Whatcom County Park, Recreation, & Open Space Plan: Draft or Daft?

"Sometimes it's easier to understand things than it is to figure them out" -Casey Stengel

'When there are two conflicting versions of the story, the wise course is to believe the one in which people appear at their worst.' --H. Allen Smith--
-----------------------
Today, let's take a short break from comparing campaign rhetoric with institutional memory, and return to the subject of the 'October Surprise.'
-----------------------
For those who aren't familiar with the 'ICT', it is the acronym for 'Inter-jurisdictional Coordinating Team', a small group of staff members from both City and County that meets regularly to discuss the Lake Whatcom Management Program [LWMP] and specifically those actions that are being planned and actually worked on.

Under the current LWMP, the County Executive & the Mayor assign people to this duty, most whom have been involved with Reservoir issues for some time.
That does sometimes help institutional memory.

But, ICT discussions are not open to the public, nor are elected officials -other than Exec & Mayor- welcomed.
I know this first hand from a few years ago when I tried to be included in these meetings.

Maybe, that is as it should be because of the sensitive and often controversial nature of things impacting our Reservoir.
But, it is frustrating and unnecessary to treat all these meetings as essentially 'executive privileged'.

One example, was an ICT meeting that occurred sometime in April 2006, when a Draft County Park Plan was made available for review to members of the ICT.

It turns out the ICT met with both Mike McFarland [County Parks Director] and Paul Leuthold [City Parks Director] and discussed its unfavorable evaluation of planning for more intense recreational use of the watershed.

The ICT was assured that both the Whatcom County Regional Park Plan [Lake Whatcom], and the Draft Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan were weighted towards watershed friendly activities and that a public process would accompany any proposal for building facilities or major improvements.

But, the ICT's concerns were not assuaged by these verbal assurances.

Instead, the ICT questioned why such non-compatible uses (as listed below) would even be included in the Park Plan, if they weren't going to be proposed.

That sounds like a pretty good question to me, that gets right to the heart of the matter!

Because the ICT meetings aren't public, and detailed minutes are not required, there appears to be no written record that can confirm this particular dialogue.

But, members of the ICT do recall both the questions and the responses given.

And, the ICT did develop a summary in May 2006 upon which their comments were based.

Essentially the ICT's comments were lumped in two categories:

1) Proposals the ICT felt should be removed from the Park Plan because they were not compatible with transportation objectives

2) Proposals that increased build-out, stormwater generation, erosion potential, and other high impact land use.

For example park facilities (day lodge probably similar to Samish Park) at the end of North Shore that will become an attraction and increase transportation.

Or, the RV Park option at the South end of Basin 3.

Or, 6 more boat launch ramps

Or, encouragement of retail activities on the lake.

The ICT concluded these are all great ideas for a lake that is primarily a recreation facility.

Anyone would love to have trails and water based facilities for kayaks and canoes, and trails to hike that connect with regional trails.

But someday, we will need to declare that drinking water protection is a much more important undertaking!

And, how well we succeed at achieving that primary goal will determine the future of our community!

The basic irony is that if such a Park does get built and enjoys great success, that very success will also create even bigger challenges as peoople flock here to play in our Water Supply watershed!

These serious concerns remain unacknowledged by the County, in its haste to gain an election Surprise.

Now that is truly troubling!

But, in fairness, I don't believe the County Council has been given the opportunity to review all of this information, especially the part about the Lake Whatcom Regional Park.

The last I heard was that the County Council was briefed early this year, but that briefing did not include the proposed Lake Whatcom Park.

Yet, the information that was shown to me last month at Conservation Northwest seemed far in excess of what the Council has seen
-------------------------------------
Here is the ICT summary of these two documents that was used to frame its questions.

I am publishing this for readers to review, digest and question:

(1) Whatcom County Regional Park Plans

Property Descriptions

Lake Whatcom County Park – North: 218.0 acre park property located on the northeast shoreline of Lake Whatcom and accessed from North Shore Drive. The park’s site includes 10,990 linear feet of shoreline along the route of the historic Bellingham Bay & Eastern Railroad (BB&E) right-of-way (3.0 mile Hertz Trail)

Lake Whatcom County Park – South: Undeveloped 80.3 (or 79.5) acre multi-use park property located on the southeast shoreline of Lake Whatcom accessed from South Bay Drive. The site includes 6,141 (or 7,142) linear feet of shoreline.

Lake Whatcom South – In association with Bellingham, acquire the missing trail segment along the historic BB&E railroad corridor to complete development of the railroad corridor trail conversion around the lake and provide launch sites to the lake shoreline from Blue Canyon Road.

Lake Whatcom North – Bellingham: In association with Bellingham, develop boat ramp, hand-carry launch sites, beachfront swimming and access sites, woodland and waterfront access trails, trailhead for railroad trail, group picnic facilities, and lodge with meeting facilities on North Shore Drive.

Lake Whatcom South – Sudden Valley: Develop swimming beach, boat ramp and dock, swimming beach and access site, woodland and waterfront access trails, trailhead for lakeshore trail, group picnic facilities, , and lodge with meeting facilities off South Bay Drive. Develop a satellite hand-carry launch and campsite on southeast of shoreline.

1) Whatcom County Regional Park Plans in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (implemented over next 20 years, conceptual, further study may modify project particulars)

Lake Whatcom County Park – North
Possible Improvements

South End
- Develop boat launch ramps, dock, and pier into Lake Whatcom shoreline to support a water trail on the Lake
- Develop a swimming beach, picnic area, and group day-use of the waterfront activity area. Recruit concessionaires to provide canoe and kayak, crew and other hand-carry watercraft use of the shoreline and lake.
- Expand trailhead to provide parking for boat launch facilities, the waterfront beach, and an expanded use of trail opportunities along the shoreline and across Stewart Mountain from the park site

Northeast End
- Develop hike, bike, and horse trails from the park site north and south along the Stewart Mountain on ridgelines to connect with the Wickersham Truck Trail and others

Middle Site
- Eventually, develop rustic cabins, recreational vehicle campground, and possible a lodge facility with meeting rooms, educational exhibits and other family and large group retreat activities

Trail Corridor
- Acquire the last mile from DNR and develop Hertz Trail for multipurpose use along the shoreline from the park site south to Blue Canyon Road. Install interpretive signage and exhibits highlighting the trail’s historic heritage
- Develop water-access sites for a water trail along the shoreline from the park site south to Lake Whatcom County Park – South. Install anchoring buoys, landing platforms, and other improvements to support shared access to trailside picnic tables and shelters, local trails and other activity areas.

Lake Whatcom County Park – South (Hegg Park, Zorbrist and Richards property)
Possible Improvements

Southwest End
- Restore and enhance Brannian Creek through the site and into Lake Whatcom. Conserve the woodlands and wetlands in the south portion of the site along the creek corridor and along South Bay Road.
- Develop boat launch ramps, dock and pier into the Lake Whatcom shoreline to support water trails on the lake.
- Develop a swimming beach, picnic area, and group day-use of the waterfront activity area. Recruit concessionaires to provide canoe and kayak, crew and other hand-carry watercraft use of the shoreline and lake.
- Eventually, develop rustic cabins, recreational vehicle campground, and possible a lodge facility with meeting rooms, educational exhibits and other family and large group retreat activities
- Develop a trailhead to provide parking for boat launch facilities, the waterfront beach, and access to trail opportunities along the shoreline.

Hertz Trail
- Develop a multipurpose trail through the park and along the shoreline and north on Blue Canyon Road to Hertz Trail and north along the lake shoreline to Lake Whatcom County Park – North

Camp Road 2
- Develop a trail access across South Bay Road to Camp 2 Railroad Property, then south on a multipurpose trail towards Squires Lake and Anderson Mountain in Skagit County
Southeast End
- Develop a water-access site for a water trail along the shoreline from the park site north to Lake Whatcom County Park – North. Install anchoring buoys, landing platforms, and other improvements to support shared access to trailside picnic table and shelters, local trials and other activity areas. Consider designating a portion of the site for water trail overnight camping for hand-carry watercraft.

Olsen Property (City/County jointly owned with WLT conservation easement)

Possible Improvements
- Designate a trailhead parking areas on Lake Louise Road and link trail access to and through the site with other trail opportunities on Lookout Mountain.

Stimpson Family Nature Reserve & Anderson Property (Anderson Property = City/County jointly owned with WLT conservation easement; Stimpson Family Nature Reserve = DNR, COB, WLT, managed by WC)

Possible Improvements
- Expand the trailhead parking area on Lake Louise Road and link trail access east and west to and throughout the site with other trial opportunities on Lookout Mountain
-----------------------------
2) Draft Whatcom County, Washington Park, Recreation, & Open Space Plan

Section 2.4: Trail and Corridor Access Systems
Water trails – non-motorized craft
b. Develop freshwater trail network of hand-carry or car-top craft including launch sites for canoes, kayaks, and lorries…on Lake Whatcom
d. Develop and operate canoe, kayak, crew, and other non-motorized craft instruction, rental, and storage facilities…including Lake Whatcom

Section 2.5 Resource Parks
Waterfront access and facilities
b. Develop a mixture of salt and freshwater non-motorized and powerboat access opportunities - especially including additional sites and improvement to existing properties in…Lake Whatcom.

Picnicking and day-use activities
a. Acquire and develop additional countywide picnic sites, shelters, and day-use group picnic grounds and camps at major resource parks and along major off-road trail corridors throughout Whatcom County – especially including sties on…Lake Whatcom

Campgrounds and retreats
a. Acquire and develop a countywide system of tent, recreational vehicle, yurt, cabin, lodge and treat facilities at major resource parks and along major off-road trail corridors throughout Whatcom County – especially including sties on…Lake Whatcom

Section 3.1 Conservancies – natural resource areas
Freshwater shoreline and water bodies – existing
5 Lake Whatcom County Park – North
6 Lake Whatcom County Park – South

Freshwater shoreline and water bodies - Proposed
17 Lake Whatcom South – In association with Bellingham – acquire the missing trail segment along the railroad corridor and preserve the shoreline around the lake.

Regional watershed sites - existing
1 & 3 = same, counted twice

Regional watershed sites – proposed
6 Stewart Mountain Acquire additional watershed conservancy land on Stewart Mountain to protect the east shore and drainage into Lake Whatcom

Forestlands – existing
5 Stimpson Family Nature Reserve and Anderson Property – includes Lake Louise NRCA
6 Lookout Mountain - Undeveloped park property located on the south of Birch Street adjoining City of Bellingham property

Wildlife and other multipurpose resource conservancies - existing
2 Euclid Property (Lakeside Street)

Section 3.2 Conservancies – historical
Native American places of significance – existing
2 Lake Whatcom County Park – South (the description of the site differs from others)

Railroad era sites of significance – existing
4 Lake Whatcom County Park – North

Section 3.3 Regional (multi-use parks)
Freshwater waterfront access sites – existing
6 Lake Whatcom County Park – North
7 Lake Whatcom County Park – South (description off)
19 Lake Whatcom Beach Site (DNR, listed under city?)
24 Bloedel Donovan Park
39 Lakewood (WWU)
41 Lakewood Lease (WWU)
44 Blue Canyon Park Road (DNR)
55 Lake Whatcom Access (DFW)

Freshwater waterfront access sites – proposed
66 Lake Whatcom South – acquire missing trail segment along the railroad corridor and provide access to the lake shoreline

Hand-carry craft launch sites – freshwater – existing
5 Lake Whatcom County Park – North
6 Lake Whatcom County Park – South
10 Sunnyside Landing 6.2 acres park site located on the east shore of North Shore Drive with shoreline on Lake Whatcom and launch site opportunity
16 Connecticut Street end (COB)
17 Donald Ave Street end (COB)
18 Euclid Park
20 Lake Whatcom Beach Site (DNR, listed under city)
21 Bloedel Donovan Park (COB)
24 Lakewood (WWU)
25 Blue Canyon Park Road (DNR)
33 Lake Whatcom Access (DFW)

Hand-carry craft launch sites – freshwater – proposed
35 Lake Whatcom South – In association with Bellingham, acquire the missing link along the railroad corridor and provide launch sites to the lake shoreline from Blue Canyon Road
40 Bloedel Donovan (COB)
41 Euclid Park (COB)

Powerboat launch ramps – freshwater – existing
4 Bloedel Donovan Park (COB)
8 Whatcom Lake Access (DFW)

Powerboat launch ramps – freshwater – proposed
14 Lake Whatcom North – Bellingham – Develop a non-motorized boat ramp on North Shore Drive (Why is this in the powerboat launch ramps section?)
15 Lake Whatcom South – Sudden Valley – Develop swimming beach, boat launch ramp and dock on South Bay Drive. Develop a satellite hand-carry launch and campsite on the southeast shoreline.

Day-use facilities - existing
8 Bloedel Donovan Park (COB)

Day-use facilities – proposed
20 Lake Whatcom North – Bellingham – In association with Bellingham, develop group picnic facilities and lodge with meeting facilities on North Shore Drive.
21 Lake Whatcom South – Sudden Valley – Develop group picnic facilities and lodge with meeting rooms on South Bay Drive. Develop a satellite hand-carry launch and campsite on the southeast shoreline.

Campground facilities –existing
14 Wildwood – Sudden Valley Resort – Recreational Vehicle campground located on Lake Whatcom

Campground facilities – proposed
21 Lake Whatcom North – Bellingham – In association with Bellingham, develop boat ramp, hand-carry launch sites, beachfront swimming and access site, woodland and waterfront access trails, trailhead for railroad trail, group picnic facilities, and lodge with meeting facilities on North Shore Drive.
22 Lake Whatcom South – Sudden Valley – Develop swimming beach, boat ramp and dock, swimming beach and access site, woodland and waterfront access trails, trailhead for lakeshore trail, group picnic facilities, and lodge with meeting facilities on South Bay Drive. Develop a satellite hand-carry launch and campsite on the southeast shoreline.

Section 3.4 Water Trails
Freshwater Trail Heads – Lake Whatcom - existing
3 Bloedel Donovan Park (COB)
4 Lakewood (WWU)

Freshwater Trail Heads – Lake Whatcom – proposed trailhead improvements
1 Lake Whatcom County Park – North – Develop boat launch ramps, pier, and dock with kayak and canoe facility and rentals to access the west shoreline.
2 Lake Whatcom County Park – South – Develop boat launch ramps, pier and dock with kayak and canoe facility and rentals to access the south shoreline. Consider developing a satellite boat camping site on the southeast corner of the property away from other park activities.

Freshwater trail access sites – existing
5 Sunnyside Landing
6 Connecticut Street end (COB)
7 Donald Ave Street end (COB)
8 Euclid Park (COB)
9 George Street end (COB)
10 Lake Whatcom Beach Site (DNR, listed as city)
11 Blue Canyon Park Road (DNR)
12 Lake Whatcom Access (DFW)
13 Wildwood – Sudden Valley Resort (Private)

Freshwater trail access site – proposed
14 Lake Whatcom South – In association with Bellingham – acquire missing the missing link along the railroad corridor and provide additional launch sites to the lake shoreline from Blue Canyon Road
15 Blue Canyon Park Road (DNR) – Develop additional launch sites to the east lake shoreline

Section 3.5 Multipurpose trails
Multipurpose trails – countywide system – existing
7 Lake Whatcom Hertz Trail
11 Railroad Trail (COB)

Multipurpose trails – countywide system – proposed
7 Lake Whatcom Trail – Blue Canyon Road Segment
19 Lake Whatcom – Samish – Chuckanut Trail

Section 3.6 Walking and Hiking Trails
Day-hiking trails – existing
24 Olsen Property

Day-hiking trails – proposed
55 Lookout-Galbraith Mountain Trail

Section 3.12 Scenic Corridors
Scenic corridors – proposed
9 Lake Whatcom – View from the road, trail, and water of shoreline, beaches, and wooded bluffs and hillsides, particularly the south end of the lake from Towanda to Sudden Valley

County scenic road touring routes – proposed
12 Electric-North Shore Drive – Scenic road touring route to be designated from Whatcom Falls Park on Electric Avenue north past Bloedel Donovan Park then north on North Shore Drive around Lake Whatcom to the end of the paved road.
13 Lakeway-Lake Whatcom-South bay- Park Road – Scenic road touring route to be designated from Whatcom Falls Park in Bellingham south on Lakeway Drive to Lake Whatcom then south on Lake Whatcom BLVD and around the south end of the lake on South Bay Drive to Park Road and SR-9.

3.14 Community facilities or centers
Senior/community centers – proposed
11 Lake Whatcom/Sudden Valley
------------------------
The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
--H. L. Mencken--

It is always the best policy to tell the truth, unless of course, you are an exceptionally good liar.
--Jerome K. Jerome--

Campaign Rhetoric Versus Institutional Memory: A Litany of Concerns - Part 2

I'm sorry to conclude that the Weakly's October 17 Gristle was yet another quasi-nasty little piece of pulp fiction that diminishes and demeans every one involved in its production; the candidate it was intended to benefit, the writer, the editor (assuming there is a difference), the owner/publisher, and -most particularly- the two fine people who were so casually implicated by deceptive hearsay, thinly veiled insinuation, and innuendo by association with other people, places and times.

I refuse to reward this type of conduct with any more words than that.

Except, I can't help but wonder, if the Gristle's candidate condones such tactics to get himself elected, what tactics might we expect if he were actually elected?
---------------------------------------
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."
- Oscar Wilde

'Politics....Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.'
--Ambrose Bierce--

'The Irish are a fair people -- they never speak well of one another.'
--Samuel Johnson--
-----------------------------------------
Since this blog continues yesterday's blog, I am repeating the introduction:

Sometimes there are discrepancies between what candidates claim -or choose to ignore- and what a more comprehensive recollection of history reveals.

If you want to prove a point, or get elected, you choose carefully what you want to talk about.

And, you know what subjects are to be avoided!

That is the subject of today's blog.

Yesterday's blog listed some reasons why I have chosen to support Dan Pike as our next Mayor.

This one lists some specific reasons that make it difficult for me to support Dan McShane as Mayor.

All of these relate directly to positions he has taken -or not taken- on some important issues, while serving on the County Council.
------------------------
Here is a synopsis of these concerns as related to:

2. Lake Whatcom Reservoir - Good & Not So Good News:

• Unquestionably, some good things have happened on Dan McShane's watch, like the downzone to remove over 2500 units of future residential development in this watershed.

Unfortunately, this was done in such a way that it caused an unprecedented panic and growth explosion!
That is the polar opposite of what is good for the Reservoir - a building boom without adequate mitigation.

But, the Sudden Valley Community Association did also voluntarily adopt a density reduction of 1400 units, which, contrary to campaign rhetoric, was actually motivated by reasons other than strictly watershed concerns.
But, giving credit where it is due, that reduction is significant and will help protect the Lake.

Despite both these density reduction efforts, over 3200 additional homes can still be built -per existing zoning- in the watershed, which could bring another 16,000 people living around our Reservoir.
That prospect is troubling.

• But, aside from density reductions, better development regulations were also implemented by the County during McShane's watch.

Unfortunately again, the County Council refused to learn from the City's recent experience and failed to adopt seasonal construction clearing and grading limits, although this was strongly recommended.

Instead, McShane and the County adopted an unenforceable system advocated by the BIA, which resulted in large quantities of runoff into the Lake during the intense 18-month building frenzy mentioned above!

Only after much avoidable damage had already occurred, was the County Council convinced to change over to seasonal construction limits -simply based on the calendar- that mirrored the regulations the City had adopted in 2000.

• In a pattern that often seemed to consistently discount City efforts, Dan McShane criticized the the City's 2001 water rate surcharge as 'too regressive', even though its purpose was to preserve sensitive watershed.

A few other County officials simply called the City's Watershed Acquisition 'non-collaborative'.
And, predictably, the Water District had even stronger criticisms.

I found it troubling that these reactions occurred despite the fact Watershed Preservation was one of the three priority goals that the Lake Whatcom Management Program had officially adopted!

It seems like just 'talking' is a lot easier than 'walking that talk', doesn't it?

Subsequently, and to its credit, the County did acquire watershed property using its county-wide Conservation Futures funds, and also participated in significant joint watershed property purchases with the City.

• McShane and the County did participate Dept of Natural Resources [DNR] Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan -a 3-plus year effort- which did eventually result in better Forest Practices being adopted, which was good.

But now, McShane wants to transfer some of these same forest lands back to the the County by reconveyance to create a County Park.
This occurred despite the City's concerns with planning for more intense recreational uses in this watershed.

If the County Park does happen, replacement revenues must be found to compensate the various trusts -including schools- that traditionally rely upon funding from DNR timber harvests on these forest lands.

Also, additional monies must be raised to develop, operate and maintain this proposed Park.

Because the County has such a history of penny-pinching, even on matters as important as Sheriff's deputies and Planning Staff, I have concerns about its ability to adequately fund a large amenity like the proposed Park.
Don't you?

So, I have to question whether McShane and the County really understand what it is that needs doing, to better protect this watershed!

Others are also concerned and confused over the uncertain course being pursued regarding DNR forestlands around Lake Whatcom.

Some serious explanations are due the public on this issue.
And, it should be presented much better than under the guise of an election season 'Surprise', designed to help get the announcing heroes elected!

• It remains very hard to see how the County has been effective in requiring Water District 10 to tighten its oversight of environmental matters around Lake Whatcom.

What is the problem in notifying the City, especially when the Water District tries to aid and abet questionable development proposals -outside its jurisdiction- on Squalicum Mountain and elsewhere?

What's up with that?

Can't the County do a better job of monitoring its own development, and notifying the City whenever something unusual occurs?

• The spectacle of the new, County proposed Boating regulations was ugly too.
But, more than enough has been said about that already.

• One last matter.
McShane wants to establish a new City 'Department' focused on Lake Whatcom.

I think that focus has already been covered -at least for the moment- with a shared County/City Management Team.
Let's see how that works out before setting up any more bureaucracy.
Besides, such an action by the City might be considered 'non-collaborative' by some in the County, as has happened before.

After all, whether the required work gets done in a separate Department or drawn from several existing Departments, the critical staff involved would all ultimately report to the Mayor.

I've worked for enough companies and organizations to know that while organizational structure is important, it is not nearly as important as effective leadership, competent people and sufficient funding toward a clear goal.
If those other things are in place, the organization structure will become obvious.

As the County's main water purveyor, the City unquestionably has a large responsibility in protecting its water supply.
But, it will certainly need the active cooperation of both the County and the Water District to provide the protections that are adequate.
----------------------
I sincerely hope Dan McShane develops a better habit for consulting Lake Whatcom's institutional history, and the wisdom to follow its hard lessons before enploying more campaign rhetoric that promises more than can be delivered.

But I have my doubts about that transformation happening, whether he is elected mayor or not.

Nothing in his history suggests that McShane is likely to change some aspects of his personality that tend to inhibit the inclusion of others, and of ideas different from his own.

Instead, Dan McShane comes across as essentially a well-informed loner, who is pretty good at the small geo-technical business he runs.

But, being well informed about the science of geology is not necessarily a plus in performing well in a very visible office like Mayor.

That office operates in a fishbowl, and requires of its occupant the interpersonal skills necessary to deal with a constant stream of people and problems.

Typically, that particular job demands more practical people skills than any other in a City.

Mayor is a job in which inclusiveness is not an option.

It is also a job in which anger management skills are a requirement.

That has also been a concern I've had about Dan McShane, because it has been a problem for him in the past.

We have learned from prior elected officials that being overly secretive, getting mad at people, holding grudges, and developing a bunker mentality of 'us and them' just don't work.

Most people expect much more of their elected officials than excuses for failure in resolving problems and business as usual that perpetrates mediocrity.

As the famous quotes states 'those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it'.

I hope we do learn from history and use those lessons wisely.

Let's make sure who we elect as Mayor has a much better chance at succeeding than at failing.

It would be irresponsible to do otherwise.
------------------------------
The Truth Be Known!: At a political dinner the famous newspaper columnist, Ann Landers, was introduced to a rather pompous Senator.
"So, you're Ann Landers," he drawled. "Say something funny."
Without hesitation Ann replied, "Well, you're a politician...tell me a lie."

Campaign Rhetoric Versus Institutional Memory: A Litany of Concerns - Part 1

Esse Quam Videri - "to be rather than to seem"
-----------------------------------------
Sometimes there are discrepancies between what candidates claim -or choose to ignore- and what a more comprehensive recollection of history reveals.

If you want to prove a point, or get elected, you choose carefully what you want to talk about.

And, you know what subjects are to be avoided!

That is the subject of today's blog.

Yesterday's blog listed some reasons why I have chosen to support Dan Pike as our next Mayor.

This one lists some specific reasons that make it difficult for me to support Dan McShane as Mayor.

All of these relate directly to positions he has taken -or not taken- on some important issues, while serving on the County Council.
------------------------
Here is a synopsis of these concerns as related to:

1. Growth Management Policy - From Inconsistency to Intransigence:

• Dan McShane initially advocated for highest State [OFM] population projection estimate!

His position was modified only after when the City of Bellingham and other concerned groups demanded a more moderate estimate closer to the mid-range.

A high growth projection would have meant unduly spurring growth at greater expense to current residents of Whatcom County.

I'm glad, Dan changed his mind on this, because a much more moderate growth policy, is what most Whatcom County citizens want.

• But now, he has also actively opposed the City's request for sufficient additional new Urban Growth Area land, despite the agreed clear goal of reducing sprawl in unicorporated Whatcom County!

This particular point may not ultimately make a lot of difference that people will notice, but I will!

That is because the apportionment of projected growth was undertaken in what I thought was a good faith effort between the City and the County.

The City did a very detailed. public analysis over 3 years, based on what history has shown to be possible without significant changes in zoning or control of it.

That effort identified an approximate 1400 acre shortage of new UGA land over the next 20 years.

The County did very little analysis, yet is being persuaded by McShane and others that the City's request is excessive!

While it is certainly the County's right to set whatever additional UGA land will be granted, the position taken by McShane and others essentially dismisses the City's effort in favor of its own wishes!

That, my friends, is not what I call a 'collaborative' effort. Would you?

This type if arrogance and lack of follow-through typifies what is wrong with the so-called 'collaborative' effort between the City and County.

I am very tired of that, but this is not about me.

Of course, absorbing more sprawl also does provide more short-term revenue for the County, but at what cost?

And, the County already has enough 5-acre vested lots in rural areas to take all the anticipated growth for Whatcom County over the next 20 years!

That is without another home being built in any established City.

So, what's the problem you might ask?

There is no problem according to the County's history and current situation, unless one is really serious about meeting the goals of the Growth Management Act in both spirit and deed!

• Also troubling is the failure of the County Council to enact any meaningful Purchase of Development Rights [PDR] program with the funding to substantially save valuble farmland.

Where was Dan M. in that discussion?
What was the result?
Anything to report?

• And, McShane's tenative support of very questionable rezones of forested land on Galbraith Mountain and near Cherry Point, is a concern.

• Over the last few years the County Planning Staff has been seriously decimated, leading one to wonder why did the County Council allow this happen?
It didn't happen overnight, did it?

The excuses given were that private industry lured all these talented folks away for more money.
I hear different reasons.

Like working for the County and under Pete isn't exactly a rewarding experience?
Like ad hoc direction from the top via their appointed 'at will' employees?
Am I getting warm?

Why wasn't more forceful action taken to require the Executive to hire and retain adequate staff?
And, to set better wages & benefits, work standards, performance reviews and working conditions that value competent employees?

There are some additional sub-topics to this general area of concern, but these will be addressed later, in another blog.
-----------------------
Part 2 will be on a different issue, probably tomorrow.

'The Peter Principle is bad enough, but the Peter, Paul & mary Principle is much worse!'

Mayoral Elections: Which Dan and Why?

Many thanks are due to the Women's League of Voters, the Whatcom Independent and KGMI for sponsoring and producing tonight's Candidates Forum at the County Courthouse as a public service event!

Rather than duplicate the detailed media information disseminated via KGMI's listeners and the Herald's readers, I will limit these comments to my own observations regarding the Bellingham Mayor's race.

While this particular forum may not have changed many minds among those physically present, there were some clear winners and losers in my book.

One clear winner tonight was the Dan named Pike.

Dan Pike is a fine choice for Bellingham, because of his training, temperment and truthfulness.
Each of these qualities are essential to have in a truly responsible leader.

With such diverse issues all deserving of serious, fair and effective leadership, I trust Dan Pike to provide that combination of qualities, consistently.

Pike knows how critical it will be to reach out to all sectors of our community and incorporate both their concerns and constructive ideas into effective policy that citizens and the City Council will willingly support.

But, do not make the mistake of forgetting the City Council's role in all of this!
Because that elected body is comprised of public officials who also represent not only their constituencies, but this community as a whole.

It is the Council that must consider and approve any change in policy the Mayor may want.
And, the Council also controls the purse strings on the City Budget.

Any Mayor will need to have a good, mutually respectful, relationship with the Council in order to be effective in setting and carrying out City policy.
That is an important point to keep in mind.

I think Dan Pike exhibits really good potential to achieve that good relationship.
But, I'm not as confident about the other Dan's ability to do that as well, based on what has happened during the last 8 years.

I have supported Dan McShane in both of his last campaigns for County Council, and was very glad he was elected each time.
A big part of his strong support was that the quality of his opposition was so questionable.
Also, the County Council prior to Dan McShane's entry had been dysfunctional and woefully ineffective.
So, unquestionably, even as a relative unknown, his election helped that situation.

But, he also had help because some other good folks got elected too!
Council is a team thing in which leadership is only as good as attracting enough support to get something considered - and passed.

If you were to ask me -and many people have- what is it that gives me pause in endorsing Dan McShane for Mayor, I would be hard pressed to give a simple answer.
But, I can try.

One is the skills sets that make an effective Mayor go beyond what it takes to be a Council member.
I know that first hand!
While I certainly consider myself capable of performing the duties of Mayor, I recognize that I lack the patience, the youthful energy and the willingness to commit time required to do that job.
I may lack some other qualities as well, but those three are enough to illustrate the point.

The skill set required of a Mayor, especially an effective one, usually substantially exceeds the skill set required of a Council member, because of both the full-time management and leadership responsibilities involved.
Just look at the current salary differential, for example, because that is substantially based on relative job descriptions.

It is a recognized fact that a full time Bellingham Mayor now earns six times what a part time Council member earns.
That is as it should be, because the Mayor is essentially acting as a CEO, and managing a Municipal Corporation with an annual budget now exceeding $200 Million in public dollars.
That is not a job just anyone can do!
These arguments relate mainly to potential job performance based on professional training and job experience.

The other side of my evaluation relates to observations over time of the two Dan's.
In Pike's case, I can't say that I can directly attest to his performance on the job.
But other respected officials can, because Pike has already established an excellent reputation in responsible, highly visible, successful, public sector roles.
That kind of reference should be pretty directly applicable to an elected official with administrative duties.

With the other Dan, let's just say I have been underwhelmed - even disappointed- on several occasions with the lack of collaboration he has shown in working on issues involving the City of Bellingham since 2000.
Of course, there have been some notable successes too, although maybe not as many as claimed, or could have happened.

Unfortunately, a steady accumulation of criticism of 'the City' seems to characterize much of this Dan's tenure in office.
And be assured, that is not just what I remember!

Some of these criticisms may have been warranted, because the City is not perfect!
But, the criticism has continued to the point that some legitimate doubt exists over whether he truly understands the issues 'the City' faces.
They are similar to County issues, but certainly not the same.
Yet, he is now seeking the highest office in the same City he has repeatedly derided!

That just doesn't seem like a healthy marriage to me.
Heck, it might not be even a good blind date!

Sometimes history in local office can help a candidate, but sometimes it does not.
Suffice to say I was a stronger supporter of this Dan in 1999 than I am now, in 2007.
But, he has made a good County Council member and I sincerely thank him for stepping up to that job.
I would support him again in that endeavor, but not as Mayor.

At least not with Dan Pike in the race.
Dan Pike has a positive attitude that is oriented toward a better future.
He is not consumed with negativity from the past.

He is more inclusive in his approach, and I think that is what most people want.
He will be thorough in developing enough factual information on which to make an intelligent decision.
He will challenge people to bring forth good ideas, and enable City staff to perform by delegating responsibility and trusting them to perform well.

This is a critical time,
The issues are important.
Good leadership is needed.

I still like Pike.
Now, more than ever!
The guy will make us a great Mayor.

Remember, ballots get mailed tomorrow, Oct 17.
Be sure to vote.

Cheery bye for now...

What is Consensus Decision-Making?

Some of my recent blogs have dealt with the role of Neighborhood Associations in helping determine policy to preserve quality of life by conditioning future development and by other means.

These have attracted several comments, some of which were quite agitated.
That made me wonder whether it was something I said, or because I said something at all on this subject!
It seems a very sensitive subject, doesn't it?

Consistently, my focus has been on seeking 'consensus'.

What does that mean, you might ask?

Here's the definition from Wikipedia:
-----------------
"The word 'consensus' derives from the Latin cum meaning 'with' or 'together with', and sentire meaning to 'think' or 'feel'.
Thus, etymologically, 'consensus' means to 'think or feel together'.

As a decision-making process, consensus aims to be:

• Inclusive: As many stakeholders as possible should be involved in the consensus decision-making process.

• Participatory: The consensus process should actively solicit the input and participation of all decision-makers.

• Co-operative: Participants in an effective consensus process should strive to reach the best possible decision for the group and all of its members, rather than opt to pursue a majority opinion, potentially to the detriment of a minority.

• Egalitarian: All members of a consensus decision-making body should be afforded, as much as possible, equal input into the process.
All members have the opportunity to table, amend and veto or "block" proposals.

• Solution-oriented: An effective consensus decision-making body strives to emphasize common agreement over differences and reach effective decisions using compromise and other techniques to avoid or resolve mutually-exclusive positions within the group.
-------------------
That sounds pretty simple, doesn't it?

In practice, and on controversial subjects, it is not simple!
It is often impossible.

When complete consensus is not possible, what happens?

Life goes on anyway.
But, maybe a partial consensus is possible.

The exercise is to figure out what can be agreed upon first.
Then identify the 'sticky wickets' that comprise the main barriers to reaching agreement.
Both sides of the equation are valuable things to know, especially when the time comes for decisions to be made.

And, one way or another, decisions will be made!

Those decisions may be difficult, time consuming and contentious, but they will be made.
Hopefully, they will be made fairly and will stand up to the tests of time.
If a decision can't stand the test of time, other decisions must be made that will.

No one ever said this was easy!

Like the Midas Muffler Ad said, 'you can pay me now, or pay me later'.

Earlier input is better in my book.

Growth Management: Neighborhood Unrest Means People Aren't Happy!

"My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on." - JFK

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
- Martin Luther King, Jr.

'Kites rise highest against the wind - not with it.' - Winston Churchill 
---------------------------
Some recent discussions seem to forget -or simply ignore- the impetus for the City's renewed emphasis on its neighborhoods.

Maybe its worth a few lines to revisit the conditions which spurred this renewed emphasis.

The main condition was the unprecedented growth that has occurred in recent years that has affected congestion, costs and quality of life for citizens.
To deny this has happened would require an unusual level of ignorance, or dishonesty!

That said, the community has awakened to the realities of what has happened, and what is likely to continue happening.
Many are concerned with these changes and have expressed this concern in no uncertain terms!
To deny this would require an unusual level of deafness or physical absence from this town!

But for those who would like a little refresher course, here is a letter -rather mild by comparison to others- that expressed the widely held concerns that someone absent from here -or deaf- might have missed.

Do not be mistaken in assuming these concerns don't always exist in some degree of fashion, because they do.
What was different two years ago was the unusually high level of common concern.
That level of noise is something no public official can ignore!

So, putting this into perspective, the Mayor and City Council decided to significantly re-emphasize neighborhood involvement as a direct result of this public outcry.

[Note: A version of the draft letter excerpted below was submitted by the Puget Neighborhood Association, as it's alternate to a much more strident letter that was proposed and promoted by the independently formed Association of Bellingham Neighborhoods (ABN). At that time, this letter was considered mild by comparison!]
======================================================================

In reference to the ABN letter expressing serious concerns over the City's process and actions to update its Comprehensive Plan, the Puget Neighborhood Association [PNA] wishes to register its own perspective and recommendations to the Mayor and City Council.

The PNA sincerely hopes its elected officials will carefully listen to these expressions of genuine and widespread frustration from many involved citizens who have strong interests in maintaining the future viability of Bellingham and the intrinsic character of its several distinctive neighborhoods.

Necessarily, a thorough treatment of this subject is difficult to easily summarize with the accuracy and in-depth understanding it deserves.

Rather, the PNA poses a short list of readily observable concerns and proposes a few conceptual ideas on how to best address these concerns.

Major concerns:

• An atmosphere of general agitation and distrust has been allowed to develop and grow, coalescing around the process of updating the City's Comprehensive Plan and related regulatory requirements such as the updates to the Critical Areas Ordinance and Shoreline Management Program.

People are angry!

• Several major development applications have occurred recently, taking advantage of vesting under existing regulations and creating an overload on an already stressed Planning Department.
This has increased public anxiety over rapid in-fill growth and its impacts on the surrounding community at the very time critical decisions are being deliberated.

People are distressed!

• Members of the City's professional staff, including Planning, have allowed themselves to act in less than a professional manner to members of the public.
This is inexcusable behavior from public servants, regardless of cause, and undermines their efficacy and credibility.

People are offended!

• Accusations, assertions and questions made in public and through various media have been allowed to fester too long without adequate response, thereby contributing to the atmosphere of confusion and hearsay that now exists.

People are confused!

• There is a perception that public officials have been stalling the implementation of previously adopted policy, and are now manipulating the process to satisfy some secret agenda to benefit the building industry.

People are suspicious!

• Inadequate follow through has been observed on a number of complaints and issues, despite promises of notice, incorporation of public input, additional time, clear explanations and legal constraints.

People feel left out!

The clear common denominator in all of these general concerns is that they are already strongly held perceptions.
While specific incidents may be argued using relevant facts, these opinions remain inescapably entrenched in many people's minds.

This battle is all but over; only a truce and a negotiated settlement will likely re-engage citizens in a productive manner.
It makes no difference whether the City's arguments are plausible, legal or accurate, a fresh start is needed.

Suggested proposals:

• The current mayor-appointed Neighborhood Advisory Commission has been largely ineffectual, typified by one-way, top-down communication and dominated by political appointees.

The formation of the Association of Bellingham Neighborhoods [ABN] speaks volumes about the need to have a more effective group focused on neighborhood issues.

Perhaps the Council could act to create its own advisory group, along with appropriating funds for staff assistance and identifying specific assignments to be pursued for a defined period of time.

For example, convene the group to work on Neighborhood issues during 2006, such as periodic updates, design standards, view regulations, guidelines for in-fill, traffic management, amenities, affordable housing, parking and the like.

• Council should establish a goal to complete Neighborhood Plan updates by a fixed timetable starting in 2006, using regular input from the Neighborhoods and assigned staff.

If current staff is unavailable or untrained for this service, a consultant could be hired for this purpose.

After all Neighborhood Plans are updated, an annual review could be initiated for continuous fine tuning.

First emphasis should be on those issues which are common to all neighborhoods, including anticipated new neighborhoods in the UGAs.

• Communications with the public need to be further improved and made to include some form of two-way communication on current issues.

This could involve the new BTV10 capabilities as well as the City's web site, plus a rotating 'speakers' team to attend neighborhood and other public meetings and present factual information on current topics and issues.

Televising all Council and Planning Commission Work Sessions would also be helpful to the interested public.

Additional staff may be required to accomplish this extra work which might be partially funded by increasing the Cable Franchise Tax.

• The City needs to communicate clearly its intent to complete its updates to the Comprehensive Plan, Critical Areas Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program in December, 2005, with the promise to annually revisit these plans for fine tuning each year.

• The City needs to establish a code of conduct for its employees, which provides for respectful treatment of citizens in all settings. Failure to abide by these rules should result in consistent and appropriate disciplinary action.

PNA respectfully asks the Mayor and City Council to carefully review these concerns and suggested proposals with the intent of substantially improving the current situation.

We trust that you will see the merit in adopting the suggestions offered to whatever extent you can.

These are being offered in the spirit of constructive cooperation with our elected officials, recognizing that this path provides the best chance of immediate and lasting improvement.

By no means does this mean that we, the PNA, do not share the same serious concerns outlined in the ABN letter, merely that we choose a different method to express them.
====================

So, is there still any doubt that there should have been more re-emphasis on neighborhoods?

If the current, stepped-up efforts still aren't deemed adequate, let's hear some other ideas.

It is a given that everyone will not agree on everything, but there is a way to disagree without being disagreeable!

Civil discourse should be one thing we could agree upon, regardless of degree of frustration or criticality of issue.

Without civility, any process will be ugly and fall short of its potential.

There are already more than enough opportunities for division in our community.

Let's develop more ways to seek unity!
====================

A few weeks ago I was asked to attend a meeting of the Mayor's Neighborhoods Neighborhood Advisory Commission [MNAC] as a member of the City Council.

What a great meeting!

The Mayor's Board Room was packed with representatives from 18 Neighborhood Associations, all of whom contributed a few concerns and ideas to the discussion.

Having these people meet together with each other and staff is a valuable exercise in itself.

Because many issues and problems are common to more than one neighborhood, these meetings serve to share what works and what doesn't work.

It also serves as a 'heads up' opportunity for neighbors to be alerted to new issues and opportunities.

One good example that has enjoyed success is the 'National Night Out Against Crime', with its emphasis on knowing your neighbors and what to do when the unexpected or unwanted happens.

Our Block Watch program and the assigned neighborhood Police Liaisons are visible steps that help neighbors help themselves, and each other.

That's a good thing, that can also help in resolving other issues - maybe even things like 'Landlord Accountability'?

That is because every issue can benefit from neighbors talking to neighbors!

I believe that kind of relationship and discourse is really what knits our town together.
====================

For those want to read further, here are some notes from which I prepared my much briefer comments to the MNAC:

1. Thanks to all you Neighborhood Representatives for participating in MNAC and thereby making it work better.

This organization's goals go far beyond registering complaints, which are many, and continuing as it is in life generally.

YOU BRING US YOUR ISSUES, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVE IN GETTING OUR INFORMATION OUT TO YOUR BROADER MEMBERSHIP.

MNAC's real mission is seek out the root causes of problems and recommend positive solutions that can be applied to every
neighborhood, to minimize repeat problems as much as possible, and to prevent small problems from growing bigger.

Ultimately, a collaborative approach is the one that usually works better, but that is difficult to sustain without your willing support.

YOUR WORK HAS BEEN KEY TO A MORE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOODS

We are going through some rough times now, with rapid growth and uneven prosperity the main culprits.

Progress is sometimes difficult to discern, and it is frustrating, tiring and time consuming to boot!

Many may feel a lack of trust in the effectiveness, timeliness and fairness of the solutions that are tried, but we must never give up trying!

Each year brings its own challenges, changes in elected representation and opportunities that seem endless.

They seem endless because they are!

There aren't many silver bullets, since the Lone Ranger went off the air!

It is inherently a continuous improvement process, with the chief variable being the people involved.

Since grassroots involvement is the way quality of life problems get identified and addressed, you folks represent the front line troops combatting them.

2. Changes are imminent in who will become Mayor, and for at least 3 Council seats, with a possibility of 5!

There will be new people in several key City Staff roles, including CAO, Finance Director, Human Resources Director and Museum Director.

Depending on our new Mayor's wishes, there maybe other vacancies to fill as well.

All these changes will happen despite the City's obligation to provide essential public services throughout this transition.
This is a time when the MNAC needs to stay involved!

3. The City Council has set the goal of developing a better, Neighborhood based system to integrate into its decision-making
process.

This process will take time to evolve, plus the cooperative engagement of the NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, because this not the only activity that requires time and attention.

* City Codes are badly outdated and will require about 3 years to fix, providing we assign appropriate senior staff to do the job.

* Neighborhoods will need to define:

• what is most important about their 'character' that needs preserving;

• who represents them, and by what process this determined?;

• who speaks for neighborhoods that have yet to be developed?;

• how parking, views, landlords, safety considerations, noise, litter, amenities, new in-fill, enforcement and the like will be handled.

None of these are small issues, and neighbors have told us they are important, and they should be considered.

* All during this time, regular business must be conducted to process permits, maintain facilities and provide the service citizens deserve and expect.

4. Neighborhood Plan Updates were put on hold a few years ago, not because the Mayor or Staff to do it, but, because I -and the Council- felt it was necessary to do so for several reasons:

* The process was taking too long, and the actual results were less than satisfactory.

Example: Happy Valley & WWU Plans took over 3 years and still people weren't happy.

* City Code was embedded in the NH Plans and needed to be legally separated out for consistency and simplicity.
Note a 3-year effort still required just to update codes!

NH Plans are still part of the Comprehensive Plan, which define character and special considerations and visions.

* Many NH sticking points were actually citywide issues.

Solving these one at a time for 23 NHs just did not seem very smart

* The effects of the building boom was beginning to be felt, which meant Staff resources needed to be used more efficiently to fulfill the City's legal requirements for timeliness in processing permits and the like.

Juggling fixed resources to respond to a heavy and changeable workload remains a problem for the City.

5. Future goal is to require early Neighborhood input to proposed development, along with meeting City codes and regulations, which themselves are becoming more stringent and time consuming.

The development community needs to understand and accept that new reality.

But, Neighborhoods also need to understand that excessive NIMBYism can come at the expense of citywide fairness and overall public good.

TO BE EFFECTIVE, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS NEED TO AVOID APPEARING AS NIMBY'S AS THEY WORK WITH DEVELOPERS, BUT INSTEAD TRY TO FIND MUTUALLY AGREEABLE SOLUTION THAT CAN MEET BOTH PARTIES GOALS AND NOT USE PROVISIONS OF THE COMP PLAN AS FODDER FOR DISPUTES.

USE THE COMP PLAN TO FIND COMMON GROUND!

The easiest way to explain this position and put it into context is to say that Neighborhoods need to align their expectations with reality, and not popular wishes.

I don't believe the City Council will willingly abrogate its responsibility and authority in having the final say in these matters.

That does not mean the Council will be a rubber stamp or a rubber band, but will continue to make its decisions based upon reasoned arguments that consider the totality of our community's goals and system of laws and regulations.

One really good way for Neighborhoods to influence Council decisions is to be continuously represented on the Planning Commission.
Council often considers the PC its first line of defense in conditioning major development proposals and potentially controversial issues.
And, its a good place to learn and position oneself for elected office.

Our single main challenge going forward is to manage change so as to sustain our quality of life.

That is a citywide mission of which Neighborhoods are an essential part!

-----------------------
'Let our advance worrying become advance thinking and planning.' - Winston Churchill

And, ancient wisdom from 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.'

'It is not once nor twice but times without number that the same ideas make their appearance in the world.'

'It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.'

Growth Management: Neighborhood Planning - Whose Job Is It?

'I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past' - Thomas Jefferson

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." – Thomas Edison

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

"There are two stages to the public policy process; too early to tell, and too late to do anything about it." - Anonymous
------------------------

The Oct, 12, 2007 Herald OUR VIEW Editorial trumpeted this headline:

'City planning isn’t only a job for neighbors'

No kidding! Does anyone think it should be?

I don't know why such a statement would even be made, and I haven't heard it made anywhere else.

Perhaps, it was dreamed up just to get people to react?
If so, that plan worked!

I do agree it is the lack of strong leadership on growth issues that has brought Bellingham and Whatcom County to the difficult situation we find ourselves in now.

But, as Winston Churchill said, 'If we open a quarrel between past and present, we shall find that we have lost the future'.

The point is, while its important to know what happened in the past, its even more important to take appropriate action now to better influence the future.

Although the neighborhood initiative process the City is supporting may be uncomfortable at times, what is the real alternative?

Think about it!
By NOT involving neighborhoods early and often, we are continuing the same weak leadership of the past.

Maybe some prefer just waiting for something to happen without asking for it?
Or, waiting until some ideas come forward that have not been reviewed in advance?

The Neighborhood initiative is NOT trying to push neighbors to come up with a consensus they may never reach.
It is allowing them to try, and actively facilitating that effort.

Consensus is always a proper goal, but how often is it met?
The City Council certainly doesn't reach consensus on every issue, especially those that are new, or which try to change some existing practice.

When the Silver Beach Ordinance was passed in 2000, we set up a Citizens Task Force to review it and determine ways to make it more fair and flexible.
It was a stated goal of that Task Force to seek and reach consensus whenever possible, yet that certainly did not happen on every issue.
But, on over half the issues considered, we did!

What did happen was that those ideas that did reach consensus -or close to it- were the ones that got forwarded as group recommendations.

In other words, we agreed on what we could agree upon and saved the areas of disagreement for further debate by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Hey, that's why those folks get the big bucks!

The current Fairhaven example is certainly nothing new.
It is a power struggle for control of both the process and the ideas considered to be considered.

Hey folks, that ain't all bad!
One can see that struggle as a problem or an opportunity.
Because it spotlights real issues of disagreement early, it should be seen as primarily an opportunity.

The Fairhaven Neighbors Neighborhood Association of homeowners has been the recognized entity that has participated in the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission and other related City-sponsored activities for some time.
As such, I see no valid reason why that role should not continue.

The business-dominated Fairhaven Village Association also has valid interests in the future of Fairhaven and its historic district.
Since Fairhaven is considered a poster child of what an Urban Village ought to be, I think its healthy to have this group also actively involved in the Neighborhood Plan updating process.

The question is how this should be done?
Since what happens often has little to do with what people think should happen, here's my thought.

Neither association's existence is threatened, nor is there any need to merge them together entirely.
But some sort of merging must happen, and this can take more than one form.

Members of the Village Association can join the Neighborhood Association, or at least participate in its activities.

And, the Village Association can continue to deliberate on its own and submit its own recommendations and concerns to the City.

Either way, all these expressions will be heard and considered.

Despite what some might think, all of these recommendations are advisory in nature, but do carry some weight.
The ones which both the Village Association and Neighborhood Association can agree on carry even more weight, but they are still recommendations that need to be heard and considered.

Some City funds are being used to facilitate discussions between the two groups, but if creating one organization that speaks for the entire neighborhood is not possible -as now seems likely- it will still be worth the effort.
Those funds were earmarked specifically for the purpose of facilitating the neighborhood initiative effort, which was something the City heard clearly that was desired by many citizens.

If everything this process tries doesn't work out to everyone's expectations, well that's democracy!

The height limits issue has existed for some time in the district, even well before the current growth spurt.
It should be no surprise that the Neighbors group favors more strict limits than does the Village Association!
The question still remains how to resolve the issue.

Maybe there is a skillful means to be explored, like the father's solution as to how the last piece of pie would be shared by his two hungry sons; one was to cut the pie and the other was to choose first the piece he wanted.

Nah, probably not that simple.
But, you get the idea; compromise where you can, then leave final decision to the decision makers.
But also give them that feedback.

So, because the groups didn't emerge smiling, holding hands and singing kumbaya, the Herald concludes 'the taxpayer-funded talks have already fallen apart'.
Get real! If there hadn't already been serious disagreements expressed, there would not have been the need for facilitation!

I'm glad the Herald approves 'of the city’s desire for input from neighbors as it plans for the future'.
But, it also concludes 'the current neighborhood model is too limited'.
What additional limits might help?
After all, this is a voluntary exercise designed to provide a mechanism for feedback, the earlier and more representative the better.

What would the Herald do if it were considered a 'neighborhood'?
-----------
As this editorial goes on to pontificate, it also sounds like its having a little conversation with itself, and may not completely understand the subject it is addressing:

'We are skeptical that any group of neighbors from a neighborhood of single family homes will ever meet and decide some of their community should be rezoned for more intense development.

Yet as Bellingham grows, that is exactly what must happen.

The underutilized sections of every part of the city must be in play as the city decides how to push more of our increasing population inside current city limits.

The ugly alternative is a city that continues to sprawl and eat up the precious open spaces, agricultural lands and forests that make Whatcom County unique among counties from Olympia to the Canadian border.

Sprawl into the county is never the right answer. More dense development in the city is necessary. A “not-in-my backyard” attitude is unacceptable.

Meanwhile, city officials are falling short in their part of the job.

Turning planning over to neighborhood groups doesn’t work unless you provide the groups with the expertise it takes to plan for the future, and a deadline with consequences for failure.

We hope as a new mayor and City Council members are elected, city officials will return to leading this process.

There is no more important work in the city of Bellingham than planning how our community will change as the population grows. Tough decisions will have to be made. Neighbors must be consulted.

But it seems unrealistic — even a shirking of duties — for elected officials to force neighborhood groups to make those decisions for them.'
-----------------------------
You decide if the Herald has got it right on this issue.

BTW, I haven't seen Editorial Board Members at any neighborhood meetings, have you?

Last word(s):

• No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Maybe that would work better, but that's not possible.
Of course its not comfortable being a 'human shield' for decision makers, having to attend contentitious meetings and not being anonymous!

• Bellingham has had a neighborhood structure in place since at least 1980 when the first plans were written.
But just having a structure in place doesn't do much to make it work.
That takes the voluntary efforts of citizens to talk to each other and come up with ideas on how to do things better.
Absent that, the City Council will continue to make decisions based on whatever information presents itself.

• All 23 existing Neighborhood Plans are a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
As such, they represent statements of the values and attributes desired by citizens, existing and future.
It is important to revisit these periodically and gain new ideas and perspectives from new residents and businesses.
The sooner this information is generated, the better it can be considered by Planning Commission and Council.

• Because some of the comments responding to this editorial were particularly well considered, these are also printed below for those who might have missed them.

==========================
The Herald’s opinion assumes that, after the quality of life and character of our unique city neighborhoods are destroyed by “more intense development,” then our rural county lands will be spared from sprawl. In other words, the Herald’s editors apparently believe that all future growth can be crammed into our cities, thereby preventing the destruction of our rural and agricultural lands.

Any reasonable person can see how preposterous this assumption is. As we all know, once city neighborhoods are decimated by over-development, new development into the county will not cease; it will continue in perpetuity until someone takes power who understands that we cannot grow to infinity. In fact, if we follow the Herald’s suggestion to its natural conclusion, not only will every neighborhood suffer drastic consequences; but we will lose our rural and ag lands as well.

It is clear that we cannot grow forever. Once we all agree, we can begin to determine the appropriate level of growth that will preserve the quality of life in our neighborhoods as well as our “precious open spaces, agricultural lands and forests that make Whatcom County unique.” We need to begin evaluating our ideal carrying capacity now so we can realistically plan for our future.

The Herald editors also fail to comprehend that the rights of current residents, citizens, taxpayers, and voters (not to mention Herald subscribers) are paramount to the rights of people who may (or may not) relocate to Bellingham in the future. Current residents are uniquely qualified to determine their own destiny. If Herald editors disagree, perhaps it’s time for some new ones.

If neighborhoods comprised of single family homes desire to retain that character, so be it. In fact, the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that cities’ comprehensive plans must ensure “the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods.” [RCW 36.70A.070(2)] This is not a goal of the GMA; it is a requirement. The Herald’s recommendation essentially amounts to a violation of the GMA.

Hopefully whichever Mayor Dan is elected will understand the need for long-term legacy planning throughout Whatcom County and will work with the County Executive and the mayors of other cities to help determine our ideal size before it is too late.

In the meantime, Bellingham residents must continue to be vigilant to preserve the unique quality of life we have inherited from those who came before us so we may pass it on to future generations.
--------------------
The writer misunderstands the Act when they suggest ensuring neighborhood vitality and character has some priority greater than protecting rural and resource lands, and the quality and quantity of our water.

The Act merely mandates that this be an element of the comprehensive plan. Like all goals of the Act, ensuring neighborhood character is to be pursued harmoniously with the other goals.

The need for our elected officials to take responsibility, rather than delegate it to neighborhoods ready to transfer growth to other backyards, includes recognizing that the majority of our current residents do not desire more growth and the changes it entails.

If those elected officials' urban constituents do not desire growth, because we can not put urban growth in rural lands, it seems that we would elect officials who understand that we can not continue to accept urban growth.

Expanding the urban area and converting rural land to more low density urban development, apparently the present choice of officials faced with constituents unwilling to accept change in their backyards, is not the answer.

----------------
I would like to see an article that accurately describes what happened in Fairhaven. In fact, the City approached the Fairhaven Neighbors about updating the plan without notifying the Fairhaven Village Association about the process. The Fairhaven Neighbors developed a revised plan that included draconian height limits and other restrictions, presenting it to the Village Association as a fait accompli.
---------------

I repeat my thesis of last Monday: the City's mewing about Neighborhood plans will only veil our view of the vested development projects to come - King & Queen Mts., West Cordata, Chuckanut Ridge, CAITAC etc. It appears that City and Planning are shirking their elected and paid duty by keepings the peasants all riled up and at each other's throats, However the building continues. As of Oct. 1, there is a posted moratorium on ground work being done on watershed land. Why did I see bulldozers on lots when I drove south to Sudden Valley on Tuesday? Making the Neighborhood Associations into the NIMBY-man, as suggested by this editorial, is unfair and reflective of the Herald's vascillating stance on growth - you are all for it with your printed rah-rah because of our destination image but then wring your editorial hands when it becomes apparent that your readers are of a different mind. Regardless of which Mayor Dan is crowned, the City is still our City - not his, not his friends in development, not the IOC, not even Horizon Bank's! My vote wobbled a bit yesterday when I read the endorsement lists of both mayoral candidates. Even after attending forums and reading their statements, I fear that I still know too little about them but too much about their respective supporters. I read similar statements from all the candidates, particularly about watershed protection and infill. However if tha candidates all sound the same and they represent us, then why are we unraveling over the issue of growth? The City is afraid to make some planning decisions so they foist the process onto Neighborhoods however making sure they have removed any regulatory teeth from the Associations. Why else is there no solution being found for violation of single-family dwelling zoning and student housing? Why is there no pressure being brought to bear on WWU's "sprawl"? Why is Fairhaven splintering and sadly one of the most unpleasant parts of town? Why else are Lakeway and Bakerview parking lots? Why else are there empty storefronts and residential units all over town but the hammering continues? Why does the City focus on froo-froo sidewalk designs? Why does my water quality decline? Why are mobile home owners being forced out? Because Planning and the City have never learned to say "no" to developers. When we as taxpayers say it loudly and clearly, we become NIMBY's. As a young friend said the other day: "what a sucky City" but always thought we were the City. When did we lose control?
------------
No wonder young professionals do not want to live here. All of the established professionals and retired folks are preventing this city from becoming more modern, and in the process are driving away the tax base that will end up providing the goods and services to you in twenty to thirty years. Although owning a single family home with a 1/4 acre of land sounds nice, it is not necessary for a young person or couple, or even a starting family to aspire to owning a property like that. Without growth within the city limits, the quality of life for the people who cannot afford your $400,000 Edgemoore home is lacking.

No one questions that this area is a great place to live. You and I live here for a reason. There are responsible ways to provide the housing that is needed, while catering to the people who want a certain type of neighborhood. Also, the business owners are not fighting to damage the quality of life; instead, they are fighting in order to give themselves and their families more of an opportunity to make the money needed to live in this area.

Please, stop the bickering. I'm sure there was a time when a compromise could be reached. In regards to the Fairhaven area, I always assumed that is where the nicest and most intellegent people in our community lived and worked. Please prove me right.
------------

If one had to choose one city whose surrounding lands were to be developed; Bellingham's, Everson's, Nooksack's, Lynden's, Sumas', or Ferndales; which would it be?
One cannot have it all. We do not live in a perfect society. We use compromise as a way to strive towards perfection.
Which city least impacts intrusion into long term economically sustainable resource lands?
Which city can most efficiently service an increasing population with alternative transportation options, fire protection, hospitals, government buildings, supportive community services, goods, entertainment, and higher education?
Which city can best respond to civil defense needs?
Which city is not immediately influenced by the crossing of the Nooksack River either as access to a city or evacuation from a city?
Which city in times of global warming can build upon its hills, rather than watch its lowlands fill with water?
Other than govt. required populaion control or a gate on I5, which City's expansion would least impact us?
------------

My neighborhood association is a joke. I attended a few meetings and soon realized these folks are an unreasonable bunch of NIMBYs. The folks running the meeting have their own agenda and they do not want any other opinions. I think the City should end this group's reign. My neighborhood would be better off without them.
-----------
Regarding my interpretation of the GMA's requirement to ensure neighborhood character, perhaps you need to argue your point with land use attorneys Bob Tull and Dominique Zervas. The following is a quote from their October 27, 2005 memo to the Whatcom County Planning Commission:

"The Legislature has mandated that cities' land-supply element must ensure 'the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods.' This is not a goal of the GMA; it is a requirement."

Clearly, these experienced attorneys believe there is a difference. If you know better, please share with the rest of us.
---------------

How refreshing to have an intelligent discussion!

Every comment made so far has validity.

That is both a blessing and a curse.

The views expressed serve to frame the issues pretty well, but in the end we will have to work them out -one by one.

The exercise is to find which areas exist that we can agree upon and use those to move forward.

There will be no substitute for neighborhood involvement, because that is where every citizen lives.

And, there is no substitute for every one being heard. But, in the end, decisions will be made. The question is, do citizens want thir input to happen sooner or later?

One sure answer is that no one is likely to get everything they want!

The competing goals of the GMA guarantee that outcome.
======================
'It is a mistake to look too far ahead. Only one link of the chain of destiny can be handled at a time.' - Winston Churchill

'In war as in life, it is often necessary when some cherished scheme has failed, to take up the best alternative open, and if so, it is folly not to work for it with all your might.' - Winston Churchill

Silver Beach Neighborhood: Wading Into Uncharted Waters - Again

'Freedom is when people can speak, democracy is when the government listens' - Alastair Farrugia

"If the nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson
-----------------------------
A renewed focus on Neighborhoods and hearing their input for updating Neighborhood Plans has begun in earnest.
Predictably, there are some 'issues' to be worked out in this process, but there are always 'issues' in such matters that affect people.

Getting these 'issues' identified and on the table is an important part of this process.
Maybe its equally -or more- important than any other objective.

Suffice to say this is a rich vein to be mined, that the prospectors hope will become a 'Mother Lode' of value to our community.
Others may have different ideas, and want to see this claim played out before it pays off.
That outcome would be unfortunate for our community, and I hope it doesn't happen.

But, the outcome and effectiveness of this Neighborhood initiative are still in question.
While each Neighborhood has its own unique blend of problems and opportunities, there are many commonalities as well.

Silver Beach is unique because it is the Neighborhood that occupies almost the entire portion of the City that falls within the Lake Whatcom Reservoir watershed.
That, in itself, is enough to set Silver Beach in a special category of importance.
It happens to be where the 'rubber meets the road' in applying best policy and practices to preserve our drinking water supply!

Stay tuned.
-------------------------
The Silver Beach Neighborhood Plan Update was the subject of a well attended meeting last night [Oct 11] at the Bloedel Donovan Park Gym.
Probably close to 200 people were there to weigh in on a set of proposals the Neighborhood Association had hammered out during past months.
Seeing all the cars in the parking lot made me wonder if I had the right address!

Most attending had participated earlier in some fashion, but there were quite a few who were there just to oppose something, either some of the proposals, or the process used to develop them for consideration.

Others seemed to be there mainly to express concerns, complain about things they didn't understand, or make requests to deny, decry and delay the process.
Somehow the stridency and lack of clear understanding about what was going on served to mark many of these folks as last minute recruits to a generally 'anti' agenda.
I may be mistaken, but I'd have to be convinced otherwise.

The meeting's object was to get direct feedback -in the form of ballot votes- from residents of that Neighborhood on a list of measures designed to reasonably represent the NH Plan changes the Neighborhood wants.
These recommendations agreed upon would then be considered by City staff and the Planning Commission before the City Council decides which will be approved.

If you were to think these are mostly advisory in nature, you'd be correct.
But, advisory or not, anytime good ideas are advanced and vetted by a fair process, the Council listens to them carefully.
It's much preferred to have these become part of early discussions and not last minute, disjointed after thoughts.

The point is, this is an attempt at bottoms-up democracy, where citizens get their input early in the process.
That in itself is a bit of a welcome change, don't you think?

But, some didn't seem to welcome this new process!
They saw it as their activist neighbors trying to push their agendas, and forcing them to also participate in order to protect whatever it is they think needs protecting.
Phony property rights claims maybe?

Some even stated resentment at having to interrupt their busy lives for this kind of exercise!
Some claimed foul because they were not notified.
Some claimed the process was bogus because all residents weren't voting
Some wanted to submit absentee ballots
Some wanted a ballot that allowed voting 'no' with a single check-mark, thereby gutting all the good work done
Some didn't know what they wanted but they complained anyway.

Now, why would such folks show up at this meeting when they claimed they didn't know about it?

Anyway, Silver Beach will be one of the first to go through the new Neighborhood Update process and test its efficacy.
We'll learn from this experience and be able to anticipate not always repeating the same learning curve later.

Thanks, Silver Beach!
----------------------
Actually, the Silver Beach Neighborhood has already been a courageous trailblazer before, back in the year 2000.

That was the time the so-called 'Silver Beach Ordinance' was enacted on an emergency interim basis, in response to the Department of Ecology's 303 (d) listing of Lake Whatcom for fecal coliform and low dissolved Oxygen.

Since then, and after a very significant, contentious public process, that Ordinance has become a model for watershed protection within an already urbanized area.
It marked a departure from business as usual in this critical watershed, despite some of the same people who opposed that measure then, also showed up last night to oppose whatever it was they thought the Neighborhood Association was trying to do that they might not agree with.
Is it something in the water?

That's a different story, even though it did have some common challenges.
----------------
Back in 2000, the City Council heard many hours of testimony from dozens of people.
Among those who opposed the 'Silver Beach Ordinance', the comments listed were the common themes of complaint.
Many of these categories of concern are now being heard again:

The following 'generic' concerns are likely to be echoed over and over again, like a mantra, every time significant action is undertaken or even seriously discussed:

Why is this necessary; can't something else be done instead?

Convince us that this action will actually help solve the problem.

Unfair! -why pick on just us?

Others need to share the burden of watershed protection!

Our property values are being reduced or taken away; we want restitution!

We need more debate/proof; delay this for another time.

Existing owners caused the problem; let them fix it!

Why aren't existing regulations being enforced?

Our accustomed life-style is being threatened!

This constitutes a special hardship!

Dueling scientists.

This situation is already out of hand and can't be resolved.

We retired to "the lake" and want to build our dream home.

The water is clean enough; the City treats it anyway.

These new taxes/fees/assessments are too high.

More bureacracy!

We've already got a program to address this problem; this is unecessary/not being collaborative!

All we need is a retrofitted regional stormwater system and water & sewer services extended further.

That's [another jurisdiction]'s problem.

I don't want to feel guilty about living/working/building/playing here.

I can remember when the lake was really bad; it's clean now.

We're grandfathered into our rights; this is America!

Those [environmentalists/developers/bureaucrats] are only concerned with their special interests.

Why can't I build this, my neighbor's got one?

OK, how much do I have to pay to get this done?

And, on and on.... to the point that you could create a checklist of these and simply add names, dates & the issue 'du jour', to have a coded, concise summary of concerns.

Does anyone doubt that history has a habit of repeating itself?
-------------
'It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried' - Winston Churchill 

'Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts' - Winston Churchill

Operation Overlord & Landlord Accountability

Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed; too severe, seldom executed.
- Benjamin Franklin

"The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility.
Let it be drawn upon largely, and they will then listen to truths which could not excite them through any other organ." --  Thomas Jefferson

"If we are to solve the problems that plague us, our thinking must evolve beyond the level we were using when we created those problems in the first place." --Albert Einstein

`tunnel' history, the kind that can lead an investigator to know more and more about less and less

"My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on." - JFK

“Opinion is power.” - Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1816

It is no use saying, 'We are doing our best.' You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary. - Winston Churchill

That government is best which governs least. - Thomas Paine

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington

The secret of getting things done is to act! - Dante Alighieri

Peter's Placebo: An ounce of image is worth a pound of performance.

Grossman's Misquote: Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers.

Cohen's Law: What really matters is the name you succeed in imposing on the facts, not the facts themselves.

Goldwyn's Law of Contracts: A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Mencken's Metalaw: For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution; and it is always wrong.

“Demagoguery beats data in making public policy."
-US House of Representatives Majority Leader

"But we must remember that good laws, if they are not obeyed, do not constitute good government.
Hence there are two parts of good government; one is the actual obedience of citizens to the laws, the other part is the goodness of the laws which they obey..." -- (Aristotle, Politics).

--------------------
Operation Overlord was the code name for the main Allied D-Day invasion of Europe during World War II.
It's mission was reclaim ground that the Axis had occupied.
And, to open a western front that would have to be defended on the ground

Like most conflicts, this one was ugly and terrible in its effects, but very necessary.
Fortunately, it was successful - for our side!
And, like many wars and other games of violence, it got romanticized and became entertainment.

The issue of 'Landlord Accountability' is different.
There is no sinister cause at work behind the scattered nuisances which some parts of our City experience from time to time.
Noise, litter, parking congestion and the complaints that result therefrom are relatively benign, and while annoying, do not lend themselves to an easy solution.
That is not to say no solution is possible or necessary, but any solution will be inherently partial and fleeting in nature.
And, it will require a large element of neighbors uniting with each other and actively working to make more socially acceptable, the periodic thoughlessness of fellow human beings.
That has been my experience in almost 70 years of living in this country - eight different States worth.

The reason problems like these exist is essentially based in human nature itself, not some major planning error or a failure of policing the community.
Yet, those are the things that are getting most of the blame.
Why, there is even a single issue blog devoted to this subject!
In my brief review, that blog seems have the equivalent to 60 to 70 pages of information all related to complaints on this one topic.

Why not ask the people complaining -many anonymously- to offer any solutions they might have?
Isn't that the way most problems get resolved?
The lack of curiosity is troubling, because identifying the factors that combine and contribute to the nuisance of concern is important if we are to understand what can be done about this situation.
Instead, there is a simplistic view -consistently expressed- that it is the 'City's' sole duty to make these problems just go away.

I agree it is the City's responsibility to facilitate a community discussion and then implement those recommendations which seem most reasonable and have the most potential for long term success.
But, I doubt that will mean just hiring more enforcement officers and assigning them the mission of rooting out those deemed to be the offenders.
It is the worst form of demogoguery to just throw money at a problem like this and expect a favorable result.
No sensible person uses a sledgehammer to swat a fly!

Let's also not forget the efforts that have already gone into resolving this problem, including the vigorous discussions held in 2004.
Without those efforts, we would certainly have more than the six documented complaints that are on file for this year!
While it is time consuming, uncomfortable and frustrating to actually document complaints, that is an essential part of getting this situation identified and under control.
If citizens aren't willing to undertake this effort, no meaningful solution is possible.

Basically, I see Landlord Accountability as yet another three-legged stool.
It must necessarily involve the personal responsibility [of all of those living in an area, government entities [like the city and WWU], as well as landlords and property management companies.
Without the active cooperation of all affected parties, any approach to resolution of this issue is doomed to become a wasteful and expensive failure.
Instead, let's all work to come up with ideas that are reasonable and achievable.
And, resist the temptation toward election year pandering while we're at it!
-------------------
In Operation Overlord, the enemy and its mission of world domination was a very well known threat, and most of the free world willingly united together to defeat this awful prospect from occurring.

For that reason, there really is no comparison between WWII and 'Landlord Accountability', except the obvious play on words.

In ancient feudalism, an overlord was a lord having authority over other lords.
Operation Overlord was coined to connote that meaning.
The free world was not going to submit to domination by lesser 'lords', like nazism and othe dark and repressive 'isms'.
Overlord meant freedom was going to maintain its world order over repression.
Fortunately, it did prevail.

I don't believe the issue of 'Landlord Accountability' rises to any where near the level that an Operation Overlord is necessary.
The City doesn't need to become an Overlord police state bureacracy over this issue.
If it is considered desirable to test the 'family definition', that can be done by carefully pursuing one of the documented complaints with our existing enforcement officer.
Then, that particular element will be up to the courts to decide.
When that information is known, we can move to improve other definitions, requirements and means of enforcement.

In the meantime, let's keep doing what we are doing now, but do more of it.
That point seemed to be totally missed during the Council's Oct 8 meeting.
Of course, what we are currently doing is obviously not up to the job of meeting every one's expectations!
Is there any area where that does happen?

Of course, we can improve!
But, what are our priorities?
I can tell you mine.
If I have a choice between pursuing criminals or nuisances, it will be criminals every time!
That is the type of direction the Police Chief asked for, because without a budget addition those are the choices we have.

But, often those types of choices are false ones, because there are many diverse services and programs the City provides which are considered valuable by citizens.
I would hate to be put in the position of choosing between Police & Parks, for example.
Or, between Firefighters & Janitors.
All of those functions are necessary in some proportional ratio of expense.

Let's try to keep our perspective on 'Landlord Accountability', shall we?
And in doing so, recognize there really are no silver bullets.
There is only the hard work of becoming informed about the root causes at play, and the cooperative solutions that must be accepted and practiced by all parties involved.

Boy, this democracy thing sure takes a lot of effort, doesn't it?
You bet it does!

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
And maybe a little growing up, and accepting the responsibilities of being engaged citizens!
--------------------------------
From Wikipedia are 3 categories in which the word 'lord' is mainly known:

Feudalism:

' an overlord was a lord having authority over other lords'

Religion:

'A Lord is a person who has power and authority.
It can have different meanings depending on the context of use.
Women will usually (but not universally) take the title 'Lady' instead of Lord'

Title:

Five ranks of peer exist in the UK, namely Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, and Baron; and all male peers except dukes use the style "Lord X".

Various high offices of state may carry the cachet of honorary lords:
thus we find titles such as Lord High Chancellor or Lord Mayor.