The 10th Street Parking 'issue': A Tempest in a Teapot

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
-Sir Edmund Burke"
--------------
When this rather routine item first began becoming an 'issue' in 2006, I was skeptical of its importance and therefore inclined to dismiss it as a few NIMBYs intent on getting their way.

Then, it became apparent that some Council members had taken up this cause 'du jour', which led to Council actually directing staff to reexamine the parking plans.
I decided to listen more closely to the history of planning the Taylor Street Dock Project, the plan that was adopted for implementation, all in the context of the rhetoric about whether the angled parking planned should be provided or a lesser number of parallel spaces.

I also visited the site -just north of the Chrysalis Hotel- on several occasions; re-read all the information provided by Parks Dept and by citizens -both pro and con-; attended the special meeting which lasted almost 3 hours and was televised; attended the 7/12 Parks Board meeting at which this topic was again discussed; and reflected on all the above proceedings while trying to keep an open mind.

My initial feeling that this was a small issue, has been magnified by the realization that any issue, no matter how small, can become bigger if a few people want it to do so.
There are always questions about 'public process' and whether neighborhoods are adversely impacted, whether viable alternatives have been considered that would work equally well, whether adequate notice was given, and whether other agendas are being furthered through exploitation of each divisive opportunity.

What I have determined in this case is that much valuable and scarce staff time has been expended for little good purpose, that the design proposed by Parks was reasonable and was itself the product of active debate and negotiation, that my patience is growing thin in listening to selfish arguments that are disguised as 'the will of the neighbors', that those who wish to influence the public and Council will stop at nothing, including deliberately shading the truth, hawking petitions based on false choices, and packing public meetings, and personally deriding those who disagree, to achieve their desires.

I hoped that the Council would have the wisdom to carefully evaluate this debate, separate the facts from the fiction, and confirm its support of both the Parks Department's professional conduct and its recommended plan for parking.
That did not happen.

But, there were a few new ideas offered in this debate that could either be used to modify the plan or to confirm it is truly needed in the interest of public safety and fairness to the community as a whole.

Here are a few points that I either heard pretty clearly, or deduced, during this 'debate':

• Arguing over 12 additional parking spaces seems trivial and a waste of time.
Although this argument was from a neighborhood supporter, it cuts both ways.

• Parallel parking could have been provided on both sides of the street, but at major additional cost and adverse impacts to neighbors' front yards.

• Safely separating pedestrians from cars and bicycles is necessary and makes good sense.
Some even seemed to believe this should be a pedestrian 'promenade' area, excluding cars.

• There is already angled parking in this area -south of the Hotel- and it works well to protect car passengers and bikers.

• Nearby Boulevard Park has inadequate parking, and is severely limited for space, but is linked to Taylor Street Dock by use. Connecting these two areas with sidewalks and maximizing available space for parking seemed wise.

• Some other neighbors -the less vocal ones- do support the Parks Dept angled parking plan, including the new condos, Rip-Tide, and some single family units. But, their voices were drowned out.

• 2-hour parking signs could be used to ensure turnover.

• Taylor Street Dock is a major attraction for the entire community as well as visitors.
This project took many years and millions of dollars to realize, and should not considered as a private amenity.

• New 15-minute bus service, one block away, helps people access to Taylor Street Dock, but doesn't solve long term problem.

• The area intended to provide parking is in an oversized 100-foot Street Right-Of-Way, not in parkland or shoreline areas.

• There is a perception by some that all of the grassed space is to be their neighborhood park, and not part of a community park area financed by 4.5 million in public funds. This included gravelled areas formerly used for parking!

• By not providing all of the parking -as proposed- here, it will force parking into adjacent areas, impacting lawns and less safe road shoulders.

• This matter was not an appropriate matter for the City Council to debate and decide.
Interposing the Council's will on routine plans that have already been thoroughly vetted, are likely to encourage more minor disagreements to balloon to similar outlandish proportions.

• Council's unwise actions on this routine matter, have served to undermine confidence in the Parks Dept's integrity and professionalism, and what is meant by 'public process' in general.
Plus it has been a terrific waste of time and community good will!

• The role of the Neighborhood Association interjecting itself into this 'issue' is also questionable, suggesting a test of wills on a small, divisive issue.
At times it seemed as if the parking wasn't the 'issue' at all; that other agendas were at work to decide who could pander better to those who professed that angled parking harmed them.
Almost 'Alice in Wonderland-like'!

• Can you imagine a time when a friend or relative from across town, or out of town, arrives and visits Taylor Street Dock? Are they likely to walk, bike or take a bus there?
The lack of parking is already a problem at certain times and this problem will only grow in the future.
Why not put 12 more parking spaces there to efficiently -and more safely- use the space available?

• Downtown's Railroad Avenue has four rows of angled parking in front of popular eating establishments that have high rates of turnover.
These are empty during most hours, but more than full at others.
They operate safely and efficiently and provide on street parking that is easily accessed, while separating people from cars and bikes.
It is ludicrous to call these dangerous, unsightly or unneeded.

• The use of personal, ad hominem attacks on those who supported angled parking speaks volumes for the mind-set of those campaigning so hard to get their wish, against it.
They don't seem to care about others needs, or the fact this is a community wide amenity that has required years of planning, enormous funding and effort to make it happen.
The utter dismissal of the process that got us to where we are now, really comes across as selfish and arbitrary.

• Some opponents of angled parking actually thought of the green R-O-W strip as theirs!
They are right, but so are many others who don't live across the street.
The R-O-W's are owned by the residents, but with the proviso they are to be used by the City in the best interests of community wide health, safety and welfare!
Residents could buy this property for their private use, but only if is determined to be superfluous to City needs, and formally vacated by the City Council.

• This immediate area has been improved greatly over what it was in the past.
Blackberries, weeds and debris have been cleared, the property purchased with public funds and amenities built and mainatained.
Most people would be very pleased to have the additional parking, instead of people blocking their driveways and side streets.

• The conduct of those so strongly opposed to angled parking was abysmal at times.
Aside from outright misinformation, loudly insisting on spurious arguments, and acting discourteously [applause, personal attacks, discrediting staff] to City staff and others who attended the 7/12/06 meeting, in particular.
Despite presentations from knowledgeable professionals, these people would not acknowledge any benefit of the angled parking plan, which was carefully explained on several occasions.
This type of conduct illustrates closed thinking based upon personal wants and wishes, not facts or community good.
It is incredible that a majority of Council would accede to this type of pressure, and over such a 'trivial' matter!

• Rewarding such conduct would encourage more of the same.

• The Coast Millenium Trail uses this trail segment, either via the dock or 10th street, and requires continuity as it passes through the city.

• Such a decision should not be made solely on the basis of popular, vocal support.
Even if only one person spoke who had a truly convincing argument, that would be sufficient for a responsibly made decision.
====================
Curiously, it was during this particular 'issue' that I began to broaden my friendship with Joan Beardsley, who had just entered office in January of 2006.
I came to greatly admire and respect her for her good heart and clear perspective, although I had not known her well, or for long.
We shared many of the same values and motivations for public service, and I miss her ready smile, capacity for work and caring personality.
Her premature passing was a sadness, brightened only by her good memory.
--------------------------
Joan was having something of a difficult time understanding this 'issue' and deciding upon it fairly.
As was her fashion, she listened to everyone, spent hours asking questions, seeking answers and constantly sought solutions that were satisfactory for all. In this case, the latter proved simply impossible!
But, still she tried.

Here's an excerpt of an e-mail I sent her, which seemed to help.
She later told me that she had placed this in a 'refer to frequently' file.
I felt truly honored that these thoughts helped her.
----------
"Joan,

Thanks for your e-mail note on this debate, which has recently been allowed to take on dimensions of such importance.
I am copying all Council members because the information provided here may be of general interest as well.

I do appreciate your struggles in attempting to come to a right decision, because that demonstrates you are trying to examine all aspects of this discussion, which has now become an issue.
How refreshing!
That is also what elected officials are supposed to do and no one can ask for more.
So, no 'apologies' are needed, least of all to me.

There is no set protocol or rule book with rigid criteria to guide us, and if there were it would be impossible to enforce.

Some of the general principles I have decided to follow -regardless of issue- are these:

• whether decisions are legal

• whether they are fair and consistent with policy and past precedents

• whether they reasonably comport with the process that developed them

• whether the decision is really my [Council's] responsibility

• whether arguments to overturn or change are factual or political

• whether new precedents will be set that will be difficult to sustain

• whether our professional staff supports specific options, and why

• whether the greatest possible community wide benefit is assured

• whether I have done sufficient homework to understand the rationale and reasonable options

• whether my decision honors the recommendations of the volunteer boards and commissions responsible for reviews and recommendations

• whether any adverse unintended consequences may result

• whether decisions are made in sunshine, with reasonable public involvement

• whether public funds are wisely used and benefits outweigh the costs

• whether conflict of interest or appearance of fairness violations may result, or perceptions of same

Note that none of these allow me much room for subjective whim or opinion, autocratic authority, or populism.
None of these are things are sustainable, because voters and taxpayers rightfully expect consistently better justifications."
----------------------
At the meeting in which this 'issue' was finally decided -[4 to 3 against angled parking]- Joan was part of the minority.
She had decided in favor of the original idea proposed by the Parks Dept for angled parking.

But, that was not the biggest decision that Joan Beardsley made that night.

Earlier, she had announced her mistake in believing that four Council votes had been committed to spending all available Greenways 3 money to purchase Chuckanut Ridge property.
That took courage, of which she had plenty!

Here's a brief excerpt of the e-mail I sent her later that night:

'Joan,

Thank you for your courage in making your statement this afternoon and again tonight.
I know it was not an easy thing to do to admit a mistake and try to correct it.
But, you did exactly the right thing and I support you fully.

Regarding tonight's discussion on 10th Street, you again showed the sort of reasoned thinking and backbone that I most admire.
I believe this one little episode served as a real learning experience on how genuine concerns can be elevated and expanded to outlandish, entrenched positions, and the power of pressure exerted in just the right ways to influence what should have been a rather routine decision.
It would be an overstatement to call this a clear case of micro-management, because some legitimate issues were thoroughly discussed and a number of good ideas presented that would have otherwise gone unheard.

In the end, I have to ask myself was this effort worth it?
For the 'winners' perhaps it was, but what about the entire community and the message -intended or unintended- that was communicated?
It was a microcosm of larger issues with which I believe we could have better spent our time, but time management is not a strength of legislative bodies!
In the long term, it will not attract mention in any history books, but I still believe it is the principle that counts, not the petty politics.
This, despite the current awful regime in that other Washington - DC. Guess that comes from being a Tarheel from NC.
We have the reputation for being slow to anger, but once aroused, not retreating from a fight.

The troubling part to me has been the lengths that people will go to get their way, no matter how important.
That has always been my Achilles Heel.
I truly need to trust the people I associate with, as I also need to earn their trust.
Unfortunately, I have lost that feeling with some of the current Council members, but not you.

Joan, you have the greatest potential for the kind of caring and reasoned leadership this city really needs.
You are universally well liked and respected and were elected with 70% of the voters on issues that really count, not the promise of pandering to every special interest group that whines.
You have tremendous political capital to spend wisely, as I am sure you plan to do.
Do not become distracted or discouraged in this noble endeavor!
And take care of yourself by setting realistic limits on what you can do without harming your own well being.
And, above all, do not let this feed your ego!

Thank you again for being there for the fine citizens of Bellingham.
And thanks for just naturally sharing much of my own philosophy of best efforts, every time.
That is obvious and greatly encourages me.

Regards,
John"
--------------------------
God bless you Joan Beardsley. Your spirit lives!
--------------------------
"The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number of people within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us to restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of those unborn generations"
--Theodore Roosevelt

Pork Barrel Heaven: Reflections on the City’s "Living Wage" Ordinance

With the recent announcement of the G-P Tissue Mill finally closing down, with the loss of 210 more truly Family Wage jobs, and with the continued adverse trends of increased poverty levels and un-affordable home prices, it may be appropriate to revisit discussions that started 5 years ago that somewhat related to addressing these problems at the local level.

Because this particular Ordinance impacts the City's budget, but without measurable compensating benefits, it is fair game for scrutiny.
As the article reprinted below demonstrates, this unplanned, un-prioritized and unfunded measure is a 'poster child' example of what can happen when citizens aren't paying attention to the forces at work to influence Council decisions.

In its initial version, this Ordinance was estimated [by Finance Dept & Human Resources] to cost the City over $450,000 ANNUALLY. That amount is currently the equivalent to about 3% in new property taxes!
Of course, the Council can only authorize by itself, a 1% increase in property taxes each year, without a public vote.
Fortunately, the estimated costs per year were reduced in the final version to about $56,000, but because no accounting was provided for, even this remains an estimate.

But, it was not only the ongoing fiscal impacts that were so troubling to me; it was the short-sighted arrogance, driven by organized labor's hidden agenda that was so brazen!
This was mainly a 'feel-good' measure, that was admittedly symbolic in nature; but also one that had hidden costs and other impacts that do not help anyone at budget time.

---------------------------
Just after this Ordinance was passed, I published this Herald Guest Editorial - Circa November 2002:

Aren’t there better ways of achieving the goal of providing more livable wage jobs?

The so-called ‘Living Wage’ ordinance recently passed by City Council supports the Eric Severeid theory; that often a chief cause of problems, are the very ‘solutions’ that politicians devise.

A more accurate title would have been "Minimum Wage" ordinance, but this title was avoided because it loses the cachet of popular appeal.
As supporters of this measure readily admit, it is mostly symbolic and will do very little to actually achieve its professed goal. Let's go a step further and say it will likely just hurt taxpayers by perpetually saddling them with more unnecessary taxes and creeping bureaucracy.

Every City Council member strongly supports the goal of providing more living wages for our community.
But major differences do exist in the methods advocated to achieve this goal.
Without carefully targeting those recipients who are most in need, the effectiveness of this ordinance cannot even be measured.
This is certainly not the kind of law likely to honestly achieve its stated goal.
Whose interest is served by expediting such a symbolic 'shotgun' approach, calculated to attract a bare majority of Council votes, plus the Mayor's blessing?

H.L. Mencken once said that every complex problem has at least one simple solution – which is absolutely wrong!
By passing such a ‘pseudo solution’, more is promised than can be delivered, and already scarce tax money is wasted.
The $55 thousand dollars per year estimated price tag represents the equivalent of about one-half percent property tax increase, or half the amount the Council can legally raise each year without a citizen's vote.
If the Council wants to give this money to people truly in need, why not just award it to the Opportunity Council, or another deserving non-profit with desperate needs?

Recently, a local economist described such inherently futile efforts as examples of the ‘Lake Wobegone Scenario’.
Like that fictional Minnesota town, where ‘all the women are strong, the men are good-looking and the children are above average’, this ordinance rests on a false ‘Alice in Wonderland’ economic theory that suggests we can simply tax and spend our way out of complex problems.
That is wishful thinking.

The most troubling part of this process was that it was mostly conducted in a few Council discussions.
Although these are public meetings, this is typically not an effective way to meaningfully involve those citizens who will later have to pay for resulting programs.
Since this measure is to be funded from existing accounts already earmarked for other purposes, additional revenues will need to be found to make up the shortfall - meaning still more taxes.
It is ironic that the Council was also expected to approve a one- percent property tax increase the same night this ordinance was so hastily passed.
If both measures had passed, over half of the property tax increase would have already been committed to paying for this ordinance.

A wider and more candid discussion, involving the community, might have revealed, and avoided, an unstated objective; that of establishing the precedent of a higher minimum wage to give organized labor a greater leverage in bargaining with the city.
Hidden agendas like this are sometimes disguised as ‘Trojan Horses’, designed to finesse the approval of ‘unintended consequences’.
The understandable reluctance of city officials to openly discuss this sensitive, and potentially very costly, aspect of the issue may have unintentionally aided and abetted this tactic.
Backers were simply able to pass this ordinance with a combination of friendly persuasion and old-fashioned arm-twisting.

Everyone knows it is the duty of public officials to avoid conflicts of interest and not violate the appearance of fairness when engaged in official business.
Our state sunshine laws are designed specifically to insure their accountability to the public.
Unless a consistently careful and balanced approach is followed on all public business, criticism and distrust are invited.

Aristotle was right when he considered politics to be a practical, but inexact science.
Unfortunately, politics has also become a symbolic dirty word because of adverse public perceptions.
Good perceptions are difficult to gain, but easy to lose.
Much more public discussion and deliberation is needed to make effective progress on this important issue.
Additional taxes, if required, should be raised by a public vote.
--------------------------------------
Two years later, in December of 2004, I considered proposing this ordinance be rescinded as one item on the list of budget cuts to be considered for the following year's budget.
But, because no one really knew how much this 'Living Wage' Ordinance actually costs the City, and that four Council votes were still there to defeat the idea, I didn't bother.
But, here were my thoughts anyway:

[Recall that this measure was passed 4-3 after hot debate, even though its estimated effect was to add approximately $56k in costs in the first year]

I continue to have serious concerns in several areas regarding this ordinance:

1.The rates themselves, while well intended, are artificially high for our local economy.
The skills which warrant such rates are already demanding them in the marketplace, and without City subsidy.

2. The City has no mechanisms for:

• capturing the actual additional costs being incurred each year, whether they occur in the General Fund or not

• insuring that contractors & subcontractors are actually using this ordinance to develop bids for City work

• insuring that contractors & subcontractors are actually paying their employees these rates

• insuring that Whatcom County and Bellingham residents are the primary recipients of these wages

• insuring that recipients are truly heads of household, permanent employees or other classes of people needing such financial assistance

• regularly auditing the effects of this ordinance and paying for these costs

3. The rates have the overall effect of increasing costs without any discernable increase in the services received.
In so doing, they may amount to a gifting of scarce public funds to unknown persons

4. The rates themselves exceed other rates paid to City employees, thereby causing salary compression and potential discontent in the work force

5. The precedent set by establishing these rates has the effect of giving more leverage to collective bargaining units, which then tends to increase pressures on escalation of wages and benefits generally

In my mind, this is not responsible legislation and it adds unnecessary costs to our already overburdened General Fund.
I don't know the exact provisions of reconsidering ordinances, but recommend further researching this question.
--------------------------
Unfortunately, the 'Living Wage' Ordinance still stands to this day, costing taxpayers an unknown amount for unknown services.

I wonder if the new Council and Administration will do anything about rescinding this Ordinance and relegating to the scrap heap of bad law where it belongs?

Budgets 101: An Introduction to the Public Purse

Today was a good day. My alma mater won over Georgia Tech and I door-belled about 150 homes in my neighborhood for Dan Pike and Stan Snapp.
At my age, I need physical exercise and I got some walking up and down the hill in my neighborhood [Puget].
The weather cooperated too.
It wasn't exactly hiking Ptarmigan Ridge, but maybe I'll do that tomorrow.
--------
Now Budgets 101.
Boring, but essential.
Especially if you believe its necessary to pay attention to such things.

The City Council has two major duties;
Pass legislation and approve the City budget.

That's it. Anything else is window dressing.

I'll bet some folks didn't know that.
They may think Council members exist mainly to handle complaints, grant wishes, and generally make the Mayor do what the populace [like that word?] wants.
Wrong, but only just.

Of course, there are other important role that Councilors [like that term?] can play!
And, we do.
Some members more than others.

Back to Budget matters.

In 2004, I was honored with the role of Council President.
Little did I know what that might entail!

One thing it entailed was enduring the 'will of Council', the four votes that can take you to places you don't want to go!

With that in mind, here is an article the erstwhile Herald reported on 11/24/2004:
-----------------------
Tight budget splits City Council 

John Stark, The Bellingham Herald

The city of Bellingham is facing a year-end showdown over its 2005 budget as Mayor Mark Asmundson and the City Council debate the best ways to cut costs even as they raise property taxes.

On Tuesday, in a series of straw votes during a contentious three-hour meeting, four council members - Terry Bornemann, Louise Bjornson, Gene Knutson and Barbara Ryan - approved a series of major budget changes that caught both Asmundson and Council President John Watts off guard:

• After a strenuous public campaign by firefighters, the four nixed a plan that would have eliminated one fire engine while adding one emergency medical services unit. That shift would have left the city with six engines and three ambulances while saving $100,000 a year.

• The four also indicated support for placing an emergency medical services levy before voters one more time, probably in the spring. Such a property tax measure failed in a countywide vote in 2003 and in a citywide vote Nov. 2.

• In a departure from decades of budget policy, the four approved a shift in the allocation of city sales tax money, moving about $320,000 out of the $20 million street fund and into the general fund.

• The four also approved cutting $30,000 in hotel and motel tax funding from the Bellingham Whatcom Chamber of Commerce and $50,000 from the Bellingham Whatcom Convention and Visitors Bureau, shifting those sums to the Whatcom Museum of History & Art. The strain of having to choose from a menu of unpopular alternatives appears to be leading to bitterness. A council once accused of being a seven-vote rubber stamp for the mayor is now at odds with him over budget policy, and the council itself is split 4-3 on taxation and spending issues.

"I was as mad last night as I have ever been on the council," Watts said Wednesday.

Asmundson said he and city department heads had done a lot of work presenting council members with a list containing more than $2 million in possible budget cuts for them to consider. He questioned the wisdom of the alternative cuts that the four council members came up with.

Besides saving money, the fire department shift would be a more sensible use of resources, since fires now number in the hundreds while emergency medical services are dispatched thousands of times each year, Asmundson said.

The street fund is already below the level needed to adequately maintain existing streets and build new ones, Asmundson said.

And the cuts to the chamber and visitors' bureau mean less money for tourism promotion, which pays off in tax revenue and other economic benefits to the city, Asmundson said.

Watts agreed. He said he joined Bjornson, Ryan and Bornemann in voting for a property tax increase two weeks ago because he thought other council members would join him in making more spending cuts before the budget process was done.

By shifting money instead of making cuts, the city will face an even bigger budget problem next year, Watts said.

"This will be four years in a row of temporizing measures, borrowing from Peter to pay Paul," Watts said. "We have created what could be the mother of all train wrecks next year. ... Everybody wants to keep the services, but the connection has not been made that to keep the services we need to find more funding."

If the council passes a budget ordinance at its next meeting Dec. 6 by a 4-3 margin, Asmundson could block it with a veto that would require five votes to override.

After Tuesday's three-and-a-half-hour budget session, Watts said he told Asmundson, "If you've got one grain of guts and common sense, you'll use your veto power."

Asmundson said he was studying the situation and it was premature to talk about a veto.

Council member Bornemann blamed the mayor for his preliminary budget that assumed the city would have $1.6 million from the emergency medical services levy. Failure of the levy late in the budget process left council members scrambling for solutions, Bornemann said.

Bornemann also portrayed that vote as justifying his support of keeping fire department staffing at its current configuration, with two EMS units. If voters wanted more, they could have voted for the levy, he said.

But he also expressed hope that the current budget situation will help an EMS levy get voter approval on the third try.

"If it doesn't pass, then the engine company will be gone," Bornemann said. "There won't be any way out of it for the following year."
------------------------
You know what? I'm still mad about that summarily arrogant action!

The apparatus in question had not moved in a 'time-critical' situation since 1991!
Yet, $100 k was allocated to it's full staffing!
Are you kidding me?

Welcome to Budgets 101!

All, 'sins of the past aside', budget time is serious time.
It is the time that Departments put their needs in writing.
It is the time that Council goals get incorporated into the City budget.
It is the time that the public needs to pay attention!
------------------
Now, take a deep breath and pay attention.

The City of Bellingham has earned national recognition for three Important things related to taking care of the public purse:

Clean audits from the State of Washington for eight years, starting in 2000.

Recognition as a Municipality that presents its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [CAFR] in an understandable fashion.

Recognition as a Municipality that presents its budget clearly and understandably.

Thanks are due for these achievements to Therese Holm, City Finance Director.

Bet you didn't know that, did you?
--------------------
Now, what about next year?

The City MUST approve a budget that is in balance - by State law.

And, Council must approve the next year's budget by this year's end.

That is the process that is now in progress. The Council now intends to adopt a budget for 2008 on 11/26/2007, the day before our next elected Mayor takes office.

That may be enough for now.
Let's talk again tomorrow.

Reconveyance: RCWs to Read & Questions to Ask

After last night's Roast of Tim Douglas, I spoke briefly with Pete Kremen about the reconveyance idea.
Here is a synopsis of our brief conversation:

Pete is traveling to Olympia next week to meet with DNR Commissioner Doug Sutherland about the possible reconveyance of over 8,000 acres of DNR forest lands in the Lake Whatcom Watershed to a new use as a Park.
Apparently, Sutherland doesn't welcome advance publicity on this idea, and doesn't want to hear about Whatcom County wanting to protect Lake Whatcom.
Reconveyance for use as a Park is the only reason authorized by State statutes.

But, Pete wants to create a Park that will protect Lake Whatcom better than DNR will likely do by continued logging.
He seems to believe some sort of 'announcement' may be issued soon.
Whether this means a DNR Press Release or a Herald article isn't clear yet, although there were reports of new DNR activity down in Sedro-Wooley today.

Announcement of a reconveyance scheme may be imminent -maybe next week- but the details of just what will transpire is yet to be known.
Pete said he and County folks hadn't talked about this much because they didn't want the idea to be 'blown up' before it had a chance of success.

If the suspected impending announcement does come to pass, it will open up a big new discussion on Lake Whatcom.
Major questions must be asked about things like:

Lost DNR revenues from timber harvests - how much, and how will these funds be replaced?

Land use - what kind of Park is envisioned; will it do a better job of protecting the lake; how would the County's Park Plan fit with State requirements?

Zoning changes from Commercial Forestry - how would this be done; and how administered by County?

This Park scheme may work, but likely several hundred thousand dollars per year must find other funding sources, and the Park itself administered by the County.

It will be interesting to see how this plan will be presented and play out.
Of course, the County Council must muster the 4 votes needed to even begin to accomplish this scheme.
--------------------------
I've now read through all the material Lisa McShane pulled together, including brief references to the applicable RCWs.
This included correspondence from experts who were asked to comment on the DNR's PEIS on the Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan.

Those interested in going to sleep early, can Google 'Access Washington' and search to find the full texts for these RCWs, but here are the three excerpts included in my package of materials:
------------------
RCW 79.22.300
Procedure — Reconveyance back when use ceases.

Whenever the board of county commissioners of any county shall determine that state forest lands, that were acquired from such county by the state pursuant to RCW 79.22.040 and that are under the administration of the department, are needed by the county for public park use in accordance with the county and the state outdoor recreation plans, the board of county commissioners may file an application with the board for the transfer of such state forest lands.

Upon the filing of an application by the board of county commissioners, the department shall cause notice of the impending transfer to be given in the manner provided by RCW 42.30.060. If the department determines that the proposed use is in accordance with the state outdoor recreation plan, it shall reconvey said state forest lands to the requesting county to have and to hold for so long as the state forest lands are developed, maintained, and used for the proposed public park purpose. This reconveyance may contain conditions to allow the department to coordinate the management of any adjacent public lands with the proposed park activity to encourage maximum multiple use management and may reserve rights of way needed to manage other public lands in the area. The application shall be denied if the department finds that the proposed use is not in accord with the state outdoor recreation plan. If the land is not, or ceases to be, used for public park purposes the land shall be conveyed back to the department upon request of the department.


[2004 c 199 § 216; 2003 c 334 § 213; 1983 c 3 § 195; 1969 ex.s. c 47 § 1. Formerly RCW 76.12.072.]

Notes:
Part headings not law -- 2004 c 199: See note following RCW 79.02.010.
Intent -- 2003 c 334: See note following RCW 79.02.010.
---------------------
79.22.310
Timber resource management.
---------------------
79.22.050
Sales and leases of timber, timber land, or products thereon.
=================
Now, here is the URL and Index to RCW 79.22:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79.22

Chapter 79.22 RCW

Acquisition, management, and disposition of state forest lands
Complete Chapter

RCW Sections
PART 1

GENERAL PROVISIONS
79.22.010
Powers of department -- Acquisition of land for reforestation -- Taxes, cancellation.
79.22.020
Acquisition of forest land -- Requisites.
79.22.030
Record of proceedings, etc.
79.22.040
Deed of county land to department.
79.22.050
Sales and leases of timber, timber land, or products thereon.
79.22.060
Transfer, disposal of lands without public auction -- Requirements.
79.22.070
Forest and land management -- Rules -- Penalty.
79.22.080
Utility bonds.
79.22.090
Bonds -- Purchase price of land limited -- Retirement of bonds.
79.22.100
Reacquisition of lands from federal government.
79.22.110
Reconveyance to county in certain cases.
79.22.120
Reconveyance to county of certain leased lands.
PART 2

TRANSFERS OF STATE FOREST LANDS

FOR PUBLIC PARK PURPOSES
79.22.300
Procedure -- Reconveyance back when use ceases.
79.22.310
Timber resource management.
79.22.320
Lands transferred by deed.
79.22.330
Provisions cumulative and nonexclusive.
===============
Figuring out what the requirements are for a Park may prove to be a bigger undertaking than applying for the reconveyance.
Part of that process is for the County to develop a Parks Plan to submit to the IAC [Interagency Committee - see below]

Here is the URL for the Interagency committee for outdoor recreation, plus the applicable WAC [Washington Administrative Code]

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=79A.25

Chapter 79A.25 RCW

Interagency committee for outdoor recreation
Complete Chapter | RCW Dispositions

RCW Sections
79A.25.005
Policy -- Mission of committee.
79A.25.010
Definition of terms.
79A.25.020
Director's powers and duties.
79A.25.030
Determination of proportion of motor vehicle fuel tax moneys derived from tax on marine fuel -- Studies -- Costs.
79A.25.040
Marine fuel tax refund account -- Moneys derived from tax on marine fuel -- Refunding and placement in account -- Exception.
79A.25.050
Marine fuel tax refund account -- Claims for refunds paid from.
79A.25.060
Outdoor recreation account -- Deposits.
79A.25.070
Recreation resource account, motor vehicle fund -- Transfers of moneys from marine fuel tax account.
79A.25.080
Recreation resource account -- Distribution of moneys transferred.
79A.25.090
Interest on funds granted by committee to be returned to source account.
79A.25.100
Conversion of marine recreation land to other uses -- Approval -- Substitution.
79A.25.110
Interagency committee for outdoor recreation -- Created -- Membership -- Terms -- Compensation and travel expenses.
79A.25.120
Plans for public outdoor recreation land acquisition or improvement -- Contents -- Submission -- Recommendations.
79A.25.130
Participation in federal programs -- Authority.
79A.25.140
Commitments or agreements forbidden unless sufficient funds available -- Agreements with federal agencies on behalf of state or local agencies -- Conditions.
79A.25.150
Assistance furnished by state departments -- Appointment of director and personnel -- Civil service exemption.
79A.25.160
Washington state recreation trails system, duties of interagency committee for outdoor recreation.
79A.25.170
Public parks and recreation sites guide.
79A.25.180
Public parks and recreation sites guide -- Review and update.
79A.25.190
Appropriations by subsequent legislatures.
79A.25.200
Recreation resource account.
79A.25.210
Firearms range account -- Grant program -- Rules.
79A.25.220
Firearms range advisory committee.
79A.25.230
Firearms range account -- Gifts and grants.
79A.25.240
Grants and loan administration.
79A.25.250
Acquisition, development, etc., of urban area parks by interagency committee for outdoor recreation.
79A.25.300
Findings.
79A.25.310
Washington invasive species council -- Created.
79A.25.320
Washington invasive species council -- Membership.
79A.25.330
Washington invasive species council -- Goals.
79A.25.340
Washington invasive species council -- Statewide strategic plan.
79A.25.350
Washington invasive species council -- Annual report.
79A.25.360
Washington invasive species council -- Advisory and technical committees authorized.
79A.25.370
Washington invasive species council -- Invasive species council account.
YOUTH OR COMMUNITY ATHLETIC FACILITIES
79A.25.800
Intent.
79A.25.820
Strategic plan -- Funding eligibility -- Regional coordination and cooperative efforts -- Data collection and exchange.
79A.25.830
Gifts, grants, or endowments.
CONSTRUCTION
79A.25.901
Severability -- 1965 c 5.
79A.25.902
Short title.
--------------------
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?dispo=true&cite=286

Title 286 WAC

Interagency committee for outdoor recreation
Last Update: 2/7/06
Hide Dispositions

Chapters
286-04
General.
286-06
Public records.
286-13
General grant assistance rules.
286-26
Nonhighway road and off-road vehicle funds.
286-27
Washington wildlife and recreation program.
286-30
Firearms range.
286-35
Boating facilities program.
286-40
Land and water conservation fund.
286-42
Aquatic lands enhancement account program.
DISPOSITIONS OF CHAPTERS FORMERLY CODIFIED IN THIS TITLE Chapter 286-12 STATEWIDE OUTDOOR RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN (UNCODIFIED).
  Repealed by Order 1, filed 12/10/71. 
[Filed 2/16/67.]
Chapter 286-16 ELIGIBILITY FOR STATE OUTDOOR RECREATION

GRANT-IN-AID ASSISTANCE 286-16-010
Scope of chapter. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.99 RCW. 86-23-038 (Order 86-2), § 286-16-010, filed 11/17/86; 78-03-032 (Order 78-1), § 286-16-010, filed 2/17/78; Order 3, § 286-16-010, filed 7/31/73.]  Repealed by 94-17-095, filed 8/17/94, effective 9/17/94.  Statutory Authority: RCW 43.98A.060(1), [43.98A].070(5),43.99.080 , 46.09.240 and 77.12.720.
286-16-020
Eligibility for funding assistance. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.99 RCW. 78-03-032 (Order 78-1), § 286-16-020, filed 2/17/78; Order 3, § 286-16-020, filed 7/31/73.]  Repealed by 94-17-095, filed 8/17/94, effective 9/17/94.  Statutory Authority: RCW 43.98A.060(1), [43.98A].070(5), 43.99.080, 46.09.240 and 77.12.720.
286-16-030
Apportionment of monies between state and local agencies. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.99 RCW. 79-09-124 (Order 79-1), § 286-16-030, filed 9/5/79; 78-03-032 (Order 78-1), § 286-16-030, filed 2/17/78; Order 3, § 286-16-030, filed 7/31/73.]  Repealed by 94-17-095, filed 8/17/94, effective 9/17/94.  Statutory Authority: RCW 43.98A.060(1), [43.98A].070(5), 43.99.080, 46.09.240 and 77.12.720.
286-16-035
Applications -- Deadlines. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.99 RCW. 87-08-032 (Order 87-1), § 286-16-035, filed 3/27/87. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.99.010, 43.99.110, 43.99.080, 43.99.120, 43.99.060, 42.17.370, 46.09.020, 46.09.170 and 46.09.240. 83-01-030 (Order IAC 82-1), § 286-16-035, filed 12/8/82. Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.99 RCW. 79-09-124 (Order 79-1), § 286-16-035, filed 9/5/79.]  Repealed by 94-17-095, filed 8/17/94, effective 9/17/94.  Statutory Authority: RCW 43.98A.060(1), [43.98A].070(5), 43.99.080,46.09.240 and 77.12.720.
286-16-040
Matching requirements. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.99 RCW. 79-09-124 (Order 79-1), § 286-16-040, filed 9/5/79; 78-03-032 (Order 78-1), § 286-16-040, filed 2/17/78; Order 3, § 286-16-040, filed 7/31/73.]  Repealed by 94-17-095, filed 8/17/94, effective 9/17/94.  Statutory Authority: RCW 43.98A.060(1), [43.98A].070(5),43.99.080 , 46.09.240 and 77.12.720.
286-16-050
Projects eligible for funding. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.99 RCW. 79-09-124 (Order 79-1), § 286-16-050, filed 9/5/79; Order 3, § 286-16-050, filed 7/31/73.]  Repealed by 94-17-095, filed 8/17/94, effective 9/17/94.  Statutory Authority: RCW 43.98A.060(1), [43.98A].070(5), 43.99.080, 46.09.240 and 77.12.720.
286-16-060
Local agency requirements. [Statutory Authority: RCW 43.99.010, 43.99.110, 43.99.080, 43.99.120, 43.99.060, 42.17.370, 46.09.020, 46.09.170 and 46.09.240. 83-01-030 (Order IAC 82-1), § 286-16-060, filed 12/8/82. Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.99 RCW. 79-09-124 (Order 79-1), § 286-16-060, filed 9/5/79; Order 3, § 286-16-060, filed 7/31/73.]  Repealed by 94-17-095, filed 8/17/94, effective 9/17/94.  Statutory Authority: RCW 43.98A.060(1), [43.98A].070(5), 43.99.080, 46.09.240 and 77.12.720.
286-16-070
State agency requirements. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.99 RCW. 78-03-032 (Order 78-1), § 286-16-070, filed 2/17/78; Order 3, § 286-16-070, filed 7/31/73.]  Repealed by 94-17-095, filed 8/17/94, effective 9/17/94.  Statutory Authority: RCW 43.98A.060(1), [43.98A].070(5), 43.99.080, 46.09.240 and 77.12.720.
286-16-080
Grant-in-aid policy. [Statutory Authority: RCW 43.99.010, 43.99.110, 43.99.080, 43.99.120, 43.99.060, 42.17.370, 46.09.020, 46.09.170 and 46.09.240. 83-01-030 (Order IAC 82-1), § 286-16-080, filed 12/8/82. Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.99 RCW. 79-09-124 (Order 79-1), § 286-16-080, filed 9/5/79; 78-03-032 (Order 78-1), § 286-16-080, filed 2/17/78; Order 76-2, § 286-16-080, filed 6/30/76; Order 3, § 286-16-080, filed 7/31/73.]  Repealed by 94-17-095, filed 8/17/94, effective 9/17/94.  Statutory Authority: RCW 43.98A.060(1),[43.98A].070 (5), 43.99.080, 46.09.240 and 77.12.720.
Chapter 286-20 APPLICATION PROCEDURE
286-20-010
Scope of chapter. [Statutory Authority: RCW 43.98A.070(5). 93-24-006, § 286-20-010, filed 11/19/93, effective 12/20/93. Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.99 RCW. 79-09-124 (Order 79-1), § 286-20-010, filed 9/5/79; 78-03-032 (Order 78-1), § 286-20-010, filed 2/17/78; Order 3, § 286-20-010, filed 7/31/73.]  Repealed by 94-17-095, filed 8/17/94, effective 9/17/94.  Statutory Authority: RCW 43.98A.060(1), [43.98A].070(5),43.99.080 , 46.09.240 and 77.12.720.
286-20-020
Application form. [Statutory Authority: RCW 43.99.010, 43.99.110, 43.99.080, 43.99.120, 43.99.060, 42.17.370, 46.09.020, 46.09.170 and 46.09.240. 83-01-030 (Order IAC 82-1), § 286-20-020, filed 12/8/82. Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.99 RCW. 79-09-124 (Order 79-1), § 286-20-020, filed 9/5/79; Order 3, § 286-20-020, filed 7/31/73.]  Repealed by 94-17-095, filed 8/17/94, effective 9/17/94.  Statutory Authority: RCW 43.98A.060(1), [43.98A].070(5), 43.99.080, 46.09.240 and 77.12.720.
286-20-030
Deadlines. [Order 3, § 286-20-030, filed 7/31/73.]  Repealed by 78-03-032 (Order 78-1), filed 2/17/78.  Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.99 RCW.
286-20-040
Application review. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.99 RCW. 79-09-124 (Order 79-1), § 286-20-040, filed 9/5/79.]  Repealed by 94-17-095, filed 8/17/94, effective 9/17/94.  Statutory Authority: RCW 43.98A.060(1),[43.98A].070 (5), 43.99.080, 46.09.240 and 77.12.720.
286-20-060
Acquisition projects -- Required documents and deed of right to use land for public recreation purposes. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.99 RCW. 79-09-124 (Order 79-1), § 286-20-060, filed 9/5/79.]  Repealed by 94-17-095, filed 8/17/94, effective 9/17/94.  Statutory Authority: RCW 43.98A.060(1), [43.98A].070(5), 43.99.080,46.09.240 and 77.12.720.
Chapter 286-24 FUNDED PROJECTS
286-24-010
Scope of chapter. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.99 RCW. 86-23-038 (Order 86-2), § 286-24-010, filed 11/17/86; 78-03-032 (Order 78-1), § 286-24-010, filed 2/17/78; Order 3, § 286-24-010, filed 7/31/73.]  Repealed by 94-17-095, filed 8/17/94, effective 9/17/94.  Statutory Authority: RCW 43.98A.060(1), [43.98A].070(5),43.99.080 , 46.09.240 and 77.12.720.
286-24-015
Final decision. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.99 RCW. 79-09-124 (Order 79-1), § 286-24-015, filed 9/5/79.]  Repealed by 94-17-095, filed 8/17/94, effective 9/17/94.  Statutory Authority: RCW 43.98A.060(1),[43.98A].070 (5), 43.99.080, 46.09.240 and 77.12.720.
286-24-020
Project contract. [Statutory Authority: RCW 43.99.010, 43.99.110, 43.99.080, 43.99.120, 43.99.060, 42.17.370, 46.09.020, 46.09.170 and 46.09.240. 83-01-030 (Order IAC 82-1), § 286-24-020, filed 12/8/82. Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.99 RCW. 79-09-124 (Order 79-1), § 286-24-020, filed 9/5/79; 78-03-032 (Order 78-1), § 286-24-020, filed 2/17/78; Order 3, § 286-24-020, filed 7/31/73.]  Repealed by 94-17-095, filed 8/17/94, effective 9/17/94.  Statutory Authority: RCW 43.98A.060(1), [43.98A].070(5), 43.99.080, 46.09.240 and 77.12.720.
286-24-040
Disbursement of funds. [Statutory Authority: RCW 43.99.010, 43.99.110, 43.99.080, 43.99.120, 43.99.060, 42.17.370, 46.09.020, 46.09.170 and 46.09.240. 83-01-030 (Order IAC 82-1), § 286-24-040, filed 12/8/82. Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.99 RCW. 79-09-124 (Order 79-1), § 286-24-040, filed 9/5/79; 78-03-032 (Order 78-1), § 286-24-040, filed 2/17/78; Order 3, § 286-24-040, filed 7/31/73.]  Repealed by 94-17-095, filed 8/17/94, effective 9/17/94.  Statutory Authority: RCW 43.98A.060(1), [43.98A].070(5), 43.99.080, 46.09.240 and 77.12.720.
286-24-050
Restriction on conversion of facility to other uses. [Statutory Authority: RCW 43.99.010, 43.99.110, 43.99.080, 43.99.120, 43.99.060, 42.17.370, 46.09.020, 46.09.170 and 46.09.240. 83-01-030 (Order IAC 82-1), § 286-24-050, filed 12/8/82. Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.99 RCW. 79-09-124 (Order 79-1), § 286-24-050, filed 9/5/79.]  Repealed by 94-17-095, filed 8/17/94, effective 9/17/94.  Statutory Authority: RCW 43.98A.060(1), [43.98A].070(5), 43.99.080, 46.09.240 and 77.12.720.
286-24-060
Income. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.99 RCW. 79-09-124 (Order 79-1), § 286-24-060, filed 9/5/79.]  Repealed by 94-17-095, filed 8/17/94, effective 9/17/94.  Statutory Authority: RCW 43.98A.060(1),[43.98A].070 (5), 43.99.080, 46.09.240 and 77.12.720.
286-24-070
Permanent project signs. [Statutory Authority: RCW 43.99.010, 43.99.110, 43.99.080, 43.99.120, 43.99.060, 42.17.370, 46.09.020, 46.09.170 and 46.09.240. 83-01-030 (Order IAC 82-1), § 286-24-070, filed 12/8/82. Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.99 RCW. 79-09-124 (Order 79-1), § 286-24-070, filed 9/5/79.]  Repealed by 94-17-095, filed 8/17/94, effective 9/17/94.  Statutory Authority: RCW 43.98A.060(1), [43.98A].070(5),43.99.080 , 46.09.240 and 77.12.720
=============================

Follow the Money!

Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.
-- H. L. Mencken
----------------------
Economics has been called the 'dismal' science, but in Bellingham, it sure ain't dull!

With Budget Time upon us again, I thought it might be appropriate to launch three, related, multi-part blog topics; some -believe it or not- by popular demand.
I don't know how many parts it will take to cover each subject, or when I will consider them complete.
I suppose these things will just have to work themselves out -either when I run out of material, or get bored.
But, I will try to mix these topics up a bit with other stuff, just for the sake of variety.

[Drum roll] Here they are:
----------------------
The City Budget Process - featuring the Budget Advisory Committee, BIBT and other Human Shields

'Christmas is the time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it.
Deficits are when adults tell government what they want and their kids pay for it.'
-- Richard Lamm
----------------------
Pork Barrel Heaven - featuring the Living Wage Ordinance - payees & payors

'Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists'
-- John Kenneth Galbraith
---------------------
Economic Development - featuring 'a rising tide LIFTs all boats'

'Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot.
Others look on it as a cow they can milk.
Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon.'
-- Winston Churchill
---------------------
Because of my periodic laziness, and the boring nature of researching my files on these topics, I will forgo the first installment for now.
But, I'll -probably- be back tomorrow.
Probably.

Dan Pike: An Unabashed Endorsement for Mayor

Tonight, Dan Pike's campaign kick-off event at the Bellwether was a rousing success! This man is pitching a big tent, under which diverse interests are all welcome - every one of them.
One thing that voters seem to have already made clear is that they want a different approach is dealing with many of our local big issues, including having more responsive local government.

That means incumbents are at something of a disadvantage for a change, at least as compared to elections past.
There is a clear call for new blood, new ideas and new courage in our elected officials that seems to reinforce itself each week.

Don't worry about and don't fight it, because that's Democracy at work, folks!
That is the sound of people making their wishes known in the most tangible way possible - thru the ballot box.
And, I hope they do turn out to vote in huge numbers!

One can almost hear Oliver Cromwell's present day counterparts saying " You have sat too long for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!
Over-dramatic perhaps, but maybe something to that effect.

Anyway, I was inspired by Pike's party, and personally plan to redouble my efforts this campaign season.
One way I'm doing it is to write letters to the editor.
Here's my recent submittal to the Herald:
-------------
"I like Pike"

This campaign year, I got to know Dan Pike, which explains my enthusiastic support for him as Mayor.

Describing Pike comes down to 3 things; training, temperament & truthfulness.
He is first a man of principle, who has prepared himself by education and work experience to deal positively with issues vital to the public.

With a degree in Planning from WWU and a Masters in Public Administration from Harvard, Dan demonstrated early in life his intention to dedicate and prepare himself for public service.

And, Pike's work experience has been true to this goal. He has been markedly successful in managing major transportation projects in the I-5 Corridor, at a time of severe funding restrictions.
Now, as Transportation Planner with the Skagit County Council of Governments, he is responsible for regional planning, and has again achieved notable success getting projects approved, funded and completed.

Dan came to Bellingham as a student in 1982, developed a love for this place, and is now a family man, who has achieved his goal of finding meaningful employment near enough Bellingham to live in the Lettered Streets Neighborhood.

Dan Pike is a refreshing new face in Bellingham, who deserves to become our next Mayor!

===========================================
On a related note, I believe the 2008 Elections will reflect, on a national level, what we are experiencing here.
With that in mind, I'm reprinting an e-mail I received today from Project Vote Smart, an organization I support whole heartedly.

Maybe some local folks would like to work with me to help bring their PURPLE BUS to bellingham next year?

Read on to see what this is about.
Or visit the website at www.votesmart.org
---------
Project Vote Smart National Tour

Dear Member,

After 16 years of work on the part of over 6,000 people, Project Vote Smart is about to announce the nation's first Voter's Self-Defense System and we are looking for organizations, schools and foundations across the country to help us make the announcement.
We've created an hour-long multimedia presentation entitled "Depending on the Wisdom of Strangers" that will make your audience want to stand up and cheer.
Announcement presentations are being scheduled in cities across the nation and we are currently looking for invitations for the upcoming 2008 election year.

The presentation demonstrates why we need and how to use the Voter's Self-Defense System that enables every citizen to instantly check the credibility of the often-misleading claims of candidates as they seek your vote.

Project president, Richard Kimball, and several of our board members will make the presentations and in certain cases, if appropriate we will bring our Purple Bus.
A 45 ft. long bus with a movie theater and computer terminals to show how we did it and why the Omaha World-Herald says, " It couldn't be more nonpartisan."

The organization started by Presidents Carter and Ford and 40 other prominent national leaders and funded by the Ford and Carnegie Foundations has worked to construct an enormous system by which any American can instantly access accurate factual data on over 40,000 political candidates. Early reviews have said:

"So good that even the Federal Government recommends it!" -New York Times

"Heaven for Political Junkies!"- USA Today

"Project Vote Smart jammed a wrench into the spin machine." - Atlanta Journal-Constitution

"So good we are recommending it to all of our affiliates."- CNN

"A rebirth of Democracy."- Bill Moyers

"It would make the Founders weep with joy." -U.S. News and World Report

We are looking for large-scale regularly scheduled events with an attendance in upwards of 100, events like a lecture series, conferences and organization/foundation annual meetings.

That said, virtually all requests will be accommodated through our 6 traveling board members, 150 Project Vote Smart Ambassadors and the 30,000 miles our Purple (purple because we are not red or blue, but all in this together) Bus Tour is scheduled to travel.
Please call or email James Ewert and/or Victoria Horrock, our National Tour Coordinators at 406-859-8683 or james@votesmart.org - victoria@votesmart.org

Best wishes,

Richard Kimball

Project President
--------------
Paraphrasing a letter George Washington wrote to the Marquis de Lafayette at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention:
"The production has been many years in the making.
It is now a child of fortune, to be fostered by some and buffeted by others.
What will be the general opinion on, or reception of it is entirely up to the people."

And so it is with most things in a Democracy!
Let's work to have big turn-outs, both in 2007 and 2008, shall we?

Kathryn's SWAN SONG: A Tribute

Nikosi’s Motto: "Do all you can with what you have in the time you have in the place you are." [Nikosi Johnson, age 12, fighter for mothers and children affected by AIDS in his native South Africa and throughout the world]

I promised Kathryn Hanowell that I would not print her 'SWAN SONG', dated SEPT 12, 2007, so I won't.
At least not entirely.

As Bellingham's first Neighborhoods Coordinator, Kathryn has truly found her niche, and it shows!
In the short time she has been involved in her capstone role before retirement she has set a standard of sensitivity, creditability and civility that will be hard to sustain.
But, we must!

At the time Kathryn assumed -and began to define- this role, the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Committee [MNAC] seemed to be teetering on the verge of ineffectiveness, if for no other reason than the Neighborhood Representatives simply felt that way.
Many wondered whether it was worth their time to even attend the meetings, much less believe they could make a difference.
It was a defining moment when the Administration recognized the significance of the pervasive atmosphere of discontent and took action to address it.

Kathryn's assignment to the care and feeding of our neighborhoods, whether planned or not, was brilliant!
But even her gentle and even-handed presence did not calm these waters immediately.
That took time.
Kathryn was patient, listened a lot and acknowledged people's concerns and frustrations.
She also thought a great deal about the concerns expressed and took great care in detailing these before presenting possible solutions.

I really don't mean to embarrass Kathryn with these comments, but I have been watching how she has handled a few crises, and believe she deserves a lot of credit for bringing them to much better conclusions -or at least pointed them in better directions- than many thought was possible.
That takes more than talent.
It takes a personality that is inherently helpful in nature, and a maturity that understands the dynamics at work in building frustrations.

These troubling things took time to develop, and they will take time to figure out how to resolve.
Even with that understanding, Kathryn knows that the only real answer is a continued dialogue that is respectfully conducted.
A sustained, continuous process of improvement based upon understanding the root causes of frustrations and not just their symptoms.
As an astute analyst of these things, Kathryn has been absolutely tireless in her dedication and we owe her our thanks, as a community, for helping us begin to heal the often self-inflicted wounds we have suffered.

OK enough of the serious praise, even though much more is deserved.
-------------------------
Here’s a few of Kathryn’s tongue-in-cheek future 'headlines' -borrowed from her SWAN SONG, that she conjured might eventually appear in the Bellingham Herald: [Note, true to form, there is something for EVERY Neighborhood!]

• Alabama Hill neighborhood records lowest traffic speeds

• Apartment renters say BIRCHWOOD best for kids

• Columbia annual meeting draws thousands to Squalicum Park

• CBD Residents and Bar owners cut deal on closing hours

• Cornwall Park neighborhood applauds Freeway underpass to hospital

• New Edgemoor multi family housing preserves views

• City reports Fairhaven fully developed; residents enjoy relaxed pace

• Guy leads tour of third north end park; library branch expected

• Record salmon run in Padden and Connelly Creeks; Happy Valley Association credited

• City reports no impact on growth from Lettered Streets downzone

• Meridian Neighborhood Association celebrates 10th year

• Mount Baker North and Mount Baker South hold confab on traffic

• Sidewalks on all Puget streets; neighborhood activists credited

• Neighbors’ community building work pushes Roosevelt economic development

• Cyclists crash at San Juan ribbon cutting; Samish leaders call for traffic calming on new bike lanes

• Matsumoto publishes: Right Sizing Urban Villages: the Sehome Experience

• Lake Whatcom phosphorus declines; Silver Beach neighborhood credited

• Whatcom Land Trust names South neighborhood association “Steward of the Year” for Chuckanut Reserve trails work

• Council passes South Hill view ordinance as proposed by neighborhood

• Sunnyland neighbors refurbish Memorial Park tables and restrooms

• Whatcom Falls neighborhood demographics unchanged for fifth year

• Starbucks attempts hostile takeover of Nelson Market; neighbors call for city-wide boycott

• WTA prepares for auto-free WWU

And, last but not least:

•Neighborhood Services Coordinator retires; Mayoral candidates promise more funding for neighborhood services

Thank you, Kathryn!

"You can't teach what you don't know, and you can't lead where you won't go"

The title - coined by Jesse Jackson - seems a good lead-in to this short blog

I took a little breather and spent a delightful day attending a 'Sourdough Speaker Series' event at the North Cascades Environmental Learning Center. It's been two and a half years since this well-designed and sustainably constructed, LEED-compliant mini-campus has been open, and it is truly a great place to visit and recharge one's batteries.

The Center is located off Highway 20, several miles past Newhalen, across Diablo Dam and is carefully sited on gentle wooded slopes.
Operated by North Cascades Institute, it was built as part of the mitigation for increasing hydroelectric capacity for Seattle City Light.
It's mission is focused primarily on children, but former children -adults- are also welcome, with on-site and off-site educational program offered nearly year-round. [December & January are mainly for staff training]

About 35 people came to this event, which featured 'two veteran writers who know virtually everything about the political and environmental history of the Northwest; the good, bad and ugly', as the brochure proclaimed.
From their remarks and their answers to questions, this was true.
It was, as promised, 'an intimate evening of storytelling about the past, present and future of conservation and restoration in the North Cascades and beyond'.

The speakers were Timothy Egan, New York Times reporter and author of award-winning books, The Worst Hard Time [dustbowl story] and The Good Rain [Pacific Northwest classic], and Joel Connelly, Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist reporting on local andregional people, politics and public affairs.

Both these guys are famous for a reason - they are good at what they do!
It's not so much the topics they talk about as the effective manner they tell us.
There is a skill in reporting and writing they both have, that I envy!
Maybe spending a little more time around folks like these, and more time out in nature, will help me learn to do this better?
I hope so! Wish me luck.
-------------------------------
'I am always ready to learn although I do not always like being taught' - Winston Churchill

More Reconveyance Feedback: No Secrets or Surprises

No surprises or secrets were in evidence today during my cordial and informative meeting with Lisa McShane at Conservation Northwest offices. Just history, information and explanations to informal questions made up the agenda. After the small flap caused by my first blog on this subject, I really appreciate the care taken to provide me with information that does answer some of my questions. Others present at this meeting may have their own impressions, but here is my take.

The written information supplied was factual, pertinent and interesting, since it summarized 8 years of work by Lisa and others. That is a considerable investment of time in any subject, and may prove to be very helpful in bringing public attention to an interesting, and potentially very effective, way to preserve a large part of the forested trust lands over which the Dept of Natural Resources has management responsibility. It will take me some time to read and digest all this new information, but maybe a brief report is in order now.

The path to accomplish this reconveyance feat is surprisingly simple, but the devil has been known to inhabit the details. Of course there are some potential drawbacks and uncertainties to navigate, which is normal. It certainly is not a 'done deal', or anything close to that in my estimation, but the path and the step-wise milestones on it are pretty clearly in focus.

That point is interesting if for no other reason than to draw a general parallel to other potentially beneficial undertakings that require vision, meticulous planning, finding the right combination of uses and resources, and developing the all-essential public trust and confidence needed to move ambitious projects forward. What 'other beneficial undertakings' you might ask? Oh, things like the Public Facilities District, the Civic Field Improvements, the Waterfront Redevelopment, and of course the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program, of which the reconveyance idea could play a key part.

Preservation of the watershed lands surrounding Lake Whatcom is already an established goal, but it has been frustrating trying to achieve it in a manner that produces measureable results like slowing, stopping and reversing the adverse trends being seen in Lake water quality. The extent that logging -timber harvesting for the polite- has caused or may cause water quality degradation- we don't know, but logging is a risk and therefore a concern.

The Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan, briefly described in an earlier blog, attempted to curtail logging impacts by restricting it, both in its timing and the methods used. The 'Preferred Alternative' that was eventually adopted did actually succeed, but not very dramatically. Had the most restrictive Alternative been adopted -essentially no logging- the DNR would have had needed full compensation for its projected revenues that are dedicated by law to supporting schools and other trusts. This amount is currently estimated at $1.57 million - per year! That's a big sum of money to be raised and paid to the DNR each year, with only a fraction of it coming back to Whatcom County. But, that remains one method that is available to us.

The Reconveyance method may be simpler, cost less, and support a use that is far more protective than many others - careful, essentially passive, outdoor recreation. In fact, that use is the ONLY one allowed -by law- if a reconveyance plan is pursued. Copies of the various RCWs were made available that seem to make this point clear, and the research into this idea was done by a competent legal firm, knowledgeable on this specific topic.

It seems all the 15,700 acres of DNR managed forest lands in the Lake Whatcom Watershed are already owned by Whatcom County. That means much of the proceeds from DNR 'harvests' go to pay for various trusts right here, but not all the proceeds.
Long story short, the County would not have to pay anything to reconvey the land, because it already owns it.
But, the County would have to find ways of compensating itself for the lost revenues that DNR would have paid it from the proceeds of timber harvests. This effectively saves the County paying DNR's management fee -about 22% of the proceeds- plus maybe some other charges. But, those details are still a little fuzzy because the acreage for possible reconveyance needs to be determined with better accuracy.

Still with me? OK, so if the County requests DNR to initiate reconveyance of certain forest lands, it must specify the acreage and general location of trust lands it wants, then pay DNR its survey, legal and other fees to do it. Then it depends on DNR's intergrant attaining approval to proceed further. The DNR would likely consolidate the lands in question to form a larger mass, rather than scattered parcels or checkerboards. These would conform to certain land characteristics, have reasonable proximity to existing access points and hopefully function as a buffer to sensitive areas like streams and wetlands. Somewhere, concurrent in this process, the County must develop a Parks Plan to be reviewed and approved by the State Inter-Agency Committee [IAC]. After all this happens, the County gets to administer its new Parks Reconveyance per its Plan and at its cost. Pretty complicated to be so simple, huh?

But, there are still many questions to ask and get answered before such a reconveyance actually can happen.
Citizens will need to know the character of the Park, what uses it will support, how it will be administered, developed where necessary, maintained, paid for and enforced. Those are all normal things to expect of such an undertaking, but they still must be accomplished.

I think such a plan could work, especially if the Park conceived were to have the essential characteristics and functions of permanent natural vegetation.
After all, Mother Nature's remedy for run-off filtration is a whole lot better and cheaper than anything else!
And, we already know how to do that. Look at the Stimpson Family Nature Reserve and its contiguous preserved areas as an example.

Now that I know more about reconveyance, it seems like a good idea that deserves a try. Why not take the next step and see what is possible? If that doesn't succeed we haven't lost a lot in my view. As long as the recreation uses that may result from a reconveyance are not as impactful as logging, we are that much ahead of the game. And, if the Park idea should fail after it is established, the forest lands just revert back to DNR.

Also, I found out all the players are public entities; DNR, Whatcom County, Inter-Agency Committee [the state committee that evaluates and prioritizes Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program projects]. That's it. No private interests, unless the DNR finds one to swap it's forest lands with -even steven- before a reconveyance can be done!

More later.
----------------
At least this little episode has served some good purpose. Information that was not secret was made available. And, perhaps, some surprises were avoided. Secrets and surprises are not the same thing, but they are closely related, don't you think? There is certainly no obligation or compelling reason here to share -or not to share- any secrets or avoid -or not avoid- any surprises. But why not share and/or avoid? Isn't that just good practice in general?

Information enlightens people by eliminating ignorance. Ignorance about good possibilities is the bane of mankind in my view. Why not share it? I am told the very best software has been achieved by just putting open architecture stuff out there so people can see it and voluntarily improve on it. Public process can serve that same purpose too, but only if we let it!
------------------
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."

-Thomas Jefferson, Author of the declaration of Independence and 3rd President of the United States.

Growth Management: Meaningfully Involving Neighborhoods -Part 1

Last evening I attended a meeting of the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission, MNAC, for short.
It was remarkable that 20 of our 23 neighborhoods were represented!
Each was given an opportunity to comment.
This meeting was an overwhelmingly positive one, despite the expression by some members of their neighborhood's complaints and criticisms.

There has to be a place where complaints are heard, and heard by more than one neighborhood, because no single neighborhood necessarily has exclusive rights to any single problem. But also, because there is strength in numbers! What affects one neighborhood may one day affect all neighborhoods, so it is good that all neighborhoods can share these problems as well as ideas for how to avoid or mitigate them in the future.

Such a process has multiple benefits, and in many social environments -including governments- it is considered as simply 'working smart'.
Why repeat the same learning curve every time a similar problem occurs?
There is a major benefit to identifying shared solutions that frame issues, honestly and in an informed fashion, which can help the process of resolution greatly, regardless of venue.
Not necessarily solve every conceivable problem, mind you, but share commonalities that can also be used to set policy guidelines for the future.
------------------

One of the serious concerns expressed at the MNAC meeting came from the Whatcom Falls Neighborhood Representative, who was understandably frustrated that the decision described below did not go the way he, and some other neighbors, wanted.

That brings me to the WIndy article and particularly, the Inside the Indy piece which appeared in today's edition.
I understand the concerns and the opinions expressed, but disagree with the conclusions.
These writings focused on the City Council's 4-3 decision last Monday to allow a 'rezone' that some maintained was a precedent that did not follow the Comprehensve Plan.
That view is inaccurate in my opinion.
But, taking the specific to the general case, the WIndy also opined that this might be a 'harbinger, [that] proposals that tout densification and reduction of sprawl will trump any concerns over neighborhood character.'
I strongly disagree, and here's why:

First, the rezone in question is a 'contract rezone', a rare occurrence that may happen once or twice a year.
What distinguishes this type of rezone from the others is that it is considered a 'quasi-judicial' matter rather than a legislative matter.
For the uninitiated, this means a technical loophole that allows alternate proposals, but only if the applicant can demonstrate public benefit by each of 7 specific criteria.
Such decisions are mandated to be made by the City Council after review by the Planning Commission and professional staff.

The Planning Commission was unable to muster 4 votes for any specific set of recommendations, so essentially that body served mainly as a conduit for information and public comment to the Council, which then had the duty to decide the issue, based on the closed record to that point.
This is one of those times that the Council has to act essentially as a jury, and decide the case on the facts already in evidence.
That is inherently an uncomfortable and controversial decision for anyone to have to make, but it is the Council's duty to do it and no one else's.

As Harry Truman said 'the buck stops here'. He also said 'if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen'.

Now, let me say that the 7 criteria to be used as tests are good ones, but not entirely objective. Otherwise, the 'jury' would not be needed!
But, they are not simple criteria; they are subject to interpretation by each Council member.
My own view is that Council members represent the entire community, not individual Wards, Neighborhoods or special interests.
With that in mind, we are charged with the responsibility of applying all of the Comprehensive Plan goals to an issue, and not just those that support a particular point of view.
Folks, that ain't easy!
The Comp Plan means many different things to many different people, but all have to be kept in some sort of balance for it to work for everyone, plus honor the codes and laws that apply [whether folks are aware of them or not].

With all the above in mind, predictably, the Council decision reflected diverse views, with the resulting decision favoring accepting the contract rezone proposed.
That should be OK, because our rules require nothing more than a simple majority.
Unfortunately, this system does seem to produce 'winners and losers'.

Without trying to justify my vote, here's what I saw clearly as the advantages of the decision that was made:

1. A previous application that was vested [means old rules apply] proposed 26 new homes on 10,000 sf lots, although an adjacent area had already been rezoned for the same smaller building footprints requested in the contract rezone, setting a precedent that was difficult to dismiss in these deliberations.
Under that proposal, each lot was required to have a minimum 30' frontage on the to-be-constructed Whitworth Blvd.
[The underlying zoning actually suggests that up to 52-54 lots were potentially allowable]
The contract rezone requested 41 new homes [added to 3 existing] on smaller building footprints and using shared driveways for access, which removes impervious surface area.
Basically this amounts to a clustering concept that is generally not a bad way of efficiently using the land available without unduly impacting the environment, especially in an urban area.

2. The previous application would have provided 50' buffers for Cemetery Creek, a tributary of Whatcom Creek.
The contract rezone provides for 200' buffers, plus over 4 acres of Open Space preserved as wetlands and uncut trees, plus a treed buffer.

3. The previous application did not specifically provide for traffic mitigation on substandard Xenia Street, or to roadways to the North that connect with Old Lakeway Drive, a problematic cut-thru connecting Lakeway and Yew Street.
The contract rezone did specifically provide for traffic calming measures on Xenia Street.

Bottom Line: 15 additional homes; better protection for Cemetery Creek, including trail corridor to help connecting Lakeway with Samish Crest trails to Padden Creek; 4+ acres of added open space; treed buffers; traffic mitigation for Xenia Street and connections to the North.

Now, I ask you, which is the better deal for the City of Bellingham?

I would personally hate to be on any 'winning side' that actually resulted in a markedly inferior development! That would be a case of winning a battle, but losing the war. That kind of thinking has already characterized too much of our history.
-----------------------------
That's enough for one blog I've been told, so maybe there will be more later on this subject.

One last thought:

Our single main challenge is to manage growth and change well, so as to sustain our quality of life.
That is a citywide mission of which Neighborhoods are a very important part!

Reconveyance Feedback

For the second time since beginning this blog, something I have said has elicited a remarkable response.
I am hopeful this will lead to something beneficial to our community, and its efforts to permanently protect Lake Whatcom.

While I don't have sufficient new information now to report on any new facts or insights, this will likely be forthcoming in the next few days.

One thing I want to make crystal clear is that my postings on this subject are not to create sensationalism, but to inform and question. Pertinent questions do need be asked to inform good decisions, and it has been my habit to engage in that practice. Questions have been asked and I trust the answers will be forthcoming, which I will report later.

Likely, my next post will be on a different subject.

Lake Whatcom: An October Surprise?

Lake Whatcom: An October Surprise?

A number of people, including me, have heard Pete Kremen drop a few hints about his idea of a 'reconveyance' of forest properties to ostensibly protect Lake Whatcom. Not many details, mind you, just enough to titillate.
What is Pete really up to? I mean really?
Sounds like a grand scheme that might make him -and maybe others- seem a hero, doesn't it?
Think we might be hearing more about this anytime soon, say maybe next month?
Think certain candidates might benefit from such an October surprise?
Hmmm.

Details are sketchy, but here are some details on the background involving the Department of Natural Resources [DNR], plus a few questions that may help outline the rationale, and maybe even the form such a reconveyance 'surprise' might take.
--------------
DNR owns almost 15,000 acres of forest lands in the Lake Whatcom Watershed, about 47% of the total.
That's a big chunk which is already publicly owned by a State Agency.
But, DNR needs to 'harvest' its lands regularly to return monies to schools and other entities through trusts, by law.
But, harvesting timber in this watershed has become particularly problematic and difficult for DNR with the increased public concerns over protecting our water supply, which happens to be Lake Whatcom.

Not too long ago, our State Legislature accomplished a rare feat, that of agreeing -unanimously- on a measure.
It simply required DNR to establish more stringent Forest Practices for any harvesting done in the Lake Whatcom Watershed.
That bill, sponsored by our Senator Harriet Spanel, gained the support of every member of our legislature at the time, and launched what turned out to be a 3-plus years of deliberation by a stakeholders committee to produce what was termed the Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan.

During this entire time the DNR, under the direction of Commissioner of Public Lands, Doug Sutherland, continuously stalled and tried to frustrate this legislatively directed process.
As this discussion proceeded, it was apparent that DNR didn't want to make any substantial changes, which the agency saw would make its job of returning funds to schools even more difficult than it had become.
The process finally concluded with 4 or 5 'alternate scenarios', from which one was to be selected.

That's when things began to get interesting!
It seems that private forestry owners had been left out of the Landscape Committee deliberations and were frustrated, mad and fearful about what results might be adopted.
They didn't want more stringent rules for DNR because if that happened, they might be next in line for stronger rules.
DNR fueled these fears by its own suspiscion that if a precedent were set for Lake Whatcom, that might spread state-wide, causing them more headaches in meeting their commitment to return funds to public trusts.
Unspoken, was the reality that many private 'foresters' did not plan on remaining true to that label.
They used that cover as a tax advantage until they could get County rezones for development.
Hey, why not convert land valued at a few thousand dollars per acre to lots valued at hundreds of thousands?
After all, the County has been doing that, in concert with Water Districts, for years!

Anyway, the private forestry owners got their turn to review and comment on the Landscape Plan at the end, because Pete Kremen thought they ought to.
The vehicle for this to occur was the Forestry Forum, chaired by County Council member Ward Nelson, who also happens to live in the watershed.
I also served on this committee at the time -along with several others, including Lois Garlick- as the City Council representative.

Long story short, Ward had a technique he had learned about as an Army officer, of using a series of 'pair-wise' comparisons to gain input, from different people with different perspectives, on how to decide which of several choices was better.
I encouraged him to use it and offered to help.

One afternoon, using a computer & projector in the Library Lecture Room, we held a Forestry Forum meeting in which each member was asked to rate the same series of choices that were shown on a big wall screen.
You know, would you prefer this, versus that.
After about 3 hours of discussion, voting and recording the results in special computer software, Ward pushed a button and the results were quickly calculated and flashed on the screen.
They had chosen an Alternate even more stringent than the one put forward by the Landscape Commtitee as 'preferred'!

It felt like all the air went out of the room!
After the results had sunk in and the Forestry Forum folks realized what they had done, their reaction was swift and angry.
Oh no, that's not what we want!
We want the least restrictive one; the one DNR had started with!
None of the more restrictive alternates were acceptable.
End of meeting.

It could have been a prime example of people saying something that seemed politically correct, but really wanting something very different.
A Psychology researcher would have had a field day!

This was a clear case of the group's majority deciding to follow a 'predetermined path to a foregone conclusion', despite what turned out to be a charade of systematically choosing between seemingly simple options.
But, the latter results stood as the strong preference for the majority of the group, so that was that.
And, the Forestry Forum's recommendation was only supposed to be 'advisory' anyway, but was it?
Later, when Pete later asked me, in Ward's absence, to simply summarize these results, I really couldn't do it with a simple yes or no, could I?
-------
Ultimately, DNR did accept the 'Preferred Alternate' as proposed from the Landscape Committee, but it also pulled rank on the County by naming only it's staunch forestry supporters to the oversight committee, instead of the people who were recommended.
That may be how it stands to this day. An exercise in near futility, with a State agency thumbing its nose at the State Legislature and the folks who worked so hard to put into effect more stringent timber harvesting rules in our water supply watershed.
Sad, but true.

It seemed to me at the time, as it still does now, that if DNR was mostly concerned with loss of expected revenues, that could be resolved fairly simply.
Here's how: DNR retains ownership of its lands, estimates its average annual revenues, and proposes that the County and/or City come up with that funding instead of relying on DNR harvests.
That would definitely cut down on the periodic mass-wasting impacts, including slides and muddy run-off, plus grow more mature trees.

I think the number was about $250,000 per year that DNR was counting on.
Paying DNR that amount annually might be doable immediately, at least until another funding method is identified.
Maybe, the City could agree to provide some of these funds from its watershed acquisition surcharge, providing the County did the same from Conservation Futures funds or other source.

Of course later, selective harvesting by DNR might be carefully undertaken to provide some portion of its necessary revenues. But, this would need to be done by some version of the more restrictive rules advocated by the Landscape Committee.
This type of watershed usage -selective harvesting of mature timber- is exactly what was recommended by Dr Richard Horner, a renowned expert in watershed protection!
See how simple this exercise can be?

The above concept is pretty simple, but Pete does seem to have a grander scheme in mind.
If the plan is to shift ownership to the County, what does that help?
Ahhh, that's the stuff heroes are born to do!
------
Who else owns forest lands in -or near- the watershed?
Well, Trillium does for one, about 2400 acres on Galbraith Mountain that were proposed for rezone, maybe more somewhere else?
Then, there were those folks who made up the Forestry Forum.
Maybe a few relatively 'new' owners of watershed property, too.
How about that Iverson guy who snapped up the 125 acres under the power line the City wanted to acquire?
Isn't that the key link that allows access for a water line to Squalicum Mountain, where all that controversial development is going on?
Hmm.
Wonder if any of these forest lands are part of a reconveyance scheme?
If they are, what property -or persuasive power- does the County have that could possibly interest them in a trade?

Is the County's plan to make a large part of the watershed a recreation area?
Lisa McShane's posts through a Lake Whatcom listserv certainly says that is the plan!
Does she know something the rest of us don't know?
Hasn't the County Parks Director been given the assignment of putting together some schemes and proposals?
What form would such recreation uses take?
Active or passive uses?
Motorized vehicles -either watercraft or land-based?
What about access roads?
What about trails?
How will any recreation scheme be administered?
Who will enforce the rules?
At whose cost?
By what funding mechanism?
See how complicated this scheme can become?
Maybe expensive, too!
-------
Which lands outside the watershed are under consideration for either reconveyance or rezoning as compensation?
What would be their intended use?
Are future zoning changes being considered?
Is there a plan to keep forestry as the primary use of these lands?
Can we trust the County to keep forest lands dedicated to forestry?
Is Doug Sutherland really a long time buddy of David Syre?
--------
I'm sure these questions will be answered in due time, but shouldn't they be answered in advance, rather than after the fact?
Will we be asked to reconsider rezoning forest lands for development to pay for protecting our watershed?
Who's likely to get rich over this?
Just a few questions for Pete and the other would-be instant heroes to answer - preferably before October.
Surprise!

Mayoral Elections: I Like Pike!

Tonight, I'm taking a little breather - but not a big one!

On August 23, I indicated that Dan Pike is my choice for our next Mayor.
This posting will confirm that decision, plus give more information, and why I have come to this important decision.

Mayor is our most important job, which means we citizens need to make the best decision possible during the upcoming General Election.

The Mayor manages the entire City Government on a day to day basis -a big job! In addition to managing is the job of leadership, which in many respects is much more difficult.
As Warren Bennis states: "Management is doing things right. Leadership is doing the right thing."
Since 'doing the right thing can mean different things to different people', the Mayor needs the skills to help find effective ways of accomplishing this, and with consistency.

All Department Heads, including Public Works Director, Planning & Community Development Director, Parks & Recreation Director, Police Chief, Fire Chief, Museum Director, Human Resources Director, Information Technology Services Director, Judicial & Support Services Director, are considered 'at will' employees of the Mayor.
This means the Mayor can hire and fire who he/she pleases at any time.
That's what our City Charter says, and until and unless we decide to change it, that is the way these important positions are filled.
In addition, the Mayor gets to appoint the Finance Director, City Attorney and Hearing Examiner, but only with City Council approval. The Library Director is also appointed by the Mayor, but with Library Board approval.
That is a lot of authority vested in one person!

The Mayor also needs to have a good working relationship with the City Council, each member of which is an individually elected public official, also answerable to the public.
Without good rapport with Council, a Mayor will have trouble doing his/her job, because Council has the responsibility for approving the budget and for enacting legislation.
A minimum of four Council votes are necessary for these things to happen.
Five votes from Council are sufficient to force the Mayor to take official action, whether the Mayor agrees with it or not.

With over 850 employees, an overall budget of over $200 million, including a General Fund budget of about $70 million, this person needs to have significant training and management skills!
Of course, these funds are public funds which must be managed according to special rules in the public's best interests.

An ideal mayor also needs to interface effectively with other officials and jurisdictions at all levels to enable making the best decisions and achieving the best results.
Since the mayor represents all citizens, he/she needs to be accessible to all citizens, groups and interests on a continuing basis.
But most of all, the mayor needs to earn the community's trust in order to be effective.
That takes a good communicator, with sensitivity AND a thick skin. A big order for anyone!

I strongly think Dan Pike comes closest to providing these types of leadership and mangement skills.
-------------------------------
Next, because, this election is primarily by mail-in ballot, the timing of campaigns and the return of ballots has changed from has been customary in the past.
Here is information from the Whatcom County Auditor's Official website:
http://www.whatcomcounty.us/auditor/election_division/

For the General Election:

Ballots Mailed to voters .....Wednesday, October 17th [ONLY 5 WEEKS FROM NOW]

Election Day ......Tuesday, November 6th

Election certification .....Tuesday, November 27th
[Our next elected Mayor will take office on this date, not January 1, 2008]
------------------------------
Today, I submitted a letter of endorsement for Dan Pike and it is now posted on his website:
http://pikeformayor.com

Clicking on 'Supporters' gets to the endorsements:

Here are statements by people who endorse Dan Pike for election as the Mayor of Bellingham. Some of them gathered recently to show their combined support for Dan Pike.

From John Watts (& Joan Casey):
---------------------------------------------
I have not known Dan Pike very long, but have made it a point to meet him on several occasions and exchange ideas about issues that our City government faces, which matter greatly to all of us.
Through that process I have come to know Dan Pike pretty well, I think.
That is why I am enthusiastically supporting him now.

Describing Dan comes down to 3 things; training, temperament & truthfulness.
He is first a man of principle, who has prepared himself by formal education and work experience to deal with issues vital to the public good.
With a degree in Planning from WWU's Huxley College, and a Masters in Public Administration from the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, Dan has demonstrated early in life his intention to dedicate himself to public service.
Those are rare, but desirable qualifications in my book.

Since then, his work experience has been valuable both to himself, and to the citizens of Washington.
Dan was markedly successful in managing major [$500 million] transportation projects -in close proximity to the I-5 Corridor- at a time of severe funding restrictions.
Now, Dan holds the position of Transportation Planner with the Skagit County Council of Governments [SCOG], where he is responsible for regional planning, and again has achieved notable success in getting projects approved and completed.
Attesting to this is the enthusiastic endorsement given to Dan by State Senator Mary Margaret Haugen, who is known for her ability to get necessary transportation work done in this state.

Dan came to Bellingham as a student in 1982, developed a love for this place, and is now a family man, who has achieved his goal of finding professional employment near enough Bellingham to live in the Lettered Streets Neighborhood.

Both Joan & I find Dan to be a refreshing new face in our local political arena.
He is someone we can work with, and feel we are heard.
He is someone who is driven by the notion of engaging citizens and making them feel a part of the public process.
His agenda focuses on the right priorities and issues in a positive manner.
He has managed to convey enough of these qualities to people in a short period of time, to emerge from Dark Horse status in the mayor's race to a legitimate front-runner!
In this town, that takes some doing!

But, now the reality is that Dan Pike needs our help to get elected.
He has good support, but not name recognition or the considerable funding enjoyed by his opponent.
We want to help Dan Pike get the support he needs, and soon!
==============================
A Pike for Mayor Campaign Kick-off event will happen on Tuesday, September 18, from 5 to 7 PM at the Bellwether Hotel. All are welcome!
==============================
Additionally, Joan & I will host a Meet Dan Pike event at our house on Thursday, September 27 at 5:30 to 7:30 PM.
Please come, meet Dan, enjoy refreshments, and offer to help the Pike for Mayor Campaign!