-----------------
My previous blog on Sep 28 gave a web link to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement [DEIS] released that same day.
Since that time I have reviewed some of that extensive information, received a summary statement [Findings] from comments were that were used on KGMI Radio, and arrived at a few preliminary conclusions of my own about which of these alternatives alternatives seem preferable.
-----------------
First, the Findings:
The major differences among the seven alternatives are the internal road layout and vehicular access to the site, amount of development coverage, and the areas of disruption between forested wetlands.
Significant impacts could occur from conversion of this forested property but there are significant policy trade offs in environmental impacts. For example, the reduction of one type of impact could increase an impact of another type. Examples:
• Not developing the site could result in growth occurring outside city limits, resulting in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions from people driving into the city, the employment center of the County.
• The original alternative (1A) has the most impacts to the environment (wetland and buffer impacts, forest fragmentation, greenhouse gas emissions, etc.). The applicant subsequently proposed an alternative with fewer impacts (2A).
• Building the required “24th Street Connector” would alleviate congestion from increased traffic and provide more circulation in the area but could affect the quiet neighborhood character.
• Similarly, while providing two entrances (as opposed to one across from Viewcrest) and more roadways within the development provide a traffic benefit, they result in more impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers and result in fragmentation of the forest.
• Other than the original alternative, all of the alternatives provide some protection for wetland and wetland buffers, but some species will be lost due to the fragmentation of the contiguous forest. The “split site alternative” (3D) provides the most connectivity, though it’s impacted by the 24th Street Connector.
Mature forested Category I wetlands were identified during the development of the DIES. As a result, wetland buffers 150 feet wide have been suggested as a mitigation measure to protect wetland functions that support a mature ecology and substantial wildlife habitat. Other mitigation measures are proposed for a variety of impacts.
A traffic analysis was conducted for the affected street system, traffic volumes, traffic safety, transit, and non-motorized facilities associated with the site including 30th Street, Chuckanut Drive, Old Fairhaven Parkway, Viewcrest, Old Samish Highway, and 24th Street.
The traffic volume (at full build out) would generate trips ranging from 4,390/day to at most 5,000/day (1A).
----------------------------------
The first 'alternative' given is a no-action alternative, where nothing would be built on this site.
That seems counterproductive since the site is already zoned for residential development and has had an active proposal under consideration since 2005, later modified in 2007.
The main impacts of a 'no action' would be the loss of potential housing within existing city limits, forcing sprawl elsewhere.
To quantify this, the 739 dwelling units proposed in phases are expected to accommodate about 1550 people, or approximately 5% of the population attributed to potential growth between now and 2022.
Related losses would be those accruing to the developer and his partners, the time and effort devoted by tax-paid City government, plus the the very substantial loss of future revenues from taxes, rates, fees, as well as developer-paid public infrastructure, including community enhancing road/trail connectivity.
Then, would come the question of what to do with this property?
Some would have it simply become more city parkland, which is substantially out of the question because of both cost and the lack of available funding.
And, the owner(s) do expect a reasonable return on their valuable investment. If the development plan under consideration does not not produce adequate results, the owners will find recourse, either through sale to others, legal action or otherwise.
No one knows what will eventually occur with the Fairhaven Highlands proposal, but something certainly will, and someone will most likely oppose it.
Years ago, Theodore Roosevelt used the phrase 'the greatest good for the greatest number' in setting goals for our country. That was [and is] a very good policy!
But some, over history have not agreed with how this is determined.
John Muir, for example, fiercely fought the damming of the Tuolumne River at Hetch Hetchy in Yosemite, thinking that pristine river ought to have been preserved in a wild, untouched state forever.
But, another idea prevailed -using the very same policy- that a permanent drinking water supply for San Francisco was equally or even more important.
In the greater scheme of things, both were important goals, but who will doubt having a protected, pure source of drinking isn't the more valuable today?
========================
Alternates 1A and 1B were in the initial 2005 proposal, but at that time, the City added Alternative 1C.
I'm glad they did that because a development this large will cause more congestion to areas already prone to congestion, some even approaching LOS F at times.
And, transportation concurrency with land development is something to take seriously, especially when substantial mitigation is possible.
But, in order to pay for these type of effective transportation mitigation, the developer must find a way in his pro-forma to recover the costs.
2.5.4 Alternative 1C – 2005 Application with Access to 24th Street
Alternative 1C would be developed as described for Alternative 1A, except that the eastern emergency access road connecting to 22nd Street would instead be a fully developed two-lane street connecting the project site to 24th Street. This would involve removing two and a half additional acres of vegetation and adding one and a third more acres of impervious surface than Alternative 1A. Approximately 1,000 square feet of wetland and 72,000 square feet of regulated wetland buffer would be impacted by the 24th Street Connector. Twenty-five acres of 1 Regulated wetlands are those considered to be regulated by the Bellingham Municipal Code Chapter 16.50. See Section 3.4.3 Plants and Animals for more information.
September 2009 Alternatives 2-23
Fairhaven Highlands Draft EISFairhaven Highlands Draft EIS landscaping would be installed, one acre less than Alternative 1A. Alternative 1C would involve the most vegetation removal, wetland and wetland buffer fill, and impervious surface coverage of all development alternatives.
-------------
Later, in 2007, the developer proposed modifications which, among other things, did effectively decrease the impacts of this proposed development.
2.5.5 Alternative 2A – Enhanced Buffer Plan
Under Alternative 2A, the property would be developed based on the proponent’s reports submitted to the City of Bellingham in 2007. The reports describe construction of 17 single- family units and 722 multi-family units. The multi-family units would be a mixture of townhouses and up to 5-story apartment buildings. The project would also include a 4,000- square-foot community building.
Approximately 41 acres of vegetation on-site (50 percent of the property) and half an acre off- site would be removed to accommodate the project, the least amount of vegetation removal from the project area among the development alternatives. Approximately 20 acres on-site (25 percent of the property) and one-third of an acre off-site would be covered by impervious surface including roadways, rooftops, and driveways. Alternative 2A would have the lowest impervious surface coverage of the development alternatives. Twenty-one acres of landscaping would be installed. It is estimated that about 200,000-210,000 cubic yards of soil would be excavated and around 60,000-70,000 cubic yards of soil would be used for fill, with a net off-site export of 140,000 cubic yards.
Alternative 2A includes buffers around most wetland areas that are larger than what is proposed for Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C. Approximately 24,000 square feet of wetlands and 65,000 square feet of wetland buffers would be filled, the least amount of fill among the development alternatives.
Vehicular access to the site would be provided on the east side of the existing Chuckanut Drive/Viewcrest Road intersection. Two emergency-only access roadways would be provided to the site (one via Chuckanut Drive, near 16th Street, and one internal road connecting the southeast portion of the site with the northeast portion of the site.
-------------
In the event Alternative 2A was unacceptable, the developer preferred either Alternative 2F or Alternative 4F, as briefly described below.
My own preference is along the lines of Alternative 3D, also shown below.
2.5.6 Alternative 2F – Enhanced Buffer Plan with Additional Road
Under Alternative 2F, the property would be developed as described for Alternative 2A, except that the 16th Street and Wetland JJ connectors would be fully accessible roads, rather than emergency access only. This would result in approximately half an acre more impervious surface than Alternative 2A. Compared to Alternative 2A, the construction of the connectors would result in minimal increases in vegetation removal and wetland and wetland buffer fill.
2.5.7 Alternative 3D – Split Site Alternative
Alternative 3D includes construction of 17 single-family units and 722 multi-family units. The multi-family units would be a mixture of townhouses and apartment buildings up to five stories tall. A 4,000-square-foot community building would also be built.
Approximately 40 acres of on-site vegetation (49 percent of the property) and 3 acres of off-site vegetation would be removed to accommodate the project, the least amount of on-site vegetation
2-24 Alternatives September 2009 removal among the development alternatives. Approximately 22 acres on-site (26 percent of the property) and one and a half acres off-site would be covered by impervious surface including roadways, rooftops, and driveways. Nineteen acres of landscaping would be installed. The amount of soil excavated and used for fill would be similar to Alternative 2A.
The site plan includes buffers around most wetland areas that are larger than what is proposed for Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C. Approximately 26,000 square feet of wetlands and 115,000 square feet of wetland buffers would be impacted.
The design of the internal roadway network is similar to Alternative 2F, except that there would not be a road between Wetlands CC1 and KK. Another major difference is that vehicular access would be provided to 24th Street. The remaining features of the roadway network would be the same including vehicular access on the east side of the existing Chuckanut Drive/Viewcrest Road intersection, and a second access farther north on Chuckanut Drive near 16th Street.
2.5.8 Alternative 4F – Enhanced Buffer Plan with Single-family Development in Southern Portion
Alternative 4F is similar to Alternative 2F except that the southern portion of the site would be entirely made up of single-family units, with a larger number of multi-family units clustered in the northern portion. A total of 51 single-family units and 688 multi-family units would be constructed.
The roadway network would be identical to Alternative 2F. The project would have a similar amount of impervious surface coverage as Alternative 2A and 2F. The amount of soil excavated and used for fill would also be similar to Alternative 2A.
Approximately 51 acres of vegetation on-site (62 percent of the property) and a little more than half an acre off-site would be removed. Approximately 26,000 square feet of wetland and 108,000 square feet of wetland buffer would be impacted.
-------------------
Readers should note that the several Alternatives listed in the DEIS were culled from a total of about 30, on the theory that the several selected for inclusion substantially represented most of the reasonable configurations possible.
Also note that NO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE has yet been determined. That will happen only after the Public Hearings and other due public process has been completed.
It is possible that some mixing and matching of various concepts and components will occur as a result of the public process to come.
These things will become a part of a Final EIS, which would be basis for any official approval action(s).
I hope this synopsis is helpful to those who find it daunting to wade through hundreds of pages of documentation.
While most of us will not have a direct vote in whatever the final outcome may be, we all do have a role to play in fully informing ourselves about what alternatives are being considered and what their relative pros and cons may be.
=======================
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Fairhaven Highlands: Entertainment for Silly Season
-----------------------
After a little break to bone up on Ancient & Medieval History, it may be time to revisit what passes for Modern history in the making.
This announcement just entered my e-mailbox earlier today:
--------------------------------
Here are more links for those who may be salivating:
Fairhaven Highlands Draft Environmental Impact Statement released
Most info is posted at this City website:
--------------------------------
After a little break to bone up on Ancient & Medieval History, it may be time to revisit what passes for Modern history in the making.
This announcement just entered my e-mailbox earlier today:
Fairhaven Highlands Draft Environmental Impact Statement released
Posted: September 28, 2009 11:35:14 PST
City officials announced today (Monday Sept. 28) the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Fairhaven Highlands development. Tim Stewart, Planning Director and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Official for the project, said that along with the draft DEIS an updated schedule also has been released that includes a 45-day public comment period.
A public hearing on the DEIS is scheduled for 6 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 20 in City Council Chambers at Bellingham City Hall. If necessary to accommodate a large number of speakers the hearing will be continued to 6 p.m. Wed. Oct. 21.
Fairhaven Highlands is a development proposed in April 2005 by Greenbriar Northwest Associates, LLC, located within Bellingham city limits between Chuckanut Drive, the Interurban Trail, Old Fairhaven Parkway, and Old Samish Highway. This planned development proposal includes 739 units of single- and multi-family residential units and related public and private infrastructure.
In February 2007, Greenbriar requested that the City's Planning and Community Development Department initiate the preparation of an EIS for Fairhaven Highlands. The City contracted with ESA Adolfson to conduct the EIS process. A public hearing to hear feedback on the DEIS will be held October 20, and the public comment period extends through November 12, 2009.
"The purpose of the EIS is to provide fair, objective and factual information about the site and its environment," Stewart said. "Good information, generated in an open and transparent process, will result in higher quality decisions about the proposal, the site and ultimately the land use and development permits that will be required before any development may occur. The EIS process allows us to seek the very best information before any decisions are made about the permits," he said.
Copies of the DEIS are available to review at the Bellingham Public Library, the Planning Department, and hard copies and CDs are available for purchase in the Planning Department. The entire DEIS is also available to view online at the city's project page at http://www.cob.org/government/departments/pcd/fairhaven-highlands/index.aspx. An updated EIS schedule and timetable has been posted as well as all sub-consultant reports. Please see the city's project page at for more information.
###
Media Contact:
Nicole Oliver, Communications Coordinator
Planning & Community Development Department
360.778.8353
noliver@cob.org
--------------------------------
Here are more links for those who may be salivating:
Fairhaven Highlands Draft Environmental Impact Statement released
Most info is posted at this City website:
--------------------------------
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Bellingham's New Transportation Commission
-----------------------------
A recent Herald article reports Bellingham is seeking applicants for new Transportation Commission
The City's website provides information on its new Transportation Commission:
This sub-website explains the rationale behind establishing this new Commission:
Basically, the new Commission expands its previous role(s) into longer range planning, while also continuing the prior functions of advising the City on Bicycle/Pedestrian and Parking issues.
Because the Growth Management Act requires Transportation CONCURRENCY in planning for Growth, the new Commission's role is intended to help fill some gaps this effort.
For example, I can see some clear possibilities of jointly meeting with the Planning Commission, the Whatcom Council of Governments [Regional Transportation Planning Agency], the Waterfront Redevelopment Project, and Public Works regarding the City's annual Transportation Improvement Plan [TIP].
Because of the increased depth of scope envisioned, care must be taken in selecting members willing to undertake these important assignments.
Additionally, use may be made of task forces and sub work groups as may be necessary and prudent.
Transportation projects often share at least two main characteristics; they address multiple long term needs and they tend to be relatively expensive.
Both of these are reasons that strongly justify an expanded Transportation Commission.
I hope citizens will seriously consider volunteering to be a part of this new idea.
Although the deadline for initial applications is September 18, there will be new appointments made at least yearly for the first three years.
A normal term of appointment, thereafter, is 3 years.
-----------------------------
The following Questionnaire provides some food for thought for potential Applicants:
City of Bellingham
Transportation Commission Inventory
A broad cross-section of our community is expected to declare interest in the nine (9) seats that are available on Bellingham’s new Transportation Commission. Please help us assess the attributes you could bring to the Commission by highlighting your vision, knowledge, philosophy and experience related to transportation issues while answering the following questions. Please keep your responses to a total of no more than three one-sided pages, using a font of at least 11 points. Submit your responses to the Mayor’s Office, 210 Lottie Street, Bellingham, WA 98225. Thank you.
1. As part of a 9-person body, what unique perspective or experience do you feel you would bring to the Commission?
2. What are the challenges, as you see it, to meeting the transportation needs of Bellingham and even Whatcom County?
3. What are some specific ways the city can address these issues or challenges?
4. If you had a symbolic $100 in public money to spend on any transportation system improvements you saw fit, how would you allocate the sum (use whole dollars only)?
5. What transportation modes do you personally use as...
Your primary means?
Periodic alternative transportation (e.g. once a month or more)?
Recreation?
6. If not selected for one of the Commission’s nine seats, would you be willing to serve on a select limited-term work group or a standing subcommittee? Check one: 0 YES 0 NO
Name: Phone:
-----------------------------
A recent Herald article reports Bellingham is seeking applicants for new Transportation Commission
The City's website provides information on its new Transportation Commission:
This sub-website explains the rationale behind establishing this new Commission:
Basically, the new Commission expands its previous role(s) into longer range planning, while also continuing the prior functions of advising the City on Bicycle/Pedestrian and Parking issues.
Because the Growth Management Act requires Transportation CONCURRENCY in planning for Growth, the new Commission's role is intended to help fill some gaps this effort.
For example, I can see some clear possibilities of jointly meeting with the Planning Commission, the Whatcom Council of Governments [Regional Transportation Planning Agency], the Waterfront Redevelopment Project, and Public Works regarding the City's annual Transportation Improvement Plan [TIP].
Because of the increased depth of scope envisioned, care must be taken in selecting members willing to undertake these important assignments.
Additionally, use may be made of task forces and sub work groups as may be necessary and prudent.
Transportation projects often share at least two main characteristics; they address multiple long term needs and they tend to be relatively expensive.
Both of these are reasons that strongly justify an expanded Transportation Commission.
I hope citizens will seriously consider volunteering to be a part of this new idea.
Although the deadline for initial applications is September 18, there will be new appointments made at least yearly for the first three years.
A normal term of appointment, thereafter, is 3 years.
-----------------------------
The following Questionnaire provides some food for thought for potential Applicants:
City of Bellingham
Transportation Commission Inventory
A broad cross-section of our community is expected to declare interest in the nine (9) seats that are available on Bellingham’s new Transportation Commission. Please help us assess the attributes you could bring to the Commission by highlighting your vision, knowledge, philosophy and experience related to transportation issues while answering the following questions. Please keep your responses to a total of no more than three one-sided pages, using a font of at least 11 points. Submit your responses to the Mayor’s Office, 210 Lottie Street, Bellingham, WA 98225. Thank you.
1. As part of a 9-person body, what unique perspective or experience do you feel you would bring to the Commission?
2. What are the challenges, as you see it, to meeting the transportation needs of Bellingham and even Whatcom County?
3. What are some specific ways the city can address these issues or challenges?
4. If you had a symbolic $100 in public money to spend on any transportation system improvements you saw fit, how would you allocate the sum (use whole dollars only)?
5. What transportation modes do you personally use as...
Your primary means?
Periodic alternative transportation (e.g. once a month or more)?
Recreation?
6. If not selected for one of the Commission’s nine seats, would you be willing to serve on a select limited-term work group or a standing subcommittee? Check one: 0 YES 0 NO
Name: Phone:
-----------------------------
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Local Politics: 25 Reasons?
Beware of candidates claiming their inexperience as their main virtue.
---------------------
I'm just now returning to the present after a short interlude to the past, studying ancient & medieval history.
That was interesting, but I must say we have it better these days, notwithstanding the habitual lying and dishonest posturing on political matters.
For example, I'm pleased that another local blog, Latte Republic, published a document -plus responses to it- entitled
25 REASONS WEIMER, CASKEY, MANN* & MCSHANE* HAVE FAILED THE CITIZENS OF WHATCOM COUNTY.
The original list of '25 Reasons' purports to support 4 brand new candidates for County office by trying to smear 4 other candidates, three of whom have actual experience in that office.
[Note McShane has been out of office since 2007 and Mann has never held elected office]
Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, the 25 'reasons' are bogus and don't hold water, but since several are on the subject of water, I'll get back to that.
Anyway, this particular political piece ends this way:
Please ask your friends, families and neighbors to review this list. All of these statements are factual. Make sure everyone you know understands that the current County Council has lost sight of what is important to the people of Whatcom County. The 'Gang of Four' (Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan) must be removed from office.
And finally, this admonition:
We Must Support Kathy Kershner, Mary Beth Teigrob, Michelle Luke, and Bill Knutzen!
Note that none of these favored four have any experience at all in public office, which is being touted as a virtue.
Instead, their clever handlers are speaking for them by using this poorly aimed broadside.
A fitting, and more likely result will be actually to turn the 'favored four' into political cannon fodder, a hard lesson for not being careful with the truth, or with whom you let speak for you!
This reminds of a quote nearly 60 years old: 'The GOP would do well to remember the warning of Maine Republican Margaret Chase Smith, who worried in 1950 that her party was trying to achieve victory on "the Four Horsemen of Calumny -- Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear."'
Guess we could also add simple lying and deliberate misinterpretation of facts.
----------------
Of the 25 'Reasons' several are related to important water issues, so this piece will focus on them.
1. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan advocated for, and voted to raise taxes without offsetting the net cost to the taxpayer. This has not otherwise occurred in the 14 years Executive Kremen has been in office. Carl initially advocated for more than double the increase that was finally passed by a slim Council majority.
Carl's response: This refers to the increase in the Flood Tax which amounted to less than $1/month on the average house. This small increase was needed to start to implement the Lake Whatcom stormwater plan, meet other mandated water quality issues, and shore up the flood fund that was dipping below what has historically been the level set to meet emergencies. Luckily this increase happened when it did because the January 2009 flooding required a big chunk of this emergency money.
My response: This 'increase' actually was a partial restoration of funding necessary to accomplish water related work considered vital to this entire county. Formerly, the so-called 'Flood Tax' was used to fund the WRIA1 Program [Water Resource Inventory Area #1], a comprehensive planning effort supported by 5 'Initiating Governments', Whatcom County [Lead entity], City of Bellingham, PUD #1, Lummi Nation & Nooksack Tribe and several stakeholder groups. About $4.5 million was expended in this effort over several years, before the effort was undermined by those -including the development community- who felt threatened by it; quite possibly by some of those who are still attempting to discredit water planning as a necessary task.
Whatcom County retains the serious, legal responsibility for providing water-related services, and to give these priority without providing the necessary funding would be irresponsible, thereby inviting costly legal actions the County would likely lose.
2. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan increased the taxes to pay for pet projects, one of them directly benefitting a friend and campaign advisor. This of course was for the "Shellfish Bed Inventory" portion of the designated uses for the Flood Tax increase. Geoff Menzies will assist in this work, and gain financially.
Carl's response: This again refers to the increase in the Flood Tax ($12/year for a $300,000 property). The rest of the statement is a bald faced lie. There was no money included for anything like a “shellfish bed inventory,” or anything that Geoff Menzies would have in any way been paid for. There was money for shellfish closure response plans for Birch Bay and Chuckanut Bay because the pollution in those areas have closed shellfish beds and we are required by state law (and it’s the right thing to do) to develop recovering plans in such circumstances. We also enhanced the Flood Fund with $500,000 from the REET fund. Here are the ways that money was targeted.
• Increased Flood Planning, Implementation, and Response $555,000
• Shellfish Closure Response Plans (Birch Bay and Chuckanut) $70,000
• Code revision to add appropriate Low Impact Development standards for county roads, other developments $60,000
• Design and engineering for Lake Whatcom sub-basin natural drainage retrofit - $150,000
• Stormwater Low Impact Development Pilots for existing homes (Lake Whatcom) $120,000
* CAO/Shorelines Education and Enforcement (PDS) Additional FTE $85,000
• Enhance implementation of shoreline, salmon, marine restoration, and shellfish recovery plans $50,000
• Lake Whatcom Stormwater capital projects planning and construction per Lake Whatcom Stormwater plan $390,000
• Lake Samish stormwater plan development $110,000
My response: Drayton Harbor has a terrible problem related to high levels of fecal coliform that is evidenced particularly at low tide. As a historic shellfish habitat, addressing this problem and restoring a healthy shellfish production was considered a worthwhile task of the former WRIA1 program, and remains so.
The attempt to characterize this effort as personal and political is bogus and gratuitous. In other words, a lie!
3. SKIP
4. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan are strong advocates to create a gigantic park around Lake Whatcom, rather than allowing for an environmentally, responsibly, and economically-managed (by DNR) undeveloped forested landscape to be maintained around the lake. While this removes revenue to the County, it adds a huge future cost-liability to the taxpayers with no other foreseeable reimbursement.
Carl's response: This refers to the proposal to reconvey about 8000 acres of DNR land around Lake Whatcom back to the County to set it aside as a low impact reserve. Yes some hiking will be allowed in the area, but those impacts will be minimal compared to the impacts associated with road building and logging. New studies have recently been released, and more are on the way, that show pretty clearly that logging in the watershed has a much larger impact on phosphorus loading to the Lake than previously acknowledged. While it is true that DNR does a better job than most private forest operations, in the Lake Whatcom watershed we need to get into place more stringent control on all logging if we hope to restore the lake. It should be noted that DNR recently increased their forest practice regulations, and the Dept. of Ecology has just started a huge process to address the scientific evidence which shows that the much touted Forest and Fish law is not adequate to protect water quality in general, and certainly not in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
My response: My position is clear from previous blogs, and can be briefly summarized as follows. Protection of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, the sole water supply for half of Whatcom County, is important, and minimizing development and land/vegetation disturbance is critical. To the extent the County can fund and carefully manage the reconveyance of 8400 acres of forest lands around Lake Whatcom, the proposed reconveyance may be helpful, notwithstanding the loss of revenues from timber harvests. To date, I have not seen the land use plans nor the longterm funding source that would give me confidence this will work as anticipated. But, the potential for protecting the Lake and its watershed are considerable.
5. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan led the charge to create a costly and inefficient homeowner septic inspection program. Under this scheme, the property-owners of Whatcom County pay millions per year for needless inspections, with well over 90% of the results being 'everything's fine'.
Carl's response: The state legislature passed a law requiring counties to institute a system for the inspection of septic systems. The local Health Department estimates there are 30,000 septic systems in the county, although they don’t have any records for a third of those systems. That equates to somewhere in the area of 30,000,000 gallons of human sewage in the county that no one knows where it is, or if the systems are functioning properly. What we do know is that every stream in the lowland parts of the county are failing to meet federal water quality standards for fecal coliform pollution (the measure of sewage in the water). Sophisticated DNA testing in area streams shows that this pollution is coming mainly from livestock and to a lesser degree septic systems. The regulations we passed require an initial inspection by a professional so we can get a clear baseline of where all the septics are and how well they are working. After the initial inspection most systems can then be inspected by the homeowners themselves on a regular schedule after they take a class from the Health Department. The first year of data indicates that about 5% of the systems inspected so far a failing outright, and about 20% need maintenance. If these types of numbers hold for the rest of the county it would mean somewhere in the area of 1500 systems are failing county-wide (1,500,000 gallons of human sewage), and as many as 6000 systems need maintenance to keep from failing. The cost of an inspection is between $200 - $300 which is still a bargain compared to what people in the cities pay for sewer annually. The County is working on a low cost loan program for people who need to do expensive repairs to their systems The Council has also made it clear that once the initial baseline inspections are complete we will look at the data to decide whether it makes sense to then relax the inspection interval to even further lower the cost.
My response: What is it that is so hard to understand about following State law? The County's responsibility includes public health & safety. Get serious!
6. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan came up with a scheme to remove the authority of the County Executive to veto tax increases in one of the County funds. They did this to insulate the Council from veto, and it was this very fund that a slim majority of Council members ended up increasing.
Carl's response: This is referring to the Flood Tax again, and is not at all accurate. The Flood Control Zone District (FCZD), which sets the Flood Tax level, is set up in state law as a separate municipal entity from the County. Currently the FCZD Board and the County Council are one and the same, but under statute it doesn’t necessarily have to remain that way. There was an audit finding in the 1990s that pointed out that the County was incorrectly mingling the functions and money of the FCZD with that of the County. Correcting this error has been in the works on and off for years, and the need to do this surfaced again a couple years ago. The County Prosecutor, Council, and the Executive all agreed this was needed. Part of that separation of functions was to follow state law in the operations of the FCZD, which would not allow the Executive to veto the decisions of a separate municipal entity (the FCZD), just like he is not allowed to veto the decisions of the City of Bellingham. Another example of this incorrect intermingling was that the interest off the Flood Tax was being directed into the County’s General Fund instead of accruing for Flood Fund purposes. This intermingling still has not been completely fixed, but is in the works.
My response: It's good that some discipline has been imposed on the County in its accounting practices. Those who complain are being either ignorant or disingenuous at best! One of the reasons the County failed to continue diligent pursuit of its WRIA1 Program was the threat of legal challenge over legal use of its funds. Now, at least part of that is fixed.
7. SKIP
8. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan championed one-size-fits-all shoreline regulations which require limiting or eliminating uses, such as homes and driveways, within 150 feet of the shoreline, with no supporting evidence whatsoever that somehow this would afford environmental protection.
Carl's response: There is tons of evidence (I have it) that impervious surfaces like homes, driveways, sidewalks, etc have a significant negative impact of our shorelines, fresh water, and ultimately Puget Sound. Most all of these studies show impervious surface totals in the 5-15% range have significant impacts on water quality. Saying over and over again that there is “no evidence” doesn’t make the evidence go away, although it may make people who do not want to have to adopt reasonable stewardship practices believe it.
My response: The Shoreline Management Program recently updated by Whatcom County is considered as an excellent effort by the Dept of Ecology and others knowledgeable in such matters. By its nature, the SMP must be fair and consistent to everyone. It's very hard to teach 'supporting evidence' to those who are being paid not to learn!
9. SKIP
10. SKIP
11. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan are currently advocating and promoting an elaborate and costly stormwater-tax scheme for many areas around Bellingham and Ferndale.
Carl's response: This refers to a proposal that is being developed by the Executive’s Public Works staff to create a Stormwater Utility in the urban areas of Bellingham and Ferndale that are outside of the city limits. Much of the impetus for this is to create a dedicated funding source to address mandated water quality issues around Lake Whatcom (NPDES, TMDL). The creation of such a stormwater utility would help start to shift the cost for such programs to those that are for the most part creating the problems or will benefit from the programs (people who live in the watershed or drink the water), instead of requiring people that are not the cause of the problems, or people in Cities already paying stormwater fees, to subsidize the cleanup.
My response: Stormwater and its potentially harmful effects are well known and regulated. Not only erosion and flooding are the problem, but also chemical contamination going into our lakes, streams, estuaries and bays. The City of Bellingham had pass new stormwater rates in 2001 to support a number of mandatory program elements, including stormwater treatment -in perpetuity. The County is required to do the same, beginning with those areas adjacent to urban areas and critical water resources. Because we are all living in watersheds, there is a necessity for a cooperative effort, with each participant paying their fair share of costs.
12. through 25. SKIP
-------------------
Now, returning to the author(s) of the '25 Reasons', and the request to potential supporters of their anointed acolytes;
Please ask your friends, families and neighbors to review this list.
All of these statements are factual.
Make sure everyone you know understands that the current County Council has lost sight of what is important to the people of Whatcom County.
I hope folks do review this list, because that could be a valuable lesson in what passes for political discourse in a significant portion of our population.
But, also review the responses, and also ask a few questions of your own, because that is how the truth gets known.
I don't believe a majority of the current County Council has lost sight of what is important to the people of Whatcom County at all.
Quite the contrary!
But those who believe that all the '25 reasons' are factual, do have a problem!
Accepting any of these statements as true without questioning does not serve anyone's best interests -including those who think they might benefit from it.
Candidates with integrity and competence always need to protect those valuable traits against such temptations!
I hope they will.
-------------
---------------------
I'm just now returning to the present after a short interlude to the past, studying ancient & medieval history.
That was interesting, but I must say we have it better these days, notwithstanding the habitual lying and dishonest posturing on political matters.
For example, I'm pleased that another local blog, Latte Republic, published a document -plus responses to it- entitled
25 REASONS WEIMER, CASKEY, MANN* & MCSHANE* HAVE FAILED THE CITIZENS OF WHATCOM COUNTY.
The original list of '25 Reasons' purports to support 4 brand new candidates for County office by trying to smear 4 other candidates, three of whom have actual experience in that office.
[Note McShane has been out of office since 2007 and Mann has never held elected office]
Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, the 25 'reasons' are bogus and don't hold water, but since several are on the subject of water, I'll get back to that.
Anyway, this particular political piece ends this way:
Please ask your friends, families and neighbors to review this list. All of these statements are factual. Make sure everyone you know understands that the current County Council has lost sight of what is important to the people of Whatcom County. The 'Gang of Four' (Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan) must be removed from office.
And finally, this admonition:
We Must Support Kathy Kershner, Mary Beth Teigrob, Michelle Luke, and Bill Knutzen!
Note that none of these favored four have any experience at all in public office, which is being touted as a virtue.
Instead, their clever handlers are speaking for them by using this poorly aimed broadside.
A fitting, and more likely result will be actually to turn the 'favored four' into political cannon fodder, a hard lesson for not being careful with the truth, or with whom you let speak for you!
This reminds of a quote nearly 60 years old: 'The GOP would do well to remember the warning of Maine Republican Margaret Chase Smith, who worried in 1950 that her party was trying to achieve victory on "the Four Horsemen of Calumny -- Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear."'
Guess we could also add simple lying and deliberate misinterpretation of facts.
----------------
Of the 25 'Reasons' several are related to important water issues, so this piece will focus on them.
1. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan advocated for, and voted to raise taxes without offsetting the net cost to the taxpayer. This has not otherwise occurred in the 14 years Executive Kremen has been in office. Carl initially advocated for more than double the increase that was finally passed by a slim Council majority.
Carl's response: This refers to the increase in the Flood Tax which amounted to less than $1/month on the average house. This small increase was needed to start to implement the Lake Whatcom stormwater plan, meet other mandated water quality issues, and shore up the flood fund that was dipping below what has historically been the level set to meet emergencies. Luckily this increase happened when it did because the January 2009 flooding required a big chunk of this emergency money.
My response: This 'increase' actually was a partial restoration of funding necessary to accomplish water related work considered vital to this entire county. Formerly, the so-called 'Flood Tax' was used to fund the WRIA1 Program [Water Resource Inventory Area #1], a comprehensive planning effort supported by 5 'Initiating Governments', Whatcom County [Lead entity], City of Bellingham, PUD #1, Lummi Nation & Nooksack Tribe and several stakeholder groups. About $4.5 million was expended in this effort over several years, before the effort was undermined by those -including the development community- who felt threatened by it; quite possibly by some of those who are still attempting to discredit water planning as a necessary task.
Whatcom County retains the serious, legal responsibility for providing water-related services, and to give these priority without providing the necessary funding would be irresponsible, thereby inviting costly legal actions the County would likely lose.
2. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan increased the taxes to pay for pet projects, one of them directly benefitting a friend and campaign advisor. This of course was for the "Shellfish Bed Inventory" portion of the designated uses for the Flood Tax increase. Geoff Menzies will assist in this work, and gain financially.
Carl's response: This again refers to the increase in the Flood Tax ($12/year for a $300,000 property). The rest of the statement is a bald faced lie. There was no money included for anything like a “shellfish bed inventory,” or anything that Geoff Menzies would have in any way been paid for. There was money for shellfish closure response plans for Birch Bay and Chuckanut Bay because the pollution in those areas have closed shellfish beds and we are required by state law (and it’s the right thing to do) to develop recovering plans in such circumstances. We also enhanced the Flood Fund with $500,000 from the REET fund. Here are the ways that money was targeted.
• Increased Flood Planning, Implementation, and Response $555,000
• Shellfish Closure Response Plans (Birch Bay and Chuckanut) $70,000
• Code revision to add appropriate Low Impact Development standards for county roads, other developments $60,000
• Design and engineering for Lake Whatcom sub-basin natural drainage retrofit - $150,000
• Stormwater Low Impact Development Pilots for existing homes (Lake Whatcom) $120,000
* CAO/Shorelines Education and Enforcement (PDS) Additional FTE $85,000
• Enhance implementation of shoreline, salmon, marine restoration, and shellfish recovery plans $50,000
• Lake Whatcom Stormwater capital projects planning and construction per Lake Whatcom Stormwater plan $390,000
• Lake Samish stormwater plan development $110,000
My response: Drayton Harbor has a terrible problem related to high levels of fecal coliform that is evidenced particularly at low tide. As a historic shellfish habitat, addressing this problem and restoring a healthy shellfish production was considered a worthwhile task of the former WRIA1 program, and remains so.
The attempt to characterize this effort as personal and political is bogus and gratuitous. In other words, a lie!
3. SKIP
4. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan are strong advocates to create a gigantic park around Lake Whatcom, rather than allowing for an environmentally, responsibly, and economically-managed (by DNR) undeveloped forested landscape to be maintained around the lake. While this removes revenue to the County, it adds a huge future cost-liability to the taxpayers with no other foreseeable reimbursement.
Carl's response: This refers to the proposal to reconvey about 8000 acres of DNR land around Lake Whatcom back to the County to set it aside as a low impact reserve. Yes some hiking will be allowed in the area, but those impacts will be minimal compared to the impacts associated with road building and logging. New studies have recently been released, and more are on the way, that show pretty clearly that logging in the watershed has a much larger impact on phosphorus loading to the Lake than previously acknowledged. While it is true that DNR does a better job than most private forest operations, in the Lake Whatcom watershed we need to get into place more stringent control on all logging if we hope to restore the lake. It should be noted that DNR recently increased their forest practice regulations, and the Dept. of Ecology has just started a huge process to address the scientific evidence which shows that the much touted Forest and Fish law is not adequate to protect water quality in general, and certainly not in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
My response: My position is clear from previous blogs, and can be briefly summarized as follows. Protection of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, the sole water supply for half of Whatcom County, is important, and minimizing development and land/vegetation disturbance is critical. To the extent the County can fund and carefully manage the reconveyance of 8400 acres of forest lands around Lake Whatcom, the proposed reconveyance may be helpful, notwithstanding the loss of revenues from timber harvests. To date, I have not seen the land use plans nor the longterm funding source that would give me confidence this will work as anticipated. But, the potential for protecting the Lake and its watershed are considerable.
5. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan led the charge to create a costly and inefficient homeowner septic inspection program. Under this scheme, the property-owners of Whatcom County pay millions per year for needless inspections, with well over 90% of the results being 'everything's fine'.
Carl's response: The state legislature passed a law requiring counties to institute a system for the inspection of septic systems. The local Health Department estimates there are 30,000 septic systems in the county, although they don’t have any records for a third of those systems. That equates to somewhere in the area of 30,000,000 gallons of human sewage in the county that no one knows where it is, or if the systems are functioning properly. What we do know is that every stream in the lowland parts of the county are failing to meet federal water quality standards for fecal coliform pollution (the measure of sewage in the water). Sophisticated DNA testing in area streams shows that this pollution is coming mainly from livestock and to a lesser degree septic systems. The regulations we passed require an initial inspection by a professional so we can get a clear baseline of where all the septics are and how well they are working. After the initial inspection most systems can then be inspected by the homeowners themselves on a regular schedule after they take a class from the Health Department. The first year of data indicates that about 5% of the systems inspected so far a failing outright, and about 20% need maintenance. If these types of numbers hold for the rest of the county it would mean somewhere in the area of 1500 systems are failing county-wide (1,500,000 gallons of human sewage), and as many as 6000 systems need maintenance to keep from failing. The cost of an inspection is between $200 - $300 which is still a bargain compared to what people in the cities pay for sewer annually. The County is working on a low cost loan program for people who need to do expensive repairs to their systems The Council has also made it clear that once the initial baseline inspections are complete we will look at the data to decide whether it makes sense to then relax the inspection interval to even further lower the cost.
My response: What is it that is so hard to understand about following State law? The County's responsibility includes public health & safety. Get serious!
6. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan came up with a scheme to remove the authority of the County Executive to veto tax increases in one of the County funds. They did this to insulate the Council from veto, and it was this very fund that a slim majority of Council members ended up increasing.
Carl's response: This is referring to the Flood Tax again, and is not at all accurate. The Flood Control Zone District (FCZD), which sets the Flood Tax level, is set up in state law as a separate municipal entity from the County. Currently the FCZD Board and the County Council are one and the same, but under statute it doesn’t necessarily have to remain that way. There was an audit finding in the 1990s that pointed out that the County was incorrectly mingling the functions and money of the FCZD with that of the County. Correcting this error has been in the works on and off for years, and the need to do this surfaced again a couple years ago. The County Prosecutor, Council, and the Executive all agreed this was needed. Part of that separation of functions was to follow state law in the operations of the FCZD, which would not allow the Executive to veto the decisions of a separate municipal entity (the FCZD), just like he is not allowed to veto the decisions of the City of Bellingham. Another example of this incorrect intermingling was that the interest off the Flood Tax was being directed into the County’s General Fund instead of accruing for Flood Fund purposes. This intermingling still has not been completely fixed, but is in the works.
My response: It's good that some discipline has been imposed on the County in its accounting practices. Those who complain are being either ignorant or disingenuous at best! One of the reasons the County failed to continue diligent pursuit of its WRIA1 Program was the threat of legal challenge over legal use of its funds. Now, at least part of that is fixed.
7. SKIP
8. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan championed one-size-fits-all shoreline regulations which require limiting or eliminating uses, such as homes and driveways, within 150 feet of the shoreline, with no supporting evidence whatsoever that somehow this would afford environmental protection.
Carl's response: There is tons of evidence (I have it) that impervious surfaces like homes, driveways, sidewalks, etc have a significant negative impact of our shorelines, fresh water, and ultimately Puget Sound. Most all of these studies show impervious surface totals in the 5-15% range have significant impacts on water quality. Saying over and over again that there is “no evidence” doesn’t make the evidence go away, although it may make people who do not want to have to adopt reasonable stewardship practices believe it.
My response: The Shoreline Management Program recently updated by Whatcom County is considered as an excellent effort by the Dept of Ecology and others knowledgeable in such matters. By its nature, the SMP must be fair and consistent to everyone. It's very hard to teach 'supporting evidence' to those who are being paid not to learn!
9. SKIP
10. SKIP
11. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan are currently advocating and promoting an elaborate and costly stormwater-tax scheme for many areas around Bellingham and Ferndale.
Carl's response: This refers to a proposal that is being developed by the Executive’s Public Works staff to create a Stormwater Utility in the urban areas of Bellingham and Ferndale that are outside of the city limits. Much of the impetus for this is to create a dedicated funding source to address mandated water quality issues around Lake Whatcom (NPDES, TMDL). The creation of such a stormwater utility would help start to shift the cost for such programs to those that are for the most part creating the problems or will benefit from the programs (people who live in the watershed or drink the water), instead of requiring people that are not the cause of the problems, or people in Cities already paying stormwater fees, to subsidize the cleanup.
My response: Stormwater and its potentially harmful effects are well known and regulated. Not only erosion and flooding are the problem, but also chemical contamination going into our lakes, streams, estuaries and bays. The City of Bellingham had pass new stormwater rates in 2001 to support a number of mandatory program elements, including stormwater treatment -in perpetuity. The County is required to do the same, beginning with those areas adjacent to urban areas and critical water resources. Because we are all living in watersheds, there is a necessity for a cooperative effort, with each participant paying their fair share of costs.
12. through 25. SKIP
-------------------
Now, returning to the author(s) of the '25 Reasons', and the request to potential supporters of their anointed acolytes;
Please ask your friends, families and neighbors to review this list.
All of these statements are factual.
Make sure everyone you know understands that the current County Council has lost sight of what is important to the people of Whatcom County.
I hope folks do review this list, because that could be a valuable lesson in what passes for political discourse in a significant portion of our population.
But, also review the responses, and also ask a few questions of your own, because that is how the truth gets known.
I don't believe a majority of the current County Council has lost sight of what is important to the people of Whatcom County at all.
Quite the contrary!
But those who believe that all the '25 reasons' are factual, do have a problem!
Accepting any of these statements as true without questioning does not serve anyone's best interests -including those who think they might benefit from it.
Candidates with integrity and competence always need to protect those valuable traits against such temptations!
I hope they will.
-------------
Friday, September 11, 2009
On Peak Oil
An oil industry consultant recently had the following article published in the New York Times.
You get to decide whether he's dealing with basic science or just disguised BS.
‘Peak Oil’ Is a Waste of Energy
By MICHAEL LYNCH
A careful examination of the facts shows that most arguments about the theory of peak oil are based on anecdotal information, vague references and ignorance of how the oil industry operates.......
-------------------
As has become my habit, I decided to ask 'Mr Google' and here are excerpts from Wikipedia on peak oil, including different opinions and perspectives.
Discoveries
“All the easy oil and gas in the world has pretty much been found. Now comes the harder work in finding and producing oil from more challenging environments and work areas.” — William J. Cummings, Exxon-Mobil company spokesman, December 2005
To pump oil, it first needs to be discovered. The peak of world oilfield discoveries occurred in 1965 at around 55 billion barrels(Gb)/year. According to the ASPO, the rate of discovery has been falling steadily since. Less than 10 Gb/yr of oil were discovered each year between 2002-2007.
Concerns over stated reserves
“World reserves are confused and in fact inflated. Many of the so-called reserves are in fact resources. They're not delineated, they're not accessible, they’re not available for production” — Sadad I. Al Husseini, former VP of Aramco, presentation to the Oil and Money conference, October 2007.
Al-Husseini's estimated that 300 billion (64×109 m3) of the world's 1,200 billion barrels (190×109 m3) of proved reserves should be recategorized as speculative resources.
Unconventional sources
Syncrude's Mildred Lake mine site and plant near Fort McMurray, AlbertaUnconventional sources, such as heavy crude oil, oil sands, and oil shale are not counted as part of oil reserves.
However, oil companies can book them as proven reserves after opening a strip mine or thermal facility for extraction.
Oil industry sources such as Rigzone have stated that these unconventional sources are not as efficient to produce, however, requiring extra energy to refine, resulting in higher production costs and up to three times more greenhouse gas emissions per barrel (or barrel equivalent).
While the energy used, resources needed, and environmental effects of extracting unconventional sources has traditionally been prohibitively high, the three major unconventional oil sources being considered for large scale production are the extra heavy oil in the Orinoco Belt of Venezuela, the Athabasca Oil Sands in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin, and the oil shales of the Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming in the United States.
Chuck Masters of the USGS estimates that, "Taken together, these resource occurrences, in the Western Hemisphere, are approximately equal to the Identified Reserves of conventional crude oil accredited to the Middle East."
Authorities familiar with the resources believe that the world's ultimate reserves of unconventional oil are several times as large as those of conventional oil and will be highly profitable for companies as a result of higher prices in the 21st century.
“I do not believe the world has to worry about ‘peak oil’ for a very long time.” — Abdullah S. Jum'ah, 2008-01
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah told his subjects in 1998, "The oil boom is over and will not return... All of us must get used to a different lifestyle."
Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens stated in 2005 that worldwide conventional oil production was very close to peaking.
On June 17, 2008, in testimony before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Pickens stated that "I do believe you have peaked out at 85 million barrels a day globally."
Data from the United States Energy Information Administration show that world production leveled out in 2004, and an October 2007 retrospective report by the Energy Watch Group concluded that this data showed the peak of conventional oil production in the third quarter of 2006
------------
The Hirsch report
In 2005, the United States Department of Energy published a report titled Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management.
Known as the Hirsch report, it stated,
"The peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented. Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking."
Conclusions from the Hirsch report and three scenarios
1. World oil peaking is going to happen - some forecasters predict within a decade, others later.
2. Oil peaking could cost economies dearly - particularly that of the U.S.
3. Oil peaking presents a unique challenge - previous transitions were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary.
4. The real problem is liquid fuels for transportation - motor vehicles, aircraft, trains, and ships have no ready alternative.
5. Mitigation efforts will require substantial time - an intense effort over decades.
6. Both supply and demand will require attention - higher efficiency can reduce demand, but large amounts of substitute fuels must be produced.
7. It is a matter of risk management - early mitigation will be less damaging than delayed mitigation.
8. Government intervention will be required - otherwise the economic and social implications would be chaotic.
9. Economic upheaval is not inevitable - without mitigation, peaking will cause major upheaval, but given enough lead-time, the problems are soluble.
10. More information is needed - effective action requires better understanding of a number of issues.
The report listed three possible scenarios:
• waiting until world oil production peaks before taking crash program action leaves the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for more than two decades;
• initiating a mitigation crash program ten years before world oil peaking helps considerably but still leaves a liquid fuels shortfall roughly a decade after the time that oil would have peaked;
• or initiating a mitigation crash program twenty years before peaking appears to offer the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.
----------------
While there are various optimistic and pessimistic predictions of future oil production, no one knows for sure when peak oil may occur, or if it has already happened.
But, is how important is this exact knowledge in a practical sense?
Doesn't it make sense to plan for contingencies rather than waiting for an 'energy 9/11' to happen?
After all, there is a finite limit to most material things.
And, if we have learned anything from history, it is that new technologies are there waiting for our discovery and application.
Some of those new technologies -like harnessing solar & wind energy- are already known and awaiting application, as are various energy conservation techniques.
It just makes sense that we use these new and less polluting ideas earlier rather than later, so we have the benefit of time being on our side in at least mitigating any peak oil calamity that might come our way -or come our children's or grandchildren's way.
My two cents.
----------------
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Library: Consolidation Via Deus Ex Machina?
----------------
Fanatic: a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause);
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
----------------
The September Issue of Whatcom Watch carried yet a third article from Mr. Fred Volz on the subject of our Library system, the first two appearing in the March and June 2009 issues.
Sandwiched in between these first two articles was a clear and factual response in the May issue by Pam Kiesner, our Library Director.
Curiously, Mr Volz's second article was prefaced by an Editor's comment to the effect that some of his statements could not be readily verified and therefore ought to be considered as opinions. Good surmise!
Quite possibly, that may account for the fact that WW chose not to enable that piece for Internet reading.
Now, Mr Volz has again submitted a lengthy article that repeats much of his previous arguments, but also adds some rather presumptive speculations, thereby weaving a remarkable scenario that has an almost Alice in Wonderland quality about it, but not quite.
While it is apparent that Mr Volz has learned something from his various exchanges, the way he has chosen to apply this knowledge subtracts from his credibility.
This verified by the Editor's subtle -perhaps too subtle- lead-in byline; 'Deus Ex Machina'.
I had to look up Deus Ex Machina in Wikipedia
Here's briefly what it means:
In fiction writing, the phrase has been extended to refer to a sudden and unexpected resolution to a seemingly intractable problem in a plot-line, or what might be called an "Oh, by the way..." ending.
A deus ex machina is generally undesirable in writing and often implies a lack of skill on the part of the author.
The reasons for this are that it does not pay due regard to the story's internal logic and is often so unlikely that it challenges suspension of disbelief, allowing the author to conclude the story with an unlikely, though perhaps more palatable, ending.
Sometimes the unlikeliness of the deus ex machina plot device is employed deliberately:
---------------------
I don't know if the author used this device deliberately, or what his intention might have been in doing so.
Maybe, it was just to get another badly organized argument with multiple opinions and personal wishes out there for others to read, become misinformed or confused about and thereby aid and abet whatever agenda he is pushing.
There are better ways to advance a principled public discussion on this important issue than the method Mr Volz has chosen, which may end up mainly discrediting him.
Perhaps, he will consider attending the public meetings of the Library Board of Trustees, joining the Friends of the Library, availing himself of the facts that are readily accessible on the various legalities, realities and methods available to initiate changes in the system we have, etc, if he has not already done these things.
Continuing to rely on some supernatural force, like deus ex machina or Superman won't help much.
Neither will casting dispersions on others who are doing what they can with the situation and resources available to even maintain the valuable library system we have now.
Instead of externalizing his perception of a problem to others, Mr Volz -and the public- would be better served by simply engaging in the hard and often thankless work of civic involvement.
Everything is not perfect, nor is it likely to be, unless one's imagination can conjure an endless array of deus ex machina devices at will, then believe they work.
-----------------
News links:
Bellingham Public Library announcement
Herald article
CNN article -digital libraries
Crosscut article
----------------------
' I cannot live without books.' - Thomas Jefferson 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)
----------------------
Fanatic: a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause);
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
----------------
The September Issue of Whatcom Watch carried yet a third article from Mr. Fred Volz on the subject of our Library system, the first two appearing in the March and June 2009 issues.
Sandwiched in between these first two articles was a clear and factual response in the May issue by Pam Kiesner, our Library Director.
Curiously, Mr Volz's second article was prefaced by an Editor's comment to the effect that some of his statements could not be readily verified and therefore ought to be considered as opinions. Good surmise!
Quite possibly, that may account for the fact that WW chose not to enable that piece for Internet reading.
Now, Mr Volz has again submitted a lengthy article that repeats much of his previous arguments, but also adds some rather presumptive speculations, thereby weaving a remarkable scenario that has an almost Alice in Wonderland quality about it, but not quite.
While it is apparent that Mr Volz has learned something from his various exchanges, the way he has chosen to apply this knowledge subtracts from his credibility.
This verified by the Editor's subtle -perhaps too subtle- lead-in byline; 'Deus Ex Machina'.
I had to look up Deus Ex Machina in Wikipedia
Here's briefly what it means:
A deus ex machina (pronounced /ˈdeɪ.əs ɛks ˈmɑːkinə/ or /ˈdiː.əs ɛks ˈmækɨnə/, or day oos ayks mokinah [1] literally "god from the machine") is a plot device in which a person or thing appears "out of the blue" to help a character to overcome a seemingly insolvable difficulty.
In fiction writing, the phrase has been extended to refer to a sudden and unexpected resolution to a seemingly intractable problem in a plot-line, or what might be called an "Oh, by the way..." ending.
A deus ex machina is generally undesirable in writing and often implies a lack of skill on the part of the author.
The reasons for this are that it does not pay due regard to the story's internal logic and is often so unlikely that it challenges suspension of disbelief, allowing the author to conclude the story with an unlikely, though perhaps more palatable, ending.
Sometimes the unlikeliness of the deus ex machina plot device is employed deliberately:
---------------------
I don't know if the author used this device deliberately, or what his intention might have been in doing so.
Maybe, it was just to get another badly organized argument with multiple opinions and personal wishes out there for others to read, become misinformed or confused about and thereby aid and abet whatever agenda he is pushing.
There are better ways to advance a principled public discussion on this important issue than the method Mr Volz has chosen, which may end up mainly discrediting him.
Perhaps, he will consider attending the public meetings of the Library Board of Trustees, joining the Friends of the Library, availing himself of the facts that are readily accessible on the various legalities, realities and methods available to initiate changes in the system we have, etc, if he has not already done these things.
Continuing to rely on some supernatural force, like deus ex machina or Superman won't help much.
Neither will casting dispersions on others who are doing what they can with the situation and resources available to even maintain the valuable library system we have now.
Instead of externalizing his perception of a problem to others, Mr Volz -and the public- would be better served by simply engaging in the hard and often thankless work of civic involvement.
Everything is not perfect, nor is it likely to be, unless one's imagination can conjure an endless array of deus ex machina devices at will, then believe they work.
-----------------
News links:
Bellingham Public Library announcement
Herald article
CNN article -digital libraries
Crosscut article
----------------------
' I cannot live without books.' - Thomas Jefferson 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)
----------------------
Monday, September 7, 2009
More on Cake Baking
------------------------------
Two years ago about this time I published as a blog, an earlier 2004 Guest Editorial on the subject of baking a cake.
With the Healthcare debate taking such a dysfunctional life of its own, maybe it's appropriate to repeat this generic writing, which seeks to remind our elected officials of what our highest expectations of them are, regardless of which issue is being discussed.
Excellence has been described as a habit, not any single act.
With that in mind, let's hope our legislators and other elected representatives decide to get in the habit of more productive discussion, debate and progressive action in resolving the battery of problems that beset us, including something so basic as healthcare.
--------------------------
On a more practical level, here are two cake recipes that I can personally attest to as being quite good.
Obviously, these bakers got their recipes pretty well perfected before going public.
Debbie's McFadden Chocolate Cake:
4 squares chocolate
1 stick butter
1 cup coffee
------- mix together----------
then add:
2 cups flour
2 cups sugar
1/2 cup buttermilk [with 1 1/2 tsp baking soda mixed in it]
beat in 2 eggs
--------------------------------
use (2) 9-inch cake pans
bake at 350 F for 30 minutes
let cool and set
--------------------------------
Icing:
melt 1 stick butter
add 4 TBS Cocoa
add 5 TBS Milk [or coffee, juice, etc.]
-----Boil or microwave, then whisk-------
add 1 box powdered sugar
add 2 tsp Vanilla
[runny -let it sit a few minutes]
--------------------------------
Alan's Carrot Cake
From Colorado Cache, A goldmine of recipes from the Junior League of Denver ©1978
Cover Mountain Carrot Cake with adjustments for gluten-free version
1 ½ cups vegetable oil (use olive oil)
1 ½ cups sugar
4 eggs, well beaten
3 cups grated carrots
2 cups unbleached flour (substitute rice flours as listed below*)
½ teaspoon salt
2 teaspoons soda
2 teaspoons cinnamon
2 teaspoons ground allspice (1/2 tsp ground cloves works well)
1 cup chopped pecans
1 cup raisins
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
*Gluten-free substitute: 1 cup brown rice flour, 1 cup white rice flour, ¼ cup tapioca flour, 1 ½ tsp xanthum gum
Cream oil and sugar. Add eggs and carrots, and mix well. Mix dry ingredients. Add flour mixture to carrot mixture, a small amount at a time, beating well. When blended, add pecans, raisins and vanilla. Pour into a 10 X 14 inch greased and sugared pan and bake at 325 degrees for 1 hour. Cool slightly before frosting.
Frosting
½ cup butter
1 8-ounce package cream cheese, softened
2 cups sifted, powdered sugar
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
Combine butter and cream cheese with sugar and beat well. Add other ingredients, mix well and spread on cooled cake.
ENJOY!
--------------------------------
"They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent. . . The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedience of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences." - Winston Churchill
--------------------------------
Two years ago about this time I published as a blog, an earlier 2004 Guest Editorial on the subject of baking a cake.
With the Healthcare debate taking such a dysfunctional life of its own, maybe it's appropriate to repeat this generic writing, which seeks to remind our elected officials of what our highest expectations of them are, regardless of which issue is being discussed.
Excellence has been described as a habit, not any single act.
With that in mind, let's hope our legislators and other elected representatives decide to get in the habit of more productive discussion, debate and progressive action in resolving the battery of problems that beset us, including something so basic as healthcare.
--------------------------
On a more practical level, here are two cake recipes that I can personally attest to as being quite good.
Obviously, these bakers got their recipes pretty well perfected before going public.
Debbie's McFadden Chocolate Cake:
4 squares chocolate
1 stick butter
1 cup coffee
------- mix together----------
then add:
2 cups flour
2 cups sugar
1/2 cup buttermilk [with 1 1/2 tsp baking soda mixed in it]
beat in 2 eggs
--------------------------------
use (2) 9-inch cake pans
bake at 350 F for 30 minutes
let cool and set
--------------------------------
Icing:
melt 1 stick butter
add 4 TBS Cocoa
add 5 TBS Milk [or coffee, juice, etc.]
-----Boil or microwave, then whisk-------
add 1 box powdered sugar
add 2 tsp Vanilla
[runny -let it sit a few minutes]
--------------------------------
Alan's Carrot Cake
From Colorado Cache, A goldmine of recipes from the Junior League of Denver ©1978
Cover Mountain Carrot Cake with adjustments for gluten-free version
1 ½ cups vegetable oil (use olive oil)
1 ½ cups sugar
4 eggs, well beaten
3 cups grated carrots
2 cups unbleached flour (substitute rice flours as listed below*)
½ teaspoon salt
2 teaspoons soda
2 teaspoons cinnamon
2 teaspoons ground allspice (1/2 tsp ground cloves works well)
1 cup chopped pecans
1 cup raisins
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
*Gluten-free substitute: 1 cup brown rice flour, 1 cup white rice flour, ¼ cup tapioca flour, 1 ½ tsp xanthum gum
Cream oil and sugar. Add eggs and carrots, and mix well. Mix dry ingredients. Add flour mixture to carrot mixture, a small amount at a time, beating well. When blended, add pecans, raisins and vanilla. Pour into a 10 X 14 inch greased and sugared pan and bake at 325 degrees for 1 hour. Cool slightly before frosting.
Frosting
½ cup butter
1 8-ounce package cream cheese, softened
2 cups sifted, powdered sugar
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
Combine butter and cream cheese with sugar and beat well. Add other ingredients, mix well and spread on cooled cake.
ENJOY!
--------------------------------
"They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent. . . The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedience of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences." - Winston Churchill
--------------------------------
Monday, August 31, 2009
Library: From Top Priority To Something Less
---------------------
About 8 years ago, the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee completed over 2 years of work in evaluating the City's future needs and methods available to fund them.
Public Works projects were excluded because these needs are generally met from revenues collected from services, like water, sewer, stormwater, etc.
The main focus was on public facilities that need to maintained or expanded and modernized for future needs, like libraries, museums, Mt Baker Theater and the like, which rely largely upon public funding approved by special public ballot.
As it turned out, the Bellingham Public Library was identified as the top priority in the Committee's final report, since the existing facilities were nearing capacity and in need of serious upgrading to handle modern electronic and Internet systems.
Also, libraries usually require a separate bond issue to build facilities as well as reliable revenues with which to hire staff and buy books, equipment and materials.
One unexpected finding was the possible availability of another funding mechanism for facilities which are deemed part of a 'regional center' that enhances economic development in our area.
For qualifying projects, the State of Washington actually rebates part of the sales taxes already collected from an area and makes these funds available to pay for them.
What happened here was that Bellingham & Whatcom County joined to create a Public Facilities District to sponsor improving our existing cultural center in the downtown, and over $10 million in funds were received to pay for projects to achieve this goal.
This has been quite a success story that uses taxes already paid.
The main beneficiaries have been the Museum and the Mt Baker Theater, each of which has been upgraded and improved after a very careful and public process.
The most recent and visible example is the new Children's Museum.
The Mt Baker Theater improvements aren't quite so visible, but the extensive electrical and HVAC improvements are necessary for its continued use and maintenance.
The Bellingham Public Library was not a part of the PFD projects, and must be addressed by its own process and funding sources.
It is unfortunate that the BPL has to wait through some tough economic times before necessary modernization and expansion can take place.
It is also unfortunate that the severe budget crunch has made it necessary to reduce the BP Library's staffing so drastically, but that does serve to point out the importance both of efficient building design and library system structure.
Both elements do impact operation costs, as well as capital costs, which is the main point of this posting
The main Library building, although too small for current needs, has two entrances which requires some duplicate staffing.
And, each branch library also requires its own staffing as well as separate facilities which must be maintained, built or leased.
The point is, any distributed system is more likely to be more costly than a basic centralized system, and that is true regardless of public preferences.
In any case, a central library facility, adequately sized and equipped, is the necessary heart of a library system.
BPL is trying valiantly to serve that function, but needs our understanding and help in doing so for the future.
Some have suggested that BPL and the Whatcom County Library system, with its 8 or 9 branches, combine for efficiency.
These libraries are already fully cooperating and collaborating, but because they are separate entities by law, can't simply combine.
First, these organizations have different levels of service, as might be expected when contrasting urban and rural areas.
Second, applicable laws and funding mechanisms would need to be significantly changed, and this would take time and considerable effort even it were deemed desirable.
Essentially, if combining the BPL and WCL were to happen, a new central facility would be needed even more to adequately service the various branches.
If that's what the public wants, its OK - but the public must find a way to pay for it.
That is the bottom line.
In the meantime, enjoy the debate. Who knows, you might be the one with the bright idea that help solve the problem!
-----------------------------
A few pertinent links:
Seattle's budget crisis forced Library closures, too.
Overdoing the Library's closure week
More Budget Cuts For Bellingham Library
With budget cuts, layoffs, Bellingham parks and library services decrease
About 8 years ago, the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee completed over 2 years of work in evaluating the City's future needs and methods available to fund them.
Public Works projects were excluded because these needs are generally met from revenues collected from services, like water, sewer, stormwater, etc.
The main focus was on public facilities that need to maintained or expanded and modernized for future needs, like libraries, museums, Mt Baker Theater and the like, which rely largely upon public funding approved by special public ballot.
As it turned out, the Bellingham Public Library was identified as the top priority in the Committee's final report, since the existing facilities were nearing capacity and in need of serious upgrading to handle modern electronic and Internet systems.
Also, libraries usually require a separate bond issue to build facilities as well as reliable revenues with which to hire staff and buy books, equipment and materials.
One unexpected finding was the possible availability of another funding mechanism for facilities which are deemed part of a 'regional center' that enhances economic development in our area.
For qualifying projects, the State of Washington actually rebates part of the sales taxes already collected from an area and makes these funds available to pay for them.
What happened here was that Bellingham & Whatcom County joined to create a Public Facilities District to sponsor improving our existing cultural center in the downtown, and over $10 million in funds were received to pay for projects to achieve this goal.
This has been quite a success story that uses taxes already paid.
The main beneficiaries have been the Museum and the Mt Baker Theater, each of which has been upgraded and improved after a very careful and public process.
The most recent and visible example is the new Children's Museum.
The Mt Baker Theater improvements aren't quite so visible, but the extensive electrical and HVAC improvements are necessary for its continued use and maintenance.
The Bellingham Public Library was not a part of the PFD projects, and must be addressed by its own process and funding sources.
It is unfortunate that the BPL has to wait through some tough economic times before necessary modernization and expansion can take place.
It is also unfortunate that the severe budget crunch has made it necessary to reduce the BP Library's staffing so drastically, but that does serve to point out the importance both of efficient building design and library system structure.
Both elements do impact operation costs, as well as capital costs, which is the main point of this posting
The main Library building, although too small for current needs, has two entrances which requires some duplicate staffing.
And, each branch library also requires its own staffing as well as separate facilities which must be maintained, built or leased.
The point is, any distributed system is more likely to be more costly than a basic centralized system, and that is true regardless of public preferences.
In any case, a central library facility, adequately sized and equipped, is the necessary heart of a library system.
BPL is trying valiantly to serve that function, but needs our understanding and help in doing so for the future.
Some have suggested that BPL and the Whatcom County Library system, with its 8 or 9 branches, combine for efficiency.
These libraries are already fully cooperating and collaborating, but because they are separate entities by law, can't simply combine.
First, these organizations have different levels of service, as might be expected when contrasting urban and rural areas.
Second, applicable laws and funding mechanisms would need to be significantly changed, and this would take time and considerable effort even it were deemed desirable.
Essentially, if combining the BPL and WCL were to happen, a new central facility would be needed even more to adequately service the various branches.
If that's what the public wants, its OK - but the public must find a way to pay for it.
That is the bottom line.
In the meantime, enjoy the debate. Who knows, you might be the one with the bright idea that help solve the problem!
-----------------------------
A few pertinent links:
Seattle's budget crisis forced Library closures, too.
Overdoing the Library's closure week
More Budget Cuts For Bellingham Library
With budget cuts, layoffs, Bellingham parks and library services decrease
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Waterfront Redevelopment: How Long Can You Tread Water?
----------------------
Years ago a Bill Cosby album contained some of his funniest creations.
One of the best was a pretend conversation between Noah and the Lord.
In response to Noah's complaint about cleaning up after the animals he was supposed to gather in the Ark, the Lord said 'Noah, how long can you tread water'.
That definitely got Noah's attention!
Now, another NOAA has a tough assignment, that of explaining it's choice of Newport, OR as its new base for 4 research vessels.
How long can this NOAA take to reassess its site evaluation process and factor into it the fact that Newport is burdened by being in a 100-year flood plain?
Not that the ships won't lift with higher water, just like the Ark was designed to do.
It's the shore facilities that support the ships which seem to be the problem, because Federal law disallows them to be in a flood plain.
Think that little detail isn't important?
We're about to find out, now that Bellingham, Seattle and maybe others as the links below report:
Port of Bellingham will appeal NOAA selection of Newport, Oregon
NOAA's move to Newport hits a legal snag
Appeal filed over plan to move NOAA's fleet
Failing to follow the law is almost always a game changer, but we'll have to wait and see on this one.
Interesting to see the Seattle folks also thought they were the favorites.
Important decisions that threaten produce changes are almost always contentious, but the requirement to follow the law ought not to be.
If an applicable law has been broken or overlooked, that is a fair and objective reason to reopen the NOAA site selection process.
After that legal determination what remains is whether the entire site evaluation process will be redone, or if the second highest rated site is selected.
Bellingham could still become NOAA's new base for its vessels, and if that should occur it would be our great benefit.
Sometimes treading water is necessary, and it is definitely preferable to sinking.
But, having to wade through a flood plain to even reach a ship doesn't sound right, does it?
Maybe NOAA will come our way after all, and that would be a good thing.
-----------------------
Years ago a Bill Cosby album contained some of his funniest creations.
One of the best was a pretend conversation between Noah and the Lord.
In response to Noah's complaint about cleaning up after the animals he was supposed to gather in the Ark, the Lord said 'Noah, how long can you tread water'.
That definitely got Noah's attention!
Now, another NOAA has a tough assignment, that of explaining it's choice of Newport, OR as its new base for 4 research vessels.
How long can this NOAA take to reassess its site evaluation process and factor into it the fact that Newport is burdened by being in a 100-year flood plain?
Not that the ships won't lift with higher water, just like the Ark was designed to do.
It's the shore facilities that support the ships which seem to be the problem, because Federal law disallows them to be in a flood plain.
Think that little detail isn't important?
We're about to find out, now that Bellingham, Seattle and maybe others as the links below report:
Port of Bellingham will appeal NOAA selection of Newport, Oregon
NOAA's move to Newport hits a legal snag
Appeal filed over plan to move NOAA's fleet
Failing to follow the law is almost always a game changer, but we'll have to wait and see on this one.
Interesting to see the Seattle folks also thought they were the favorites.
Important decisions that threaten produce changes are almost always contentious, but the requirement to follow the law ought not to be.
If an applicable law has been broken or overlooked, that is a fair and objective reason to reopen the NOAA site selection process.
After that legal determination what remains is whether the entire site evaluation process will be redone, or if the second highest rated site is selected.
Bellingham could still become NOAA's new base for its vessels, and if that should occur it would be our great benefit.
Sometimes treading water is necessary, and it is definitely preferable to sinking.
But, having to wade through a flood plain to even reach a ship doesn't sound right, does it?
Maybe NOAA will come our way after all, and that would be a good thing.
-----------------------
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Growth Management: An Exercise In Futility?
------------------------
We constantly hear reams of blather about minimizing sprawl by densifying urban centers, but when you get down to it people living in those urban centers don't want changes that affect their 'neighborhood character' and their 'quality of life'.
So, are the concepts of sprawl and infill mutually exclusive?
Are the real games being played 'drive until you qualify' and 'somebody else's problem musical chairs'?
Lot's of folks get excited about these discussions, but the answer almost always means 'somebody else' gets to shoulder the responsibility, an externalization that has become ludicrous.
No one benefits from this constant 'push-me-pull-you' exercise, except maybe those cynics who enjoy seeing incessant senseless turmoil that is almost always non-productive.
Just look at the planning efforts that have been undertaken for years.
How many have realized what was intended?
How many have become dusty, forgotten and expensive shelf art?
Mostly they seem to be palliatives and placebos that do reflect some desirable outcomes, but lack the commitment -and teeth- to meet the objectives intended.
And, after repeated failings to produce results that seem reasonable, fair and predictable, who can be faulted for losing confidence in the process used to determine these growth planning exercises?
Bellingham's current debate with Whatcom County about what proportion of projected growth it should plan to accommodate is just the latest example.
Whatcom County thinks the City ought to do a better job of infilling existing neighborhoods, and -of course- they are correct.
But, do these folks have a clue as to what that simple concept entails?
I don't think so!
If you think existing neighborhoods are likely to willing embrace significant new density, there is a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
Of course, there are exceptions; high-rise buildings in downtown areas; redevelopment areas like the waterfront; newly annexed areas -accepted on the condition of urban levels of development are the main three that come to mind.
Yet, each of these also has hurdles to negotiate.
• Downtown becomes an attractive living place for folks who like walking to work, shopping and entertainment, and who don't opt for home and lawn maintenance.
Then, there's the little matter of high-rises impacting someone else's view and/or solar access. Otherwise, they are creating a new neighborhood character that is inherently denser and vertical.
• Redevelopment sites like the Waterfront require major investments from public and private funds, and they take time to materialize. Until necessary cleanup, construction and connections are settled, these sites wont likely be fun places to work, live, shop or recreate, all of which make infill uncertain. But, a new neighborhood character will eventually emerge that will utilize access to our shoreline and conveniently connect with the existing downtown.
• Newly annexed areas that are zoned for urban development also must be built in phases and require transportation corridors to connect them with existing urban centers. But, that can certainly be done even though some may think it strange that it happens on the outskirts of the City. Just think of all those ancient and medieval towns where abrupt walls were all the rage to keep out the barbarians and protect the residents! Since there is no existing neighborhood, its character gets a chance to be created, and its density can be determined with more certainty to be urban.
• Of course, there are a few areas that already exist within the City where significant infill is not only possible, but logical.
Several years ago, the Birch Street development was approved with the potential for its maximum allowable 176 new dwelling units, providing a second, full-time access road was provided. That process was painful, particularly to existing neighbors who had grown accustomed to relative quiet and uncongested living next to a forested area that they, or the City, did not own.
REMIND you of another place? Chuckanut Ridge? If the City doesn't allow infill where zoning allows it, then the County is right in its assessment that more land supply is wasteful and unjustified. But, the County can't force the City to take infill, just like the County can't force itself to prevent rural sprawl.
---------------------
Recently, a number of articles on Crosscut have addressed this issue, using Seattle and its surrounds as examples.
Readers may enjoy links to some of these treatises, especially today's piece by Douglas MacDonald entitled Our region is losing the race against sprawl on the related transportation issue.
Other Crosscut links are Dense, denser, densest and
Why Seattle won't grow as fast as planners say
---------------------
The close connection between Transportation and Growth Planning is well established, at least in principle.
The problem is in actually understanding and achieving what is meant by concurrency.
To that end, I'm pleased that the City of Bellingham has now bought into the idea of a Transportation Commission to advise it on how best to fully utilize the Transportation tools it has in planning for future growth.
The Herald's article 'Bellingham seeks applicants for new Transportation Commission' explains this idea further.
I'm glad the City has decided to go forward with more focus on Transportation Oriented Development, as was discussed over 2 years ago.
I may even apply myself for one of the 9 seats envisioned.
-----------------------------------
We constantly hear reams of blather about minimizing sprawl by densifying urban centers, but when you get down to it people living in those urban centers don't want changes that affect their 'neighborhood character' and their 'quality of life'.
So, are the concepts of sprawl and infill mutually exclusive?
Are the real games being played 'drive until you qualify' and 'somebody else's problem musical chairs'?
Lot's of folks get excited about these discussions, but the answer almost always means 'somebody else' gets to shoulder the responsibility, an externalization that has become ludicrous.
No one benefits from this constant 'push-me-pull-you' exercise, except maybe those cynics who enjoy seeing incessant senseless turmoil that is almost always non-productive.
Just look at the planning efforts that have been undertaken for years.
How many have realized what was intended?
How many have become dusty, forgotten and expensive shelf art?
Mostly they seem to be palliatives and placebos that do reflect some desirable outcomes, but lack the commitment -and teeth- to meet the objectives intended.
And, after repeated failings to produce results that seem reasonable, fair and predictable, who can be faulted for losing confidence in the process used to determine these growth planning exercises?
Bellingham's current debate with Whatcom County about what proportion of projected growth it should plan to accommodate is just the latest example.
Whatcom County thinks the City ought to do a better job of infilling existing neighborhoods, and -of course- they are correct.
But, do these folks have a clue as to what that simple concept entails?
I don't think so!
If you think existing neighborhoods are likely to willing embrace significant new density, there is a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
Of course, there are exceptions; high-rise buildings in downtown areas; redevelopment areas like the waterfront; newly annexed areas -accepted on the condition of urban levels of development are the main three that come to mind.
Yet, each of these also has hurdles to negotiate.
• Downtown becomes an attractive living place for folks who like walking to work, shopping and entertainment, and who don't opt for home and lawn maintenance.
Then, there's the little matter of high-rises impacting someone else's view and/or solar access. Otherwise, they are creating a new neighborhood character that is inherently denser and vertical.
• Redevelopment sites like the Waterfront require major investments from public and private funds, and they take time to materialize. Until necessary cleanup, construction and connections are settled, these sites wont likely be fun places to work, live, shop or recreate, all of which make infill uncertain. But, a new neighborhood character will eventually emerge that will utilize access to our shoreline and conveniently connect with the existing downtown.
• Newly annexed areas that are zoned for urban development also must be built in phases and require transportation corridors to connect them with existing urban centers. But, that can certainly be done even though some may think it strange that it happens on the outskirts of the City. Just think of all those ancient and medieval towns where abrupt walls were all the rage to keep out the barbarians and protect the residents! Since there is no existing neighborhood, its character gets a chance to be created, and its density can be determined with more certainty to be urban.
• Of course, there are a few areas that already exist within the City where significant infill is not only possible, but logical.
Several years ago, the Birch Street development was approved with the potential for its maximum allowable 176 new dwelling units, providing a second, full-time access road was provided. That process was painful, particularly to existing neighbors who had grown accustomed to relative quiet and uncongested living next to a forested area that they, or the City, did not own.
REMIND you of another place? Chuckanut Ridge? If the City doesn't allow infill where zoning allows it, then the County is right in its assessment that more land supply is wasteful and unjustified. But, the County can't force the City to take infill, just like the County can't force itself to prevent rural sprawl.
---------------------
Recently, a number of articles on Crosscut have addressed this issue, using Seattle and its surrounds as examples.
Readers may enjoy links to some of these treatises, especially today's piece by Douglas MacDonald entitled Our region is losing the race against sprawl on the related transportation issue.
Other Crosscut links are Dense, denser, densest and
Why Seattle won't grow as fast as planners say
---------------------
The close connection between Transportation and Growth Planning is well established, at least in principle.
The problem is in actually understanding and achieving what is meant by concurrency.
To that end, I'm pleased that the City of Bellingham has now bought into the idea of a Transportation Commission to advise it on how best to fully utilize the Transportation tools it has in planning for future growth.
The Herald's article 'Bellingham seeks applicants for new Transportation Commission' explains this idea further.
I'm glad the City has decided to go forward with more focus on Transportation Oriented Development, as was discussed over 2 years ago.
I may even apply myself for one of the 9 seats envisioned.
-----------------------------------
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Three Topics: Healthcare, Climate, NOAA
-----------------------------
Ever tried to figure out what your health insurance policy says?
healthcare terminology
-----------------------------
Think climate change might impact national security?
climate & security
-----------------------------
More on Bellingham's NOAA loss from Crosscut
noaa loss explanation
-----------------------------
Ever tried to figure out what your health insurance policy says?
healthcare terminology
-----------------------------
Think climate change might impact national security?
climate & security
-----------------------------
More on Bellingham's NOAA loss from Crosscut
noaa loss explanation
-----------------------------
Parks: Woodstock Farm & Inspiration Point
----------------------------
This article on Woodstock Farm, the City's new special use park off Chuckanut Drive, appeared in today's Herald and is worth checking out.
More information is available on the City's website at this URL:
Additional details on next Sunday's public event appears here:
-----------------------------
For those wishing a little more background on how this new park opportunity came about, an earlier blog is available at this URL:
This latest event in a series held over this summer, is set for 1 to 5 PM next Sunday afternoon, August 23, with parking available at the North Chuckanut Trailhead parking lot, with shuttle service to the site.
Exhibits, refreshments and entertainment will be provided at what is being termed an Inspiration Jamboree with the Woodstock Farm Conservancy.
I hope folks will come and see this tranquil and historic gem of a place, which thankfully is being preserved for the enjoyment of our posterity.
-----------------------------
This article on Woodstock Farm, the City's new special use park off Chuckanut Drive, appeared in today's Herald and is worth checking out.
More information is available on the City's website at this URL:
Additional details on next Sunday's public event appears here:
-----------------------------
For those wishing a little more background on how this new park opportunity came about, an earlier blog is available at this URL:
This latest event in a series held over this summer, is set for 1 to 5 PM next Sunday afternoon, August 23, with parking available at the North Chuckanut Trailhead parking lot, with shuttle service to the site.
Exhibits, refreshments and entertainment will be provided at what is being termed an Inspiration Jamboree with the Woodstock Farm Conservancy.
I hope folks will come and see this tranquil and historic gem of a place, which thankfully is being preserved for the enjoyment of our posterity.
-----------------------------
Friday, August 21, 2009
Humor: Genealogical Convolutions
-----------------------
Years ago, I remember hearing Willie Nelson sing a funny song, called 'I'm my own Granpa'.
As an amateur genealogist, I was intrigued by how that could occur, without gross incest happening multiple times.
But, it turns the lyrics to this song were actually diagrammed to demonstrate how this might happen, which it turns has - in England!
So, I asked Mr Google and found this blurb from Wikipedia:
Also, a Youtube animated song and familytree diagram version from Ray Stevens:
-------------
Finally, here's the printed lyrics:
I'm My Own Grandpa
(Sung by Lonzo & Oscar in 1947)
It sounds funny, I know,
But it really is so,
Oh, I'm my own grandpa.
I'm my own grandpa.
I'm my own grandpa.
It sounds funny, I know,
But it really is so,
Oh, I'm my own grandpa.
Now many, many years ago, when I was twenty-three,
I was married to a widow who was pretty as could be.
This widow had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red.
My father fell in love with her, and soon they, too, were wed.
This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life,
My daughter was my mother, cause she was my father's wife.
To complicate the matter, even though it brought me joy,
I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy.
My little baby then became a brother-in-law to Dad,
And so became my uncle, though it made me very sad.
For if he was my uncle, then that also made him brother
Of the widow's grown-up daughter, who, of course, was my stepmother.
Father's wife then had a son who kept him on the run,
And he became my grandchild, for he was my daughter's son.
My wife is now my mother's mother, and it makes me blue,
Because, although she is my wife, she's my grandmother, too.
Now if my wife is my grandmother, then I'm her grandchild,
And everytime I think of it, it nearly drives me wild,
For now I have become the strangest case you ever saw
As husband of my grandmother, I am my own grandpa!
I'm my own grandpa.
I'm my own grandpa.
It sounds funny, I know, but it really is so,
Oh, I'm my own grandpa.
--------------------
Ever think this sort of thing might also happen in politics?
--------------------
Years ago, I remember hearing Willie Nelson sing a funny song, called 'I'm my own Granpa'.
As an amateur genealogist, I was intrigued by how that could occur, without gross incest happening multiple times.
But, it turns the lyrics to this song were actually diagrammed to demonstrate how this might happen, which it turns has - in England!
So, I asked Mr Google and found this blurb from Wikipedia:
Also, a Youtube animated song and familytree diagram version from Ray Stevens:
-------------
Finally, here's the printed lyrics:
I'm My Own Grandpa
(Sung by Lonzo & Oscar in 1947)
It sounds funny, I know,
But it really is so,
Oh, I'm my own grandpa.
I'm my own grandpa.
I'm my own grandpa.
It sounds funny, I know,
But it really is so,
Oh, I'm my own grandpa.
Now many, many years ago, when I was twenty-three,
I was married to a widow who was pretty as could be.
This widow had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red.
My father fell in love with her, and soon they, too, were wed.
This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life,
My daughter was my mother, cause she was my father's wife.
To complicate the matter, even though it brought me joy,
I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy.
My little baby then became a brother-in-law to Dad,
And so became my uncle, though it made me very sad.
For if he was my uncle, then that also made him brother
Of the widow's grown-up daughter, who, of course, was my stepmother.
Father's wife then had a son who kept him on the run,
And he became my grandchild, for he was my daughter's son.
My wife is now my mother's mother, and it makes me blue,
Because, although she is my wife, she's my grandmother, too.
Now if my wife is my grandmother, then I'm her grandchild,
And everytime I think of it, it nearly drives me wild,
For now I have become the strangest case you ever saw
As husband of my grandmother, I am my own grandpa!
I'm my own grandpa.
I'm my own grandpa.
It sounds funny, I know, but it really is so,
Oh, I'm my own grandpa.
--------------------
Ever think this sort of thing might also happen in politics?
--------------------
Healthcare: More Perspectives
-------------------------
'If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.' - MARK TWAIN
-------------------------
As frustrating as it has been at times listening to our national healthcare debate, the more discussion occurs, the more facts and perspectives do emerge.
This is good -even essential- despite the overcharged emotional climate that has predictably evolved.
Of course, those people exist who will not be persuaded of anything other than their own biases and opinions, but isn't it always that way?
One can only hope these do not represent a majority, or sufficient numbers to seriously test the courage of those entrusted with representing the best interests of our country as a whole on this important issue.
Rather than expound from my personal perspective any more than necessary, I will trust these three links to express their own views:
First, from the NY Times this article by Timothy Egan on cooperatives:
Next, from today's Crosscut, this article by Ted Luce, an experienced user and administrator of the British health care system, entitled The Socialized Medicine' Red Herring.
Last, from the Boston.com website, this statement from Mitt Romney:
Brief. Why should Obama NOT be listening to 'liberals', and since when is a delay in healthcare reform a concern of Romney's?
---------
The first two citations help explain and clarify some misconceptions that have been in evidence recently.
Charitably, these might be called 'urban legends', but uncharitably are accurately termed lies, half-truths and deliberate mis-conceptions.
As Richard Abanes wrote about an entirely different subject, the novel The DaVinci Code:
"The most flagrant aspect … is not that Dan Brown disagrees with Christianity but that he utterly warps it in order to disagree with it … to the point of completely rewriting a vast number of historical events. And making the matter worse has been Brown's willingness to pass off his distortions as ‘facts' with which innumerable scholars and historians agree.
And this apparently describes the origin of the term 'urban legend':
The term “urban legend,” as used by folklorists, has appeared in print since at least 1968. Jan Harold Brunvand, professor of English at the University of Utah, introduced the term to the general public in a series of popular books published beginning in 1981. Brunvand used his collection of legends, The Vanishing Hitchhiker: American Urban Legends & Their Meanings (1981) to make two points: first, that legends and folklore do not occur exclusively in so-called primitive or traditional societies, and second, that one could learn much about urban and modern culture by studying such tales.
Brunvand has since published a series of similar books, and is credited as the first to use the term vector (inspired by the concept of biological vectors) to describe a person or entity passing on an urban legend.
Do you know anyone around here who can be credited with being a VECTOR, creating, or promulgating, an 'urban legend'?
----------------------------
"I was brought up to believe that the only thing worth doing was to add to the sum of accurate information in the world." -
MARGARET MEAD
"All schools, all colleges, have two great functions: to confer, and to conceal, valuable knowledge. The theological knowledge which they conceal cannot justly be regarded as less valuable than that which they reveal. That is, when a man is buying a basket of strawberries it can profit him to know that the bottom half of it is rotten." - MARK TWAIN [1908, notebook]
----------------------------
'If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.' - MARK TWAIN
-------------------------
As frustrating as it has been at times listening to our national healthcare debate, the more discussion occurs, the more facts and perspectives do emerge.
This is good -even essential- despite the overcharged emotional climate that has predictably evolved.
Of course, those people exist who will not be persuaded of anything other than their own biases and opinions, but isn't it always that way?
One can only hope these do not represent a majority, or sufficient numbers to seriously test the courage of those entrusted with representing the best interests of our country as a whole on this important issue.
Rather than expound from my personal perspective any more than necessary, I will trust these three links to express their own views:
First, from the NY Times this article by Timothy Egan on cooperatives:
Next, from today's Crosscut, this article by Ted Luce, an experienced user and administrator of the British health care system, entitled The Socialized Medicine' Red Herring.
Last, from the Boston.com website, this statement from Mitt Romney:
Brief. Why should Obama NOT be listening to 'liberals', and since when is a delay in healthcare reform a concern of Romney's?
---------
The first two citations help explain and clarify some misconceptions that have been in evidence recently.
Charitably, these might be called 'urban legends', but uncharitably are accurately termed lies, half-truths and deliberate mis-conceptions.
As Richard Abanes wrote about an entirely different subject, the novel The DaVinci Code:
"The most flagrant aspect … is not that Dan Brown disagrees with Christianity but that he utterly warps it in order to disagree with it … to the point of completely rewriting a vast number of historical events. And making the matter worse has been Brown's willingness to pass off his distortions as ‘facts' with which innumerable scholars and historians agree.
And this apparently describes the origin of the term 'urban legend':
The term “urban legend,” as used by folklorists, has appeared in print since at least 1968. Jan Harold Brunvand, professor of English at the University of Utah, introduced the term to the general public in a series of popular books published beginning in 1981. Brunvand used his collection of legends, The Vanishing Hitchhiker: American Urban Legends & Their Meanings (1981) to make two points: first, that legends and folklore do not occur exclusively in so-called primitive or traditional societies, and second, that one could learn much about urban and modern culture by studying such tales.
Brunvand has since published a series of similar books, and is credited as the first to use the term vector (inspired by the concept of biological vectors) to describe a person or entity passing on an urban legend.
Do you know anyone around here who can be credited with being a VECTOR, creating, or promulgating, an 'urban legend'?
----------------------------
"I was brought up to believe that the only thing worth doing was to add to the sum of accurate information in the world." -
MARGARET MEAD
"All schools, all colleges, have two great functions: to confer, and to conceal, valuable knowledge. The theological knowledge which they conceal cannot justly be regarded as less valuable than that which they reveal. That is, when a man is buying a basket of strawberries it can profit him to know that the bottom half of it is rotten." - MARK TWAIN [1908, notebook]
----------------------------
Thursday, August 20, 2009
A Potpourri Of News: Port Primary & County Growth Management
---------------------
Things are happening all the time, but significant results and their reporting tend to bunch up at intervals.
That's what has happened this week.
Since I was out of pocket yesterday, here are comments on two issues of local interest:
---------------------
'In war, you can only be killed once, but in politics, many times.' - Winston Churchill
'My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on.' - John F. Kennedy
--------
Local Primary Elections
An updated Auditor's Report will be issued today, but preliminary results were posted Tuesday evening, and can be found at this URL.
KGMI and The Herald also posted summary articles at their respective links, with some commentary.
I am particularly delighted with the Port of Bellingham results, which show challengers John Blethen and Mike McAuley as leading vote-getters.
But caution must be offered since the General Election is coming, which is time the big money comes into play to attract what should be a larger turnout.
That is the race that really counts, so let's not be lulled into thinking this election is over!
BTW, I appreciate today's NWCitizen blog labeling me as 'conservative'. I take that in the best sense of the word, just as I do the word 'liberal' which has also been applied to me with some frequency.
Too often these terms are tossed off as lazy and over-simplified pejoratives, which is a disservice to everyone, especially readers.
So, I guess being called both terms may qualify me as somewhat 'balanced' in my views? Hope so.
The quotes cited above come from a Conservative and a Liberal.
------------------------
Growth Management
Both The Herald and KGMI reported on our County Executive's recommendations on Whatcom County land use, information that has been very slow in coming, at least until the County Council requested it while recognizing a real deadline is coming on December 1.
The County is over 2 years tardy in correcting and completing its Comprehensive Plan, and these recommendations -along with any Council modifications and eventual approval- are needed necessary to avoid actual State penalties, in the form of lost opportunities for grants, and possibly even fines.
Directionally, the County now seems to be on a better trajectory, at least in updating its Comp Plan under last-minute pressure. But, will this make any difference? Only time will tell.
The idea of reducing the size of Urban Growth Areas [UGAs in Govt jargon] isn't all bad, either for zoning purposes or for their eventual annexation to cities.
Often, disparate areas were lumped together without much thought it seems. One example is the Dewey Valley area which applied for annexation to Bellingham, but was rejected due to its overall size, location, disparate uses and potential fiscal impacts on the city. That particular result might have been avoided had the Dewey Valley area been more compact and easier and cheaper to serve.
I am assuming that the County's recommendations will also extend to the so-called '5-year Review Areas', which the County also designates from time to time. This designation is preliminary to an area even becoming an UGA.
It remains to be seen whether existing UGAs [county's jurisdiction] can be easily downsized without administrative, legislative or legal challenge.
Also, presumably, the respective cities would have to agree.
-----------
In the case of the Geneva and Hillsdale UGAs, I believe the City of Bellingham might agree to a change in designation, but only after an in-depth discussion about whether equal or better protections to Lake Whatcom could result.
Years ago, when the decision was made to include Geneva and Hillsdale as UGAs, there were clear pluses AND minuses involved, but in the end they were designated UGAs.
Now, with more stringent land use regulations -especially STORMWATER requirements- and the fact that significant buildout, facilitated by the independently operated Water District, and restrictive land preservation acquisitions and easements, have occurred may change these weighting factors.
Also, there is the little matter of compliance with mitigating and remedial requirements of the TMDL Study issued by the Dept of Ecology.
Of particular concern are those areas with Geneva and Hillsdale that are unusually susceptible to runoff from upslope development, either in the UGA or in unincorporated areas -like Squalicum Mountain, Toad Lake and Galbraith/Lookout Mountain.
The net effect of downsizing county controlled UGAs may include the following;
• general reduction in areas zoned for high density use of any type- could be positive, unless buildable land supply reduction unduly increases prices.
• gradual slowing of growth and development, either real or perceived -could be positive, unless concurrency of housing and transportation infrastructure is thrown more out of balance.
• more unincorporated land retained, whether for agricultural, forest, open space -could be positive, unless more sporadic county rezoning and low density development occurs [already a known problem].
• appearance of compliance with GMA guidelines - a definite positive.
• a likely net reduction in county annual revenues from development, but also longer retention time of lands in county jurisdiction.
-------
Regarding the proportion of countywide growth to be accommodated by the City of Bellingham, the debate between 38% and 42% probably brackets the best number available.
And since actual growth rates and land absorption are only known from history, why quibble?
A 1.4% long term growth rate is likely OK; but 2.something is excessive.
This seems to be largely about asserting more control over another jurisdiction than is necessary or justified.
The County is charged with the responsibility of countywide planning, with the cities part of that plan.
The individual cities certainly know their history of growth, limitations and expectations better than the County ever could.
So, just make these elements fit!
From the report it appears that some cities prefer more projected growth than does Bellingham.
And, the estimated numbers are not so big as to be impossible to change around a little and still total the amount approved.
Why not do this?
[Alternatively, the County might want to reconsider supporting the Waterfront Redevelopment, which itself might accommodate the difference between County & City preferences. Here, I know the County's EDI [Economic Development Incentive] funds are not supposed to go for 'residential development', but is a dense mixed use redevelopment of a blighted area and expected to create hundreds of new jobs, intended to be included in this definition?]
----------------------------------
'All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions.' - Adlai E. Stevenson
'Society, community, family are all conserving institutions. They try to maintain stability, and to prevent, or at least to slow down, change. But the organization of the post-capitalist society of organizations is a destabilizer. Because its function is to put knowledge to work -- on tools, processes, and products; on work; on knowledge itself -- it must be organized for constant change. - PETER F. DRUCKER
-----------------------------------
Things are happening all the time, but significant results and their reporting tend to bunch up at intervals.
That's what has happened this week.
Since I was out of pocket yesterday, here are comments on two issues of local interest:
---------------------
'In war, you can only be killed once, but in politics, many times.' - Winston Churchill
'My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on.' - John F. Kennedy
--------
Local Primary Elections
An updated Auditor's Report will be issued today, but preliminary results were posted Tuesday evening, and can be found at this URL.
KGMI and The Herald also posted summary articles at their respective links, with some commentary.
I am particularly delighted with the Port of Bellingham results, which show challengers John Blethen and Mike McAuley as leading vote-getters.
But caution must be offered since the General Election is coming, which is time the big money comes into play to attract what should be a larger turnout.
That is the race that really counts, so let's not be lulled into thinking this election is over!
BTW, I appreciate today's NWCitizen blog labeling me as 'conservative'. I take that in the best sense of the word, just as I do the word 'liberal' which has also been applied to me with some frequency.
Too often these terms are tossed off as lazy and over-simplified pejoratives, which is a disservice to everyone, especially readers.
So, I guess being called both terms may qualify me as somewhat 'balanced' in my views? Hope so.
The quotes cited above come from a Conservative and a Liberal.
------------------------
Growth Management
Both The Herald and KGMI reported on our County Executive's recommendations on Whatcom County land use, information that has been very slow in coming, at least until the County Council requested it while recognizing a real deadline is coming on December 1.
The County is over 2 years tardy in correcting and completing its Comprehensive Plan, and these recommendations -along with any Council modifications and eventual approval- are needed necessary to avoid actual State penalties, in the form of lost opportunities for grants, and possibly even fines.
Directionally, the County now seems to be on a better trajectory, at least in updating its Comp Plan under last-minute pressure. But, will this make any difference? Only time will tell.
The idea of reducing the size of Urban Growth Areas [UGAs in Govt jargon] isn't all bad, either for zoning purposes or for their eventual annexation to cities.
Often, disparate areas were lumped together without much thought it seems. One example is the Dewey Valley area which applied for annexation to Bellingham, but was rejected due to its overall size, location, disparate uses and potential fiscal impacts on the city. That particular result might have been avoided had the Dewey Valley area been more compact and easier and cheaper to serve.
I am assuming that the County's recommendations will also extend to the so-called '5-year Review Areas', which the County also designates from time to time. This designation is preliminary to an area even becoming an UGA.
It remains to be seen whether existing UGAs [county's jurisdiction] can be easily downsized without administrative, legislative or legal challenge.
Also, presumably, the respective cities would have to agree.
-----------
In the case of the Geneva and Hillsdale UGAs, I believe the City of Bellingham might agree to a change in designation, but only after an in-depth discussion about whether equal or better protections to Lake Whatcom could result.
Years ago, when the decision was made to include Geneva and Hillsdale as UGAs, there were clear pluses AND minuses involved, but in the end they were designated UGAs.
Now, with more stringent land use regulations -especially STORMWATER requirements- and the fact that significant buildout, facilitated by the independently operated Water District, and restrictive land preservation acquisitions and easements, have occurred may change these weighting factors.
Also, there is the little matter of compliance with mitigating and remedial requirements of the TMDL Study issued by the Dept of Ecology.
Of particular concern are those areas with Geneva and Hillsdale that are unusually susceptible to runoff from upslope development, either in the UGA or in unincorporated areas -like Squalicum Mountain, Toad Lake and Galbraith/Lookout Mountain.
The net effect of downsizing county controlled UGAs may include the following;
• general reduction in areas zoned for high density use of any type- could be positive, unless buildable land supply reduction unduly increases prices.
• gradual slowing of growth and development, either real or perceived -could be positive, unless concurrency of housing and transportation infrastructure is thrown more out of balance.
• more unincorporated land retained, whether for agricultural, forest, open space -could be positive, unless more sporadic county rezoning and low density development occurs [already a known problem].
• appearance of compliance with GMA guidelines - a definite positive.
• a likely net reduction in county annual revenues from development, but also longer retention time of lands in county jurisdiction.
-------
Regarding the proportion of countywide growth to be accommodated by the City of Bellingham, the debate between 38% and 42% probably brackets the best number available.
And since actual growth rates and land absorption are only known from history, why quibble?
A 1.4% long term growth rate is likely OK; but 2.something is excessive.
This seems to be largely about asserting more control over another jurisdiction than is necessary or justified.
The County is charged with the responsibility of countywide planning, with the cities part of that plan.
The individual cities certainly know their history of growth, limitations and expectations better than the County ever could.
So, just make these elements fit!
From the report it appears that some cities prefer more projected growth than does Bellingham.
And, the estimated numbers are not so big as to be impossible to change around a little and still total the amount approved.
Why not do this?
[Alternatively, the County might want to reconsider supporting the Waterfront Redevelopment, which itself might accommodate the difference between County & City preferences. Here, I know the County's EDI [Economic Development Incentive] funds are not supposed to go for 'residential development', but is a dense mixed use redevelopment of a blighted area and expected to create hundreds of new jobs, intended to be included in this definition?]
----------------------------------
'All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions.' - Adlai E. Stevenson
'Society, community, family are all conserving institutions. They try to maintain stability, and to prevent, or at least to slow down, change. But the organization of the post-capitalist society of organizations is a destabilizer. Because its function is to put knowledge to work -- on tools, processes, and products; on work; on knowledge itself -- it must be organized for constant change. - PETER F. DRUCKER
-----------------------------------
Monday, August 17, 2009
Healthcare: More Heat Than Light?
--------------------
Our national healthcare debate, such as it is, ought to be seriously continued every year until we develop a system that serves us much better than the current mess.
If this sounds like I doubt that a single, comprehensive program can be adopted at any one time, your interpretation is correct.
The reason is that politics is simply the art of the possible, and Congress lacks the unity, courage and visionary insights to do this job right.
Of course, President Obama and his administration don't get off the hook either, but since when has an operating manual come with our highest office?
Obama's biggest problem is that he is trying to be too inclusive and flexible under the circumstances.
That is being perceived as either weakness or waffling by both sides, for different and varying reasons.
That is a no-man's land that is unlikely to yield any productive result, save maybe one; agreement that certain aspects of healthcare do need to be changed.
Once that consensus is reached, the job becomes a little simpler, but also longer term in nature.
Simpler, because sufficient votes can likely be garnered for incremental changes that both parties can support.
Things like providing and extending at least catastrophic medical coverage for all citizens.
Or maybe even some tort reform.
Yesterday's Crosscut article by Ted Van Dyk provides a useful perspective on this general strategy.
The longer term nature of debating the healthcare issue, means that Congress and the Administration must find a way to commit to continuing good faith discussions well into the foreseeable future.
Why not bring this up every year as part of a national debate that also ties into whatever economic conditions exist, and our annual budgetary approval process?
That way, it would be harder to dismiss making controversial decisions based upon 'the time not being right'.
When is the time ever right? Especially for those who perpetually resist change?
What I'm talking about is a form of 'phased implementation', where the cumulative impact of incremental changes can fit into and become part of an evolving national healthcare strategy that leads toward a sensible system that doesn't create too many short term dislocations -either real or imaginary.
I have learned that taking heat one time is preferable to taking it multiple times, but that mainly applies to a single issue -think Lake Whatcom for example.
But, the basic weakness with trying to solve a big problem at one stroke is that it simply doesn't work very often -even if sufficient 'votes' can be garnered!
There are always new twists and turns, things that weren't anticipated, new elected officials and fiscal realities.
Think it's easy? Think again.
Maybe the best example of what I'm trying to illustrate is our own Constitution.
As good a document as that is, with its high-minded principles and visionary wisdom, it was adopted by a very slim margin and based upon the best compromise available at the time.
Since then, even our sacrosanct Constitution has been changed or modified several times by amendment, the Bill of Rights, and possibly by judicial interpretation.
As wise and courageous as our Founders were, they also understood that a democracy needs to adjust to circumstances and changing realities over time.
Just look at some of the issues they failed to adequately address over 200 years ago, like slavery and universal suffrage.
Don't you think the Founders meant for our Constitution to be a 'living document' that allows some very careful adjustment from time to time?
I know I do, and history easily demonstrates it.
Now, back to healthcare.
I believe that ready access to some practical level of healthcare is a basic human right for citizens and residents of this country.
Determining what that level is and implementing a plan to provide it is what is being debated right now.
But, a simple, one-time debate won't likely do the job needed.
That's why addressing this issue every year is necessary, and Congress needs to do the one thing it is least likely to do; discipline itself!
Only after having its collective nose rubbed in healthcare every year will Congress & the Administration - or some future iteration of both - be forced to deal with it meaningfully.
OK, I know that hasn't happened regularly on Medicare or Social Security, but it needs to in the future - without unduly burdening the present 'debate'.
The current 'debate' exemplifies what has become a national embarrassment; the substitution of uninformed and emotionally charged opinion that is exceptionally well-financed, for a fact-based and rational discussion among responsible adults.
And, this debate does need to be conducted respectfully by mature adults -on behalf of children, others and themselves at some point in the future.
Failing that, we'll have to do what we're doing; flailing and flogging individual pieces of the healthcare puzzle, without knowing what the big picture is or needs to become.
That is where broad principles can be helpful in delineating what is truly important and of deservedly lasting value.
You know, kinda like our Founders did when they conceived, debated and adopted our Constitution.
Enough of the verbalizing of things that haven't even been written down or agreed to.
That is a phantom tactic that is built on the quicksand of lies.
We can do better than that.
Much better!
Let's get that message to our elected officials, despite their distractions toward being reelected.
Why did we elect them in the first place?
--------------------
Our national healthcare debate, such as it is, ought to be seriously continued every year until we develop a system that serves us much better than the current mess.
If this sounds like I doubt that a single, comprehensive program can be adopted at any one time, your interpretation is correct.
The reason is that politics is simply the art of the possible, and Congress lacks the unity, courage and visionary insights to do this job right.
Of course, President Obama and his administration don't get off the hook either, but since when has an operating manual come with our highest office?
Obama's biggest problem is that he is trying to be too inclusive and flexible under the circumstances.
That is being perceived as either weakness or waffling by both sides, for different and varying reasons.
That is a no-man's land that is unlikely to yield any productive result, save maybe one; agreement that certain aspects of healthcare do need to be changed.
Once that consensus is reached, the job becomes a little simpler, but also longer term in nature.
Simpler, because sufficient votes can likely be garnered for incremental changes that both parties can support.
Things like providing and extending at least catastrophic medical coverage for all citizens.
Or maybe even some tort reform.
Yesterday's Crosscut article by Ted Van Dyk provides a useful perspective on this general strategy.
The longer term nature of debating the healthcare issue, means that Congress and the Administration must find a way to commit to continuing good faith discussions well into the foreseeable future.
Why not bring this up every year as part of a national debate that also ties into whatever economic conditions exist, and our annual budgetary approval process?
That way, it would be harder to dismiss making controversial decisions based upon 'the time not being right'.
When is the time ever right? Especially for those who perpetually resist change?
What I'm talking about is a form of 'phased implementation', where the cumulative impact of incremental changes can fit into and become part of an evolving national healthcare strategy that leads toward a sensible system that doesn't create too many short term dislocations -either real or imaginary.
I have learned that taking heat one time is preferable to taking it multiple times, but that mainly applies to a single issue -think Lake Whatcom for example.
But, the basic weakness with trying to solve a big problem at one stroke is that it simply doesn't work very often -even if sufficient 'votes' can be garnered!
There are always new twists and turns, things that weren't anticipated, new elected officials and fiscal realities.
Think it's easy? Think again.
Maybe the best example of what I'm trying to illustrate is our own Constitution.
As good a document as that is, with its high-minded principles and visionary wisdom, it was adopted by a very slim margin and based upon the best compromise available at the time.
Since then, even our sacrosanct Constitution has been changed or modified several times by amendment, the Bill of Rights, and possibly by judicial interpretation.
As wise and courageous as our Founders were, they also understood that a democracy needs to adjust to circumstances and changing realities over time.
Just look at some of the issues they failed to adequately address over 200 years ago, like slavery and universal suffrage.
Don't you think the Founders meant for our Constitution to be a 'living document' that allows some very careful adjustment from time to time?
I know I do, and history easily demonstrates it.
Now, back to healthcare.
I believe that ready access to some practical level of healthcare is a basic human right for citizens and residents of this country.
Determining what that level is and implementing a plan to provide it is what is being debated right now.
But, a simple, one-time debate won't likely do the job needed.
That's why addressing this issue every year is necessary, and Congress needs to do the one thing it is least likely to do; discipline itself!
Only after having its collective nose rubbed in healthcare every year will Congress & the Administration - or some future iteration of both - be forced to deal with it meaningfully.
OK, I know that hasn't happened regularly on Medicare or Social Security, but it needs to in the future - without unduly burdening the present 'debate'.
The current 'debate' exemplifies what has become a national embarrassment; the substitution of uninformed and emotionally charged opinion that is exceptionally well-financed, for a fact-based and rational discussion among responsible adults.
And, this debate does need to be conducted respectfully by mature adults -on behalf of children, others and themselves at some point in the future.
Failing that, we'll have to do what we're doing; flailing and flogging individual pieces of the healthcare puzzle, without knowing what the big picture is or needs to become.
That is where broad principles can be helpful in delineating what is truly important and of deservedly lasting value.
You know, kinda like our Founders did when they conceived, debated and adopted our Constitution.
Enough of the verbalizing of things that haven't even been written down or agreed to.
That is a phantom tactic that is built on the quicksand of lies.
We can do better than that.
Much better!
Let's get that message to our elected officials, despite their distractions toward being reelected.
Why did we elect them in the first place?
--------------------
Friday, August 14, 2009
Entertainment: Pulp Fiction & Port Sport
-----------------------
I greatly enjoy a good suspense novel or movie.
Really good tales inspire both widespread attention and revenues.
Three that come to mind are Tom Clancy's The Search For Red October; John Grisham's The Pelican Brief; and Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code.
None of these are true stories, but pretend to be so well that folks buy into the fabric of myths that is so cleverly woven together.
There is just enough that is true, or at least plausible or tantalizingly so, to engender belief in the story told.
That relative rarity of a successful storytelling inspires copy-catting on a massive scale.
Of course, trying to reduce a unique success into a formula that can be replicated is tricky business.
While repetition of statements and concepts is critical to driving home a point, there comes a time when this effect is lost.
Also, credibility can peak and then fall off dramatically once people cease settling for merely being entertained and seek other perspectives.
When that happens, most of the audience moves on to its next entertainment event.
So-called 'infotainment' seems to be what sells easiest these days.
That's because it can be dispensed by quick sound bytes that demand little time, attention and critical thinking from the audience - us, the 'buyers'.
It seems so much easier to tear down than to build something, particularly something big, complex and controversial.
And, it doesn't take expensive tools and explosives to accomplish such destruction.
It just takes a series of lies, entertaining myths and half-truths, often repeated.
Just look at the current healthcare reform 'debate' for example.
Or, maybe even our own ambitious Waterfront Redevelopment?
--------
The current issue of the Cascadia Weekly offered this Gristle, which was quickly supported by a blog on NWCitizen.
Both of these publications have been vocal critics of the Waterfront Redevelopment for years, which is certainly their prerogative.
For that matter, I have been critical of certain WR twists and turns myself, although I continue to support the basic idea as necessary to our long-term prosperity.
But, there is always room for improvement in any undertaking, especially those that rely on public support and funding.
And that brings us to what the Weekly, NWCitizen -and I- all share; we need this year's election to produce meaningful change in the leadership at the Port of Bellingham.
The best result we can expect is to replace the two long-time incumbents, Scott Walker and Doug Smith.
While that result would be desirable in itself, it would mainly serve to reconnect the Port of Bellingham to the broader goals and objectives that citizens of both City and County want and expect.
Gone are the days when any special district or agency can simply go its separate way without due consideration of the big picture, that includes the overall welfare of our area and region.
Social, fiscal and ecological realities are inextricably intertwined and must be addressed simultaneously as best we can.
While my view is that the social and ecological aspects to the proposed Waterfront Redevelopment are basically OK, the fiscal part -the financing and management- still leave much to be desired.
At least two important concepts have been totally rejected by the Port; permanent public ownership of its waterfront, and the establishment of an independent Public Development Authority to provide oversight the project.
Why the Port has so strenuously rejected these concepts is a mystery, but may be due to its desire to maintain sole control over its admittedly large commitment.
Maintaining public ownership would mean the Port could not recoup its investment as quickly as waiting for leases to be secured and paid over time.
But, it is ironic that public ownership MUST be retained long enough for the clean-up to be completed!
That's because no sensible private entity wants that liability, nor can it likely even get access to the State & Federal funds necessary to pay for it.
And, don't forget, the Waterfront Redevelopment is not just about the Port either.
The City of Bellingham has former landfills, at or near the water's edge, which also must be remediated concurrent with the former G-P site and other industrial sites.
That this clean-up is both necessary and desirable should not be a matter of debate!
And, the clean-up Plan that has been approved is adequate for the purpose.
It is as senseless to advocate for returning the waterfront to an unrealistic pristine state, as it is to claim that the type and variety of remediation methods proposed are not effective.
You know, at some point there is a limit to what can be done with the resources available.
I would rather do what is feasible than simply delay further progress 'to starve out the Port'.
That is an unacceptably poor result, which carries its own dire consequences.
When you get down to it, this 'debate' is really about who gets to own this potentially very valuable waterfront property.
Of course, the thing that would make it even more valuable is the clean-up, which must be done with public funds.
Once that gets done, I'm sure the Port would enjoy a nice bidding competition among private developers, both to pay off its clean-up and redevelopment promotion efforts, and maximize it's future returns.
But, don't forget, it's not the Port's money! It's ours.
Whoever we elect as Port Commissioners will have the responsibility of managing the Port's funds in the best interests of the public it serves.
Please keep that in mind, regardless of what redevelopment scenario you may favor.
-----------
Some folks have had a great time criticizing the Port and the City, advocating outlandish ideas and concocting all manner of misinformation about what is being proposed and attempted on our waterfront.
Fair enough, have your fun.
Pretty cheap entertainment that fits our current economy.
At some point, the fun ends and the real work begins, as it already has - since 2004 and before.
And, maybe some folks will eventually tire of the same litany of beefs, phony or otherwise, and move on to their next entertainment.
All through this, the real hard work of preparation will continue - as it must, albeit at a somewhat slower rate.
Boring, I know, but necessary.
But, when it nears completion, watch out!
New fun will begin as the competition for ownership, use and public subsidies heats up.
Until that new fun begins, we still have a big, important job to do, and it must be done competently, and in sunlight.
Let's elect new Port Commissioners and get on with it!
---------------------------
I greatly enjoy a good suspense novel or movie.
Really good tales inspire both widespread attention and revenues.
Three that come to mind are Tom Clancy's The Search For Red October; John Grisham's The Pelican Brief; and Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code.
None of these are true stories, but pretend to be so well that folks buy into the fabric of myths that is so cleverly woven together.
There is just enough that is true, or at least plausible or tantalizingly so, to engender belief in the story told.
That relative rarity of a successful storytelling inspires copy-catting on a massive scale.
Of course, trying to reduce a unique success into a formula that can be replicated is tricky business.
While repetition of statements and concepts is critical to driving home a point, there comes a time when this effect is lost.
Also, credibility can peak and then fall off dramatically once people cease settling for merely being entertained and seek other perspectives.
When that happens, most of the audience moves on to its next entertainment event.
So-called 'infotainment' seems to be what sells easiest these days.
That's because it can be dispensed by quick sound bytes that demand little time, attention and critical thinking from the audience - us, the 'buyers'.
It seems so much easier to tear down than to build something, particularly something big, complex and controversial.
And, it doesn't take expensive tools and explosives to accomplish such destruction.
It just takes a series of lies, entertaining myths and half-truths, often repeated.
Just look at the current healthcare reform 'debate' for example.
Or, maybe even our own ambitious Waterfront Redevelopment?
--------
The current issue of the Cascadia Weekly offered this Gristle, which was quickly supported by a blog on NWCitizen.
Both of these publications have been vocal critics of the Waterfront Redevelopment for years, which is certainly their prerogative.
For that matter, I have been critical of certain WR twists and turns myself, although I continue to support the basic idea as necessary to our long-term prosperity.
But, there is always room for improvement in any undertaking, especially those that rely on public support and funding.
And that brings us to what the Weekly, NWCitizen -and I- all share; we need this year's election to produce meaningful change in the leadership at the Port of Bellingham.
The best result we can expect is to replace the two long-time incumbents, Scott Walker and Doug Smith.
While that result would be desirable in itself, it would mainly serve to reconnect the Port of Bellingham to the broader goals and objectives that citizens of both City and County want and expect.
Gone are the days when any special district or agency can simply go its separate way without due consideration of the big picture, that includes the overall welfare of our area and region.
Social, fiscal and ecological realities are inextricably intertwined and must be addressed simultaneously as best we can.
While my view is that the social and ecological aspects to the proposed Waterfront Redevelopment are basically OK, the fiscal part -the financing and management- still leave much to be desired.
At least two important concepts have been totally rejected by the Port; permanent public ownership of its waterfront, and the establishment of an independent Public Development Authority to provide oversight the project.
Why the Port has so strenuously rejected these concepts is a mystery, but may be due to its desire to maintain sole control over its admittedly large commitment.
Maintaining public ownership would mean the Port could not recoup its investment as quickly as waiting for leases to be secured and paid over time.
But, it is ironic that public ownership MUST be retained long enough for the clean-up to be completed!
That's because no sensible private entity wants that liability, nor can it likely even get access to the State & Federal funds necessary to pay for it.
And, don't forget, the Waterfront Redevelopment is not just about the Port either.
The City of Bellingham has former landfills, at or near the water's edge, which also must be remediated concurrent with the former G-P site and other industrial sites.
That this clean-up is both necessary and desirable should not be a matter of debate!
And, the clean-up Plan that has been approved is adequate for the purpose.
It is as senseless to advocate for returning the waterfront to an unrealistic pristine state, as it is to claim that the type and variety of remediation methods proposed are not effective.
You know, at some point there is a limit to what can be done with the resources available.
I would rather do what is feasible than simply delay further progress 'to starve out the Port'.
That is an unacceptably poor result, which carries its own dire consequences.
When you get down to it, this 'debate' is really about who gets to own this potentially very valuable waterfront property.
Of course, the thing that would make it even more valuable is the clean-up, which must be done with public funds.
Once that gets done, I'm sure the Port would enjoy a nice bidding competition among private developers, both to pay off its clean-up and redevelopment promotion efforts, and maximize it's future returns.
But, don't forget, it's not the Port's money! It's ours.
Whoever we elect as Port Commissioners will have the responsibility of managing the Port's funds in the best interests of the public it serves.
Please keep that in mind, regardless of what redevelopment scenario you may favor.
-----------
Some folks have had a great time criticizing the Port and the City, advocating outlandish ideas and concocting all manner of misinformation about what is being proposed and attempted on our waterfront.
Fair enough, have your fun.
Pretty cheap entertainment that fits our current economy.
At some point, the fun ends and the real work begins, as it already has - since 2004 and before.
And, maybe some folks will eventually tire of the same litany of beefs, phony or otherwise, and move on to their next entertainment.
All through this, the real hard work of preparation will continue - as it must, albeit at a somewhat slower rate.
Boring, I know, but necessary.
But, when it nears completion, watch out!
New fun will begin as the competition for ownership, use and public subsidies heats up.
Until that new fun begins, we still have a big, important job to do, and it must be done competently, and in sunlight.
Let's elect new Port Commissioners and get on with it!
---------------------------
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Healthcare: The Status Quo Has Got To Go!
------------------------
'To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.' - Winston Churchill
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.'
- John F. Kennedy
'Healthy citizens are the greatest asset any country can have.'
- Winston Churchill
------------------------
A few years ago, a local right-wing politico couldn't resist shouting out 'John Watts has got to go!'
That outburst actually embarrassed some of this politico's cohorts to the extent they came up to me after the meeting and apologized.
But, you know that politico was right.
I did need to go, just like everyone does at some time.
The thing is, I get to pick the time and place, which in due course, I did.
In retrospect, I might have stayed too long, but past mistakes and decisions can't always be easily corrected.
There is one rather large mistake that has persisted over a half century which can be corrected, but only if Congress has the courage to do it.
Of course, there is again, a large chorus of politicos who are using every means at their disposal to frustrate any kind of meaningful change in our healthcare system.
And this is despite the crying need for breaking the grip of our 'status quo'.
As predicted in an earlier blog, the cacophony of noise and misinformation is reaching a crescendo of meanness, to our great shame as a democratic society.
But, there are ways to deal with this kind of strategy and associated tactics.
It won't be easy, but worthwhile things never are.
The antidote is to keep listening, talking and thinking about more elegant and efficient ways to skin the healthcare cat.
Much of this has already been done, but more is probably needed before measures can be agreed to by both the House & Senate.
Just keep explaining, answering criticisms and pushing forward, without setting any artificial deadlines.
Practical deadlines are likely necessary, but a phased implementation over time makes sense.
If the opposition proves intractable -as it is acting- then something must be accomplished anyway, with or without their support.
And, regardless of attitudes, no entity EXCEPT the Federal Government can realistically take on this task.
It is interesting to see the contest between reasonable discourse and emotional distraction.
And, anger, fear, distrust and doubt can be effective weapons, but in the end their duplicity undermines their objective.
Advertisers understand that if a message is repeated often enough it will sell.
Repeat a slogan frequently and it is believed.
Repeated messages are inherent in advertising, religion, and politics.
But this reality cuts both ways, and I have confidence that principled progress will triumph over those who so ardently oppose it.
If you don't believe that, you may be part of the problem.
This country of ours has managed to slowly but surely change itself over its relatively brief history.
Just look at the egregious civil rights issues that have been improved, including slavery, universal suffrage and the like.
Not that changing our Constitution, laws or policies automatically solves a problem, but it can change our direction in ways that are difficult to reverse.
Something similar must happen in healthcare, and one hopes sooner rather later.
You can argue about the details, but not the need for change!
That is, if one truly values their own integrity, intelligence and compassion.
I hope our elected legislators get an earful before returning to their next Congressional session.
Then, I trust they will act to meaningfully improve our healthcare system.
If that doesn't happen, I will personally make this an issue that will not go away.
This is a promise, not a threat; it will be time for some elected officials to go!
-----------------------------------
'My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on.' - John F. Kennedy
'Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things. '- Winston Churchill
'To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.' - Winston Churchill
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.'
- John F. Kennedy
'Healthy citizens are the greatest asset any country can have.'
- Winston Churchill
------------------------
A few years ago, a local right-wing politico couldn't resist shouting out 'John Watts has got to go!'
That outburst actually embarrassed some of this politico's cohorts to the extent they came up to me after the meeting and apologized.
But, you know that politico was right.
I did need to go, just like everyone does at some time.
The thing is, I get to pick the time and place, which in due course, I did.
In retrospect, I might have stayed too long, but past mistakes and decisions can't always be easily corrected.
There is one rather large mistake that has persisted over a half century which can be corrected, but only if Congress has the courage to do it.
Of course, there is again, a large chorus of politicos who are using every means at their disposal to frustrate any kind of meaningful change in our healthcare system.
And this is despite the crying need for breaking the grip of our 'status quo'.
As predicted in an earlier blog, the cacophony of noise and misinformation is reaching a crescendo of meanness, to our great shame as a democratic society.
But, there are ways to deal with this kind of strategy and associated tactics.
It won't be easy, but worthwhile things never are.
The antidote is to keep listening, talking and thinking about more elegant and efficient ways to skin the healthcare cat.
Much of this has already been done, but more is probably needed before measures can be agreed to by both the House & Senate.
Just keep explaining, answering criticisms and pushing forward, without setting any artificial deadlines.
Practical deadlines are likely necessary, but a phased implementation over time makes sense.
If the opposition proves intractable -as it is acting- then something must be accomplished anyway, with or without their support.
And, regardless of attitudes, no entity EXCEPT the Federal Government can realistically take on this task.
It is interesting to see the contest between reasonable discourse and emotional distraction.
And, anger, fear, distrust and doubt can be effective weapons, but in the end their duplicity undermines their objective.
Advertisers understand that if a message is repeated often enough it will sell.
Repeat a slogan frequently and it is believed.
Repeated messages are inherent in advertising, religion, and politics.
But this reality cuts both ways, and I have confidence that principled progress will triumph over those who so ardently oppose it.
If you don't believe that, you may be part of the problem.
This country of ours has managed to slowly but surely change itself over its relatively brief history.
Just look at the egregious civil rights issues that have been improved, including slavery, universal suffrage and the like.
Not that changing our Constitution, laws or policies automatically solves a problem, but it can change our direction in ways that are difficult to reverse.
Something similar must happen in healthcare, and one hopes sooner rather later.
You can argue about the details, but not the need for change!
That is, if one truly values their own integrity, intelligence and compassion.
I hope our elected legislators get an earful before returning to their next Congressional session.
Then, I trust they will act to meaningfully improve our healthcare system.
If that doesn't happen, I will personally make this an issue that will not go away.
This is a promise, not a threat; it will be time for some elected officials to go!
-----------------------------------
'My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on.' - John F. Kennedy
'Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things. '- Winston Churchill
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
N.O.A.A: Crying In Our Beer?
---------------------
I'm sure there will be some disagreement with these views, but what's new about that?
While it is a disappointment for NOAA to decide against relocating to Bellingham, it never was a certainty.
And, to set our expectations unrealistically high only invites more disappointment at a time when what is needed is resiliency and rededication to the formidable task of seriously rejuvenating our waterfront.
So, if Plan A doesn't pan out, what is our Plan B?
If no Plan B exists, THAT is a problem!
If things hold to form, many folks will feel honest pain, but some may use this as an excuse to say things like 'I told you so', and cheer for degrees of failure out of jealousy, spite or just, old-fashioned, plain ill-will.
Remember those folks who have nay-sayed waterfront redevelopment all along?
Or, those who make a hobby out of second-guessing everyone, including the Port?
It may be a temporary field day for some of these folks, but it will be temporary.
Bellingham is capable of achieving good results in whatever it sets its mind to do.
If you don't believe that, check out what happened with the Olympic Pipe Line explosion.
Of course, for the waterfront, it may take a little longer, require a different mix of politicians, more mature ideas, and an improved economy with a little unexpected good luck throw in.
But, we will get there.
Believe it!
--------------
Yesterday and again today, articles on the NOAA decision appeared in Crosscut, authored by Floyd Mackay and Bob Simmons.
Both have interesting takes, which readers can access through the links provided.
One other Crosscut article by Jean Godden.
Today's Herald article combines some of this info with local reactions.
It is fascinating how the NOAA development coincides so closely with the upcoming elections, especially since the Port incumbents can't deny some of the inherent weakness of their suppositions.
Of course, they can also blame the failure to land NOAA on 'vocal locals', their loud and outspoken opposition.
But, will that help?
I don't think so.
One way or the other, it won't affect my voting for John Blethen and Mike McAuley as new Port Commissioners.
Nothing personal, but it is definitely time for new blood and new thinking at the Port of Bellingham!
And, that is true -in my opinion- of ALL elected offices, local and otherwise.
----------------
One other point, which does not exclusively relate to the Port, concerns the continued beefs expressed about the legitimate use of executive sessions and/or lawyer/client privilege.
Neither of these are, of themselves, inherently illegal, no matter what may be claimed, suspected or spoken by those who enjoy using 'guvmint' for target practice sport.
In fact, as citizens, business owners or government entities, executive sessions and lawyer/client privilege are essential elements in our system of laws and representative government.
To be without them entirely would constitute real stupidity that would not be in anyone's best interest.
It would essentially paralyze many government decisions we generally take for granted, and that would not be a good thing!
If excesses or improprieties are suspected, then by all means we need to take the appropriate legal steps, especially if a government entity and/or monies are involved.
Of course, as citizens in this country, we are always entitled to freedom of expression, including speech and written statements.
But as RESPONSIBLE citizens, it is preferable that we are careful not to MISUSE this freedom either.
If more open public meetings and discussions are desired, let's require that our local governments record them for airing in public, whether people will choose to watch these or not.
That way, we actually get to see and hear what is said.
BTW, even though most City meetings are being televised, its hard to see many more people paying anymore attention to what's going on.
It seems it may be more fun for some to continue to speculate, listen to somebody else's biased opinion, or remain blissfully ignorant.
But, that's just my opinion.
-----------------
Regarding the adverse NOAA decision, there is no use to cry over spilt milk, especially when it didn't belong to us anyway.
But, its probably OK to cry in our beer, at least for a few days.
Then, it will be time to buckle down, suck it up and get on with the real work of figuring out where we go from here.
That's a job better undertaken with with fresh Port Commissioners and executive Director.
It may also be instructive to examine the reasons why Newport, OR was selected, and how that may have differed from what Bellingham had to offer.
Things like a more central location on the Pacific coast, direct access to the ocean- without excessive water traffic, proximity to major league, existing technical expertise, a less congested and growing area, and just possibly a more coordinated approach by local, regional, state and federal authorities, more certainty about what incentives are offered, etc.
Just a few things like that.
--------------------
I'm sure there will be some disagreement with these views, but what's new about that?
While it is a disappointment for NOAA to decide against relocating to Bellingham, it never was a certainty.
And, to set our expectations unrealistically high only invites more disappointment at a time when what is needed is resiliency and rededication to the formidable task of seriously rejuvenating our waterfront.
So, if Plan A doesn't pan out, what is our Plan B?
If no Plan B exists, THAT is a problem!
If things hold to form, many folks will feel honest pain, but some may use this as an excuse to say things like 'I told you so', and cheer for degrees of failure out of jealousy, spite or just, old-fashioned, plain ill-will.
Remember those folks who have nay-sayed waterfront redevelopment all along?
Or, those who make a hobby out of second-guessing everyone, including the Port?
It may be a temporary field day for some of these folks, but it will be temporary.
Bellingham is capable of achieving good results in whatever it sets its mind to do.
If you don't believe that, check out what happened with the Olympic Pipe Line explosion.
Of course, for the waterfront, it may take a little longer, require a different mix of politicians, more mature ideas, and an improved economy with a little unexpected good luck throw in.
But, we will get there.
Believe it!
--------------
Yesterday and again today, articles on the NOAA decision appeared in Crosscut, authored by Floyd Mackay and Bob Simmons.
Both have interesting takes, which readers can access through the links provided.
One other Crosscut article by Jean Godden.
Today's Herald article combines some of this info with local reactions.
It is fascinating how the NOAA development coincides so closely with the upcoming elections, especially since the Port incumbents can't deny some of the inherent weakness of their suppositions.
Of course, they can also blame the failure to land NOAA on 'vocal locals', their loud and outspoken opposition.
But, will that help?
I don't think so.
One way or the other, it won't affect my voting for John Blethen and Mike McAuley as new Port Commissioners.
Nothing personal, but it is definitely time for new blood and new thinking at the Port of Bellingham!
And, that is true -in my opinion- of ALL elected offices, local and otherwise.
----------------
One other point, which does not exclusively relate to the Port, concerns the continued beefs expressed about the legitimate use of executive sessions and/or lawyer/client privilege.
Neither of these are, of themselves, inherently illegal, no matter what may be claimed, suspected or spoken by those who enjoy using 'guvmint' for target practice sport.
In fact, as citizens, business owners or government entities, executive sessions and lawyer/client privilege are essential elements in our system of laws and representative government.
To be without them entirely would constitute real stupidity that would not be in anyone's best interest.
It would essentially paralyze many government decisions we generally take for granted, and that would not be a good thing!
If excesses or improprieties are suspected, then by all means we need to take the appropriate legal steps, especially if a government entity and/or monies are involved.
Of course, as citizens in this country, we are always entitled to freedom of expression, including speech and written statements.
But as RESPONSIBLE citizens, it is preferable that we are careful not to MISUSE this freedom either.
If more open public meetings and discussions are desired, let's require that our local governments record them for airing in public, whether people will choose to watch these or not.
That way, we actually get to see and hear what is said.
BTW, even though most City meetings are being televised, its hard to see many more people paying anymore attention to what's going on.
It seems it may be more fun for some to continue to speculate, listen to somebody else's biased opinion, or remain blissfully ignorant.
But, that's just my opinion.
-----------------
Regarding the adverse NOAA decision, there is no use to cry over spilt milk, especially when it didn't belong to us anyway.
But, its probably OK to cry in our beer, at least for a few days.
Then, it will be time to buckle down, suck it up and get on with the real work of figuring out where we go from here.
That's a job better undertaken with with fresh Port Commissioners and executive Director.
It may also be instructive to examine the reasons why Newport, OR was selected, and how that may have differed from what Bellingham had to offer.
Things like a more central location on the Pacific coast, direct access to the ocean- without excessive water traffic, proximity to major league, existing technical expertise, a less congested and growing area, and just possibly a more coordinated approach by local, regional, state and federal authorities, more certainty about what incentives are offered, etc.
Just a few things like that.
--------------------
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
