----------------
Today's headline announces: 'Bellingham moves ahead with King Mountain annexation despite county concerns.'
You know what?
The County needs to pay attention to its own business and stop trying to tell other jurisdictions what to do!
That is a very poor substitute for real planning, for which the County lacks both the talent AND the top-down commitment.
Yes, this is the same Whatcom County that has meddled for years in delaying the last Comp Plan update from being timely completed, yet STILL does not have its own information developed and adopted.
What is wrong with that picture?
The County's time has run out -on more than one occasion- for getting its own work done, yet it just applies for another extension instead of getting this work done.
The latest 5-month extension granted by the Growth Management Board has a 'firm' deadline of December 1, 2009.
Let's hope that deadline is firm, and that the GMB means what it says about withdrawing an array of state funds from counties that don't meet their legal commitments.
That seems to be the only language Whatcom County understands.
------------------
How many remember being treated to the spectacle of a County Planning Commission with an attitude, debating and delaying reaching any timely recommendation for the County Council, except their own opinion that the City of Bellingham already had enough land to accommodate its growth in the next 20 years?
Where is the data to back that up?
Historical records certainly do not show that, so where do these appointed -or anointed-amateurs get their information -from populist sentiment or just their own biases?
It's too bad the County Council was deprived of timely, well-considered and balanced information from the Planning Commission, because that is one thing that is needed to make an informed decision, and not just parrot demagoguery.
But, the County Council did eventually make a decision to grant the City some additional UGA land around King Mtn.
Guess which parcel?
The exact same one that is now being questioned!
What is going on with that?
Sorry, County, you don't get to backtrack on this matter.
Once an area is approved and accepted as being part of the UGA, the only way to undo those decisions is for BOTH parties to agree.
If the City does not agree to rescind this UGA, it is entitled to consider annexation proposals from property owners there.
That is what has happened, and what the City Council is inclined to accept -by a unanimous vote, yesterday.
---------------------
The one concept which the County seems to have the most trouble understanding is this: that the surest way the City has of ensuring the type of development and density that is built is by way of annexation, with urban village style developments being integral parts of annexation proposals.
Otherwise, all bets are off, and we may wait a long type to see wishful thinking -no matter how good- actually implemented.
That is what has been happening in the UGA up until now, with results that please neither jurisdiction.
Einstein defined insanity as continuing to do the same thing, while expecting different results.
But, it shouldn't take an Einstein to figure this out!
No, it is really very simple.
As long as the UGA is NOT annexed it remains County land, and subject to County rules and revenue collections.
That is the very method by which the County has over-collected revenues in the UGAs for years, then sticking the City with dealing with sub-standard or discontinuous development to fix at its expense when annexation eventually occurs.
That simply won't work any more, particularly if urban densities are desired.
The reason is that the City's policy has changed regarding extending water & sewer services outside City Limits, without annexation.
Did the County miss that little change?
I don't think so!
They just don't like it.
You see, that little change isn't so little, really.
That change means the annexed UGA becomes City land, not the County's jurisdiction.
It means City rules & regulations apply and the City collects revenues in order to provide urban levels of service.
I'll say it again; the County doesn't like this change in City policy.
Why?
Two things; loss of revenue and loss of control.
Get used to it County, because that's the way things will be done from now on [and the way we should have been doing things before].
The sooner the County understands that their whim is not the City's command the better.
Citizens need to know that this 'dispute' isn't about legalities, but about the County finally Having to face up to the reality of what real growth management means, at least in part.
It also means the County will need to constantly relinquish lands to Bellingham ad the other cities of Whatcom County to accommodate their urban levels of growth.
Inherently, this also means a diminishing revenue base.
And, it may finally serve to get attention from the County administration that it needs to raise its own taxes periodically, instead of stealing revenues from UGAs -and unincorporated areas- from building without annexation.
All one has to do is examine the County's record of growth management, or more accurately, non-management, to understand where sprawl has occurred most frequently.
If you guessed the 'unincorporated areas', you'd be correct!
BTW, that means all those areas that are characterized by farms, forests and open space, NOT cities.
Whatcom County needs to mind its own business better, and stop calling other jurisdictions to blame for every ill it can imagine.
What was the saying about the pot calling the kettle black?
------------------
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
T-Party or P-Party?
Reports of a planned 'TEA Party' on tax day -April 15- sound more like a political rally and fund raiser to me.
And, why not?
It's a political year, locally, and it follows a big political year in which Democrats swept the Presidency and both houses of congress, plus a few State governorships to boot.
When would be a better time to try and raise attention for contrarian views?
And, if a little money can be raised in the process, isn't that good for the economy?
But, the question has been raised, is this newsworthy?
Of course it is, at least the reporting of it.
Whether people will pay much attention to what's written and spoken is something else again.
Especially, considering the cast of local characters, who have so consistently failed in their attempts to win elections based upon clear patterns of misinformation foisted upon the public.
Let's consider why these folks think now is a time to complain about excessive taxes.
Of course, it is Federal income tax time, although Washington has no such counterpart -even though that idea would be much fairer than what we have now.
Locally, the County hasn't raised property taxes in -what- 14 years? That's despite a severe reduction in revenues due to sprawl construction being off its peak.
Of course, the County did raise additional flood taxes in order to actually accomplish some critical projects that had been 'approved' years ago, but languished because of inadequate funding.
I'm sure no responsible citizen would complain about something as essential as water quality -would they?
And, because the City decided NOT to raise its property taxes by the maximum allowed -1%- this year, surely that can't be the motivation for a T-Party -could it?
Also, with the severe budget problem brought about by the recession, the City has whacked its staff and services, so that can't be the reason for a T-Party either, could it?
One tip-off about a possible T-Party motivation was a fuzzy and unconvincing 'public initiative' idea floated by a former -unsuccessful- Mayoral candidate and radio personality.
That notion complained about local legislatures tendency to 'bank' annual 1% property tax increases until future needs occur.
Actually, that practice is one of the best ideas that local government has to protect itself from exactly the kind of economic situation we find ourselves in today.
So, what's the beef? Really!
I think I know what the 'beef' is, especially when the City's former Finance Director, Lynn Carpenter, is involved.
Her tactic is simply to mischaracterize things periodically when it suits her purposes.
Or, to simply create situations and their 'explanations' where none really exist, especially when complexity mitigates against clear and easy public understanding.
Fortunately, Ms Carpenter no longer serves in a publicly elected capacity, and no longer lives in the City.
But, in fairness, Carpenter does deserve credit for helping recruit her successor, Therese Holm, who served in real distinction for 8 years through 2007, setting the standard for excellence which the public should demand every year!
So, thanks for that, anyway, Lynn.
The point is, there is no rationale for holding this TEA-Party, or any of the 1800 or so planned nationwide, than to attract attention to register contrary opinion to the results of the last elections.
Of course, raising a few bucks by selling a few catchy phrases printed on partisan merchandise has to be part of the plan, as well as introducing a few 'trial balloon' candidates.
You see, the party who has fallen so badly out of power needs to try and reclaim its image, not to speak of its lost power.
That's the real nature of T-Parties, or as they ought to be called 'P-Parties'.
They are manufactured opportunities, pure and simple, and sometimes they do enjoy modest, if temporary success.
We'll see what our local April 15TEA-Party brings in terms of results or coverage.
One forecast is for rain, but that's not unusual around here, is it?
-----------------------
And, why not?
It's a political year, locally, and it follows a big political year in which Democrats swept the Presidency and both houses of congress, plus a few State governorships to boot.
When would be a better time to try and raise attention for contrarian views?
And, if a little money can be raised in the process, isn't that good for the economy?
But, the question has been raised, is this newsworthy?
Of course it is, at least the reporting of it.
Whether people will pay much attention to what's written and spoken is something else again.
Especially, considering the cast of local characters, who have so consistently failed in their attempts to win elections based upon clear patterns of misinformation foisted upon the public.
Let's consider why these folks think now is a time to complain about excessive taxes.
Of course, it is Federal income tax time, although Washington has no such counterpart -even though that idea would be much fairer than what we have now.
Locally, the County hasn't raised property taxes in -what- 14 years? That's despite a severe reduction in revenues due to sprawl construction being off its peak.
Of course, the County did raise additional flood taxes in order to actually accomplish some critical projects that had been 'approved' years ago, but languished because of inadequate funding.
I'm sure no responsible citizen would complain about something as essential as water quality -would they?
And, because the City decided NOT to raise its property taxes by the maximum allowed -1%- this year, surely that can't be the motivation for a T-Party -could it?
Also, with the severe budget problem brought about by the recession, the City has whacked its staff and services, so that can't be the reason for a T-Party either, could it?
One tip-off about a possible T-Party motivation was a fuzzy and unconvincing 'public initiative' idea floated by a former -unsuccessful- Mayoral candidate and radio personality.
That notion complained about local legislatures tendency to 'bank' annual 1% property tax increases until future needs occur.
Actually, that practice is one of the best ideas that local government has to protect itself from exactly the kind of economic situation we find ourselves in today.
So, what's the beef? Really!
I think I know what the 'beef' is, especially when the City's former Finance Director, Lynn Carpenter, is involved.
Her tactic is simply to mischaracterize things periodically when it suits her purposes.
Or, to simply create situations and their 'explanations' where none really exist, especially when complexity mitigates against clear and easy public understanding.
Fortunately, Ms Carpenter no longer serves in a publicly elected capacity, and no longer lives in the City.
But, in fairness, Carpenter does deserve credit for helping recruit her successor, Therese Holm, who served in real distinction for 8 years through 2007, setting the standard for excellence which the public should demand every year!
So, thanks for that, anyway, Lynn.
The point is, there is no rationale for holding this TEA-Party, or any of the 1800 or so planned nationwide, than to attract attention to register contrary opinion to the results of the last elections.
Of course, raising a few bucks by selling a few catchy phrases printed on partisan merchandise has to be part of the plan, as well as introducing a few 'trial balloon' candidates.
You see, the party who has fallen so badly out of power needs to try and reclaim its image, not to speak of its lost power.
That's the real nature of T-Parties, or as they ought to be called 'P-Parties'.
They are manufactured opportunities, pure and simple, and sometimes they do enjoy modest, if temporary success.
We'll see what our local April 15TEA-Party brings in terms of results or coverage.
One forecast is for rain, but that's not unusual around here, is it?
-----------------------
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer: Want Fries With That?
A few days before April Fool's Day the Herald ran an announcement about a decision made by the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District [formerly Water District 10/WD10] that it had decided to purchase the former site of BURGER ME! on Lakeway Drive to use as its administrative office.
Since the District's earlier idea of building a new $5 million admin palace had fallen far afoul of its customers, this new $1.4 million idea was expected to be viewed as preferable; whether it is remains to be seen.
But, with the District's history of denial about any accelerated degradation happening in our Reservoir, it's consistent undermining of effective mitigation by local jurisdictions, its refusal to bear any of these costs or pass them on to its customers, and its reluctance to meaningfully change any of its outdated procedures for accepting new customers, or for maintaining its facilities,
WD10 remains a distant, poor cousin in the family of citizens who are very concerned about the future health of Lake Whatcom, and the enormous costs of impacts that are not avoided.
As a junior special purpose district, WD10 seems only focused on its longstanding mission of business as usual, even though changes to Lake run-off patterns and quantities are certainly NOT USUAL.
That is a problem with such 'special purpose districts'; they think they are so special that they need not be guided by common sense and cooperation with other jurisdictions.
Just elect a few hacks as Commissioners, hire a manager that will do only as told, and stay on the good side of development interests and bargain-hunting customers. A pretty simple formula designed to deliver a simple result- even though circumstances often produce distinctively UN-simple conditions.
I do remember -vividly- the unholy war that WD10 waged when the Lake Whatcom Land Preservation surcharge was enacted by the City Council back in the year 2000! Why, one would think the world as we know it was coming to an end!
Now, a $5 per month water surcharge is a fairly steep charge, and one that can rightfully be termed as 'regressive' I suppose if one is more into philosophy.
But if collecting these funds and using them to good effect SAVES big money in future years, then what's the beef [more on this later]?
WD10's beef was they resented being 'taxed' by another jurisdiction, even the City - their main provider of water & sewer!
They also resented having their rates raised 50% more than the City, in direct proportion to their actual -contractual- costs.
When those new rates were made to stand, WD10 took the action to minimize the amount of drinking water purchased from the City and use their own production instead -a reasonable thing to do, and also one that did not use up the City's capacity prematurely.
It seems that many years ago, the City and WD10 signed Inter-local Agreements that specified the quantities of water and sewer the City would provide.
That was seen as a responsible thing to do, and one that makes sense both economically and in the interest of public health.
After all, it makes little sense to build separate facilities where single, larger ones are already in place.
And, in the case of sewage treatment, only the City has a discharge permit; WD10 being limited to septic systems which leak and fail with maddening frequency -right into our drinking water supply.
Is that smart?
When these Inter-local were conceived and first signed they were assumed to be in perpetuity, with use on demand.
In hindsight, this wasn't entirely a good idea, because it did not anticipate the type of changing conditions that have occurred, nor the escalating costs or need for smarter development practices.
But, these Inter-locals did give WD10 what it simply needed to do as a special purpose district; simply provide water and sewer to every customer who asked for it.
I haven't researched the Water District's customer statistics, but over the years they have likely attracted several thousand customers -all situated outside City limits.
The most recent estimates I've seen indicate that about 2500 new potential customers may eventually ask WD10 for water and sewer services, which they are seemingly bound to grant.
Hey, nothing wrong with new customers is there?
Isn't that how we pay for facilities and staff while keeping rates low?
After all, we've already got locks on a certain amount of City water and sewer services.
Now, back to 'what's the beef':
Does it strike anyone as ironic that WD10- with maybe a maximum of 2500 new potential customers- would pick a vacant former fast food joint as its admin headquarters?
One conjures MacDonald's signs that brag about 'over 99 Billion sold'.
Or, Burger King's 'have it your way'
Or, Wendy's 'Waaay better than fast food'.
Or, BURGER ME!'s infamous triple cheeseburger on a Krispy Kreme doughnut!
Think instant heart attack!
Wonder what kind of catchy hats or uniforms the WD10 admin people will wear?
More importantly, is this the way a responsible Water District spends its money?
On a drive-in site on a busy thoroughfare?
And, what message might they display on the big BURGER ME! sign that now advertises 'flavor of the week frozen custard?
Will WD10 try to hurry folks to buy their water and sewer services while they last?
What else are they selling?
Fries?
-------------
Since the District's earlier idea of building a new $5 million admin palace had fallen far afoul of its customers, this new $1.4 million idea was expected to be viewed as preferable; whether it is remains to be seen.
But, with the District's history of denial about any accelerated degradation happening in our Reservoir, it's consistent undermining of effective mitigation by local jurisdictions, its refusal to bear any of these costs or pass them on to its customers, and its reluctance to meaningfully change any of its outdated procedures for accepting new customers, or for maintaining its facilities,
WD10 remains a distant, poor cousin in the family of citizens who are very concerned about the future health of Lake Whatcom, and the enormous costs of impacts that are not avoided.
As a junior special purpose district, WD10 seems only focused on its longstanding mission of business as usual, even though changes to Lake run-off patterns and quantities are certainly NOT USUAL.
That is a problem with such 'special purpose districts'; they think they are so special that they need not be guided by common sense and cooperation with other jurisdictions.
Just elect a few hacks as Commissioners, hire a manager that will do only as told, and stay on the good side of development interests and bargain-hunting customers. A pretty simple formula designed to deliver a simple result- even though circumstances often produce distinctively UN-simple conditions.
I do remember -vividly- the unholy war that WD10 waged when the Lake Whatcom Land Preservation surcharge was enacted by the City Council back in the year 2000! Why, one would think the world as we know it was coming to an end!
Now, a $5 per month water surcharge is a fairly steep charge, and one that can rightfully be termed as 'regressive' I suppose if one is more into philosophy.
But if collecting these funds and using them to good effect SAVES big money in future years, then what's the beef [more on this later]?
WD10's beef was they resented being 'taxed' by another jurisdiction, even the City - their main provider of water & sewer!
They also resented having their rates raised 50% more than the City, in direct proportion to their actual -contractual- costs.
When those new rates were made to stand, WD10 took the action to minimize the amount of drinking water purchased from the City and use their own production instead -a reasonable thing to do, and also one that did not use up the City's capacity prematurely.
It seems that many years ago, the City and WD10 signed Inter-local Agreements that specified the quantities of water and sewer the City would provide.
That was seen as a responsible thing to do, and one that makes sense both economically and in the interest of public health.
After all, it makes little sense to build separate facilities where single, larger ones are already in place.
And, in the case of sewage treatment, only the City has a discharge permit; WD10 being limited to septic systems which leak and fail with maddening frequency -right into our drinking water supply.
Is that smart?
When these Inter-local were conceived and first signed they were assumed to be in perpetuity, with use on demand.
In hindsight, this wasn't entirely a good idea, because it did not anticipate the type of changing conditions that have occurred, nor the escalating costs or need for smarter development practices.
But, these Inter-locals did give WD10 what it simply needed to do as a special purpose district; simply provide water and sewer to every customer who asked for it.
I haven't researched the Water District's customer statistics, but over the years they have likely attracted several thousand customers -all situated outside City limits.
The most recent estimates I've seen indicate that about 2500 new potential customers may eventually ask WD10 for water and sewer services, which they are seemingly bound to grant.
Hey, nothing wrong with new customers is there?
Isn't that how we pay for facilities and staff while keeping rates low?
After all, we've already got locks on a certain amount of City water and sewer services.
Now, back to 'what's the beef':
Does it strike anyone as ironic that WD10- with maybe a maximum of 2500 new potential customers- would pick a vacant former fast food joint as its admin headquarters?
One conjures MacDonald's signs that brag about 'over 99 Billion sold'.
Or, Burger King's 'have it your way'
Or, Wendy's 'Waaay better than fast food'.
Or, BURGER ME!'s infamous triple cheeseburger on a Krispy Kreme doughnut!
Think instant heart attack!
Wonder what kind of catchy hats or uniforms the WD10 admin people will wear?
More importantly, is this the way a responsible Water District spends its money?
On a drive-in site on a busy thoroughfare?
And, what message might they display on the big BURGER ME! sign that now advertises 'flavor of the week frozen custard?
Will WD10 try to hurry folks to buy their water and sewer services while they last?
What else are they selling?
Fries?
-------------
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Picking The Top Teams
With the hundreds of teams, dozens of conferences and the multiplicity of opinions, it is nothing short of amazing how much agreement has been garnered on which teams are considered the favorites, and make up the so-called 'sweet sixteen' in the NCAA MEN'S BASKETBALL TOURNAMENT now in full swing.
While the winners and losers of individual games are difficult to pick with any consistency, the degree of agreement on which teams comprise this surviving field of 16 is quite remarkable.
Consider this;
After two elimination rounds of games, during which the field has been reduced from 64, all the teams remaining were initially seeded among the top four of their respective brackets, except for 2 teams.
That means the 'experts' were right in their selections 87.5% of the time!
The two exceptions were Purdue [a 5 seed which beat Washington, a 4 seed] and Arizona [a 12 seed which beat Cleveland State, a 13 seed, which had beaten another 4 seed, Wake Forest]
To be able to sort through all these teams and seed them that accurately is nothing short of amazing!
Of course, any further predictions are problematic at best, but remember last year? All four number 1 seeds made it to the Final Four! That could easily happen again this year, but who knows?
Today begins the next contests, as per below:
Midwest
1 U Louisville
12 ARIZONA
3 Kansas U
2 Michigan State U
West
1 CONNECTICUT
5 PURDUE
3 MISSOURI
2 MEMPHIS
East
1 PITTSBURGH
4 XAVIER
3 VILLANOVA
2 DUKE
South
1 U NORTH CAROLINA
4 GONZAGA
3 SYRACUSE
2 OKLAHOMA
Care to make any predictions?
---------
While the winners and losers of individual games are difficult to pick with any consistency, the degree of agreement on which teams comprise this surviving field of 16 is quite remarkable.
Consider this;
After two elimination rounds of games, during which the field has been reduced from 64, all the teams remaining were initially seeded among the top four of their respective brackets, except for 2 teams.
That means the 'experts' were right in their selections 87.5% of the time!
The two exceptions were Purdue [a 5 seed which beat Washington, a 4 seed] and Arizona [a 12 seed which beat Cleveland State, a 13 seed, which had beaten another 4 seed, Wake Forest]
To be able to sort through all these teams and seed them that accurately is nothing short of amazing!
Of course, any further predictions are problematic at best, but remember last year? All four number 1 seeds made it to the Final Four! That could easily happen again this year, but who knows?
Today begins the next contests, as per below:
Midwest
1 U Louisville
12 ARIZONA
3 Kansas U
2 Michigan State U
West
1 CONNECTICUT
5 PURDUE
3 MISSOURI
2 MEMPHIS
East
1 PITTSBURGH
4 XAVIER
3 VILLANOVA
2 DUKE
South
1 U NORTH CAROLINA
4 GONZAGA
3 SYRACUSE
2 OKLAHOMA
Care to make any predictions?
---------
Thursday, March 19, 2009
March Madness & Gladness
------------
It's that time of year again, when college basketball rules the airways.
I always look forward to this time, and this year's tourneys have already had their share of surprises.
Even with several obviously superior teams there has been a raft of upsets, which seems to mean some basic underlying parity.
Soon, we'll find out who survives the NCAA and NIT tournaments, and who gets the bragging rights for this year.
I've got my favorites, and it should be no surprise that the ACC is the apple of eye.
But, even if my teams don't win, there will be some good games, and that's the main point.
---------
But, March always has other significances, too.
It is the time that Spring begins its renewal process, bringing seasonal changes that are so important to this planet.
In like a Lion, out like a Lamb, as the saying goes -which isn't always true.
'Wild as a March Hare' is a term that fits most kids that aspire to being sports heroes, too.
They have a ton of desire and energy, but haven't quite mastered the control and discipline needed to become truly skilled and adept and valuable at sports.
----------
Beware the 'Ides of March'
Julius Caesar's bloody assassination on March 15, 44 B.C., forever marked March 15, or the Ides of March, as a day of infamy. It has fascinated scholars and writers ever since.
For ancient Romans living before that event, however, an ides was merely one of several common calendar terms used to mark monthly lunar events. The ides simply marked the appearance of the full moon.
-----------
My personal favorite date in March is the 17th - Saint Patrick's Day!
Aside from the wearin' of the green and good natured gaiety, it's just a fun time that millions of people like to share.
While my enjoyment of a wee drop of Guinness may be curtailed for a while, my memories do last -without filling.
At some level, I suspect the time around St Paddy's day also resonates for a deeper and more personal reason for me, and my son.
That is because we were both likely conceived about that time in our respective years of birth.
Not a bad way to associate this time of year with our very essence, is it?
-------------
It's that time of year again, when college basketball rules the airways.
I always look forward to this time, and this year's tourneys have already had their share of surprises.
Even with several obviously superior teams there has been a raft of upsets, which seems to mean some basic underlying parity.
Soon, we'll find out who survives the NCAA and NIT tournaments, and who gets the bragging rights for this year.
I've got my favorites, and it should be no surprise that the ACC is the apple of eye.
But, even if my teams don't win, there will be some good games, and that's the main point.
---------
But, March always has other significances, too.
It is the time that Spring begins its renewal process, bringing seasonal changes that are so important to this planet.
In like a Lion, out like a Lamb, as the saying goes -which isn't always true.
'Wild as a March Hare' is a term that fits most kids that aspire to being sports heroes, too.
They have a ton of desire and energy, but haven't quite mastered the control and discipline needed to become truly skilled and adept and valuable at sports.
----------
Beware the 'Ides of March'
Julius Caesar's bloody assassination on March 15, 44 B.C., forever marked March 15, or the Ides of March, as a day of infamy. It has fascinated scholars and writers ever since.
For ancient Romans living before that event, however, an ides was merely one of several common calendar terms used to mark monthly lunar events. The ides simply marked the appearance of the full moon.
-----------
My personal favorite date in March is the 17th - Saint Patrick's Day!
Aside from the wearin' of the green and good natured gaiety, it's just a fun time that millions of people like to share.
While my enjoyment of a wee drop of Guinness may be curtailed for a while, my memories do last -without filling.
At some level, I suspect the time around St Paddy's day also resonates for a deeper and more personal reason for me, and my son.
That is because we were both likely conceived about that time in our respective years of birth.
Not a bad way to associate this time of year with our very essence, is it?
-------------
Monday, March 9, 2009
Lake Whatcom: Reservoir or High Rent District?
-------------------
Remember when John McCain couldn't recall how many homes he -and/or his wife- owned?
Well, there are others like him who'd like to have home #3 -or higher- right here in Whatcom County.
Thanks to the County's incredible incompetence, these wealthy, seasonal imports will have an easier time finding the right spot to impress their friends.
Folks, a nightmare scenario is happening -at a quickening pace- before our eyes, assisted by the County's re-issuance of its so-called Environmental Impact Statement, which says it is of no consequence if a private road is gouged from the end of Academy upward, to serve 26 more mega homes, each surrounded by its own 20-acre forested woodpile.
At least, that is what we think we now know, thanks to Mr Kirsch's post at NW Citizen, and I doubt he has this wrong.
If this act of gross negligence and stupidity is allowed to stand, our Executive's powerful developer friends will benefit mightily from the precedent being set.
It's OK with the County if one buys forestry land, subdivides it, gouges roads, obtains water and sewer from a friendly water district -or worse, wells and septics, then pays the County enough baksheesh to be technically legal.
Is that really OK?
I don't think so!
And, many others don't think so either.
It's time we as citizens take some strong action on this matter, as well as the future planned degradations the County's power brokers may have in mind!
I think it's time to call in Legal Man, plus the Dept of Ecology and anyone else who can help reverse this terrible decision!
And, I will volunteer to help pay these costs, because folks fighting this kind of crap will require some bucks.
I'm reminded of Judas Iscariot, who received -what? 30 pieces of silver for betraying Christ.
Can you imagine a more crass act, committed at a time of such budget problems that the County would allow this to happen?
Can you visualize the Lake Whatcom watershed a few years hence, when almost all of Squalicum and Stewart Mountains -maybe even Galbrath- will be covered by mega homes, daisy-chained together by new, gouged new roads, traveled by SUVs, off-road vehicles and fun seekers trying out the County's new 8400-acre 'Park', which it can't pay for any other way?
And, there will probably be a few more planes, maybe helicopters, landing in the water or near it, too.
Hey, this is our drinking water supply!
Think these things will do anything to help us protect our municipal water supply?
If you do, there is a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
You know, no one begrudges folks making a legitimate buck or two, but this scheme really begs the question in my book.
It pits the most basic needs of people directly against the excessive greed of a few, in a way that is truly disgusting.
But, that's the way things are in a democracy, isn't it?
Unless there are clear rules and regulations -that are enforced -you can end up, well, with a Wall Street crash for gosh sakes!
Is that what's happening here?
If it is, let's fix it -and fast!
I invite the Dept of Ecology to fully review the County's EIS and the methodology utilized in rubber-stamping it.
If the bureaucrat responsible is correct in his assessment, I'll stand corrected.
But something really stinks about this!
And, the DOE does have a big dog in this fight, who's initials are TMDL!
I would like to see this potentially precedent-setting decision stopped in its tracks, using all means available.
Maybe actions are already being considered that I don't know about, in which case I applaud those initiatives.
Just let me know to whom I should write my check.
There aren't going to be many more chances as good as this one to take a firm stand on Lake Whatcom.
Fiddle around the edges all you want, but this one is a big one!
---------------------
Remember when John McCain couldn't recall how many homes he -and/or his wife- owned?
Well, there are others like him who'd like to have home #3 -or higher- right here in Whatcom County.
Thanks to the County's incredible incompetence, these wealthy, seasonal imports will have an easier time finding the right spot to impress their friends.
Folks, a nightmare scenario is happening -at a quickening pace- before our eyes, assisted by the County's re-issuance of its so-called Environmental Impact Statement, which says it is of no consequence if a private road is gouged from the end of Academy upward, to serve 26 more mega homes, each surrounded by its own 20-acre forested woodpile.
At least, that is what we think we now know, thanks to Mr Kirsch's post at NW Citizen, and I doubt he has this wrong.
If this act of gross negligence and stupidity is allowed to stand, our Executive's powerful developer friends will benefit mightily from the precedent being set.
It's OK with the County if one buys forestry land, subdivides it, gouges roads, obtains water and sewer from a friendly water district -or worse, wells and septics, then pays the County enough baksheesh to be technically legal.
Is that really OK?
I don't think so!
And, many others don't think so either.
It's time we as citizens take some strong action on this matter, as well as the future planned degradations the County's power brokers may have in mind!
I think it's time to call in Legal Man, plus the Dept of Ecology and anyone else who can help reverse this terrible decision!
And, I will volunteer to help pay these costs, because folks fighting this kind of crap will require some bucks.
I'm reminded of Judas Iscariot, who received -what? 30 pieces of silver for betraying Christ.
Can you imagine a more crass act, committed at a time of such budget problems that the County would allow this to happen?
Can you visualize the Lake Whatcom watershed a few years hence, when almost all of Squalicum and Stewart Mountains -maybe even Galbrath- will be covered by mega homes, daisy-chained together by new, gouged new roads, traveled by SUVs, off-road vehicles and fun seekers trying out the County's new 8400-acre 'Park', which it can't pay for any other way?
And, there will probably be a few more planes, maybe helicopters, landing in the water or near it, too.
Hey, this is our drinking water supply!
Think these things will do anything to help us protect our municipal water supply?
If you do, there is a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
You know, no one begrudges folks making a legitimate buck or two, but this scheme really begs the question in my book.
It pits the most basic needs of people directly against the excessive greed of a few, in a way that is truly disgusting.
But, that's the way things are in a democracy, isn't it?
Unless there are clear rules and regulations -that are enforced -you can end up, well, with a Wall Street crash for gosh sakes!
Is that what's happening here?
If it is, let's fix it -and fast!
I invite the Dept of Ecology to fully review the County's EIS and the methodology utilized in rubber-stamping it.
If the bureaucrat responsible is correct in his assessment, I'll stand corrected.
But something really stinks about this!
And, the DOE does have a big dog in this fight, who's initials are TMDL!
I would like to see this potentially precedent-setting decision stopped in its tracks, using all means available.
Maybe actions are already being considered that I don't know about, in which case I applaud those initiatives.
Just let me know to whom I should write my check.
There aren't going to be many more chances as good as this one to take a firm stand on Lake Whatcom.
Fiddle around the edges all you want, but this one is a big one!
---------------------
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Parks: Their Care & Feeding
------------------
Another worrisome article appeared in the papers recently, this one concerning our State parks and their viability.
Here's a partial quote:
I know our fiscal crisis is dire in the State of Washington, but wonder what long term effects will occur as a result of this proposed action.
Will the State permanently lose these parks, which were acquired and developed for the benefit of citizens?
I do understand pretty clearly the hierarchy of services priorities that responsible governments must sustain.
At the top of the list are matters of public safety, health and welfare.
Then, come the rest, including amenities such as parks.
----------------
Similar realities exist for other government entities, like Counties, Cities and other municipalities.
Which brings me to a point that ought to be of interest to folks here in Whatcom County.
Recently, the County decided to cease operating the historic Roeder Home , due to 'lack of funding'.
That decision has caused consternation among many who value maintaining worthwhile public amenities.
But, the lack of funds is something that everyone understands.
To date, the County seems to have done nothing to raise additional funds, as has been their habit for at least a dozen years -about the length of time our current Executive has exerted his particular brand of non-leadership.
Of greater concern is the fact that the County has requested the State Dept of Natural Resources [DNR] reconvey 8400 acres of timberlands in the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Watershed for the purpose of -get this- creating a County park!
As desirable as some may think this idea may be, consider this:
Under DNR, these lands were subject to more stringent management, and also produced some revenues to benefit various schools and other public trusts.
Under Whatcom County's management, this 'Park' would -like the Roeder Home- have no stable funding source!
This could be remedied, at least in part, if the County decided to create a Park District, or some other management entity that could also provide necessary funding.
Good luck on that happening!
Sorry to be so skeptical of what is undoubtedly a popular idea, but realities do tend to conflict with such things at times!
To date, I have heard no definitive, or convincing arguments that give me confidence in the County's ability to manage and maintain such a Park, even one that offers minimum activities and impacts.
Where is the plan?
If the State of Washington finds it necessary to rid itself of one-third of its Parks, how is it that little Whatcom County can decide to create such a huge Park around our municipal water supply, with no visible means of support?
That simply boggles my mind!
Maybe others can figure this one out.
Populism is good, but at some point it needs to pencil out, without the use of fast-talk and crayon art!
-----------------
Another worrisome article appeared in the papers recently, this one concerning our State parks and their viability.
Here's a partial quote:
People who went to a Parks and Recreation Commission meeting to protest plans to close 13 state parks heard the state may have to close or transfer as many as 40 parks.
State Parks Director Rex Derr told Thursday's meeting in Tumwater that agency has been asked to prepare for a 23 percent cut. The Olympian reports the news stunned people waiting to comment.
Washington has 121 state parks.
The state Parks Commission will make a final decision on closures after the Legislature passes the budget for the 2009-2011 period.
I know our fiscal crisis is dire in the State of Washington, but wonder what long term effects will occur as a result of this proposed action.
Will the State permanently lose these parks, which were acquired and developed for the benefit of citizens?
I do understand pretty clearly the hierarchy of services priorities that responsible governments must sustain.
At the top of the list are matters of public safety, health and welfare.
Then, come the rest, including amenities such as parks.
----------------
Similar realities exist for other government entities, like Counties, Cities and other municipalities.
Which brings me to a point that ought to be of interest to folks here in Whatcom County.
Recently, the County decided to cease operating the historic Roeder Home , due to 'lack of funding'.
That decision has caused consternation among many who value maintaining worthwhile public amenities.
But, the lack of funds is something that everyone understands.
To date, the County seems to have done nothing to raise additional funds, as has been their habit for at least a dozen years -about the length of time our current Executive has exerted his particular brand of non-leadership.
Of greater concern is the fact that the County has requested the State Dept of Natural Resources [DNR] reconvey 8400 acres of timberlands in the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Watershed for the purpose of -get this- creating a County park!
As desirable as some may think this idea may be, consider this:
Under DNR, these lands were subject to more stringent management, and also produced some revenues to benefit various schools and other public trusts.
Under Whatcom County's management, this 'Park' would -like the Roeder Home- have no stable funding source!
This could be remedied, at least in part, if the County decided to create a Park District, or some other management entity that could also provide necessary funding.
Good luck on that happening!
Sorry to be so skeptical of what is undoubtedly a popular idea, but realities do tend to conflict with such things at times!
To date, I have heard no definitive, or convincing arguments that give me confidence in the County's ability to manage and maintain such a Park, even one that offers minimum activities and impacts.
Where is the plan?
If the State of Washington finds it necessary to rid itself of one-third of its Parks, how is it that little Whatcom County can decide to create such a huge Park around our municipal water supply, with no visible means of support?
That simply boggles my mind!
Maybe others can figure this one out.
Populism is good, but at some point it needs to pencil out, without the use of fast-talk and crayon art!
-----------------
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Thinking Globally, Acting Locally: Part III
---------------
Previously, Parts I & II of this discussion have addressed the role of the City in helping create and sustain its own economic fortunes, and the mixed economics associated with development in the UGA areas.
This Part III deals with a real life scenario of a potentially large in-fill development that is being strongly resisted by nearby residents.
Harry Truman once said he preferred one-armed economists because they weren't so inclined to say 'on the one hand this, but on the other hand that'.
And so it is with other people who develop strong preferences without necessarily considering all the pros and cons of an issue.
Such seems to be the case with a group of citizens who want the area known as 'Chuckanut Ridge' acquired and retained at significant public expense as yet another south-side park.
A few years ago, the group which calls itself 'Responsible Development' hired a consultant to 'prove' their case, that the CR development would cost the City about $12 million if it were allowed to proceed.
This, the consultant dutifully tried to do, but unfortunately he did not use all of the facts that should have been used regarding the City's impact fee structure.
I know this was the case because I supplied this information to the consultant well before his report was prepared -at least so I thought!
The reason a 'cost' of $12 million was important to the RD folks was that they thought an outright buy-out of the property in question might cost less than that amount, thereby resulting in a 'bargain' for the City.
The problem was that the property was valued at a significantly higher sum, and there was no funding source available from the City at the time.
Also, there was the little matter of there being no willing seller!
But these points are incidental to what follows.
-------------
As we know, this CR debate continues even as the issuance of developer's Draft Environmental Impact Statement nears.
And, as we also know the RD opponents are certainly not above waging their own version of economic warfare to achieve their goals.
But, that's OK because it's not only a part of citizen's rights, but legal.
My main problem with that tactic is that it simply ignores the other side of the economic balance sheet.
So, that is the focus of this piece; the economics that benefit the City.
I don't pretend to be an expert at accounting or to have any inside information that is not available to those with a passing interest, so please forgive any sins of omission or commission I may have made, because these are certainly not intended.
CNN Anchor Campbell Brown has the right idea with the concept of 'no bias, no bull'.
I'll try to follow those principles.
-------------------------------
First, the cost of the 85 acres in question has been variably report at upwards of $16 million.
The property was originally about 100 acres, zoned for 1478 dwelling units, back in the early 1980's, a time apparently typified by dim record keeping.
A few years ago, about 15 of the original 100 acres was transferred as wetland buffers, now maintained by the City.
After an unsuccessful attempt or two at development by the former owner, the property was sold to the current owners, a local developer and a local bank.
Also, at some point, a voluntary down-zone was effected which reduced the number of theoretical dwelling units by half, to 739 total.
Whether or not the intent is to build that many homes isn't known, but for the sake of argument, let's say 739 is the number.
If one divides 739 by 85, the resulting density is about 8.7 homes per acre, a very respectable urban density, especially for Bellingham, especaally at a time when land supply is scarce and costs relatively high.
At such a density it makes little sense to expect that each home will occupy the exact square footage of ground, particularly buildable ground, because probably half of the property consists of wetlands and disconnected parcels that effectively render them unbuildable.
This means the likelihood of multi-story housing is pretty high, much higher than some might prefer.
That is regrettable, but it is quite legal and likely to become a reality.
Such is the way our society is intended to work, with the greater community interest usually prevailing.
If anywhere near 739 homes are ever built, this would most certainly happen over several years time, say maybe 10.
And if these homes were in fact constructed -at say, a cost of $200 k each- that would amount to a total local investment approaching $150 million, a not insignificant sum!
Just think about the ramifications of that kind of investment circulating in our local economy in terms of wages as well as goods and services from local businesses.
It's not the same as a big, faceless multi-national corporation coming to town, but it's close, and in some respects it may be better.
After all, the developer is a long time resident of Bellingham with a good reputation, who hires locally and buys locally.
Think those concepts don't fit in with sustainability?
And, the bank is also an established local business which provides local employment as well as financial services to many in our town and area.
Hey, isn't retaining and growing local businesses part of our stated goals as a community?
Tell me again, how much does this actually 'cost' the City?
I think that amount is far less than the $12 million 'guesstimated' by RD's consultant.
And, if it does turn out to 'cost' the City that much, the City will likely receive -over time- much more than that.
So, let's talk about about what revenues accrue to the City, shall we?
Think about that for a minute.
Surely, no serious person believes there aren't some tangible advantages to the City for such an in-fill to occur!
And, if not here at CR, where would these homes be located?
The County has not shown any interest in granting the City additional Urban Growth Area, have they?
[Ironically, a new UGA with a 'clean zoning slate' might be the best opportunity for the City to actually get the density it wants and needs to meet its GMA goals.]
-----------------
Here are some concepts for readers to consider:
1. Sales taxes -now in decline along with the economy- @8% times $200k per home times 73.9 homes per year equals about $1.2 million per year - for 10 years.
Hey, that's about $12 million in total over 10 years, isn't it?
[Note: these revenues are shared]
2. B&O taxes - these are not paid unless business is conducted.
Wonks can figure this positive impact out if they care, but it will be a significant positive number - probably in the hundreds of thousands.
3. All infrastructure and internal improvements to the development are 100% paid by the developer.
This includes streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, lights and the like, all required to meet City standards.
4. Part of the external improvements needed to support transportation needs, like arterial widening, turning improvements, signals, crossings and the like would be paid by the developer, as part of Transportation Impact Fees [TIF].
Typically, just over half these City costs are covered by TIFs. I
Of course, improvements to State highways and bridges are the responsibility of the State of Washington.
5. A portion of the costs for owning and maintaining the City's Parks & Trails system is recovered via Parks Impact Fees [PIF]
Typically, this is apportioned on the basis of dwelling units, which for a single family house would amount to over $4000.
739 homes times $4000 equals almost $3 million, potentially.
6. A portion of the costs for maintaing the Bellingham School District's capital facilities is recovered via School Impact Fees [SIF]
Typically, a single family house would pay just over $1000, totaling about $750 k to the BSD.
7. ALL of the costs for extending the City's water & sewer systems is recovered through System Development Charges and Connection fees, at developer's cost -which of course is passed along to the eventual homeowner.
This amounts to 100% of these costs, a fact that RDs consultant conveniently missed.
This is a very big number, which also benefits every existing homeowner because it spreads the burden of ownership over a broader base, without substantially increasing operating costs.
8. Surface & stormwater facilities are 100% paid by the developer, using City standards,and as approved by the City.
This is typically not an inconsequential cost, although it varies widely by site.
It also may be easier to design for a larger site like CR.
9. And, lest we forget, there is the matter of Property Taxes, which are now being paid by the owners at a rate commensurate with undeveloped property.
As development occurs and value is added, these taxes also rises in proportion to value.
If we assume the average value of each newly built home is about $300 k, then approximately $2000 property taxes each would due the City each year, after it was sold.
Thus, at full build out, about 739 homes times $2000 equals almost $1.5 million per year -every year- would accrue to the City.
This is certainly not an inconsequential amount!
[Note: these revenues are shared; over half goes to schools and higher education, 25% to the City, 14% to the County, 6% to the Port]
10. As homes are sold and resold Real Estate Excise Taxes [REET] are generated which accrue to the City to be used for capital projects as approved by the City Council. Two one-quarter percent taxes apply and are collected which typically total well over $1 million citywide each year.
11. Finally, the City will likely receive over 40 acres of the CR site as the result of wetlands determinations, there by adding -at no capital cost- important buffers to the development, as well as more open space.
No one should question the intrinsic value of such a dedication to the City, and to the environment.
12. A placeholder:
Those interested and/or so inclined can advise me what they think I've left out, or what ought to be estimated differently. I will review these comments and will make adjustments, where appropriate.
------------------
Even if only half the potential 739 dwelling units on this property ever get built, that would amount to a very significant new source of revenue for the City.
And, to the extent my guesstimated figures are off, I'm sure that they are directionally correct.
This is despite my drafting of this piece comes entirely from memory that only some direct experience in such matters can produce.
So, I invite readers to comment if they will, but more importantly, to examine the ASSET side of the ledger and not just the negatives that have been so loudly trumpeted.
Who knows, when exposed to both sides of this debate, maybe some folks may be persuaded this development isn't such a bad idea after all.
Time will tell what happens at CR, just as time will have to tell what it's added value will have on City revenues.
But, to deny a potentially very large additional revenue stream to the City, is to deny reality itself!
There comes a time that we need to actually walk our talk about effective growth management.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt....
--------------------
Previously, Parts I & II of this discussion have addressed the role of the City in helping create and sustain its own economic fortunes, and the mixed economics associated with development in the UGA areas.
This Part III deals with a real life scenario of a potentially large in-fill development that is being strongly resisted by nearby residents.
Harry Truman once said he preferred one-armed economists because they weren't so inclined to say 'on the one hand this, but on the other hand that'.
And so it is with other people who develop strong preferences without necessarily considering all the pros and cons of an issue.
Such seems to be the case with a group of citizens who want the area known as 'Chuckanut Ridge' acquired and retained at significant public expense as yet another south-side park.
A few years ago, the group which calls itself 'Responsible Development' hired a consultant to 'prove' their case, that the CR development would cost the City about $12 million if it were allowed to proceed.
This, the consultant dutifully tried to do, but unfortunately he did not use all of the facts that should have been used regarding the City's impact fee structure.
I know this was the case because I supplied this information to the consultant well before his report was prepared -at least so I thought!
The reason a 'cost' of $12 million was important to the RD folks was that they thought an outright buy-out of the property in question might cost less than that amount, thereby resulting in a 'bargain' for the City.
The problem was that the property was valued at a significantly higher sum, and there was no funding source available from the City at the time.
Also, there was the little matter of there being no willing seller!
But these points are incidental to what follows.
-------------
As we know, this CR debate continues even as the issuance of developer's Draft Environmental Impact Statement nears.
And, as we also know the RD opponents are certainly not above waging their own version of economic warfare to achieve their goals.
But, that's OK because it's not only a part of citizen's rights, but legal.
My main problem with that tactic is that it simply ignores the other side of the economic balance sheet.
So, that is the focus of this piece; the economics that benefit the City.
I don't pretend to be an expert at accounting or to have any inside information that is not available to those with a passing interest, so please forgive any sins of omission or commission I may have made, because these are certainly not intended.
CNN Anchor Campbell Brown has the right idea with the concept of 'no bias, no bull'.
I'll try to follow those principles.
-------------------------------
First, the cost of the 85 acres in question has been variably report at upwards of $16 million.
The property was originally about 100 acres, zoned for 1478 dwelling units, back in the early 1980's, a time apparently typified by dim record keeping.
A few years ago, about 15 of the original 100 acres was transferred as wetland buffers, now maintained by the City.
After an unsuccessful attempt or two at development by the former owner, the property was sold to the current owners, a local developer and a local bank.
Also, at some point, a voluntary down-zone was effected which reduced the number of theoretical dwelling units by half, to 739 total.
Whether or not the intent is to build that many homes isn't known, but for the sake of argument, let's say 739 is the number.
If one divides 739 by 85, the resulting density is about 8.7 homes per acre, a very respectable urban density, especially for Bellingham, especaally at a time when land supply is scarce and costs relatively high.
At such a density it makes little sense to expect that each home will occupy the exact square footage of ground, particularly buildable ground, because probably half of the property consists of wetlands and disconnected parcels that effectively render them unbuildable.
This means the likelihood of multi-story housing is pretty high, much higher than some might prefer.
That is regrettable, but it is quite legal and likely to become a reality.
Such is the way our society is intended to work, with the greater community interest usually prevailing.
If anywhere near 739 homes are ever built, this would most certainly happen over several years time, say maybe 10.
And if these homes were in fact constructed -at say, a cost of $200 k each- that would amount to a total local investment approaching $150 million, a not insignificant sum!
Just think about the ramifications of that kind of investment circulating in our local economy in terms of wages as well as goods and services from local businesses.
It's not the same as a big, faceless multi-national corporation coming to town, but it's close, and in some respects it may be better.
After all, the developer is a long time resident of Bellingham with a good reputation, who hires locally and buys locally.
Think those concepts don't fit in with sustainability?
And, the bank is also an established local business which provides local employment as well as financial services to many in our town and area.
Hey, isn't retaining and growing local businesses part of our stated goals as a community?
Tell me again, how much does this actually 'cost' the City?
I think that amount is far less than the $12 million 'guesstimated' by RD's consultant.
And, if it does turn out to 'cost' the City that much, the City will likely receive -over time- much more than that.
So, let's talk about about what revenues accrue to the City, shall we?
Think about that for a minute.
Surely, no serious person believes there aren't some tangible advantages to the City for such an in-fill to occur!
And, if not here at CR, where would these homes be located?
The County has not shown any interest in granting the City additional Urban Growth Area, have they?
[Ironically, a new UGA with a 'clean zoning slate' might be the best opportunity for the City to actually get the density it wants and needs to meet its GMA goals.]
-----------------
Here are some concepts for readers to consider:
1. Sales taxes -now in decline along with the economy- @8% times $200k per home times 73.9 homes per year equals about $1.2 million per year - for 10 years.
Hey, that's about $12 million in total over 10 years, isn't it?
[Note: these revenues are shared]
2. B&O taxes - these are not paid unless business is conducted.
Wonks can figure this positive impact out if they care, but it will be a significant positive number - probably in the hundreds of thousands.
3. All infrastructure and internal improvements to the development are 100% paid by the developer.
This includes streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, lights and the like, all required to meet City standards.
4. Part of the external improvements needed to support transportation needs, like arterial widening, turning improvements, signals, crossings and the like would be paid by the developer, as part of Transportation Impact Fees [TIF].
Typically, just over half these City costs are covered by TIFs. I
Of course, improvements to State highways and bridges are the responsibility of the State of Washington.
5. A portion of the costs for owning and maintaining the City's Parks & Trails system is recovered via Parks Impact Fees [PIF]
Typically, this is apportioned on the basis of dwelling units, which for a single family house would amount to over $4000.
739 homes times $4000 equals almost $3 million, potentially.
6. A portion of the costs for maintaing the Bellingham School District's capital facilities is recovered via School Impact Fees [SIF]
Typically, a single family house would pay just over $1000, totaling about $750 k to the BSD.
7. ALL of the costs for extending the City's water & sewer systems is recovered through System Development Charges and Connection fees, at developer's cost -which of course is passed along to the eventual homeowner.
This amounts to 100% of these costs, a fact that RDs consultant conveniently missed.
This is a very big number, which also benefits every existing homeowner because it spreads the burden of ownership over a broader base, without substantially increasing operating costs.
8. Surface & stormwater facilities are 100% paid by the developer, using City standards,and as approved by the City.
This is typically not an inconsequential cost, although it varies widely by site.
It also may be easier to design for a larger site like CR.
9. And, lest we forget, there is the matter of Property Taxes, which are now being paid by the owners at a rate commensurate with undeveloped property.
As development occurs and value is added, these taxes also rises in proportion to value.
If we assume the average value of each newly built home is about $300 k, then approximately $2000 property taxes each would due the City each year, after it was sold.
Thus, at full build out, about 739 homes times $2000 equals almost $1.5 million per year -every year- would accrue to the City.
This is certainly not an inconsequential amount!
[Note: these revenues are shared; over half goes to schools and higher education, 25% to the City, 14% to the County, 6% to the Port]
10. As homes are sold and resold Real Estate Excise Taxes [REET] are generated which accrue to the City to be used for capital projects as approved by the City Council. Two one-quarter percent taxes apply and are collected which typically total well over $1 million citywide each year.
11. Finally, the City will likely receive over 40 acres of the CR site as the result of wetlands determinations, there by adding -at no capital cost- important buffers to the development, as well as more open space.
No one should question the intrinsic value of such a dedication to the City, and to the environment.
12. A placeholder:
Those interested and/or so inclined can advise me what they think I've left out, or what ought to be estimated differently. I will review these comments and will make adjustments, where appropriate.
------------------
Even if only half the potential 739 dwelling units on this property ever get built, that would amount to a very significant new source of revenue for the City.
And, to the extent my guesstimated figures are off, I'm sure that they are directionally correct.
This is despite my drafting of this piece comes entirely from memory that only some direct experience in such matters can produce.
So, I invite readers to comment if they will, but more importantly, to examine the ASSET side of the ledger and not just the negatives that have been so loudly trumpeted.
Who knows, when exposed to both sides of this debate, maybe some folks may be persuaded this development isn't such a bad idea after all.
Time will tell what happens at CR, just as time will have to tell what it's added value will have on City revenues.
But, to deny a potentially very large additional revenue stream to the City, is to deny reality itself!
There comes a time that we need to actually walk our talk about effective growth management.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt....
--------------------
Friday, March 6, 2009
Thinking Globally, Acting Locally: Part II
------------------
Our local economy has been pretty sensitive to growth pressures in recent years, which has in turn, mainly served to increase City revenues.
Now, that our local growth has flattened, and even gone somewhat negative in areas, the City is now having difficulty in making ends meet.
While slower growth may please some folks, this revenue reduction reality does present the other side of the growth and prosperity coin, which is also not so easy to deal with.
Finding the proper balance between the two growth extremes is a trick our society has not yet mastered despite, futile attempts to find a silver bullet.
And, don't forget the role that growth does play in local job creation, as well as its impact on the prosperity of local businesses!
In accommodating reasonable growth, as with most investments, a certain amount of capital must be risked up front.
For the City this investment takes several forms;
• For 'brownfield' or redevelopment sites, like our waterfront, substantial investment in clean up costs, new infrastructure and planning is required, but over time this is expected to pay large dividends.
• In the Urban Growth Areas similar investment is required, much of which will hopefully prior to the time that these areas are actually annexed into the City. These investments include roads, streets, parks & trails, plus the commitment to provide for police, fire and other public services forever.
• Within the City limits, most of these infrastructure improvements and services are already available, which should make the cost of development somewhat cheaper for the City. That is part of the rationale behind emphasizing in-fill, because it more efficiently uses the existing available land supply.
In practice, a combination of these basic growth scenarios is generally followed, depending upon land supply and developer economics.
------------------------
This section will focus upon growth in the UGA.
One example of how growth can impact our local economy can be seen from what happens in our Urban Growth Areas.
UGAs are actually a part of the County's jurisdiction, but are intended to be the next areas in which to focus urban levels of growth before being annexed into a city.
The concept of annexation is not one that seems well understood by many, yet it can be an important tool for managing growth properly.
Annexation really means two things; which jurisdiction will a) provide services and set the rules and regulations, and which will b) receive the main revenues derived from development in the annexed area.
[For those interested, an earlier blog was devoted to this subject, and can be found at: http://bellinghamstertalk.blogspot.com/search?q=annexation+asset+or+liability]
When the County sets the rules & regulations, these may not be compatible or comparable with city rules & regulations.
Likewise, the level of services for law enforcement, firefighters and similar services is significantly lower in the County.
But revenues derived, even from just residential development, are usually more than enough to compensate the County for its costs of administration.
In other words, building in the UGA is a cash cow for the County, and this explains why the County hasn't been so keen on having Bellingham annex its UGAs regularly.
The County would just rather continue to eat the City's lunch -and collect more in taxes and fees than it must spend- to put it bluntly.
For years, Bellingham has been extraordinarily lax in NOT systematically annexing portions of its UGA, largely because it merely allowed extension of services without requiring it.
Why this has been allowed to happen is unclear, because other Washington cities seem to be much more aware of the benefits of timely and systematic annexation - as a REQUIREMENT for extending water & sewer utilities and thereby facilitating urban levels of density.
Until a few years ago, Bellingham routinely granted extensions of it utilities into the UGA, under the condition that a 50% surcharge was added to its rates.
That practice created the expectation that the City would continue to do the same thing every time a developer requested it.
It also created a somewhat artificial revenue stream for Public Works that it began to rely upon, so that the true basis for setting water and sewer rates was masked and therefore also somewhat artificial, and unfair.
Public Works actually began to see itself a LOSING REVENUE every time an annexation was proposed or considered!
What is wrong with that picture?
Suffice to say that as long as the practice of extending of utilities for the asking persisted, there was no incentive for developers in the UGA to coordinate their plans with the City, pay City fees or willingly offer to annex UGA areas into the City.
This frequently has resulted in discontinuous -or absent- streets and sidewalks and no provision for parks and other amenities that could become park of the City's system.
If annexation then later occurred, the City became the recipient of a piecemeal development that often missed necessary connecting parts, all of which had to be fixed -after the fact- at City expense.
Doesn't seem fair, or smart, does it?
After persistent effort to examine the annexation question more closely, the City eventually did so.
The initial findings were that Industrial development more than paid its way; that commercial also paid its way; that residential development doesn't come close to paying its way.
Unfortunately, the City simply had already chosen to simply 'cherry-pick' those developments that more than paid their way!
That decision explains the malls, big boxes and small business parks being annexed along arterials for their revenue, while residential areas were largely left alone to congeal into clumps of unattractive, disconnected pockets of mainly apartments that oddly remained outside the City.
Fortunately, this situation is now changing, but not without encountering other problems.
A large number of annexations were proposed recently, which in total, clearly exceeded the City's ability to deal with the additional services that would have been required.
That the City approved only those annexation proposals that made the most sense was wise.
Future annexations probably ought to be conditioned by some sort of quota system, so that a steadier flow of smaller parcels are proposed that can be more readily accommodated, pacman-like.
Another difficulty lies in estimating the cost of services the City must provide to UGAs that petition to be annexed.
When the City attempted to estimate the cost of annexing the entire UGA, some serious problems were encountered.
First, costs were prohibitively estimated at over $130 million, due primarily to 2 factors; the Level Of Service and cost of projected parks & trails, and the difficulty of replacing revenues from the loss of the 50% surcharge on Public Works water and sewer utilities.
Subsequently, these excessive costs have been reassessed, determined to have been over estimated, and their value greatly reduced.
The Parks Level of Service had been inadvertently set at an artificially high level, which has now been modified to a more realistic and affordable level.
Also, the new Parks Plan automatically includes ALL of the UGA, so much of the previously projected additional costs simply do not apply because they are already included.
The Public Works surcharges on water and sewer services in the UGA do disappear when annexation occurs, meaning lesser revenues for the City.
But, by recalculating the true cost basis for these utilities, and by charging the full System Development Charges and connection fees applicable in the City, these large disincentives to annexation also largely appear to be significantly overstated.
The bottom line is that it is NOT nearly as expensive for the City to annex than was initially thought, but there are still significant costs, particularly those of an ongoing nature, like police, fire and the like.
It is not that any of these estimated costs simply vanished, but that a more rational approach of seeing things as part of a whole gave new perspective to the problem.
A bigger City also has greater resources to pay for its services.
And, as long as we don't get greedy about too much annexation at one time, the balance between revenues and costs ought to remain fairly stable.
--------------
An example of old-fashioned stupidity:
A few years ago the City was petitioned by a developer to extend water & sewer services to a proposed 68-home development.
This development was in the UGA, but was bounded on two side by the City Limits, meaning it could easily have applied for annexation, which the developer was willing to do.
But, for reasons still unexplained to me, the City Council went ahead and approved extending water and sewer services -just like they had been doing for years- WITHOUT REQUIRING ANNEXATION!
Don't ask me why, but this did happen.
Of more interest to our local -CITY- economy is the fact that this one -relatively small- but hasty decision cost the City about $2 million in lost sales taxes alone!
Instead, those revenues mostly went to the County.
Question: Why would the City voluntarily give up such significant revenue when it didn't have to?
Answer: Habits established over time are hard to break. Then there is simple ignorance.
In the future, we need to think through every such decision -very carefully- before making it.
There is always some other entity waiting to eat our lunch if we aren't careful.
A large part of our task is to simply understand the economic forces at work in our region, then take full advantage of opportunities when they present themselves.
While there are usually significant added costs to the City with every annexation considered, this is a way of efficiently controlling growth within defined boundaries, which seems much preferable to every other option, with one exception - infill within existing City Limits.
To act locally in a responsible manner requires paying attention to the opportunities that present themselves.
And, it helps to have a reasonable growth management plan or Comprehensive Plan- as we do -that clearly spells out what is needed and planned in an internally consistent manner.
After that, all we need is eternal vigilance to follow the plan!
----------------------
Part III on this topic will deal with a potentially large in-fill development project and attempt to estimate its pro forma and other potential economic impacts on the City.
Our local economy has been pretty sensitive to growth pressures in recent years, which has in turn, mainly served to increase City revenues.
Now, that our local growth has flattened, and even gone somewhat negative in areas, the City is now having difficulty in making ends meet.
While slower growth may please some folks, this revenue reduction reality does present the other side of the growth and prosperity coin, which is also not so easy to deal with.
Finding the proper balance between the two growth extremes is a trick our society has not yet mastered despite, futile attempts to find a silver bullet.
And, don't forget the role that growth does play in local job creation, as well as its impact on the prosperity of local businesses!
In accommodating reasonable growth, as with most investments, a certain amount of capital must be risked up front.
For the City this investment takes several forms;
• For 'brownfield' or redevelopment sites, like our waterfront, substantial investment in clean up costs, new infrastructure and planning is required, but over time this is expected to pay large dividends.
• In the Urban Growth Areas similar investment is required, much of which will hopefully prior to the time that these areas are actually annexed into the City. These investments include roads, streets, parks & trails, plus the commitment to provide for police, fire and other public services forever.
• Within the City limits, most of these infrastructure improvements and services are already available, which should make the cost of development somewhat cheaper for the City. That is part of the rationale behind emphasizing in-fill, because it more efficiently uses the existing available land supply.
In practice, a combination of these basic growth scenarios is generally followed, depending upon land supply and developer economics.
------------------------
This section will focus upon growth in the UGA.
One example of how growth can impact our local economy can be seen from what happens in our Urban Growth Areas.
UGAs are actually a part of the County's jurisdiction, but are intended to be the next areas in which to focus urban levels of growth before being annexed into a city.
The concept of annexation is not one that seems well understood by many, yet it can be an important tool for managing growth properly.
Annexation really means two things; which jurisdiction will a) provide services and set the rules and regulations, and which will b) receive the main revenues derived from development in the annexed area.
[For those interested, an earlier blog was devoted to this subject, and can be found at: http://bellinghamstertalk.blogspot.com/search?q=annexation+asset+or+liability]
When the County sets the rules & regulations, these may not be compatible or comparable with city rules & regulations.
Likewise, the level of services for law enforcement, firefighters and similar services is significantly lower in the County.
But revenues derived, even from just residential development, are usually more than enough to compensate the County for its costs of administration.
In other words, building in the UGA is a cash cow for the County, and this explains why the County hasn't been so keen on having Bellingham annex its UGAs regularly.
The County would just rather continue to eat the City's lunch -and collect more in taxes and fees than it must spend- to put it bluntly.
For years, Bellingham has been extraordinarily lax in NOT systematically annexing portions of its UGA, largely because it merely allowed extension of services without requiring it.
Why this has been allowed to happen is unclear, because other Washington cities seem to be much more aware of the benefits of timely and systematic annexation - as a REQUIREMENT for extending water & sewer utilities and thereby facilitating urban levels of density.
Until a few years ago, Bellingham routinely granted extensions of it utilities into the UGA, under the condition that a 50% surcharge was added to its rates.
That practice created the expectation that the City would continue to do the same thing every time a developer requested it.
It also created a somewhat artificial revenue stream for Public Works that it began to rely upon, so that the true basis for setting water and sewer rates was masked and therefore also somewhat artificial, and unfair.
Public Works actually began to see itself a LOSING REVENUE every time an annexation was proposed or considered!
What is wrong with that picture?
Suffice to say that as long as the practice of extending of utilities for the asking persisted, there was no incentive for developers in the UGA to coordinate their plans with the City, pay City fees or willingly offer to annex UGA areas into the City.
This frequently has resulted in discontinuous -or absent- streets and sidewalks and no provision for parks and other amenities that could become park of the City's system.
If annexation then later occurred, the City became the recipient of a piecemeal development that often missed necessary connecting parts, all of which had to be fixed -after the fact- at City expense.
Doesn't seem fair, or smart, does it?
After persistent effort to examine the annexation question more closely, the City eventually did so.
The initial findings were that Industrial development more than paid its way; that commercial also paid its way; that residential development doesn't come close to paying its way.
Unfortunately, the City simply had already chosen to simply 'cherry-pick' those developments that more than paid their way!
That decision explains the malls, big boxes and small business parks being annexed along arterials for their revenue, while residential areas were largely left alone to congeal into clumps of unattractive, disconnected pockets of mainly apartments that oddly remained outside the City.
Fortunately, this situation is now changing, but not without encountering other problems.
A large number of annexations were proposed recently, which in total, clearly exceeded the City's ability to deal with the additional services that would have been required.
That the City approved only those annexation proposals that made the most sense was wise.
Future annexations probably ought to be conditioned by some sort of quota system, so that a steadier flow of smaller parcels are proposed that can be more readily accommodated, pacman-like.
Another difficulty lies in estimating the cost of services the City must provide to UGAs that petition to be annexed.
When the City attempted to estimate the cost of annexing the entire UGA, some serious problems were encountered.
First, costs were prohibitively estimated at over $130 million, due primarily to 2 factors; the Level Of Service and cost of projected parks & trails, and the difficulty of replacing revenues from the loss of the 50% surcharge on Public Works water and sewer utilities.
Subsequently, these excessive costs have been reassessed, determined to have been over estimated, and their value greatly reduced.
The Parks Level of Service had been inadvertently set at an artificially high level, which has now been modified to a more realistic and affordable level.
Also, the new Parks Plan automatically includes ALL of the UGA, so much of the previously projected additional costs simply do not apply because they are already included.
The Public Works surcharges on water and sewer services in the UGA do disappear when annexation occurs, meaning lesser revenues for the City.
But, by recalculating the true cost basis for these utilities, and by charging the full System Development Charges and connection fees applicable in the City, these large disincentives to annexation also largely appear to be significantly overstated.
The bottom line is that it is NOT nearly as expensive for the City to annex than was initially thought, but there are still significant costs, particularly those of an ongoing nature, like police, fire and the like.
It is not that any of these estimated costs simply vanished, but that a more rational approach of seeing things as part of a whole gave new perspective to the problem.
A bigger City also has greater resources to pay for its services.
And, as long as we don't get greedy about too much annexation at one time, the balance between revenues and costs ought to remain fairly stable.
--------------
An example of old-fashioned stupidity:
A few years ago the City was petitioned by a developer to extend water & sewer services to a proposed 68-home development.
This development was in the UGA, but was bounded on two side by the City Limits, meaning it could easily have applied for annexation, which the developer was willing to do.
But, for reasons still unexplained to me, the City Council went ahead and approved extending water and sewer services -just like they had been doing for years- WITHOUT REQUIRING ANNEXATION!
Don't ask me why, but this did happen.
Of more interest to our local -CITY- economy is the fact that this one -relatively small- but hasty decision cost the City about $2 million in lost sales taxes alone!
Instead, those revenues mostly went to the County.
Question: Why would the City voluntarily give up such significant revenue when it didn't have to?
Answer: Habits established over time are hard to break. Then there is simple ignorance.
In the future, we need to think through every such decision -very carefully- before making it.
There is always some other entity waiting to eat our lunch if we aren't careful.
A large part of our task is to simply understand the economic forces at work in our region, then take full advantage of opportunities when they present themselves.
While there are usually significant added costs to the City with every annexation considered, this is a way of efficiently controlling growth within defined boundaries, which seems much preferable to every other option, with one exception - infill within existing City Limits.
To act locally in a responsible manner requires paying attention to the opportunities that present themselves.
And, it helps to have a reasonable growth management plan or Comprehensive Plan- as we do -that clearly spells out what is needed and planned in an internally consistent manner.
After that, all we need is eternal vigilance to follow the plan!
----------------------
Part III on this topic will deal with a potentially large in-fill development project and attempt to estimate its pro forma and other potential economic impacts on the City.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Thinking Globally, Acting Locally: Part I
-------------------------
Our last Presidential election was largely won in a battle of ideas, literally about war & peace and prosperity & poverty.
Those subjects are old as history itself and important as ever, interrelated as they inevitably are.
These days, at the local level, civil discourse remains essential to achieving worthwhile ends to benefit our entire community, like the waterfront redevelopment, preservation of our drinking water reservoir, responsible growth management and the maintenance of our wonderful public amenities that so enhance the quality of life here.
But, you know, these thing haven't just happened by chance!
Neither have they come about without tremendous effort and expense.
While our national economy -and the world economy- are hurting big time, our local economy hasn't suffered quite as much, at least so far.
But the signs are ominous as municipal revenues have plummeted and have already necessitated drastic budget reductions that may well continue to be required.
That is actually quite worrisome, because soon some public amenities may have to be reduced in favor of maintaining more essential services, like police, fire and EMS.
I hope this does not happen, but we have to be aware of these possibilities.
While there are always some who prefer a bare bones city, most people prefer a good suite of amenities, like libraries, museums, theaters and a functional parks & trails system.
The problem is being able to continue paying for these things.
What can the city do to stabilize its revenues so that services do not have to be severely cut?
That seems a question that ought to be an active community discussion.
So, here goes my attempt at starting such a discussion:
Economics has been called 'the dismal science', because -well it can be pretty dismal, both to learn and to use in real time.
Many factors are unknown, hard to discern and difficult to use in any analysis that is intended to convince others of projections and conclusions.
I suspect our local economists can verify that from their own experience, especially when economic studies are used to influence public policy.
Sometimes, facts and ingrained beliefs and habits just don't mix very well.
And so it will probably be with the specific example I will use a little later, maybe in Part II.
During a prior election, the Chamber of Commerce asked candidates a few questions about what they thought the role of local government was, or should be, in stimulating the local economy.
I remember that group of questions because it was so out of the ordinary that it really forced to think hard about the answers I submitted.
I still have that questionnaire somewhere, but won't attempt at finding it because I think I remember the basic answers, which were these:
• The primary role of municipal government's support of its businesses is to provide a stable, fair and predictable set of rules and regulations that can be relied upon.
• Another role is to provide those essential services, and amenities that residents and businesses alike can count on to provide for their needs and basic enjoyment.
• Overarching the above, the local government need to consistently subscribe to the idea of fiscal responsibility and reasonable restraint, so that in good times and bad, services are reliably maintained.
That's about it, but think about what this really means.
Folks, these things aren't that easy, especially when bad times hit suddenly!
But, Bellingham has some characteristics that seem to insulate it somewhat from the radical fluctuations seen some other places, many of which have attained a reputation for being 'business friendly'.
For one thing, something like 5 or 6 of the top 10 employers here are institutions, like WWU, the school districts, St Joseph's Hospital and the 2 biggest local governments.
That alone provides a measure of stability for employment that private enterprises sometimes have difficulty approaching.
Also, there are many smaller businesses that have loyal customers, especially since our 'Buy Local' campaign has galvanized such interest.
And, as a regional center, the mall and surrounding Big Box stores provide a steady influx of customers that greatly add to government revenues.
That is a fact whether one prefers malls and Big Boxes or not!
Just look at the revenue figures available from the City Finance Director if you don't believe me.
Anyway, the point is our local economy is what it is and apart from another building boom -not likely - it is not likely to change dramatically anytime soon.
At least let's hope it doesn't, because a big shift could easily be a negative one.
That would not be helpful to anyone.
So, what do we do to help the situation, besides hoping and praying?
I think getting a little more serious about the three essential functions of local government, listed above, can help.
That is because businesses are no different from any resident in their desire to have stability, fairness and predictability to rely upon.
Folks, business -or 'bidness'- is not inherently bad!
It has been and continues to be the engine that fuels our entire economy, especially including jobs that provide income for families.
Local government and institutions do pay relatively good wages and benefits, but they get most of their revenues from businesses, property owners and consumers.
Only the Federal government can legally print money, and they haven't always used that privilege very well either!
So, this will serve as an introduction to a new topic, and one I will spend some time in researching more.
I hope readers find this discussion timely, interesting and maybe even a little entertaining.
So, please stay tuned for the next episode -exciting or not.
Our last Presidential election was largely won in a battle of ideas, literally about war & peace and prosperity & poverty.
Those subjects are old as history itself and important as ever, interrelated as they inevitably are.
These days, at the local level, civil discourse remains essential to achieving worthwhile ends to benefit our entire community, like the waterfront redevelopment, preservation of our drinking water reservoir, responsible growth management and the maintenance of our wonderful public amenities that so enhance the quality of life here.
But, you know, these thing haven't just happened by chance!
Neither have they come about without tremendous effort and expense.
While our national economy -and the world economy- are hurting big time, our local economy hasn't suffered quite as much, at least so far.
But the signs are ominous as municipal revenues have plummeted and have already necessitated drastic budget reductions that may well continue to be required.
That is actually quite worrisome, because soon some public amenities may have to be reduced in favor of maintaining more essential services, like police, fire and EMS.
I hope this does not happen, but we have to be aware of these possibilities.
While there are always some who prefer a bare bones city, most people prefer a good suite of amenities, like libraries, museums, theaters and a functional parks & trails system.
The problem is being able to continue paying for these things.
What can the city do to stabilize its revenues so that services do not have to be severely cut?
That seems a question that ought to be an active community discussion.
So, here goes my attempt at starting such a discussion:
Economics has been called 'the dismal science', because -well it can be pretty dismal, both to learn and to use in real time.
Many factors are unknown, hard to discern and difficult to use in any analysis that is intended to convince others of projections and conclusions.
I suspect our local economists can verify that from their own experience, especially when economic studies are used to influence public policy.
Sometimes, facts and ingrained beliefs and habits just don't mix very well.
And so it will probably be with the specific example I will use a little later, maybe in Part II.
During a prior election, the Chamber of Commerce asked candidates a few questions about what they thought the role of local government was, or should be, in stimulating the local economy.
I remember that group of questions because it was so out of the ordinary that it really forced to think hard about the answers I submitted.
I still have that questionnaire somewhere, but won't attempt at finding it because I think I remember the basic answers, which were these:
• The primary role of municipal government's support of its businesses is to provide a stable, fair and predictable set of rules and regulations that can be relied upon.
• Another role is to provide those essential services, and amenities that residents and businesses alike can count on to provide for their needs and basic enjoyment.
• Overarching the above, the local government need to consistently subscribe to the idea of fiscal responsibility and reasonable restraint, so that in good times and bad, services are reliably maintained.
That's about it, but think about what this really means.
Folks, these things aren't that easy, especially when bad times hit suddenly!
But, Bellingham has some characteristics that seem to insulate it somewhat from the radical fluctuations seen some other places, many of which have attained a reputation for being 'business friendly'.
For one thing, something like 5 or 6 of the top 10 employers here are institutions, like WWU, the school districts, St Joseph's Hospital and the 2 biggest local governments.
That alone provides a measure of stability for employment that private enterprises sometimes have difficulty approaching.
Also, there are many smaller businesses that have loyal customers, especially since our 'Buy Local' campaign has galvanized such interest.
And, as a regional center, the mall and surrounding Big Box stores provide a steady influx of customers that greatly add to government revenues.
That is a fact whether one prefers malls and Big Boxes or not!
Just look at the revenue figures available from the City Finance Director if you don't believe me.
Anyway, the point is our local economy is what it is and apart from another building boom -not likely - it is not likely to change dramatically anytime soon.
At least let's hope it doesn't, because a big shift could easily be a negative one.
That would not be helpful to anyone.
So, what do we do to help the situation, besides hoping and praying?
I think getting a little more serious about the three essential functions of local government, listed above, can help.
That is because businesses are no different from any resident in their desire to have stability, fairness and predictability to rely upon.
Folks, business -or 'bidness'- is not inherently bad!
It has been and continues to be the engine that fuels our entire economy, especially including jobs that provide income for families.
Local government and institutions do pay relatively good wages and benefits, but they get most of their revenues from businesses, property owners and consumers.
Only the Federal government can legally print money, and they haven't always used that privilege very well either!
So, this will serve as an introduction to a new topic, and one I will spend some time in researching more.
I hope readers find this discussion timely, interesting and maybe even a little entertaining.
So, please stay tuned for the next episode -exciting or not.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Eschewing Obfuscation & Espousing Elucidation
---------------
Please pardon the title, which is intended as a mild spoof of an e-mail which invites recipients to view another blog piece, entitled 'Greenways III: Policy and Practice Disaster'.
This e-mail, from Barbara Ryan on the subject of:'Chuckanut Ridge Exigesis', invites comments, and calls the GW3 the most divisive issue in her eleven years on the Council.
And, as she avers 'there are many lessons to be learned'.
I certainly do agree with that statement!
But first, why use an unusual word like 'exigesis'?
I had to look it up.
After doing that, I wondered why the word 'hermeneutics' wasn't used instead, because it seems have a somewhat wider -and less Biblical- sounding application.
But I digress.
Instead, the below is offered:
--------------------------
From Wikipedia:
▪ "Eschew obfuscation", also stated as "eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation", is a common humorous saying of English teachers and professors when lecturing about proper writing techniques.
▪ Literally, the phrase means "avoid ambiguity, adopt clarity", but the use of relatively uncommon words causes confusion, making the phrase an example of irony, and more precisely a heterological or hypocritical phrase (it does not embody its own advice).
▪ The phrase has appeared in print at least as early as 1959, when it was used as a section heading in a NASA document.
▪ An earlier similar phrase appears in Mark Twain's Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses, where he lists rule fourteen of good writing as "eschew surplusage".
--------------------------
On a issue as hotly debated as GREENWAYS why not make the discussion as simple to understand and fact-based as possible?
I know that different people subscribe to different definitions and versions of 'facts', but we should all be able to agree on what is simple to understand and is reasonably verifiable.
With this in mind, let me share what I think might have been -or should have been- some 'lessons learned':
1. Always be truthful, because that way individuals -and the public- can remember not only what was said, but the context of it, as well as likely results.
2. Avoid unnecessarily taking firm sides too early in a public discussion, especially one that will eventually require the broad consensus of the community, and may involve the 'earmarking' public funds.
3. Respect -in word and deed- the concepts of transparency and fairness, particularly when tempted or pressured to make any back-room deals with constituents. Do not consciously avoid openness!
4. Rather than reaching questionable -or even illegal- agreements outside of public meetings, rely instead upon clearly stated goals and not verbal -or 'fine print'- nuances which so often can lead to problematic misunderstandings.
5. Always strive for a Council consensus that can last and unite, not forced simple and divisive majorities, especially on matters of wide community interest and scarce voluntary funding.
That's about it for me, but others may have other ideas.
--------------------
Now, a brief comment on the aforementioned other blog entry:
• Most of the history and interpretations therein appear to be accurate, although the article is by no means comprehensive.
There are significant gaps, either dictated by space & time limitations, or by design, or ignorance.
• The statement that I had nothing to do with the idea of freeing up an additional $2million for acquisition purposes is NOT accurate, and I invite the author to reconsider this particular statement.
• The comments on omission of clear language from the legislation authorizing the GW3 levy strain any serious attempt at logic, and are patently incorrect. One can try to reconstruct history -which can be healthy- but revisionism is a different matter!
• I don't believe for one moment that former Councilor Beardsley was 'bullied' into anything. That statement simply demeans her independent spirit, her astounding logical and intellectual abilities, and most of all, her personal integrity.
• Then, this interesting statement:
I don't believe these concerns necessarily need to be focused on any one group, especially so-called CR OPPONENTS! Look into the mirror before making such comments if you intend to be taken seriously!
• Finally, regarding this statement:
The Greenways Strategic Plan is something the Council requested be done following passage of the levy.
It has taken over 2 years for these carefully considered RECOMMENDATIONS to come forward.
They are not decisions, because those are made exclusively by the Council and no one else.
The fact that the number '$8 million' does not appear in any one place ought to be instructive.
What it probably means is there are other competing priorities for the guaranteed $6 million in south-side property acquisition money.
It is easier to understand the author's attitude on this when one takes into account her single minded focus on Chuckanut Ridge, but, wouldn't it be great if none of this money would need to be spent on CR?
Think about it.
The City will likely obtain 40+ acres of the 85 total for NOTHING after issuance of the developer's DEIS.
Any additional land needed for public right of way can likely be procured for less than $4, or maybe even $2 million,
unless, of course, there is yet another secret back-room deal in existence.
• No one I know is totally opposed to acquiring a reasonable portion of CR for the public good.
And, the author is certainly correct that whoever comprises the Council at the time any CR acquisition proposal is offered will determine that outcome.
So, why the attempt at forcing the issue now?
Is there some deadline looming that the author fears, or doesn't she trust future Councils to do the right thing?
There is more wisdom in a calmer approach now, and certainly one that doesn't try to intentionally inflame old animosities.
The author is correct that GW3 is one of the -maybe the most- divisive issues of the last decade or so.
But, she also needs to examine closely the role she, herself, has played in making that statement true!
After all, what goes around does come around....
-------------------
This will -likely- end my commenting upon this particular subject, because I believe enough has now been said by me publicly, and I have some other personal priorities.
For those offended by my rather forceful and pointed comments, I do apologize for your your discomfort.
But, I am not one to remain silent when I feel things need to be said, or when I do also happen to be knowledgeable on an issue.
It is unfortunate that my relationship with the author, and the other Council Members in question, have come to this state of hard feelings.
Earlier in our respective, local political careers, we seemed to agree on much more than we disagared upon.
And, we were able to achieve some great things that have the prospect of enduring to the benefit of future generations of citizens.
Just to name a few:
The Silver Beach Ordinance, for example, and the Watershed Preservation & Acquisition Ordinance.
Pipe Line Safety reform, on a national and state level.
Enhanced public access to local government meetings.
Budgetary reform, of which more is desirable.
Charter review and revision.
Land use planning policies, including annexation requirements before extending water & sewer utilities.
Transportation policies, and implementation thereof.
Why not remember these significant successes instead of focusing on GW3's problems?
Actually, the fact that a $44 million GW3 levy was PASSED ought to be a wonderful cause for celebration!
But, as a Buddhist philosopher might say, 'your own mother will become your worst enemy'.
That seems a little extreme, but also directionally accurate.
At any rate, I wish the Councillors with whom I have served nothing but the best, despite any differences we might have had.
If I had to do it all over again, I would, but maybe with a little more forbearance than before, but one never knows.
This business of politics doesn't require a lot of training or qualifications.
What one learns, one learns on the job, for the most part.
I hope this piece helps to "eschew obfuscation and espouse elucidation", and not the opposite.
But, one can only hope that will happen.
--------------------
Please pardon the title, which is intended as a mild spoof of an e-mail which invites recipients to view another blog piece, entitled 'Greenways III: Policy and Practice Disaster'.
This e-mail, from Barbara Ryan on the subject of:'Chuckanut Ridge Exigesis', invites comments, and calls the GW3 the most divisive issue in her eleven years on the Council.
And, as she avers 'there are many lessons to be learned'.
I certainly do agree with that statement!
But first, why use an unusual word like 'exigesis'?
I had to look it up.
After doing that, I wondered why the word 'hermeneutics' wasn't used instead, because it seems have a somewhat wider -and less Biblical- sounding application.
But I digress.
Instead, the below is offered:
--------------------------
From Wikipedia:
▪ "Eschew obfuscation", also stated as "eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation", is a common humorous saying of English teachers and professors when lecturing about proper writing techniques.
▪ Literally, the phrase means "avoid ambiguity, adopt clarity", but the use of relatively uncommon words causes confusion, making the phrase an example of irony, and more precisely a heterological or hypocritical phrase (it does not embody its own advice).
▪ The phrase has appeared in print at least as early as 1959, when it was used as a section heading in a NASA document.
▪ An earlier similar phrase appears in Mark Twain's Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses, where he lists rule fourteen of good writing as "eschew surplusage".
--------------------------
On a issue as hotly debated as GREENWAYS why not make the discussion as simple to understand and fact-based as possible?
I know that different people subscribe to different definitions and versions of 'facts', but we should all be able to agree on what is simple to understand and is reasonably verifiable.
With this in mind, let me share what I think might have been -or should have been- some 'lessons learned':
1. Always be truthful, because that way individuals -and the public- can remember not only what was said, but the context of it, as well as likely results.
2. Avoid unnecessarily taking firm sides too early in a public discussion, especially one that will eventually require the broad consensus of the community, and may involve the 'earmarking' public funds.
3. Respect -in word and deed- the concepts of transparency and fairness, particularly when tempted or pressured to make any back-room deals with constituents. Do not consciously avoid openness!
4. Rather than reaching questionable -or even illegal- agreements outside of public meetings, rely instead upon clearly stated goals and not verbal -or 'fine print'- nuances which so often can lead to problematic misunderstandings.
5. Always strive for a Council consensus that can last and unite, not forced simple and divisive majorities, especially on matters of wide community interest and scarce voluntary funding.
That's about it for me, but others may have other ideas.
--------------------
Now, a brief comment on the aforementioned other blog entry:
• Most of the history and interpretations therein appear to be accurate, although the article is by no means comprehensive.
There are significant gaps, either dictated by space & time limitations, or by design, or ignorance.
• The statement that I had nothing to do with the idea of freeing up an additional $2million for acquisition purposes is NOT accurate, and I invite the author to reconsider this particular statement.
• The comments on omission of clear language from the legislation authorizing the GW3 levy strain any serious attempt at logic, and are patently incorrect. One can try to reconstruct history -which can be healthy- but revisionism is a different matter!
• I don't believe for one moment that former Councilor Beardsley was 'bullied' into anything. That statement simply demeans her independent spirit, her astounding logical and intellectual abilities, and most of all, her personal integrity.
• Then, this interesting statement:
'What concerns us most is the question that Chuckanut Ridge opponents have sown about their government and this process. The secretive property acquisition process itself is rife for these accusations. These are among the very few discussions that can be held in Executive Session, without public scrutiny. In order to continue to set aside land for parks and open spaces, some confidentiality must be maintained.'
I don't believe these concerns necessarily need to be focused on any one group, especially so-called CR OPPONENTS! Look into the mirror before making such comments if you intend to be taken seriously!
• Finally, regarding this statement:
'On January 12, the Greenways and Parks Boards decided that no more than $4 million of the $44 million levy should be spent on the Fairhaven Highlands property, known as Chuckanut Ridge. They made their recommendation public, for the first time, in the Council packet published Thursday, January 8'.
The Greenways Strategic Plan is something the Council requested be done following passage of the levy.
It has taken over 2 years for these carefully considered RECOMMENDATIONS to come forward.
They are not decisions, because those are made exclusively by the Council and no one else.
The fact that the number '$8 million' does not appear in any one place ought to be instructive.
What it probably means is there are other competing priorities for the guaranteed $6 million in south-side property acquisition money.
It is easier to understand the author's attitude on this when one takes into account her single minded focus on Chuckanut Ridge, but, wouldn't it be great if none of this money would need to be spent on CR?
Think about it.
The City will likely obtain 40+ acres of the 85 total for NOTHING after issuance of the developer's DEIS.
Any additional land needed for public right of way can likely be procured for less than $4, or maybe even $2 million,
unless, of course, there is yet another secret back-room deal in existence.
• No one I know is totally opposed to acquiring a reasonable portion of CR for the public good.
And, the author is certainly correct that whoever comprises the Council at the time any CR acquisition proposal is offered will determine that outcome.
So, why the attempt at forcing the issue now?
Is there some deadline looming that the author fears, or doesn't she trust future Councils to do the right thing?
There is more wisdom in a calmer approach now, and certainly one that doesn't try to intentionally inflame old animosities.
The author is correct that GW3 is one of the -maybe the most- divisive issues of the last decade or so.
But, she also needs to examine closely the role she, herself, has played in making that statement true!
After all, what goes around does come around....
-------------------
This will -likely- end my commenting upon this particular subject, because I believe enough has now been said by me publicly, and I have some other personal priorities.
For those offended by my rather forceful and pointed comments, I do apologize for your your discomfort.
But, I am not one to remain silent when I feel things need to be said, or when I do also happen to be knowledgeable on an issue.
It is unfortunate that my relationship with the author, and the other Council Members in question, have come to this state of hard feelings.
Earlier in our respective, local political careers, we seemed to agree on much more than we disagared upon.
And, we were able to achieve some great things that have the prospect of enduring to the benefit of future generations of citizens.
Just to name a few:
The Silver Beach Ordinance, for example, and the Watershed Preservation & Acquisition Ordinance.
Pipe Line Safety reform, on a national and state level.
Enhanced public access to local government meetings.
Budgetary reform, of which more is desirable.
Charter review and revision.
Land use planning policies, including annexation requirements before extending water & sewer utilities.
Transportation policies, and implementation thereof.
Why not remember these significant successes instead of focusing on GW3's problems?
Actually, the fact that a $44 million GW3 levy was PASSED ought to be a wonderful cause for celebration!
But, as a Buddhist philosopher might say, 'your own mother will become your worst enemy'.
That seems a little extreme, but also directionally accurate.
At any rate, I wish the Councillors with whom I have served nothing but the best, despite any differences we might have had.
If I had to do it all over again, I would, but maybe with a little more forbearance than before, but one never knows.
This business of politics doesn't require a lot of training or qualifications.
What one learns, one learns on the job, for the most part.
I hope this piece helps to "eschew obfuscation and espouse elucidation", and not the opposite.
But, one can only hope that will happen.
--------------------
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
