'I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past' - Thomas Jefferson
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." – Thomas Edison
"You can't teach what you don't know, and you can't lead where you won't go" - Jesse Jackson
"There are two stages to the public policy process; too early to tell, and too late to do anything about it." - Anonymous
------------------------
The Oct, 12, 2007 Herald OUR VIEW Editorial trumpeted this headline:
'City planning isn’t only a job for neighbors'
No kidding! Does anyone think it should be?
I don't know why such a statement would even be made, and I haven't heard it made anywhere else.
Perhaps, it was dreamed up just to get people to react?
If so, that plan worked!
I do agree it is the lack of strong leadership on growth issues that has brought Bellingham and Whatcom County to the difficult situation we find ourselves in now.
But, as Winston Churchill said, 'If we open a quarrel between past and present, we shall find that we have lost the future'.
The point is, while its important to know what happened in the past, its even more important to take appropriate action now to better influence the future.
Although the neighborhood initiative process the City is supporting may be uncomfortable at times, what is the real alternative?
Think about it!
By NOT involving neighborhoods early and often, we are continuing the same weak leadership of the past.
Maybe some prefer just waiting for something to happen without asking for it?
Or, waiting until some ideas come forward that have not been reviewed in advance?
The Neighborhood initiative is NOT trying to push neighbors to come up with a consensus they may never reach.
It is allowing them to try, and actively facilitating that effort.
Consensus is always a proper goal, but how often is it met?
The City Council certainly doesn't reach consensus on every issue, especially those that are new, or which try to change some existing practice.
When the Silver Beach Ordinance was passed in 2000, we set up a Citizens Task Force to review it and determine ways to make it more fair and flexible.
It was a stated goal of that Task Force to seek and reach consensus whenever possible, yet that certainly did not happen on every issue.
But, on over half the issues considered, we did!
What did happen was that those ideas that did reach consensus -or close to it- were the ones that got forwarded as group recommendations.
In other words, we agreed on what we could agree upon and saved the areas of disagreement for further debate by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Hey, that's why those folks get the big bucks!
The current Fairhaven example is certainly nothing new.
It is a power struggle for control of both the process and the ideas considered to be considered.
Hey folks, that ain't all bad!
One can see that struggle as a problem or an opportunity.
Because it spotlights real issues of disagreement early, it should be seen as primarily an opportunity.
The Fairhaven Neighbors Neighborhood Association of homeowners has been the recognized entity that has participated in the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission and other related City-sponsored activities for some time.
As such, I see no valid reason why that role should not continue.
The business-dominated Fairhaven Village Association also has valid interests in the future of Fairhaven and its historic district.
Since Fairhaven is considered a poster child of what an Urban Village ought to be, I think its healthy to have this group also actively involved in the Neighborhood Plan updating process.
The question is how this should be done?
Since what happens often has little to do with what people think should happen, here's my thought.
Neither association's existence is threatened, nor is there any need to merge them together entirely.
But some sort of merging must happen, and this can take more than one form.
Members of the Village Association can join the Neighborhood Association, or at least participate in its activities.
And, the Village Association can continue to deliberate on its own and submit its own recommendations and concerns to the City.
Either way, all these expressions will be heard and considered.
Despite what some might think, all of these recommendations are advisory in nature, but do carry some weight.
The ones which both the Village Association and Neighborhood Association can agree on carry even more weight, but they are still recommendations that need to be heard and considered.
Some City funds are being used to facilitate discussions between the two groups, but if creating one organization that speaks for the entire neighborhood is not possible -as now seems likely- it will still be worth the effort.
Those funds were earmarked specifically for the purpose of facilitating the neighborhood initiative effort, which was something the City heard clearly that was desired by many citizens.
If everything this process tries doesn't work out to everyone's expectations, well that's democracy!
The height limits issue has existed for some time in the district, even well before the current growth spurt.
It should be no surprise that the Neighbors group favors more strict limits than does the Village Association!
The question still remains how to resolve the issue.
Maybe there is a skillful means to be explored, like the father's solution as to how the last piece of pie would be shared by his two hungry sons; one was to cut the pie and the other was to choose first the piece he wanted.
Nah, probably not that simple.
But, you get the idea; compromise where you can, then leave final decision to the decision makers.
But also give them that feedback.
So, because the groups didn't emerge smiling, holding hands and singing kumbaya, the Herald concludes 'the taxpayer-funded talks have already fallen apart'.
Get real! If there hadn't already been serious disagreements expressed, there would not have been the need for facilitation!
I'm glad the Herald approves 'of the city’s desire for input from neighbors as it plans for the future'.
But, it also concludes 'the current neighborhood model is too limited'.
What additional limits might help?
After all, this is a voluntary exercise designed to provide a mechanism for feedback, the earlier and more representative the better.
What would the Herald do if it were considered a 'neighborhood'?
-----------
As this editorial goes on to pontificate, it also sounds like its having a little conversation with itself, and may not completely understand the subject it is addressing:
'We are skeptical that any group of neighbors from a neighborhood of single family homes will ever meet and decide some of their community should be rezoned for more intense development.
Yet as Bellingham grows, that is exactly what must happen.
The underutilized sections of every part of the city must be in play as the city decides how to push more of our increasing population inside current city limits.
The ugly alternative is a city that continues to sprawl and eat up the precious open spaces, agricultural lands and forests that make Whatcom County unique among counties from Olympia to the Canadian border.
Sprawl into the county is never the right answer. More dense development in the city is necessary. A “not-in-my backyard” attitude is unacceptable.
Meanwhile, city officials are falling short in their part of the job.
Turning planning over to neighborhood groups doesn’t work unless you provide the groups with the expertise it takes to plan for the future, and a deadline with consequences for failure.
We hope as a new mayor and City Council members are elected, city officials will return to leading this process.
There is no more important work in the city of Bellingham than planning how our community will change as the population grows. Tough decisions will have to be made. Neighbors must be consulted.
But it seems unrealistic — even a shirking of duties — for elected officials to force neighborhood groups to make those decisions for them.'
-----------------------------
You decide if the Herald has got it right on this issue.
BTW, I haven't seen Editorial Board Members at any neighborhood meetings, have you?
Last word(s):
• No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Maybe that would work better, but that's not possible.
Of course its not comfortable being a 'human shield' for decision makers, having to attend contentitious meetings and not being anonymous!
• Bellingham has had a neighborhood structure in place since at least 1980 when the first plans were written.
But just having a structure in place doesn't do much to make it work.
That takes the voluntary efforts of citizens to talk to each other and come up with ideas on how to do things better.
Absent that, the City Council will continue to make decisions based on whatever information presents itself.
• All 23 existing Neighborhood Plans are a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
As such, they represent statements of the values and attributes desired by citizens, existing and future.
It is important to revisit these periodically and gain new ideas and perspectives from new residents and businesses.
The sooner this information is generated, the better it can be considered by Planning Commission and Council.
• Because some of the comments responding to this editorial were particularly well considered, these are also printed below for those who might have missed them.
==========================
The Herald’s opinion assumes that, after the quality of life and character of our unique city neighborhoods are destroyed by “more intense development,” then our rural county lands will be spared from sprawl. In other words, the Herald’s editors apparently believe that all future growth can be crammed into our cities, thereby preventing the destruction of our rural and agricultural lands.
Any reasonable person can see how preposterous this assumption is. As we all know, once city neighborhoods are decimated by over-development, new development into the county will not cease; it will continue in perpetuity until someone takes power who understands that we cannot grow to infinity. In fact, if we follow the Herald’s suggestion to its natural conclusion, not only will every neighborhood suffer drastic consequences; but we will lose our rural and ag lands as well.
It is clear that we cannot grow forever. Once we all agree, we can begin to determine the appropriate level of growth that will preserve the quality of life in our neighborhoods as well as our “precious open spaces, agricultural lands and forests that make Whatcom County unique.” We need to begin evaluating our ideal carrying capacity now so we can realistically plan for our future.
The Herald editors also fail to comprehend that the rights of current residents, citizens, taxpayers, and voters (not to mention Herald subscribers) are paramount to the rights of people who may (or may not) relocate to Bellingham in the future. Current residents are uniquely qualified to determine their own destiny. If Herald editors disagree, perhaps it’s time for some new ones.
If neighborhoods comprised of single family homes desire to retain that character, so be it. In fact, the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that cities’ comprehensive plans must ensure “the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods.” [RCW 36.70A.070(2)] This is not a goal of the GMA; it is a requirement. The Herald’s recommendation essentially amounts to a violation of the GMA.
Hopefully whichever Mayor Dan is elected will understand the need for long-term legacy planning throughout Whatcom County and will work with the County Executive and the mayors of other cities to help determine our ideal size before it is too late.
In the meantime, Bellingham residents must continue to be vigilant to preserve the unique quality of life we have inherited from those who came before us so we may pass it on to future generations.
--------------------
The writer misunderstands the Act when they suggest ensuring neighborhood vitality and character has some priority greater than protecting rural and resource lands, and the quality and quantity of our water.
The Act merely mandates that this be an element of the comprehensive plan. Like all goals of the Act, ensuring neighborhood character is to be pursued harmoniously with the other goals.
The need for our elected officials to take responsibility, rather than delegate it to neighborhoods ready to transfer growth to other backyards, includes recognizing that the majority of our current residents do not desire more growth and the changes it entails.
If those elected officials' urban constituents do not desire growth, because we can not put urban growth in rural lands, it seems that we would elect officials who understand that we can not continue to accept urban growth.
Expanding the urban area and converting rural land to more low density urban development, apparently the present choice of officials faced with constituents unwilling to accept change in their backyards, is not the answer.
----------------
I would like to see an article that accurately describes what happened in Fairhaven. In fact, the City approached the Fairhaven Neighbors about updating the plan without notifying the Fairhaven Village Association about the process. The Fairhaven Neighbors developed a revised plan that included draconian height limits and other restrictions, presenting it to the Village Association as a fait accompli.
---------------
I repeat my thesis of last Monday: the City's mewing about Neighborhood plans will only veil our view of the vested development projects to come - King & Queen Mts., West Cordata, Chuckanut Ridge, CAITAC etc. It appears that City and Planning are shirking their elected and paid duty by keepings the peasants all riled up and at each other's throats, However the building continues. As of Oct. 1, there is a posted moratorium on ground work being done on watershed land. Why did I see bulldozers on lots when I drove south to Sudden Valley on Tuesday? Making the Neighborhood Associations into the NIMBY-man, as suggested by this editorial, is unfair and reflective of the Herald's vascillating stance on growth - you are all for it with your printed rah-rah because of our destination image but then wring your editorial hands when it becomes apparent that your readers are of a different mind. Regardless of which Mayor Dan is crowned, the City is still our City - not his, not his friends in development, not the IOC, not even Horizon Bank's! My vote wobbled a bit yesterday when I read the endorsement lists of both mayoral candidates. Even after attending forums and reading their statements, I fear that I still know too little about them but too much about their respective supporters. I read similar statements from all the candidates, particularly about watershed protection and infill. However if tha candidates all sound the same and they represent us, then why are we unraveling over the issue of growth? The City is afraid to make some planning decisions so they foist the process onto Neighborhoods however making sure they have removed any regulatory teeth from the Associations. Why else is there no solution being found for violation of single-family dwelling zoning and student housing? Why is there no pressure being brought to bear on WWU's "sprawl"? Why is Fairhaven splintering and sadly one of the most unpleasant parts of town? Why else are Lakeway and Bakerview parking lots? Why else are there empty storefronts and residential units all over town but the hammering continues? Why does the City focus on froo-froo sidewalk designs? Why does my water quality decline? Why are mobile home owners being forced out? Because Planning and the City have never learned to say "no" to developers. When we as taxpayers say it loudly and clearly, we become NIMBY's. As a young friend said the other day: "what a sucky City" but always thought we were the City. When did we lose control?
------------
No wonder young professionals do not want to live here. All of the established professionals and retired folks are preventing this city from becoming more modern, and in the process are driving away the tax base that will end up providing the goods and services to you in twenty to thirty years. Although owning a single family home with a 1/4 acre of land sounds nice, it is not necessary for a young person or couple, or even a starting family to aspire to owning a property like that. Without growth within the city limits, the quality of life for the people who cannot afford your $400,000 Edgemoore home is lacking.
No one questions that this area is a great place to live. You and I live here for a reason. There are responsible ways to provide the housing that is needed, while catering to the people who want a certain type of neighborhood. Also, the business owners are not fighting to damage the quality of life; instead, they are fighting in order to give themselves and their families more of an opportunity to make the money needed to live in this area.
Please, stop the bickering. I'm sure there was a time when a compromise could be reached. In regards to the Fairhaven area, I always assumed that is where the nicest and most intellegent people in our community lived and worked. Please prove me right.
------------
If one had to choose one city whose surrounding lands were to be developed; Bellingham's, Everson's, Nooksack's, Lynden's, Sumas', or Ferndales; which would it be?
One cannot have it all. We do not live in a perfect society. We use compromise as a way to strive towards perfection.
Which city least impacts intrusion into long term economically sustainable resource lands?
Which city can most efficiently service an increasing population with alternative transportation options, fire protection, hospitals, government buildings, supportive community services, goods, entertainment, and higher education?
Which city can best respond to civil defense needs?
Which city is not immediately influenced by the crossing of the Nooksack River either as access to a city or evacuation from a city?
Which city in times of global warming can build upon its hills, rather than watch its lowlands fill with water?
Other than govt. required populaion control or a gate on I5, which City's expansion would least impact us?
------------
My neighborhood association is a joke. I attended a few meetings and soon realized these folks are an unreasonable bunch of NIMBYs. The folks running the meeting have their own agenda and they do not want any other opinions. I think the City should end this group's reign. My neighborhood would be better off without them.
-----------
Regarding my interpretation of the GMA's requirement to ensure neighborhood character, perhaps you need to argue your point with land use attorneys Bob Tull and Dominique Zervas. The following is a quote from their October 27, 2005 memo to the Whatcom County Planning Commission:
"The Legislature has mandated that cities' land-supply element must ensure 'the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods.' This is not a goal of the GMA; it is a requirement."
Clearly, these experienced attorneys believe there is a difference. If you know better, please share with the rest of us.
---------------
How refreshing to have an intelligent discussion!
Every comment made so far has validity.
That is both a blessing and a curse.
The views expressed serve to frame the issues pretty well, but in the end we will have to work them out -one by one.
The exercise is to find which areas exist that we can agree upon and use those to move forward.
There will be no substitute for neighborhood involvement, because that is where every citizen lives.
And, there is no substitute for every one being heard. But, in the end, decisions will be made. The question is, do citizens want thir input to happen sooner or later?
One sure answer is that no one is likely to get everything they want!
The competing goals of the GMA guarantee that outcome.
======================
'It is a mistake to look too far ahead. Only one link of the chain of destiny can be handled at a time.' - Winston Churchill
'In war as in life, it is often necessary when some cherished scheme has failed, to take up the best alternative open, and if so, it is folly not to work for it with all your might.' - Winston Churchill
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Friday, October 12, 2007
Silver Beach Neighborhood: Wading Into Uncharted Waters - Again
'Freedom is when people can speak, democracy is when the government listens' - Alastair Farrugia
"If the nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson
-----------------------------
A renewed focus on Neighborhoods and hearing their input for updating Neighborhood Plans has begun in earnest.
Predictably, there are some 'issues' to be worked out in this process, but there are always 'issues' in such matters that affect people.
Getting these 'issues' identified and on the table is an important part of this process.
Maybe its equally -or more- important than any other objective.
Suffice to say this is a rich vein to be mined, that the prospectors hope will become a 'Mother Lode' of value to our community.
Others may have different ideas, and want to see this claim played out before it pays off.
That outcome would be unfortunate for our community, and I hope it doesn't happen.
But, the outcome and effectiveness of this Neighborhood initiative are still in question.
While each Neighborhood has its own unique blend of problems and opportunities, there are many commonalities as well.
Silver Beach is unique because it is the Neighborhood that occupies almost the entire portion of the City that falls within the Lake Whatcom Reservoir watershed.
That, in itself, is enough to set Silver Beach in a special category of importance.
It happens to be where the 'rubber meets the road' in applying best policy and practices to preserve our drinking water supply!
Stay tuned.
-------------------------
The Silver Beach Neighborhood Plan Update was the subject of a well attended meeting last night [Oct 11] at the Bloedel Donovan Park Gym.
Probably close to 200 people were there to weigh in on a set of proposals the Neighborhood Association had hammered out during past months.
Seeing all the cars in the parking lot made me wonder if I had the right address!
Most attending had participated earlier in some fashion, but there were quite a few who were there just to oppose something, either some of the proposals, or the process used to develop them for consideration.
Others seemed to be there mainly to express concerns, complain about things they didn't understand, or make requests to deny, decry and delay the process.
Somehow the stridency and lack of clear understanding about what was going on served to mark many of these folks as last minute recruits to a generally 'anti' agenda.
I may be mistaken, but I'd have to be convinced otherwise.
The meeting's object was to get direct feedback -in the form of ballot votes- from residents of that Neighborhood on a list of measures designed to reasonably represent the NH Plan changes the Neighborhood wants.
These recommendations agreed upon would then be considered by City staff and the Planning Commission before the City Council decides which will be approved.
If you were to think these are mostly advisory in nature, you'd be correct.
But, advisory or not, anytime good ideas are advanced and vetted by a fair process, the Council listens to them carefully.
It's much preferred to have these become part of early discussions and not last minute, disjointed after thoughts.
The point is, this is an attempt at bottoms-up democracy, where citizens get their input early in the process.
That in itself is a bit of a welcome change, don't you think?
But, some didn't seem to welcome this new process!
They saw it as their activist neighbors trying to push their agendas, and forcing them to also participate in order to protect whatever it is they think needs protecting.
Phony property rights claims maybe?
Some even stated resentment at having to interrupt their busy lives for this kind of exercise!
Some claimed foul because they were not notified.
Some claimed the process was bogus because all residents weren't voting
Some wanted to submit absentee ballots
Some wanted a ballot that allowed voting 'no' with a single check-mark, thereby gutting all the good work done
Some didn't know what they wanted but they complained anyway.
Now, why would such folks show up at this meeting when they claimed they didn't know about it?
Anyway, Silver Beach will be one of the first to go through the new Neighborhood Update process and test its efficacy.
We'll learn from this experience and be able to anticipate not always repeating the same learning curve later.
Thanks, Silver Beach!
----------------------
Actually, the Silver Beach Neighborhood has already been a courageous trailblazer before, back in the year 2000.
That was the time the so-called 'Silver Beach Ordinance' was enacted on an emergency interim basis, in response to the Department of Ecology's 303 (d) listing of Lake Whatcom for fecal coliform and low dissolved Oxygen.
Since then, and after a very significant, contentious public process, that Ordinance has become a model for watershed protection within an already urbanized area.
It marked a departure from business as usual in this critical watershed, despite some of the same people who opposed that measure then, also showed up last night to oppose whatever it was they thought the Neighborhood Association was trying to do that they might not agree with.
Is it something in the water?
That's a different story, even though it did have some common challenges.
----------------
Back in 2000, the City Council heard many hours of testimony from dozens of people.
Among those who opposed the 'Silver Beach Ordinance', the comments listed were the common themes of complaint.
Many of these categories of concern are now being heard again:
The following 'generic' concerns are likely to be echoed over and over again, like a mantra, every time significant action is undertaken or even seriously discussed:
Why is this necessary; can't something else be done instead?
Convince us that this action will actually help solve the problem.
Unfair! -why pick on just us?
Others need to share the burden of watershed protection!
Our property values are being reduced or taken away; we want restitution!
We need more debate/proof; delay this for another time.
Existing owners caused the problem; let them fix it!
Why aren't existing regulations being enforced?
Our accustomed life-style is being threatened!
This constitutes a special hardship!
Dueling scientists.
This situation is already out of hand and can't be resolved.
We retired to "the lake" and want to build our dream home.
The water is clean enough; the City treats it anyway.
These new taxes/fees/assessments are too high.
More bureacracy!
We've already got a program to address this problem; this is unecessary/not being collaborative!
All we need is a retrofitted regional stormwater system and water & sewer services extended further.
That's [another jurisdiction]'s problem.
I don't want to feel guilty about living/working/building/playing here.
I can remember when the lake was really bad; it's clean now.
We're grandfathered into our rights; this is America!
Those [environmentalists/developers/bureaucrats] are only concerned with their special interests.
Why can't I build this, my neighbor's got one?
OK, how much do I have to pay to get this done?
And, on and on.... to the point that you could create a checklist of these and simply add names, dates & the issue 'du jour', to have a coded, concise summary of concerns.
Does anyone doubt that history has a habit of repeating itself?
-------------
'It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried' - Winston Churchill
'Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts' - Winston Churchill
"If the nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson
-----------------------------
A renewed focus on Neighborhoods and hearing their input for updating Neighborhood Plans has begun in earnest.
Predictably, there are some 'issues' to be worked out in this process, but there are always 'issues' in such matters that affect people.
Getting these 'issues' identified and on the table is an important part of this process.
Maybe its equally -or more- important than any other objective.
Suffice to say this is a rich vein to be mined, that the prospectors hope will become a 'Mother Lode' of value to our community.
Others may have different ideas, and want to see this claim played out before it pays off.
That outcome would be unfortunate for our community, and I hope it doesn't happen.
But, the outcome and effectiveness of this Neighborhood initiative are still in question.
While each Neighborhood has its own unique blend of problems and opportunities, there are many commonalities as well.
Silver Beach is unique because it is the Neighborhood that occupies almost the entire portion of the City that falls within the Lake Whatcom Reservoir watershed.
That, in itself, is enough to set Silver Beach in a special category of importance.
It happens to be where the 'rubber meets the road' in applying best policy and practices to preserve our drinking water supply!
Stay tuned.
-------------------------
The Silver Beach Neighborhood Plan Update was the subject of a well attended meeting last night [Oct 11] at the Bloedel Donovan Park Gym.
Probably close to 200 people were there to weigh in on a set of proposals the Neighborhood Association had hammered out during past months.
Seeing all the cars in the parking lot made me wonder if I had the right address!
Most attending had participated earlier in some fashion, but there were quite a few who were there just to oppose something, either some of the proposals, or the process used to develop them for consideration.
Others seemed to be there mainly to express concerns, complain about things they didn't understand, or make requests to deny, decry and delay the process.
Somehow the stridency and lack of clear understanding about what was going on served to mark many of these folks as last minute recruits to a generally 'anti' agenda.
I may be mistaken, but I'd have to be convinced otherwise.
The meeting's object was to get direct feedback -in the form of ballot votes- from residents of that Neighborhood on a list of measures designed to reasonably represent the NH Plan changes the Neighborhood wants.
These recommendations agreed upon would then be considered by City staff and the Planning Commission before the City Council decides which will be approved.
If you were to think these are mostly advisory in nature, you'd be correct.
But, advisory or not, anytime good ideas are advanced and vetted by a fair process, the Council listens to them carefully.
It's much preferred to have these become part of early discussions and not last minute, disjointed after thoughts.
The point is, this is an attempt at bottoms-up democracy, where citizens get their input early in the process.
That in itself is a bit of a welcome change, don't you think?
But, some didn't seem to welcome this new process!
They saw it as their activist neighbors trying to push their agendas, and forcing them to also participate in order to protect whatever it is they think needs protecting.
Phony property rights claims maybe?
Some even stated resentment at having to interrupt their busy lives for this kind of exercise!
Some claimed foul because they were not notified.
Some claimed the process was bogus because all residents weren't voting
Some wanted to submit absentee ballots
Some wanted a ballot that allowed voting 'no' with a single check-mark, thereby gutting all the good work done
Some didn't know what they wanted but they complained anyway.
Now, why would such folks show up at this meeting when they claimed they didn't know about it?
Anyway, Silver Beach will be one of the first to go through the new Neighborhood Update process and test its efficacy.
We'll learn from this experience and be able to anticipate not always repeating the same learning curve later.
Thanks, Silver Beach!
----------------------
Actually, the Silver Beach Neighborhood has already been a courageous trailblazer before, back in the year 2000.
That was the time the so-called 'Silver Beach Ordinance' was enacted on an emergency interim basis, in response to the Department of Ecology's 303 (d) listing of Lake Whatcom for fecal coliform and low dissolved Oxygen.
Since then, and after a very significant, contentious public process, that Ordinance has become a model for watershed protection within an already urbanized area.
It marked a departure from business as usual in this critical watershed, despite some of the same people who opposed that measure then, also showed up last night to oppose whatever it was they thought the Neighborhood Association was trying to do that they might not agree with.
Is it something in the water?
That's a different story, even though it did have some common challenges.
----------------
Back in 2000, the City Council heard many hours of testimony from dozens of people.
Among those who opposed the 'Silver Beach Ordinance', the comments listed were the common themes of complaint.
Many of these categories of concern are now being heard again:
The following 'generic' concerns are likely to be echoed over and over again, like a mantra, every time significant action is undertaken or even seriously discussed:
Why is this necessary; can't something else be done instead?
Convince us that this action will actually help solve the problem.
Unfair! -why pick on just us?
Others need to share the burden of watershed protection!
Our property values are being reduced or taken away; we want restitution!
We need more debate/proof; delay this for another time.
Existing owners caused the problem; let them fix it!
Why aren't existing regulations being enforced?
Our accustomed life-style is being threatened!
This constitutes a special hardship!
Dueling scientists.
This situation is already out of hand and can't be resolved.
We retired to "the lake" and want to build our dream home.
The water is clean enough; the City treats it anyway.
These new taxes/fees/assessments are too high.
More bureacracy!
We've already got a program to address this problem; this is unecessary/not being collaborative!
All we need is a retrofitted regional stormwater system and water & sewer services extended further.
That's [another jurisdiction]'s problem.
I don't want to feel guilty about living/working/building/playing here.
I can remember when the lake was really bad; it's clean now.
We're grandfathered into our rights; this is America!
Those [environmentalists/developers/bureaucrats] are only concerned with their special interests.
Why can't I build this, my neighbor's got one?
OK, how much do I have to pay to get this done?
And, on and on.... to the point that you could create a checklist of these and simply add names, dates & the issue 'du jour', to have a coded, concise summary of concerns.
Does anyone doubt that history has a habit of repeating itself?
-------------
'It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried' - Winston Churchill
'Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts' - Winston Churchill
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Operation Overlord & Landlord Accountability
Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed; too severe, seldom executed.
- Benjamin Franklin
"The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility.
Let it be drawn upon largely, and they will then listen to truths which could not excite them through any other organ." -- Thomas Jefferson
"If we are to solve the problems that plague us, our thinking must evolve beyond the level we were using when we created those problems in the first place." --Albert Einstein
`tunnel' history, the kind that can lead an investigator to know more and more about less and less
"My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on." - JFK
“Opinion is power.” - Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1816
It is no use saying, 'We are doing our best.' You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary. - Winston Churchill
That government is best which governs least. - Thomas Paine
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington
The secret of getting things done is to act! - Dante Alighieri
Peter's Placebo: An ounce of image is worth a pound of performance.
Grossman's Misquote: Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers.
Cohen's Law: What really matters is the name you succeed in imposing on the facts, not the facts themselves.
Goldwyn's Law of Contracts: A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Mencken's Metalaw: For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution; and it is always wrong.
“Demagoguery beats data in making public policy."
-US House of Representatives Majority Leader
"But we must remember that good laws, if they are not obeyed, do not constitute good government.
Hence there are two parts of good government; one is the actual obedience of citizens to the laws, the other part is the goodness of the laws which they obey..." -- (Aristotle, Politics).
--------------------
Operation Overlord was the code name for the main Allied D-Day invasion of Europe during World War II.
It's mission was reclaim ground that the Axis had occupied.
And, to open a western front that would have to be defended on the ground
Like most conflicts, this one was ugly and terrible in its effects, but very necessary.
Fortunately, it was successful - for our side!
And, like many wars and other games of violence, it got romanticized and became entertainment.
The issue of 'Landlord Accountability' is different.
There is no sinister cause at work behind the scattered nuisances which some parts of our City experience from time to time.
Noise, litter, parking congestion and the complaints that result therefrom are relatively benign, and while annoying, do not lend themselves to an easy solution.
That is not to say no solution is possible or necessary, but any solution will be inherently partial and fleeting in nature.
And, it will require a large element of neighbors uniting with each other and actively working to make more socially acceptable, the periodic thoughlessness of fellow human beings.
That has been my experience in almost 70 years of living in this country - eight different States worth.
The reason problems like these exist is essentially based in human nature itself, not some major planning error or a failure of policing the community.
Yet, those are the things that are getting most of the blame.
Why, there is even a single issue blog devoted to this subject!
In my brief review, that blog seems have the equivalent to 60 to 70 pages of information all related to complaints on this one topic.
Why not ask the people complaining -many anonymously- to offer any solutions they might have?
Isn't that the way most problems get resolved?
The lack of curiosity is troubling, because identifying the factors that combine and contribute to the nuisance of concern is important if we are to understand what can be done about this situation.
Instead, there is a simplistic view -consistently expressed- that it is the 'City's' sole duty to make these problems just go away.
I agree it is the City's responsibility to facilitate a community discussion and then implement those recommendations which seem most reasonable and have the most potential for long term success.
But, I doubt that will mean just hiring more enforcement officers and assigning them the mission of rooting out those deemed to be the offenders.
It is the worst form of demogoguery to just throw money at a problem like this and expect a favorable result.
No sensible person uses a sledgehammer to swat a fly!
Let's also not forget the efforts that have already gone into resolving this problem, including the vigorous discussions held in 2004.
Without those efforts, we would certainly have more than the six documented complaints that are on file for this year!
While it is time consuming, uncomfortable and frustrating to actually document complaints, that is an essential part of getting this situation identified and under control.
If citizens aren't willing to undertake this effort, no meaningful solution is possible.
Basically, I see Landlord Accountability as yet another three-legged stool.
It must necessarily involve the personal responsibility [of all of those living in an area, government entities [like the city and WWU], as well as landlords and property management companies.
Without the active cooperation of all affected parties, any approach to resolution of this issue is doomed to become a wasteful and expensive failure.
Instead, let's all work to come up with ideas that are reasonable and achievable.
And, resist the temptation toward election year pandering while we're at it!
-------------------
In Operation Overlord, the enemy and its mission of world domination was a very well known threat, and most of the free world willingly united together to defeat this awful prospect from occurring.
For that reason, there really is no comparison between WWII and 'Landlord Accountability', except the obvious play on words.
In ancient feudalism, an overlord was a lord having authority over other lords.
Operation Overlord was coined to connote that meaning.
The free world was not going to submit to domination by lesser 'lords', like nazism and othe dark and repressive 'isms'.
Overlord meant freedom was going to maintain its world order over repression.
Fortunately, it did prevail.
I don't believe the issue of 'Landlord Accountability' rises to any where near the level that an Operation Overlord is necessary.
The City doesn't need to become an Overlord police state bureacracy over this issue.
If it is considered desirable to test the 'family definition', that can be done by carefully pursuing one of the documented complaints with our existing enforcement officer.
Then, that particular element will be up to the courts to decide.
When that information is known, we can move to improve other definitions, requirements and means of enforcement.
In the meantime, let's keep doing what we are doing now, but do more of it.
That point seemed to be totally missed during the Council's Oct 8 meeting.
Of course, what we are currently doing is obviously not up to the job of meeting every one's expectations!
Is there any area where that does happen?
Of course, we can improve!
But, what are our priorities?
I can tell you mine.
If I have a choice between pursuing criminals or nuisances, it will be criminals every time!
That is the type of direction the Police Chief asked for, because without a budget addition those are the choices we have.
But, often those types of choices are false ones, because there are many diverse services and programs the City provides which are considered valuable by citizens.
I would hate to be put in the position of choosing between Police & Parks, for example.
Or, between Firefighters & Janitors.
All of those functions are necessary in some proportional ratio of expense.
Let's try to keep our perspective on 'Landlord Accountability', shall we?
And in doing so, recognize there really are no silver bullets.
There is only the hard work of becoming informed about the root causes at play, and the cooperative solutions that must be accepted and practiced by all parties involved.
Boy, this democracy thing sure takes a lot of effort, doesn't it?
You bet it does!
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
And maybe a little growing up, and accepting the responsibilities of being engaged citizens!
--------------------------------
From Wikipedia are 3 categories in which the word 'lord' is mainly known:
Feudalism:
' an overlord was a lord having authority over other lords'
Religion:
'A Lord is a person who has power and authority.
It can have different meanings depending on the context of use.
Women will usually (but not universally) take the title 'Lady' instead of Lord'
Title:
Five ranks of peer exist in the UK, namely Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, and Baron; and all male peers except dukes use the style "Lord X".
Various high offices of state may carry the cachet of honorary lords:
thus we find titles such as Lord High Chancellor or Lord Mayor.
- Benjamin Franklin
"The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility.
Let it be drawn upon largely, and they will then listen to truths which could not excite them through any other organ." -- Thomas Jefferson
"If we are to solve the problems that plague us, our thinking must evolve beyond the level we were using when we created those problems in the first place." --Albert Einstein
`tunnel' history, the kind that can lead an investigator to know more and more about less and less
"My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on." - JFK
“Opinion is power.” - Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1816
It is no use saying, 'We are doing our best.' You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary. - Winston Churchill
That government is best which governs least. - Thomas Paine
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington
The secret of getting things done is to act! - Dante Alighieri
Peter's Placebo: An ounce of image is worth a pound of performance.
Grossman's Misquote: Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers.
Cohen's Law: What really matters is the name you succeed in imposing on the facts, not the facts themselves.
Goldwyn's Law of Contracts: A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Mencken's Metalaw: For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution; and it is always wrong.
“Demagoguery beats data in making public policy."
-US House of Representatives Majority Leader
"But we must remember that good laws, if they are not obeyed, do not constitute good government.
Hence there are two parts of good government; one is the actual obedience of citizens to the laws, the other part is the goodness of the laws which they obey..." -- (Aristotle, Politics).
--------------------
Operation Overlord was the code name for the main Allied D-Day invasion of Europe during World War II.
It's mission was reclaim ground that the Axis had occupied.
And, to open a western front that would have to be defended on the ground
Like most conflicts, this one was ugly and terrible in its effects, but very necessary.
Fortunately, it was successful - for our side!
And, like many wars and other games of violence, it got romanticized and became entertainment.
The issue of 'Landlord Accountability' is different.
There is no sinister cause at work behind the scattered nuisances which some parts of our City experience from time to time.
Noise, litter, parking congestion and the complaints that result therefrom are relatively benign, and while annoying, do not lend themselves to an easy solution.
That is not to say no solution is possible or necessary, but any solution will be inherently partial and fleeting in nature.
And, it will require a large element of neighbors uniting with each other and actively working to make more socially acceptable, the periodic thoughlessness of fellow human beings.
That has been my experience in almost 70 years of living in this country - eight different States worth.
The reason problems like these exist is essentially based in human nature itself, not some major planning error or a failure of policing the community.
Yet, those are the things that are getting most of the blame.
Why, there is even a single issue blog devoted to this subject!
In my brief review, that blog seems have the equivalent to 60 to 70 pages of information all related to complaints on this one topic.
Why not ask the people complaining -many anonymously- to offer any solutions they might have?
Isn't that the way most problems get resolved?
The lack of curiosity is troubling, because identifying the factors that combine and contribute to the nuisance of concern is important if we are to understand what can be done about this situation.
Instead, there is a simplistic view -consistently expressed- that it is the 'City's' sole duty to make these problems just go away.
I agree it is the City's responsibility to facilitate a community discussion and then implement those recommendations which seem most reasonable and have the most potential for long term success.
But, I doubt that will mean just hiring more enforcement officers and assigning them the mission of rooting out those deemed to be the offenders.
It is the worst form of demogoguery to just throw money at a problem like this and expect a favorable result.
No sensible person uses a sledgehammer to swat a fly!
Let's also not forget the efforts that have already gone into resolving this problem, including the vigorous discussions held in 2004.
Without those efforts, we would certainly have more than the six documented complaints that are on file for this year!
While it is time consuming, uncomfortable and frustrating to actually document complaints, that is an essential part of getting this situation identified and under control.
If citizens aren't willing to undertake this effort, no meaningful solution is possible.
Basically, I see Landlord Accountability as yet another three-legged stool.
It must necessarily involve the personal responsibility [of all of those living in an area, government entities [like the city and WWU], as well as landlords and property management companies.
Without the active cooperation of all affected parties, any approach to resolution of this issue is doomed to become a wasteful and expensive failure.
Instead, let's all work to come up with ideas that are reasonable and achievable.
And, resist the temptation toward election year pandering while we're at it!
-------------------
In Operation Overlord, the enemy and its mission of world domination was a very well known threat, and most of the free world willingly united together to defeat this awful prospect from occurring.
For that reason, there really is no comparison between WWII and 'Landlord Accountability', except the obvious play on words.
In ancient feudalism, an overlord was a lord having authority over other lords.
Operation Overlord was coined to connote that meaning.
The free world was not going to submit to domination by lesser 'lords', like nazism and othe dark and repressive 'isms'.
Overlord meant freedom was going to maintain its world order over repression.
Fortunately, it did prevail.
I don't believe the issue of 'Landlord Accountability' rises to any where near the level that an Operation Overlord is necessary.
The City doesn't need to become an Overlord police state bureacracy over this issue.
If it is considered desirable to test the 'family definition', that can be done by carefully pursuing one of the documented complaints with our existing enforcement officer.
Then, that particular element will be up to the courts to decide.
When that information is known, we can move to improve other definitions, requirements and means of enforcement.
In the meantime, let's keep doing what we are doing now, but do more of it.
That point seemed to be totally missed during the Council's Oct 8 meeting.
Of course, what we are currently doing is obviously not up to the job of meeting every one's expectations!
Is there any area where that does happen?
Of course, we can improve!
But, what are our priorities?
I can tell you mine.
If I have a choice between pursuing criminals or nuisances, it will be criminals every time!
That is the type of direction the Police Chief asked for, because without a budget addition those are the choices we have.
But, often those types of choices are false ones, because there are many diverse services and programs the City provides which are considered valuable by citizens.
I would hate to be put in the position of choosing between Police & Parks, for example.
Or, between Firefighters & Janitors.
All of those functions are necessary in some proportional ratio of expense.
Let's try to keep our perspective on 'Landlord Accountability', shall we?
And in doing so, recognize there really are no silver bullets.
There is only the hard work of becoming informed about the root causes at play, and the cooperative solutions that must be accepted and practiced by all parties involved.
Boy, this democracy thing sure takes a lot of effort, doesn't it?
You bet it does!
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
And maybe a little growing up, and accepting the responsibilities of being engaged citizens!
--------------------------------
From Wikipedia are 3 categories in which the word 'lord' is mainly known:
Feudalism:
' an overlord was a lord having authority over other lords'
Religion:
'A Lord is a person who has power and authority.
It can have different meanings depending on the context of use.
Women will usually (but not universally) take the title 'Lady' instead of Lord'
Title:
Five ranks of peer exist in the UK, namely Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, and Baron; and all male peers except dukes use the style "Lord X".
Various high offices of state may carry the cachet of honorary lords:
thus we find titles such as Lord High Chancellor or Lord Mayor.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
A Political Rant: It's Not the Cream of the Crop, It's the Pick of the Lot!
Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote - George Jean Nathan
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill
The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them - Karl Marx
The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis - Dante Alighieri
Voters don't decide issues, they decide who will decide issues - George Will
-------------------------
Today was an unusual day.
It was unusual, not because I attended 2 different political forums, but because of what I heard said.
One person, a liberal, said she couldn't decide between two candidates, so she wasn't going to vote.
Another, a conservative, said she didn't like either candidate, so she wasn't going to vote.
Huh and huh? Why do these people even go to a political forum?
Not voting for any reasons dishonors our very heritage!
Our founding fathers -and mothers- fought the revolution so we could determine our own destiny as a nation!
Originally, only landed men could vote.
Then other groups, including women, were allowed to vote, but only after struggles that lasted for years.
And now they don't want to vote?
What is that about?
If we get the government we deserve, don't we deserve the best?
I don't get it.
Here we are the land of the free, and we use that freedom NOT to vote!
Amazing, but not illegal.
And, not a rare occurrence these days.
Maybe we should give tax breaks for those that vote?
That would be better than penalties for those that don't vote, wouldn't it?
But, by not voting, we are all getting penalized - every one of us!
For example, my liberal friend who couldn't decide and therefore won't vote, is essentially deferring her choice and letting others determine who will represent her.
If she's later not happy with who gets elected, whose fault is that?
Not voting at all is even worse than voting for a 3rd party candidate with no chance of winning, which allows someone she doesn't like to win out over someone who was her second choice.
Then, if she is unhappy with who is elected, whose fault was it?
REMIND YOU OF ANY RECENT ELECTION?
[HINT: Ralph Nader was the 3rd Party Candidate]
It's almost as if my liberal friend would like a chance to become a victim, isn't it?
You know, maybe by not voting, it will turn out OK.
But, if it doesn't, she will become an instant victim of the 'system'.
What an awful chance to take!
Then, let's take my conservative friend, who is not going to vote for either of the candidates because they are 'too liberal'.
I'm willing to bet this person rarely gets any candidate she's willing to vote for, who has half a chance of winning.
Sound familiar?
Know where I'm going with this?
You got it!
This one gets to be a permanent victim!
How nice.
Because no one is elected whom she can support, she has endless reasons to complain about her representation!
Now, I ask you, is that what our democracy is about?
Is that why untold thousands of brave souls have fought and died for our freedom?
So we can waste it by playing victim?
That is what my two friends have in common -they are both victims!
And, by their own choice.
Now, that my friends is true freedom!
And, its wasted.
What a crying shame.
Please don't choose to be a victim.
Not only because it might not be fun for you, but not fun others as well.
Everybody loses when enough people decide to exercise their freedom in non-productive ways.
Under those conditions, not even the 'pick of the lot' are elected sometimes.
That affects all of us.
And if we don't use our freedom carefully, it atrophies.
After enough weakening, it can die.
Then we are all victims.
And without a choice.
Please don't let that happen!
This is serious business folks, just like IKE said over 50 years ago:
'Politics is a profession; a serious, complicated and, in its true sense, a noble one' - Dwight D. Eisenhower
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill
The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them - Karl Marx
The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis - Dante Alighieri
Voters don't decide issues, they decide who will decide issues - George Will
-------------------------
Today was an unusual day.
It was unusual, not because I attended 2 different political forums, but because of what I heard said.
One person, a liberal, said she couldn't decide between two candidates, so she wasn't going to vote.
Another, a conservative, said she didn't like either candidate, so she wasn't going to vote.
Huh and huh? Why do these people even go to a political forum?
Not voting for any reasons dishonors our very heritage!
Our founding fathers -and mothers- fought the revolution so we could determine our own destiny as a nation!
Originally, only landed men could vote.
Then other groups, including women, were allowed to vote, but only after struggles that lasted for years.
And now they don't want to vote?
What is that about?
If we get the government we deserve, don't we deserve the best?
I don't get it.
Here we are the land of the free, and we use that freedom NOT to vote!
Amazing, but not illegal.
And, not a rare occurrence these days.
Maybe we should give tax breaks for those that vote?
That would be better than penalties for those that don't vote, wouldn't it?
But, by not voting, we are all getting penalized - every one of us!
For example, my liberal friend who couldn't decide and therefore won't vote, is essentially deferring her choice and letting others determine who will represent her.
If she's later not happy with who gets elected, whose fault is that?
Not voting at all is even worse than voting for a 3rd party candidate with no chance of winning, which allows someone she doesn't like to win out over someone who was her second choice.
Then, if she is unhappy with who is elected, whose fault was it?
REMIND YOU OF ANY RECENT ELECTION?
[HINT: Ralph Nader was the 3rd Party Candidate]
It's almost as if my liberal friend would like a chance to become a victim, isn't it?
You know, maybe by not voting, it will turn out OK.
But, if it doesn't, she will become an instant victim of the 'system'.
What an awful chance to take!
Then, let's take my conservative friend, who is not going to vote for either of the candidates because they are 'too liberal'.
I'm willing to bet this person rarely gets any candidate she's willing to vote for, who has half a chance of winning.
Sound familiar?
Know where I'm going with this?
You got it!
This one gets to be a permanent victim!
How nice.
Because no one is elected whom she can support, she has endless reasons to complain about her representation!
Now, I ask you, is that what our democracy is about?
Is that why untold thousands of brave souls have fought and died for our freedom?
So we can waste it by playing victim?
That is what my two friends have in common -they are both victims!
And, by their own choice.
Now, that my friends is true freedom!
And, its wasted.
What a crying shame.
Please don't choose to be a victim.
Not only because it might not be fun for you, but not fun others as well.
Everybody loses when enough people decide to exercise their freedom in non-productive ways.
Under those conditions, not even the 'pick of the lot' are elected sometimes.
That affects all of us.
And if we don't use our freedom carefully, it atrophies.
After enough weakening, it can die.
Then we are all victims.
And without a choice.
Please don't let that happen!
This is serious business folks, just like IKE said over 50 years ago:
'Politics is a profession; a serious, complicated and, in its true sense, a noble one' - Dwight D. Eisenhower
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Lake Whatcom: City's Stormwater Plan - Phocusing on Fosphorus
That title should read 'Focuses on Phosphorus', but maybe the misspelling will add a little humor to an otherwise pretty serious and sobering analysis.
Yesterday's blog promised more on this important subject, so here it is.
My review of the 58-page DRAFT Report recently produced by the consulting firm Parametrix, confirmed what I had suspected; the job we face in reducing the phosphorus level in our Reservoir will be difficult, costly and require many years to achieve.
But it can be done.
And, the sooner we get started, the shorter will be the time required, and the lower the overall costs.
That said, here is a synopsis.
The report is divided into 7 sections, subdivided as shown below:
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Structure of this Report
1.2 The Lake and its Watershed
1.3 Lake Phosphorus
1.3.1 Phosphorous and Lake Ecosystems
1.3.2 Lake Phosphorus Water Quality Criteria
1.3.3 Phosphorus in Lake Whatcom
1.4 Phosphorus Sources
1.4.1 Typical Sources and Pathways of Phosphorus to Lakes
1.4.2 Phosphorus Sources to Lake Whatcom
1.4.3 Future Source Identification
2. CURRENT CITY STORMWATER PHOSPHORUS CONTROL PROGRAM
2.1 Stormwater Retrofit Program
2.2 Mapping and BMP [Best Management Practice] Coverage
2.3 Monitoring and Maintenance Program
2.4 Ordinances
2.5 Acquisition/Easement/Transfrable Development Rights Programs
2.6 Enactment and Enforcement of Strict Development Restrictions
2.7 Yard Debris Collection Program
2.8 Street Sweeping Program
2.9 Incentives to Discourage Personal Motor Vehicle Use
2.10 Septic System Inspection and Certification Program
2.11 Planned Future Efforts
3. AVAILABLE PHOSPHORUS TREATMENT BMPS AND CITY BMP PERFORMANCE
3.1 Infiltration/Bioretention
3.2 Filtration
3.3 Wet/Dry Ponds
3.4 Swales
3.5 Wetlands
3.6 Review of City BMP Monitoring Data
3.7 Performance of City BMPS
4. PHOSPHORUS LOADING TO LAKE WHATCOM: PRELIMINARY APPROACH
4.1 Establishing Target Phosphorus Loading
4.2 Estimating Phosphorus Loading Rates by Land Use
4.2.1 Undeveloped Land Loading Rates (Smith Creek)
4.2.2 Developed Land Loading Rates (Silver Beach Creek)
4.3 Estimating Current and Future Phosphorus Loading Rates
4.3.1 Current Loading Estimate
4.3.2 Future Loading Estimate
4.4 Estimating Future Phosphorus Loading Rates Using Treatment BMPS
4.4.1 Future Development and Existing Development with South Campus BMP
4.4.2 Future Development with South Campus BMP, Existing Development with Current BMPS
4.4 Method Assumptions
5. OPPORTUNITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENHANCING THE CITY'S PHOSPHORUS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
5.1 Enhancing Phosphorus Treatment BMPS
5.2 Applying BMPS to Single Lots
5.3 Updating and/or Adding Phosphorus Control Policies
5.4 Homeowner Policies
5.5 Waterfowl Control Options
5.6 Phosphorus Control Incentive Programs
5.7 Education Programs
5.8 Compliance Enforcement Programs
5.9 Stormwater Retrofit Program
5.10 Discontinue Deficit Financing of Infrastructure
5.11 Develop a Stormwater Index
5.12 Inventory/Mapping of TDR, Acquisition, and Easement Programs
5.13 Expanding the TDR, Acquisition, and Easement Programs to Include an Ecosystem Marketplace
5.14 Recommended Management Options
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
7. REFERENCES
-------------------
As you can see this is not a superficial report!
It ranks phosphorus source areas in the following order of importance:
• Lawns/Landscaped Areas
• Residential Streets, Driveways & Sidewalks
• Stream Erosion
• Land Clearing & Other Disturbed Surfaces
• Animal Waste
• Stormwater Treatment Facilities
• Household Products
• Septic Systems
The main surprise in this listing is ' Stormwater Treatment Facilities.'
That means the ones in use aren't working very well to remove phosphorus - in fact some may be adding it!
That is not good news for people who believe that 'Stormwater Treatment Facilities' are the answer to everything.
If the current, worsening stuation weren't bad enough, existing zoning could allow an additional 3208 homes in this watershed which could add 16,000 more residents.
With that prospect, it would be prudent to establish, now, a target phosphorus loading that can be used to calculate what additional steps will need to be taken to achieve our watershed mangement goals.
Three options exist for establishing a target phosphorus loading rate to lake Whatcom:
1. No net increase.
2. Percent reduction over current loading estimate
3. TMDL
While we wait for the TMDL Report to get issued by DOE, time is wasting!
I believe setting an interim target loading rate ought to be done without further delay.
A value, not to exceed 20 micrograms per liter, would suffice and allow us to get on with monitoring phosphorus loading, at least by tributary.
That is one action the City -and County- need to take soon.
There are many other actions that are recommended, but they all help achieve that one.
--------------
Without going into more detail here, the report itself is available for those interested.
But, the Report's concluding remarks make a good summary:
"The City has developed a comprehensive phosphorus control program that is achieving significant success in a difficult aspect of watershed management.
In order to maximize program effectiveness, the City should work with the County to develop a focused yet holistic approach to controlling phosphorus in stormwater runoff to Lake Whatcom from both existing and future development across the entire watershed.
It is recognized that although this report suggests opportunities specific to the City for improving its stormwater phosphorus control program (i.e., its portion of the Lake Whatcom watershed), phosphorus control efforts in other portions of the watershed are equally, if not more, important.
As noted, 98 percent of developable land in the watershed is located in the County.
Therefore, all recommendations, as well as all components of the City's current program, should be reviewed for opportunities to involve the County, DNR, and other entities and/or encourage them to incorporate similar management approaches when applicable.
Overall, findings of this review and evaluation are as follows:
• Phosphorus is difficult to control as evidenced by the City of Bellingham's experience as well as similar experiences documented by othe municipalities nationwide.
• Review of the literature and other stormwater programs indicates the City of Bellingham has, and is, employing the range of available technologies and BMPs for phosphorus control.
• Review of the literature also shows that the City of Bellingham could enhance its current program with additional emphasis on programmatic policies as well as improve existing treatment BMP performance.
• Future source identification and loading analysis may necessitate a re-evaluation and re-prioritization of the City's phosphorus stormwater management system."
----------------
So there you have it.
We're doing a lot of stuff in our 2 % of the watershed, but it ain't working too well.
We need to do some more stuff, including changing human behaviors and convincing the County to do the same.
Once we get all that done, it will still likely take many years to stabilize the lake water quality.
But, it can be done.
And, it must be done, because we don't have another water source nearly as good as Lake Whatcom!
----------------
Yesterday's blog promised more on this important subject, so here it is.
My review of the 58-page DRAFT Report recently produced by the consulting firm Parametrix, confirmed what I had suspected; the job we face in reducing the phosphorus level in our Reservoir will be difficult, costly and require many years to achieve.
But it can be done.
And, the sooner we get started, the shorter will be the time required, and the lower the overall costs.
That said, here is a synopsis.
The report is divided into 7 sections, subdivided as shown below:
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Structure of this Report
1.2 The Lake and its Watershed
1.3 Lake Phosphorus
1.3.1 Phosphorous and Lake Ecosystems
1.3.2 Lake Phosphorus Water Quality Criteria
1.3.3 Phosphorus in Lake Whatcom
1.4 Phosphorus Sources
1.4.1 Typical Sources and Pathways of Phosphorus to Lakes
1.4.2 Phosphorus Sources to Lake Whatcom
1.4.3 Future Source Identification
2. CURRENT CITY STORMWATER PHOSPHORUS CONTROL PROGRAM
2.1 Stormwater Retrofit Program
2.2 Mapping and BMP [Best Management Practice] Coverage
2.3 Monitoring and Maintenance Program
2.4 Ordinances
2.5 Acquisition/Easement/Transfrable Development Rights Programs
2.6 Enactment and Enforcement of Strict Development Restrictions
2.7 Yard Debris Collection Program
2.8 Street Sweeping Program
2.9 Incentives to Discourage Personal Motor Vehicle Use
2.10 Septic System Inspection and Certification Program
2.11 Planned Future Efforts
3. AVAILABLE PHOSPHORUS TREATMENT BMPS AND CITY BMP PERFORMANCE
3.1 Infiltration/Bioretention
3.2 Filtration
3.3 Wet/Dry Ponds
3.4 Swales
3.5 Wetlands
3.6 Review of City BMP Monitoring Data
3.7 Performance of City BMPS
4. PHOSPHORUS LOADING TO LAKE WHATCOM: PRELIMINARY APPROACH
4.1 Establishing Target Phosphorus Loading
4.2 Estimating Phosphorus Loading Rates by Land Use
4.2.1 Undeveloped Land Loading Rates (Smith Creek)
4.2.2 Developed Land Loading Rates (Silver Beach Creek)
4.3 Estimating Current and Future Phosphorus Loading Rates
4.3.1 Current Loading Estimate
4.3.2 Future Loading Estimate
4.4 Estimating Future Phosphorus Loading Rates Using Treatment BMPS
4.4.1 Future Development and Existing Development with South Campus BMP
4.4.2 Future Development with South Campus BMP, Existing Development with Current BMPS
4.4 Method Assumptions
5. OPPORTUNITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENHANCING THE CITY'S PHOSPHORUS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
5.1 Enhancing Phosphorus Treatment BMPS
5.2 Applying BMPS to Single Lots
5.3 Updating and/or Adding Phosphorus Control Policies
5.4 Homeowner Policies
5.5 Waterfowl Control Options
5.6 Phosphorus Control Incentive Programs
5.7 Education Programs
5.8 Compliance Enforcement Programs
5.9 Stormwater Retrofit Program
5.10 Discontinue Deficit Financing of Infrastructure
5.11 Develop a Stormwater Index
5.12 Inventory/Mapping of TDR, Acquisition, and Easement Programs
5.13 Expanding the TDR, Acquisition, and Easement Programs to Include an Ecosystem Marketplace
5.14 Recommended Management Options
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
7. REFERENCES
-------------------
As you can see this is not a superficial report!
It ranks phosphorus source areas in the following order of importance:
• Lawns/Landscaped Areas
• Residential Streets, Driveways & Sidewalks
• Stream Erosion
• Land Clearing & Other Disturbed Surfaces
• Animal Waste
• Stormwater Treatment Facilities
• Household Products
• Septic Systems
The main surprise in this listing is ' Stormwater Treatment Facilities.'
That means the ones in use aren't working very well to remove phosphorus - in fact some may be adding it!
That is not good news for people who believe that 'Stormwater Treatment Facilities' are the answer to everything.
If the current, worsening stuation weren't bad enough, existing zoning could allow an additional 3208 homes in this watershed which could add 16,000 more residents.
With that prospect, it would be prudent to establish, now, a target phosphorus loading that can be used to calculate what additional steps will need to be taken to achieve our watershed mangement goals.
Three options exist for establishing a target phosphorus loading rate to lake Whatcom:
1. No net increase.
2. Percent reduction over current loading estimate
3. TMDL
While we wait for the TMDL Report to get issued by DOE, time is wasting!
I believe setting an interim target loading rate ought to be done without further delay.
A value, not to exceed 20 micrograms per liter, would suffice and allow us to get on with monitoring phosphorus loading, at least by tributary.
That is one action the City -and County- need to take soon.
There are many other actions that are recommended, but they all help achieve that one.
--------------
Without going into more detail here, the report itself is available for those interested.
But, the Report's concluding remarks make a good summary:
"The City has developed a comprehensive phosphorus control program that is achieving significant success in a difficult aspect of watershed management.
In order to maximize program effectiveness, the City should work with the County to develop a focused yet holistic approach to controlling phosphorus in stormwater runoff to Lake Whatcom from both existing and future development across the entire watershed.
It is recognized that although this report suggests opportunities specific to the City for improving its stormwater phosphorus control program (i.e., its portion of the Lake Whatcom watershed), phosphorus control efforts in other portions of the watershed are equally, if not more, important.
As noted, 98 percent of developable land in the watershed is located in the County.
Therefore, all recommendations, as well as all components of the City's current program, should be reviewed for opportunities to involve the County, DNR, and other entities and/or encourage them to incorporate similar management approaches when applicable.
Overall, findings of this review and evaluation are as follows:
• Phosphorus is difficult to control as evidenced by the City of Bellingham's experience as well as similar experiences documented by othe municipalities nationwide.
• Review of the literature and other stormwater programs indicates the City of Bellingham has, and is, employing the range of available technologies and BMPs for phosphorus control.
• Review of the literature also shows that the City of Bellingham could enhance its current program with additional emphasis on programmatic policies as well as improve existing treatment BMP performance.
• Future source identification and loading analysis may necessitate a re-evaluation and re-prioritization of the City's phosphorus stormwater management system."
----------------
So there you have it.
We're doing a lot of stuff in our 2 % of the watershed, but it ain't working too well.
We need to do some more stuff, including changing human behaviors and convincing the County to do the same.
Once we get all that done, it will still likely take many years to stabilize the lake water quality.
But, it can be done.
And, it must be done, because we don't have another water source nearly as good as Lake Whatcom!
----------------
Monday, October 8, 2007
Lake Whatcom Reservoir: A Necessary Restructuring
"Management is doing things right. Leadership is doing the right thing." - Warren Bennis
------------------------
Those of us who have been working to preserve our drinking water source had reason to take heart today.
But, what happened certainly should not be viewed as a 'silver bullet' by any means.
Instead, it should be seen as another positive step in the right direction, a move to secure, strengthen and to work smarter on the substantial efforts being devoted to solving the hard problem we face.
Do not make the the easy mistake of under estimating our problem!
It will literally take our lifetimes, and maybe then some, to stabilize our reservoir and protect it in perpetuity.
But, it will be worth it!
Today, the City Council unamimously encouraged the Mayor & County Executive to bring forward a new Interlocal Agreement to reflect the proposal they presented.
Tomorrow, the County Council will have the same opportunity.
With their support, a new working agreement will happen.
It is guaranteed to be more collaborative, because it will be equally and reliably funded by both juridictions.
As the jurisdictions with zoning, enforcement and related duties, it makes sense that this structure be shared between City and County.
The cost will be about $150,000 more than the current Lake Whatcom, split between City and County.
Most of that will likely be spent on hiring a Director to focus full-time on preserving Lake Whatcom.
That is a critical hire.
But the structure itself will definitely get City & County aboard the same galley, and pulling oars together in a direction both entities can agree upon.
That is a step in the right direction!
It's called accentuating the positive.
Another benefit will be to expand the City's Watershed Advisory Board to include County members, and have the resulting group report directly to -the Director!
That gives their recommendations more visibility, coordination and clout.
All of those things are improvements over what we have now.
Both City & County can benefit from each others knowledge, experience and common goals.
Rather than continuing a system of finger-pointing, competition and excuses, the new arrangement promotes cooperation and results.
The tip-off that this was truly a good faith effort was the obvious mutual respect shown by the Mayor and the County Executive!
That has been a long time coming, and it is an important element that has been missing.
And, taking this step now, before the election, insures that the incoming Mayor and Executive will be pre-committed to support this new management structure.
------------------
On related matters, the City also received preliminary reports on its Water Source Protection Plan update and on the existing Lake Whatcom Management Plan.
The WSPP will be reported more fully later, on October 22 for the WSPP.
The LWMP Update will be presented at a joint Council Review Meeting on November 1.
The City's Comprehensive Plans for its Water, Sewer and Stormwater Systems are also undergoing periodic reviews.
Adjustments in rates are likely, but these would be phased in over time.
The twin guiding principles are these:
• Adequacy of overall revenues
• Equity in collecting revenues
Finally, a Draft Stormwater Plan for the Lake Whatcom Watershed was presented.
This will become a section of the City's overall Stormwater Comprehensive Plan, and focuses specifically on the issue of phosphorus in stormwater.
This Plan itemizes what steps the City is currently taking, what it is proposing to do, and what other activities should be considered to limit phosphorous generation.
This subject warrants its own blog, at a later time.
--------------------
------------------------
Those of us who have been working to preserve our drinking water source had reason to take heart today.
But, what happened certainly should not be viewed as a 'silver bullet' by any means.
Instead, it should be seen as another positive step in the right direction, a move to secure, strengthen and to work smarter on the substantial efforts being devoted to solving the hard problem we face.
Do not make the the easy mistake of under estimating our problem!
It will literally take our lifetimes, and maybe then some, to stabilize our reservoir and protect it in perpetuity.
But, it will be worth it!
Today, the City Council unamimously encouraged the Mayor & County Executive to bring forward a new Interlocal Agreement to reflect the proposal they presented.
Tomorrow, the County Council will have the same opportunity.
With their support, a new working agreement will happen.
It is guaranteed to be more collaborative, because it will be equally and reliably funded by both juridictions.
As the jurisdictions with zoning, enforcement and related duties, it makes sense that this structure be shared between City and County.
The cost will be about $150,000 more than the current Lake Whatcom, split between City and County.
Most of that will likely be spent on hiring a Director to focus full-time on preserving Lake Whatcom.
That is a critical hire.
But the structure itself will definitely get City & County aboard the same galley, and pulling oars together in a direction both entities can agree upon.
That is a step in the right direction!
It's called accentuating the positive.
Another benefit will be to expand the City's Watershed Advisory Board to include County members, and have the resulting group report directly to -the Director!
That gives their recommendations more visibility, coordination and clout.
All of those things are improvements over what we have now.
Both City & County can benefit from each others knowledge, experience and common goals.
Rather than continuing a system of finger-pointing, competition and excuses, the new arrangement promotes cooperation and results.
The tip-off that this was truly a good faith effort was the obvious mutual respect shown by the Mayor and the County Executive!
That has been a long time coming, and it is an important element that has been missing.
And, taking this step now, before the election, insures that the incoming Mayor and Executive will be pre-committed to support this new management structure.
------------------
On related matters, the City also received preliminary reports on its Water Source Protection Plan update and on the existing Lake Whatcom Management Plan.
The WSPP will be reported more fully later, on October 22 for the WSPP.
The LWMP Update will be presented at a joint Council Review Meeting on November 1.
The City's Comprehensive Plans for its Water, Sewer and Stormwater Systems are also undergoing periodic reviews.
Adjustments in rates are likely, but these would be phased in over time.
The twin guiding principles are these:
• Adequacy of overall revenues
• Equity in collecting revenues
Finally, a Draft Stormwater Plan for the Lake Whatcom Watershed was presented.
This will become a section of the City's overall Stormwater Comprehensive Plan, and focuses specifically on the issue of phosphorus in stormwater.
This Plan itemizes what steps the City is currently taking, what it is proposing to do, and what other activities should be considered to limit phosphorous generation.
This subject warrants its own blog, at a later time.
--------------------
Sunday, October 7, 2007
IT'S BUDGET TIME AGAIN! -A $200 Million Exercise
This subject is so boring to some folks, that I've decided to give them a choice;
Read the quips, then quit.
Or, scroll down to read the recommendations developed by our Budget Advisory Committee after they studied the City's budget process for over a year.
---------------------------
Shaw's Principle: Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.
Peer's Law: The solution to the problem changes the problem.
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. - Bokonon-
Rule of Accuracy: When working towards the solution of a problem, it always helps if you know the answer.
Inside every small problem is a large problem struggling to get out.
Wiker's Law: Government expands to absorb revenue and then some.
Weiler's Law: Nothing is impossible for the man who does not have to do it himself.
Langsam's Law: Everything depends.
Grossman's Misquote: Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers.
The Sausage Principle: People who love sausage and respect the law should never watch either one being made.
Jacquin's Postulate on Democratic Government: No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.
Sevareid's Law: The chief cause of problems is solutions.
Democracy encourages the majority to decide things about which the majority is blissfully ignorant. --John Simon--
======================
As most folks know, the City Council's main roles are to pass legislation to set City policy, and to approve the annual budget needed to pay for the services and programs the City provides.
But, the budget is where these things come together.
After the contentious 2004 budget sessions, which seemed to demonstrate a progressively worsening 'Gator' gap between projected revenues and expenditures, the Council decided to get a diverse citizen's committee together to review its process through new eyes.
We did that, set up the BAC, spent considerable staff time in briefing them, then awaited their recommendations, which are printed below for those who wish to read them.
During this process, some predictable things happened.
There was controversy about some of the appointments.
There were more reports and meetings than most could easily tolerate.
There was discomfort among some staff about some of the questions that were asked.
There was considerable learning that took place.
There was an attempt to evaluate the 'Priorities of Government'.
There were some attitudes, grandstanding and personal prejudices displayed.
There was an ad hoc, competing group set up for political purposes.
There was more demand for staff time than was contemplated.
There was a small rebellion that demanded the BAC ask more of its own questions.
There was an eventual loss of enthusiasm experienced by BAC, staff and Council.
There was a final push to summarize findings.
There were the inevitable mixed feelings of achievement, disappointment, relief and encouragement.
Some Council members were relieved when the BAC ended.
Some wanted it to continue in some fashion.
Some had felt it wasn't necessary in the first place, if Council had just had the courage to do its job.
Some thanked the BAC members for their service.
Some may have thanked the BAC for acting as a human shields.
In the end, this was probably a worthwhile exercise that produced some good ideas -some of which were already being considered.
BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
To the Bellingham City Council
Monday, June 12, 2006
==================
ECONOMIC VITALITY RECOMMENDATIONS
We were specifically requested to provide a recommendation regarding the allocation of current Economic Development funds. We provide in the list of recommendations below guidelines for the allocation of economic development funds. We also provide additional recommendations that speak directly to City Council goals regarding the development of a more diverse and sustainable economy, continuing to support a high quality of life, and increasing the number of high paying jobs in Bellingham.
Recommendation #1: Regarding the allocation of current Economic Development funds, we note that $205,640 in grants was given to 7 community organizations in 2005. Reports from these organizations are highly variable and tend to focus on the activities undertaken with the grant money but not on the economic impact of the activities. Our committee found it was not possible to do an adequate review of the return on investment from the grants made and therefore we are unable to provide a specific recommendation on current allocations of Economic Development funds. However, one grant recipient, the Small Business Development Center, stood out positively in our review. To be able to better analyze the allocation of Economic Development funds in the future we recommend the City of Bellingham adopt process improvements such as the following:
1. All entities applying for grants should provide written statements of purpose and explanations for what they believe will be accomplished with the grant. Sample work products or deliverables should be encouraged.
2. Key criteria for evaluating proposals should include the expected impact of funded work on economic vitality within the City. Specifically, funds should be used for programs that enhance business retention, expansion, attraction, and redevelopment within the city boundaries. All qualified requests should have measurable outcomes that improve the City’s economy – such as increasing sales taxes, B&O taxes, etc.
3. Grant approvals should include the approvers’ signatures and rationale for approval (see recommendation below for Economic Advisory Group.)
4. All organizations receiving grants must provide year-end reports documenting what was accomplished with the grant.
Recommendation #2: Establish a plan and create a senior level planner position within the Executive Department in city government to guide the economic vitality of the city so that the city can fund the services that support the high quality of life we wish to sustain. This person’s responsibilities would include:
1. Proactively meeting with local businesses of all types to discuss their needs
2. Convene a regular business roundtable as a means of building better city-business relations.
3. Assist business in navigating government regulatory requirements
4. Assist new business in assessing opportunities in Bellingham and work with existing businesses to maximize the retention of those businesses within the city.
5. Be the conduit for communicating business perspectives to local government and be the coordination point for economic issues with the port, the county and state.
6. Evaluating other cities’ economic development plans to determine “best practices” and incorporating these practices into Bellingham’s plans.
7. Develop an economic strategic plan for the COB including an analysis of local business/economic trends
8. Provide an annual “state of the city economy” report to the Mayor and City Council
The individual in the position should have experience in the private sector; some formal training in economics or a related field would be considered a plus, but could be offset by experience. We also envision a selection process that would include members of the business community (see next item). The position should report directly to the mayor, thereby assuring proper access and communication to the executive and legislative departments of the city government.
The on-going funding for this position would come from the increased tax revenues realized by the efforts of the individual. Attracting just one high-paying job employer, or retaining a current employer considering leaving the city, would more than cover the cost of the position. For the first year or two we recommend funding all or part of the employment costs by using funds from the current Economic Development fund.
Recommendation #3: Form an Economic Advisory Group of local business representatives to provide input to City Council on matters related to economic vitality and to assist in the selection of the City’s Economic Development Liaison.
Recommendation #4: Commission a series of studies to determine what businesses were and are currently located within the city limits, with information on the number of jobs, wages, etc. in each sector. For example, the City might request the information for the years 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005. This information will form part of the analytical foundation upon which an economic development plan can be created.
Recommendation #5: Promote the creation of new, high wage jobs by offering a B&O tax credit (see Tacoma example). This direct incentive would be a tangible statement of the city’s resolve to foster high wage jobs across all components of private sector employers. While insufficient data is available at this time to assess the costs of the program, on judgment we believe it will be self-funding due to the incremental jobs it will create.
Recommendation #6: Charge the new Economic Development Liaison and the Economic Advisory group with creating a written economic development plan for the city of Bellingham. This is an imperative. The COB must take control of economic development and plan for it, not allow it to evolve haphazardly.
Recommendation #7: In addition to the already identified downtown/waterfront development priority, identify other business “clusters”, for example health care, marine services and organic/natural products industries where Bellingham might evolve into regional centers of excellence. Task forces for each cluster should be formed to facilitate economic development and high paying job creation for that cluster.
==================
“JAWS” RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation #1: The City should consider raising property taxes each year by the allowable 1% (about $0.12 million a year). These additional funds should be banked in the GF reserves to protect against out year deficits and used to pre-fund LEOFF-1 obligations (Appendix B).
Recommendation #2: Any GF surpluses should be used to increase GF reserves and pre-fund the LEOFF-1 obligations (Appendix B). The City should establish a policy to assign surplus GF revenues (i.e., beyond that required to meet the 12% reserve requirement) to these pension funds.
Recommendation #3: The City should commit to fully fund its LEOFF-1 obligations by 2021. If future trends play out as expected, this implies continued annual contributions from the GF, growing from $1.3 million in 2006 to $2.1 million in 2011, $3.0 million in 2016, and $4.3 million in 2021.
Recommendation #4: Once the LEOFF-1 Fire Pension Fund is fully funded, the revenues collected from the 22.5¢ property tax and tax on fire-insurance premiums, currently allocated to the fire pension fund, should be reassigned. Initially, these revenues should be assigned to the other LEOFF-1 obligations. After 2021, these property tax revenues could become part of the City’s GF.
Recommendation #5: The City should continue, both on its own and through the Association of Washington Cities, to seek state assistance in paying these LEOFF-1 obligations. *We noted last year, in our review of the Fire Department, that a typical Bellingham firefighter enjoys an annual salary (exclusive of benefits) at least $14,000 more than highly skilled technical staff working in other departments. The City should both explain and justify this difference or work to reduce it.
Recommendation #6: The City should bargain aggressively with its unions to shift increasing amounts of benefit costs (primarily for health insurance premiums) from the City to employees.
Recommendation #7: The City should bargain aggressively with the firefighter union to, over time, bring firefighter compensation in line with that for employees in other unions/ departments.* This shift in compensation should recognize differences among groups of employees in, as examples, the requirements for prior education and training, provision of on-the-job training, on-the-job risks, and the number of qualified applicants seeking these jobs.
Recommendation #8: The City should explain the basis for growth in employee compensation below that of inflation and population growth. In particular, does City management plan for a decline in the amount and quality of services offered to City residents?
Recommendation #9: The City should explain why the budgets for the police and fire departments are expected to increase more rapidly than the overall GF. For example, are costs in these two departments expected to increase rapidly, or is the City planning to increase the level of service provided by these departments?
Recommendation #10: The City should use alternative qualitative and quantitative methods to estimate future GF revenues and expenses, including sensitivity and scenario analysis. In addition, the City should periodically review the accuracy of its past forecasts (backcasting).
Recommendation #11: The City should include in the annual budget document a discussion and explanation of expected trends in GF revenues, expenditures and reserves and how and why they differ from historical trends (Appendix A). *We do not discuss Charges for Goods and Services and Other Revenues because they are subject to definitional changes over time and because they are smaller revenue sources than the taxes.
==================
BUDGET POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation #1: Adopt a policy on target levels of service – including mechanisms for determining whether funds are being spent efficiently to meet the desired service levels.
Recommendations related to policy #1:
a) Divide this policy into a guiding principle (noting the difference between principal and principle) and two separate policies
b) The discussion about providing a healthy balance of services to residents and quality of life should be moved up to the list of guiding principles (section in budget immediately above budget policies)
c) There should be a budget policy – or goal statement – to say that the city strives to have revenues sufficient to provide a particular service level.
o We recommend that the City conduct a study or have one prepared to determine appropriate benchmarks and target service levels for each department and key function. This work should be done as soon as possible. Without this information it is not possible to know if expenditures to maintain or improve service levels are money well spent; what cuts might be acceptable when cuts are needed; etc.
o We recommend that the study include a statement about the frequency with which the target service levels should be reviewed, by whom, and how.
d) There should be a policy describing what the city will do when net revenues increase or decrease. See recommendation 3 for detail.
Recommendation #2: Revise existing budget policy #3 to ensure it provides a pragmatic guide with regards to employee compensation.
Recommendations related to policy #3:
Delete the second sentence of the policy. Compensation levels for city workers should exceed compensation levels for workers in the private sector only if the city is unable to fill open positions with qualified workers.
Recommendation #3: Establish a new policy on banking excess revenues
There should be a policy describing what the city will do when net revenues increase or decrease. The City of Bellingham should bank excess revenues received in any given year to minimize the impact of rising health care costs and known pension (LEOFF-1) obligations.
Recommendation:
We recommend that excess revenues be banked to minimize the future impact of known pension obligations and, possibly, health care costs for current City workers. (We note the creation of pension funds by cities such as the City of Everett for this purpose.)
Recommendation #4: Establish a new policy on public involvement
The City of Bellingham should adopt a new policy to encourage more public involvement in the budget process. The BAC notes the absence of any policy regarding public involvement. We recommend the addition of the following new policy. Rather than a separate recommendation to the City of Bellingham, (COB), our committee suggests this be included with the recommendations from the “Policies” committee.
Recommendations for wording related to this new policy:
The City of Bellingham shall provide for systematic, transparent and ongoing citizen involvement and input, through regular surveys and other feedback mechanisms, of city residents to help determine funding priorities.
Regardless of the method, the process would be transparent, systematic and ongoing. Our committee recommends a community involvement process that is:
• Inclusive and representative of all neighborhoods with an opportunity for every resident to participate.
• An ongoing, systematic process that includes both an opportunity for citizen input and process for ongoing feedback and evaluation.
• A timeline of January to June in the year preceding the upcoming budget.
Recommendation #5: Provide a link to the city’s investment policy
RE: General Operating Policy #8
The City will use the ‘Prudent Person’ policy when investing funds. Preservation and safety of assets is a higher priority than return on investment. The City’s investment policy provides greater detail on this subject.
Recommendation #6: This policy is not a budget policy, but rather an operational guideline.
RE: General Operating Policy #9
“The City will use recycled paper whenever costs are less than or similar to costs for virgin paper stocks.”
Suggestion:
The City could develop scorecards for the various departments to encourage savings or efficiencies since it already has five year forecasts by department, division and program.
Read the quips, then quit.
Or, scroll down to read the recommendations developed by our Budget Advisory Committee after they studied the City's budget process for over a year.
---------------------------
Shaw's Principle: Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.
Peer's Law: The solution to the problem changes the problem.
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. - Bokonon-
Rule of Accuracy: When working towards the solution of a problem, it always helps if you know the answer.
Inside every small problem is a large problem struggling to get out.
Wiker's Law: Government expands to absorb revenue and then some.
Weiler's Law: Nothing is impossible for the man who does not have to do it himself.
Langsam's Law: Everything depends.
Grossman's Misquote: Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers.
The Sausage Principle: People who love sausage and respect the law should never watch either one being made.
Jacquin's Postulate on Democratic Government: No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.
Sevareid's Law: The chief cause of problems is solutions.
Democracy encourages the majority to decide things about which the majority is blissfully ignorant. --John Simon--
======================
As most folks know, the City Council's main roles are to pass legislation to set City policy, and to approve the annual budget needed to pay for the services and programs the City provides.
But, the budget is where these things come together.
After the contentious 2004 budget sessions, which seemed to demonstrate a progressively worsening 'Gator' gap between projected revenues and expenditures, the Council decided to get a diverse citizen's committee together to review its process through new eyes.
We did that, set up the BAC, spent considerable staff time in briefing them, then awaited their recommendations, which are printed below for those who wish to read them.
During this process, some predictable things happened.
There was controversy about some of the appointments.
There were more reports and meetings than most could easily tolerate.
There was discomfort among some staff about some of the questions that were asked.
There was considerable learning that took place.
There was an attempt to evaluate the 'Priorities of Government'.
There were some attitudes, grandstanding and personal prejudices displayed.
There was an ad hoc, competing group set up for political purposes.
There was more demand for staff time than was contemplated.
There was a small rebellion that demanded the BAC ask more of its own questions.
There was an eventual loss of enthusiasm experienced by BAC, staff and Council.
There was a final push to summarize findings.
There were the inevitable mixed feelings of achievement, disappointment, relief and encouragement.
Some Council members were relieved when the BAC ended.
Some wanted it to continue in some fashion.
Some had felt it wasn't necessary in the first place, if Council had just had the courage to do its job.
Some thanked the BAC members for their service.
Some may have thanked the BAC for acting as a human shields.
In the end, this was probably a worthwhile exercise that produced some good ideas -some of which were already being considered.
BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
To the Bellingham City Council
Monday, June 12, 2006
==================
ECONOMIC VITALITY RECOMMENDATIONS
We were specifically requested to provide a recommendation regarding the allocation of current Economic Development funds. We provide in the list of recommendations below guidelines for the allocation of economic development funds. We also provide additional recommendations that speak directly to City Council goals regarding the development of a more diverse and sustainable economy, continuing to support a high quality of life, and increasing the number of high paying jobs in Bellingham.
Recommendation #1: Regarding the allocation of current Economic Development funds, we note that $205,640 in grants was given to 7 community organizations in 2005. Reports from these organizations are highly variable and tend to focus on the activities undertaken with the grant money but not on the economic impact of the activities. Our committee found it was not possible to do an adequate review of the return on investment from the grants made and therefore we are unable to provide a specific recommendation on current allocations of Economic Development funds. However, one grant recipient, the Small Business Development Center, stood out positively in our review. To be able to better analyze the allocation of Economic Development funds in the future we recommend the City of Bellingham adopt process improvements such as the following:
1. All entities applying for grants should provide written statements of purpose and explanations for what they believe will be accomplished with the grant. Sample work products or deliverables should be encouraged.
2. Key criteria for evaluating proposals should include the expected impact of funded work on economic vitality within the City. Specifically, funds should be used for programs that enhance business retention, expansion, attraction, and redevelopment within the city boundaries. All qualified requests should have measurable outcomes that improve the City’s economy – such as increasing sales taxes, B&O taxes, etc.
3. Grant approvals should include the approvers’ signatures and rationale for approval (see recommendation below for Economic Advisory Group.)
4. All organizations receiving grants must provide year-end reports documenting what was accomplished with the grant.
Recommendation #2: Establish a plan and create a senior level planner position within the Executive Department in city government to guide the economic vitality of the city so that the city can fund the services that support the high quality of life we wish to sustain. This person’s responsibilities would include:
1. Proactively meeting with local businesses of all types to discuss their needs
2. Convene a regular business roundtable as a means of building better city-business relations.
3. Assist business in navigating government regulatory requirements
4. Assist new business in assessing opportunities in Bellingham and work with existing businesses to maximize the retention of those businesses within the city.
5. Be the conduit for communicating business perspectives to local government and be the coordination point for economic issues with the port, the county and state.
6. Evaluating other cities’ economic development plans to determine “best practices” and incorporating these practices into Bellingham’s plans.
7. Develop an economic strategic plan for the COB including an analysis of local business/economic trends
8. Provide an annual “state of the city economy” report to the Mayor and City Council
The individual in the position should have experience in the private sector; some formal training in economics or a related field would be considered a plus, but could be offset by experience. We also envision a selection process that would include members of the business community (see next item). The position should report directly to the mayor, thereby assuring proper access and communication to the executive and legislative departments of the city government.
The on-going funding for this position would come from the increased tax revenues realized by the efforts of the individual. Attracting just one high-paying job employer, or retaining a current employer considering leaving the city, would more than cover the cost of the position. For the first year or two we recommend funding all or part of the employment costs by using funds from the current Economic Development fund.
Recommendation #3: Form an Economic Advisory Group of local business representatives to provide input to City Council on matters related to economic vitality and to assist in the selection of the City’s Economic Development Liaison.
Recommendation #4: Commission a series of studies to determine what businesses were and are currently located within the city limits, with information on the number of jobs, wages, etc. in each sector. For example, the City might request the information for the years 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005. This information will form part of the analytical foundation upon which an economic development plan can be created.
Recommendation #5: Promote the creation of new, high wage jobs by offering a B&O tax credit (see Tacoma example). This direct incentive would be a tangible statement of the city’s resolve to foster high wage jobs across all components of private sector employers. While insufficient data is available at this time to assess the costs of the program, on judgment we believe it will be self-funding due to the incremental jobs it will create.
Recommendation #6: Charge the new Economic Development Liaison and the Economic Advisory group with creating a written economic development plan for the city of Bellingham. This is an imperative. The COB must take control of economic development and plan for it, not allow it to evolve haphazardly.
Recommendation #7: In addition to the already identified downtown/waterfront development priority, identify other business “clusters”, for example health care, marine services and organic/natural products industries where Bellingham might evolve into regional centers of excellence. Task forces for each cluster should be formed to facilitate economic development and high paying job creation for that cluster.
==================
“JAWS” RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation #1: The City should consider raising property taxes each year by the allowable 1% (about $0.12 million a year). These additional funds should be banked in the GF reserves to protect against out year deficits and used to pre-fund LEOFF-1 obligations (Appendix B).
Recommendation #2: Any GF surpluses should be used to increase GF reserves and pre-fund the LEOFF-1 obligations (Appendix B). The City should establish a policy to assign surplus GF revenues (i.e., beyond that required to meet the 12% reserve requirement) to these pension funds.
Recommendation #3: The City should commit to fully fund its LEOFF-1 obligations by 2021. If future trends play out as expected, this implies continued annual contributions from the GF, growing from $1.3 million in 2006 to $2.1 million in 2011, $3.0 million in 2016, and $4.3 million in 2021.
Recommendation #4: Once the LEOFF-1 Fire Pension Fund is fully funded, the revenues collected from the 22.5¢ property tax and tax on fire-insurance premiums, currently allocated to the fire pension fund, should be reassigned. Initially, these revenues should be assigned to the other LEOFF-1 obligations. After 2021, these property tax revenues could become part of the City’s GF.
Recommendation #5: The City should continue, both on its own and through the Association of Washington Cities, to seek state assistance in paying these LEOFF-1 obligations. *We noted last year, in our review of the Fire Department, that a typical Bellingham firefighter enjoys an annual salary (exclusive of benefits) at least $14,000 more than highly skilled technical staff working in other departments. The City should both explain and justify this difference or work to reduce it.
Recommendation #6: The City should bargain aggressively with its unions to shift increasing amounts of benefit costs (primarily for health insurance premiums) from the City to employees.
Recommendation #7: The City should bargain aggressively with the firefighter union to, over time, bring firefighter compensation in line with that for employees in other unions/ departments.* This shift in compensation should recognize differences among groups of employees in, as examples, the requirements for prior education and training, provision of on-the-job training, on-the-job risks, and the number of qualified applicants seeking these jobs.
Recommendation #8: The City should explain the basis for growth in employee compensation below that of inflation and population growth. In particular, does City management plan for a decline in the amount and quality of services offered to City residents?
Recommendation #9: The City should explain why the budgets for the police and fire departments are expected to increase more rapidly than the overall GF. For example, are costs in these two departments expected to increase rapidly, or is the City planning to increase the level of service provided by these departments?
Recommendation #10: The City should use alternative qualitative and quantitative methods to estimate future GF revenues and expenses, including sensitivity and scenario analysis. In addition, the City should periodically review the accuracy of its past forecasts (backcasting).
Recommendation #11: The City should include in the annual budget document a discussion and explanation of expected trends in GF revenues, expenditures and reserves and how and why they differ from historical trends (Appendix A). *We do not discuss Charges for Goods and Services and Other Revenues because they are subject to definitional changes over time and because they are smaller revenue sources than the taxes.
==================
BUDGET POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation #1: Adopt a policy on target levels of service – including mechanisms for determining whether funds are being spent efficiently to meet the desired service levels.
Recommendations related to policy #1:
a) Divide this policy into a guiding principle (noting the difference between principal and principle) and two separate policies
b) The discussion about providing a healthy balance of services to residents and quality of life should be moved up to the list of guiding principles (section in budget immediately above budget policies)
c) There should be a budget policy – or goal statement – to say that the city strives to have revenues sufficient to provide a particular service level.
o We recommend that the City conduct a study or have one prepared to determine appropriate benchmarks and target service levels for each department and key function. This work should be done as soon as possible. Without this information it is not possible to know if expenditures to maintain or improve service levels are money well spent; what cuts might be acceptable when cuts are needed; etc.
o We recommend that the study include a statement about the frequency with which the target service levels should be reviewed, by whom, and how.
d) There should be a policy describing what the city will do when net revenues increase or decrease. See recommendation 3 for detail.
Recommendation #2: Revise existing budget policy #3 to ensure it provides a pragmatic guide with regards to employee compensation.
Recommendations related to policy #3:
Delete the second sentence of the policy. Compensation levels for city workers should exceed compensation levels for workers in the private sector only if the city is unable to fill open positions with qualified workers.
Recommendation #3: Establish a new policy on banking excess revenues
There should be a policy describing what the city will do when net revenues increase or decrease. The City of Bellingham should bank excess revenues received in any given year to minimize the impact of rising health care costs and known pension (LEOFF-1) obligations.
Recommendation:
We recommend that excess revenues be banked to minimize the future impact of known pension obligations and, possibly, health care costs for current City workers. (We note the creation of pension funds by cities such as the City of Everett for this purpose.)
Recommendation #4: Establish a new policy on public involvement
The City of Bellingham should adopt a new policy to encourage more public involvement in the budget process. The BAC notes the absence of any policy regarding public involvement. We recommend the addition of the following new policy. Rather than a separate recommendation to the City of Bellingham, (COB), our committee suggests this be included with the recommendations from the “Policies” committee.
Recommendations for wording related to this new policy:
The City of Bellingham shall provide for systematic, transparent and ongoing citizen involvement and input, through regular surveys and other feedback mechanisms, of city residents to help determine funding priorities.
Regardless of the method, the process would be transparent, systematic and ongoing. Our committee recommends a community involvement process that is:
• Inclusive and representative of all neighborhoods with an opportunity for every resident to participate.
• An ongoing, systematic process that includes both an opportunity for citizen input and process for ongoing feedback and evaluation.
• A timeline of January to June in the year preceding the upcoming budget.
Recommendation #5: Provide a link to the city’s investment policy
RE: General Operating Policy #8
The City will use the ‘Prudent Person’ policy when investing funds. Preservation and safety of assets is a higher priority than return on investment. The City’s investment policy provides greater detail on this subject.
Recommendation #6: This policy is not a budget policy, but rather an operational guideline.
RE: General Operating Policy #9
“The City will use recycled paper whenever costs are less than or similar to costs for virgin paper stocks.”
Suggestion:
The City could develop scorecards for the various departments to encourage savings or efficiencies since it already has five year forecasts by department, division and program.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Mayor: A Living Wage Job In A Fishbowl
Politics is a profession; a serious, complicated and, in its true sense, a noble one.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
-- Winston Churchill
Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage. -- H. L. Mencken
Ninety eight percent of the adults in this country are decent, hardworking, honest Americans.
It's the other lousy two percent that get all the publicity.
But then, we elected them. -- Lily Tomlin
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. -- James Madison
"Popular adolescents look like leaders.
But in reality they are tracking peer opinion.
They do the same thing politicians do in tracking opinion polls.
They are very much like politicians."
-- Joseph P. Allen - Psychology Professor, University of Virginia
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
-- Winston Churchill
When I look back on all these worries, I remember the story of the old man who said on his deathbed that he had had a lot of trouble in his life, most of which had never happened.
-- Winston Churchill
---------------------------------------------------------
Every Municipality requires some form of leadership.
Bellingham's Charter, adopted 35 years ago, specifies an elected Mayor to fulfill that function.
Mayor is a big job!
It entails holding much power and influence, but also much responsibility.
By definition, the job is relentlessly demanding.
It has the potential to be exhilarating, as successes are enjoyed by the community.
But, it can also be debilitating when things don't go so well.
There are diverse groups to be continuously dealt with fairly and reasonably satisfied.
There are a multiplicity of goals to be sought, even though some compete directly with others.
How to deal with and effectively resolve issues is not an exact science.
At best, a Mayor will seek to keep important things simmering, but not boiling over!
That requires a set of skills that many folks don't have, and even if they do, don't wish to go to the trouble of becoming Mayor.
It's not a job everyone wants, including me.
But, the purpose of this blog is to revisit some of our history since Mayor Mark resigned, effective November 1, 2006.
I did not always agree with Mark, but I did respect his talent, courage and vision for our City's future.
No fair-minded person can deny Mark possessed those qualities.
In addition, he had the ability to pick really good staff, many of whom still work for the City in responsible jobs.
I hope they stay around, regardless of who our new elected mayor will be.
But, Mark did reach his limit in the job of Mayor and has moved on, I hope happily.
I wish him well.
Below, I've reprinted his resignation announcement, followed by a few comments of my own.
--------------------------------
Message from the Mayor
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Dear fellow employees,
I have frequently written to you about a variety of subjects. Whether it be issues ‘in the news’, changes in policy, celebration of successes or a word of thanks, it has been my hope that you knew that I cared about your awareness of issues the city faces and to remind you that it is through your good work that we achieve our success.
Today I write to you with information that affects the city but is not about the city.
I will be resigning as Mayor of Bellingham effective Nov 1, 2006. On that date I will start in my new position as manager of the Northwest Clean Air Agency (NWCAA), a regional organization that includes Whatcom, Skagit and Island Counties.
I have had a connection with NWCAA for many, many years. The mission of the agency is one I am passionate about and when the current manager announced his intention to retire, I thought long and carefully about whether to apply for the vacant position. The new job will involve a cut in pay, nonetheless I eagerly look forward to this different chapter in life.
This is my 20th year as a local elected official. While a career in public service has been of great satisfaction and joy, it had never been my intention to spend my entire adulthood in elective office. I am pleased that I will continue in service to the citizens of our community, just in a different capacity.
The primary reason that I am able to take this step is because of the extraordinary talent and commitment to service of the City of Bellingham department heads, managers and employees. Ours is not a perfect organization, but I believe that it is in an extraordinarily strong position at this time. Together, over these last nearly eleven years, we have accomplished so very much. I am proud of my affiliation with the City of Bellingham and with you. I know you will continue to do great things.
In my years as Mayor, I have made many wonderful friends among you, my fellow employees. I look forward to maintaining these friendships, with the added benefit that I will not always be ‘talking shop’ when they are trying to relax!
In closing, let me thank you all for the energy, commitment and spirit you bring to your work. I will be forever grateful for the honor of having been your fellow public servant.
Sincerely,
Mayor Mark
PS. The vacancy created by my departure will be filled by a majority vote of the City Council. The Council can fill the vacancy from among council members or any Bellingham citizen that meets the eligibility requirements of the city charter. The voters will select the mayor at the general election in November 2007.
-------------------------
I believe Mark's reason for resigning was a good one, the prospect of a responsible job that wasn't a pressure cooker.
Unspoken, were other probable reasons:
• His health
• A reduced level of enjoyment, due to an atmosphere of growing distrust and controversy
• His family
• His accurate reading of political 'tea leaves', particualy after the contentious 2003 election
[Note, here I suspect Mark came to know that he would be challenged by one of his former strong supporters, now a candidate for Mayor]
-----------------
But, Mark's announcement still came as quite a shock to most folks, even though it was openly welcomed by some.
It also came at a time I was away, hiking in the Canadian Rockies.
That vacation was particularly enjoyable because it occured right after I had made a similar decision.
I had decided to resign myself at the end of 2006, but announce it early so that the Council would have time to appoint a replacement for 1 year.
Mark beat me to it!
Boy, I was mad at the time!
Mark's resigning made me reconsider my own plans.
Under those circumstances, I thought it would have been irresponsible for me to walk away from the challenges that were facing the City at that time.
Of course, some may not have liked me quitting before my elected term was over, either.
Others may have felt differently.
Anyway, sense prevailed and I stayed.
And now, I'm glad I did decide to finish my term.
---------------
Another time, I might extend this reflection.
But this is enough for now.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
-- Winston Churchill
Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage. -- H. L. Mencken
Ninety eight percent of the adults in this country are decent, hardworking, honest Americans.
It's the other lousy two percent that get all the publicity.
But then, we elected them. -- Lily Tomlin
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. -- James Madison
"Popular adolescents look like leaders.
But in reality they are tracking peer opinion.
They do the same thing politicians do in tracking opinion polls.
They are very much like politicians."
-- Joseph P. Allen - Psychology Professor, University of Virginia
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
-- Winston Churchill
When I look back on all these worries, I remember the story of the old man who said on his deathbed that he had had a lot of trouble in his life, most of which had never happened.
-- Winston Churchill
---------------------------------------------------------
Every Municipality requires some form of leadership.
Bellingham's Charter, adopted 35 years ago, specifies an elected Mayor to fulfill that function.
Mayor is a big job!
It entails holding much power and influence, but also much responsibility.
By definition, the job is relentlessly demanding.
It has the potential to be exhilarating, as successes are enjoyed by the community.
But, it can also be debilitating when things don't go so well.
There are diverse groups to be continuously dealt with fairly and reasonably satisfied.
There are a multiplicity of goals to be sought, even though some compete directly with others.
How to deal with and effectively resolve issues is not an exact science.
At best, a Mayor will seek to keep important things simmering, but not boiling over!
That requires a set of skills that many folks don't have, and even if they do, don't wish to go to the trouble of becoming Mayor.
It's not a job everyone wants, including me.
But, the purpose of this blog is to revisit some of our history since Mayor Mark resigned, effective November 1, 2006.
I did not always agree with Mark, but I did respect his talent, courage and vision for our City's future.
No fair-minded person can deny Mark possessed those qualities.
In addition, he had the ability to pick really good staff, many of whom still work for the City in responsible jobs.
I hope they stay around, regardless of who our new elected mayor will be.
But, Mark did reach his limit in the job of Mayor and has moved on, I hope happily.
I wish him well.
Below, I've reprinted his resignation announcement, followed by a few comments of my own.
--------------------------------
Message from the Mayor
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Dear fellow employees,
I have frequently written to you about a variety of subjects. Whether it be issues ‘in the news’, changes in policy, celebration of successes or a word of thanks, it has been my hope that you knew that I cared about your awareness of issues the city faces and to remind you that it is through your good work that we achieve our success.
Today I write to you with information that affects the city but is not about the city.
I will be resigning as Mayor of Bellingham effective Nov 1, 2006. On that date I will start in my new position as manager of the Northwest Clean Air Agency (NWCAA), a regional organization that includes Whatcom, Skagit and Island Counties.
I have had a connection with NWCAA for many, many years. The mission of the agency is one I am passionate about and when the current manager announced his intention to retire, I thought long and carefully about whether to apply for the vacant position. The new job will involve a cut in pay, nonetheless I eagerly look forward to this different chapter in life.
This is my 20th year as a local elected official. While a career in public service has been of great satisfaction and joy, it had never been my intention to spend my entire adulthood in elective office. I am pleased that I will continue in service to the citizens of our community, just in a different capacity.
The primary reason that I am able to take this step is because of the extraordinary talent and commitment to service of the City of Bellingham department heads, managers and employees. Ours is not a perfect organization, but I believe that it is in an extraordinarily strong position at this time. Together, over these last nearly eleven years, we have accomplished so very much. I am proud of my affiliation with the City of Bellingham and with you. I know you will continue to do great things.
In my years as Mayor, I have made many wonderful friends among you, my fellow employees. I look forward to maintaining these friendships, with the added benefit that I will not always be ‘talking shop’ when they are trying to relax!
In closing, let me thank you all for the energy, commitment and spirit you bring to your work. I will be forever grateful for the honor of having been your fellow public servant.
Sincerely,
Mayor Mark
PS. The vacancy created by my departure will be filled by a majority vote of the City Council. The Council can fill the vacancy from among council members or any Bellingham citizen that meets the eligibility requirements of the city charter. The voters will select the mayor at the general election in November 2007.
-------------------------
I believe Mark's reason for resigning was a good one, the prospect of a responsible job that wasn't a pressure cooker.
Unspoken, were other probable reasons:
• His health
• A reduced level of enjoyment, due to an atmosphere of growing distrust and controversy
• His family
• His accurate reading of political 'tea leaves', particualy after the contentious 2003 election
[Note, here I suspect Mark came to know that he would be challenged by one of his former strong supporters, now a candidate for Mayor]
-----------------
But, Mark's announcement still came as quite a shock to most folks, even though it was openly welcomed by some.
It also came at a time I was away, hiking in the Canadian Rockies.
That vacation was particularly enjoyable because it occured right after I had made a similar decision.
I had decided to resign myself at the end of 2006, but announce it early so that the Council would have time to appoint a replacement for 1 year.
Mark beat me to it!
Boy, I was mad at the time!
Mark's resigning made me reconsider my own plans.
Under those circumstances, I thought it would have been irresponsible for me to walk away from the challenges that were facing the City at that time.
Of course, some may not have liked me quitting before my elected term was over, either.
Others may have felt differently.
Anyway, sense prevailed and I stayed.
And now, I'm glad I did decide to finish my term.
---------------
Another time, I might extend this reflection.
But this is enough for now.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Thoughts: All Politics Really Are Local!
'Think globally, act locally'
"Each generation needs to make its own decisions and its own discoveries - which means that one of this generation's responsibilities is to see that the next generation will still have something left to discover."
- Tony Hiss The Experience of Place
----------------------
Less than three months from my departure from the Bellingham City Council, I find myself anticipating the freedom in emancipating myself from the self-imposed rigors of my partially self-imposed schedule.
That feeling is exhilarating!
Au Revoir, Hasta Luego and see you later my friends!
I mean that in all sincerity, but with a modicum of tongue-in-cheek loquacity.
What shall I find to write about, now that my tenure is about to be over?
Not to worry, there is a seemingly endless store of issues and opinions from which to draw.
Some of these topics seem inexhaustible, because they are timeless in nature,
Topics like growth management, lake whatcom preservation, waterfront redevelopment, fiscal responsibility, open government, neighborhood involvement, economic development, library enhancement, greenways, public safety, and citizen involvement are never ending!
And, of course, holding local elected officials -and wannabe's- accountable for their actual performance!
That is as it should be.
Because each generation requires a renewal and a reawakening to regenerate a democracy, particularly at the local level.
The City level is almost as local as one can get, at least when it comes to elected officials which represent a municipality.
The City and County level is where democracy starts.
Those are the levels where people know what's important, and who will represent their interests.
Higher levels, like District, State and Federal are separated more widely than the local level.
But, if you don't get it right at the local level, the problems just get worse as you go up the chain.
But, what is right at the local level you might ask?
Go back to the topics mentioned above, then add to them the considerations of health, welfare and safety at a higher level.
Add to that the importance of feedback from the populace, and leaven that with the promise of responsiveness, and openness, regardless of popularity at the ballot.
Americans need more from their representatives than their dedication to their own re-election!
Democracy begins at home, but it doesn't end there!
Renewal is a constant that should not be ignored!
There is no mention in our constitution of political parties.
That is a construct that has occurred afterwards.
Do not let the will of parties subvert the will of the people.
Votes should be based upon the person and their qualifications for office.
Do not be persuaded by proxy!
Or by propaganda.
Ask questions yourself, and by guided by answers that are represented to be true.
These answers are important in a democracy!
Make sure you ask the right ones, and satisfy yourself that the answers ring true.
We can't ask for more than that.
--------------------------
"My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on." -- JFK
"Each generation needs to make its own decisions and its own discoveries - which means that one of this generation's responsibilities is to see that the next generation will still have something left to discover."
- Tony Hiss The Experience of Place
----------------------
Less than three months from my departure from the Bellingham City Council, I find myself anticipating the freedom in emancipating myself from the self-imposed rigors of my partially self-imposed schedule.
That feeling is exhilarating!
Au Revoir, Hasta Luego and see you later my friends!
I mean that in all sincerity, but with a modicum of tongue-in-cheek loquacity.
What shall I find to write about, now that my tenure is about to be over?
Not to worry, there is a seemingly endless store of issues and opinions from which to draw.
Some of these topics seem inexhaustible, because they are timeless in nature,
Topics like growth management, lake whatcom preservation, waterfront redevelopment, fiscal responsibility, open government, neighborhood involvement, economic development, library enhancement, greenways, public safety, and citizen involvement are never ending!
And, of course, holding local elected officials -and wannabe's- accountable for their actual performance!
That is as it should be.
Because each generation requires a renewal and a reawakening to regenerate a democracy, particularly at the local level.
The City level is almost as local as one can get, at least when it comes to elected officials which represent a municipality.
The City and County level is where democracy starts.
Those are the levels where people know what's important, and who will represent their interests.
Higher levels, like District, State and Federal are separated more widely than the local level.
But, if you don't get it right at the local level, the problems just get worse as you go up the chain.
But, what is right at the local level you might ask?
Go back to the topics mentioned above, then add to them the considerations of health, welfare and safety at a higher level.
Add to that the importance of feedback from the populace, and leaven that with the promise of responsiveness, and openness, regardless of popularity at the ballot.
Americans need more from their representatives than their dedication to their own re-election!
Democracy begins at home, but it doesn't end there!
Renewal is a constant that should not be ignored!
There is no mention in our constitution of political parties.
That is a construct that has occurred afterwards.
Do not let the will of parties subvert the will of the people.
Votes should be based upon the person and their qualifications for office.
Do not be persuaded by proxy!
Or by propaganda.
Ask questions yourself, and by guided by answers that are represented to be true.
These answers are important in a democracy!
Make sure you ask the right ones, and satisfy yourself that the answers ring true.
We can't ask for more than that.
--------------------------
"My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on." -- JFK
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Mitch's Kool-Aid: Special FISHY Flavor for Election Time
For those who didn't see it in the October 4, 2007 issue of the Whatcom Independent, I am reprinting Mitch Friedman's latest opinion piece on page 9.
While this is certainly not Mitch's best effort, it does seems to reflect much of the negative tone of attacks we've seen evidenced from him lately, especially in the Mayoral race.
But, more troubling is the attitude that this is the plan he wants done, and any expressions of concern or doubt are totally unwelcome!
Some kings or emperors have gotten away with that, but in America?
OK, maybe too broad an example.
Anyway, I've annotated and inserted in CAPITALS a few comments to serve as quick replies to parts of this particular rant.
Come on, Mitch, we're all in this effort together!
Aren't we?
---------------------------
There is something in the water [KOOL-AID?]
The surreal [SUPPRESSED?] public debate over the proposed reconveyance of county forestland in the Lake Whatcom watershed raises questions either about the mental health of our citizenry [THAT DOESN'T SOUND NICE!] or about the honesty and quality of politics in our mayoral race [THERE ARE TWO CANDIDATES, WHICH ONE DOES HE MEAN?].
Either could be an indication of something amiss in our drinking water: an insidious neurotoxin or perhaps something worse [LIKE ANGER AND DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION?].
First let’s cover the basics:
Reconveyance is a home run for the watershed. [BUT AREN"T MORE GAMES WON BY SINGLES, WALKS OR SACRIFICES?]
The opportunity to move 8,400-forested acres from state timber management into county park management is a huge gain for both water quality and public safety [MAYBE IT COULD BE], not to mention public recreation [NO SURPRISE THERE].
This will greatly reduce the threat of logging-caused landslides which have in past harmed both the lake and property and could do worse in the future.
Natural forest is the best water filtration system, explaining why cities from New York to Portland manage their watersheds in this way.
The steep, unstable slopes of Lookout and Stewart mountains make the matter of greater urgency in our watershed [STIPULATED GOOD IDEA, BUT THE QUESTION IS HOW THIS WILL BE DONE AND MANAGED].
It’s true that the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manages timber around Lake Whatcom under the most restrictive plan in the state, [BUT IT IS STILL NOT RESTRICTIVE ENOUGH] thanks to years of hard work by people like Linda Marrom, Jamie Berg, Alan Soicher (a past member of the state Forest Practices Board), Lisa McShane (of Conservation Northwest), Tim Paxton, and Dave Wallin (a prominent forest scientist). [ALL GOOD PEOPLE, BUT THERE IS MUCH LONGER LIST OF NAMES!]
It’s also true that all of these people felt the plan was a compromise and that exclusion of logging on these lands would be preferred.
Furthermore, the state management plan is under litigation by Skagit County and cannot be taken for granted.
All of these people, along with others like April Markowitz chair of the Lake Whatcom Watershed Advisory Board, are thrilled with the prospect of reconveyance [APRIL IS A VALUED AND KEY MEMBER OF THIS CITY ADVISORY BOARD].
Concerns raised over reconveyance are mostly bogus [WHO APPOINTED YOU TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION?].
Of course we need more information and public discussion before finalizing a reconveyance, and we’ll have many months of that ahead [AFTER THE HOPED FOR ELECTION BOUNCE FROM THE ANNOUNCEMENT].
But most of the questions being raised are obvious red herrings [WHO APPOINTED YOU TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION?].
If somebody asks you whether a county park would encourage more [HOW MANY MORE, AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE?] people and pets to come into the watershed, simply remind them that hikers cause far fewer landslides or other harm than would the 43 miles of road (and consequent clear-cuts) that DNR would soon start putting in even if the current management plan survives the Skagit lawsuit.
(About 60 percent of the roads and cuts would be on these 8,400 acres.)
[HOW MANY MILES OF ROADS AND NEW TRAILS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED PARK?]
[WON"T THESE REQUIRE MAINTENANCE, DRAINAGE AND ENFORCEMENT?]
Those voicing these concerns have something suspicious [IS THERE ANY REASON?] in common.
What do Tom Pratum, John Servais and Marian Beddill all have in common? [PROBABLY MULTIPLE THINGS, INCLUDING BEING LONG-TIME CONCERNED LAKE WATCHERS]
They have all vocally declared support for Dan Pike’s mayoral campaign [THAT'S ONE THING THEY HAVE IN COMMON WITH MANY OTHERS] and they are all voicing these so-called questions [NOT SO-CALLED, THEY ARE QUESTIONS, AND LEGITIMATE ONES AT THAT!] about the reconveyance, presumably [THAT'S WHY THIS CALLED AN OPINION PIECE] in an effort to undermine much-deserved public credit to Dan McShane for this great breakthrough [EVEN DAN ADMITS IT WAS NOT HIS IDEA, AND SAID SO TONIGHT].
John Watts, who also supports Pike, was critical of reconveyance [ESPECIALLY THE SECRECY AND TIMING OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT] until he studied the matter and showed the dignity of changing his position [THE IDEA STILL REQUIRES CRITICAL ANALYSIS, WITH MANY MORE FACTS. THAT HASN'T CHANGED].
There was a time when we environmentalists [WHO IS INCLUDED IN THIS 'WE', BESIDES YOU?] tried to broaden our political tent in order to achieve environmental gains.
Of what possible benefit could it be now to do the opposite, and actually try to undermine a huge environmental gain in order to narrow the political tent? [THIS STATEMENT DEFIES LOGIC, BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS AND OPINIONS, WITHOUT ADEQUATE PUBLIC PROCESS AND PROOF]
There’s something in the water.[KOOL-AID?]
Here’s how we get to the heart of the matter: we ask Dan Pike [GOOD IDEA! WHY NOT CUT HIM IN ON THE PLAN? HE KNOWS ABOUT PITCHING A BROAD TENT].
When I used to fish in lakes of the Midwest, I would encounter two kinds of pike.
Walleyed pike swim in the clear, cool depths and are a delight to catch.
Northern pike are bony, teethy, and mean, lurking in the reeds.
I’d like to believe Dan Pike is of the former sort [NICE. ARE YOU CALLING HIM A FISH?].
He’s being awfully quiet about reconveyance [WHY NOT CUT HIM IN ON THE PLAN, THEN GIVE HIM TIME TO CONSIDER IT? AFTER ALL, AS THE NEXT MAYOR, HE COULD REALLY HELP! BUT, MAYBE HE'S JUST A FISH].
Pike’s had plenty of time to study the issue, talk to experts, and so forth [CERTAINLY NOT THE EIGHT YEARS THIS HAS REPORTEDLY BEEN IN THE MAKING!].
He even says he stands for improving Lake Whatcom.
So if he supports reconveyance he should come out and say so, maybe even congratulate those who deserve credit [WHY NOT CUT HIM IN ON THE PLAN? HE'S A BRIGHT, FAIR-MINDED PERSON, BUT PROBABLY LIKES TO MAKE UP HIS OWN MIND, BASED ON FACTS, NOT SUPPOSITION. UNLESS, YOU THINK HE'S A FISH].
That should show he places policy above politics [CERTAINLY YOU MEAN GOOD POLICY ABOVE CHEAP POLITICS] and has character worthy of being mayor.
If Pike doesn’t follow that path, we can assume [REMEMBER HOW THAT PARTICULAR WORD CAN BE BROKEN DOWN?] that the foray of attack dogs from his camp has his blessing [HERE YOU SEEM TO BE ADMITTING YOUR OWN FISHY GAME PLAN!].
If he opposes reconveyance, I want to hear his reasons, and they had better be better than the vitriolic drivel we’ve heard so far [IS THIS THE KIND OF DIALOGUE AND THREAT LIKELY TO ACHIEVE SOME POSITIVE OUTCOME?].
---------------
Mitch Friedman is a conservation biologist and Executive Director of Conservation Northwest, which has worked since 1999 to protect state lands in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Whatcom Independent •
While this is certainly not Mitch's best effort, it does seems to reflect much of the negative tone of attacks we've seen evidenced from him lately, especially in the Mayoral race.
But, more troubling is the attitude that this is the plan he wants done, and any expressions of concern or doubt are totally unwelcome!
Some kings or emperors have gotten away with that, but in America?
OK, maybe too broad an example.
Anyway, I've annotated and inserted in CAPITALS a few comments to serve as quick replies to parts of this particular rant.
Come on, Mitch, we're all in this effort together!
Aren't we?
---------------------------
There is something in the water [KOOL-AID?]
The surreal [SUPPRESSED?] public debate over the proposed reconveyance of county forestland in the Lake Whatcom watershed raises questions either about the mental health of our citizenry [THAT DOESN'T SOUND NICE!] or about the honesty and quality of politics in our mayoral race [THERE ARE TWO CANDIDATES, WHICH ONE DOES HE MEAN?].
Either could be an indication of something amiss in our drinking water: an insidious neurotoxin or perhaps something worse [LIKE ANGER AND DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION?].
First let’s cover the basics:
Reconveyance is a home run for the watershed. [BUT AREN"T MORE GAMES WON BY SINGLES, WALKS OR SACRIFICES?]
The opportunity to move 8,400-forested acres from state timber management into county park management is a huge gain for both water quality and public safety [MAYBE IT COULD BE], not to mention public recreation [NO SURPRISE THERE].
This will greatly reduce the threat of logging-caused landslides which have in past harmed both the lake and property and could do worse in the future.
Natural forest is the best water filtration system, explaining why cities from New York to Portland manage their watersheds in this way.
The steep, unstable slopes of Lookout and Stewart mountains make the matter of greater urgency in our watershed [STIPULATED GOOD IDEA, BUT THE QUESTION IS HOW THIS WILL BE DONE AND MANAGED].
It’s true that the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manages timber around Lake Whatcom under the most restrictive plan in the state, [BUT IT IS STILL NOT RESTRICTIVE ENOUGH] thanks to years of hard work by people like Linda Marrom, Jamie Berg, Alan Soicher (a past member of the state Forest Practices Board), Lisa McShane (of Conservation Northwest), Tim Paxton, and Dave Wallin (a prominent forest scientist). [ALL GOOD PEOPLE, BUT THERE IS MUCH LONGER LIST OF NAMES!]
It’s also true that all of these people felt the plan was a compromise and that exclusion of logging on these lands would be preferred.
Furthermore, the state management plan is under litigation by Skagit County and cannot be taken for granted.
All of these people, along with others like April Markowitz chair of the Lake Whatcom Watershed Advisory Board, are thrilled with the prospect of reconveyance [APRIL IS A VALUED AND KEY MEMBER OF THIS CITY ADVISORY BOARD].
Concerns raised over reconveyance are mostly bogus [WHO APPOINTED YOU TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION?].
Of course we need more information and public discussion before finalizing a reconveyance, and we’ll have many months of that ahead [AFTER THE HOPED FOR ELECTION BOUNCE FROM THE ANNOUNCEMENT].
But most of the questions being raised are obvious red herrings [WHO APPOINTED YOU TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION?].
If somebody asks you whether a county park would encourage more [HOW MANY MORE, AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE?] people and pets to come into the watershed, simply remind them that hikers cause far fewer landslides or other harm than would the 43 miles of road (and consequent clear-cuts) that DNR would soon start putting in even if the current management plan survives the Skagit lawsuit.
(About 60 percent of the roads and cuts would be on these 8,400 acres.)
[HOW MANY MILES OF ROADS AND NEW TRAILS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED PARK?]
[WON"T THESE REQUIRE MAINTENANCE, DRAINAGE AND ENFORCEMENT?]
Those voicing these concerns have something suspicious [IS THERE ANY REASON?] in common.
What do Tom Pratum, John Servais and Marian Beddill all have in common? [PROBABLY MULTIPLE THINGS, INCLUDING BEING LONG-TIME CONCERNED LAKE WATCHERS]
They have all vocally declared support for Dan Pike’s mayoral campaign [THAT'S ONE THING THEY HAVE IN COMMON WITH MANY OTHERS] and they are all voicing these so-called questions [NOT SO-CALLED, THEY ARE QUESTIONS, AND LEGITIMATE ONES AT THAT!] about the reconveyance, presumably [THAT'S WHY THIS CALLED AN OPINION PIECE] in an effort to undermine much-deserved public credit to Dan McShane for this great breakthrough [EVEN DAN ADMITS IT WAS NOT HIS IDEA, AND SAID SO TONIGHT].
John Watts, who also supports Pike, was critical of reconveyance [ESPECIALLY THE SECRECY AND TIMING OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT] until he studied the matter and showed the dignity of changing his position [THE IDEA STILL REQUIRES CRITICAL ANALYSIS, WITH MANY MORE FACTS. THAT HASN'T CHANGED].
There was a time when we environmentalists [WHO IS INCLUDED IN THIS 'WE', BESIDES YOU?] tried to broaden our political tent in order to achieve environmental gains.
Of what possible benefit could it be now to do the opposite, and actually try to undermine a huge environmental gain in order to narrow the political tent? [THIS STATEMENT DEFIES LOGIC, BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS AND OPINIONS, WITHOUT ADEQUATE PUBLIC PROCESS AND PROOF]
There’s something in the water.[KOOL-AID?]
Here’s how we get to the heart of the matter: we ask Dan Pike [GOOD IDEA! WHY NOT CUT HIM IN ON THE PLAN? HE KNOWS ABOUT PITCHING A BROAD TENT].
When I used to fish in lakes of the Midwest, I would encounter two kinds of pike.
Walleyed pike swim in the clear, cool depths and are a delight to catch.
Northern pike are bony, teethy, and mean, lurking in the reeds.
I’d like to believe Dan Pike is of the former sort [NICE. ARE YOU CALLING HIM A FISH?].
He’s being awfully quiet about reconveyance [WHY NOT CUT HIM IN ON THE PLAN, THEN GIVE HIM TIME TO CONSIDER IT? AFTER ALL, AS THE NEXT MAYOR, HE COULD REALLY HELP! BUT, MAYBE HE'S JUST A FISH].
Pike’s had plenty of time to study the issue, talk to experts, and so forth [CERTAINLY NOT THE EIGHT YEARS THIS HAS REPORTEDLY BEEN IN THE MAKING!].
He even says he stands for improving Lake Whatcom.
So if he supports reconveyance he should come out and say so, maybe even congratulate those who deserve credit [WHY NOT CUT HIM IN ON THE PLAN? HE'S A BRIGHT, FAIR-MINDED PERSON, BUT PROBABLY LIKES TO MAKE UP HIS OWN MIND, BASED ON FACTS, NOT SUPPOSITION. UNLESS, YOU THINK HE'S A FISH].
That should show he places policy above politics [CERTAINLY YOU MEAN GOOD POLICY ABOVE CHEAP POLITICS] and has character worthy of being mayor.
If Pike doesn’t follow that path, we can assume [REMEMBER HOW THAT PARTICULAR WORD CAN BE BROKEN DOWN?] that the foray of attack dogs from his camp has his blessing [HERE YOU SEEM TO BE ADMITTING YOUR OWN FISHY GAME PLAN!].
If he opposes reconveyance, I want to hear his reasons, and they had better be better than the vitriolic drivel we’ve heard so far [IS THIS THE KIND OF DIALOGUE AND THREAT LIKELY TO ACHIEVE SOME POSITIVE OUTCOME?].
---------------
Mitch Friedman is a conservation biologist and Executive Director of Conservation Northwest, which has worked since 1999 to protect state lands in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Whatcom Independent •
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
WLV Forum: Ad Libs, Glibs & Fibs
The format and questions at tonight's forum was good.
But, understandably due to time limits, some lack of factual knowledge, some lack of candor, some of the answers provided by some of candidates were -being kind- unenlightening.
Without any pretense at completeness, here were some brief observations, given without specific attribution to any person:
----------------------------
Mayor's race:
Ad Lib: 're-prioritizing' the city budget was mentioned without any specifics.
Does the candidate understand that the City's 2008 budget will be adopted on 11/26, the day before a new mayor takes office?
Glib: current administrative experience: 2 direct reports and 30 'cats to herd'. [meaning diverse elected officials]
Fib: opponent's 'inexperience' caused misunderstanding of surprise announcement.
---------------------------
Ward 1 Council race: No competition, therefore no opportunity for fun!
--------------------------
Ward 3 Council race:
Ad Lib: a proposal to eliminate B&O tax.
Let's see that's only $12.250 million projected for 2007!
Glib: City capital facilities priority should be stormwater facilities to protect Lake Whatcom. [2% of watershed in City]
City already has stormwater funding, but technology won't remove phosphorus.
Preservation of natural vegetation works much better!
Fib: Lake Whatcom is not in top 3 priorities, because that topic is 'already being addressed'.
-----------------------------
Ward 4 Council race:
Ad Lib: Do no more harm, buy out WD 10 and raise $100 million
Glib: Just streamline permitting [times 2]
Fib: Simple Lake Whatcom rating system of 12 to 15 actions versus cleaning efficiency, then just pick those we want, like a loaf of bread!
---------------------------
Ward 5 Council race:
Ad Lib: Development already pays it's infrastruture costs, except Cordata
Partially accurate, but Cordata situation was mandated by agreement with County!
Glib: Single Family residential zoning; Planning Director is compelled to address
Only after sufficient evidence is gathered, which is the problem!
Fib: Denied not answering questionnaires!
Pretty easy to check, don't you think?
--------------------------
At Large Council race:
Ad Lib: Energized by the campaign!
Glib: Rattled off long list of endorsements
Fib: Voted for better Lake Whatcom program
--------------------------
That's it folks, just enough to count as a blog
But, understandably due to time limits, some lack of factual knowledge, some lack of candor, some of the answers provided by some of candidates were -being kind- unenlightening.
Without any pretense at completeness, here were some brief observations, given without specific attribution to any person:
----------------------------
Mayor's race:
Ad Lib: 're-prioritizing' the city budget was mentioned without any specifics.
Does the candidate understand that the City's 2008 budget will be adopted on 11/26, the day before a new mayor takes office?
Glib: current administrative experience: 2 direct reports and 30 'cats to herd'. [meaning diverse elected officials]
Fib: opponent's 'inexperience' caused misunderstanding of surprise announcement.
---------------------------
Ward 1 Council race: No competition, therefore no opportunity for fun!
--------------------------
Ward 3 Council race:
Ad Lib: a proposal to eliminate B&O tax.
Let's see that's only $12.250 million projected for 2007!
Glib: City capital facilities priority should be stormwater facilities to protect Lake Whatcom. [2% of watershed in City]
City already has stormwater funding, but technology won't remove phosphorus.
Preservation of natural vegetation works much better!
Fib: Lake Whatcom is not in top 3 priorities, because that topic is 'already being addressed'.
-----------------------------
Ward 4 Council race:
Ad Lib: Do no more harm, buy out WD 10 and raise $100 million
Glib: Just streamline permitting [times 2]
Fib: Simple Lake Whatcom rating system of 12 to 15 actions versus cleaning efficiency, then just pick those we want, like a loaf of bread!
---------------------------
Ward 5 Council race:
Ad Lib: Development already pays it's infrastruture costs, except Cordata
Partially accurate, but Cordata situation was mandated by agreement with County!
Glib: Single Family residential zoning; Planning Director is compelled to address
Only after sufficient evidence is gathered, which is the problem!
Fib: Denied not answering questionnaires!
Pretty easy to check, don't you think?
--------------------------
At Large Council race:
Ad Lib: Energized by the campaign!
Glib: Rattled off long list of endorsements
Fib: Voted for better Lake Whatcom program
--------------------------
That's it folks, just enough to count as a blog
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Lake Whatcom: Water District Fiefdom or Community Treasure?
Regulations for the Public Good
"So careful is the law [in England] against permitting a deterioration of the land, that though it will permit such improvement in the same line, as manuring arable lands, leading water into pasture lands, etc., yet it will not permit improvements in a different line, such as erecting buildings, converting pasture into arable, etc., lest this should lead to a deterioration.
Hence we might argue in Virginia, that though the cutting down of forest in Virginia is, in our husbandry, rather an improvement generally, yet it is not so always, and therefore it is safer never to admit it."
--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1792.
"The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility. It is to be drawn upon largely, and they will then listen to truths which could not excite them through any other organ."
--Thomas Jefferson to A. H. Rowan, 1798.
"Water is the most critical resource issue of our lifetime and our children's lifetime.
The health of our waters is the principle measure of how we live on the land."
- Luna Leopold
"Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation and social standing, never can bring about a reform."
-- Susan B. Anthony
"The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number of people within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction.
Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us to restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of those unborn generations"
- Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) - 26th President of the United States
------------------------------------
On August 15, 2000, Blair Ford, President of Water District 10 Commissioners sent the letter below to the Bellingham City Council, with copies to various others.
The reason for this communication was the impending passage of the City's Watershed Preservation & Acquisition Ordinance, which raised its funding from a water rate surcharge.
Designed to raise about $2 million per year, the surcharge was a substantial $5 per month for residential users, and scaled to other users.
Water Districts, as bulk users outside the City Limits, were already being charged an additional 50% for the privilege of using potable water from the City's treatment plant.
This is allowed and provided for by State Law as a means of compensating the City, as water purveyor. for its costs of building and operating its water treatment utility.
The 150% is actually a pretty reasonable rate.
At least one city charges 400%.
The City of Bellingham has an Interlocal Agreement with Water District 10 which outlines the terms under which water will be supplied.
But this Interlocal also covers sewage, and the City's commitment to take it for treatment at its Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant.
There are limits on the amounts mentioned in this Interlocal Agreement, which some believe are excessive.
The argument goes this way:
Why should the City enable sprawl in its Municipal Water Supply Watershed, by supplying the Water District with water and sewer services?
While considerable development already exists, it makes sense to continue to supply these services to that.
But, what about new development?
How much is enough?
I believe it is time to revisit our Interlocal Agreement with the Water District and come to grips with our present reality, not something that existed 30 or 40 years ago.
Water Districts are 'Special Purpose Districts' under State Law, and have duties and responsibilities that are defined.
They are governed by an elected Board of Commissioners, who hire a Manager to oversee operations.
Whatcom County Water District 10 has now changed its name to Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District, which probably fits better.
That is because its boundaries are the boundaries of the Lake Whatcom RESERVOIR Watershed.
Or, at least that was the way we understood the boundaries.
Now, this Water District seems to want to extend its services outside its boundaries!
Why, you might ask?
Well, because it thinks it can, that's why.
Also, that has been the traditional method by which this Water District pays its costs - by expanding its customer base.
What is wrong with that picture?
Maybe the RESERVOIR Watershed is not an appropriate place for unrestricted expansion?
Bingo!
That is the crux of our current dilemma.
The Water District wants to continue expanding its service indefinitely, regardless of what Whatcom County and the City of Bellingham are trying to do to protect our RESERVOIR.
Notice, I keep using the 'R' word, because the Water District remains in denial that it is a RESERVOIR!
Back to WD 10 modus operandi.
The District has a much more complicated distribution system than does the City.
Its maintenance problems are severe, and it shows.
For example, it operates [at last count] about 27 pumping stations, to the City's 4.
It's terrain is hilly and its service expansions tend to induce and feed daisy-chain sprawl, not limit it.
It has suffered periodic sewage overflows directly into Lake Whatcom
Its remedy was to seek State funding for a larger detention tank, and also a larger sewer line!
What was wrong with that picture?
A larger sewer line to feed more sprawl, so that eventually another bigger spill is sure to occur!
In short, the LWW&S District is a poster child for a high-cost, high-maintenance operation in an inappropriate palce, that is constantly seeking to expand to offset its costs by increased volume!
That appears to be more acceptable than just charging its customers the actual costs of its operations!
Since when was Lake Whatcom supposed to be an inexpensive place to live?
Who ought to decide such things?
Now, we have this renegade Water District seeking special dispensation from Whatcom County to extend its tenacles into an new area of proposed development.
An area outside of any recognized UGA.
An area being sought by speculators for 'cluster' development.
'Cluster' development for mega-homes?
I don't get it.
And I hope the County doesn't either!
If we are serious about protecting our drinking water RESERVOIR, we'd better get serious about better control of the LWW&S District.
They continue to work at cross purposes to the good efforts being exerted by both County and City.
That practice needs to end, and soon!
Read for yourself how arrogant this WD was, and continues to be:
------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amending Bellingham Municipal Code Section 15.08.250D Relating to Water Use Rates
Dear City Council Members:
Water District 10’s Board of Commissioners recently learned (through an August 1, 2000 Bellingham Herald article) about your proposed ordinance to increase City water rates to acquire land in the Lake Whatcom watershed. We reviewed and discussed this ordinance at our Regular Public Meeting on August 9, 2000. The following concerns are the results of our deliberations.
1. We believe the proposed unilateral action violates our contractual agreement as outlined in the Lake Whatcom Interlocal Agreement, and subsequent joint resolutions regarding inter-jurisdictional action within the scope of programs and plans. Resolutions regarding Lake Whatcom management necessitate regular communication, collaboration, coordination, and cooperation at all levels between the City, the County, and the District. The effectiveness and efficiency (i.e., the “success”) of the various Lake Whatcom management programs depends totally on our collective adherence to these four “C” principles. Albeit probably unintentional, your proposed ordinance violates the spirit and letter of the Lake Whatcom management interlocal agreements and resolutions. It also represents a total disregard of the aforementioned guiding principles. We are justifiably surprised, dismayed, and disheartened by your action. We suggest that you defer action on the ordinance for now and engage the County and Water District 10 in accordance with our Agreements.
2. Your “discretionary” rate increase will be our “obligatory” rate increase. Unless you specifically exempt us, any water rate increase that you impose will increase the District’s operating costs, since the District purchases water from the City under contract for redistribution within our own Geneva and North Shore (primarily Eagleridge) service areas. Your rate increases, depending on their size and our ability to absorb them, can, and usually do, precipitate consequential rate increases throughout the District. As water purveyors ourselves, we fully recognize and appreciate that operating costs routinely increase, and that we both need to unilaterally adjust rates accordingly to create revenues that will cover these costs. The types of rate increases you are considering do not qualify as non-discretionary, since they are within your abilities to control and/or contain them. The rate increase you propose now is purely discretionary. You do not “need” to do this. The legitimacy of imposing non-operating costs upon ratepayers outside areas of your legal jurisdiction is highly questionable. It smacks of “taxation without representation.” As such, we protest the proposed action.
3. District ratepayers are already paying a disproportionate share of City water treatment and distribution costs. Merely because the District’s service area lies outside the City limits, the City imposes, as allowed by state law, a 50% surcharge on all water sold to the District. Arguably then, we are already paying more for water treatment and distribution operating costs than is otherwise defensible based on the actual cost of service, particularly since the City does not maintain nor repair any of the District’s distribution system. We are therefore concerned that your “…proportionate amount for metered water users…” could/would include a 50% surcharge similar to that now imposed. Notwithstanding any other considerations, we object to any surcharge as patently unfair to not only District ratepayers, but to all external City water consumers.
4. District ratepayers are already paying a very significant share of Lake Whatcom watershed protection costs. District rate payers already have shouldered, are now shouldering, and will continue to shoulder, a disproportionate Lake Whatcom Watershed protection cost burden through (1) a Consent Decree settling a Clean Water Act lawsuit against the District, which involved payment of $220,000 to the Whatcom Land Trust for “…purchase and permanent protection of environmentally sensitive, undeveloped land in the Lake Whatcom watershed, as described in Appendix A to this Decree…”, (2) the repayment of the ~$500,000 Sudden Valley Sewage Detention Tank loan over the next 4 years, a burden carried by all District sewer ratepayers, and (3) the planned repayment through increased sewer rates of Lake Louise Road Sewer Interceptor pipe over-sizing (to contain inflow and infiltration generated by the Sudden Valley and Geneva sewage collection systems) costs. The proposed rate increase would inequitably increase the watershed protection cost burden of District ratepayers.
5. Given that the exclusive purpose of the proposed ordinance is to acquire land in the Lake Whatcom watershed, we do not believe that a water rate increase is an appropriate funding method. The proposed rate increase is in fact a special purpose “excise tax” to be levied against a select population within and outside the City to finance a course of action to be defined by the City alone. If such a tax is warranted, the County, not the City, would be the proper authority to impose such a tax.
6. Under the proposal, some watershed protection “beneficiaries” will not pay fairly, or not at all. Assuming for the moment, that all land acquisition actions under the proposed ordinance if passed, would produce tangible, measurable water quality protection benefits to all Lake water use categories. (e.g., drinking, irrigation, recreation, pisciculture, aesthetics) Then many of these “beneficiaries” would escape paying for it since they receive no City water bill (e.g., watershed residents drawing water directly from the Lake or wells, “out-of-towners” swimming at Bloedel Donovan Park). In this respect, the City should have pursued the action outlined in Section 3 of the proposed ordinance.
7. A specific property acquisition plan has not been discussed, nor have specific land acquisition policies, procedures, or associated details as to location within and/or outside of the City limits, how to acquire, and when to acquire. This is the first step. It should be integrated with other watershed protection options that might prove more feasible and or cost effective.*
8. The proposed ordinance would collect funds before the actual need is identified and the project scope is developed. Cueing from the above, government is typically cast in dim light when it collects funds before a need is verified and quantities are known. The funding needs should follow from the action plan. Accordingly, you should first figure what you want to do, where you want to do it, and how much it will cost.* Once you have this information catalogued, you can then determine how to collect the funds.
9. To the best of our knowledge, the City has not performed a cost/benefit analysis of the proposed program.* This should be an essential ingredient to your decision making. Without it, you are merely doing something that just “sounds” good or “feels” right.
10. *The Comprehensive Lake Whatcom Storm Water Plan, currently under development, should eventually answer all these questions and provide this information in context with other viable water quality protection alternatives. For this critical reason, we again recommend deferring all major watershed protection initiatives pending receipt of a Plan that presents the optimum watershed protection action package.
"So careful is the law [in England] against permitting a deterioration of the land, that though it will permit such improvement in the same line, as manuring arable lands, leading water into pasture lands, etc., yet it will not permit improvements in a different line, such as erecting buildings, converting pasture into arable, etc., lest this should lead to a deterioration.
Hence we might argue in Virginia, that though the cutting down of forest in Virginia is, in our husbandry, rather an improvement generally, yet it is not so always, and therefore it is safer never to admit it."
--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1792.
"The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility. It is to be drawn upon largely, and they will then listen to truths which could not excite them through any other organ."
--Thomas Jefferson to A. H. Rowan, 1798.
"Water is the most critical resource issue of our lifetime and our children's lifetime.
The health of our waters is the principle measure of how we live on the land."
- Luna Leopold
"Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation and social standing, never can bring about a reform."
-- Susan B. Anthony
"The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number of people within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction.
Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us to restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of those unborn generations"
- Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) - 26th President of the United States
------------------------------------
On August 15, 2000, Blair Ford, President of Water District 10 Commissioners sent the letter below to the Bellingham City Council, with copies to various others.
The reason for this communication was the impending passage of the City's Watershed Preservation & Acquisition Ordinance, which raised its funding from a water rate surcharge.
Designed to raise about $2 million per year, the surcharge was a substantial $5 per month for residential users, and scaled to other users.
Water Districts, as bulk users outside the City Limits, were already being charged an additional 50% for the privilege of using potable water from the City's treatment plant.
This is allowed and provided for by State Law as a means of compensating the City, as water purveyor. for its costs of building and operating its water treatment utility.
The 150% is actually a pretty reasonable rate.
At least one city charges 400%.
The City of Bellingham has an Interlocal Agreement with Water District 10 which outlines the terms under which water will be supplied.
But this Interlocal also covers sewage, and the City's commitment to take it for treatment at its Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant.
There are limits on the amounts mentioned in this Interlocal Agreement, which some believe are excessive.
The argument goes this way:
Why should the City enable sprawl in its Municipal Water Supply Watershed, by supplying the Water District with water and sewer services?
While considerable development already exists, it makes sense to continue to supply these services to that.
But, what about new development?
How much is enough?
I believe it is time to revisit our Interlocal Agreement with the Water District and come to grips with our present reality, not something that existed 30 or 40 years ago.
Water Districts are 'Special Purpose Districts' under State Law, and have duties and responsibilities that are defined.
They are governed by an elected Board of Commissioners, who hire a Manager to oversee operations.
Whatcom County Water District 10 has now changed its name to Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District, which probably fits better.
That is because its boundaries are the boundaries of the Lake Whatcom RESERVOIR Watershed.
Or, at least that was the way we understood the boundaries.
Now, this Water District seems to want to extend its services outside its boundaries!
Why, you might ask?
Well, because it thinks it can, that's why.
Also, that has been the traditional method by which this Water District pays its costs - by expanding its customer base.
What is wrong with that picture?
Maybe the RESERVOIR Watershed is not an appropriate place for unrestricted expansion?
Bingo!
That is the crux of our current dilemma.
The Water District wants to continue expanding its service indefinitely, regardless of what Whatcom County and the City of Bellingham are trying to do to protect our RESERVOIR.
Notice, I keep using the 'R' word, because the Water District remains in denial that it is a RESERVOIR!
Back to WD 10 modus operandi.
The District has a much more complicated distribution system than does the City.
Its maintenance problems are severe, and it shows.
For example, it operates [at last count] about 27 pumping stations, to the City's 4.
It's terrain is hilly and its service expansions tend to induce and feed daisy-chain sprawl, not limit it.
It has suffered periodic sewage overflows directly into Lake Whatcom
Its remedy was to seek State funding for a larger detention tank, and also a larger sewer line!
What was wrong with that picture?
A larger sewer line to feed more sprawl, so that eventually another bigger spill is sure to occur!
In short, the LWW&S District is a poster child for a high-cost, high-maintenance operation in an inappropriate palce, that is constantly seeking to expand to offset its costs by increased volume!
That appears to be more acceptable than just charging its customers the actual costs of its operations!
Since when was Lake Whatcom supposed to be an inexpensive place to live?
Who ought to decide such things?
Now, we have this renegade Water District seeking special dispensation from Whatcom County to extend its tenacles into an new area of proposed development.
An area outside of any recognized UGA.
An area being sought by speculators for 'cluster' development.
'Cluster' development for mega-homes?
I don't get it.
And I hope the County doesn't either!
If we are serious about protecting our drinking water RESERVOIR, we'd better get serious about better control of the LWW&S District.
They continue to work at cross purposes to the good efforts being exerted by both County and City.
That practice needs to end, and soon!
Read for yourself how arrogant this WD was, and continues to be:
------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amending Bellingham Municipal Code Section 15.08.250D Relating to Water Use Rates
Dear City Council Members:
Water District 10’s Board of Commissioners recently learned (through an August 1, 2000 Bellingham Herald article) about your proposed ordinance to increase City water rates to acquire land in the Lake Whatcom watershed. We reviewed and discussed this ordinance at our Regular Public Meeting on August 9, 2000. The following concerns are the results of our deliberations.
1. We believe the proposed unilateral action violates our contractual agreement as outlined in the Lake Whatcom Interlocal Agreement, and subsequent joint resolutions regarding inter-jurisdictional action within the scope of programs and plans. Resolutions regarding Lake Whatcom management necessitate regular communication, collaboration, coordination, and cooperation at all levels between the City, the County, and the District. The effectiveness and efficiency (i.e., the “success”) of the various Lake Whatcom management programs depends totally on our collective adherence to these four “C” principles. Albeit probably unintentional, your proposed ordinance violates the spirit and letter of the Lake Whatcom management interlocal agreements and resolutions. It also represents a total disregard of the aforementioned guiding principles. We are justifiably surprised, dismayed, and disheartened by your action. We suggest that you defer action on the ordinance for now and engage the County and Water District 10 in accordance with our Agreements.
2. Your “discretionary” rate increase will be our “obligatory” rate increase. Unless you specifically exempt us, any water rate increase that you impose will increase the District’s operating costs, since the District purchases water from the City under contract for redistribution within our own Geneva and North Shore (primarily Eagleridge) service areas. Your rate increases, depending on their size and our ability to absorb them, can, and usually do, precipitate consequential rate increases throughout the District. As water purveyors ourselves, we fully recognize and appreciate that operating costs routinely increase, and that we both need to unilaterally adjust rates accordingly to create revenues that will cover these costs. The types of rate increases you are considering do not qualify as non-discretionary, since they are within your abilities to control and/or contain them. The rate increase you propose now is purely discretionary. You do not “need” to do this. The legitimacy of imposing non-operating costs upon ratepayers outside areas of your legal jurisdiction is highly questionable. It smacks of “taxation without representation.” As such, we protest the proposed action.
3. District ratepayers are already paying a disproportionate share of City water treatment and distribution costs. Merely because the District’s service area lies outside the City limits, the City imposes, as allowed by state law, a 50% surcharge on all water sold to the District. Arguably then, we are already paying more for water treatment and distribution operating costs than is otherwise defensible based on the actual cost of service, particularly since the City does not maintain nor repair any of the District’s distribution system. We are therefore concerned that your “…proportionate amount for metered water users…” could/would include a 50% surcharge similar to that now imposed. Notwithstanding any other considerations, we object to any surcharge as patently unfair to not only District ratepayers, but to all external City water consumers.
4. District ratepayers are already paying a very significant share of Lake Whatcom watershed protection costs. District rate payers already have shouldered, are now shouldering, and will continue to shoulder, a disproportionate Lake Whatcom Watershed protection cost burden through (1) a Consent Decree settling a Clean Water Act lawsuit against the District, which involved payment of $220,000 to the Whatcom Land Trust for “…purchase and permanent protection of environmentally sensitive, undeveloped land in the Lake Whatcom watershed, as described in Appendix A to this Decree…”, (2) the repayment of the ~$500,000 Sudden Valley Sewage Detention Tank loan over the next 4 years, a burden carried by all District sewer ratepayers, and (3) the planned repayment through increased sewer rates of Lake Louise Road Sewer Interceptor pipe over-sizing (to contain inflow and infiltration generated by the Sudden Valley and Geneva sewage collection systems) costs. The proposed rate increase would inequitably increase the watershed protection cost burden of District ratepayers.
5. Given that the exclusive purpose of the proposed ordinance is to acquire land in the Lake Whatcom watershed, we do not believe that a water rate increase is an appropriate funding method. The proposed rate increase is in fact a special purpose “excise tax” to be levied against a select population within and outside the City to finance a course of action to be defined by the City alone. If such a tax is warranted, the County, not the City, would be the proper authority to impose such a tax.
6. Under the proposal, some watershed protection “beneficiaries” will not pay fairly, or not at all. Assuming for the moment, that all land acquisition actions under the proposed ordinance if passed, would produce tangible, measurable water quality protection benefits to all Lake water use categories. (e.g., drinking, irrigation, recreation, pisciculture, aesthetics) Then many of these “beneficiaries” would escape paying for it since they receive no City water bill (e.g., watershed residents drawing water directly from the Lake or wells, “out-of-towners” swimming at Bloedel Donovan Park). In this respect, the City should have pursued the action outlined in Section 3 of the proposed ordinance.
7. A specific property acquisition plan has not been discussed, nor have specific land acquisition policies, procedures, or associated details as to location within and/or outside of the City limits, how to acquire, and when to acquire. This is the first step. It should be integrated with other watershed protection options that might prove more feasible and or cost effective.*
8. The proposed ordinance would collect funds before the actual need is identified and the project scope is developed. Cueing from the above, government is typically cast in dim light when it collects funds before a need is verified and quantities are known. The funding needs should follow from the action plan. Accordingly, you should first figure what you want to do, where you want to do it, and how much it will cost.* Once you have this information catalogued, you can then determine how to collect the funds.
9. To the best of our knowledge, the City has not performed a cost/benefit analysis of the proposed program.* This should be an essential ingredient to your decision making. Without it, you are merely doing something that just “sounds” good or “feels” right.
10. *The Comprehensive Lake Whatcom Storm Water Plan, currently under development, should eventually answer all these questions and provide this information in context with other viable water quality protection alternatives. For this critical reason, we again recommend deferring all major watershed protection initiatives pending receipt of a Plan that presents the optimum watershed protection action package.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Turn! Turn! Turn!: (To Everything There Is a Season)
Today, October 1, was delightful.
A Monday, the beginning of a new week.
My wife and I had the trail all to ourselves and great, cool weather too.
We did what we did together the day we met.
We hiked.
About four hours worth, just enough to breathe deeply, stretch muscles and feel just tired enough to justify a good dinner at the Duck Brand Cantina & Hotel in Winthrop.
The' Duck' is a favorite place for a lot of people, for a lot of years.
Back to the hike.
Scenery was spectacular!
Mountains, some snow dusted and a few snow capped.
Trees, mostly conifers that were green, but a few golden larches were seen at a distance.
The deciduous trees were turning into the usual Fall colors, reds, yellows and many shades in between.
The sky was mostly blue, with passing cumulus clouds, and the leading edge of what seemed to be a major front struggling to climb the peaks on the horizon to the west.
A few birds and critters too.
But mostly silence, except for whispers of the wind in the foliage.
Just perfect!
For the most part we didn't talk much.
It was mainly a time for reflection.
Thinking back on all the miles we have come, both figuratively and literally.
And the adventures we've had!
What a varied bunch of experiences.
I took special note of the day, October 1.
That means that just over 75% of the year -2007- is already gone.
And, three months from this day, I will have completed my last term in public office.
Now, that was something that was never planned!
The opportunity presented itself, and I was ready for it and fortunate to have been selected.
I'm glad about serving these [almost] nine years, too.
It has been a real learning experience for me, as well as a chance to give back something to the community.
Our community is special, as all communities are in ways to people who live in them.
Community life is a microcosm of America, a part of the fabric of our nation.
One doesn't have to go to Washington, DC to contribute to this country.
Everything that matters is already right here, under our noses!
The turning of the seasons reminded me of that famous song of not so long ago.
My own seasons are turning, too.
At my age, I figure I've now pretty much completed Fall and am entering the Winter of my life.
Even with relatively good health and avoiding accidents, I may have only about 22 or 23 years left at most.
I want whatever years I have before me to continue being good ones.
Ones that are mainly pain-free, and that do not burden others, or financial resources un-necessarily.
I suspect most folks wish things like that, too.
I figure that with a little practice I can get better at being older.
Calm down, don't rush or fret as much.
Lower the blood pressure and the blood sugar.
Take care of my eyes, ears and teeth.
Eat healthier and keep my weight down.
Exercise more regularly, and stay active in things that count.
I know a few people who would say it's about time I grew up!
Been fighting that a long time.
Now's the time.
Kinda like Winston Churchill's famous line about the turning point in WW-II; he didn't know whether it was the beginning of the end, but thought it might be the end of the beginning.
I'm pretty sure that's the right way to think about such things!
-----------------------
From Wikipedia:
"Turn! Turn! Turn! (To Everything There Is a Season)", often abbreviated to "Turn! Turn! Turn!", is a song written and composed by Pete Seeger in the 1950s.
Seeger waited until 1962 to record it, releasing the song on his album The Bitter and The Sweet on Columbia Records.
The lyrics are taken almost verbatim from the King James version of the Bible (Ecclesiastes 3, verses 1–8).
The Biblical text posits there being a time and place for all things: laughter and sorrow, healing and killing, war and peace, and so on.
The lines are open to myriad interpretations, but as a song they are commonly performed as a plea for world peace, with stress on the closing line: "a time for peace, I swear it's not too late," the latter phrase being the only part of the lyric written by Seeger himself.
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time to be born, a time to die
A time to plant, a time to reap
A time to kill, a time to heal
A time to laugh, a time to weep
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time to build up, a time to break down
A time to dance, a time to mourn
A time to cast away stones
A time to gather stones together
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time of war, a time of peace
A time of love, a time of hate
A time you may embrace
A time to refrain from embracing
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time to gain, a time to lose
A time to rend, a time to sew
A time to love, a time to hate
A time of peace, I swear it's not too late!
A Monday, the beginning of a new week.
My wife and I had the trail all to ourselves and great, cool weather too.
We did what we did together the day we met.
We hiked.
About four hours worth, just enough to breathe deeply, stretch muscles and feel just tired enough to justify a good dinner at the Duck Brand Cantina & Hotel in Winthrop.
The' Duck' is a favorite place for a lot of people, for a lot of years.
Back to the hike.
Scenery was spectacular!
Mountains, some snow dusted and a few snow capped.
Trees, mostly conifers that were green, but a few golden larches were seen at a distance.
The deciduous trees were turning into the usual Fall colors, reds, yellows and many shades in between.
The sky was mostly blue, with passing cumulus clouds, and the leading edge of what seemed to be a major front struggling to climb the peaks on the horizon to the west.
A few birds and critters too.
But mostly silence, except for whispers of the wind in the foliage.
Just perfect!
For the most part we didn't talk much.
It was mainly a time for reflection.
Thinking back on all the miles we have come, both figuratively and literally.
And the adventures we've had!
What a varied bunch of experiences.
I took special note of the day, October 1.
That means that just over 75% of the year -2007- is already gone.
And, three months from this day, I will have completed my last term in public office.
Now, that was something that was never planned!
The opportunity presented itself, and I was ready for it and fortunate to have been selected.
I'm glad about serving these [almost] nine years, too.
It has been a real learning experience for me, as well as a chance to give back something to the community.
Our community is special, as all communities are in ways to people who live in them.
Community life is a microcosm of America, a part of the fabric of our nation.
One doesn't have to go to Washington, DC to contribute to this country.
Everything that matters is already right here, under our noses!
The turning of the seasons reminded me of that famous song of not so long ago.
My own seasons are turning, too.
At my age, I figure I've now pretty much completed Fall and am entering the Winter of my life.
Even with relatively good health and avoiding accidents, I may have only about 22 or 23 years left at most.
I want whatever years I have before me to continue being good ones.
Ones that are mainly pain-free, and that do not burden others, or financial resources un-necessarily.
I suspect most folks wish things like that, too.
I figure that with a little practice I can get better at being older.
Calm down, don't rush or fret as much.
Lower the blood pressure and the blood sugar.
Take care of my eyes, ears and teeth.
Eat healthier and keep my weight down.
Exercise more regularly, and stay active in things that count.
I know a few people who would say it's about time I grew up!
Been fighting that a long time.
Now's the time.
Kinda like Winston Churchill's famous line about the turning point in WW-II; he didn't know whether it was the beginning of the end, but thought it might be the end of the beginning.
I'm pretty sure that's the right way to think about such things!
-----------------------
From Wikipedia:
"Turn! Turn! Turn! (To Everything There Is a Season)", often abbreviated to "Turn! Turn! Turn!", is a song written and composed by Pete Seeger in the 1950s.
Seeger waited until 1962 to record it, releasing the song on his album The Bitter and The Sweet on Columbia Records.
The lyrics are taken almost verbatim from the King James version of the Bible (Ecclesiastes 3, verses 1–8).
The Biblical text posits there being a time and place for all things: laughter and sorrow, healing and killing, war and peace, and so on.
The lines are open to myriad interpretations, but as a song they are commonly performed as a plea for world peace, with stress on the closing line: "a time for peace, I swear it's not too late," the latter phrase being the only part of the lyric written by Seeger himself.
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time to be born, a time to die
A time to plant, a time to reap
A time to kill, a time to heal
A time to laugh, a time to weep
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time to build up, a time to break down
A time to dance, a time to mourn
A time to cast away stones
A time to gather stones together
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time of war, a time of peace
A time of love, a time of hate
A time you may embrace
A time to refrain from embracing
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time to gain, a time to lose
A time to rend, a time to sew
A time to love, a time to hate
A time of peace, I swear it's not too late!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
