-----------------------------
Check out today's Timothy Egan column in the NYT: http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/california-will-survive-its-crackup/
-----------------------------
Not that it will make Bellingham, Whatcom County or the State of Washington feel any better, but the State of California is in worse shape.
More alarming is the fact that California voters, when given the chance to help the situation, have decided to whimp on every proposed measure, except limiting pay raises for State elected officials during deficit years.
Now, that ought to go a long way toward balancing their funny money budget!
Besides, it should discourage a few more people from even seeking public office; why would anyone want to serve in such a contentious and perpetually deficit-ridden State?
Doesn't sound like much fun to me.
Bad economy or not, the real problem has been expectations that are consistently way out of line with reality.
That inherently unsustainable pattern is guaranteed to produce deficits over time, whether its California, Washington DC or Bellingham.
What the 'Golden State' is experiencing now ought to provide a valuable lesson for every government entity.
But, will 'they' learn? And, who are 'they'?
And will the voters consistently help or hinder prudent budgetary practices, including raising additional taxes when necessary to pay for services?
What might be an upper limit on taxes before real TEA parties become rampant?
Just a few thoughts to brighten everyone's day....
-----------------------------
Reprinted from the Internet:
California Rejects Schwarzenegger’s Budget Measures
The May 20 Bloomberg News reports that California's 'Governator' was dealt a crushing defeat as voters rejected a series of six budget-balancing measures that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said were needed to keep a $15 billion deficit from widening to $21 billion. A proposal to limit lawmaker pay passed.
“I respect the will of the people who are frustrated with the dysfunction in our budget system,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement from Washington conceding defeat. “In order to prevent a fiscal disaster, Democrats and Republicans must collaborate and work together to address this shortfall.”
Five of the propositions were failing with 64 percent of the votes counted, according to California’s elections office. The losing proposals would have capped spending and extended temporary tax increases, directed future surplus money to schools, authorized bonds backed by lottery profits and diverted already dedicated revenue to the budget.
Lawmakers put the measures on the ballot in February as part of a compromise to close what was then a record $42 billion budget gap. Since then, the deficit re-emerged as California’s economy, which on its own would be the world’s eighth-largest, worsened amid the national recession.
"The longer we wait, the worse the problem becomes and the more limited our choices will be," Schwarzenegger said.
Rainy Day Fund [Also, a favorite of some local electeds]
• Proposition 1A, which was failing 36 percent to 64 percent, would have limited state spending to inflation plus 3 percent above a 10-year average. Revenue exceeding that cap would have been deposited in a rainy day fund that could only be spent during deficit years. Any surplus amounting to more than 12.5 percent of the general fund would have been available for one- time needs or to pay down debt. The measure also would have extended three temporary tax raises approved in February.
• Proposition 1B would have required the state to pay $1.5 billion from the rainy day fund to schools for six years starting in 2011. It was failing 39 percent to 61 percent.
-------------
• Proposition 1C, which would have allowed the state to sell $5 billion of bonds backed by future lottery proceeds and use the money for the budget, was losing 37 percent to 63 percent.
• Proposition 1D would have allowed the state to strip $600 million over five years from a program that spends tobacco tax revenue on children’s health. It was failing by a 36 percent to 64 percent margin.
• Proposition 1E would have allowed lawmakers to siphon $250 million a year from a mental health services program financed by an income-tax increase approved by voters in 2004. It was losing 35 percent to 65 percent.
• Proposition 1F, which prohibits state lawmakers and elected officers from salary raises in years when the state is running a deficit, was winning 75 percent to 25 percent.
“The fact is, right now, Californians do not trust Sacramento or the political process by which the budget is crafted, and they cannot afford higher taxes,” Meg Whitman, the former EBay Inc. chief executive officer who plans to run for California governor, said in a statement.
[Why does Meg want the job? Will she use e-Bay to auction off State assets?]
The budget approved in February raised $12 billion in taxes, cut $16 billion in spending and spent $8 billion of federal stimulus money. It also relied on $6 billion that would have been raised had the ballot measures won.
Credit Ratings
The three major credit rating companies, citing the magnitude of California’s deficits, reduced the grades on more than $46 billion of bonds in February and March. Now, California’s full faith and credit pledge is rated A by Standard & Poor’s and an equivalent A2 by Moody’s Investors Service, five grades below the top investment ranking. California is the lowest-rated U.S. state.
A California general obligation bond maturing in 2038, which traded for as little as 81.5 cents on the dollar on Dec. 4, went for 96.4 cents to yield 5.5 percent on May 19, according to Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board data. That compares with 5 percent for top-rated municipal general obligation bonds, as measured by a Municipal Market Advisors index.
Schwarzenegger proposed on May 14 cutting another $6 billion in spending, half from schools and colleges, to close the new gap. He said more cuts, such as releasing 19,000 illegal immigrants now held in state prisons, would be necessary with voter rejection of the ballots measures.
Schwarzenegger has also proposed that the state borrow $6 billion of two-year cash flow warrants. He said more short-term borrowing would be needed later in the year, especially if the measures were rejected.
California Treasurer Bill Lockyer petitioned U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to arrange for the federal government to become a standby purchaser of the short-term loans in the event of default.
[Hey, we bailed out Wall Street, GM, etc., so why not California?]
---------------------
Easy to see how economics got to be called the 'dismal science'.
And, how democracies may have a few inherent problems that only become visible or tangible over time.
---------------------
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Politics: What Kind of Science?
----------------------------------
FLASH! This just in- a 'nerdly correction' has been sent, to wit:
"Please don't attribute this to me, but as a big fan of both series, I felt the compulsion to correct your reference to Bill Nye as the source of "I have a master's degree - in science". It should properly be attributed to an NPR radio show that lasts about 2 minutes called "Ask Dr. Science" - produced by Ducksbreath Mystery Theater. While I haven't heard it on the air in a while, the website still lives at www.drscience.com with a daily science question. "I have a master's degree - in science" is the tag line after the cute little musical ditty and the "remember, he's not a real doctor" helpful disclaimer in case anyone thought otherwise. I love them both, but Ducksbreath makes absolutely no attempt to say anything that makes sense, whereas Bill Nye... he's still and forever The Science Guy.
P.S. Bill Nye has a degree in mechanical engineering, but just an undergraduate degree, I think. "
----------------------------------
The Pareto principle (also known as the 80-20 rule, the law of the vital few and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.
That might also be the ratio of people who actively participate in politics to those who don't, but we can't be sure.
----------------------------------
Bill Nye, the 'Science Guy' used to say 'I have a master's degree in science'.
But, he said it with tongue firmly in cheek. Kinda.
Have you ever wondered what 'science' he mastered in?
Probably chemistry or physics, maybe biology?
Ever wonder why we keep using that word 'mastered', instead of some sort of made-up, gender-neutral term?
Maybe that has to do with the science of physics, particularly Newton's Laws;, as paraphrased below:
Newton probably wasn't referring to people when he used the word 'bodies', but he could have been.
In other words, folks tend to let things alone that -politically speaking- don't bother them too much.
-----------------------------------
The concept of 'science' does mean different things to different people.
Consider the following list of 'sciences' from Wikipedia, while understanding that each named science has other subsets:
1 Natural sciences
1.1 Physical Sciences
1.1.1 Chemistry
1.1.2 Physics
1.1.3 Astronomy
1.1.4 Earth sciences
1.1.5 Environmental sciences
1.2 Life Sciences
1.2.1 Biology
2 Formal sciences
2.1 Computer sciences
2.2 Mathematics
2.3 Systems science
3 Social sciences
3.1 Anthropology
3.2 Economics
3.3 Psychology
3.4 Geography
3.5 Philosophy
3.6 Political science
3.7 Sociology
4 Applied sciences
4.1 Architecture
4.2 Cognitive sciences
4.3 Education
4.4 Engineering
4.5 Health sciences
4.6 Management
4.7 Medicine
4.8 Military Science
----------------------------------
The respected ancient scholar and philosopher, Aristotle, had much to do with categorizing the early sciences and may have been the first to see politics as a so-called 'practical science' or 'social science', as opposed to a 'natural' science.
He also saw politics and ethics as closely related, both highly dependent upon the 'polis' -or city-state in which they were practiced.
But, Aristotle also had something to say about the form of government employed, considering more democratic forms that emphasized the common good to those that mainly favored the few, like oligarchies or kingdoms.
He thought the more democratic forms of government were definitely superior.
What did he know, or suspect, that we now seem to take for granted?
Thank goodness our forefathers -or forepersons- thought the same way Aristotle did and wrote our Declaration of Independence and Constitution to keep the goal of the common good uppermost in our hearts and minds!
Now, how do we keep it that way?
I believe that means we must be constantly ruthless in the honest pursuit of 'the common good'.
There's that troublesome concept of honesty and truthfulness again!
It can be difficult to even ascertain what the 'truth' is at times, much less attain it.
But, we have to try, and try hard, because in the end, that is the very foundation of a society based upon the 'common good'.
What else would -could you- you base it on?
----------------------------------
I believe the quest for truth depends upon more complete, not partial understandings and ideas.
And, more candid rather than more clever slogans and solutions.
While we're at it, how about more accuracy than otherwise?
Catch phrases that are easy on the ear and smooth off the tongue often turn out to be misleading -either deliberately or otherwise.
Knowledge, context, and fitting contemporary times all need to be kept in mind.
Those seem to correspond pretty well to the concepts of comprehensive application of science, careful and consistent logic and being timely and contemporary -as well as visionary- don't you think?
It won't do to just pick an easy answer and call it good.
How many times have you seen that flawed ploy tried?
How many times did it succeed?
A couple of quick examples will illustrate the last point;
Mathematics is a powerful tool to help determine, or at least estimate, unknowns from data that may be available.
If data is not available locally, there are usually other sources that may be reasonably applicable and translatable.
Examples abound for Growth Management, Water Supply Protection, Waterfront Redevelopment, Budgeting, and almost any issue.
All one needs to do is look, ask and learn.
Even if an equation can only relate two variables to each other, that is valuable- like X = Y (squared) - because by simply substituting one number the other value can be determined.
And, the same is true for any number of unknown quantities, as long as there are simultaneous equations relating each variable to another.
Of course, this gets progressively more complicated, but can be qualitatively helpful.
One example is evaluating Growth Management Act goals when considering almost any action or proposal.
There are some 13 GMA Goals directly specified for evaluation, plus an additional item -Shoreline Management Plan- that often gets considered as part of the mix.
How to do this?
Quantitatively, it is probably impossible in most cases, because directly comparable data is lacking, and weighting the goals can be highly subjective.
But, the exercise itself is valuable because it does force thoughtful consideration of each goal at the same time.
This discipline helps eliminate, or at least minimize, the chance that a single, loud or emotional argument -regardless of its relationship to the common good - outweighs all the others and is the sole or primary determinant of a public decision.
And, yes, I do have some issues that spring readily to mind, but the main goal of this piece is more general.
Besides, it's already long enough anyway.
My main point is that in matters pertaining to the common good, we need to consistently employ more of the 'good science' in our politics, not junk science!
And, 'good science', before it becomes accepted as such, is rooted in truth that tends to be far more universal than any local 'polis' can claim.
The common good depends upon 'good science', properly considered and practically applied.
Now, if we can just get more than Pareto's 20% actively involved in politics, we can have more certainty that the common good will consistently be served!
At least, that's my opinion......
---------------------------------------
FLASH! This just in- a 'nerdly correction' has been sent, to wit:
"Please don't attribute this to me, but as a big fan of both series, I felt the compulsion to correct your reference to Bill Nye as the source of "I have a master's degree - in science". It should properly be attributed to an NPR radio show that lasts about 2 minutes called "Ask Dr. Science" - produced by Ducksbreath Mystery Theater. While I haven't heard it on the air in a while, the website still lives at www.drscience.com with a daily science question. "I have a master's degree - in science" is the tag line after the cute little musical ditty and the "remember, he's not a real doctor" helpful disclaimer in case anyone thought otherwise. I love them both, but Ducksbreath makes absolutely no attempt to say anything that makes sense, whereas Bill Nye... he's still and forever The Science Guy.
P.S. Bill Nye has a degree in mechanical engineering, but just an undergraduate degree, I think. "
----------------------------------
The Pareto principle (also known as the 80-20 rule, the law of the vital few and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.
That might also be the ratio of people who actively participate in politics to those who don't, but we can't be sure.
----------------------------------
Bill Nye, the 'Science Guy' used to say 'I have a master's degree in science'.
But, he said it with tongue firmly in cheek. Kinda.
Have you ever wondered what 'science' he mastered in?
Probably chemistry or physics, maybe biology?
Ever wonder why we keep using that word 'mastered', instead of some sort of made-up, gender-neutral term?
Maybe that has to do with the science of physics, particularly Newton's Laws;, as paraphrased below:
Newton's first law: law of inertia
Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare. Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.
Newton's second law
Lex II: Mutationem motus proportionalem esse vi motrici impressae, et fieri secundum lineam rectam qua vis illa imprimitur. The change of momentum of a body is proportional to the impulse impressed on the body, and happens along the straight line on which that impulse is impressed.
Newton's third law: law of reciprocal actions
Lex III: Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi. For a force there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.
Newton probably wasn't referring to people when he used the word 'bodies', but he could have been.
In other words, folks tend to let things alone that -politically speaking- don't bother them too much.
-----------------------------------
The concept of 'science' does mean different things to different people.
Consider the following list of 'sciences' from Wikipedia, while understanding that each named science has other subsets:
1 Natural sciences
1.1 Physical Sciences
1.1.1 Chemistry
1.1.2 Physics
1.1.3 Astronomy
1.1.4 Earth sciences
1.1.5 Environmental sciences
1.2 Life Sciences
1.2.1 Biology
2 Formal sciences
2.1 Computer sciences
2.2 Mathematics
2.3 Systems science
3 Social sciences
3.1 Anthropology
3.2 Economics
3.3 Psychology
3.4 Geography
3.5 Philosophy
3.6 Political science
3.7 Sociology
4 Applied sciences
4.1 Architecture
4.2 Cognitive sciences
4.3 Education
4.4 Engineering
4.5 Health sciences
4.6 Management
4.7 Medicine
4.8 Military Science
----------------------------------
The respected ancient scholar and philosopher, Aristotle, had much to do with categorizing the early sciences and may have been the first to see politics as a so-called 'practical science' or 'social science', as opposed to a 'natural' science.
He also saw politics and ethics as closely related, both highly dependent upon the 'polis' -or city-state in which they were practiced.
But, Aristotle also had something to say about the form of government employed, considering more democratic forms that emphasized the common good to those that mainly favored the few, like oligarchies or kingdoms.
He thought the more democratic forms of government were definitely superior.
What did he know, or suspect, that we now seem to take for granted?
Thank goodness our forefathers -or forepersons- thought the same way Aristotle did and wrote our Declaration of Independence and Constitution to keep the goal of the common good uppermost in our hearts and minds!
Now, how do we keep it that way?
I believe that means we must be constantly ruthless in the honest pursuit of 'the common good'.
There's that troublesome concept of honesty and truthfulness again!
It can be difficult to even ascertain what the 'truth' is at times, much less attain it.
But, we have to try, and try hard, because in the end, that is the very foundation of a society based upon the 'common good'.
What else would -could you- you base it on?
----------------------------------
I believe the quest for truth depends upon more complete, not partial understandings and ideas.
And, more candid rather than more clever slogans and solutions.
While we're at it, how about more accuracy than otherwise?
Catch phrases that are easy on the ear and smooth off the tongue often turn out to be misleading -either deliberately or otherwise.
Knowledge, context, and fitting contemporary times all need to be kept in mind.
Those seem to correspond pretty well to the concepts of comprehensive application of science, careful and consistent logic and being timely and contemporary -as well as visionary- don't you think?
It won't do to just pick an easy answer and call it good.
How many times have you seen that flawed ploy tried?
How many times did it succeed?
A couple of quick examples will illustrate the last point;
Mathematics is a powerful tool to help determine, or at least estimate, unknowns from data that may be available.
If data is not available locally, there are usually other sources that may be reasonably applicable and translatable.
Examples abound for Growth Management, Water Supply Protection, Waterfront Redevelopment, Budgeting, and almost any issue.
All one needs to do is look, ask and learn.
Even if an equation can only relate two variables to each other, that is valuable- like X = Y (squared) - because by simply substituting one number the other value can be determined.
And, the same is true for any number of unknown quantities, as long as there are simultaneous equations relating each variable to another.
Of course, this gets progressively more complicated, but can be qualitatively helpful.
One example is evaluating Growth Management Act goals when considering almost any action or proposal.
There are some 13 GMA Goals directly specified for evaluation, plus an additional item -Shoreline Management Plan- that often gets considered as part of the mix.
How to do this?
Quantitatively, it is probably impossible in most cases, because directly comparable data is lacking, and weighting the goals can be highly subjective.
But, the exercise itself is valuable because it does force thoughtful consideration of each goal at the same time.
This discipline helps eliminate, or at least minimize, the chance that a single, loud or emotional argument -regardless of its relationship to the common good - outweighs all the others and is the sole or primary determinant of a public decision.
And, yes, I do have some issues that spring readily to mind, but the main goal of this piece is more general.
Besides, it's already long enough anyway.
My main point is that in matters pertaining to the common good, we need to consistently employ more of the 'good science' in our politics, not junk science!
And, 'good science', before it becomes accepted as such, is rooted in truth that tends to be far more universal than any local 'polis' can claim.
The common good depends upon 'good science', properly considered and practically applied.
Now, if we can just get more than Pareto's 20% actively involved in politics, we can have more certainty that the common good will consistently be served!
At least, that's my opinion......
---------------------------------------
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
'Politics Without Principle'
-------------------------
Some time ago, I posted the piece of advice shown quoted below for potential candidates from 'Aunt Nettie's' website: [http://dearauntnettie.com]
At the time I thought is was funny, but now I begin to see how it is also tragic - because it also seems so true.
Has this always been so?
Or has this perception cumulatively grown over the years with the abuses that elected officials and bureaucrats at all levels have accumulated, or merely have been subjected to?
What role has the easier access to instant information -and its associated unsubstantiated rumor - played to influence public opinion?
And, what role has systematic shading of the truth by determined and deliberate partisan interest -or simple ignorance, or mischief - played?
Nothing necessarily illegal, mind you, except maybe just the steady, incremental erosion of the credibility of officials and the public trust that robs us of trust.
Is there any doubt what has helped cause political office, and public service in general to become the object of such widespread distrust?
--------
Dear Aunt Nettie:
In a recent column, you mentioned that you "should run for office." In my experience, it is a rare occasion where someone with true wisdom will devote themselves to public service. These days, it seems that the elected politicians are either bright, but in it for personal gain, or dim but sincere.... Why don't the truly brilliant sacrifice some personal wealth to serve the electorate?
-- Elective in Elmira
------------------------
Dear Elective:
Well, it seems to me you've answered your own question. The smart people are in it so they can abuse the system for their own ends and the rest are deluded into thinking they can make a difference. Once the latter learn better, they become the former and run for re-election.
Anyone considering running for office should be presented with a single copy of the Federal Register and a copy of the Congressional Record. After perusing the contents they will have one of two opinions: (a) "Whoa! I can make this work for me!" or, (b) "This is the most insufferable pile of claptrap I have ever laid eyes on!"
Those of the former opinion should hire a campaign manager. Those of the latter opinion should join a commune.
--------------------------------------
From another link to 'Aunt Nettie', I found a list of humorous, but also accurate, 'Flame Warriors', one of which is again reprinted below:
There are two distinct varieties of Ideologue, conservative and liberal, but each being smug and self satisfied in his certitudes, they are really flip sides of the same coin. Though Ideologue's "opinions" merely represent a loose collection of intellectual conceits he is nonetheless astonished, bewildered and angered when his views are not immediately embraced as Truth. He regards honest disagreement as a form of cognitive dissonance that can only be cured by relentless propagandizing. The conservative iteration of Ideologue parades himself as a logical, clear thinker, while the liberal version trumpets his higher level of mental, spiritual and social awareness. Troglodyte is the natural ally of conservative Ideologue, and for liberal Ideologue it is Weenie. Whether conservative or liberal, Ideologue is a fierce, but very predictable Warrior.
----------------------------------------------------
Mahatma Ghandi's so-called seven sins included one he called 'Politics without Principle'.
Here's a brief excerpt from [http://www.mkgandhi.org/mgmnt.htm#politics] Dr. Stephen R. Covey - one of the world's leading management consultants and author of the best selling book The Seven Habits Of Highly Effective People.
Excerpts from Chapter 7 - Seven Deadly Sins:
Mahatma Gandhi said that seven things will destroy us.
Notice that all of them have to do with social and political conditions.
Note also that the antidote of each of these "deadly sins" is an explicit external standard or something that is based on natural principles and laws, not on social values.
Wealth Without Work
Pleasure Without Conscience
Knowledge Without Character
Commerce (Business) Without Morality (Ethics)
Science Without Humanity
Religion Without Sacrifice
Politics Without Principle
-----------------------
On 'Politics without Principle':
If there is no principle, there is no true north, nothing you can depend upon.
The focus on the personality ethic is the instant creation of an image that sells well in the social and economic marketplace.
You see politicians spending millions of dollars to create an image, even though it's superficial, lacking substance, in order to get votes and gain office.
And when it works, it leads to a political system operating independently of the natural laws that should govern - - that are built into the Declaration of Independence : "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness . . . . "
In other words, they are describing self-evident, external, observable, natural, unarguable, self-evident laws: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident."
The key to a healthy society is to get the social will, the value system, aligned with correct principles.
You then have the compass needle pointing to true north - true north representing the external or the natural law - and the indicator says that is what we are building our value system on : they are aligned.
But if you get a sick social will behind the political will that is independent of principle, you could have a very sick organization or society with distorted values.
For instance, the professed mission and shared values of criminals who rape, rob and plunder might sound very much like many corporate mission statements, using such words as "teamwork," "cooperation," "loyalty," "profitability," "innovation," and "creativity."
The problem is that their value system is not based on a natural law.
Figuratively, inside many corporations with lofty mission statements, many people are being mugged in broad daylight in front of witnesses.
Or they are being robbed of self-esteem, money, or position without due process.
And if there is no social will behind the principles of due process, and if you can't get due process, you have to go to the jury of your peers and engage in counterculture sabotage.
In the movie The Ten Commandments, Moses says to the pharaoh, "We are to be governed by God's law, not by you."
In effect he's saying, "We will not be governed by a person unless that person embodies the law."
In the best societies and organizations, natural laws and principles govern - that's the Constitution - and even the top people must bow to the principle.
No one is above it.
------------------------
"A person cannot do right in one department whilst attempting to do wrong in another department. Life is one indivisible whole." - Mahatma Gandhi
------------------------
Some time ago, I posted the piece of advice shown quoted below for potential candidates from 'Aunt Nettie's' website: [http://dearauntnettie.com]
At the time I thought is was funny, but now I begin to see how it is also tragic - because it also seems so true.
Has this always been so?
Or has this perception cumulatively grown over the years with the abuses that elected officials and bureaucrats at all levels have accumulated, or merely have been subjected to?
What role has the easier access to instant information -and its associated unsubstantiated rumor - played to influence public opinion?
And, what role has systematic shading of the truth by determined and deliberate partisan interest -or simple ignorance, or mischief - played?
Nothing necessarily illegal, mind you, except maybe just the steady, incremental erosion of the credibility of officials and the public trust that robs us of trust.
Is there any doubt what has helped cause political office, and public service in general to become the object of such widespread distrust?
--------
Dear Aunt Nettie:
In a recent column, you mentioned that you "should run for office." In my experience, it is a rare occasion where someone with true wisdom will devote themselves to public service. These days, it seems that the elected politicians are either bright, but in it for personal gain, or dim but sincere.... Why don't the truly brilliant sacrifice some personal wealth to serve the electorate?
-- Elective in Elmira
------------------------
Dear Elective:
Well, it seems to me you've answered your own question. The smart people are in it so they can abuse the system for their own ends and the rest are deluded into thinking they can make a difference. Once the latter learn better, they become the former and run for re-election.
Anyone considering running for office should be presented with a single copy of the Federal Register and a copy of the Congressional Record. After perusing the contents they will have one of two opinions: (a) "Whoa! I can make this work for me!" or, (b) "This is the most insufferable pile of claptrap I have ever laid eyes on!"
Those of the former opinion should hire a campaign manager. Those of the latter opinion should join a commune.
--------------------------------------
From another link to 'Aunt Nettie', I found a list of humorous, but also accurate, 'Flame Warriors', one of which is again reprinted below:
There are two distinct varieties of Ideologue, conservative and liberal, but each being smug and self satisfied in his certitudes, they are really flip sides of the same coin. Though Ideologue's "opinions" merely represent a loose collection of intellectual conceits he is nonetheless astonished, bewildered and angered when his views are not immediately embraced as Truth. He regards honest disagreement as a form of cognitive dissonance that can only be cured by relentless propagandizing. The conservative iteration of Ideologue parades himself as a logical, clear thinker, while the liberal version trumpets his higher level of mental, spiritual and social awareness. Troglodyte is the natural ally of conservative Ideologue, and for liberal Ideologue it is Weenie. Whether conservative or liberal, Ideologue is a fierce, but very predictable Warrior.
----------------------------------------------------
Mahatma Ghandi's so-called seven sins included one he called 'Politics without Principle'.
Here's a brief excerpt from [http://www.mkgandhi.org/mgmnt.htm#politics] Dr. Stephen R. Covey - one of the world's leading management consultants and author of the best selling book The Seven Habits Of Highly Effective People.
Excerpts from Chapter 7 - Seven Deadly Sins:
Mahatma Gandhi said that seven things will destroy us.
Notice that all of them have to do with social and political conditions.
Note also that the antidote of each of these "deadly sins" is an explicit external standard or something that is based on natural principles and laws, not on social values.
Wealth Without Work
Pleasure Without Conscience
Knowledge Without Character
Commerce (Business) Without Morality (Ethics)
Science Without Humanity
Religion Without Sacrifice
Politics Without Principle
-----------------------
On 'Politics without Principle':
If there is no principle, there is no true north, nothing you can depend upon.
The focus on the personality ethic is the instant creation of an image that sells well in the social and economic marketplace.
You see politicians spending millions of dollars to create an image, even though it's superficial, lacking substance, in order to get votes and gain office.
And when it works, it leads to a political system operating independently of the natural laws that should govern - - that are built into the Declaration of Independence : "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness . . . . "
In other words, they are describing self-evident, external, observable, natural, unarguable, self-evident laws: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident."
The key to a healthy society is to get the social will, the value system, aligned with correct principles.
You then have the compass needle pointing to true north - true north representing the external or the natural law - and the indicator says that is what we are building our value system on : they are aligned.
But if you get a sick social will behind the political will that is independent of principle, you could have a very sick organization or society with distorted values.
For instance, the professed mission and shared values of criminals who rape, rob and plunder might sound very much like many corporate mission statements, using such words as "teamwork," "cooperation," "loyalty," "profitability," "innovation," and "creativity."
The problem is that their value system is not based on a natural law.
Figuratively, inside many corporations with lofty mission statements, many people are being mugged in broad daylight in front of witnesses.
Or they are being robbed of self-esteem, money, or position without due process.
And if there is no social will behind the principles of due process, and if you can't get due process, you have to go to the jury of your peers and engage in counterculture sabotage.
In the movie The Ten Commandments, Moses says to the pharaoh, "We are to be governed by God's law, not by you."
In effect he's saying, "We will not be governed by a person unless that person embodies the law."
In the best societies and organizations, natural laws and principles govern - that's the Constitution - and even the top people must bow to the principle.
No one is above it.
------------------------
"A person cannot do right in one department whilst attempting to do wrong in another department. Life is one indivisible whole." - Mahatma Gandhi
------------------------
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Olympic Pipe Line 'Incident': Personal Reflections
---------------------------------------------------
In less than one month Bellingham will officially remember the 10th anniversary of the explosion that claimed the lives of three young men.
In commemoration of that unfortunate event, the Pipeline Safety Trust -which is headquartered here- is inviting citizens to reflect on their own recollections of where they were and what they felt and thought at that time.
On June 10th the PST will be holding a memorial walk along Whatcom Creek, and a community gathering at Maritime Heritage Park.
Dignitaries, including former Governor Gary Locke, now US Commerce Secretary, who administers NOAA and the Office of Pipeline Safety, will be attending.
Carl Weimer, PST's Executive Director, invites citizens to write a short article to share their stories for publication via Internet.
Submissions can be-mailed to this link at the PST website:
http://www.pstrust.org/whatcomcreek
There are also short video pieces posted at:
http://www.pstrust.org/whatcomcreek/storiesandpictures.htm
My story is posted below.
---------------------------------------------------
Personal reflections on the Olympic Pipe Line 'Incident':
The evening of June 10, 1999 will be forever ingrained in my memory.
That was the time, just after 5PM, that my entire house was severely shaken by a large explosion that occurred only a minute two after I had entered the front door.
Looking out my north-facing windows, which I was surprised did not break, we saw a large, black smoke column rising rapidly to over 10,000 feet from a point roughly northeast of where we were.
A few minutes following the initial blast came a series of about 6 smaller explosions, happening at intervals that spread steadily to the west, until they stopped just short of the Interstate Highway I-5. This indicated to me that flammable petroleum hydrocarbons had somehow entered the creek and were being carried downstream until repeated ignition sources were encountered. And, from the size of the initial blast, the quantity of hydrocarbon had to be much, much more than a truckload!
After the noise came the quiet, and the concerned wonderment of people who fretted about what had happened and why, and whether still more scary stuff was to come.
But, there was also the confused cacophony of blather from the local radio station, which was clueless and given to some weird speculation in the absence of credible information. This was abetted by the failure of government communications systems, which was largely limited to police and fire radio systems and inadequate for this unexpected situation.
Add to all this the inoperability of regular phone service, both land-line and cell, due to overloaded circuits, and you have the ingredients of the temptation to panic.
Living 3 blocks uphill and south of Lakeway Blvd, I was about a mile from what proved to be ground zero - just east of Woburn Street and, upstream in Whatcom Creek. It was hard to imagine feeling the percussion of the blast from that distance, but we did, as did many others living even closer to it.
I decided to investigate by walking down the hill toward the creek, then carefully making my way east. As I left, charred leaves and debris began raining down on my roof, deck and yard. We still keep some of those blackened leaves as tangible reminders of that dark day.
Eventually, I was able to verify my suspicion that the case of the initial explosion and the subsequent smaller ones had their origins from within Whatcom Creek itself.
A City fire truck was stationed to block Woburn Street, just south of the bridge over the creek, and the fireman on the scene was able to communicate more of what happened using information from his colleagues who were searching the area.
There was also a Herald reporter present, in full commuting bicycle gear.
As more information slowly became available, the shock felt by citizens and witnesses became replaced by sympathy for the three young men who were the only fatalities, and concern about this catastrophe repeating itself.
Fortunately, our community's healing process in the aftermath had some positive benefits, including strengthened pipeline safety regulations and oversight, a degree of reparation for the 3 deaths, and funding for restoring Whatcom Creek and establishing a pipeline safety oversight organization headquartered locally.
Punishment, in the form of fines, jail time for those responsible, and a major, unanticipated loss of revenue from not being to operate the pipeline, were also experienced.
Reopening the pipeline eventually required some 18 months, during which time local, state and federal representatives worked hard to determine unsafe practices and establish better guidelines to maximize pipeline safety in the future. Resisting the pressure to quickly allow rebuilding the pipeline, the City of Bellingham took a firm stand to insure the new pipeline design was adequate, using the principles embodied in OSHA Process Safety Management practices for petroleum refineries and similar hydrocarbon processing facilities. Essential to this accomplishment was the City's decision to hire competent consultants for expert advice.
We can be thankful for the results achieved, even though they came -as too often happens -at a high cost. Bellingham can be rightfully proud of its determination to insure that something of lasting value came out of this disaster.
June 10, 1999 is a date that will remain permanently fixed in my memory, and that of many others as well.
May that event never happen again!
---------------------------------------------------
In less than one month Bellingham will officially remember the 10th anniversary of the explosion that claimed the lives of three young men.
In commemoration of that unfortunate event, the Pipeline Safety Trust -which is headquartered here- is inviting citizens to reflect on their own recollections of where they were and what they felt and thought at that time.
On June 10th the PST will be holding a memorial walk along Whatcom Creek, and a community gathering at Maritime Heritage Park.
Dignitaries, including former Governor Gary Locke, now US Commerce Secretary, who administers NOAA and the Office of Pipeline Safety, will be attending.
Carl Weimer, PST's Executive Director, invites citizens to write a short article to share their stories for publication via Internet.
Submissions can be-mailed to this link at the PST website:
http://www.pstrust.org/whatcomcreek
There are also short video pieces posted at:
http://www.pstrust.org/whatcomcreek/storiesandpictures.htm
My story is posted below.
---------------------------------------------------
Personal reflections on the Olympic Pipe Line 'Incident':
The evening of June 10, 1999 will be forever ingrained in my memory.
That was the time, just after 5PM, that my entire house was severely shaken by a large explosion that occurred only a minute two after I had entered the front door.
Looking out my north-facing windows, which I was surprised did not break, we saw a large, black smoke column rising rapidly to over 10,000 feet from a point roughly northeast of where we were.
A few minutes following the initial blast came a series of about 6 smaller explosions, happening at intervals that spread steadily to the west, until they stopped just short of the Interstate Highway I-5. This indicated to me that flammable petroleum hydrocarbons had somehow entered the creek and were being carried downstream until repeated ignition sources were encountered. And, from the size of the initial blast, the quantity of hydrocarbon had to be much, much more than a truckload!
After the noise came the quiet, and the concerned wonderment of people who fretted about what had happened and why, and whether still more scary stuff was to come.
But, there was also the confused cacophony of blather from the local radio station, which was clueless and given to some weird speculation in the absence of credible information. This was abetted by the failure of government communications systems, which was largely limited to police and fire radio systems and inadequate for this unexpected situation.
Add to all this the inoperability of regular phone service, both land-line and cell, due to overloaded circuits, and you have the ingredients of the temptation to panic.
Living 3 blocks uphill and south of Lakeway Blvd, I was about a mile from what proved to be ground zero - just east of Woburn Street and, upstream in Whatcom Creek. It was hard to imagine feeling the percussion of the blast from that distance, but we did, as did many others living even closer to it.
I decided to investigate by walking down the hill toward the creek, then carefully making my way east. As I left, charred leaves and debris began raining down on my roof, deck and yard. We still keep some of those blackened leaves as tangible reminders of that dark day.
Eventually, I was able to verify my suspicion that the case of the initial explosion and the subsequent smaller ones had their origins from within Whatcom Creek itself.
A City fire truck was stationed to block Woburn Street, just south of the bridge over the creek, and the fireman on the scene was able to communicate more of what happened using information from his colleagues who were searching the area.
There was also a Herald reporter present, in full commuting bicycle gear.
As more information slowly became available, the shock felt by citizens and witnesses became replaced by sympathy for the three young men who were the only fatalities, and concern about this catastrophe repeating itself.
Fortunately, our community's healing process in the aftermath had some positive benefits, including strengthened pipeline safety regulations and oversight, a degree of reparation for the 3 deaths, and funding for restoring Whatcom Creek and establishing a pipeline safety oversight organization headquartered locally.
Punishment, in the form of fines, jail time for those responsible, and a major, unanticipated loss of revenue from not being to operate the pipeline, were also experienced.
Reopening the pipeline eventually required some 18 months, during which time local, state and federal representatives worked hard to determine unsafe practices and establish better guidelines to maximize pipeline safety in the future. Resisting the pressure to quickly allow rebuilding the pipeline, the City of Bellingham took a firm stand to insure the new pipeline design was adequate, using the principles embodied in OSHA Process Safety Management practices for petroleum refineries and similar hydrocarbon processing facilities. Essential to this accomplishment was the City's decision to hire competent consultants for expert advice.
We can be thankful for the results achieved, even though they came -as too often happens -at a high cost. Bellingham can be rightfully proud of its determination to insure that something of lasting value came out of this disaster.
June 10, 1999 is a date that will remain permanently fixed in my memory, and that of many others as well.
May that event never happen again!
---------------------------------------------------
Monday, May 11, 2009
HamsterTalk: Labels
--------------------------
To make it a little easier to find previous blogs that primarily address specific subjects, I have now assigned the list of categories shown below.
Of course, some of the 300+ blogs posted to date do touch upon multiple subjects.
Others, such as 'Personal' and 'Politics', are more difficult to categorize and probably don't need it anyway.
The topics and issues I consider more current and important are shown in BOLD.
Other more generic labels are shown in italics.
Here is the list of Labels I have used to date:
Buddhist (2)
Budgets (15)
Census (1)
Charter (3)
EconomicDevelopment (2)
Elections (36)
Environment (6)
Government (11)
Greenways (8)
Humor (16)
Lake (56)
Landlords (3)
LEED (5)
Library (11)
LivingWage (1)
Neighborhoods (5)
NEWS (2)
OlympicPipeLine (1)
Parking (2)
Parks (8)
Personal (21)
PFD (1)
PlanningGrowth (51)
Politics (35)
Reconveyance (11)
Sports (6)
Stormwater (3)
Sunshine (3)
Taxes (13)
WAL-MART (1)
War (4)
Water/Sewer (5)
Waterfront (13)
WRIA-1 (2)
--------------------------------
Unfortunately, I haven't figured out how readers can simply type one of these labels into the blog 'search' feature , hit the return and get a chronological list of blogs under that label, but as editor, I can now do that.
So, until I can figure out something better, those interested in particular subjects can e-mail me these and will I try to at least provide blog lists by specific label.
Individual blogs do show the labels currently assigned to them at the bottom.
Any additional suggestions, blog label ideas or labeling corrections will be welcomed.
Sorry it has taken so long to get this potentially helpful feature working.
I am still a rank amateur when it comes to being Internet savvy, but I'm trying!
--------------------------------
To make it a little easier to find previous blogs that primarily address specific subjects, I have now assigned the list of categories shown below.
Of course, some of the 300+ blogs posted to date do touch upon multiple subjects.
Others, such as 'Personal' and 'Politics', are more difficult to categorize and probably don't need it anyway.
The topics and issues I consider more current and important are shown in BOLD.
Other more generic labels are shown in italics.
Here is the list of Labels I have used to date:
Buddhist (2)
Budgets (15)
Census (1)
Charter (3)
EconomicDevelopment (2)
Elections (36)
Environment (6)
Government (11)
Greenways (8)
Humor (16)
Lake (56)
Landlords (3)
LEED (5)
Library (11)
LivingWage (1)
Neighborhoods (5)
NEWS (2)
OlympicPipeLine (1)
Parking (2)
Parks (8)
Personal (21)
PFD (1)
PlanningGrowth (51)
Politics (35)
Reconveyance (11)
Sports (6)
Stormwater (3)
Sunshine (3)
Taxes (13)
WAL-MART (1)
War (4)
Water/Sewer (5)
Waterfront (13)
WRIA-1 (2)
--------------------------------
Unfortunately, I haven't figured out how readers can simply type one of these labels into the blog 'search' feature , hit the return and get a chronological list of blogs under that label, but as editor, I can now do that.
So, until I can figure out something better, those interested in particular subjects can e-mail me these and will I try to at least provide blog lists by specific label.
Individual blogs do show the labels currently assigned to them at the bottom.
Any additional suggestions, blog label ideas or labeling corrections will be welcomed.
Sorry it has taken so long to get this potentially helpful feature working.
I am still a rank amateur when it comes to being Internet savvy, but I'm trying!
--------------------------------
Sunday, May 10, 2009
It's Local Election Time Again
---------------------------------
Maybe its time to re-publish a blog first posted on July 29, 2007, at the following URL:
http://bellinghamstertalk.blogspot.com/2007/07/candidate-questionnaire-decision-making.html
Folks may think this is worth reading, and maybe even adding other thoughts.
[For convenience, I also posted this again, at the end]
This was an attempt at trying to determine candidates' understanding of the office they are seeking, their motivation, their commitment, and their expectations.
All these things are good to know, but better BEFORE a candidate is elected, don't you think?
Now, with the filing deadline set for June 5, its not too soon to start asking these questions as well as others that are more specific to current -and ongoing- issues.
After all, if we don't ask, what are our chances of determining the answers?
And, these local offices ARE important!
Just think of these few things -and there are several others- and see what you would prefer:
• Budget crisis for both City and County. Who do you want in charge of minding and managing public funds?
Which services do you think should be cut to help balance the budget -which must be done, by law, every year?
How do you think additional funds should be raised, if any?
• Waterfront Redevelopment is a long-range, big ticket item that has generated lots of attention during the last few years.
Do you think this is a worthwhile effort, or should it be scrapped?
If the project is halted or substantially slowed down, what should -responsibly- be done with the property?
Could the Port of Bellingham do a better job in generating local jobs and representing the public interest?
• Growth Management is one of those ongoing issues that can generate heat, whether in Urban Growth Areas, existing Neighborhoods, redevelopment areas or in considering higher building height limits.
What role should our neighborhoods play and how should they be represented?
Who do you trust to decide City policy on this matter?
• Lake Whatcom Reservoir protection is another important, long-term issue that requires forward-looking policy and dedication.
Do you agree that our drinking water source needs special attention, or should this be somebody else's problem?
Who would better represent your view on this issue?
• 'Public Process' is always an issue that rightfully gets attention, especially when controversial matters are considered.
Whom do you trust to keep both the spirit and the letter of our 'sunshine laws' alive and healthy?
On which issues is this especially important to you?
• Our City Charter has been revised somewhat in recent years to improve both its clarity and fairness.
Do you think additional changes should be considered and offered to a public vote?
What about things like term limits to insure periodic turnover?
• What role do you see for yourself in our local governance?
Do you vote, pay taxes, speak up from time to time?
Would you consider volunteering for a citizen committee?
Running for office yourself?
Actively supporting another's candidacy?
------------------
This is OUR government, not just us and them!
And, it does take some work to make it work better.
We have no right to expect more of others than we are willing to do ourselves!
Just a few thoughts......
=========================================
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Candidate Questionnaire & Decision Making
Appointments are unusual, but desirable. I know because over 8 eight years ago I was initially appointed to the City Council. Unusual because those appointed are chosen quickly by their peers, mostly based upon their written qualifications, their reputation and service in the Community. Desirable because appointments happen without the up-front burden of a political campaign, which means easier campaigning for re-election, because incumbents usually do enjoy a powerful advantage.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could more easily compare a candidate’s basic qualifications with other candidates before every political campaign or appointment? That is the purpose of the Candidate Questionnaire outlined below.
While specific 'Issues' may come and go, there are some underlying ‘Basics’ that every elected official has, should have, or needs to learn, which support each decision made by our local government. Knowing as much as possible about each candidate's 'Basics', before they are elected or appointed, seems a very useful exercise that might benefit voters. Perhaps some version of these ideas could be adopted for use in both future appointments and election forums.
At the end, I've also added some guidelines I try to use in making Council decisions. Every elected official will find that reason, fairness and consistency is expected of them, regardless of political or idealogical stripe. Often, the temptation will be strong to do what seems popular and pander to to the issue or audience 'du jour'. But, in the end, that strategy is a poor one, because of the high potential for consequences -either intended or not- that cannot be sustained.
Public officials are elected to serve primarily for the benefit of the community as a whole, and it is those benefits that last and define Bellingham.
============================================================
General questions to help evaluate candidates for elected or appointed office.
• Have you read and understand the implications of the oath of office each Council member must take? Do you understand each Council member is also considered an officer of the Bellingham Municipal Corporation?
• Are you familiar with the Public Disclosure Commission [PDC] and its requirements of all candidates and elected officials?
• What is your understanding of the term 'non-partisan'? Are you aware that the City Charter specifies that all Council members be non-partisan?
• Are you aware that Council members are expected to devote an average of 20 hours per week on signed time-sheets in connection with their duties of office? Are you committed to devoting at least this amount of time if you are selected to serve?
• Are you aware of the Council Committees and other assignments that this office brings with it, in addition to special work sessions, presentations and the like? Can you fulfill these requirements?
• What preparation for this office have you done, or are you prepared to do, in order to 'get up to speed' on both Council procedures and current issues? Any relevant experience in public office? Any voluntary local civic involvement?
• Have you read, reviewed or otherwise become aware of the function of the following documents: Comprehensive Plan; Consolidated Plan; 23 Neighborhood Plans; Budget; Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [CAFR]; Council Goals & Objectives; City Charter; Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan; Waterfront Redevelopment - Vision & Framework Plan, and Strategic Guidelines & Design Concepts?
• Are you willing to commit to intensive training to learn the basics of serving in public office? ['Welcome to City Hall' Maual; Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Annual & Legislative conferences; meet key City staff; understand legal constraints]
• Have you actively participated in or supported any major issues or campaigns of Community-wide significance? What is your history of activity with Neighborhood Associations? Any written opinions on local issues?
• What is your understanding of the Open Public Meetings Act, and what was intended by this State 'Sunshine' Law? How would this influence your personal decision-making?
• Are you familiar with the purpose and proper use of Executive Sessions and the reasons for strict confidentiality of the information discussed in them?
• Are you familiar with the Parliamentary Rules and procedures adopted by the Council to control its meetings and deliberations?
• Is it your plan to carefully weigh all decisions, make them independently and explain your reasons for support or non-support of any measure? Are you accustomed to operating under pressure and in a fishbowl?
• What are the criteria which you would personally use to consistently arrive at fair, legal and fiscally sustainable decisions for the benefit of the entire community? Would you consistently respect all citizens and viewpoints?
• Are you comfortable with approving controversial legislation with a 4-3 margin? Would you expect this to occur often? What areas would deserve more consensus building? How does an elected Council Member's duties compare to those of a juror?
• Do you have any affiliations with organizations, investments or persons which might become, or be considered, as conflicts of interest?
• Do you have any existing relationships with Council members that either you - or the public - might find problematic if you are selected? Could appearance of fairness become an issue, if you are seen as being unduly influenced by another member?
• What are your personal goals and aspirations for attaining this office? Only until elections produce an elected member?
Run for office until the next election. Longer-term after that?
Would you run only if appointed?
Would you run if not appointed?
• Do you know what remuneration and benefits are due to each Council member?
• Please briefly summarize your personal code of ethics and conduct.
• Any personal references that you wish to cite?
• What relevant experience do you have regarding budgeting in general?
Are you familiar with Government budgeting and financial processes?
Are there differences that you can explain?
* In your opinion, what is the single most important issue facing the City?
In your estimation. is this being adequately addressed?
* What do you want to see the City accomplish that isn't now being adequately addressed or is not currently considered a high priority?
DECISION MAKING
There is no set protocol or rulebook with rigid criteria to guide Members in making Council decisions, nor can there be one that would cover all situations possible, or necessarily bind future Councils. Even if such criteria existed, they would be difficult to impossible to enforce. In the interest of making consistently wise decisions, here are some of the general principles I have decided to follow, regardless of the issue:
o whether decisions are legal
o whether they are fair and consistent with established City policy and past precedents
o whether they reasonably comport with the information gathering and/or decision process that developed them
o whether the decision is really my [Council's] responsibility
o whether arguments to overturn or change are factual or political
o whether new precedents will be set that will be difficult to sustain
o whether our professional staff supports specific options, and why
o whether the greatest possible community wide benefit is assured
o whether I have done sufficient homework to understand the rationale and reasonable options
o whether my decision honors the recommendations of the volunteer boards and commissions responsible for reviews and recommendations
o whether any adverse unintended consequences may result
o whether decisions are made in sunshine, with reasonable public involvement
o whether public funds are wisely used and benefits outweigh the costs
o whether conflict of interest or appearance of fairness violations may result, or perceptions of same
Note that none of these 'filters' allows much room for subjective whim or opinion, autocratic authority, or populism.
None of those are things are sustainable, because voters and taxpayers rightfully expect consistently better justifications.
=========================================
Maybe its time to re-publish a blog first posted on July 29, 2007, at the following URL:
http://bellinghamstertalk.blogspot.com/2007/07/candidate-questionnaire-decision-making.html
Folks may think this is worth reading, and maybe even adding other thoughts.
[For convenience, I also posted this again, at the end]
This was an attempt at trying to determine candidates' understanding of the office they are seeking, their motivation, their commitment, and their expectations.
All these things are good to know, but better BEFORE a candidate is elected, don't you think?
Now, with the filing deadline set for June 5, its not too soon to start asking these questions as well as others that are more specific to current -and ongoing- issues.
After all, if we don't ask, what are our chances of determining the answers?
And, these local offices ARE important!
Just think of these few things -and there are several others- and see what you would prefer:
• Budget crisis for both City and County. Who do you want in charge of minding and managing public funds?
Which services do you think should be cut to help balance the budget -which must be done, by law, every year?
How do you think additional funds should be raised, if any?
• Waterfront Redevelopment is a long-range, big ticket item that has generated lots of attention during the last few years.
Do you think this is a worthwhile effort, or should it be scrapped?
If the project is halted or substantially slowed down, what should -responsibly- be done with the property?
Could the Port of Bellingham do a better job in generating local jobs and representing the public interest?
• Growth Management is one of those ongoing issues that can generate heat, whether in Urban Growth Areas, existing Neighborhoods, redevelopment areas or in considering higher building height limits.
What role should our neighborhoods play and how should they be represented?
Who do you trust to decide City policy on this matter?
• Lake Whatcom Reservoir protection is another important, long-term issue that requires forward-looking policy and dedication.
Do you agree that our drinking water source needs special attention, or should this be somebody else's problem?
Who would better represent your view on this issue?
• 'Public Process' is always an issue that rightfully gets attention, especially when controversial matters are considered.
Whom do you trust to keep both the spirit and the letter of our 'sunshine laws' alive and healthy?
On which issues is this especially important to you?
• Our City Charter has been revised somewhat in recent years to improve both its clarity and fairness.
Do you think additional changes should be considered and offered to a public vote?
What about things like term limits to insure periodic turnover?
• What role do you see for yourself in our local governance?
Do you vote, pay taxes, speak up from time to time?
Would you consider volunteering for a citizen committee?
Running for office yourself?
Actively supporting another's candidacy?
------------------
This is OUR government, not just us and them!
And, it does take some work to make it work better.
We have no right to expect more of others than we are willing to do ourselves!
Just a few thoughts......
=========================================
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Candidate Questionnaire & Decision Making
Appointments are unusual, but desirable. I know because over 8 eight years ago I was initially appointed to the City Council. Unusual because those appointed are chosen quickly by their peers, mostly based upon their written qualifications, their reputation and service in the Community. Desirable because appointments happen without the up-front burden of a political campaign, which means easier campaigning for re-election, because incumbents usually do enjoy a powerful advantage.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could more easily compare a candidate’s basic qualifications with other candidates before every political campaign or appointment? That is the purpose of the Candidate Questionnaire outlined below.
While specific 'Issues' may come and go, there are some underlying ‘Basics’ that every elected official has, should have, or needs to learn, which support each decision made by our local government. Knowing as much as possible about each candidate's 'Basics', before they are elected or appointed, seems a very useful exercise that might benefit voters. Perhaps some version of these ideas could be adopted for use in both future appointments and election forums.
At the end, I've also added some guidelines I try to use in making Council decisions. Every elected official will find that reason, fairness and consistency is expected of them, regardless of political or idealogical stripe. Often, the temptation will be strong to do what seems popular and pander to to the issue or audience 'du jour'. But, in the end, that strategy is a poor one, because of the high potential for consequences -either intended or not- that cannot be sustained.
Public officials are elected to serve primarily for the benefit of the community as a whole, and it is those benefits that last and define Bellingham.
============================================================
General questions to help evaluate candidates for elected or appointed office.
• Have you read and understand the implications of the oath of office each Council member must take? Do you understand each Council member is also considered an officer of the Bellingham Municipal Corporation?
• Are you familiar with the Public Disclosure Commission [PDC] and its requirements of all candidates and elected officials?
• What is your understanding of the term 'non-partisan'? Are you aware that the City Charter specifies that all Council members be non-partisan?
• Are you aware that Council members are expected to devote an average of 20 hours per week on signed time-sheets in connection with their duties of office? Are you committed to devoting at least this amount of time if you are selected to serve?
• Are you aware of the Council Committees and other assignments that this office brings with it, in addition to special work sessions, presentations and the like? Can you fulfill these requirements?
• What preparation for this office have you done, or are you prepared to do, in order to 'get up to speed' on both Council procedures and current issues? Any relevant experience in public office? Any voluntary local civic involvement?
• Have you read, reviewed or otherwise become aware of the function of the following documents: Comprehensive Plan; Consolidated Plan; 23 Neighborhood Plans; Budget; Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [CAFR]; Council Goals & Objectives; City Charter; Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan; Waterfront Redevelopment - Vision & Framework Plan, and Strategic Guidelines & Design Concepts?
• Are you willing to commit to intensive training to learn the basics of serving in public office? ['Welcome to City Hall' Maual; Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Annual & Legislative conferences; meet key City staff; understand legal constraints]
• Have you actively participated in or supported any major issues or campaigns of Community-wide significance? What is your history of activity with Neighborhood Associations? Any written opinions on local issues?
• What is your understanding of the Open Public Meetings Act, and what was intended by this State 'Sunshine' Law? How would this influence your personal decision-making?
• Are you familiar with the purpose and proper use of Executive Sessions and the reasons for strict confidentiality of the information discussed in them?
• Are you familiar with the Parliamentary Rules and procedures adopted by the Council to control its meetings and deliberations?
• Is it your plan to carefully weigh all decisions, make them independently and explain your reasons for support or non-support of any measure? Are you accustomed to operating under pressure and in a fishbowl?
• What are the criteria which you would personally use to consistently arrive at fair, legal and fiscally sustainable decisions for the benefit of the entire community? Would you consistently respect all citizens and viewpoints?
• Are you comfortable with approving controversial legislation with a 4-3 margin? Would you expect this to occur often? What areas would deserve more consensus building? How does an elected Council Member's duties compare to those of a juror?
• Do you have any affiliations with organizations, investments or persons which might become, or be considered, as conflicts of interest?
• Do you have any existing relationships with Council members that either you - or the public - might find problematic if you are selected? Could appearance of fairness become an issue, if you are seen as being unduly influenced by another member?
• What are your personal goals and aspirations for attaining this office? Only until elections produce an elected member?
Run for office until the next election. Longer-term after that?
Would you run only if appointed?
Would you run if not appointed?
• Do you know what remuneration and benefits are due to each Council member?
• Please briefly summarize your personal code of ethics and conduct.
• Any personal references that you wish to cite?
• What relevant experience do you have regarding budgeting in general?
Are you familiar with Government budgeting and financial processes?
Are there differences that you can explain?
* In your opinion, what is the single most important issue facing the City?
In your estimation. is this being adequately addressed?
* What do you want to see the City accomplish that isn't now being adequately addressed or is not currently considered a high priority?
DECISION MAKING
There is no set protocol or rulebook with rigid criteria to guide Members in making Council decisions, nor can there be one that would cover all situations possible, or necessarily bind future Councils. Even if such criteria existed, they would be difficult to impossible to enforce. In the interest of making consistently wise decisions, here are some of the general principles I have decided to follow, regardless of the issue:
o whether decisions are legal
o whether they are fair and consistent with established City policy and past precedents
o whether they reasonably comport with the information gathering and/or decision process that developed them
o whether the decision is really my [Council's] responsibility
o whether arguments to overturn or change are factual or political
o whether new precedents will be set that will be difficult to sustain
o whether our professional staff supports specific options, and why
o whether the greatest possible community wide benefit is assured
o whether I have done sufficient homework to understand the rationale and reasonable options
o whether my decision honors the recommendations of the volunteer boards and commissions responsible for reviews and recommendations
o whether any adverse unintended consequences may result
o whether decisions are made in sunshine, with reasonable public involvement
o whether public funds are wisely used and benefits outweigh the costs
o whether conflict of interest or appearance of fairness violations may result, or perceptions of same
Note that none of these 'filters' allows much room for subjective whim or opinion, autocratic authority, or populism.
None of those are things are sustainable, because voters and taxpayers rightfully expect consistently better justifications.
=========================================
Monday, May 4, 2009
Library: Facts or Attacks?
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."
--Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278
--------------------------------
During the month of March I was 'out of pocket' and involved in some rather serious business.
That explains my failure to read that month's issue of Whatcom Watch, which contained an article that pretended to be about our public Library, entitled 'Another Fine Mess' by Fred Volz.
Not that this article was particularly worth reading, mind you, because it was filled with the kind of factual error and misinformation that one might ordinarily expect from either an ideologue or someone who is extremely opinionated on a particular issue for whatever reason.
Now, I don't know the author, nor can I recall meeting him at any public or private meeting - which itself, is a reason to question the source or accuracy of some of his suppositions and conclusions.
Suffice to say, this is a good example of the adage; 'don't believe anything you hear, and half of what you read'.
That assumes you know WHICH half to believe!
Kinda reminds of Winston Churchill's remark that 'there are a lot of lies going around, only half of which are true.'
Hard to imagine why folks aren't more careful with what they think, write, read and choose to believe, isn't it?
I don't intend to repeat any substantial part of this article here because that isn't necessary, and those interested can read it online at http://www.whatcomwatch.org/php/WW_open.php?id=1038.
Or, just go to past issues, click on March 2009, then click on the article.
Anyway, the main point of this blog is to alert those interested that this month's issue of Whatcom Watch [May, 2009] contains another article on the same subject, this one authored by Pam Kiesner, Bellingham Public Library's Library Director.
Entitled 'Another Perspective on the Bellingham Public Library', this article is a worthwhile read, partly because it provides factual responses to some pretty egregious errors that were previously published, but also because it gives good background and context to the important issue of providing an adequate, efficient and cost effective Central Library and Branch system.
[Note that this latest article has not yet been posted on the Internet - there is usually about a month's delay - but is available for WW hard copy readers]
I won't elaborate further on this topic now because the two articles cited are self explanatory, and I've already made known my views.
But, it is in everyone's best interests to be factually informed on this issue, which ultimately is a matter for citizens themselves to decide -hopefully after being thoroughly and accurately informed .
-------------------------------
'An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest.' - Benjamin FranklinA brief excerpt from this website: http://www.ushistory.org/FRANKLIN/philadelphia/library.htm
'Most Americans in the 1730s had limited access to books. Books, in early America, were rare and expensive. There were no public libraries. Only the very wealthy and the clergy had access to large numbers of books. Even men of moderate means could not readily afford books. Enter Benjamin Franklin.
On July 1, 1731, Franklin and a group of members from the Junto, a philosophical association, drew up "Articles of Agreement" to form a library. The Junto was interested in a wide range of ideas, from economics to solving social woes to politics to science. But they could not turn to books to increase their knowledge or settle disputes, as between them they owned few tomes. But they recognized that via the Junto's combined purchasing power, books could be made available to all members.
So it was that 50 subscribers invested 40 shillings each to start a library. Members also promised to invest 10 shillings more every year to buy additional books and to help maintain the library.
They chose as their motto a Latin phrase which roughly translates as
"To support the common good is divine."
-------------------------------
Yes, it does take funding to achieve something of value for the entire community.
What value do you place on an adequate public library?
-------------------------------
Sunday, May 3, 2009
A Name Tag That Says 'SURVIVOR'
------------------
It's time to share some good news from our family.
John has been declared a 'Survivor'!
What that really means will be revealed only by the passage of time, but right now it means the following:
• John's radical surgery was successful and his recovery has been good.
• John's chemotherapy & radiation treatment, rough as it was, was also completed and is considered successful.
• John is now gaining weight and strength, and has a positive, but realistic, attitude about his future.
• John still faces 4 months of greatly reduced level chemotherapy, starting next month, as an insurance measure.
• John understands and accepts that he will need periodic tests, awareness of his condition, and consciously modified eating and living habits for the rest of his life.
• The standard medical definition of 'survivor' means 5 additional years of quality life after treatment.
There may be other meanings and interpretations, but these should suffice for now.
-------------
The above news came last Thursday in Seattle, after Cat-Scan, X-Ray and Blood Test results were known, and my Doctor communicated them to me.
This was cause for celebration, which took the form of palpable relief and a quiet dinner with a friend with whom my wife and I were to spend the night.
The next day, Friday May 1, we, along 200-300 others, attended the 2nd Annual Pancreatic Cancer Symposium at a waterfront hotel.
Strange as it may seem, this event was inspirational, largely because 20% or more of those present were survivors like me.
You could tell by their name tags, made distinctive by the purple ribbon emblazoned with the word 'SURVIVOR' on it.
And, the presentations were interesting, too.
All of the slides used were reproduced and included in a loose-leaf notebook which will provide a handy and helpful reference.
Suffice to say, there is a lot to know about this subject and therefore much work to be done to make prevention, diagnosis, treatment and recovery more certain and reliable.
I volunteered to help the organization called Pancreatic Cancer Action Network [PanCan] spread its information and help find a cure.
This organization's mission is advance research, support patients, and create hope.
It's website,
----------------------
So, this old bird has been lucky enough to beat the odds, so far.
Believe me, it has been some rough going!
But, it was worth it, and we are fortunate to live in an area with such excellent medical care available.
Just as important has been the support we have received from friends and family.
For that we are eternally thankful!
--------------------
Thursday, April 30, 2009
How Swine Flu Is Transmitted -OR- How Lipstick Gets On A Pig
---------------------
A friend received this via e-mail and showed it to me.
Others may enjoy it.
This is not intended to joke about the serious health threat we are facing, but -fortunately- there is humor everywhere.
---------------------
A friend received this via e-mail and showed it to me.
Others may enjoy it.
This is not intended to joke about the serious health threat we are facing, but -fortunately- there is humor everywhere.
---------------------
Whatcom County Budget Deficit: Surprise?
------------------
Yesterday's headline read:
"Whatcom County faces $5 million reserve shortfall, layoffs possible"
On Tuesday, April 28, County Council members learned to their surprise and consternation that Whatcom County suddenly faces a $5 million budget gap by the end of this year, and that layoffs might be unavoidable.
Deputy Administrator Dewey Desler had a number of quotable quotes to offer, none of which began to explain why this information is only being made public now, 4 months into the year.
"We have to get control of this,"
"While (the budget problems are) not as large as other counties', it still is something that is very real for us."
"We're not interested in doing something that's hasty."
"We're not interested in doing something that's not well thought out."
"...the gap is large"
"...the cuts that might be recommended will probably be "shared pain" across departments."
"Can we avoid pink slips? That's what our objective has been all along,"
"I can't say for sure. First blush, yeah there may need to be (layoffs). I don't want to sugarcoat it."
Gee thanks, Deppity Dawg! Did Pete dictate these for you?
------------------
Recently, the county's reserves were estimated to be about $10.7 million at the end of 2009, but now, the new projections show the county will have just $5.7 million left over .
That's a pretty major difference from the $23.5 million reserve the county had just a few years ago, when County Executive Pete Kremen proposed - and County Council members approved - spending about half of that money on various one-time projects.
The County has already revised budget reserve projections after the 2008 ending reserve came in about $1 million less than the initially projected at $12 million.
Since then, fee and tax revenues have dropped further below 2009 and 2010 budget projections.
Now, year-end revenue is expected to be about $3.7 million less.
--------------
Additional Council member comments & concerns:
Carl Weimer: "I'm kind of surprised that we're a third of the way through the year and we're just hearing about this now,"
"And we'll be halfway through the year before recommendations come to council so we can start tweaking this.
You haven't partnered with the council yet."
Various: Concerns about the way the government spends money, particularly in how to save employees from being laid off while addressing various policy directives the council has issued.
Sam Crawford: ...there needs to be discussion about long-term planning initiatives; the county shouldn't raise planning department fees to try to make up some of the costs.
Laurie Caskey-Schreiber: the council shouldn't ignore fee issues and that there should be discussion about whether the county's fees are equitable to that of other counties; concerned about layoffs and suggested furloughs for employees or asking bargaining units to forgo pay raises to help with the budget.
----------------------
How can it be that a County that has refused to raise property taxes the last 14 years, refuses to utilize impact fees, and yet is subject to the same financial pressures than impact everyone, 'discovers' a huge deficit 4 months into the year?
I thought Teflon Pete was immune to this stuff, didn't you?
But, I don't know any municipality that hasn't been seriously hurt by this recession, and surprised by the depth of it despite best efforts at forecasting revenues.
Certainly Bellingham isn't immune to this precipitous revenue drop, despite its excellence at timely and [relatively] understandable financial reporting.
No one can blame the County for the depth of this recession, but it could do much better at reporting revenue forecasts and their likely impacts.
For example, I don't recall the County emphasizing regular financial reporting at public meetings, which is something both the Council and citizens have the right to expect.
The City used to have a similar problem with the way its periodic financial reports and budgets were presented, and Lord knows, they aren't the simplest things to understand!
Then, in 2000, the City's new Finance Director, Therese Holm, changed things for the better - I hope permanently.
Essentially, every year since 2000, the City has received the Government Financial Officers Association [GFOA] award for excellence in its financial reporting [monthly, quarterly, annually (CAFR)], a standard of performance that only a relatively small percentage of municipalities receive.
Additionally, during the last several years the City has also received the GFOA's award for excellence in budget preparation and presentation.
Even made clearer and simpler, municipal budgets aren't easily understood either. They have similarities with other types of budgets, but also many differences that are legal requirements.
Point is, citizens deserve the best level of clarity, timeliness and accuracy that can be reasonably provided.
And, the GFOA awards amount to the gold standard for municipalities.
For starters, Whatcom County ought to aim for this level of excellence -and openness.
I'd be surprised if the County Council didn't unanimously require the County Administration, including the Executive, Treasurer, and anyone else necessary, to implement a GFOA award goal -and the funded strategy to actually achieve it.
That needs to happen soon, like maybe now.
Revenue surprises are one thing, but ignoring established policy, deficient financial facts, obfuscation and untimely reports are quite another!
The public deserves better than that. Much better!
----------------------
Yesterday's headline read:
"Whatcom County faces $5 million reserve shortfall, layoffs possible"
On Tuesday, April 28, County Council members learned to their surprise and consternation that Whatcom County suddenly faces a $5 million budget gap by the end of this year, and that layoffs might be unavoidable.
Deputy Administrator Dewey Desler had a number of quotable quotes to offer, none of which began to explain why this information is only being made public now, 4 months into the year.
"We have to get control of this,"
"While (the budget problems are) not as large as other counties', it still is something that is very real for us."
"We're not interested in doing something that's hasty."
"We're not interested in doing something that's not well thought out."
"...the gap is large"
"...the cuts that might be recommended will probably be "shared pain" across departments."
"Can we avoid pink slips? That's what our objective has been all along,"
"I can't say for sure. First blush, yeah there may need to be (layoffs). I don't want to sugarcoat it."
Gee thanks, Deppity Dawg! Did Pete dictate these for you?
------------------
Recently, the county's reserves were estimated to be about $10.7 million at the end of 2009, but now, the new projections show the county will have just $5.7 million left over .
That's a pretty major difference from the $23.5 million reserve the county had just a few years ago, when County Executive Pete Kremen proposed - and County Council members approved - spending about half of that money on various one-time projects.
The County has already revised budget reserve projections after the 2008 ending reserve came in about $1 million less than the initially projected at $12 million.
Since then, fee and tax revenues have dropped further below 2009 and 2010 budget projections.
Now, year-end revenue is expected to be about $3.7 million less.
--------------
Additional Council member comments & concerns:
Carl Weimer: "I'm kind of surprised that we're a third of the way through the year and we're just hearing about this now,"
"And we'll be halfway through the year before recommendations come to council so we can start tweaking this.
You haven't partnered with the council yet."
Various: Concerns about the way the government spends money, particularly in how to save employees from being laid off while addressing various policy directives the council has issued.
Sam Crawford: ...there needs to be discussion about long-term planning initiatives; the county shouldn't raise planning department fees to try to make up some of the costs.
Laurie Caskey-Schreiber: the council shouldn't ignore fee issues and that there should be discussion about whether the county's fees are equitable to that of other counties; concerned about layoffs and suggested furloughs for employees or asking bargaining units to forgo pay raises to help with the budget.
----------------------
How can it be that a County that has refused to raise property taxes the last 14 years, refuses to utilize impact fees, and yet is subject to the same financial pressures than impact everyone, 'discovers' a huge deficit 4 months into the year?
I thought Teflon Pete was immune to this stuff, didn't you?
But, I don't know any municipality that hasn't been seriously hurt by this recession, and surprised by the depth of it despite best efforts at forecasting revenues.
Certainly Bellingham isn't immune to this precipitous revenue drop, despite its excellence at timely and [relatively] understandable financial reporting.
No one can blame the County for the depth of this recession, but it could do much better at reporting revenue forecasts and their likely impacts.
For example, I don't recall the County emphasizing regular financial reporting at public meetings, which is something both the Council and citizens have the right to expect.
The City used to have a similar problem with the way its periodic financial reports and budgets were presented, and Lord knows, they aren't the simplest things to understand!
Then, in 2000, the City's new Finance Director, Therese Holm, changed things for the better - I hope permanently.
Essentially, every year since 2000, the City has received the Government Financial Officers Association [GFOA] award for excellence in its financial reporting [monthly, quarterly, annually (CAFR)], a standard of performance that only a relatively small percentage of municipalities receive.
Additionally, during the last several years the City has also received the GFOA's award for excellence in budget preparation and presentation.
Even made clearer and simpler, municipal budgets aren't easily understood either. They have similarities with other types of budgets, but also many differences that are legal requirements.
Point is, citizens deserve the best level of clarity, timeliness and accuracy that can be reasonably provided.
And, the GFOA awards amount to the gold standard for municipalities.
For starters, Whatcom County ought to aim for this level of excellence -and openness.
I'd be surprised if the County Council didn't unanimously require the County Administration, including the Executive, Treasurer, and anyone else necessary, to implement a GFOA award goal -and the funded strategy to actually achieve it.
That needs to happen soon, like maybe now.
Revenue surprises are one thing, but ignoring established policy, deficient financial facts, obfuscation and untimely reports are quite another!
The public deserves better than that. Much better!
----------------------
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Waterfront Redevelopment: Are Circadian Rhythms To Blame?
Years ago, I can remember my little sister's seemingly annual insistence upon receiving a pony for Christmas.
That never happened while she was a child because it just wasn't in the cards.
Our family hadn't the means, the space, or the inclination to be owners of an animal that required such special care and feeding.
So, it was not until she grew up and obtained her own means and space, did her wish come true.
But then, how she enjoyed having that long dreamed of horse!
And, knowing her two young daughters shared her own childhood wish, she got them ponies too.
Essentially, she tripled her pleasure by being patient, and not only maintaining, but multiplying her goal.
------------
Something like can also happen for those in Bellingham who feel they have been disappointed by what has, or has not, happened so far with waterfront redevelopment planning.
Things like this simply do not happen that quickly, and there will be other opportunities for concerned parties to significantly influence waterfront redevelopment and change it to another direction, either real or perceived.
Here, including the word 'perceived' is important because perceptions are not always what they seem, whether good or bad.
No one really knows with certainty exactly what will ultimately transpire and result on our waterfront.
But, everyone must share the vision of not letting this contaminated industrial fill area persist in its current state very far into the future.
That would simply be irresponsible, and there is no better word to describe it.
But, equally as irresponsible, is the continued insistence upon concepts that are clearly -or maybe not so clearly- out of balance with reality.
Here, the balance I'm referring to is the one between 3 competing -and also complimentary- goals; ECOLOGY, ECONOMICS and SOCIAL EQUITY.
These must inherently be in reasonable balance to have a chance of the project succeeding at all.
[Of course, if the desire is to STOP progress and PREVENT anything from being achieved, all bets are off on this point.]
A few examples:
• The idea of most of the waterfront area being used as a public park and recreation area, while advancing ECOLOGY and, to some extent, SOCIAL EQUITY, mainly ignores ECONOMICS. That won't work because the necessary work must be paid for as it proceeds.
• The idea of most of the waterfront to be built for commercial purposes may advance the ECONOMICS while short changing ECOLOGY and SOCIAL EQUITY. That's not OK because the public must be reasonably satisfied that access to water, views, housing, institutions and jobs will be abundantly provided.
• SOCIAL EQUITY is such an integral part of both ECONOMICS and ECOLOGY that it simply can't be considered alone, but as an essential part of the others - both of which are beneficial to people.
This 'three-legged stool of values is more than just a catch phrase; it is a real balance that is not always obvious to anyone or everyone.
Like Winston Churchill said years ago; 'The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.'
------------
Politics is inherently about competing ideas, priorities and funding, and often debates on these matters gets heated.
People resort to all sorts of strategies and tactics to get their way, including emotional appeals, threats, audacious demands, deception, and lies ranging from clever words-smithing to ridiculous hyperbole; had you noticed?
Warts and all, that's what our system allows.
Get used to it, but please don't buy into the idea that these are the only methods that can be effective.
For example, if folks don't like the idea of the Port being the ones responsible for acquiring the property, cleaning it up and then redeveloping it, just suggest a better idea -or at least a different one.
Then, work to make that happen!
If that might mean recruiting a private interest to carry out these tasks, then suggest it and then help sell the idea.
Or, it may have to do do with just getting new Commissioners elected, who could then hire a new Executive Director and/or sponsor a different study approach and redevelopment plan.
If the charters of Port Authorities need to be changed, that is a job for our State Legislature-and voters- to undertake.
Someone will have to initiate this process. Who's waiting for who to do what?
All of these things will take much more than childish wishful thinking to accomplish!
Of course, there are those who will always wait for others to get things done, then complain when the result doesn't meet their fancy.
Hey, our system also allows that.
--------------
The concept of 'public process' seems to get used, and abused, a lot these days.
But, no one can convince me that a sufficiency of 'public process' is a completely definable thing.
Different folks have different ideas of what constitutes a sufficiency, but there has been enormous effort expended on what is called 'public process' expended on the planning for our waterfront.
There is no debating that fact, as the veritable Harvard Bookshelf of studies has grown over the past 20-plus years.
But, different studies do happen at different times, and with different goals and concepts, not all of which are directly compatible or interchangeable.
That's OK, too, because over time the net effect of this string of studies has served to alert the public and officials to the possibilities on our waterfront.
Several studies were done when G-P was still operating along with other industries, which were still useful because they tried to look beyond G-P.
The one thing they all agreed upon was that a future waterfront redevelopment was desirable.
That is still true, despite the time that has passed.
But, the time element does influence people's feelings.
Some really liked earlier ideas that were more limited in concept and failed to anticipate the changes that have occurred.
That seems similar to a little girl wishing for a pony.
The main difficulty seems to be finding that 'sweet spot' in public opinion that carries the best chance of succeeding.
Because there seem to be almost as many opinions as there are people, this becomes a formidable task.
But, even a formidable task can be tackled effectively, as has been proven often, despite the difficulty.
And, there are some core values that have already been agreed, whether some disagree or not.
So, now it seems we're largely down to 'duking' it out over personal preferences, some of which are being fiercely clung to.
The circumstance of continual, petty bickering reminds me a little too much of that other Washington; you know the place where the Federal Government is headquartered, where political gamesmanship often seems more important than getting anything worthwhile accomplished.
Allowing Bellingham to degenerate into that status would be a real shame.
---------------
The concept of 'Circadian Rhythms' may be at play here, don't you think?
"Circadian' literally means something equivalent to an 'approximate period of time', most often about one day.
Each species of living things like plants, mammals, etc, seem to have its own inherent rhythms.
Did you know that certain flowers bloom and close only at certain times during the day, whether they are exposed to the sun or not?
Even individuals have slightly different Circadian Rhythms which influence their natural best sleeping times among other things.
Think about it.
If everyone does have a slightly different Circadian Rhythm, that means there are built-in differences in habits.
Over time, these differences are widened or lessened.
Of course, these time intervals can be vast, which would mask us perceiving any changes over a relatively short time.
And, since we are living in the 'now', are quite impatient and have strong preferences, we see things primarily from these perspectives.
So, maybe Circadian Rhythms have little or no relevance here.
But, maybe they do.
What else would explain all the diverse words and opinions flying around on something many of us may not be present to see finished, but which needs doing anyway?
-------------------
That never happened while she was a child because it just wasn't in the cards.
Our family hadn't the means, the space, or the inclination to be owners of an animal that required such special care and feeding.
So, it was not until she grew up and obtained her own means and space, did her wish come true.
But then, how she enjoyed having that long dreamed of horse!
And, knowing her two young daughters shared her own childhood wish, she got them ponies too.
Essentially, she tripled her pleasure by being patient, and not only maintaining, but multiplying her goal.
------------
Something like can also happen for those in Bellingham who feel they have been disappointed by what has, or has not, happened so far with waterfront redevelopment planning.
Things like this simply do not happen that quickly, and there will be other opportunities for concerned parties to significantly influence waterfront redevelopment and change it to another direction, either real or perceived.
Here, including the word 'perceived' is important because perceptions are not always what they seem, whether good or bad.
No one really knows with certainty exactly what will ultimately transpire and result on our waterfront.
But, everyone must share the vision of not letting this contaminated industrial fill area persist in its current state very far into the future.
That would simply be irresponsible, and there is no better word to describe it.
But, equally as irresponsible, is the continued insistence upon concepts that are clearly -or maybe not so clearly- out of balance with reality.
Here, the balance I'm referring to is the one between 3 competing -and also complimentary- goals; ECOLOGY, ECONOMICS and SOCIAL EQUITY.
These must inherently be in reasonable balance to have a chance of the project succeeding at all.
[Of course, if the desire is to STOP progress and PREVENT anything from being achieved, all bets are off on this point.]
A few examples:
• The idea of most of the waterfront area being used as a public park and recreation area, while advancing ECOLOGY and, to some extent, SOCIAL EQUITY, mainly ignores ECONOMICS. That won't work because the necessary work must be paid for as it proceeds.
• The idea of most of the waterfront to be built for commercial purposes may advance the ECONOMICS while short changing ECOLOGY and SOCIAL EQUITY. That's not OK because the public must be reasonably satisfied that access to water, views, housing, institutions and jobs will be abundantly provided.
• SOCIAL EQUITY is such an integral part of both ECONOMICS and ECOLOGY that it simply can't be considered alone, but as an essential part of the others - both of which are beneficial to people.
This 'three-legged stool of values is more than just a catch phrase; it is a real balance that is not always obvious to anyone or everyone.
Like Winston Churchill said years ago; 'The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.'
------------
Politics is inherently about competing ideas, priorities and funding, and often debates on these matters gets heated.
People resort to all sorts of strategies and tactics to get their way, including emotional appeals, threats, audacious demands, deception, and lies ranging from clever words-smithing to ridiculous hyperbole; had you noticed?
Warts and all, that's what our system allows.
Get used to it, but please don't buy into the idea that these are the only methods that can be effective.
For example, if folks don't like the idea of the Port being the ones responsible for acquiring the property, cleaning it up and then redeveloping it, just suggest a better idea -or at least a different one.
Then, work to make that happen!
If that might mean recruiting a private interest to carry out these tasks, then suggest it and then help sell the idea.
Or, it may have to do do with just getting new Commissioners elected, who could then hire a new Executive Director and/or sponsor a different study approach and redevelopment plan.
If the charters of Port Authorities need to be changed, that is a job for our State Legislature-and voters- to undertake.
Someone will have to initiate this process. Who's waiting for who to do what?
All of these things will take much more than childish wishful thinking to accomplish!
Of course, there are those who will always wait for others to get things done, then complain when the result doesn't meet their fancy.
Hey, our system also allows that.
--------------
The concept of 'public process' seems to get used, and abused, a lot these days.
But, no one can convince me that a sufficiency of 'public process' is a completely definable thing.
Different folks have different ideas of what constitutes a sufficiency, but there has been enormous effort expended on what is called 'public process' expended on the planning for our waterfront.
There is no debating that fact, as the veritable Harvard Bookshelf of studies has grown over the past 20-plus years.
But, different studies do happen at different times, and with different goals and concepts, not all of which are directly compatible or interchangeable.
That's OK, too, because over time the net effect of this string of studies has served to alert the public and officials to the possibilities on our waterfront.
Several studies were done when G-P was still operating along with other industries, which were still useful because they tried to look beyond G-P.
The one thing they all agreed upon was that a future waterfront redevelopment was desirable.
That is still true, despite the time that has passed.
But, the time element does influence people's feelings.
Some really liked earlier ideas that were more limited in concept and failed to anticipate the changes that have occurred.
That seems similar to a little girl wishing for a pony.
The main difficulty seems to be finding that 'sweet spot' in public opinion that carries the best chance of succeeding.
Because there seem to be almost as many opinions as there are people, this becomes a formidable task.
But, even a formidable task can be tackled effectively, as has been proven often, despite the difficulty.
And, there are some core values that have already been agreed, whether some disagree or not.
So, now it seems we're largely down to 'duking' it out over personal preferences, some of which are being fiercely clung to.
The circumstance of continual, petty bickering reminds me a little too much of that other Washington; you know the place where the Federal Government is headquartered, where political gamesmanship often seems more important than getting anything worthwhile accomplished.
Allowing Bellingham to degenerate into that status would be a real shame.
---------------
The concept of 'Circadian Rhythms' may be at play here, don't you think?
"Circadian' literally means something equivalent to an 'approximate period of time', most often about one day.
Each species of living things like plants, mammals, etc, seem to have its own inherent rhythms.
Did you know that certain flowers bloom and close only at certain times during the day, whether they are exposed to the sun or not?
Even individuals have slightly different Circadian Rhythms which influence their natural best sleeping times among other things.
Think about it.
If everyone does have a slightly different Circadian Rhythm, that means there are built-in differences in habits.
Over time, these differences are widened or lessened.
Of course, these time intervals can be vast, which would mask us perceiving any changes over a relatively short time.
And, since we are living in the 'now', are quite impatient and have strong preferences, we see things primarily from these perspectives.
So, maybe Circadian Rhythms have little or no relevance here.
But, maybe they do.
What else would explain all the diverse words and opinions flying around on something many of us may not be present to see finished, but which needs doing anyway?
-------------------
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Calling A Charade A Charade
-------------------
"We are all worms, but I do believe I am a glow worm." - Winston Churchill
-------------------
The most current issue of SIERRA Magazine includes a short editorial which I found interesting, and true enough to inspire this blog, which borrows heavily from it.
Citizens the world over are glad that the US now has an administration that emphasizes thoughtfulness and discipline over extreme partisanship and gamesmanship.
As President Obama stated during his January 20 inauguration, 'It's time to put away childish things.'
One of those 'childish things' was a palpable disdain for science when it didn't happen to support partisan politics!
Can you imagine us Americans putting up with that kind of thinking for long?
Fortunately, governmental appointments are now being made more on the basis of competence and honest concern for the long term welfare of people and our environment.
And, what could possibly be more important than these?
For example, instead of arguing endlessly using unfounded opinion instead of best scientific wisdom, we need to move past the easy roadblocks so easily thrown up by a few self-serving naysayers.
This often refers to energy issues that connect directly to environmental issues, including the narrow, individual debates over oil, coal and nuclear power.
All of these established industries are more concerned with maintaining their profitability based on the status quo, than looking clearly into the future to see where this leads us.
That's the easy thing to do, but it is also the most 'childish'.
Eminent physicist, John Holdren, our new National Science Advisor, has been clear on these issues at least since 1981, when he co-authored a book which contained the following excerpt:
'The most important environmental liability of oil as an energy source is probably not air pollution or oil spills but the chance that war will be waged over access to the world's remaining supplies.
The most important environmental liability of coal is not the occupational toll of mining... rather it is the threat of global climate change posed by the accumulating atmospheric carbon dioxide...
The most important environmental liability of nuclear fission is neither the routine nor accidental emissions of radioactivity, but the deliberate misuse of nuclear facilities and materials for acts of terrorism and war.'
Wouldn't it have been nice to have had this perspective since 1981?
The editorial continues:
Think about it. Haven't we all seen evidence of this happening? Sometimes, its so obvious that it appears a mistake or just a bad joke being played on readers or listeners.
Consider the myth of so-called 'clean coal' which is being advertised and reported so seriously;
The coal industry defines the term as 'any technology to reduce pollutants associated with the burning of coal that was not in widespread use prior to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
In my estimation, there is much here that resonates as true.
And, the analogy can probably be extended further to other topics, too.
Maybe anytime that tilted opinions are so ardently expressed - and seem at variance with what seems reasonable and true - is an indication that 'childish things' are being attempted?
At a minimum, it probably means it's time to be careful and ask better questions of several informed sources.
On the other hand, kids do enjoy charades...
------------
"We are all worms, but I do believe I am a glow worm." - Winston Churchill
-------------------
The most current issue of SIERRA Magazine includes a short editorial which I found interesting, and true enough to inspire this blog, which borrows heavily from it.
Citizens the world over are glad that the US now has an administration that emphasizes thoughtfulness and discipline over extreme partisanship and gamesmanship.
As President Obama stated during his January 20 inauguration, 'It's time to put away childish things.'
One of those 'childish things' was a palpable disdain for science when it didn't happen to support partisan politics!
Can you imagine us Americans putting up with that kind of thinking for long?
Fortunately, governmental appointments are now being made more on the basis of competence and honest concern for the long term welfare of people and our environment.
And, what could possibly be more important than these?
For example, instead of arguing endlessly using unfounded opinion instead of best scientific wisdom, we need to move past the easy roadblocks so easily thrown up by a few self-serving naysayers.
This often refers to energy issues that connect directly to environmental issues, including the narrow, individual debates over oil, coal and nuclear power.
All of these established industries are more concerned with maintaining their profitability based on the status quo, than looking clearly into the future to see where this leads us.
That's the easy thing to do, but it is also the most 'childish'.
Eminent physicist, John Holdren, our new National Science Advisor, has been clear on these issues at least since 1981, when he co-authored a book which contained the following excerpt:
'The most important environmental liability of oil as an energy source is probably not air pollution or oil spills but the chance that war will be waged over access to the world's remaining supplies.
The most important environmental liability of coal is not the occupational toll of mining... rather it is the threat of global climate change posed by the accumulating atmospheric carbon dioxide...
The most important environmental liability of nuclear fission is neither the routine nor accidental emissions of radioactivity, but the deliberate misuse of nuclear facilities and materials for acts of terrorism and war.'
Wouldn't it have been nice to have had this perspective since 1981?
The editorial continues:
Even more stunning than the accuracy of these predictions is that so many commenters in the major media are still denying them.
Stories on oil independence ignore the war in Iraq; the relationship between coal and global warming is still "in dispute"; and the spread of civilian nuclear energy is seldom linked yo terrorist' potential access to weapons of mass destruction.
Few of the reporters who write these stories are in doubt themselves.... But many media outlets insist on treating obvious truths as doubtful if someone can be found who doubts them. If there is a dispute about facts the facts, however self-interested or discredited a perspective may be, both sides get equal weight.
Think about it. Haven't we all seen evidence of this happening? Sometimes, its so obvious that it appears a mistake or just a bad joke being played on readers or listeners.
Consider the myth of so-called 'clean coal' which is being advertised and reported so seriously;
The coal industry defines the term as 'any technology to reduce pollutants associated with the burning of coal that was not in widespread use prior to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
This doesn't have anything to do with reducing CO2 at all... but the media continue to report about 'clean coal', as if it had something to do with protecting the climate.------------
Journalists who know better are trapped by the idea that their job is to report a debate - not judge it or even referee by calling obvious fouls.
For the media to refuse to describe what we have learned about the way the world works is one of those childish things it's now time to put away.'
In my estimation, there is much here that resonates as true.
And, the analogy can probably be extended further to other topics, too.
Maybe anytime that tilted opinions are so ardently expressed - and seem at variance with what seems reasonable and true - is an indication that 'childish things' are being attempted?
At a minimum, it probably means it's time to be careful and ask better questions of several informed sources.
On the other hand, kids do enjoy charades...
------------
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Library: Contingent on Waterfront Redevelopment?
----------------------
'First, get all the facts. Then, you can always distort them later.'
- attributed to Mark Twain
----------------------
Hard times do call for some hard measures, but the difference between hard-headed austerity and just plain hard-headedness ought to be clear!
So it is with the latest round of rhetoric around the idea of a larger and more modern Bellingham Public Library.
Over two years ago, the City Council passed a unanimous Resolution -with the, then, Mayor's enthusiastic support- to accept recommendations from its Library Board -which had deliberated 7 years or more- on building a new Central Library adjacent to the current aging and woefully inadequate library, a building that would require significant public expense to even extend its useful life significantly.
Of course, this property is already owned by the City and has been in used as a favorite destination for many years and is an established public meeting place, including the grassy depression that serves as a park.
Additionally, it is right across the street from both City Hall and the County Court House, plus within a block or two of the Mt Baker Theater and Whatcom Museum-including the soon to be opened Children's Museum.
This so-called 'cultural district' was conceived years ago to be a vital link between the Civic Center and the downtown business community, a concept that continues to have much appeal as a people-friendly plan.
All of this also means the area is often congested, but you know, that isn't always a bad thing because 'eyes on the street' are comforting.
Also, there are bus lines that access the area and public hiking & biking trails along Whatcom Creek that can lead in several directions, including the waterfront and toward Lake Whatcom.
Sometimes -maybe most times- folks prefer for things like Libraries to be familiar and popular with other people; maybe that's why such places are called 'public places' and are well used.
Of course, there were/are some challenges to be overcome if any new Library idea were to come to fruition.
You know, little things like paying for it; deciding what 'it' would be; providing adequate parking; addressing how library services can be extended to other locations; how many patrons can be accommodated; what architecture and furnishings would be employed; what the level of service would be, and with what staff.
Just little things like that.
But, don't we always need to think about such things before we jump into some important venture?
The point is, a new Library has been considered a 'top priority' for Bellingham for several years, at least since the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee convened in 1999 thru 2001.
But, this particular 'priority' has been repeatedly elbowed aside by other projects, like the Public Facilities District idea, Civic Field Improvements, and now the ambitious Waterfront Redevelopment effort.
When the new Library's turn finally arrived, the necessary resources had already been spoken for, and hard times were well on the way.
So, of course, another delay is prudent, as long as it is not used as a time to forget about all the good work that has gone into Library planning!
Unfortunately, some of that 'forgetfulness' has already begun to happen.
More troubling is the somewhat arrogant attempt to supplant all the good planning that has occurred with an entirely new concept that has not been exposed to the gauntlet of public process so essential to generate widespread support.
Here, I am referring to two statements that have appeared recently in print, one from our Mayor, the other from a new Council member.
-----------
First, the Mayor is touting the idea of locating the new Library on or adjacent to the Waterfront, largely as a justification for building new parking structures!
That seems more like the flea trying to wag the hair on the tail of a dog to me.
I can understand the need for jump-starting the WF infrastructure, and the scarcity of public funds available for such projects, but what happened to the years of thoughtful good work by the Library Board and other interested citizens?
It's not OK with me to just chunk that work product into the garbage in favor of another bright idea designed to achieve multiple ends!
Of course, the Mayor's idea has the potential to be the best potential solution available, but it needs some serious vetting in my view.
But, we're not there yet - not even close!
For starters, it just simply ignores the several criteria that were thought essential to good Library planning.
Second, it seems overly dismissive of the Library Board's hard work, not to mention the many caring citizens who turned out for work sessions, presentations and creative idea sharing about desirable features.
Why, I'd be tempted to just resign from the LIbrary Board myself, but the good folks who serve in that capacity are so naturally temperate and civic-minded, that idea would likely never cross their minds.
Then, the Council person's conviction that not a stone or brick from the old Library building ought to be removed, as frugal and green as that sounds, ignores the fact that major, costly renovations will be required to transform this edifice into a modern and reasonably useful structure.
And, that also excludes the need for a serious, costly expansion of existing space, plus a place in which to operate while these disruptions are going on, things the Library Board have grappled with for years -but what did they know?.
Even the argument for historic preservation has no legs with this nondescript, 1950's building.
It is basically an outdated building that has pretty well served its purpose, except for lasting until its replacement can be constructed.
More troubling than either of these expressed opinions, is the abject wishy-washy-ness of the entire Council, which simply acceded to them without bothering to check the history of its own action!
You know, I can understand and accept the reality of today's difficult financial situation, but is totally rescinding the idea of a new Library necessary?
How about just deferring it for continued study and public process?
Isn't that the way Council often acts?
Thank goodness young Sam Taylor had the gumption to look up those pesky minutes from January 2007, and remind the Council of its own action!
Of course the Council can always reverse itself, but shouldn't that at least take another Resolution voted upon at a public meeting?
Surely, the Council wouldn't allow itself to be so easily jawboned into a position they haven't duly deliberated - or would they?
--------
Our Library Board is a 5-person advisory body on which responsible citizens can volunteer their service.
And, uniquely, the Library Board is also responsible for hiring and overseeing the duties of the Library Director.
Bet that may surprise a few people, possibly including our current Mayor and maybe even a newer Council member or two.
Point is, we need to treat these folks better, and while we're at it, the good folks of Bellingham, who have loved their Library for many years.
It's not right to act so authoritarian and knee-jerk about such important issues, and most people probably know that.
If a new Library is planned with children in mind, it will certainly work for the rest of us, too.
There is no reason why the excellent work already done can't be pared down into a new facility that is more affordable and will be enthusiastically supported at the ballot, one day to come.
If that is not sufficient, the project could also be phased and/or partly paid for in other ways.
But, to hitch the new Library to Waterfront Redevelopment just guarantees nothing will be accomplished for the next 10 years or more!
That seems irresponsible, despite the current hard times.
But, then there might be some advantages to that sort of delay; few, if any, of the current elected officials will likely still be around!
Of course, by that time even more dire circumstances could prevail.
Who knows?
-----------------------
The Bellingham Public Library shares the power of information, encourages the discovery of ideas, and promotes the joy of reading with all members of the Bellingham Community.
-----------------------
Excerpt from the minutes of the Jan. 22, 2007 City Council meeting:
PRESENTATION(S)
AB17281B 1. LIBRARY PLANNING UPDATE AND NEW CENTRAL LIBRARY SITE RECOMMENDATION
Dave Edelstein, representing the Bellingham Public Library Board of Trustees recognized current and former board members and the Friends of the Library, who have been tireless in their efforts in planning for this project.
Pam Kiesner, Library Director delivered a PowerPoint presentation of Library Board activity leading up to a recommendation for building a new Central Library on the current library block. Ms. Kiesner reviewed current Library service delivery and how it is present in the community. She described the Condition Assessment of the 102-year old Fairhaven Branch Library; how computers have changed the way we access information; and how self-services are accessed at the Library.
She continued with considerations of the City budget; population growth and areas of the City that are not covered; a brief review of the Citywide Library Services Study - a copy of which was provided to Council at the Joint City Council/Library Board Meeting held at the Library on January 17, 2007. Ms. Kiesner then reviewed the community's access to the City's libraries and for the immediate future, said they are actively working on partnership opportunities to provide more convenience to residents of neighborhoods that are currently underserved.
Ms. Kiesner responded to the common questions of “Why do we need a Central Library ?” and “Why do we need a NEW Central Library?” The Central Library services the growing downtown population as well as the entire city and it serves as a central location to the Bellingham community; provides a central hub: housing for materials ordering; processing and distribution; provides full service, primary materials and a resource center from which the community draws and it serves as the support services facility for all of the outreach services. The current Central Library serves as a strong central collection and an efficient centralized hub for materials handling citywide. The City has outgrown the Library's size, structure and function.
Ms. Kiesner reviewed the completed key steps and noted key findings: another floor cannot be added to the existing library, the building does not meet seismic codes, working with a building built in 1951 would be programmatically and structurally difficult with all the electronic resources used today. She also noted that underground parking on this site is possible.
Visions for a Central Library include:
· housing a materials collection;
· meeting citywide library needs at least 50 years into the future;
· a library that is beautiful, functional and cost-effective;
· invites the community in;
· reflects the unique character of the community;
· designed with public input;
· using at least silver LEED standards;
· an educational institution;
· easy to find;
· parking;
· accessible to all ages and abilities;
· spaces that are busy every hour of every day;
· flexible to meet the needs of a growing community and
· that the library remains and becomes stronger as a cornerstone of the community.
Faye Hill, Library Board Member reviewed the site selection process that began in 2001. To date, working with the Site Evaluation Committee, the Library Board has reviewed 20 properties and in 2006 the Board issued a Request for Proposal for available property in the downtown core with no responses received. In July 2006 the sites were narrowed down to the former ReStore site, Maritime Heritage Park site, Bellingham Municipal Court site and current Library block. A primary reason for focusing on these four sites is that they are city-owned, thus saving the taxpayers the expense of purchasing a site. In August 2006 a walkabout of the four sites was done, where valuable feedback was received. With it's adjacencies to civic arts and cultural endeavors in the downtown area including the new Children's and Art Museum, which is across the street, the current Library block has been a natural site to consider. The Board believes it has spent the necessary time to become well informed about each one of the sites and unanimously agree that the current Library block, minus the existing building, provides the best option for the new Central Library.
Ms. Kiesner outlined the next steps and said a timeline is in draft format. The Board wants to make sure that the community is as informed as possible and the Board would like to invite their input in a variety of ways. In the first half of 2007 the Board will be seeking a Bond Campaign Chair and committee and determine which is more likely to succeed – a General, Off-year or Special election. It is too early to know potential costs and they want to be as accurate as possible. This year, the Board will be looking at preliminary designs in order to more accurately estimate potential costs for the entire project and operating costs into the future. They will also be exploring funding mechanisms – most likely, a voter approved bond and they will be offering to the community, groups and individuals, opportunities for donating to the project.
BARBARA RYAN / KNUTSON moved to approve that a replacement Central Library be constructed on the current “library block” and further, that the existing library building be taken down prior to construction of the new facility in order to provide the best design and site development possible.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
--------------------
'First, get all the facts. Then, you can always distort them later.'
- attributed to Mark Twain
----------------------
Hard times do call for some hard measures, but the difference between hard-headed austerity and just plain hard-headedness ought to be clear!
So it is with the latest round of rhetoric around the idea of a larger and more modern Bellingham Public Library.
Over two years ago, the City Council passed a unanimous Resolution -with the, then, Mayor's enthusiastic support- to accept recommendations from its Library Board -which had deliberated 7 years or more- on building a new Central Library adjacent to the current aging and woefully inadequate library, a building that would require significant public expense to even extend its useful life significantly.
Of course, this property is already owned by the City and has been in used as a favorite destination for many years and is an established public meeting place, including the grassy depression that serves as a park.
Additionally, it is right across the street from both City Hall and the County Court House, plus within a block or two of the Mt Baker Theater and Whatcom Museum-including the soon to be opened Children's Museum.
This so-called 'cultural district' was conceived years ago to be a vital link between the Civic Center and the downtown business community, a concept that continues to have much appeal as a people-friendly plan.
All of this also means the area is often congested, but you know, that isn't always a bad thing because 'eyes on the street' are comforting.
Also, there are bus lines that access the area and public hiking & biking trails along Whatcom Creek that can lead in several directions, including the waterfront and toward Lake Whatcom.
Sometimes -maybe most times- folks prefer for things like Libraries to be familiar and popular with other people; maybe that's why such places are called 'public places' and are well used.
Of course, there were/are some challenges to be overcome if any new Library idea were to come to fruition.
You know, little things like paying for it; deciding what 'it' would be; providing adequate parking; addressing how library services can be extended to other locations; how many patrons can be accommodated; what architecture and furnishings would be employed; what the level of service would be, and with what staff.
Just little things like that.
But, don't we always need to think about such things before we jump into some important venture?
The point is, a new Library has been considered a 'top priority' for Bellingham for several years, at least since the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee convened in 1999 thru 2001.
But, this particular 'priority' has been repeatedly elbowed aside by other projects, like the Public Facilities District idea, Civic Field Improvements, and now the ambitious Waterfront Redevelopment effort.
When the new Library's turn finally arrived, the necessary resources had already been spoken for, and hard times were well on the way.
So, of course, another delay is prudent, as long as it is not used as a time to forget about all the good work that has gone into Library planning!
Unfortunately, some of that 'forgetfulness' has already begun to happen.
More troubling is the somewhat arrogant attempt to supplant all the good planning that has occurred with an entirely new concept that has not been exposed to the gauntlet of public process so essential to generate widespread support.
Here, I am referring to two statements that have appeared recently in print, one from our Mayor, the other from a new Council member.
-----------
First, the Mayor is touting the idea of locating the new Library on or adjacent to the Waterfront, largely as a justification for building new parking structures!
That seems more like the flea trying to wag the hair on the tail of a dog to me.
I can understand the need for jump-starting the WF infrastructure, and the scarcity of public funds available for such projects, but what happened to the years of thoughtful good work by the Library Board and other interested citizens?
It's not OK with me to just chunk that work product into the garbage in favor of another bright idea designed to achieve multiple ends!
Of course, the Mayor's idea has the potential to be the best potential solution available, but it needs some serious vetting in my view.
But, we're not there yet - not even close!
For starters, it just simply ignores the several criteria that were thought essential to good Library planning.
Second, it seems overly dismissive of the Library Board's hard work, not to mention the many caring citizens who turned out for work sessions, presentations and creative idea sharing about desirable features.
Why, I'd be tempted to just resign from the LIbrary Board myself, but the good folks who serve in that capacity are so naturally temperate and civic-minded, that idea would likely never cross their minds.
Then, the Council person's conviction that not a stone or brick from the old Library building ought to be removed, as frugal and green as that sounds, ignores the fact that major, costly renovations will be required to transform this edifice into a modern and reasonably useful structure.
And, that also excludes the need for a serious, costly expansion of existing space, plus a place in which to operate while these disruptions are going on, things the Library Board have grappled with for years -but what did they know?.
Even the argument for historic preservation has no legs with this nondescript, 1950's building.
It is basically an outdated building that has pretty well served its purpose, except for lasting until its replacement can be constructed.
More troubling than either of these expressed opinions, is the abject wishy-washy-ness of the entire Council, which simply acceded to them without bothering to check the history of its own action!
You know, I can understand and accept the reality of today's difficult financial situation, but is totally rescinding the idea of a new Library necessary?
How about just deferring it for continued study and public process?
Isn't that the way Council often acts?
Thank goodness young Sam Taylor had the gumption to look up those pesky minutes from January 2007, and remind the Council of its own action!
Of course the Council can always reverse itself, but shouldn't that at least take another Resolution voted upon at a public meeting?
Surely, the Council wouldn't allow itself to be so easily jawboned into a position they haven't duly deliberated - or would they?
--------
Our Library Board is a 5-person advisory body on which responsible citizens can volunteer their service.
And, uniquely, the Library Board is also responsible for hiring and overseeing the duties of the Library Director.
Bet that may surprise a few people, possibly including our current Mayor and maybe even a newer Council member or two.
Point is, we need to treat these folks better, and while we're at it, the good folks of Bellingham, who have loved their Library for many years.
It's not right to act so authoritarian and knee-jerk about such important issues, and most people probably know that.
If a new Library is planned with children in mind, it will certainly work for the rest of us, too.
There is no reason why the excellent work already done can't be pared down into a new facility that is more affordable and will be enthusiastically supported at the ballot, one day to come.
If that is not sufficient, the project could also be phased and/or partly paid for in other ways.
But, to hitch the new Library to Waterfront Redevelopment just guarantees nothing will be accomplished for the next 10 years or more!
That seems irresponsible, despite the current hard times.
But, then there might be some advantages to that sort of delay; few, if any, of the current elected officials will likely still be around!
Of course, by that time even more dire circumstances could prevail.
Who knows?
-----------------------
The Bellingham Public Library shares the power of information, encourages the discovery of ideas, and promotes the joy of reading with all members of the Bellingham Community.
-----------------------
Excerpt from the minutes of the Jan. 22, 2007 City Council meeting:
PRESENTATION(S)
AB17281B 1. LIBRARY PLANNING UPDATE AND NEW CENTRAL LIBRARY SITE RECOMMENDATION
Dave Edelstein, representing the Bellingham Public Library Board of Trustees recognized current and former board members and the Friends of the Library, who have been tireless in their efforts in planning for this project.
Pam Kiesner, Library Director delivered a PowerPoint presentation of Library Board activity leading up to a recommendation for building a new Central Library on the current library block. Ms. Kiesner reviewed current Library service delivery and how it is present in the community. She described the Condition Assessment of the 102-year old Fairhaven Branch Library; how computers have changed the way we access information; and how self-services are accessed at the Library.
She continued with considerations of the City budget; population growth and areas of the City that are not covered; a brief review of the Citywide Library Services Study - a copy of which was provided to Council at the Joint City Council/Library Board Meeting held at the Library on January 17, 2007. Ms. Kiesner then reviewed the community's access to the City's libraries and for the immediate future, said they are actively working on partnership opportunities to provide more convenience to residents of neighborhoods that are currently underserved.
Ms. Kiesner responded to the common questions of “Why do we need a Central Library ?” and “Why do we need a NEW Central Library?” The Central Library services the growing downtown population as well as the entire city and it serves as a central location to the Bellingham community; provides a central hub: housing for materials ordering; processing and distribution; provides full service, primary materials and a resource center from which the community draws and it serves as the support services facility for all of the outreach services. The current Central Library serves as a strong central collection and an efficient centralized hub for materials handling citywide. The City has outgrown the Library's size, structure and function.
Ms. Kiesner reviewed the completed key steps and noted key findings: another floor cannot be added to the existing library, the building does not meet seismic codes, working with a building built in 1951 would be programmatically and structurally difficult with all the electronic resources used today. She also noted that underground parking on this site is possible.
Visions for a Central Library include:
· housing a materials collection;
· meeting citywide library needs at least 50 years into the future;
· a library that is beautiful, functional and cost-effective;
· invites the community in;
· reflects the unique character of the community;
· designed with public input;
· using at least silver LEED standards;
· an educational institution;
· easy to find;
· parking;
· accessible to all ages and abilities;
· spaces that are busy every hour of every day;
· flexible to meet the needs of a growing community and
· that the library remains and becomes stronger as a cornerstone of the community.
Faye Hill, Library Board Member reviewed the site selection process that began in 2001. To date, working with the Site Evaluation Committee, the Library Board has reviewed 20 properties and in 2006 the Board issued a Request for Proposal for available property in the downtown core with no responses received. In July 2006 the sites were narrowed down to the former ReStore site, Maritime Heritage Park site, Bellingham Municipal Court site and current Library block. A primary reason for focusing on these four sites is that they are city-owned, thus saving the taxpayers the expense of purchasing a site. In August 2006 a walkabout of the four sites was done, where valuable feedback was received. With it's adjacencies to civic arts and cultural endeavors in the downtown area including the new Children's and Art Museum, which is across the street, the current Library block has been a natural site to consider. The Board believes it has spent the necessary time to become well informed about each one of the sites and unanimously agree that the current Library block, minus the existing building, provides the best option for the new Central Library.
Ms. Kiesner outlined the next steps and said a timeline is in draft format. The Board wants to make sure that the community is as informed as possible and the Board would like to invite their input in a variety of ways. In the first half of 2007 the Board will be seeking a Bond Campaign Chair and committee and determine which is more likely to succeed – a General, Off-year or Special election. It is too early to know potential costs and they want to be as accurate as possible. This year, the Board will be looking at preliminary designs in order to more accurately estimate potential costs for the entire project and operating costs into the future. They will also be exploring funding mechanisms – most likely, a voter approved bond and they will be offering to the community, groups and individuals, opportunities for donating to the project.
BARBARA RYAN / KNUTSON moved to approve that a replacement Central Library be constructed on the current “library block” and further, that the existing library building be taken down prior to construction of the new facility in order to provide the best design and site development possible.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
--------------------
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Waterfront Redevelopment: A Grecian Flat Earth Day Theory?
---------------------
Most often, I find more points of agreement with the Cascadia Weekly's 'Gristle', than otherwise.
Plus, I truly enjoy the editor's talent for putting words together and creating memorable mental images that resonate with experience - or at least his opinion.
But, not today!
And certainly not because today really IS Earth Day.
No, my objection to this piece is that the editor has again succumbed to his predilection against the Port & City's agreeing to cooperate in cleaning up and redeveloping our ailing and inaccessible waterfront.
At least, he is consistent -if not convincing -in opposing such a visionary and cooperative action.
But, what qualifies as a better idea?
Surely not leaving the waterfront as it - is for years and years and more years, for future generations to face!
Or, maybe, instead, selling it to a private developer; say someone like Trillium, which so desperately coveted its ownership?
That way, the theory goes, public expense is somehow minimized, and positive progress is somehow made more certain -arguments that contain more holes and aroma than old swiss cheese!
Or, just continuing to use the waterfront as a political football for various naysayers and ne'er do wells to kick around in pick-up games whenever they feel the urge?
I don't think so!
And neither do most people, despite the hard times we're experiencing right now.
Most folks want to see this site and associated waterway decontaminated responsibly, and not just only because of G-P's mercury wastes.
Did you know that the City of Bellingham will also be cleaning up some of its own sins of the past?
Like 3 or 4 former landfills located at or near the water's edge.
Does anyone doubt this work does not need to be done?
-----------
Actually, I suspect the combined City Council and Port Commission votes cast on Monday's agreement probably accurately reflect the ratio of public sentiment on this issue, which has been discussed and debated for what -7 years, now?
The Council's vote was 4 to 2, with 1 absent, who would have voted with the majority.
That's what, 5 out of 7?
That means less than 30% opposed, which is about the average vote count for a poor candidate for elected office.
The Port's vote was unanimous, and why would it not be?
After all, they are on the hook for paying the costs of clean-up, then the lengthy redevelopment of the site into something useful, safe and enjoyable.
That is a big job that is definitely worth doing!
So, rather than boasting about the incremental progress achieved -or beating a dead horse, like the Gristle seems to be doing- its probably better that we just accept this latest decision for what it's worth and move ahead to the next step.
After all, it is no more binding than prior agreements or 'memorials' have been, but with the difference that some necessary basic parameters have now been addressed and more or less decided.
Don't you think it's prudent to periodically document progress and reaffirm commitments?
[Of course, if one against such progress, they won't ever agree]
Anyway, what's done is done and legal, and so its about time we moved on without wasting more time and resources on matters that have been pretty thoroughly considered.
That is not to say everyone will agree, but that is the nature of such things.
------------
All of us have our 'druthers' and predispositions on such matters, and we are certainly entitled to them!
But, at some point decisions that are the product of lengthy and detailed public scrutiny need to be duly made, and honored.
That is clearly where we are now, despite some folks preference to endlessly 'study' things and continue to create expensive shelf art -until, they hope, their fancy is well and truly suited.
Did you find it curious that the Gristle referred to this latest agreement as a 'Pyrrhic' victory, and that this Greek battle was thought to have been fought on flat ground.
And, exactly where does the empty victory fit in?
Methinks its more like an empty defeat.
A better example might have been the stand at Thermopylae, where 300 Spartans held off thousands of Persians, on not so flat ground.
[If the editor had just fast-forwarded a few centuries, he would have found the 'flat earth' theory challenged -even under threat of death- and eventually disproved]
But, you know, that particular result was inevitable, and it still stands; because the Spartans were eventually defeated by attrition down to zero -meaning they all were killed.
That their story lives on speaks of their bravery and determination, but the reality is these Spartans are now relegated to history and exaggerated myth of the sort that attracts Hollywood film-makers.
Maybe a similar result is what the Gristle has in mind?
Brave victims forever?
Aren't there much better things to be remembered for?
On the other hand, if people still believed the Earth is flat, then maybe Columbus wouldn't have set sail......
-------------------
For those interested, I have reprinted the subject Gristle below:
Flat Earth
April 21 2009
FLAT EARTH: In 280 B.C., the legendary ruler of a kingdom along the Ionian Coast met the legions of Rome and overcame them; yet, in victory this king suffered such destruction to his armies that, in the words of Plutarch, victory had utterly unmade him. His name, Pyrrhus, came to describe a victory with bitter cost to the victor. And while “victory that is no victory” might describe the decision this week by Bellingham City Council and Port of Bellingham commissioners to move swiftly ahead on waterfront planning in the midst of a global repositioning of assumptions about economies, resources and even the future roles of government and public-private partnerships, no, the Gristle’s thinking more of the naming of a thing that brings no honor to the person named.
It is ironic indeed that a diagonal road planned to connect Central Avenue through Bellingham’s redeveloped mill site to the traditional entrance of the mill at Laurel Street is being named for one of the original financiers of that mill. Ironic, because the path of that road, as approved by a divided council and unanimous port commissioners, carves through the footprint of, thereby requiring the removal of, most of the historic mill structures on the site Bloedel’s pioneering career made authentic.
For the second week, and with the efficiency of an employee on the port’s payroll, Mayor Dan Pike chased down fading council opposition to a planning framework for the Waterfront District—a framework that will, in the words of the mayor, “memorialize” (read: set in heavy clay) certain planning assumptions for Bellingham’s central waterfront. Notably, these include an alignment of streets that would require the demolition of nearly all of the historic structures of the former mill site, made in a decision so hasty council could not even convene one public hearing or seek the advice of even one of several citizen advisory committees.
The Waterfront Advisory Group received a draft of the plan late Friday; the plan was adopted in final on Monday. The Historic Preservation Commission, which has had much to report on the value of those structures, met in an emergency session late Friday to request “additional analysis [to] determine the level of re-use potential for each structure based on historical and cultural significance, structural integrity” and other factors. The HPC request—which passed unanimously—was ignored by city officials.
The public has cause for alarm when 100-year plans are “memorialized” in such haste.
Pike ominously warned council members the eyes of Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Rick Larsen were on their agreement this week. The Gristle could find no one who might verify any looming requirement or financial threat from our Congressional delegation; more to the point, none of them would even know anything was amiss in waterfront planning if the port commissioners hadn’t written their dumbass letter in November, withdrawing from cooperative planning, and cc’d it to the world. If concern exists, the port created it. And because of their hasty, fear-based action, Bellingham must continue hasty, fear-based action?
Let’s review:
In October, Bellingham Planning Director Tim Stewart complained to the lead environmental (SEPA) official that “the port’s segmented and piecemealed environmental review fails to consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed demolition of these buildings.” Four neighboring structures—that formerly housed the mill’s steam plant, pulp storage, screen room and bleach plant—are all “buildings of primary significance, according to Georgia-Pacific’s due diligence assessment of the buildings in 2004,” Stewart explained.
In November, Pike told the same official, “The demolition of buildings, in order to accommodate waterfront redevelopment, would tear at the fabric of the downtown, Old Town and our neighborhoods and is not acceptable.” The proposed street alignment “would require the demolition of virtually all of the onsite industrial buildings,” Pike emphasized. “These… assertions raise serious doubts about the integrity of this entire environmental review process.”
Mayor Pike called this out again in the city’s waterfront connections proposal: “Studies have shown that preserved historic districts tend to appreciate more quickly than unprotected areas; historic tourism is one of the fastest growing economic sectors throughout the United States; and most importantly, people hunger for authentic and unique areas that tell a story about who we are.”
As cooperative planning literally slid off the rails in December, a group of architects studied the site plan and urged caution in deciding the fate of these buildings. One of these architects, Dave Christiansen, also serves on HPC, which urged similar support of the architects’ evaluation in their motion last week the city ignored.
What changed between then and now?
Only that the city has caved on the point. What other points have they also caved to in this agreement? What else objectionable now binds the city—in terms of public space, waterfront access, environmental integrity?
Cruelly, only two council members present expressed the curiosity even to ask.
In every distinguishable way, the framework proposal is indistinguishable from the original “flat earth” plan the port has trotted out again and again; and that the public has rejected again and again. Hallelujah, we have joint agreement on “the Bellevue plan.”
Pyrrhic victory? Oh, yes.
----------------------
Most often, I find more points of agreement with the Cascadia Weekly's 'Gristle', than otherwise.
Plus, I truly enjoy the editor's talent for putting words together and creating memorable mental images that resonate with experience - or at least his opinion.
But, not today!
And certainly not because today really IS Earth Day.
No, my objection to this piece is that the editor has again succumbed to his predilection against the Port & City's agreeing to cooperate in cleaning up and redeveloping our ailing and inaccessible waterfront.
At least, he is consistent -if not convincing -in opposing such a visionary and cooperative action.
But, what qualifies as a better idea?
Surely not leaving the waterfront as it - is for years and years and more years, for future generations to face!
Or, maybe, instead, selling it to a private developer; say someone like Trillium, which so desperately coveted its ownership?
That way, the theory goes, public expense is somehow minimized, and positive progress is somehow made more certain -arguments that contain more holes and aroma than old swiss cheese!
Or, just continuing to use the waterfront as a political football for various naysayers and ne'er do wells to kick around in pick-up games whenever they feel the urge?
I don't think so!
And neither do most people, despite the hard times we're experiencing right now.
Most folks want to see this site and associated waterway decontaminated responsibly, and not just only because of G-P's mercury wastes.
Did you know that the City of Bellingham will also be cleaning up some of its own sins of the past?
Like 3 or 4 former landfills located at or near the water's edge.
Does anyone doubt this work does not need to be done?
-----------
Actually, I suspect the combined City Council and Port Commission votes cast on Monday's agreement probably accurately reflect the ratio of public sentiment on this issue, which has been discussed and debated for what -7 years, now?
The Council's vote was 4 to 2, with 1 absent, who would have voted with the majority.
That's what, 5 out of 7?
That means less than 30% opposed, which is about the average vote count for a poor candidate for elected office.
The Port's vote was unanimous, and why would it not be?
After all, they are on the hook for paying the costs of clean-up, then the lengthy redevelopment of the site into something useful, safe and enjoyable.
That is a big job that is definitely worth doing!
So, rather than boasting about the incremental progress achieved -or beating a dead horse, like the Gristle seems to be doing- its probably better that we just accept this latest decision for what it's worth and move ahead to the next step.
After all, it is no more binding than prior agreements or 'memorials' have been, but with the difference that some necessary basic parameters have now been addressed and more or less decided.
Don't you think it's prudent to periodically document progress and reaffirm commitments?
[Of course, if one against such progress, they won't ever agree]
Anyway, what's done is done and legal, and so its about time we moved on without wasting more time and resources on matters that have been pretty thoroughly considered.
That is not to say everyone will agree, but that is the nature of such things.
------------
All of us have our 'druthers' and predispositions on such matters, and we are certainly entitled to them!
But, at some point decisions that are the product of lengthy and detailed public scrutiny need to be duly made, and honored.
That is clearly where we are now, despite some folks preference to endlessly 'study' things and continue to create expensive shelf art -until, they hope, their fancy is well and truly suited.
Did you find it curious that the Gristle referred to this latest agreement as a 'Pyrrhic' victory, and that this Greek battle was thought to have been fought on flat ground.
And, exactly where does the empty victory fit in?
Methinks its more like an empty defeat.
A better example might have been the stand at Thermopylae, where 300 Spartans held off thousands of Persians, on not so flat ground.
[If the editor had just fast-forwarded a few centuries, he would have found the 'flat earth' theory challenged -even under threat of death- and eventually disproved]
But, you know, that particular result was inevitable, and it still stands; because the Spartans were eventually defeated by attrition down to zero -meaning they all were killed.
That their story lives on speaks of their bravery and determination, but the reality is these Spartans are now relegated to history and exaggerated myth of the sort that attracts Hollywood film-makers.
Maybe a similar result is what the Gristle has in mind?
Brave victims forever?
Aren't there much better things to be remembered for?
On the other hand, if people still believed the Earth is flat, then maybe Columbus wouldn't have set sail......
-------------------
For those interested, I have reprinted the subject Gristle below:
Flat Earth
April 21 2009
FLAT EARTH: In 280 B.C., the legendary ruler of a kingdom along the Ionian Coast met the legions of Rome and overcame them; yet, in victory this king suffered such destruction to his armies that, in the words of Plutarch, victory had utterly unmade him. His name, Pyrrhus, came to describe a victory with bitter cost to the victor. And while “victory that is no victory” might describe the decision this week by Bellingham City Council and Port of Bellingham commissioners to move swiftly ahead on waterfront planning in the midst of a global repositioning of assumptions about economies, resources and even the future roles of government and public-private partnerships, no, the Gristle’s thinking more of the naming of a thing that brings no honor to the person named.
It is ironic indeed that a diagonal road planned to connect Central Avenue through Bellingham’s redeveloped mill site to the traditional entrance of the mill at Laurel Street is being named for one of the original financiers of that mill. Ironic, because the path of that road, as approved by a divided council and unanimous port commissioners, carves through the footprint of, thereby requiring the removal of, most of the historic mill structures on the site Bloedel’s pioneering career made authentic.
For the second week, and with the efficiency of an employee on the port’s payroll, Mayor Dan Pike chased down fading council opposition to a planning framework for the Waterfront District—a framework that will, in the words of the mayor, “memorialize” (read: set in heavy clay) certain planning assumptions for Bellingham’s central waterfront. Notably, these include an alignment of streets that would require the demolition of nearly all of the historic structures of the former mill site, made in a decision so hasty council could not even convene one public hearing or seek the advice of even one of several citizen advisory committees.
The Waterfront Advisory Group received a draft of the plan late Friday; the plan was adopted in final on Monday. The Historic Preservation Commission, which has had much to report on the value of those structures, met in an emergency session late Friday to request “additional analysis [to] determine the level of re-use potential for each structure based on historical and cultural significance, structural integrity” and other factors. The HPC request—which passed unanimously—was ignored by city officials.
The public has cause for alarm when 100-year plans are “memorialized” in such haste.
Pike ominously warned council members the eyes of Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Rick Larsen were on their agreement this week. The Gristle could find no one who might verify any looming requirement or financial threat from our Congressional delegation; more to the point, none of them would even know anything was amiss in waterfront planning if the port commissioners hadn’t written their dumbass letter in November, withdrawing from cooperative planning, and cc’d it to the world. If concern exists, the port created it. And because of their hasty, fear-based action, Bellingham must continue hasty, fear-based action?
Let’s review:
In October, Bellingham Planning Director Tim Stewart complained to the lead environmental (SEPA) official that “the port’s segmented and piecemealed environmental review fails to consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed demolition of these buildings.” Four neighboring structures—that formerly housed the mill’s steam plant, pulp storage, screen room and bleach plant—are all “buildings of primary significance, according to Georgia-Pacific’s due diligence assessment of the buildings in 2004,” Stewart explained.
In November, Pike told the same official, “The demolition of buildings, in order to accommodate waterfront redevelopment, would tear at the fabric of the downtown, Old Town and our neighborhoods and is not acceptable.” The proposed street alignment “would require the demolition of virtually all of the onsite industrial buildings,” Pike emphasized. “These… assertions raise serious doubts about the integrity of this entire environmental review process.”
Mayor Pike called this out again in the city’s waterfront connections proposal: “Studies have shown that preserved historic districts tend to appreciate more quickly than unprotected areas; historic tourism is one of the fastest growing economic sectors throughout the United States; and most importantly, people hunger for authentic and unique areas that tell a story about who we are.”
As cooperative planning literally slid off the rails in December, a group of architects studied the site plan and urged caution in deciding the fate of these buildings. One of these architects, Dave Christiansen, also serves on HPC, which urged similar support of the architects’ evaluation in their motion last week the city ignored.
What changed between then and now?
Only that the city has caved on the point. What other points have they also caved to in this agreement? What else objectionable now binds the city—in terms of public space, waterfront access, environmental integrity?
Cruelly, only two council members present expressed the curiosity even to ask.
In every distinguishable way, the framework proposal is indistinguishable from the original “flat earth” plan the port has trotted out again and again; and that the public has rejected again and again. Hallelujah, we have joint agreement on “the Bellevue plan.”
Pyrrhic victory? Oh, yes.
----------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
