The Sun Is Shining: That's Money In The Bank & Pollution Avoided

Read an article yesterday that gave me extra encouragement to keep on counting on the sun.

Mr Paul Krugman, Economist & Columnist, has noticed a few telling arguments about the rising costs of energy from fossil fuels and the quickening downward trend of costs from renewable sources, like the sun we see every day - although sometimes through faith in what happens above the clouds.

I didn't need extra encouragement for myself as much as I did for the advancement of smart thinking in general. Whether one likes Mr Krugman's politics isn't important if you just pay attention to what he says.

In this case, he is citing information posted on a Seattle blog, written by a very intelligent student of advanced technology and what that can mean for us in the future, actually in the fairly near future.

I visited the blog mentioned in Krugman's article and was delighted with being reintroduced to Moore's Law, a tenet of science that seems to be currently manifesting in ways we can all understand and be happy about.

Clicking on the Solar Energy icon produced this list of blogs written on that subject, itself interesting.

Sometimes things do dovetail with actions one is considering, or in my case, doing.

Recently, I decided to triple the size of my solar panel array on my garage roof, since I was very pleased with the performance of the original PV system which was installed nearly 6 years ago.

The economics of the earlier system were gratifying, since the unit has increased its realtime value to me every time a power rate increase occurs. Now, the payout time has already decreased to about sixty five percent of what I initially expected.

So, with the Community Energy Challenge incentives available this year, plus improved technology & efficiency, the additional installation cost me less than the original -even at twice the capacity.

Now, that's arithmetic anyone can understand; essentially two for the price of one!

The new total PV capacity is expected to provide almost 70% of my typical electrical power needs each year. I like that, and so does Puget Power Energy, because they avoid the costs of installing more power production capacity.

The other things I like about this arrangement is that I own the Photovoltaic [PV] panels, inverters & mountings myself, and these things are mostly portable. But, left in place, the PV solar array adds to the value of my house, should I decide to sell it.

When you consider the simplicity of the PV system, the idea becomes even more appealing.

And, to think that only about 0.2% of the power needed nationally is currently produced by solar, means that a terrific upside potential is out there for anyone interested!

I hope a few folks will read this blog, check out the links given and make similar decisions themselves.

You know, PV technology was invented here, in the US, but most of the production is happening overseas in places like China -which wants to buy our coal.

Go figure!

I consider this an indirect investment in high tech with a huge upside potential, plus the ability to lock in earnings from the time of installation.

Instead of investing in a single corporation or stock, I'm investing in its broader, actual potential.

Greenways: Important Questions for our Elected Officials

------------------
Since yesterday's post, I've discovered several questions which deserve honest and complete answers - without delay!

If these have not been part of the public record, perhaps they will become so now:
---------------------------
I have some questions for you about Council's recent action to purchase Fairhaven Highlands:

1. Since the endowment fund is held in a nonexpendable trust, on what basis did Council determine that the City is permitted to borrow from the endowment fund?

2. What are the terms of the endowment fund loan?

3. When are principal payments due?

4. To have a bona fide loan, there must be a source and intention of repayment. The press release says no general fund money will be used in the deal, so what is the source of loan repayment?

5. When are interest payments due?

6. What is the interest rate?

7. From what source will interest payments be made?

8. Which neighborhoods have the new development that generated the $500,000 in park impact fees Council approved using for the purchase?

9. What is the date of the appraisal being relied on?

10. What effect did foreclosure of the property resulting in bank ownership have on Council's valuation of the property?

11. Prior to 2011, the Greenway Advisory Committee and the Parks Board recommended to City Council $4,145,000 for acquisition of a portion of Fairhaven Highlands. When did GAC and PRAB review and make recommendations to City Council on this current deal?
-------------------------

Since answers to these -and perhaps other questions citizens may have- may be critical to any final deal to be approved behind closed doors, I believe time is of the essence in receiving an official response.

I request that Mayor Dan Pike, Council Members Gene Knutson, Terry Bornemann, Barry Buchanan, Seth Fleetwood, Michael Lilliquist, Stan Snapp and Jack Weiss each individually and publicly acknowledge receipt of this urgent request.

To ensure timely receipt, I am e-mailing each of these individuals a copy of this entire communication, as well as the official offices of both Mayor and City Council.

The trusting public awaits your response!
-------------------------

Greenways: Largesse From The Public Treasury?

-----------------------
"....a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury." - Attributed to Ronald Reagan, via Professor Alexander Fraser Titler and others
-----------------------
Wikiquotes provides interesting fodder for this blog, citing several quotes on this subject, either sourced, unsourced or misattributed.
You decide which fit better, or maybe just provide your own.
======================================

Over at Northwest Citizen, John Servais' article posted Sep 1 gushes 'A People’s Victory - and a Rare One'.
I beg to differ - maybe, mainly because of the inherent ambiguity.
What does he mean by 'a people's victory'?
Which people?
Certainly, not all the people; particularly the ones who will be stuck with the burden of paying for the $3 Million or so the Council & Mayor agreed to - over the amount they had to spend!

And what does he mean by 'and a rare one'?
Seems to me this type of victory isn't very rare for Bellingham; just look at the many parks, trails, developed playgrounds, open space and the like the citizens of Bellingham have enjoyed over the years as a result of Greenways funding.
Remember, this funding is dedicated to acquiring, developing, maintaining the properties and amenities we've come to expect here; and the kind that attracts others here, regardless of whether their money paid for any of it or not.
So, I don't think its very 'rare' to have a new property added to the City's already excellent collection.

No, I suspect Mr Servais' words are meant to ID a specific type of deal; one that didn't come easily or naturally into being.
One that had a large measure of controversy attached, some legitimate, some manufactured.
That's the kind of 'victory' he seems to prefer and to advocate/agitate for.
So, with these clarifications and within rather narrow parameters, I suppose he is correct.
But, please do not construe Mr Servais view as reflective of our entire community.

It gives me no pleasure in submitting what is to follow, but in the interest of understanding what has transpired in connection with the recent commitment to acquire the Chuckanut Ridge property, the public might like to know about a few little flaws in this particular ointment.
Unfortunately, without calling these out, our electeds might be tempted to remain silent about them, or, worse, attempt to spin them out of credibility.
Don't want that to happen, do we?

These flaws are correctable, but citizens may need to help the Mayor & Council actually MAKE those corrections, otherwise we all will have no choice but to live with them - or just kick them down the road.
That is the entire purpose of this writing.
-----------------------------------

At the time of our last local elections -4 years ago- one new candidate for City Council lamented the impending fiscal crisis this way; 'it won't be much fun serving in office with no money to spend'.
How correct he was!
It certainly was not fun making the painful cuts and layoffs necessary to balance a severely reduced City budget, which 4 years later still remains problematic.

Similar feelings were undoubtedly expressed by the other electeds, including our erstwhile current mayor. who have now burst out of their financial straitjackets with a breathless rush to expend as much Greenways funds as they thought might be possible it acquiring ALL of the highly controversial 'Chuckanut Ridge' property at the very moment it became available and unencumbered.

That must have felt great to these electeds, who have labored so long under fiscal deprivations due to drastically reduced revenues imposed by the reality of our protracted recession, plus a few excesses of the past!
And, how wonderful to have a large war-chest of publicly voted funds just waiting to be spent!
Never mind that the Greenways 3 monies voted in 2006, from which most of the funding must come, almost never made it to the ballot because of the unreasonable demands made by strident advocates of buying this exact property.

A related irony is that the emotional campaign to prevent any development on this property, dove-tailed with a terrible economy to bankrupt both the developer and his bank, in turn causing the property to be valued at one-third its former 'price'.
This, in turn, allowed our current 'Town Fathers' to feel better about venting their pent-up urge to splurge.
Hey, its only natural to try to make people happy, isn't it?

And, the proper, dedicated funding was there, wasn't it?
Wasn't it?

Sadly, the answer is 'most of it was'. The rest -a measly $3 Million or so, plus any accrued interest on inter fund loans (maybe another $500k?)- must be borrowed, begged, or stolen from ...where?
Future Greenways levies?
I don't think so!

This Mayor and Council have not been good stewards of our treasured Greenways Funds on this hasty deal, which were clearly insufficient to responsibly make this $8.23 Million(+) purchase.
They winged it in their fever to please/appease, and in so doing, knowingly committed additional scarce City resources to cover their tracks.
Most troubling, they seem to expect a future [Greenways 4?] levy to rescue their bacon by including these current excesses in it!
How arrogant, ignorant and irresponsible is that?

You know, 'kicking the can down the road' is a tried and true tactic, but only when we let our electeds get away with it!
But, that was not the way Greenways was established, and it is not a good way to enhance its popularity or ensure its continuance.

Many people are no doubt very pleased -even ecstatic- with the Chuckanut Ridge purchase, as evidenced by the large, hastily planned celebration held only days after the announcement -and days before the actual consummation of the deal.
But, likely as many, or maybe more are not happy with the way this has gone down, either.
It's not that some reasonable purchase was made, which was widely expected; but the clear over-reaching, grandstanding and stupid finessing of details likely to reveal flaws that could have been easily corrected.

Think the timing was politically motivated? I do!
Pandering always seems to deliver some votes, but in this case it may subtract some too.
I'm not as much worried about the votes cast this year as I am for the votes cast 4 years from now -on a future Greenways levy.
That's because the best of programs and traditions can be seriously undermined if they are not administered properly.

Mark my words, this hasty and ill-advised Chuckanut Ridge purchase has exactly the type of baggage and potential fall-out to adversely impact future Greenways undertakings.
The 2006 arguments over this same property almost prevented Greenways 3 from even getting on the ballot, for God's sake!
Fortunately, the compromises made then were enough to produce a ballot measure the voters willingly supported.
This unwise action has the potential to reopen those old wounds, but maybe the public won't even notice?
But I noticed, and so have others who have been strong supporters of Greenways for more years than I have!

There are some things the City can do -even now- to rectify the situation and restore essential confidence in the process of fairly evaluating Greenways opportunities, selecting properties for acquisition and allocating funds more responsibly.

Specifically for the Chuckanut Ridge acquisition:

• Require the Responsible Development [RD} organization to honor its promise of raising at least $1 Million privately, to be dedicated to this purchase.
Please recall these extensive discussions, including the failed attempt at establishing a special Parks District to obtain funding.
I and others believed this to be a good faith effort which now needs to be honored.

• Sell sufficient Chuckanut Ridge property to pay the roughly $3 Million in purchase costs not covered by Greenways and related funds.
Some estimate the southern one-third of this property is well-suited for limited development, similar to that existing in the immediate surroundings.
Perhaps, 15 to 20 large homes could be sited there without unreasonably disturbing the heavily treed areas and/or wetlands.

In general:

• Avoid allowing protracted public discussion and debates about ANY specific properties to precede Greenways deliberations.
There was so much smoke & mirrors at work regarding Chuckanut Ridge that reasonable solutions were made so difficult they were essentially obliterated. In this recent case, Mayor Pike could not resist that temptation - an obvious flaw in judgement.

• Ensure illegal shenanigans, especially among electeds are discouraged, and if they occur, are subject to public scrutiny and discipline as appropriate.
The 'promise' of 4 votes by current Council members Knutson, Bornemann and former members Ryan & Beardsley in 2006 ought to have been severely sanctioned then, and should never be allowed to happen again! Good luck with enforcing that.

• Remember the purpose of Greenways is to fairly benefit ALL citizens of he City and not just those that are more vocal, have more resources or are more politically connected.
In 2006, it was thought this policy was clearly and carefully communicated to voters. Turns out, the voters weren't the problem.

• Make sure the administration of Greenways and related funds are always above reproach and do not externalize costs elsewhere.
Remember these do represent 'largesse from the public treasury'!
----------------

In the interest of accuracy, here is what the City posted on its website;

Anonymity & The Online Disinhibition Effect

----------------
The practice and proliferation of so many 'anonymous' comments and postings on the Internet has become so annoying that it's now a pet peeve of mine.
And, I suspect that a growing number of others have come to feel similarly.

This article pretty much sums up my views on anonymity on the Internet.

One reference within the above article directs to this site which is also helpful in understanding what's going on with all the anonymity being practiced, particularly on the Internet.

Respecting privacy is certainly desirable, but I wonder if that is really what is going on in many instances. There are definitely situations where anonymity has been useful, like in exposing wrongdoing in government, institutions or elsewhere. Watergate comes to mind as a clear example.
But many other instances -maybe most- involve pettiness, meanness or just deliberate mischief making. None of those need to be forced upon us, at least not on the Internet commons.

Different media outlets have differing policies on anonymity, with some prohibiting it and others severely restricting it because it gets in the way of a civilized exchange of ideas or opinions.
Others seem to be blissfully unaware of any problem, or glad to encourage such conduct in the interest of attracting invisible verbal fistfights.
And, of course one is never required to read or believe anything anonymous anyway. Its a matter of choice But people are tempted to use it as nasty gossip which can do serious damage to others, often unfairly or even maliciously.

Point is, the Internet is an open forum that is available to practically anyone these days. That much is good. But, it's also potentially bad, too.
Without unduly restricting Internet use, ISPs and various websites and chat rooms could fairly easily institute simple restrictions by requiring limits on anonymity. Of course, everyone won't like that, but I think most people will support the idea in the interest of common good.
Then too, all those 'anonymouses' out there are creative enough they can always find alternate ways of expressing themselves.

Honestly, the idea of so many calling themselves 'anonymous' is ridiculous, don't you think?
By now it must have become the most common name in history! I wonder how long it will take to have someone actually given that name.

Close cousins of 'anonymous' are the legions of clever pseudonyms that talk to each other -and themselves- regularly.
You've probably noticed that a few of these characters like to dominate comment columns with multiple postings within a short time.
It's like their need to vent or be heard on a subject overwhelms their better judgement. You think such folks probably just need to 'get a life'? But, what if that IS their life? Get a better one!

Some time ago, I chanced upon a clever website written by Mike Reed that describes a whole range of Internet persona he calls 'Flame Warriors'.
Check that out here for laughs.
----------------

Fairhaven Highlands: DEIS Summary Findings

-----------------
My previous blog on Sep 28 gave a web link to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement [DEIS] released that same day.
Since that time I have reviewed some of that extensive information, received a summary statement [Findings] from comments were that were used on KGMI Radio, and arrived at a few preliminary conclusions of my own about which of these alternatives alternatives seem preferable.
-----------------
First, the Findings:

The major differences among the seven alternatives are the internal road layout and vehicular access to the site, amount of development coverage, and the areas of disruption between forested wetlands.

Significant impacts could occur from conversion of this forested property but there are significant policy trade offs in environmental impacts. For example, the reduction of one type of impact could increase an impact of another type. Examples:

• Not developing the site could result in growth occurring outside city limits, resulting in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions from people driving into the city, the employment center of the County.

• The original alternative (1A) has the most impacts to the environment (wetland and buffer impacts, forest fragmentation, greenhouse gas emissions, etc.). The applicant subsequently proposed an alternative with fewer impacts (2A).

• Building the required “24th Street Connector” would alleviate congestion from increased traffic and provide more circulation in the area but could affect the quiet neighborhood character.

• Similarly, while providing two entrances (as opposed to one across from Viewcrest) and more roadways within the development provide a traffic benefit, they result in more impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers and result in fragmentation of the forest.

• Other than the original alternative, all of the alternatives provide some protection for wetland and wetland buffers, but some species will be lost due to the fragmentation of the contiguous forest. The “split site alternative” (3D) provides the most connectivity, though it’s impacted by the 24th Street Connector.

Mature forested Category I wetlands were identified during the development of the DIES. As a result, wetland buffers 150 feet wide have been suggested as a mitigation measure to protect wetland functions that support a mature ecology and substantial wildlife habitat. Other mitigation measures are proposed for a variety of impacts.

A traffic analysis was conducted for the affected street system, traffic volumes, traffic safety, transit, and non-motorized facilities associated with the site including 30th Street, Chuckanut Drive, Old Fairhaven Parkway, Viewcrest, Old Samish Highway, and 24th Street.

The traffic volume (at full build out) would generate trips ranging from 4,390/day to at most 5,000/day (1A).
----------------------------------

The first 'alternative' given is a no-action alternative, where nothing would be built on this site.
That seems counterproductive since the site is already zoned for residential development and has had an active proposal under consideration since 2005, later modified in 2007.

The main impacts of a 'no action' would be the loss of potential housing within existing city limits, forcing sprawl elsewhere.
To quantify this, the 739 dwelling units proposed in phases are expected to accommodate about 1550 people, or approximately 5% of the population attributed to potential growth between now and 2022.

Related losses would be those accruing to the developer and his partners, the time and effort devoted by tax-paid City government, plus the the very substantial loss of future revenues from taxes, rates, fees, as well as developer-paid public infrastructure, including community enhancing road/trail connectivity.

Then, would come the question of what to do with this property?

Some would have it simply become more city parkland, which is substantially out of the question because of both cost and the lack of available funding.

And, the owner(s) do expect a reasonable return on their valuable investment. If the development plan under consideration does not not produce adequate results, the owners will find recourse, either through sale to others, legal action or otherwise.

No one knows what will eventually occur with the Fairhaven Highlands proposal, but something certainly will, and someone will most likely oppose it.

Years ago, Theodore Roosevelt used the phrase 'the greatest good for the greatest number' in setting goals for our country. That was [and is] a very good policy!
But some, over history have not agreed with how this is determined.

John Muir, for example, fiercely fought the damming of the Tuolumne River at Hetch Hetchy in Yosemite, thinking that pristine river ought to have been preserved in a wild, untouched state forever.
But, another idea prevailed -using the very same policy- that a permanent drinking water supply for San Francisco was equally or even more important.
In the greater scheme of things, both were important goals, but who will doubt having a protected, pure source of drinking isn't the more valuable today?

========================
Alternates 1A and 1B were in the initial 2005 proposal, but at that time, the City added Alternative 1C.
I'm glad they did that because a development this large will cause more congestion to areas already prone to congestion, some even approaching LOS F at times.
And, transportation concurrency with land development is something to take seriously, especially when substantial mitigation is possible.
But, in order to pay for these type of effective transportation mitigation, the developer must find a way in his pro-forma to recover the costs.

2.5.4 Alternative 1C – 2005 Application with Access to 24th Street
Alternative 1C would be developed as described for Alternative 1A, except that the eastern emergency access road connecting to 22nd Street would instead be a fully developed two-lane street connecting the project site to 24th Street. This would involve removing two and a half additional acres of vegetation and adding one and a third more acres of impervious surface than Alternative 1A. Approximately 1,000 square feet of wetland and 72,000 square feet of regulated wetland buffer would be impacted by the 24th Street Connector. Twenty-five acres of 1 Regulated wetlands are those considered to be regulated by the Bellingham Municipal Code Chapter 16.50. See Section 3.4.3 Plants and Animals for more information.
September 2009 Alternatives 2-23
Fairhaven Highlands Draft EISFairhaven Highlands Draft EIS landscaping would be installed, one acre less than Alternative 1A. Alternative 1C would involve the most vegetation removal, wetland and wetland buffer fill, and impervious surface coverage of all development alternatives.
-------------
Later, in 2007, the developer proposed modifications which, among other things, did effectively decrease the impacts of this proposed development.

2.5.5 Alternative 2A – Enhanced Buffer Plan
Under Alternative 2A, the property would be developed based on the proponent’s reports submitted to the City of Bellingham in 2007. The reports describe construction of 17 single- family units and 722 multi-family units. The multi-family units would be a mixture of townhouses and up to 5-story apartment buildings. The project would also include a 4,000- square-foot community building.
Approximately 41 acres of vegetation on-site (50 percent of the property) and half an acre off- site would be removed to accommodate the project, the least amount of vegetation removal from the project area among the development alternatives. Approximately 20 acres on-site (25 percent of the property) and one-third of an acre off-site would be covered by impervious surface including roadways, rooftops, and driveways. Alternative 2A would have the lowest impervious surface coverage of the development alternatives. Twenty-one acres of landscaping would be installed. It is estimated that about 200,000-210,000 cubic yards of soil would be excavated and around 60,000-70,000 cubic yards of soil would be used for fill, with a net off-site export of 140,000 cubic yards.
Alternative 2A includes buffers around most wetland areas that are larger than what is proposed for Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C. Approximately 24,000 square feet of wetlands and 65,000 square feet of wetland buffers would be filled, the least amount of fill among the development alternatives.
Vehicular access to the site would be provided on the east side of the existing Chuckanut Drive/Viewcrest Road intersection. Two emergency-only access roadways would be provided to the site (one via Chuckanut Drive, near 16th Street, and one internal road connecting the southeast portion of the site with the northeast portion of the site.
-------------
In the event Alternative 2A was unacceptable, the developer preferred either Alternative 2F or Alternative 4F, as briefly described below.

My own preference is along the lines of Alternative 3D, also shown below.

2.5.6 Alternative 2F – Enhanced Buffer Plan with Additional Road
Under Alternative 2F, the property would be developed as described for Alternative 2A, except that the 16th Street and Wetland JJ connectors would be fully accessible roads, rather than emergency access only. This would result in approximately half an acre more impervious surface than Alternative 2A. Compared to Alternative 2A, the construction of the connectors would result in minimal increases in vegetation removal and wetland and wetland buffer fill.

2.5.7 Alternative 3D – Split Site Alternative
Alternative 3D includes construction of 17 single-family units and 722 multi-family units. The multi-family units would be a mixture of townhouses and apartment buildings up to five stories tall. A 4,000-square-foot community building would also be built.
Approximately 40 acres of on-site vegetation (49 percent of the property) and 3 acres of off-site vegetation would be removed to accommodate the project, the least amount of on-site vegetation
2-24 Alternatives September 2009 removal among the development alternatives. Approximately 22 acres on-site (26 percent of the property) and one and a half acres off-site would be covered by impervious surface including roadways, rooftops, and driveways. Nineteen acres of landscaping would be installed. The amount of soil excavated and used for fill would be similar to Alternative 2A.
The site plan includes buffers around most wetland areas that are larger than what is proposed for Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C. Approximately 26,000 square feet of wetlands and 115,000 square feet of wetland buffers would be impacted.
The design of the internal roadway network is similar to Alternative 2F, except that there would not be a road between Wetlands CC1 and KK. Another major difference is that vehicular access would be provided to 24th Street. The remaining features of the roadway network would be the same including vehicular access on the east side of the existing Chuckanut Drive/Viewcrest Road intersection, and a second access farther north on Chuckanut Drive near 16th Street.

2.5.8 Alternative 4F – Enhanced Buffer Plan with Single-family Development in Southern Portion
Alternative 4F is similar to Alternative 2F except that the southern portion of the site would be entirely made up of single-family units, with a larger number of multi-family units clustered in the northern portion. A total of 51 single-family units and 688 multi-family units would be constructed.
The roadway network would be identical to Alternative 2F. The project would have a similar amount of impervious surface coverage as Alternative 2A and 2F. The amount of soil excavated and used for fill would also be similar to Alternative 2A.
Approximately 51 acres of vegetation on-site (62 percent of the property) and a little more than half an acre off-site would be removed. Approximately 26,000 square feet of wetland and 108,000 square feet of wetland buffer would be impacted.
-------------------

Readers should note that the several Alternatives listed in the DEIS were culled from a total of about 30, on the theory that the several selected for inclusion substantially represented most of the reasonable configurations possible.
Also note that NO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE has yet been determined. That will happen only after the Public Hearings and other due public process has been completed.
It is possible that some mixing and matching of various concepts and components will occur as a result of the public process to come.
These things will become a part of a Final EIS, which would be basis for any official approval action(s).

I hope this synopsis is helpful to those who find it daunting to wade through hundreds of pages of documentation.
While most of us will not have a direct vote in whatever the final outcome may be, we all do have a role to play in fully informing ourselves about what alternatives are being considered and what their relative pros and cons may be.
=======================

Entertainment: Pulp Fiction & Port Sport

-----------------------
I greatly enjoy a good suspense novel or movie.
Really good tales inspire both widespread attention and revenues.
Three that come to mind are Tom Clancy's The Search For Red October; John Grisham's The Pelican Brief; and Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code.

None of these are true stories, but pretend to be so well that folks buy into the fabric of myths that is so cleverly woven together.
There is just enough that is true, or at least plausible or tantalizingly so, to engender belief in the story told.
That relative rarity of a successful storytelling inspires copy-catting on a massive scale.

Of course, trying to reduce a unique success into a formula that can be replicated is tricky business.
While repetition of statements and concepts is critical to driving home a point, there comes a time when this effect is lost.
Also, credibility can peak and then fall off dramatically once people cease settling for merely being entertained and seek other perspectives.
When that happens, most of the audience moves on to its next entertainment event.

So-called 'infotainment' seems to be what sells easiest these days.
That's because it can be dispensed by quick sound bytes that demand little time, attention and critical thinking from the audience - us, the 'buyers'.

It seems so much easier to tear down than to build something, particularly something big, complex and controversial.
And, it doesn't take expensive tools and explosives to accomplish such destruction.
It just takes a series of lies, entertaining myths and half-truths, often repeated.
Just look at the current healthcare reform 'debate' for example.

Or, maybe even our own ambitious Waterfront Redevelopment?
--------

The current issue of the Cascadia Weekly offered this Gristle, which was quickly supported by a blog on NWCitizen.
Both of these publications have been vocal critics of the Waterfront Redevelopment for years, which is certainly their prerogative.
For that matter, I have been critical of certain WR twists and turns myself, although I continue to support the basic idea as necessary to our long-term prosperity.

But, there is always room for improvement in any undertaking, especially those that rely on public support and funding.
And that brings us to what the Weekly, NWCitizen -and I- all share; we need this year's election to produce meaningful change in the leadership at the Port of Bellingham.
The best result we can expect is to replace the two long-time incumbents, Scott Walker and Doug Smith.
While that result would be desirable in itself, it would mainly serve to reconnect the Port of Bellingham to the broader goals and objectives that citizens of both City and County want and expect.

Gone are the days when any special district or agency can simply go its separate way without due consideration of the big picture, that includes the overall welfare of our area and region.
Social, fiscal and ecological realities are inextricably intertwined and must be addressed simultaneously as best we can.

While my view is that the social and ecological aspects to the proposed Waterfront Redevelopment are basically OK, the fiscal part -the financing and management- still leave much to be desired.
At least two important concepts have been totally rejected by the Port; permanent public ownership of its waterfront, and the establishment of an independent Public Development Authority to provide oversight the project.

Why the Port has so strenuously rejected these concepts is a mystery, but may be due to its desire to maintain sole control over its admittedly large commitment.
Maintaining public ownership would mean the Port could not recoup its investment as quickly as waiting for leases to be secured and paid over time.
But, it is ironic that public ownership MUST be retained long enough for the clean-up to be completed!
That's because no sensible private entity wants that liability, nor can it likely even get access to the State & Federal funds necessary to pay for it.

And, don't forget, the Waterfront Redevelopment is not just about the Port either.
The City of Bellingham has former landfills, at or near the water's edge, which also must be remediated concurrent with the former G-P site and other industrial sites.
That this clean-up is both necessary and desirable should not be a matter of debate!
And, the clean-up Plan that has been approved is adequate for the purpose.
It is as senseless to advocate for returning the waterfront to an unrealistic pristine state, as it is to claim that the type and variety of remediation methods proposed are not effective.

You know, at some point there is a limit to what can be done with the resources available.
I would rather do what is feasible than simply delay further progress 'to starve out the Port'.
That is an unacceptably poor result, which carries its own dire consequences.

When you get down to it, this 'debate' is really about who gets to own this potentially very valuable waterfront property.
Of course, the thing that would make it even more valuable is the clean-up, which must be done with public funds.
Once that gets done, I'm sure the Port would enjoy a nice bidding competition among private developers, both to pay off its clean-up and redevelopment promotion efforts, and maximize it's future returns.

But, don't forget, it's not the Port's money! It's ours.
Whoever we elect as Port Commissioners will have the responsibility of managing the Port's funds in the best interests of the public it serves.
Please keep that in mind, regardless of what redevelopment scenario you may favor.
-----------

Some folks have had a great time criticizing the Port and the City, advocating outlandish ideas and concocting all manner of misinformation about what is being proposed and attempted on our waterfront.
Fair enough, have your fun.
Pretty cheap entertainment that fits our current economy.

At some point, the fun ends and the real work begins, as it already has - since 2004 and before.
And, maybe some folks will eventually tire of the same litany of beefs, phony or otherwise, and move on to their next entertainment.
All through this, the real hard work of preparation will continue - as it must, albeit at a somewhat slower rate.
Boring, I know, but necessary.
But, when it nears completion, watch out!
New fun will begin as the competition for ownership, use and public subsidies heats up.

Until that new fun begins, we still have a big, important job to do, and it must be done competently, and in sunlight.
Let's elect new Port Commissioners and get on with it!
---------------------------

HamsterTalk's 2nd Birthday

----------------------------
What may be done at any time will be done at no time. - Scottish Proverb

Dost thou love life? Then waste not time; for time is the stuff that life is made of. - BENJAMIN FRANKLIN:
----------------------------

Time flies.
Today's posting -number 315- marks the end of this blog's second year in existence.
Little did I know enough topics would create the interest I needed to persist this long.
But, it has been fun - most of the time, anyway.
So, I'll plan to continue it for a while longer.

Because most of my subject matter applies to City issues, I believe its important to maintain some level of commentary.
And, anything approaching in-depth coverage elsewhere has either declined, or has been lacking for a long time.

I am glad that BTV10 is now covering many more City meetings and events than it ever has before, including substantial live coverage that allows folks to watch the action either in real time, or with delays -including streaming video on the City's website- for convenience.

Without overestimating it, I think having that capability is important for this community, whether it is used extensively or not.
[There remains evidence that facts are still substantially ignored!]

It would be nice if more Whatcom County and Port of Bellingham meetings were also televised.
The expense of taping these events is pretty minimal, and BTV10 will publicly air them on a known schedule.
I know some folks still aren't comfortable with making public meetings more public, but that's an excuse, not a reason.

It was a little strange that this idea hasn't come up in the County and Port candidate forums and debates, but maybe its not really as popular an idea as I may think.
At some point it would be interesting to know about how many people regularly use these audio and video records of official meetings.
Of course, this probably varies widely by issue.
----------------------------

Time is a companion that goes with us on a journey. It reminds us to cherish each moment, because it will never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we have lived. - CAPTAIN JEAN-LUC PICARD [Star Trek]
----------------------------

Under Promising & Over Delivering

-----------------------------------------
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
-- ABRAHAM LINCOLN
-----------------------------------------

Management gurus advise against the the habit of 'over-promising and under-delivering'.
But, actually following this wise counsel seems extraordinarily difficult, doesn't it?
Just the opposite would be preferable, plus the surprises would tend to be more positive!

Because people routinely promise things they have no intention -or possibility- of achieving, there are always folks who want to believe that their wishful hopes will be realized, even if there does happen to be a measure of empty rhetoric involved.

Imagine any public official or candidate for public office who isn't tempted to promise or promote things he/she knows are desired by the voting public.
That is certainly an integral part of getting elected and reelected, because it does reflect the priorities and the 'will' of the community, at least at that moment.

But, what about those who prefer to influence public opinion who are not publicly elected or appointed?
Aren't most of us in that category one way or the other?
By seeking to influence public opinion, we are all well within our rights and responsibilities; in fact we'd be abrogating our role as citizens if we did not exercise that role.

What troubles me the most is when certain individuals or groups abuse public sensibilities by repeatedly offering outlandish, deceptive or unsustainable ideas or proposals.
More specifically, the proliferation of so-called public 'initiatives' sponsored by people like Tim Eyman have long ago crossed the line of reasonableness.

Yet, the abuse continues, while our State Legislature seems continuously at a loss about how to deal with this process, caught as it is between making potentially useful measures available for periodic public voting and effectively dealing with clever 'issues' that are created mainly for their mischief making value.

An interesting article in Crosscut written by Floyd Mackay sheds light on the the latest Eyman initiative, I-1033, and parallel initiatives over time in Washington, Oregon and California.

I don't have an answer to how public initiatives can be better handled, but several ideas have been discussed that have potential for improvement.
In the meantime, the best course to follow seems pretty simple, if a way to insure it can be found -and that is a big 'if';
be scrupulously truthful and balanced manner in presenting proposals for public approval.

Another way would be to reverse the norm, and practice this blog's title.
-----------------------------------

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. --attributed to ABRAHAM LINCOLN
-----------------------------------

Climate: Global Warming, Local Anomaly or Normal?

-------------------------------

Now in my fourth year as owner of a photovoltaic array, I've noticed this year is the brightest to date.
And, not by just a little bit.

As of June 30, 2009 had generated 56% of my annual estimate, versus the second highest year [2006] mid-year total of 51.3%.
Since a bright, sunny day equates to about 0.5% of my annual estimate, that means 2009 is now over 9 bright sunny days ahead of 2006.

Both 2007 and 2008 were less bright, and equated to about 9 sunny days behind 2006, and 18 sunny days behind this year.

A comparison of year-end totals might be more telling, but it's too early to know what 2009 will produce.
But, looking at 2006 versus 2007 and 2008 is also instructive.
The year 2006 was about 14% ahead of both years.

What does all this mean?
Probably not much, except that it may be just as likely for 2009 to represent evidence of global warming, as for the years 2007 and 2008 to represent global cooling.

Better yet, normal variations between years are just that - normal.
But, that's just an educated guess, knowing how fickle the weather patterns can be around these parts.
-----------------------------------

I am glad that more PV solar arrays are being put into service every year.

Not long ago, I received an e-mail from friends in our old San Francisco neighborhood which advised that an organization known as OBOG [One Block Off the Grid] was soliciting interest in having PV arrays installed in the Bay area.
It seems if an aggregate of 100 mega-watts can be committed to, then special pricing and permitting can be obtained, thus saving substantial investment costs.
That is a creative solution which I hope succeeds.

More locally, this announcement appeared of a plan to construct a major PV power generation facility near Cle Elum in Kittitas County.
Now, that would be a breakthrough of major proportions!
------------------------------------

Budget Reporting: Whatcom County's Home Charter Mystique

----------------------------------
'Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.' - Louis D. Brandeis
---------------------------------

An earlier blog addressed this subject's issue.
Now, still lacking some basic answers, I hope questioning County Council candidates may help reveal what the County's budget reporting requirements are, what they ought to be according to the County Charter, and what the County Council intends to do about correcting any deficiencies.

Will it require a Charter amendment, or a simple Resolution to the Executive that requests more frequent budgetary progress reports?

As a City Council Member, I wanted to stay timely informed about City financial matters -good, bad or indifferent.
And, it's hard to imagine County Council members not feeling the same way!

Maybe there are ready answers to my question just waiting to be harvested.
But, maybe there aren't, which may make asking the question somewhat unwelcome?
This question needs to be asked, answered and fixed as appropriate.
------------------------------------

On related matters, other questions ought to be asked of the candidates themselves, and not only about specific issues.
An earlier blog covered this aspect as well, plus the important general qualifications of competence and integrity.

Unlike 'issues of the moment', the basic decision-making process of candidates -plus the ever essential integrity and competence- are the criteria that voters can rely upon regardless of issue.

Hopefully, the forums, debates, campaign literature and answers to questions like these will help voters make the selections most likely to benefit Whatcom County and other jurisdictions.
------------------------------------

One final thought.
David Brooks, the Conservative pundit, wrote this opinion column for the NYTimes.
It seems a very timely and appropriate subject, regardless of jurisdiction.

Read it and develop your own reaction.
Frankly, I enjoyed it.
------------------------------------
"Writers are at their best as terrorists- Sometimes social terrorists, sometimes political, sometimes terrorists of the heart. If a writer is good, he will be all three at once. His weapons are words well used to disturb and to clarify thought, emotion and action." - John Ralston Saul
------------------------------------

Local Labor Boss Issues 11th Hour 'Warning'

----------------------
Yesterday's Herald carried an opinion piece by David Warren designed to not-so-subtlely dissuade our Mayor and City Council from seriously reconsidering the City's ill-advised 'Big-Box' ban.
You can read this article right here.

Of course, today - the 'ides of June' - is the day that public discussions will be held to reconsider the so-called 'big-box ban, along with other measures to help the City bring its General Fund budget back into a better semblance of balanced.
So, it's understandable that folks who are afraid their ox will be gored, show up to beg, cajole or intimidate our elected officials to do their bidding.
That's OK, and part of the process, as long as our electeds are careful to observe the fractured latin of 'petticoati tyrannus non bossanova', which roughly translates into 'don't let petty tyrants boss you around'

In his piece, Mr Warren:
• disagrees with the Herald editorial board that the 'big-box' was really targeting Wal-Mart [it was]
• tries on a 'green suit' in an effort to court sustainability fans [not his color]
• rails against any corporation who dares to get too big, resist unionization, go bankrupt, pay less than family wages & benefits, lays off workers, or leaves an 'empty' building behind [welcome to America]
• claims -unconvincingly- he is not an 'anti' Mayor Pike [huh?]
• applauds the City for searching for 'creative ways' to solve the current severe revenue shortfall, without offering any plan himself for reducing expenditures [kinda hard, isn't it?]
• avoids mentioning entirely the furlough plan now being considered by Whatcom County [inconvenient & unpleasant]

Can you see a pattern here?
-------------------------------

As the chief architect of the hasty and unwise so-called 'big-box ban', Mr Warren's response is predictable.
Perhaps, he has another remedy in mind for the city's major revenue shortfall, which is partly due to loss of sales taxes from big box stores, including Wal-Mart, itself the largest single sales tax source?

As president of the Northwest Washington Central Labor Council, Warren wields inordinate power, not only over the 85% of City employees who are members of nine different unions, but over elected officials dependent upon the support of organized labor.
Is he sending a 'message', designed to influence officials and candidates during the upcoming elections?
After all, union bosses are sometimes noted for their strong-arm tactics, as I personally experienced after my opposition to both the so-called 'living wage' ordinance, the 2004 budget shenanigans and the big-box ban.
Those tactics didn't work very well on me, but they did on 4 or 5 Council members, and the mayor at the time.

And, you know 4 of those Council members are still around.
[drumroll, please]
rat-a-tat: Louise Bjornson
rat-a-tat-tat: Gene Knutson
rat-a-tat-tat-tat: Barbara Ryan
rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat: Terry Bornemann

Of course, that's not to say other Council members, Mayors, mayor-wannabe's, or candidates couldn't be similarly 'persuaded' by Mr Warren to do his bidding, either

Hey, no one blames Mr Warren for doing what he is paid to do, but he is not an official who is elected by the public, or necessarily represents them as a first priority.

Maybe Warren does have a plan to reduce the substantial union contract wages & benefits that have been negotiated over time?
Something like that would certainly help the budget situation more than any other responsible act the City could take.
That's because the great majority of the General Fund is comprised of mainly employee wages & benefits.
Much as we might like to shift those monies around, there are laws and mandatory government accounting practices that prevent us from doing so.
Sometimes, it is possible to borrow from Peter to pay Paul. But Peter needs to be paid back. And, what about Mary?

I cannot imagine anyone doubting that the City's employees are its main asset!
That is why a voluntary wage & benefit reduction plan would respond best to the short-term problem, as well as long-term sustainability.
But, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
More likely, Mr Warren and his ilk will push to have any budget cutting happen 'somewhere else', even though there is 'no where else' that can be legitimately cut - to the extent needed.

And, I seriously doubt the City has ANY plans to sell real estate to big box stores.
That is simply ludicrous and designed to appeal to emotion, not facts.
Besides, most available property is not owned by the City, but by private interests.

The fact is, the big-boxes are already here, and have been here for some years.
Plus, I have heard NOTHING about totally rescinding big-box regulations, and Mr Warren should know that, if he doesn't already.

One other point, this article purports to be about so-called 'big-boxes, but that doesn't wash.
It IS about Wal-Mart, pure & simple, as it has been from the start.
Expanding Wal-Mart to 'big-boxes' was necessary for the legal cover needed to 'legitimize' the unwise measure initially approved by the City Council.

Citizens may wish to understand that our local 'big-boxes' also include Target, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, Fred Meyer and others, of course excluding the now defunct Circuit City and any others that may not yet survive these tough economic times.
But, methinks Mr Warren would really rather not open this discussion more widely, preferring instead to stonewall wage & benefit gains already achieved.

And, don't forget those 'big-box' bragging rights, either!
Hey, did you know Bellingham was the first city in Washington to adopt an anti-Wal-Mart -er, 'Big-Box' - ordinance?

One last question; If Warren feels so good about Costco, why include them in the 'Big-Box' ban?
Is it Catch-22 time?

This is the time of year when the heat starts getting turned up on the local government griddle!
Good luck, Council.
-------------------------------

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
--------------------------------------

Executive Sessions: Necessary Secrets Or Inconvenient Law?

----------------------
Sometimes, to hear people talk, you'd think executive sessions weren't legal.
But, of course, they are.
And, they are essential to protect people, public funds and legal rights.
That is why they are allowed under law.

Why do you imagine these more secretive sessions are called 'executive sessions'?
Think that has anything to do with the executive branch of government?
Is this system subject to abuse?
You bet it is, just like a lot of things.
But how does one begin to show this suspicion, especially if they don't have access to all the facts?
The answer is they don't have many options, except to watch closely, ask questions and -well- just be suspicious.

As far as questions go, there is no such thing as an 'inappropriate' question.
But, there certainly can be 'inappropriate' answers!
That is why the executive session provision is considered so necessary and legal.

Other, more knowledgeable folks can probably give a better litany of reasons why the executive session provision exists here in the State of Washington, where it was first adopted in 1972.
Since that time the list of 10 legal reasons for justifying executive sessions has morphed into some 300.
One wonders if all of those are really different reasons or just more specific definitions and examples - but politically this expanded list seems to make for great political fodder for some folks.
You know, folks like State AG and politician Rob McKenna, the usual anti-guvmint folks and maybe even a few direct democracy types and anarchists, plus don't forget those desperately trying to fill up space on slow news days without working at it too hard.

But, you know what? All of this is fair game!
After all, we are supposed to be a 'representative' democracy.
That means those fortunate - or unfortunate - enough to be elected to serve get to live in public fishbowls, where their every act is carefully scrutinized, questioned and second-guessed, sometimes seemingly without even a modicum of trust, respect or an attempt at understanding.
You know, knee-jerk stuff that's accepted just because it includes a few 'magic' words that can galvanize people, or simply be instantly interpreted as legitimate, like 'transparency', 'openness', 'public's right to know', etc.
Don't get me wrong, all this inquisitiveness does come with the territory; but that's not to say that some of it isn't spurious, deliberately deceptive, and even wasteful of public resources at times.

And, it is human nature to want to know about what's going on, especially when one is excluded from possibly juicy details!
Why there might be a tasty headline, scoop or just the start of a misguided dialogue hidden among topics covered by executive sessions.
Can't afford to let that happen, can we?
Yet, excessive emphasis on suspicions, speculation and political banter for its own sake have to be partly to blame for the public's loss of interest in traditional media, like newspapers.
Just look at which journalists and publications were recently honored with Pulitzer prizes.
They weren't the tabloids, media with obvious biases or agendas, or reporters and editorialists who do not thoroughly research their work.
That should be instructive, at every level of reporting!
And, this is a simple observation, not a criticism; there is a difference.
-----------------

Back to local executive sessions for a moment.
Here are just a few examples that relate to typical topics:
It may be useful to keep in mind that the City of Bellingham is a municipal corporation, with elected officials that act as CEO [Mayor] and Board of Directors [Council].

• litigation and potential litigation- the City's Legal budget typically provides annually for millions of dollars in legal liability
• protection of attorney - client privilege; including executive department operations -which do not require separate Council approval
• there are literally millions of dollars in potential liabilities at stake and under active litigation, including those that are simply spurious and without merit and likely to be dismissed with minimal expense to the City -AND its taxpayers.
• there are labor contracts that have resulted from months of collective bargaining negotiations which require Council approval [always made in public] before going into effect.
• there are personnel matters which are sensitive and inappropriate to broadcast widely
• there are purchasing and acquisition opportunities which depend upon a certain amount of confidentiality prior to finalization to insure lowest public cost
* there is an entire list of potential reasons for inclusion of an item into an executive session, and these are readily available for review on public websites, including ACCESS WASHINGTON, MRSC and others.

As with most things, it is likely impossible to reduce each one of them to a pre-defined and certain formula.
Instead, a certain of informed judgement may be required, and this is supplied by the City's legal staff, who represent not only the executive branch, but also the legislative - whose approval is ultimately required in deciding any executive session matter.
Now, I know that just saying 'trust me' isn't something that holds water for many people, but it is essential at times -executive sessions being one such example.

The temptation to know what is going on is not only essential, but very healthy, but it can also overly tempting at times.
But, hey, if a juicy piece can be mined by nosing around executive sessions, why not do it?
After all, any proof to the contrary of an idle suspicion can amount to partial disclosure of the actual facts!
How convenient.

It is always good to question things, especially those things that impact our government and the public interest.
But, have you ever wondered why some folks would rather nose around for juicy, 'secret' gossip than actually cover other events that aren't executive sessions?
Human nature is only part of the answer I suspect.
And it can sell newspapers, plus create instant controversy and a fleeting 'Andy Warhol 15-minutes of fame'.

The really hard -but useful- work would be to research why executive sessions were deemed so important that they are now specifically provided for under our State law, which can always be modified if proven necessary.
If some people think executive sessions are unnecessary or unduly secretive, then it is their real job is to convince the State legislature to make changes to this law.
Of course, just stirring up discontent among the populace might also be deemed helpful to such an effort, as well, as some populist politicians seem always willing to do.

But, failing the finding that executive sessions are inherently fatally flawed, the next best bet is to exert a little more confidence in the system we have, imperfect as it may be.
That also includes making sure that those elected to office are trustworthy and competent, which is no one's responsibility more than citizens themselves!
And, it would be nice to have the same standard of trustworthiness applied to everyone who seriously follows the workings of our local government.
Doesn't it seem fair to have this same standard apply to everyone, whether legally mandated or voluntarily embraced?
If we are to have a system of government that is consistently fact-based, respectful of the law, and responsive to the public, we deserve nothing less.

Executive sessions do have their place and serve a practical purpose.
But, like everything else, improvement is always possible.
Perhaps, the idea of mandatory instruction for elected officials is a good idea that ought be pursued.
If that does come to pass, I hope these training sessions would be held in very public forums and televised for future reference, so that all citizens can exposed to this basic information, and therefore more aware of the useful functions executive sessions do play in government decisions.

In the meantime, there are plenty of subjects to be researched, reported and debated in public, that are NOT executive sessions!
You know, little things like protecting the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, Growth Management, Waterfront Redevelopment, Budget gaps, a new Library, background information on elected officials and candidates for office, etc, etc, might also seem to have some very juicy 'secrets' hiding in plain sight.
They might as well be secrets, if people don't know about them.
And, they aren't being kept 'secret' by any excuse like executive sessions; they some of the many are 'open' secrets that folks just aren't being informed about; maybe because that would be considered too much work, or maybe just boring?
Just a few things like these could stand more research and reporting, what do you think?

Even beginning a discussion about a topic like executive sessions, can be daunting but necessary, and it is good this is being done again, as it has in the past.
When any subject is subject to misunderstanding and/or misinterpretation, that -alone- is a good time to examine it more thoroughly.
The question Then becomes, how best to do this.
Ideally, the method used will engage citizens with factual information, then pose suggestions for actually improving the process, not just questioning in its entirety.

And, surely, some respect must be shown for the decades of thought already put into such matters by the citizens, media and elected officials of the State of Washington!
Those folks may not have been perfect, but who says we are either?

Let's be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water, shall we?
----------------------

Eschewing Obfuscation & Espousing Elucidation

---------------
Please pardon the title, which is intended as a mild spoof of an e-mail which invites recipients to view another blog piece, entitled 'Greenways III: Policy and Practice Disaster'.
This e-mail, from Barbara Ryan on the subject of:'Chuckanut Ridge Exigesis', invites comments, and calls the GW3 the most divisive issue in her eleven years on the Council.
And, as she avers 'there are many lessons to be learned'.
I certainly do agree with that statement!

But first, why use an unusual word like 'exigesis'?
I had to look it up.
After doing that, I wondered why the word 'hermeneutics' wasn't used instead, because it seems have a somewhat wider -and less Biblical- sounding application.
But I digress.
Instead, the below is offered:
--------------------------
From Wikipedia:

▪ "Eschew obfuscation", also stated as "eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation", is a common humorous saying of English teachers and professors when lecturing about proper writing techniques.

▪ Literally, the phrase means "avoid ambiguity, adopt clarity", but the use of relatively uncommon words causes confusion, making the phrase an example of irony, and more precisely a heterological or hypocritical phrase (it does not embody its own advice).

▪ The phrase has appeared in print at least as early as 1959, when it was used as a section heading in a NASA document.

▪ An earlier similar phrase appears in Mark Twain's Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses, where he lists rule fourteen of good writing as "eschew surplusage".
--------------------------

On a issue as hotly debated as GREENWAYS why not make the discussion as simple to understand and fact-based as possible?
I know that different people subscribe to different definitions and versions of 'facts', but we should all be able to agree on what is simple to understand and is reasonably verifiable.

With this in mind, let me share what I think might have been -or should have been- some 'lessons learned':

1. Always be truthful, because that way individuals -and the public- can remember not only what was said, but the context of it, as well as likely results.

2. Avoid unnecessarily taking firm sides too early in a public discussion, especially one that will eventually require the broad consensus of the community, and may involve the 'earmarking' public funds.

3. Respect -in word and deed- the concepts of transparency and fairness, particularly when tempted or pressured to make any back-room deals with constituents. Do not consciously avoid openness!

4. Rather than reaching questionable -or even illegal- agreements outside of public meetings, rely instead upon clearly stated goals and not verbal -or 'fine print'- nuances which so often can lead to problematic misunderstandings.

5. Always strive for a Council consensus that can last and unite, not forced simple and divisive majorities, especially on matters of wide community interest and scarce voluntary funding.

That's about it for me, but others may have other ideas.
--------------------

Now, a brief comment on the aforementioned other blog entry:

• Most of the history and interpretations therein appear to be accurate, although the article is by no means comprehensive.
There are significant gaps, either dictated by space & time limitations, or by design, or ignorance.

• The statement that I had nothing to do with the idea of freeing up an additional $2million for acquisition purposes is NOT accurate, and I invite the author to reconsider this particular statement.

• The comments on omission of clear language from the legislation authorizing the GW3 levy strain any serious attempt at logic, and are patently incorrect. One can try to reconstruct history -which can be healthy- but revisionism is a different matter!

• I don't believe for one moment that former Councilor Beardsley was 'bullied' into anything. That statement simply demeans her independent spirit, her astounding logical and intellectual abilities, and most of all, her personal integrity.

• Then, this interesting statement:

'What concerns us most is the question that Chuckanut Ridge opponents have sown about their government and this process. The secretive property acquisition process itself is rife for these accusations. These are among the very few discussions that can be held in Executive Session, without public scrutiny. In order to continue to set aside land for parks and open spaces, some confidentiality must be maintained.'

I don't believe these concerns necessarily need to be focused on any one group, especially so-called CR OPPONENTS! Look into the mirror before making such comments if you intend to be taken seriously!

• Finally, regarding this statement:

'On January 12, the Greenways and Parks Boards decided that no more than $4 million of the $44 million levy should be spent on the Fairhaven Highlands property, known as Chuckanut Ridge. They made their recommendation public, for the first time, in the Council packet published Thursday, January 8'.

The Greenways Strategic Plan is something the Council requested be done following passage of the levy.
It has taken over 2 years for these carefully considered RECOMMENDATIONS to come forward.
They are not decisions, because those are made exclusively by the Council and no one else.

The fact that the number '$8 million' does not appear in any one place ought to be instructive.
What it probably means is there are other competing priorities for the guaranteed $6 million in south-side property acquisition money.
It is easier to understand the author's attitude on this when one takes into account her single minded focus on Chuckanut Ridge, but, wouldn't it be great if none of this money would need to be spent on CR?

Think about it.
The City will likely obtain 40+ acres of the 85 total for NOTHING after issuance of the developer's DEIS.
Any additional land needed for public right of way can likely be procured for less than $4, or maybe even $2 million,
unless, of course, there is yet another secret back-room deal in existence.

• No one I know is totally opposed to acquiring a reasonable portion of CR for the public good.
And, the author is certainly correct that whoever comprises the Council at the time any CR acquisition proposal is offered will determine that outcome.
So, why the attempt at forcing the issue now?
Is there some deadline looming that the author fears, or doesn't she trust future Councils to do the right thing?
There is more wisdom in a calmer approach now, and certainly one that doesn't try to intentionally inflame old animosities.

The author is correct that GW3 is one of the -maybe the most- divisive issues of the last decade or so.
But, she also needs to examine closely the role she, herself, has played in making that statement true!
After all, what goes around does come around....
-------------------

This will -likely- end my commenting upon this particular subject, because I believe enough has now been said by me publicly, and I have some other personal priorities.
For those offended by my rather forceful and pointed comments, I do apologize for your your discomfort.
But, I am not one to remain silent when I feel things need to be said, or when I do also happen to be knowledgeable on an issue.

It is unfortunate that my relationship with the author, and the other Council Members in question, have come to this state of hard feelings.
Earlier in our respective, local political careers, we seemed to agree on much more than we disagared upon.
And, we were able to achieve some great things that have the prospect of enduring to the benefit of future generations of citizens.

Just to name a few:
The Silver Beach Ordinance, for example, and the Watershed Preservation & Acquisition Ordinance.
Pipe Line Safety reform, on a national and state level.
Enhanced public access to local government meetings.
Budgetary reform, of which more is desirable.
Charter review and revision.
Land use planning policies, including annexation requirements before extending water & sewer utilities.
Transportation policies, and implementation thereof.
Why not remember these significant successes instead of focusing on GW3's problems?
Actually, the fact that a $44 million GW3 levy was PASSED ought to be a wonderful cause for celebration!

But, as a Buddhist philosopher might say, 'your own mother will become your worst enemy'.
That seems a little extreme, but also directionally accurate.

At any rate, I wish the Councillors with whom I have served nothing but the best, despite any differences we might have had.
If I had to do it all over again, I would, but maybe with a little more forbearance than before, but one never knows.
This business of politics doesn't require a lot of training or qualifications.
What one learns, one learns on the job, for the most part.

I hope this piece helps to "eschew obfuscation and espouse elucidation", and not the opposite.
But, one can only hope that will happen.
--------------------

Greenways: Lies, Damn Lies & Plain Levy Language

--------------
I must say that I got incensed all over again last Saturday when a friend confirmed a recent public admission made by Gene Knutson that he had -after 3 years of denial - actually agreed to collude with 3 other Council members to spend $8 million of Greenways funds on that pricy and dicy piece of real estate known as Chuckanut Ridge.

Are you kidding me Gene?
Please say it isn't so!
But then, who'd believe you now?

It is going to take much more than a gratuitous admission of lying, or an apology to the public to put this wrong right!

For starters, how about a public statement that you will henceforth recuse yourself from voting on any Greenways measure or proposal that directly impacts the south side of Bellingham.

Then, follow that up by announcing you will not be seeking re-election.

That ought to do it, at least as far as the public is concerned, but maybe not your own credibility.
I'm sorry to sound so harsh in condemning the lie you have kept silent for so long, but how else can it be truly corrected?
---------------

Like a lot of things, the roots to my concern go back a ways.
I always liked Gene despite some differences, because he is a likable person.
I know Gene got really frustrated at me sometimes, either because of my penchant for examining the pros and cons of issues too thoroughly for his liking, or by simple differences in opinion or style.
That's OK, because legislative debate is healthy.

I got exasperated with Gene at times because of his habit of always seeming to test the political winds before casting a hard vote.
And, I don't remember many -maybe any- occasions in which Gene supported tax or rate increases without the need for a public vote.
Yet, once funds were made available, he was glad to spend them, even from rainy day funds or reserves.

But, these types of differences are as normal as treating complicated things as simple and making hasty, uninformed decisions.
Hey, no one ever said that being a good elected representative ought to be easy!
And, if they did, I didn't buy it.
---------------

One moment in time that I remember so well happened back when the Council was trying to name an Interim Mayor to replace the suddenly departed Mayor Mark Asmundson.
Gene wanted that job badly and campaigned for it vigorously.
But, much to his embarrassment, he was unable to garner the 4 votes -including his own- to win that appointment, which instead went to former Mayor Tim Douglas.

Right after that vote, Gene, who was Council President, called a short recess.
He came up to me and said that he wanted me to know that I was the only Council member who had not lied to him that week.
What a remarkable observation!
I think that whatever lies Gene had heard that week, did hurt him deeply.
But, being a grown-up who loves serving in public office in his home town, Gene endured.
And I'm glad he did, at least until the moment he decided to lie himself about Chuckanut Ridge.
--------------------

The second defining moment in time came as the Council was desperately trying to reach agreement on a third Greenways ballot measure, in time for the ballot.
Because of the considerable heated differences between the two competing Greenways proposals, attempts at any sort of unanimously supported measure seemed slim to none.
Such stalemates leave little room for maneuver, often leading to a take it or leave it vote, or worse, nothing at all.
Fortunately, a compromise ballot proposal was reached, thanks largely to the efforts of Joan Beardsley, who facilitated a meeting between Barbara Ryan and me that produced a measure that Council immediately approved unanimously.
This measure went to the voters, who in turn approved it by 59%, thereby voluntarily taxing themselves for what they believed was a good cause to benefit our entire community.
What a relief!
A true 'win-win-win' solution, or so I and many others believed!
-------------------------

Now fast forward a bit;
The late Councillor Joan Beardsley made a remarkable admission during a public meeting of the Greenways Advisory Committee.
Beardsley stated that she and 3 other Council members HAD ALREADY COMMITTED to vote $8 million for Chuckanut Ridge, before the ballot was passed!
Although she later retracted her statement, the damage was done.
Barbara Ryan openly admitted there had been an agreement reached with south side supporters to that effect.
The two other Council members implicated -Messrs Bornemann and Knutson - denied they had done any such thing!
Who was lying?
There is no proof, of course, at least at the time, so what to do?
Wait and see.

Now comes Mr Knutson with his confession. [Note Bornemann remains strangely silent, but watch what he does]
This year, Both Ryan and Bornemann volunteered for the Parks & Recreation Committee, where they hope to mount a last-ditch stand to rescue their pet Greenways acquisition, Chuckanut Ridge.
Already, they have delayed adoption of the South Side portion of the Greenways Strategic Plan, in hopes that somehow, someway, they can finagle more money for Chuckanut Ridge!
Now, that is truly remarkable!
And sad.

Barbara & Terry will likely fail in these efforts, as they richly deserve to do.
But, hope springs eternal with Gene Knutson's new memory.
Gene, wants to please every one, but he risks pleasing no one if he continues to support his previous collusion with Barbara & Terry.
And, Gene does love Greenways, Bellingham and being in office as long as possible!
There is no denying any of those things.
I would not be surprised if Gene thought he could still become a hero on acquiring Chuckanut Ridge
After all, Barbara's attempt at promoting the so-called 'Knutson Kompromise' was a brazen, if clumsy, attempt to involve his ego in this nefarious collusion.
And, it nearly worked!
That is why Gene Knutson needs to step away from this sorry business and re-establish his own credibility!
-----------------

As the title promises,
"lies' were the fictions pre-sold to wild-eyed southside Chuckanut Ridge advocates, who will not be mollified if these are not delivered.
'damn lies' refer to those foisted upon the voting public in a deception of truly troubling proportions.
'plain levy language' means just that; what the public was told, what they believe and what they voted for.
You tell me which of these three concepts deserve to be sustained, and which need to be severely dealt with!

Do the right thing, Gene, and recuse yourself from these stupid shenanigans!
If you'll do that, I might even vote for you again.
Of course, there may be no choice, unless you voluntarily take a break from local politics.
Such is the power of incumbency in little ole Bellingham.
Hey, you 2nd Ward folks; isn't there someone out there who is willing to run for this important office, and treat it as such?
-----------------------------

Greenways: Keeping the Process Honest, Equitable & Public

Some folks are recently claiming 'foul' about a relatively routine matter that the City Council took up for action last Monday night.
There are times when crying 'foul' is appropriate and justified, but this was not one of those times.
Unless, of course, one has a big axe to grind about the results of a very public due process that began back in early 2007.

The 'Greenway Program Land Acquisition Strategic Plan' was deemed necessary to establish clear overarching principles for using public funds to acquire, develop and maintain the City's Parks, Trails & Open Space properties, but without specifically identifying individual properties.

The Parks & Recreation Dept is charged with administering these funds and principles, as well as facilitating the activities of two volunteer advisory committees, the Greenways Advisory Committee and the Parks & Recreation Board. Council gets to confirm the Greenways Advisory Committee members before their appointments are made official.
Both committees are appointed by the Mayor and picked to insure both diversity and dedication to the overall community.
Except for appropriate executive sessions, both committees meet regularly in a public venue and record their proceedings in minutes.

Recommendations from these committees are publicly reported periodically to the Council for its consideration and approval, as was the case with the 'Greenway Program Land Acquisition Strategic Plan', which was 2 years in the making.
With this background, it is hard to see a legitimate justification for claims by certain people that 'inadequate public process' was followed, or that any sort of 'sneaky, back-room deals' were employed.
Those suppositions were, as they sometimes are, used to gain attention and further delay approval of something that someone simply disagrees with.
And, its certainly OK to disagree, but not for a vocal minority to achieve through 11th hour emotion and loud misrepresentation what it could not through reason and hard facts!

For those who may be interested in a more dispassionate view of what has transpired this week, I offer a few comments, preceded by this chronology of events prepared by Council member Jack Weiss:
---------------------------------------

Greenway Program Land Acquisition Strategic Plan'
Overview of Process

The first 1990 levy and the second Beyond Greenways 1997 levy had planning strategies adopted by the Greenways Advisory Committee (GAC) within months of the passage of the levies.

In keeping with this practical procedure, the GAC started strategic planning discussions soon after the passage of the May 2006 levy. Because of the size of the levy and the general categories in the budget guideline, the GAC first worked to create and pass two documents: Criteria for Property Acquisitions and Acquisition Guidelines. These were adopted in March/April 2007 with consultation with the City Council in public meetings.

GAC and the Parks and Rec Department hold public input meetings on January 31 and March 6, 2007 for suggestions on properties and criteria to consider for acquisition. Over 150 comments were received. Contrary to recent criticism, it is important to understand that these meetings, as announced at the beginning, were to “scope” the different and unique properties to analyze, not to vote on which ones were more popular. One vote for Chuckanut Ridge meant one vote, regardless of how many responded to a single property. When the Census is done next year, we will continue to count Mayor Pike as just one unique person regardless of how popular he is with votes.

The volunteer GAC holds an all day retreat on March 10, 2007 to sort and analyze comments and start the planning process.

GAC holds monthly meetings between March 2007 and October 2008 with updates occasionally reported in public session (Responsible Development President, Joe Yaver, or South neighbor citizen, Christopher Grannis, were present during many of these meetings). Because of the sensitive nature of some of the work related to the possible acquisition of specific properties, much of the strategic plan work was conducted in executive session. This allowed the free flow of information among committee members without jeopardizing or tipping off potential property transactions which would put the City in a compromised bargaining position.

For all of 2006/2007 and part of 2008, five of the 11 GAC members reside in Ward 6, the southern most ward of the City. For citizens concerned with the workings of the GAC or the effort of the committee in executive session, a call or note to Southside residents who served on the GAC for years in the past would be recommended. Consider Seth Fleetwood, Jody Bergsma, or Bobbi Vollendorf to start.

September 29, 2008: City Council holds an executive session concerning property acquisition. Later that evening, the Strategic Plan is announced that it is nearly complete. Some main elements of the Plan are verbally discussed.

October 6, 2008: Council receives a report from the GAC in a public afternoon session and a draft of the Strategic Plan is released for initial Council comment. Council is told that the Plan is ready for GAC and Parks Board approval. Council will receive the final report soon after. Proceedings of afternoon and evening sessions are available at the City website.

The Strategic Plan calls for Greenways III spending $12.96 million in six northside areas, $1 million near Whatcom Creek, and $9.5 million in five southside areas. All money is for acquisition of land only and individual projects and areas are evaluated based on the approved Acquisition Guidelines.

October 16, 2008: GAC approves the Strategic Plan on a 10-0 vote in public session. Four of the 10 committee members reside in Ward 6. The motion was seconded by a member who resides directly adjacent to the Chuckanut Ridge parcel. Barbara Ryan is in attendance as a guest and makes her initial appearance at any GAC meeting since her service as a Councilmember began in 1998.

November 8, 2008: Parks Board approves the Strategic Plan on a 11-0 vote in public session. Two of the 11 committee members reside in Ward 6. An additional member resides in Ward 5 nearby.

January 8, 2009: The agenda for the Council January 12 meeting is publicly available. The agenda contains an item labeled: Approval of Strategic Plan for Greenway 3 Levy Land Acquisition.

January 12, 2009: Council approves the North and Whatcom Creek sections of the Strategic Plan on a 7-0 vote. One councilmember resides in Ward 6. An additional member resides in Ward 5 nearby. The Council further approves a motion on a 6-1 vote to table the South section of the Strategic Plan until the Council meeting that is after 15 days after the release of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Fairhaven Highlands/Chuckanut Ridge project. Stan Snapp voted against this motion. He resides near Lake Whatcom. Proceedings of afternoon and evening sessions are available at the City website.
--------------------------------------

The above said, there has been some dialogue on another local blog, NWCitizen, to which I and others have contributed this week.
Here is what I have posted there. You can see for yourself how this was interpreted and responded to:

John Watts // Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 8:45 pm
Former US Senator Moynihan once said that ‘everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.’

Since the author of this piece admits to several years absence -ergo ignorance- in following the Greenways intrigues, let me suggest that he avail himself of a few facts that others are able to verify, including myself, as Council member and chair of the Parks & Recreation Committee in 2006 & 2007.

The Greenways 3 levy language that was agreed to unanimously by the Council contained no money solely designated to purchase any so-called Chuckanut Ridge property. If someone feels otherwise, let them demonstrate credible evidence to the contrary.

I do know that Council members Barbara Ryan and Terry Bornemann wished otherwise and either influenced or sought to influence members Joan Beardsley and Gene Knutson to ‘earmark’ very substantial GW3 funds -up to $10.5 million- for CR purchase, but none of this was ever approved by Council action.
Again, if someone feels otherwise, let them demonstrate credible evidence to the contrary.

The Greenways 3 measure that went to the ballot designated $6 million for ALL southside GW3 purchases, with CR being the largest of several possible.
An additional $2 million was made available for potential purchase of property anywhere, with ‘priority’ given to a credible proposal for acquiring additional right of way that might be required to provide for a trail connection through the CR property. Again, there was no guarantee, or ‘earmark’ in current vernacular.

The above is the plain language that was presented to the voters, which ought to be readily verifiable through the City Attorney’s office.

While there are those who are determined to question and or try to contravene the clear true intent of the Greenways 3 measure, that is already well defined.
But, the penchant for controversy and wishful thinking remains strong among the former so-called Legacy proponents, which explains this latest demonstration of discontent and amateurish political pressure.

Another person who has paid careful attention to the Greenways 3 issue and timely reported on it, is the editor of the Cascadia Weekly, whose Gristle column of January 13 not only got it right on this latest dust-up, but also got it right on three previous Gristle columns which can be easily accessed at the following URL:
http://www.cascadiaweekly.com/cw?/content/columns/category/gristle/

It is regrettable that the same people who threatened to ‘hijack’ the Greenways vote in 2007 are still up to mischief making using our valued Greenways program as their instrument of choice to fight a planned infill development.

Democracies are never perfect, but continuing to try to put more lipstick on the ‘100 acre woods’ piglet seems a loser’s game that carries more promise for undermining, rather than improving, the credibility of the CR acquisition advocates.
------------------------------

So, now I've managed to ruffle a few more feathers, including some of the same ones that have been ruffled before on this issue.
Let me say here that all my remarks pertain to the actions of the Council, its deliberations and decisions as duly recorded in the public record.
Those are the things that actually count in determining City policy.

It would be ludicrous to claim that I -or anyone- could know EVERYTHING that went on between other Councils members, citizens and advocates on all sides.
So, I do wonder why would anyone even use that argument to discredit my claim of being aware of what Council did or did not do. Desperation?
Of course, discussions, lobbying, arm-twisting, and all sorts of discourse happen to influence the decisions of elected officials!

The point is that elected officials are required by law to actually -and officially- make their decisions in public, not in secret.
Further, the concepts of due process, Washington's 'sunshine law', and the 'appearance of fairness' demand that openness be inherent in such decisions.

When a quorum of the Council is present, such meetings must be announced in advance as a public meeting.
When a quorum of Council members communicate with each other, whether in writing or not, those communications should be available to the public.

It makes no difference whether all four are in the same room together, or whether they participated in the same communication at the same time, or sequentially, the quorum rule applies.
That is why Freedom of Information Act Requests for public records can be effective in discovering, preventing or reconstructing illegal public meetings.

Of course, timeliness is of the essence, if illegal meetings, 'chain' meetings or other exchanges are to be disclosed before tainted decisions are made.

On this point, I certainly welcome the Washington Attorney General's request for mandatory Open Meetings Act education for all elected officials!
Maybe this should also be extended to members of the public?

So, the question remains, was a firm commitment made between 4 Council members to use $8 million in Greenways funds to acquire part of Chuckanut Ridge, or not?
It sounds like there was such a deal struck outside of official Council business, if for no other reason than because 2 of the 4 verbally admitted to it.
Now, I hear, a third member has also admitted to it.
But, the 4th member seems to continue their denial.

Of course, one of the two members involved is now deceased, so the maximum number of committed Council votes to such a scheme is now only three -one short of the majority needed to actually approve this spending.
Is it likely that another vote can be attracted to this tainted purpose?
I doubt it.
Louise certainly won't go there.
And the three new Council members are smart enough to smell trouble when they see it, even if they did favor acquiring CR.
Let's hope that 4th vote is lost forever!

But, on the plus side, the City will likely get a good chunk of CR -for nothing- as a result of wetlands determinations that will emerge as part of the Environmental Impact Statement [EIS].
If another minor segment of CR is necessary for trail ROW, that is also possible.
But, forget the City buying down this property for anything like $6 to $8 million!
It's not going to happen.
Take that to the bank.
But make sure it's solvent!