-------------------------
"When the well runs dry, we know the worth of water." – Benjamin Franklin
-------------------------
The legendary major league baseball pitcher, Satchel Paige, who never disclosed his real age, was once asked 'what is the secret to your longevity?
To which he answered; 'just don't look back, because something might be gaining on you!'
What a great answer, or non-answer, or whatever.
For some reason that little recollection came to mind yesterday, right after the 10-year commemoration of the Olympic Pipe Line disaster here in Bellingham.
As spectacular and tragic as that horrendous explosion and its after effects was, our drinking water reservoir carries a similar potential for undesirable results over a longer, and therefore much less noticeable, period of time.
Does that statement sound plausible?
It ought to, even though the instant and unmistakeable results won't likely be linked in the same dramatic way - at least in the memories of those living here today.
What is the difference?
It's hard to say with certainty of future effects and their timing, isn't it?
Kinda like the difference between a frog being gigged or slowly being brought to a boil in a large pot of water.
The ultimate result is the same, but instantaneous drama is missing.
Anyway, this is the point I'm trying to make; things that surprise us with misfortune, but seem correctable, attract our attention and action.
Things that are merely scientifically and observably trending in a bad direction, don't exhibit the urgency needed for really effective corrective action.
Unfortunately, less urgency translates into doing little or nothing until the situation has grown so bad that emergency action is often required, which in too many cases is simply too little, too late.
Just imagine, for example, if Whatcom Creek had been the inlet to Lake Whatcom, not the outlet.
How might that have impacted Bellingham on JUne 10, 1999, the date of the Olympic Pipe Line explosion?
Think that might have made a difference in how we care for our drinking water supply?
I think something like that would have made a huge difference, not that anyone would ever wish for such a thing.
I'm really glad that so much good of lasting value has come out of our community's response to the Olympic Pipe Line disaster.
Even with that drama and the tragic deaths, destruction and indelible fear of future such events, we pressed on with such determination that other communities, our legislators at all levels, and eventually our regulators and even the petroleum industry itself became part of the solution!
That is as truly remarkable as it is commendable.
It makes one wonder, how did we miss such obvious safety precautions?
One reason we couldn't miss the lessons from the Olympic travesty, was the universally resonating drama it created, among virtually everyone -in the community, state, region, nation and the world.
We do not have that kind of gut-wrenching attention when dealing with preserving our reservoir for future generations, and that is very good!
But, without the publicity to galvanize necessary action, we are left with far less than adequate response.
It's just too easy to 'kick the can down the road' to the next City, County, State or Federal administration to take care of, isn't it?
Yet, the situation never seems to actually get handled.
That's the problem.
Since the Washington State Dept of Ecology issued its so-called TMDL [Total Maximum Daily Load] Study last year, our local governments have been charged with drafting and implementing remedial action plans.
They got about a year to comply, but if that deadline passes, what's the penalty? A slap on the wrist?
After all, it took Ecology 10 years to get the TMDL Report written, reviewed and issued.
Meantime, the clock is ticking!
Not a fancy atomic clock, or even a digital Mickey Mouse watch, but an hour glass, with a too narrow neck and damp sand!
I know there are other 'priorities'.
I know there is a major budget crunch.
I know, I know, oh how I know!
What I don't know is when the publicity of a very serious problem will get so dramatic and urgent that the required difficult and growing actions will actually start making an observable difference!
So far, despite all the rhetoric, business and actions taken, only a slight decrease in the RATE OF DEGRADATION has been seen to have occurred.
That means the situation with our only source of drinking water supply is still getting worse, not better.
Hello, can you hear me now?
Here's a hint; RESULTS COUNT, not talk and minimally effective 'actions'.
We're talking about REAL actions, like those taken in the last 10 years following the Olympic Pipe Line 'incident', as it euphemistically called at one point.
That must have been a time when someone was trying to gently soft-pedal what was truly a disaster!
Please, let's don't let it happen again, masked as a frog is a pot of slowly heating water.
Please!
---------------------------
"Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over." - attributed to Mark Twain
---------------------------
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Economic Development: Why Not Combine City & Port?
---------------------------
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Einstein
'Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.' - Einstein
----------------------------
You know, it doesn't really take an Einstein to figure out when something is not working too well, or to suggest a few changes that might help.
Common sense, based on observation can go a long way in that direction, but only if folks decide to pay attention.
There may be some impracticalities included in these remarks, but maybe a few good ideas, too.
You decide.
For purposes of efficiency and connecting planning with results that fit the purpose, maybe its time to consider consolidating the functions of City and Port?
Think about it.
For years, the City has been criticized for not having an Economic Development Element in its Comprehensive Plan, because the State Growth Management Act doesn't actually require it.
Yet, a super majority of the jobs in Whatcom County are located in the City.
And, experts tell us that is desirable for multiple reasons.
On the other hand, the Port of Bellingham has followed its nose as a Special Purpose District since its inception, and without much public notice until fairly recently.
That significant moment in time occurred when the Port decided to acquire the former G-P property and redevelop our Waterfront.
But, that was also the time the Port stepped spectacularly into the real public eye, by traipsing through a very public puddle -called 'public process'.
Not a very comfortable place to enjoy relative obscurity, those public puddles!
Now, since the Port has actually touched the 'tar-baby' of partnering with the City, its choice to remain anonymous has disappeared.
And, since the Waterfront District clean-up and redevelopment are both desirable goals, why not make the City-Port partnership real, and permanent?
Understanding the full gravity and scope of the waterfront redevelopment being proposed, puts into clear perspective the challenges that both Port and City face.
But, already cracks are appearing in the facade of true cooperation.
Like the Port's insistence upon having its way with street layout, parking provisions and exemptions from impact fees for starters.
And, the Port is willing to posture on these points as if they were really deal breakers!
What's with that?
While it is normal for developers to negotiate hard with regulators, the Port's attitude is beginning to wear very thin.
Just look at the Port's actions regarding extension of water and sewer to its properties adjacent to the airport, for example.
Rather than accept the City's new and long overdue policy of requiring annexation before extending these essential utilities, the Port would rather stay stuck in the past, and legally challenge the annexation policy.
It's OK to pose legal challenges, but what does that say about the type of partnership the Port has in mind?
Maybe the County will be encouraged to do a similar thing when they get around to actually building a new jail facility, which likely may locate just past the airport?
Point is, the City's rules and regulations are there for good reasons, and must be applied consistently and fairly.
So, if constant tussles are in the offing over this kind of stuff, maybe the City needs to take a more active role in big, important projects like waterfront redevelopment.
I'm sure the Port is up to the job technically and professionally.
But, attitude-wise, not!
That is a poor foundation for a lasting, productive relationship, and it ought to be addressed before proceeding too much further.
It wouldn't take much to establish another City Department and set it up as essentially another Enterprise Fund that is self-supporting, something like the Water, Sewer and Storm water utilities.
Also, the former 'Commissioner' function might continue in some important capacity by duly appointing at least five Directors of a new Public Development Authority, along the lines of the Public Facilities District which has worked pretty well to improve the City's Cultural facilities, using monies returned to it by the State of Washington for that sole purpose.
BTW, Whatcom County also saw the value of participating in the PFD.
I can visualize an appointment process along the lines the City now uses to pick its Finance Director; establish specific duties for the new agency and its Directors, solicit applications from persons qualified for the job, interviews, short list interviews, appointment by Major, subject to Council approval for a fixed term of office, public meetings of the PDA all televised by BTV10.
Sound viable?
Of course, there might be a few flies in this proposed ointment, too.
Legalities
Inertia
Turf protection
Resistance to change of any kind
Doubts
Financial liability
Expansion of City control
Just to name a few.
But, these can be overcome if citizens see this as a way toward better control of the Port's public activities and accountability.
Regarding funding, the Port already collects funds from public taxes, grants and revenues from its properties and operations.
Conceivably, these could remain to be used for customary and necessary purposes.
What could be wrong with trying such an approach?
It would take time and effort to accomplish.
And, since there are a few other things that might limit attention away from fundamental structural changes like this being made, there would need to be a groundswell of public support behind it.
But, think about it.
It would greatly improve the public process people seem to want.
And, it shouldn't require major new funding.
Plus, it could benefit the City's efforts to create jobs and help our local economy.
Would Whatcom County object?
That might depend upon who is in office.
After all, the County's relationship with the Port has been nothing to write home about!
Why, it's made the City/Port partnership look positively peachy keen in comparison.
Of course, the City/Port are no longer getting along as well as they were a few years ago, either.
Is that the way it is with relationships?
Familiarity breeds contempt?
I suspect the attitude Whatcom County might display depends on what's in it for them.
Because they seem used to thinking of themselves as the big dog, which in a sense they are under State law.
Just look at how the County has acted during the protracted Growth Management proceedings known as population forecasts and Comprehensive Plan update.
Much more attitude than aptitude in my book!
In this regard, maybe some of the Port properties outside of Bellingham might be turned over to the County as potential 'free trade zones' or places where start-up companies could get started, incubate and grow.
And, maybe the County could be persuaded to locate its proposed new jail facility down on the waterfront, to keep it in town and prevent more sprawl?
The G-P warehouse could provide a good sized footprint, while continuing to cap the contamination underneath.
Just more food for thought.
But, look at how the County acted when presented with the opportunity to support the so-called LIFT legislation to help pay for waterfront redevelopment infrastructure costs.
Abysmally!
To date, there have not been any County Economic Development Incentive [EDI] funds targeted toward waterfront redevelopment, either.
Why is that?
After all, EDI funds were appropriated to help pay for Market Depot Square.
So, why not the waterfront?
Whether the County's attitude towards other municipalities -City and Port included- is deliberately malicious or merely aberrant and self-serving, is difficult to know with certainty, except from public expressions from individuals, and the County's own public record.
More likely, the County is just being jealous of its status as chief purveyor of Economic Development Incentive [EDI] funds and countywide services, and is so blinded by its own importance that ignorance of issues and activities outside its command and control mentality is allowed to grow like an untended garden.
If any of this perceived attitude continues, the County could also become a roadblock to any consolidation of City and Port responsibilities.
These musings, ideas and concerns are not just my opinions, because several do reflect fairly broad publicly stated positions.
But, don't you think they need to be aired and debated?
What better time for that than during an election that could result in changing two of the three Port Commissioners?
Just ask each candidate;
'Do you think some dramatic changes are in order for the Port?
Or, do you think things are pretty much OK the way they are?
See where each comes down on these questions.
Then, ask them to justify their positions.
If citizens are listening, they will get to decide this issue at the ballot box, come November 3.
After all, its in the public's best interests to not only get the best plan possible, but the best elected representatives to carry it out.
----------------------------
'It is no use saying, We are doing our best. You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.' - Churchill
'Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon.' - Churchill
----------------------------
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Einstein
'Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.' - Einstein
----------------------------
You know, it doesn't really take an Einstein to figure out when something is not working too well, or to suggest a few changes that might help.
Common sense, based on observation can go a long way in that direction, but only if folks decide to pay attention.
There may be some impracticalities included in these remarks, but maybe a few good ideas, too.
You decide.
For purposes of efficiency and connecting planning with results that fit the purpose, maybe its time to consider consolidating the functions of City and Port?
Think about it.
For years, the City has been criticized for not having an Economic Development Element in its Comprehensive Plan, because the State Growth Management Act doesn't actually require it.
Yet, a super majority of the jobs in Whatcom County are located in the City.
And, experts tell us that is desirable for multiple reasons.
On the other hand, the Port of Bellingham has followed its nose as a Special Purpose District since its inception, and without much public notice until fairly recently.
That significant moment in time occurred when the Port decided to acquire the former G-P property and redevelop our Waterfront.
But, that was also the time the Port stepped spectacularly into the real public eye, by traipsing through a very public puddle -called 'public process'.
Not a very comfortable place to enjoy relative obscurity, those public puddles!
Now, since the Port has actually touched the 'tar-baby' of partnering with the City, its choice to remain anonymous has disappeared.
And, since the Waterfront District clean-up and redevelopment are both desirable goals, why not make the City-Port partnership real, and permanent?
Understanding the full gravity and scope of the waterfront redevelopment being proposed, puts into clear perspective the challenges that both Port and City face.
But, already cracks are appearing in the facade of true cooperation.
Like the Port's insistence upon having its way with street layout, parking provisions and exemptions from impact fees for starters.
And, the Port is willing to posture on these points as if they were really deal breakers!
What's with that?
While it is normal for developers to negotiate hard with regulators, the Port's attitude is beginning to wear very thin.
Just look at the Port's actions regarding extension of water and sewer to its properties adjacent to the airport, for example.
Rather than accept the City's new and long overdue policy of requiring annexation before extending these essential utilities, the Port would rather stay stuck in the past, and legally challenge the annexation policy.
It's OK to pose legal challenges, but what does that say about the type of partnership the Port has in mind?
Maybe the County will be encouraged to do a similar thing when they get around to actually building a new jail facility, which likely may locate just past the airport?
Point is, the City's rules and regulations are there for good reasons, and must be applied consistently and fairly.
So, if constant tussles are in the offing over this kind of stuff, maybe the City needs to take a more active role in big, important projects like waterfront redevelopment.
I'm sure the Port is up to the job technically and professionally.
But, attitude-wise, not!
That is a poor foundation for a lasting, productive relationship, and it ought to be addressed before proceeding too much further.
It wouldn't take much to establish another City Department and set it up as essentially another Enterprise Fund that is self-supporting, something like the Water, Sewer and Storm water utilities.
Also, the former 'Commissioner' function might continue in some important capacity by duly appointing at least five Directors of a new Public Development Authority, along the lines of the Public Facilities District which has worked pretty well to improve the City's Cultural facilities, using monies returned to it by the State of Washington for that sole purpose.
BTW, Whatcom County also saw the value of participating in the PFD.
I can visualize an appointment process along the lines the City now uses to pick its Finance Director; establish specific duties for the new agency and its Directors, solicit applications from persons qualified for the job, interviews, short list interviews, appointment by Major, subject to Council approval for a fixed term of office, public meetings of the PDA all televised by BTV10.
Sound viable?
Of course, there might be a few flies in this proposed ointment, too.
Legalities
Inertia
Turf protection
Resistance to change of any kind
Doubts
Financial liability
Expansion of City control
Just to name a few.
But, these can be overcome if citizens see this as a way toward better control of the Port's public activities and accountability.
Regarding funding, the Port already collects funds from public taxes, grants and revenues from its properties and operations.
Conceivably, these could remain to be used for customary and necessary purposes.
What could be wrong with trying such an approach?
It would take time and effort to accomplish.
And, since there are a few other things that might limit attention away from fundamental structural changes like this being made, there would need to be a groundswell of public support behind it.
But, think about it.
It would greatly improve the public process people seem to want.
And, it shouldn't require major new funding.
Plus, it could benefit the City's efforts to create jobs and help our local economy.
Would Whatcom County object?
That might depend upon who is in office.
After all, the County's relationship with the Port has been nothing to write home about!
Why, it's made the City/Port partnership look positively peachy keen in comparison.
Of course, the City/Port are no longer getting along as well as they were a few years ago, either.
Is that the way it is with relationships?
Familiarity breeds contempt?
I suspect the attitude Whatcom County might display depends on what's in it for them.
Because they seem used to thinking of themselves as the big dog, which in a sense they are under State law.
Just look at how the County has acted during the protracted Growth Management proceedings known as population forecasts and Comprehensive Plan update.
Much more attitude than aptitude in my book!
In this regard, maybe some of the Port properties outside of Bellingham might be turned over to the County as potential 'free trade zones' or places where start-up companies could get started, incubate and grow.
And, maybe the County could be persuaded to locate its proposed new jail facility down on the waterfront, to keep it in town and prevent more sprawl?
The G-P warehouse could provide a good sized footprint, while continuing to cap the contamination underneath.
Just more food for thought.
But, look at how the County acted when presented with the opportunity to support the so-called LIFT legislation to help pay for waterfront redevelopment infrastructure costs.
Abysmally!
To date, there have not been any County Economic Development Incentive [EDI] funds targeted toward waterfront redevelopment, either.
Why is that?
After all, EDI funds were appropriated to help pay for Market Depot Square.
So, why not the waterfront?
Whether the County's attitude towards other municipalities -City and Port included- is deliberately malicious or merely aberrant and self-serving, is difficult to know with certainty, except from public expressions from individuals, and the County's own public record.
More likely, the County is just being jealous of its status as chief purveyor of Economic Development Incentive [EDI] funds and countywide services, and is so blinded by its own importance that ignorance of issues and activities outside its command and control mentality is allowed to grow like an untended garden.
If any of this perceived attitude continues, the County could also become a roadblock to any consolidation of City and Port responsibilities.
These musings, ideas and concerns are not just my opinions, because several do reflect fairly broad publicly stated positions.
But, don't you think they need to be aired and debated?
What better time for that than during an election that could result in changing two of the three Port Commissioners?
Just ask each candidate;
'Do you think some dramatic changes are in order for the Port?
Or, do you think things are pretty much OK the way they are?
See where each comes down on these questions.
Then, ask them to justify their positions.
If citizens are listening, they will get to decide this issue at the ballot box, come November 3.
After all, its in the public's best interests to not only get the best plan possible, but the best elected representatives to carry it out.
----------------------------
'It is no use saying, We are doing our best. You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.' - Churchill
'Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon.' - Churchill
----------------------------
Friday, June 5, 2009
Growth Management: Choosing Our Sprawl & How To Pay For It
---------------------------
A recent article in Crosscut appears to question whether concentrating growth eliminates sprawl, or encourages it.
The answer is probably some of both, because any population increase at all just tends to squeeze us together.
Rather than ask a binary 'either, or' question -which is a false choice- we ought to simply inquire which type of sprawl is likely to be less insidious, more desirable, and less costly in the long run.
We all agree there are limits to land and water supplies, as well as limits to essential public services at affordable cost.
Remember, we were forced into funding our EMS unit, Whatcom Medic One, on a countywide basis a few years ago, to save it?
Too many intentional games get played between municipalities regarding who pays for public services and amenities; that silliness needs to end.
As far as growth is concerned, it's much better for each new development to be required to pay its full share of anticipated costs, without externalizing that burden to unsuspecting 'others'.
For example, why are there no B&O taxes or impact fees required for businesses locating outside of Bellingham?
And, why is there no agreement to consolidate the funding and management of public amenities such as Libraries, Parks and the like?
Why doesn't Whatcom County see completing the WRIA 1 [click on label below] process as absolutely necessary to plan its future land and water use?
To me, all of this means that fewer feuding fiefdoms and much better cooperation and collaboration between governmental agencies should be required.
Another example, why are separate 'planning departments' needed for County and City functions?
The same might be said for other public safety, public health, public welfare, and public utility services to varying degrees.
The severe budget difficulties that both City and County are now facing should be a clear tip-off that things, as they are, have become increasingly unsustainable.
It just doesn't hack it to react to such problems in an erratic, knee-jerk fashion that mainly serves to passing the buck to the next administration; haven't we had enough of that?
And, for services that citizens truly need, allowing them to lapse or become dysfunctional is shortsighted and irresponsible!
Here's an idea for a furlough policy: time off -without pay- for all elected executives and legislators, until they come up with viable plans to consolidate public services and adopt them!
That ought to instill a better sense of responsibility and urgency, don't you think?
It also might force some important decisions to be made that some folks would rather avoid!
That by itself might be the equivalent to term limits, who knows?
While I am glad to see several new candidates stepping up to our next local election, I hope some -or all- of them are up to this particular challenge.
And, it is a challenge!
But, hey, someone's got to do it...
---------------------------------
A recent article in Crosscut appears to question whether concentrating growth eliminates sprawl, or encourages it.
The answer is probably some of both, because any population increase at all just tends to squeeze us together.
Rather than ask a binary 'either, or' question -which is a false choice- we ought to simply inquire which type of sprawl is likely to be less insidious, more desirable, and less costly in the long run.
We all agree there are limits to land and water supplies, as well as limits to essential public services at affordable cost.
Remember, we were forced into funding our EMS unit, Whatcom Medic One, on a countywide basis a few years ago, to save it?
Too many intentional games get played between municipalities regarding who pays for public services and amenities; that silliness needs to end.
As far as growth is concerned, it's much better for each new development to be required to pay its full share of anticipated costs, without externalizing that burden to unsuspecting 'others'.
For example, why are there no B&O taxes or impact fees required for businesses locating outside of Bellingham?
And, why is there no agreement to consolidate the funding and management of public amenities such as Libraries, Parks and the like?
Why doesn't Whatcom County see completing the WRIA 1 [click on label below] process as absolutely necessary to plan its future land and water use?
To me, all of this means that fewer feuding fiefdoms and much better cooperation and collaboration between governmental agencies should be required.
Another example, why are separate 'planning departments' needed for County and City functions?
The same might be said for other public safety, public health, public welfare, and public utility services to varying degrees.
The severe budget difficulties that both City and County are now facing should be a clear tip-off that things, as they are, have become increasingly unsustainable.
It just doesn't hack it to react to such problems in an erratic, knee-jerk fashion that mainly serves to passing the buck to the next administration; haven't we had enough of that?
And, for services that citizens truly need, allowing them to lapse or become dysfunctional is shortsighted and irresponsible!
Here's an idea for a furlough policy: time off -without pay- for all elected executives and legislators, until they come up with viable plans to consolidate public services and adopt them!
That ought to instill a better sense of responsibility and urgency, don't you think?
It also might force some important decisions to be made that some folks would rather avoid!
That by itself might be the equivalent to term limits, who knows?
While I am glad to see several new candidates stepping up to our next local election, I hope some -or all- of them are up to this particular challenge.
And, it is a challenge!
But, hey, someone's got to do it...
---------------------------------
Thursday, June 4, 2009
WAL-MART: Hate to Say 'I Told You So', but....
---------------------------------
My post on September 4, 2007, Big Box Theory: Attacking Mall-Wart, has proven to be anticipatory of a future reality.
And, that reality is now, if it is not already too late.
I hope it's not.
There are lots of things that people love to hate; bigness, low wages & benefits, lack of choice, high prices, brutal competition, cheap imports, large parking lots, strong central control, crowds of boorish shoppers, and the like.
Also, the opposites of many of the above.
Point is, you can't please everybody anywhere near all the time.
But having a relatively inexpensive place to shop for essentials, and maybe a few extras, is not inherently a bad thing.
In fact, it can be a very good thing for many, particularly in hard times, like these.
WAL-MART is now a $400 Billion company, every year - if not the largest, close to it.
And, it's culture and practices have changed somewhat, in response to both criticism and market pressure.
There are early indications that WAL-MART can't be everything to everybody, and must choose its strengths more carefully.
This has even begun to attract other business to locate close by to fill the lacks, while taking advantage of of the large volume of customers that WAL-MART regularly draws.
Big chains, like Target, for example.
If that trend were to continue we might literally begin to have malls of Big Boxes.
Municipalities might even be willing to plan for that to happen.
What a concept!
Better mass transit, land use and common public amenities.
Less sprawl, wandering traffic and congestion.
But, time will tell, as it always does.
-------------
So, back to the present, so we can revisit the past.
With that in mind, the Herald editorial of Saturday, May. 30, 2009 is reprinted below:
-----------
Bravo, to the Herald and its editorial board for revisiting this issue, especially, in the cool light of projected City budget deficits!
And, do not doubt that the clear and serious threat to City revenue streams is the real reason for any reconsideration, despite all the other nice sounding rationale.
Once the financial dots are connected, most issues can be seen with more clarity.
And, that is without corrective lenses to combat political myopia, astigmatism, sensitivity to light or night blindness.
But, there is no simple answer for those who prefer to keep their eyes closed, or receptive only to what they want to see.
That's why 'wake-up' calls are sometimes necessary.
----------------------------------------
My post on September 4, 2007, Big Box Theory: Attacking Mall-Wart, has proven to be anticipatory of a future reality.
And, that reality is now, if it is not already too late.
I hope it's not.
There are lots of things that people love to hate; bigness, low wages & benefits, lack of choice, high prices, brutal competition, cheap imports, large parking lots, strong central control, crowds of boorish shoppers, and the like.
Also, the opposites of many of the above.
Point is, you can't please everybody anywhere near all the time.
But having a relatively inexpensive place to shop for essentials, and maybe a few extras, is not inherently a bad thing.
In fact, it can be a very good thing for many, particularly in hard times, like these.
WAL-MART is now a $400 Billion company, every year - if not the largest, close to it.
And, it's culture and practices have changed somewhat, in response to both criticism and market pressure.
There are early indications that WAL-MART can't be everything to everybody, and must choose its strengths more carefully.
This has even begun to attract other business to locate close by to fill the lacks, while taking advantage of of the large volume of customers that WAL-MART regularly draws.
Big chains, like Target, for example.
If that trend were to continue we might literally begin to have malls of Big Boxes.
Municipalities might even be willing to plan for that to happen.
What a concept!
Better mass transit, land use and common public amenities.
Less sprawl, wandering traffic and congestion.
But, time will tell, as it always does.
-------------
So, back to the present, so we can revisit the past.
With that in mind, the Herald editorial of Saturday, May. 30, 2009 is reprinted below:
Mayor offers end to store-size mistake
It's time for the city of Bellingham to rescind its law limiting the size of stores.
Bellingham Mayor Dan Pike has proposed a plan to ease the city's ban on allowing stores larger than 90,000 square feet, as long as the buildings are developed in step with environmentally friendly building standards and only in the part of town where large retailing already exists. The City Council will take up the mayor's idea in June.
The City Council has limited the size of stores to 90,000 square feet and limited expansion of stores that are already larger than that. The limit was put into place after Wal-Mart expressed interest in expanding its Meridian Street store to a "Super Wal-Mart." The larger stores including full grocery offerings.
City officials, apparently upset about Wal-Mart's practices as an international conglomerate, decided to take a stand, even if their stand flew in the face of all of the hard work they had done to control and direct growth in our community.
The current location of Wal-Mart is the best location for Wal-Mart. If the company is going to put a "Super Wal-Mart" in our community it should be built where all of our county's major retailing, and the traffic that goes with it, is already located. Forcing Wal-Mart and other stories outside of Bellingham flies in the face of growth management efforts in our community.
Meanwhile the city's ordinance had unintended consequences when Costco also wanted to expand slightly. We are not aware that City Council members have anything against Issaquah-based Costco's retailing practices. But once the law was in place limiting Wal-Mart, it would have looked bad if the city made an exception for Costco. Such an exception would have exposed the store-size limit for what it is, an unfair restraint of trade aimed solely at a particular business.
If any city official tries to deny their intention was to limit Wal-Mart, ask them why they did not object to the creation of the Bakerview Fred Meyer, which is larger than 90,000 square feet, or a strip mall along Bakerview Road that is much bigger than 90,000 square feet when considered as a whole.
We are hopeful that enough time has passed for the council to consider the mayor's proposed changes to the store-size rules without council members feeling as if they have abandoned their convictions. What the mayor is proposing is what should have always been in place.
Big box stores should be limited by zoning to certain parts of the city. Certainly no one wants a giant store built in a historic neighborhood. The current areas along Meridian Street and Bakerview Road are the proper places for such development.
And requiring any new building to follow environmentally sensitive rules is common sense, whether for an expansion or an entire new store.
We hope the council takes the mayor's proposal seriously and moves quickly to modify the store-size rules. So far the council has been lucky. Wal-Mart, Costco and others have not started building new, bigger stores in some other location - such as in Ferndale or on the Lummi Indian Reservation.
But eventually , if Bellingham's leaders don't change their policy , they will force out these businesses and create the worst possible scenario - a big loss to the city's tax revenues and unsightly sprawl in parts of the county where it should not be.
-----------
Bravo, to the Herald and its editorial board for revisiting this issue, especially, in the cool light of projected City budget deficits!
And, do not doubt that the clear and serious threat to City revenue streams is the real reason for any reconsideration, despite all the other nice sounding rationale.
Once the financial dots are connected, most issues can be seen with more clarity.
And, that is without corrective lenses to combat political myopia, astigmatism, sensitivity to light or night blindness.
But, there is no simple answer for those who prefer to keep their eyes closed, or receptive only to what they want to see.
That's why 'wake-up' calls are sometimes necessary.
----------------------------------------
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The Leopold: Barbers of B-Ville
-----------------------------
Today's posting will be on the slightly vain and lighter side, as is usually the case when visiting these prototypically friendly barbers.
Since time immemorial, guys going to barbershops results in more than just a lowering of the ears; joking and bantering, watching whatever is flickering on the ever-present TV, swapping political gossip and opinions, and generally having a good time, all qualify as part of the experience.
And so it is with Marty -his father Glenn -and Jess and the newer snippers at the Leopold Barbershop, my sometimes erratic choice back when I was regularly growing hair and caring about how it looked - sorta.
In my own mind, I've always had a problem with unruly hair.
It just has 'a mind of its own'.
People say I should be glad for a full head of thick hair that is still mostly intact.
But, I have seen it another way; not easily managed to look neat and always in place the way mom and other significant women in my life might prefer it.
My answer for unruly hair has been to just whack it off with regularity, like they do in the Navy.
Kind of a crew, or college, cut that doesn't need much attention, but probably makes me look younger than I am -or at least a little shrimpy next to guys with big hair, whether well-groomed or not.
A few years ago, when I was still serving on the City Council, our evening meetings started being filmed for airing on BTV10.
These meetings were then shown periodically during daytime hours.
True to form, the Leopold does flip through TV channels, sometimes stopping on Channel 10.
It doesn't even have to be a slow news day, with few sports events.
The barbers just like to know what's going on in town, and sometimes public meetings can provide an unusual form of 'info-tainment'.
It was during watching one of these meetings that Jess saw my -as-yet- unidentified image on TV and noticed my 'rooster tail' of hair protruding from the back of my head.
He thought it looked a bit comical, and jokingly asked Marty, 'who does that guy's hair?'
To which Marty replied 'we do'.
That's John Watts!
Well, you can imagine what fun the Barbers of B'Ville had with that episode!
They couldn't wait to tell me about it the next time I showed up for a haircut.
And, who knows how many times that story got swapped about?
I thought it was funny as hell, and still do, maybe because it confirmed my own long-held trouble with unruly hair.
Anyway, I'm sharing this bit with readers now because I still have fond memories about it as a funny thing.
But, my 'rooster tail' is only one of several hair quirks I have; cow-licks, crowns, swirls and hair that looks like it wants to be parted on the right, but really prefers being parted on the left - or not at all.
See why I prefer to cut it short?
That also looks a little funny, because that way the somewhat strange scalp-origins of my head of hair are revealed for all to see, but me - unless I use a mirror.
Maybe its better for me to just wear a hat?
But, enough of this vanity; I've lived under this hair for over 70 years and ought to be mature enough to handle the 'problem' -if it really is one.
----------------
Since being treated for cancer a few months ago, I've lost most of my hair, which is now growing back slowly.
It's just now reaching the crew cut length that I used t prefer.
Maybe that is why I decided to go back to the Leopold today, to show the barbers how I prefer my hair to look?
No, just kidding guys!
I went back to tell these friendly barbers -face to face - that I was OK, that I am recovering and now getting stronger.
I'm now considered a 'survivor', and they needed to know that.
I know there was concern at the Leopold about my health because a friend told me so.
And, he ought to know because he has been going there regularly for many years longer than me, and enjoying the same brand of camaraderie that I did.
So, I went back and said hello to Marty and the others there, and they were glad to see me looking healthier again.
And, I do feel better, just by doing that!
I know the Leopold folks will spread the word to anybody who cares, and make my job of communicating good news a lot easier.
Thanks, guys!
Don't give up on me as a customer, either.
The hair just keeps growing, and I fully expect the unruliness to make a come-back.
----------------------------
One other funny, and one the Leopold folks seemed to get and appreciate:
An old friend once told me of a time he first visited a 'stylist', which were just beginning to make in-roads into the traditional barbering business.
I can't confirm the trueness of this tale, but it's kinda funny anyway.
Anyway, the stylist began a steady stream of banter, while snipping mostly air.
My friend was used to barbers who used electric razors first to 'lower the ears' before using the scissors to even up the longer hair on top.
Then, they'd finish by using a straight razor to shave the neck, above the ears and sideburns.
That kind of haircut does tend to get your attention!
And, it has a certain predictability about it that stylists can't exactly match.
After a few minutes with the stylist, my friend claimed to have made the following definitive statement:
'Look,I came here for a haircut, not a bunch of small talk and fiddling around with snippers.
That means the only sound I want to hear is the sound of my hair hitting the floor!'
Apparently, that conversation served to end the banter, as well as speed up the actual cutting of hair.
According to my friend, he never intentionally visited a stylist again, as long as a regular barber was available.
And, he always made sure - up-front - what the charges would be.
I suppose something like this story has been told more than once, whether the storyteller actually said what was reported or not.
At least, the sentiment was probably authentic.
And, that's what counts -at least in real barber shops!
Thanks for laughing at my jokes, Leopold!
I'm sure the favor will be returned to me again and again, many times over.
That's the extra stuff that one gets included in the price of a real haircut!
---------------------------
Today's posting will be on the slightly vain and lighter side, as is usually the case when visiting these prototypically friendly barbers.
Since time immemorial, guys going to barbershops results in more than just a lowering of the ears; joking and bantering, watching whatever is flickering on the ever-present TV, swapping political gossip and opinions, and generally having a good time, all qualify as part of the experience.
And so it is with Marty -his father Glenn -and Jess and the newer snippers at the Leopold Barbershop, my sometimes erratic choice back when I was regularly growing hair and caring about how it looked - sorta.
In my own mind, I've always had a problem with unruly hair.
It just has 'a mind of its own'.
People say I should be glad for a full head of thick hair that is still mostly intact.
But, I have seen it another way; not easily managed to look neat and always in place the way mom and other significant women in my life might prefer it.
My answer for unruly hair has been to just whack it off with regularity, like they do in the Navy.
Kind of a crew, or college, cut that doesn't need much attention, but probably makes me look younger than I am -or at least a little shrimpy next to guys with big hair, whether well-groomed or not.
A few years ago, when I was still serving on the City Council, our evening meetings started being filmed for airing on BTV10.
These meetings were then shown periodically during daytime hours.
True to form, the Leopold does flip through TV channels, sometimes stopping on Channel 10.
It doesn't even have to be a slow news day, with few sports events.
The barbers just like to know what's going on in town, and sometimes public meetings can provide an unusual form of 'info-tainment'.
It was during watching one of these meetings that Jess saw my -as-yet- unidentified image on TV and noticed my 'rooster tail' of hair protruding from the back of my head.
He thought it looked a bit comical, and jokingly asked Marty, 'who does that guy's hair?'
To which Marty replied 'we do'.
That's John Watts!
Well, you can imagine what fun the Barbers of B'Ville had with that episode!
They couldn't wait to tell me about it the next time I showed up for a haircut.
And, who knows how many times that story got swapped about?
I thought it was funny as hell, and still do, maybe because it confirmed my own long-held trouble with unruly hair.
Anyway, I'm sharing this bit with readers now because I still have fond memories about it as a funny thing.
But, my 'rooster tail' is only one of several hair quirks I have; cow-licks, crowns, swirls and hair that looks like it wants to be parted on the right, but really prefers being parted on the left - or not at all.
See why I prefer to cut it short?
That also looks a little funny, because that way the somewhat strange scalp-origins of my head of hair are revealed for all to see, but me - unless I use a mirror.
Maybe its better for me to just wear a hat?
But, enough of this vanity; I've lived under this hair for over 70 years and ought to be mature enough to handle the 'problem' -if it really is one.
----------------
Since being treated for cancer a few months ago, I've lost most of my hair, which is now growing back slowly.
It's just now reaching the crew cut length that I used t prefer.
Maybe that is why I decided to go back to the Leopold today, to show the barbers how I prefer my hair to look?
No, just kidding guys!
I went back to tell these friendly barbers -face to face - that I was OK, that I am recovering and now getting stronger.
I'm now considered a 'survivor', and they needed to know that.
I know there was concern at the Leopold about my health because a friend told me so.
And, he ought to know because he has been going there regularly for many years longer than me, and enjoying the same brand of camaraderie that I did.
So, I went back and said hello to Marty and the others there, and they were glad to see me looking healthier again.
And, I do feel better, just by doing that!
I know the Leopold folks will spread the word to anybody who cares, and make my job of communicating good news a lot easier.
Thanks, guys!
Don't give up on me as a customer, either.
The hair just keeps growing, and I fully expect the unruliness to make a come-back.
----------------------------
One other funny, and one the Leopold folks seemed to get and appreciate:
An old friend once told me of a time he first visited a 'stylist', which were just beginning to make in-roads into the traditional barbering business.
I can't confirm the trueness of this tale, but it's kinda funny anyway.
Anyway, the stylist began a steady stream of banter, while snipping mostly air.
My friend was used to barbers who used electric razors first to 'lower the ears' before using the scissors to even up the longer hair on top.
Then, they'd finish by using a straight razor to shave the neck, above the ears and sideburns.
That kind of haircut does tend to get your attention!
And, it has a certain predictability about it that stylists can't exactly match.
After a few minutes with the stylist, my friend claimed to have made the following definitive statement:
'Look,I came here for a haircut, not a bunch of small talk and fiddling around with snippers.
That means the only sound I want to hear is the sound of my hair hitting the floor!'
Apparently, that conversation served to end the banter, as well as speed up the actual cutting of hair.
According to my friend, he never intentionally visited a stylist again, as long as a regular barber was available.
And, he always made sure - up-front - what the charges would be.
I suppose something like this story has been told more than once, whether the storyteller actually said what was reported or not.
At least, the sentiment was probably authentic.
And, that's what counts -at least in real barber shops!
Thanks for laughing at my jokes, Leopold!
I'm sure the favor will be returned to me again and again, many times over.
That's the extra stuff that one gets included in the price of a real haircut!
---------------------------
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Waterfront Redevelopment: Changes in the Wind?
----------------------
Apart from the upcoming elections in which 2 of the 3 incumbent Port Commissioners are being challenged, Jim Darling, the Port's Executive Director for the last 15 years has now resigned, effective July 10.
Port commissioners are expected to name an interim replacement at a June 2 meeting, but the search for a permanent replacement is expected to take months.
Does this mean the new Director will be chosen after the elections?
I hope so!
Mr Darling has served well in his capacity, but the challenge presented by acquiring the G-P and other contaminated industrial properties, committing to their proper clean-up, and then redeveloping the 220-acres waterfront with the City's partnership, has proved to be large, protracted and contentious.
This, plus the prospect of a new job while remaining in the area would be tempting to anyone in a similar situation.
I wish Mr Darling well in his new endeavor, plus, I salute him for moving on and not becoming so entrenched that his effectiveness is adversely impacted.
But, my main concern is that the Waterfront Redevelopment continues to move forward!
There is too much at stake to let this ambitious, but important undertaking fail.
While there have been significant differences between Port and City about scope and procedures, these are minor when compared to the vision of our community.
And, the enormous expenses -actually investments- envisioned will be repaid many times over when that long-term effort is completed.
We should not worry about a good return of this investment; and the returns will not only be economic ones, but also ecological and social in nature -as they must be.
Mr Darling's departure may portend other timely changes as well, including the election of up to 2 new Commissioners - that would constitute a new majority!
I believe Scott Walker has done a good job, but has been in office too long at 18 years and counting- even longer than Darling.
John Blethen would make a very able replacement who who has demonstrated a long-term and active commitment to the Waterfront Futures Group, the current Waterfront Advisory Group and related community efforts for over 30 years.
Blethen gets it; his successful business experience combined with his remarkable volunteering services give him the kind of perspective I'd like to see in implementing a waterfront redevelopment that is truly sustainable and would be just right for Bellingham.
Also, Doug Smith's service has been commendable, but he's been there as long as Darling has as well.
Mike McCauley is my choice to succeed Smith, and has both the smarts and energy to come up to speed quickly.
In his time in Bellingham, Mike has been both active and effective in neighborhood and related issues, which is refreshing example for younger folks.
Mike does his homework, has technical training, thinks logically and carefully and is willing to spend the time necessary to the job.
-------------
Aside from the daunting fiscal crisis now facing our nation and community, which is a concern to everyone, the idea of creating a truly sustainable, 'triple bottom line' new waterfront neighborhood must be committed to.
That is the single concept that is most essential to the unqualified success of our new Waterfront District!
It means a lot of things that together save money, preserve the environment, create jobs with new businesses, provide enjoyable public space and access to the Bay, and add revenues to the City, Port and County that will both pay back their investment costs and sustain each jurisdiction's respective levels of service.
So, rather than fret and worry about these changes -both real and possible- as problems, I see them as distinct opportunities!
That is because sufficient good work has already gone into this concept, that it is no longer dependent upon only its initiators
for its execution.
And, with a 25-year project expectation, it never could have been!
Both Jim Darling and former Mayor, Mark Asmundson, knew that when the opportunity for this partnership presented itself.
And, since that time, several members of the City Council & Staff have also moved on -myself included.
So, having new elected officials should not be a problem in the greater scheme of things, particularly in a community enhancing project of long duration, and even longer benefits.
The point is, a well-conceived project definition is a difficult thing to achieve by itself, even without ever building anything.
That work is well underway, although there do remain some significant points to clarify and make more certain -that must be done to pin down the costs, which will have to fit both the Port's and City's budgets and timely pay-off their debts.
I can think of no better candidates for Port Commissioner, who can help do this, than John Blethen and Mike McCauley.
They have the skills, the interest, the time and the commitment, and will bring 'fresh eyes' to the task.
Hopefully, they will also have a say in who gets hired as the Port's new permanent Executive Director, after they take office.
---------------------------------
For those interested, here's a list, including my previous 13 posts on this subject, by date published:
Waterfront Redevelopment: Changes in the Wind? 5/27/09
Waterfront Redevelopment: Are Circadian Rhythms To... 4/29/09
Waterfront Redevelopment: A Grecian Flat Earth Day... 4/22/09
Waterfront Redevelopment: Can We Get On With It No... 11/19/08
Time for Big Changes at the Port of Bellingham! 11/16/08
Waterfront Redevelopment: Impasse or Opportunity? 11/10/08
Waterfront Redevelopment: A Rant About Election Ga... 8/19/08
On City Government, Football & Other Contact Sport... 1/12/08
Breaking Good News About NOAA 11/28/07
Waterfront Redevelopment: Mother Goose & the Docto... 9/9/07
Waterfront Redevelopment: Navigating Charbydis & S... 9/8/07
Waterfront Redevelopment: BEYOND LEED to a Triple ... 9/6/07
Waterfront Redevelopment: Incorporating Waterfront... 8/20/07
Waterfront Redevelopment: Mayoral Candidate Forum ... 8/1/07
------------------------------------
Apart from the upcoming elections in which 2 of the 3 incumbent Port Commissioners are being challenged, Jim Darling, the Port's Executive Director for the last 15 years has now resigned, effective July 10.
Port commissioners are expected to name an interim replacement at a June 2 meeting, but the search for a permanent replacement is expected to take months.
Does this mean the new Director will be chosen after the elections?
I hope so!
Mr Darling has served well in his capacity, but the challenge presented by acquiring the G-P and other contaminated industrial properties, committing to their proper clean-up, and then redeveloping the 220-acres waterfront with the City's partnership, has proved to be large, protracted and contentious.
This, plus the prospect of a new job while remaining in the area would be tempting to anyone in a similar situation.
I wish Mr Darling well in his new endeavor, plus, I salute him for moving on and not becoming so entrenched that his effectiveness is adversely impacted.
But, my main concern is that the Waterfront Redevelopment continues to move forward!
There is too much at stake to let this ambitious, but important undertaking fail.
While there have been significant differences between Port and City about scope and procedures, these are minor when compared to the vision of our community.
And, the enormous expenses -actually investments- envisioned will be repaid many times over when that long-term effort is completed.
We should not worry about a good return of this investment; and the returns will not only be economic ones, but also ecological and social in nature -as they must be.
Mr Darling's departure may portend other timely changes as well, including the election of up to 2 new Commissioners - that would constitute a new majority!
I believe Scott Walker has done a good job, but has been in office too long at 18 years and counting- even longer than Darling.
John Blethen would make a very able replacement who who has demonstrated a long-term and active commitment to the Waterfront Futures Group, the current Waterfront Advisory Group and related community efforts for over 30 years.
Blethen gets it; his successful business experience combined with his remarkable volunteering services give him the kind of perspective I'd like to see in implementing a waterfront redevelopment that is truly sustainable and would be just right for Bellingham.
Also, Doug Smith's service has been commendable, but he's been there as long as Darling has as well.
Mike McCauley is my choice to succeed Smith, and has both the smarts and energy to come up to speed quickly.
In his time in Bellingham, Mike has been both active and effective in neighborhood and related issues, which is refreshing example for younger folks.
Mike does his homework, has technical training, thinks logically and carefully and is willing to spend the time necessary to the job.
-------------
Aside from the daunting fiscal crisis now facing our nation and community, which is a concern to everyone, the idea of creating a truly sustainable, 'triple bottom line' new waterfront neighborhood must be committed to.
That is the single concept that is most essential to the unqualified success of our new Waterfront District!
It means a lot of things that together save money, preserve the environment, create jobs with new businesses, provide enjoyable public space and access to the Bay, and add revenues to the City, Port and County that will both pay back their investment costs and sustain each jurisdiction's respective levels of service.
So, rather than fret and worry about these changes -both real and possible- as problems, I see them as distinct opportunities!
That is because sufficient good work has already gone into this concept, that it is no longer dependent upon only its initiators
for its execution.
And, with a 25-year project expectation, it never could have been!
Both Jim Darling and former Mayor, Mark Asmundson, knew that when the opportunity for this partnership presented itself.
And, since that time, several members of the City Council & Staff have also moved on -myself included.
So, having new elected officials should not be a problem in the greater scheme of things, particularly in a community enhancing project of long duration, and even longer benefits.
The point is, a well-conceived project definition is a difficult thing to achieve by itself, even without ever building anything.
That work is well underway, although there do remain some significant points to clarify and make more certain -that must be done to pin down the costs, which will have to fit both the Port's and City's budgets and timely pay-off their debts.
I can think of no better candidates for Port Commissioner, who can help do this, than John Blethen and Mike McCauley.
They have the skills, the interest, the time and the commitment, and will bring 'fresh eyes' to the task.
Hopefully, they will also have a say in who gets hired as the Port's new permanent Executive Director, after they take office.
---------------------------------
For those interested, here's a list, including my previous 13 posts on this subject, by date published:
Waterfront Redevelopment: Changes in the Wind? 5/27/09
Waterfront Redevelopment: Are Circadian Rhythms To... 4/29/09
Waterfront Redevelopment: A Grecian Flat Earth Day... 4/22/09
Waterfront Redevelopment: Can We Get On With It No... 11/19/08
Time for Big Changes at the Port of Bellingham! 11/16/08
Waterfront Redevelopment: Impasse or Opportunity? 11/10/08
Waterfront Redevelopment: A Rant About Election Ga... 8/19/08
On City Government, Football & Other Contact Sport... 1/12/08
Breaking Good News About NOAA 11/28/07
Waterfront Redevelopment: Mother Goose & the Docto... 9/9/07
Waterfront Redevelopment: Navigating Charbydis & S... 9/8/07
Waterfront Redevelopment: BEYOND LEED to a Triple ... 9/6/07
Waterfront Redevelopment: Incorporating Waterfront... 8/20/07
Waterfront Redevelopment: Mayoral Candidate Forum ... 8/1/07
------------------------------------
Monday, May 25, 2009
Citizenship: Pen Versus Sword
---------------------
---------------------
Remember this popular TV series?
From the theme song, Paladin was portrayed as "a knight without armor in a savage land."
Not much has changed, has it?
Maybe, it has always been this way.
But now, in this age of Internet, all sorts of weapons and countermeasures are much more widely available.
And, not just to trained knights either!.
---------------------
Was this weapon really mightier than the one shown below?Maybe before modern times, but not now.
---------------------
How can a feather pen be a more effective weapon than a sword?
One reason is it can readily use a much broader field of engagement.
Another is it can recruit reinforcements, while enforcing fairer rules of engagement that invite public scrutiny.
Of course, there are no guarantees, but the potential is always there - despite tactics that deliberately obscure truth and serve mainly base or selfish purposes.
----------------------
But, Paladin was always ready to use a gun in his work, and often did.
Bummer!
That's not a very liberal or progressive method for a do-gooder San Franciscan to employ, is it?
And, much more sophisticated weapons -including WMD- are still around, and sadly still necessary for enforcement of laws and civil conduct.
That's because there are still people who only understand the use of force.
That forces those who prefer to act more civilized and profess non-violence to continue to deal with this reality.
But, democracy doesn't rely too much on wishful thinking, alone.
It requires continuous hard work that never ends.
And, it allows Constitutional rights to continue to be available to all citizens.
That includes the right to bear arms, as was certainly necessary during our revolutionary times and periodically since.
So, the NRA and 'gun rights' advocates are within their rights, as are those who sincerely oppose firearms.
What should we do to resolve this conundrum?
Are current gun laws sufficient?
How can better enforcement be done?
After all, most laws are mainly enforced by the voluntary compliance of citizens.
For a less dramatic example, just look at the so-called 'landlord accountability' problem of nuisances in neighborhoods.
How could the City, or any municipality, ever ensure even near-total compliance?
I believe the only answer possible lies in consistently broadening 'the field of engagement', just as the pen can surpass the sword.
Citizen awareness, communication and cooperation are all important elements in today's society.
And, there really aren't any viable substitutes.
Laws and the threat of enforcement are needed as well, but the primary 'enforcement' is that of public awareness of undesirable practices, and the expectation of good behavior by all citizens.
What a bother!
Paying attention to all those people who use a pen instead of a sword seems a full time job, as it may be at times.
But, do you have another answer?
Think about it.
Sorting through the overwhelming mass of information that confronts us daily is an annoying and daunting job.
That means we have to work smarter, learn to prioritize, band together as neighbors, and expect government intervention only as a last resort at times.
Are you sorry our founders stuck us with this never ending task?
I'm not, although I am tempted!
The pay off comes when we avoid needing to call a 'Paladin'.
Those folks don't come free, and never did.
Plus, they never seem to really 'solve' the problem.
And, it is OUR problem, not someone else's.
No need to pay for gunslinger from out of town, if we do our jobs as citizens, is there?
As Thomas Jefferson said; "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
I think he meant it.
--------------------------------
Have Gun Will Travel Theme Song
"Ballad of Paladin" by Johnny Western, Richard Boone, and Sam Rolfe
Performed by Johnny Western
Have Gun Will Travel reads the card of a man.
A knight without armor in a savage land.
His fast gun for hire head's the calling wind.
A soldier of fotune is the man called Paladin.
Paladin, Paladin Where do you roam?
Paladin, Paladin, Far, far from home.
He travels on to wherever he must;
A chess knight of silver is his badge of trust.
There are campfire legends that the plainsmen spin
Of the man with the gun,
of the man called Pa-l-l-l-l-a-din
--------------------------------------
---------------------
Remember this popular TV series?
From the theme song, Paladin was portrayed as "a knight without armor in a savage land."Not much has changed, has it?
Maybe, it has always been this way.
But now, in this age of Internet, all sorts of weapons and countermeasures are much more widely available.
And, not just to trained knights either!.
---------------------
Was this weapon really mightier than the one shown below?Maybe before modern times, but not now.---------------------
How can a feather pen be a more effective weapon than a sword?
One reason is it can readily use a much broader field of engagement.
Another is it can recruit reinforcements, while enforcing fairer rules of engagement that invite public scrutiny.
Of course, there are no guarantees, but the potential is always there - despite tactics that deliberately obscure truth and serve mainly base or selfish purposes.
----------------------
But, Paladin was always ready to use a gun in his work, and often did.
Bummer!
That's not a very liberal or progressive method for a do-gooder San Franciscan to employ, is it?
And, much more sophisticated weapons -including WMD- are still around, and sadly still necessary for enforcement of laws and civil conduct.
That's because there are still people who only understand the use of force.
That forces those who prefer to act more civilized and profess non-violence to continue to deal with this reality.
But, democracy doesn't rely too much on wishful thinking, alone.
It requires continuous hard work that never ends.
And, it allows Constitutional rights to continue to be available to all citizens.
That includes the right to bear arms, as was certainly necessary during our revolutionary times and periodically since.
So, the NRA and 'gun rights' advocates are within their rights, as are those who sincerely oppose firearms.
What should we do to resolve this conundrum?
Are current gun laws sufficient?
How can better enforcement be done?
After all, most laws are mainly enforced by the voluntary compliance of citizens.
For a less dramatic example, just look at the so-called 'landlord accountability' problem of nuisances in neighborhoods.
How could the City, or any municipality, ever ensure even near-total compliance?
I believe the only answer possible lies in consistently broadening 'the field of engagement', just as the pen can surpass the sword.
Citizen awareness, communication and cooperation are all important elements in today's society.
And, there really aren't any viable substitutes.
Laws and the threat of enforcement are needed as well, but the primary 'enforcement' is that of public awareness of undesirable practices, and the expectation of good behavior by all citizens.
What a bother!
Paying attention to all those people who use a pen instead of a sword seems a full time job, as it may be at times.
But, do you have another answer?
Think about it.
Sorting through the overwhelming mass of information that confronts us daily is an annoying and daunting job.
That means we have to work smarter, learn to prioritize, band together as neighbors, and expect government intervention only as a last resort at times.
Are you sorry our founders stuck us with this never ending task?
I'm not, although I am tempted!
The pay off comes when we avoid needing to call a 'Paladin'.
Those folks don't come free, and never did.
Plus, they never seem to really 'solve' the problem.
And, it is OUR problem, not someone else's.
No need to pay for gunslinger from out of town, if we do our jobs as citizens, is there?
As Thomas Jefferson said; "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
I think he meant it.
--------------------------------
Have Gun Will Travel Theme Song"Ballad of Paladin" by Johnny Western, Richard Boone, and Sam Rolfe
Performed by Johnny Western
Have Gun Will Travel reads the card of a man.
A knight without armor in a savage land.
His fast gun for hire head's the calling wind.
A soldier of fotune is the man called Paladin.
Paladin, Paladin Where do you roam?
Paladin, Paladin, Far, far from home.
He travels on to wherever he must;
A chess knight of silver is his badge of trust.
There are campfire legends that the plainsmen spin
Of the man with the gun,
of the man called Pa-l-l-l-l-a-din
--------------------------------------
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Budget: FAST or Famine?
---------------------------
I'll bet you thought I misspelled FEAST in the title, didn't you?
Nope, that was just a trick to introduce you to what FAST stands for - Fiscal Alternatives for Stability Taskforce.
That's the internal task force charged with recommending City cost savings measures.
It's 74-page report was issued earlier this week, after over 6 months of hard work, and appears on the City's website.
Back to the title;
To 'FAST' connotes a voluntary act.
But, Famine is not voluntary.
Both terms reflect scarcity, and forced austerity and hardship.
Which would you prefer, if you HAD to pick one?
Would you rather have a choice, or just be forced into one?
This subject is probably something not many people want to read about.
But, with the severe and sudden lack of funding brought on by our economic depression, some dire consequences now face us.
More important is how the City decides to deal with this.
Since the City's General Fund, of which over 50% pays for the City's public safety employees, is most severely impacted, how will the necessary staff reductions be made?
This is the question, the answer to which is so important!
Since it is very likely that citizens will experience adverse impacts from service level reductions in unprecedented ways, maybe its time they weighed in on their preferences.
Would they rather have mainly Planning, Parks, Library, Museum and related cutbacks?
Or, reductions in Police, Fire and EMS services that most people consider essential?
Rather than such a simple either-or choice [win/lose], another option may be available, but it would require the willingness of City employees -and the collective bargaining units to which most belong- to reduce planned increases to wages and benefits.
That kind of major cost reduction -without as severe staff reductions- would be difficult to achieve, but it is certainly possible if enough City employees agree to such a plan.
Working against this creative possibility, history demonstrates that unions and collective bargaining units do not willingly give up ground they have already gained through hard negotiation.
In fact, given the choice between lay-offs and rescinding wage & benefit rate gains, they likely would pick lay-offs.
In normal times, who would disagree with that stance, but, these are not normal times.
These are desperate times!
And unusual measures are now required to preserve both our safety and our quality of life.
If enough voluntary employee options are offered, a win-win scenario is possible that could reasonably benefit everyone.
As the saying goes, 'if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem'.
I hope folks will see the City's budget crisis is everyone's problem.
But, the situation is not hopeless.
In time, better economic conditions will return and begin to restore the City's necessary funding levels.
In the meantime, the City needs to do the hard work of better determining its priorities, including those levels of service that are sustainable over the long term.
In that light, this fiscal crisis can also be treated as an opportunity that can't be avoided!
There are always opportunities, but not always do they demand immediate attention.
Let's don't waste this opportunity...
===========================
From the City's website, [www.cob.org]:
• Fiscal Alternatives for Stability Taskforce (FAST) Report - May 18, 2009 (PDF)
An internal study group identified City deficit reduction ideas totaling more than $8 million in a report provided this week to Bellingham Mayor Dan Pike. The recommendations focus primarily on spending reductions, though a few describe options for increasing revenue.
Many of the group's recommendations, however, must be approved by City Council or another jurisdiction, or bargained with one or more of the City's eight employee unions, before they can be implemented.
Examples of the 34 recommendations of the Mayor's Fiscal Alternatives for Stability Taskforce include:
• Delay the hiring of the Public Development Authority Executive Director;
• Cancel mid-2009 salary ''bumps'' to eligible employees, and freeze salaries and wages for all employees in 2010;
• Reduce General Fund subsidy of the Art and Children's Museum;
• Charge higher admission and facility use fees to people who live outside Bellingham;
• Cross-staff the Bellingham Fire Department's primary ladder rig to free personnel for other duties;
• Install a limited number of automated citation cameras in school zones with high levels of infractions and intersections with the most accidents due to drivers running red lights;
• Place a moratorium on the purchase of ''Green Power'' pending exploration of less costly ways to support City sustainability goals;
• Reduce City employee benefit costs, such as by using less costly insurance plans with higher deductibles;
• Incorporate the statutorily allowed 1% property tax levy increase and the City's banked property tax capacity into the 2010 budget to avoid further service cuts.
The Fiscal Alternatives for Stability Taskforce (FAST) included City department heads, managers and City Council members Stan Snapp and Gene Knutson. Pike appointed the group in November 2008 to find new ways of doing business that would provide sustainable, lower-cost approaches to meeting the City's mission.
Pike said he will review carefully the group's recommendations to determine steps that he will implement immediately, those he will study further, propose to City Council and/or employee bargaining groups for review and approval, and those he will reject.
"The report contains many intriguing and useful ideas, and I appreciate the effort and creativity FAST members put into their research and recommendations," Pike said, adding that he expects to announce his decisions about next steps for the recommendations before the end of May.
Bellingham Chief Administrative Officer David Webster, who led the task force, said the effort is one of many initiatives under way to help solve a projected $6 million deficit in the General Fund in the 2010 fiscal year.
"Unabated, this deficit is expected to mean between 50 and 75 additional staff layoffs on top of the 30 positions eliminated through other austerity measures since the summer of 2008," he said.
Webster reiterated that moving forward on the report's recommendations requires varying levels of decision-making authority, including items that can be initiated by the Mayor, items requiring Council or another jurisdiction's approval and those that must be bargained with one or more of the City's eight represented employee groups.
He said the FAST recommendations include:
• $1,477,500 in cost reductions feasible by management prerogative;
• $439,000 in additional cost reductions requiring Council or other jurisdictional approval;
• $4,830,000 in cost savings that will require voluntary concession or negotiation by bargaining units;
• $45,000 in new earned revenues executable by management prerogative;
• $1,530,000 in one-time or ongoing revenues that will require Council approval
"Though most are not pain-free choices, FAST concluded that options exist to solve the budget crisis and largely avoid high numbers of layoffs, if management, policymakers and labor work together for the greater good," Webster said.
Updated: May 21, 2009
==========================
Excerpts from The Bellingham Herald article of Thursday, May. 21, 2009:
Bellingham task force recommends $6 million in cuts for 2010
• A government task force has recommended $7.7 million in city budget reductions and revenue increases for 2010 as part of a long-term strategy for the new state of the economy.
• About $8.3 million total could be saved in 2010 and beyond, according to a financial task force report released by city officials Thursday, May 21.
But a large chunk of the savings may be contingent on whether the eight unions that represent various employee groups would agree to not taking a mid-2009 raise and also would agree to a wage freeze and benefit reductions for 2010.
Without $6 million in cuts, officials are faced with cutting 50 to 75 positions in the fall....
Officials repeatedly said Thursday that the report is only recommendations to Pike, who will make decisions about how to proceed by the end of May.
The group, which consisted of Chief Administrative Officer David Webster, city department heads and City Council members Gene Knutson and Stan Snapp, had been working since November on long-term budget solutions due to the national economic crisis that has the city facing severely slumping revenues while spending continues to increase, especially in personnel and benefits costs.
"Nothing was sacrosanct," Webster said while discussing the 74-page report.
==================================
Budget discussions and problems happen every year in some form or another.
Rather than repeating previous ideas and suggestions again, here's a list of my previous blogs addressing budgets:
[The 6 blogs most applicable are shown in bold]
California: Terminal or Just Normal? [Budgets, Government, Politics, Taxes] 5/20/09
Whatcom County Budget Deficit: Surprise? [Budgets] 4/30/09
Thinking Globally, Acting Locally: Part I [Budgets, Taxes] 3/2/09
Beggars Banquet: A Lesson for Bellingham? [Budgets] 11/23/08
Taxes: A Parallel Universe? [Budgets, Taxes] 11/22/08
Property Taxes: Bellingham's Dilemma [Budgets, Taxes] 11/10/08
On Gaps & Gundecking [Budgets, Government] 7/31/08
Sustainability & Buddhist [Economics Buddhist, Budgets] 1/2/08
On City Finances & Direction [Budgets, Government] 12/29/07
B&O Tax News: The Missing Headline [Budgets, Taxes] 12/1/07
Municipal Budgeting: Care & Feeding of the Fiscal ... [Budgets, Taxes] 11/18/07
City Council: New Tools for 2008 & Beyond [Budgets, PlanningGrowth, Sunshine] 11/5/07
IT'S BUDGET TIME AGAIN! -A $200 Million Exercise [Budgets] 10/7/07
Budgets 101: An Introduction to the Public Purse [Budgets] 9/22/07
Follow the Money! [Budgets] 9/19/07
Public Trust or Public Trough? [Budgets, Taxes] 9/1/07
======================================
I'll bet you thought I misspelled FEAST in the title, didn't you?
Nope, that was just a trick to introduce you to what FAST stands for - Fiscal Alternatives for Stability Taskforce.
That's the internal task force charged with recommending City cost savings measures.
It's 74-page report was issued earlier this week, after over 6 months of hard work, and appears on the City's website.
Back to the title;
To 'FAST' connotes a voluntary act.
But, Famine is not voluntary.
Both terms reflect scarcity, and forced austerity and hardship.
Which would you prefer, if you HAD to pick one?
Would you rather have a choice, or just be forced into one?
This subject is probably something not many people want to read about.
But, with the severe and sudden lack of funding brought on by our economic depression, some dire consequences now face us.
More important is how the City decides to deal with this.
Since the City's General Fund, of which over 50% pays for the City's public safety employees, is most severely impacted, how will the necessary staff reductions be made?
This is the question, the answer to which is so important!
Since it is very likely that citizens will experience adverse impacts from service level reductions in unprecedented ways, maybe its time they weighed in on their preferences.
Would they rather have mainly Planning, Parks, Library, Museum and related cutbacks?
Or, reductions in Police, Fire and EMS services that most people consider essential?
Rather than such a simple either-or choice [win/lose], another option may be available, but it would require the willingness of City employees -and the collective bargaining units to which most belong- to reduce planned increases to wages and benefits.
That kind of major cost reduction -without as severe staff reductions- would be difficult to achieve, but it is certainly possible if enough City employees agree to such a plan.
Working against this creative possibility, history demonstrates that unions and collective bargaining units do not willingly give up ground they have already gained through hard negotiation.
In fact, given the choice between lay-offs and rescinding wage & benefit rate gains, they likely would pick lay-offs.
In normal times, who would disagree with that stance, but, these are not normal times.
These are desperate times!
And unusual measures are now required to preserve both our safety and our quality of life.
If enough voluntary employee options are offered, a win-win scenario is possible that could reasonably benefit everyone.
As the saying goes, 'if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem'.
I hope folks will see the City's budget crisis is everyone's problem.
But, the situation is not hopeless.
In time, better economic conditions will return and begin to restore the City's necessary funding levels.
In the meantime, the City needs to do the hard work of better determining its priorities, including those levels of service that are sustainable over the long term.
In that light, this fiscal crisis can also be treated as an opportunity that can't be avoided!
There are always opportunities, but not always do they demand immediate attention.
Let's don't waste this opportunity...
===========================
From the City's website, [www.cob.org]:
• Fiscal Alternatives for Stability Taskforce (FAST) Report - May 18, 2009 (PDF)
An internal study group identified City deficit reduction ideas totaling more than $8 million in a report provided this week to Bellingham Mayor Dan Pike. The recommendations focus primarily on spending reductions, though a few describe options for increasing revenue.
Many of the group's recommendations, however, must be approved by City Council or another jurisdiction, or bargained with one or more of the City's eight employee unions, before they can be implemented.
Examples of the 34 recommendations of the Mayor's Fiscal Alternatives for Stability Taskforce include:
• Delay the hiring of the Public Development Authority Executive Director;
• Cancel mid-2009 salary ''bumps'' to eligible employees, and freeze salaries and wages for all employees in 2010;
• Reduce General Fund subsidy of the Art and Children's Museum;
• Charge higher admission and facility use fees to people who live outside Bellingham;
• Cross-staff the Bellingham Fire Department's primary ladder rig to free personnel for other duties;
• Install a limited number of automated citation cameras in school zones with high levels of infractions and intersections with the most accidents due to drivers running red lights;
• Place a moratorium on the purchase of ''Green Power'' pending exploration of less costly ways to support City sustainability goals;
• Reduce City employee benefit costs, such as by using less costly insurance plans with higher deductibles;
• Incorporate the statutorily allowed 1% property tax levy increase and the City's banked property tax capacity into the 2010 budget to avoid further service cuts.
The Fiscal Alternatives for Stability Taskforce (FAST) included City department heads, managers and City Council members Stan Snapp and Gene Knutson. Pike appointed the group in November 2008 to find new ways of doing business that would provide sustainable, lower-cost approaches to meeting the City's mission.
Pike said he will review carefully the group's recommendations to determine steps that he will implement immediately, those he will study further, propose to City Council and/or employee bargaining groups for review and approval, and those he will reject.
"The report contains many intriguing and useful ideas, and I appreciate the effort and creativity FAST members put into their research and recommendations," Pike said, adding that he expects to announce his decisions about next steps for the recommendations before the end of May.
Bellingham Chief Administrative Officer David Webster, who led the task force, said the effort is one of many initiatives under way to help solve a projected $6 million deficit in the General Fund in the 2010 fiscal year.
"Unabated, this deficit is expected to mean between 50 and 75 additional staff layoffs on top of the 30 positions eliminated through other austerity measures since the summer of 2008," he said.
Webster reiterated that moving forward on the report's recommendations requires varying levels of decision-making authority, including items that can be initiated by the Mayor, items requiring Council or another jurisdiction's approval and those that must be bargained with one or more of the City's eight represented employee groups.
He said the FAST recommendations include:
• $1,477,500 in cost reductions feasible by management prerogative;
• $439,000 in additional cost reductions requiring Council or other jurisdictional approval;
• $4,830,000 in cost savings that will require voluntary concession or negotiation by bargaining units;
• $45,000 in new earned revenues executable by management prerogative;
• $1,530,000 in one-time or ongoing revenues that will require Council approval
"Though most are not pain-free choices, FAST concluded that options exist to solve the budget crisis and largely avoid high numbers of layoffs, if management, policymakers and labor work together for the greater good," Webster said.
Updated: May 21, 2009
==========================
Excerpts from The Bellingham Herald article of Thursday, May. 21, 2009:
Bellingham task force recommends $6 million in cuts for 2010
• A government task force has recommended $7.7 million in city budget reductions and revenue increases for 2010 as part of a long-term strategy for the new state of the economy.
• About $8.3 million total could be saved in 2010 and beyond, according to a financial task force report released by city officials Thursday, May 21.
But a large chunk of the savings may be contingent on whether the eight unions that represent various employee groups would agree to not taking a mid-2009 raise and also would agree to a wage freeze and benefit reductions for 2010.
Without $6 million in cuts, officials are faced with cutting 50 to 75 positions in the fall....
Officials repeatedly said Thursday that the report is only recommendations to Pike, who will make decisions about how to proceed by the end of May.
The group, which consisted of Chief Administrative Officer David Webster, city department heads and City Council members Gene Knutson and Stan Snapp, had been working since November on long-term budget solutions due to the national economic crisis that has the city facing severely slumping revenues while spending continues to increase, especially in personnel and benefits costs.
"Nothing was sacrosanct," Webster said while discussing the 74-page report.
==================================
Budget discussions and problems happen every year in some form or another.
Rather than repeating previous ideas and suggestions again, here's a list of my previous blogs addressing budgets:
[The 6 blogs most applicable are shown in bold]
California: Terminal or Just Normal? [Budgets, Government, Politics, Taxes] 5/20/09
Whatcom County Budget Deficit: Surprise? [Budgets] 4/30/09
Thinking Globally, Acting Locally: Part I [Budgets, Taxes] 3/2/09
Beggars Banquet: A Lesson for Bellingham? [Budgets] 11/23/08
Taxes: A Parallel Universe? [Budgets, Taxes] 11/22/08
Property Taxes: Bellingham's Dilemma [Budgets, Taxes] 11/10/08
On Gaps & Gundecking [Budgets, Government] 7/31/08
Sustainability & Buddhist [Economics Buddhist, Budgets] 1/2/08
On City Finances & Direction [Budgets, Government] 12/29/07
B&O Tax News: The Missing Headline [Budgets, Taxes] 12/1/07
Municipal Budgeting: Care & Feeding of the Fiscal ... [Budgets, Taxes] 11/18/07
City Council: New Tools for 2008 & Beyond [Budgets, PlanningGrowth, Sunshine] 11/5/07
IT'S BUDGET TIME AGAIN! -A $200 Million Exercise [Budgets] 10/7/07
Budgets 101: An Introduction to the Public Purse [Budgets] 9/22/07
Follow the Money! [Budgets] 9/19/07
Public Trust or Public Trough? [Budgets, Taxes] 9/1/07
======================================
Saturday, May 23, 2009
WRIA-1: Wasted Resources or Important Asset?
---------------------------
Last night's PBS Newshour included a segment which hit home - literally.
It was a film documentary about 'Salmon Wars', which specifically addressed two historic salmon rivers in Washington State;
the Skagit and the Nisqually, just north of Olympia.
One is a success story, but the other isn't.
In both cases fear and distrust between stakeholders was a significant obstacle.
Fortunately, in the Nisqually's case, farmers, timber interests and fishing advocates -including native tribes- came together and forged a compromise that has a chance of working to restore some salmon runs, especially in estuarine areas.
And, unfortunately, Skagit stakeholders are still bickering in denial and distrust -which will ultimately help no one, including salmon.
Check out what the short documentary by Pulitzer Prize winner Hedrick Smith has to say.
He tells it in straight and understandable language.
-------------
Meanwhile, our own Nooksack River is suffering from a whimpy lack of effort, and resembles more Skagit-like characteristics.
That is because Whatcom County hasn't finished the important business that it initiated over 10 years ago, to major fanfare.
That business was/is the comprehensive planning effort called WRIA-1, for Water Resource Inventory Area no. 1.
More on this below, but first here's the PBS URL information.
-----------------
You can access the PBS program segment at;
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/newshour_index.html
Then search for 'Salmon Wars'
Hedrick Smith, the recent correspondent for Frontline's "Poisoned Waters" project, reports on cultural collisions in Washington State over salmon fishing.
Or, search PBS website under 'poisoned waters'
Or, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
Or, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gsearch.html?q=poisoned+waters&x=9&y=14
-----------------
Now, back to the Nooksack and its stalled WRIA-1 process:
About $4.5 million was spent on WRIA-1 Phase 1 work before the political pressure became so adverse it stalled the project, thereby adding unnecessary expense and delay, as well as unwanted discomfort to key local politicos.
That is where this unfinished business still sits to this day.
Expensive shelf art, using public funds!
How smart is that?
This sorry result is certainly not the professed goal of local politicians - some of whom are still in office, including our illustrious, Teflon-coated Executive.
Too bad the current administration is not seriously attempting completion of this critical effort, preferring instead to just 'kick that ball down the road' and stick a future administration with an even more difficult job!
REMIND you of anything?
Anyway, WRIA-1's 'Initiating Governments' numbered 5, of which Whatcom County was unquestionably the 'lead agency'.
The other prime participants were the City of Bellingham, The Lummi Nation, The Nooksack Tribe and Public Utility District [PUD] 1.
It's too bad these sponsors weren't called 'Initiating AND COMPLETING Governments', and that Whatcom County hasn't been up to fulfilling it's State-mandated LEAD agency role.
But, hey, if we citizens don't hold some elected feet to the fire, they can be counted upon to slide through the line of least resistance -kinda like Newton's Law.
--------------
More details for those interested in WRIA-1 are available from several government websites; Whatcom County, Washington State and the US Government:
http://wria1project.whatcomcounty.org/
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/apps/watersheds/wriapages/01.html
http://wa.water.usgs.gov/projects/wria01/
http://www.pudwhatcom.org/WRIAMOcover.htm
--------------
But, the main point of this posting is simply to REMIND that we do have serious unfinished business, plus maybe INFORM a few folks who remain blissfully unaware of such matters.
To those who may to prefer to think the Nooksack River is mainly there to provide a leg of next Sunday's Ski to Sea Race, I have news for you; it serves critically important economic, social and ecological functions that are irreplaceable in nature.
Did you know that our countywide growth will be limited by water supply, not land supply?
Did you know that keeping resources - like water - clean is easier and much less expensive than any other alternative?
And, did you know that if you don't speak up and demand action, none will likely occur?
Finally, do you realize that the last 'increase' in County Flood Tax does not begin to even RESTORE adequate funding for critical work like WRIA-1?
Please keep that in mind when you hear spurious complaints about 'taxes'.
It was a good thing that the County Council -acting as the Flood Control Board- finally decided to take this particular matter into its own hands, which did require excluding our Executive from the process!
Now, it's time our elected leaders demonstrate more of the foresight, fiscal responsibility and courage that benefits everyone, including future generations...
---------------
My two previous posts on WRIA-1 can be found in Hamstertalk Archives, at:
Important County Water Programs Funding: Decision ... Lake, Stormwater, WRIA-1 5/11/08
WRIA-1: Whatcom County's Unfinished Water Business... Lake, WRIA-1 9/30/07
---------------
Last night's PBS Newshour included a segment which hit home - literally.
It was a film documentary about 'Salmon Wars', which specifically addressed two historic salmon rivers in Washington State;
the Skagit and the Nisqually, just north of Olympia.
One is a success story, but the other isn't.
In both cases fear and distrust between stakeholders was a significant obstacle.
Fortunately, in the Nisqually's case, farmers, timber interests and fishing advocates -including native tribes- came together and forged a compromise that has a chance of working to restore some salmon runs, especially in estuarine areas.
And, unfortunately, Skagit stakeholders are still bickering in denial and distrust -which will ultimately help no one, including salmon.
Check out what the short documentary by Pulitzer Prize winner Hedrick Smith has to say.
He tells it in straight and understandable language.
-------------
Meanwhile, our own Nooksack River is suffering from a whimpy lack of effort, and resembles more Skagit-like characteristics.
That is because Whatcom County hasn't finished the important business that it initiated over 10 years ago, to major fanfare.
That business was/is the comprehensive planning effort called WRIA-1, for Water Resource Inventory Area no. 1.
More on this below, but first here's the PBS URL information.
-----------------
You can access the PBS program segment at;
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/newshour_index.html
Then search for 'Salmon Wars'
Hedrick Smith, the recent correspondent for Frontline's "Poisoned Waters" project, reports on cultural collisions in Washington State over salmon fishing.
Or, search PBS website under 'poisoned waters'
Or, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
Or, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gsearch.html?q=poisoned+waters&x=9&y=14
-----------------
Now, back to the Nooksack and its stalled WRIA-1 process:
About $4.5 million was spent on WRIA-1 Phase 1 work before the political pressure became so adverse it stalled the project, thereby adding unnecessary expense and delay, as well as unwanted discomfort to key local politicos.
That is where this unfinished business still sits to this day.
Expensive shelf art, using public funds!
How smart is that?
This sorry result is certainly not the professed goal of local politicians - some of whom are still in office, including our illustrious, Teflon-coated Executive.
Too bad the current administration is not seriously attempting completion of this critical effort, preferring instead to just 'kick that ball down the road' and stick a future administration with an even more difficult job!
REMIND you of anything?
Anyway, WRIA-1's 'Initiating Governments' numbered 5, of which Whatcom County was unquestionably the 'lead agency'.
The other prime participants were the City of Bellingham, The Lummi Nation, The Nooksack Tribe and Public Utility District [PUD] 1.
It's too bad these sponsors weren't called 'Initiating AND COMPLETING Governments', and that Whatcom County hasn't been up to fulfilling it's State-mandated LEAD agency role.
But, hey, if we citizens don't hold some elected feet to the fire, they can be counted upon to slide through the line of least resistance -kinda like Newton's Law.
--------------
More details for those interested in WRIA-1 are available from several government websites; Whatcom County, Washington State and the US Government:
http://wria1project.whatcomcounty.org/
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/apps/watersheds/wriapages/01.html
http://wa.water.usgs.gov/projects/wria01/
http://www.pudwhatcom.org/WRIAMOcover.htm
--------------
But, the main point of this posting is simply to REMIND that we do have serious unfinished business, plus maybe INFORM a few folks who remain blissfully unaware of such matters.
To those who may to prefer to think the Nooksack River is mainly there to provide a leg of next Sunday's Ski to Sea Race, I have news for you; it serves critically important economic, social and ecological functions that are irreplaceable in nature.
Did you know that our countywide growth will be limited by water supply, not land supply?
Did you know that keeping resources - like water - clean is easier and much less expensive than any other alternative?
And, did you know that if you don't speak up and demand action, none will likely occur?
Finally, do you realize that the last 'increase' in County Flood Tax does not begin to even RESTORE adequate funding for critical work like WRIA-1?
Please keep that in mind when you hear spurious complaints about 'taxes'.
It was a good thing that the County Council -acting as the Flood Control Board- finally decided to take this particular matter into its own hands, which did require excluding our Executive from the process!
Now, it's time our elected leaders demonstrate more of the foresight, fiscal responsibility and courage that benefits everyone, including future generations...
---------------
My two previous posts on WRIA-1 can be found in Hamstertalk Archives, at:
Important County Water Programs Funding: Decision ... Lake, Stormwater, WRIA-1 5/11/08
WRIA-1: Whatcom County's Unfinished Water Business... Lake, WRIA-1 9/30/07
---------------
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
California: Terminal or Just Normal?
-----------------------------
Check out today's Timothy Egan column in the NYT: http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/california-will-survive-its-crackup/
-----------------------------
Not that it will make Bellingham, Whatcom County or the State of Washington feel any better, but the State of California is in worse shape.
More alarming is the fact that California voters, when given the chance to help the situation, have decided to whimp on every proposed measure, except limiting pay raises for State elected officials during deficit years.
Now, that ought to go a long way toward balancing their funny money budget!
Besides, it should discourage a few more people from even seeking public office; why would anyone want to serve in such a contentious and perpetually deficit-ridden State?
Doesn't sound like much fun to me.
Bad economy or not, the real problem has been expectations that are consistently way out of line with reality.
That inherently unsustainable pattern is guaranteed to produce deficits over time, whether its California, Washington DC or Bellingham.
What the 'Golden State' is experiencing now ought to provide a valuable lesson for every government entity.
But, will 'they' learn? And, who are 'they'?
And will the voters consistently help or hinder prudent budgetary practices, including raising additional taxes when necessary to pay for services?
What might be an upper limit on taxes before real TEA parties become rampant?
Just a few thoughts to brighten everyone's day....
-----------------------------
Reprinted from the Internet:
California Rejects Schwarzenegger’s Budget Measures
The May 20 Bloomberg News reports that California's 'Governator' was dealt a crushing defeat as voters rejected a series of six budget-balancing measures that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said were needed to keep a $15 billion deficit from widening to $21 billion. A proposal to limit lawmaker pay passed.
“I respect the will of the people who are frustrated with the dysfunction in our budget system,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement from Washington conceding defeat. “In order to prevent a fiscal disaster, Democrats and Republicans must collaborate and work together to address this shortfall.”
Five of the propositions were failing with 64 percent of the votes counted, according to California’s elections office. The losing proposals would have capped spending and extended temporary tax increases, directed future surplus money to schools, authorized bonds backed by lottery profits and diverted already dedicated revenue to the budget.
Lawmakers put the measures on the ballot in February as part of a compromise to close what was then a record $42 billion budget gap. Since then, the deficit re-emerged as California’s economy, which on its own would be the world’s eighth-largest, worsened amid the national recession.
"The longer we wait, the worse the problem becomes and the more limited our choices will be," Schwarzenegger said.
Rainy Day Fund [Also, a favorite of some local electeds]
• Proposition 1A, which was failing 36 percent to 64 percent, would have limited state spending to inflation plus 3 percent above a 10-year average. Revenue exceeding that cap would have been deposited in a rainy day fund that could only be spent during deficit years. Any surplus amounting to more than 12.5 percent of the general fund would have been available for one- time needs or to pay down debt. The measure also would have extended three temporary tax raises approved in February.
• Proposition 1B would have required the state to pay $1.5 billion from the rainy day fund to schools for six years starting in 2011. It was failing 39 percent to 61 percent.
-------------
• Proposition 1C, which would have allowed the state to sell $5 billion of bonds backed by future lottery proceeds and use the money for the budget, was losing 37 percent to 63 percent.
• Proposition 1D would have allowed the state to strip $600 million over five years from a program that spends tobacco tax revenue on children’s health. It was failing by a 36 percent to 64 percent margin.
• Proposition 1E would have allowed lawmakers to siphon $250 million a year from a mental health services program financed by an income-tax increase approved by voters in 2004. It was losing 35 percent to 65 percent.
• Proposition 1F, which prohibits state lawmakers and elected officers from salary raises in years when the state is running a deficit, was winning 75 percent to 25 percent.
“The fact is, right now, Californians do not trust Sacramento or the political process by which the budget is crafted, and they cannot afford higher taxes,” Meg Whitman, the former EBay Inc. chief executive officer who plans to run for California governor, said in a statement.
[Why does Meg want the job? Will she use e-Bay to auction off State assets?]
The budget approved in February raised $12 billion in taxes, cut $16 billion in spending and spent $8 billion of federal stimulus money. It also relied on $6 billion that would have been raised had the ballot measures won.
Credit Ratings
The three major credit rating companies, citing the magnitude of California’s deficits, reduced the grades on more than $46 billion of bonds in February and March. Now, California’s full faith and credit pledge is rated A by Standard & Poor’s and an equivalent A2 by Moody’s Investors Service, five grades below the top investment ranking. California is the lowest-rated U.S. state.
A California general obligation bond maturing in 2038, which traded for as little as 81.5 cents on the dollar on Dec. 4, went for 96.4 cents to yield 5.5 percent on May 19, according to Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board data. That compares with 5 percent for top-rated municipal general obligation bonds, as measured by a Municipal Market Advisors index.
Schwarzenegger proposed on May 14 cutting another $6 billion in spending, half from schools and colleges, to close the new gap. He said more cuts, such as releasing 19,000 illegal immigrants now held in state prisons, would be necessary with voter rejection of the ballots measures.
Schwarzenegger has also proposed that the state borrow $6 billion of two-year cash flow warrants. He said more short-term borrowing would be needed later in the year, especially if the measures were rejected.
California Treasurer Bill Lockyer petitioned U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to arrange for the federal government to become a standby purchaser of the short-term loans in the event of default.
[Hey, we bailed out Wall Street, GM, etc., so why not California?]
---------------------
Easy to see how economics got to be called the 'dismal science'.
And, how democracies may have a few inherent problems that only become visible or tangible over time.
---------------------
Check out today's Timothy Egan column in the NYT: http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/california-will-survive-its-crackup/
-----------------------------
Not that it will make Bellingham, Whatcom County or the State of Washington feel any better, but the State of California is in worse shape.
More alarming is the fact that California voters, when given the chance to help the situation, have decided to whimp on every proposed measure, except limiting pay raises for State elected officials during deficit years.
Now, that ought to go a long way toward balancing their funny money budget!
Besides, it should discourage a few more people from even seeking public office; why would anyone want to serve in such a contentious and perpetually deficit-ridden State?
Doesn't sound like much fun to me.
Bad economy or not, the real problem has been expectations that are consistently way out of line with reality.
That inherently unsustainable pattern is guaranteed to produce deficits over time, whether its California, Washington DC or Bellingham.
What the 'Golden State' is experiencing now ought to provide a valuable lesson for every government entity.
But, will 'they' learn? And, who are 'they'?
And will the voters consistently help or hinder prudent budgetary practices, including raising additional taxes when necessary to pay for services?
What might be an upper limit on taxes before real TEA parties become rampant?
Just a few thoughts to brighten everyone's day....
-----------------------------
Reprinted from the Internet:
California Rejects Schwarzenegger’s Budget Measures
The May 20 Bloomberg News reports that California's 'Governator' was dealt a crushing defeat as voters rejected a series of six budget-balancing measures that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said were needed to keep a $15 billion deficit from widening to $21 billion. A proposal to limit lawmaker pay passed.
“I respect the will of the people who are frustrated with the dysfunction in our budget system,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement from Washington conceding defeat. “In order to prevent a fiscal disaster, Democrats and Republicans must collaborate and work together to address this shortfall.”
Five of the propositions were failing with 64 percent of the votes counted, according to California’s elections office. The losing proposals would have capped spending and extended temporary tax increases, directed future surplus money to schools, authorized bonds backed by lottery profits and diverted already dedicated revenue to the budget.
Lawmakers put the measures on the ballot in February as part of a compromise to close what was then a record $42 billion budget gap. Since then, the deficit re-emerged as California’s economy, which on its own would be the world’s eighth-largest, worsened amid the national recession.
"The longer we wait, the worse the problem becomes and the more limited our choices will be," Schwarzenegger said.
Rainy Day Fund [Also, a favorite of some local electeds]
• Proposition 1A, which was failing 36 percent to 64 percent, would have limited state spending to inflation plus 3 percent above a 10-year average. Revenue exceeding that cap would have been deposited in a rainy day fund that could only be spent during deficit years. Any surplus amounting to more than 12.5 percent of the general fund would have been available for one- time needs or to pay down debt. The measure also would have extended three temporary tax raises approved in February.
• Proposition 1B would have required the state to pay $1.5 billion from the rainy day fund to schools for six years starting in 2011. It was failing 39 percent to 61 percent.
-------------
• Proposition 1C, which would have allowed the state to sell $5 billion of bonds backed by future lottery proceeds and use the money for the budget, was losing 37 percent to 63 percent.
• Proposition 1D would have allowed the state to strip $600 million over five years from a program that spends tobacco tax revenue on children’s health. It was failing by a 36 percent to 64 percent margin.
• Proposition 1E would have allowed lawmakers to siphon $250 million a year from a mental health services program financed by an income-tax increase approved by voters in 2004. It was losing 35 percent to 65 percent.
• Proposition 1F, which prohibits state lawmakers and elected officers from salary raises in years when the state is running a deficit, was winning 75 percent to 25 percent.
“The fact is, right now, Californians do not trust Sacramento or the political process by which the budget is crafted, and they cannot afford higher taxes,” Meg Whitman, the former EBay Inc. chief executive officer who plans to run for California governor, said in a statement.
[Why does Meg want the job? Will she use e-Bay to auction off State assets?]
The budget approved in February raised $12 billion in taxes, cut $16 billion in spending and spent $8 billion of federal stimulus money. It also relied on $6 billion that would have been raised had the ballot measures won.
Credit Ratings
The three major credit rating companies, citing the magnitude of California’s deficits, reduced the grades on more than $46 billion of bonds in February and March. Now, California’s full faith and credit pledge is rated A by Standard & Poor’s and an equivalent A2 by Moody’s Investors Service, five grades below the top investment ranking. California is the lowest-rated U.S. state.
A California general obligation bond maturing in 2038, which traded for as little as 81.5 cents on the dollar on Dec. 4, went for 96.4 cents to yield 5.5 percent on May 19, according to Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board data. That compares with 5 percent for top-rated municipal general obligation bonds, as measured by a Municipal Market Advisors index.
Schwarzenegger proposed on May 14 cutting another $6 billion in spending, half from schools and colleges, to close the new gap. He said more cuts, such as releasing 19,000 illegal immigrants now held in state prisons, would be necessary with voter rejection of the ballots measures.
Schwarzenegger has also proposed that the state borrow $6 billion of two-year cash flow warrants. He said more short-term borrowing would be needed later in the year, especially if the measures were rejected.
California Treasurer Bill Lockyer petitioned U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to arrange for the federal government to become a standby purchaser of the short-term loans in the event of default.
[Hey, we bailed out Wall Street, GM, etc., so why not California?]
---------------------
Easy to see how economics got to be called the 'dismal science'.
And, how democracies may have a few inherent problems that only become visible or tangible over time.
---------------------
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Politics: What Kind of Science?
----------------------------------
FLASH! This just in- a 'nerdly correction' has been sent, to wit:
"Please don't attribute this to me, but as a big fan of both series, I felt the compulsion to correct your reference to Bill Nye as the source of "I have a master's degree - in science". It should properly be attributed to an NPR radio show that lasts about 2 minutes called "Ask Dr. Science" - produced by Ducksbreath Mystery Theater. While I haven't heard it on the air in a while, the website still lives at www.drscience.com with a daily science question. "I have a master's degree - in science" is the tag line after the cute little musical ditty and the "remember, he's not a real doctor" helpful disclaimer in case anyone thought otherwise. I love them both, but Ducksbreath makes absolutely no attempt to say anything that makes sense, whereas Bill Nye... he's still and forever The Science Guy.
P.S. Bill Nye has a degree in mechanical engineering, but just an undergraduate degree, I think. "
----------------------------------
The Pareto principle (also known as the 80-20 rule, the law of the vital few and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.
That might also be the ratio of people who actively participate in politics to those who don't, but we can't be sure.
----------------------------------
Bill Nye, the 'Science Guy' used to say 'I have a master's degree in science'.
But, he said it with tongue firmly in cheek. Kinda.
Have you ever wondered what 'science' he mastered in?
Probably chemistry or physics, maybe biology?
Ever wonder why we keep using that word 'mastered', instead of some sort of made-up, gender-neutral term?
Maybe that has to do with the science of physics, particularly Newton's Laws;, as paraphrased below:
Newton probably wasn't referring to people when he used the word 'bodies', but he could have been.
In other words, folks tend to let things alone that -politically speaking- don't bother them too much.
-----------------------------------
The concept of 'science' does mean different things to different people.
Consider the following list of 'sciences' from Wikipedia, while understanding that each named science has other subsets:
1 Natural sciences
1.1 Physical Sciences
1.1.1 Chemistry
1.1.2 Physics
1.1.3 Astronomy
1.1.4 Earth sciences
1.1.5 Environmental sciences
1.2 Life Sciences
1.2.1 Biology
2 Formal sciences
2.1 Computer sciences
2.2 Mathematics
2.3 Systems science
3 Social sciences
3.1 Anthropology
3.2 Economics
3.3 Psychology
3.4 Geography
3.5 Philosophy
3.6 Political science
3.7 Sociology
4 Applied sciences
4.1 Architecture
4.2 Cognitive sciences
4.3 Education
4.4 Engineering
4.5 Health sciences
4.6 Management
4.7 Medicine
4.8 Military Science
----------------------------------
The respected ancient scholar and philosopher, Aristotle, had much to do with categorizing the early sciences and may have been the first to see politics as a so-called 'practical science' or 'social science', as opposed to a 'natural' science.
He also saw politics and ethics as closely related, both highly dependent upon the 'polis' -or city-state in which they were practiced.
But, Aristotle also had something to say about the form of government employed, considering more democratic forms that emphasized the common good to those that mainly favored the few, like oligarchies or kingdoms.
He thought the more democratic forms of government were definitely superior.
What did he know, or suspect, that we now seem to take for granted?
Thank goodness our forefathers -or forepersons- thought the same way Aristotle did and wrote our Declaration of Independence and Constitution to keep the goal of the common good uppermost in our hearts and minds!
Now, how do we keep it that way?
I believe that means we must be constantly ruthless in the honest pursuit of 'the common good'.
There's that troublesome concept of honesty and truthfulness again!
It can be difficult to even ascertain what the 'truth' is at times, much less attain it.
But, we have to try, and try hard, because in the end, that is the very foundation of a society based upon the 'common good'.
What else would -could you- you base it on?
----------------------------------
I believe the quest for truth depends upon more complete, not partial understandings and ideas.
And, more candid rather than more clever slogans and solutions.
While we're at it, how about more accuracy than otherwise?
Catch phrases that are easy on the ear and smooth off the tongue often turn out to be misleading -either deliberately or otherwise.
Knowledge, context, and fitting contemporary times all need to be kept in mind.
Those seem to correspond pretty well to the concepts of comprehensive application of science, careful and consistent logic and being timely and contemporary -as well as visionary- don't you think?
It won't do to just pick an easy answer and call it good.
How many times have you seen that flawed ploy tried?
How many times did it succeed?
A couple of quick examples will illustrate the last point;
Mathematics is a powerful tool to help determine, or at least estimate, unknowns from data that may be available.
If data is not available locally, there are usually other sources that may be reasonably applicable and translatable.
Examples abound for Growth Management, Water Supply Protection, Waterfront Redevelopment, Budgeting, and almost any issue.
All one needs to do is look, ask and learn.
Even if an equation can only relate two variables to each other, that is valuable- like X = Y (squared) - because by simply substituting one number the other value can be determined.
And, the same is true for any number of unknown quantities, as long as there are simultaneous equations relating each variable to another.
Of course, this gets progressively more complicated, but can be qualitatively helpful.
One example is evaluating Growth Management Act goals when considering almost any action or proposal.
There are some 13 GMA Goals directly specified for evaluation, plus an additional item -Shoreline Management Plan- that often gets considered as part of the mix.
How to do this?
Quantitatively, it is probably impossible in most cases, because directly comparable data is lacking, and weighting the goals can be highly subjective.
But, the exercise itself is valuable because it does force thoughtful consideration of each goal at the same time.
This discipline helps eliminate, or at least minimize, the chance that a single, loud or emotional argument -regardless of its relationship to the common good - outweighs all the others and is the sole or primary determinant of a public decision.
And, yes, I do have some issues that spring readily to mind, but the main goal of this piece is more general.
Besides, it's already long enough anyway.
My main point is that in matters pertaining to the common good, we need to consistently employ more of the 'good science' in our politics, not junk science!
And, 'good science', before it becomes accepted as such, is rooted in truth that tends to be far more universal than any local 'polis' can claim.
The common good depends upon 'good science', properly considered and practically applied.
Now, if we can just get more than Pareto's 20% actively involved in politics, we can have more certainty that the common good will consistently be served!
At least, that's my opinion......
---------------------------------------
FLASH! This just in- a 'nerdly correction' has been sent, to wit:
"Please don't attribute this to me, but as a big fan of both series, I felt the compulsion to correct your reference to Bill Nye as the source of "I have a master's degree - in science". It should properly be attributed to an NPR radio show that lasts about 2 minutes called "Ask Dr. Science" - produced by Ducksbreath Mystery Theater. While I haven't heard it on the air in a while, the website still lives at www.drscience.com with a daily science question. "I have a master's degree - in science" is the tag line after the cute little musical ditty and the "remember, he's not a real doctor" helpful disclaimer in case anyone thought otherwise. I love them both, but Ducksbreath makes absolutely no attempt to say anything that makes sense, whereas Bill Nye... he's still and forever The Science Guy.
P.S. Bill Nye has a degree in mechanical engineering, but just an undergraduate degree, I think. "
----------------------------------
The Pareto principle (also known as the 80-20 rule, the law of the vital few and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.
That might also be the ratio of people who actively participate in politics to those who don't, but we can't be sure.
----------------------------------
Bill Nye, the 'Science Guy' used to say 'I have a master's degree in science'.
But, he said it with tongue firmly in cheek. Kinda.
Have you ever wondered what 'science' he mastered in?
Probably chemistry or physics, maybe biology?
Ever wonder why we keep using that word 'mastered', instead of some sort of made-up, gender-neutral term?
Maybe that has to do with the science of physics, particularly Newton's Laws;, as paraphrased below:
Newton's first law: law of inertia
Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare. Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.
Newton's second law
Lex II: Mutationem motus proportionalem esse vi motrici impressae, et fieri secundum lineam rectam qua vis illa imprimitur. The change of momentum of a body is proportional to the impulse impressed on the body, and happens along the straight line on which that impulse is impressed.
Newton's third law: law of reciprocal actions
Lex III: Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi. For a force there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.
Newton probably wasn't referring to people when he used the word 'bodies', but he could have been.
In other words, folks tend to let things alone that -politically speaking- don't bother them too much.
-----------------------------------
The concept of 'science' does mean different things to different people.
Consider the following list of 'sciences' from Wikipedia, while understanding that each named science has other subsets:
1 Natural sciences
1.1 Physical Sciences
1.1.1 Chemistry
1.1.2 Physics
1.1.3 Astronomy
1.1.4 Earth sciences
1.1.5 Environmental sciences
1.2 Life Sciences
1.2.1 Biology
2 Formal sciences
2.1 Computer sciences
2.2 Mathematics
2.3 Systems science
3 Social sciences
3.1 Anthropology
3.2 Economics
3.3 Psychology
3.4 Geography
3.5 Philosophy
3.6 Political science
3.7 Sociology
4 Applied sciences
4.1 Architecture
4.2 Cognitive sciences
4.3 Education
4.4 Engineering
4.5 Health sciences
4.6 Management
4.7 Medicine
4.8 Military Science
----------------------------------
The respected ancient scholar and philosopher, Aristotle, had much to do with categorizing the early sciences and may have been the first to see politics as a so-called 'practical science' or 'social science', as opposed to a 'natural' science.
He also saw politics and ethics as closely related, both highly dependent upon the 'polis' -or city-state in which they were practiced.
But, Aristotle also had something to say about the form of government employed, considering more democratic forms that emphasized the common good to those that mainly favored the few, like oligarchies or kingdoms.
He thought the more democratic forms of government were definitely superior.
What did he know, or suspect, that we now seem to take for granted?
Thank goodness our forefathers -or forepersons- thought the same way Aristotle did and wrote our Declaration of Independence and Constitution to keep the goal of the common good uppermost in our hearts and minds!
Now, how do we keep it that way?
I believe that means we must be constantly ruthless in the honest pursuit of 'the common good'.
There's that troublesome concept of honesty and truthfulness again!
It can be difficult to even ascertain what the 'truth' is at times, much less attain it.
But, we have to try, and try hard, because in the end, that is the very foundation of a society based upon the 'common good'.
What else would -could you- you base it on?
----------------------------------
I believe the quest for truth depends upon more complete, not partial understandings and ideas.
And, more candid rather than more clever slogans and solutions.
While we're at it, how about more accuracy than otherwise?
Catch phrases that are easy on the ear and smooth off the tongue often turn out to be misleading -either deliberately or otherwise.
Knowledge, context, and fitting contemporary times all need to be kept in mind.
Those seem to correspond pretty well to the concepts of comprehensive application of science, careful and consistent logic and being timely and contemporary -as well as visionary- don't you think?
It won't do to just pick an easy answer and call it good.
How many times have you seen that flawed ploy tried?
How many times did it succeed?
A couple of quick examples will illustrate the last point;
Mathematics is a powerful tool to help determine, or at least estimate, unknowns from data that may be available.
If data is not available locally, there are usually other sources that may be reasonably applicable and translatable.
Examples abound for Growth Management, Water Supply Protection, Waterfront Redevelopment, Budgeting, and almost any issue.
All one needs to do is look, ask and learn.
Even if an equation can only relate two variables to each other, that is valuable- like X = Y (squared) - because by simply substituting one number the other value can be determined.
And, the same is true for any number of unknown quantities, as long as there are simultaneous equations relating each variable to another.
Of course, this gets progressively more complicated, but can be qualitatively helpful.
One example is evaluating Growth Management Act goals when considering almost any action or proposal.
There are some 13 GMA Goals directly specified for evaluation, plus an additional item -Shoreline Management Plan- that often gets considered as part of the mix.
How to do this?
Quantitatively, it is probably impossible in most cases, because directly comparable data is lacking, and weighting the goals can be highly subjective.
But, the exercise itself is valuable because it does force thoughtful consideration of each goal at the same time.
This discipline helps eliminate, or at least minimize, the chance that a single, loud or emotional argument -regardless of its relationship to the common good - outweighs all the others and is the sole or primary determinant of a public decision.
And, yes, I do have some issues that spring readily to mind, but the main goal of this piece is more general.
Besides, it's already long enough anyway.
My main point is that in matters pertaining to the common good, we need to consistently employ more of the 'good science' in our politics, not junk science!
And, 'good science', before it becomes accepted as such, is rooted in truth that tends to be far more universal than any local 'polis' can claim.
The common good depends upon 'good science', properly considered and practically applied.
Now, if we can just get more than Pareto's 20% actively involved in politics, we can have more certainty that the common good will consistently be served!
At least, that's my opinion......
---------------------------------------
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
'Politics Without Principle'
-------------------------
Some time ago, I posted the piece of advice shown quoted below for potential candidates from 'Aunt Nettie's' website: [http://dearauntnettie.com]
At the time I thought is was funny, but now I begin to see how it is also tragic - because it also seems so true.
Has this always been so?
Or has this perception cumulatively grown over the years with the abuses that elected officials and bureaucrats at all levels have accumulated, or merely have been subjected to?
What role has the easier access to instant information -and its associated unsubstantiated rumor - played to influence public opinion?
And, what role has systematic shading of the truth by determined and deliberate partisan interest -or simple ignorance, or mischief - played?
Nothing necessarily illegal, mind you, except maybe just the steady, incremental erosion of the credibility of officials and the public trust that robs us of trust.
Is there any doubt what has helped cause political office, and public service in general to become the object of such widespread distrust?
--------
Dear Aunt Nettie:
In a recent column, you mentioned that you "should run for office." In my experience, it is a rare occasion where someone with true wisdom will devote themselves to public service. These days, it seems that the elected politicians are either bright, but in it for personal gain, or dim but sincere.... Why don't the truly brilliant sacrifice some personal wealth to serve the electorate?
-- Elective in Elmira
------------------------
Dear Elective:
Well, it seems to me you've answered your own question. The smart people are in it so they can abuse the system for their own ends and the rest are deluded into thinking they can make a difference. Once the latter learn better, they become the former and run for re-election.
Anyone considering running for office should be presented with a single copy of the Federal Register and a copy of the Congressional Record. After perusing the contents they will have one of two opinions: (a) "Whoa! I can make this work for me!" or, (b) "This is the most insufferable pile of claptrap I have ever laid eyes on!"
Those of the former opinion should hire a campaign manager. Those of the latter opinion should join a commune.
--------------------------------------
From another link to 'Aunt Nettie', I found a list of humorous, but also accurate, 'Flame Warriors', one of which is again reprinted below:
There are two distinct varieties of Ideologue, conservative and liberal, but each being smug and self satisfied in his certitudes, they are really flip sides of the same coin. Though Ideologue's "opinions" merely represent a loose collection of intellectual conceits he is nonetheless astonished, bewildered and angered when his views are not immediately embraced as Truth. He regards honest disagreement as a form of cognitive dissonance that can only be cured by relentless propagandizing. The conservative iteration of Ideologue parades himself as a logical, clear thinker, while the liberal version trumpets his higher level of mental, spiritual and social awareness. Troglodyte is the natural ally of conservative Ideologue, and for liberal Ideologue it is Weenie. Whether conservative or liberal, Ideologue is a fierce, but very predictable Warrior.
----------------------------------------------------
Mahatma Ghandi's so-called seven sins included one he called 'Politics without Principle'.
Here's a brief excerpt from [http://www.mkgandhi.org/mgmnt.htm#politics] Dr. Stephen R. Covey - one of the world's leading management consultants and author of the best selling book The Seven Habits Of Highly Effective People.
Excerpts from Chapter 7 - Seven Deadly Sins:
Mahatma Gandhi said that seven things will destroy us.
Notice that all of them have to do with social and political conditions.
Note also that the antidote of each of these "deadly sins" is an explicit external standard or something that is based on natural principles and laws, not on social values.
Wealth Without Work
Pleasure Without Conscience
Knowledge Without Character
Commerce (Business) Without Morality (Ethics)
Science Without Humanity
Religion Without Sacrifice
Politics Without Principle
-----------------------
On 'Politics without Principle':
If there is no principle, there is no true north, nothing you can depend upon.
The focus on the personality ethic is the instant creation of an image that sells well in the social and economic marketplace.
You see politicians spending millions of dollars to create an image, even though it's superficial, lacking substance, in order to get votes and gain office.
And when it works, it leads to a political system operating independently of the natural laws that should govern - - that are built into the Declaration of Independence : "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness . . . . "
In other words, they are describing self-evident, external, observable, natural, unarguable, self-evident laws: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident."
The key to a healthy society is to get the social will, the value system, aligned with correct principles.
You then have the compass needle pointing to true north - true north representing the external or the natural law - and the indicator says that is what we are building our value system on : they are aligned.
But if you get a sick social will behind the political will that is independent of principle, you could have a very sick organization or society with distorted values.
For instance, the professed mission and shared values of criminals who rape, rob and plunder might sound very much like many corporate mission statements, using such words as "teamwork," "cooperation," "loyalty," "profitability," "innovation," and "creativity."
The problem is that their value system is not based on a natural law.
Figuratively, inside many corporations with lofty mission statements, many people are being mugged in broad daylight in front of witnesses.
Or they are being robbed of self-esteem, money, or position without due process.
And if there is no social will behind the principles of due process, and if you can't get due process, you have to go to the jury of your peers and engage in counterculture sabotage.
In the movie The Ten Commandments, Moses says to the pharaoh, "We are to be governed by God's law, not by you."
In effect he's saying, "We will not be governed by a person unless that person embodies the law."
In the best societies and organizations, natural laws and principles govern - that's the Constitution - and even the top people must bow to the principle.
No one is above it.
------------------------
"A person cannot do right in one department whilst attempting to do wrong in another department. Life is one indivisible whole." - Mahatma Gandhi
------------------------
Some time ago, I posted the piece of advice shown quoted below for potential candidates from 'Aunt Nettie's' website: [http://dearauntnettie.com]
At the time I thought is was funny, but now I begin to see how it is also tragic - because it also seems so true.
Has this always been so?
Or has this perception cumulatively grown over the years with the abuses that elected officials and bureaucrats at all levels have accumulated, or merely have been subjected to?
What role has the easier access to instant information -and its associated unsubstantiated rumor - played to influence public opinion?
And, what role has systematic shading of the truth by determined and deliberate partisan interest -or simple ignorance, or mischief - played?
Nothing necessarily illegal, mind you, except maybe just the steady, incremental erosion of the credibility of officials and the public trust that robs us of trust.
Is there any doubt what has helped cause political office, and public service in general to become the object of such widespread distrust?
--------
Dear Aunt Nettie:
In a recent column, you mentioned that you "should run for office." In my experience, it is a rare occasion where someone with true wisdom will devote themselves to public service. These days, it seems that the elected politicians are either bright, but in it for personal gain, or dim but sincere.... Why don't the truly brilliant sacrifice some personal wealth to serve the electorate?
-- Elective in Elmira
------------------------
Dear Elective:
Well, it seems to me you've answered your own question. The smart people are in it so they can abuse the system for their own ends and the rest are deluded into thinking they can make a difference. Once the latter learn better, they become the former and run for re-election.
Anyone considering running for office should be presented with a single copy of the Federal Register and a copy of the Congressional Record. After perusing the contents they will have one of two opinions: (a) "Whoa! I can make this work for me!" or, (b) "This is the most insufferable pile of claptrap I have ever laid eyes on!"
Those of the former opinion should hire a campaign manager. Those of the latter opinion should join a commune.
--------------------------------------
From another link to 'Aunt Nettie', I found a list of humorous, but also accurate, 'Flame Warriors', one of which is again reprinted below:
There are two distinct varieties of Ideologue, conservative and liberal, but each being smug and self satisfied in his certitudes, they are really flip sides of the same coin. Though Ideologue's "opinions" merely represent a loose collection of intellectual conceits he is nonetheless astonished, bewildered and angered when his views are not immediately embraced as Truth. He regards honest disagreement as a form of cognitive dissonance that can only be cured by relentless propagandizing. The conservative iteration of Ideologue parades himself as a logical, clear thinker, while the liberal version trumpets his higher level of mental, spiritual and social awareness. Troglodyte is the natural ally of conservative Ideologue, and for liberal Ideologue it is Weenie. Whether conservative or liberal, Ideologue is a fierce, but very predictable Warrior.
----------------------------------------------------
Mahatma Ghandi's so-called seven sins included one he called 'Politics without Principle'.
Here's a brief excerpt from [http://www.mkgandhi.org/mgmnt.htm#politics] Dr. Stephen R. Covey - one of the world's leading management consultants and author of the best selling book The Seven Habits Of Highly Effective People.
Excerpts from Chapter 7 - Seven Deadly Sins:
Mahatma Gandhi said that seven things will destroy us.
Notice that all of them have to do with social and political conditions.
Note also that the antidote of each of these "deadly sins" is an explicit external standard or something that is based on natural principles and laws, not on social values.
Wealth Without Work
Pleasure Without Conscience
Knowledge Without Character
Commerce (Business) Without Morality (Ethics)
Science Without Humanity
Religion Without Sacrifice
Politics Without Principle
-----------------------
On 'Politics without Principle':
If there is no principle, there is no true north, nothing you can depend upon.
The focus on the personality ethic is the instant creation of an image that sells well in the social and economic marketplace.
You see politicians spending millions of dollars to create an image, even though it's superficial, lacking substance, in order to get votes and gain office.
And when it works, it leads to a political system operating independently of the natural laws that should govern - - that are built into the Declaration of Independence : "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness . . . . "
In other words, they are describing self-evident, external, observable, natural, unarguable, self-evident laws: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident."
The key to a healthy society is to get the social will, the value system, aligned with correct principles.
You then have the compass needle pointing to true north - true north representing the external or the natural law - and the indicator says that is what we are building our value system on : they are aligned.
But if you get a sick social will behind the political will that is independent of principle, you could have a very sick organization or society with distorted values.
For instance, the professed mission and shared values of criminals who rape, rob and plunder might sound very much like many corporate mission statements, using such words as "teamwork," "cooperation," "loyalty," "profitability," "innovation," and "creativity."
The problem is that their value system is not based on a natural law.
Figuratively, inside many corporations with lofty mission statements, many people are being mugged in broad daylight in front of witnesses.
Or they are being robbed of self-esteem, money, or position without due process.
And if there is no social will behind the principles of due process, and if you can't get due process, you have to go to the jury of your peers and engage in counterculture sabotage.
In the movie The Ten Commandments, Moses says to the pharaoh, "We are to be governed by God's law, not by you."
In effect he's saying, "We will not be governed by a person unless that person embodies the law."
In the best societies and organizations, natural laws and principles govern - that's the Constitution - and even the top people must bow to the principle.
No one is above it.
------------------------
"A person cannot do right in one department whilst attempting to do wrong in another department. Life is one indivisible whole." - Mahatma Gandhi
------------------------
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Olympic Pipe Line 'Incident': Personal Reflections
---------------------------------------------------
In less than one month Bellingham will officially remember the 10th anniversary of the explosion that claimed the lives of three young men.
In commemoration of that unfortunate event, the Pipeline Safety Trust -which is headquartered here- is inviting citizens to reflect on their own recollections of where they were and what they felt and thought at that time.
On June 10th the PST will be holding a memorial walk along Whatcom Creek, and a community gathering at Maritime Heritage Park.
Dignitaries, including former Governor Gary Locke, now US Commerce Secretary, who administers NOAA and the Office of Pipeline Safety, will be attending.
Carl Weimer, PST's Executive Director, invites citizens to write a short article to share their stories for publication via Internet.
Submissions can be-mailed to this link at the PST website:
http://www.pstrust.org/whatcomcreek
There are also short video pieces posted at:
http://www.pstrust.org/whatcomcreek/storiesandpictures.htm
My story is posted below.
---------------------------------------------------
Personal reflections on the Olympic Pipe Line 'Incident':
The evening of June 10, 1999 will be forever ingrained in my memory.
That was the time, just after 5PM, that my entire house was severely shaken by a large explosion that occurred only a minute two after I had entered the front door.
Looking out my north-facing windows, which I was surprised did not break, we saw a large, black smoke column rising rapidly to over 10,000 feet from a point roughly northeast of where we were.
A few minutes following the initial blast came a series of about 6 smaller explosions, happening at intervals that spread steadily to the west, until they stopped just short of the Interstate Highway I-5. This indicated to me that flammable petroleum hydrocarbons had somehow entered the creek and were being carried downstream until repeated ignition sources were encountered. And, from the size of the initial blast, the quantity of hydrocarbon had to be much, much more than a truckload!
After the noise came the quiet, and the concerned wonderment of people who fretted about what had happened and why, and whether still more scary stuff was to come.
But, there was also the confused cacophony of blather from the local radio station, which was clueless and given to some weird speculation in the absence of credible information. This was abetted by the failure of government communications systems, which was largely limited to police and fire radio systems and inadequate for this unexpected situation.
Add to all this the inoperability of regular phone service, both land-line and cell, due to overloaded circuits, and you have the ingredients of the temptation to panic.
Living 3 blocks uphill and south of Lakeway Blvd, I was about a mile from what proved to be ground zero - just east of Woburn Street and, upstream in Whatcom Creek. It was hard to imagine feeling the percussion of the blast from that distance, but we did, as did many others living even closer to it.
I decided to investigate by walking down the hill toward the creek, then carefully making my way east. As I left, charred leaves and debris began raining down on my roof, deck and yard. We still keep some of those blackened leaves as tangible reminders of that dark day.
Eventually, I was able to verify my suspicion that the case of the initial explosion and the subsequent smaller ones had their origins from within Whatcom Creek itself.
A City fire truck was stationed to block Woburn Street, just south of the bridge over the creek, and the fireman on the scene was able to communicate more of what happened using information from his colleagues who were searching the area.
There was also a Herald reporter present, in full commuting bicycle gear.
As more information slowly became available, the shock felt by citizens and witnesses became replaced by sympathy for the three young men who were the only fatalities, and concern about this catastrophe repeating itself.
Fortunately, our community's healing process in the aftermath had some positive benefits, including strengthened pipeline safety regulations and oversight, a degree of reparation for the 3 deaths, and funding for restoring Whatcom Creek and establishing a pipeline safety oversight organization headquartered locally.
Punishment, in the form of fines, jail time for those responsible, and a major, unanticipated loss of revenue from not being to operate the pipeline, were also experienced.
Reopening the pipeline eventually required some 18 months, during which time local, state and federal representatives worked hard to determine unsafe practices and establish better guidelines to maximize pipeline safety in the future. Resisting the pressure to quickly allow rebuilding the pipeline, the City of Bellingham took a firm stand to insure the new pipeline design was adequate, using the principles embodied in OSHA Process Safety Management practices for petroleum refineries and similar hydrocarbon processing facilities. Essential to this accomplishment was the City's decision to hire competent consultants for expert advice.
We can be thankful for the results achieved, even though they came -as too often happens -at a high cost. Bellingham can be rightfully proud of its determination to insure that something of lasting value came out of this disaster.
June 10, 1999 is a date that will remain permanently fixed in my memory, and that of many others as well.
May that event never happen again!
---------------------------------------------------
In less than one month Bellingham will officially remember the 10th anniversary of the explosion that claimed the lives of three young men.
In commemoration of that unfortunate event, the Pipeline Safety Trust -which is headquartered here- is inviting citizens to reflect on their own recollections of where they were and what they felt and thought at that time.
On June 10th the PST will be holding a memorial walk along Whatcom Creek, and a community gathering at Maritime Heritage Park.
Dignitaries, including former Governor Gary Locke, now US Commerce Secretary, who administers NOAA and the Office of Pipeline Safety, will be attending.
Carl Weimer, PST's Executive Director, invites citizens to write a short article to share their stories for publication via Internet.
Submissions can be-mailed to this link at the PST website:
http://www.pstrust.org/whatcomcreek
There are also short video pieces posted at:
http://www.pstrust.org/whatcomcreek/storiesandpictures.htm
My story is posted below.
---------------------------------------------------
Personal reflections on the Olympic Pipe Line 'Incident':
The evening of June 10, 1999 will be forever ingrained in my memory.
That was the time, just after 5PM, that my entire house was severely shaken by a large explosion that occurred only a minute two after I had entered the front door.
Looking out my north-facing windows, which I was surprised did not break, we saw a large, black smoke column rising rapidly to over 10,000 feet from a point roughly northeast of where we were.
A few minutes following the initial blast came a series of about 6 smaller explosions, happening at intervals that spread steadily to the west, until they stopped just short of the Interstate Highway I-5. This indicated to me that flammable petroleum hydrocarbons had somehow entered the creek and were being carried downstream until repeated ignition sources were encountered. And, from the size of the initial blast, the quantity of hydrocarbon had to be much, much more than a truckload!
After the noise came the quiet, and the concerned wonderment of people who fretted about what had happened and why, and whether still more scary stuff was to come.
But, there was also the confused cacophony of blather from the local radio station, which was clueless and given to some weird speculation in the absence of credible information. This was abetted by the failure of government communications systems, which was largely limited to police and fire radio systems and inadequate for this unexpected situation.
Add to all this the inoperability of regular phone service, both land-line and cell, due to overloaded circuits, and you have the ingredients of the temptation to panic.
Living 3 blocks uphill and south of Lakeway Blvd, I was about a mile from what proved to be ground zero - just east of Woburn Street and, upstream in Whatcom Creek. It was hard to imagine feeling the percussion of the blast from that distance, but we did, as did many others living even closer to it.
I decided to investigate by walking down the hill toward the creek, then carefully making my way east. As I left, charred leaves and debris began raining down on my roof, deck and yard. We still keep some of those blackened leaves as tangible reminders of that dark day.
Eventually, I was able to verify my suspicion that the case of the initial explosion and the subsequent smaller ones had their origins from within Whatcom Creek itself.
A City fire truck was stationed to block Woburn Street, just south of the bridge over the creek, and the fireman on the scene was able to communicate more of what happened using information from his colleagues who were searching the area.
There was also a Herald reporter present, in full commuting bicycle gear.
As more information slowly became available, the shock felt by citizens and witnesses became replaced by sympathy for the three young men who were the only fatalities, and concern about this catastrophe repeating itself.
Fortunately, our community's healing process in the aftermath had some positive benefits, including strengthened pipeline safety regulations and oversight, a degree of reparation for the 3 deaths, and funding for restoring Whatcom Creek and establishing a pipeline safety oversight organization headquartered locally.
Punishment, in the form of fines, jail time for those responsible, and a major, unanticipated loss of revenue from not being to operate the pipeline, were also experienced.
Reopening the pipeline eventually required some 18 months, during which time local, state and federal representatives worked hard to determine unsafe practices and establish better guidelines to maximize pipeline safety in the future. Resisting the pressure to quickly allow rebuilding the pipeline, the City of Bellingham took a firm stand to insure the new pipeline design was adequate, using the principles embodied in OSHA Process Safety Management practices for petroleum refineries and similar hydrocarbon processing facilities. Essential to this accomplishment was the City's decision to hire competent consultants for expert advice.
We can be thankful for the results achieved, even though they came -as too often happens -at a high cost. Bellingham can be rightfully proud of its determination to insure that something of lasting value came out of this disaster.
June 10, 1999 is a date that will remain permanently fixed in my memory, and that of many others as well.
May that event never happen again!
---------------------------------------------------
Monday, May 11, 2009
HamsterTalk: Labels
--------------------------
To make it a little easier to find previous blogs that primarily address specific subjects, I have now assigned the list of categories shown below.
Of course, some of the 300+ blogs posted to date do touch upon multiple subjects.
Others, such as 'Personal' and 'Politics', are more difficult to categorize and probably don't need it anyway.
The topics and issues I consider more current and important are shown in BOLD.
Other more generic labels are shown in italics.
Here is the list of Labels I have used to date:
Buddhist (2)
Budgets (15)
Census (1)
Charter (3)
EconomicDevelopment (2)
Elections (36)
Environment (6)
Government (11)
Greenways (8)
Humor (16)
Lake (56)
Landlords (3)
LEED (5)
Library (11)
LivingWage (1)
Neighborhoods (5)
NEWS (2)
OlympicPipeLine (1)
Parking (2)
Parks (8)
Personal (21)
PFD (1)
PlanningGrowth (51)
Politics (35)
Reconveyance (11)
Sports (6)
Stormwater (3)
Sunshine (3)
Taxes (13)
WAL-MART (1)
War (4)
Water/Sewer (5)
Waterfront (13)
WRIA-1 (2)
--------------------------------
Unfortunately, I haven't figured out how readers can simply type one of these labels into the blog 'search' feature , hit the return and get a chronological list of blogs under that label, but as editor, I can now do that.
So, until I can figure out something better, those interested in particular subjects can e-mail me these and will I try to at least provide blog lists by specific label.
Individual blogs do show the labels currently assigned to them at the bottom.
Any additional suggestions, blog label ideas or labeling corrections will be welcomed.
Sorry it has taken so long to get this potentially helpful feature working.
I am still a rank amateur when it comes to being Internet savvy, but I'm trying!
--------------------------------
To make it a little easier to find previous blogs that primarily address specific subjects, I have now assigned the list of categories shown below.
Of course, some of the 300+ blogs posted to date do touch upon multiple subjects.
Others, such as 'Personal' and 'Politics', are more difficult to categorize and probably don't need it anyway.
The topics and issues I consider more current and important are shown in BOLD.
Other more generic labels are shown in italics.
Here is the list of Labels I have used to date:
Buddhist (2)
Budgets (15)
Census (1)
Charter (3)
EconomicDevelopment (2)
Elections (36)
Environment (6)
Government (11)
Greenways (8)
Humor (16)
Lake (56)
Landlords (3)
LEED (5)
Library (11)
LivingWage (1)
Neighborhoods (5)
NEWS (2)
OlympicPipeLine (1)
Parking (2)
Parks (8)
Personal (21)
PFD (1)
PlanningGrowth (51)
Politics (35)
Reconveyance (11)
Sports (6)
Stormwater (3)
Sunshine (3)
Taxes (13)
WAL-MART (1)
War (4)
Water/Sewer (5)
Waterfront (13)
WRIA-1 (2)
--------------------------------
Unfortunately, I haven't figured out how readers can simply type one of these labels into the blog 'search' feature , hit the return and get a chronological list of blogs under that label, but as editor, I can now do that.
So, until I can figure out something better, those interested in particular subjects can e-mail me these and will I try to at least provide blog lists by specific label.
Individual blogs do show the labels currently assigned to them at the bottom.
Any additional suggestions, blog label ideas or labeling corrections will be welcomed.
Sorry it has taken so long to get this potentially helpful feature working.
I am still a rank amateur when it comes to being Internet savvy, but I'm trying!
--------------------------------
Sunday, May 10, 2009
It's Local Election Time Again
---------------------------------
Maybe its time to re-publish a blog first posted on July 29, 2007, at the following URL:
http://bellinghamstertalk.blogspot.com/2007/07/candidate-questionnaire-decision-making.html
Folks may think this is worth reading, and maybe even adding other thoughts.
[For convenience, I also posted this again, at the end]
This was an attempt at trying to determine candidates' understanding of the office they are seeking, their motivation, their commitment, and their expectations.
All these things are good to know, but better BEFORE a candidate is elected, don't you think?
Now, with the filing deadline set for June 5, its not too soon to start asking these questions as well as others that are more specific to current -and ongoing- issues.
After all, if we don't ask, what are our chances of determining the answers?
And, these local offices ARE important!
Just think of these few things -and there are several others- and see what you would prefer:
• Budget crisis for both City and County. Who do you want in charge of minding and managing public funds?
Which services do you think should be cut to help balance the budget -which must be done, by law, every year?
How do you think additional funds should be raised, if any?
• Waterfront Redevelopment is a long-range, big ticket item that has generated lots of attention during the last few years.
Do you think this is a worthwhile effort, or should it be scrapped?
If the project is halted or substantially slowed down, what should -responsibly- be done with the property?
Could the Port of Bellingham do a better job in generating local jobs and representing the public interest?
• Growth Management is one of those ongoing issues that can generate heat, whether in Urban Growth Areas, existing Neighborhoods, redevelopment areas or in considering higher building height limits.
What role should our neighborhoods play and how should they be represented?
Who do you trust to decide City policy on this matter?
• Lake Whatcom Reservoir protection is another important, long-term issue that requires forward-looking policy and dedication.
Do you agree that our drinking water source needs special attention, or should this be somebody else's problem?
Who would better represent your view on this issue?
• 'Public Process' is always an issue that rightfully gets attention, especially when controversial matters are considered.
Whom do you trust to keep both the spirit and the letter of our 'sunshine laws' alive and healthy?
On which issues is this especially important to you?
• Our City Charter has been revised somewhat in recent years to improve both its clarity and fairness.
Do you think additional changes should be considered and offered to a public vote?
What about things like term limits to insure periodic turnover?
• What role do you see for yourself in our local governance?
Do you vote, pay taxes, speak up from time to time?
Would you consider volunteering for a citizen committee?
Running for office yourself?
Actively supporting another's candidacy?
------------------
This is OUR government, not just us and them!
And, it does take some work to make it work better.
We have no right to expect more of others than we are willing to do ourselves!
Just a few thoughts......
=========================================
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Candidate Questionnaire & Decision Making
Appointments are unusual, but desirable. I know because over 8 eight years ago I was initially appointed to the City Council. Unusual because those appointed are chosen quickly by their peers, mostly based upon their written qualifications, their reputation and service in the Community. Desirable because appointments happen without the up-front burden of a political campaign, which means easier campaigning for re-election, because incumbents usually do enjoy a powerful advantage.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could more easily compare a candidate’s basic qualifications with other candidates before every political campaign or appointment? That is the purpose of the Candidate Questionnaire outlined below.
While specific 'Issues' may come and go, there are some underlying ‘Basics’ that every elected official has, should have, or needs to learn, which support each decision made by our local government. Knowing as much as possible about each candidate's 'Basics', before they are elected or appointed, seems a very useful exercise that might benefit voters. Perhaps some version of these ideas could be adopted for use in both future appointments and election forums.
At the end, I've also added some guidelines I try to use in making Council decisions. Every elected official will find that reason, fairness and consistency is expected of them, regardless of political or idealogical stripe. Often, the temptation will be strong to do what seems popular and pander to to the issue or audience 'du jour'. But, in the end, that strategy is a poor one, because of the high potential for consequences -either intended or not- that cannot be sustained.
Public officials are elected to serve primarily for the benefit of the community as a whole, and it is those benefits that last and define Bellingham.
============================================================
General questions to help evaluate candidates for elected or appointed office.
• Have you read and understand the implications of the oath of office each Council member must take? Do you understand each Council member is also considered an officer of the Bellingham Municipal Corporation?
• Are you familiar with the Public Disclosure Commission [PDC] and its requirements of all candidates and elected officials?
• What is your understanding of the term 'non-partisan'? Are you aware that the City Charter specifies that all Council members be non-partisan?
• Are you aware that Council members are expected to devote an average of 20 hours per week on signed time-sheets in connection with their duties of office? Are you committed to devoting at least this amount of time if you are selected to serve?
• Are you aware of the Council Committees and other assignments that this office brings with it, in addition to special work sessions, presentations and the like? Can you fulfill these requirements?
• What preparation for this office have you done, or are you prepared to do, in order to 'get up to speed' on both Council procedures and current issues? Any relevant experience in public office? Any voluntary local civic involvement?
• Have you read, reviewed or otherwise become aware of the function of the following documents: Comprehensive Plan; Consolidated Plan; 23 Neighborhood Plans; Budget; Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [CAFR]; Council Goals & Objectives; City Charter; Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan; Waterfront Redevelopment - Vision & Framework Plan, and Strategic Guidelines & Design Concepts?
• Are you willing to commit to intensive training to learn the basics of serving in public office? ['Welcome to City Hall' Maual; Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Annual & Legislative conferences; meet key City staff; understand legal constraints]
• Have you actively participated in or supported any major issues or campaigns of Community-wide significance? What is your history of activity with Neighborhood Associations? Any written opinions on local issues?
• What is your understanding of the Open Public Meetings Act, and what was intended by this State 'Sunshine' Law? How would this influence your personal decision-making?
• Are you familiar with the purpose and proper use of Executive Sessions and the reasons for strict confidentiality of the information discussed in them?
• Are you familiar with the Parliamentary Rules and procedures adopted by the Council to control its meetings and deliberations?
• Is it your plan to carefully weigh all decisions, make them independently and explain your reasons for support or non-support of any measure? Are you accustomed to operating under pressure and in a fishbowl?
• What are the criteria which you would personally use to consistently arrive at fair, legal and fiscally sustainable decisions for the benefit of the entire community? Would you consistently respect all citizens and viewpoints?
• Are you comfortable with approving controversial legislation with a 4-3 margin? Would you expect this to occur often? What areas would deserve more consensus building? How does an elected Council Member's duties compare to those of a juror?
• Do you have any affiliations with organizations, investments or persons which might become, or be considered, as conflicts of interest?
• Do you have any existing relationships with Council members that either you - or the public - might find problematic if you are selected? Could appearance of fairness become an issue, if you are seen as being unduly influenced by another member?
• What are your personal goals and aspirations for attaining this office? Only until elections produce an elected member?
Run for office until the next election. Longer-term after that?
Would you run only if appointed?
Would you run if not appointed?
• Do you know what remuneration and benefits are due to each Council member?
• Please briefly summarize your personal code of ethics and conduct.
• Any personal references that you wish to cite?
• What relevant experience do you have regarding budgeting in general?
Are you familiar with Government budgeting and financial processes?
Are there differences that you can explain?
* In your opinion, what is the single most important issue facing the City?
In your estimation. is this being adequately addressed?
* What do you want to see the City accomplish that isn't now being adequately addressed or is not currently considered a high priority?
DECISION MAKING
There is no set protocol or rulebook with rigid criteria to guide Members in making Council decisions, nor can there be one that would cover all situations possible, or necessarily bind future Councils. Even if such criteria existed, they would be difficult to impossible to enforce. In the interest of making consistently wise decisions, here are some of the general principles I have decided to follow, regardless of the issue:
o whether decisions are legal
o whether they are fair and consistent with established City policy and past precedents
o whether they reasonably comport with the information gathering and/or decision process that developed them
o whether the decision is really my [Council's] responsibility
o whether arguments to overturn or change are factual or political
o whether new precedents will be set that will be difficult to sustain
o whether our professional staff supports specific options, and why
o whether the greatest possible community wide benefit is assured
o whether I have done sufficient homework to understand the rationale and reasonable options
o whether my decision honors the recommendations of the volunteer boards and commissions responsible for reviews and recommendations
o whether any adverse unintended consequences may result
o whether decisions are made in sunshine, with reasonable public involvement
o whether public funds are wisely used and benefits outweigh the costs
o whether conflict of interest or appearance of fairness violations may result, or perceptions of same
Note that none of these 'filters' allows much room for subjective whim or opinion, autocratic authority, or populism.
None of those are things are sustainable, because voters and taxpayers rightfully expect consistently better justifications.
=========================================
Maybe its time to re-publish a blog first posted on July 29, 2007, at the following URL:
http://bellinghamstertalk.blogspot.com/2007/07/candidate-questionnaire-decision-making.html
Folks may think this is worth reading, and maybe even adding other thoughts.
[For convenience, I also posted this again, at the end]
This was an attempt at trying to determine candidates' understanding of the office they are seeking, their motivation, their commitment, and their expectations.
All these things are good to know, but better BEFORE a candidate is elected, don't you think?
Now, with the filing deadline set for June 5, its not too soon to start asking these questions as well as others that are more specific to current -and ongoing- issues.
After all, if we don't ask, what are our chances of determining the answers?
And, these local offices ARE important!
Just think of these few things -and there are several others- and see what you would prefer:
• Budget crisis for both City and County. Who do you want in charge of minding and managing public funds?
Which services do you think should be cut to help balance the budget -which must be done, by law, every year?
How do you think additional funds should be raised, if any?
• Waterfront Redevelopment is a long-range, big ticket item that has generated lots of attention during the last few years.
Do you think this is a worthwhile effort, or should it be scrapped?
If the project is halted or substantially slowed down, what should -responsibly- be done with the property?
Could the Port of Bellingham do a better job in generating local jobs and representing the public interest?
• Growth Management is one of those ongoing issues that can generate heat, whether in Urban Growth Areas, existing Neighborhoods, redevelopment areas or in considering higher building height limits.
What role should our neighborhoods play and how should they be represented?
Who do you trust to decide City policy on this matter?
• Lake Whatcom Reservoir protection is another important, long-term issue that requires forward-looking policy and dedication.
Do you agree that our drinking water source needs special attention, or should this be somebody else's problem?
Who would better represent your view on this issue?
• 'Public Process' is always an issue that rightfully gets attention, especially when controversial matters are considered.
Whom do you trust to keep both the spirit and the letter of our 'sunshine laws' alive and healthy?
On which issues is this especially important to you?
• Our City Charter has been revised somewhat in recent years to improve both its clarity and fairness.
Do you think additional changes should be considered and offered to a public vote?
What about things like term limits to insure periodic turnover?
• What role do you see for yourself in our local governance?
Do you vote, pay taxes, speak up from time to time?
Would you consider volunteering for a citizen committee?
Running for office yourself?
Actively supporting another's candidacy?
------------------
This is OUR government, not just us and them!
And, it does take some work to make it work better.
We have no right to expect more of others than we are willing to do ourselves!
Just a few thoughts......
=========================================
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Candidate Questionnaire & Decision Making
Appointments are unusual, but desirable. I know because over 8 eight years ago I was initially appointed to the City Council. Unusual because those appointed are chosen quickly by their peers, mostly based upon their written qualifications, their reputation and service in the Community. Desirable because appointments happen without the up-front burden of a political campaign, which means easier campaigning for re-election, because incumbents usually do enjoy a powerful advantage.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could more easily compare a candidate’s basic qualifications with other candidates before every political campaign or appointment? That is the purpose of the Candidate Questionnaire outlined below.
While specific 'Issues' may come and go, there are some underlying ‘Basics’ that every elected official has, should have, or needs to learn, which support each decision made by our local government. Knowing as much as possible about each candidate's 'Basics', before they are elected or appointed, seems a very useful exercise that might benefit voters. Perhaps some version of these ideas could be adopted for use in both future appointments and election forums.
At the end, I've also added some guidelines I try to use in making Council decisions. Every elected official will find that reason, fairness and consistency is expected of them, regardless of political or idealogical stripe. Often, the temptation will be strong to do what seems popular and pander to to the issue or audience 'du jour'. But, in the end, that strategy is a poor one, because of the high potential for consequences -either intended or not- that cannot be sustained.
Public officials are elected to serve primarily for the benefit of the community as a whole, and it is those benefits that last and define Bellingham.
============================================================
General questions to help evaluate candidates for elected or appointed office.
• Have you read and understand the implications of the oath of office each Council member must take? Do you understand each Council member is also considered an officer of the Bellingham Municipal Corporation?
• Are you familiar with the Public Disclosure Commission [PDC] and its requirements of all candidates and elected officials?
• What is your understanding of the term 'non-partisan'? Are you aware that the City Charter specifies that all Council members be non-partisan?
• Are you aware that Council members are expected to devote an average of 20 hours per week on signed time-sheets in connection with their duties of office? Are you committed to devoting at least this amount of time if you are selected to serve?
• Are you aware of the Council Committees and other assignments that this office brings with it, in addition to special work sessions, presentations and the like? Can you fulfill these requirements?
• What preparation for this office have you done, or are you prepared to do, in order to 'get up to speed' on both Council procedures and current issues? Any relevant experience in public office? Any voluntary local civic involvement?
• Have you read, reviewed or otherwise become aware of the function of the following documents: Comprehensive Plan; Consolidated Plan; 23 Neighborhood Plans; Budget; Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [CAFR]; Council Goals & Objectives; City Charter; Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan; Waterfront Redevelopment - Vision & Framework Plan, and Strategic Guidelines & Design Concepts?
• Are you willing to commit to intensive training to learn the basics of serving in public office? ['Welcome to City Hall' Maual; Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Annual & Legislative conferences; meet key City staff; understand legal constraints]
• Have you actively participated in or supported any major issues or campaigns of Community-wide significance? What is your history of activity with Neighborhood Associations? Any written opinions on local issues?
• What is your understanding of the Open Public Meetings Act, and what was intended by this State 'Sunshine' Law? How would this influence your personal decision-making?
• Are you familiar with the purpose and proper use of Executive Sessions and the reasons for strict confidentiality of the information discussed in them?
• Are you familiar with the Parliamentary Rules and procedures adopted by the Council to control its meetings and deliberations?
• Is it your plan to carefully weigh all decisions, make them independently and explain your reasons for support or non-support of any measure? Are you accustomed to operating under pressure and in a fishbowl?
• What are the criteria which you would personally use to consistently arrive at fair, legal and fiscally sustainable decisions for the benefit of the entire community? Would you consistently respect all citizens and viewpoints?
• Are you comfortable with approving controversial legislation with a 4-3 margin? Would you expect this to occur often? What areas would deserve more consensus building? How does an elected Council Member's duties compare to those of a juror?
• Do you have any affiliations with organizations, investments or persons which might become, or be considered, as conflicts of interest?
• Do you have any existing relationships with Council members that either you - or the public - might find problematic if you are selected? Could appearance of fairness become an issue, if you are seen as being unduly influenced by another member?
• What are your personal goals and aspirations for attaining this office? Only until elections produce an elected member?
Run for office until the next election. Longer-term after that?
Would you run only if appointed?
Would you run if not appointed?
• Do you know what remuneration and benefits are due to each Council member?
• Please briefly summarize your personal code of ethics and conduct.
• Any personal references that you wish to cite?
• What relevant experience do you have regarding budgeting in general?
Are you familiar with Government budgeting and financial processes?
Are there differences that you can explain?
* In your opinion, what is the single most important issue facing the City?
In your estimation. is this being adequately addressed?
* What do you want to see the City accomplish that isn't now being adequately addressed or is not currently considered a high priority?
DECISION MAKING
There is no set protocol or rulebook with rigid criteria to guide Members in making Council decisions, nor can there be one that would cover all situations possible, or necessarily bind future Councils. Even if such criteria existed, they would be difficult to impossible to enforce. In the interest of making consistently wise decisions, here are some of the general principles I have decided to follow, regardless of the issue:
o whether decisions are legal
o whether they are fair and consistent with established City policy and past precedents
o whether they reasonably comport with the information gathering and/or decision process that developed them
o whether the decision is really my [Council's] responsibility
o whether arguments to overturn or change are factual or political
o whether new precedents will be set that will be difficult to sustain
o whether our professional staff supports specific options, and why
o whether the greatest possible community wide benefit is assured
o whether I have done sufficient homework to understand the rationale and reasonable options
o whether my decision honors the recommendations of the volunteer boards and commissions responsible for reviews and recommendations
o whether any adverse unintended consequences may result
o whether decisions are made in sunshine, with reasonable public involvement
o whether public funds are wisely used and benefits outweigh the costs
o whether conflict of interest or appearance of fairness violations may result, or perceptions of same
Note that none of these 'filters' allows much room for subjective whim or opinion, autocratic authority, or populism.
None of those are things are sustainable, because voters and taxpayers rightfully expect consistently better justifications.
=========================================
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
