Words of wisdom from an ancient Greek Philosopher, Aristotle.
Think about them before reading further.
'A likely impossibility is always preferable to an unconvincing possibility'.
'The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold'.
'Bring your desires down to your present means. Increase them only when your increased means permit'.
------------------------------
First a couple of definitions:
According to the online free dictionary, definition #5, a GAP means
a. A conspicuous difference or imbalance; a disparity: a gap between revenue and spending; the widening gap between rich and poor.
b. A problematic situation resulting from such a disparity: the budget gap; the technology gap.
Googling 'Gundecking', produces this definition;
In the modern Navy, falsifying reports, records and the like is often referred to as "gundecking." The origin of the term is somewhat obscure, but at the risk of "gundecking," here are two plausible explanations for its modern usage.
• The deck below the upper deck on a British sailing ship-of-war was called the gun deck although it carried no guns. This false deck may have been constructed to deceive enemies as to the amount of armament carried, thus the "gundeck" was a falsification.
• A more plausible explanation may stem from shortcuts taken by early Midshipmen when doing their navigation lessons. Each Mid was supposed to take sun lines at noon and star sights at night and then go below to the gun deck, work out their calculations and show them to the navigator. Certain of these young men, however, had a special formula for getting the correct answers. They would note the noon or last position on the quarter-deck traverse board and determine the approximate current position by dead reckoning plotting. Armed with this information, they proceeded to the gun deck to "gundeck" their navigation homework by simply working backwards from the dead reckoning position.
-----------------------------
Now, with all that preparation, does anyone remember Pete Kremen's 'State of the County' speech, way back in early June of 2008?
Listening to that sounded like everything was hunky-dory, peachy keen and superfine', didn't it to you?
What happened?
About 5 weeks later, Pete surprised the County Council and began what he called a 'hiring freeze', basing that decision on an impending financial crunch for the County.
Since then. the rhetoric has grown even more dire, with predictions of upwards of a $5 million shortage in the budget now being prepared.
At first, I thought this was just Pete's way of informing the County Council that there was no money available for the many important water projects they had deemed important to again prioritize and move forward.
Then, his cautionary pronouncements seemed to also be oriented to damning the proposed Mental Health Tax measure with faint praise.
But, surprisingly, that 0.1% sales tax increase did pass -and stay passed when Pete decided not to veto it!
Think maybe he saw that as a way to gain more revenues AND somewhat reduce the General Fund pressures by doing nothing himself?
That's what seasoned Kremen watchers may rightly conclude, which just adds to his mystique as 'Teflon Pete'.
In the face of these suddenly adverse developments, we are now faced with an expensive and -at best problematic- proposal by Pete to reconvey 8400 acres of DNR forest lands in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Where does this fit in the budget?
The County Council will have to rationalize for itself where this particular scheme fits into the greater scheme of things during their budget deliberations.
But here's a hint, converting revenue-producing forest administered by a State agency into a revenue-losing park administered by the County at additional cost would seem to be a no-brainer decision to most of us.
That is particularly true when the minor detail of protecting the Lake Whatcom Watershed could be compromised in the process.
But, that is at risk, if for other reason than no details regarding either what is intended or how these will be funded have been seriously discussed.
Even the 'Citizens' Committee, hand-picked by Pete to publicly vet this idea, was not given sufficient details or alternatives to evaluate the idea with any degree of objective confidence.
That is more than sad; it is borderline criminal!
But, Pete knows that folks really love their PARKS around here, never mind they will require more TAXES!
I believe that is the game; get people -particularly those not living in Bellingham- wanting something, so that later it's harder for them to say no to more taxes to pay for it.
Hopefully, enough members of the County Council will see through Pete's scheme to make sure it doesn't sail through without serious questioning.
And, right after the several important questions about 'what is proposed'? are answered, the enabling question of 'where will the money come from'? must also be answered. Likely, there would be no threat of veto if four of them wanted to raise THAT tax!
It's very interesting that the Council is being presented with an expensive proposal that many would term a 'frill', at the very time they are being told there is no money - even for essentials!
How'd you like to sit in on those work sessions?
Why don't you?
For those interested, the CITY Council has scheduled a brief work session to discuss the Reconveyance to Park proposal with a small panel representing diverse views.
This is planned to happen next Monday, August 4 about 1 PM in the City Hall Council chambers.
Be there if you can.
-----------------------------
One last definition:
'Bamboozle' means:
'In today's Navy, when you intentionally deceive someone, usually as a joke, you are said to have bamboozled them. The word was used in the days of sail also, but the intent was not hilarity. Bamboozle meant to deceive a passing vessel as to your ship's origin or nationality by flying an ensign other than your own -- a common practice of pirates.'
Is this proposal an old deception, or just a modern joke?
You get to decide!
---------------
'Humor is the only test of gravity, and gravity of humor; for a subject which will not bear raillery is suspicious, and a jest which will not bear serious examination is false wit.' - Aristotle
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Adapting Woodstock Farm: Home of Inspiration Point
A few years ago, the City was offered the rare and fortuitous opportunity to acquire -at well below market cost- a scenic tract adjacent to Chuckanut Bay and our southern City Limits. I'm pleased to say we were able to make that purchase with the help of the owners and grants from outside sources.
I thought then as I do now, that Woodstock Farm was a gem that future residents and visitors would enjoy immensely, and particularly for its scenic tranquillity and connection to nature. While our initial challenge was funding the purchase, now maintaining the property and determining how best to use it have become the main focus.
Recently, I was delighted to have been invited to participate in a brainstorming session along with about 50 or so others who represented diverse backgrounds and perspectives. I believe such an approach is a productive one that is likely to result in a plan that will respect the inherent qualities of this unusual site and be careful about how it is developed and used.
The product of this 'charrette' is now in the process of being summarized and depicted in sketches and conceptual drawings, which can then be used to guide further planning. I suspect future plans may be folded into some sort of a 'Master Plan' that may be adopted and developed in phases, each with an associated cost and incremental designed use.
But, the initial phase is what can reasonably be done now that also respects existing access and usage limitations on what is appropriate and affordable.
My former City Council colleague, Dr Grant Deger, who also attended the brainstorming session, made a comment that seemed to resonate with everyone present. When asked what had convinced him that Woodstock Farm ought to be acquired, he said simply, 'the tranquillity'.
What an unusually succinct and accurate statement! Just think about what practical limits that might entail. When is tranquillity impaired? To me it means 'less is more' when trying to decide what level of development is desired. Peaceful uses are to be preferred. Maybe not too many motorized vehicles. Quiet Interpretive trails that carefully preserve sensitive plant and biota habitat. Places like Inspiration Point, where one can actually become inspired! Day use only. Quiet meeting places for Council retreats, small corporate or non-profits meetings, studies of history & local culture and lore.
That's the kind of place this has been, is now, and probably ought to remain.
Even trail connections, as important as they are, need to be done very carefully to preserve what is becoming the rarest of things -tranquillity!
I hope something close to these concepts is the course of action that finally gets adopted for Woodstock Farm, because that is what will stand the best chance of preserving its essential nature.
But only time will tell.
-----------------------------
For those who are up to a few more words on this subject, the following references to the Proposed Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan dated May 12, 2008, also apply:
From Chapter 6 -Recommendations:
Paragraph 6.4 - Special Use Sites, under Specific Recommendations:
• Develop master plan for Woodstock Farm to include parking and access plan, maintenance plan, hand-carry boat landing site [no launching] and other improvements as feasible.
• Provide additional environmental education opportunities including a bird guide, native plant guide, interpretive signage, natural history, and/or other educational and stewardship related activities or programs to promote the value of the natural environment throughout the park system, distributed primarily in select open space areas or in conjunction with specific unique habitat features.
Other general language about proper use of sensitive areas can be seen under Paragraph 6.5 - Open Space and Paragraph 6.6 - Trails that also serve as guidelines for Woodstock Farm.
Appendix A 'Park Classifications' further amplifies these guidelines;
Under 'Special Use Sites':
General Description: .....Unique Sites - generally a single use, but smaller than a regional park and not necessarily of a significance that might draw from a larger regional base.
Acquisition Guidelines: As specialized, single use facilities, special use parks should be selected based on the function that they are intended to serve. They should be situated such that sufficient infrastructure could be developed or already exists to support the intended use, including major arterials, buses and other mass transit capabilities as necessary. They should also have access to multi-modal connections.
Development Guidelines: Special use parks should be developed to maximize their intended uses. They generally do NOT include the same activities as those found in other park types. Activities provided will depend solely on the type of intended uses for the park and the influence of the community or region as expressed through a public process......
In a real sense, we are lucky that Woodstock Farm pretty clearly qualifies as a special use park, because it may inherently require a lower level of funding to develop and operate than a more heavily and actively used Community, Regional or Neighborhood Park might.
We are doubly fortunate that what Woodstock Farm offers is -in a word- tranquillity!
-----------------
I thought then as I do now, that Woodstock Farm was a gem that future residents and visitors would enjoy immensely, and particularly for its scenic tranquillity and connection to nature. While our initial challenge was funding the purchase, now maintaining the property and determining how best to use it have become the main focus.
Recently, I was delighted to have been invited to participate in a brainstorming session along with about 50 or so others who represented diverse backgrounds and perspectives. I believe such an approach is a productive one that is likely to result in a plan that will respect the inherent qualities of this unusual site and be careful about how it is developed and used.
The product of this 'charrette' is now in the process of being summarized and depicted in sketches and conceptual drawings, which can then be used to guide further planning. I suspect future plans may be folded into some sort of a 'Master Plan' that may be adopted and developed in phases, each with an associated cost and incremental designed use.
But, the initial phase is what can reasonably be done now that also respects existing access and usage limitations on what is appropriate and affordable.
My former City Council colleague, Dr Grant Deger, who also attended the brainstorming session, made a comment that seemed to resonate with everyone present. When asked what had convinced him that Woodstock Farm ought to be acquired, he said simply, 'the tranquillity'.
What an unusually succinct and accurate statement! Just think about what practical limits that might entail. When is tranquillity impaired? To me it means 'less is more' when trying to decide what level of development is desired. Peaceful uses are to be preferred. Maybe not too many motorized vehicles. Quiet Interpretive trails that carefully preserve sensitive plant and biota habitat. Places like Inspiration Point, where one can actually become inspired! Day use only. Quiet meeting places for Council retreats, small corporate or non-profits meetings, studies of history & local culture and lore.
That's the kind of place this has been, is now, and probably ought to remain.
Even trail connections, as important as they are, need to be done very carefully to preserve what is becoming the rarest of things -tranquillity!
I hope something close to these concepts is the course of action that finally gets adopted for Woodstock Farm, because that is what will stand the best chance of preserving its essential nature.
But only time will tell.
-----------------------------
For those who are up to a few more words on this subject, the following references to the Proposed Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan dated May 12, 2008, also apply:
From Chapter 6 -Recommendations:
Paragraph 6.4 - Special Use Sites, under Specific Recommendations:
• Develop master plan for Woodstock Farm to include parking and access plan, maintenance plan, hand-carry boat landing site [no launching] and other improvements as feasible.
• Provide additional environmental education opportunities including a bird guide, native plant guide, interpretive signage, natural history, and/or other educational and stewardship related activities or programs to promote the value of the natural environment throughout the park system, distributed primarily in select open space areas or in conjunction with specific unique habitat features.
Other general language about proper use of sensitive areas can be seen under Paragraph 6.5 - Open Space and Paragraph 6.6 - Trails that also serve as guidelines for Woodstock Farm.
Appendix A 'Park Classifications' further amplifies these guidelines;
Under 'Special Use Sites':
General Description: .....Unique Sites - generally a single use, but smaller than a regional park and not necessarily of a significance that might draw from a larger regional base.
Acquisition Guidelines: As specialized, single use facilities, special use parks should be selected based on the function that they are intended to serve. They should be situated such that sufficient infrastructure could be developed or already exists to support the intended use, including major arterials, buses and other mass transit capabilities as necessary. They should also have access to multi-modal connections.
Development Guidelines: Special use parks should be developed to maximize their intended uses. They generally do NOT include the same activities as those found in other park types. Activities provided will depend solely on the type of intended uses for the park and the influence of the community or region as expressed through a public process......
In a real sense, we are lucky that Woodstock Farm pretty clearly qualifies as a special use park, because it may inherently require a lower level of funding to develop and operate than a more heavily and actively used Community, Regional or Neighborhood Park might.
We are doubly fortunate that what Woodstock Farm offers is -in a word- tranquillity!
-----------------
Saturday, July 26, 2008
In the Valley of Elah
At a friend's suggestion, we watched a Netflix DVD movie titled 'In the Valley of Elah', starring Tommy Lee Jones, who received an Oscar nomination for his role.
This was an excellent film about a very serious subject; the terrible impacts that are happening to our brave combat soldiers who have seen action in Iraq.
An exemplary soldier from a military family goes missing after returning from Iraq and his concerned parents get help from a police detective to investigate.
This is probably not something that young and impressionable Mary Poppins & Walt Disney fans might enjoy, but it is a powerful story -based on actual events- that needed to be told.
Many people may think they know about the horrors of war from their own service, stories from others, or just watching TV, video games & movies about it.
But, maybe not about the unnecessary horrors of an ill-conceived war, like Iraq, where our troops have been deliberately put in harms way from unseen enemies who operate on their own turf and use tactics that the Geneva convention never addressed.
Those conditions have such lethal and lasting effects on human beings, that we cannot even conceive of this 'war's' eventual costs!
Whether they believe that anything comes after life or not, the architects of this contrived conflict -I won't honor it by giving the title of war- may have created such a bad karma for themselves that they may burn in the hottest of hells for eternity!
A real war, resisting ruthless aggression by power hungry psychopaths -like Hitler- is rightly justified. But, even that is still a terrible thing that is to be avoided if possible by diplomacy, worldwide peace-keeping alliances and any other means available, providing of course one believes war is an outdated way of resolving anything, and an absolute last resort to be used only if all else fails.
Why do we elect, tolerate and not even question leaders who routinely act against this principle and against the lessons we ought to have learned long ago?
When will we learn that democracy is not a spectator sport for lazy people who prefer being pampered consumers instead of alert and hard working citizens?
I think that starts here at home, in our towns and districts that are the true wellsprings of freedom.
But these wellsprings also need to be nurtured, replenished and renewed by us to be sustained, so that what we get is bubble-up democracy and not some corrupted idea of trickle-down anything!
What we see with the Iraq situation is something that could have been avoided had we paid better attention!
We certainly could have paid better attention to the people we elected, and that starts at home.
So, go ahead and make my day and connect the dots.
You get what you pay for, so be careful how you spend your money, time and vote!
This was an excellent film about a very serious subject; the terrible impacts that are happening to our brave combat soldiers who have seen action in Iraq.
An exemplary soldier from a military family goes missing after returning from Iraq and his concerned parents get help from a police detective to investigate.
This is probably not something that young and impressionable Mary Poppins & Walt Disney fans might enjoy, but it is a powerful story -based on actual events- that needed to be told.
Many people may think they know about the horrors of war from their own service, stories from others, or just watching TV, video games & movies about it.
But, maybe not about the unnecessary horrors of an ill-conceived war, like Iraq, where our troops have been deliberately put in harms way from unseen enemies who operate on their own turf and use tactics that the Geneva convention never addressed.
Those conditions have such lethal and lasting effects on human beings, that we cannot even conceive of this 'war's' eventual costs!
Whether they believe that anything comes after life or not, the architects of this contrived conflict -I won't honor it by giving the title of war- may have created such a bad karma for themselves that they may burn in the hottest of hells for eternity!
A real war, resisting ruthless aggression by power hungry psychopaths -like Hitler- is rightly justified. But, even that is still a terrible thing that is to be avoided if possible by diplomacy, worldwide peace-keeping alliances and any other means available, providing of course one believes war is an outdated way of resolving anything, and an absolute last resort to be used only if all else fails.
Why do we elect, tolerate and not even question leaders who routinely act against this principle and against the lessons we ought to have learned long ago?
When will we learn that democracy is not a spectator sport for lazy people who prefer being pampered consumers instead of alert and hard working citizens?
I think that starts here at home, in our towns and districts that are the true wellsprings of freedom.
But these wellsprings also need to be nurtured, replenished and renewed by us to be sustained, so that what we get is bubble-up democracy and not some corrupted idea of trickle-down anything!
What we see with the Iraq situation is something that could have been avoided had we paid better attention!
We certainly could have paid better attention to the people we elected, and that starts at home.
So, go ahead and make my day and connect the dots.
You get what you pay for, so be careful how you spend your money, time and vote!
What Makes a Headline?
'If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him.' - Cardinal Richelieu [1585 - 1642]
'The power of the press belongs to those who own them' - A J Liebling
'The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.' - Winston Churchill
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that the 'presumptive' Presidential opponents have finally been determined, we've entered the phase where the real fun begins.
That is when each candidate tries to define himself in terms that will attract votes, period.
That's because without a majority of votes that translate into 270 Electoral Votes, no one can be elected.
If one is not elected, all the rhetoric, energy, expense and the promise of betterment will be for naught.
Only if a candidate is elected can he/she put into practice those campaign promises he/she values most.
So, a certain amount of gamesmanship, seemingly contradictory statements, flip-flopping and posturing is inherent in this process.
But, most keen observers can detect - through the fog of politics - those core values that best represent a candidate.
Whether these thoughtful and keen observers constitute a sufficient number to elect is another story, as history has proven so recently.
So effective have been the PR and marketing campaigns that candidates for National and State offices have waged, that they have been able to effectively mask essential weaknesses for some and greatly exaggerate them for others.
That's a danger I hope can be largely avoided in this Presidential race, and maybe the sheer length of the campaign will help that.
Campaigns should be about facts and honesty, not myths and lies, despite any Supreme Court ruling that disallows that distinction!
---------------
In this vein, the current, manufactured 'mini-flap' over the Press giving preferential treatment to Barack Obama is very amusing!
Why not apply a free 'Market' theory to that?
There is a dire lack of new forward-thinking ideas, candor, energy and hope in this country today, largely as a result of almost 8 absolutely debilitating years under President George W Bush, likely our worst in history.
Conversely, there is a huge oversupply of incompetence and gross deficiency, including lack of trust & confidence, absence of funding for essentials, declining world standing, no energy policy, broken healthcare system, deficient education programs, wrong-headed approaches to peace & security, tremendous waste & favoritism in support of a contrived 'war' in Iraq, and the like. This list is LONG!
Again, these are largely the result of our 2-term embarrassment under an abysmally poor leader, who was 'elected' using campaign tactics evocative of a world-class villain.
So, where do you imagine the 'Market' wants to go, under the laws of supply & demand?
For every whine from right wingers, there is an easy answer in simple economic terms; unmet needs attract new investment, and surplus extravagances do not.
The investors are -or ought to be- the voting public, which rightfully feels cheated, demeaned, and ready for change!
How do people who like to call themselves 'conservative' fail to understand even these basic economy-based principles?
[I had a financial advisor try to blame the threat of political change as an excuse for touting the status quo. Guess how long it took me to fire him!]
-----------------
A recent 'headline' from a so-called 'fair & balanced' talking head pronounces:
" Coverage of Obama trip almost embarrassing"
Why would the Press -especially the non-FOX variety- possibly want to cover Obama more than McCain?
I think he is more interesting for starters, partly because he is talking about real issues with good ideas.
Also, the Country -indeed the World- is very tired of our current Administration and its arrogant, unimaginative and ineffective antics.
Another headline from CNN reads:
"Young Republicans worry about McCain's appeal"
I think they mean his 'lack of appeal' don't you?
Most -non-Republican- young people have responded very enthusiastically to Obama!
And, why shouldn't they? He is addressing real problems that will impact them, but also inspiring them to get involved with insuring their own future destiny, and the heritage for which new generations will have to assume the responsibility.
Other folks are finally beginning to more seriously question FOX 'News', like the rapper Nas, who appeared the other night on 'The Colbert Report' - after being rebuffed at Fox. Nas had collected over 620,000 signatures on a petition that demanded 'FAUX' News cease and desist in its systematically racist remarks.
Nas' new song, Sly Fox, tooks direct aim at Fox;
"Watch what you watchin', Fox keeps feeding us toxins ... I pledge allegiance to the fair and balanced truth, not the biased truth, not the liar's truth," the song says.
"Fox poisons the country with racist propaganda and tries to call it news."
Good for you, Nas!
You know what? It's about time other people started calling out these jokers -Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, et al- on their tactics!
But, what do you expect from an organization owned and controlled by Rupert Murdock, and operated for the benefit of those he helps keep in power?
But why pick on Fox? Because that network suffers from the most egregious biases, that's why. Despite mouthing the words, 'Fair & Balanced', they are practicing just the opposite! Nothing a little quality control couldn't handle, but first you have to define what 'Quality' is to be controlled!
Of course, the other networks aren't perfect either, but most of them do try, especially PBS.
Ever wonder why Government support for PBS and NPR is shrinking?
Maybe its because they are more immune to crass advertising pressures and dare to present hard issues with facts and reasoned commentary.
Maybe its because PBS & NPR are more serious about respecting the value of honesty?
I think there are few values as lasting as basic integrity, and that applies regardless of political persuasion.
Then, there's that unfunny clown, Rush Limbaugh, who's been getting rich for years by spouting nothing but hateful propaganda over a plethora of private stations that are licensed by the FCC to use our public airways.
See anything wrong with that?
Would you call that privatizing the profits and socializing the costs?
But, we do have our rights according to several Amendments, don't we?
So, Mr Limbaugh may not be breaking any laws, except those that the Good Book warns about, pertaining to basic honesty, respecting others and unbounded greed.
Maybe its time we learned to follow the money?
That way, we might simply charge the campaigns of so-called 'conservatives' for the political value of this consistently biased, partisan reporting -on the public airways?
Bald-faced propaganda. I think it's called.
Of course, equal treatment would be expected across the entire political spectrum, too.
At least, the 'visible' spectrum.
Let's start creating our own headlines, by demanding more openness, honesty and accountability from our elected representatives!
Now, that would be a campaign reform I'd contribute to & vote for!
Out.
--------------------------------------
Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.
-William E. Gladstone
Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose.
- George Will
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. - Winston Churchill
'The power of the press belongs to those who own them' - A J Liebling
'The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.' - Winston Churchill
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that the 'presumptive' Presidential opponents have finally been determined, we've entered the phase where the real fun begins.
That is when each candidate tries to define himself in terms that will attract votes, period.
That's because without a majority of votes that translate into 270 Electoral Votes, no one can be elected.
If one is not elected, all the rhetoric, energy, expense and the promise of betterment will be for naught.
Only if a candidate is elected can he/she put into practice those campaign promises he/she values most.
So, a certain amount of gamesmanship, seemingly contradictory statements, flip-flopping and posturing is inherent in this process.
But, most keen observers can detect - through the fog of politics - those core values that best represent a candidate.
Whether these thoughtful and keen observers constitute a sufficient number to elect is another story, as history has proven so recently.
So effective have been the PR and marketing campaigns that candidates for National and State offices have waged, that they have been able to effectively mask essential weaknesses for some and greatly exaggerate them for others.
That's a danger I hope can be largely avoided in this Presidential race, and maybe the sheer length of the campaign will help that.
Campaigns should be about facts and honesty, not myths and lies, despite any Supreme Court ruling that disallows that distinction!
---------------
In this vein, the current, manufactured 'mini-flap' over the Press giving preferential treatment to Barack Obama is very amusing!
Why not apply a free 'Market' theory to that?
There is a dire lack of new forward-thinking ideas, candor, energy and hope in this country today, largely as a result of almost 8 absolutely debilitating years under President George W Bush, likely our worst in history.
Conversely, there is a huge oversupply of incompetence and gross deficiency, including lack of trust & confidence, absence of funding for essentials, declining world standing, no energy policy, broken healthcare system, deficient education programs, wrong-headed approaches to peace & security, tremendous waste & favoritism in support of a contrived 'war' in Iraq, and the like. This list is LONG!
Again, these are largely the result of our 2-term embarrassment under an abysmally poor leader, who was 'elected' using campaign tactics evocative of a world-class villain.
So, where do you imagine the 'Market' wants to go, under the laws of supply & demand?
For every whine from right wingers, there is an easy answer in simple economic terms; unmet needs attract new investment, and surplus extravagances do not.
The investors are -or ought to be- the voting public, which rightfully feels cheated, demeaned, and ready for change!
How do people who like to call themselves 'conservative' fail to understand even these basic economy-based principles?
[I had a financial advisor try to blame the threat of political change as an excuse for touting the status quo. Guess how long it took me to fire him!]
-----------------
A recent 'headline' from a so-called 'fair & balanced' talking head pronounces:
" Coverage of Obama trip almost embarrassing"
Why would the Press -especially the non-FOX variety- possibly want to cover Obama more than McCain?
I think he is more interesting for starters, partly because he is talking about real issues with good ideas.
Also, the Country -indeed the World- is very tired of our current Administration and its arrogant, unimaginative and ineffective antics.
Another headline from CNN reads:
"Young Republicans worry about McCain's appeal"
I think they mean his 'lack of appeal' don't you?
Most -non-Republican- young people have responded very enthusiastically to Obama!
And, why shouldn't they? He is addressing real problems that will impact them, but also inspiring them to get involved with insuring their own future destiny, and the heritage for which new generations will have to assume the responsibility.
Other folks are finally beginning to more seriously question FOX 'News', like the rapper Nas, who appeared the other night on 'The Colbert Report' - after being rebuffed at Fox. Nas had collected over 620,000 signatures on a petition that demanded 'FAUX' News cease and desist in its systematically racist remarks.
Nas' new song, Sly Fox, tooks direct aim at Fox;
"Watch what you watchin', Fox keeps feeding us toxins ... I pledge allegiance to the fair and balanced truth, not the biased truth, not the liar's truth," the song says.
"Fox poisons the country with racist propaganda and tries to call it news."
Good for you, Nas!
You know what? It's about time other people started calling out these jokers -Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, et al- on their tactics!
But, what do you expect from an organization owned and controlled by Rupert Murdock, and operated for the benefit of those he helps keep in power?
But why pick on Fox? Because that network suffers from the most egregious biases, that's why. Despite mouthing the words, 'Fair & Balanced', they are practicing just the opposite! Nothing a little quality control couldn't handle, but first you have to define what 'Quality' is to be controlled!
Of course, the other networks aren't perfect either, but most of them do try, especially PBS.
Ever wonder why Government support for PBS and NPR is shrinking?
Maybe its because they are more immune to crass advertising pressures and dare to present hard issues with facts and reasoned commentary.
Maybe its because PBS & NPR are more serious about respecting the value of honesty?
I think there are few values as lasting as basic integrity, and that applies regardless of political persuasion.
Then, there's that unfunny clown, Rush Limbaugh, who's been getting rich for years by spouting nothing but hateful propaganda over a plethora of private stations that are licensed by the FCC to use our public airways.
See anything wrong with that?
Would you call that privatizing the profits and socializing the costs?
But, we do have our rights according to several Amendments, don't we?
So, Mr Limbaugh may not be breaking any laws, except those that the Good Book warns about, pertaining to basic honesty, respecting others and unbounded greed.
Maybe its time we learned to follow the money?
That way, we might simply charge the campaigns of so-called 'conservatives' for the political value of this consistently biased, partisan reporting -on the public airways?
Bald-faced propaganda. I think it's called.
Of course, equal treatment would be expected across the entire political spectrum, too.
At least, the 'visible' spectrum.
Let's start creating our own headlines, by demanding more openness, honesty and accountability from our elected representatives!
Now, that would be a campaign reform I'd contribute to & vote for!
Out.
--------------------------------------
Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.
-William E. Gladstone
Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose.
- George Will
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. - Winston Churchill
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Reassessing this Blog
Lately, I've been reassessing the manner in which this blog might be continued.
And, comments from others have played a big part in that process.
More folks than I thought might have cared would like me to resume this blog on a more regular basis.
An even greater number have encouraged me to limit the length of future blogs.
And, some no doubt have wished this blog would just disappear!
Others -the huge majority- are probably blissfully unaware of it and/or could care less.
In the end, the determination of whether to blog or not is mine alone to make.
Already most of my files on the ongoing issues have been disgorged to the Internet, but whether or not these serve any useful purpose is unknown, especially since the indexing and search features are pretty basic.
And, now that I am no longer involved in the mandatory learning regimen that the Council packets provided, I'm definitely not as up to date on current matters.
With the additional free time I now have, I could always choose to use more of it for blogging, but I really don't want to.
However, I do remain interested in timely subjects and like the idea of communicating thoughts and opinions from time to time.
Also, the world of communications has changed, whether people acknowledge it or not.
With greater access to information, the exercise of figuring out what is of most interest in a timely manner is essential to keep from being overwhelmed with the sheer volume of stuff out there.
Then, there's the problem of quality control.
Who is telling you the facts, and who is coloring their version what color?
There has also been a contraction in local coverage, with the demise of the WIndy, cut-backs at the Herald, etc.
This has only been partly offset by better City Council coverage on BTV10, and the City website, plus several new blogs, including the new NW Citizen format and Herald's ongoing experiments.
Anyway, a different approach is needed for me to remain interested in maintaining this blog.
So, here's what I'm thinking;
I'll try to post something every week, maybe 1 to 3 times, depending upon travel.
I'll limit the length of each blog to a more readable size.
I'll mix up the topics better to reflect local, regional, national and international topics.
Plus, I'll throw in a few observations that happen almost daily from my own experience and perspective.
We'll see if this works.
I hope any readers left out there will like these changes.
If not, other changes can always happen.
And, comments from others have played a big part in that process.
More folks than I thought might have cared would like me to resume this blog on a more regular basis.
An even greater number have encouraged me to limit the length of future blogs.
And, some no doubt have wished this blog would just disappear!
Others -the huge majority- are probably blissfully unaware of it and/or could care less.
In the end, the determination of whether to blog or not is mine alone to make.
Already most of my files on the ongoing issues have been disgorged to the Internet, but whether or not these serve any useful purpose is unknown, especially since the indexing and search features are pretty basic.
And, now that I am no longer involved in the mandatory learning regimen that the Council packets provided, I'm definitely not as up to date on current matters.
With the additional free time I now have, I could always choose to use more of it for blogging, but I really don't want to.
However, I do remain interested in timely subjects and like the idea of communicating thoughts and opinions from time to time.
Also, the world of communications has changed, whether people acknowledge it or not.
With greater access to information, the exercise of figuring out what is of most interest in a timely manner is essential to keep from being overwhelmed with the sheer volume of stuff out there.
Then, there's the problem of quality control.
Who is telling you the facts, and who is coloring their version what color?
There has also been a contraction in local coverage, with the demise of the WIndy, cut-backs at the Herald, etc.
This has only been partly offset by better City Council coverage on BTV10, and the City website, plus several new blogs, including the new NW Citizen format and Herald's ongoing experiments.
Anyway, a different approach is needed for me to remain interested in maintaining this blog.
So, here's what I'm thinking;
I'll try to post something every week, maybe 1 to 3 times, depending upon travel.
I'll limit the length of each blog to a more readable size.
I'll mix up the topics better to reflect local, regional, national and international topics.
Plus, I'll throw in a few observations that happen almost daily from my own experience and perspective.
We'll see if this works.
I hope any readers left out there will like these changes.
If not, other changes can always happen.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Word Games: Taxes versus Fees
-----------------------------------------
'The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a big matter- it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.'
-Mark Twain
------------------------------------------
The recent consideration of a Stormwater Management District for Birch Bay by the Whatcom County Council has renewed the local 'debate' about the difference between 'taxes' and 'fees'.
I believe the Council is now being given accurate advice about this distinction, as well as its appropriate applicability to the measure being considered.
That is so largely because a previous iteration of the County Council was bullied into revising its use of the former Flood Taxes for County-wide water planning by a lawsuit filed by those against such planning efforts.
But, in retrospect, that lawsuit was probably as justified as it was instructive in helping the County determine the proper use of such funds, as well as learn about some other funding mechanisms available for its future needs.
One of those 'future' needs has become a current one - the very Stormwater Management District now being proposed for Birch Bay.
And, of course its appropriate to revisit what has been learned, even if some here remain in denial that any difference exists between taxes and fees.
A Google search of 'taxes versus fees' resulted in a total of 8,820,000 different results in only 0.15 seconds!
Since that number is far more than I needed to get a fair idea of the arguments, I decided to look at only the first ten references on page one.
Here's a brief synopsis of some Fees vs. Taxes findings, bearing in mind there are differences in State Laws.
---------------------------------------------
First, from the website of organization below:
The Orange County Taxpayers Association (OCTax) likes fees better than taxes. We prefer that the users of a service, rather than the general public, pay for the service.
• Fees are paid only by users of a service. Examples are toll roads, permits, licenses, public parking, small claims court, entertainment. Motor vehicle fuel “taxes” which are spent on roads are actually fees; motor vehicle fuel taxes that are diverted to general governmental services are true taxes.
• Taxes are paid by the general public for general governmental services, provided for the general public’s benefit, and for which it is infeasible for the users of the services to pay. Examples are jails, police and fire protection, municipal and superior courts, voter registration and elections.
Here is a summary of the differences between a tax and a fee in 5 different ways.
1. Tax: Pays for any government service. Nexus between payer and service not required.
Fee: Pays for a specific service,to regulate payer. Nexus required.
2. Tax: General public gets the primary benefit.
Fee: Payer gets the primary benefit.
3. Tax: Payment is mandatory.
Fee: Payment is contingent on use of service, or choice to engage in regulated activity.
4. Tax: May be levied in any amount.
Fee: Covers only cost of the service: construction, maintenance, regulation, permitting, inspecting.
5. Tax: Levied equally on all similar payers.
Fee: Levied in proportion to impact or extent of activity.
---------------------------
Next, from this website:http://everything2.com/e2node/Tax%2520vs.%2520Fee
Tax vs. Fee
You may opt not to require a fee. You must pay a tax.
tax: A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.
fee: A fixed sum charged, as by an institution or by law, for a privilege.
Within the state of Utah, it is illegal for municipal governments to levy taxes without the approval of the state legislature, or a ballot initiative.
Thus, every city in Utah has a proliferation of "fees" to meet budgetary needs. Within the development process, this includes fees for plat approval for subdivisions. Legal trials have been brought on the basis that such fees are taxes and thus illegal. However, their constitutionality has been upheld because the choice to subdivide is "voluntary" exercise of a privelege, and as such subject to fees.
The same thing applies to cell phone bills. Because cell phone companies cannot tax their users, they instead institute "variable fees", which are in effect taxes that have been enabled by your voluntary agreement to be party to the cell-phone contract.
--------------------------
From yet a third website:http://www.jointventure.org/PDF/taxworkbook.pdf
These folks don't care what name is used, they just want to know why its needed and whether the measure is effective and fair. [A pdf report]
-----------------------------
From a fourth source in Topeka, KANSAS, the THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL:
Semantics: Tax vs. fee
The state's most aggressive anti-tax organization Thursday defined a provision in a Republican-backed coal bill as nothing less than the three-letter word dreaded by politicians anxious to win re- election.
"It appears it would be appropriately framed as a tax," said Alan Cobb, Kansas director of the conservative group Americans for Prosperity.
He referred to a bill passed Thursday night by the House 78-46 that served as companion to a measure allowing expansion of the coal- fired electric plant in southwest Kansas. This side bill requires all Kansas utilities to pay the state 2 cents a month for each commercial or residential electric meter. Legislators suspect the additional cost would be passed to customers, but lawmakers disagreed on what to call the new assessment.
Republicans in favor of the proposed $3.6 billion coal-fired plant at Holcomb prefer the terms surcharge or fee, while Democrats opposed to the utility development like the word tax.
In this instance, however, Democrats had an unusual partner.
"If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck," Cobb said.
NOTE: This tells me that this word game can be played by either side, depending upon whether they FAVOR a measure!
What does that do to objectivity?
------------------------------
Next, from the same arch-conservative group that advocated for the Kansas measure abstracted above!
Rain taxes? Really?
Website of "americansforprosperity.org"
Governments often turn to “fees” in order to avoid the stigma of tax hikes or to circumvent restraints on their ability to raise taxes, but the savvy taxpayer can easily distinguish between a legitimate “fee” for a defined quid pro quo and a “tax.”
If citizens can opt to not pay the fee, and forgo the service provided for that fee as a result, it would appear to be a genuine fee. A fee is charged for a privilege that you can start or stop at will, whereas a tax is a contribution for the support of a government required from those who live within the jurisdiction of that government.
The latest outbreak of these pests to spread across the country are stormwater run-off fees, or as I like to call them, rain taxes. The eruption of these new taxes stems from stormwater management programs required by the EPA as a result of the Clean Water Act. These ridiculous newly-enforced regulations require small and large municipalities to process “non-point source pollution,” or in other words the water that spills off of your car, house, lawn, parking lot, property, etc. when it rains. Communities of 50,000 or more must create programs to address stormwater, but rain taxes will soon even be falling in less-populated towns.
------------------------------
Finally, from this lengthy, boring, but factual take at: www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/storm/chap4.asp
FUNDING AND GAINING SUPPORT FOR STORMWATER PROGRAMS
The best-designed stormwater pollution management plan will flounder without sufficient community support and funding. Community support is often necessary for official government support, although in many of the cases studies the government took the lead and the broader support followed. A major aim of many public education programs (and a critical task for local community and environmental organizations) is to build this political support. An equal emphasis is needed to establish a stable source of funding to keep a program moving forward, once implemented. While the two often go hand-in-hand -- adequate funding almost always requires political support and, conversely, a healthy community consensus on the need for runoff pollution control will generally lead to sufficient funds -- the traditional funding mechanisms available to local governments demand continuous political support, which can be difficult at times. Nonetheless, there are several approaches a municipality can take to establish a dedicated funding source. This chapter describes one of these approaches -- stormwater utilities -- and discusses the authority of local governments to implement them.
Traditional government funding sources may prove problematic for stormwater pollution program. Grants for water pollution from the federal government are far smaller than in earlier years. Low interest loans from the federal/state revolving loan fund many not be attractive, especially for the non-capital elements of a stormwater pollution program. Allocations from local taxes may be an unreliable means of generating revenue: though essential for ecological and public health reasons, community leaders are hard-pressed to divert adequate funds from general municipal budgets for stormwater pollution control, because the money comes from the same pool as more politically popular uses.
In light of these difficulties of traditional grant, loan, and tax funding, many local governments have successfully turned to alternative funding strategies. Local governments have funded stormwater pollution measures through charging inspection and permit fees, collecting dedicated contributions from land developers, taxing new development at an increased rate, forming regional stormwater management districts, and creating stormwater utilities. NRDC's research collecting these case studies, as well as work with specific municipalities on water pollution issues, suggests that one of the most effective and equitable funding mechanisms, and yet one of the least well-known, is the use of stormwater pollution utilities that operate stormwater measures entirely through self-funding entities.
The Utility Structure
Stormwater utilities are a well-established, efficient, and feasible financing option that provides a dedicated revenue source for stormwater management.
1 A stormwater utility operates similarly to water, sewer, or fire districts, which are funded through service fees and administered separately from the general tax fund, ensuring stable and adequate funding for these public services.
An EPA study identified three major advantages of stormwater utilities over funds generated through property tax revenues:
(1) increased stability and predictability,
(2) greater equity, and
(3) the opportunity for incorporating incentives for implementation of on-site stormwater management.
2 As of 1996 almost 300 stormwater utilities were in operation in at least 20 states. (By contrast, there are thousands of water, sewer, and irrigation districts in the country that work under a similar framework.) Experts now estimate that there are more than 500 stormwater utilities in communities through the country. These stormwater utilities serve cities with populations ranging from under 5,000 to over 3.5 million.
3 NRDC's survey found stormwater pollution utilities in localities of all sizes and types; however, utilities appear more prevalent in growing communities in metropolitan or suburban areas, where changes to the landscape and hydrology are occurring.
Stormwater pollution utilities differ from most other utilities such as power or drinking water utilities because consumers often do not see an immediate benefit from paying their fee. Since most consumers want, for example, electricity, they are willing to pay in advance to receive it on demand. On the other hand, stormwater ratepayers are being asked to pay to prevent something they don't want, water pollution. If residents have never thought about stormwater, they probably will not recognize or appreciate the benefits of preventing stormwater pollution, and therefore will not want it in the same way as a power utility. This will likely affect their willingness to pay. Moreover, there is less an individual can do to change the magnitude of the fee. Improving the public's knowledge and understanding of the benefits of stormwater pollution prevention can go a long way to increasing their acceptance of a stormwater utility. Nonetheless, these problems are even greater with respect to taxes, and can be minimized (and explained) by linking the fee to a property's contribution to stormwater pollution and by quantifying to the extent possible the benefit that the ratepayer derives from the improved stormwater management.
Creating a Stormwater Pollution Utility
Generally a municipality enacts two ordinances to create a stormwater utility, one to establish the various components of the utility and the other to determine the rate structure. Forming the utility through two separate ordinances allows the flexibility to alter the rate structure at a later date without having to revise the ordinance governing the basic structure of the utility. The components of a stormwater utility will often include administrative, planning, and programmatic elements:
1. An administrative structure to collect fees and implement stormwater pollution prevention measures.
2. Development of a stormwater pollution prevention plan and related ordinances.
3. Erosion and sediment control requirements and related inspections or enforcement programs.
4. Detection of illicit connections to storm sewers.
5. Water quality monitoring and/or treatment.
6. Maintenance of stormwater drainage systems.
7. Public education.
8. Flood protection.
The first ordinance may also include a statement of the goals of the utility, discussing the benefits of stormwater pollution prevention. The second ordinance tries to structure the service charges to create a logical and equitable relationship between the amount, and perhaps quantity, of stormwater leaving a property, the benefits received by the stormwater system, and the amount assessed.
------------------------------------
From the above excerpts, the semantic 'debate' picture is somewhat clarified.
There are essential, objective differences between Taxes and Fees, although both do cost the public something.
While it is always useful to have debate about fees and taxes, these discussions are dumbed down by the silly rhetoric that seeks to appeal to emotions, and only follows the wishes of whatever party is for or against the main issue at hand!
Our government, at all levels, is there because we need it, established it and have voter control over it. So, let's not pretend its there because of any other reasons. If our elected officials do things that are contrary to good sense, then our remedy is to vote for others who will carry out this task better.
But, to simply seek to paralyze government from taking those actions that are prudent and necessary, serves no one's interest well.
The ones who will most benefit or suffer from poor government decisions- including non-decisions- , are those who are too young to vote, or have not yet been born!
Please, let's keep that in mind.
====================================================
Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed; too severe, seldom executed. - Benjamin Franklin
Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose. - George Will
"You can't teach what you don't know, and you can't lead where you won't go" - Jesse Jackson
"Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome." – Samuel Johnson
"Those who would give up quality of their environment to purchase a little temporary 'good business climate' deserve, and will get, neither."
- Benjamin Franklin
"The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility. Let it be drawn upon largely, and they will then listen to truths which could not excite them through any other organ." -- Thomas Jefferson
------------------------------------
'The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a big matter- it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.'
-Mark Twain
------------------------------------------
The recent consideration of a Stormwater Management District for Birch Bay by the Whatcom County Council has renewed the local 'debate' about the difference between 'taxes' and 'fees'.
I believe the Council is now being given accurate advice about this distinction, as well as its appropriate applicability to the measure being considered.
That is so largely because a previous iteration of the County Council was bullied into revising its use of the former Flood Taxes for County-wide water planning by a lawsuit filed by those against such planning efforts.
But, in retrospect, that lawsuit was probably as justified as it was instructive in helping the County determine the proper use of such funds, as well as learn about some other funding mechanisms available for its future needs.
One of those 'future' needs has become a current one - the very Stormwater Management District now being proposed for Birch Bay.
And, of course its appropriate to revisit what has been learned, even if some here remain in denial that any difference exists between taxes and fees.
A Google search of 'taxes versus fees' resulted in a total of 8,820,000 different results in only 0.15 seconds!
Since that number is far more than I needed to get a fair idea of the arguments, I decided to look at only the first ten references on page one.
Here's a brief synopsis of some Fees vs. Taxes findings, bearing in mind there are differences in State Laws.
---------------------------------------------
First, from the website of organization below:
The Orange County Taxpayers Association (OCTax) likes fees better than taxes. We prefer that the users of a service, rather than the general public, pay for the service.
• Fees are paid only by users of a service. Examples are toll roads, permits, licenses, public parking, small claims court, entertainment. Motor vehicle fuel “taxes” which are spent on roads are actually fees; motor vehicle fuel taxes that are diverted to general governmental services are true taxes.
• Taxes are paid by the general public for general governmental services, provided for the general public’s benefit, and for which it is infeasible for the users of the services to pay. Examples are jails, police and fire protection, municipal and superior courts, voter registration and elections.
Here is a summary of the differences between a tax and a fee in 5 different ways.
1. Tax: Pays for any government service. Nexus between payer and service not required.
Fee: Pays for a specific service,to regulate payer. Nexus required.
2. Tax: General public gets the primary benefit.
Fee: Payer gets the primary benefit.
3. Tax: Payment is mandatory.
Fee: Payment is contingent on use of service, or choice to engage in regulated activity.
4. Tax: May be levied in any amount.
Fee: Covers only cost of the service: construction, maintenance, regulation, permitting, inspecting.
5. Tax: Levied equally on all similar payers.
Fee: Levied in proportion to impact or extent of activity.
---------------------------
Next, from this website:http://everything2.com/e2node/Tax%2520vs.%2520Fee
Tax vs. Fee
You may opt not to require a fee. You must pay a tax.
tax: A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.
fee: A fixed sum charged, as by an institution or by law, for a privilege.
Within the state of Utah, it is illegal for municipal governments to levy taxes without the approval of the state legislature, or a ballot initiative.
Thus, every city in Utah has a proliferation of "fees" to meet budgetary needs. Within the development process, this includes fees for plat approval for subdivisions. Legal trials have been brought on the basis that such fees are taxes and thus illegal. However, their constitutionality has been upheld because the choice to subdivide is "voluntary" exercise of a privelege, and as such subject to fees.
The same thing applies to cell phone bills. Because cell phone companies cannot tax their users, they instead institute "variable fees", which are in effect taxes that have been enabled by your voluntary agreement to be party to the cell-phone contract.
--------------------------
From yet a third website:http://www.jointventure.org/PDF/taxworkbook.pdf
These folks don't care what name is used, they just want to know why its needed and whether the measure is effective and fair. [A pdf report]
-----------------------------
From a fourth source in Topeka, KANSAS, the THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL:
Semantics: Tax vs. fee
The state's most aggressive anti-tax organization Thursday defined a provision in a Republican-backed coal bill as nothing less than the three-letter word dreaded by politicians anxious to win re- election.
"It appears it would be appropriately framed as a tax," said Alan Cobb, Kansas director of the conservative group Americans for Prosperity.
He referred to a bill passed Thursday night by the House 78-46 that served as companion to a measure allowing expansion of the coal- fired electric plant in southwest Kansas. This side bill requires all Kansas utilities to pay the state 2 cents a month for each commercial or residential electric meter. Legislators suspect the additional cost would be passed to customers, but lawmakers disagreed on what to call the new assessment.
Republicans in favor of the proposed $3.6 billion coal-fired plant at Holcomb prefer the terms surcharge or fee, while Democrats opposed to the utility development like the word tax.
In this instance, however, Democrats had an unusual partner.
"If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck," Cobb said.
NOTE: This tells me that this word game can be played by either side, depending upon whether they FAVOR a measure!
What does that do to objectivity?
------------------------------
Next, from the same arch-conservative group that advocated for the Kansas measure abstracted above!
Rain taxes? Really?
Website of "americansforprosperity.org"
Governments often turn to “fees” in order to avoid the stigma of tax hikes or to circumvent restraints on their ability to raise taxes, but the savvy taxpayer can easily distinguish between a legitimate “fee” for a defined quid pro quo and a “tax.”
If citizens can opt to not pay the fee, and forgo the service provided for that fee as a result, it would appear to be a genuine fee. A fee is charged for a privilege that you can start or stop at will, whereas a tax is a contribution for the support of a government required from those who live within the jurisdiction of that government.
The latest outbreak of these pests to spread across the country are stormwater run-off fees, or as I like to call them, rain taxes. The eruption of these new taxes stems from stormwater management programs required by the EPA as a result of the Clean Water Act. These ridiculous newly-enforced regulations require small and large municipalities to process “non-point source pollution,” or in other words the water that spills off of your car, house, lawn, parking lot, property, etc. when it rains. Communities of 50,000 or more must create programs to address stormwater, but rain taxes will soon even be falling in less-populated towns.
------------------------------
Finally, from this lengthy, boring, but factual take at: www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/storm/chap4.asp
FUNDING AND GAINING SUPPORT FOR STORMWATER PROGRAMS
The best-designed stormwater pollution management plan will flounder without sufficient community support and funding. Community support is often necessary for official government support, although in many of the cases studies the government took the lead and the broader support followed. A major aim of many public education programs (and a critical task for local community and environmental organizations) is to build this political support. An equal emphasis is needed to establish a stable source of funding to keep a program moving forward, once implemented. While the two often go hand-in-hand -- adequate funding almost always requires political support and, conversely, a healthy community consensus on the need for runoff pollution control will generally lead to sufficient funds -- the traditional funding mechanisms available to local governments demand continuous political support, which can be difficult at times. Nonetheless, there are several approaches a municipality can take to establish a dedicated funding source. This chapter describes one of these approaches -- stormwater utilities -- and discusses the authority of local governments to implement them.
Traditional government funding sources may prove problematic for stormwater pollution program. Grants for water pollution from the federal government are far smaller than in earlier years. Low interest loans from the federal/state revolving loan fund many not be attractive, especially for the non-capital elements of a stormwater pollution program. Allocations from local taxes may be an unreliable means of generating revenue: though essential for ecological and public health reasons, community leaders are hard-pressed to divert adequate funds from general municipal budgets for stormwater pollution control, because the money comes from the same pool as more politically popular uses.
In light of these difficulties of traditional grant, loan, and tax funding, many local governments have successfully turned to alternative funding strategies. Local governments have funded stormwater pollution measures through charging inspection and permit fees, collecting dedicated contributions from land developers, taxing new development at an increased rate, forming regional stormwater management districts, and creating stormwater utilities. NRDC's research collecting these case studies, as well as work with specific municipalities on water pollution issues, suggests that one of the most effective and equitable funding mechanisms, and yet one of the least well-known, is the use of stormwater pollution utilities that operate stormwater measures entirely through self-funding entities.
The Utility Structure
Stormwater utilities are a well-established, efficient, and feasible financing option that provides a dedicated revenue source for stormwater management.
1 A stormwater utility operates similarly to water, sewer, or fire districts, which are funded through service fees and administered separately from the general tax fund, ensuring stable and adequate funding for these public services.
An EPA study identified three major advantages of stormwater utilities over funds generated through property tax revenues:
(1) increased stability and predictability,
(2) greater equity, and
(3) the opportunity for incorporating incentives for implementation of on-site stormwater management.
2 As of 1996 almost 300 stormwater utilities were in operation in at least 20 states. (By contrast, there are thousands of water, sewer, and irrigation districts in the country that work under a similar framework.) Experts now estimate that there are more than 500 stormwater utilities in communities through the country. These stormwater utilities serve cities with populations ranging from under 5,000 to over 3.5 million.
3 NRDC's survey found stormwater pollution utilities in localities of all sizes and types; however, utilities appear more prevalent in growing communities in metropolitan or suburban areas, where changes to the landscape and hydrology are occurring.
Stormwater pollution utilities differ from most other utilities such as power or drinking water utilities because consumers often do not see an immediate benefit from paying their fee. Since most consumers want, for example, electricity, they are willing to pay in advance to receive it on demand. On the other hand, stormwater ratepayers are being asked to pay to prevent something they don't want, water pollution. If residents have never thought about stormwater, they probably will not recognize or appreciate the benefits of preventing stormwater pollution, and therefore will not want it in the same way as a power utility. This will likely affect their willingness to pay. Moreover, there is less an individual can do to change the magnitude of the fee. Improving the public's knowledge and understanding of the benefits of stormwater pollution prevention can go a long way to increasing their acceptance of a stormwater utility. Nonetheless, these problems are even greater with respect to taxes, and can be minimized (and explained) by linking the fee to a property's contribution to stormwater pollution and by quantifying to the extent possible the benefit that the ratepayer derives from the improved stormwater management.
Creating a Stormwater Pollution Utility
Generally a municipality enacts two ordinances to create a stormwater utility, one to establish the various components of the utility and the other to determine the rate structure. Forming the utility through two separate ordinances allows the flexibility to alter the rate structure at a later date without having to revise the ordinance governing the basic structure of the utility. The components of a stormwater utility will often include administrative, planning, and programmatic elements:
1. An administrative structure to collect fees and implement stormwater pollution prevention measures.
2. Development of a stormwater pollution prevention plan and related ordinances.
3. Erosion and sediment control requirements and related inspections or enforcement programs.
4. Detection of illicit connections to storm sewers.
5. Water quality monitoring and/or treatment.
6. Maintenance of stormwater drainage systems.
7. Public education.
8. Flood protection.
The first ordinance may also include a statement of the goals of the utility, discussing the benefits of stormwater pollution prevention. The second ordinance tries to structure the service charges to create a logical and equitable relationship between the amount, and perhaps quantity, of stormwater leaving a property, the benefits received by the stormwater system, and the amount assessed.
------------------------------------
From the above excerpts, the semantic 'debate' picture is somewhat clarified.
There are essential, objective differences between Taxes and Fees, although both do cost the public something.
While it is always useful to have debate about fees and taxes, these discussions are dumbed down by the silly rhetoric that seeks to appeal to emotions, and only follows the wishes of whatever party is for or against the main issue at hand!
Our government, at all levels, is there because we need it, established it and have voter control over it. So, let's not pretend its there because of any other reasons. If our elected officials do things that are contrary to good sense, then our remedy is to vote for others who will carry out this task better.
But, to simply seek to paralyze government from taking those actions that are prudent and necessary, serves no one's interest well.
The ones who will most benefit or suffer from poor government decisions- including non-decisions- , are those who are too young to vote, or have not yet been born!
Please, let's keep that in mind.
====================================================
Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed; too severe, seldom executed. - Benjamin Franklin
Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose. - George Will
"You can't teach what you don't know, and you can't lead where you won't go" - Jesse Jackson
"Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome." – Samuel Johnson
"Those who would give up quality of their environment to purchase a little temporary 'good business climate' deserve, and will get, neither."
- Benjamin Franklin
"The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility. Let it be drawn upon largely, and they will then listen to truths which could not excite them through any other organ." -- Thomas Jefferson
------------------------------------
Monday, June 30, 2008
Funnies?
Someone sent me these funnies recently:
-----------------------
The Original Computer:
Memory was something you lost with age
An application was for employment
A program was a TV show
A cursor is one who used profanity
A keyboard was a piano
A web was a spider's home
A virus was the flu
A CD was a bank account
A hard drive was a long trip on the road
A mouse pad was where a mouse lived
And if you had a 3 inch floppy ...
...you just hoped nobody found out!
-----------------------
Once upon a time there were three sisters, ages 92, 94 and 96, and they all lived together.
One night the 96-year-old ran a bath. She put one foot in and paused. "Was I getting in the tub or out?" she yelled.
The 94-year-old hollered back, "I don't know. I'll come and see." She started up the stairs and stopped. She shouted, "Was I going up or coming down?"
The 92-year-old sitting at the kitchen table having tea, listening to her sisters, shook her head and said, "I sure hope I never get that forgetful," and knocked on wood for good measure.
Then she yelled, "I'll come up and help both of you as soon as I see who's at the door."
-----------------------
5 RIDDLES
[ANSWERS ARE AT THE BOTTOM]
1. A murderer is condemned to death. He has to choose between three rooms.
The first is full of raging fires,
the second is full of assassins with loaded guns,
and the third is full of lions that haven't eaten in 3 years.
Which room is safest for him?
2. A woman shoots her husband.
Then she holds him under water for over 5 minutes.
Finally, she hangs him.
But 5 minutes later they both go out and enjoy a wonderful dinner together.
How can this be?
3. What is black when you buy it,
red when you use it,
and gray when you throw it away ?
4. Can you name three consecutive days without using the words
Wednesday, Friday, or Sunday?
5. This is an unusual paragraph.
I'm curious as to just how quickly you can find out what is so unusual about it.
It looks so ordinary and plain that you would think nothing was wrong with it.
In fact, nothing is wrong with it!
It is highly unusual though.
Study it and think about it, but you still may not find anything odd.
But if you work at it a bit, you might find out.
Try to do so without any coaching!
ANSWERS TO THE FIVE RIDDLES ARE BELOW:
1 The third room. Lions that haven't eaten in three years are dead.
That one was easy, right?
2. The woman was a photographer. She shot a picture of her husband, developed it, and hung it up to dry (shot; held under water; and hung).
3. Charcoal, as it is used in barbecuing.
4. Sure you can name three consecutive days;
yesterday, today, and tomorrow!
5. The letter e, which is the most common letter used in the English language, does not appear even once in the paragraph.
how did you do?
-----------------------
-----------------------
The Original Computer:
Memory was something you lost with age
An application was for employment
A program was a TV show
A cursor is one who used profanity
A keyboard was a piano
A web was a spider's home
A virus was the flu
A CD was a bank account
A hard drive was a long trip on the road
A mouse pad was where a mouse lived
And if you had a 3 inch floppy ...
...you just hoped nobody found out!
-----------------------
Once upon a time there were three sisters, ages 92, 94 and 96, and they all lived together.
One night the 96-year-old ran a bath. She put one foot in and paused. "Was I getting in the tub or out?" she yelled.
The 94-year-old hollered back, "I don't know. I'll come and see." She started up the stairs and stopped. She shouted, "Was I going up or coming down?"
The 92-year-old sitting at the kitchen table having tea, listening to her sisters, shook her head and said, "I sure hope I never get that forgetful," and knocked on wood for good measure.
Then she yelled, "I'll come up and help both of you as soon as I see who's at the door."
-----------------------
5 RIDDLES
[ANSWERS ARE AT THE BOTTOM]
1. A murderer is condemned to death. He has to choose between three rooms.
The first is full of raging fires,
the second is full of assassins with loaded guns,
and the third is full of lions that haven't eaten in 3 years.
Which room is safest for him?
2. A woman shoots her husband.
Then she holds him under water for over 5 minutes.
Finally, she hangs him.
But 5 minutes later they both go out and enjoy a wonderful dinner together.
How can this be?
3. What is black when you buy it,
red when you use it,
and gray when you throw it away ?
4. Can you name three consecutive days without using the words
Wednesday, Friday, or Sunday?
5. This is an unusual paragraph.
I'm curious as to just how quickly you can find out what is so unusual about it.
It looks so ordinary and plain that you would think nothing was wrong with it.
In fact, nothing is wrong with it!
It is highly unusual though.
Study it and think about it, but you still may not find anything odd.
But if you work at it a bit, you might find out.
Try to do so without any coaching!
ANSWERS TO THE FIVE RIDDLES ARE BELOW:
1 The third room. Lions that haven't eaten in three years are dead.
That one was easy, right?
2. The woman was a photographer. She shot a picture of her husband, developed it, and hung it up to dry (shot; held under water; and hung).
3. Charcoal, as it is used in barbecuing.
4. Sure you can name three consecutive days;
yesterday, today, and tomorrow!
5. The letter e, which is the most common letter used in the English language, does not appear even once in the paragraph.
how did you do?
-----------------------
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Real Life Reality: Grandma & the Chicken
On a recent visit back east to visit relatives I decided to pass the time en-route by jotting down a few memories from growing up. One that came to mind was this story:
One of our family's all-time favorite foods was -and still is- fried chicken. A tasty dish typical of the South, it wasn't necessarily good for you with all the grease, skin and seasoning ingredients that went into the preparation. And, for that matter, it wasn't very good for the chickens either!
But, just look at the success that Kentucky Fried Chicken [KFC] and other companies have had to see how universally popular fried chicken is to this day.
Talking with my sister the other day, I was reminded that fried chicken is also something that gets taken for granted by most folks, without the understanding of what it actually takes to prepare it.
As it turned out, my little sister was turned off by the very idea of fried chicken for quite a while, as the result of one particular visit to Grandmother Watts' house down on the farm in Piedmont North Carolina. To this day, Mary recalls with horror, what happened after she was asked what seems to be an innocuous question; 'which of these chickens looks the fattest'?
When she pointed to one plump hen, Grandma grabbed it, quickly wrung its neck, then chopped off its head! Only then, in reflex, did the doomed chicken escape her grasp and proceed to literally 'run around like a chicken with its head cut off'!
My sister was further horrified when Grandma finally caught the headless chicken and hung it by the feet on a clothesline for it to finish bleeding out! Then, if that weren't enough, plunged that poor headless chicken into a a big iron pot of boiling water! Ooh, ouch!
Later, we found out that step was needed to help remove the feathers, plus maybe kill a few germs, before cutting the carcass into parts for cooking. Hardly anything was wasted, including certain entrails such as the liver, heart and gizzard which tasted so good fried that we competed for them.
But what an education that episode provided! Things were OK as long as we weren't aware of the grisly mayhem required. Welcome to reality, children!
To this day, my sister remembers this traumatic story, which continues to minimize her enjoyment -and therefore her consumption- of fried chicken.
One of our family's all-time favorite foods was -and still is- fried chicken. A tasty dish typical of the South, it wasn't necessarily good for you with all the grease, skin and seasoning ingredients that went into the preparation. And, for that matter, it wasn't very good for the chickens either!
But, just look at the success that Kentucky Fried Chicken [KFC] and other companies have had to see how universally popular fried chicken is to this day.
Talking with my sister the other day, I was reminded that fried chicken is also something that gets taken for granted by most folks, without the understanding of what it actually takes to prepare it.
As it turned out, my little sister was turned off by the very idea of fried chicken for quite a while, as the result of one particular visit to Grandmother Watts' house down on the farm in Piedmont North Carolina. To this day, Mary recalls with horror, what happened after she was asked what seems to be an innocuous question; 'which of these chickens looks the fattest'?
When she pointed to one plump hen, Grandma grabbed it, quickly wrung its neck, then chopped off its head! Only then, in reflex, did the doomed chicken escape her grasp and proceed to literally 'run around like a chicken with its head cut off'!
My sister was further horrified when Grandma finally caught the headless chicken and hung it by the feet on a clothesline for it to finish bleeding out! Then, if that weren't enough, plunged that poor headless chicken into a a big iron pot of boiling water! Ooh, ouch!
Later, we found out that step was needed to help remove the feathers, plus maybe kill a few germs, before cutting the carcass into parts for cooking. Hardly anything was wasted, including certain entrails such as the liver, heart and gizzard which tasted so good fried that we competed for them.
But what an education that episode provided! Things were OK as long as we weren't aware of the grisly mayhem required. Welcome to reality, children!
To this day, my sister remembers this traumatic story, which continues to minimize her enjoyment -and therefore her consumption- of fried chicken.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
On Impermanence & What Counts
Recent events including the sudden death of NBC Political Anchor Tim Russert have reminded me yet again of some values that tend to be undervalued in almost each moment I am alive.
Here, the word 'moment' is being chosen deliberately because the present moment is all we can be sure of fully experiencing, as the author Eckhart Tolle reminds us in his book 'The Power of Now'.
Russert was a serious professional with an unassuming manner who consistently focused on putting things into as true a perspective as could be triangulated. I say triangulated because Tim wasn't one to deliberately or artificially polarize serious issues either. Instead, he excelled at asking fair questions and then expecting that honest and complete answers would derive from the responses from which those he interviewed gave. I thought he was unusually effective at that skill for a TV personality, as did many others from the tremendous outpouring of passionate praise his untimely death triggered.
Tim Russert was certainly not just a pretty face and talking head who mouthed the words that were given to him!
Nor was he a paid demagogue masquerading as a FOX newsperson, or a vacuous parrot that simply monitored the wires and mirrored the same views others reported essentially unfettered.
No sir, this Mr Russert was his own man, who worked hard for a long time in relative obscurity digging for real news and views that counted, using the same family values he was taught from early in life. The value he created was earned the old fashioned way, by earning it! I really admire that.
There have been other excellent newspersons I have highly respected over the years, too. People like Edward R Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Robert McNeil & Jim Lehrer, Judy Woodruff and Bill Moyers to name a few. But Tim Russert's special niche was political analysis at the highest level which is a very rare skill indeed.
I think Russert would probably be a little uncomfortable and maybe even a little embarrassed at all the attention his death has attracted, but that's just my guess. He'd probably prefer to have some other folks just step up and try as hard as he did to get the right combination of facts, history and motivations into a context that was living and real. Again, that's just a supposition.
Above all, Tim seemed to know what was really most important in life and to live that fully. He will be missed, but I hope his example will remain as the standard for public journalism for many years to come. So, good-bye Tim, its been great knowing that people like you still exist!
----------------------
While Tim Russert's recent death has attracted national headlines, there are many other deaths and afflictions occurring daily including some that have impacted my family with increasing frequency. But, that is the nature of life - it is impermanent.
And because death does often come without warning, the present moment is so important! Some may think saying that borders on morbidity, but think about it -who knows when their time will come?
This point was driven home to me again today in a conversation with my dear little sister, whom we recently visited in Tennessee. Several months ago, Mary was diagnosed with cancer and began a series of medical tests and treatments to counteract and cure it, a process that remains in full effect to this very moment. But, just barely, because my last phone conversation with her -less than an hour ago- revealed that she and her husband were nearly killed or seriously injured this morning on Interstate 40 while on their way to a planned medical treatment. Fortunately, during a mandatory highway construction stop, she saw another vehicle approaching from behind at high speed and swerved just in time to avoid a full rear-end impact collision! The glancing blow her car did receive was enough to tear off the right rear panel and scare the daylights out of her and her husband. The other car, driven by a mom with 4 kids, went off the road and onto the median strip where it narrowly and miraculously missed turning over and killing or maiming its occupants.
In this case, everyone survived. Thank God for that! And, maybe the near-miss will remain so vivid that future accidents will be better avoided. But, the point is it could have been over for 7 people in literally the blink of an eye! That is a present moment that could have their last, but wasn't. Think about it. Our lives are defined by linking one present moment to the next until the string ends.
Even though I was not there, hearing of that frightening incident was enough to make me think about how I'm spending my precious moments. Hopefully, I'll think about that more often during my 'future' present moments and make them count for something! Maybe if enough of us do that we'll start to value what really counts more for all of us. What really counts is so much more than words and slogans. If Tim Russert knew what counted, maybe there are others who will try to emulate him in the ways we can.
-------------------------------
Here, the word 'moment' is being chosen deliberately because the present moment is all we can be sure of fully experiencing, as the author Eckhart Tolle reminds us in his book 'The Power of Now'.
Russert was a serious professional with an unassuming manner who consistently focused on putting things into as true a perspective as could be triangulated. I say triangulated because Tim wasn't one to deliberately or artificially polarize serious issues either. Instead, he excelled at asking fair questions and then expecting that honest and complete answers would derive from the responses from which those he interviewed gave. I thought he was unusually effective at that skill for a TV personality, as did many others from the tremendous outpouring of passionate praise his untimely death triggered.
Tim Russert was certainly not just a pretty face and talking head who mouthed the words that were given to him!
Nor was he a paid demagogue masquerading as a FOX newsperson, or a vacuous parrot that simply monitored the wires and mirrored the same views others reported essentially unfettered.
No sir, this Mr Russert was his own man, who worked hard for a long time in relative obscurity digging for real news and views that counted, using the same family values he was taught from early in life. The value he created was earned the old fashioned way, by earning it! I really admire that.
There have been other excellent newspersons I have highly respected over the years, too. People like Edward R Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Robert McNeil & Jim Lehrer, Judy Woodruff and Bill Moyers to name a few. But Tim Russert's special niche was political analysis at the highest level which is a very rare skill indeed.
I think Russert would probably be a little uncomfortable and maybe even a little embarrassed at all the attention his death has attracted, but that's just my guess. He'd probably prefer to have some other folks just step up and try as hard as he did to get the right combination of facts, history and motivations into a context that was living and real. Again, that's just a supposition.
Above all, Tim seemed to know what was really most important in life and to live that fully. He will be missed, but I hope his example will remain as the standard for public journalism for many years to come. So, good-bye Tim, its been great knowing that people like you still exist!
----------------------
While Tim Russert's recent death has attracted national headlines, there are many other deaths and afflictions occurring daily including some that have impacted my family with increasing frequency. But, that is the nature of life - it is impermanent.
And because death does often come without warning, the present moment is so important! Some may think saying that borders on morbidity, but think about it -who knows when their time will come?
This point was driven home to me again today in a conversation with my dear little sister, whom we recently visited in Tennessee. Several months ago, Mary was diagnosed with cancer and began a series of medical tests and treatments to counteract and cure it, a process that remains in full effect to this very moment. But, just barely, because my last phone conversation with her -less than an hour ago- revealed that she and her husband were nearly killed or seriously injured this morning on Interstate 40 while on their way to a planned medical treatment. Fortunately, during a mandatory highway construction stop, she saw another vehicle approaching from behind at high speed and swerved just in time to avoid a full rear-end impact collision! The glancing blow her car did receive was enough to tear off the right rear panel and scare the daylights out of her and her husband. The other car, driven by a mom with 4 kids, went off the road and onto the median strip where it narrowly and miraculously missed turning over and killing or maiming its occupants.
In this case, everyone survived. Thank God for that! And, maybe the near-miss will remain so vivid that future accidents will be better avoided. But, the point is it could have been over for 7 people in literally the blink of an eye! That is a present moment that could have their last, but wasn't. Think about it. Our lives are defined by linking one present moment to the next until the string ends.
Even though I was not there, hearing of that frightening incident was enough to make me think about how I'm spending my precious moments. Hopefully, I'll think about that more often during my 'future' present moments and make them count for something! Maybe if enough of us do that we'll start to value what really counts more for all of us. What really counts is so much more than words and slogans. If Tim Russert knew what counted, maybe there are others who will try to emulate him in the ways we can.
-------------------------------
Friday, May 30, 2008
Integrity Versus Loyalty
"No one questioned my loyalty to the president when I was there, but there's a higher loyalty, there's a higher loyalty to the truth, it's a loyalty to the values I was raised upon, which are speaking up, which are making a positive difference."
- Scott McClellan in interview with ABC News White House Correspondent Martha Raddatz
------------------------------------------
What an appropriate and timely subject!
It reminds me of a time, several years ago, when the entire management staff of a company I worked for held a workshop designed to build teamwork and common goals.
One session in particular was an exercise that asked each participant to 'rate' a list several abstract virtues, which included integrity and loyalty among others.
I happened to be seated at a table, right next to the big boss, who took note of the fact that I had rated integrity ahead of loyalty.
He actually disagreed, because he chose to value company loyalty above all else in an employee.
I tried to explain that I felt that loyalty could be blind, that one had to be real careful of where they placed their highest allegiance and priority, that loyalty was important but there are also more important values.
I might as well have saved my breath, particularly to that individual, who happened to be my boss.
And, you know, I still believe integrity is the more valuable and lasting trait, simply because it is so closely connected to truth, upon which anything that is really important ultimately depends.
So, I am not surprised when Scott McClellan -or anyone- has the same epiphany.
Like most people, I only knew of Mr McClellan through the high visibility his office as Press Secretary to the President afforded him.
He was obviously trusted and highly paid to do as he was told.
At some point Scott realized that there were things more important than a job that required his blind and unquestioning subservience to presenting the information -not necessarily factually accurate- that he was given.
He began to feel he was being used and his personal integrity was being compromised in the process.
When the point was reached that the pain of this recognition became greater than the satisfaction of the reflected fame in which he basked, he made the decision to do something different.
While I hope the sales of his book are sufficient to provide him some measure of financial security, I'll bet the load off his conscience is worth far more!
I respect Scott for doing what he did, and for the reasons that were more important to him than blind loyalty.
We all have different circumstances and times in our lives that reveal to us at a gut level what is most important.
When, where and why this happens varies widely, but the main thing is that we reach that point, and recognize it when it comes.
Once it does happen, the courage to take appropriate action is easier to summon.
But, the memories of the pain one experiences will never completely subside.
There will be the residual guilt, the dislocations from former friends and allies, the outright ostracizing by some, the criticism and suspicions of others.
But in the end, things will settle down and a new life will supplant the old.
One constant will be the self satisfaction of resting in the peace of knowing that you did the right thing - for yourself, if no one else.
That alone can salve a lot of wounds.
-----------------------------
- Scott McClellan in interview with ABC News White House Correspondent Martha Raddatz
------------------------------------------
What an appropriate and timely subject!
It reminds me of a time, several years ago, when the entire management staff of a company I worked for held a workshop designed to build teamwork and common goals.
One session in particular was an exercise that asked each participant to 'rate' a list several abstract virtues, which included integrity and loyalty among others.
I happened to be seated at a table, right next to the big boss, who took note of the fact that I had rated integrity ahead of loyalty.
He actually disagreed, because he chose to value company loyalty above all else in an employee.
I tried to explain that I felt that loyalty could be blind, that one had to be real careful of where they placed their highest allegiance and priority, that loyalty was important but there are also more important values.
I might as well have saved my breath, particularly to that individual, who happened to be my boss.
And, you know, I still believe integrity is the more valuable and lasting trait, simply because it is so closely connected to truth, upon which anything that is really important ultimately depends.
So, I am not surprised when Scott McClellan -or anyone- has the same epiphany.
Like most people, I only knew of Mr McClellan through the high visibility his office as Press Secretary to the President afforded him.
He was obviously trusted and highly paid to do as he was told.
At some point Scott realized that there were things more important than a job that required his blind and unquestioning subservience to presenting the information -not necessarily factually accurate- that he was given.
He began to feel he was being used and his personal integrity was being compromised in the process.
When the point was reached that the pain of this recognition became greater than the satisfaction of the reflected fame in which he basked, he made the decision to do something different.
While I hope the sales of his book are sufficient to provide him some measure of financial security, I'll bet the load off his conscience is worth far more!
I respect Scott for doing what he did, and for the reasons that were more important to him than blind loyalty.
We all have different circumstances and times in our lives that reveal to us at a gut level what is most important.
When, where and why this happens varies widely, but the main thing is that we reach that point, and recognize it when it comes.
Once it does happen, the courage to take appropriate action is easier to summon.
But, the memories of the pain one experiences will never completely subside.
There will be the residual guilt, the dislocations from former friends and allies, the outright ostracizing by some, the criticism and suspicions of others.
But in the end, things will settle down and a new life will supplant the old.
One constant will be the self satisfaction of resting in the peace of knowing that you did the right thing - for yourself, if no one else.
That alone can salve a lot of wounds.
-----------------------------
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Reconveyance & Park Plan: More Feedback & Other Thoughts
This will be a two-part post.
-----------------
First, Dan McShane's additional feedback to 3 critical questions is shown below.
[Again, Dan's comments are in italics and mine are in bold]
On May 27, 2008, at 7:03 PM, Dan McShane wrote:
John Watts has some more questions.
I am a little hesitant to answer them as John has editoralized my last answers saying a few were defensive and only half answers. Not all these questions can be answered completely as they are to be answered through the process of planning the park and reconveyance. I will attempt to answer them or at least provide some points to consider . As before my answers are italics:
John wrote:
For the record, here are three major concerns that have been shared with me recently by both City & County elected officials:
• Loss of revenues from DNR forestry. Even if there is no legal obligation for the County to provide replacement funds, what about moral or practical reasons for doing so? After all, our local Mt Baker School District does rely partially on these funds.
I won't attempt to start a discussion about the morals of providing funding as that would be a bit deep for me. The County is under no obligation to provide revenue to the trusts including Mt Baker School District or Bellingham School District. However, as noted before there is precedent for set aside national forest land and taxes at the federal level. Payment in lue of taxes (PLT) is provided on an annual basis via a complex formula to States and Counties with national forest land. In addition there has been since 2002 the Secure Schools Fund that provides money to timber counties based on another formula. Prior to the secure Schools Fund Act a formula was used for revenue based on past timber sales on national forest land and the fall off of sales due to spotted owl.
If you want to get into the morals of payments or non payments, do some digging into PILT, spotted owl money and the Secure Schools Funding Act. Every year the level of funding for PILT and SSFA is debated in congress. The formulas can be bizarre creating winners and losers. Overall Whatcom County has come out ahead on owl money and SSFA. All that said it is not a huge part of the County budget.
As for the practicality for some sort of payment scheme to the Mt Baker School District. Yes it would be feasible. It is not a huge sum of money, but I would caution that the forest revenue generated to the local schools is subject to some formulas that can be misleading. If I recall correctly the fiscal impact to Mt Baker will be on the order of $20,000 per year, but that is dependent on some changeable factors. It is tricky because a significant portion of the revenue that goes to the local school school districts is subtrated from another payment the schools get from the state (back to morals dictated by funding formulas!)
Some sort of compensation formula could come from the County and I believe there is some leaning toward that kind of arrangement by the administration. I do know that the City is considering that as an option for proving funding for loss revenue due to the landscape plan.
• Conservation easements for lake protection. If the reconveyance is supposed to better protect the lake than current DNR custody, where are guarantees this will in fact be the case? If the reconveyed land is to become a 'Forest Preserve', as claimed, will it be managed in the same manner as, say, the Stimpson Reserve, with mostly careful and passive uses?
The proposal is for a forest reserve park. Likely on the lines of Stimpson reserve or perhaps better. The final park plan is not done but that is the process that is taking place right now. Proponents for lake protection will likely want to weigh heavily in favor of the perk plans with the lowest impact levels.
• Prohibition of logging. Where in the law are the provisions that prohibit logging after reconveyance? It does appear that logging is still allowed in a reconveyed public park. Is that true?
There are no prohibitions from future logging. However, any future logging revenue generation must be distributed to the trusts as under DNR management and the DNR will get its management fee of 25%. (The 25% may be altered as the logging on park land may have higher management costs) The extent of logging would depend on the kind of park. I would anticipate that in some areas commercial thinning or non commercial thinning would be beneficial in some areas. Any thinning or clearing would have to be per a forest park reserve management plan. Similar programs have been taking place on local National Forest Land. As a member of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Resource Advisory Committee, we funded non commercial thinning projects to promote better forest stands in key areas of the forest and there have been a number of commercial thinning projects to do the same. The difference between commercial and non commercial depends on a combination of the size and distribution of the trees to be thinned and access.
Perhaps answers to these questions will be forthcoming soon, before the County's Park Plan is adopted -which should precede the reconveyance.
Does anyone know these answers well enough to dare explain them?
Does seem a bit daring answering John's questions. Try not to editorialize too much John.
----------------------------------
OK, Dan, but this does seem an appropriate place for a few brief comments:
• The estimate of $20K per yer to the Mt Baker School District seems low, and there are also other junior taxing districts to consider in fairness.
• Most of the Stimpson Nature reserve has a Whatcom Land Trust administered conservation easement on it, as do the Canyon Lake Community Forest, and the Olsen Estate and Anderson Properties adjacent or near Stimpson.
It is important that these new proposed park properties also have strict conservation easements on them to insure the uses intended and agreed to are followed - in perpetuity. Of course, this responsibility does not come free since there are ongoing maintenance costs to the WLT for their services in this regard.
• You seem to confirm that trees can/will be cut on the proposed Parks properties, which means that any Parks Plan adopted will need to contain limits on those provisions as part of the conservation easement(s). With these, the new Parks can be expected to benefit future generations, in perpetuity, but without them, any future reconsideration of the reconveyance could undo all -or part- of the public good intended in the first place.
See how the beginnings of a true dialogue can cut down on too much editorializing?
I appreciate Dan McShane's answers and look forward to other productive exchanges in the future.
=========================================
OK, now to Part 2:
I've had more time to reflect on the general topic of public process, and how some basic principles might be applied to the specific policy decisions that will come, regarding the Reconveyance & Park Plan.
GENERAL:
As I have previously stated, the reconveyance can be a very good idea, provided it is structured properly to insure better Reservoir protection than we currently have with DNR management.
To that end, we are all interested in the answers to these questions, which aren't yet fully known.
But, that is exactly why early public dialogue is so important!
I believe others who have expressed similar doubts, will support this basic idea, provided something like the strict principles outlined above are substantially met. This will not be helped if the County truncates due public process and rushes to an ill-conceived commitment that becomes counterproductive to what is trying to be achieved.
So, perhaps a statement of purpose might be drafted that outlines the desired objectives and clearly states the overarching guiding principles to be followed, regardless of what specifics might later evolve. Such a process would be similar to what the City & Port used in the Waterfront Futures Group visioning exercise.
A few ideas and potential elements are suggested as follows, which might readily convert into a list of 'Whereases':
• Whatcom County commits to a process will be deliberative, focused first on facts, and widely publicized to all stakeholders, with meetings televised and draft Park Plan recommendations published well before any final action is undertaken. Such a generic process can be likened to 'Baking A Cake' [see Blog dated 9/2/07]
• Like the old GE slogan, 'the quality goes in before the name goes on.' In the Petroleum & Chemical Industry there is a concept called 'Process Safety Management', which has as its intent the advance avoidance of problems and various scenarios that lead to them, by a very careful design process. The PSM lesson was learned the hard way, when the Union Carbide explosion & disaster happened in India at Bhopal. In resolving the issue of the re-starting the Olympic Pipe Line, the City sought assistance in applying PSM methodology. While the same level of danger would not be expected for Parks in the watershed, a PSM-type thought process would help insure that all contingencies have been considered in advance.
• Due diligence will be critical, much like the considerations of purchasing a home, car or any other major commitment with long-term financial implications. This is bigger, seeks to help protect the health, safety & welfare of citizens and uses public funds.
• There is value in writing things down! Memory can be fleeting and variable. Records are useful, and people like to read things at their own convenience.
• Future adherence to any reconveyance & Parks Plan adopted is essential and needs to be very carefully insured. Thomas Jefferson in his wisdom, offers two very useful observations on this point; 'the earth belongs to the living generation', and 'no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law'. To me, these statements simply state the obvious, that people will try to do what they want or need in their own time, often with little regard for what happened in history or what needs to happen in the future. That's part of human nature. The nearest thing to a perpetual law in the case of reconveyance, is a conservation easement, assigned to an outside third party to administer, like the Whatcom Land Trust.
• Our military currently operates under a controversial halfway measure called 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. That doesn't work very well, but no one seems to want to resolve the issue. While the reconveyance & Park Plan has nothing to do with sexual preference, it does need more certainty!
So, how about a policy like 'Do Ask, Do Tell'? After all, that sort of policy is exactly what will generate sort of healthy and positive dialogue most likely to result in a success. No one has all the answers yet, but questions ought to be encouraged, don't you think?
And, answers should be forthcoming in as timely manner as possible, and failing that at least acknowledged. Maybe this type of dialogue can be accumulated and recorded as a list of FAQs that everyone interested can access? Think that might be efficient?
SPECIFIC:
No firm entries yet, except the concept of relatively benign use on any Parks that are approved, and conservation easements on the preponderance of the forest lands that are reconveyed. Conservation easements to be administered by the Whatcom Land Trust. In many respects, this Reconveyance idea resembles the City's Watershed Preservation & Acquisition Ordinance passed in 2000, which also lacked all specifics at that point, but did contain a clear statement of purpose and some essential guiding principles. Over time, that program has evolved pretty much as intended and achieved some things that would not have been possible without it.
If the Reconveyance & Parks Plans can be developed in a manner similar to that described above, I believe that Whatcom County could legitimately claim it as a potentially powerful management response to the issuance of the DOE's TMDL Study.
While quantitative details are presently lacking, these can be provided once the plan is adopted and implemented.
Finally, in deference to the very substantial efforts undertaken by Conservation Northwest, I think any resulting Reconveyance & Parks Plan deserves to be called something like 'The Lake Whatcom Reservoir FOREST PRESERVE'.
Mitch, you ought to like that one!
----------------------------------
-----------------
First, Dan McShane's additional feedback to 3 critical questions is shown below.
[Again, Dan's comments are in italics and mine are in bold]
On May 27, 2008, at 7:03 PM, Dan McShane wrote:
John Watts has some more questions.
I am a little hesitant to answer them as John has editoralized my last answers saying a few were defensive and only half answers. Not all these questions can be answered completely as they are to be answered through the process of planning the park and reconveyance. I will attempt to answer them or at least provide some points to consider . As before my answers are italics:
John wrote:
For the record, here are three major concerns that have been shared with me recently by both City & County elected officials:
• Loss of revenues from DNR forestry. Even if there is no legal obligation for the County to provide replacement funds, what about moral or practical reasons for doing so? After all, our local Mt Baker School District does rely partially on these funds.
I won't attempt to start a discussion about the morals of providing funding as that would be a bit deep for me. The County is under no obligation to provide revenue to the trusts including Mt Baker School District or Bellingham School District. However, as noted before there is precedent for set aside national forest land and taxes at the federal level. Payment in lue of taxes (PLT) is provided on an annual basis via a complex formula to States and Counties with national forest land. In addition there has been since 2002 the Secure Schools Fund that provides money to timber counties based on another formula. Prior to the secure Schools Fund Act a formula was used for revenue based on past timber sales on national forest land and the fall off of sales due to spotted owl.
If you want to get into the morals of payments or non payments, do some digging into PILT, spotted owl money and the Secure Schools Funding Act. Every year the level of funding for PILT and SSFA is debated in congress. The formulas can be bizarre creating winners and losers. Overall Whatcom County has come out ahead on owl money and SSFA. All that said it is not a huge part of the County budget.
As for the practicality for some sort of payment scheme to the Mt Baker School District. Yes it would be feasible. It is not a huge sum of money, but I would caution that the forest revenue generated to the local schools is subject to some formulas that can be misleading. If I recall correctly the fiscal impact to Mt Baker will be on the order of $20,000 per year, but that is dependent on some changeable factors. It is tricky because a significant portion of the revenue that goes to the local school school districts is subtrated from another payment the schools get from the state (back to morals dictated by funding formulas!)
Some sort of compensation formula could come from the County and I believe there is some leaning toward that kind of arrangement by the administration. I do know that the City is considering that as an option for proving funding for loss revenue due to the landscape plan.
• Conservation easements for lake protection. If the reconveyance is supposed to better protect the lake than current DNR custody, where are guarantees this will in fact be the case? If the reconveyed land is to become a 'Forest Preserve', as claimed, will it be managed in the same manner as, say, the Stimpson Reserve, with mostly careful and passive uses?
The proposal is for a forest reserve park. Likely on the lines of Stimpson reserve or perhaps better. The final park plan is not done but that is the process that is taking place right now. Proponents for lake protection will likely want to weigh heavily in favor of the perk plans with the lowest impact levels.
• Prohibition of logging. Where in the law are the provisions that prohibit logging after reconveyance? It does appear that logging is still allowed in a reconveyed public park. Is that true?
There are no prohibitions from future logging. However, any future logging revenue generation must be distributed to the trusts as under DNR management and the DNR will get its management fee of 25%. (The 25% may be altered as the logging on park land may have higher management costs) The extent of logging would depend on the kind of park. I would anticipate that in some areas commercial thinning or non commercial thinning would be beneficial in some areas. Any thinning or clearing would have to be per a forest park reserve management plan. Similar programs have been taking place on local National Forest Land. As a member of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Resource Advisory Committee, we funded non commercial thinning projects to promote better forest stands in key areas of the forest and there have been a number of commercial thinning projects to do the same. The difference between commercial and non commercial depends on a combination of the size and distribution of the trees to be thinned and access.
Perhaps answers to these questions will be forthcoming soon, before the County's Park Plan is adopted -which should precede the reconveyance.
Does anyone know these answers well enough to dare explain them?
Does seem a bit daring answering John's questions. Try not to editorialize too much John.
----------------------------------
OK, Dan, but this does seem an appropriate place for a few brief comments:
• The estimate of $20K per yer to the Mt Baker School District seems low, and there are also other junior taxing districts to consider in fairness.
• Most of the Stimpson Nature reserve has a Whatcom Land Trust administered conservation easement on it, as do the Canyon Lake Community Forest, and the Olsen Estate and Anderson Properties adjacent or near Stimpson.
It is important that these new proposed park properties also have strict conservation easements on them to insure the uses intended and agreed to are followed - in perpetuity. Of course, this responsibility does not come free since there are ongoing maintenance costs to the WLT for their services in this regard.
• You seem to confirm that trees can/will be cut on the proposed Parks properties, which means that any Parks Plan adopted will need to contain limits on those provisions as part of the conservation easement(s). With these, the new Parks can be expected to benefit future generations, in perpetuity, but without them, any future reconsideration of the reconveyance could undo all -or part- of the public good intended in the first place.
See how the beginnings of a true dialogue can cut down on too much editorializing?
I appreciate Dan McShane's answers and look forward to other productive exchanges in the future.
=========================================
OK, now to Part 2:
I've had more time to reflect on the general topic of public process, and how some basic principles might be applied to the specific policy decisions that will come, regarding the Reconveyance & Park Plan.
GENERAL:
As I have previously stated, the reconveyance can be a very good idea, provided it is structured properly to insure better Reservoir protection than we currently have with DNR management.
To that end, we are all interested in the answers to these questions, which aren't yet fully known.
But, that is exactly why early public dialogue is so important!
I believe others who have expressed similar doubts, will support this basic idea, provided something like the strict principles outlined above are substantially met. This will not be helped if the County truncates due public process and rushes to an ill-conceived commitment that becomes counterproductive to what is trying to be achieved.
So, perhaps a statement of purpose might be drafted that outlines the desired objectives and clearly states the overarching guiding principles to be followed, regardless of what specifics might later evolve. Such a process would be similar to what the City & Port used in the Waterfront Futures Group visioning exercise.
A few ideas and potential elements are suggested as follows, which might readily convert into a list of 'Whereases':
• Whatcom County commits to a process will be deliberative, focused first on facts, and widely publicized to all stakeholders, with meetings televised and draft Park Plan recommendations published well before any final action is undertaken. Such a generic process can be likened to 'Baking A Cake' [see Blog dated 9/2/07]
• Like the old GE slogan, 'the quality goes in before the name goes on.' In the Petroleum & Chemical Industry there is a concept called 'Process Safety Management', which has as its intent the advance avoidance of problems and various scenarios that lead to them, by a very careful design process. The PSM lesson was learned the hard way, when the Union Carbide explosion & disaster happened in India at Bhopal. In resolving the issue of the re-starting the Olympic Pipe Line, the City sought assistance in applying PSM methodology. While the same level of danger would not be expected for Parks in the watershed, a PSM-type thought process would help insure that all contingencies have been considered in advance.
• Due diligence will be critical, much like the considerations of purchasing a home, car or any other major commitment with long-term financial implications. This is bigger, seeks to help protect the health, safety & welfare of citizens and uses public funds.
• There is value in writing things down! Memory can be fleeting and variable. Records are useful, and people like to read things at their own convenience.
• Future adherence to any reconveyance & Parks Plan adopted is essential and needs to be very carefully insured. Thomas Jefferson in his wisdom, offers two very useful observations on this point; 'the earth belongs to the living generation', and 'no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law'. To me, these statements simply state the obvious, that people will try to do what they want or need in their own time, often with little regard for what happened in history or what needs to happen in the future. That's part of human nature. The nearest thing to a perpetual law in the case of reconveyance, is a conservation easement, assigned to an outside third party to administer, like the Whatcom Land Trust.
• Our military currently operates under a controversial halfway measure called 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. That doesn't work very well, but no one seems to want to resolve the issue. While the reconveyance & Park Plan has nothing to do with sexual preference, it does need more certainty!
So, how about a policy like 'Do Ask, Do Tell'? After all, that sort of policy is exactly what will generate sort of healthy and positive dialogue most likely to result in a success. No one has all the answers yet, but questions ought to be encouraged, don't you think?
And, answers should be forthcoming in as timely manner as possible, and failing that at least acknowledged. Maybe this type of dialogue can be accumulated and recorded as a list of FAQs that everyone interested can access? Think that might be efficient?
SPECIFIC:
No firm entries yet, except the concept of relatively benign use on any Parks that are approved, and conservation easements on the preponderance of the forest lands that are reconveyed. Conservation easements to be administered by the Whatcom Land Trust. In many respects, this Reconveyance idea resembles the City's Watershed Preservation & Acquisition Ordinance passed in 2000, which also lacked all specifics at that point, but did contain a clear statement of purpose and some essential guiding principles. Over time, that program has evolved pretty much as intended and achieved some things that would not have been possible without it.
If the Reconveyance & Parks Plans can be developed in a manner similar to that described above, I believe that Whatcom County could legitimately claim it as a potentially powerful management response to the issuance of the DOE's TMDL Study.
While quantitative details are presently lacking, these can be provided once the plan is adopted and implemented.
Finally, in deference to the very substantial efforts undertaken by Conservation Northwest, I think any resulting Reconveyance & Parks Plan deserves to be called something like 'The Lake Whatcom Reservoir FOREST PRESERVE'.
Mitch, you ought to like that one!
----------------------------------
Monday, May 26, 2008
Lake Whatcom: DNR Reconveyance & Park Plan Questions
-----------------------------
"Sometimes it's easier to understand things than it is to figure them out"
-Casey Stengel
Maybe we can add: 'or explain them?'
-----------------------------
It never ceases to amaze me how simple questions that consider the potential down side risks and consequences of public proposals can be so unwelcome! After all, every proposal has its pros & cons which ought to be explored thoroughly before important decisions are made.
Isn't a process including a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis supposed to be valuable?
As one who has served in elected public office, I learned how important it is to seriously listen to every citizen's concern. Without carefully listening to these concerns, how can reasonable responses ever be made?
The more good questions are asked, the more good answers are generated, and that process consistently makes for better results.
So it is with the DNR Reconveyance issue and the related proposal to create an extensive new public park system in the watershed of our municipal water supply.
This reconveyance can ONLY take place if an approved Park Plan is in place.
To date, I haven't seen this Park Plan in any sort of finished form that takes into account the serious concerns already expressed.
I know the County has appointed a 'stakeholders' group to consider the proposal and make recommendations to the Executive; that a presentation to the County Council is planned for July 2008, as well as a Public Hearing.
I also believe that the 10-person 'stakeholders' group appointed by Pete Kremen contains more members that have already expressed support for the idea than those who have questioned it, which is somewhat troubling.
Not that I doubt the sincerity of anyone, or their dedication to the important task they have accepted.
No, my main concern is that the group may be given all of the reasons that support the idea and only few of its drawbacks.
Also, that the time frame assigned simply is too short to generate the kind of information that will truly inform the decisions that are to come soon. Is the deadline for action artificial?
Do those seem like legitimate concerns to you?
But this proposal has some unique characteristics as well; not only is it targeted for the Lake Whatcom watershed, but it also seems to be on an unusually fast-track. with substantial cost implications -often problematic for the County.
Any of these characteristics should scream for caution!
That is why I intend to keep asking questions until the public -and I, as a concerned citizen - receive reasonably complete and factual answers.
And, readers should know, these aren't just my questions. They reflect similar concerns for others as well, including several currently elected officials.
For example, at the meeting Dan McShane's earlier response referenced, six people attended, including 3 current members of either the County or City Councils. While that 1-hour meeting did supply some answers I hadn't heard before, it also left others either unasked, or substantially unanswered.
I mention this in response to yet another 'questioning of my questions' from an employee -Mr Seth Cool- of Conservation Northwest [the entity that seems to have more information available to it than the County does, at least on the reconveyance question].
Since Mr Cool was also present at the 9/14/07, along with Lisa McShane, myself and 3 others, he should know exactly what was discussed, and what was not.
So, with that in mind, you tell me whether recent communication excerpt shown below- from Mr Cool and forwarded to me by others- provides any more useful answers, aside from providing the URL to the Northwest Conservation website which only touts the virtues of a 'Forest Preserve':
Now I might be wrong, but it seems to me that Mr Cool is once again ducking direct questions that he either doesn't know or doesn't want to answer.
Maybe Mr Cool's assignment to Pete's 'stakeholder' advisory group will educate him better about the Park Plan, at which time more concrete answers will hopefully be forthcoming.
One can only hope!
-----------------------------
For the record, here are three major concerns that have been shared with me recently by both City & County elected officials:
Perhaps answers to these questions will be forthcoming soon, before the County's Park Plan is adopted -which should precede the reconveyance.
Does anyone know these answers well enough to dare explain them?
---------------------------------
Some final comments:
1. My BLOGS touching on this subject were published on the following dates, and remain in the active archive:
9/11/07 -October Surprise
9/12/07 -Feedback from 9/11
9/14/07 -Meeting with Lisa McShane
9/21/07 -Pete's announcement
9/25/07 -McShane Campaign announcement
10/4/07 -Mitch's Koolaid
10/19/07 -ICT Concerns with Park Plan
11/4/07 -Spoonerisms
5/9/08 -Unanswered Questions
5/10/08 -Convergence of 3 issues
5/16/08 -Dan McShane's answers
2. The ICT Concerns with the County Parks Plan reported on 10/19/07 are very substantial!
Excerpts from this blog is partially reproduced below:
For those who aren't familiar with the 'ICT', it is the acronym for 'Inter-jurisdictional Coordinating Team', a small group of staff members from both City and County that meets regularly to discuss the Lake Whatcom Management Program [LWMP] and specifically those actions that are being planned and actually worked on.
Under the current LWMP, the County Executive & the Mayor assign people to this duty, most whom have been involved with Reservoir issues for some time.
That does sometimes help institutional memory.
But, ICT discussions are not open to the public, nor are elected officials -other than Exec & Mayor- welcomed.
ICT meeting that occurred sometime in April 2006, when a Draft County Park Plan was made available for review to members of the ICT.
It turns out the ICT met with both Mike McFarland [County Parks Director] and Paul Leuthold [City Parks Director] and discussed its unfavorable evaluation of planning for more intense recreational use of the watershed.
The ICT was assured that both the Whatcom County Regional Park Plan [Lake Whatcom], and the Draft Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan were weighted towards watershed friendly activities and that a public process would accompany any proposal for building facilities or major improvements.
But, the ICT's concerns were not assuaged by these verbal assurances.
Instead, the ICT questioned why such non-compatible uses (as listed below) would even be included in the Park Plan, if they weren't going to be proposed.
------------------
That sounds like a pretty good question to me, that gets right to the heart of the matter!
Because the ICT meetings aren't public, and detailed minutes are not required, there appears to be no written record that can confirm this particular dialogue.
But, members of the ICT do recall both the questions and the responses given.
And, the ICT did develop a summary in May 2006 upon which their comments were based.
Essentially the ICT's comments were lumped in two categories:
1) Proposals the ICT felt should be removed from the Park Plan because they were not compatible with transportation objectives
2) Proposals that increased build-out, stormwater generation, erosion potential, and other high impact land use.
For example park facilities (day lodge probably similar to Samish Park) at the end of North Shore that will become an attraction and increase transportation.
Or, the RV Park option at the South end of Basin 3.
Or, 6 more boat launch ramps
Or, encouragement of retail activities on the lake.
The ICT concluded these are all great ideas for a lake that is primarily a recreation facility.
Anyone would love to have trails and water based facilities for kayaks and canoes, and trails to hike that connect with regional trails.
But someday, we will need to declare that drinking water protection is a much more important undertaking!
And, how well we succeed at achieving that primary goal will determine the future of our community!
The basic irony is that if such a Park does get built and enjoys great success, that very success will also create even bigger challenges as peoople flock here to play in our Water Supply watershed!
These serious concerns remain unacknowledged by the County, in its haste to gain an election Surprise.
------------------
The County Council was briefed [on the Parks Plan] early this year, but that briefing did not include the proposed Lake Whatcom Park.
Yet, the information that was shown to me last month at Conservation Northwest seemed far in excess of what the Council has seen
-----------------------------
"Sometimes it's easier to understand things than it is to figure them out"
-Casey Stengel
Maybe we can add: 'or explain them?'
-----------------------------
It never ceases to amaze me how simple questions that consider the potential down side risks and consequences of public proposals can be so unwelcome! After all, every proposal has its pros & cons which ought to be explored thoroughly before important decisions are made.
Isn't a process including a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis supposed to be valuable?
As one who has served in elected public office, I learned how important it is to seriously listen to every citizen's concern. Without carefully listening to these concerns, how can reasonable responses ever be made?
The more good questions are asked, the more good answers are generated, and that process consistently makes for better results.
So it is with the DNR Reconveyance issue and the related proposal to create an extensive new public park system in the watershed of our municipal water supply.
This reconveyance can ONLY take place if an approved Park Plan is in place.
To date, I haven't seen this Park Plan in any sort of finished form that takes into account the serious concerns already expressed.
I know the County has appointed a 'stakeholders' group to consider the proposal and make recommendations to the Executive; that a presentation to the County Council is planned for July 2008, as well as a Public Hearing.
I also believe that the 10-person 'stakeholders' group appointed by Pete Kremen contains more members that have already expressed support for the idea than those who have questioned it, which is somewhat troubling.
Not that I doubt the sincerity of anyone, or their dedication to the important task they have accepted.
No, my main concern is that the group may be given all of the reasons that support the idea and only few of its drawbacks.
Also, that the time frame assigned simply is too short to generate the kind of information that will truly inform the decisions that are to come soon. Is the deadline for action artificial?
Do those seem like legitimate concerns to you?
But this proposal has some unique characteristics as well; not only is it targeted for the Lake Whatcom watershed, but it also seems to be on an unusually fast-track. with substantial cost implications -often problematic for the County.
Any of these characteristics should scream for caution!
That is why I intend to keep asking questions until the public -and I, as a concerned citizen - receive reasonably complete and factual answers.
And, readers should know, these aren't just my questions. They reflect similar concerns for others as well, including several currently elected officials.
For example, at the meeting Dan McShane's earlier response referenced, six people attended, including 3 current members of either the County or City Councils. While that 1-hour meeting did supply some answers I hadn't heard before, it also left others either unasked, or substantially unanswered.
I mention this in response to yet another 'questioning of my questions' from an employee -Mr Seth Cool- of Conservation Northwest [the entity that seems to have more information available to it than the County does, at least on the reconveyance question].
Since Mr Cool was also present at the 9/14/07, along with Lisa McShane, myself and 3 others, he should know exactly what was discussed, and what was not.
So, with that in mind, you tell me whether recent communication excerpt shown below- from Mr Cool and forwarded to me by others- provides any more useful answers, aside from providing the URL to the Northwest Conservation website which only touts the virtues of a 'Forest Preserve':
I find John Watt’s blog post odd and riddled with long dead rumors – I was personally at a meeting where he and others were briefed about reconveyance last fall and a former city councilman ought to know who to call to get answers.----------------------------
But, since most citizens don’t have John’s experience in tracking down bureaucracy’s paper trail, I’ve put together a couple web pages about reconveyance.
Note the links at the top - The “Frequently Asked Questions” page is a summary, and the “documents and resources” page is full of source document: http://www.conservationnw.org/oldgrowth/lake-whatcom-reconveyance
Now I might be wrong, but it seems to me that Mr Cool is once again ducking direct questions that he either doesn't know or doesn't want to answer.
Maybe Mr Cool's assignment to Pete's 'stakeholder' advisory group will educate him better about the Park Plan, at which time more concrete answers will hopefully be forthcoming.
One can only hope!
-----------------------------
For the record, here are three major concerns that have been shared with me recently by both City & County elected officials:
• Loss of revenues from DNR forestry. Even if there is no legal obligation for the County to provide replacement funds, what about moral or practical reasons for doing so? After all, our local Mt Baker School District does rely partially on these funds.
• Conservation easements for lake protection. If the reconveyance is supposed to better protect the lake than current DNR custody, where are guarantees this will in fact be the case? If the reconveyed land is to become a 'Forest Preserve', as claimed, will it be managed in the same manner as, say, the Stimpson Reserve, with mostly careful and passive uses?
• Prohibition of logging. Where in the law are the provisions that prohibit logging after reconveyance? It does appear that logging is still allowed in a reconveyed public park. Is that true?
Perhaps answers to these questions will be forthcoming soon, before the County's Park Plan is adopted -which should precede the reconveyance.
Does anyone know these answers well enough to dare explain them?
---------------------------------
Some final comments:
1. My BLOGS touching on this subject were published on the following dates, and remain in the active archive:
9/11/07 -October Surprise
9/12/07 -Feedback from 9/11
9/14/07 -Meeting with Lisa McShane
9/21/07 -Pete's announcement
9/25/07 -McShane Campaign announcement
10/4/07 -Mitch's Koolaid
10/19/07 -ICT Concerns with Park Plan
11/4/07 -Spoonerisms
5/9/08 -Unanswered Questions
5/10/08 -Convergence of 3 issues
5/16/08 -Dan McShane's answers
2. The ICT Concerns with the County Parks Plan reported on 10/19/07 are very substantial!
Excerpts from this blog is partially reproduced below:
For those who aren't familiar with the 'ICT', it is the acronym for 'Inter-jurisdictional Coordinating Team', a small group of staff members from both City and County that meets regularly to discuss the Lake Whatcom Management Program [LWMP] and specifically those actions that are being planned and actually worked on.
Under the current LWMP, the County Executive & the Mayor assign people to this duty, most whom have been involved with Reservoir issues for some time.
That does sometimes help institutional memory.
But, ICT discussions are not open to the public, nor are elected officials -other than Exec & Mayor- welcomed.
ICT meeting that occurred sometime in April 2006, when a Draft County Park Plan was made available for review to members of the ICT.
It turns out the ICT met with both Mike McFarland [County Parks Director] and Paul Leuthold [City Parks Director] and discussed its unfavorable evaluation of planning for more intense recreational use of the watershed.
The ICT was assured that both the Whatcom County Regional Park Plan [Lake Whatcom], and the Draft Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan were weighted towards watershed friendly activities and that a public process would accompany any proposal for building facilities or major improvements.
But, the ICT's concerns were not assuaged by these verbal assurances.
Instead, the ICT questioned why such non-compatible uses (as listed below) would even be included in the Park Plan, if they weren't going to be proposed.
------------------
That sounds like a pretty good question to me, that gets right to the heart of the matter!
Because the ICT meetings aren't public, and detailed minutes are not required, there appears to be no written record that can confirm this particular dialogue.
But, members of the ICT do recall both the questions and the responses given.
And, the ICT did develop a summary in May 2006 upon which their comments were based.
Essentially the ICT's comments were lumped in two categories:
1) Proposals the ICT felt should be removed from the Park Plan because they were not compatible with transportation objectives
2) Proposals that increased build-out, stormwater generation, erosion potential, and other high impact land use.
For example park facilities (day lodge probably similar to Samish Park) at the end of North Shore that will become an attraction and increase transportation.
Or, the RV Park option at the South end of Basin 3.
Or, 6 more boat launch ramps
Or, encouragement of retail activities on the lake.
The ICT concluded these are all great ideas for a lake that is primarily a recreation facility.
Anyone would love to have trails and water based facilities for kayaks and canoes, and trails to hike that connect with regional trails.
But someday, we will need to declare that drinking water protection is a much more important undertaking!
And, how well we succeed at achieving that primary goal will determine the future of our community!
The basic irony is that if such a Park does get built and enjoys great success, that very success will also create even bigger challenges as peoople flock here to play in our Water Supply watershed!
These serious concerns remain unacknowledged by the County, in its haste to gain an election Surprise.
------------------
The County Council was briefed [on the Parks Plan] early this year, but that briefing did not include the proposed Lake Whatcom Park.
Yet, the information that was shown to me last month at Conservation Northwest seemed far in excess of what the Council has seen
-----------------------------
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Lake Whatcom: Potential Moratorium Actions
The previous Blog suggested some additional actions that may be considered under Bellingham's Moratorium.
Here are some specific ideas that were left incomplete from the adoption of the Silver Beach Ordinance, better known now as BMC 16.80 -Lake Whatcom Reservoir Regulatory Chapter.
---------------------------------------------
Readers may recall the 28 categories listed below, some of which had multiple IDEAS for consideration.
21 of these IDEAS were 'AGREED TO' by the Task Force.
This summarizes the 30 remaining potential actions that the City could decide to consider again.
Some of this is dated material which may have already been addressed, and the list is probably not as comprehensive as it could become, but it is a starting point that can be built on.
[Note: A complete listing is contained in the Task Force Minutes which appears in my 12/4/07 Blog]
Category 1. SCIENCE (1)
#1- Perhaps the community can now agree that the SCIENCE proves there is a problem!
Category 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION (3)
It has already been AGREED1 that PIE efforts should be expanded, and AGREED2 that they should have a high priority.
#2- Perhaps the community can now also agree that these efforts can have a significant influence in solving watershed problems?
Category 3. MORATORIUM (1)
#3- Now that the TMDL Study has been released, perhaps the community can understand that a moratorium is needed for the purpose of a strong management response to DOE's warning?
Category 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (1)
#4- Perhaps the community will now understand why the Comp Plan needs to have strong policy language on the Reservoir protection issue?
Note that stronger language has already been incorporated into our Comp Plan, but additional strengthening may be desirable.
Category 5. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (1)
#5- Perhaps the ENTIRE Silver Beach neighborhood will now better understand its crucial role in Reservoir protection?
Note that strong efforts to update the Silver Beach NH Plan were undertaken by the Neighborhood Association in 2007, but these were largely thwarted by those still in denial that the Reservoir faces serious challenges that will require the best efforts of all citizens to mitigate.
Neighborhood Plans are also part of the Comprehensive Plan and should represent what is considered important to each neighborhood.
Category 6. DENSITY/MINIMUM LOT SIZE (2)
It has already been AGREED3 that minimum lot size is needed.
#6- Perhaps the community can now consider whether lot consolidations should be allowed.
Category 7. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDRs) (1)
It has already been AGREED4 that TDRs are a useful concept, but implementation has been poor.
Now it is time to make this mechanism work the way it can, by designating sufficient RECEIVING areas.
Category 8. BUILDING SETBACKS & PARKING REQUIREMENTS (2)
It has already been AGREED5 to reduce setbacks.
#7- Tandem parking was also considered and has been subsequently allowed in some instances.
Category 9. PERMITTED/CONDITIONAL USES (4)
It has already been AGREED6 to reduce livestock uses.
#8- Perhaps its time to consider whether to further restrict or expand permitted uses.
#9- Perhaps its time to consider whether to further restrict or expand conditional uses.
#10- Perhaps its time to consider whether to further restrict or expand permitted ADUs.
Category 10. SUBDIVISION CODE (1)
It has already been AGREED7 to allow careful cluster development.
Category 11. STREET STANDARDS (4)
It has already been AGREED8 to allow narrower ROWs on thru streets & cul-de-sacs.
It has already been AGREED9 to allow narrower ROWs on Full Standard streets.
It has already been AGREED10 to allow sidewalks on only one-side of streets.
It has already been AGREED11 to allow narrower sidewalks & the use of pervious materials.
Category 12. OPERATING ORDINANCES, SEPA, CLEARING, GRADING, STORMWATER (4)
It has already been AGREED12 to not allow filling without a permit.
It has already been AGREED13 for single lots to comply with strict stormwater regulations.
#11- Perhaps its time to consider whether more stringent SEPA reviews should be required in the watershed.
#12- Perhaps its time to consider whether to allow clearing in the watershed without a valid building permit.
Category 13. WETLAND & STREAM ORDINANCE (2)
#13- Perhaps its time to consider whether more stringent Wetland and Stream buffers should be used.
#14- Perhaps its time to consider whether more stringent Dock restrictions should be adopted.
Category 14. SHORELINE MASTER PLAN (2)
It has already been AGREED14 that residential shoreline setbacks should be increased where feasible.
#15- Perhaps its time to consider whether more stringent Bulkhead restrictions should be adopted.
Category 15. IMPERVIOUS LIMITS (1)
#16- Perhaps its time to consider whether reduced impervious limits should be adopted, with or without additional requirements.
Category 16. ADDITIONS & REMODELS (2)
#17- Perhaps its time to consider whether new impervious additions or remodels to existing homes that already exceed impervious limits should allowed.
#18- Perhaps its time to consider whether reconstruction be allowed for damage due to fire, regardless of impervious area.
Category 17. PERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS (1)
It has already been AGREED15 that having some limits on non-vegetated, pervious systems is desirable.
Category 18. TRANSFER OF IMPERVIOUS CREDITS (1)
It has already been AGREED16 that having some mechanism to earn additional impervious credits is desirable.
Category 19. FLEXIBLE INCENTIVES (1)
It has already been AGREED17 that having flexible incentives to earn additional impervious credits, while maintaining lake protection goals, is desirable.
Category 20. NATIVE VEGETATION & LANDSCAPING (2)
#19- Perhaps its time to consider whether some native vegetation or landscape requirement for single lots is desirable.
#20- Perhaps its time to consider whether some lawn area limits on single lots is desirable.
Category 21. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT (1)
#21- Perhaps its time to consider whether the use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers should be restricted.
Category 22. SEASONAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS (3)
#22- Perhaps its time to consider whether additional seasonal limits on ground disturbance would be desirable.
#23- Perhaps its time to consider whether the current earthwork exemption area of 500 sq.ft. is desirable.
#24- Perhaps its time to consider whether reconstruction due to damage should be allowed off-season.
Category 23. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES (3)
It has already been AGREED18 that requiring certification to do construction work, even in season, is desirable.
#25- Perhaps its time to consider whether construction practices with little or no probable impact should be permitted off-season.
#26- Perhaps its time to consider whether contractors that complete construction BMP course/certification can work off-season.
Category 24. FEES/ASSESSMENTS (2)
#27- Perhaps its time to consider whether all water users should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed.
#28- Perhaps its time to consider whether stormwater fees should remain on a flat rate per ERU basis.
Category 25. PUBLIC WATERSHED LAND ACQUISITION IN THE WATERSHED (4)
It has already been AGREED19 that that public land acquisition should be either an essential, or a helpful, part of lake watershed management.
It has already been AGREED20 that City money should be used for public land acquisition in the watershed.
It has already been AGREED21 that use of funding from all available sources is desirable.
#29- Perhaps its time to consider purchasing priorities again.
Category 26. ENFORCEMENT (1)
It has already been AGREED22 that enforcement should be firm, focussing on intent, and yield effective results.
Category 27. BENCHMARK/EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS (1)
#30- Perhaps its time to consider establishing better Benchmarks to evaluate the effectiveness of watershed protection efforts.
Category 28. ONGOING ADVISORY/STAKEHOLDER GROUP (1)
It has already been AGREED23 that an ongoing stakeholders group should remain empowered to advise Council on watershed issues.
======================================
All of these ideas will be helpful to some degree, but many will also be controversial and difficult to administer and enforce.
The TMDL Study should provide a good incentive to implement as many new measures as possible.
Other initiatives, like the consolidation of Water & Sewer services in the watershed, the establishment of a Joint County-City Management Team, the creation of new Stormwater entities and funding, the consideration of the DNR Reconveyance of forest lands for parks, promotion of the Watershed Stewards program, water metering, monitoring for fecal coliform at swimming areas, enforcement of watercraft rules, limitations on exempt wells, inspection of septic systems and the like should all be seen as other useful parts of the massive effort needed to preserve the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
Time is not on our side in this endeavor, and any notion of complacency needs to be firmly ad continuously reckoned with!
Informed citizens MUST be a big part of this effort!
Good luck!
======================================
Here are some specific ideas that were left incomplete from the adoption of the Silver Beach Ordinance, better known now as BMC 16.80 -Lake Whatcom Reservoir Regulatory Chapter.
---------------------------------------------
Readers may recall the 28 categories listed below, some of which had multiple IDEAS for consideration.
21 of these IDEAS were 'AGREED TO' by the Task Force.
This summarizes the 30 remaining potential actions that the City could decide to consider again.
Some of this is dated material which may have already been addressed, and the list is probably not as comprehensive as it could become, but it is a starting point that can be built on.
[Note: A complete listing is contained in the Task Force Minutes which appears in my 12/4/07 Blog]
Category 1. SCIENCE (1)
#1- Perhaps the community can now agree that the SCIENCE proves there is a problem!
Category 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION (3)
It has already been AGREED1 that PIE efforts should be expanded, and AGREED2 that they should have a high priority.
#2- Perhaps the community can now also agree that these efforts can have a significant influence in solving watershed problems?
Category 3. MORATORIUM (1)
#3- Now that the TMDL Study has been released, perhaps the community can understand that a moratorium is needed for the purpose of a strong management response to DOE's warning?
Category 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (1)
#4- Perhaps the community will now understand why the Comp Plan needs to have strong policy language on the Reservoir protection issue?
Note that stronger language has already been incorporated into our Comp Plan, but additional strengthening may be desirable.
Category 5. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (1)
#5- Perhaps the ENTIRE Silver Beach neighborhood will now better understand its crucial role in Reservoir protection?
Note that strong efforts to update the Silver Beach NH Plan were undertaken by the Neighborhood Association in 2007, but these were largely thwarted by those still in denial that the Reservoir faces serious challenges that will require the best efforts of all citizens to mitigate.
Neighborhood Plans are also part of the Comprehensive Plan and should represent what is considered important to each neighborhood.
Category 6. DENSITY/MINIMUM LOT SIZE (2)
It has already been AGREED3 that minimum lot size is needed.
#6- Perhaps the community can now consider whether lot consolidations should be allowed.
Category 7. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDRs) (1)
It has already been AGREED4 that TDRs are a useful concept, but implementation has been poor.
Now it is time to make this mechanism work the way it can, by designating sufficient RECEIVING areas.
Category 8. BUILDING SETBACKS & PARKING REQUIREMENTS (2)
It has already been AGREED5 to reduce setbacks.
#7- Tandem parking was also considered and has been subsequently allowed in some instances.
Category 9. PERMITTED/CONDITIONAL USES (4)
It has already been AGREED6 to reduce livestock uses.
#8- Perhaps its time to consider whether to further restrict or expand permitted uses.
#9- Perhaps its time to consider whether to further restrict or expand conditional uses.
#10- Perhaps its time to consider whether to further restrict or expand permitted ADUs.
Category 10. SUBDIVISION CODE (1)
It has already been AGREED7 to allow careful cluster development.
Category 11. STREET STANDARDS (4)
It has already been AGREED8 to allow narrower ROWs on thru streets & cul-de-sacs.
It has already been AGREED9 to allow narrower ROWs on Full Standard streets.
It has already been AGREED10 to allow sidewalks on only one-side of streets.
It has already been AGREED11 to allow narrower sidewalks & the use of pervious materials.
Category 12. OPERATING ORDINANCES, SEPA, CLEARING, GRADING, STORMWATER (4)
It has already been AGREED12 to not allow filling without a permit.
It has already been AGREED13 for single lots to comply with strict stormwater regulations.
#11- Perhaps its time to consider whether more stringent SEPA reviews should be required in the watershed.
#12- Perhaps its time to consider whether to allow clearing in the watershed without a valid building permit.
Category 13. WETLAND & STREAM ORDINANCE (2)
#13- Perhaps its time to consider whether more stringent Wetland and Stream buffers should be used.
#14- Perhaps its time to consider whether more stringent Dock restrictions should be adopted.
Category 14. SHORELINE MASTER PLAN (2)
It has already been AGREED14 that residential shoreline setbacks should be increased where feasible.
#15- Perhaps its time to consider whether more stringent Bulkhead restrictions should be adopted.
Category 15. IMPERVIOUS LIMITS (1)
#16- Perhaps its time to consider whether reduced impervious limits should be adopted, with or without additional requirements.
Category 16. ADDITIONS & REMODELS (2)
#17- Perhaps its time to consider whether new impervious additions or remodels to existing homes that already exceed impervious limits should allowed.
#18- Perhaps its time to consider whether reconstruction be allowed for damage due to fire, regardless of impervious area.
Category 17. PERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS (1)
It has already been AGREED15 that having some limits on non-vegetated, pervious systems is desirable.
Category 18. TRANSFER OF IMPERVIOUS CREDITS (1)
It has already been AGREED16 that having some mechanism to earn additional impervious credits is desirable.
Category 19. FLEXIBLE INCENTIVES (1)
It has already been AGREED17 that having flexible incentives to earn additional impervious credits, while maintaining lake protection goals, is desirable.
Category 20. NATIVE VEGETATION & LANDSCAPING (2)
#19- Perhaps its time to consider whether some native vegetation or landscape requirement for single lots is desirable.
#20- Perhaps its time to consider whether some lawn area limits on single lots is desirable.
Category 21. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT (1)
#21- Perhaps its time to consider whether the use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers should be restricted.
Category 22. SEASONAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS (3)
#22- Perhaps its time to consider whether additional seasonal limits on ground disturbance would be desirable.
#23- Perhaps its time to consider whether the current earthwork exemption area of 500 sq.ft. is desirable.
#24- Perhaps its time to consider whether reconstruction due to damage should be allowed off-season.
Category 23. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES (3)
It has already been AGREED18 that requiring certification to do construction work, even in season, is desirable.
#25- Perhaps its time to consider whether construction practices with little or no probable impact should be permitted off-season.
#26- Perhaps its time to consider whether contractors that complete construction BMP course/certification can work off-season.
Category 24. FEES/ASSESSMENTS (2)
#27- Perhaps its time to consider whether all water users should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed.
#28- Perhaps its time to consider whether stormwater fees should remain on a flat rate per ERU basis.
Category 25. PUBLIC WATERSHED LAND ACQUISITION IN THE WATERSHED (4)
It has already been AGREED19 that that public land acquisition should be either an essential, or a helpful, part of lake watershed management.
It has already been AGREED20 that City money should be used for public land acquisition in the watershed.
It has already been AGREED21 that use of funding from all available sources is desirable.
#29- Perhaps its time to consider purchasing priorities again.
Category 26. ENFORCEMENT (1)
It has already been AGREED22 that enforcement should be firm, focussing on intent, and yield effective results.
Category 27. BENCHMARK/EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS (1)
#30- Perhaps its time to consider establishing better Benchmarks to evaluate the effectiveness of watershed protection efforts.
Category 28. ONGOING ADVISORY/STAKEHOLDER GROUP (1)
It has already been AGREED23 that an ongoing stakeholders group should remain empowered to advise Council on watershed issues.
======================================
All of these ideas will be helpful to some degree, but many will also be controversial and difficult to administer and enforce.
The TMDL Study should provide a good incentive to implement as many new measures as possible.
Other initiatives, like the consolidation of Water & Sewer services in the watershed, the establishment of a Joint County-City Management Team, the creation of new Stormwater entities and funding, the consideration of the DNR Reconveyance of forest lands for parks, promotion of the Watershed Stewards program, water metering, monitoring for fecal coliform at swimming areas, enforcement of watercraft rules, limitations on exempt wells, inspection of septic systems and the like should all be seen as other useful parts of the massive effort needed to preserve the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
Time is not on our side in this endeavor, and any notion of complacency needs to be firmly ad continuously reckoned with!
Informed citizens MUST be a big part of this effort!
Good luck!
======================================
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Lake Whatcom: Bellingham's Moratorium
==========================
NOTE: Correction to the estimate of potential build-out, thanks to Rebecca Craven, Policy Analyst for the Whatcom County Council:
==========================
For at least the last 10 years there have been steady calls for Bellingham and Whatcom County to enact some kind of a 'moratorium' to stop more building around Lake Whatcom.
Of course, any action either the City or the County takes can only technically apply to lands under its respective jurisdiction, unless other jurisdictions adopt similar steps voluntarily.
About 2% of this watershed actually falls within City Limits, with Whatcom County having jurisdiction over 96% and Skagit County accounting for the remaining 2%.
Since its Watershed Acquistion Ordinance first took effect in 2001, the City has been able to purchase several critical parcels outside its limits which have increased its overall control to about 5% of the watershed.
Back in 1999, when DOE first placed Lake Whatcom on its 303 (d) list, instead of enacting a moratorium, the City Council fortunately had the sufficient 5 votes to enact an Emergency Interim Ordinance, which had the effect of a temporary moratorium on clearing, grading and development in its portion of the watershed.
Unfortunately, Whatcom County's experience was much more problematic and painful. Its actions, regardless of how well-intended, actually served to exacerbate the development situation before new regulations could go into effect.
Even now, after several extensions, the County's 'temporary' moratorium remains just that -temporary!
In 1999, the City's 'Silver Beach Ordinance' did impose more stringent regulations which addressed 4 critical issues; density, allowed uses, impervious surface limits, and seasonal limits on construction activities that impact naturally vegetated land.
Together, these 4 elements represented then -as they do now- the factors considered most critical in regulating growth that can already -legally- happen.
Were these steps sufficient? That answer has to be 'no'.
But these were the ones that could be taken at the time, and they do represent a good part of the issues which Whatcom County faces as well.
What else could the City have done?
Glad you asked! Here's my take of the answer:
The City's Citizen's Task Force looked hard at how the Silver Beach Ordinance could be strengthened and made more fair and flexible.
In its determinations, some 53 ideas in 28 different categories were identified.
Of these, 23 ideas received unanimous or nearly unanimous support, and were forwarded to staff for incorporation into the final ordinance. In turn, both the Planning Commission and City Council gave the revised ordinance their unanimous approval.
These actions now reside in the Bellingham Municipal Code as Title 16 - Environment; Chapter 16.80 - Lake Whatcom Reservoir Regulatory Chapter.
You can find it on the City's website and read it for yourself.
What was left out of that Ordinance which can now be reconsidered?
Answer: a number of things, most which are also more controversial!
The best examples will likely include those categories and ideas which the 1999 Task Force identified and considered.
For those who don't want to wade through my lengthy blog of 12/4/07, below is a brief synopsis of the 28 different categories and 53 distinct (ideas), 23 of which were incorporated into BMC 16.80.
Additionally, there were others that attracted separate action, like the new Street Standard, Shoreline Management Program and Comprehensive and Neighborhood Plans.
Category 1. SCIENCE (1)
Category 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION (3)
Category 3. MORATORIUM (1)
Category 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (1)
Category 5. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (1)
Category 6. DENSITY/MINIMUM LOT SIZE (2)
Category 7. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDRs) (1)
Category 8. BUILDING SETBACKS & PARKING REQUIREMENTS (2)
Category 9. PERMITTED/CONDITIONAL USES (4)
Category 10. SUBDIVISION CODE (1)
Category 11. STREET STANDARDS (4)
Category 12. OPERATING ORDINANCES, SEPA, CLEARING, GRADING, STORMWATER (4)
Category 13. WETLAND & STREAM ORDINANCE (2)
Category 14. SHORELINE MASTER PLAN (2)
Category 15. IMPERVIOUS LIMITS (1)
Category 16. ADDITIONS & REMODELS (2)
Category 17. PERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS (1)
Category 18. TRANSFER OF IMPERVIOUS CREDITS (1)
Category 19. FLEXIBLE INCENTIVES (1)
Category 20. NATIVE VEGETATION & LANDSCAPING (2)
Category 21. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT (1)
Category 22. SEASONAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS (3)
Category 23. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES (3)
Category 24. FEES/ASSESSMENTS (2)
Category 25. PUBLIC WATERSHED LAND ACQUISITION IN THE WATERSHED (4)
Category 26. ENFORCEMENT (1)
Category 27. BENCHMARK/EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS (1)
Category 28. ONGOING ADVISORY/STAKEHOLDER GROUP (1)
--------------------------------
It might be instructive to recall how truly divisive the word 'moratorium' was in those days.
So, here's the way the Task Force split among the alternatives considered on that issue:
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 and no action.
Note 7 votes simply put this option off until the TMDL was issued!
That's now, folks.
=================
Also, it might be instructive to analyze exactly what amount and type of new development remains
to be addressed within the City's portion of the watershed.
Here's what the City's Planning Department advises:
"Our estimated residential capacity in the city's portion of the watershed (not including land area that drains into Whatcom Creek) is 132 potential units of which 105 are single lots with the balance on 10 lots that could accommodate more than one unit if maximum development happened.
The numbers are based upon lot size, so the 10 lots contain at least twice the minimum lot size for a single family."
That's somewhat more than I would have guessed since 10 years ago the estimate was about 140 in total, and since that time the minimum buildable lot size has been changed to 13,300 SF for a 2000 SF impervious footprint.
Also, the City has purchased several lots in the vicinity of Silver Beach School, and some homeowners have availed themselves of the provision that additional footprint can be acquired by transferring credits from other lots in this neighborhood.
But, if 132 is the answer, that still represents a good opportunity for up-front mitigation of future potential harmful effects.
By comparison, the most recent number from the County's watershed area is 3208, which might accommodate up to 15,000 more people.
Please explain why the County can't -or won't- do more about that?
After all, the TMDL ought to provide some incentive -and cover- for them, too?
======================
From COB website:
Lake Whatcom Watershed Moratorium
A recent draft report from the WA Department of Ecology and another from Western Washington University have provided additional evidence that the health of Lake Whatcom, the drinking water source for some 91,000 people, remains threatened by various by-products of development in the watershed.
On May 19, the Bellingham City Council approved an emergency ordinance establishing a four-month moratorium on divisions of land and building permits within the Lake Whatcom Watershed. In accordance with State law, the Council will conduct a public hearing on the moratorium within the next 60 days.
Notice of the public hearing will be posted on the City's website and advertised in the local media.
------------------------------------------------------
I invite all those interested to review the former Task Force Minutes posted on 12/4/07, then suggest which ideas can be extended further, and which are now ripe for action.
Quite apart from the characterization I have heard, that this moratorium is mostly symbolic, there are some good things that can now get done to good effect.
Some may prefer to hit home runs than singles and sacrifices, because that's where the quick fame lies.
But the reality of our current situation is that it will take a continuity of selfless team effort to keep 'saving the stick' for the next batter!
If we can't meaningfully use the TMDL issuance to take additional decisive action, when can we do it?
One other thing; it's always easier to eat oatmeal that has already been grown, harvested, processed and cooked by someone else.
Why not learn something and try to avoid re-inventing the same wheel?
It's also easier to point fingers and discount the actions taken by another entity, than to take effective action yourself!
The Silver Beach Ordinance, while imperfect, did blaze a good trail that ought to be followed better than it was.
That is why I've bothered to document the Task Force's work so carefully; because it can provide the solid foundation needed to make continuous progress on preserving the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
So build on it!
And don't lose sight of what we are trying to accomplish for those who will come after us.
------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Correction to the estimate of potential build-out, thanks to Rebecca Craven, Policy Analyst for the Whatcom County Council:
“One of the projects I’ve been working on with PDS staff is a thorough parcel analysis of potentially developable and partially developed lots in the portion of the watershed under the County’s jurisdiction.
We recently reported our preliminary results to the Council’s Natural Resources Committee.
PDS staff has coordinated its efforts with COB staff, and while their numbers are still slightly different from each other (for reasons I’m happy to explain if you want that much detail), neither staff estimate is close to the 3208 you reference in your blog entry.
The estimates are ~2200 potential units, which at a population density of 2.1 persons per household as used in the COB land supply analysis, works out to a potential population increase of about 4620.”
==========================
For at least the last 10 years there have been steady calls for Bellingham and Whatcom County to enact some kind of a 'moratorium' to stop more building around Lake Whatcom.
Of course, any action either the City or the County takes can only technically apply to lands under its respective jurisdiction, unless other jurisdictions adopt similar steps voluntarily.
About 2% of this watershed actually falls within City Limits, with Whatcom County having jurisdiction over 96% and Skagit County accounting for the remaining 2%.
Since its Watershed Acquistion Ordinance first took effect in 2001, the City has been able to purchase several critical parcels outside its limits which have increased its overall control to about 5% of the watershed.
Back in 1999, when DOE first placed Lake Whatcom on its 303 (d) list, instead of enacting a moratorium, the City Council fortunately had the sufficient 5 votes to enact an Emergency Interim Ordinance, which had the effect of a temporary moratorium on clearing, grading and development in its portion of the watershed.
Unfortunately, Whatcom County's experience was much more problematic and painful. Its actions, regardless of how well-intended, actually served to exacerbate the development situation before new regulations could go into effect.
Even now, after several extensions, the County's 'temporary' moratorium remains just that -temporary!
In 1999, the City's 'Silver Beach Ordinance' did impose more stringent regulations which addressed 4 critical issues; density, allowed uses, impervious surface limits, and seasonal limits on construction activities that impact naturally vegetated land.
Together, these 4 elements represented then -as they do now- the factors considered most critical in regulating growth that can already -legally- happen.
Were these steps sufficient? That answer has to be 'no'.
But these were the ones that could be taken at the time, and they do represent a good part of the issues which Whatcom County faces as well.
What else could the City have done?
Glad you asked! Here's my take of the answer:
The City's Citizen's Task Force looked hard at how the Silver Beach Ordinance could be strengthened and made more fair and flexible.
In its determinations, some 53 ideas in 28 different categories were identified.
Of these, 23 ideas received unanimous or nearly unanimous support, and were forwarded to staff for incorporation into the final ordinance. In turn, both the Planning Commission and City Council gave the revised ordinance their unanimous approval.
These actions now reside in the Bellingham Municipal Code as Title 16 - Environment; Chapter 16.80 - Lake Whatcom Reservoir Regulatory Chapter.
You can find it on the City's website and read it for yourself.
What was left out of that Ordinance which can now be reconsidered?
Answer: a number of things, most which are also more controversial!
The best examples will likely include those categories and ideas which the 1999 Task Force identified and considered.
For those who don't want to wade through my lengthy blog of 12/4/07, below is a brief synopsis of the 28 different categories and 53 distinct (ideas), 23 of which were incorporated into BMC 16.80.
Additionally, there were others that attracted separate action, like the new Street Standard, Shoreline Management Program and Comprehensive and Neighborhood Plans.
Category 1. SCIENCE (1)
Category 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION (3)
Category 3. MORATORIUM (1)
Category 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (1)
Category 5. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (1)
Category 6. DENSITY/MINIMUM LOT SIZE (2)
Category 7. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDRs) (1)
Category 8. BUILDING SETBACKS & PARKING REQUIREMENTS (2)
Category 9. PERMITTED/CONDITIONAL USES (4)
Category 10. SUBDIVISION CODE (1)
Category 11. STREET STANDARDS (4)
Category 12. OPERATING ORDINANCES, SEPA, CLEARING, GRADING, STORMWATER (4)
Category 13. WETLAND & STREAM ORDINANCE (2)
Category 14. SHORELINE MASTER PLAN (2)
Category 15. IMPERVIOUS LIMITS (1)
Category 16. ADDITIONS & REMODELS (2)
Category 17. PERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS (1)
Category 18. TRANSFER OF IMPERVIOUS CREDITS (1)
Category 19. FLEXIBLE INCENTIVES (1)
Category 20. NATIVE VEGETATION & LANDSCAPING (2)
Category 21. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT (1)
Category 22. SEASONAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS (3)
Category 23. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES (3)
Category 24. FEES/ASSESSMENTS (2)
Category 25. PUBLIC WATERSHED LAND ACQUISITION IN THE WATERSHED (4)
Category 26. ENFORCEMENT (1)
Category 27. BENCHMARK/EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS (1)
Category 28. ONGOING ADVISORY/STAKEHOLDER GROUP (1)
--------------------------------
It might be instructive to recall how truly divisive the word 'moratorium' was in those days.
So, here's the way the Task Force split among the alternatives considered on that issue:
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 and no action.
Note 7 votes simply put this option off until the TMDL was issued!
That's now, folks.
=================
Also, it might be instructive to analyze exactly what amount and type of new development remains
to be addressed within the City's portion of the watershed.
Here's what the City's Planning Department advises:
"Our estimated residential capacity in the city's portion of the watershed (not including land area that drains into Whatcom Creek) is 132 potential units of which 105 are single lots with the balance on 10 lots that could accommodate more than one unit if maximum development happened.
The numbers are based upon lot size, so the 10 lots contain at least twice the minimum lot size for a single family."
That's somewhat more than I would have guessed since 10 years ago the estimate was about 140 in total, and since that time the minimum buildable lot size has been changed to 13,300 SF for a 2000 SF impervious footprint.
Also, the City has purchased several lots in the vicinity of Silver Beach School, and some homeowners have availed themselves of the provision that additional footprint can be acquired by transferring credits from other lots in this neighborhood.
But, if 132 is the answer, that still represents a good opportunity for up-front mitigation of future potential harmful effects.
By comparison, the most recent number from the County's watershed area is 3208, which might accommodate up to 15,000 more people.
Please explain why the County can't -or won't- do more about that?
After all, the TMDL ought to provide some incentive -and cover- for them, too?
======================
From COB website:
Lake Whatcom Watershed Moratorium
A recent draft report from the WA Department of Ecology and another from Western Washington University have provided additional evidence that the health of Lake Whatcom, the drinking water source for some 91,000 people, remains threatened by various by-products of development in the watershed.
On May 19, the Bellingham City Council approved an emergency ordinance establishing a four-month moratorium on divisions of land and building permits within the Lake Whatcom Watershed. In accordance with State law, the Council will conduct a public hearing on the moratorium within the next 60 days.
Notice of the public hearing will be posted on the City's website and advertised in the local media.
------------------------------------------------------
I invite all those interested to review the former Task Force Minutes posted on 12/4/07, then suggest which ideas can be extended further, and which are now ripe for action.
Quite apart from the characterization I have heard, that this moratorium is mostly symbolic, there are some good things that can now get done to good effect.
Some may prefer to hit home runs than singles and sacrifices, because that's where the quick fame lies.
But the reality of our current situation is that it will take a continuity of selfless team effort to keep 'saving the stick' for the next batter!
If we can't meaningfully use the TMDL issuance to take additional decisive action, when can we do it?
One other thing; it's always easier to eat oatmeal that has already been grown, harvested, processed and cooked by someone else.
Why not learn something and try to avoid re-inventing the same wheel?
It's also easier to point fingers and discount the actions taken by another entity, than to take effective action yourself!
The Silver Beach Ordinance, while imperfect, did blaze a good trail that ought to be followed better than it was.
That is why I've bothered to document the Task Force's work so carefully; because it can provide the solid foundation needed to make continuous progress on preserving the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
So build on it!
And don't lose sight of what we are trying to accomplish for those who will come after us.
------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
