'Think globally, act locally'
"Each generation needs to make its own decisions and its own discoveries - which means that one of this generation's responsibilities is to see that the next generation will still have something left to discover."
- Tony Hiss The Experience of Place
----------------------
Less than three months from my departure from the Bellingham City Council, I find myself anticipating the freedom in emancipating myself from the self-imposed rigors of my partially self-imposed schedule.
That feeling is exhilarating!
Au Revoir, Hasta Luego and see you later my friends!
I mean that in all sincerity, but with a modicum of tongue-in-cheek loquacity.
What shall I find to write about, now that my tenure is about to be over?
Not to worry, there is a seemingly endless store of issues and opinions from which to draw.
Some of these topics seem inexhaustible, because they are timeless in nature,
Topics like growth management, lake whatcom preservation, waterfront redevelopment, fiscal responsibility, open government, neighborhood involvement, economic development, library enhancement, greenways, public safety, and citizen involvement are never ending!
And, of course, holding local elected officials -and wannabe's- accountable for their actual performance!
That is as it should be.
Because each generation requires a renewal and a reawakening to regenerate a democracy, particularly at the local level.
The City level is almost as local as one can get, at least when it comes to elected officials which represent a municipality.
The City and County level is where democracy starts.
Those are the levels where people know what's important, and who will represent their interests.
Higher levels, like District, State and Federal are separated more widely than the local level.
But, if you don't get it right at the local level, the problems just get worse as you go up the chain.
But, what is right at the local level you might ask?
Go back to the topics mentioned above, then add to them the considerations of health, welfare and safety at a higher level.
Add to that the importance of feedback from the populace, and leaven that with the promise of responsiveness, and openness, regardless of popularity at the ballot.
Americans need more from their representatives than their dedication to their own re-election!
Democracy begins at home, but it doesn't end there!
Renewal is a constant that should not be ignored!
There is no mention in our constitution of political parties.
That is a construct that has occurred afterwards.
Do not let the will of parties subvert the will of the people.
Votes should be based upon the person and their qualifications for office.
Do not be persuaded by proxy!
Or by propaganda.
Ask questions yourself, and by guided by answers that are represented to be true.
These answers are important in a democracy!
Make sure you ask the right ones, and satisfy yourself that the answers ring true.
We can't ask for more than that.
--------------------------
"My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on." -- JFK
Friday, October 5, 2007
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Mitch's Kool-Aid: Special FISHY Flavor for Election Time
For those who didn't see it in the October 4, 2007 issue of the Whatcom Independent, I am reprinting Mitch Friedman's latest opinion piece on page 9.
While this is certainly not Mitch's best effort, it does seems to reflect much of the negative tone of attacks we've seen evidenced from him lately, especially in the Mayoral race.
But, more troubling is the attitude that this is the plan he wants done, and any expressions of concern or doubt are totally unwelcome!
Some kings or emperors have gotten away with that, but in America?
OK, maybe too broad an example.
Anyway, I've annotated and inserted in CAPITALS a few comments to serve as quick replies to parts of this particular rant.
Come on, Mitch, we're all in this effort together!
Aren't we?
---------------------------
There is something in the water [KOOL-AID?]
The surreal [SUPPRESSED?] public debate over the proposed reconveyance of county forestland in the Lake Whatcom watershed raises questions either about the mental health of our citizenry [THAT DOESN'T SOUND NICE!] or about the honesty and quality of politics in our mayoral race [THERE ARE TWO CANDIDATES, WHICH ONE DOES HE MEAN?].
Either could be an indication of something amiss in our drinking water: an insidious neurotoxin or perhaps something worse [LIKE ANGER AND DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION?].
First let’s cover the basics:
Reconveyance is a home run for the watershed. [BUT AREN"T MORE GAMES WON BY SINGLES, WALKS OR SACRIFICES?]
The opportunity to move 8,400-forested acres from state timber management into county park management is a huge gain for both water quality and public safety [MAYBE IT COULD BE], not to mention public recreation [NO SURPRISE THERE].
This will greatly reduce the threat of logging-caused landslides which have in past harmed both the lake and property and could do worse in the future.
Natural forest is the best water filtration system, explaining why cities from New York to Portland manage their watersheds in this way.
The steep, unstable slopes of Lookout and Stewart mountains make the matter of greater urgency in our watershed [STIPULATED GOOD IDEA, BUT THE QUESTION IS HOW THIS WILL BE DONE AND MANAGED].
It’s true that the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manages timber around Lake Whatcom under the most restrictive plan in the state, [BUT IT IS STILL NOT RESTRICTIVE ENOUGH] thanks to years of hard work by people like Linda Marrom, Jamie Berg, Alan Soicher (a past member of the state Forest Practices Board), Lisa McShane (of Conservation Northwest), Tim Paxton, and Dave Wallin (a prominent forest scientist). [ALL GOOD PEOPLE, BUT THERE IS MUCH LONGER LIST OF NAMES!]
It’s also true that all of these people felt the plan was a compromise and that exclusion of logging on these lands would be preferred.
Furthermore, the state management plan is under litigation by Skagit County and cannot be taken for granted.
All of these people, along with others like April Markowitz chair of the Lake Whatcom Watershed Advisory Board, are thrilled with the prospect of reconveyance [APRIL IS A VALUED AND KEY MEMBER OF THIS CITY ADVISORY BOARD].
Concerns raised over reconveyance are mostly bogus [WHO APPOINTED YOU TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION?].
Of course we need more information and public discussion before finalizing a reconveyance, and we’ll have many months of that ahead [AFTER THE HOPED FOR ELECTION BOUNCE FROM THE ANNOUNCEMENT].
But most of the questions being raised are obvious red herrings [WHO APPOINTED YOU TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION?].
If somebody asks you whether a county park would encourage more [HOW MANY MORE, AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE?] people and pets to come into the watershed, simply remind them that hikers cause far fewer landslides or other harm than would the 43 miles of road (and consequent clear-cuts) that DNR would soon start putting in even if the current management plan survives the Skagit lawsuit.
(About 60 percent of the roads and cuts would be on these 8,400 acres.)
[HOW MANY MILES OF ROADS AND NEW TRAILS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED PARK?]
[WON"T THESE REQUIRE MAINTENANCE, DRAINAGE AND ENFORCEMENT?]
Those voicing these concerns have something suspicious [IS THERE ANY REASON?] in common.
What do Tom Pratum, John Servais and Marian Beddill all have in common? [PROBABLY MULTIPLE THINGS, INCLUDING BEING LONG-TIME CONCERNED LAKE WATCHERS]
They have all vocally declared support for Dan Pike’s mayoral campaign [THAT'S ONE THING THEY HAVE IN COMMON WITH MANY OTHERS] and they are all voicing these so-called questions [NOT SO-CALLED, THEY ARE QUESTIONS, AND LEGITIMATE ONES AT THAT!] about the reconveyance, presumably [THAT'S WHY THIS CALLED AN OPINION PIECE] in an effort to undermine much-deserved public credit to Dan McShane for this great breakthrough [EVEN DAN ADMITS IT WAS NOT HIS IDEA, AND SAID SO TONIGHT].
John Watts, who also supports Pike, was critical of reconveyance [ESPECIALLY THE SECRECY AND TIMING OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT] until he studied the matter and showed the dignity of changing his position [THE IDEA STILL REQUIRES CRITICAL ANALYSIS, WITH MANY MORE FACTS. THAT HASN'T CHANGED].
There was a time when we environmentalists [WHO IS INCLUDED IN THIS 'WE', BESIDES YOU?] tried to broaden our political tent in order to achieve environmental gains.
Of what possible benefit could it be now to do the opposite, and actually try to undermine a huge environmental gain in order to narrow the political tent? [THIS STATEMENT DEFIES LOGIC, BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS AND OPINIONS, WITHOUT ADEQUATE PUBLIC PROCESS AND PROOF]
There’s something in the water.[KOOL-AID?]
Here’s how we get to the heart of the matter: we ask Dan Pike [GOOD IDEA! WHY NOT CUT HIM IN ON THE PLAN? HE KNOWS ABOUT PITCHING A BROAD TENT].
When I used to fish in lakes of the Midwest, I would encounter two kinds of pike.
Walleyed pike swim in the clear, cool depths and are a delight to catch.
Northern pike are bony, teethy, and mean, lurking in the reeds.
I’d like to believe Dan Pike is of the former sort [NICE. ARE YOU CALLING HIM A FISH?].
He’s being awfully quiet about reconveyance [WHY NOT CUT HIM IN ON THE PLAN, THEN GIVE HIM TIME TO CONSIDER IT? AFTER ALL, AS THE NEXT MAYOR, HE COULD REALLY HELP! BUT, MAYBE HE'S JUST A FISH].
Pike’s had plenty of time to study the issue, talk to experts, and so forth [CERTAINLY NOT THE EIGHT YEARS THIS HAS REPORTEDLY BEEN IN THE MAKING!].
He even says he stands for improving Lake Whatcom.
So if he supports reconveyance he should come out and say so, maybe even congratulate those who deserve credit [WHY NOT CUT HIM IN ON THE PLAN? HE'S A BRIGHT, FAIR-MINDED PERSON, BUT PROBABLY LIKES TO MAKE UP HIS OWN MIND, BASED ON FACTS, NOT SUPPOSITION. UNLESS, YOU THINK HE'S A FISH].
That should show he places policy above politics [CERTAINLY YOU MEAN GOOD POLICY ABOVE CHEAP POLITICS] and has character worthy of being mayor.
If Pike doesn’t follow that path, we can assume [REMEMBER HOW THAT PARTICULAR WORD CAN BE BROKEN DOWN?] that the foray of attack dogs from his camp has his blessing [HERE YOU SEEM TO BE ADMITTING YOUR OWN FISHY GAME PLAN!].
If he opposes reconveyance, I want to hear his reasons, and they had better be better than the vitriolic drivel we’ve heard so far [IS THIS THE KIND OF DIALOGUE AND THREAT LIKELY TO ACHIEVE SOME POSITIVE OUTCOME?].
---------------
Mitch Friedman is a conservation biologist and Executive Director of Conservation Northwest, which has worked since 1999 to protect state lands in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Whatcom Independent •
While this is certainly not Mitch's best effort, it does seems to reflect much of the negative tone of attacks we've seen evidenced from him lately, especially in the Mayoral race.
But, more troubling is the attitude that this is the plan he wants done, and any expressions of concern or doubt are totally unwelcome!
Some kings or emperors have gotten away with that, but in America?
OK, maybe too broad an example.
Anyway, I've annotated and inserted in CAPITALS a few comments to serve as quick replies to parts of this particular rant.
Come on, Mitch, we're all in this effort together!
Aren't we?
---------------------------
There is something in the water [KOOL-AID?]
The surreal [SUPPRESSED?] public debate over the proposed reconveyance of county forestland in the Lake Whatcom watershed raises questions either about the mental health of our citizenry [THAT DOESN'T SOUND NICE!] or about the honesty and quality of politics in our mayoral race [THERE ARE TWO CANDIDATES, WHICH ONE DOES HE MEAN?].
Either could be an indication of something amiss in our drinking water: an insidious neurotoxin or perhaps something worse [LIKE ANGER AND DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION?].
First let’s cover the basics:
Reconveyance is a home run for the watershed. [BUT AREN"T MORE GAMES WON BY SINGLES, WALKS OR SACRIFICES?]
The opportunity to move 8,400-forested acres from state timber management into county park management is a huge gain for both water quality and public safety [MAYBE IT COULD BE], not to mention public recreation [NO SURPRISE THERE].
This will greatly reduce the threat of logging-caused landslides which have in past harmed both the lake and property and could do worse in the future.
Natural forest is the best water filtration system, explaining why cities from New York to Portland manage their watersheds in this way.
The steep, unstable slopes of Lookout and Stewart mountains make the matter of greater urgency in our watershed [STIPULATED GOOD IDEA, BUT THE QUESTION IS HOW THIS WILL BE DONE AND MANAGED].
It’s true that the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manages timber around Lake Whatcom under the most restrictive plan in the state, [BUT IT IS STILL NOT RESTRICTIVE ENOUGH] thanks to years of hard work by people like Linda Marrom, Jamie Berg, Alan Soicher (a past member of the state Forest Practices Board), Lisa McShane (of Conservation Northwest), Tim Paxton, and Dave Wallin (a prominent forest scientist). [ALL GOOD PEOPLE, BUT THERE IS MUCH LONGER LIST OF NAMES!]
It’s also true that all of these people felt the plan was a compromise and that exclusion of logging on these lands would be preferred.
Furthermore, the state management plan is under litigation by Skagit County and cannot be taken for granted.
All of these people, along with others like April Markowitz chair of the Lake Whatcom Watershed Advisory Board, are thrilled with the prospect of reconveyance [APRIL IS A VALUED AND KEY MEMBER OF THIS CITY ADVISORY BOARD].
Concerns raised over reconveyance are mostly bogus [WHO APPOINTED YOU TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION?].
Of course we need more information and public discussion before finalizing a reconveyance, and we’ll have many months of that ahead [AFTER THE HOPED FOR ELECTION BOUNCE FROM THE ANNOUNCEMENT].
But most of the questions being raised are obvious red herrings [WHO APPOINTED YOU TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION?].
If somebody asks you whether a county park would encourage more [HOW MANY MORE, AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE?] people and pets to come into the watershed, simply remind them that hikers cause far fewer landslides or other harm than would the 43 miles of road (and consequent clear-cuts) that DNR would soon start putting in even if the current management plan survives the Skagit lawsuit.
(About 60 percent of the roads and cuts would be on these 8,400 acres.)
[HOW MANY MILES OF ROADS AND NEW TRAILS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED PARK?]
[WON"T THESE REQUIRE MAINTENANCE, DRAINAGE AND ENFORCEMENT?]
Those voicing these concerns have something suspicious [IS THERE ANY REASON?] in common.
What do Tom Pratum, John Servais and Marian Beddill all have in common? [PROBABLY MULTIPLE THINGS, INCLUDING BEING LONG-TIME CONCERNED LAKE WATCHERS]
They have all vocally declared support for Dan Pike’s mayoral campaign [THAT'S ONE THING THEY HAVE IN COMMON WITH MANY OTHERS] and they are all voicing these so-called questions [NOT SO-CALLED, THEY ARE QUESTIONS, AND LEGITIMATE ONES AT THAT!] about the reconveyance, presumably [THAT'S WHY THIS CALLED AN OPINION PIECE] in an effort to undermine much-deserved public credit to Dan McShane for this great breakthrough [EVEN DAN ADMITS IT WAS NOT HIS IDEA, AND SAID SO TONIGHT].
John Watts, who also supports Pike, was critical of reconveyance [ESPECIALLY THE SECRECY AND TIMING OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT] until he studied the matter and showed the dignity of changing his position [THE IDEA STILL REQUIRES CRITICAL ANALYSIS, WITH MANY MORE FACTS. THAT HASN'T CHANGED].
There was a time when we environmentalists [WHO IS INCLUDED IN THIS 'WE', BESIDES YOU?] tried to broaden our political tent in order to achieve environmental gains.
Of what possible benefit could it be now to do the opposite, and actually try to undermine a huge environmental gain in order to narrow the political tent? [THIS STATEMENT DEFIES LOGIC, BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS AND OPINIONS, WITHOUT ADEQUATE PUBLIC PROCESS AND PROOF]
There’s something in the water.[KOOL-AID?]
Here’s how we get to the heart of the matter: we ask Dan Pike [GOOD IDEA! WHY NOT CUT HIM IN ON THE PLAN? HE KNOWS ABOUT PITCHING A BROAD TENT].
When I used to fish in lakes of the Midwest, I would encounter two kinds of pike.
Walleyed pike swim in the clear, cool depths and are a delight to catch.
Northern pike are bony, teethy, and mean, lurking in the reeds.
I’d like to believe Dan Pike is of the former sort [NICE. ARE YOU CALLING HIM A FISH?].
He’s being awfully quiet about reconveyance [WHY NOT CUT HIM IN ON THE PLAN, THEN GIVE HIM TIME TO CONSIDER IT? AFTER ALL, AS THE NEXT MAYOR, HE COULD REALLY HELP! BUT, MAYBE HE'S JUST A FISH].
Pike’s had plenty of time to study the issue, talk to experts, and so forth [CERTAINLY NOT THE EIGHT YEARS THIS HAS REPORTEDLY BEEN IN THE MAKING!].
He even says he stands for improving Lake Whatcom.
So if he supports reconveyance he should come out and say so, maybe even congratulate those who deserve credit [WHY NOT CUT HIM IN ON THE PLAN? HE'S A BRIGHT, FAIR-MINDED PERSON, BUT PROBABLY LIKES TO MAKE UP HIS OWN MIND, BASED ON FACTS, NOT SUPPOSITION. UNLESS, YOU THINK HE'S A FISH].
That should show he places policy above politics [CERTAINLY YOU MEAN GOOD POLICY ABOVE CHEAP POLITICS] and has character worthy of being mayor.
If Pike doesn’t follow that path, we can assume [REMEMBER HOW THAT PARTICULAR WORD CAN BE BROKEN DOWN?] that the foray of attack dogs from his camp has his blessing [HERE YOU SEEM TO BE ADMITTING YOUR OWN FISHY GAME PLAN!].
If he opposes reconveyance, I want to hear his reasons, and they had better be better than the vitriolic drivel we’ve heard so far [IS THIS THE KIND OF DIALOGUE AND THREAT LIKELY TO ACHIEVE SOME POSITIVE OUTCOME?].
---------------
Mitch Friedman is a conservation biologist and Executive Director of Conservation Northwest, which has worked since 1999 to protect state lands in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Whatcom Independent •
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
WLV Forum: Ad Libs, Glibs & Fibs
The format and questions at tonight's forum was good.
But, understandably due to time limits, some lack of factual knowledge, some lack of candor, some of the answers provided by some of candidates were -being kind- unenlightening.
Without any pretense at completeness, here were some brief observations, given without specific attribution to any person:
----------------------------
Mayor's race:
Ad Lib: 're-prioritizing' the city budget was mentioned without any specifics.
Does the candidate understand that the City's 2008 budget will be adopted on 11/26, the day before a new mayor takes office?
Glib: current administrative experience: 2 direct reports and 30 'cats to herd'. [meaning diverse elected officials]
Fib: opponent's 'inexperience' caused misunderstanding of surprise announcement.
---------------------------
Ward 1 Council race: No competition, therefore no opportunity for fun!
--------------------------
Ward 3 Council race:
Ad Lib: a proposal to eliminate B&O tax.
Let's see that's only $12.250 million projected for 2007!
Glib: City capital facilities priority should be stormwater facilities to protect Lake Whatcom. [2% of watershed in City]
City already has stormwater funding, but technology won't remove phosphorus.
Preservation of natural vegetation works much better!
Fib: Lake Whatcom is not in top 3 priorities, because that topic is 'already being addressed'.
-----------------------------
Ward 4 Council race:
Ad Lib: Do no more harm, buy out WD 10 and raise $100 million
Glib: Just streamline permitting [times 2]
Fib: Simple Lake Whatcom rating system of 12 to 15 actions versus cleaning efficiency, then just pick those we want, like a loaf of bread!
---------------------------
Ward 5 Council race:
Ad Lib: Development already pays it's infrastruture costs, except Cordata
Partially accurate, but Cordata situation was mandated by agreement with County!
Glib: Single Family residential zoning; Planning Director is compelled to address
Only after sufficient evidence is gathered, which is the problem!
Fib: Denied not answering questionnaires!
Pretty easy to check, don't you think?
--------------------------
At Large Council race:
Ad Lib: Energized by the campaign!
Glib: Rattled off long list of endorsements
Fib: Voted for better Lake Whatcom program
--------------------------
That's it folks, just enough to count as a blog
But, understandably due to time limits, some lack of factual knowledge, some lack of candor, some of the answers provided by some of candidates were -being kind- unenlightening.
Without any pretense at completeness, here were some brief observations, given without specific attribution to any person:
----------------------------
Mayor's race:
Ad Lib: 're-prioritizing' the city budget was mentioned without any specifics.
Does the candidate understand that the City's 2008 budget will be adopted on 11/26, the day before a new mayor takes office?
Glib: current administrative experience: 2 direct reports and 30 'cats to herd'. [meaning diverse elected officials]
Fib: opponent's 'inexperience' caused misunderstanding of surprise announcement.
---------------------------
Ward 1 Council race: No competition, therefore no opportunity for fun!
--------------------------
Ward 3 Council race:
Ad Lib: a proposal to eliminate B&O tax.
Let's see that's only $12.250 million projected for 2007!
Glib: City capital facilities priority should be stormwater facilities to protect Lake Whatcom. [2% of watershed in City]
City already has stormwater funding, but technology won't remove phosphorus.
Preservation of natural vegetation works much better!
Fib: Lake Whatcom is not in top 3 priorities, because that topic is 'already being addressed'.
-----------------------------
Ward 4 Council race:
Ad Lib: Do no more harm, buy out WD 10 and raise $100 million
Glib: Just streamline permitting [times 2]
Fib: Simple Lake Whatcom rating system of 12 to 15 actions versus cleaning efficiency, then just pick those we want, like a loaf of bread!
---------------------------
Ward 5 Council race:
Ad Lib: Development already pays it's infrastruture costs, except Cordata
Partially accurate, but Cordata situation was mandated by agreement with County!
Glib: Single Family residential zoning; Planning Director is compelled to address
Only after sufficient evidence is gathered, which is the problem!
Fib: Denied not answering questionnaires!
Pretty easy to check, don't you think?
--------------------------
At Large Council race:
Ad Lib: Energized by the campaign!
Glib: Rattled off long list of endorsements
Fib: Voted for better Lake Whatcom program
--------------------------
That's it folks, just enough to count as a blog
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Lake Whatcom: Water District Fiefdom or Community Treasure?
Regulations for the Public Good
"So careful is the law [in England] against permitting a deterioration of the land, that though it will permit such improvement in the same line, as manuring arable lands, leading water into pasture lands, etc., yet it will not permit improvements in a different line, such as erecting buildings, converting pasture into arable, etc., lest this should lead to a deterioration.
Hence we might argue in Virginia, that though the cutting down of forest in Virginia is, in our husbandry, rather an improvement generally, yet it is not so always, and therefore it is safer never to admit it."
--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1792.
"The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility. It is to be drawn upon largely, and they will then listen to truths which could not excite them through any other organ."
--Thomas Jefferson to A. H. Rowan, 1798.
"Water is the most critical resource issue of our lifetime and our children's lifetime.
The health of our waters is the principle measure of how we live on the land."
- Luna Leopold
"Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation and social standing, never can bring about a reform."
-- Susan B. Anthony
"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 (1858-1919) - 26th President of the United States
------------------------------------
On August 15, 2000, Blair Ford, President of Water District 10 Commissioners sent the letter below to the Bellingham City Council, with copies to various others.
The reason for this communication was the impending passage of the City's Watershed Preservation & Acquisition Ordinance, which raised its funding from a water rate surcharge.
Designed to raise about $2 million per year, the surcharge was a substantial $5 per month for residential users, and scaled to other users.
Water Districts, as bulk users outside the City Limits, were already being charged an additional 50% for the privilege of using potable water from the City's treatment plant.
This is allowed and provided for by State Law as a means of compensating the City, as water purveyor. for its costs of building and operating its water treatment utility.
The 150% is actually a pretty reasonable rate.
At least one city charges 400%.
The City of Bellingham has an Interlocal Agreement with Water District 10 which outlines the terms under which water will be supplied.
But this Interlocal also covers sewage, and the City's commitment to take it for treatment at its Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant.
There are limits on the amounts mentioned in this Interlocal Agreement, which some believe are excessive.
The argument goes this way:
Why should the City enable sprawl in its Municipal Water Supply Watershed, by supplying the Water District with water and sewer services?
While considerable development already exists, it makes sense to continue to supply these services to that.
But, what about new development?
How much is enough?
I believe it is time to revisit our Interlocal Agreement with the Water District and come to grips with our present reality, not something that existed 30 or 40 years ago.
Water Districts are 'Special Purpose Districts' under State Law, and have duties and responsibilities that are defined.
They are governed by an elected Board of Commissioners, who hire a Manager to oversee operations.
Whatcom County Water District 10 has now changed its name to Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District, which probably fits better.
That is because its boundaries are the boundaries of the Lake Whatcom RESERVOIR Watershed.
Or, at least that was the way we understood the boundaries.
Now, this Water District seems to want to extend its services outside its boundaries!
Why, you might ask?
Well, because it thinks it can, that's why.
Also, that has been the traditional method by which this Water District pays its costs - by expanding its customer base.
What is wrong with that picture?
Maybe the RESERVOIR Watershed is not an appropriate place for unrestricted expansion?
Bingo!
That is the crux of our current dilemma.
The Water District wants to continue expanding its service indefinitely, regardless of what Whatcom County and the City of Bellingham are trying to do to protect our RESERVOIR.
Notice, I keep using the 'R' word, because the Water District remains in denial that it is a RESERVOIR!
Back to WD 10 modus operandi.
The District has a much more complicated distribution system than does the City.
Its maintenance problems are severe, and it shows.
For example, it operates [at last count] about 27 pumping stations, to the City's 4.
It's terrain is hilly and its service expansions tend to induce and feed daisy-chain sprawl, not limit it.
It has suffered periodic sewage overflows directly into Lake Whatcom
Its remedy was to seek State funding for a larger detention tank, and also a larger sewer line!
What was wrong with that picture?
A larger sewer line to feed more sprawl, so that eventually another bigger spill is sure to occur!
In short, the LWW&S District is a poster child for a high-cost, high-maintenance operation in an inappropriate palce, that is constantly seeking to expand to offset its costs by increased volume!
That appears to be more acceptable than just charging its customers the actual costs of its operations!
Since when was Lake Whatcom supposed to be an inexpensive place to live?
Who ought to decide such things?
Now, we have this renegade Water District seeking special dispensation from Whatcom County to extend its tenacles into an new area of proposed development.
An area outside of any recognized UGA.
An area being sought by speculators for 'cluster' development.
'Cluster' development for mega-homes?
I don't get it.
And I hope the County doesn't either!
If we are serious about protecting our drinking water RESERVOIR, we'd better get serious about better control of the LWW&S District.
They continue to work at cross purposes to the good efforts being exerted by both County and City.
That practice needs to end, and soon!
Read for yourself how arrogant this WD was, and continues to be:
------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amending Bellingham Municipal Code Section 15.08.250D Relating to Water Use Rates
Dear City Council Members:
Water District 10’s Board of Commissioners recently learned (through an August 1, 2000 Bellingham Herald article) about your proposed ordinance to increase City water rates to acquire land in the Lake Whatcom watershed. We reviewed and discussed this ordinance at our Regular Public Meeting on August 9, 2000. The following concerns are the results of our deliberations.
1. We believe the proposed unilateral action violates our contractual agreement as outlined in the Lake Whatcom Interlocal Agreement, and subsequent joint resolutions regarding inter-jurisdictional action within the scope of programs and plans. Resolutions regarding Lake Whatcom management necessitate regular communication, collaboration, coordination, and cooperation at all levels between the City, the County, and the District. The effectiveness and efficiency (i.e., the “success”) of the various Lake Whatcom management programs depends totally on our collective adherence to these four “C” principles. Albeit probably unintentional, your proposed ordinance violates the spirit and letter of the Lake Whatcom management interlocal agreements and resolutions. It also represents a total disregard of the aforementioned guiding principles. We are justifiably surprised, dismayed, and disheartened by your action. We suggest that you defer action on the ordinance for now and engage the County and Water District 10 in accordance with our Agreements.
2. Your “discretionary” rate increase will be our “obligatory” rate increase. Unless you specifically exempt us, any water rate increase that you impose will increase the District’s operating costs, since the District purchases water from the City under contract for redistribution within our own Geneva and North Shore (primarily Eagleridge) service areas. Your rate increases, depending on their size and our ability to absorb them, can, and usually do, precipitate consequential rate increases throughout the District. As water purveyors ourselves, we fully recognize and appreciate that operating costs routinely increase, and that we both need to unilaterally adjust rates accordingly to create revenues that will cover these costs. The types of rate increases you are considering do not qualify as non-discretionary, since they are within your abilities to control and/or contain them. The rate increase you propose now is purely discretionary. You do not “need” to do this. The legitimacy of imposing non-operating costs upon ratepayers outside areas of your legal jurisdiction is highly questionable. It smacks of “taxation without representation.” As such, we protest the proposed action.
3. District ratepayers are already paying a disproportionate share of City water treatment and distribution costs. Merely because the District’s service area lies outside the City limits, the City imposes, as allowed by state law, a 50% surcharge on all water sold to the District. Arguably then, we are already paying more for water treatment and distribution operating costs than is otherwise defensible based on the actual cost of service, particularly since the City does not maintain nor repair any of the District’s distribution system. We are therefore concerned that your “…proportionate amount for metered water users…” could/would include a 50% surcharge similar to that now imposed. Notwithstanding any other considerations, we object to any surcharge as patently unfair to not only District ratepayers, but to all external City water consumers.
4. District ratepayers are already paying a very significant share of Lake Whatcom watershed protection costs. District rate payers already have shouldered, are now shouldering, and will continue to shoulder, a disproportionate Lake Whatcom Watershed protection cost burden through (1) a Consent Decree settling a Clean Water Act lawsuit against the District, which involved payment of $220,000 to the Whatcom Land Trust for “…purchase and permanent protection of environmentally sensitive, undeveloped land in the Lake Whatcom watershed, as described in Appendix A to this Decree…”, (2) the repayment of the ~$500,000 Sudden Valley Sewage Detention Tank loan over the next 4 years, a burden carried by all District sewer ratepayers, and (3) the planned repayment through increased sewer rates of Lake Louise Road Sewer Interceptor pipe over-sizing (to contain inflow and infiltration generated by the Sudden Valley and Geneva sewage collection systems) costs. The proposed rate increase would inequitably increase the watershed protection cost burden of District ratepayers.
5. Given that the exclusive purpose of the proposed ordinance is to acquire land in the Lake Whatcom watershed, we do not believe that a water rate increase is an appropriate funding method. The proposed rate increase is in fact a special purpose “excise tax” to be levied against a select population within and outside the City to finance a course of action to be defined by the City alone. If such a tax is warranted, the County, not the City, would be the proper authority to impose such a tax.
6. Under the proposal, some watershed protection “beneficiaries” will not pay fairly, or not at all. Assuming for the moment, that all land acquisition actions under the proposed ordinance if passed, would produce tangible, measurable water quality protection benefits to all Lake water use categories. (e.g., drinking, irrigation, recreation, pisciculture, aesthetics) Then many of these “beneficiaries” would escape paying for it since they receive no City water bill (e.g., watershed residents drawing water directly from the Lake or wells, “out-of-towners” swimming at Bloedel Donovan Park). In this respect, the City should have pursued the action outlined in Section 3 of the proposed ordinance.
7. A specific property acquisition plan has not been discussed, nor have specific land acquisition policies, procedures, or associated details as to location within and/or outside of the City limits, how to acquire, and when to acquire. This is the first step. It should be integrated with other watershed protection options that might prove more feasible and or cost effective.*
8. The proposed ordinance would collect funds before the actual need is identified and the project scope is developed. Cueing from the above, government is typically cast in dim light when it collects funds before a need is verified and quantities are known. The funding needs should follow from the action plan. Accordingly, you should first figure what you want to do, where you want to do it, and how much it will cost.* Once you have this information catalogued, you can then determine how to collect the funds.
9. To the best of our knowledge, the City has not performed a cost/benefit analysis of the proposed program.* This should be an essential ingredient to your decision making. Without it, you are merely doing something that just “sounds” good or “feels” right.
10. *The Comprehensive Lake Whatcom Storm Water Plan, currently under development, should eventually answer all these questions and provide this information in context with other viable water quality protection alternatives. For this critical reason, we again recommend deferring all major watershed protection initiatives pending receipt of a Plan that presents the optimum watershed protection action package.
"So careful is the law [in England] against permitting a deterioration of the land, that though it will permit such improvement in the same line, as manuring arable lands, leading water into pasture lands, etc., yet it will not permit improvements in a different line, such as erecting buildings, converting pasture into arable, etc., lest this should lead to a deterioration.
Hence we might argue in Virginia, that though the cutting down of forest in Virginia is, in our husbandry, rather an improvement generally, yet it is not so always, and therefore it is safer never to admit it."
--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1792.
"The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility. It is to be drawn upon largely, and they will then listen to truths which could not excite them through any other organ."
--Thomas Jefferson to A. H. Rowan, 1798.
"Water is the most critical resource issue of our lifetime and our children's lifetime.
The health of our waters is the principle measure of how we live on the land."
- Luna Leopold
"Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation and social standing, never can bring about a reform."
-- Susan B. Anthony
"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 (1858-1919) - 26th President of the United States
------------------------------------
On August 15, 2000, Blair Ford, President of Water District 10 Commissioners sent the letter below to the Bellingham City Council, with copies to various others.
The reason for this communication was the impending passage of the City's Watershed Preservation & Acquisition Ordinance, which raised its funding from a water rate surcharge.
Designed to raise about $2 million per year, the surcharge was a substantial $5 per month for residential users, and scaled to other users.
Water Districts, as bulk users outside the City Limits, were already being charged an additional 50% for the privilege of using potable water from the City's treatment plant.
This is allowed and provided for by State Law as a means of compensating the City, as water purveyor. for its costs of building and operating its water treatment utility.
The 150% is actually a pretty reasonable rate.
At least one city charges 400%.
The City of Bellingham has an Interlocal Agreement with Water District 10 which outlines the terms under which water will be supplied.
But this Interlocal also covers sewage, and the City's commitment to take it for treatment at its Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant.
There are limits on the amounts mentioned in this Interlocal Agreement, which some believe are excessive.
The argument goes this way:
Why should the City enable sprawl in its Municipal Water Supply Watershed, by supplying the Water District with water and sewer services?
While considerable development already exists, it makes sense to continue to supply these services to that.
But, what about new development?
How much is enough?
I believe it is time to revisit our Interlocal Agreement with the Water District and come to grips with our present reality, not something that existed 30 or 40 years ago.
Water Districts are 'Special Purpose Districts' under State Law, and have duties and responsibilities that are defined.
They are governed by an elected Board of Commissioners, who hire a Manager to oversee operations.
Whatcom County Water District 10 has now changed its name to Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District, which probably fits better.
That is because its boundaries are the boundaries of the Lake Whatcom RESERVOIR Watershed.
Or, at least that was the way we understood the boundaries.
Now, this Water District seems to want to extend its services outside its boundaries!
Why, you might ask?
Well, because it thinks it can, that's why.
Also, that has been the traditional method by which this Water District pays its costs - by expanding its customer base.
What is wrong with that picture?
Maybe the RESERVOIR Watershed is not an appropriate place for unrestricted expansion?
Bingo!
That is the crux of our current dilemma.
The Water District wants to continue expanding its service indefinitely, regardless of what Whatcom County and the City of Bellingham are trying to do to protect our RESERVOIR.
Notice, I keep using the 'R' word, because the Water District remains in denial that it is a RESERVOIR!
Back to WD 10 modus operandi.
The District has a much more complicated distribution system than does the City.
Its maintenance problems are severe, and it shows.
For example, it operates [at last count] about 27 pumping stations, to the City's 4.
It's terrain is hilly and its service expansions tend to induce and feed daisy-chain sprawl, not limit it.
It has suffered periodic sewage overflows directly into Lake Whatcom
Its remedy was to seek State funding for a larger detention tank, and also a larger sewer line!
What was wrong with that picture?
A larger sewer line to feed more sprawl, so that eventually another bigger spill is sure to occur!
In short, the LWW&S District is a poster child for a high-cost, high-maintenance operation in an inappropriate palce, that is constantly seeking to expand to offset its costs by increased volume!
That appears to be more acceptable than just charging its customers the actual costs of its operations!
Since when was Lake Whatcom supposed to be an inexpensive place to live?
Who ought to decide such things?
Now, we have this renegade Water District seeking special dispensation from Whatcom County to extend its tenacles into an new area of proposed development.
An area outside of any recognized UGA.
An area being sought by speculators for 'cluster' development.
'Cluster' development for mega-homes?
I don't get it.
And I hope the County doesn't either!
If we are serious about protecting our drinking water RESERVOIR, we'd better get serious about better control of the LWW&S District.
They continue to work at cross purposes to the good efforts being exerted by both County and City.
That practice needs to end, and soon!
Read for yourself how arrogant this WD was, and continues to be:
------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amending Bellingham Municipal Code Section 15.08.250D Relating to Water Use Rates
Dear City Council Members:
Water District 10’s Board of Commissioners recently learned (through an August 1, 2000 Bellingham Herald article) about your proposed ordinance to increase City water rates to acquire land in the Lake Whatcom watershed. We reviewed and discussed this ordinance at our Regular Public Meeting on August 9, 2000. The following concerns are the results of our deliberations.
1. We believe the proposed unilateral action violates our contractual agreement as outlined in the Lake Whatcom Interlocal Agreement, and subsequent joint resolutions regarding inter-jurisdictional action within the scope of programs and plans. Resolutions regarding Lake Whatcom management necessitate regular communication, collaboration, coordination, and cooperation at all levels between the City, the County, and the District. The effectiveness and efficiency (i.e., the “success”) of the various Lake Whatcom management programs depends totally on our collective adherence to these four “C” principles. Albeit probably unintentional, your proposed ordinance violates the spirit and letter of the Lake Whatcom management interlocal agreements and resolutions. It also represents a total disregard of the aforementioned guiding principles. We are justifiably surprised, dismayed, and disheartened by your action. We suggest that you defer action on the ordinance for now and engage the County and Water District 10 in accordance with our Agreements.
2. Your “discretionary” rate increase will be our “obligatory” rate increase. Unless you specifically exempt us, any water rate increase that you impose will increase the District’s operating costs, since the District purchases water from the City under contract for redistribution within our own Geneva and North Shore (primarily Eagleridge) service areas. Your rate increases, depending on their size and our ability to absorb them, can, and usually do, precipitate consequential rate increases throughout the District. As water purveyors ourselves, we fully recognize and appreciate that operating costs routinely increase, and that we both need to unilaterally adjust rates accordingly to create revenues that will cover these costs. The types of rate increases you are considering do not qualify as non-discretionary, since they are within your abilities to control and/or contain them. The rate increase you propose now is purely discretionary. You do not “need” to do this. The legitimacy of imposing non-operating costs upon ratepayers outside areas of your legal jurisdiction is highly questionable. It smacks of “taxation without representation.” As such, we protest the proposed action.
3. District ratepayers are already paying a disproportionate share of City water treatment and distribution costs. Merely because the District’s service area lies outside the City limits, the City imposes, as allowed by state law, a 50% surcharge on all water sold to the District. Arguably then, we are already paying more for water treatment and distribution operating costs than is otherwise defensible based on the actual cost of service, particularly since the City does not maintain nor repair any of the District’s distribution system. We are therefore concerned that your “…proportionate amount for metered water users…” could/would include a 50% surcharge similar to that now imposed. Notwithstanding any other considerations, we object to any surcharge as patently unfair to not only District ratepayers, but to all external City water consumers.
4. District ratepayers are already paying a very significant share of Lake Whatcom watershed protection costs. District rate payers already have shouldered, are now shouldering, and will continue to shoulder, a disproportionate Lake Whatcom Watershed protection cost burden through (1) a Consent Decree settling a Clean Water Act lawsuit against the District, which involved payment of $220,000 to the Whatcom Land Trust for “…purchase and permanent protection of environmentally sensitive, undeveloped land in the Lake Whatcom watershed, as described in Appendix A to this Decree…”, (2) the repayment of the ~$500,000 Sudden Valley Sewage Detention Tank loan over the next 4 years, a burden carried by all District sewer ratepayers, and (3) the planned repayment through increased sewer rates of Lake Louise Road Sewer Interceptor pipe over-sizing (to contain inflow and infiltration generated by the Sudden Valley and Geneva sewage collection systems) costs. The proposed rate increase would inequitably increase the watershed protection cost burden of District ratepayers.
5. Given that the exclusive purpose of the proposed ordinance is to acquire land in the Lake Whatcom watershed, we do not believe that a water rate increase is an appropriate funding method. The proposed rate increase is in fact a special purpose “excise tax” to be levied against a select population within and outside the City to finance a course of action to be defined by the City alone. If such a tax is warranted, the County, not the City, would be the proper authority to impose such a tax.
6. Under the proposal, some watershed protection “beneficiaries” will not pay fairly, or not at all. Assuming for the moment, that all land acquisition actions under the proposed ordinance if passed, would produce tangible, measurable water quality protection benefits to all Lake water use categories. (e.g., drinking, irrigation, recreation, pisciculture, aesthetics) Then many of these “beneficiaries” would escape paying for it since they receive no City water bill (e.g., watershed residents drawing water directly from the Lake or wells, “out-of-towners” swimming at Bloedel Donovan Park). In this respect, the City should have pursued the action outlined in Section 3 of the proposed ordinance.
7. A specific property acquisition plan has not been discussed, nor have specific land acquisition policies, procedures, or associated details as to location within and/or outside of the City limits, how to acquire, and when to acquire. This is the first step. It should be integrated with other watershed protection options that might prove more feasible and or cost effective.*
8. The proposed ordinance would collect funds before the actual need is identified and the project scope is developed. Cueing from the above, government is typically cast in dim light when it collects funds before a need is verified and quantities are known. The funding needs should follow from the action plan. Accordingly, you should first figure what you want to do, where you want to do it, and how much it will cost.* Once you have this information catalogued, you can then determine how to collect the funds.
9. To the best of our knowledge, the City has not performed a cost/benefit analysis of the proposed program.* This should be an essential ingredient to your decision making. Without it, you are merely doing something that just “sounds” good or “feels” right.
10. *The Comprehensive Lake Whatcom Storm Water Plan, currently under development, should eventually answer all these questions and provide this information in context with other viable water quality protection alternatives. For this critical reason, we again recommend deferring all major watershed protection initiatives pending receipt of a Plan that presents the optimum watershed protection action package.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Turn! Turn! Turn!: (To Everything There Is a Season)
Today, October 1, was delightful.
A Monday, the beginning of a new week.
My wife and I had the trail all to ourselves and great, cool weather too.
We did what we did together the day we met.
We hiked.
About four hours worth, just enough to breathe deeply, stretch muscles and feel just tired enough to justify a good dinner at the Duck Brand Cantina & Hotel in Winthrop.
The' Duck' is a favorite place for a lot of people, for a lot of years.
Back to the hike.
Scenery was spectacular!
Mountains, some snow dusted and a few snow capped.
Trees, mostly conifers that were green, but a few golden larches were seen at a distance.
The deciduous trees were turning into the usual Fall colors, reds, yellows and many shades in between.
The sky was mostly blue, with passing cumulus clouds, and the leading edge of what seemed to be a major front struggling to climb the peaks on the horizon to the west.
A few birds and critters too.
But mostly silence, except for whispers of the wind in the foliage.
Just perfect!
For the most part we didn't talk much.
It was mainly a time for reflection.
Thinking back on all the miles we have come, both figuratively and literally.
And the adventures we've had!
What a varied bunch of experiences.
I took special note of the day, October 1.
That means that just over 75% of the year -2007- is already gone.
And, three months from this day, I will have completed my last term in public office.
Now, that was something that was never planned!
The opportunity presented itself, and I was ready for it and fortunate to have been selected.
I'm glad about serving these [almost] nine years, too.
It has been a real learning experience for me, as well as a chance to give back something to the community.
Our community is special, as all communities are in ways to people who live in them.
Community life is a microcosm of America, a part of the fabric of our nation.
One doesn't have to go to Washington, DC to contribute to this country.
Everything that matters is already right here, under our noses!
The turning of the seasons reminded me of that famous song of not so long ago.
My own seasons are turning, too.
At my age, I figure I've now pretty much completed Fall and am entering the Winter of my life.
Even with relatively good health and avoiding accidents, I may have only about 22 or 23 years left at most.
I want whatever years I have before me to continue being good ones.
Ones that are mainly pain-free, and that do not burden others, or financial resources un-necessarily.
I suspect most folks wish things like that, too.
I figure that with a little practice I can get better at being older.
Calm down, don't rush or fret as much.
Lower the blood pressure and the blood sugar.
Take care of my eyes, ears and teeth.
Eat healthier and keep my weight down.
Exercise more regularly, and stay active in things that count.
I know a few people who would say it's about time I grew up!
Been fighting that a long time.
Now's the time.
Kinda like Winston Churchill's famous line about the turning point in WW-II; he didn't know whether it was the beginning of the end, but thought it might be the end of the beginning.
I'm pretty sure that's the right way to think about such things!
-----------------------
From Wikipedia:
"Turn! Turn! Turn! (To Everything There Is a Season)", often abbreviated to "Turn! Turn! Turn!", is a song written and composed by Pete Seeger in the 1950s.
Seeger waited until 1962 to record it, releasing the song on his album The Bitter and The Sweet on Columbia Records.
The lyrics are taken almost verbatim from the King James version of the Bible (Ecclesiastes 3, verses 1–8).
The Biblical text posits there being a time and place for all things: laughter and sorrow, healing and killing, war and peace, and so on.
The lines are open to myriad interpretations, but as a song they are commonly performed as a plea for world peace, with stress on the closing line: "a time for peace, I swear it's not too late," the latter phrase being the only part of the lyric written by Seeger himself.
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time to be born, a time to die
A time to plant, a time to reap
A time to kill, a time to heal
A time to laugh, a time to weep
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time to build up, a time to break down
A time to dance, a time to mourn
A time to cast away stones
A time to gather stones together
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time of war, a time of peace
A time of love, a time of hate
A time you may embrace
A time to refrain from embracing
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time to gain, a time to lose
A time to rend, a time to sew
A time to love, a time to hate
A time of peace, I swear it's not too late!
A Monday, the beginning of a new week.
My wife and I had the trail all to ourselves and great, cool weather too.
We did what we did together the day we met.
We hiked.
About four hours worth, just enough to breathe deeply, stretch muscles and feel just tired enough to justify a good dinner at the Duck Brand Cantina & Hotel in Winthrop.
The' Duck' is a favorite place for a lot of people, for a lot of years.
Back to the hike.
Scenery was spectacular!
Mountains, some snow dusted and a few snow capped.
Trees, mostly conifers that were green, but a few golden larches were seen at a distance.
The deciduous trees were turning into the usual Fall colors, reds, yellows and many shades in between.
The sky was mostly blue, with passing cumulus clouds, and the leading edge of what seemed to be a major front struggling to climb the peaks on the horizon to the west.
A few birds and critters too.
But mostly silence, except for whispers of the wind in the foliage.
Just perfect!
For the most part we didn't talk much.
It was mainly a time for reflection.
Thinking back on all the miles we have come, both figuratively and literally.
And the adventures we've had!
What a varied bunch of experiences.
I took special note of the day, October 1.
That means that just over 75% of the year -2007- is already gone.
And, three months from this day, I will have completed my last term in public office.
Now, that was something that was never planned!
The opportunity presented itself, and I was ready for it and fortunate to have been selected.
I'm glad about serving these [almost] nine years, too.
It has been a real learning experience for me, as well as a chance to give back something to the community.
Our community is special, as all communities are in ways to people who live in them.
Community life is a microcosm of America, a part of the fabric of our nation.
One doesn't have to go to Washington, DC to contribute to this country.
Everything that matters is already right here, under our noses!
The turning of the seasons reminded me of that famous song of not so long ago.
My own seasons are turning, too.
At my age, I figure I've now pretty much completed Fall and am entering the Winter of my life.
Even with relatively good health and avoiding accidents, I may have only about 22 or 23 years left at most.
I want whatever years I have before me to continue being good ones.
Ones that are mainly pain-free, and that do not burden others, or financial resources un-necessarily.
I suspect most folks wish things like that, too.
I figure that with a little practice I can get better at being older.
Calm down, don't rush or fret as much.
Lower the blood pressure and the blood sugar.
Take care of my eyes, ears and teeth.
Eat healthier and keep my weight down.
Exercise more regularly, and stay active in things that count.
I know a few people who would say it's about time I grew up!
Been fighting that a long time.
Now's the time.
Kinda like Winston Churchill's famous line about the turning point in WW-II; he didn't know whether it was the beginning of the end, but thought it might be the end of the beginning.
I'm pretty sure that's the right way to think about such things!
-----------------------
From Wikipedia:
"Turn! Turn! Turn! (To Everything There Is a Season)", often abbreviated to "Turn! Turn! Turn!", is a song written and composed by Pete Seeger in the 1950s.
Seeger waited until 1962 to record it, releasing the song on his album The Bitter and The Sweet on Columbia Records.
The lyrics are taken almost verbatim from the King James version of the Bible (Ecclesiastes 3, verses 1–8).
The Biblical text posits there being a time and place for all things: laughter and sorrow, healing and killing, war and peace, and so on.
The lines are open to myriad interpretations, but as a song they are commonly performed as a plea for world peace, with stress on the closing line: "a time for peace, I swear it's not too late," the latter phrase being the only part of the lyric written by Seeger himself.
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time to be born, a time to die
A time to plant, a time to reap
A time to kill, a time to heal
A time to laugh, a time to weep
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time to build up, a time to break down
A time to dance, a time to mourn
A time to cast away stones
A time to gather stones together
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time of war, a time of peace
A time of love, a time of hate
A time you may embrace
A time to refrain from embracing
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time to gain, a time to lose
A time to rend, a time to sew
A time to love, a time to hate
A time of peace, I swear it's not too late!
Sunday, September 30, 2007
WRIA-1: Whatcom County's Unfinished Water Business
'We'll know the price of water when the well runs dry' - Ben Franklin
------------------------
Most people probably don't know what WRIA-1 stands for, but that's OK with Whatcom County's current administration.
It stands for 'Water Resource Inventory Area Number 1', legalese for describing a contiguous stream course and its tributaries which together make up a definite drainage basin, or a well-defined portion of one.
Washington State has identified 63 of these WRIA's and numbered them sequentially, starting at the upper left hand corner of our state map.
That would be us, and the River in question the Nooksack, its main branches and smaller tributaries.
Of interest is the fact that Lake Whatcom is only counted in WRIA-1 because of the man-made diversion that helps resupply it from the Middle Fork of the Nooksack.
Also, the area around Blaine is excluded because its drainage doesn'tempty directly into the Nooksack system.
Why is knowing about all this stuff important?
Several reasons come to mind, including things like water quantity, water quality, adequate in-stream flows to support salmon and other aquatic life, and identifying and preserving habitat for fish and other wildlife.
All of these things work together, and each must not be considered in isolation of the others to sustain a healthy ecosystem that benefits everyone.
Ah, but there is a danger in knowing too much about this subject!
If one knows that problems have impacted this delicate balance, and these are still happening -unchecked- then there will be pressure to stop poor practices and re-think what makes sense.
There are some interests who don't want to go there!
You know the type.
The '3-D' crowd.
That defines the 3 stages of resistance to change;
first, deny its needed,
next, decry suggested corrective action will work, be fair, or be too expensive,
and when that fails, delay any corrective action for as long as possible.
That's what has happened with WRIA-1.
The program is stalled out with most of its funding gone, key staff missing and little impetus being shown to re-start the effort, despite the fact that the first phases have already costs Whatcom County taxpayers almost $4.5 million over several years!
Why do you imagine this has happened?
WRIA-1 seemed to have everything going for it upon its inception several years ago.
Of course, WRIA-1 was not the first time this work was undertaken.
Other efforts, through the Council of Governments, had tried and lost steam too.
The WRIA-1 effort got legs for a few reasons.
One was State Legislation related to salmon.
Another was the Department of Ecology was finally nudged into action to correct its lack of backbone in awarding water rights.
It seems over time, the DOE had awarded about 2.5 times more water rights than could possible exist!
Water rights is too big a subject to cover in this writing - or maybe any writing that most folks would read.
Suffice to say that water rights has been one of those 'third rails' of politics that elected officials and bureaucrats just don't want much to do with!
So, it doesn't get dealt with, and that's the problem.
It is the old question of which interests like things just as they are, against those who are in touch with the reality that things can't continue to remain as they seem.
Bottom line is in Whatcom County we will run out of water before we run out of land!
There, I said the unthinkable.
Believe it or not, it's true.
Beginning to get the picture now?
A lack of available water restricts the use of land.
And, it doesn't make any difference what the use is.
Agriculture, for example, because that's easy.
Development in the form of cities, farms, businesses all require water for drinking, firefighting, lawn watering, bathing, washing, cooking and recreation
All that adds up fast.
Then, there is the special problem of so-called 'exempt wells', which essentially means going through the charade of petitioning for a well to pump groundwater -whether it exists or not- to irrigate land, including lawns.
Bingo! That is the key to regulating sprawl.
By what logic can any agency continue to grant water rights that don't exist, to every applicant for an 'exempt well'?
Answer: there is no logic, only bureaucratic inertia and ineptitude, backed up by a monumental lack of political will!
OK, so now you understand a little more about what has stopped work on a big governmental project that you had had never heard about before.
Want to hear just a little more?
If so, read below the dotted line.
-------------------------
WRIA-1 was supposed to be the shining example of how such a process was to proceed.
It was set up as a stakeholder's process, where all interested parties had a place at the table.
The idea was to systematically develop a consensual agreement on water matters that would stand the test of time.
Compromise was an essential element.
Avoiding the protracted legal battles that typify most other such programs was another major incentive.
Basically, the idea was to make the WRIA-1 process so attractive to every interest, so that all would be drawn into hammering out agreements they could live with.
That attraction had to be stronger than just staying away from the process.
It was the proverbial carrot and stick approach.
And it took time.
God, did it take time!
Because time usually equates to money, using too much time took too much money.
Some people knew that would -or could- happen, and used it to stall out the program.
But, that tactic would not have worked had there been more political will exerted by the leaders.
Who were these leaders, you might ask?
They were the heads of the so-called 5 'Initiating Governments', including Whatcom County, the City of Bellingham, Public Utility District No. 1, The Lummi Nation, and the Nooksack Tribe.
The two tribes were there by their agreement, to have input and oversight to the process without necessarily committing to any outcomes that might not have been seen in their best interests.
But, the tribes participation was critical, because they hold senior water rights.
And they did actively participate.
Bellingham was there as the largest population center, and as the entity with the next senior water rights.
Whatcom County and PUD-1 were there because they were the two governmental entities with countywide jurisdiction.
Whatcom County was the lead agency because Washington State Law says that counties are the governments which hold that right.
So, those were the main players.
But, there were many others.
State agencies of several acronyms, DOE, WDFW, DNR, etc
Professional staff from County, City, PUD-1, the Tribes
Facilitators
Caucuses representing several interest groups, but that's another story.
That's probably enough boilerplate for now.
Maybe too much for some?
--------------------
Bottom line is, after such an auspicious start, WRIA-1 has essentially died -at least gone into deep hibernation.
What was once the shining example of what could be accomplished in the State of Washington has become just another rather dull subject that some would relegate to dim history.
What had shown such promise as a comprehensive tool to help plan our future, has become a mountain of shelf art, collecting dust somewhere in the bowels of a County building.
What had been a stellar professional staff, assembled at great expense and with great hopes, has been depleted, reassigned and mainly forgotten for the hard work they accomplished.
But, the very substantial information developed is still there, waiting for the time some courageous County Executive has the impulse to touch a 'third rail' again.
When that happens, let's hope its not too late to make a useful difference1
-----------------------
------------------------
Most people probably don't know what WRIA-1 stands for, but that's OK with Whatcom County's current administration.
It stands for 'Water Resource Inventory Area Number 1', legalese for describing a contiguous stream course and its tributaries which together make up a definite drainage basin, or a well-defined portion of one.
Washington State has identified 63 of these WRIA's and numbered them sequentially, starting at the upper left hand corner of our state map.
That would be us, and the River in question the Nooksack, its main branches and smaller tributaries.
Of interest is the fact that Lake Whatcom is only counted in WRIA-1 because of the man-made diversion that helps resupply it from the Middle Fork of the Nooksack.
Also, the area around Blaine is excluded because its drainage doesn'tempty directly into the Nooksack system.
Why is knowing about all this stuff important?
Several reasons come to mind, including things like water quantity, water quality, adequate in-stream flows to support salmon and other aquatic life, and identifying and preserving habitat for fish and other wildlife.
All of these things work together, and each must not be considered in isolation of the others to sustain a healthy ecosystem that benefits everyone.
Ah, but there is a danger in knowing too much about this subject!
If one knows that problems have impacted this delicate balance, and these are still happening -unchecked- then there will be pressure to stop poor practices and re-think what makes sense.
There are some interests who don't want to go there!
You know the type.
The '3-D' crowd.
That defines the 3 stages of resistance to change;
first, deny its needed,
next, decry suggested corrective action will work, be fair, or be too expensive,
and when that fails, delay any corrective action for as long as possible.
That's what has happened with WRIA-1.
The program is stalled out with most of its funding gone, key staff missing and little impetus being shown to re-start the effort, despite the fact that the first phases have already costs Whatcom County taxpayers almost $4.5 million over several years!
Why do you imagine this has happened?
WRIA-1 seemed to have everything going for it upon its inception several years ago.
Of course, WRIA-1 was not the first time this work was undertaken.
Other efforts, through the Council of Governments, had tried and lost steam too.
The WRIA-1 effort got legs for a few reasons.
One was State Legislation related to salmon.
Another was the Department of Ecology was finally nudged into action to correct its lack of backbone in awarding water rights.
It seems over time, the DOE had awarded about 2.5 times more water rights than could possible exist!
Water rights is too big a subject to cover in this writing - or maybe any writing that most folks would read.
Suffice to say that water rights has been one of those 'third rails' of politics that elected officials and bureaucrats just don't want much to do with!
So, it doesn't get dealt with, and that's the problem.
It is the old question of which interests like things just as they are, against those who are in touch with the reality that things can't continue to remain as they seem.
Bottom line is in Whatcom County we will run out of water before we run out of land!
There, I said the unthinkable.
Believe it or not, it's true.
Beginning to get the picture now?
A lack of available water restricts the use of land.
And, it doesn't make any difference what the use is.
Agriculture, for example, because that's easy.
Development in the form of cities, farms, businesses all require water for drinking, firefighting, lawn watering, bathing, washing, cooking and recreation
All that adds up fast.
Then, there is the special problem of so-called 'exempt wells', which essentially means going through the charade of petitioning for a well to pump groundwater -whether it exists or not- to irrigate land, including lawns.
Bingo! That is the key to regulating sprawl.
By what logic can any agency continue to grant water rights that don't exist, to every applicant for an 'exempt well'?
Answer: there is no logic, only bureaucratic inertia and ineptitude, backed up by a monumental lack of political will!
OK, so now you understand a little more about what has stopped work on a big governmental project that you had had never heard about before.
Want to hear just a little more?
If so, read below the dotted line.
-------------------------
WRIA-1 was supposed to be the shining example of how such a process was to proceed.
It was set up as a stakeholder's process, where all interested parties had a place at the table.
The idea was to systematically develop a consensual agreement on water matters that would stand the test of time.
Compromise was an essential element.
Avoiding the protracted legal battles that typify most other such programs was another major incentive.
Basically, the idea was to make the WRIA-1 process so attractive to every interest, so that all would be drawn into hammering out agreements they could live with.
That attraction had to be stronger than just staying away from the process.
It was the proverbial carrot and stick approach.
And it took time.
God, did it take time!
Because time usually equates to money, using too much time took too much money.
Some people knew that would -or could- happen, and used it to stall out the program.
But, that tactic would not have worked had there been more political will exerted by the leaders.
Who were these leaders, you might ask?
They were the heads of the so-called 5 'Initiating Governments', including Whatcom County, the City of Bellingham, Public Utility District No. 1, The Lummi Nation, and the Nooksack Tribe.
The two tribes were there by their agreement, to have input and oversight to the process without necessarily committing to any outcomes that might not have been seen in their best interests.
But, the tribes participation was critical, because they hold senior water rights.
And they did actively participate.
Bellingham was there as the largest population center, and as the entity with the next senior water rights.
Whatcom County and PUD-1 were there because they were the two governmental entities with countywide jurisdiction.
Whatcom County was the lead agency because Washington State Law says that counties are the governments which hold that right.
So, those were the main players.
But, there were many others.
State agencies of several acronyms, DOE, WDFW, DNR, etc
Professional staff from County, City, PUD-1, the Tribes
Facilitators
Caucuses representing several interest groups, but that's another story.
That's probably enough boilerplate for now.
Maybe too much for some?
--------------------
Bottom line is, after such an auspicious start, WRIA-1 has essentially died -at least gone into deep hibernation.
What was once the shining example of what could be accomplished in the State of Washington has become just another rather dull subject that some would relegate to dim history.
What had shown such promise as a comprehensive tool to help plan our future, has become a mountain of shelf art, collecting dust somewhere in the bowels of a County building.
What had been a stellar professional staff, assembled at great expense and with great hopes, has been depleted, reassigned and mainly forgotten for the hard work they accomplished.
But, the very substantial information developed is still there, waiting for the time some courageous County Executive has the impulse to touch a 'third rail' again.
When that happens, let's hope its not too late to make a useful difference1
-----------------------
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Waterfront Redevelopment: Economic Development on Steroids
'It's never over, until its over.' - Casey Stengel
---------------------------------------
Back in September of 2006, I decided to e-mail County Council member Ward Nelson, hoping to build a dialogue with him to help lead to the County's support of the Local Infrastructure Financing Tool [LIFT] State legislation that had just been sponsored by Representative Kelli Linville, and passed to include Bellingham as one of its initial Pilot Projects.
This new bill to include Bellingham in what amounts to 'tax-increment financing' was seen as a real boon, happening just at the time when financing help - at least the enabling of it - was most needed, as the Port and City proceeded in a good faith effort to redevelop our degraded industrial waterfront.
--------------------
Please give me a call at my home phone xxx before noon tomorrow, or over the weekend at xxx, if convenient.
Otherwise, I'll be back next Monday, Sep 25, for our next City Council meeting.
I asked Ward to call me to discuss LIFT and how the might agree to use that tool to support the ambitious waterfront redevelopment effort being undertaken to stimulate economic development, clean up a polluted industrial area and provide better public access to Bellingham Bay.
I had been very encouraged by reading the Economics section of the County's Comprehensive Plan [at the URL shown below] because the Waterfront Redevelopment seemed to be tailor-made to qualify for substantial Economic Development Incentives [EDI]. Because of the enormous potential for assisting the entire region, I also thought there was a good chance the County would agree to use its LIFT potential, just as the City and the Port of Bellingham had quickly decided to do.
Unfortunately, it turned out I was wrong in this assumption.
And, I was also wrong about the County making available any EDI funds either.
Neither has happened -at least up to now- despite the fact that the Waterfront Redevelopment project clearly qualifies for strong financial assistance by the County's own Comp Plan!
But at the time, I wanted to ask, at least to get an explanation.
http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/pds/planning/comp_plan/2005/2005%20January%20Comp%20Plan%20-%20.pdf%20with%20.jpg%20maps/k%20Chapter%207%20-%20Economics/Chapter%207-Economics.pdf
----------------------------
The County seems so far ahead of the City in defining its role in economic development, if for no other reason than it has its own written and approved Comp Plan Element specific to Economic Development.
It has been my goal for a few years to have the City develop such an ED Element, which would ideally fit into and support the County's overall vision.
Fortunately, there is now sufficient City Council support for this idea to make this happen, and draft Strategic Guidelines are now being developed.
But, the waterfront redevelopment effort can't wait for that to happen.
If you read the County's Comp Plan, Chapter 7 on Economics, plus the supporting information in Appendix 'C' regarding vision statements on the 14 GMA goals, including the Economic Development Action Plan, these ideas and goals strongly support a major redevelopment just like the waterfront project, which the Port of Bellingham and the City have committed to make happen.
It certainly sounded that way enough to allow the County to support the Market Depot Square project with over $200 k inEDI funding last year.
That was a big help, and the success of that venture has paid off from the moment the facility was opened!
In similar fashion the County's commitment to the Public Facilities District over 5 years ago has greatly assisted that effort,
Unlike the PFD rebates of a portion of sales taxes already paid, a LIFT commitment doesn't identify existing County funds, because that money is never available UNLESS the actually development occurs.
The tax increment in question is associated only with new development within the geographic boundary defined as part of Waterfront Redevelopment
No development, no new taxes.
It's that simple.
Maybe it was a problem to get support for the new, innovative LIFT funding promises because the concept was so new it wasn't understood sufficiently.
Or, maybe becasuse the Waterfront Redevelopment is so much bigger [by orders of magnitude], takes much more time to occur. and seems so much less certain, that the County was hesistant for these reasons?
But, maybe because the Waterfront Redevelopment is so ambitious, and so strongly supports the concept of sustainability by cleaning up a contaminated urban site to a higher than industrial standard, and requires such a large clean-up of a blighted area to become the valuable magnet for business, recreation and residential use, that it requires a whole new way of evaluating its potential than the County is currently able to do.
If that is the case, then maybe we ought to try a different approach, with fresh eyes and ideas, with new dialogue?
In an exercise last year, 75 community leaders focused on the concept of looking at this redevelopment as essentially designing an entire new neighborhood, and concluded it was a cinch to achieve the highest LEED standards, without much extra effort!
What a boon to Whatcom County that would be!
Just the improved public access to the Bay would be a major attraction.
But that's just the topping on the sundae.
Cleaning up the Whatcom Waterway, the former G-P site -including the ASB-, remediating 2 or 3 former City Landfills, plus other industrial property is a huge beneficial accomplishment!
Cleaning it up to a higher standard than usual just adds multiple bonuses to it.
Using the cleaned up areas for institutions of higher learning, water-dependent uses, businesses and housing not only helps the economics, but it helps the City and County fulfill their Growth Management goals.
Now, that suite of desirable outcomes certainly deserves some very special consideration in my book.
And it also reemphasizes that we really need the County to help us make this happen!
The beauty of the new LIFT legislation is that Bellingham has the absolute inside track to be the first city in the State of Washington that is ready to take advantage of it.
A few larger Cities have used LIFT type financing for special projects before, and with success.
Now that this instrument has been made available to smaller municipalities for qualified projects, it behooves us to take full advantage of it.
Opportunities to become a guinea pig like this are rare, although the potential LIFT pay-off of up to $1 million per year for 25 years is even more rare.
Now, $25 million is a lot of money, but it is only a fraction of what the Port and City will need to invest to make the redevelopment happen over the next 5 years.
But, once it does happen, the pay-off to County, Port and City will be enormous!
And it will be ongoing, literally for many, many year into the future.
That prospect excites me, but it also presents a huge challenge that cannot be escaped.
As you & I know, investments with higher risks are necessary to earn higher returns and rewards.
It does take money to make money, even if the investors are public entities.
As the principal entity under State Law, the County has a major responsibility to consider this redevelopment effort as much a County priority as it is a Port or City priority.
The major difference is the County's investment through LIFT is without the same order of risk as the City and Port will bear.
The Port's mission is focused almost totally on economic development, and they are out there and exposed on this major undertaking.
Fortunately, their pro forma calculations demonstrate their investment can be mad to pay-off in a reasonable length of time.
The City also appears highly leveraged at this point, but must provide some level of infrastructure, services and regulations to support this undertaking with the Port as partner.
The City's pro forma is currently less certain than the Port's, and can use whatever level of County support that can be provided.
These two jurisdictions are literally joined at the hip for the duration of this effort, and that's not all bad, because inter-jurisdictional cooperation is necessary to achieve regional goals.
The County's help could make the difference as to whether this ambitious undertaking will succeed or fail.
And be assured a failure would help no one!
It will take real, dedicated leadership from every jurisdiction to see this redevelopment through to completion.
I for one, believe the County is willing to help, provided a method can be found to satisfy its legitimate concerns.
So, I invite the County into a new dialogue about how we can best work together make this Waterfront Redevelopment happen with better equity and more certainty.
--------------------------
I've had some reflections on this present situation, and come to the conclusion the County's reasoning wasn't necessarily shortsighted or flawed.
Here's why:
The County has a history of being very careful about raising its taxes.
The last 12 years have seen no voluntary increase in property tax, and only two increases in sales tax that I recall.
One property tax increase occurred at the time I-695 passed, and helped the City restore substantial losses to its General Fund funding.
The other happened more recently and was focused on public safety and the criminal justice funding.
There may have been other County tax events that I have missed, but they have not been notable in comparison to the ones cited above.
This is a remarkable record of remaining fiscally prudent, despite some glaring needs in the County that remain unaddressed.
With this history in mind, I concluded the County is justified in thinking very carefully about committing ALL its potential property taxes for the Waterfront Redevelopment for the full 25 years, without further information.
For example, if the Waterfront Redevelopment succeeds far beyond expectations, that would leave the County ]with funding more than they estimated.
That possibility can be addressed and rectified.
Perhaps, a certain monetary amount over a shorter period of time is preferable for the County.
In that case EDI money might be easier to make available, perhaps even in installments.
If what we need is more certainty regarding the time value of money, then a table of present values could be prepared to allow some choices in amounts and their timing.
Any amount can be raised in many different ways to benefit this, or any other, project.
Recalling the projected cash flow charts the Port presented, it may be more beneficial to our purposes to have the County front-load its contributions and let this fund critical early work.
Like the famous EMILY's list. [Early Money Is Like Yeast]
The time value of early investment grows over time whether additional monies are added or not.
Recall that the County accepted City REET money to build the interim jail, then agreed to credit the City with over 3 times the present monetary value in credits toward the City's obligation in future operating costs.
That was a creative solution that benefited both parties.
Considering this method of calculating value to the redevelopment costs would be extremely helpful to the City in this instance.
Early money would really help -out of proportion to later contributions- because of the several years time lag required for the clean-up, planning and contractual commitments that must precede any substantial returns.
That same dynamic is at work with IRAs, pensions and other investments designed to achieve goals effectively.
The City could work up several scenarios of potential contributions over time and estimate their actual value to the redevelopment, then be ready to propose these in response to any financial offer the County may propose.
Let's don't argue about how the funding would be made available, or how much; just the net positive impact on the redevelopment cash flow.
That way the discussion becomes more of a negotiation of times and amounts that is inherently easier to understand, explain and act upon.
In many respects the County has the same concerns the City has; that the Port stands to gain more than the estimated returns from the redevelopment as it progresses.
Rewards and risks should probably be in the same proportion for all the players.
Only the City seems to be the most likely relative loser financially, in all scenarios, but especially in the short-term.
But, if the Waterfront Redevelopment substantially exceeds expectations, everyone wins, and no one should complain about that because the ultimate benefit accrues to everyone!
------------------
To date, no County money has yet been committed at all to my knowledge.
What is particularly troubling is that some County Officials have even engaged in efforts to thwart the Waterfront Redevelopment, itself, from happening!
What is that about?
A cynic might think that some folks have figured along the following lines:
If the Waterfront Redevelopment should fail, the County could say 'I told you so!'
If the Waterfront Redevelopment succeeds, the County will receive the entire tax benefits, but without taking any risk!
I hope that type of cynical thinking isn't rewarded!
I believe the real reason behind the County's reluctance to follow its own stated goals and help the Waterfront Redevelopment succeed lie in the hurried timing of the request, and the large amount of funding potentially involved.
Those things can be rectified, and done so much better in an atmosphere of collaboration and negotiation, but not with insufficient information or pressure tactics.
But, if cynicism is at work behind the County's reluctance to offer its valuable help, that is a different matter entirely.
I sincerely hope that isn't true, and that reasonable heads will prevail.
Accomplishing the Waterfront Redevelopment ought to be the sort of goal everyone can contribute to with vigor.
Our children will thank us for it one day!
----------------------
"Management is doing things right. Leadership is doing the right thing." - Warren Bennis--
---------------------------------------
Back in September of 2006, I decided to e-mail County Council member Ward Nelson, hoping to build a dialogue with him to help lead to the County's support of the Local Infrastructure Financing Tool [LIFT] State legislation that had just been sponsored by Representative Kelli Linville, and passed to include Bellingham as one of its initial Pilot Projects.
This new bill to include Bellingham in what amounts to 'tax-increment financing' was seen as a real boon, happening just at the time when financing help - at least the enabling of it - was most needed, as the Port and City proceeded in a good faith effort to redevelop our degraded industrial waterfront.
--------------------
Please give me a call at my home phone xxx before noon tomorrow, or over the weekend at xxx, if convenient.
Otherwise, I'll be back next Monday, Sep 25, for our next City Council meeting.
I asked Ward to call me to discuss LIFT and how the might agree to use that tool to support the ambitious waterfront redevelopment effort being undertaken to stimulate economic development, clean up a polluted industrial area and provide better public access to Bellingham Bay.
I had been very encouraged by reading the Economics section of the County's Comprehensive Plan [at the URL shown below] because the Waterfront Redevelopment seemed to be tailor-made to qualify for substantial Economic Development Incentives [EDI]. Because of the enormous potential for assisting the entire region, I also thought there was a good chance the County would agree to use its LIFT potential, just as the City and the Port of Bellingham had quickly decided to do.
Unfortunately, it turned out I was wrong in this assumption.
And, I was also wrong about the County making available any EDI funds either.
Neither has happened -at least up to now- despite the fact that the Waterfront Redevelopment project clearly qualifies for strong financial assistance by the County's own Comp Plan!
But at the time, I wanted to ask, at least to get an explanation.
http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/pds/planning/comp_plan/2005/2005%20January%20Comp%20Plan%20-%20.pdf%20with%20.jpg%20maps/k%20Chapter%207%20-%20Economics/Chapter%207-Economics.pdf
----------------------------
The County seems so far ahead of the City in defining its role in economic development, if for no other reason than it has its own written and approved Comp Plan Element specific to Economic Development.
It has been my goal for a few years to have the City develop such an ED Element, which would ideally fit into and support the County's overall vision.
Fortunately, there is now sufficient City Council support for this idea to make this happen, and draft Strategic Guidelines are now being developed.
But, the waterfront redevelopment effort can't wait for that to happen.
If you read the County's Comp Plan, Chapter 7 on Economics, plus the supporting information in Appendix 'C' regarding vision statements on the 14 GMA goals, including the Economic Development Action Plan, these ideas and goals strongly support a major redevelopment just like the waterfront project, which the Port of Bellingham and the City have committed to make happen.
It certainly sounded that way enough to allow the County to support the Market Depot Square project with over $200 k inEDI funding last year.
That was a big help, and the success of that venture has paid off from the moment the facility was opened!
In similar fashion the County's commitment to the Public Facilities District over 5 years ago has greatly assisted that effort,
Unlike the PFD rebates of a portion of sales taxes already paid, a LIFT commitment doesn't identify existing County funds, because that money is never available UNLESS the actually development occurs.
The tax increment in question is associated only with new development within the geographic boundary defined as part of Waterfront Redevelopment
No development, no new taxes.
It's that simple.
Maybe it was a problem to get support for the new, innovative LIFT funding promises because the concept was so new it wasn't understood sufficiently.
Or, maybe becasuse the Waterfront Redevelopment is so much bigger [by orders of magnitude], takes much more time to occur. and seems so much less certain, that the County was hesistant for these reasons?
But, maybe because the Waterfront Redevelopment is so ambitious, and so strongly supports the concept of sustainability by cleaning up a contaminated urban site to a higher than industrial standard, and requires such a large clean-up of a blighted area to become the valuable magnet for business, recreation and residential use, that it requires a whole new way of evaluating its potential than the County is currently able to do.
If that is the case, then maybe we ought to try a different approach, with fresh eyes and ideas, with new dialogue?
In an exercise last year, 75 community leaders focused on the concept of looking at this redevelopment as essentially designing an entire new neighborhood, and concluded it was a cinch to achieve the highest LEED standards, without much extra effort!
What a boon to Whatcom County that would be!
Just the improved public access to the Bay would be a major attraction.
But that's just the topping on the sundae.
Cleaning up the Whatcom Waterway, the former G-P site -including the ASB-, remediating 2 or 3 former City Landfills, plus other industrial property is a huge beneficial accomplishment!
Cleaning it up to a higher standard than usual just adds multiple bonuses to it.
Using the cleaned up areas for institutions of higher learning, water-dependent uses, businesses and housing not only helps the economics, but it helps the City and County fulfill their Growth Management goals.
Now, that suite of desirable outcomes certainly deserves some very special consideration in my book.
And it also reemphasizes that we really need the County to help us make this happen!
The beauty of the new LIFT legislation is that Bellingham has the absolute inside track to be the first city in the State of Washington that is ready to take advantage of it.
A few larger Cities have used LIFT type financing for special projects before, and with success.
Now that this instrument has been made available to smaller municipalities for qualified projects, it behooves us to take full advantage of it.
Opportunities to become a guinea pig like this are rare, although the potential LIFT pay-off of up to $1 million per year for 25 years is even more rare.
Now, $25 million is a lot of money, but it is only a fraction of what the Port and City will need to invest to make the redevelopment happen over the next 5 years.
But, once it does happen, the pay-off to County, Port and City will be enormous!
And it will be ongoing, literally for many, many year into the future.
That prospect excites me, but it also presents a huge challenge that cannot be escaped.
As you & I know, investments with higher risks are necessary to earn higher returns and rewards.
It does take money to make money, even if the investors are public entities.
As the principal entity under State Law, the County has a major responsibility to consider this redevelopment effort as much a County priority as it is a Port or City priority.
The major difference is the County's investment through LIFT is without the same order of risk as the City and Port will bear.
The Port's mission is focused almost totally on economic development, and they are out there and exposed on this major undertaking.
Fortunately, their pro forma calculations demonstrate their investment can be mad to pay-off in a reasonable length of time.
The City also appears highly leveraged at this point, but must provide some level of infrastructure, services and regulations to support this undertaking with the Port as partner.
The City's pro forma is currently less certain than the Port's, and can use whatever level of County support that can be provided.
These two jurisdictions are literally joined at the hip for the duration of this effort, and that's not all bad, because inter-jurisdictional cooperation is necessary to achieve regional goals.
The County's help could make the difference as to whether this ambitious undertaking will succeed or fail.
And be assured a failure would help no one!
It will take real, dedicated leadership from every jurisdiction to see this redevelopment through to completion.
I for one, believe the County is willing to help, provided a method can be found to satisfy its legitimate concerns.
So, I invite the County into a new dialogue about how we can best work together make this Waterfront Redevelopment happen with better equity and more certainty.
--------------------------
I've had some reflections on this present situation, and come to the conclusion the County's reasoning wasn't necessarily shortsighted or flawed.
Here's why:
The County has a history of being very careful about raising its taxes.
The last 12 years have seen no voluntary increase in property tax, and only two increases in sales tax that I recall.
One property tax increase occurred at the time I-695 passed, and helped the City restore substantial losses to its General Fund funding.
The other happened more recently and was focused on public safety and the criminal justice funding.
There may have been other County tax events that I have missed, but they have not been notable in comparison to the ones cited above.
This is a remarkable record of remaining fiscally prudent, despite some glaring needs in the County that remain unaddressed.
With this history in mind, I concluded the County is justified in thinking very carefully about committing ALL its potential property taxes for the Waterfront Redevelopment for the full 25 years, without further information.
For example, if the Waterfront Redevelopment succeeds far beyond expectations, that would leave the County ]with funding more than they estimated.
That possibility can be addressed and rectified.
Perhaps, a certain monetary amount over a shorter period of time is preferable for the County.
In that case EDI money might be easier to make available, perhaps even in installments.
If what we need is more certainty regarding the time value of money, then a table of present values could be prepared to allow some choices in amounts and their timing.
Any amount can be raised in many different ways to benefit this, or any other, project.
Recalling the projected cash flow charts the Port presented, it may be more beneficial to our purposes to have the County front-load its contributions and let this fund critical early work.
Like the famous EMILY's list. [Early Money Is Like Yeast]
The time value of early investment grows over time whether additional monies are added or not.
Recall that the County accepted City REET money to build the interim jail, then agreed to credit the City with over 3 times the present monetary value in credits toward the City's obligation in future operating costs.
That was a creative solution that benefited both parties.
Considering this method of calculating value to the redevelopment costs would be extremely helpful to the City in this instance.
Early money would really help -out of proportion to later contributions- because of the several years time lag required for the clean-up, planning and contractual commitments that must precede any substantial returns.
That same dynamic is at work with IRAs, pensions and other investments designed to achieve goals effectively.
The City could work up several scenarios of potential contributions over time and estimate their actual value to the redevelopment, then be ready to propose these in response to any financial offer the County may propose.
Let's don't argue about how the funding would be made available, or how much; just the net positive impact on the redevelopment cash flow.
That way the discussion becomes more of a negotiation of times and amounts that is inherently easier to understand, explain and act upon.
In many respects the County has the same concerns the City has; that the Port stands to gain more than the estimated returns from the redevelopment as it progresses.
Rewards and risks should probably be in the same proportion for all the players.
Only the City seems to be the most likely relative loser financially, in all scenarios, but especially in the short-term.
But, if the Waterfront Redevelopment substantially exceeds expectations, everyone wins, and no one should complain about that because the ultimate benefit accrues to everyone!
------------------
To date, no County money has yet been committed at all to my knowledge.
What is particularly troubling is that some County Officials have even engaged in efforts to thwart the Waterfront Redevelopment, itself, from happening!
What is that about?
A cynic might think that some folks have figured along the following lines:
If the Waterfront Redevelopment should fail, the County could say 'I told you so!'
If the Waterfront Redevelopment succeeds, the County will receive the entire tax benefits, but without taking any risk!
I hope that type of cynical thinking isn't rewarded!
I believe the real reason behind the County's reluctance to follow its own stated goals and help the Waterfront Redevelopment succeed lie in the hurried timing of the request, and the large amount of funding potentially involved.
Those things can be rectified, and done so much better in an atmosphere of collaboration and negotiation, but not with insufficient information or pressure tactics.
But, if cynicism is at work behind the County's reluctance to offer its valuable help, that is a different matter entirely.
I sincerely hope that isn't true, and that reasonable heads will prevail.
Accomplishing the Waterfront Redevelopment ought to be the sort of goal everyone can contribute to with vigor.
Our children will thank us for it one day!
----------------------
"Management is doing things right. Leadership is doing the right thing." - Warren Bennis--
Friday, September 28, 2007
Ever Heard of LIDAR?
No, it's not the name of M*A*S*H Radar's brother, at least to my knowledge, but it is similar to RADAR.
According to information posted at this URL, a brief description is offered:
http://lidar.cr.usgs.gov/
The USGS-NPS-NASA EAARL (Experimental Airborne Advanced Research Lidar) system is a
'Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) is a remote sensing system used to collect topographic data.
This technology is being used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA scientists to document topographic changes along shorelines.
These data are collected with aircraft-mounted lasers capable of recording elevation measurements at a rate of 2,000 to 5,000 pulses per second and have a vertical precision of 15 centimeters (6 inches).
After a baseline data set has been created, follow-up flights can be used to detect shoreline changes.'
Or, according to :Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
'LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) is an optical remote sensing technology that measures properties of scattered light to find range and/or other information of a distant target.
The prevalent method to determine distance to an object or surface is to use laser pulses.
Like the similar radar technology, which uses radio waves instead of light, the range to an object is determined by measuring the time delay between transmission of a pulse and detection of the reflected signal.
LIDAR technology has application in geography, geology, geomorphology, seismology, remote sensing and atmospheric physics.'
and, under 'Applications':
'In geology and seismology a combination of aircraft-based LIDAR and GPS have evolved into an important tool for detecting faults and measuring uplift.
The output of the two technologies can produce extremely accurate elevation models for terrain that can even measure ground elevation through trees.
This combination was used most famously to find the location of the Seattle Fault in Washington, USA.
This combination is also being used to measure uplift at Mt. St. Helens by using data from before and after the 2004 uplift.'
A really fascinating way of observing what can be achieved by LIDAR technology is to visit Google Earth at:
http://earth.google.com/
----------------------
So why is this a topic of interest to people who live in Whatcom County?
Funny, you should ask!
Here's what I know.
There is proposal developed by three geologists, experienced in local topography, titled 'Western Whatcom County Geologic Mapping Project'.
The idea is to use 'extensive prior field work and newly-available LIDAR technology [to] make possible the production of a new generation of geologic maps for western Whatcom County.'
'These maps will define certain critical areas [wetlands, landslides, steep slopes, debris-flow fans, etc.]; allow improved assessments of groundwater availability, groundwater recharge areas, links between groundwater and in-stream flow, and potential for groundwater contamination; better define mineral resource potentials, active tectonics, and paleoseismicity; and provide a more robust framework for seismic site-response studies.'
That's a mouthful for a short introduction, isn't it?
I think its a great idea to combine local talent, existing information and high tech methodology to get important, accurate data into a form that can be reliably and more easily used.
I won't go into much more detail for now, except to say this proposal anticipates a total cost to Whatcom County of just under $200,000 for work to be done from the latter half of 2007 through 2011.
There are 2 funding options offered, with other variations possible:
A. Whatcom County could contract with one of the three principals, who would invoice the County quarterly as pre-defined milestones are reached. Or
B. Whatcom County could enter into a co-operative agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey, which would then contract with one of the three principals, and be in part responsible for the quality and completion of the work.
Under this option, the USGS would invoice the County quarterly, plus add 49.13% as USGS overhead.
In either scenario, significant donation of time and/or in-kind contribution is offered. One principal expects to donate his time, estimated at 30% of the actual total value for 3 years, or $200,000. Another principal would be be compensated by in-kind contributions from USGS for a total of $300,000. The third principal requires 50% of her time over 4.5 years to be supported by Whatcom County at about $45,000 per year, totalling $200,000.
Adding all that up means Whatcom County could get $700,000 in value for $200,000.
That's about $45,000 per year for 4.5 years for you mathematicians.
The maps resulting from this effort will be published either by USGS or Washington Dept of Natural Resources, Division of Geology & Earth Resources in cooperation with USGS.
Final products will include both GIS-ready digital data and traditional maps [both pdf and published paper products] with map graphics, cross sections, Correlation of Map Unit diagrams, Descriptions of Map Units, tables of age data, and extensive explanatory text.
-------------
This proposal has been presented to our County Administration for its consideration and action, which one hopes will be forthcoming soon.
Of course, any request for funding must come before the County Council for action.
This being budget preparation time, I hope this item is included.
Stay tuned.
According to information posted at this URL, a brief description is offered:
http://lidar.cr.usgs.gov/
The USGS-NPS-NASA EAARL (Experimental Airborne Advanced Research Lidar) system is a
'Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) is a remote sensing system used to collect topographic data.
This technology is being used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA scientists to document topographic changes along shorelines.
These data are collected with aircraft-mounted lasers capable of recording elevation measurements at a rate of 2,000 to 5,000 pulses per second and have a vertical precision of 15 centimeters (6 inches).
After a baseline data set has been created, follow-up flights can be used to detect shoreline changes.'
Or, according to :Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
'LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) is an optical remote sensing technology that measures properties of scattered light to find range and/or other information of a distant target.
The prevalent method to determine distance to an object or surface is to use laser pulses.
Like the similar radar technology, which uses radio waves instead of light, the range to an object is determined by measuring the time delay between transmission of a pulse and detection of the reflected signal.
LIDAR technology has application in geography, geology, geomorphology, seismology, remote sensing and atmospheric physics.'
and, under 'Applications':
'In geology and seismology a combination of aircraft-based LIDAR and GPS have evolved into an important tool for detecting faults and measuring uplift.
The output of the two technologies can produce extremely accurate elevation models for terrain that can even measure ground elevation through trees.
This combination was used most famously to find the location of the Seattle Fault in Washington, USA.
This combination is also being used to measure uplift at Mt. St. Helens by using data from before and after the 2004 uplift.'
A really fascinating way of observing what can be achieved by LIDAR technology is to visit Google Earth at:
http://earth.google.com/
----------------------
So why is this a topic of interest to people who live in Whatcom County?
Funny, you should ask!
Here's what I know.
There is proposal developed by three geologists, experienced in local topography, titled 'Western Whatcom County Geologic Mapping Project'.
The idea is to use 'extensive prior field work and newly-available LIDAR technology [to] make possible the production of a new generation of geologic maps for western Whatcom County.'
'These maps will define certain critical areas [wetlands, landslides, steep slopes, debris-flow fans, etc.]; allow improved assessments of groundwater availability, groundwater recharge areas, links between groundwater and in-stream flow, and potential for groundwater contamination; better define mineral resource potentials, active tectonics, and paleoseismicity; and provide a more robust framework for seismic site-response studies.'
That's a mouthful for a short introduction, isn't it?
I think its a great idea to combine local talent, existing information and high tech methodology to get important, accurate data into a form that can be reliably and more easily used.
I won't go into much more detail for now, except to say this proposal anticipates a total cost to Whatcom County of just under $200,000 for work to be done from the latter half of 2007 through 2011.
There are 2 funding options offered, with other variations possible:
A. Whatcom County could contract with one of the three principals, who would invoice the County quarterly as pre-defined milestones are reached. Or
B. Whatcom County could enter into a co-operative agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey, which would then contract with one of the three principals, and be in part responsible for the quality and completion of the work.
Under this option, the USGS would invoice the County quarterly, plus add 49.13% as USGS overhead.
In either scenario, significant donation of time and/or in-kind contribution is offered. One principal expects to donate his time, estimated at 30% of the actual total value for 3 years, or $200,000. Another principal would be be compensated by in-kind contributions from USGS for a total of $300,000. The third principal requires 50% of her time over 4.5 years to be supported by Whatcom County at about $45,000 per year, totalling $200,000.
Adding all that up means Whatcom County could get $700,000 in value for $200,000.
That's about $45,000 per year for 4.5 years for you mathematicians.
The maps resulting from this effort will be published either by USGS or Washington Dept of Natural Resources, Division of Geology & Earth Resources in cooperation with USGS.
Final products will include both GIS-ready digital data and traditional maps [both pdf and published paper products] with map graphics, cross sections, Correlation of Map Unit diagrams, Descriptions of Map Units, tables of age data, and extensive explanatory text.
-------------
This proposal has been presented to our County Administration for its consideration and action, which one hopes will be forthcoming soon.
Of course, any request for funding must come before the County Council for action.
This being budget preparation time, I hope this item is included.
Stay tuned.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Growth Debate Revisited: BIA versus Eben Fodor
'It is not once nor twice but times without number that the same ideas make their appearance in the world' - Aristotle
It is just that we should be grateful, not only to those with whose views we may agree, but also to those who have expressed more superficial views; for these also contributed something, by developing before us the powers of thought - Aristotle
No notice is taken of a little evil, but when it increases it strikes the eye - Aristotle
Liars when they speak the truth are not believed - Aristotle
The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold
- Aristotle
-----------------------
OK, enough Aristotle quotes for now.
But, what was wisdom over two thousand years ago remains wisdom today.
That is the point.
Lois Garlick has already lived longer than most of us.
And, her life has reflected much of this wisdom that others never seem to learn.
Now, she has willingly taken on the task of bringing more enlightened leadership to our County by challenging the incumbent County Executive during the upcoming election.
Many don't give Lois much of chance.
So what?
She's got important stuff to say that she really stands for!
And, like Pete Kremen, she can hire administrators and key staff to help her run County affairs from day to day.
What Lois has is the character, values and wisdom to consistently lead Whatcom County in a manner that has been lacking for years!
Most probably won't remember the Guest Editorial reprinted below, but I do.
That is because Lois and I collaborated in writing and publishing this piece.
Read it for yourself and see if its message resonates with you.
Then, go out and support Lois against Pete!
At least hold Pete accountable for his performance in office.
I'm quite sure there are many besides me who think we can do better.
Not only better, but much better!
-----------------------------
A Concerned Citizen’s Response to Herald’s “Our View” Editorial [Published 10/11/2002]
Just like the four pages of canned comments that the BIA’s shill, Richard Emerson, had prepared in advance of Eben Fodor's talk, it appears the Herald’s editorial seems to have been written by faceless people without minds open to new information and approaches to growth management.
Or, perhaps the Herald simply figured out, since so much of their advertising is continually being paid for by the same pro-development groups, that these folks prefer to see their biases reflected in their local newspaper editorials.
That reasoning might also help explain why many of the same BIA myths printed in Bill Querhn's recent guest column, were again parroted here.
In any event, this Herald editorial differs little from prior BIA-written opinion pieces, except it is more grammatically correct, and does concede some points that are already rather obvious to everyone.
Did the “Our View” writer(s) actually attend Eben Fodor's speech?
Have they watched the event on EGTV Channel 10?
Are they aware that video cassettes of the presentation are available?
Have they read Fodor's book, BETTER Not Bigger, or any of his published reports which were commissioned by the States of Oregon and Washington?
If the answer to any of these questions is 'yes', has the Herald simply dismissed his arguments and findings?
While it is understandable for the Herald to prefer easy, business as usual approaches to growth policy issues, it is deplorable that it allows itself to be so easily and thoroughly co-opted by growth machine rhetoric.
For example, is the debate really about growth or no growth?
Aren't there other, intermediate steps to be considered in the spectrum between these two extremes?
Do they know that the Washington Research Council's 'economist' they quote is really paid for the BIA?
Where do the specious arguments about anti-minority and immigrant sentiment come from?
Is it possible these are also being generated by pro-growth interests as a means of discrediting efforts to reasonably regulate growth?
Isn't that the real reason that people like Eben Fodor, who dare to expose the growth machine's carefully crafted mythology, are listed as public enemy number 1 by the BIA?
We have seen that kind of thinking before, to the detriment of human history.
"If you don't agree with us and do what we say, you're the enemy!"
The Herald is certainly correct in seeing growth as a form of change, and change is a reality for all of us - every day of our lives.
But aren't certain types of change are more desirable than others, particularly if sustained quality of life is considered important?
In the words of Edward Abbey, " Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."
These are the larger concepts about which the 'growth debate' is really all about - how to do things better for us all in the long run, by learning from the past.
The situation we face now is very different from what Henry Roeder faced.
There are many more of us now, and we can more easily see that the cumulative effect of our individual impacts on our common environment, the air, water and soil we all share, have been very detrimental indeed.
Our challenge is to determine how to change our habits in the interest of long term sustainability
That is a goal in which we all have a true interest.
The organizers of the Eben Fodor event were all concerned citizens, who raised most of the costs.
That the Herald would so lightly dismiss these citizens’ well-intended efforts to inform themselves and the public of new, albeit provocative ideas, smacks of arrogance and irresponsibility.
Instead, these folks deserve our collective thanks for taking the initiative for getting this growth debate to center stage at a time when meaningful changes are possible.
Opinions are free. Informed opinions require honest hard work to acquire.
A.J. Liebling once said: "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one."
As the entity which owns the largest printing press in town, the Herald needs to work harder to inform itself about these difficult issues, before expressing written opinions on important issues for public consumption.
==================
It is just that we should be grateful, not only to those with whose views we may agree, but also to those who have expressed more superficial views; for these also contributed something, by developing before us the powers of thought - Aristotle
No notice is taken of a little evil, but when it increases it strikes the eye - Aristotle
Liars when they speak the truth are not believed - Aristotle
The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold
- Aristotle
-----------------------
OK, enough Aristotle quotes for now.
But, what was wisdom over two thousand years ago remains wisdom today.
That is the point.
Lois Garlick has already lived longer than most of us.
And, her life has reflected much of this wisdom that others never seem to learn.
Now, she has willingly taken on the task of bringing more enlightened leadership to our County by challenging the incumbent County Executive during the upcoming election.
Many don't give Lois much of chance.
So what?
She's got important stuff to say that she really stands for!
And, like Pete Kremen, she can hire administrators and key staff to help her run County affairs from day to day.
What Lois has is the character, values and wisdom to consistently lead Whatcom County in a manner that has been lacking for years!
Most probably won't remember the Guest Editorial reprinted below, but I do.
That is because Lois and I collaborated in writing and publishing this piece.
Read it for yourself and see if its message resonates with you.
Then, go out and support Lois against Pete!
At least hold Pete accountable for his performance in office.
I'm quite sure there are many besides me who think we can do better.
Not only better, but much better!
-----------------------------
A Concerned Citizen’s Response to Herald’s “Our View” Editorial [Published 10/11/2002]
Just like the four pages of canned comments that the BIA’s shill, Richard Emerson, had prepared in advance of Eben Fodor's talk, it appears the Herald’s editorial seems to have been written by faceless people without minds open to new information and approaches to growth management.
Or, perhaps the Herald simply figured out, since so much of their advertising is continually being paid for by the same pro-development groups, that these folks prefer to see their biases reflected in their local newspaper editorials.
That reasoning might also help explain why many of the same BIA myths printed in Bill Querhn's recent guest column, were again parroted here.
In any event, this Herald editorial differs little from prior BIA-written opinion pieces, except it is more grammatically correct, and does concede some points that are already rather obvious to everyone.
Did the “Our View” writer(s) actually attend Eben Fodor's speech?
Have they watched the event on EGTV Channel 10?
Are they aware that video cassettes of the presentation are available?
Have they read Fodor's book, BETTER Not Bigger, or any of his published reports which were commissioned by the States of Oregon and Washington?
If the answer to any of these questions is 'yes', has the Herald simply dismissed his arguments and findings?
While it is understandable for the Herald to prefer easy, business as usual approaches to growth policy issues, it is deplorable that it allows itself to be so easily and thoroughly co-opted by growth machine rhetoric.
For example, is the debate really about growth or no growth?
Aren't there other, intermediate steps to be considered in the spectrum between these two extremes?
Do they know that the Washington Research Council's 'economist' they quote is really paid for the BIA?
Where do the specious arguments about anti-minority and immigrant sentiment come from?
Is it possible these are also being generated by pro-growth interests as a means of discrediting efforts to reasonably regulate growth?
Isn't that the real reason that people like Eben Fodor, who dare to expose the growth machine's carefully crafted mythology, are listed as public enemy number 1 by the BIA?
We have seen that kind of thinking before, to the detriment of human history.
"If you don't agree with us and do what we say, you're the enemy!"
The Herald is certainly correct in seeing growth as a form of change, and change is a reality for all of us - every day of our lives.
But aren't certain types of change are more desirable than others, particularly if sustained quality of life is considered important?
In the words of Edward Abbey, " Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."
These are the larger concepts about which the 'growth debate' is really all about - how to do things better for us all in the long run, by learning from the past.
The situation we face now is very different from what Henry Roeder faced.
There are many more of us now, and we can more easily see that the cumulative effect of our individual impacts on our common environment, the air, water and soil we all share, have been very detrimental indeed.
Our challenge is to determine how to change our habits in the interest of long term sustainability
That is a goal in which we all have a true interest.
The organizers of the Eben Fodor event were all concerned citizens, who raised most of the costs.
That the Herald would so lightly dismiss these citizens’ well-intended efforts to inform themselves and the public of new, albeit provocative ideas, smacks of arrogance and irresponsibility.
Instead, these folks deserve our collective thanks for taking the initiative for getting this growth debate to center stage at a time when meaningful changes are possible.
Opinions are free. Informed opinions require honest hard work to acquire.
A.J. Liebling once said: "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one."
As the entity which owns the largest printing press in town, the Herald needs to work harder to inform itself about these difficult issues, before expressing written opinions on important issues for public consumption.
==================
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Economic Development: 2003 versus 2007 - What has Changed?
Economic Development is an issue that means different things to different people.
But, all seem to agree that any definition has to include jobs, business activity and the cash flow that results therefrom.
Our Growth Management Act [GMA] requires most cities and counties to plan their growth, and memorialize their game plans for accomplishing that in Comprehensive Plans that are updated from time to time.
Six Chapters, or Elements, are mandated by law;
1. Framework Goals & Policies
2. Land Use
3. Housing
4. Transportation
5. Community Design
6. Capital Facilities & Utilities
An additional, optional, Element, Parks, Recreation & Open Space, was adopted in 2005.
I think we need to adopt another optional Element, Economic Development, to define what Bellingham does now, and wishes to do in the future, to sustain our local economy and job base.
Fortunately, the City is now taking a step toward that goal by developing Strategic Guidelines for Economic Development.
Without a written plan, there will be endless and unproductive debate over what the City is, or should be, doing to retain and grow local businesses and attract new ones that fit into the future we are trying to achieve.
The County has such a plan, and it reads well, although it isn't always followed. [Witness the Waterfront Redevelopment Project for example] But, it is important to state clearly what actions and policy make sense to achieve goals that are agreed to as good.
Since the Port's main mission is to be an economic engine, it also has a plan which is followed. Of interest was a study undertaken by the Port a few years ago by the firm of Deloitte & Touche, which concluded with recommendations that emphasize simply focusing on Seattle and Vancouver, BC businesses, and encouraging our natural location create advantageous branches to locate here.
Both County and Port ED Plans recognize that the days of natural resource extraction and heavy manufacturing are in decline. In their place, we might encourage cleaner industry and businesses that require advanced learning or technology and provide family wage jobs. That seems like a wise plan that the City could emulate as the major population center in the region.
But the issues surrounding ED are many and varied, with many interrelated and some requiring specific actions to address. I'm glad to report we are making some progress on some of these things like improvements in the City's Planning and with leadership in place to help the waterfront effort.
A sensible plan for economic development also needs to take into account the services the City already provides, then build upon those.
It also needs to take into account the concerns and needs of businesses already here, as well as those that may be attracted.
Below are some responses I gave to 3 campaign questions back in 2003 that may be of interest to readers.
Some of the examples cited are a little dated, but the responses illustrate the points intended.
====================================================
QUESTION 1.
What is the biggest issue facing Bellingham business and how will you address that issue as a City Council member?
ANSWER:
I believe the biggest 'issue' facing Bellingham businesses is uncertainty.
This is evidenced in several areas, including:
o permitting procedures, their clarity & timing,
o zoning & land use decisions & restrictions,
o availability of water & sewer extensions,
o impacts of growth on costs,
o transportation planning & options,
o parking availability,
o local tax structure,
o sustaining its employee payroll & profits
o and the overall economy
The City can continuously strive to improve certainty and stability relating to the first seven points, because they are clearly influenced by City & County policy, laws and rules.
These can also influence a business's ability to sustain itself.
The last point has a major impact, but is outside either the City or County's control.
As a City Council member, I will work to address the first four points as part of updating our Comprehensive Plan for managing growth.
This needs to be done cooperatively with the County so that the benefits of regional planning can be realized.
Points 5 & 6 need to be also specifically built into our plans for revitalizing the downtown & waterfront areas.
City taxes, fees & utility rates need to be adequate, fair and stable.
============================================================
QUESTION 2.
One of the main obstacles in the construction of new buildings downtown and in Fairhaven has been complaints from citizens that the buildings block their views.
Should this be handled on a case-by-case basis or should there be firm rules to guide the protection of views?
ANSWER:
This question apparently refers to the Chrysalis Hotel; Finnegan's Alley & the proposed new Village Books Store in Fairhaven; and the State Street Multi-year Tax Exempt Apartment structure, which replaces a derelict structure near downtown.
All these buildings are situated in areas clearly designated for high-density commercial use.
They were also conditioned by public in-put, to less than the heights that might have otherwise been allowed.
Others will likely be considered in the future, such as the Old Town redevelopment site, etc.
The Finnegan's Alley building height allowed was questionable, however, once determined this set a precedent for the Village Books building.
Both structures were approved at heights and configurations more acceptable to their neighbors.
Likewise, the Chrysalis Hotel and State Street Apartments were modified in response to the concerns of neighbors.
This is as it should be, since it is practically impossible to have firm rules that cover every eventuality.
Clear guidelines are preferable, but these must allow some case-by-case variation.
This is necessary if we are to achieve the urban density required to prevent sprawl.
View protection is important, within limits, but it must compete with other priorities as well.
More work is needed to define view parameters.
============================================================
QUESTION 3.
Should Bellingham try to limit growth? Why or why not, and if so, how?
ANSWER:
Yes, there are finite limits to any activity, whether these are recognized in advance or not.
This important question is now in the process of being answered for our community during the process of updating our Comprehensive Plan, in cooperation with the County.
Limits do apply to rate of increase, ultimate size, quality, timing and related costs.
All of these parameters need to be recognized in conjunction with the resources available to deal with them reasonably and in a timely fashion.
I believe that sustaining our quality of life demands that we pay attention to how our growth is planned and paid for.
The best approach seems to be a regional one, in which City and County collaboratively plan our future housing, transportation, critical areas, open space and public services needs.
If this is done well and costs are shared equitably with new development, then our valued quality of life can be sustained for future generations to enjoy.
More growth will place increasing demands on our water supply and public infrastructure, both of which need to be maintained for the benefit of the public.
It would be irresponsible for our governments to ignore the impacts and hidden costs of growth.
========================================================
And, a second survey with 3 questions:
-------------------
Q1. What are three concrete policies you would pursue to help the Bellingham business community?
=============================================================
Under the theory that 'a rising tide floats all boats', here are three specific areas of policy improvement that would most effectively help the business community, and citizens.
1.1. Work smarter and more efficiently at what the City does now, by operating more like a socially and environmentally responsible business with a culture of continuous improvement.
Supplemental Answer: Keep doing what we are doing, what cities uniquely do:
Continue supporting:
o Essential City services, like those provided by Police, Fire, EMS, Planning, Public Works, Muni Court, & Parks Depts, as well as the Library, Museum and Mt Baker Theater.
o Small Business Development Center
o Economic Development Council
o Chamber Of Commerce
o Port Of Bellingham -in particular joint planning for redevelopment of the G-P waterfront area.
o Multi-year Tax exemption program to stimulate housing downtown, but review entire program annually.
o Downtown Design Standards
o Public Facilities District and its Centennial Project related to expanding the Mt Baker Theater to stimulate Downtown development & vitality
o Remediation of Brownfields sites like the REStore, for which Federal grants are available- only to governments
o Maintenance of public facilities
o Maintenance of public services
o Downtown & Neighborhood Business groups
o Way-finding system enhancements
o Convention & Visitors Bureau - Maps & tourism promotion
o Condemnation of derelict buildings to stimulate redevelopment Improve:
o Permitting process -both within the city and jointly with Whatcom County
o Consistency within the Bellingham Municipal Code
o Cooperation with Whatcom County
o Communication with public on all issues of importance
o Coordination between City departments
o Fiscal discipline in approving unbudgeted expenditures
o Mass transit routes with WTA
o WWU links to downtown
o Bicycle/pedestrian friendly routes
Develop:
o Downtown parking & circulation plans to encourage convenience, certainty and efficiency
o Plans to fund the above a schedule of priorities.
---------------------
1.2. Set realistic long-range goals based upon the community's vision, and incorporate these into the city's Comprehensive Plan as part of a new Economic Development Element.
Supplemental Answer: One clear way the city could insure continued focus on this issue is to prepare its own Economic Development Element to be included in its Comprehensive Plan - our blueprint for managing growth.
With a clear, written set of principles and goals, we are more apt to remember what the community's goals are and to be guided by them in every day affairs.
This issue is so closely associated with sound fiscal policy that it simply must be pursued, with a purpose!
An Economic Development Element was mentioned as a future goal in the Comp Plan approved in 1997, using State funding which has not been forthcoming.
This should be undertaken anyway, as a means of collecting and consolidating input from the various regional agencies that are focused on Economic Development.
=============================================================
1.3. Implement more effective policies regarding the management of our growth and how this will be funded.
Supplemental Answer: The last ten years has seen Bellingham grow almost 30 percent.
While it is nice to be recognized nationally as a great place to live, growth-related pressures will likely overwhelm us if we are not careful.
This could easily degrade the area to a 'not so nice' place in the future.
During the last 5 years, the city has struggled to find ways of dealing with new development both within the city, and in the Urban Growth Areas [UGA] controlled by the county.
Under the State Growth Management Act, these UGAs are designated to accommodate urban density development to prevent sprawl.
Because of the twin problems of uncertainty as to whether the county or the city controls the permitting, and inequity as to how tax revenues are shared, proper and consistent annexation to the city is being deterred.
The result is that our UGAs are turning into 'no-man's ('no-person's) lands' where neither county nor city is able to fix the lack of infrastructure that is making these areas unattractive in which to live, work and play.
In time, the city will inherit this problem, unless measures are enacted to rectify these problems.
Currently, about 12,000 residents live in the UGAs outside City Limits and jurisdiction.
These residents could add about 17% to Bellingham population, but only if they petition for annexation, which is not happening for residential areas.
No City taxes are being collected from the UGAs to pay for City services, even though these people do use City facilities. About $2.5 million per year in additional property taxes, could be collected by the City if these residential UGAs areas were
annexed.
Even this amount would likely not be sufficient to fully cover the costs of these additional City services.
It is critical to our continued livability for us to find better ways of managing this growth. Establishing responsible growth management practices and ensuring these are followed will be one of the biggest tasks we face in the coming years.
This year the city expects to complete its 5-year update to its Comprehensive Plan - its growth management 'bible' and blueprint.
The county has until the end of 2004 to complete its plan, which also includes all the cities.
These decisions on the direction of our future growth and how it will be managed need to incorporate a coordinated
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program that is fully utilized by both city and county.
Such a market-driven program will help us to achieve the higher densities required by the Growth Management Act, while also protecting our more sensitive areas, like lake Whatcom, and treating property owners more fairly.
Of course, these growth issues are very strongly impacting municipal finances.
This area needs to be watched closely to anticipate additional demands on funding and develop appropriate new self-funding sources.
It won't work to have County and City continue to not address these larger, less visible problems that can adversely impact everyone.
=============================================================
Q2. How would you balance demands for a reasonable tax rate with demands for a certain level of infrastructure as services?
--------------------
Q2. Answer:
Bellingham's overall tax rate is relatively low and stable as compared with other cities in Whatcom County and it's peer cities.
It has even been awarded a 'Friend of the Taxpayer Award' for its frugality in resisting raising property taxes.
Additionally, Moody's upgraded the city's bond rating to 'Aa' because of the city's consistent good financial management
and excellent credit rating.
'Reasonableness' is a relative term, which depends upon what services the public wants and is willing and able to pay
for.
Balancing the revenues derived from taxes with infrastructure needs and priorities is an ongoing juggling act for the city.
Consider the following:
The Capital Improvements Advisory Committee spent 2.5 years evaluating the city's capital needs, setting priorities, identifying funding sources and making specific recommendations.
This effort culminated in a report issued in 2001.
This report identified two basic categories of projects; those with identified or dedicated funding sources [A], and those without [B].
Both categories recognized the importance of maintaining existing facilities as a priority, in addition to the need for new facilities.
These facilities exclude schools, state & federal facilities and Port facilities, which have separate funding & administration.
Examples of Category A infrastructure & facilities [with identified funding] include:
o Streets & Sidewalks [these funds can be supplemented by LIDs, grants & REET monies]
o Water Utility facilities [these funds can be supplemented by System Development Charges]
o Sewer Utility facilities [these funds can be supplemented by System Development Charges]
o Storm-water Utility facilities [these funds can be supplemented by new rates & LIDS]
o Parking facilities & other 'enterprise' fund facilities, which are designed to be self-supporting. [funding may be supplemented by repayable Councilmanic Bonds, Public Facilities District funds, private investment]
Examples of Category B infrastructure & facilities [without dedicated funding] include:
o City Hall [seismic & HVAC upgrades from General Fund]
o Muni Court [General Fund]
o Museum [seismic & HVAC upgrades form General Fund, grants, bonds]
o Library [expansion from bonds &/or HVAC upgrade from General Fund]
o Mt Baker Theater [GF maint + expansion from Grants, Bond, PFD funds, private]
o Police Dept [+ Dispatch]
o Fire Dept [6 stations + Training facility, EMS & Dispatch]
o Parks, Trails & Open Space facilities [from General Fund, grants, potential future levy]
There are far more identified needs than there is funding for them, therefore we must prioritize and plan phased implementation.
Finding funding is both an art and a science, plus a juggling act in real time.
Growth related facilities must use either voted bonds or impact fees/system development charges paid by developers and/or users.
Much discussion and debate has transpired specifically over the B & O tax, which currently generates about $7.5 million per year in City revenues, its 3rd largest source.
Some see B&O as business unfriendly, and in some respects it is, because it is based upon gross revenues.
However, since the State of Washington has no income tax provisions, there are limited ways for governments to raise funds from all entities fairly.
Until the State government changes this situation, we're stuck with it because local governments rely upon it as a major source of revenue.
[We are even more reliant upon this tax source as a result of I-695, which removed most of MVET taxes as the State's 4th largest source of revenue,which in turn impacted cities.
Bellingham has permanently lost about $1.5 Million annually from its General Fund due to I-695.
This is particularly devastating because these funds were used to pay for public safety services from the General Fund.
This is a major reason for the City & County seeking a separate source of funding for countywide EMS, by voted levy.]
Recently, Bellingham did adopt a revised, Model B&O tax measure along with other major cities, which reduced tax rates for certain businesses such as engineering companies by 61%.
It also made compliance easier and more equitable by clearly defining 'who pays what and where'.
Because cities do require revenues and businesses need to pay their fair share, B&O taxes are mainly used for General Fund expenses, which are primarily related to public safety services like police, fire and EMS.
In many respects, a State income tax would be fairer, more stable and less onerous on businesses than the B&O tax, because it would be based upon net revenues/profits and would also would likely allow a deduction on federal taxes.
But this is primarily a State issue that must be resolved at that level.
Pressure will likely build for change until something happens.
Meanwhile, local government is not an enemy of business because of using B&O taxes as a revenue source, it is merely using the tools it is capable of using to support essential services.
We could use a new toolbox, with some new tools!
=============================================================
Q3. How would you attract new businesses and foster growth for existing businesses while retaining the character that draws people to Bellingham?
-----------------------
Q3. Answer: The city's continued role as outlined above, is essential to this task.
As a general matter, it would be nice to see businesses and local government become better partners in the welfare of our community.
However, each entity has a different role to play, although there are numerous overlaps in interests.
While interested in being helpful to businesses, the public often is concerned about the perception of 'privatizing profits and
socializing costs'.
An even-handed policy is required, with no favoritism shown to any special interest.
This children's rhyme exemplifies perhaps the best and most succinct philosophy for us to follow:
"Make new friends, but keep the old.
One is silver and the other gold."
Currently about 80% of job growth is coming from existing businesses, with most of them having 25 employees or less.
Keeping existing businesses healthy so they can grow and sustain themselves is the best method known to help our local economy.
Like having a balanced investment portfolio, having a good diversity of businesses in our community is also helpful.
By achieving this condition, other businesses will naturally be attracted here.
This philosophy was echoed in the Deloitte & Touche study & report commissioned two years ago by the Port of
Bellingham, whose charter it is to spur economic development.
Businesses do much needed work for the community by:
o providing jobs and benefits to employees
o providing services and products needed
o providing taxes to pay for government services
o providing donations to charities and schools
o providing talented people to volunteer and participate in the community
o providing investment returns and profits for reinvestment in the local economy
Our way of life depends upon businesses succeeding, because our society is powered by economics, and business is that engine.
I know this personally from spending 35 years working in public and private business, from which I receive a retirement income, social security and healthcare plan.
Our national economy also plays a big role locally.
Our way of life also depends upon our natural resources being protected for the future and our community's social character and charm being sustained.
So, business also has to be a partner in these things too - it is not an island unto itself, as was thought at times in the past. Full cost accounting demands that the larger picture requires balance among its parts.
COB can encourage best those businesses that are environmentally & socially conscious as well as economically viable.
That, plus a healthy diversity of locally based businesses seems ideal for Bellingham.
==========================================================
"Perfection of means and confusion of ends seem to characterize our age." - Einstein
But, all seem to agree that any definition has to include jobs, business activity and the cash flow that results therefrom.
Our Growth Management Act [GMA] requires most cities and counties to plan their growth, and memorialize their game plans for accomplishing that in Comprehensive Plans that are updated from time to time.
Six Chapters, or Elements, are mandated by law;
1. Framework Goals & Policies
2. Land Use
3. Housing
4. Transportation
5. Community Design
6. Capital Facilities & Utilities
An additional, optional, Element, Parks, Recreation & Open Space, was adopted in 2005.
I think we need to adopt another optional Element, Economic Development, to define what Bellingham does now, and wishes to do in the future, to sustain our local economy and job base.
Fortunately, the City is now taking a step toward that goal by developing Strategic Guidelines for Economic Development.
Without a written plan, there will be endless and unproductive debate over what the City is, or should be, doing to retain and grow local businesses and attract new ones that fit into the future we are trying to achieve.
The County has such a plan, and it reads well, although it isn't always followed. [Witness the Waterfront Redevelopment Project for example] But, it is important to state clearly what actions and policy make sense to achieve goals that are agreed to as good.
Since the Port's main mission is to be an economic engine, it also has a plan which is followed. Of interest was a study undertaken by the Port a few years ago by the firm of Deloitte & Touche, which concluded with recommendations that emphasize simply focusing on Seattle and Vancouver, BC businesses, and encouraging our natural location create advantageous branches to locate here.
Both County and Port ED Plans recognize that the days of natural resource extraction and heavy manufacturing are in decline. In their place, we might encourage cleaner industry and businesses that require advanced learning or technology and provide family wage jobs. That seems like a wise plan that the City could emulate as the major population center in the region.
But the issues surrounding ED are many and varied, with many interrelated and some requiring specific actions to address. I'm glad to report we are making some progress on some of these things like improvements in the City's Planning and with leadership in place to help the waterfront effort.
A sensible plan for economic development also needs to take into account the services the City already provides, then build upon those.
It also needs to take into account the concerns and needs of businesses already here, as well as those that may be attracted.
Below are some responses I gave to 3 campaign questions back in 2003 that may be of interest to readers.
Some of the examples cited are a little dated, but the responses illustrate the points intended.
====================================================
QUESTION 1.
What is the biggest issue facing Bellingham business and how will you address that issue as a City Council member?
ANSWER:
I believe the biggest 'issue' facing Bellingham businesses is uncertainty.
This is evidenced in several areas, including:
o permitting procedures, their clarity & timing,
o zoning & land use decisions & restrictions,
o availability of water & sewer extensions,
o impacts of growth on costs,
o transportation planning & options,
o parking availability,
o local tax structure,
o sustaining its employee payroll & profits
o and the overall economy
The City can continuously strive to improve certainty and stability relating to the first seven points, because they are clearly influenced by City & County policy, laws and rules.
These can also influence a business's ability to sustain itself.
The last point has a major impact, but is outside either the City or County's control.
As a City Council member, I will work to address the first four points as part of updating our Comprehensive Plan for managing growth.
This needs to be done cooperatively with the County so that the benefits of regional planning can be realized.
Points 5 & 6 need to be also specifically built into our plans for revitalizing the downtown & waterfront areas.
City taxes, fees & utility rates need to be adequate, fair and stable.
============================================================
QUESTION 2.
One of the main obstacles in the construction of new buildings downtown and in Fairhaven has been complaints from citizens that the buildings block their views.
Should this be handled on a case-by-case basis or should there be firm rules to guide the protection of views?
ANSWER:
This question apparently refers to the Chrysalis Hotel; Finnegan's Alley & the proposed new Village Books Store in Fairhaven; and the State Street Multi-year Tax Exempt Apartment structure, which replaces a derelict structure near downtown.
All these buildings are situated in areas clearly designated for high-density commercial use.
They were also conditioned by public in-put, to less than the heights that might have otherwise been allowed.
Others will likely be considered in the future, such as the Old Town redevelopment site, etc.
The Finnegan's Alley building height allowed was questionable, however, once determined this set a precedent for the Village Books building.
Both structures were approved at heights and configurations more acceptable to their neighbors.
Likewise, the Chrysalis Hotel and State Street Apartments were modified in response to the concerns of neighbors.
This is as it should be, since it is practically impossible to have firm rules that cover every eventuality.
Clear guidelines are preferable, but these must allow some case-by-case variation.
This is necessary if we are to achieve the urban density required to prevent sprawl.
View protection is important, within limits, but it must compete with other priorities as well.
More work is needed to define view parameters.
============================================================
QUESTION 3.
Should Bellingham try to limit growth? Why or why not, and if so, how?
ANSWER:
Yes, there are finite limits to any activity, whether these are recognized in advance or not.
This important question is now in the process of being answered for our community during the process of updating our Comprehensive Plan, in cooperation with the County.
Limits do apply to rate of increase, ultimate size, quality, timing and related costs.
All of these parameters need to be recognized in conjunction with the resources available to deal with them reasonably and in a timely fashion.
I believe that sustaining our quality of life demands that we pay attention to how our growth is planned and paid for.
The best approach seems to be a regional one, in which City and County collaboratively plan our future housing, transportation, critical areas, open space and public services needs.
If this is done well and costs are shared equitably with new development, then our valued quality of life can be sustained for future generations to enjoy.
More growth will place increasing demands on our water supply and public infrastructure, both of which need to be maintained for the benefit of the public.
It would be irresponsible for our governments to ignore the impacts and hidden costs of growth.
========================================================
And, a second survey with 3 questions:
-------------------
Q1. What are three concrete policies you would pursue to help the Bellingham business community?
=============================================================
Under the theory that 'a rising tide floats all boats', here are three specific areas of policy improvement that would most effectively help the business community, and citizens.
1.1. Work smarter and more efficiently at what the City does now, by operating more like a socially and environmentally responsible business with a culture of continuous improvement.
Supplemental Answer: Keep doing what we are doing, what cities uniquely do:
Continue supporting:
o Essential City services, like those provided by Police, Fire, EMS, Planning, Public Works, Muni Court, & Parks Depts, as well as the Library, Museum and Mt Baker Theater.
o Small Business Development Center
o Economic Development Council
o Chamber Of Commerce
o Port Of Bellingham -in particular joint planning for redevelopment of the G-P waterfront area.
o Multi-year Tax exemption program to stimulate housing downtown, but review entire program annually.
o Downtown Design Standards
o Public Facilities District and its Centennial Project related to expanding the Mt Baker Theater to stimulate Downtown development & vitality
o Remediation of Brownfields sites like the REStore, for which Federal grants are available- only to governments
o Maintenance of public facilities
o Maintenance of public services
o Downtown & Neighborhood Business groups
o Way-finding system enhancements
o Convention & Visitors Bureau - Maps & tourism promotion
o Condemnation of derelict buildings to stimulate redevelopment Improve:
o Permitting process -both within the city and jointly with Whatcom County
o Consistency within the Bellingham Municipal Code
o Cooperation with Whatcom County
o Communication with public on all issues of importance
o Coordination between City departments
o Fiscal discipline in approving unbudgeted expenditures
o Mass transit routes with WTA
o WWU links to downtown
o Bicycle/pedestrian friendly routes
Develop:
o Downtown parking & circulation plans to encourage convenience, certainty and efficiency
o Plans to fund the above a schedule of priorities.
---------------------
1.2. Set realistic long-range goals based upon the community's vision, and incorporate these into the city's Comprehensive Plan as part of a new Economic Development Element.
Supplemental Answer: One clear way the city could insure continued focus on this issue is to prepare its own Economic Development Element to be included in its Comprehensive Plan - our blueprint for managing growth.
With a clear, written set of principles and goals, we are more apt to remember what the community's goals are and to be guided by them in every day affairs.
This issue is so closely associated with sound fiscal policy that it simply must be pursued, with a purpose!
An Economic Development Element was mentioned as a future goal in the Comp Plan approved in 1997, using State funding which has not been forthcoming.
This should be undertaken anyway, as a means of collecting and consolidating input from the various regional agencies that are focused on Economic Development.
=============================================================
1.3. Implement more effective policies regarding the management of our growth and how this will be funded.
Supplemental Answer: The last ten years has seen Bellingham grow almost 30 percent.
While it is nice to be recognized nationally as a great place to live, growth-related pressures will likely overwhelm us if we are not careful.
This could easily degrade the area to a 'not so nice' place in the future.
During the last 5 years, the city has struggled to find ways of dealing with new development both within the city, and in the Urban Growth Areas [UGA] controlled by the county.
Under the State Growth Management Act, these UGAs are designated to accommodate urban density development to prevent sprawl.
Because of the twin problems of uncertainty as to whether the county or the city controls the permitting, and inequity as to how tax revenues are shared, proper and consistent annexation to the city is being deterred.
The result is that our UGAs are turning into 'no-man's ('no-person's) lands' where neither county nor city is able to fix the lack of infrastructure that is making these areas unattractive in which to live, work and play.
In time, the city will inherit this problem, unless measures are enacted to rectify these problems.
Currently, about 12,000 residents live in the UGAs outside City Limits and jurisdiction.
These residents could add about 17% to Bellingham population, but only if they petition for annexation, which is not happening for residential areas.
No City taxes are being collected from the UGAs to pay for City services, even though these people do use City facilities. About $2.5 million per year in additional property taxes, could be collected by the City if these residential UGAs areas were
annexed.
Even this amount would likely not be sufficient to fully cover the costs of these additional City services.
It is critical to our continued livability for us to find better ways of managing this growth. Establishing responsible growth management practices and ensuring these are followed will be one of the biggest tasks we face in the coming years.
This year the city expects to complete its 5-year update to its Comprehensive Plan - its growth management 'bible' and blueprint.
The county has until the end of 2004 to complete its plan, which also includes all the cities.
These decisions on the direction of our future growth and how it will be managed need to incorporate a coordinated
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program that is fully utilized by both city and county.
Such a market-driven program will help us to achieve the higher densities required by the Growth Management Act, while also protecting our more sensitive areas, like lake Whatcom, and treating property owners more fairly.
Of course, these growth issues are very strongly impacting municipal finances.
This area needs to be watched closely to anticipate additional demands on funding and develop appropriate new self-funding sources.
It won't work to have County and City continue to not address these larger, less visible problems that can adversely impact everyone.
=============================================================
Q2. How would you balance demands for a reasonable tax rate with demands for a certain level of infrastructure as services?
--------------------
Q2. Answer:
Bellingham's overall tax rate is relatively low and stable as compared with other cities in Whatcom County and it's peer cities.
It has even been awarded a 'Friend of the Taxpayer Award' for its frugality in resisting raising property taxes.
Additionally, Moody's upgraded the city's bond rating to 'Aa' because of the city's consistent good financial management
and excellent credit rating.
'Reasonableness' is a relative term, which depends upon what services the public wants and is willing and able to pay
for.
Balancing the revenues derived from taxes with infrastructure needs and priorities is an ongoing juggling act for the city.
Consider the following:
The Capital Improvements Advisory Committee spent 2.5 years evaluating the city's capital needs, setting priorities, identifying funding sources and making specific recommendations.
This effort culminated in a report issued in 2001.
This report identified two basic categories of projects; those with identified or dedicated funding sources [A], and those without [B].
Both categories recognized the importance of maintaining existing facilities as a priority, in addition to the need for new facilities.
These facilities exclude schools, state & federal facilities and Port facilities, which have separate funding & administration.
Examples of Category A infrastructure & facilities [with identified funding] include:
o Streets & Sidewalks [these funds can be supplemented by LIDs, grants & REET monies]
o Water Utility facilities [these funds can be supplemented by System Development Charges]
o Sewer Utility facilities [these funds can be supplemented by System Development Charges]
o Storm-water Utility facilities [these funds can be supplemented by new rates & LIDS]
o Parking facilities & other 'enterprise' fund facilities, which are designed to be self-supporting. [funding may be supplemented by repayable Councilmanic Bonds, Public Facilities District funds, private investment]
Examples of Category B infrastructure & facilities [without dedicated funding] include:
o City Hall [seismic & HVAC upgrades from General Fund]
o Muni Court [General Fund]
o Museum [seismic & HVAC upgrades form General Fund, grants, bonds]
o Library [expansion from bonds &/or HVAC upgrade from General Fund]
o Mt Baker Theater [GF maint + expansion from Grants, Bond, PFD funds, private]
o Police Dept [+ Dispatch]
o Fire Dept [6 stations + Training facility, EMS & Dispatch]
o Parks, Trails & Open Space facilities [from General Fund, grants, potential future levy]
There are far more identified needs than there is funding for them, therefore we must prioritize and plan phased implementation.
Finding funding is both an art and a science, plus a juggling act in real time.
Growth related facilities must use either voted bonds or impact fees/system development charges paid by developers and/or users.
Much discussion and debate has transpired specifically over the B & O tax, which currently generates about $7.5 million per year in City revenues, its 3rd largest source.
Some see B&O as business unfriendly, and in some respects it is, because it is based upon gross revenues.
However, since the State of Washington has no income tax provisions, there are limited ways for governments to raise funds from all entities fairly.
Until the State government changes this situation, we're stuck with it because local governments rely upon it as a major source of revenue.
[We are even more reliant upon this tax source as a result of I-695, which removed most of MVET taxes as the State's 4th largest source of revenue,which in turn impacted cities.
Bellingham has permanently lost about $1.5 Million annually from its General Fund due to I-695.
This is particularly devastating because these funds were used to pay for public safety services from the General Fund.
This is a major reason for the City & County seeking a separate source of funding for countywide EMS, by voted levy.]
Recently, Bellingham did adopt a revised, Model B&O tax measure along with other major cities, which reduced tax rates for certain businesses such as engineering companies by 61%.
It also made compliance easier and more equitable by clearly defining 'who pays what and where'.
Because cities do require revenues and businesses need to pay their fair share, B&O taxes are mainly used for General Fund expenses, which are primarily related to public safety services like police, fire and EMS.
In many respects, a State income tax would be fairer, more stable and less onerous on businesses than the B&O tax, because it would be based upon net revenues/profits and would also would likely allow a deduction on federal taxes.
But this is primarily a State issue that must be resolved at that level.
Pressure will likely build for change until something happens.
Meanwhile, local government is not an enemy of business because of using B&O taxes as a revenue source, it is merely using the tools it is capable of using to support essential services.
We could use a new toolbox, with some new tools!
=============================================================
Q3. How would you attract new businesses and foster growth for existing businesses while retaining the character that draws people to Bellingham?
-----------------------
Q3. Answer: The city's continued role as outlined above, is essential to this task.
As a general matter, it would be nice to see businesses and local government become better partners in the welfare of our community.
However, each entity has a different role to play, although there are numerous overlaps in interests.
While interested in being helpful to businesses, the public often is concerned about the perception of 'privatizing profits and
socializing costs'.
An even-handed policy is required, with no favoritism shown to any special interest.
This children's rhyme exemplifies perhaps the best and most succinct philosophy for us to follow:
"Make new friends, but keep the old.
One is silver and the other gold."
Currently about 80% of job growth is coming from existing businesses, with most of them having 25 employees or less.
Keeping existing businesses healthy so they can grow and sustain themselves is the best method known to help our local economy.
Like having a balanced investment portfolio, having a good diversity of businesses in our community is also helpful.
By achieving this condition, other businesses will naturally be attracted here.
This philosophy was echoed in the Deloitte & Touche study & report commissioned two years ago by the Port of
Bellingham, whose charter it is to spur economic development.
Businesses do much needed work for the community by:
o providing jobs and benefits to employees
o providing services and products needed
o providing taxes to pay for government services
o providing donations to charities and schools
o providing talented people to volunteer and participate in the community
o providing investment returns and profits for reinvestment in the local economy
Our way of life depends upon businesses succeeding, because our society is powered by economics, and business is that engine.
I know this personally from spending 35 years working in public and private business, from which I receive a retirement income, social security and healthcare plan.
Our national economy also plays a big role locally.
Our way of life also depends upon our natural resources being protected for the future and our community's social character and charm being sustained.
So, business also has to be a partner in these things too - it is not an island unto itself, as was thought at times in the past. Full cost accounting demands that the larger picture requires balance among its parts.
COB can encourage best those businesses that are environmentally & socially conscious as well as economically viable.
That, plus a healthy diversity of locally based businesses seems ideal for Bellingham.
==========================================================
"Perfection of means and confusion of ends seem to characterize our age." - Einstein
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Reconveyance: No September Surprises
An interesting juxtaposition of events occurred today.
First, a 'courtesy' announcement on behalf of a McShane for Mayor event, with this message:
"Dan introduces a bold plan to help protect Lake Whatcom
Dan McShane is working with County Executive Pete Kremen to place more than a quarter of the Lake Whatcom watershed into protected park status. The agreement with the Department of Natural Resources to move forward on a land swap to block up 8,400 or so acres of land was signed on Friday by Pete Kremen and Doug Sutherland, Commissioner of Public Lands.
Just over a year from now Whatcom County will have a spectacular new park of mature forest above the shores of Lake Whatcom with likely trail connections towards Lake Samish and Blanchard Mountain to the west and Mt. Baker to the east. This is one of the biggest steps towards protection of the watershed yet and is an example of how McShane approaches problems: visionary thinking, strong leadership, a collaborative approach and follow-through. This project could not have happened without the support of the County Executive, other Council members, hundreds of citizens, the City of Bellingham, our Legislators and the Department of Natural Resources. Dan is especially grateful for Pete Kremen's commitment to this effort. Dan will bring this approach to the mayor's office. To read more about Dan's proposal, go here [URL]."
Sounds pretty bold to announce something before October, doesn't it?
Dan and Pete, or Pete and Dan?
Doesn't matter, they're in this together and have been planning it for a while - in semi-secret.
---------
Then, we are privileged to receive a flurry of e-mails, both pro and con, which tend to neutralize any preference.
---------
Then comes a somewhat strange telephone request from Mitch Friedman of Conservation Northwest, asking me to 'broker' a rush meeting -prior to the 6:30 PM County Council announcement- with individuals whom he has developed a difficulty in communications. I declined, not because I already had other plans, but because patching up other people's intra-personal problems is not something I particularly relish. But, at least Mitch called me and asked. That appears to be an improvement in my own relationship wih Mitch, but maybe it's just because he needed something he thought I could provide.
I did have other plans and things to do, which prevented me from attending the County Council announcement.
But, I did receive some direct feedback from this meeting, including the plain paper handout reproduced below, and a map depicting 'Lake Whatcom Watershed - Ownership 2006'.
BTW, the map handed out, I have heard, is incorrect according to a DNR source.
Be that as it may, the reconveyance scheme may be an OK thing.
But, the devil is always in the details, isn't it?
One observation was that no County Council members except 'BBgun' seemed to object to it.
Maybe Dan got his votes lined up in advance this time?
Or was it Pete?
Let's see, who could benefit from such a 'pleasant' surprise? Pete? Dan? Sam? Bob?
Of course Doug Sutherland is running for re-election next year, too.
I still have some concerns.
Like, Parks seem to stimulate development nearby.
During the City's Greenways campaign, we learned that Parks enhance nearby property values by an average of 11%.
Normally, that's a good thing.
But in a special watershed?
Guess, I'll need more persuasion on that point.
My main concern remains focused on what kind of Park is envisioned, and with what uses?
After that, what confidence do we have in the County's ability to fund and manage a Park any better than DNR manages its forestlands?
Both of these are legitimate concerns that need more discussion.
And facts!
I'll concede a rare political advance, but only if it is earned.
Stay tuned on this one and see haow it plays out.
----------------------------------------
Proposed Re-conveyance of State Forest Lands
In the Lake Wnatcom Watershed
Draft Framework
1. Purpose of the transactions proposed in the Agreement
2. Summary of the Agreement
3. Background and current situation relevant to the Agreement
4. Scope - description of the specific parcels involved
5. Rationale for inter-grant exchange
a. Current configuration and disadvantages
b. Objectives to create more manageable blocks for the parties' respective purposes
6. Requirements for inter-grant exchange
a. valuation (including appraisal costs, etc.)
b. balancing of values on the respective sides
c. maps
d. decision-making authority
7. Rationale for re-conveyance of State Forest Trust lands for park purposes
a. park purposes, including distinction from general multiple use of trust lands
b. unique aspects of the situation for the Lake Whatcom watershed
c. specific park intentions and elements related to specific parcels to be re-conveyed
d. expectations for management of adjacent state trust lands
8. Requirements for re-conveyance of State Forest Trust lands for park purposes
a. Whatcom County request
b. Action required by DNR, RCO, Board of Natural Resources, etc.
c. Conformance to final inter-grant exchange
d. Legal documentation and maps, including encumbrances, improvements, agreements obligations, retained rights, etc.
9. Management issues for re-conveyed lands
a. management obligations and costs
b. disposition of any revenues received from management
c. liabilities, encumbrances, hazards, etc.
d. timber management
e. obligations/rights retained by the State of Washington
f. criteria for reversion of lands to the State of Washington
10. Management issues for retained federally-granted trust lands and for Skagit County State Forest Trust lands in the watershed
a. physical characteristics of retained land; benefits of working forest, revenue, watershed protection, and multiple use
b. management direction from HCP and Policy for Sustainable Forest
c. effects of retaining or not retaining the Lake Whatcom Watershed Landscape Plan
d. agreements on specific management elements in support of park purposes on re-conveyed land (Eg: trail easements, multiple use, etc., but excluding management restrictions for scenic qualities beyond PSF)
11. Status of Lake Whatcom Watershed Landscape Plan and potential future legislative action
12. Proposed steps to implement the MOA
a. Joint stakeholder outreach and communication plan
b. Legal/transaction steps
c. Due diligence steps
d. Financing plan to carry out transactions
e. Future legislative Strategy
f. Decision-making requirements
13. Effect on current beneficiaries of Whatcom County State Forest Land
14. Proposed Timeline
15. commitment by parties to proceed and complete agreed on actions
__________
(note: the above text was distributed by County Employees, on plain paper, not attributed to any agency, office or person, OCR scanned)
First, a 'courtesy' announcement on behalf of a McShane for Mayor event, with this message:
"Dan introduces a bold plan to help protect Lake Whatcom
Dan McShane is working with County Executive Pete Kremen to place more than a quarter of the Lake Whatcom watershed into protected park status. The agreement with the Department of Natural Resources to move forward on a land swap to block up 8,400 or so acres of land was signed on Friday by Pete Kremen and Doug Sutherland, Commissioner of Public Lands.
Just over a year from now Whatcom County will have a spectacular new park of mature forest above the shores of Lake Whatcom with likely trail connections towards Lake Samish and Blanchard Mountain to the west and Mt. Baker to the east. This is one of the biggest steps towards protection of the watershed yet and is an example of how McShane approaches problems: visionary thinking, strong leadership, a collaborative approach and follow-through. This project could not have happened without the support of the County Executive, other Council members, hundreds of citizens, the City of Bellingham, our Legislators and the Department of Natural Resources. Dan is especially grateful for Pete Kremen's commitment to this effort. Dan will bring this approach to the mayor's office. To read more about Dan's proposal, go here [URL]."
Sounds pretty bold to announce something before October, doesn't it?
Dan and Pete, or Pete and Dan?
Doesn't matter, they're in this together and have been planning it for a while - in semi-secret.
---------
Then, we are privileged to receive a flurry of e-mails, both pro and con, which tend to neutralize any preference.
---------
Then comes a somewhat strange telephone request from Mitch Friedman of Conservation Northwest, asking me to 'broker' a rush meeting -prior to the 6:30 PM County Council announcement- with individuals whom he has developed a difficulty in communications. I declined, not because I already had other plans, but because patching up other people's intra-personal problems is not something I particularly relish. But, at least Mitch called me and asked. That appears to be an improvement in my own relationship wih Mitch, but maybe it's just because he needed something he thought I could provide.
I did have other plans and things to do, which prevented me from attending the County Council announcement.
But, I did receive some direct feedback from this meeting, including the plain paper handout reproduced below, and a map depicting 'Lake Whatcom Watershed - Ownership 2006'.
BTW, the map handed out, I have heard, is incorrect according to a DNR source.
Be that as it may, the reconveyance scheme may be an OK thing.
But, the devil is always in the details, isn't it?
One observation was that no County Council members except 'BBgun' seemed to object to it.
Maybe Dan got his votes lined up in advance this time?
Or was it Pete?
Let's see, who could benefit from such a 'pleasant' surprise? Pete? Dan? Sam? Bob?
Of course Doug Sutherland is running for re-election next year, too.
I still have some concerns.
Like, Parks seem to stimulate development nearby.
During the City's Greenways campaign, we learned that Parks enhance nearby property values by an average of 11%.
Normally, that's a good thing.
But in a special watershed?
Guess, I'll need more persuasion on that point.
My main concern remains focused on what kind of Park is envisioned, and with what uses?
After that, what confidence do we have in the County's ability to fund and manage a Park any better than DNR manages its forestlands?
Both of these are legitimate concerns that need more discussion.
And facts!
I'll concede a rare political advance, but only if it is earned.
Stay tuned on this one and see haow it plays out.
----------------------------------------
Proposed Re-conveyance of State Forest Lands
In the Lake Wnatcom Watershed
Draft Framework
1. Purpose of the transactions proposed in the Agreement
2. Summary of the Agreement
3. Background and current situation relevant to the Agreement
4. Scope - description of the specific parcels involved
5. Rationale for inter-grant exchange
a. Current configuration and disadvantages
b. Objectives to create more manageable blocks for the parties' respective purposes
6. Requirements for inter-grant exchange
a. valuation (including appraisal costs, etc.)
b. balancing of values on the respective sides
c. maps
d. decision-making authority
7. Rationale for re-conveyance of State Forest Trust lands for park purposes
a. park purposes, including distinction from general multiple use of trust lands
b. unique aspects of the situation for the Lake Whatcom watershed
c. specific park intentions and elements related to specific parcels to be re-conveyed
d. expectations for management of adjacent state trust lands
8. Requirements for re-conveyance of State Forest Trust lands for park purposes
a. Whatcom County request
b. Action required by DNR, RCO, Board of Natural Resources, etc.
c. Conformance to final inter-grant exchange
d. Legal documentation and maps, including encumbrances, improvements, agreements obligations, retained rights, etc.
9. Management issues for re-conveyed lands
a. management obligations and costs
b. disposition of any revenues received from management
c. liabilities, encumbrances, hazards, etc.
d. timber management
e. obligations/rights retained by the State of Washington
f. criteria for reversion of lands to the State of Washington
10. Management issues for retained federally-granted trust lands and for Skagit County State Forest Trust lands in the watershed
a. physical characteristics of retained land; benefits of working forest, revenue, watershed protection, and multiple use
b. management direction from HCP and Policy for Sustainable Forest
c. effects of retaining or not retaining the Lake Whatcom Watershed Landscape Plan
d. agreements on specific management elements in support of park purposes on re-conveyed land (Eg: trail easements, multiple use, etc., but excluding management restrictions for scenic qualities beyond PSF)
11. Status of Lake Whatcom Watershed Landscape Plan and potential future legislative action
12. Proposed steps to implement the MOA
a. Joint stakeholder outreach and communication plan
b. Legal/transaction steps
c. Due diligence steps
d. Financing plan to carry out transactions
e. Future legislative Strategy
f. Decision-making requirements
13. Effect on current beneficiaries of Whatcom County State Forest Land
14. Proposed Timeline
15. commitment by parties to proceed and complete agreed on actions
__________
(note: the above text was distributed by County Employees, on plain paper, not attributed to any agency, office or person, OCR scanned)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
