to him that week.
What a remarkable observation!
I think that whatever lies Gene had heard that week, did hurt him deeply.
But, being a grown-up who loves serving in public office in his home town, Gene endured.
And I'm glad he did, at least until the moment he decided to lie himself about Chuckanut Ridge.
--------------------
The second defining moment in time came as the Council was desperately trying to reach agreement on a third Greenways ballot measure, in time for the ballot.
Because of the considerable heated differences between the two competing Greenways proposals, attempts at any sort of unanimously supported measure seemed slim to none.
Such stalemates leave little room for maneuver, often leading to a take it or leave it vote, or worse, nothing at all.
Fortunately, a compromise ballot proposal was reached, thanks largely to the efforts of Joan Beardsley, who facilitated a meeting between Barbara Ryan and me that produced a measure that Council immediately approved unanimously.
This measure went to the voters, who in turn approved it by 59%, thereby voluntarily taxing themselves for what they believed was a good cause to benefit our entire community.
What a relief!
A true 'win-win-win' solution, or so I and many others believed!
-------------------------
Now fast forward a bit;
The late Councillor Joan Beardsley made a remarkable admission during a public meeting of the Greenways Advisory Committee.
Beardsley stated that she and 3 other Council members HAD ALREADY COMMITTED to vote $8 million for Chuckanut Ridge, before the ballot was passed!
Although she later retracted her statement, the damage was done.
Barbara Ryan openly admitted there had been an agreement reached with south side supporters to that effect.
The two other Council members implicated -Messrs Bornemann and Knutson - denied they had done any such thing!
Who was lying?
There is no proof, of course, at least at the time, so what to do?
Wait and see.
Now comes Mr Knutson with his confession. [Note Bornemann remains strangely silent, but watch what he does]
This year, Both Ryan and Bornemann volunteered for the Parks & Recreation Committee, where they hope to mount a last-ditch stand to rescue their pet Greenways acquisition, Chuckanut Ridge.
Already, they have delayed adoption of the South Side portion of the Greenways Strategic Plan, in hopes that somehow, someway, they can finagle more money for Chuckanut Ridge!
Now, that is truly remarkable!
And sad.
Barbara & Terry will likely fail in these efforts, as they richly deserve to do.
But, hope springs eternal with Gene Knutson's new memory.
Gene, wants to please every one, but he risks pleasing no one if he continues to support his previous collusion with Barbara & Terry.
And, Gene does love Greenways, Bellingham and being in office as long as possible!
There is no denying any of those things.
I would not be surprised if Gene thought he could still become a hero on acquiring Chuckanut Ridge
After all, Barbara's attempt at promoting the so-called 'Knutson Kompromise' was a brazen, if clumsy, attempt to involve his ego in this nefarious collusion.
And, it nearly worked!
That is why Gene Knutson needs to step away from this sorry business and re-establish his own credibility!
-----------------
As the title promises,
"lies' were the fictions pre-sold to wild-eyed southside Chuckanut Ridge advocates, who will not be mollified if these are not delivered.
'damn lies' refer to those foisted upon the voting public in a deception of truly troubling proportions.
'plain levy language' means just that; what the public was told, what they believe and what they voted for.
You tell me which of these three concepts deserve to be sustained, and which need to be severely dealt with!
Do the right thing, Gene, and recuse yourself from these stupid shenanigans!
If you'll do that, I might even vote for you again.
Of course, there may be no choice, unless you voluntarily take a break from local politics.
Such is the power of incumbency in little ole Bellingham.
Hey, you 2nd Ward folks; isn't there someone out there who is willing to run for this important office, and treat it as such?
-----------------------------
I must say that I got incensed all over again last Saturday when a friend confirmed a recent public admission made by Gene Knutson that he had -after 3 years of denial - actually agreed to collude with 3 other Council members to spend $8 million of Greenways funds on that pricy and dicy piece of real estate known as Chuckanut Ridge.
Are you kidding me Gene?
Please say it isn't so!
But then, who'd believe you now?
It is going to take much more than a gratuitous admission of lying, or an apology to the public to put this wrong right!
For starters, how about a public statement that you will henceforth recuse yourself from voting on any Greenways measure or proposal that directly impacts the south side of Bellingham.
Then, follow that up by announcing you will not be seeking re-election.
That ought to do it, at least as far as the public is concerned, but maybe not your own credibility.
I'm sorry to sound so harsh in condemning the lie you have kept silent for so long, but how else can it be truly corrected?
---------------
Like a lot of things, the roots to my concern go back a ways.
I always liked Gene despite some differences, because he is a likable person.
I know Gene got really frustrated at me sometimes, either because of my penchant for examining the pros and cons of issues too thoroughly for his liking, or by simple differences in opinion or style.
That's OK, because legislative debate is healthy.
I got exasperated with Gene at times because of his habit of always seeming to test the political winds before casting a hard vote.
And, I don't remember many -maybe any- occasions in which Gene supported tax or rate increases without the need for a public vote.
Yet, once funds were made available, he was glad to spend them, even from rainy day funds or reserves.
But, these types of differences are as normal as treating complicated things as simple and making hasty, uninformed decisions.
Hey, no one ever said that being a good elected representative ought to be easy!
And, if they did, I didn't buy it.
---------------
One moment in time that I remember so well happened back when the Council was trying to name an Interim Mayor to replace the suddenly departed Mayor Mark Asmundson.
Gene wanted that job badly and campaigned for it vigorously.
But, much to his embarrassment, he was unable to garner the 4 votes -including his own- to win that appointment, which instead went to former Mayor Tim Douglas.
Right after that vote, Gene, who was Council President, called a short recess.
He came up to me and said that he wanted me to know that I was the only Council member who had not lied to him that week.
What a remarkable observation!
I think that whatever lies Gene had heard that week, did hurt him deeply.
But, being a grown-up who loves serving in public office in his home town, Gene endured.
And I'm glad he did, at least until the moment he decided to lie himself about Chuckanut Ridge.
--------------------
The second defining moment in time came as the Council was desperately trying to reach agreement on a third Greenways ballot measure, in time for the ballot.
Because of the considerable heated differences between the two competing Greenways proposals, attempts at any sort of unanimously supported measure seemed slim to none.
Such stalemates leave little room for maneuver, often leading to a take it or leave it vote, or worse, nothing at all.
Fortunately, a compromise ballot proposal was reached, thanks largely to the efforts of Joan Beardsley, who facilitated a meeting between Barbara Ryan and me that produced a measure that Council immediately approved unanimously.
This measure went to the voters, who in turn approved it by 59%, thereby voluntarily taxing themselves for what they believed was a good cause to benefit our entire community.
What a relief!
A true 'win-win-win' solution, or so I and many others believed!
-------------------------
Now fast forward a bit;
The late Councillor Joan Beardsley made a remarkable admission during a public meeting of the Greenways Advisory Committee.
Beardsley stated that she and 3 other Council members HAD ALREADY COMMITTED to vote $8 million for Chuckanut Ridge, before the ballot was passed!
Although she later retracted her statement, the damage was done.
Barbara Ryan openly admitted there had been an agreement reached with south side supporters to that effect.
The two other Council members implicated -Messrs Bornemann and Knutson - denied they had done any such thing!
Who was lying?
There is no proof, of course, at least at the time, so what to do?
Wait and see.
Now comes Mr Knutson with his confession. [Note Bornemann remains strangely silent, but watch what he does]
This year, Both Ryan and Bornemann volunteered for the Parks & Recreation Committee, where they hope to mount a last-ditch stand to rescue their pet Greenways acquisition, Chuckanut Ridge.
Already, they have delayed adoption of the South Side portion of the Greenways Strategic Plan, in hopes that somehow, someway, they can finagle more money for Chuckanut Ridge!
Now, that is truly remarkable!
And sad.
Barbara & Terry will likely fail in these efforts, as they richly deserve to do.
But, hope springs eternal with Gene Knutson's new memory.
Gene, wants to please every one, but he risks pleasing no one if he continues to support his previous collusion with Barbara & Terry.
And, Gene does love Greenways, Bellingham and being in office as long as possible!
There is no denying any of those things.
I would not be surprised if Gene thought he could still become a hero on acquiring Chuckanut Ridge
After all, Barbara's attempt at promoting the so-called 'Knutson Kompromise' was a brazen, if clumsy, attempt to involve his ego in this nefarious collusion.
And, it nearly worked!
That is why Gene Knutson needs to step away from this sorry business and re-establish his own credibility!
-----------------
As the title promises,
"lies' were the fictions pre-sold to wild-eyed southside Chuckanut Ridge advocates, who will not be mollified if these are not delivered.
'damn lies' refer to those foisted upon the voting public in a deception of truly troubling proportions.
'plain levy language' means just that; what the public was told, what they believe and what they voted for.
You tell me which of these three concepts deserve to be sustained, and which need to be severely dealt with!
Do the right thing, Gene, and recuse yourself from these stupid shenanigans!
If you'll do that, I might even vote for you again.
Of course, there may be no choice, unless you voluntarily take a break from local politics.
Such is the power of incumbency in little ole Bellingham.
Hey, you 2nd Ward folks; isn't there someone out there who is willing to run for this important office, and treat it as such?
-----------------------------
Sunday, February 22, 2009
America: A Place You Can Rant!
Is this a great country or what?
Folks can rant over whatever they want with relative impunity.
Hey, it's our right, isn't it?
Now, even a two-bit wall street TV personality, with a penchant for ranting has created what may be his 15 minutes of fame, as Andy Warhol might say.
In a selfish tirade about imagined injustice to himself, this particular ranter chose to zero in on the home foreclosure rescue plan, saying he didn't want to pay for his neighbor's supposed advantage in maybe qualifying for a home loan renegotiation.
Huh?
Some neighborliness!
Who wants a neighbor like that?
While this particular rant does resonate among many who have been more prudent or fortunate, its very mean spiritedness undermines what its message may be.
It's too bad that political demagogues actually rise to echo this rant because that is not helpful to the home loan rescue plan's success, or its perceived chances for success - which at this stage is just as important.
I suspect White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs may have been right when he opined this particular ranter had not bothered to even read what he was ranting about.
And, the offer to help him through the plain language of the measure was accompanied by an offer of a cup of coffee - decaf.
That last element is instructive in analyzing many tirades that come to be called rants.
That is because they often contain equal parts of ignorance and emotion.
But, you know, our democracy is actually built for this kind of abuse and questioning, ironically because of the very wide-spread publicity it attracts.
A moderating effect usually transpires as calmer heads evaluate such rants and relegate them to whatever recycle bin is appropriate.
During times of such dire national concern it is a comfort to know that most Americans remain the caring human beings they are and have always been!
Lord knows, I've had a rant or two myself, and sometimes it does help to let off steam on some matter of frustration.
But, to do that kind of rant in what amounts to hollering 'fire' in a crowded building, seems mainly irresponsible and reprehensible.
I hope our society evaluates this particular rant that way, because that is richly deserved!
Certainly, this ranter should not benefit from his 15 minutes of fame, and thereby encourage other such stupid -but legal- acts.
But, who knows what evil lies in the heart of men/
Only the Shadow knows.
Folks can rant over whatever they want with relative impunity.
Hey, it's our right, isn't it?
Now, even a two-bit wall street TV personality, with a penchant for ranting has created what may be his 15 minutes of fame, as Andy Warhol might say.
In a selfish tirade about imagined injustice to himself, this particular ranter chose to zero in on the home foreclosure rescue plan, saying he didn't want to pay for his neighbor's supposed advantage in maybe qualifying for a home loan renegotiation.
Huh?
Some neighborliness!
Who wants a neighbor like that?
While this particular rant does resonate among many who have been more prudent or fortunate, its very mean spiritedness undermines what its message may be.
It's too bad that political demagogues actually rise to echo this rant because that is not helpful to the home loan rescue plan's success, or its perceived chances for success - which at this stage is just as important.
I suspect White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs may have been right when he opined this particular ranter had not bothered to even read what he was ranting about.
And, the offer to help him through the plain language of the measure was accompanied by an offer of a cup of coffee - decaf.
That last element is instructive in analyzing many tirades that come to be called rants.
That is because they often contain equal parts of ignorance and emotion.
But, you know, our democracy is actually built for this kind of abuse and questioning, ironically because of the very wide-spread publicity it attracts.
A moderating effect usually transpires as calmer heads evaluate such rants and relegate them to whatever recycle bin is appropriate.
During times of such dire national concern it is a comfort to know that most Americans remain the caring human beings they are and have always been!
Lord knows, I've had a rant or two myself, and sometimes it does help to let off steam on some matter of frustration.
But, to do that kind of rant in what amounts to hollering 'fire' in a crowded building, seems mainly irresponsible and reprehensible.
I hope our society evaluates this particular rant that way, because that is richly deserved!
Certainly, this ranter should not benefit from his 15 minutes of fame, and thereby encourage other such stupid -but legal- acts.
But, who knows what evil lies in the heart of men/
Only the Shadow knows.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Gristle: Excellent GMA Article
---------------
I think Tim Johnson's take is one of the best I've seen.
It argues to the heart of the matter of land use planning, illustrates bad things that have happened because of poor past policy, and does all of this succinctly and clearly..
Of course there are always some who will disagree, so I will merely reprint this Gristle with the author's permission, so that others may read it for themselves.
-------------------
Wednesday, Feb 18, 20009
The Gristle: Exurbia
EXURBIA: The syllogism underlying the hot debate on population growth euphemized as Whatcom 2031 goes something like this: The public is compelled to pay some portion—by way of infrastructure (roads, etc.) and costly, ongoing support services (police, etc.)—for growth that is lawfully authorized. The public in general doesn’t care to fund any expansion of these costly services (and, moreover, vehemently dislikes the impacts of growth). Therefore, the smallest amount of growth that is lawful should be authorized.
The Gristle won’t debate the wisdom or appeal of this logic, except to note that, at some level, it misses the point. The point of forecasting population growth is (or should be) to best prepare the community for what is likely to occur.
Set the growth forecast large, and you do compel the unwilling public to pay large; set the forecast small, and you may fail to best plan the places where, and the densities at which, larger numbers might reasonably go. Here we enter the sunlight of informed land use policy.
Alas, actual population growth is not entirely ours alone to know—people elsewhere are mobile and able to move here to the extent of their interests and means. Our distant forecasts neither encourage nor discourage their interests; and we must expect that whatever forces drew us to Cascadia by turns in the numbers in which we arrived will continue to operate similarly on others.
Population forecasts therefore inform but are no substitute for effective land use policy.
Dick Morrill, emeritus professor of geography at the University of Washington and an expert in urban demography, observed recently that the population of the Pacific Northwest has quadrupled since 1950, a bursting expansion unseen elsewhere in the United States in the same period.
“The pattern of growth 2000-2009 is the same as from 1990-2000, overwhelmingly suburban,” Morrill writes.
“These 50 years of expansion are viewed by critics as classic ‘urban sprawl,’ but this is not mainly true,” Morrill cautions. “Rather it has mostly been urban growth necessary to accommodate a population four times as large, another 2.3 million people. Perhaps surprising to some, the average density, which did decline from 1950 to 1970, in the postwar suburban boom, has risen over the last 30 years.”
Ever the laggard, Bellingham continues to off-gas some of the lowest urban densities in Western Washington, fueled less—the Gristle’ll argue—by what we’ve planned than by forces we’ve ignored. Whatcom growth bounds past the suburbs to favor disconnected, widely separated development clusters requiring endless and costly support services.
Perhaps the most distressing piece of information from the Whatcom 2031 process is that while growth has lagged projection targets in the county’s urban centers and designated urban growth areas, it has exploded in the county’s incorporated rural areas, mushrooming more than 20 percent over the past two decades, four times the rate anticipated—the very definition of unplanned, unsupported, unconnected leap-frog development. We’ve lost an average of 1,200 ag land acres per year over the same period, the most egregious loss of agricultural capacity in Western Washington. What the community wished to preserve, we’re quickly losing.
This is exurbia at its most absurd; and the Gristle will argue it occurred not because we did not understand all-too-well that it might, but because the land use policy intended to address it was either ineffective or in some cases outright sabotaged. Now Bellingham neighborhoods begin to gird themselves for a protracted rebellion against COB’s toolkit to create urban densities, released last week—a struggle that may only exacerbate exurbia.
The situation is positively perverse.
Planners understand, all-too-well, the tools for land use reform. For the county, the biggest reform arrives from downzones (actually a restoration—a reset, if you will—of rural zoning as it existed before a County Council of knife-fighting, bomb-throwing property rightistas decided to repurpose our ag lands in the early ’90s). This would restore thousands of acres to original rural character.
Next, impact fees that not only help pay for required infrastructure and essential services, but help equalize the costs of development so that it is no longer cheaper to build in the county than in the cities. Perverse incentives in land use might then recede.
From a developer’s perspective, why suffer the restrictions of the cities when the county offers none? With these reforms in place, you’ll begin to see the infill and density strategies proposed for Whatcom’s urban centers begin to pencil as they should.
To this we’ll add Whatcom needs to effectively challenge—perhaps as a class-action with other Western Washington counties—the state’s absurd vesting privilege so that vesting laws begin to look more like those in other states. This could purge hundreds of asinine, unfortunate and inappropriate land-use proposals, some decades old, from the books. The Gristle can think of no better place to begin this legal challenge than against properties around Lake Whatcom, an impaired waterway by federal listing.
Unfortunately, as we do a head-check of the current County Council, the Gristle finds neither the will or inclination or capacity to move quickly on controversial reforms. What’s worse, we don’t see candidates stepping forward to effectively create what could be a council majority in an election year.
To their credit, the council’s planning and development committee finally, after years of wrangling, proposed during their Jan. 13 meeting to bring a discussion of transportation impact fees in front of the full council… but their measure addresses only one (and not the most costly) of development impacts. It does little to help equalize development costs in order to jumpstart city infill strategies.
But will even this reform arrive as quickly as growth appears to be arriving? And will it make a difference if it does?
----------------------
I think Tim Johnson's take is one of the best I've seen.
It argues to the heart of the matter of land use planning, illustrates bad things that have happened because of poor past policy, and does all of this succinctly and clearly..
Of course there are always some who will disagree, so I will merely reprint this Gristle with the author's permission, so that others may read it for themselves.
-------------------
Wednesday, Feb 18, 20009
The Gristle: Exurbia
EXURBIA: The syllogism underlying the hot debate on population growth euphemized as Whatcom 2031 goes something like this: The public is compelled to pay some portion—by way of infrastructure (roads, etc.) and costly, ongoing support services (police, etc.)—for growth that is lawfully authorized. The public in general doesn’t care to fund any expansion of these costly services (and, moreover, vehemently dislikes the impacts of growth). Therefore, the smallest amount of growth that is lawful should be authorized.
The Gristle won’t debate the wisdom or appeal of this logic, except to note that, at some level, it misses the point. The point of forecasting population growth is (or should be) to best prepare the community for what is likely to occur.
Set the growth forecast large, and you do compel the unwilling public to pay large; set the forecast small, and you may fail to best plan the places where, and the densities at which, larger numbers might reasonably go. Here we enter the sunlight of informed land use policy.
Alas, actual population growth is not entirely ours alone to know—people elsewhere are mobile and able to move here to the extent of their interests and means. Our distant forecasts neither encourage nor discourage their interests; and we must expect that whatever forces drew us to Cascadia by turns in the numbers in which we arrived will continue to operate similarly on others.
Population forecasts therefore inform but are no substitute for effective land use policy.
Dick Morrill, emeritus professor of geography at the University of Washington and an expert in urban demography, observed recently that the population of the Pacific Northwest has quadrupled since 1950, a bursting expansion unseen elsewhere in the United States in the same period.
“The pattern of growth 2000-2009 is the same as from 1990-2000, overwhelmingly suburban,” Morrill writes.
“These 50 years of expansion are viewed by critics as classic ‘urban sprawl,’ but this is not mainly true,” Morrill cautions. “Rather it has mostly been urban growth necessary to accommodate a population four times as large, another 2.3 million people. Perhaps surprising to some, the average density, which did decline from 1950 to 1970, in the postwar suburban boom, has risen over the last 30 years.”
Ever the laggard, Bellingham continues to off-gas some of the lowest urban densities in Western Washington, fueled less—the Gristle’ll argue—by what we’ve planned than by forces we’ve ignored. Whatcom growth bounds past the suburbs to favor disconnected, widely separated development clusters requiring endless and costly support services.
Perhaps the most distressing piece of information from the Whatcom 2031 process is that while growth has lagged projection targets in the county’s urban centers and designated urban growth areas, it has exploded in the county’s incorporated rural areas, mushrooming more than 20 percent over the past two decades, four times the rate anticipated—the very definition of unplanned, unsupported, unconnected leap-frog development. We’ve lost an average of 1,200 ag land acres per year over the same period, the most egregious loss of agricultural capacity in Western Washington. What the community wished to preserve, we’re quickly losing.
This is exurbia at its most absurd; and the Gristle will argue it occurred not because we did not understand all-too-well that it might, but because the land use policy intended to address it was either ineffective or in some cases outright sabotaged. Now Bellingham neighborhoods begin to gird themselves for a protracted rebellion against COB’s toolkit to create urban densities, released last week—a struggle that may only exacerbate exurbia.
The situation is positively perverse.
Planners understand, all-too-well, the tools for land use reform. For the county, the biggest reform arrives from downzones (actually a restoration—a reset, if you will—of rural zoning as it existed before a County Council of knife-fighting, bomb-throwing property rightistas decided to repurpose our ag lands in the early ’90s). This would restore thousands of acres to original rural character.
Next, impact fees that not only help pay for required infrastructure and essential services, but help equalize the costs of development so that it is no longer cheaper to build in the county than in the cities. Perverse incentives in land use might then recede.
From a developer’s perspective, why suffer the restrictions of the cities when the county offers none? With these reforms in place, you’ll begin to see the infill and density strategies proposed for Whatcom’s urban centers begin to pencil as they should.
To this we’ll add Whatcom needs to effectively challenge—perhaps as a class-action with other Western Washington counties—the state’s absurd vesting privilege so that vesting laws begin to look more like those in other states. This could purge hundreds of asinine, unfortunate and inappropriate land-use proposals, some decades old, from the books. The Gristle can think of no better place to begin this legal challenge than against properties around Lake Whatcom, an impaired waterway by federal listing.
Unfortunately, as we do a head-check of the current County Council, the Gristle finds neither the will or inclination or capacity to move quickly on controversial reforms. What’s worse, we don’t see candidates stepping forward to effectively create what could be a council majority in an election year.
To their credit, the council’s planning and development committee finally, after years of wrangling, proposed during their Jan. 13 meeting to bring a discussion of transportation impact fees in front of the full council… but their measure addresses only one (and not the most costly) of development impacts. It does little to help equalize development costs in order to jumpstart city infill strategies.
But will even this reform arrive as quickly as growth appears to be arriving? And will it make a difference if it does?
----------------------
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Stimulus: Show Us The Money
All the rhetoric whether there ought to be a stimulus package or not continues, despite the fact there now is a stimulus bill that provides billions in Federal Funds.
It seems incredible that some folks seem to have missed this news.
And, if the news wasn't missed, their denial continues.
So it is with a few Republican governors, who are threatening to turn down any Federal funds that might come their way.
Can't blame them for wanting to actually' walk their talk', can you?
We'll see just how far this will go, especially since the respective state legislatures also have a say in the matter.
Maybe that will just provide those highly vocal ideological individuals with the best of both worlds; claiming they would have preferred to turn down the funds, but couldn't because that pesky legislature took the money anyway.
A few days ago Paul Begala wrote a CNN column that challenged these Republican ideologues to actually 'walk their talk' by turning down the money.
Now, at least a few of them are at least talking about it.
And, with no fewer than 43 states in desperate fiscal crisis, if a few do turn down the money there would be more for other states to gratefully accept it.
Lord knows the money is needed and no other source is available.
Just in the case of Washington State, deficits are being projected in the range of $7 to $8 billions.
I've seen some estimates that say WA may become eligible for maybe $2.5 billion, a big help.
But, for those states that do accept the funds, please -please- make sure they are well-spent!
It seems incredible that some folks seem to have missed this news.
And, if the news wasn't missed, their denial continues.
So it is with a few Republican governors, who are threatening to turn down any Federal funds that might come their way.
Can't blame them for wanting to actually' walk their talk', can you?
We'll see just how far this will go, especially since the respective state legislatures also have a say in the matter.
Maybe that will just provide those highly vocal ideological individuals with the best of both worlds; claiming they would have preferred to turn down the funds, but couldn't because that pesky legislature took the money anyway.
A few days ago Paul Begala wrote a CNN column that challenged these Republican ideologues to actually 'walk their talk' by turning down the money.
Now, at least a few of them are at least talking about it.
And, with no fewer than 43 states in desperate fiscal crisis, if a few do turn down the money there would be more for other states to gratefully accept it.
Lord knows the money is needed and no other source is available.
Just in the case of Washington State, deficits are being projected in the range of $7 to $8 billions.
I've seen some estimates that say WA may become eligible for maybe $2.5 billion, a big help.
But, for those states that do accept the funds, please -please- make sure they are well-spent!
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Obama's Home Foreclosure Plan
-----------------------
Did any one get the remarkable irony inherent in the President's announcement of a $75 billion plan to benefit up 9 million borrowers for their primary homes from foreclosure?
First, the news aanouncement was made in Phoenix, Arizona -John McCain's home ground- and the state with the 3rd worst such problem.
Second, the President clearly stated the plan's guidelines, just at the time that Republicans were again questioning the whole idea.
Obama's clear response to critics:
The plan will not support irresponsible homeowners.
It will not rescue the unscrupulous or irresponsible by throwing good taxpayer money after bad loans.
It will not help speculators who took risky bets on a rising market and bought homes not to live in but to sell.
It will not reward folks who bought homes they knew from the beginning they would never be able to afford."
That sounds pretty clear to me.
But I expect this plan is way more complex than these statements can adequately cover.
----------------
There is much right with asking tough questions and that should certainly be done, as it probably has been and will continue to be.
But, there also comes a time when just asking questions doesn't accomplish very much that actually helps anyone.
These 6 questions are found in a letter from Republican Representatives Cantor and Boehner to Obama:
You decide whether these are designed to basically help -or hinder- the plan.
------------------
We'll see how this plays out and whether Congress will approve it in some version.
The point is, as much as the foreclosure problem has been described as the 'heart of our financial problem', nothing until now has actually been proposed to remedy it.
Will it work?
Probably, for those that qualify under the guidelines, but it will certainly leave many people without the help they hope for.
But, if it helps a significant number that will be worth the effort.
In the meantime, Obama again gets credit for trying something that many people seem to need and want, which is something no one else has bothered to touch.
I respect him for that, and the public should too..
----------------------
Did any one get the remarkable irony inherent in the President's announcement of a $75 billion plan to benefit up 9 million borrowers for their primary homes from foreclosure?
First, the news aanouncement was made in Phoenix, Arizona -John McCain's home ground- and the state with the 3rd worst such problem.
Second, the President clearly stated the plan's guidelines, just at the time that Republicans were again questioning the whole idea.
Obama's clear response to critics:
The plan will not support irresponsible homeowners.
It will not rescue the unscrupulous or irresponsible by throwing good taxpayer money after bad loans.
It will not help speculators who took risky bets on a rising market and bought homes not to live in but to sell.
It will not reward folks who bought homes they knew from the beginning they would never be able to afford."
That sounds pretty clear to me.
But I expect this plan is way more complex than these statements can adequately cover.
----------------
There is much right with asking tough questions and that should certainly be done, as it probably has been and will continue to be.
But, there also comes a time when just asking questions doesn't accomplish very much that actually helps anyone.
These 6 questions are found in a letter from Republican Representatives Cantor and Boehner to Obama:
You decide whether these are designed to basically help -or hinder- the plan.
• What will your plan do for the over 90 percent of homeowners who are playing and paying by the rules?
• Does your plan compensate banks for bad mortgages they should have never made in the first place?
• Will individuals who misrepresented their income or assets on their original mortgage application be eligible to get the taxpayer funded assistance under your plan?
• Will you require mortgage servicers to verify income and other eligibility standards before modifying mortgages? Watch more on the home foreclosure crisis »
• What will you do to prevent the same mortgages that receive assistance and are modified from going into default three, six or eight months later?
• How do you intend to move forward in the drafting of the legislation and who will author it?
------------------
We'll see how this plays out and whether Congress will approve it in some version.
The point is, as much as the foreclosure problem has been described as the 'heart of our financial problem', nothing until now has actually been proposed to remedy it.
Will it work?
Probably, for those that qualify under the guidelines, but it will certainly leave many people without the help they hope for.
But, if it helps a significant number that will be worth the effort.
In the meantime, Obama again gets credit for trying something that many people seem to need and want, which is something no one else has bothered to touch.
I respect him for that, and the public should too..
----------------------
Monday, February 16, 2009
Presidents Day Observations
---------
I thought these 2 cartoons from the NYTimes expressed events of the last few days pretty well:
---------------
A few somewhat dated headlines already relegated to the trash heap of faded propaganda posing as 'news'.
"... the presidential spotlight was not enough to win over [US House Representative] Schock.
“Ultimately, I listened to my constituents and I looked at what I knew about the bill and determined it was not in the best interests of my constituents,” the freshman Republican said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.
“It was not really a stimulus bill with the majority of the money going towards stimulating the economy.”
Note: the 27-year old Schock was given a courtesy plane ride to western Illinois by President Obama, who also tried to convince Schock to support the 'stimulus' package. He was obviously unsuccessful, since the bill passed with absolutely NO Republican support in the House.
One wonders just how Schock's 'constituents' really differ from Obama's; aren't both elected to serve the entire US?
------------------
GOP senators say Obama off to bad start
• STORY HIGHLIGHTS
• Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham say stimulus bill wasn't bipartisan
• Spokesman: President made "unprecedented effort to reach out to Republicans"
• Congress passes $787 billion stimulus bill with support of three Republicans
• President Obama expected to sign bill on Tuesday
With the memory of McCain's suggestion that he 'suspend' his political campaign for President until AFTER a bail-out plan could be determined, it doesn't take much sense to figure out that he was as clueless then as he is now about the kind of trouble it is a President's job to avoid -or try his damnedest to resolve!
Thank God McCain wasn't elected!
He, and his whiny SC sidekick haven't moved an inch from their neanderthal ideological positions, even when America is so desperately crying out for solutions that might be found.
What was it Nero did when Rome was burning?
Oh, one other thing.
Sufficient bipartisanship can be assumed when enough members of the 'opposition' are attracted to support a measure that may have otherwise failed!
----------------------
But, the best of the bunch I found was this from the NYTimes:
They Sure Showed That Obama
By FRANK RICH
Published: February 14, 2009
----------
AM I crazy, or wasn’t the Obama presidency pronounced dead just days ago? Obama had “all but lost control of the agenda in Washington,” declared Newsweek on Feb. 4 as it wondered whether he might even get a stimulus package through Congress. “Obama Losing Stimulus Message War” was the headline at Politico a day later. At the mostly liberal MSNBC, the morning host, Joe Scarborough, started preparing the final rites. Obama couldn’t possibly eke out a victory because the stimulus package was “a steaming pile of garbage.”
-----------
Less than a month into Obama’s term, we don’t (and can’t) know how he’ll fare as president. The compromised stimulus package, while hardly garbage, may well be inadequate. Timothy Geithner’s uninspiring and opaque stab at a bank rescue is at best a place holder and at worst a rearrangement of the deck chairs on the TARP-Titanic, where he served as Hank Paulson’s first mate.
But we do know this much. Just as in the presidential campaign, Obama has once again outwitted the punditocracy and the opposition. The same crowd that said he was a wimpy hope-monger who could never beat Hillary or get white votes was played for fools again.
On Wednesday, as a stimulus deal became a certainty on Capitol Hill, I asked David Axelrod for his take on this Groundhog Day relationship between Obama and the political culture.
“It’s why our campaign was not based in Washington but in Chicago,” he said. “We were somewhat insulated from the echo chamber. In the summer of ’07, the conventional wisdom was that Obama was a shooting star; his campaign was irretrievably lost; it was a ludicrous strategy to focus on Iowa; and we were falling further and further behind in the national polls.” But even after the Iowa victory, this same syndrome kept repeating itself. When Obama came out against the gas-tax holiday supported by both McCain and Clinton last spring, Axelrod recalled, “everyone in D.C. thought we were committing suicide.”
The stimulus battle was more of the same. “This town talks to itself and whips itself into a frenzy with its own theories that are completely at odds with what the rest of America is thinking,” he says.
Once the frenzy got going, it didn’t matter that most polls showed support for Obama and his economic package: “If you watched cable TV, you’d see our support was plummeting, we were in trouble. It was almost like living in a parallel universe.”
For Axelrod, the moral is “not just that Washington is too insular but that the American people are a lot smarter than people in Washington think.”
Here’s a third moral: Overdosing on this culture can be fatal. Because Republicans are isolated in that parallel universe and believe all the noise in its echo chamber, they are now as out of touch with reality as the “inevitable” Clinton campaign was before it got clobbered in Iowa. The G.O.P. doesn’t recognize that it emerged from the stimulus battle even worse off than when it started. That obliviousness gives the president the opening to win more ambitious policy victories than last week’s. Having checked the box on attempted bipartisanship, Obama can now move in for the kill.
A useful template for the current political dynamic can be found in one of the McCain campaign’s more memorable pratfalls. Last fall, it was the Beltway mantra that Obama was doomed with all those working-class Rust Belt Democrats who’d flocked to Hillary in the primaries. The beefy, beer-drinking, deer-hunting white guys — incessantly interviewed in bars and diners — would never buy the skinny black intellectual.
Nor would the “dead-ender” Hillary women. The McCain camp not only bought into this received wisdom, but bet the bank on it, pouring resources into states like Michigan and Wisconsin before abandoning them and doubling down on Pennsylvania in the stretch. The sucker-punched McCain lost all three states by percentages in the double digits.
The stimulus opponents, egged on by all the media murmurings about Obama “losing control,” also thought they had a sure thing. Their TV advantage added to their complacency. As the liberal blog ThinkProgress reported, G.O.P. members of Congress wildly outnumbered Democrats as guests on all cable news networks, not just Fox News, in the three days of intense debate about the House stimulus bill. They started pounding in their slogans relentlessly. The bill was not a stimulus package but an orgy of pork spending. The ensuing deficit would amount to “generational theft.” F.D.R.’s New Deal had been an abject failure.
This barrage did shave a few points off the stimulus’s popularity in polls, but its approval rating still remained above 50 percent in all (Gallup, CNN, Pew, CBS) but one of them (Rasmussen, the sole poll the G.O.P. cites). Perhaps the stimulus held its own because the public, in defiance of Washington’s condescending assumption, was smart enough to figure out that the government can’t create jobs without spending and that Bush-era Republicans have no moral authority to lecture about deficits. Some Americans may even have ancestors saved from penury by the New Deal.
In any event, the final score was unambiguous. The stimulus package arrived with the price tag and on roughly the schedule Obama had set for it. The president’s job approval percentage now ranges from the mid 60s (Gallup, Pew) to mid 70s (CNN) — not bad for a guy who won the presidency with 52.9 percent of the vote. While 48 percent of Americans told CBS, Gallup and Pew that they approve of Congressional Democrats, only 31 (Gallup), 32 (CBS) and 34 (Pew) percent could say the same of their G.O.P. counterparts.
At least some media hands are chagrined. After the stimulus prevailed, Scarborough speculated on MSNBC that “perhaps we’ve overanalyzed it, we don’t know what we’re talking about.” But the Republicans are busy high-fiving themselves and celebrating “victory.” Even in defeat, they are still echoing the 24/7 cable mantra about the stimulus’s unpopularity. This self-congratulatory mood is summed up by a Wall Street Journal columnist who wrote that “the House Republicans’ zero votes for the Obama presidency’s stimulus ‘package’ is looking like the luckiest thing to happen to the G.O.P.’s political fortunes since Ronald Reagan switched parties.” There hasn’t been this much delusional giddiness in these ranks since Monica Lewinsky promised a surefire Republican sweep in the 1998 midterms.
Not all Republicans are so clueless, whether in Congress or beyond. Charlie Crist, the moderate Florida governor who appeared with the president in his Fort Myers, Fla., town-hall meeting last week, has Obama-like approval ratings in the 70s. Naturally, the party’s hard-liners in Washington loathe him.
Their idea of a good public face for the G.O.P. is a sound-bite dispenser like the new chairman, Michael Steele, a former Maryland lieutenant governor. Steele’s argument against the stimulus package is that “in the history of mankind” no “federal, state or local” government has ever “created one job.” As it happens, among the millions of jobs created by the government are the federal investigators now pursuing Steele for alleged financial improprieties in his failed 2006 Senate campaign.
This G.O.P., a largely white Southern male party with talking points instead of ideas and talking heads instead of leaders, is not unlike those “zombie banks” that we’re being asked to bail out. It is in too much denial to acknowledge its own insolvency and toxic assets. Given the mess the country is in, it would be helpful to have an adult opposition that could pull its weight, but that’s not the hand America has been dealt.
As Judd Gregg flakes out and Lindsey Graham throws made-for-YouTube hissy fits on the Senate floor, Obama should stay focused on the big picture in governing as he did in campaigning. That’s the steady course he upheld when much of the political establishment was either second-guessing or ridiculing it, and there’s no reason to change it now. The stimulus victory showed that even as president Obama can ambush Washington’s conventional wisdom as if he were still an insurgent.
But, as he said in Fort Myers last week, he will ultimately be judged by his results. If the economy isn’t turned around, he told the crowd, then “you’ll have a new president.” The stimulus bill is only a first step on that arduous path. The biggest mistake he can make now is to be too timid. This country wants a New Deal, including on energy and health care, not a New Deal lite. Far from depleting Obama’s clout, the stimulus battle instead reaffirmed that he has the political capital to pursue the agenda of change he campaigned on.
Republicans will also be judged by the voters. If they want to obstruct and filibuster while the economy is in free fall, the president should call their bluff and let them go at it. In the first four years after F.D.R. took over from Hoover, the already decimated ranks of Republicans in Congress fell from 36 to 16 in the Senate and from 117 to 88 in the House.
The G.O.P. is so insistent that the New Deal was a mirage it may well have convinced itself that its own sorry record back then didn’t happen either.
-------------------------
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts;
if wishes were horses, beggars might ride.;
ifs and ands were pots and pans, then we would need no tinkers.;
if wishes were fishes, there'd be no room in the river for water.
I thought these 2 cartoons from the NYTimes expressed events of the last few days pretty well:
---------------
A few somewhat dated headlines already relegated to the trash heap of faded propaganda posing as 'news'.
"... the presidential spotlight was not enough to win over [US House Representative] Schock.
“Ultimately, I listened to my constituents and I looked at what I knew about the bill and determined it was not in the best interests of my constituents,” the freshman Republican said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.
“It was not really a stimulus bill with the majority of the money going towards stimulating the economy.”
Note: the 27-year old Schock was given a courtesy plane ride to western Illinois by President Obama, who also tried to convince Schock to support the 'stimulus' package. He was obviously unsuccessful, since the bill passed with absolutely NO Republican support in the House.
One wonders just how Schock's 'constituents' really differ from Obama's; aren't both elected to serve the entire US?
------------------
GOP senators say Obama off to bad start
• STORY HIGHLIGHTS
• Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham say stimulus bill wasn't bipartisan
• Spokesman: President made "unprecedented effort to reach out to Republicans"
• Congress passes $787 billion stimulus bill with support of three Republicans
• President Obama expected to sign bill on Tuesday
With the memory of McCain's suggestion that he 'suspend' his political campaign for President until AFTER a bail-out plan could be determined, it doesn't take much sense to figure out that he was as clueless then as he is now about the kind of trouble it is a President's job to avoid -or try his damnedest to resolve!
Thank God McCain wasn't elected!
He, and his whiny SC sidekick haven't moved an inch from their neanderthal ideological positions, even when America is so desperately crying out for solutions that might be found.
What was it Nero did when Rome was burning?
Oh, one other thing.
Sufficient bipartisanship can be assumed when enough members of the 'opposition' are attracted to support a measure that may have otherwise failed!
----------------------
But, the best of the bunch I found was this from the NYTimes:
They Sure Showed That Obama
By FRANK RICH
Published: February 14, 2009
----------
AM I crazy, or wasn’t the Obama presidency pronounced dead just days ago? Obama had “all but lost control of the agenda in Washington,” declared Newsweek on Feb. 4 as it wondered whether he might even get a stimulus package through Congress. “Obama Losing Stimulus Message War” was the headline at Politico a day later. At the mostly liberal MSNBC, the morning host, Joe Scarborough, started preparing the final rites. Obama couldn’t possibly eke out a victory because the stimulus package was “a steaming pile of garbage.”
-----------
Less than a month into Obama’s term, we don’t (and can’t) know how he’ll fare as president. The compromised stimulus package, while hardly garbage, may well be inadequate. Timothy Geithner’s uninspiring and opaque stab at a bank rescue is at best a place holder and at worst a rearrangement of the deck chairs on the TARP-Titanic, where he served as Hank Paulson’s first mate.
But we do know this much. Just as in the presidential campaign, Obama has once again outwitted the punditocracy and the opposition. The same crowd that said he was a wimpy hope-monger who could never beat Hillary or get white votes was played for fools again.
On Wednesday, as a stimulus deal became a certainty on Capitol Hill, I asked David Axelrod for his take on this Groundhog Day relationship between Obama and the political culture.
“It’s why our campaign was not based in Washington but in Chicago,” he said. “We were somewhat insulated from the echo chamber. In the summer of ’07, the conventional wisdom was that Obama was a shooting star; his campaign was irretrievably lost; it was a ludicrous strategy to focus on Iowa; and we were falling further and further behind in the national polls.” But even after the Iowa victory, this same syndrome kept repeating itself. When Obama came out against the gas-tax holiday supported by both McCain and Clinton last spring, Axelrod recalled, “everyone in D.C. thought we were committing suicide.”
The stimulus battle was more of the same. “This town talks to itself and whips itself into a frenzy with its own theories that are completely at odds with what the rest of America is thinking,” he says.
Once the frenzy got going, it didn’t matter that most polls showed support for Obama and his economic package: “If you watched cable TV, you’d see our support was plummeting, we were in trouble. It was almost like living in a parallel universe.”
For Axelrod, the moral is “not just that Washington is too insular but that the American people are a lot smarter than people in Washington think.”
Here’s a third moral: Overdosing on this culture can be fatal. Because Republicans are isolated in that parallel universe and believe all the noise in its echo chamber, they are now as out of touch with reality as the “inevitable” Clinton campaign was before it got clobbered in Iowa. The G.O.P. doesn’t recognize that it emerged from the stimulus battle even worse off than when it started. That obliviousness gives the president the opening to win more ambitious policy victories than last week’s. Having checked the box on attempted bipartisanship, Obama can now move in for the kill.
A useful template for the current political dynamic can be found in one of the McCain campaign’s more memorable pratfalls. Last fall, it was the Beltway mantra that Obama was doomed with all those working-class Rust Belt Democrats who’d flocked to Hillary in the primaries. The beefy, beer-drinking, deer-hunting white guys — incessantly interviewed in bars and diners — would never buy the skinny black intellectual.
Nor would the “dead-ender” Hillary women. The McCain camp not only bought into this received wisdom, but bet the bank on it, pouring resources into states like Michigan and Wisconsin before abandoning them and doubling down on Pennsylvania in the stretch. The sucker-punched McCain lost all three states by percentages in the double digits.
The stimulus opponents, egged on by all the media murmurings about Obama “losing control,” also thought they had a sure thing. Their TV advantage added to their complacency. As the liberal blog ThinkProgress reported, G.O.P. members of Congress wildly outnumbered Democrats as guests on all cable news networks, not just Fox News, in the three days of intense debate about the House stimulus bill. They started pounding in their slogans relentlessly. The bill was not a stimulus package but an orgy of pork spending. The ensuing deficit would amount to “generational theft.” F.D.R.’s New Deal had been an abject failure.
This barrage did shave a few points off the stimulus’s popularity in polls, but its approval rating still remained above 50 percent in all (Gallup, CNN, Pew, CBS) but one of them (Rasmussen, the sole poll the G.O.P. cites). Perhaps the stimulus held its own because the public, in defiance of Washington’s condescending assumption, was smart enough to figure out that the government can’t create jobs without spending and that Bush-era Republicans have no moral authority to lecture about deficits. Some Americans may even have ancestors saved from penury by the New Deal.
In any event, the final score was unambiguous. The stimulus package arrived with the price tag and on roughly the schedule Obama had set for it. The president’s job approval percentage now ranges from the mid 60s (Gallup, Pew) to mid 70s (CNN) — not bad for a guy who won the presidency with 52.9 percent of the vote. While 48 percent of Americans told CBS, Gallup and Pew that they approve of Congressional Democrats, only 31 (Gallup), 32 (CBS) and 34 (Pew) percent could say the same of their G.O.P. counterparts.
At least some media hands are chagrined. After the stimulus prevailed, Scarborough speculated on MSNBC that “perhaps we’ve overanalyzed it, we don’t know what we’re talking about.” But the Republicans are busy high-fiving themselves and celebrating “victory.” Even in defeat, they are still echoing the 24/7 cable mantra about the stimulus’s unpopularity. This self-congratulatory mood is summed up by a Wall Street Journal columnist who wrote that “the House Republicans’ zero votes for the Obama presidency’s stimulus ‘package’ is looking like the luckiest thing to happen to the G.O.P.’s political fortunes since Ronald Reagan switched parties.” There hasn’t been this much delusional giddiness in these ranks since Monica Lewinsky promised a surefire Republican sweep in the 1998 midterms.
Not all Republicans are so clueless, whether in Congress or beyond. Charlie Crist, the moderate Florida governor who appeared with the president in his Fort Myers, Fla., town-hall meeting last week, has Obama-like approval ratings in the 70s. Naturally, the party’s hard-liners in Washington loathe him.
Their idea of a good public face for the G.O.P. is a sound-bite dispenser like the new chairman, Michael Steele, a former Maryland lieutenant governor. Steele’s argument against the stimulus package is that “in the history of mankind” no “federal, state or local” government has ever “created one job.” As it happens, among the millions of jobs created by the government are the federal investigators now pursuing Steele for alleged financial improprieties in his failed 2006 Senate campaign.
This G.O.P., a largely white Southern male party with talking points instead of ideas and talking heads instead of leaders, is not unlike those “zombie banks” that we’re being asked to bail out. It is in too much denial to acknowledge its own insolvency and toxic assets. Given the mess the country is in, it would be helpful to have an adult opposition that could pull its weight, but that’s not the hand America has been dealt.
As Judd Gregg flakes out and Lindsey Graham throws made-for-YouTube hissy fits on the Senate floor, Obama should stay focused on the big picture in governing as he did in campaigning. That’s the steady course he upheld when much of the political establishment was either second-guessing or ridiculing it, and there’s no reason to change it now. The stimulus victory showed that even as president Obama can ambush Washington’s conventional wisdom as if he were still an insurgent.
But, as he said in Fort Myers last week, he will ultimately be judged by his results. If the economy isn’t turned around, he told the crowd, then “you’ll have a new president.” The stimulus bill is only a first step on that arduous path. The biggest mistake he can make now is to be too timid. This country wants a New Deal, including on energy and health care, not a New Deal lite. Far from depleting Obama’s clout, the stimulus battle instead reaffirmed that he has the political capital to pursue the agenda of change he campaigned on.
Republicans will also be judged by the voters. If they want to obstruct and filibuster while the economy is in free fall, the president should call their bluff and let them go at it. In the first four years after F.D.R. took over from Hoover, the already decimated ranks of Republicans in Congress fell from 36 to 16 in the Senate and from 117 to 88 in the House.
The G.O.P. is so insistent that the New Deal was a mirage it may well have convinced itself that its own sorry record back then didn’t happen either.
-------------------------
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts;
if wishes were horses, beggars might ride.;
ifs and ands were pots and pans, then we would need no tinkers.;
if wishes were fishes, there'd be no room in the river for water.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Jim Webb's Great New Book
-----------------
"There is a time to pray and a time to fight. This is the time to fight." - Pastor John Peter Gabriel Muhlenburg:Sermon at Woodstock, Virginia, 1775.
-----------------
I received a most thoughtful gift for my last birthday, a book entitled "A Time to Fight', published in 2008 by Doubleday.
Readers may recognize the author, an independent minded Democrat who is now a US Senator from Virginia.
Webb comes from a military family, has degrees from the US Naval Academy and Georgetown Law School, and has served in Vietnam as a Marine Corps infantry officer, where he earned a Navy Cross, the second highest decoration in the Navy and Marine Corps for heroism in Vietnam.
Webb also earned the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts.
He is an established journalist with a straightforward and distinctively direct [blunt] writing style.
In addition to 8 previous books, Webb has authored a number of articles in various journals and newspapers, including the Marine Corps Gazette, Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute, USA Today, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal.
Webb also wrote the story and was the executive producer for the 2000 movie Rules of Engagement, which starred Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson.
Older folks and students of modern US government may recall that James H. Webb also served as the Secretary of Navy under Casper Weinberger in the Reagan administration.
That post, plus lingering memories from the Vietnam era caused Webb to distance himself from the Democratic Party for 30 years, returning only after witnessing the egregious harm being caused by our last President, his administration and its ruinous policies.
Suffice to say, he was motivated to run for the US Senate in 2006 as a result, and narrowly defeated the incumbent Republican, George Allen, son of the famous Washington Redskins football coach.
Readers may also recognize Webb from his Democratic Rebuttal of President' George W. Bush's State of the Union address in 2007.
Webb has much to say that will resonate with most readers, and his unique perspectives make this book not only informative but timely and interesting.
-------------------
Sunday, February 1, 2009
America: A Fair to Middling Place
First, let me thank those folks who have been so kind in their condolences in response to my need for treatment, and also to Sam Taylor, who reported my last blog in the local paper. Sam didn't have to do that, but I appreciate him helping to get out the 'word'.
---------------------------------
Back in the days I was growing up in North Carolina, I can recall the excitement that always seemed to surround the many tobacco auction warehouses.
Tobacco, for all its bad attributes, was -and may still be- the main money crop for NC farmers.
Auction time was the pay-off for a year of hard work, and the time of reckoning for finding out whether any profits produced would be sufficient to feed and clothe families, pay off loans on seed, fertilizer and farm equipment and continue rural family businesses.
The auctioneers were invariably colorful fellows, each with his own style of rapid-fire auction talk and technique, designed to keep the transactions flowing and attract the best possible prices for the various lots of cured tobacco that were being offered for sale.
Because tobacco production was very strictly controlled, not only the yield produced, but the quality of it, were critical to its profitability.
The best tobacco always commanded the best prices, and the best prices were highly prized by the producers.
In all such auctions a range of quality was displayed for purchase, and these ranged from superior down to barely passing.
Most offerings ranged somewhere in the middle, with the phrase 'fair to middling' often used to describe it.
In other words, it was good enough to sell and use, but not the very best available, and as such it did not command the highest prices.
I got to thinking about how the 'fair to middling' phrase might be applied to our own situation here in America.
This country was actually created for everyone, even though the founders were mostly landed and wealthy white men.
And, nowadays, much talk and concern is about the so-called 'middle class' and its viability during the current recession and its projected awful consequences.
------------------
The 'stimulus' package now being debated in Congress is a good example of trying to help the middle class.
There are big differences of opinion about what measures should be included in it, and which may actually work in the way intended.
That debate is healthy, because no one really knows what might work best, or the amount needed, although there does seem to be agreement that whatever is done needs to be done without undue delay.
The 'undue delay' part amounts to an early deadline which one might consider the time a trigger is pulled; as in 'Ready, Aim, Fire'.
But, before that trigger is pulled, the Ready and the Aim parts need to be carefully hashed out and agreed upon.
That big hurry is causing lots of headaches, disagreements and consternation.
And, it doesn't help that all this vital thinking and machinations are being conducted in a fishbowl swimming with all sorts of political animals.
But, that is our system, and we need to use it to best advantage.
As much as I support President Obama and his ultra-competent administration, it won't do to just ask Congress to 'trust us' on this big initiative.
We did that the first time around with the Wall Street crowd and it hasn't worked in any way that most of us can recognize.
If the current administration is as smart and savvy as I think it is, they will actively work to create the kind of trust needed to pass such legislation, as well as insure it has the best combination of features possible.
That type of approach is the one most likely to not only gain bipartisan support, but actually work as it is intended.
If a high profile, early action like this can pass these tests, it will bode well for future ideas and initiatives as well.
-----------
Now, back to the concept of 'fair to middling' for a minute:
Any stimulus package ought to be directed, fairly at the 'middle class', not everyone who sticks their hand out.
Just like our Founders definitely decided against any more tyrannical rulers, the Govt ought to decide against gifts to the wealthy.
After all, they were the ones so caught up in short term greed -which they actively marketed on the masses- that they largely created the problem we're having.
Our current tax laws and incentives are loaded so heavily in favor of the very wealthy that it would be unconscionable to further favor that relatively small class of people.
Besides, the Bush policies have failed so miserably that to continue the same approach would border on insanity!
As far as helping the very poor with Govt assistance, that should always be a priority for improvement, regardless of any recession.
So, any 'stimulus' oriented in that direction ought to be of the long-term, sustainable type.
Here in America the 'middle class' actually represents, by far, most of our population, a fairly broad spectrum of people ranging from below the very wealthy to above those most in need.
And, that is as it should be in our type of society, which unlike countries like India have tried, hasn't fallen into a rigid 'class system' that assigns limits to what people can do with their lives.
Using a so-called 'Bell Curve' distribution, our goals ought to be having a broad curve of moderate height and steep sides, which would leave room for exceptional success and some abject failure, but mostly well-being for the vast majority of citizens.
And, there is no reason America can't achieve that kind of model somewhere in its future.
So, we ought to be clear what our ultimate objectives are before we try to fix things real quick, don't you think?
I know this idea will attract some strong disagreement, and that's OK, too.
But, consider the report not long ago that attempted to rate various countries by their relative 'happiness' based upon interviews with their people.
The result, which surprised many, was that tiny Denmark, with its exceptionally high taxes to support its social systems, rated at or near the top!
Upon inspection, most Danes felt their taxes were being well-spent by their government, as evidenced by a feeling of general satisfaction with their lives.
And this despite their less than ideal climate, high prices and modest sphere of influence in the world's affairs.
Think about it.
The Danish system has many marks of what political philosophers like to disparagingly call 'socialism', yet if the people of a country allow that to occur and actually are HAPPY with it, what is wrong with that?
It will be a long time before America ever gets close to where Denmark is on a capitalism-socialism scale, but we will likely get there anyway because that's a fairer system to most people, yet it certainly doesn't disallow capitalism and phenomenal financial success.
What better way to get the broadest possible middle class?
Plus, if people LIKE IT, what's wrong with that?
Globalization makes it harder to recognize these possibilities, because of the fierceness and urgency of competition, but in the end the very concept of sustainability will come into inevitable play and force a more realistic and rational approach to how the world -not just America- lives.
It's time to bring this semi-rant to a close, but before that I want to add that proper attention to our vital 'middle class' -of which most of us are members- is so critically important that it ought to always be uppermost in mind.
That is because the toil, production, service and caring of our middle class is the fuel that keeps America moving!
That, in turn, supports the less fortunate as much as it enables the top achievers in this country.
In the end -as it was in the beginning- we are all joined together in this experiment called 'democracy'.
Messy as hell, contentious and fraught with frustration, it is till the best system around, and all those attributes just come with the territory.
Let's don't forget that, or give up our ability to influence the outcomes we want!
---------------------------
---------------------------------
Back in the days I was growing up in North Carolina, I can recall the excitement that always seemed to surround the many tobacco auction warehouses.
Tobacco, for all its bad attributes, was -and may still be- the main money crop for NC farmers.
Auction time was the pay-off for a year of hard work, and the time of reckoning for finding out whether any profits produced would be sufficient to feed and clothe families, pay off loans on seed, fertilizer and farm equipment and continue rural family businesses.
The auctioneers were invariably colorful fellows, each with his own style of rapid-fire auction talk and technique, designed to keep the transactions flowing and attract the best possible prices for the various lots of cured tobacco that were being offered for sale.
Because tobacco production was very strictly controlled, not only the yield produced, but the quality of it, were critical to its profitability.
The best tobacco always commanded the best prices, and the best prices were highly prized by the producers.
In all such auctions a range of quality was displayed for purchase, and these ranged from superior down to barely passing.
Most offerings ranged somewhere in the middle, with the phrase 'fair to middling' often used to describe it.
In other words, it was good enough to sell and use, but not the very best available, and as such it did not command the highest prices.
I got to thinking about how the 'fair to middling' phrase might be applied to our own situation here in America.
This country was actually created for everyone, even though the founders were mostly landed and wealthy white men.
And, nowadays, much talk and concern is about the so-called 'middle class' and its viability during the current recession and its projected awful consequences.
------------------
The 'stimulus' package now being debated in Congress is a good example of trying to help the middle class.
There are big differences of opinion about what measures should be included in it, and which may actually work in the way intended.
That debate is healthy, because no one really knows what might work best, or the amount needed, although there does seem to be agreement that whatever is done needs to be done without undue delay.
The 'undue delay' part amounts to an early deadline which one might consider the time a trigger is pulled; as in 'Ready, Aim, Fire'.
But, before that trigger is pulled, the Ready and the Aim parts need to be carefully hashed out and agreed upon.
That big hurry is causing lots of headaches, disagreements and consternation.
And, it doesn't help that all this vital thinking and machinations are being conducted in a fishbowl swimming with all sorts of political animals.
But, that is our system, and we need to use it to best advantage.
As much as I support President Obama and his ultra-competent administration, it won't do to just ask Congress to 'trust us' on this big initiative.
We did that the first time around with the Wall Street crowd and it hasn't worked in any way that most of us can recognize.
If the current administration is as smart and savvy as I think it is, they will actively work to create the kind of trust needed to pass such legislation, as well as insure it has the best combination of features possible.
That type of approach is the one most likely to not only gain bipartisan support, but actually work as it is intended.
If a high profile, early action like this can pass these tests, it will bode well for future ideas and initiatives as well.
-----------
Now, back to the concept of 'fair to middling' for a minute:
Any stimulus package ought to be directed, fairly at the 'middle class', not everyone who sticks their hand out.
Just like our Founders definitely decided against any more tyrannical rulers, the Govt ought to decide against gifts to the wealthy.
After all, they were the ones so caught up in short term greed -which they actively marketed on the masses- that they largely created the problem we're having.
Our current tax laws and incentives are loaded so heavily in favor of the very wealthy that it would be unconscionable to further favor that relatively small class of people.
Besides, the Bush policies have failed so miserably that to continue the same approach would border on insanity!
As far as helping the very poor with Govt assistance, that should always be a priority for improvement, regardless of any recession.
So, any 'stimulus' oriented in that direction ought to be of the long-term, sustainable type.
Here in America the 'middle class' actually represents, by far, most of our population, a fairly broad spectrum of people ranging from below the very wealthy to above those most in need.
And, that is as it should be in our type of society, which unlike countries like India have tried, hasn't fallen into a rigid 'class system' that assigns limits to what people can do with their lives.
Using a so-called 'Bell Curve' distribution, our goals ought to be having a broad curve of moderate height and steep sides, which would leave room for exceptional success and some abject failure, but mostly well-being for the vast majority of citizens.
And, there is no reason America can't achieve that kind of model somewhere in its future.
So, we ought to be clear what our ultimate objectives are before we try to fix things real quick, don't you think?
I know this idea will attract some strong disagreement, and that's OK, too.
But, consider the report not long ago that attempted to rate various countries by their relative 'happiness' based upon interviews with their people.
The result, which surprised many, was that tiny Denmark, with its exceptionally high taxes to support its social systems, rated at or near the top!
Upon inspection, most Danes felt their taxes were being well-spent by their government, as evidenced by a feeling of general satisfaction with their lives.
And this despite their less than ideal climate, high prices and modest sphere of influence in the world's affairs.
Think about it.
The Danish system has many marks of what political philosophers like to disparagingly call 'socialism', yet if the people of a country allow that to occur and actually are HAPPY with it, what is wrong with that?
It will be a long time before America ever gets close to where Denmark is on a capitalism-socialism scale, but we will likely get there anyway because that's a fairer system to most people, yet it certainly doesn't disallow capitalism and phenomenal financial success.
What better way to get the broadest possible middle class?
Plus, if people LIKE IT, what's wrong with that?
Globalization makes it harder to recognize these possibilities, because of the fierceness and urgency of competition, but in the end the very concept of sustainability will come into inevitable play and force a more realistic and rational approach to how the world -not just America- lives.
It's time to bring this semi-rant to a close, but before that I want to add that proper attention to our vital 'middle class' -of which most of us are members- is so critically important that it ought to always be uppermost in mind.
That is because the toil, production, service and caring of our middle class is the fuel that keeps America moving!
That, in turn, supports the less fortunate as much as it enables the top achievers in this country.
In the end -as it was in the beginning- we are all joined together in this experiment called 'democracy'.
Messy as hell, contentious and fraught with frustration, it is till the best system around, and all those attributes just come with the territory.
Let's don't forget that, or give up our ability to influence the outcomes we want!
---------------------------
Friday, January 30, 2009
Serious Business in Seattle
-----------------
Oddly enough, after living in Bellingham for 20 years, I've never spent much time in Seattle.
Aside from an occasional overnight at a friend's house, there have been no extended stays here.
For example, I've never been up the Space Needle, or visited many of the museums, except for the Burke at U-Dub.
I have attended a few lectures and presentations at the former Mountaineers building, and once at Benaroya Hall.
Then, I did go to a Mariners game, plus attend the special event for the Dalai Lama's visit.
We also have enjoyed several local restaurants and done a little shopping at REI and Patagonia.
So, cumulatively, I have spent some time here, but not until recently -and now- more than two days at a time.
Mostly, that's because we've seldom had the need or the urge to spend time in Seattle.
After all, one can get most everything needed or wanted in Bellingham, barring few exceptions that require short trips elsewhere.
That assumes a pretty simple lifestyle, that is also varied by mainly fun-based travel to experience the great outdoors, friends and favorite retreats.
All this has changed during the last few months, as I have had the need to seek expert medical attention.
Now, there is a compelling need for me to visit Seattle for an extended stay that is not simply 'fun'-related.
Unless, of course, the concept of 'fun' also includes the idea of living a longer life!
I think it does, and that's why I'm here.
In October, I was diagnosed with an obstruction to my bile duct from my liver.
That may not sound like much, but if left untreated would result in, uh, death; there, I've said it.
Thanks to good and quick medical care in Bellingham that situation was sufficiently mitigated to allow the time to seek more specialized care in -you guessed it- Seattle.
Who knew that the Virginia Mason Medical Center is one of the truly world-class places for treating Pancreatic Cancer?
'PanCan' is what I turned out to have, and that required radical surgery -called a Whipple- to remove the growth, plus some innards, then some internal re-plumbing, all performed by the leading surgeon in his field.
That event and the preceding tests that lead up to it were the reasons I began visiting Seattle more frequently and for longer periods of time.
It is also the rationale for entering the next phase of my recovery, which entails an aggressive protocol of chemotherapy and radiation treatment to prevent any remaining malignant cells from growing or moving to other parts of my body.
That's the phase of my Seattle visitation program that I am in right now, almost 6 weeks of that dread -but vital- treatment regimen, again under the direction and care of another, world-class Doctor, an Oncologist specializing in PanCan.
So far, so good, after just 2 of 28 planned treatment sessions.
But there are more to come, and the cumulative effects over time may -and probably will- make my stay less pleasant before its over.
This aggressive Chemo/Radiation routine is set to end on March 6, at which time I get a month off to recuperate before more tests are conducted.
Boy, am I looking forward to that!
In the meantime, we are here in Seattle, ensconced in a very comfortable condo that was generously offered to us by good friends.
What a wonderful gift that has been!
We are so grateful and fortunate to be visiting Seattle this way, especially in these circumstances.
That kindness affords us a tangible relief to the serious business we are here for, and we appreciate it very much!
--------------------
Oddly enough, after living in Bellingham for 20 years, I've never spent much time in Seattle.
Aside from an occasional overnight at a friend's house, there have been no extended stays here.
For example, I've never been up the Space Needle, or visited many of the museums, except for the Burke at U-Dub.
I have attended a few lectures and presentations at the former Mountaineers building, and once at Benaroya Hall.
Then, I did go to a Mariners game, plus attend the special event for the Dalai Lama's visit.
We also have enjoyed several local restaurants and done a little shopping at REI and Patagonia.
So, cumulatively, I have spent some time here, but not until recently -and now- more than two days at a time.
Mostly, that's because we've seldom had the need or the urge to spend time in Seattle.
After all, one can get most everything needed or wanted in Bellingham, barring few exceptions that require short trips elsewhere.
That assumes a pretty simple lifestyle, that is also varied by mainly fun-based travel to experience the great outdoors, friends and favorite retreats.
All this has changed during the last few months, as I have had the need to seek expert medical attention.
Now, there is a compelling need for me to visit Seattle for an extended stay that is not simply 'fun'-related.
Unless, of course, the concept of 'fun' also includes the idea of living a longer life!
I think it does, and that's why I'm here.
In October, I was diagnosed with an obstruction to my bile duct from my liver.
That may not sound like much, but if left untreated would result in, uh, death; there, I've said it.
Thanks to good and quick medical care in Bellingham that situation was sufficiently mitigated to allow the time to seek more specialized care in -you guessed it- Seattle.
Who knew that the Virginia Mason Medical Center is one of the truly world-class places for treating Pancreatic Cancer?
'PanCan' is what I turned out to have, and that required radical surgery -called a Whipple- to remove the growth, plus some innards, then some internal re-plumbing, all performed by the leading surgeon in his field.
That event and the preceding tests that lead up to it were the reasons I began visiting Seattle more frequently and for longer periods of time.
It is also the rationale for entering the next phase of my recovery, which entails an aggressive protocol of chemotherapy and radiation treatment to prevent any remaining malignant cells from growing or moving to other parts of my body.
That's the phase of my Seattle visitation program that I am in right now, almost 6 weeks of that dread -but vital- treatment regimen, again under the direction and care of another, world-class Doctor, an Oncologist specializing in PanCan.
So far, so good, after just 2 of 28 planned treatment sessions.
But there are more to come, and the cumulative effects over time may -and probably will- make my stay less pleasant before its over.
This aggressive Chemo/Radiation routine is set to end on March 6, at which time I get a month off to recuperate before more tests are conducted.
Boy, am I looking forward to that!
In the meantime, we are here in Seattle, ensconced in a very comfortable condo that was generously offered to us by good friends.
What a wonderful gift that has been!
We are so grateful and fortunate to be visiting Seattle this way, especially in these circumstances.
That kindness affords us a tangible relief to the serious business we are here for, and we appreciate it very much!
--------------------
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Greenways: Wishing Does Not 'Make It So'
-----------------------
Starship Enterprise Captain Jean-Luc Picard of Star Trek had a signature phrase from the captain's chair; "Make it so".
How nice it would be to have the power of 'making something so' by just wishing or asking for it!
The Captain Picard character is depicted as a deeply moral, highly logical and cerebral man, who through Solomon-like wisdom resolves seemingly intractable complex issues between multiple parties. Though such resolutions are usually peaceful, Picard is also shown utilizing his remarkable tactical cunning in situations requiring it.
How nice it would be to have such a person in charge of resolving the so-called Chuckanut Ridge 'issue', in which some wild-eyed advocates on the south side seem bent upon a scorched earth policy to get their way - or else!
But even Picard might have difficulty in dealing with that issue, especially if he tried to use those same morals, logic, and facts combined as wisdom on it.
But, hey it's worth a try, isn't it?
Jack Weiss thinks so, and has put together some facts -summarized below-in yet another attempt to persuade those who seem resistant to such persuasion.
And, if those who choose to remain resistant to reason and reality again reject this information, there are many others who may benefit from it.
Notwithstanding that an ounce of emotion can sometimes trump an entire ton of rational thought, the truth of this new information is not likely to just go away!
----------------------------------
From Weiss:
For public use as you so desire.
This is the second of an indeterminate series to assist the community in understanding other information regarding the Chuckanut Ridge issue.
The Southside Effect on the Greenways III Levy Vote
By Jack Weiss, January 24, 2009
Ever since the May 16, 2006 Greenways III election, from time-to-time some people proclaim in this paraphrase “if it wasn’t for the southside vote, the levy would not have passed.” Saying this does not make it so. Let’s look at the facts.
I took the official precinct election results from the following abstract (http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/auditor/election_division/voting_history/abstracts/index.jsp) and calculated the following summary:
The levy passed community-wide by 58.8% with an overall voter turnout of 46.5%.
If the three precincts directly adjacent to Chuckanut Ridge are pulled out, the levy passes by 58.4%. This includes Prec #244 (Edgemoor), 245 (South with bits of Fairhaven and Edgemoor), and 246 (east side of South). Note that 244 and 246 passed by a lower margin than community-wide (57.4% and 57.3% respectively versus the community-wide margin of 58.8%.
If all of Ward 6 was removed, the levy passes by a “yes” vote of 57.0%.
If all of Wards 5 and 6 were removed, the levy still passes 54.6%. That is over 9 percentage points victory by the rest of town.
Lastly, even if the every one of the 1156 “yes” votes in precincts 244, 245, and 246 switched their votes in protest, the levy still would pass 52.2%. In fact, a total of 1535 “yes” voters would have to switch their votes assuming they actually cast a ballot and simply did not sit out the election. It is very speculative that that would have ever occurred.
Sure, the southside provided support for the passage of the levy. But to think that the rest of the community was asleep to this election is not borne out by the facts. If the Greenways Legacy group and Responsible Development wanted to kill the passage of the levy in 2006, they may or may not have succeeded and their attempt would reflect highly on their motives with the rest of Bellingham.
The question is: if they did succeed as they frequently threatened in 2005 and 2006, what would have been accomplished? 1. We would either have no levy for anything, including some money for Chuckanut Ridge; or 2. A new levy with higher amounts for CR would have been put on the ballot attracting opponents from the rest of town and likely flaming to defeat as well.
What is also clear is that some people have claimed how much they worked for the passage of the levy. Of all of the people who have spoken up in the past few months claiming some sort of $8 million quid pro quo, only Jody Bergsma, Brad Rose, and Joe Yaver gave any money to the campaign. $410 out of $12,383. That’s it. (From the Council, Barbara and Michael Ryan and Joan Beardsley kicked in another $300.)
Of all of those same people, only 6 of 796 signed endorsements for the levy to be included in the only flyer during the campaign (Jody Bergsma, Michael Chiavario, Brad Rose, Gail Smedley, Bobbi Vollendorf and Joe Yaver). All 7 councilmembers at that time endorsed.
Jody and Bobbi volunteered substantially into the organization into the campaign. Gail and Cathy McKenzie helped out a little. Where were all of the others?
It is disingenuous, at best, to insinuate the vast assistance of southsiders into the passage of this levy. A whisper campaign does not count. And saying now how much you helped then does not make it so. If you are not one of these named above, then you either did not contribute, endorse, or volunteer for the passage of this levy. But thank you if you put up a yard sign.
In conclusion, statements of how much the southside vote swayed the outcome or how significant the southsiders were in campaigning ring hollow to me.
Side note:
For those number geeks who want more, I have included the following attached spreadsheet so you can see for yourself the source numbers. If the table does not come out, click on the attachment instead. It will probably be much easier to read.
------------------
Note: I have not included the tables of data that Jack used to reach his conclusions as stated above.
That is because I am not enough of a geek to know how to do that, plus the conclusions are the important part which most folks would be willing to read.
If folks want to see these tables of data, I'm sure they can be made available from other sources.
------------------
See y'all later now, y'hear?
Starship Enterprise Captain Jean-Luc Picard of Star Trek had a signature phrase from the captain's chair; "Make it so".
How nice it would be to have the power of 'making something so' by just wishing or asking for it!
The Captain Picard character is depicted as a deeply moral, highly logical and cerebral man, who through Solomon-like wisdom resolves seemingly intractable complex issues between multiple parties. Though such resolutions are usually peaceful, Picard is also shown utilizing his remarkable tactical cunning in situations requiring it.
How nice it would be to have such a person in charge of resolving the so-called Chuckanut Ridge 'issue', in which some wild-eyed advocates on the south side seem bent upon a scorched earth policy to get their way - or else!
But even Picard might have difficulty in dealing with that issue, especially if he tried to use those same morals, logic, and facts combined as wisdom on it.
But, hey it's worth a try, isn't it?
Jack Weiss thinks so, and has put together some facts -summarized below-in yet another attempt to persuade those who seem resistant to such persuasion.
And, if those who choose to remain resistant to reason and reality again reject this information, there are many others who may benefit from it.
Notwithstanding that an ounce of emotion can sometimes trump an entire ton of rational thought, the truth of this new information is not likely to just go away!
----------------------------------
From Weiss:
For public use as you so desire.
This is the second of an indeterminate series to assist the community in understanding other information regarding the Chuckanut Ridge issue.
The Southside Effect on the Greenways III Levy Vote
By Jack Weiss, January 24, 2009
Ever since the May 16, 2006 Greenways III election, from time-to-time some people proclaim in this paraphrase “if it wasn’t for the southside vote, the levy would not have passed.” Saying this does not make it so. Let’s look at the facts.
I took the official precinct election results from the following abstract (http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/auditor/election_division/voting_history/abstracts/index.jsp) and calculated the following summary:
The levy passed community-wide by 58.8% with an overall voter turnout of 46.5%.
If the three precincts directly adjacent to Chuckanut Ridge are pulled out, the levy passes by 58.4%. This includes Prec #244 (Edgemoor), 245 (South with bits of Fairhaven and Edgemoor), and 246 (east side of South). Note that 244 and 246 passed by a lower margin than community-wide (57.4% and 57.3% respectively versus the community-wide margin of 58.8%.
If all of Ward 6 was removed, the levy passes by a “yes” vote of 57.0%.
If all of Wards 5 and 6 were removed, the levy still passes 54.6%. That is over 9 percentage points victory by the rest of town.
Lastly, even if the every one of the 1156 “yes” votes in precincts 244, 245, and 246 switched their votes in protest, the levy still would pass 52.2%. In fact, a total of 1535 “yes” voters would have to switch their votes assuming they actually cast a ballot and simply did not sit out the election. It is very speculative that that would have ever occurred.
Sure, the southside provided support for the passage of the levy. But to think that the rest of the community was asleep to this election is not borne out by the facts. If the Greenways Legacy group and Responsible Development wanted to kill the passage of the levy in 2006, they may or may not have succeeded and their attempt would reflect highly on their motives with the rest of Bellingham.
The question is: if they did succeed as they frequently threatened in 2005 and 2006, what would have been accomplished? 1. We would either have no levy for anything, including some money for Chuckanut Ridge; or 2. A new levy with higher amounts for CR would have been put on the ballot attracting opponents from the rest of town and likely flaming to defeat as well.
What is also clear is that some people have claimed how much they worked for the passage of the levy. Of all of the people who have spoken up in the past few months claiming some sort of $8 million quid pro quo, only Jody Bergsma, Brad Rose, and Joe Yaver gave any money to the campaign. $410 out of $12,383. That’s it. (From the Council, Barbara and Michael Ryan and Joan Beardsley kicked in another $300.)
Of all of those same people, only 6 of 796 signed endorsements for the levy to be included in the only flyer during the campaign (Jody Bergsma, Michael Chiavario, Brad Rose, Gail Smedley, Bobbi Vollendorf and Joe Yaver). All 7 councilmembers at that time endorsed.
Jody and Bobbi volunteered substantially into the organization into the campaign. Gail and Cathy McKenzie helped out a little. Where were all of the others?
It is disingenuous, at best, to insinuate the vast assistance of southsiders into the passage of this levy. A whisper campaign does not count. And saying now how much you helped then does not make it so. If you are not one of these named above, then you either did not contribute, endorse, or volunteer for the passage of this levy. But thank you if you put up a yard sign.
In conclusion, statements of how much the southside vote swayed the outcome or how significant the southsiders were in campaigning ring hollow to me.
Side note:
For those number geeks who want more, I have included the following attached spreadsheet so you can see for yourself the source numbers. If the table does not come out, click on the attachment instead. It will probably be much easier to read.
------------------
Note: I have not included the tables of data that Jack used to reach his conclusions as stated above.
That is because I am not enough of a geek to know how to do that, plus the conclusions are the important part which most folks would be willing to read.
If folks want to see these tables of data, I'm sure they can be made available from other sources.
------------------
See y'all later now, y'hear?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Greenways: Are We A Unified Community Or A League of Single Interests?
"I was born for a storm and a calm does not suit me' - Andrew Jackson
--------------------------------------
During Andrew Jackson's time as our 7th President, one of the major issues he faced was the so-called 'nullification crisis', in which South Carolina and other southern states became so unhappy with existing US tariffs that they openly plotted not to pay them, even if it came to seceding from the Union.
Imagine that; one of the original 13 states deciding that it gets to pick which national laws it obeys!
Think that 'states rights' stance might have been a little extreme?
Jackson certainly did, and he acted strongly to make sure SC did not get away with that divisive ploy, although part of the peaceful resolution reached did involve compromise and a progressive reduction in the tariff.
Of course, the kind of selfish thinking that the SC hotheads exhibited did not entirely disappear, and later was to use slavery to fuel forming a Southern Confederacy, which did secede from the Union, resulting in the Civil War.
It seems a certain similarity exists between these events in Jackson's time and the present, here in our little community.
Should a fractious 'South-side League' be allowed 'Nullification Powers' over how the voluntarily voted Greenways funds will be allocated and spent?
I don't think so!
And neither should the City Council allow frustrating the clear intent of the Greenways 3 levy and its related descriptive documents, passed 2+ years ago.
Yet, three of the four Council members who colluded -outside of public meetings- to rig how these monies would be spent are at it again!
This time, these would-be 'nullifiers' are trying to thwart the careful work of the Parks & Recreation Board and the Greenways Advisory Committee to reflect the very guidelines and principles which the Council had duly adopted.
The form this latest gambit has taken is to delay approval of the Strategic Plan that has been finally submitted after over years of very public process.
The reason?
Simple, they want all $6 million in funds designated for south-side property acquisitions, plus the $2 million in undesignated funds to go toward purchase of the so-called Chuckanut Ridge property [now being called 'Fairhaven Highlands']
You know what? That won't wash! And, if it does somehow slip by, there will be hell to pay!
------------------------
The twin threads of this particular section are ethics and partisan politics, neither a particularly happy subject.
I'll try to be both succinct and accurate in these remarks, although each aim may somewhat counter the other.
Regarding ethics, the three remaining renegade Council members, the would-be 'nullifiers', ought to know better than to willingly and knowingly collude on such a scheme, not divulge their true intent at any one of the several public meetings held at which this matter was discussed, and then compound their 'secret lie' by lying about it again!
And, to say they now feel committed to a secret 'covenant' they thought they had made to certain advocates to spend $8 million in funds that were not yet available or voted upon, is ludicrous at best!
What about the 'covenant' all elected officials make -to all citizens- to uphold the law and fairly represent all interests to the best of their abilities?
That is generally covered in the oath of office that each Council member takes as a matter of public record.
I took my oath seriously, as do most others.
Should there be better guidelines for what constitutes acceptable behavior in a public capacity?
Maybe so, as was discussed 2 years ago, but the Council has not yet acted upon this matter.
Why is so hard to get people to reasonably regulate their own behavior?
Even if a recall or impeachment effort were attempted to punish these 'nullifiers', that is problematic too, especially with people who have repeatedly demonstrated 'creative', 'revisionist' and/or 'convenient' memories!
Lie to me once, that's on me; lie to me twice, that's on you!
Regarding partisan politics, that is an inherent part of our system.
But, there is a time and place for it, just as there is a time and place for the majority to actually govern.
As Andrew Jackson thought, 'we must resist attempts of single interests to seize power from the whole.'
Just as the United States is a Union and not a Confederacy or a League, the laws and policies that are duly adopted must be obeyed and adhered to by all.
There will always be a tension between the will of the majority and the rights of the minority, and that is as it should be in a democracy.
But, the majority must rule!
The Greenways levy that was passed by the voters, went on the ballot by a unanimous vote from the Council.
Of course, that happened only after significant compromises were debated and agreed to.
Nothing in the Greenways ballot measure can be construed to mean that $8 million was to be dedicated solely for the purchase of Chuckanut Ridge property.
If it had, the ballot would certainly have not attracted the unanimous endorsement of the Council, and most likely would have never been passed at all.
This last fact just underscores the falsity of the claims to the contrary being heard from the three remaining Council 'nullifiers'.
They are lying now just as they were lying by public silence 2 years ago- and do not deserve to represent this community on this Greenways issue any longer!
Each of the three should voluntarily recuse themselves from participating in Greenways decisions.
That was also the remedy I suggested to a former Council member, who has now passed away.
------------
By acceding to these 'nullifiers' demands and delaying final adoption of the Greenways Strategic Plan, the Council may be unwittingly causing harm to Greenways, in any or all of the following ways:
• unnecessarily continuing a debate that has already been fairly settled.
• undermining public confidence in Greenways, as well as the competence of the Council.
• impairing the ability of the City to purchase any south side properties, OTHER THAN CHUCKANUT RIDGE, in a timely manner and at a fair value from a willing seller. [there ARE other PRIORITY properties to be acquired]
• wasting staff time.
• extending false hope to die-hard, single interest supporters who want CR purchased at the expense of all other options.
It is well past time for this destructive and disingenuous Greenways gamesmanship to end.
There will be no heroes created by its continuance, and no face-saving or bragging rights possible for anyone who has proven they can't be trusted to do right by this community.
There is no substitute for openness and fairness, so we should accept none.
Why not learn something from two of our new President's early actions?
Those include a no-nonsense Code of Ethics for Lobbyists, and a clear policy of openness and transparency which anticipates every issue be reasonably subject to the Freedom of Information Act!
That would be good for starters.
Out.
-------------------------------
--------------------------------------
During Andrew Jackson's time as our 7th President, one of the major issues he faced was the so-called 'nullification crisis', in which South Carolina and other southern states became so unhappy with existing US tariffs that they openly plotted not to pay them, even if it came to seceding from the Union.
Imagine that; one of the original 13 states deciding that it gets to pick which national laws it obeys!
Think that 'states rights' stance might have been a little extreme?
Jackson certainly did, and he acted strongly to make sure SC did not get away with that divisive ploy, although part of the peaceful resolution reached did involve compromise and a progressive reduction in the tariff.
Of course, the kind of selfish thinking that the SC hotheads exhibited did not entirely disappear, and later was to use slavery to fuel forming a Southern Confederacy, which did secede from the Union, resulting in the Civil War.
It seems a certain similarity exists between these events in Jackson's time and the present, here in our little community.
Should a fractious 'South-side League' be allowed 'Nullification Powers' over how the voluntarily voted Greenways funds will be allocated and spent?
I don't think so!
And neither should the City Council allow frustrating the clear intent of the Greenways 3 levy and its related descriptive documents, passed 2+ years ago.
Yet, three of the four Council members who colluded -outside of public meetings- to rig how these monies would be spent are at it again!
This time, these would-be 'nullifiers' are trying to thwart the careful work of the Parks & Recreation Board and the Greenways Advisory Committee to reflect the very guidelines and principles which the Council had duly adopted.
The form this latest gambit has taken is to delay approval of the Strategic Plan that has been finally submitted after over years of very public process.
The reason?
Simple, they want all $6 million in funds designated for south-side property acquisitions, plus the $2 million in undesignated funds to go toward purchase of the so-called Chuckanut Ridge property [now being called 'Fairhaven Highlands']
You know what? That won't wash! And, if it does somehow slip by, there will be hell to pay!
------------------------
The twin threads of this particular section are ethics and partisan politics, neither a particularly happy subject.
I'll try to be both succinct and accurate in these remarks, although each aim may somewhat counter the other.
Regarding ethics, the three remaining renegade Council members, the would-be 'nullifiers', ought to know better than to willingly and knowingly collude on such a scheme, not divulge their true intent at any one of the several public meetings held at which this matter was discussed, and then compound their 'secret lie' by lying about it again!
And, to say they now feel committed to a secret 'covenant' they thought they had made to certain advocates to spend $8 million in funds that were not yet available or voted upon, is ludicrous at best!
What about the 'covenant' all elected officials make -to all citizens- to uphold the law and fairly represent all interests to the best of their abilities?
That is generally covered in the oath of office that each Council member takes as a matter of public record.
I took my oath seriously, as do most others.
Should there be better guidelines for what constitutes acceptable behavior in a public capacity?
Maybe so, as was discussed 2 years ago, but the Council has not yet acted upon this matter.
Why is so hard to get people to reasonably regulate their own behavior?
Even if a recall or impeachment effort were attempted to punish these 'nullifiers', that is problematic too, especially with people who have repeatedly demonstrated 'creative', 'revisionist' and/or 'convenient' memories!
Lie to me once, that's on me; lie to me twice, that's on you!
Regarding partisan politics, that is an inherent part of our system.
But, there is a time and place for it, just as there is a time and place for the majority to actually govern.
As Andrew Jackson thought, 'we must resist attempts of single interests to seize power from the whole.'
Just as the United States is a Union and not a Confederacy or a League, the laws and policies that are duly adopted must be obeyed and adhered to by all.
There will always be a tension between the will of the majority and the rights of the minority, and that is as it should be in a democracy.
But, the majority must rule!
The Greenways levy that was passed by the voters, went on the ballot by a unanimous vote from the Council.
Of course, that happened only after significant compromises were debated and agreed to.
Nothing in the Greenways ballot measure can be construed to mean that $8 million was to be dedicated solely for the purchase of Chuckanut Ridge property.
If it had, the ballot would certainly have not attracted the unanimous endorsement of the Council, and most likely would have never been passed at all.
This last fact just underscores the falsity of the claims to the contrary being heard from the three remaining Council 'nullifiers'.
They are lying now just as they were lying by public silence 2 years ago- and do not deserve to represent this community on this Greenways issue any longer!
Each of the three should voluntarily recuse themselves from participating in Greenways decisions.
That was also the remedy I suggested to a former Council member, who has now passed away.
------------
By acceding to these 'nullifiers' demands and delaying final adoption of the Greenways Strategic Plan, the Council may be unwittingly causing harm to Greenways, in any or all of the following ways:
• unnecessarily continuing a debate that has already been fairly settled.
• undermining public confidence in Greenways, as well as the competence of the Council.
• impairing the ability of the City to purchase any south side properties, OTHER THAN CHUCKANUT RIDGE, in a timely manner and at a fair value from a willing seller. [there ARE other PRIORITY properties to be acquired]
• wasting staff time.
• extending false hope to die-hard, single interest supporters who want CR purchased at the expense of all other options.
It is well past time for this destructive and disingenuous Greenways gamesmanship to end.
There will be no heroes created by its continuance, and no face-saving or bragging rights possible for anyone who has proven they can't be trusted to do right by this community.
There is no substitute for openness and fairness, so we should accept none.
Why not learn something from two of our new President's early actions?
Those include a no-nonsense Code of Ethics for Lobbyists, and a clear policy of openness and transparency which anticipates every issue be reasonably subject to the Freedom of Information Act!
That would be good for starters.
Out.
-------------------------------
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The Inauguration: A Few Thoughts
Notwithstanding the historic significance of today's event, the swearing in of Barack Obama as our 44th President, I had not intended any special attention to all the hoopla.
But, I did pay attention to these ceremonies anyway.
My wife and I watched TV coverage from the comfort of our home, and were again struck by the massive connection that our newest President has with the American people, and indeed with the citizens of the entire world!
Despite my reticence to participate in an event held 3000 miles away, I willingly did and was fascinated by it.
Spontaneous tears came to my eyes on more than one occasion, as I listened to Obama's words that resonate so well with what I hold most important, and that I have hoped for so ardently for so long!
Thank God this moment has at last come to pass, so that the hard work can begin in earnest to restore our collective confidence.
Our President expects the best from us in this endeavor, and I for one intend to fully support his enlightened style of leadership.
The pundits will argue forever what Obama's words were intended to mean, but I accept them at face value; a sincere statement of how severe and persistent problems will be faced, no matter what their cause or the obstacles encountered.
Together, our nation has no limits upon what it can achieve, provided we unite in doing it.
------------------
25 years ago I took a Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator Test as part of reassessing what career path might suit me best.
That exercise was not only helpful to me, but also to my wife, Joan.
It allowed me to delve not only into into my 'druthers', but also those activities that I would rather avoid.
In other words, the idea is to go with your strengths, not your weaknesses, once you know what these might be.
Of course, the M-B method doesn't explain everything about an individual, but it does help.
Years later, I found a website [http://www.keirsey.com/] that focuses on the M-B method and summarizes broad findings by the professionals who specialize in it.
At one time, that website had an analysis of which US Presidents likely fit each of the 4 basic M-B personality types; Artisans,
Rationals, Guardians and Idealists.
Of these 4 types, only one had never characterized an American President, the Idealist.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that Barack Obama may be our first -ever- Idealist President!
And, if he isn't, he comes closer to that than any other has so far.
May God bless this great land of ours, and the purpose for which it stands!
------------------------
Finally, check out this YouTube - 'There's no one as Irish as Barack O'Bama' from the Corrigan Brothers at:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HplZ_taHXLM
Original lyrics:
O’Leary, O’Reilly, O’Hare and O’Hara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
From the ould Blarney stone to the green hills of Tara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
You don’t believe me, I hear you say
But Barack’s as Irish as was JFK
His grandaddy’s daddy came from Moneygall
A small Irish village, well known to you all
Chorus 2: Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo toor a lama
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
He’s as Irish as bacon, and cabbage and stew
He’s Hawaiian, he’s Kenyan, American too
He’s in the White House, he took his chance
Now let’s see Barack do Riverdance
Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo toor a lama
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
From Kerry and Cork to old Donegal
Let’s hear it for Barack from old Moneygall
From the lakes of Killarney to old Connemara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
O’Leary, O’Reilly, O’Hare and O’Hara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
From the ould Blarney stone to the green hills of Tara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
Two thousand and eight, the White House is free
They’re cheering in Mayo, and in Skibereen
The Irish in Kenya and in Yokahama
Are cheering for president Barack O’Bama
O’Leary, O’Reilly, O’Hare and O’Hara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
From the ould Blarney stone to the green hills of Tara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
The hockey mom’s gone, and so is McCain
They’re cheering in Texas and Borrisokane
In Moneygall town, the greatest of drama
For our famous president, Barack O’Bama
Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo toor a lama
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
The great Stephen Neill a great man of God
He proved that Barack was from the auld sod
They came by bus, they came by car
To celebrate Barack, in Ollie Hayes’ bar
O’Leary, O’Reilly, O’Hare and O’Hara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
From the ould Blarney stone to the green hills of Tara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo toor a lama
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
Repeat!
---------------------
But, I did pay attention to these ceremonies anyway.
My wife and I watched TV coverage from the comfort of our home, and were again struck by the massive connection that our newest President has with the American people, and indeed with the citizens of the entire world!
Despite my reticence to participate in an event held 3000 miles away, I willingly did and was fascinated by it.
Spontaneous tears came to my eyes on more than one occasion, as I listened to Obama's words that resonate so well with what I hold most important, and that I have hoped for so ardently for so long!
Thank God this moment has at last come to pass, so that the hard work can begin in earnest to restore our collective confidence.
Our President expects the best from us in this endeavor, and I for one intend to fully support his enlightened style of leadership.
The pundits will argue forever what Obama's words were intended to mean, but I accept them at face value; a sincere statement of how severe and persistent problems will be faced, no matter what their cause or the obstacles encountered.
Together, our nation has no limits upon what it can achieve, provided we unite in doing it.
------------------
25 years ago I took a Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator Test as part of reassessing what career path might suit me best.
That exercise was not only helpful to me, but also to my wife, Joan.
It allowed me to delve not only into into my 'druthers', but also those activities that I would rather avoid.
In other words, the idea is to go with your strengths, not your weaknesses, once you know what these might be.
Of course, the M-B method doesn't explain everything about an individual, but it does help.
Years later, I found a website [http://www.keirsey.com/] that focuses on the M-B method and summarizes broad findings by the professionals who specialize in it.
At one time, that website had an analysis of which US Presidents likely fit each of the 4 basic M-B personality types; Artisans,
Rationals, Guardians and Idealists.
Of these 4 types, only one had never characterized an American President, the Idealist.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that Barack Obama may be our first -ever- Idealist President!
And, if he isn't, he comes closer to that than any other has so far.
May God bless this great land of ours, and the purpose for which it stands!
------------------------
Finally, check out this YouTube - 'There's no one as Irish as Barack O'Bama' from the Corrigan Brothers at:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HplZ_taHXLM
Original lyrics:
O’Leary, O’Reilly, O’Hare and O’Hara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
From the ould Blarney stone to the green hills of Tara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
You don’t believe me, I hear you say
But Barack’s as Irish as was JFK
His grandaddy’s daddy came from Moneygall
A small Irish village, well known to you all
Chorus 2: Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo toor a lama
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
He’s as Irish as bacon, and cabbage and stew
He’s Hawaiian, he’s Kenyan, American too
He’s in the White House, he took his chance
Now let’s see Barack do Riverdance
Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo toor a lama
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
From Kerry and Cork to old Donegal
Let’s hear it for Barack from old Moneygall
From the lakes of Killarney to old Connemara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
O’Leary, O’Reilly, O’Hare and O’Hara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
From the ould Blarney stone to the green hills of Tara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
Two thousand and eight, the White House is free
They’re cheering in Mayo, and in Skibereen
The Irish in Kenya and in Yokahama
Are cheering for president Barack O’Bama
O’Leary, O’Reilly, O’Hare and O’Hara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
From the ould Blarney stone to the green hills of Tara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
The hockey mom’s gone, and so is McCain
They’re cheering in Texas and Borrisokane
In Moneygall town, the greatest of drama
For our famous president, Barack O’Bama
Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo toor a lama
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
The great Stephen Neill a great man of God
He proved that Barack was from the auld sod
They came by bus, they came by car
To celebrate Barack, in Ollie Hayes’ bar
O’Leary, O’Reilly, O’Hare and O’Hara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
From the ould Blarney stone to the green hills of Tara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo toor a lama
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
Repeat!
---------------------
Monday, January 19, 2009
Lake Whatcom: Questions about Proposed Private Road
It seems hard to believe that in the face of the DOE's TMDL -and its required, difficult remedial actions- that someone can adequately "mitigate" the effects of two miles of new 'private' road in this Reservoir's watershed.
Yet, the Whatcom County SEPA official has apparently rubber stamped this application with another DNS [Determination of Non-Significance].
Is this 'SEPA official' person competent, or is he just doing what he is instructed to do?
Does the SEPA checklist used include or even address effects on stormwater runoff downslope from the proposed development?
Even if the County has minimal stormwater rules -and no viable means for funding such efforts- don't they consider the impact of clearing of over eleven acres of forest and natural ground cover significant?
Won't this be replaced by an impervious surface that will itself allow more clearing and impervious surfaces?
Somewhere, I recall that stripping natural growth from land increases runoff by a factor of 16.
Do we understand what that can cause?
I don't get either the myopia or the routine bureaucracy that continues to seriously hamper efforts to protect this Reservoir.
And, coming so soon after the record rainfall and runoff from this same general area that actually closed North Shore Drive, damaged homes and infrastructure, too!
What the heck is going on?
Business as usual?
I hope the City and/or others will soon vigorously challenge this short-sighted, and maybe even illegal development!
-----------------
Here are a few pieces of information about this proposal that have come my way, followed by a few questions that citizens and our elected representatives ought to be asking:
• LEGAL NOTICE: [How many people actually read these? Thank goodness some do!]
(L7015) WHATCOM COUNTY GIVES PUBLIC NOTICE THAT THE FOLLOWING SEPA THRESHOLD OF MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) HAS BEEN ISSUED TODAY SUBJECT TO THE 14 DAY COMMENT PERIOD CONCLUDING ON JANUARY 22, 2008. File: SEP2008-00063 Project Description: The construction of a road to serve future residential home construction on up to 26 existing 20-acre residential properties currently located in the Rural Forestry zone. The proposed private road will require clearing and grading for roughly 10,300 linear feet of roadway. The total project impact area (clearing) is approximately 11.05 acres in size. Proponent: CLN LLC, Christopher and Nancy Secrist, Gordon and Carol Iverson Location: The proposed project lies northerly and approximately 2 miles east of the intersection of Academy Road and North Shore Drive on Squalicum Mountain. APN #: 380324 066302, 380324 066366, 380324 066432, 380324 200432, 380324 200495, 380313 094020, 380313 229052, 380313 137128, 380313 211152, 380313 333171, 380313 333231, 380313 355328, 380313 295341, 380313 368452, 380313 307476. Lead Agency: Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Zoning: Rural Forestry (RF) Comp Plan: Rural Forestry ANY PERSON OR AGENCY MAY APPEAL THE COUNTY'S COMPLIANCE WITH WAC 197-11 BY FILING AN APPEAL WITH THE WHATCOM COUNTY LAND USE DIVISION LOCATED AT 5280 NORTHWEST DRIVE, BELLINGHAM, WA 98226. APPEALS MUST BE MADE WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE END OF THE COMMENT PERIOD.
• From the Department of Ecology's website:
County: Whatcom
Lead Agency: Whatcom County
Lead Agency Contact: Tyler Schroeder
Lead Agency Phone: (360) 676-6907
Lead Agency File #: 2008-00063
Ecology File #: 200900152
Document Type: DNS-M
Description: Squalicum Ridge Rd; construct a 10,300 ft road to service future residential homes on up to 26 existing 20 acre residential properties in the Rural Forestry zone
Location: Two miles east of the intersection of Academy Rd and North Shore Drive on Squalicum Mountain
Applicant: CLN LLC, Christopher & Nancy Secrist, Gordon & Carol Iverson
Issue Date: 01/08/2009
Mail Date:
Comment Due: 01/22/2009
Enter Date: 01/12/2009
• The Bham Herald Legas-Ad announcement :
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:7ygVYc7l71MJ:buyit.bellinghamherald.com/findit/legal_and_financial/legal_public_notices/P58cabd42c15999b423864e4b2e5e2f7f.htm%3FitemId%3DP58cabd42c15999b423864e4b2e5e2f7f_01+SEP2008-00063+whatcom&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us ;
• A cursory googling shows: Christopher Secrist is/was affiliated with Oeser (famous in-town polluters) and Gordon & Carol Iverson both are/were worked for Trillium.
• I can add from my own knowledge that Mr Iverson has monitored closely the City's interest in acquiring watershed property in this vicinity, and in at least one instance, bid slightly higher than the City's offer on a large wooded acreage near the power line right of way. Due to a technicality, the owner opted to sell to Mr Iverson rather than the City after it had completed a lengthy due diligence process. Nothing illegal here, but it does demonstrate an agenda that is significantly at odds with the City's goal of protecting the Reservoir.
------------------
One basic tenet of stormwater management is to use nature's own mitigation whenever possible.
Sometimes this means 'don't build there'; other times maintaining adequate buffers is OK.
Always, its better to mitigate stormwater higher up the slope, not lower!
And, building detention ponds, stormwater drains and treatment facilities is expensive and relatively ineffective.
Yet, knowing the above, here we are pretending this wisdom is unknown - again!
Amazing, but maybe not when one takes into account how this County is being administered.
But, that also brings up another question: Does the County Executive own property in this vicinity?
And, if he does, will this development benefit him financially?
Another observation:
If this property is currently zoned 'Rural Forestry', how is it possible to build 26 homes, each on 20 acres?
Is that land use appropriate, even as a 'cluster'?
Is it legal?
Would the County Council need to approve a rezone for this to happen?
On what grounds might such a rezone be granted?
Who will supply water to these sites?
Water District 7?
Whose water will they use?
Doesn't Water District 7 have an agreement with the City?
Does this agreement restrict such extensions?
Does Water District 10 [now masquerading as the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District] have any role to play in this scheme"
What about sewage?
Does the developer expect the County to allow more septic systems to service these 26 mega homes?
What about the clear policy adopted for NOT doing that?
What about downstream damage potential?
Not only will runoff from this area find its way downhill, it will likely reach the Reservoir.
On its way down hill, who is responsible for the expected stormwater damage, in the forms of erosion, flooding and added nutrient and pollutant loads -which are supposedly to be considered in the County & City's response to the DOE TMDL?
Will the County be allowed to wash its hands of these responsibilities and look the other way as the City tries to manage this mess after the fact?
You know what?
There is a lot that stinks about this proposal!
And, it is time to do something about it, in strongest terms!
It would be nice if those who profess concern about our Reservoir, started doing more to actually achieve their stated goals.
And, while I'm at it, how about those citizens who take their drinking water for granted, then use their energies to advocate something of far lesser importance?
It is past time for this community to come together and really make its will known to those who have been elected to lead us!
We simply need to demonstrate what is most important, and tell them we expect effective action, not empty words and more complacency!
There is not much time to waste in addressing this particular problem 'development', which is so symptomatic of the repeated damage that has already been inflicted on our Reservoir!
Literally, this Reservoir is being harmed to death by 'a thousand pin pricks'; each may be non-fatal, but in their cumulative effect certainly so.
When I hear 'private road', I also think of Sudden Valley, which feels entitled to County road funds to access and maintain them.
Already, there is the expectation of the County providing access to this proposed development on Squalicum Mountain.
Then, will come widening, turning lanes and other improvement, all at taxpayer expense.
I object to any part of my taxes being used for this private purpose!
The County can't even maintain the roads it has!
Eventually, those who choose to live in this proposed, private, 520 acre enclave, if it gets allowed and built, will also depend upon City services, too, which they will pay nothing to deserve.
Enough!
Just say no to this.
If we can't find a way to say 'no', we'll deserve what results.
And 520 acres of low density development; when did that start to fit with the slow growth policy that so many citizens want?
Why, that's more than the County wanted to allow the City to have -and that was for high density development!
Get serious County!
Yet, the Whatcom County SEPA official has apparently rubber stamped this application with another DNS [Determination of Non-Significance].
Is this 'SEPA official' person competent, or is he just doing what he is instructed to do?
Does the SEPA checklist used include or even address effects on stormwater runoff downslope from the proposed development?
Even if the County has minimal stormwater rules -and no viable means for funding such efforts- don't they consider the impact of clearing of over eleven acres of forest and natural ground cover significant?
Won't this be replaced by an impervious surface that will itself allow more clearing and impervious surfaces?
Somewhere, I recall that stripping natural growth from land increases runoff by a factor of 16.
Do we understand what that can cause?
I don't get either the myopia or the routine bureaucracy that continues to seriously hamper efforts to protect this Reservoir.
And, coming so soon after the record rainfall and runoff from this same general area that actually closed North Shore Drive, damaged homes and infrastructure, too!
What the heck is going on?
Business as usual?
I hope the City and/or others will soon vigorously challenge this short-sighted, and maybe even illegal development!
-----------------
Here are a few pieces of information about this proposal that have come my way, followed by a few questions that citizens and our elected representatives ought to be asking:
• LEGAL NOTICE: [How many people actually read these? Thank goodness some do!]
(L7015) WHATCOM COUNTY GIVES PUBLIC NOTICE THAT THE FOLLOWING SEPA THRESHOLD OF MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) HAS BEEN ISSUED TODAY SUBJECT TO THE 14 DAY COMMENT PERIOD CONCLUDING ON JANUARY 22, 2008. File: SEP2008-00063 Project Description: The construction of a road to serve future residential home construction on up to 26 existing 20-acre residential properties currently located in the Rural Forestry zone. The proposed private road will require clearing and grading for roughly 10,300 linear feet of roadway. The total project impact area (clearing) is approximately 11.05 acres in size. Proponent: CLN LLC, Christopher and Nancy Secrist, Gordon and Carol Iverson Location: The proposed project lies northerly and approximately 2 miles east of the intersection of Academy Road and North Shore Drive on Squalicum Mountain. APN #: 380324 066302, 380324 066366, 380324 066432, 380324 200432, 380324 200495, 380313 094020, 380313 229052, 380313 137128, 380313 211152, 380313 333171, 380313 333231, 380313 355328, 380313 295341, 380313 368452, 380313 307476. Lead Agency: Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Zoning: Rural Forestry (RF) Comp Plan: Rural Forestry ANY PERSON OR AGENCY MAY APPEAL THE COUNTY'S COMPLIANCE WITH WAC 197-11 BY FILING AN APPEAL WITH THE WHATCOM COUNTY LAND USE DIVISION LOCATED AT 5280 NORTHWEST DRIVE, BELLINGHAM, WA 98226. APPEALS MUST BE MADE WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE END OF THE COMMENT PERIOD.
• From the Department of Ecology's website:
County: Whatcom
Lead Agency: Whatcom County
Lead Agency Contact: Tyler Schroeder
Lead Agency Phone: (360) 676-6907
Lead Agency File #: 2008-00063
Ecology File #: 200900152
Document Type: DNS-M
Description: Squalicum Ridge Rd; construct a 10,300 ft road to service future residential homes on up to 26 existing 20 acre residential properties in the Rural Forestry zone
Location: Two miles east of the intersection of Academy Rd and North Shore Drive on Squalicum Mountain
Applicant: CLN LLC, Christopher & Nancy Secrist, Gordon & Carol Iverson
Issue Date: 01/08/2009
Mail Date:
Comment Due: 01/22/2009
Enter Date: 01/12/2009
• The Bham Herald Legas-Ad announcement :
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:7ygVYc7l71MJ:buyit.bellinghamherald.com/findit/legal_and_financial/legal_public_notices/P58cabd42c15999b423864e4b2e5e2f7f.htm%3FitemId%3DP58cabd42c15999b423864e4b2e5e2f7f_01+SEP2008-00063+whatcom&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us ;
• A cursory googling shows: Christopher Secrist is/was affiliated with Oeser (famous in-town polluters) and Gordon & Carol Iverson both are/were worked for Trillium.
• I can add from my own knowledge that Mr Iverson has monitored closely the City's interest in acquiring watershed property in this vicinity, and in at least one instance, bid slightly higher than the City's offer on a large wooded acreage near the power line right of way. Due to a technicality, the owner opted to sell to Mr Iverson rather than the City after it had completed a lengthy due diligence process. Nothing illegal here, but it does demonstrate an agenda that is significantly at odds with the City's goal of protecting the Reservoir.
------------------
One basic tenet of stormwater management is to use nature's own mitigation whenever possible.
Sometimes this means 'don't build there'; other times maintaining adequate buffers is OK.
Always, its better to mitigate stormwater higher up the slope, not lower!
And, building detention ponds, stormwater drains and treatment facilities is expensive and relatively ineffective.
Yet, knowing the above, here we are pretending this wisdom is unknown - again!
Amazing, but maybe not when one takes into account how this County is being administered.
But, that also brings up another question: Does the County Executive own property in this vicinity?
And, if he does, will this development benefit him financially?
Another observation:
If this property is currently zoned 'Rural Forestry', how is it possible to build 26 homes, each on 20 acres?
Is that land use appropriate, even as a 'cluster'?
Is it legal?
Would the County Council need to approve a rezone for this to happen?
On what grounds might such a rezone be granted?
Who will supply water to these sites?
Water District 7?
Whose water will they use?
Doesn't Water District 7 have an agreement with the City?
Does this agreement restrict such extensions?
Does Water District 10 [now masquerading as the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District] have any role to play in this scheme"
What about sewage?
Does the developer expect the County to allow more septic systems to service these 26 mega homes?
What about the clear policy adopted for NOT doing that?
What about downstream damage potential?
Not only will runoff from this area find its way downhill, it will likely reach the Reservoir.
On its way down hill, who is responsible for the expected stormwater damage, in the forms of erosion, flooding and added nutrient and pollutant loads -which are supposedly to be considered in the County & City's response to the DOE TMDL?
Will the County be allowed to wash its hands of these responsibilities and look the other way as the City tries to manage this mess after the fact?
You know what?
There is a lot that stinks about this proposal!
And, it is time to do something about it, in strongest terms!
It would be nice if those who profess concern about our Reservoir, started doing more to actually achieve their stated goals.
And, while I'm at it, how about those citizens who take their drinking water for granted, then use their energies to advocate something of far lesser importance?
It is past time for this community to come together and really make its will known to those who have been elected to lead us!
We simply need to demonstrate what is most important, and tell them we expect effective action, not empty words and more complacency!
There is not much time to waste in addressing this particular problem 'development', which is so symptomatic of the repeated damage that has already been inflicted on our Reservoir!
Literally, this Reservoir is being harmed to death by 'a thousand pin pricks'; each may be non-fatal, but in their cumulative effect certainly so.
When I hear 'private road', I also think of Sudden Valley, which feels entitled to County road funds to access and maintain them.
Already, there is the expectation of the County providing access to this proposed development on Squalicum Mountain.
Then, will come widening, turning lanes and other improvement, all at taxpayer expense.
I object to any part of my taxes being used for this private purpose!
The County can't even maintain the roads it has!
Eventually, those who choose to live in this proposed, private, 520 acre enclave, if it gets allowed and built, will also depend upon City services, too, which they will pay nothing to deserve.
Enough!
Just say no to this.
If we can't find a way to say 'no', we'll deserve what results.
And 520 acres of low density development; when did that start to fit with the slow growth policy that so many citizens want?
Why, that's more than the County wanted to allow the City to have -and that was for high density development!
Get serious County!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
