I first heard something to the effect of this title years ago.
Now, its time to apply it to me.
Today was interesting, and different.
First, I slept off the effects of having not only my 3rd chiropractic treatment, but my first therapeutic massage.
Both treatments were directed toward resolving some muscle strain in my back.
And, both were not immediately successful as one might expect.
But, I did feel better this morning.
Now comes the hard part, living in such a way that unusual pain is prevented.
That will be harder to learn, but well worth the effort.
Today's events started with a Christmas lunch for about 40 City employees at the Fireplace Room at Muni Court.
$13 bought one a catered meal and 1.5 hours fellowship with people mostly accounted for as FTEs [Full-Time Equivalents]
A donated gift bought one the right to pick another gift under public scrutiny.
A really desirable gift got traded up to three times before becoming 'vested'.
I'm proud to say my donated gift got traded 3 times.
It was the one wrapped in a brown paper bag, then tin foil, then a brown cylindrical canister.
I'll let you guess what it was.
Like many others, it was a bottle of wine - from France.
It seemed like wine was the trendy gift, more so this time than in past memory.
And why not? It's a consumable, and it has the capacity to diminish ones present cares.
What characterizes us consumers more than that these days?
At the end, the group sang me a 'Happy Birthday', which it was.
Somebody must have tipped them off.
I prefer to think of this day as 'the 30th Anniversary of my 39th Birthday'.
Which it also was.
Later, the Library Board meeting featured a short report by it's consultants on the proposed new Library Specs.
That was interesting too, and demonstrated the same high degree of thoughtful deliberation that the Board, itself typifies.
In January 2008, a publc survey will be taken, which will guide the Board in its recommendations to the City Council.
With positive results in both venues, a public bond issue may be proposed for next May, for a new Library and branch enhancements.
Tonight, my bride and I celebrated with a Birthday dinner at a local eatery.
The food was excellent -and excessive- but what else would you expect?
We planned the next few months in outline form, which now demands some more detailed planning.
Then, the execution will focus more on the journey than the destination.
But, that represents a challenge for me, because I'm accustomed to focusing on the destination, or goal.
I hope I'm up to it.
But already I'm thinking of what comes tomorrow.
Take friends to the airport, then attend one more Council meeting.
After that, who knows?
Maybe, I'll think up another blog.
Then again, maybe I won't.
Hard to tell at my age, isn't it?
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
Modern Sports Scene: Rooting or Ranting ?
---------------------------------
For over six decades I have been an avid sports fan.
Often, I was also a participant although as an amateur with limited ability.
The competition, challenge, action and social aspects were all part of the enjoyment.
Later, watching others play became good entertainment, if not a temporary distraction from life's demands.
I can't begin to remember the number of games I've watched, at all levels, from Little League, to High School, to College, to the Olympics, and to the Pros.
All kinds of games and competitions, too. Not just the 'big three' of basketball, football & baseball.
But now, I'm really beginning to lose interest.
And its not just because I'm older, less able and can't find teams or opponents to fit.
It's because organized sports have become way too commercial and prone to cheating.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think so.
There are still millions of people who are willing to pay big bucks to watch sports events.
The masses do need their opiates, probably more now than earlier in time, when they had less leisure and more certainty.
A few of my beefs that have added up over the years include these:
Parents often like to live through their kids, sometimes pushing them too hard to succeed.
Have you ever witnessed a Dad or Mom who got so riled up that their kid didn't play, cuss out the coach?
Or worse, act like fools cheering or jeering?
High Schools have always been places that seem to overvalue athletes, like football heroes.
That was a certain way to become popular, particularly with the cheerleaders!
Some high schools actually began recruiting better athletes from other places, just to win.
It used to be that going to college mostly meant excelling academically, and struggling to pay for it.
Now, the definitions of 'learning' and 'profession' have been stretched to include pro sports careers.
The 'Big Man on Campus' athlete of yesteryear has come to mean 'big, strong person desiring quick riches by becoming a pro player'.
The Olympics used to be a truly Amateur event that brought the World together.
Now, it's a commercial bonanza that features professional athletes enjoying major advantages over amateurs.
And, the athletes actually shop for a country to represent - but I guess that's better than starting wars, or allowing the rich to dominate.
Finally, the Professional teams have become collections of highly talented, spoiled and rich Prima Donnas.
Best players are often so into their lives of astounding excess, brutality, performance-enhancing drugs and pursuit of personal stardom that they no longer seem real or human.
Their loyalty is to the owner that will pay them the most right now, not to their team or its fans.
In fact, I think the word 'fan' could now mostly be replaced by the word 'consumer', don't you?
You will probably begin to before long, as the major networks begin to cut back on the number of free games that are televised or broadcast.
Some of the stuff on TV now doesn't even deserve to be called sports, and I wonder who is really being entertained by it?
Maybe its time to reassess my sports habits?
You know, like become more of a participant again.
That means finding some things I like to do and still can do that are also healthy.
There's plenty of that material left to explore, so I'm gonna do it!
That will probably make my wife happier, and me too.
And, there's still free sports on BTV10!
---------------------------------
For over six decades I have been an avid sports fan.
Often, I was also a participant although as an amateur with limited ability.
The competition, challenge, action and social aspects were all part of the enjoyment.
Later, watching others play became good entertainment, if not a temporary distraction from life's demands.
I can't begin to remember the number of games I've watched, at all levels, from Little League, to High School, to College, to the Olympics, and to the Pros.
All kinds of games and competitions, too. Not just the 'big three' of basketball, football & baseball.
But now, I'm really beginning to lose interest.
And its not just because I'm older, less able and can't find teams or opponents to fit.
It's because organized sports have become way too commercial and prone to cheating.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think so.
There are still millions of people who are willing to pay big bucks to watch sports events.
The masses do need their opiates, probably more now than earlier in time, when they had less leisure and more certainty.
A few of my beefs that have added up over the years include these:
Parents often like to live through their kids, sometimes pushing them too hard to succeed.
Have you ever witnessed a Dad or Mom who got so riled up that their kid didn't play, cuss out the coach?
Or worse, act like fools cheering or jeering?
High Schools have always been places that seem to overvalue athletes, like football heroes.
That was a certain way to become popular, particularly with the cheerleaders!
Some high schools actually began recruiting better athletes from other places, just to win.
It used to be that going to college mostly meant excelling academically, and struggling to pay for it.
Now, the definitions of 'learning' and 'profession' have been stretched to include pro sports careers.
The 'Big Man on Campus' athlete of yesteryear has come to mean 'big, strong person desiring quick riches by becoming a pro player'.
The Olympics used to be a truly Amateur event that brought the World together.
Now, it's a commercial bonanza that features professional athletes enjoying major advantages over amateurs.
And, the athletes actually shop for a country to represent - but I guess that's better than starting wars, or allowing the rich to dominate.
Finally, the Professional teams have become collections of highly talented, spoiled and rich Prima Donnas.
Best players are often so into their lives of astounding excess, brutality, performance-enhancing drugs and pursuit of personal stardom that they no longer seem real or human.
Their loyalty is to the owner that will pay them the most right now, not to their team or its fans.
In fact, I think the word 'fan' could now mostly be replaced by the word 'consumer', don't you?
You will probably begin to before long, as the major networks begin to cut back on the number of free games that are televised or broadcast.
Some of the stuff on TV now doesn't even deserve to be called sports, and I wonder who is really being entertained by it?
Maybe its time to reassess my sports habits?
You know, like become more of a participant again.
That means finding some things I like to do and still can do that are also healthy.
There's plenty of that material left to explore, so I'm gonna do it!
That will probably make my wife happier, and me too.
And, there's still free sports on BTV10!
---------------------------------
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Growth Management Act: A Refresher & Rant with Local Footnotes
----------------------------
"Perfection of means and confusion of ends seem to characterize our age." - Einstein
"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).
----------------------------
One last rant on this subject may be in order:
An overview of the Growth Management Act is provided from [www.cted.wa.gov/growth], with excerpts as shown below:
In 1990 the Legislature found that “uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a lack of common goals… pose a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state.
It is in the public interest that citizens, communities, local governments, and the private sector cooperate and coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use planning.” (RCW 36.70A.010)
This is the foundation for the Growth Management Act (GMA).
-------------------
The GMA requires all cities and counties in the state to:
• Designate and protect wetlands, frequently flooded areas and other critical areas.
• Designate farm lands, forest lands, and other natural resource areas.
• Determine that new residential subdivisions have appropriate provisions for public services and facilities.
In addition, 29 'Fully Planning' counties and the 218 cities within them are to plan for growth based on certain requirements. These jurisdictions represent the fastest-growing counties and the cities within them, as well as other counties, plus the cities inside their boundaries that chose to plan under the GMA.
Here are the basic steps that local governments 'fully planning' under the GMA are to follow:
• Agree on county-wide planning policies to guide regional issues, for example, public facilities and affordable housing.
NOTE: The Bellingham City Council did NOT agree with Whatcom County's planning policy, and took exception especially to the Land Use Section, because the language essentially says the County can do whatever it wants, wherever it wants, whenever it wants. That is not planning! Read it for yourself.
• Plan for urban growth within the urban growth areas that are adopted by each county, based on forecasts provided by the
State Office of Financial Management (OFM).
• Adopt comprehensive plans with chapters that fit together.
• Identify lands useful for public purposes and essential public facilities, such as airports, educational facilities, and utility and transportation corridors.
-------------------
GMA plans and regulations are to be guided by 14 goals that are summarized below:
• Focus urban growth in urban areas. NOTE: This is why Bellingham agreed to try and accommodate 51.4% of the projected growth adopted!
• Reduce sprawl. NOTE: This is what will happen if Bellingham does not receive sufficient new UGA Land Supply OR CHANGES THAT MAKE THE EXISTING UGA MORE CERTAINLY ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE MORE DENSITY THAN THEY DO NOW!
• Provide efficient transportation.
• Encourage affordable housing.
• Encourage sustainable economic development. NOTE: By not having B&O Taxes apply to land outside Bellingham, the County is contributing to sprawl that does not pay its way, while enjoying income out of proportion to the services it provides.
• Protect property rights.
• Process permits in a timely and fair manner.
• Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries.
• Retain open space and habitat areas and develop recreation opportunities. NOTE: The City adopted a Parks, Recreation & Open Space Element in its Comp Plan for the first time. Additionally, Parks Impact Fees have been adopted as well as the Greenways 3 Levy passed by voters to provide funding.
• Protect the environment. NOTE: Clean-up & redevelopment of the Waterfront Industrial area and associated Waterways and old landfills is being vigorously pursued.
• Encourage citizen participation and regional coordination.
• Ensure adequate public facilities and services.
• Preserve important historic resources.
• Manage shorelines wisely.
-------------------
The comprehensive plans are to provide for 20 years of growth and development needs based on forecasts of OFM [Office of Financial Management].
They can be amended once a year. State agencies are required to comply with local comprehensive plans. -------------------
Local comprehensive plans are to include the REQUIRED chapters below:
• Land Use
• Utilities
• Housing
• Transportation
• Capital Facilities
• Rural (for counties only)
• Shorelines
NOTE: An optional chapter on Parks, Recreation & Open Space has also been adopted by the City of Bellingham.
Additionally, there is work proceeding to develop Strategic Guidelines to help the City plan for Economic Development.
-------------------
Plans must be put in action by development regulations, for example, for zoning and concurrency.
When plans and regulations are developed, they are submitted to CTED for review. However, the department does not certify the plans or approve the regulations. Plans are PRESUMED VALID upon adoption UNLESS a growth management hearings board finds they are not in compliance with the GMA.
Cities and counties 'fully planning' under the GMA are to review their comprehensive plans and ordinances at least every seven years to see if their plans and regulations comply with the GMA. The deadline to complete this requirement varies from county to county. The earliest deadline for some counties and cities is December 1, 2004.
NOTE: Comp Plan Updates for Bellingham & Whatcom County were initially due December 1, 2004, but successive extensions have been granted. Bellingham adopted its Comp Plan in 2006. Whatcom County remains out of compliance, and expects legal challenges may further delay adoption of its Comp Plan.
-------------------
Buildable Lands
Six counties, and cities and towns within their boundaries, are to establish a review and evaluation program commonly referred to as the Buildable Lands Program. The counties are King, Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsap, Thurston, and Clark.
NOTE: Whatcom County & the City of Bellingham are not on this list of 'fully planning' entities, although the County is seeking to have the City do the additional monitoring required to meet this requirement. It is unclear whether the County will do this, or where the funds for doing it will come from in either County or City
=====================
The GMA Goals are not ranked in any order, with one goal having more importance over others. When local governments develop their plans and regulations, they determine how the goals will be carried out.
However, the Comp Plans adopted by County & City must be consistent with each other, as well as within themselves.
That means every part of this planning tool is linked to every other part, as has to be true if it is to work as expected.
This is a tall order! And, it doesn't seem to be working very well here in Whatcom County, does it?
Who is at fault is a question that needs to be investigated, then remedied!
=================
For example:
Whatcom County adopted a 20-year population projection slightly above the OFM estimate, or about 61,480 new people.
Bellingham agreed to plan to accommodate a percentage -greater than half- of this projected growth over the 20-year period beginning in 2002.
So, mathematically, that can be stated: B%/100 X 61,480 = B
If B1% is 51.4, then B1 = 31,601 [This is a known difficult task, since Bellingham only accounts for about 40% of the County's population, and recent trends have shown more people are building homes in rural areas than in urban ones]
So, if B2% is set at say 40, then B2 is 24,592 [7009 fewer people than B1]
That 7009 people might not sound like much, but it is more than enough than needed to make more UGA land not needed!
And, that's what all the 'debate' is about over at the County!
Also, since that number is the one Bellingham used to develop internal consistency in its Comp Plan, do you think just changing it might also change other assumptions as well?
But since Bellingham has already completed its work, and withstood a legal challenge subsequently, its Comp Plan is considered OK without other changes being necessary. We're OK with what we have now, don't have the time, staff or inclination to debate further with the County.
In the lengthy PUBLIC process -yes it was very public- it took to develop the City's Comp Plan, and hold up its end of the initial agreement with the County, the City used all the data, historical trends and experience it could muster to arrive at its estimate of additional Land Supply needs.
Of course, there still remains considerable uncertainty in this estimate, due to the very nature of the exercise.
To reasonably cover this uncertainty, a modest 'Safety Factor' was applied and adopted, which amounts to 17%.
That is a number too low for the Growth Management Boards to even consider for review.
Yet, some want to deny it entirely, in the name of limiting sprawl!
Go ahead, make my day.
Reduce the City's Safety factor to zero, or some other number that sounds about right.
Then let us know what that number is so we can reduce the City's estimate of how many new people it can reasonably accommodate to fit into its existing City Limits and County-owned UGA.
That's easy.
Too easy!
It also discounts the good work done in good faith, and substitutes instead a process that is based upon ignorance and arrogance.
The GMA analysis process is inherently imprecise, but it does arrive at reasonable ballpark estimates, providing intellectual honesty is valued and used.
But, you know, it would be so much easier if the City could use a lower population estimate!
Oh please Santa, bring us one.
So why not just do it and get it over with?
In the end, the growth will just go to more rural areas anyway, where the land is cheaper, the rules are weaker, and the County gets to keep the revenue generated to continue financing sprawl of the worse sort - rural.
Hey, if that's what the County wants, that's what it will get.
It's County-wide planning policies already fully support doing what it wants, where it wants, when it wants.
Only next time, just tell the City not to worry about it, because its outside the City's control anyway -its the County's!
What was that GMA Goal #11?
Encourage citizen participation and regional coordination?
Do you think the City and County are 'fully planning' under the GM?
Are either of these things happening?
I don't think so.
But that's just my opinion.
=================
" I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think its hell." -- Harry Truman
"You can't teach what you don't know, and you can't lead where you won't go" - Jesse Jackson
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome -Einstein
I'm the lamest lame duck there could be. -George C. Wallace
-------------------
"Perfection of means and confusion of ends seem to characterize our age." - Einstein
"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).
----------------------------
One last rant on this subject may be in order:
An overview of the Growth Management Act is provided from [www.cted.wa.gov/growth], with excerpts as shown below:
In 1990 the Legislature found that “uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a lack of common goals… pose a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state.
It is in the public interest that citizens, communities, local governments, and the private sector cooperate and coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use planning.” (RCW 36.70A.010)
This is the foundation for the Growth Management Act (GMA).
-------------------
The GMA requires all cities and counties in the state to:
• Designate and protect wetlands, frequently flooded areas and other critical areas.
• Designate farm lands, forest lands, and other natural resource areas.
• Determine that new residential subdivisions have appropriate provisions for public services and facilities.
In addition, 29 'Fully Planning' counties and the 218 cities within them are to plan for growth based on certain requirements. These jurisdictions represent the fastest-growing counties and the cities within them, as well as other counties, plus the cities inside their boundaries that chose to plan under the GMA.
Here are the basic steps that local governments 'fully planning' under the GMA are to follow:
• Agree on county-wide planning policies to guide regional issues, for example, public facilities and affordable housing.
NOTE: The Bellingham City Council did NOT agree with Whatcom County's planning policy, and took exception especially to the Land Use Section, because the language essentially says the County can do whatever it wants, wherever it wants, whenever it wants. That is not planning! Read it for yourself.
• Plan for urban growth within the urban growth areas that are adopted by each county, based on forecasts provided by the
State Office of Financial Management (OFM).
• Adopt comprehensive plans with chapters that fit together.
• Identify lands useful for public purposes and essential public facilities, such as airports, educational facilities, and utility and transportation corridors.
-------------------
GMA plans and regulations are to be guided by 14 goals that are summarized below:
• Focus urban growth in urban areas. NOTE: This is why Bellingham agreed to try and accommodate 51.4% of the projected growth adopted!
• Reduce sprawl. NOTE: This is what will happen if Bellingham does not receive sufficient new UGA Land Supply OR CHANGES THAT MAKE THE EXISTING UGA MORE CERTAINLY ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE MORE DENSITY THAN THEY DO NOW!
• Provide efficient transportation.
• Encourage affordable housing.
• Encourage sustainable economic development. NOTE: By not having B&O Taxes apply to land outside Bellingham, the County is contributing to sprawl that does not pay its way, while enjoying income out of proportion to the services it provides.
• Protect property rights.
• Process permits in a timely and fair manner.
• Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries.
• Retain open space and habitat areas and develop recreation opportunities. NOTE: The City adopted a Parks, Recreation & Open Space Element in its Comp Plan for the first time. Additionally, Parks Impact Fees have been adopted as well as the Greenways 3 Levy passed by voters to provide funding.
• Protect the environment. NOTE: Clean-up & redevelopment of the Waterfront Industrial area and associated Waterways and old landfills is being vigorously pursued.
• Encourage citizen participation and regional coordination.
• Ensure adequate public facilities and services.
• Preserve important historic resources.
• Manage shorelines wisely.
-------------------
The comprehensive plans are to provide for 20 years of growth and development needs based on forecasts of OFM [Office of Financial Management].
They can be amended once a year. State agencies are required to comply with local comprehensive plans. -------------------
Local comprehensive plans are to include the REQUIRED chapters below:
• Land Use
• Utilities
• Housing
• Transportation
• Capital Facilities
• Rural (for counties only)
• Shorelines
NOTE: An optional chapter on Parks, Recreation & Open Space has also been adopted by the City of Bellingham.
Additionally, there is work proceeding to develop Strategic Guidelines to help the City plan for Economic Development.
-------------------
Plans must be put in action by development regulations, for example, for zoning and concurrency.
When plans and regulations are developed, they are submitted to CTED for review. However, the department does not certify the plans or approve the regulations. Plans are PRESUMED VALID upon adoption UNLESS a growth management hearings board finds they are not in compliance with the GMA.
Cities and counties 'fully planning' under the GMA are to review their comprehensive plans and ordinances at least every seven years to see if their plans and regulations comply with the GMA. The deadline to complete this requirement varies from county to county. The earliest deadline for some counties and cities is December 1, 2004.
NOTE: Comp Plan Updates for Bellingham & Whatcom County were initially due December 1, 2004, but successive extensions have been granted. Bellingham adopted its Comp Plan in 2006. Whatcom County remains out of compliance, and expects legal challenges may further delay adoption of its Comp Plan.
-------------------
Buildable Lands
Six counties, and cities and towns within their boundaries, are to establish a review and evaluation program commonly referred to as the Buildable Lands Program. The counties are King, Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsap, Thurston, and Clark.
NOTE: Whatcom County & the City of Bellingham are not on this list of 'fully planning' entities, although the County is seeking to have the City do the additional monitoring required to meet this requirement. It is unclear whether the County will do this, or where the funds for doing it will come from in either County or City
=====================
The GMA Goals are not ranked in any order, with one goal having more importance over others. When local governments develop their plans and regulations, they determine how the goals will be carried out.
However, the Comp Plans adopted by County & City must be consistent with each other, as well as within themselves.
That means every part of this planning tool is linked to every other part, as has to be true if it is to work as expected.
This is a tall order! And, it doesn't seem to be working very well here in Whatcom County, does it?
Who is at fault is a question that needs to be investigated, then remedied!
=================
For example:
Whatcom County adopted a 20-year population projection slightly above the OFM estimate, or about 61,480 new people.
Bellingham agreed to plan to accommodate a percentage -greater than half- of this projected growth over the 20-year period beginning in 2002.
So, mathematically, that can be stated: B%/100 X 61,480 = B
If B1% is 51.4, then B1 = 31,601 [This is a known difficult task, since Bellingham only accounts for about 40% of the County's population, and recent trends have shown more people are building homes in rural areas than in urban ones]
So, if B2% is set at say 40, then B2 is 24,592 [7009 fewer people than B1]
That 7009 people might not sound like much, but it is more than enough than needed to make more UGA land not needed!
And, that's what all the 'debate' is about over at the County!
Also, since that number is the one Bellingham used to develop internal consistency in its Comp Plan, do you think just changing it might also change other assumptions as well?
But since Bellingham has already completed its work, and withstood a legal challenge subsequently, its Comp Plan is considered OK without other changes being necessary. We're OK with what we have now, don't have the time, staff or inclination to debate further with the County.
In the lengthy PUBLIC process -yes it was very public- it took to develop the City's Comp Plan, and hold up its end of the initial agreement with the County, the City used all the data, historical trends and experience it could muster to arrive at its estimate of additional Land Supply needs.
Of course, there still remains considerable uncertainty in this estimate, due to the very nature of the exercise.
To reasonably cover this uncertainty, a modest 'Safety Factor' was applied and adopted, which amounts to 17%.
That is a number too low for the Growth Management Boards to even consider for review.
Yet, some want to deny it entirely, in the name of limiting sprawl!
Go ahead, make my day.
Reduce the City's Safety factor to zero, or some other number that sounds about right.
Then let us know what that number is so we can reduce the City's estimate of how many new people it can reasonably accommodate to fit into its existing City Limits and County-owned UGA.
That's easy.
Too easy!
It also discounts the good work done in good faith, and substitutes instead a process that is based upon ignorance and arrogance.
The GMA analysis process is inherently imprecise, but it does arrive at reasonable ballpark estimates, providing intellectual honesty is valued and used.
But, you know, it would be so much easier if the City could use a lower population estimate!
Oh please Santa, bring us one.
So why not just do it and get it over with?
In the end, the growth will just go to more rural areas anyway, where the land is cheaper, the rules are weaker, and the County gets to keep the revenue generated to continue financing sprawl of the worse sort - rural.
Hey, if that's what the County wants, that's what it will get.
It's County-wide planning policies already fully support doing what it wants, where it wants, when it wants.
Only next time, just tell the City not to worry about it, because its outside the City's control anyway -its the County's!
What was that GMA Goal #11?
Encourage citizen participation and regional coordination?
Do you think the City and County are 'fully planning' under the GM?
Are either of these things happening?
I don't think so.
But that's just my opinion.
=================
" I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think its hell." -- Harry Truman
"You can't teach what you don't know, and you can't lead where you won't go" - Jesse Jackson
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome -Einstein
I'm the lamest lame duck there could be. -George C. Wallace
-------------------
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Olympic Pipe Line Disaster: Reflections
At the last City Council meeting -literally the last one for Bob Ryan & me- Bob recalled the actions the 1999 Council took in the aftermath of the Olympic Pipe Line catastrophe on June 10, 1999.
That recollection touched a cord in my memory.
How indelibly that date has come to represent the dark time that was to become one of Bellingham's finest hours!
And, how grateful we can be that the tragic deaths of three young men -boys really- meant enough to the people of our community that meaningful changes in our National Pipeline Safety laws were actually enacted as a result!
It is truly sad that we seem to need something tragic like this to happen before corrective regulatory changes are made.
But, we can be thankful that those changes were made, because they now benefit everyone living in this country.
Bob Ryan's remark caused me to reflect upon what the actions were that the City Council unanimously agreed were so important. And, that we had such a gut-level commitment to righting that horrendous wrong, not eventually glossing over it - which would have been so much easier and far less costly.
There were 5 or 6 general courses of action we -the Council- agreed to pursue, and to the best of my recollection these included the following:
• We would enforce the expired Franchise Agreement and not allow Olympic to cross City property to replace the ruptured pipeline without restitution and a stronger Agreement.
• We would seek outside Legal Counsel to represent the City's interests.
• We would seek outside Pipeline Consultant(s) to represent the City's interests. One to help us understand industry lingo and management practices, and another to advise us on corrosion and its detection, mitigation and prevention.
• We would seek to have Olympic redesign their pipeline system to incorporate Process Safety Management features, such as those required in the Petroleum Refining Industry.
• We would enlist the aid and support of our elected Federal & State Representatives in our cause to adequately address what went wrong and how to prevent it from happening again -anywhere.
That is the gist of what had been written on the back of an envelope during a briefing by our Mayor, Mark Asmundson.
After each point was mentioned, the entire Council voiced its strong support, making it very clear to the Mayor the seriousness of our intent.
To Mayor Mark's credit, he took that scribbled-upon envelope and pursued every item with great vigor and determination.
And, what an effort it was!
The Olympic Pipe Line Company resisted strongly, until that eventually became untenable, so great was the pressure for rectifying the problems uncovered.
Ultimately, after 18 months of being shut down, a reconstituted Olympic was able to restart its operations and begin again to ship great quantities of aviation gasoline, diesel fuel and other refined petroleum products to the south; but, this time with much greater safety.
That effort was worth it!
I think it safe to say that the Olympic issue pretty well dominated what the City of Bellingham did for the rest of 1999 and most of 2000.
And, the citizens were terrific throughout this time!
So were our elected Federal & State officials who actually changed our Pipeline Safety regulations!
The Herald did its best work ever, by accurately recording every aspect of what happened, why it happened, what was being done to insure it would never happen again!
But, lest we forget, the 3 youths did have their lives cut tragically short, leaving a lingering sadness to this day for their families, and for those who remember what happened.
It was for them the effort happened, because it was the least we could have done.
6/10/99 will remain forever as Bellingham's 9/11.
May it never be repeated.
That recollection touched a cord in my memory.
How indelibly that date has come to represent the dark time that was to become one of Bellingham's finest hours!
And, how grateful we can be that the tragic deaths of three young men -boys really- meant enough to the people of our community that meaningful changes in our National Pipeline Safety laws were actually enacted as a result!
It is truly sad that we seem to need something tragic like this to happen before corrective regulatory changes are made.
But, we can be thankful that those changes were made, because they now benefit everyone living in this country.
Bob Ryan's remark caused me to reflect upon what the actions were that the City Council unanimously agreed were so important. And, that we had such a gut-level commitment to righting that horrendous wrong, not eventually glossing over it - which would have been so much easier and far less costly.
There were 5 or 6 general courses of action we -the Council- agreed to pursue, and to the best of my recollection these included the following:
• We would enforce the expired Franchise Agreement and not allow Olympic to cross City property to replace the ruptured pipeline without restitution and a stronger Agreement.
• We would seek outside Legal Counsel to represent the City's interests.
• We would seek outside Pipeline Consultant(s) to represent the City's interests. One to help us understand industry lingo and management practices, and another to advise us on corrosion and its detection, mitigation and prevention.
• We would seek to have Olympic redesign their pipeline system to incorporate Process Safety Management features, such as those required in the Petroleum Refining Industry.
• We would enlist the aid and support of our elected Federal & State Representatives in our cause to adequately address what went wrong and how to prevent it from happening again -anywhere.
That is the gist of what had been written on the back of an envelope during a briefing by our Mayor, Mark Asmundson.
After each point was mentioned, the entire Council voiced its strong support, making it very clear to the Mayor the seriousness of our intent.
To Mayor Mark's credit, he took that scribbled-upon envelope and pursued every item with great vigor and determination.
And, what an effort it was!
The Olympic Pipe Line Company resisted strongly, until that eventually became untenable, so great was the pressure for rectifying the problems uncovered.
Ultimately, after 18 months of being shut down, a reconstituted Olympic was able to restart its operations and begin again to ship great quantities of aviation gasoline, diesel fuel and other refined petroleum products to the south; but, this time with much greater safety.
That effort was worth it!
I think it safe to say that the Olympic issue pretty well dominated what the City of Bellingham did for the rest of 1999 and most of 2000.
And, the citizens were terrific throughout this time!
So were our elected Federal & State officials who actually changed our Pipeline Safety regulations!
The Herald did its best work ever, by accurately recording every aspect of what happened, why it happened, what was being done to insure it would never happen again!
But, lest we forget, the 3 youths did have their lives cut tragically short, leaving a lingering sadness to this day for their families, and for those who remember what happened.
It was for them the effort happened, because it was the least we could have done.
6/10/99 will remain forever as Bellingham's 9/11.
May it never be repeated.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Something's Gotta Give
============================
'Something's Gotta Give'
This popular song with Lyrics by Johnny Mercer, was sung by Fred Astaire, The McGuire Sisters, Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Sammy Davis Jr, Leann Rimes, et al:
Most people have probably heard this song and liked it, as I have.
Because it was written by Johnny Mercer, who was born in 1909 in Savannah, GA, the same year my mother as born, and because my Mom and her 4 sisters lived in Savannah some years after that, I feel a special connection with it.
More important, the title is directly applicable to issues we are facing here in Bellingham and Whatcom County.
[See below for the lyrics]
============================
'Constraints, Restraints & Complaints' could have been the title for this blog, but that would not have been as descriptive.
When one talks about 'Growth Management Act Goals', 'Land Supply', 'Height Limits' and related topics, the title takes on new meaning.
As everyone should know, Cinderella's Slipper did not begin to fit her ugly step-sister!
And so it is with the Land supply debate regarding our Comp Plan Update.
The County's response to the City's request regarding additional land supply requirements for its UGA seem to resemble 'trying to put a Square Peg in a Round Hole'
It just doesn't fit!
============================
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, the following:
Irresistible force paradox
The Irresistible force paradox is a classic paradox formulated as follows:
What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?
Common responses to this paradox resort to logic and semantics.
• Logic: if such a thing as an irresistible force exists, then no object is immovable, and vice versa. It is logically impossible to have these two entities (a force that cannot be resisted and an object that cannot be moved by any force) in the same universe.
• Semantics: if there is such a thing as an irresistible force, then the phrase immovable object is meaningless in that context, and vice versa, and the issue amounts to the same thing as asking, e.g., for a triangle that has four sides.
This paradox is a form of the omnipotence paradox, but that paradox is most often discussed in the context of God's omnipotence (Can God create a stone so heavy it cannot be lifted?).
The paradox should be understood as an exercise in logic, not as the postulation of a possible reality. According to modern scientific understanding, there are not and indeed cannot be either irresistible forces or immovable objects. An immovable object would have to have infinite inertia and therefore infinite mass. Such an object would collapse under its own gravity and create a singularity. An irresistible force would imply an infinite energy, which by Albert Einstein's equation E = mc? is equivalent to an infinite mass. Because the force is of infinite energy, as it moves through space, it will be "converted into" or "create" matter of infinite mass spontaneously. The result is essentially another immovable object which collapses and creates a singularity. Ultimately, the paradox will lead to two singularities or black holes colliding and resulting into one singularity or black hole.
Note that, in the modern view, a cannonball which cannot be deflected and a wall which cannot be knocked down are both types of the same (impossible) object: an object with infinite inertia.
============================
Degrees of Freedom
Statisticians use the terms "degrees of freedom" to describe the number of values in the final calculation of a statistic that are free to vary.
The number of degrees of freedom in a problem, distribution, etc., is the number of parameters which may be independently varied.
Degrees of freedom is a general term used in explaining dependence on parameters, and implying the possibility of counting the number of those parameters. In mathematical terms, the degrees of freedom are the dimensions of a phase space.
In terms of statistical mechanics, the entropy describes the number of the possible microscopic configurations of the system. The statistical definition of entropy is the more fundamental definition, from which all other definitions and all properties of entropy follow. Although the concept of entropy was originally a thermodynamic construct, it has been adapted in other fields of study, including information theory, psychodynamics, thermoeconomics, and evolution.
'Fugacity' is a measure of chemical potential in the form of 'adjusted pressure.' It directly relates to the tendency of a substance to prefer one phase (liquid, solid, gas) over another. At a fixed temperature and pressure, water will have a different fugacity for each phase.
As well as predicting the preferred phase of a single substance, fugacity is also useful for multi-component equilibrium involving any combination of solid, liquid and gas equilibria. It is useful as an engineering tool for predicting the final phase and reaction state of multi-component mixtures at various temperatures and pressures without doing the actual lab test.
Fugacity is not a physical property of a substance; rather it is a calculated property which is intrinsically related to chemical potential. When a system approaches the ideal gaseous state (very low pressure), chemical potential approaches negative infinity, which for the purposes of mathematical modeling is undesirable. Under the same conditions, fugacity approaches zero and the fugacity coefficient (defined below) approaches 1. Thus, fugacity is much easier to manipulate mathematically.
============================
Had enough scientific theory & analogy?
OK, time for plain talk.
Sometimes, too many restrictions can be applied to a situation, with the result of eliminating any response.
I think that may have already happened in the so-called 'land supply debate'.
There are a number of variables, including available land acreage, existing zoning, density anticipated, minimum density actually required, height of buildings allowed, timely availability of water & sewer utilities, time required for rezoning existing neighborhoods, time required for remediation & rezoning of industrial property, percentage of land considered unbuildable for wetland & critical areas reasons, land restricted for development due to transportation concurrency issues, costs of development, willingness of land owners to develop, consumer demand, and the like, which together operate to regulate what development can occur in any given area.
The debate that is presently occurring seems to ignore some or all of these factors, which exist despite our ignorance of them.
This 'debate' seems to be nothing more than pitting a list of pronouncements based upon wishes, against an estimate of needs based upon history.
That is a classic definition of 'talking past each other', or non-communication.
It is sad that the former has dominion over the latter, but that is the way is is - in law and in fact.
The result is not very likely to be satisfactory in terms of results.
Unfortunately, these results will not be known until a few years hence, at which time whoever inherits them will be hard pressed to mitigate them.
Temporally, it is not too late to rectify this situation, but realistically it is.
That is the pity of Winston Churchill's famous quote: "No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism."
Good luck, Whatcom County.
You will certainly need it.
============================
'Something's Gotta Give'
Lyrics by Johnny Mercer
Artists: Fred Astaire, The McGuire Sisters, Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Sammy Davis Jr, Leann Rimes, et al:
When an irresistible force such as you
Meets an old immovable object like me
You can bet just as sure as you live
Somethin's gotta give
Somethin's gotta give
Somethin's gotta give
When an irrepressible smile such as yours
Warms an old implacable heart such as mine
Don't say no, because I insist
Somewhere, somehow, someone's gotta be kissed
So, en garde, who knows what the fates might have in store?
>From their vast mysterious sky?
I'll try hard ignorin' those lips that I adore
But how long can anyone try?
Fight, fight, fight, fight, fight it with all of our might
Chances are some heavenly star-spangled night
We'll find out just as sure as we live
Somethin's gotta give
Somethin's gotta give
Somethin's gotta give
Fight fight fight it with all of your might
Chances are that some heavenly star-spangled night
We'll find out just as sure as we live
Somethin's gotta give
Somethin's gotta give
Somethin's gotta give
Somethin's gotta give
Somethin's gotta give
SPOKEN: Aww, let's tear it up!
'Something's Gotta Give'
This popular song with Lyrics by Johnny Mercer, was sung by Fred Astaire, The McGuire Sisters, Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Sammy Davis Jr, Leann Rimes, et al:
Most people have probably heard this song and liked it, as I have.
Because it was written by Johnny Mercer, who was born in 1909 in Savannah, GA, the same year my mother as born, and because my Mom and her 4 sisters lived in Savannah some years after that, I feel a special connection with it.
More important, the title is directly applicable to issues we are facing here in Bellingham and Whatcom County.
[See below for the lyrics]
============================
'Constraints, Restraints & Complaints' could have been the title for this blog, but that would not have been as descriptive.
When one talks about 'Growth Management Act Goals', 'Land Supply', 'Height Limits' and related topics, the title takes on new meaning.
As everyone should know, Cinderella's Slipper did not begin to fit her ugly step-sister!
And so it is with the Land supply debate regarding our Comp Plan Update.
The County's response to the City's request regarding additional land supply requirements for its UGA seem to resemble 'trying to put a Square Peg in a Round Hole'
It just doesn't fit!
============================
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, the following:
Irresistible force paradox
The Irresistible force paradox is a classic paradox formulated as follows:
What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?
Common responses to this paradox resort to logic and semantics.
• Logic: if such a thing as an irresistible force exists, then no object is immovable, and vice versa. It is logically impossible to have these two entities (a force that cannot be resisted and an object that cannot be moved by any force) in the same universe.
• Semantics: if there is such a thing as an irresistible force, then the phrase immovable object is meaningless in that context, and vice versa, and the issue amounts to the same thing as asking, e.g., for a triangle that has four sides.
This paradox is a form of the omnipotence paradox, but that paradox is most often discussed in the context of God's omnipotence (Can God create a stone so heavy it cannot be lifted?).
The paradox should be understood as an exercise in logic, not as the postulation of a possible reality. According to modern scientific understanding, there are not and indeed cannot be either irresistible forces or immovable objects. An immovable object would have to have infinite inertia and therefore infinite mass. Such an object would collapse under its own gravity and create a singularity. An irresistible force would imply an infinite energy, which by Albert Einstein's equation E = mc? is equivalent to an infinite mass. Because the force is of infinite energy, as it moves through space, it will be "converted into" or "create" matter of infinite mass spontaneously. The result is essentially another immovable object which collapses and creates a singularity. Ultimately, the paradox will lead to two singularities or black holes colliding and resulting into one singularity or black hole.
Note that, in the modern view, a cannonball which cannot be deflected and a wall which cannot be knocked down are both types of the same (impossible) object: an object with infinite inertia.
============================
Degrees of Freedom
Statisticians use the terms "degrees of freedom" to describe the number of values in the final calculation of a statistic that are free to vary.
The number of degrees of freedom in a problem, distribution, etc., is the number of parameters which may be independently varied.
Degrees of freedom is a general term used in explaining dependence on parameters, and implying the possibility of counting the number of those parameters. In mathematical terms, the degrees of freedom are the dimensions of a phase space.
In terms of statistical mechanics, the entropy describes the number of the possible microscopic configurations of the system. The statistical definition of entropy is the more fundamental definition, from which all other definitions and all properties of entropy follow. Although the concept of entropy was originally a thermodynamic construct, it has been adapted in other fields of study, including information theory, psychodynamics, thermoeconomics, and evolution.
'Fugacity' is a measure of chemical potential in the form of 'adjusted pressure.' It directly relates to the tendency of a substance to prefer one phase (liquid, solid, gas) over another. At a fixed temperature and pressure, water will have a different fugacity for each phase.
As well as predicting the preferred phase of a single substance, fugacity is also useful for multi-component equilibrium involving any combination of solid, liquid and gas equilibria. It is useful as an engineering tool for predicting the final phase and reaction state of multi-component mixtures at various temperatures and pressures without doing the actual lab test.
Fugacity is not a physical property of a substance; rather it is a calculated property which is intrinsically related to chemical potential. When a system approaches the ideal gaseous state (very low pressure), chemical potential approaches negative infinity, which for the purposes of mathematical modeling is undesirable. Under the same conditions, fugacity approaches zero and the fugacity coefficient (defined below) approaches 1. Thus, fugacity is much easier to manipulate mathematically.
============================
Had enough scientific theory & analogy?
OK, time for plain talk.
Sometimes, too many restrictions can be applied to a situation, with the result of eliminating any response.
I think that may have already happened in the so-called 'land supply debate'.
There are a number of variables, including available land acreage, existing zoning, density anticipated, minimum density actually required, height of buildings allowed, timely availability of water & sewer utilities, time required for rezoning existing neighborhoods, time required for remediation & rezoning of industrial property, percentage of land considered unbuildable for wetland & critical areas reasons, land restricted for development due to transportation concurrency issues, costs of development, willingness of land owners to develop, consumer demand, and the like, which together operate to regulate what development can occur in any given area.
The debate that is presently occurring seems to ignore some or all of these factors, which exist despite our ignorance of them.
This 'debate' seems to be nothing more than pitting a list of pronouncements based upon wishes, against an estimate of needs based upon history.
That is a classic definition of 'talking past each other', or non-communication.
It is sad that the former has dominion over the latter, but that is the way is is - in law and in fact.
The result is not very likely to be satisfactory in terms of results.
Unfortunately, these results will not be known until a few years hence, at which time whoever inherits them will be hard pressed to mitigate them.
Temporally, it is not too late to rectify this situation, but realistically it is.
That is the pity of Winston Churchill's famous quote: "No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism."
Good luck, Whatcom County.
You will certainly need it.
============================
'Something's Gotta Give'
Lyrics by Johnny Mercer
Artists: Fred Astaire, The McGuire Sisters, Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Sammy Davis Jr, Leann Rimes, et al:
When an irresistible force such as you
Meets an old immovable object like me
You can bet just as sure as you live
Somethin's gotta give
Somethin's gotta give
Somethin's gotta give
When an irrepressible smile such as yours
Warms an old implacable heart such as mine
Don't say no, because I insist
Somewhere, somehow, someone's gotta be kissed
So, en garde, who knows what the fates might have in store?
>From their vast mysterious sky?
I'll try hard ignorin' those lips that I adore
But how long can anyone try?
Fight, fight, fight, fight, fight it with all of our might
Chances are some heavenly star-spangled night
We'll find out just as sure as we live
Somethin's gotta give
Somethin's gotta give
Somethin's gotta give
Fight fight fight it with all of your might
Chances are that some heavenly star-spangled night
We'll find out just as sure as we live
Somethin's gotta give
Somethin's gotta give
Somethin's gotta give
Somethin's gotta give
Somethin's gotta give
SPOKEN: Aww, let's tear it up!
Monday, December 10, 2007
Farewell Comments & More on District Voting
================================
'I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past'
- Thomas Jefferson
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
================================
Tonight marked the last City County meeting I will attend as an elected member, barring any unforeseen catastrophes between now and New Years.
It has been my pleasure to have served this community for nine years, and to have been honored as I was tonight.
Many thanks are due to my fellow Council Members and the great City staff who have been my colleagues during this time.
Thanks to you, I believe our community is in better shape than it was back in 1999 when I first got involved.
And, the prognosis is very good looking forward, too.
We have three new Council Members who are pretty well up to speed on the main issues and ready for the new challenges facing them.
We have a new Mayor, who has a steep learning curve, but the right combination of training, attitude and communications skills to see the City through at least the next four years.
While we still have some key positions to fill for the Finance Director, Human Resources Director and Mayor's Chief Administrator, we do have the Department Heads and staff on hand to efficiently and effectively carry out the business that citizens of Bellingham expect and deserve.
In short, I think we have a lot to be grateful and thankful for.
So farewell City government, but not farewell Bellingham!
I'll still be around, watching and commenting from time to time.
But, this time as an ordinary citizen, again.
================================
Sometimes, I don't agree with the positions taken by other Council members, either City or County.
But I do agree with BARBARA BRENNER's Guest Editorial today in THE BELLINGHAM HERALD, and have reprinted it below:
"Voters deserve chance to reconsider voting process
Next November voters will decide if they want to return to electing all County Council members in the general election. The primary election would remain the same, requiring the top two primary candidates from their respective districts to be forwarded to the general election. The districts would still be represented. Why should voters reconsider general election district-only voting they approved two years ago? Unintended consequences happened because of district-only voting. Voters will determine if these unintended consequences rise to a level of necessary change.
What are these unintended consequences? District-only voting reduced the need/desire of the council majority to listen to all residents. Every council decision is by council majority but voters can no longer vote for the majority, causing some council members to tune them out. There is a new joke among some council members - "I don’t care, it’s not in my district." I was told, “Butt out Brenner, it’s not in your district” regarding an issue affecting all residents but not in my geographic district. Voters who supported district-only voting two years ago in order to have more representation are actually losing more council attention and support since it passed.
Opponents’ claim the council is overturning the voters’ will. The council isn’t overturning anything. The voters will decide based on this new information.
Opponents say district-only voting is important so the Bellingham liberal majority doesn’t control the county. But all voters, including Bellingham voted two years ago. If opponents were correct about what their district-only measure would do and if they were correct about Bellingham, why did it pass?
Opponents claim the ballot proposal violates the US Constitution and the Voter Rights Act. According to constitutional and civil rights attorneys it does not. Federal laws touted by opponents deal with protecting racial and ethnic minorities. Until two years ago this ballot proposal was the law for over twenty years.
Opponents claim the council didn’t let the district-only voting scheme run for a voting cycle before bringing it back to voters for reconsideration. But we just did have a voting cycle using district-only voting.
The lone council member who supports district-only voting said he probably wouldn’t have won without it in the last election. But he did win twice before in county-wide general elections. Council members have to work harder in county-wide elections, but maybe that’s a good thing. We now have a local voters’ pamphlet to give voters information regarding all candidates. It saves candidates money and ensures a more informed electorate.
The local voters’ pamphlet, which didn’t exist two years ago, will guarantee voters have pros and cons of this proposed charter amendment ballot measure. There were many charter amendment ballot measures two years ago, including the district-only one that eliminated the voters’ rights to elect the council majority. There was no local voters’ pamphlet nor comprehensive debate on any of them. The council considered a measure that passed which changed the county budgeting process from annual to biannual. It sounded great. I supported it. Turns out the council and the public now have less opportunity to scrutinize the budget. I don’t support it any more. I will work to change it. New information can change voters’ minds.
The County Council is the most local legislative body for all county residents, inside and outside of cities, regarding many critical issues including public health. We are only seven members with no more than four running at any one time. Most council decisions affect all Whatcom County residents. District-only voting promotes the council majority ignoring many voters’ concerns.
Check out congress sometime-many federal legislators care only about earmarks (pork barrel) for their own districts. It’s gridlock! Most federal legislators have e-mail blockers that only accept e-mail from their own districts. But congress and the state legislature are huge. It would be impractical for us to vote for all of them. Congress and state government aren’t local. Whatcom County is very local!
No democratic voting process can substitute for knowing the hearts of candidates. Some processes just may have less unintended consequences than others. Whether you decide for or against this ballot proposal, vote it up or down on its merits only."
Barbara Brenner is a Whatcom County Councilwoman. She was re-elected this year from District 3.
================================
Politics is a profession; a serious, complicated and, in its true sense, a noble one. - Dwight D. Eisenhower
“Government is a trust, and the officers of the government are trustees; and both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people.”
-Henry Clay
================================
'I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past'
- Thomas Jefferson
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
================================
Tonight marked the last City County meeting I will attend as an elected member, barring any unforeseen catastrophes between now and New Years.
It has been my pleasure to have served this community for nine years, and to have been honored as I was tonight.
Many thanks are due to my fellow Council Members and the great City staff who have been my colleagues during this time.
Thanks to you, I believe our community is in better shape than it was back in 1999 when I first got involved.
And, the prognosis is very good looking forward, too.
We have three new Council Members who are pretty well up to speed on the main issues and ready for the new challenges facing them.
We have a new Mayor, who has a steep learning curve, but the right combination of training, attitude and communications skills to see the City through at least the next four years.
While we still have some key positions to fill for the Finance Director, Human Resources Director and Mayor's Chief Administrator, we do have the Department Heads and staff on hand to efficiently and effectively carry out the business that citizens of Bellingham expect and deserve.
In short, I think we have a lot to be grateful and thankful for.
So farewell City government, but not farewell Bellingham!
I'll still be around, watching and commenting from time to time.
But, this time as an ordinary citizen, again.
================================
Sometimes, I don't agree with the positions taken by other Council members, either City or County.
But I do agree with BARBARA BRENNER's Guest Editorial today in THE BELLINGHAM HERALD, and have reprinted it below:
"Voters deserve chance to reconsider voting process
Next November voters will decide if they want to return to electing all County Council members in the general election. The primary election would remain the same, requiring the top two primary candidates from their respective districts to be forwarded to the general election. The districts would still be represented. Why should voters reconsider general election district-only voting they approved two years ago? Unintended consequences happened because of district-only voting. Voters will determine if these unintended consequences rise to a level of necessary change.
What are these unintended consequences? District-only voting reduced the need/desire of the council majority to listen to all residents. Every council decision is by council majority but voters can no longer vote for the majority, causing some council members to tune them out. There is a new joke among some council members - "I don’t care, it’s not in my district." I was told, “Butt out Brenner, it’s not in your district” regarding an issue affecting all residents but not in my geographic district. Voters who supported district-only voting two years ago in order to have more representation are actually losing more council attention and support since it passed.
Opponents’ claim the council is overturning the voters’ will. The council isn’t overturning anything. The voters will decide based on this new information.
Opponents say district-only voting is important so the Bellingham liberal majority doesn’t control the county. But all voters, including Bellingham voted two years ago. If opponents were correct about what their district-only measure would do and if they were correct about Bellingham, why did it pass?
Opponents claim the ballot proposal violates the US Constitution and the Voter Rights Act. According to constitutional and civil rights attorneys it does not. Federal laws touted by opponents deal with protecting racial and ethnic minorities. Until two years ago this ballot proposal was the law for over twenty years.
Opponents claim the council didn’t let the district-only voting scheme run for a voting cycle before bringing it back to voters for reconsideration. But we just did have a voting cycle using district-only voting.
The lone council member who supports district-only voting said he probably wouldn’t have won without it in the last election. But he did win twice before in county-wide general elections. Council members have to work harder in county-wide elections, but maybe that’s a good thing. We now have a local voters’ pamphlet to give voters information regarding all candidates. It saves candidates money and ensures a more informed electorate.
The local voters’ pamphlet, which didn’t exist two years ago, will guarantee voters have pros and cons of this proposed charter amendment ballot measure. There were many charter amendment ballot measures two years ago, including the district-only one that eliminated the voters’ rights to elect the council majority. There was no local voters’ pamphlet nor comprehensive debate on any of them. The council considered a measure that passed which changed the county budgeting process from annual to biannual. It sounded great. I supported it. Turns out the council and the public now have less opportunity to scrutinize the budget. I don’t support it any more. I will work to change it. New information can change voters’ minds.
The County Council is the most local legislative body for all county residents, inside and outside of cities, regarding many critical issues including public health. We are only seven members with no more than four running at any one time. Most council decisions affect all Whatcom County residents. District-only voting promotes the council majority ignoring many voters’ concerns.
Check out congress sometime-many federal legislators care only about earmarks (pork barrel) for their own districts. It’s gridlock! Most federal legislators have e-mail blockers that only accept e-mail from their own districts. But congress and the state legislature are huge. It would be impractical for us to vote for all of them. Congress and state government aren’t local. Whatcom County is very local!
No democratic voting process can substitute for knowing the hearts of candidates. Some processes just may have less unintended consequences than others. Whether you decide for or against this ballot proposal, vote it up or down on its merits only."
Barbara Brenner is a Whatcom County Councilwoman. She was re-elected this year from District 3.
================================
Politics is a profession; a serious, complicated and, in its true sense, a noble one. - Dwight D. Eisenhower
“Government is a trust, and the officers of the government are trustees; and both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people.”
-Henry Clay
================================
Sunday, December 9, 2007
On Taxes in the State of Washington
----------------------
"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
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan
----------------------
I can't think of any issue as controversial as taxes, yet they are essential to provide the essential services & desirable amenities that citizens need & want.
The main points of contention seem to resolve around what constitutes 'level of service' and who pays and how much.
There is often a big disconect between the various levels of government and the taxpayer, meaning some major hardships exist that are difficult to understand enough to correct them.
Taxes are one of those 'third rail' subjects in which rational discussion is difficult because strong emotions are evoked.
Yet, we have to find a way to have that discussion if we are to ever make the tax system fairer, while retaining the level of service we need and expect.
----------------------------
There are only two criteria that need to be satisfied when collecting revenues for so-called 'Enterprise Funds' like our Water & Sewer Utilities, and similar operations:
1) Rates & fees for such funds are expected to raise all the money needed to operate them.
2) These monies are to be collected as fairly & equitably as possible.
That's it.
Pretty simple, isn't it?
The collection of Enterprise Funds the City of Bellingham has adds up to far more than our General Fund, which is the primary source of wages & benefits for most City employees.
Revenues for the General Fund come from a variety of sources, including B&O tax; Utility tax; Sales tax; Property tax; Other taxes, including grants & interest from invested funds; Miscellaneous Charges; and Interfund Transfers which go to pay for the proportion of administrative support needed for various departments.
In concept, balancing the General Fund is similar to balancing Enterprise Funds, but in practice it is far more difficult.
That is because there are almost as many diverse and fluctuating sources of revenue as there are uses for it.
By law, the City's budget must be balanced each year, but there are many ways to achieve that.
Some of the ways are to raise taxes, shift funds from lower priorities, obtain grants from outside sources, and reduce services and staff.
But, all of this must be done under rules and regulations mandated by the Federal & State governments.
Sometimes that ain't easy!
Especially, during times of major change - either growth or recession.
Here are some thumbnail info-excerpts from the Internet to explain our situation, and why it is particularly problematic in the State of Washington:
----------------------
'Taxation in the United States is a complex system which may involve payment to at least four different levels of government and many methods of taxation. United States taxation includes local government, possibly including one or more of municipal, township, district and county governments. It also includes regional entities such as school and utility, and transit districts as well as including state and federal government.'
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States]
----------------------
'The US states that do not levy a state income tax are Alaska, Tennessee, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas,[20] Washington state, and Wyoming.'
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax#The_Four_.22R.22s]
----------------------
'The state of Washington has the most regressive tax structure in the U.S.
It is one of only seven states that does not levy a personal income tax.
The wealthiest one percent of Washington taxpayers pay 3.2% of their income in taxes.
The poorest fifth of Washington taxpayers pay 17.6% of their income in taxes.
The state also does not collect a corporate income tax.
However, Washington businesses are responsible for various other state levies.
Washington's state sales tax is 6.5 percent, and it applies to services as well as products.
Most foods are exempt from sales tax; however, prepared foods, dietary supplements and soft drinks remain taxable.
The combined state and local retail sales tax rates increase the taxes paid by consumers, depending on the variable local sales tax rates, generally between 8 and 9 percent.
An excise tax applies to certain select products such as gasoline, cigarettes, and alcoholic beverages.
Property tax was the first tax levied in the state of Washington and its collection accounts for about 30 percent of Washington's total state and local revenue.
It continues to be the most important revenue source for public schools, fire protection, libraries, parks and recreation, and other special purpose districts.
All real property and personal property is subject to tax unless specifically exempted by law.
Personal property also is taxed, although most personal property owned by individuals is exempt.
Personal property tax applies to personal property used when conducting business or to other personal property not exempt by law.
All property taxes are paid to the county treasurer's office where the property is located.
Washington does not impose a tax on intangible assets such as bank accounts, stocks or bonds.
Neither does the state assess any tax on retirement income earned and received from another state.
Washington does not collect inheritance taxes; however, the estate tax is decoupled from the federal estate tax laws, and therefore the state imposes its own estate tax.'
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington]
----------------------
"William H. Gates, Sr., the father of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, came to a different conclusion in a 2003 study of tax schemes California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, arguing that property taxes were regressive by one to three percent (depending on the state), between the lowest and highest income brackets."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax]
NOTE: Mr Gates served on a Commission that was convened to analyze taxes in the State of Washington and make recommendations for changes that would them more like the 'Enterprise Funds' described above.
That means a tax system that is more stable and fair than what exists now.
One of the key recommendations was to institute a State Income Tax, not as an additional tax, but as a replacement to other taxes that were considered less fair.
To date, our State Legislature has lacked the courage to effectively address this issue, so divisive has it become.
That is to our detriment, but only if citizens really do want a tax system that is fairer than the one we have.
The terms 'progressive', 'regressive' and 'proportional' are used to describe the way taxes are generally applied and affect people.
Like many subjects, this one gets pretty complicated, pretty quick!
----------------------
".....the origin of modern 'progressive' taxation to Adam Smith, who wrote in The Wealth of Nations:
The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax]
----------------------
List of taxes and fees imposed by federal, state or local laws.
Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
Capital gains tax
Corporate income tax
Estate tax in the United States
Excise tax (includes taxes on cigarettes and alcoholic beverages)
Federal income tax
Federal unemployment tax (FUTA)
FICA tax (includes Social Security tax and related programs)
Gasoline tax
Generation Skipping Tax
Gift tax
IRS penalties
Local income tax
Luxury taxes
Property tax
Real estate tax
Recreational vehicle tax
Road usage taxes (Truckers)
Sales tax and equivalent use tax
School tax
State income tax
State unemployment tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Vehicle sales tax
Workers compensation tax
----------------------------
"The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination." - Ronald Reagan
"Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." - Ronald Reagan
"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program." - Ronald Reagan
----------------------------
"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
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan
----------------------
I can't think of any issue as controversial as taxes, yet they are essential to provide the essential services & desirable amenities that citizens need & want.
The main points of contention seem to resolve around what constitutes 'level of service' and who pays and how much.
There is often a big disconect between the various levels of government and the taxpayer, meaning some major hardships exist that are difficult to understand enough to correct them.
Taxes are one of those 'third rail' subjects in which rational discussion is difficult because strong emotions are evoked.
Yet, we have to find a way to have that discussion if we are to ever make the tax system fairer, while retaining the level of service we need and expect.
----------------------------
There are only two criteria that need to be satisfied when collecting revenues for so-called 'Enterprise Funds' like our Water & Sewer Utilities, and similar operations:
1) Rates & fees for such funds are expected to raise all the money needed to operate them.
2) These monies are to be collected as fairly & equitably as possible.
That's it.
Pretty simple, isn't it?
The collection of Enterprise Funds the City of Bellingham has adds up to far more than our General Fund, which is the primary source of wages & benefits for most City employees.
Revenues for the General Fund come from a variety of sources, including B&O tax; Utility tax; Sales tax; Property tax; Other taxes, including grants & interest from invested funds; Miscellaneous Charges; and Interfund Transfers which go to pay for the proportion of administrative support needed for various departments.
In concept, balancing the General Fund is similar to balancing Enterprise Funds, but in practice it is far more difficult.
That is because there are almost as many diverse and fluctuating sources of revenue as there are uses for it.
By law, the City's budget must be balanced each year, but there are many ways to achieve that.
Some of the ways are to raise taxes, shift funds from lower priorities, obtain grants from outside sources, and reduce services and staff.
But, all of this must be done under rules and regulations mandated by the Federal & State governments.
Sometimes that ain't easy!
Especially, during times of major change - either growth or recession.
Here are some thumbnail info-excerpts from the Internet to explain our situation, and why it is particularly problematic in the State of Washington:
----------------------
'Taxation in the United States is a complex system which may involve payment to at least four different levels of government and many methods of taxation. United States taxation includes local government, possibly including one or more of municipal, township, district and county governments. It also includes regional entities such as school and utility, and transit districts as well as including state and federal government.'
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States]
----------------------
'The US states that do not levy a state income tax are Alaska, Tennessee, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas,[20] Washington state, and Wyoming.'
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax#The_Four_.22R.22s]
----------------------
'The state of Washington has the most regressive tax structure in the U.S.
It is one of only seven states that does not levy a personal income tax.
The wealthiest one percent of Washington taxpayers pay 3.2% of their income in taxes.
The poorest fifth of Washington taxpayers pay 17.6% of their income in taxes.
The state also does not collect a corporate income tax.
However, Washington businesses are responsible for various other state levies.
Washington's state sales tax is 6.5 percent, and it applies to services as well as products.
Most foods are exempt from sales tax; however, prepared foods, dietary supplements and soft drinks remain taxable.
The combined state and local retail sales tax rates increase the taxes paid by consumers, depending on the variable local sales tax rates, generally between 8 and 9 percent.
An excise tax applies to certain select products such as gasoline, cigarettes, and alcoholic beverages.
Property tax was the first tax levied in the state of Washington and its collection accounts for about 30 percent of Washington's total state and local revenue.
It continues to be the most important revenue source for public schools, fire protection, libraries, parks and recreation, and other special purpose districts.
All real property and personal property is subject to tax unless specifically exempted by law.
Personal property also is taxed, although most personal property owned by individuals is exempt.
Personal property tax applies to personal property used when conducting business or to other personal property not exempt by law.
All property taxes are paid to the county treasurer's office where the property is located.
Washington does not impose a tax on intangible assets such as bank accounts, stocks or bonds.
Neither does the state assess any tax on retirement income earned and received from another state.
Washington does not collect inheritance taxes; however, the estate tax is decoupled from the federal estate tax laws, and therefore the state imposes its own estate tax.'
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington]
----------------------
"William H. Gates, Sr., the father of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, came to a different conclusion in a 2003 study of tax schemes California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, arguing that property taxes were regressive by one to three percent (depending on the state), between the lowest and highest income brackets."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax]
NOTE: Mr Gates served on a Commission that was convened to analyze taxes in the State of Washington and make recommendations for changes that would them more like the 'Enterprise Funds' described above.
That means a tax system that is more stable and fair than what exists now.
One of the key recommendations was to institute a State Income Tax, not as an additional tax, but as a replacement to other taxes that were considered less fair.
To date, our State Legislature has lacked the courage to effectively address this issue, so divisive has it become.
That is to our detriment, but only if citizens really do want a tax system that is fairer than the one we have.
The terms 'progressive', 'regressive' and 'proportional' are used to describe the way taxes are generally applied and affect people.
Like many subjects, this one gets pretty complicated, pretty quick!
----------------------
".....the origin of modern 'progressive' taxation to Adam Smith, who wrote in The Wealth of Nations:
The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax]
----------------------
List of taxes and fees imposed by federal, state or local laws.
Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
Capital gains tax
Corporate income tax
Estate tax in the United States
Excise tax (includes taxes on cigarettes and alcoholic beverages)
Federal income tax
Federal unemployment tax (FUTA)
FICA tax (includes Social Security tax and related programs)
Gasoline tax
Generation Skipping Tax
Gift tax
IRS penalties
Local income tax
Luxury taxes
Property tax
Real estate tax
Recreational vehicle tax
Road usage taxes (Truckers)
Sales tax and equivalent use tax
School tax
State income tax
State unemployment tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Vehicle sales tax
Workers compensation tax
----------------------------
"The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination." - Ronald Reagan
"Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." - Ronald Reagan
"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program." - Ronald Reagan
----------------------------
Saturday, December 8, 2007
District Only Voting: Constituencies & Voting Systems
---------------------
"If the nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson
Politics is a profession; a serious, complicated and, in its true sense, a noble one. - Dwight D. Eisenhower
--------------------
Wouldn't you know that simple ideas like constituencies and voting systems really aren't simple?
There is an amazing amount of stuff written on these subjects available by surfing the Internet.
Here's a few phrases that may illustrate this point, plus some of my thoughts at the end:
===============
'The most common meaning of 'constituency' occurs in politics and means either the group of people from whom an individual or organization hopes to attract support, or the group of people or geographical area that a particular elected representative or group of elected representatives represents.'
=================
"In the United States, electoral constituencies for the federal House of Representatives are known as congressional districts (of which there are presently 435; the number can be increased so long as it does not exceed the constitutional limit of one per 30,000 citizens), while the constituencies for the variously named state legislatures go by a variety of names (and have differing numbers).
Long standing practice, reinforced and modified by several U.S. Supreme Court decisions, require the equalization of populations of constituencies after each decennial census, a process known as redistricting.
When driven by partisan bodies, this process opens up the possibility of gerrymandering for political or factional advantage.
Gerrymandering cannot be used to the disadvantage of any specific racial group (e.g., placing a predominantly African-American community in several districts to dilute the vote would be unconstitutional), but is perfectly legal to dilute the voting strength of the opposing party.
A Pennsylvania legislator long active in redistricting issues, State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said that "In election years, constituents choose their legislative officials. In redistricting years, legislative officials usually try to choose their future constituents."
===============
'The state of Louisiana uses Runoff voting for all House and Senate seats. All candidates (regardless of party affiliation) run on a single ballot in the general election in what is referred to as an "open primary" (thus, all Democrat candidates compete against all Republican candidates and whoever else may be running). If a candidate receives a majority of the vote, he or she is automatically elected. Otherwise, the top two finishers (again, regardless of party affiliation) go to a Runoff election, held approximately a month later, with the winner in the Runoff earning the seat. It is possible for both candidates to be from the same party, but in practice a Runoff usually features one Democrat and one Republican.
==============
'One possible reason straight-ticket voting has declined among the general electorate in past years is the power of incumbency has risen. Also, there are very few places where there still is a one-party rule.
.... local parties tend to run very weak party identifiers for something such as mayor or town council. So at local levels like this, candidates must actually fight for their votes for local office.'
====================
Bellingham used to have Ward-only voting, but that practice was changed to the system in place today.
Now, representatives from each of the 6 Wards must live in that Ward, but are elected in the General Election, by Citywide vote because they are supposed to represent the entire City - which is a municipal corporation.
If more than 2 candidates seek any seat, they must reduce that number to 2 by a Primary Election that is voted on only by people living in that Ward.
This practice makes sure that Ward representatives know their Wards, but also pass the test of being the representative of the entire populace.
That seems to be the best of both worlds to me.
--------------
I think its good for candidates to have to run hard for their seats, because that's how voters get to know them and where they stand on the issues- and vice versa!
Most of those issues are either city-wide or have some city-wide applicability, so as many voters as possible need to meet and question candidates so intelligent decisions are more likely to be made.
If candidates start out knowing they must be accountable, they will likely remember that once they are in office.
I didn't use to think that way, because I didn't know much based on actual experience.
Also, because I was first appointed to office, that gave me instant incumbency when I did run for election.
Partly because of my incumbency, I attracted no opposition in my first election and gained 4 more years in office just by running.
From that I was tempted to think that elections were a waste of time, that it was better to spend the time and energy actually doing the job than campaigning for it.
I was wrong!
Campaigning for office is important!
I found that out the second time I ran for re-election, and had an opponent.
Campaigning focuses you like nothing else.
It is demanding but critical to meet people face to face, listen to their concerns and try to respond thoughtfully.
You tend to remember that experience, believe me!
Some still feel campaigns are artificial, rigged, unfair and debilitating.
And you know what they are right!
But, that doesn't mean campaigns aren't necessary.
It just reinforces the point, because the candidate's mettle gets tested in the spotlight of public attention!
What better training for public office?
So rather than making it easier to get elected, we ought to insure it is difficult.
That may weed out some folks, but the ones that pass the test will have earned their positions.
But one little matter that is difficult to address remains.
The power of incumbency!
Is it good or bad?
It could be either, depending upon the elected official.
But some level of term limits might help. Say 2 or 3 terms, max?
If its the official's 'time to go', it can help.
If not, others are encouraged to step up and run for office.
I think some periodic turnover in elected officials is a good thing.
That's because voter representation ought to be applied to the future as well as the past.
New people mean new ideas, energy and dialogue.
That should be considered healthy in any political setting
===============
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
When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I'm beginning to believe it. -Clarence Darrow
---------------------
"If the nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson
Politics is a profession; a serious, complicated and, in its true sense, a noble one. - Dwight D. Eisenhower
--------------------
Wouldn't you know that simple ideas like constituencies and voting systems really aren't simple?
There is an amazing amount of stuff written on these subjects available by surfing the Internet.
Here's a few phrases that may illustrate this point, plus some of my thoughts at the end:
===============
'The most common meaning of 'constituency' occurs in politics and means either the group of people from whom an individual or organization hopes to attract support, or the group of people or geographical area that a particular elected representative or group of elected representatives represents.'
=================
"In the United States, electoral constituencies for the federal House of Representatives are known as congressional districts (of which there are presently 435; the number can be increased so long as it does not exceed the constitutional limit of one per 30,000 citizens), while the constituencies for the variously named state legislatures go by a variety of names (and have differing numbers).
Long standing practice, reinforced and modified by several U.S. Supreme Court decisions, require the equalization of populations of constituencies after each decennial census, a process known as redistricting.
When driven by partisan bodies, this process opens up the possibility of gerrymandering for political or factional advantage.
Gerrymandering cannot be used to the disadvantage of any specific racial group (e.g., placing a predominantly African-American community in several districts to dilute the vote would be unconstitutional), but is perfectly legal to dilute the voting strength of the opposing party.
A Pennsylvania legislator long active in redistricting issues, State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said that "In election years, constituents choose their legislative officials. In redistricting years, legislative officials usually try to choose their future constituents."
===============
'The state of Louisiana uses Runoff voting for all House and Senate seats. All candidates (regardless of party affiliation) run on a single ballot in the general election in what is referred to as an "open primary" (thus, all Democrat candidates compete against all Republican candidates and whoever else may be running). If a candidate receives a majority of the vote, he or she is automatically elected. Otherwise, the top two finishers (again, regardless of party affiliation) go to a Runoff election, held approximately a month later, with the winner in the Runoff earning the seat. It is possible for both candidates to be from the same party, but in practice a Runoff usually features one Democrat and one Republican.
==============
'One possible reason straight-ticket voting has declined among the general electorate in past years is the power of incumbency has risen. Also, there are very few places where there still is a one-party rule.
.... local parties tend to run very weak party identifiers for something such as mayor or town council. So at local levels like this, candidates must actually fight for their votes for local office.'
====================
Bellingham used to have Ward-only voting, but that practice was changed to the system in place today.
Now, representatives from each of the 6 Wards must live in that Ward, but are elected in the General Election, by Citywide vote because they are supposed to represent the entire City - which is a municipal corporation.
If more than 2 candidates seek any seat, they must reduce that number to 2 by a Primary Election that is voted on only by people living in that Ward.
This practice makes sure that Ward representatives know their Wards, but also pass the test of being the representative of the entire populace.
That seems to be the best of both worlds to me.
--------------
I think its good for candidates to have to run hard for their seats, because that's how voters get to know them and where they stand on the issues- and vice versa!
Most of those issues are either city-wide or have some city-wide applicability, so as many voters as possible need to meet and question candidates so intelligent decisions are more likely to be made.
If candidates start out knowing they must be accountable, they will likely remember that once they are in office.
I didn't use to think that way, because I didn't know much based on actual experience.
Also, because I was first appointed to office, that gave me instant incumbency when I did run for election.
Partly because of my incumbency, I attracted no opposition in my first election and gained 4 more years in office just by running.
From that I was tempted to think that elections were a waste of time, that it was better to spend the time and energy actually doing the job than campaigning for it.
I was wrong!
Campaigning for office is important!
I found that out the second time I ran for re-election, and had an opponent.
Campaigning focuses you like nothing else.
It is demanding but critical to meet people face to face, listen to their concerns and try to respond thoughtfully.
You tend to remember that experience, believe me!
Some still feel campaigns are artificial, rigged, unfair and debilitating.
And you know what they are right!
But, that doesn't mean campaigns aren't necessary.
It just reinforces the point, because the candidate's mettle gets tested in the spotlight of public attention!
What better training for public office?
So rather than making it easier to get elected, we ought to insure it is difficult.
That may weed out some folks, but the ones that pass the test will have earned their positions.
But one little matter that is difficult to address remains.
The power of incumbency!
Is it good or bad?
It could be either, depending upon the elected official.
But some level of term limits might help. Say 2 or 3 terms, max?
If its the official's 'time to go', it can help.
If not, others are encouraged to step up and run for office.
I think some periodic turnover in elected officials is a good thing.
That's because voter representation ought to be applied to the future as well as the past.
New people mean new ideas, energy and dialogue.
That should be considered healthy in any political setting
===============
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
When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I'm beginning to believe it. -Clarence Darrow
---------------------
Friday, December 7, 2007
District Only Voting: No Rotten Boroughs!
==================
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. - James Madison
You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else. -Winston Churchill
-------------------------
Many years ago, in England there grew a practice that got way out of hand.
It was called 'Borough Representation' which identified some areas that got special treatment when it came to voting.
Eventually, that practice got mostly corrected through reform, but while it lasted there was some truly egregious corruption, leading William Pitt the Elder to make this statement:
"[Borough representation is] the rotten part of the constitution."
From that sprung the term 'Rotten Borough', sometimes referred to by similar names, like 'pocket borough' - because they were always in some rich or powerful man's 'pocket', or control.
Many may have heard this catchy tune & song from 'H.M.S. Pinafore' by Gilbert and Sullivan:
Sir Joseph Porter: "I grew so rich that I was sent
By a pocket borough into Parliament.
I always voted at my party's call,
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all."
Chorus: 'And he never thought of thinking for himself at all.'
Sir Joseph: "I thought so little, they rewarded me
By making me the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!"
Things have mostly changed for the better since then, but human nature hasn't, leading some folks to want 'Rotten Boroughs' for their pockets again.
Google this and see for yourself what went on back then; then draw your own conclusions.
--------------------
Rather than frame this issue as some sort of contest, I prefer to look at the pros & cons of ideas like District-only voting.
There are always pros & cons to every issue, some real and some imagined.
Often, people will choose to espouse an idea because it appeals to their sense of fairness, or it may seem to have the potential to correct some perceived wrong.
And, sometimes they realize they may be mistaken after they hear 'the rest of the story', as Paul Harvey likes to say.
So, rather than engage in a fruitless debate about who is 'right' or 'wrong', why not focus on trying to understand what may just work better?
We certainly do have situations where District-only voting works pretty well, like the 435-member U.S. House of Representatives which has some pretty broad and serious responsibilty for helping set national policy - a very big area with a big population having a large number of common needs.
But there are also situations where one would expect District-only voting not working very well, like with water & sewer systems, EMS and protection of our water resources.
For example, having Glacier, Maple Falls, Acme, Deming, Everson, Nooksack, Lynden and Ferndale responsible for their respective reaches of the Nooksack River doesn't work very well for several reasons.
It would unnecessarily duplicate efforts, it would be beyond the fiscal means of each entity to provide the services needed, and it would unfairly penalize the downstream municialities by having to take care of much greater flows of much dirtier water.
That's why we have larger jurisdictions, like the County perform most of those functions - for the good of everyone who depends upon Nooksack water being clean and under reasonable control.
Now maybe there are better examples to illustrate the point, but having 3 different Districts share these responsibilities doesn't work very well either, because there are people who live nearer the river and depend on it for fishing, irrigation or as their source of water to be made potable, or as a conveyance for treated -or untreated- waste.
And, there are those who don't live near the river and don't think they should be responsible for its care.
So, tell me how would District-only elected representatives be expected to represent those living in other Districts?
With a 7-member Council, and with a relatively small County, why is District-only voting considered such a good idea?
Also, exactly what essential services might benefit from District-only voting?
I suspect they would compete to split all of the revenues and none of the expenditures, but that's just a guess.
Then, the 'pork' secured from that exercise will help keep the incumbents in office;
That's the way it works in DC.
I also suspect that some particularly want more localized control over zoning and development regulations, further fracturing an already fractured system - but again, that's just an educated guess based on all the energy the Building Industry Association has put into getting District-only voting passed.
There are big bucks in getting land rezoned, especially rural land!
Follow the money!
Just like those Rotten Boroughs of long ago, there are still those wanting a District under more of their control.
That is accomplished by getting someone elected who will do their bidding - and be rewarded for it!
I think the main issue in considering whether District-only voting makes sense in a relatively small County like Whatcom, is whether the perceived 'pros' outweigh the real 'cons'.
Here's a few 'cons' that I can see, and there may be others:
• more costly and duplicative
• more complex to administer, especially with other Districts
• more prone to attract special interest control
• likely to add power of incumbency to elected officials
• likely to interfere with cooperative efforts, particularly involving public health, safety & welfare
• likely to reduce essential services available at the time they are needed
There does exist some political constituency with the combination of size, population -and the suite of functions- that can benefit from District-only voting.
It's mainly a question of scale and complexity.
But there's also the concept of synergy to be considered.
You know, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts?
But, I don't think Whatcom County is too big or diverse to warrant District-only voting for any of it's 3 existing Districts.
The overall job can be done better with a County-wide view than can be done from a feudal fiefdom perspective.
District-only voting is likely to produce less of the good things people expect from local government, and more of the things that need improvement.
District-only voting is no panacea for anything on the scale it is being touted, except for those motivated by an ideology of crippling government to satisfy their own greed and selfish purposes.
You know, this discussion is almost beginning to sound like the echoes of a secession movement, doesn't it?
Nah, that's already been tried. Bad idea!
But, that's just my opinion.
There's much more to discuss and consider on this subject, but that's enough for now, at least from this end.
One last thought to tie this together: We don't need any representative who leaves his thinking for others to do for him!
There are too many critically important, County-wide issues that require all the best thinking we can muster.
As Sir Edmund Burke put it: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Let's don't reward anyone for not doing their own thinking - or for trying to feather their own nest.
No 'Rotten Buroughs' represented by the incumbent puppets of special interests.
There are enough 'Rulers of the Queen's Navee' in that other Washington!
Out.
======================
“Demagoguery beats data in making public policy." -US House of Representatives Majority Leader
Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose. -George Will
"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
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. - James Madison
You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else. -Winston Churchill
-------------------------
Many years ago, in England there grew a practice that got way out of hand.
It was called 'Borough Representation' which identified some areas that got special treatment when it came to voting.
Eventually, that practice got mostly corrected through reform, but while it lasted there was some truly egregious corruption, leading William Pitt the Elder to make this statement:
"[Borough representation is] the rotten part of the constitution."
From that sprung the term 'Rotten Borough', sometimes referred to by similar names, like 'pocket borough' - because they were always in some rich or powerful man's 'pocket', or control.
Many may have heard this catchy tune & song from 'H.M.S. Pinafore' by Gilbert and Sullivan:
Sir Joseph Porter: "I grew so rich that I was sent
By a pocket borough into Parliament.
I always voted at my party's call,
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all."
Chorus: 'And he never thought of thinking for himself at all.'
Sir Joseph: "I thought so little, they rewarded me
By making me the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!"
Things have mostly changed for the better since then, but human nature hasn't, leading some folks to want 'Rotten Boroughs' for their pockets again.
Google this and see for yourself what went on back then; then draw your own conclusions.
--------------------
Rather than frame this issue as some sort of contest, I prefer to look at the pros & cons of ideas like District-only voting.
There are always pros & cons to every issue, some real and some imagined.
Often, people will choose to espouse an idea because it appeals to their sense of fairness, or it may seem to have the potential to correct some perceived wrong.
And, sometimes they realize they may be mistaken after they hear 'the rest of the story', as Paul Harvey likes to say.
So, rather than engage in a fruitless debate about who is 'right' or 'wrong', why not focus on trying to understand what may just work better?
We certainly do have situations where District-only voting works pretty well, like the 435-member U.S. House of Representatives which has some pretty broad and serious responsibilty for helping set national policy - a very big area with a big population having a large number of common needs.
But there are also situations where one would expect District-only voting not working very well, like with water & sewer systems, EMS and protection of our water resources.
For example, having Glacier, Maple Falls, Acme, Deming, Everson, Nooksack, Lynden and Ferndale responsible for their respective reaches of the Nooksack River doesn't work very well for several reasons.
It would unnecessarily duplicate efforts, it would be beyond the fiscal means of each entity to provide the services needed, and it would unfairly penalize the downstream municialities by having to take care of much greater flows of much dirtier water.
That's why we have larger jurisdictions, like the County perform most of those functions - for the good of everyone who depends upon Nooksack water being clean and under reasonable control.
Now maybe there are better examples to illustrate the point, but having 3 different Districts share these responsibilities doesn't work very well either, because there are people who live nearer the river and depend on it for fishing, irrigation or as their source of water to be made potable, or as a conveyance for treated -or untreated- waste.
And, there are those who don't live near the river and don't think they should be responsible for its care.
So, tell me how would District-only elected representatives be expected to represent those living in other Districts?
With a 7-member Council, and with a relatively small County, why is District-only voting considered such a good idea?
Also, exactly what essential services might benefit from District-only voting?
I suspect they would compete to split all of the revenues and none of the expenditures, but that's just a guess.
Then, the 'pork' secured from that exercise will help keep the incumbents in office;
That's the way it works in DC.
I also suspect that some particularly want more localized control over zoning and development regulations, further fracturing an already fractured system - but again, that's just an educated guess based on all the energy the Building Industry Association has put into getting District-only voting passed.
There are big bucks in getting land rezoned, especially rural land!
Follow the money!
Just like those Rotten Boroughs of long ago, there are still those wanting a District under more of their control.
That is accomplished by getting someone elected who will do their bidding - and be rewarded for it!
I think the main issue in considering whether District-only voting makes sense in a relatively small County like Whatcom, is whether the perceived 'pros' outweigh the real 'cons'.
Here's a few 'cons' that I can see, and there may be others:
• more costly and duplicative
• more complex to administer, especially with other Districts
• more prone to attract special interest control
• likely to add power of incumbency to elected officials
• likely to interfere with cooperative efforts, particularly involving public health, safety & welfare
• likely to reduce essential services available at the time they are needed
There does exist some political constituency with the combination of size, population -and the suite of functions- that can benefit from District-only voting.
It's mainly a question of scale and complexity.
But there's also the concept of synergy to be considered.
You know, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts?
But, I don't think Whatcom County is too big or diverse to warrant District-only voting for any of it's 3 existing Districts.
The overall job can be done better with a County-wide view than can be done from a feudal fiefdom perspective.
District-only voting is likely to produce less of the good things people expect from local government, and more of the things that need improvement.
District-only voting is no panacea for anything on the scale it is being touted, except for those motivated by an ideology of crippling government to satisfy their own greed and selfish purposes.
You know, this discussion is almost beginning to sound like the echoes of a secession movement, doesn't it?
Nah, that's already been tried. Bad idea!
But, that's just my opinion.
There's much more to discuss and consider on this subject, but that's enough for now, at least from this end.
One last thought to tie this together: We don't need any representative who leaves his thinking for others to do for him!
There are too many critically important, County-wide issues that require all the best thinking we can muster.
As Sir Edmund Burke put it: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Let's don't reward anyone for not doing their own thinking - or for trying to feather their own nest.
No 'Rotten Buroughs' represented by the incumbent puppets of special interests.
There are enough 'Rulers of the Queen's Navee' in that other Washington!
Out.
======================
“Demagoguery beats data in making public policy." -US House of Representatives Majority Leader
Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose. -George Will
"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
Thursday, December 6, 2007
District Only Voting: Are You Kidding Me?
I have now spent at least one night thinking about this issue, although that's not really needed.
And, being sober and lucent, I wonder why this 'District Only' is considered fair, smart, or necessary?
Is there really any legitimate debate on this issue, aside from voter preference?
Right now, there are about 174,000 voting Americans for each elected representative in the US Congress,.
That is less than the number of Americans for every WAL-MART store in the US.
I'm now aware there are over 185,000 people currently living in Whatcom County, of which 102,458 are registered voters, 37,652 of which live in the city of Bellingham.
Is it true that some folks, who espouse 'District only' voting, want the 'approximately' 34,152.7 people living in District 2 to represent only that District, despite the fact it is only one-third of the County?
If so, that is not OK with me!
ALL REPRESENTATIVES NEED TO REPRESENT ALL OF WHATCOM COUNTY!!
Anyone have a problem with that?
If, so, why?
Get this issue back on the ballot!
And, being sober and lucent, I wonder why this 'District Only' is considered fair, smart, or necessary?
Is there really any legitimate debate on this issue, aside from voter preference?
Right now, there are about 174,000 voting Americans for each elected representative in the US Congress,.
That is less than the number of Americans for every WAL-MART store in the US.
I'm now aware there are over 185,000 people currently living in Whatcom County, of which 102,458 are registered voters, 37,652 of which live in the city of Bellingham.
Is it true that some folks, who espouse 'District only' voting, want the 'approximately' 34,152.7 people living in District 2 to represent only that District, despite the fact it is only one-third of the County?
If so, that is not OK with me!
ALL REPRESENTATIVES NEED TO REPRESENT ALL OF WHATCOM COUNTY!!
Anyone have a problem with that?
If, so, why?
Get this issue back on the ballot!
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Landlord Accountability: Defining the PROBLEM & What to do about it?
---------------------
It is no use saying, 'We are doing our best.' You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.- Winston Churchill
There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true.- Winston Churchill
=======================
This subject has been around as an issue for some time, but now there is renewed interest in resolving in an more effective manner.
Whether 'Landlord Accountability' is the proper description is debatable, but certainly landlords are a part of the problem - and ought to be held accountable as part of the solution.
---------------------
What IS the problem?
I believe it is simply inappropriate behavior that causes neighbors stress, not some abstract concept that can't be effectively enforced.
What specific behaviors are actionable nuisances?
Noise?
Bright lights?
Litter?
Parking?
Late hour disturbances?
Threatening or intimidating behavior?
Domestic violence?
Fear of retribution?
Time & trouble to file a complaint?
A pattern of repeated nuisances - or complaints?
Public health & safety issues, like drug houses or excessive filth?
Illegal activity?
Acts or series of acts requiring abatement proceedings?
All of these are enforceable, but only after they are reported, investigated and verified
---------------------
Who is responsible for reporting these nuisances?
Might it be those most inconvenienced?
Anyone else?
Would a second witness be helpful?
Photo evidence?
What constitutes a report or complaint that can be investigated and verified?
Are nuisance complaints easily documented, investigated, reported?
What constitutes a documented complaint?
Something written, timely and signed by the complaintant?
Whose responsibility is that?
Who can be responsible for causing a nuisance?
Is it only renters?
Is it only students?
How do we verify that a complaint is legitimate, not just a hoax or vengeful act?
How many different people are required to lodge a complaint?
How many complaints for a specific address constitute identifying a problem residence?
How many complaints are to allowed in any given time frame?
Should any LL ordinance apply citywide?
What about private residences that rent rooms? Or not?
Should all Landlords be required to register with the City to verify who owns/manages property?
What registration fee should be enacted?
[Bear in mind that State Law requires the same fee be applied to all Landlords, regardless of number of rental units]
Should Landlords of rental income property be subject to B&O Taxes?
If yes, at what minimum level? [elderly widows renting 1 room?]
How do we define 'landlord'?
Could this definition be applied to owners of homes in single-family areas, who share these living spaces with friends?
Should the City enact a citywide enforcement mechanism, with registration fees and/or B&O Tax to pay for administrative & enforcement costs?
Should Muni Court be used for hearings & judgements? Hearing Examiner? Appeals to Superior Court?
Shold the Bellingham Police Dept be the primary enforcement agency? Will additional officers be required?
What role should WWU play? What costs should WWU bear?
Is the 3-unrelated persons rule enforceable?
Should it be enforced? How? Only if other nuisance complaints trigger an investigation?
If the City enacted a Citywide LL ordinance, could this be used when specific landlords 'nominate' themselves for enforcement?
This might amount to a 'grace period' for good behavior, allowing LL's who manage their tenants well to not be unduly penalized.
What role will Neighborhoods have?
How will the existing complaint system be used, or integrated into a new Ordinance?
How will LL complaint performance be measured?
How often would the new rules be reviewed for updating?
We already know where the 'hotspots' are that attract most complaints, even though tenants change over time.
We also know those who have been most frequently vocal about complaining.
These dynamics change!
City resources are limited, and there are higher priorities than nuisance complaints.
How do we determine what level of service to enforce any LL measure?
---------------------
As is well known, 99+% of compliance with any rule or regulation is VOLUNTARY.
That means if citizens don't willingly comply, we have a problem!
So, the rules need to be reasonable and well communicated, backed up with enforcement if needed.
Also, we need to clear about exactly who is harmed.
Is it one person?
Would this harm -if unchecked- be likely to impact other people?
How many people might be harmed to justify defining a public nuisance?
If additional corrective action is deemed necessary, how much will this cost, and how will these costs be paid?
Would this be similar to enforcing parking rules, with tickets & citations?
Now, there's a popular model!
Where the City decides to go with resolving the 'LL' problem or public nuisance, or whatever we decide to call it, needs to be carefully done.
It will likely NOT be a one size fits all solution, the way some may expect.
So, get ready for focused discussions, new Council!
This issue has now been passed into your custody, care & control.
Good luck!
=================================
Despite the increasing complaints now being heard, some progress has been made since 2004.
A fairly recent summary combined report from the Police Chief, WWU Campus Coalition, Landlord Association(s), Judicial Services Dept, Planning Dept, Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Board & Neighborhood Coordinator outlined the steps that have been taken. In their view, the problem has been alleviated, although certainly not eliminated.
To document this problem is alive and well, a litany of complaints is available at the following Blog:
http://www.zonemaven.blogspot.com/
---------------------
Concluding Comments: Landlord Workshop 11/16/04 at Ferry Terminal:
Thanks for here coming tonight in such numbers, to participate in developing practical solutions to this annoying problem, which is adversely impacting the quality of life for too many citizens. While it is the City’s duty to seriously address this problem, we want to do it reasonably and effectively with the community’s input and support.
WE HAVE HEARD YOU TONIGHT!
Now, here’s what we plan to do:
1. Gather all comments, review them and post them on the City’s website. This also includes the Police Dept statistics by neighborhood.
2. Set up a follow up meeting early next year, say Jan/Feb, to summarize our conclusions from this meeting, present our recommended action plan and get additional feed back from this group. If that feedback is positive, we will proceed accordingly. If additional substantial changes seem necessary, we’ll reiterate this process and set up other meetings until we arrive at an action plan we can all agree upon that has a high likelihood of success.
3. Develop and adopt an action plan, likely to contain a number of the elements and methods that have been identified here tonight. Distribute this plan and enlist the help needed from those involved to implement it.
4. Set up an Advisory Committee representative of this group to become an integral part of implementing any action plan agreed to. This Advisory Committee would monitor the program’s performance; be available as a resource in its application; coordinate with the Police Department, WWU, NW Rental Association and others as required; and periodically provide feedback to the City Council.
5. Evaluate the program and determine its success, or whether modifications are necessary after a trial period of one-year.
We sincerely hope this process will work to correct the persistent, annoying problems that are being experienced, but it will likely require active involvement from all stakeholders to achieve this success. The last thing we want to do is come back later with another version of an onerous ordinance to address problems that can be more effectively handled otherwise.
=======================
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go." -- Oscar Wilde
Everyone has his day and some days last longer than others. -Winston Churchill
It is no use saying, 'We are doing our best.' You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.- Winston Churchill
There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true.- Winston Churchill
=======================
This subject has been around as an issue for some time, but now there is renewed interest in resolving in an more effective manner.
Whether 'Landlord Accountability' is the proper description is debatable, but certainly landlords are a part of the problem - and ought to be held accountable as part of the solution.
---------------------
What IS the problem?
I believe it is simply inappropriate behavior that causes neighbors stress, not some abstract concept that can't be effectively enforced.
What specific behaviors are actionable nuisances?
Noise?
Bright lights?
Litter?
Parking?
Late hour disturbances?
Threatening or intimidating behavior?
Domestic violence?
Fear of retribution?
Time & trouble to file a complaint?
A pattern of repeated nuisances - or complaints?
Public health & safety issues, like drug houses or excessive filth?
Illegal activity?
Acts or series of acts requiring abatement proceedings?
All of these are enforceable, but only after they are reported, investigated and verified
---------------------
Who is responsible for reporting these nuisances?
Might it be those most inconvenienced?
Anyone else?
Would a second witness be helpful?
Photo evidence?
What constitutes a report or complaint that can be investigated and verified?
Are nuisance complaints easily documented, investigated, reported?
What constitutes a documented complaint?
Something written, timely and signed by the complaintant?
Whose responsibility is that?
Who can be responsible for causing a nuisance?
Is it only renters?
Is it only students?
How do we verify that a complaint is legitimate, not just a hoax or vengeful act?
How many different people are required to lodge a complaint?
How many complaints for a specific address constitute identifying a problem residence?
How many complaints are to allowed in any given time frame?
Should any LL ordinance apply citywide?
What about private residences that rent rooms? Or not?
Should all Landlords be required to register with the City to verify who owns/manages property?
What registration fee should be enacted?
[Bear in mind that State Law requires the same fee be applied to all Landlords, regardless of number of rental units]
Should Landlords of rental income property be subject to B&O Taxes?
If yes, at what minimum level? [elderly widows renting 1 room?]
How do we define 'landlord'?
Could this definition be applied to owners of homes in single-family areas, who share these living spaces with friends?
Should the City enact a citywide enforcement mechanism, with registration fees and/or B&O Tax to pay for administrative & enforcement costs?
Should Muni Court be used for hearings & judgements? Hearing Examiner? Appeals to Superior Court?
Shold the Bellingham Police Dept be the primary enforcement agency? Will additional officers be required?
What role should WWU play? What costs should WWU bear?
Is the 3-unrelated persons rule enforceable?
Should it be enforced? How? Only if other nuisance complaints trigger an investigation?
If the City enacted a Citywide LL ordinance, could this be used when specific landlords 'nominate' themselves for enforcement?
This might amount to a 'grace period' for good behavior, allowing LL's who manage their tenants well to not be unduly penalized.
What role will Neighborhoods have?
How will the existing complaint system be used, or integrated into a new Ordinance?
How will LL complaint performance be measured?
How often would the new rules be reviewed for updating?
We already know where the 'hotspots' are that attract most complaints, even though tenants change over time.
We also know those who have been most frequently vocal about complaining.
These dynamics change!
City resources are limited, and there are higher priorities than nuisance complaints.
How do we determine what level of service to enforce any LL measure?
---------------------
As is well known, 99+% of compliance with any rule or regulation is VOLUNTARY.
That means if citizens don't willingly comply, we have a problem!
So, the rules need to be reasonable and well communicated, backed up with enforcement if needed.
Also, we need to clear about exactly who is harmed.
Is it one person?
Would this harm -if unchecked- be likely to impact other people?
How many people might be harmed to justify defining a public nuisance?
If additional corrective action is deemed necessary, how much will this cost, and how will these costs be paid?
Would this be similar to enforcing parking rules, with tickets & citations?
Now, there's a popular model!
Where the City decides to go with resolving the 'LL' problem or public nuisance, or whatever we decide to call it, needs to be carefully done.
It will likely NOT be a one size fits all solution, the way some may expect.
So, get ready for focused discussions, new Council!
This issue has now been passed into your custody, care & control.
Good luck!
=================================
Despite the increasing complaints now being heard, some progress has been made since 2004.
A fairly recent summary combined report from the Police Chief, WWU Campus Coalition, Landlord Association(s), Judicial Services Dept, Planning Dept, Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Board & Neighborhood Coordinator outlined the steps that have been taken. In their view, the problem has been alleviated, although certainly not eliminated.
To document this problem is alive and well, a litany of complaints is available at the following Blog:
http://www.zonemaven.blogspot.com/
---------------------
Concluding Comments: Landlord Workshop 11/16/04 at Ferry Terminal:
Thanks for here coming tonight in such numbers, to participate in developing practical solutions to this annoying problem, which is adversely impacting the quality of life for too many citizens. While it is the City’s duty to seriously address this problem, we want to do it reasonably and effectively with the community’s input and support.
WE HAVE HEARD YOU TONIGHT!
Now, here’s what we plan to do:
1. Gather all comments, review them and post them on the City’s website. This also includes the Police Dept statistics by neighborhood.
2. Set up a follow up meeting early next year, say Jan/Feb, to summarize our conclusions from this meeting, present our recommended action plan and get additional feed back from this group. If that feedback is positive, we will proceed accordingly. If additional substantial changes seem necessary, we’ll reiterate this process and set up other meetings until we arrive at an action plan we can all agree upon that has a high likelihood of success.
3. Develop and adopt an action plan, likely to contain a number of the elements and methods that have been identified here tonight. Distribute this plan and enlist the help needed from those involved to implement it.
4. Set up an Advisory Committee representative of this group to become an integral part of implementing any action plan agreed to. This Advisory Committee would monitor the program’s performance; be available as a resource in its application; coordinate with the Police Department, WWU, NW Rental Association and others as required; and periodically provide feedback to the City Council.
5. Evaluate the program and determine its success, or whether modifications are necessary after a trial period of one-year.
We sincerely hope this process will work to correct the persistent, annoying problems that are being experienced, but it will likely require active involvement from all stakeholders to achieve this success. The last thing we want to do is come back later with another version of an onerous ordinance to address problems that can be more effectively handled otherwise.
=======================
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go." -- Oscar Wilde
Everyone has his day and some days last longer than others. -Winston Churchill
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Lake Whatcom: Watershed Land Acquisition Program -Rationale & History
===============
For those interested in a little more history, here is a synopsis of the City Council discussions -back in July thru September, 2000- that led to adopting the Watershed Acquisition Ordinance we have today.
Back then, the Community had narrowly missed approving 'Proposition 1', a public initiative that came just short of its goal in requiring the City to enact a Watershed Acquisition measure using a Water Rate Surcharge as the source of funding.
But, that initiative served to educate citizens -including elected officials- to the need for such a measure, which did lead to adoption of the measure described below.
These notes may also be of interest to those who have followed the Silver Beach Ordinance Task Force proceedings, at which the concept of property transfers via acquisition and other methods was discussed.
This memo is what I presented to the Council.
Eventually, the Council decided to pass its own Watershed Acquisition Ordinance to raise funds, preserve watershed property and administer the program that still exists.
Details of Watershed Acquisition accomplishments & challenges can be obtained from the City Website, or through the Public Works Dept Environmental Resources Division.
The Watershed Advisory Board has also done great work resulting in in comprehesive set of recommendations that still require action by Council and Staff. Their meetings are public, and held monthly.
===============
Fellow Council Members:
In anticipation of our discussion of this issue during the Watershed Committee session scheduled for 3:45 PM Monday, July 31, I have developed some questions, ideas and requests for your consideration.
After listening carefully to the main concerns expressed about this Resolution, I attempted to think of ways these can be addressed, recognizing the time for decision is near. Please review this information in preparation for our meeting.
------------------------
1. Do you doubt that establishing a land acquisition program would help in protecting the Lake Whatcom Watershed?
------------------------
2. What must happen before you would feel a sense of urgency, sufficient to spur taking this action?
------------------------
3. Do you feel that taking this issue to the ballot this November is necessary?
What would make you change your mind?
------------------------
4. Do you feel taking this to the ballot would expose this idea to unnecessary risk? If so, please indicate what changes you would need to enable you to simply pass this measure now?
------------------------
5. Do you think taking this action now makes COB "non-collaborative" with other programs, like the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program?
If so, please indicate what changes would make it seem more "collaborative"?
------------------------
6. Do you think the funding method proposed, of a drinking water rate surcharge, is too "regressive"? If so, please suggest what other funding sources are preferable, and readily available for Council approval?
------------------------
7. Members of the Lake Whatcom Watershed Committee have already expressed their strong support for the Resolution, as it is now written, by bringing it forward on the agenda.
Do you have any suggestions that could be considered for incorporation?
If so, can these be made and incorporated in time to meet the September 9 ballot proposal submittal deadline?
------------------------
8. Possible suggestions:
• Focus Watershed Land Acquisition Program, for now, on areas in the watershed that are inside or near City Limits; leaving adjacent Urban Growth Areas and/or County lands for inclusion in a more comprehensive program to be implemented later.
• Limit the scope and/or duration of this Watershed Land Acquisition Program, to allow merging or morphing it into a more comprehensive program later. Consider phasing this program out in 2 or 3 years, if it is no longer needed, is proven ineffective or a better funding source is found.
(possibly consider this as a 'interim' measure focused on COB-specific problems - remember the Silver Beach Ordinance was enacted on an Emergency Basis, and is now an Interim Ordinance, pending approval and possible incorporation of citizen-supported amendments)
• Consider simply passing the Resolution, at its requested funding level and source, without a ballot, either with or without additional agreed-to conditions.
• Support continuing development of a Watershed Land Acquisition Program, as proposed by the Resolution, to allow time to develop specifics more fully.
This would enable any resulting plan to be ready for implementation shortly after funding is provided (beginning 1/1/01) and (watershed-wide) recommendations from the Citizen's Task Force on Land Acquisition are available.
------------------------
9. There are already some good ideas available on why these funds are needed and how they can be used to do valuable work, both in protecting the Watershed and enabling fairer and more flexible implementation of the Silver Beach Ordinance. Silver Beach citizens and property owners, in particular, need this tool to help them now, not 2-3 years hence.
Many citizens may be willing to continue working with COB to develop workable programs that make effective use of these funds.
We could also consider this Watershed Land Acquisition Program as similar to a working Demonstration Project, since experimenting with new concepts on a smaller scale is often preferred, because this can provide valuable feedback (at relatively low risk) to enhance more comprehensive programs to be developed in the future.
This course would seem a prudent one to follow, to help learn workable and practical methods for Watershed protection while directly involving citizens in the process.
------------------------
10. A reminder of roles:
• The City Council is responsible for setting COB policies and goals
• The Mayor & Staff are responsible for implementing these policies and being accountable for meeting goals.
• Staff is responsible for providing professional & technical advice and doing the daily work of providing services to the citizenry.
------------------------
11. The City Council has consistently stated its intentions of:
• Supporting its preference of "non-structural", PREVENTION & PROTECTION methods over "structural", TREATMENT, MITIGATION or REMEDIATION methods in sustaining good water quality in the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, the sole drinking water source for 66,000 city and county residents.
This is because non-structural, preventative methods, like proper zoning and land preservation measures, are proven to be much more effective and much less costly.
• Making substantial progress in achieving each of the 3 priorities agreed-to and set for the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program, which for the year 2000 includes:
i) Urbanization/Land Use Zoning - COB action:
Passed Silver Beach Ordinance; Citizen's Task Force is now working to recommend additional provisions to add fairness and flexibility, with report due in September. ("non-structural", PREVENTATIVE measure, but includes no funding for land acquisition)
ii) Stormwater Management - COB action:
new Surface & Storm Water Utility program and funding anticipated later this year ("structural", TREATMENT method, in response to Federal/State mandates; includes no funding for land acquisition)
iii) Watershed Ownership - COB action:
a) supported formation of Citizen's Task Force on Land Acquisition (under Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program auspices; a "non-structural", PREVENTATIVE measure, will begin to study funding for land acquisition later);
b) now considering this Watershed Land Acquisition Resolution. ("non-structural", PREVENTATIVE method; does include funding for land acquisition)
Each of the above stated and agreed-to priorities has specific actions for each jurisdiction to accomplish, some jointly and some independently, toward achieving progress on the goals.
Clearly, any actions COB may take to further these goals within its own jurisdictional boundary will help this overall cause.
Urban areas have inherently different and more difficult problems than more rural areas.
Density, itself, makes this so.
Conversely, implementing effective measures in an urban area pays off quickly, in reducing adverse impacts and greatly reducing the necessity and cost of future mitigation.
------------------------
12. General Comments:
• This Watershed Land Acquisition Resolution is NOT intended to stimulate any sense of competition with the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program 2000, Whatcom County or any other entity. It IS intended to convey a sense of urgency for the city to accept responsibility for some tough, existing problems, to help resolve them, and in the process, PREVENT further problems from happening that are uniquely ours as an urban entity. It makes no sense to wait any longer in facing up to these responsibilities!
• Both COB and its City Council have been justifiably criticized in the past for talking sympathetically about protecting the watershed, but not being willing to take enough sustained effective action, aside from strongly supporting the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program. By passing this Resolution, the City Council will serve notice of its commitment to take its own timely action to resolve some uniquely COB problems, when and where they are needed most. I believe that citizens will strongly support this action, whether or not they are allowed an advisory vote on it.
• Even by taking action and passing this Resolution, I don't expect all criticism will stop. Some will be unhappy that this action doesn't go far enough; some will find reasons to say this is unnecessary, unfair or unlikely to significantly help. In response to these concerns, I ask you to also listen to those citizens who were directly impacted by the Silver Beach Ordinance, including those who have volunteered their time and energy toward trying to make the Silver Beach Ordinance more fair & flexible, without sacrificing its goal of protecting the City's portion of the Watershed in measurable ways. They will tell you they need a Land Acquisition Program now - to facilitate their immediate needs, within the city limits.
• While all details of a COB-specific Land Acquisition Program aren't yet fully formed, the need for such a program is clearly present, and well established. I encourage you to seize this moment, and take advantage of the strong citizen support and momentum we all know is out there. I believe the best way to do this is to simply pass the requested drinking water rate surcharge; then allow us (Lake Whatcom Watershed Committee, Staff and Citizens) to work out and bring to you for approval, a program plan, developed using the public process.
• Lastly, in making the decision at hand, please consider the wisdom of having this developmental work done, and in place, by 1/1/01, when funding could begin and recommendations from Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program's Citizen's Task Force on (watershed-wide) Land Acquisition are due.
• I ask each of you to support passage of the Watershed Land Acquisition Resolution today, in whatever form your conscience will allow. Thanks for giving this matter your serious consideration.
---------------------
A. “United We Stand” -paragraph excerpts)
The growing concern about the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, which is just now being addressed more effectively, results from years of unintentional, incremental misuses, ignorance of the cumulative effects of these misuses, and the inertia of short-term thinking regarding the surrounding watershed.
Arresting and reversing the impacts of these past, and present, careless practices and habits will require building a broad public awareness of their factual contributions to the situation, and a strong, common commitment to change these collective habits and practices in common sense, but comprehensive ways.
The proposed Watershed Land Acquisition Ordinance seeks to apply proven watershed acquisition techniques in helping to institutionalize a long-term preservation program for the Lake Whatcom Reservoir resource.
It represents a suite of potentially very effective tools, which our local community can adopt to help prevent further degradation of our primary water resource, which is needed to supply potable (drinking water) and non-potable water, and provide for recreation and aquatic habitat uses.
------------------------
B. Agenda Bill -excerpts
1. The Lake Whatcom Reservoir Watershed and its protection were again recognized as the City Council's top priority for the year 2000.
2. Watershed Ownership is also one of the three top priorities this year for the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program 2000, which jointly supported by the City, County and Water District 10.
This program established earlier this year, a special Citizen's Task Force on Land Acquisition that is currently developing criteria to prioritize land for protection, determining options for preserving & enhancing high priority lands, and mechanisms for integrating these options with identified priority areas.
Recommendations are due from this Task Force by year-end, and should be instrumental in guiding watershed-wide land acquisition strategies.
3. Effective Watershed Ownership or Land Acquisition programs often include any or all of the following acquisition methods and financing options:
a. Land Acquisition Methods
Fee simple interest
Partial interests
• Conservation easements & restrictions
• Purchase of development rights or credits
• Restrictive covenants
b. Financing Options
• Donations or "bargain sales"
• Purchase by conservation groups
• Increased water & sewer fees
• Increased local property or property transfer taxes
• Municipal bonds
4. Many Land Acquisition Program needs have already been identified, but an ongoing funding source and land acquisition methodology have not yet been fully developed.
In anticipation of the recommendations from the special Citizen's Task Force on Land Acquisition, the City wishes to be proactive in its collaboration with this effort by arranging to have a funding source and land acquisition methodology in place by 1/1/2001.
This proposed Ordinance establishes a public procedure for achieving that end, including public participation.
------------------------
C. Lake Whatcom Watershed Land Acquisition
WHEREAS, protection of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, the drinking water source for the City of Bellingham and others, is of the utmost public health importance to the citizens of Bellingham and others who obtain water from the lake; and
WHEREAS, a proven and effective method of protecting municipal water supplies, such as the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, is to acquire, for public ownership, lands within the watershed and protect them from development; and
WHEREAS, the City, County, and Water District 10 Joint Resolution No. 92-68, signed in 1992, recognized the importance of protecting Lake Whatcom and its watershed as a Reservoir and the major drinking water source for the County; and
WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that before-the-fact prevention take precedence over after-the-fact mitigation or treatment; and
WHEREAS, a Citizens' Task Force of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program is currently developing criteria to prioritize land for protection, determining options for preserving & enhancing high priority lands, and mechanisms for integrating these options with identified priority areas; and
WHEREAS, preserving and enhancing the quality of our drinking water supply has been identified as the top priority for the City Council for the past three years; and
WHEREAS, recognizing that a truly comprehensive program of education, land use regulation and enforcement, monitoring, and review as well as land acquisition is essential to preserving water quality in the Lake Whatcom Reservoir; and the City Council will continue its active support and encouragement of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program with Whatcom County and Water District #10. Therefore ........
------------------------
You, the Citizens get to write the next Chapters regarding Watershed Acquisition & Preservation.
I hope you will do it well, so the benefits can begin soon and enure into the future.
But, Watershed Acquisition & Preservation can't realistically do the job alone!
We will have to find better ways of encouraging the existing inhabitants of the Lake Whatcom Watershed to recognize their responsibilties for proper care and use of their 'lake', because what they do -or don't do- impacts us all.
It is our Reservoir, and the only one we have, so we need to take care of it!
Let's get on with this task!
For those interested in a little more history, here is a synopsis of the City Council discussions -back in July thru September, 2000- that led to adopting the Watershed Acquisition Ordinance we have today.
Back then, the Community had narrowly missed approving 'Proposition 1', a public initiative that came just short of its goal in requiring the City to enact a Watershed Acquisition measure using a Water Rate Surcharge as the source of funding.
But, that initiative served to educate citizens -including elected officials- to the need for such a measure, which did lead to adoption of the measure described below.
These notes may also be of interest to those who have followed the Silver Beach Ordinance Task Force proceedings, at which the concept of property transfers via acquisition and other methods was discussed.
This memo is what I presented to the Council.
Eventually, the Council decided to pass its own Watershed Acquisition Ordinance to raise funds, preserve watershed property and administer the program that still exists.
Details of Watershed Acquisition accomplishments & challenges can be obtained from the City Website, or through the Public Works Dept Environmental Resources Division.
The Watershed Advisory Board has also done great work resulting in in comprehesive set of recommendations that still require action by Council and Staff. Their meetings are public, and held monthly.
===============
Fellow Council Members:
In anticipation of our discussion of this issue during the Watershed Committee session scheduled for 3:45 PM Monday, July 31, I have developed some questions, ideas and requests for your consideration.
After listening carefully to the main concerns expressed about this Resolution, I attempted to think of ways these can be addressed, recognizing the time for decision is near. Please review this information in preparation for our meeting.
------------------------
1. Do you doubt that establishing a land acquisition program would help in protecting the Lake Whatcom Watershed?
------------------------
2. What must happen before you would feel a sense of urgency, sufficient to spur taking this action?
------------------------
3. Do you feel that taking this issue to the ballot this November is necessary?
What would make you change your mind?
------------------------
4. Do you feel taking this to the ballot would expose this idea to unnecessary risk? If so, please indicate what changes you would need to enable you to simply pass this measure now?
------------------------
5. Do you think taking this action now makes COB "non-collaborative" with other programs, like the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program?
If so, please indicate what changes would make it seem more "collaborative"?
------------------------
6. Do you think the funding method proposed, of a drinking water rate surcharge, is too "regressive"? If so, please suggest what other funding sources are preferable, and readily available for Council approval?
------------------------
7. Members of the Lake Whatcom Watershed Committee have already expressed their strong support for the Resolution, as it is now written, by bringing it forward on the agenda.
Do you have any suggestions that could be considered for incorporation?
If so, can these be made and incorporated in time to meet the September 9 ballot proposal submittal deadline?
------------------------
8. Possible suggestions:
• Focus Watershed Land Acquisition Program, for now, on areas in the watershed that are inside or near City Limits; leaving adjacent Urban Growth Areas and/or County lands for inclusion in a more comprehensive program to be implemented later.
• Limit the scope and/or duration of this Watershed Land Acquisition Program, to allow merging or morphing it into a more comprehensive program later. Consider phasing this program out in 2 or 3 years, if it is no longer needed, is proven ineffective or a better funding source is found.
(possibly consider this as a 'interim' measure focused on COB-specific problems - remember the Silver Beach Ordinance was enacted on an Emergency Basis, and is now an Interim Ordinance, pending approval and possible incorporation of citizen-supported amendments)
• Consider simply passing the Resolution, at its requested funding level and source, without a ballot, either with or without additional agreed-to conditions.
• Support continuing development of a Watershed Land Acquisition Program, as proposed by the Resolution, to allow time to develop specifics more fully.
This would enable any resulting plan to be ready for implementation shortly after funding is provided (beginning 1/1/01) and (watershed-wide) recommendations from the Citizen's Task Force on Land Acquisition are available.
------------------------
9. There are already some good ideas available on why these funds are needed and how they can be used to do valuable work, both in protecting the Watershed and enabling fairer and more flexible implementation of the Silver Beach Ordinance. Silver Beach citizens and property owners, in particular, need this tool to help them now, not 2-3 years hence.
Many citizens may be willing to continue working with COB to develop workable programs that make effective use of these funds.
We could also consider this Watershed Land Acquisition Program as similar to a working Demonstration Project, since experimenting with new concepts on a smaller scale is often preferred, because this can provide valuable feedback (at relatively low risk) to enhance more comprehensive programs to be developed in the future.
This course would seem a prudent one to follow, to help learn workable and practical methods for Watershed protection while directly involving citizens in the process.
------------------------
10. A reminder of roles:
• The City Council is responsible for setting COB policies and goals
• The Mayor & Staff are responsible for implementing these policies and being accountable for meeting goals.
• Staff is responsible for providing professional & technical advice and doing the daily work of providing services to the citizenry.
------------------------
11. The City Council has consistently stated its intentions of:
• Supporting its preference of "non-structural", PREVENTION & PROTECTION methods over "structural", TREATMENT, MITIGATION or REMEDIATION methods in sustaining good water quality in the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, the sole drinking water source for 66,000 city and county residents.
This is because non-structural, preventative methods, like proper zoning and land preservation measures, are proven to be much more effective and much less costly.
• Making substantial progress in achieving each of the 3 priorities agreed-to and set for the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program, which for the year 2000 includes:
i) Urbanization/Land Use Zoning - COB action:
Passed Silver Beach Ordinance; Citizen's Task Force is now working to recommend additional provisions to add fairness and flexibility, with report due in September. ("non-structural", PREVENTATIVE measure, but includes no funding for land acquisition)
ii) Stormwater Management - COB action:
new Surface & Storm Water Utility program and funding anticipated later this year ("structural", TREATMENT method, in response to Federal/State mandates; includes no funding for land acquisition)
iii) Watershed Ownership - COB action:
a) supported formation of Citizen's Task Force on Land Acquisition (under Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program auspices; a "non-structural", PREVENTATIVE measure, will begin to study funding for land acquisition later);
b) now considering this Watershed Land Acquisition Resolution. ("non-structural", PREVENTATIVE method; does include funding for land acquisition)
Each of the above stated and agreed-to priorities has specific actions for each jurisdiction to accomplish, some jointly and some independently, toward achieving progress on the goals.
Clearly, any actions COB may take to further these goals within its own jurisdictional boundary will help this overall cause.
Urban areas have inherently different and more difficult problems than more rural areas.
Density, itself, makes this so.
Conversely, implementing effective measures in an urban area pays off quickly, in reducing adverse impacts and greatly reducing the necessity and cost of future mitigation.
------------------------
12. General Comments:
• This Watershed Land Acquisition Resolution is NOT intended to stimulate any sense of competition with the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program 2000, Whatcom County or any other entity. It IS intended to convey a sense of urgency for the city to accept responsibility for some tough, existing problems, to help resolve them, and in the process, PREVENT further problems from happening that are uniquely ours as an urban entity. It makes no sense to wait any longer in facing up to these responsibilities!
• Both COB and its City Council have been justifiably criticized in the past for talking sympathetically about protecting the watershed, but not being willing to take enough sustained effective action, aside from strongly supporting the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program. By passing this Resolution, the City Council will serve notice of its commitment to take its own timely action to resolve some uniquely COB problems, when and where they are needed most. I believe that citizens will strongly support this action, whether or not they are allowed an advisory vote on it.
• Even by taking action and passing this Resolution, I don't expect all criticism will stop. Some will be unhappy that this action doesn't go far enough; some will find reasons to say this is unnecessary, unfair or unlikely to significantly help. In response to these concerns, I ask you to also listen to those citizens who were directly impacted by the Silver Beach Ordinance, including those who have volunteered their time and energy toward trying to make the Silver Beach Ordinance more fair & flexible, without sacrificing its goal of protecting the City's portion of the Watershed in measurable ways. They will tell you they need a Land Acquisition Program now - to facilitate their immediate needs, within the city limits.
• While all details of a COB-specific Land Acquisition Program aren't yet fully formed, the need for such a program is clearly present, and well established. I encourage you to seize this moment, and take advantage of the strong citizen support and momentum we all know is out there. I believe the best way to do this is to simply pass the requested drinking water rate surcharge; then allow us (Lake Whatcom Watershed Committee, Staff and Citizens) to work out and bring to you for approval, a program plan, developed using the public process.
• Lastly, in making the decision at hand, please consider the wisdom of having this developmental work done, and in place, by 1/1/01, when funding could begin and recommendations from Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program's Citizen's Task Force on (watershed-wide) Land Acquisition are due.
• I ask each of you to support passage of the Watershed Land Acquisition Resolution today, in whatever form your conscience will allow. Thanks for giving this matter your serious consideration.
---------------------
A. “United We Stand” -paragraph excerpts)
The growing concern about the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, which is just now being addressed more effectively, results from years of unintentional, incremental misuses, ignorance of the cumulative effects of these misuses, and the inertia of short-term thinking regarding the surrounding watershed.
Arresting and reversing the impacts of these past, and present, careless practices and habits will require building a broad public awareness of their factual contributions to the situation, and a strong, common commitment to change these collective habits and practices in common sense, but comprehensive ways.
The proposed Watershed Land Acquisition Ordinance seeks to apply proven watershed acquisition techniques in helping to institutionalize a long-term preservation program for the Lake Whatcom Reservoir resource.
It represents a suite of potentially very effective tools, which our local community can adopt to help prevent further degradation of our primary water resource, which is needed to supply potable (drinking water) and non-potable water, and provide for recreation and aquatic habitat uses.
------------------------
B. Agenda Bill -excerpts
1. The Lake Whatcom Reservoir Watershed and its protection were again recognized as the City Council's top priority for the year 2000.
2. Watershed Ownership is also one of the three top priorities this year for the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program 2000, which jointly supported by the City, County and Water District 10.
This program established earlier this year, a special Citizen's Task Force on Land Acquisition that is currently developing criteria to prioritize land for protection, determining options for preserving & enhancing high priority lands, and mechanisms for integrating these options with identified priority areas.
Recommendations are due from this Task Force by year-end, and should be instrumental in guiding watershed-wide land acquisition strategies.
3. Effective Watershed Ownership or Land Acquisition programs often include any or all of the following acquisition methods and financing options:
a. Land Acquisition Methods
Fee simple interest
Partial interests
• Conservation easements & restrictions
• Purchase of development rights or credits
• Restrictive covenants
b. Financing Options
• Donations or "bargain sales"
• Purchase by conservation groups
• Increased water & sewer fees
• Increased local property or property transfer taxes
• Municipal bonds
4. Many Land Acquisition Program needs have already been identified, but an ongoing funding source and land acquisition methodology have not yet been fully developed.
In anticipation of the recommendations from the special Citizen's Task Force on Land Acquisition, the City wishes to be proactive in its collaboration with this effort by arranging to have a funding source and land acquisition methodology in place by 1/1/2001.
This proposed Ordinance establishes a public procedure for achieving that end, including public participation.
------------------------
C. Lake Whatcom Watershed Land Acquisition
WHEREAS, protection of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, the drinking water source for the City of Bellingham and others, is of the utmost public health importance to the citizens of Bellingham and others who obtain water from the lake; and
WHEREAS, a proven and effective method of protecting municipal water supplies, such as the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, is to acquire, for public ownership, lands within the watershed and protect them from development; and
WHEREAS, the City, County, and Water District 10 Joint Resolution No. 92-68, signed in 1992, recognized the importance of protecting Lake Whatcom and its watershed as a Reservoir and the major drinking water source for the County; and
WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that before-the-fact prevention take precedence over after-the-fact mitigation or treatment; and
WHEREAS, a Citizens' Task Force of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program is currently developing criteria to prioritize land for protection, determining options for preserving & enhancing high priority lands, and mechanisms for integrating these options with identified priority areas; and
WHEREAS, preserving and enhancing the quality of our drinking water supply has been identified as the top priority for the City Council for the past three years; and
WHEREAS, recognizing that a truly comprehensive program of education, land use regulation and enforcement, monitoring, and review as well as land acquisition is essential to preserving water quality in the Lake Whatcom Reservoir; and the City Council will continue its active support and encouragement of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program with Whatcom County and Water District #10. Therefore ........
------------------------
You, the Citizens get to write the next Chapters regarding Watershed Acquisition & Preservation.
I hope you will do it well, so the benefits can begin soon and enure into the future.
But, Watershed Acquisition & Preservation can't realistically do the job alone!
We will have to find better ways of encouraging the existing inhabitants of the Lake Whatcom Watershed to recognize their responsibilties for proper care and use of their 'lake', because what they do -or don't do- impacts us all.
It is our Reservoir, and the only one we have, so we need to take care of it!
Let's get on with this task!
Silver Beach Ordinance - Citizens Task Force Recommendations
==================
WARNING: The following information is LONG, boring to many, incomprehensible to others, and history that repeats itself!
==================
The Silver Beach Neighborhood recently debated adopting a list of policy measures to address the issue of protecting the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
Many of the items on the list were recognizable as elements of earlier discussions during the deliberations on the City's 'Silver Beach Ordinance', designed in response to the Dept of Ecology's 303 (d) listing of the lake for fecal cliform and dissolved oxygen levels.
Some were adopted and incorporated into the Ordinance, while others were not for various reasons.
It may be useful to revisit those earlier discussions again as a reminder of what was considered during those initial eight public meetings, which resulted in a list of unanimous, or near-unanimous, recommendations that were adopted.
The adopted recommendations -from meeting No. 9- were the subject of my 8/8/07 blog.
This general subject was also discussed or rferenced in blogs from October 9, 12 & 13 and Dec 3
-----------------------
[REPRINTED FROM AUGUST 8, 2007 BLOG]
Silver Beach Ordinance - Citizens Task Force Recommendations
Final Recommendations Survey - August 17, 2000:
In January, 2000, the City Council enacted an Emergency Interim Ordinance -known as the 'Silver Beach Ordinance'- as the City's management response to the Dept of Ecology's 303 (d) listing of Lake Whatcom as an impaired waterbody, due to its adverse findings of fecal coliform and dissolved oxygen. This Emergency action was controversial and required considerable additional time and citizen input to achieve better fairness and flexibility in the Ordinance. This took two primary forms; Public Hearings and a Citizen's Task Force to hear concerns, gather information and make recommendations for improvements to the Ordinance, which itself sought to address four main topics; Land Use, Density, Impervious Surfaces and Seasonal Limits on Clearing & Grading -all in the City's portion of the Lake Whatcom Watershed.
A ten-person Task Force was appointed by the mayor that reasonably represented major stakeholder groups, with 8 members who actually lived in this watershed. The Task Force was assigned to work under the auspices of the Council's Lake Whatcom Watershed Committee to facilitate its coordination with staff, the public and the Council as a whole. The combined group agreed to meet for 8 work sessions -at 2-week intervals, over the Summer- and then work to come to consensus on recommendations to discharge its duty. This group was able to cover a wide range of suggestions and come to consensus, or near consensus, on over half of them! The group also requested 2 additional meetings to examine how its recommendations would be incorporated into the Ordinance, and to present it's recommendations to the City Council.
As a result of this Task Force and its recommendations, the Silver Beach Ordinance was both strengthened and made more fair and flexible, with the result of being unanimously adopted by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Each of the Task Force public meetings was recorded and later transcribed into minutes, to memorialize the important discussions and work that was accomplished. Each and every member of this Task Force contributed significantly to its success, and the City owes a debt of gratitude to them for their voluntary service on this important matter!
The following is provided as a synoptic list of topics covered and recommendations made by the Silver Beach Citizen’s Task Force. This summary has been accumulated during the course of seven meetings of the group. Respondents should consider each topic heading in the context of meeting discussions, utilizing the reference materials provided as a resource.
Recommendations are grouped by topic and variable responses. Please indicate the choice which best reflects your views by placing a check mark in the left margin adjacent the appropriate line.
[Note 1: The primary concerns, clarifications & suggested changes discussed, are annotated within the table, where applicable.]
[Note 2: Votes cast (either in person, or as a submitted proxy) & recorded during the meeting are tabulated in the √) column.]
[Note 3: In some instances, more than one choice per group seemed permissible, so tally totals vary somewhat.]
√) CATEGORY & GROUP SURVEY CHOICE (pick one in each group)
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 1. SCIENCE:
(8) A1. Sufficient information exists to verify Lake Whatcom is impacted by development
(2) B1. Sufficient information exists to suggest Lake Whatcom may be impacted by development
(3) C1. Insufficient information exists to conclude the Lake is/may be impacted by development
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that sufficient information exists to either verify/suggest Lake Whatcom is/may be impacted by development.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION:
(0) A1. Public education efforts by the city/county are adequate for Lake Whatcom issues
13) B1. Public education efforts by the city/county should be improved and/or expanded
CONCLUSION: Unanimous belief that public education efforts by the city/county should be improved and/or expanded.
--------------------------------------------------------
(8) A2. Public education efforts appear to have a significant influence on Lake protection efforts
(4) B2. Public education efforts appear to be insignificant with regard to Lake protection efforts
(*somewhat confusing language; does this refer to current (actual) or potential influence?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; majority favoring the view that public education efforts appear to have a significant influence on Lake protection efforts. Some confusion in meaning; may need clarifying.
--------------------------------------------------------
Public education efforts should be:
12) A3. High priority
(1) B3. Medium priority
(0) C3. Low priority for the city and county
CONCLUSION: Near unanimous belief that public education should be a high priority.
(This has been recommended to the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program as a priority for 2001)
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 3. MORATORIUM.
(2) A1. There should be a moratorium on virtually all watershed construction forever
(7) B1. There should be a moratorium until a Total Maximum Daily Load study is completed
(2) C1. There should be a moratorium on single family construction until ordinances are revised
(0) D1. There should be a moratorium on subdivisions only; lots of adequate size could be built
(6) E1. No moratorium is necessary, current protection efforts are underway and evolving
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
(1) A1. The City Comprehensive Plan currently contains sufficient policy guidance for protection
(3) B1. The City/County/District Joint Goals and Policies are adequate guidance for protection
(9) C1. Stronger and/or revised policy guidance is necessary for adequate lake protection
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring stronger and/or revised policy guidance as necessary for adequate lake protection.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 5. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. (The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan addresses permitted land uses, i.e. zoning, and density/lot size requirements)
(9) A1. The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan should be updated to aid lake protection efforts
(0) B1. The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan is adequate or less important than other efforts
(3) C1. Current land use designations and densities are acceptable
(8) D1. Land use designations and densities should be revised
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring updating Neighborhood Plan or revising land use designations and densities.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 6. DENSITY/MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
(4) A1. The current density designations should be retained, ranging from 6000-20,000 S.F. /lot
(7) B1. All of Silverbeach should be downzoned to the city minimum of 1 lot/20,000sf.
(1) C1. Only areas where there would be a significant reduction in lots should be down-zoned
(1) +D1.? All of Silverbeach should be down-zoned to a minimum of 1 lot/13,333sf
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some type of downzone.
--------------------------------------------------------
(5) A2. The minimum buildable lot size should conform to minimum density requirements
(5) B2. Lots should be consolidated by appropriate means to achieve min. lot size requirements
(3) C2. Lots that are substandard should not be allowed to consolidate, unless adjacent
(1) D2. All legal lots of record should be buildable, regardless of size or sub area density
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; near unanimously favoring definition of a minimum buildable lot size, possibly requiring consolidation.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 7. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDRs).
(8) A1. Transfer of Development Rights (homes) out of the watershed should be permitted*
(9) B1. Transfer of Development Rights within the watershed should be considered, when it would reduce new street or utility construction and extension impacts*
(* Does not need to be an either/or choice; can have both, none or either one)
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some type of TDR program.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 8. BUILDING SETBACKS & PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
(9) A1. Front yard setbacks should be optionally reduced, to allow less driveway/impervious area
(4) B1. Reduced front yard setbacks should be required; driveways may not exceed this length
(0) C1. Rear setbacks should be increased from 10’ to require larger yard areas
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some front yard setback reduction.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. The current, two, side-by-side, required parking spaces per lot is adequate*
(7) B2. Tandem parking, one behind the other, should be permitted*
(0) C2. Only one parking space per lot should be required
(* A2 & B2 are not mutually exclusive, could also cover C2, at owner’s option)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 9. PERMITTED/CONDITIONAL USES.
(4) A1. Permitted uses should be as stated in the current Silverbeach Ordinance
(6) B1. Permitted uses could be further restricted beyond those allowed in the ordinance
(3) C1. Permitted uses could be expanded
(3) D1. Permitted uses should be limited to single family dwellings & related only
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(2) A2. Conditional uses should be as stated in the ordinance
(8) B2. Conditional uses could be further restricted
(3) C2. Conditional uses could be expanded*
(* especially consider remodels)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring further restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Livestock should be permitted outright in single family areas
(4) B3. Livestock may be permitted, if parcel size proportionate to required animal BMP’s
(3) C3. Livestock may only be permitted as a conditional use
(6) D3. Livestock should not be permitted
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some reduction in livestock permits.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A4. Accessory Dwelling Units should continue to be prohibited
(4) B4. Accessory Dwelling Units could be considered as a conditional use
(1) C4. Accessory Dwelling Units could be permitted in lieu of subdivision, w/restrict. covenant
(4) +D4.(?) ADU’s OK, if =/< 2000 SF
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring continued prohibition.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 10. SUBDIVISION CODE.
(9) A1. Cluster development, which allows smaller lots and larger open space, should be allowed provided there is no increase in density beyond conventional
(2) B1. Cluster should only be allowed as presently permitted in areas 1,4,5,11 & 17
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on need for cluster development.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 11. STREET STANDARDS.
(0) A1. Street right of way width should remain @ 60’ for through streets and 50’ for cul de sacs
11) B1. Street right of way width should be narrowed below current minimums when feasible
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing possible narrowing street right of way in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A2. Full standard through streets should remain @ 28’ wide and cul de sacs 24’ wide
12) B2. Full standard streets should be narrowed when feasible
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing possible narrowing full standard street right of way in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Full standard streets should include sidewalks on both sides
(9) B3. A sidewalk on one side should usually be sufficient, except on arterial streets
(5) C3. Sidewalks are not really necessary on local-access-only streets
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing sidewalk reductions on full standard streets in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(1) A4. When required, sidewalk standards should remain @ 5’ in width
12) B4. Sidewalks should be narrowed and/or setback when feasible
Add group 5? Allow more pervious surfaces for sidewalks
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on narrowing sidewalks and/or setback when feasible
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 12. OPERATING ORDINANCES, SEPA, CLEARING, GRADING, STORMWATER.
(6) A1. SEPA Environmental Impact review should be applied the same citywide
(6) B1. SEPA review should be required for development in the watershed, except single family
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. Clearing should continue to be allowed on undeveloped land w/a permit & BMP’s
10) B2. The Clearing Ordinance should prohibit any land clearing w/out a valid building permit
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that the Clearing Ordinance should prohibit any land clearing without a valid building permit. Minority felt clearing should continue with a permit, using BMPs.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Fill sites should continue to be permitted on land w/out a building permit
13) B3. The Grading Ordinance should prohibit fills w/out a valid building permit
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on Grading Ordinance prohibiting fills w/out a valid building permit.
--------------------------------------------------------
(1) A4. Single family lots should be exempt from all but erosion control stormwater regulations
12) B4. Single lots should comply with strict stormwater regulations, like treatment & detention*
(* within reason; define how determined?)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having single lots comply with strict stormwater regulations, like treatment & detention.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 13. WETLAND & STREAM ORDINANCE.
(3) A1. Wetland and stream buffers should remain @ 25’-100’ and 10’-50’ respectively
(2) B1. Wetland and stream buffers should probably be increased somewhat
(8) C1. Wetland and Stream buffers should be based on best available science for the purpose
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that wetland and stream buffers should probably be increased. Minority felt no change was needed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(5) A2. Docks should continue to be permitted with size/length based on similar adjacent docks
(7) B2. Docks size and length should be more restricted than current patterns reflect
(3) C2. Docks should not be permitted any more
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring more dock restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 14. SHORELINE MASTER PLAN.
(2) A1. Residential shoreline setbacks should remain at 25’-35’ from the water’s edge
11) B1. Residential shoreline setbacks should be increased where feasible*
(* ambiguous; how is feasibility determined? administrative flexibility, plus appeals)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having residential shoreline setbacks should be increased where feasible.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A3. Bulkheads should continue to be permitted at/land-ward of the ordinary high water mark
(6) B3. Bulkheads should be further restricted, based on need for property protection
(3) C3. Bulkheads should not be permitted*
(* more discussion?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring more bulkhead restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 15. IMPERVIOUS LIMITS.
(9) A1. The current impervious limits of the greater of 2000 SF or 15% of parcel area are OK
(0) B1. Impervious limits should be increased w/out additional requirements
(5) C1. Impervious limits could be increased w/mitigation
(2) D1. Impervious limits should be reduced where feasible
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring retention of the current impervious limits of the greater of 2000 SF or 15% of parcel area.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 16. ADDITIONS & REMODELS. (The following applies only to new impervious additions or remodels to existing homes that already exceed impervious limits)
(2) A1. All proposed exterior footprint additions must comply with adopted impervious limits
(6) B1. Exterior additions may be considered if there is no net increase in impervious area
(5) C1. Exterior additions may be considered only if there is a net reduction in impervious area
(0) D1. Exterior additions may occur only if there is at least a 2- for 1+ impervious reduction
(1) +E1? Increased impervious area for remodels, with tighter baseline impervious %, applicable
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring exterior additions if there is no net increase, or a net reduction in impervious area.
--------------------------------------------------------
(9) A2. Reconstruction should be allowed for damage due to fire, regardless of impervious area
(3) B2. Reconstruction due to damage must comply with adopted impervious limits*
(* only if built up to existing footprint & applicable impervious area limit; insurance issue?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring reconstruction be allowed for damage due to fire, regardless of impervious area.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 17. PERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS.
(2) A1. There should be no limit on the use of non-vegetative pervious systems, i.e. pavers etc.
(5) B1. Non-vegetated pervious systems should be limited to a minor extent
(6) C1. Non-vegetated pervious systems should be limited similar to impervious cover*
(* unclear; what does “similar to” mean?)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having some limits on non-vegetated, pervious systems.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 18. TRANSFER OF IMPERVIOUS CREDITS.
(7) A1. Impervious credits should be able to be purchased or transferred from parcel to parcel*
(9) B1. Impervious credits should be able to be earned with BMP’s, mitigation or similar*
(1) C1. Impervious credits should not be purchased or earned, stay within adopted limits
(* note A1 & B1 are not mutually exclusive, shouldn’t both be allowed?)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having some mechanism to earn additional impervious credits.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 19. FLEXIBLE INCENTIVES.
(8) A1. Impervious area could be expanded by other means, such as offsite mitigation/restoration
(1) B1. Impervious area could be expanded if site design mitigates impacts demonstrably
(9) C1. Incentives that would result in greater public benefit should allow added impervious area
(2) D1. Forget flexibility, could be too difficult to monitor, be fair or administer
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having flexible incentives to earn additional impervious credits, while maintaining lake protection goals.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 20. NATIVE VEGETATION & LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.
(2) A1. Strict native vegetation requirements should be adopted to retain or establish it*
(7) B1. There should be some native vegetation or landscape requirement for single lots*
(5) C1. All vegetation management should be voluntary with education and assistance provided
(0) D1. No requirement is necessary, most lots are landscaped to some degree anyway
(* for preserving or retaining native vegetation, would any credits be offered?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some native vegetation or landscape requirement for single lots.
--------------------------------------------------------
(8) A2. Consider limiting lawn area
(4) B2. Lawns are not a significant factor or are too difficult to regulate
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some lawn area limits on single lots.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 21. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT.
(5) A1. Use of most or all pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers should be outright prohibited
(2) B1. Prohibit pesticides and herbicides, but a little fish fertilizer or manure compost is ok
(6) C1. No regulation needed, would be hard to monitor, harder to enforce or insignificant*
(* Hard to monitor or enforce; Federal Govt. enforces use close to water supply, per labels)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 22. SEASONAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS. (* refers to ground disturbance only)
(2) A1. Seasonal limits make sense and are effective, make them shorter than present
(7) B1. Seasonal limits from May 1st to September 30th, as currently enacted, are OK
(3) C1. Seasonal limits should minimize spring impact, from 6/1 to 9/30
(2) D1. Seasonal limits are too restrictive at present, should be expanded**
+E1? ** if more than 4 months are allowed, add October, not May
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring keeping 5-month limit, or reducing springtime impacts.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A2. The current earthwork exemption area of 500 sq.ft. is appropriate
(3) B2. 500 sq.ft. is too much
(2) C2. 500 sq.ft. is too little
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring keeping the current earthwork exemption area of 500 sq.ft.
--------------------------------------------------------
(4) A3. Reconstruction due to damage should be allowed off-season, regardless of area
(7) B3. Reconstruction due to damage off-season should be allowed with controls.
(2) C3. Reconstruction will have to wait and comply with everyone else
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring allowing off-season reconstruction due to damage with controls.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 23. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES.
(7) A1. Construction practices with little or no probable impact should be permitted off-season
(6) B1. Even with BMP’s, construction should wait for regular season
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(2) A2. Contractors that complete construction BMP course/certification can work off-season
(9) B2. No one can work off-season above exemption area thresholds.
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring not allowing off-season work, above exemption area thresholds.
--------------------------------------------------------
12) A3. Certification should be required to work in season, period.
(0) B3. Certification should not be required during open months
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on requiring certification to do construction work, even in season.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 24. FEES/ASSESSMENTS.
(0) A1. Only watershed residents should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
(2) B1. All city residents should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
10) C1. All water users should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
(2) D1. All water users should pay for remediation, w/watershed residents paying more
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring all water users paying for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. Stormwater fees should be related to impervious area
(8) B2. Stormwater fees should be a flat rate per residence
(2) C2. Stormwater fees should be reduced for low impervious area and/or BMP’s
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; majority favoring stormwater fees on a flat rate per residence basis.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 25. PUBLIC WATERSHED LAND ACQUISITION IN THE WATERSHED. (Includes land as fee simple, TDR’s, impervious credits and conservation easements)
10) A1. Public land acquisition should be an essential part of lake management
(3) B1. Public land acquisition is helpful, but not essential
(0) C1. Public land acquisition is not the best use of public dollars
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that public land acquisition should be either an essential, or a helpful, part of lake management. A large majority felt this was essential.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. City money should be used for City only land purchases
(3) B2. City money should be used for City and UGA (Geneva, Brownsville) purchases
(7) C2. City money should be used anywhere that it will have significant benefit in watershed
(* what is meant by “city money”? – levied & collected solely by COB?)
(0) C1. Public land acquisition is not the best use of public dollars
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that City money should be used for public land acquisition in some manner. Majority felt it should be used anywhere that it will have significant benefit in watershed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A3. Our first purchase priority should be land
(2) B3. Our first priority should be TDR’s
(0) C3. Our first priority should be impervious area credits
(2) D3. Our first priority should be conservation easements*
(4) E3. Our first priority should be compensation to owners not allowed to build on lots of record**
(this whole grouping is confusing; it sets priorities w/o evaluating efficacy of alternatives)
(1) +F3.? Our first priority should be relocating G-P’s intake to Basin #1 (who pays?)
(1) +G3.? All of the above (decisions on priority to be determined by WAAB/City Council)
(* if main purpose is to retain native vegetation, undisturbed, this option may be best)
(** if lots are ‘down-zoned’, by requiring a higher minimum lot size, or TDR/TIC program is adopted, this becomes top priority)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion on first purchase priority. This seems dependent upon the acquisition mechanisms adopted, the recommendations determined by a Watershed Acquisition Advisory Board, and the specific purchases approved by City Council.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A4. Funding for acquisition should come from a new land acquisition fee on water bills
(1) B4. Stormwater utility fee, normally used for improvements, maintenance and operations
(0) C4. From Greenways money, used for parks, open space, equipment
(0) D4. From grants (state & federal) & mitigation sources (private)
12) E4. All of the above
(0) F4. None of the above
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on using funding from all available sources.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 26. ENFORCEMENT.
(3) A1. Enforcement of the Silverbeach ordinance should be strict, literal and uniform
(1) B1. Enforcement should be phased in more gently, focussing on intent, adapting to fit
(9) C1. Enforcement should be firm, focussing on intent, and yield effective results
(* enforcement should be strongly tied to education!)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on enforcement should be firm, focussing on intent, and yield effective results – or stricter.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 27. BENCHMARK/EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS
10) A1. Benchmarks should be established to evaluate effectiveness of new ordinance provisions
(3) B1. Benchmarks, such as existing water quality monitoring and standards are sufficient
(0) C1. Benchmarks are not necessary; the proposed actions are likely to address quality concerns
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring establishing Benchmarks to evaluate effectiveness of the new ordinance provisions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 28. ONGOING ADVISORY/STAKEHOLDER GROUP.
12) A1. A stakeholders group should remain empowered to advise Council on these issues
(0) B1. There are already too many people giving advice, nobody listens anyway!
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that a stakeholders group should remain empowered to advise Council on these issues. Several members of the CTF expressed interest in remaining involved in some capacity to be determined.
--------------------------------------------------------
• SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Total Number by Voting category//Per Cent %//CUMULATIVE Per Cent %
UNANIMOUS [NO VOTES AGAINST A POSITION] 12//22.64//22.64
NEAR-UNANIMOUS [1 OR 2 VOTES AGAINST A POSITION] 11//20.76//43.4
Split opinion; large majority favoring [9 – 10 VOTES FOR A POSITION] 6//11.32//54.72
Split opinion; majority favoring [7 – 8 VOTES FOR A POSITION] 19//35.85//90.57
Split opinion [NO CLEAR MAJORITY POSITION] 5//9.43//100.0
Total Voted Categories or Sub-categories: 53
WARNING: The following information is LONG, boring to many, incomprehensible to others, and history that repeats itself!
==================
The Silver Beach Neighborhood recently debated adopting a list of policy measures to address the issue of protecting the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
Many of the items on the list were recognizable as elements of earlier discussions during the deliberations on the City's 'Silver Beach Ordinance', designed in response to the Dept of Ecology's 303 (d) listing of the lake for fecal cliform and dissolved oxygen levels.
Some were adopted and incorporated into the Ordinance, while others were not for various reasons.
It may be useful to revisit those earlier discussions again as a reminder of what was considered during those initial eight public meetings, which resulted in a list of unanimous, or near-unanimous, recommendations that were adopted.
The adopted recommendations -from meeting No. 9- were the subject of my 8/8/07 blog.
This general subject was also discussed or rferenced in blogs from October 9, 12 & 13 and Dec 3
-----------------------
[REPRINTED FROM AUGUST 8, 2007 BLOG]
Silver Beach Ordinance - Citizens Task Force Recommendations
Final Recommendations Survey - August 17, 2000:
In January, 2000, the City Council enacted an Emergency Interim Ordinance -known as the 'Silver Beach Ordinance'- as the City's management response to the Dept of Ecology's 303 (d) listing of Lake Whatcom as an impaired waterbody, due to its adverse findings of fecal coliform and dissolved oxygen. This Emergency action was controversial and required considerable additional time and citizen input to achieve better fairness and flexibility in the Ordinance. This took two primary forms; Public Hearings and a Citizen's Task Force to hear concerns, gather information and make recommendations for improvements to the Ordinance, which itself sought to address four main topics; Land Use, Density, Impervious Surfaces and Seasonal Limits on Clearing & Grading -all in the City's portion of the Lake Whatcom Watershed.
A ten-person Task Force was appointed by the mayor that reasonably represented major stakeholder groups, with 8 members who actually lived in this watershed. The Task Force was assigned to work under the auspices of the Council's Lake Whatcom Watershed Committee to facilitate its coordination with staff, the public and the Council as a whole. The combined group agreed to meet for 8 work sessions -at 2-week intervals, over the Summer- and then work to come to consensus on recommendations to discharge its duty. This group was able to cover a wide range of suggestions and come to consensus, or near consensus, on over half of them! The group also requested 2 additional meetings to examine how its recommendations would be incorporated into the Ordinance, and to present it's recommendations to the City Council.
As a result of this Task Force and its recommendations, the Silver Beach Ordinance was both strengthened and made more fair and flexible, with the result of being unanimously adopted by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Each of the Task Force public meetings was recorded and later transcribed into minutes, to memorialize the important discussions and work that was accomplished. Each and every member of this Task Force contributed significantly to its success, and the City owes a debt of gratitude to them for their voluntary service on this important matter!
The following is provided as a synoptic list of topics covered and recommendations made by the Silver Beach Citizen’s Task Force. This summary has been accumulated during the course of seven meetings of the group. Respondents should consider each topic heading in the context of meeting discussions, utilizing the reference materials provided as a resource.
Recommendations are grouped by topic and variable responses. Please indicate the choice which best reflects your views by placing a check mark in the left margin adjacent the appropriate line.
[Note 1: The primary concerns, clarifications & suggested changes discussed, are annotated within the table, where applicable.]
[Note 2: Votes cast (either in person, or as a submitted proxy) & recorded during the meeting are tabulated in the √) column.]
[Note 3: In some instances, more than one choice per group seemed permissible, so tally totals vary somewhat.]
√) CATEGORY & GROUP SURVEY CHOICE (pick one in each group)
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 1. SCIENCE:
(8) A1. Sufficient information exists to verify Lake Whatcom is impacted by development
(2) B1. Sufficient information exists to suggest Lake Whatcom may be impacted by development
(3) C1. Insufficient information exists to conclude the Lake is/may be impacted by development
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that sufficient information exists to either verify/suggest Lake Whatcom is/may be impacted by development.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION:
(0) A1. Public education efforts by the city/county are adequate for Lake Whatcom issues
13) B1. Public education efforts by the city/county should be improved and/or expanded
CONCLUSION: Unanimous belief that public education efforts by the city/county should be improved and/or expanded.
--------------------------------------------------------
(8) A2. Public education efforts appear to have a significant influence on Lake protection efforts
(4) B2. Public education efforts appear to be insignificant with regard to Lake protection efforts
(*somewhat confusing language; does this refer to current (actual) or potential influence?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; majority favoring the view that public education efforts appear to have a significant influence on Lake protection efforts. Some confusion in meaning; may need clarifying.
--------------------------------------------------------
Public education efforts should be:
12) A3. High priority
(1) B3. Medium priority
(0) C3. Low priority for the city and county
CONCLUSION: Near unanimous belief that public education should be a high priority.
(This has been recommended to the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program as a priority for 2001)
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 3. MORATORIUM.
(2) A1. There should be a moratorium on virtually all watershed construction forever
(7) B1. There should be a moratorium until a Total Maximum Daily Load study is completed
(2) C1. There should be a moratorium on single family construction until ordinances are revised
(0) D1. There should be a moratorium on subdivisions only; lots of adequate size could be built
(6) E1. No moratorium is necessary, current protection efforts are underway and evolving
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
(1) A1. The City Comprehensive Plan currently contains sufficient policy guidance for protection
(3) B1. The City/County/District Joint Goals and Policies are adequate guidance for protection
(9) C1. Stronger and/or revised policy guidance is necessary for adequate lake protection
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring stronger and/or revised policy guidance as necessary for adequate lake protection.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 5. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. (The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan addresses permitted land uses, i.e. zoning, and density/lot size requirements)
(9) A1. The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan should be updated to aid lake protection efforts
(0) B1. The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan is adequate or less important than other efforts
(3) C1. Current land use designations and densities are acceptable
(8) D1. Land use designations and densities should be revised
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring updating Neighborhood Plan or revising land use designations and densities.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 6. DENSITY/MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
(4) A1. The current density designations should be retained, ranging from 6000-20,000 S.F. /lot
(7) B1. All of Silverbeach should be downzoned to the city minimum of 1 lot/20,000sf.
(1) C1. Only areas where there would be a significant reduction in lots should be down-zoned
(1) +D1.? All of Silverbeach should be down-zoned to a minimum of 1 lot/13,333sf
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some type of downzone.
--------------------------------------------------------
(5) A2. The minimum buildable lot size should conform to minimum density requirements
(5) B2. Lots should be consolidated by appropriate means to achieve min. lot size requirements
(3) C2. Lots that are substandard should not be allowed to consolidate, unless adjacent
(1) D2. All legal lots of record should be buildable, regardless of size or sub area density
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; near unanimously favoring definition of a minimum buildable lot size, possibly requiring consolidation.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 7. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDRs).
(8) A1. Transfer of Development Rights (homes) out of the watershed should be permitted*
(9) B1. Transfer of Development Rights within the watershed should be considered, when it would reduce new street or utility construction and extension impacts*
(* Does not need to be an either/or choice; can have both, none or either one)
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some type of TDR program.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 8. BUILDING SETBACKS & PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
(9) A1. Front yard setbacks should be optionally reduced, to allow less driveway/impervious area
(4) B1. Reduced front yard setbacks should be required; driveways may not exceed this length
(0) C1. Rear setbacks should be increased from 10’ to require larger yard areas
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some front yard setback reduction.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. The current, two, side-by-side, required parking spaces per lot is adequate*
(7) B2. Tandem parking, one behind the other, should be permitted*
(0) C2. Only one parking space per lot should be required
(* A2 & B2 are not mutually exclusive, could also cover C2, at owner’s option)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 9. PERMITTED/CONDITIONAL USES.
(4) A1. Permitted uses should be as stated in the current Silverbeach Ordinance
(6) B1. Permitted uses could be further restricted beyond those allowed in the ordinance
(3) C1. Permitted uses could be expanded
(3) D1. Permitted uses should be limited to single family dwellings & related only
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(2) A2. Conditional uses should be as stated in the ordinance
(8) B2. Conditional uses could be further restricted
(3) C2. Conditional uses could be expanded*
(* especially consider remodels)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring further restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Livestock should be permitted outright in single family areas
(4) B3. Livestock may be permitted, if parcel size proportionate to required animal BMP’s
(3) C3. Livestock may only be permitted as a conditional use
(6) D3. Livestock should not be permitted
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some reduction in livestock permits.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A4. Accessory Dwelling Units should continue to be prohibited
(4) B4. Accessory Dwelling Units could be considered as a conditional use
(1) C4. Accessory Dwelling Units could be permitted in lieu of subdivision, w/restrict. covenant
(4) +D4.(?) ADU’s OK, if =/< 2000 SF
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring continued prohibition.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 10. SUBDIVISION CODE.
(9) A1. Cluster development, which allows smaller lots and larger open space, should be allowed provided there is no increase in density beyond conventional
(2) B1. Cluster should only be allowed as presently permitted in areas 1,4,5,11 & 17
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on need for cluster development.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 11. STREET STANDARDS.
(0) A1. Street right of way width should remain @ 60’ for through streets and 50’ for cul de sacs
11) B1. Street right of way width should be narrowed below current minimums when feasible
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing possible narrowing street right of way in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A2. Full standard through streets should remain @ 28’ wide and cul de sacs 24’ wide
12) B2. Full standard streets should be narrowed when feasible
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing possible narrowing full standard street right of way in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Full standard streets should include sidewalks on both sides
(9) B3. A sidewalk on one side should usually be sufficient, except on arterial streets
(5) C3. Sidewalks are not really necessary on local-access-only streets
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing sidewalk reductions on full standard streets in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(1) A4. When required, sidewalk standards should remain @ 5’ in width
12) B4. Sidewalks should be narrowed and/or setback when feasible
Add group 5? Allow more pervious surfaces for sidewalks
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on narrowing sidewalks and/or setback when feasible
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 12. OPERATING ORDINANCES, SEPA, CLEARING, GRADING, STORMWATER.
(6) A1. SEPA Environmental Impact review should be applied the same citywide
(6) B1. SEPA review should be required for development in the watershed, except single family
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. Clearing should continue to be allowed on undeveloped land w/a permit & BMP’s
10) B2. The Clearing Ordinance should prohibit any land clearing w/out a valid building permit
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that the Clearing Ordinance should prohibit any land clearing without a valid building permit. Minority felt clearing should continue with a permit, using BMPs.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Fill sites should continue to be permitted on land w/out a building permit
13) B3. The Grading Ordinance should prohibit fills w/out a valid building permit
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on Grading Ordinance prohibiting fills w/out a valid building permit.
--------------------------------------------------------
(1) A4. Single family lots should be exempt from all but erosion control stormwater regulations
12) B4. Single lots should comply with strict stormwater regulations, like treatment & detention*
(* within reason; define how determined?)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having single lots comply with strict stormwater regulations, like treatment & detention.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 13. WETLAND & STREAM ORDINANCE.
(3) A1. Wetland and stream buffers should remain @ 25’-100’ and 10’-50’ respectively
(2) B1. Wetland and stream buffers should probably be increased somewhat
(8) C1. Wetland and Stream buffers should be based on best available science for the purpose
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that wetland and stream buffers should probably be increased. Minority felt no change was needed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(5) A2. Docks should continue to be permitted with size/length based on similar adjacent docks
(7) B2. Docks size and length should be more restricted than current patterns reflect
(3) C2. Docks should not be permitted any more
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring more dock restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 14. SHORELINE MASTER PLAN.
(2) A1. Residential shoreline setbacks should remain at 25’-35’ from the water’s edge
11) B1. Residential shoreline setbacks should be increased where feasible*
(* ambiguous; how is feasibility determined? administrative flexibility, plus appeals)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having residential shoreline setbacks should be increased where feasible.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A3. Bulkheads should continue to be permitted at/land-ward of the ordinary high water mark
(6) B3. Bulkheads should be further restricted, based on need for property protection
(3) C3. Bulkheads should not be permitted*
(* more discussion?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring more bulkhead restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 15. IMPERVIOUS LIMITS.
(9) A1. The current impervious limits of the greater of 2000 SF or 15% of parcel area are OK
(0) B1. Impervious limits should be increased w/out additional requirements
(5) C1. Impervious limits could be increased w/mitigation
(2) D1. Impervious limits should be reduced where feasible
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring retention of the current impervious limits of the greater of 2000 SF or 15% of parcel area.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 16. ADDITIONS & REMODELS. (The following applies only to new impervious additions or remodels to existing homes that already exceed impervious limits)
(2) A1. All proposed exterior footprint additions must comply with adopted impervious limits
(6) B1. Exterior additions may be considered if there is no net increase in impervious area
(5) C1. Exterior additions may be considered only if there is a net reduction in impervious area
(0) D1. Exterior additions may occur only if there is at least a 2- for 1+ impervious reduction
(1) +E1? Increased impervious area for remodels, with tighter baseline impervious %, applicable
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring exterior additions if there is no net increase, or a net reduction in impervious area.
--------------------------------------------------------
(9) A2. Reconstruction should be allowed for damage due to fire, regardless of impervious area
(3) B2. Reconstruction due to damage must comply with adopted impervious limits*
(* only if built up to existing footprint & applicable impervious area limit; insurance issue?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring reconstruction be allowed for damage due to fire, regardless of impervious area.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 17. PERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS.
(2) A1. There should be no limit on the use of non-vegetative pervious systems, i.e. pavers etc.
(5) B1. Non-vegetated pervious systems should be limited to a minor extent
(6) C1. Non-vegetated pervious systems should be limited similar to impervious cover*
(* unclear; what does “similar to” mean?)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having some limits on non-vegetated, pervious systems.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 18. TRANSFER OF IMPERVIOUS CREDITS.
(7) A1. Impervious credits should be able to be purchased or transferred from parcel to parcel*
(9) B1. Impervious credits should be able to be earned with BMP’s, mitigation or similar*
(1) C1. Impervious credits should not be purchased or earned, stay within adopted limits
(* note A1 & B1 are not mutually exclusive, shouldn’t both be allowed?)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having some mechanism to earn additional impervious credits.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 19. FLEXIBLE INCENTIVES.
(8) A1. Impervious area could be expanded by other means, such as offsite mitigation/restoration
(1) B1. Impervious area could be expanded if site design mitigates impacts demonstrably
(9) C1. Incentives that would result in greater public benefit should allow added impervious area
(2) D1. Forget flexibility, could be too difficult to monitor, be fair or administer
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having flexible incentives to earn additional impervious credits, while maintaining lake protection goals.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 20. NATIVE VEGETATION & LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.
(2) A1. Strict native vegetation requirements should be adopted to retain or establish it*
(7) B1. There should be some native vegetation or landscape requirement for single lots*
(5) C1. All vegetation management should be voluntary with education and assistance provided
(0) D1. No requirement is necessary, most lots are landscaped to some degree anyway
(* for preserving or retaining native vegetation, would any credits be offered?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some native vegetation or landscape requirement for single lots.
--------------------------------------------------------
(8) A2. Consider limiting lawn area
(4) B2. Lawns are not a significant factor or are too difficult to regulate
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some lawn area limits on single lots.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 21. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT.
(5) A1. Use of most or all pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers should be outright prohibited
(2) B1. Prohibit pesticides and herbicides, but a little fish fertilizer or manure compost is ok
(6) C1. No regulation needed, would be hard to monitor, harder to enforce or insignificant*
(* Hard to monitor or enforce; Federal Govt. enforces use close to water supply, per labels)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 22. SEASONAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS. (* refers to ground disturbance only)
(2) A1. Seasonal limits make sense and are effective, make them shorter than present
(7) B1. Seasonal limits from May 1st to September 30th, as currently enacted, are OK
(3) C1. Seasonal limits should minimize spring impact, from 6/1 to 9/30
(2) D1. Seasonal limits are too restrictive at present, should be expanded**
+E1? ** if more than 4 months are allowed, add October, not May
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring keeping 5-month limit, or reducing springtime impacts.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A2. The current earthwork exemption area of 500 sq.ft. is appropriate
(3) B2. 500 sq.ft. is too much
(2) C2. 500 sq.ft. is too little
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring keeping the current earthwork exemption area of 500 sq.ft.
--------------------------------------------------------
(4) A3. Reconstruction due to damage should be allowed off-season, regardless of area
(7) B3. Reconstruction due to damage off-season should be allowed with controls.
(2) C3. Reconstruction will have to wait and comply with everyone else
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring allowing off-season reconstruction due to damage with controls.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 23. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES.
(7) A1. Construction practices with little or no probable impact should be permitted off-season
(6) B1. Even with BMP’s, construction should wait for regular season
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(2) A2. Contractors that complete construction BMP course/certification can work off-season
(9) B2. No one can work off-season above exemption area thresholds.
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring not allowing off-season work, above exemption area thresholds.
--------------------------------------------------------
12) A3. Certification should be required to work in season, period.
(0) B3. Certification should not be required during open months
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on requiring certification to do construction work, even in season.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 24. FEES/ASSESSMENTS.
(0) A1. Only watershed residents should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
(2) B1. All city residents should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
10) C1. All water users should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
(2) D1. All water users should pay for remediation, w/watershed residents paying more
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring all water users paying for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. Stormwater fees should be related to impervious area
(8) B2. Stormwater fees should be a flat rate per residence
(2) C2. Stormwater fees should be reduced for low impervious area and/or BMP’s
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; majority favoring stormwater fees on a flat rate per residence basis.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 25. PUBLIC WATERSHED LAND ACQUISITION IN THE WATERSHED. (Includes land as fee simple, TDR’s, impervious credits and conservation easements)
10) A1. Public land acquisition should be an essential part of lake management
(3) B1. Public land acquisition is helpful, but not essential
(0) C1. Public land acquisition is not the best use of public dollars
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that public land acquisition should be either an essential, or a helpful, part of lake management. A large majority felt this was essential.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. City money should be used for City only land purchases
(3) B2. City money should be used for City and UGA (Geneva, Brownsville) purchases
(7) C2. City money should be used anywhere that it will have significant benefit in watershed
(* what is meant by “city money”? – levied & collected solely by COB?)
(0) C1. Public land acquisition is not the best use of public dollars
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that City money should be used for public land acquisition in some manner. Majority felt it should be used anywhere that it will have significant benefit in watershed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A3. Our first purchase priority should be land
(2) B3. Our first priority should be TDR’s
(0) C3. Our first priority should be impervious area credits
(2) D3. Our first priority should be conservation easements*
(4) E3. Our first priority should be compensation to owners not allowed to build on lots of record**
(this whole grouping is confusing; it sets priorities w/o evaluating efficacy of alternatives)
(1) +F3.? Our first priority should be relocating G-P’s intake to Basin #1 (who pays?)
(1) +G3.? All of the above (decisions on priority to be determined by WAAB/City Council)
(* if main purpose is to retain native vegetation, undisturbed, this option may be best)
(** if lots are ‘down-zoned’, by requiring a higher minimum lot size, or TDR/TIC program is adopted, this becomes top priority)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion on first purchase priority. This seems dependent upon the acquisition mechanisms adopted, the recommendations determined by a Watershed Acquisition Advisory Board, and the specific purchases approved by City Council.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A4. Funding for acquisition should come from a new land acquisition fee on water bills
(1) B4. Stormwater utility fee, normally used for improvements, maintenance and operations
(0) C4. From Greenways money, used for parks, open space, equipment
(0) D4. From grants (state & federal) & mitigation sources (private)
12) E4. All of the above
(0) F4. None of the above
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on using funding from all available sources.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 26. ENFORCEMENT.
(3) A1. Enforcement of the Silverbeach ordinance should be strict, literal and uniform
(1) B1. Enforcement should be phased in more gently, focussing on intent, adapting to fit
(9) C1. Enforcement should be firm, focussing on intent, and yield effective results
(* enforcement should be strongly tied to education!)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on enforcement should be firm, focussing on intent, and yield effective results – or stricter.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 27. BENCHMARK/EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS
10) A1. Benchmarks should be established to evaluate effectiveness of new ordinance provisions
(3) B1. Benchmarks, such as existing water quality monitoring and standards are sufficient
(0) C1. Benchmarks are not necessary; the proposed actions are likely to address quality concerns
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring establishing Benchmarks to evaluate effectiveness of the new ordinance provisions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 28. ONGOING ADVISORY/STAKEHOLDER GROUP.
12) A1. A stakeholders group should remain empowered to advise Council on these issues
(0) B1. There are already too many people giving advice, nobody listens anyway!
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that a stakeholders group should remain empowered to advise Council on these issues. Several members of the CTF expressed interest in remaining involved in some capacity to be determined.
--------------------------------------------------------
• SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Total Number by Voting category//Per Cent %//CUMULATIVE Per Cent %
UNANIMOUS [NO VOTES AGAINST A POSITION] 12//22.64//22.64
NEAR-UNANIMOUS [1 OR 2 VOTES AGAINST A POSITION] 11//20.76//43.4
Split opinion; large majority favoring [9 – 10 VOTES FOR A POSITION] 6//11.32//54.72
Split opinion; majority favoring [7 – 8 VOTES FOR A POSITION] 19//35.85//90.57
Split opinion [NO CLEAR MAJORITY POSITION] 5//9.43//100.0
Total Voted Categories or Sub-categories: 53
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
