More on Land Use Efficiency: Chuckanut Ridge, Birch Street & Otherwise

From COSMOS website: "Piranhas have a fierce reputation - but it's a myth, say researchers who claim that the species shoals to evade predators not to engage in feeding frenzies.
"Previously it was thought piranhas shoaled as it enabled them to form a cooperative hunting group," said biologist Anne Magurran. "However we have found that it is primarily a defensive behaviour, and quite a complex one."
-------------------------------------

What is it about land use issues that evokes such strong feelings?
That a frisky group of cyber-piranhas should fuss over and decry my last Blog on another Blogsite, ought to be an honor!
And, based on the Orinoco Caribe-style frenzy exhibited, can there be any further doubt about what single issue has animated at least 2 of 'you guys' regarding the City's land supply deliberation?
It really DID start with Chuckanut Ridge for 'you guys', didn't it?
So, maybe a direct cyber-hit has been scored on your hidden CR 'battleship'!

But, I digress from more useful arguments.
--------------------------

A few points are listed below to further clarify the basis upon which I based my earlier Blog remarks on the same subject:

1. The city's Land Supply methodology that is being so vociferously decried, was certainly OK with the State agency in charge of Growth Management Act [GMA] oversight, the Department of Community Trade & Economic Development [CTED]! If folks still disagree, why not take it up with them?

2. Comparing the approximately 40 BUILDABLE RESIDENTIAL ACRES at CR with ANY number of acres to be considered in new UGA, is like apples to oranges! Can you guess why? OK, here's a hint. UGA land is grossed-up acreage, from which must come multiple deductions -for other uses & purposes- before zoning can be applied to any specific parcel. The number comparison I presented is directionally correct, but likely quantitatively inaccurate, given the very nature of estimates. More like approximately correct than precisely wrong, as was stated before.

3. The existing CR zoning applies to all 100 original acres, not just the estimated 40 that seem likely to be determined as suitable to actually build upon. Just consider the first 15 acres were taken out of service early. Since the property has been already deed restricted to 50% of its former -exceptionally high- density of 14.78, this former acreage makes no material difference to this discussion. Anyway, the new effective underlying maximum density is now about 7.39 homes per acre, or almost twice the minimum average that is considered 'urban'.

4. There is a concept called 'cluster zoning' that is widely considered to be a valuable tool in helping protect sensitive areas, while also allowing a much smaller than conventional development footprint. Not everyone understands cluster zoning, and some who do, still don't like it. But, it is a tool that can be very effective. [More about this below]

5. The City has been criticized -even by 'you guys', of all people- for its inability to use the land it has -within the City Limits- more efficiently. In other words, this means to insure that maximum assigned density is achieved, or at least something much closer to it than recent history has shown. I have consistently agreed with this concern, sometimes at the risk of being called 'pro development'. But, you know, one can't always have it both ways. It's hard enough to 'walk your talk' on these matters, but when you argue on both sides of the issue, what happens then?

But, there are many reasons for this failure to achieve 'maximum density', and many excuses too.
Consider these, for example:
No minimum density requirement, owner's preference, neighbors objections [including extreme NIMBYism], costliness, regulatory restrictions, height limits, challenging topography, mandatory buffers & setbacks, open space requirements, surprises -like environmental hazards, updated wetland determinations or new stormwater requirements, market factors, speculation, rezoning to a different use, vegetation considerations, desirability of location, redevelopment uncertainties, etc, just to name a few.

So, while the concept of always maximizing zoned density is a good one, the probability of that happening every time is slim to none.
Kinda like the concept of Entropy in thermodynamics, which always -by its definition- must increase every time work is done, whether it is efficient and useful work, or otherwise.

6. Notice the above paragraph was applied to ONLY that land within the CITY LIMITS, because ONLY that land is under City jurisdiction until annexation occurs, when these same factors do begin to apply.
But, before annexation, it is often a whole different ball-game, because the COUNTY has Urban Growth Area [UGA] jurisdiction, but not the obligation to abide by City codes, practices or levels of service. Yet, the City does get to influence the County, and must plan for these UGAs per Growth Management Act [GMA] requirements. And, that is what the City has been trying to do in the last update of its COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Hey, I know its a thankless job, but somebody had to actually do it! And, the point guy always takes a greater risk.

7, So, now we come to this point: If the City -for whatever reason- determines that it is prematurely running out of buildable land supply -including residential- and/or is attracting new population faster than it had anticipated, only two things -besides increasing land use efficiency- can happen for the city to obtain more future space in which to grow:

A. The City can accept proposals for annexation from property owners in the existing UGA to expand the land supply under its control AND receive additional revenues from it over time.

[Note, that when this occurs the City also usually obligates itself financially as well because of the increased level of urban services it must provide. Residential-only annexations rarely come close to paying for themselves, but Commercial & Industrial usually do. This is why a steady stream of smaller, multi-purpose annexations is the more desirable course of action.
A number of these proposals are now being considered by the City, partly due to a change in its policy for NOT extending water & sewer services outside of City Limits, without a commitment to annex.]

B. The City can request that some, or all, of the previously determined, County-approved and administered 'FIVE YEAR REVIEW AREAS' become new Urban Growth Areas that will also remain under County jurisdiction. That is what has happened during the latest COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, which seems to have attracted so much attention.

Maybe there are other options too, but these two are the main ones.

8. So, all of this leads to this question:
What does it mean when a good-sized chunk of buildable land, zoned for high-density residential use, within the City Limits, is taken out of that use - either completely or partially?

If you answered it would have to be replaced 'somewhere else', you would be correct!
And, where would that 'someplace else' be?
Another neighborhood?
The UGA?
Waterfront Redevelopment?
Hi-Rise buildings?
ADU's?
Apartment ghettos?
Shelters for the less fortunate?
The County?
Another town, county, state or country?
Or, if one thinks that any 'lost' density never really existed in the first place, it could just disappear into a psuedo spreadsheet netherland, accompanied by disingenuous fast talk?
Don't all of these options equate to someone's definition of SPRAWL?
Why pretend otherwise!

What we're looking at in the case of CR, is a virulent version of NIMBYism, pure and simple.
If everyone felt the same way about a piece of property they liked -but didn't happen to own- would that be OK, too?
Think about it.
What is fair to one, ought to be fair to all!
At least that's the way the law sees it, and fortunately most others, including me.

As stated before, all this armchair quarterbacking is not likely to make much difference in the final analysis, anyway!
So why the temptation to continue arguing about it as if it were some sort of sacred cow?
Maybe its just fun? Or just typical piranha behavior?

But, you know, just like everyone else, I am entitled to my own considered opinions - and fun!
Unlike most others, I gained my perspectives on applied Growth Management over several years while serving in public office - and working very hard at learning about it.
Not fun.
Applied Growth Management is not an easy subject, especially when one compares it to simple theory and wishful thinking!

I have concerns that some folks still prefer to think that selfish agendas, backed by money & attitude, will talk louder than the law, common sense and good judgement.
That has happened on occasion, and it is not a pretty sight to behold.
The power of self-serving agendas backed by money is -as it always has been- a threat to good government.
But, that kind of agenda is also part of our grand mix of interests, even though it is a poor substitute for the consistent & rational fairness that ought to be the highest goal of our governmental system.
I guess that's why Aristotle called politics a 'practical' science, as opposed the 'exact' kind.

Never settling for less than the very best solutions available on every issue, is the path by which the City's highest goals & aspirations will most likely be achieved.
The problem is, finding that path depends strongly upon being habitually factual, truthful and consistently fair & objective.
When the secret to solving that problem is found, we'll be getting somewhere!
------------------

Its easy to see I've missed communicating this story as clearly as it could have been; but, maybe some folks don't really want to read about it anyway.
When I first decided to write this Blog, it was to be able to tell things from my perspective.
In turn, my perspective does -pretty consistently- use facts, experience and reason as its basis for conclusions - right, wrong or indifferent.
If that formula isn't what someone else prefers, they are certainly not obligated to read it.
But, if they do read it and don't agree, that's OK too!

Spreadsheet math can be an important tool, but not as important as the understanding of the underlying principles, policies and realities that go into it's production.
So, please don't accept substitutes for the genuine, official version of the Land Supply spreadsheet!
After all, we really can't be too careful about authenticity these days, can we?
-------------------

Want to talk about another contentious Development?

How about the Birch Street Project, located in the Whatcom Falls neighborhood, south of the current street ends of Birch St., Portal Ave., Bonanza Way and Scenic Avenue, all off of Lakeway Drive and near the City Limits.

The Bellingham City Council, in accordance with Resolution 1999-50, signed on November 15th, 1999 approved this project as a 172-lot subdivision on 79 acres. That one turned out to be one of the few developments that actually achieved its maximum zoned density.

Like some other places, this site had stood undeveloped with its mostly second or third growth trees standing ever since it had been zoned for 1 dwelling unit per 20,000 SF, which equates to about a density of 2. That's about half of what is barely considered a city's average density.
It had not been built upon because it was a difficult site to develop, at least until a developer from eastern Oregon saw what he thought was a good opportunity. In retrospect, he probably wished he hadn't! There was much concern, as well as the heated controversy that usually comes with it. In the end, the Oregon developer decided to sell to one of our local developers, but not until after the tract was pretty well conditioned and its allowed density determined.

Long story short, this property has steep slopes that extend further up Galbreath Mountain, and two small, seasonal streams that eventually empty into Whatcom Creek. These streams and slopes conspired to create conditions that meant about 42% of the site qualified as un-buildable, including public ROWs, improvements, easements and buffers. Added to the list of burdens were a trail easement that saved the tree line and prevented several 'view' lots from being sold at whatever premium they might have commanded, plus adequate street connectivity and significant traffic impacts on already busy Lakeway Blvd. Then, a water reservoir had to be built, the streams crossed, and a large stormwater detention system installed. The cost of all these expensive improvements was borne by the developer.

But, none of these activities were looked upon with favor by the neighbors, some whom were also required to cut vegetation to allow sidewalks, curbs and steeper driveways. And, these neighbors certainly did let us know they were unhappy, but they also served as very effective watchdogs to make sure the developer abided by the rules!

Any of this beginning to sound familiar? It should, because some version of this happens in almost every development that happens in this city, particularly those of any size, that cut many trees and interrupt the relative calm that people desire where they live. And, it makes no difference who owns the property under development, most folks just don't welcome it being changed! Think that might act as a deterrent to achieving in-fill? It takes guts to make consistently good and fair decisions on land use matters! Actually, ALL matters, but land use certainly stands out.

So, what happened to allow this development to achieve its maximum density?
Although unexpected, this was a pretty reasonable result, considering the underlying burdens the site imposed. After all, the developer was responsible for agreeing to pay for all the necessary improvements and mitigations, before any permit was issued. And, in the city, regulations do tend to be more numerous and stringent than in unincorporated areas - a fact some conveniently choose to ignore. To recover his costs, the developer had to build and sell a sufficient number of homes. Like it or not, that is the way capitalism works.

A part of the answer in this case was the idea of 'cluster development', which did seem to fit a number of needs pretty well. The concept is to take the entire site acreage as the base, then fit in buildable footprints only where appropriate, as home sites. Of course, these building sites are significantly smaller than the conventional 20,000 SF lot sizes, but they are adequate for the purpose intended, plus they obviate the need for unnecessary disturbance of natural turf and vegetation. Effectively, the preserved natural surroundings act as lawns that do not require mowing, fertilizing and tending. That just seems a good idea to try anywhere, and especially if that feature is already designed into a home - before people choose to buy it. So, multiple benefits can accrue from cluster development, notwithstanding the expected objections to anything but conventional sized lots being required - which often does seem outdated and wasteful.

The point is that Birch Street, for all its problems and disappointments, does represent another way of achieving multiple desirable goals - at least partially. Unfortunately, that kind of exercise in compromise never pleases everyone 100%, but over time, does help implement efficient land use by in-filling. If folks are really serious about limiting sprawl, this is one technique that can help us achieve it. But, it does have to be applied wisely and consistently, which means NIMBYs will need to make their fair share of concessions.
-----------

Epilogue: The Birch Street story also had a few other pluses happen, like the City requiring a trail easement along its western bluff, then purchasing 40 acres on its southern border as open space, and the County purchasing another 20 acres behind that.
Also, the nearby Denke & Chen properties in the Geneva UGA were purchased by the City as part of its Lake Whatcom Watershed Acquisition program, which removed about 333 potential building sites that were even more problematic than Birch Street.
All of these purchases had the combined effect of essentially blocking the access route of the proposed 'Lake Whatcom Connector' project, an expensive new arterial intended to promote even more suburban sprawl into the Lake Whatcom Watershed, then simply dump the additional traffic onto existing City streets and impacting their levels of service.
So, maybe things didn't turn out as badly as people might have thought?

But, granted, there is currently no means by which the city can fully guarantee that the maximum allowable zoned density is built, either within its City Limits, or especially in the County's UGA. And, in some cases like the Lake Whatcom Watershed, this density is not appropriate anyway and ought to be reduced or removed.
But, just like the persistent CR 'kerfuffle', isn't the land supply situation only made worse when zoned density is removed -for any reason- from the land supply equation?
Think about it.
---------------

Ghandi's 7 sins

Wealth without work
Pleasure without conscience
Knowledge without character
Commerce without morality
Science without humanity
Worship without sacrifice
Politics without principle

Chuckanut Ridge: Land Supply Implications

Maybe it's my 'Eudora Syndrome' or similar condition that allows me to remember enough to write a column like this one.
Or maybe, the devil makes me do it, I don't know!
But some may find it interesting, and maybe even begin to understand some of the many competing interests and contradictions that had to be considered during the Land Supply analysis that was undertaken to help update the City's Comprehensive Plan.
----------------

The several recipients -you know who you are- who received the e-mail I sent on: Wed, 22 Feb 2006, may recall its contents, which were on the subject of 'Brief Summary of Land Supply' Recommendations:

Just for reference here is a brief analysis in tabular form that shows the impacts on our current land supply needs for four scenarios of build out for Chuckanut Ridge:

[Sorry, I haven't learned to make a table format work here.
But, if readers want to make their own, here are the 4 COLUMNS to work with, condensed as sequenced below]

Total Residential Units for CR;
1478; 739; 370; 0

Total Population Accommodated by CR;
3100; 1550; 775; 0

Total Population Shortfall for Land Supply;
3577; 5127; 5900; 6676

Total Add'l Acres Needed to Meet Demand;
1158 to 1545; 1292 to 1847; 1319 to 1958; 1347 to 2069

Deed restrictions on the property mean that the maximum density is 739, which is the current scenario being used.
If a density of 370 is used, this results in needing to have additional land to accommodate 15% more people than under the current scenario.
Reducing CR density to zero means 30% more people must be accommodated than the current scenario.

The last column [Total Additional Acres to meet demand] includes residential, parks and industrial with reductions for CAO and infrastructure.

Note that the current analysis scenario uses the set [column] comprised of 739, 1550, 5127 and 1292 to 1847.

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

While the City's overall estimated needed Land Supply numbers may have changed somewhat since Feb 22, 2006, the above analysis subset remains essentially unchanged.
What it means is that without a reasonable level of build-out on Chuckanut Ridge -now being called 'Fairhaven Highlands- the City will need considerable more additional space for its projected new population growth than any estimate that assumes build out of CR.
This information does not advocate for CR build-out, but it does spell out the Land Supply impact for NOT expecting building- out CR.
That would amount to between 1292 and 1847 additional acres needed for the City's UGA.

So, those who advocate for both no additional Land Supply AND no build out on Chuckanut Ridge may need a remedial course in simple arithmetic.
That's because CR is already within the City Limits and has been zoned for its allowed density since Mt St Helens erupted in 1980!
Failing to support what is clearly such a major in-fill development, these people will need to actively support any or all of the following; the creation of new Urban Centers, Waterfront Redevelopment, High-rises in the downtown, substantial Neighborhood in-fill, including ADUs, to even come close to satisfying the City's GMA planning.
And, it's not that any or all of those things are good, bad or indifferent.
I'm simply saying that satisfying everyone's no-change 'druthers' is a virtual impossibility, with one notable exception - a zero population increase scenario actually happens.
Think that will be likely?
Kinda like trying to squeeze Cinderella's slipper on her ugly step-sister's foot, except that was make believe and this exercise isn't!

The point of my original e-mail was to simply point out to those wanting the City to acquire all of Chuckanut Ridge for a park, what the Land Supply trade-off would be if that were to happen.
Can you spell S-P-R-A-W-L?

I don't believe this underlying arithmetic has changed much since it was first reported.
Of course, a few people's attitudes may not have changed much either.
What was that old song?
You know, something like 'when an irresistible force .... meets an immovable object...'
---------------------

The property in question has been euphemistically called 'The Hundred Acre Wood' by those seeking to keep it in its current undeveloped state. Actually, it's more like 85 acres, since about 15 acres were dedicated -years ago- to the Whatcom Land Trust as wetlands. Since then, these 15 acres were transferred to the City at nominal cost - likely with Pooh Bear's full approval!

Without attempting a lot of detail, the remaining 85 acres contains only about 40 or so acres that are actually suitable for building, with remainder likely to become some version of dedicated open space - at no charge to the City.
So, any development on this site will need to fit within that allowable footprint, and not infringe on areas protected by our Critical Areas Ordinance, at least without minor off-setting mitigation.
Of course, anticipated traffic impacts must be mitigated too, in whatever form(s) that may take.
The point is, this site is inherently heavily burdened for any full development scenario, with the great preponderance of costs to be borne by the developer.
The irony is, these very substantial costs of development must be met by enough development to cover their payment! That situation seems to create its own limitations, but we'll have to wait and see.
[Does anyone actually believe this build-out would cost the City upwards of $12 million, as one 'consultant' -hired by opponents- claimed?
I certainly don't!]

It will be interesting to follow what happens over time, as firmer CR development proposals come forward.
More excitement and entertainment, and some of it not so subdued?
-----------------------

Reconveyance & Park Plan: City Council Presentation by Tom Pratum

-------------------------------
Because the County Executive's proposal to reconvey DNR Lands to Whatcom County for use as a Park is now working it's way through a process that may lead to its adoption, the Bellingham City Council asked for diverse presentations from 3 individuals, each with a different perspective on that proposal.

These presentations were made on August 4. Presenters included Mike McFarlane, Director of Whatcom County Parks & Recreation Dept, Dave Wallin, WWU Professor of Environmental Science, and Tom Pratum, PhD Chemistry who also teaches at WWU and is a long time advocate for protecting Lake Whatcom.

While the first two individuals also participated in the County's Citizen Committee that was convened to assess this proposal, Mr Pratum was not invited to participate, despite -and maybe because of - his record of being an active and knowledgeable volunteer steward of our Reservoir, who also has been known to offer an occasional criticism when appropriate!

It is for the reason that Mr Pratum's perspectives have not -until now- been given the serious public consideration they are due, that I asked him to allow reproducing his presentation here.
Of course, I would gladly make the same offer to the others if they felt that might be helpful.

Since I believe the City Council is planning to separately deliberate this issue and likely try to support it in some form of their choosing, it is appropriate for citizens to give them the benefit of the community's best thinking - in advance of any City Resolution, suggestions, recommendations, or other actions that might be taken .
--------------------------

First, a few comments of my own:

• I have been a vocal critic of early versions of this proposal because of the manner in which it was announced, as well as the glaring lack of details about planned developments, park uses, funding and mitigating measures to protect this critical watershed.
Others have also been vocal critics along similar lines, including the so-called Interjurisdictional Coordinating Team [ICT], a group of combined County/City staff charged with recommending, implementing & monitoring progress on the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Plan, itself a joint effort.

• I have modified my earlier views as some of my concerns seem to have been considered and maybe even addressed. But, I remain a skeptic until I see a much clearer plan that proposes only minimal impacts, and that also contains the funding and written commitments in place to guarantee that the Reservoir will not be further harmed.
But, the devil is in the details, and that's where this process is right now -in the midst of determining those pesky details!
This might become a good proposal that is demonstrably superior to the one is designed to replace, but I'm not yet convinced of that.

• Tom Pratum presents some really good points and with clarity, and some of his suggestions are quite different from what we might have heard before. For example, his suggestion of an outside financial analysis does NOT mean the DNR exercise, nor the sketchy and overly rosy 'guesstimates' the County continues to tout! It means a careful assessment by a competent third party, that addresses more than one hazy scenario. Call it a kind of 'Peer Review' that impartially translates what plans actually mean into realistic costs that are projected over time.
[Note: If I were currently a member of either Council, I would call for such important information before agreeing to any decision to move forward. That is simply called due diligence!]
So, please pay careful attention to Pratum's summary of concerns, as well as his concluding suggestions to help alleviate these concerns.
These are the real meat of his presentation, and do make practical, fiscal & administrative sense.
Just reading this clearly illustrates the depth of thinking inherent in this presentation, and serves to underpin why both the listed concerns and the concluding suggestions are critically important ones.
---------------------

To: Bellingham City Council, August 4 Lake Whatcom Watershed Committee Meeting

From: Tom Pratum

Re: Reconveyance of Forest Board Land in Lake Whatcom Landscape Planning Area

Concerns:

1. Financial – what are the financial consequences and what effect will they have on other watershed preservation efforts?

* Loss of revenue to taxing districts.
* Park development and M&O costs.
* Use of Conservation Futures fund.
* Lack of an independent financial analysis.

2. Land use impacts – the effect on overall forest practice intensity will be relatively low, so will the park’s impact be greater than the impact of these forest practices?

* Park development
* Transportation/access
* Enforcement issues (off road vehicles, etc)
* Liability issues
* Effect on adjacent land uses (potential zoning issues).

3. Miscellaneous – other reasons it may not make sense to do this.

* Appropriateness of proposed land exchange as a park.
* Timeliness – is this the right time to do this?

4. Suggestions to help alleviate concerns.
-------------

Overview of Lake Whatcom watershed forest practices:

The proposal would transfer approximately 8,400 acres of Whatcom County Forest Board land managed by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in the Lake Whatcom Landscape Planning area from trust status to Whatcom County - note that the Landscape Planning Area extends somewhat beyond the watershed and covers 15,700 acres total. Of those 8,400 acres to be transferred, approximately 7,400 are in the Lake Whatcom watershed, with the remainder in the Friday Creek watershed.

These 8,400 acres are currently managed under the Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan, formally adopted in November 2004. Since that time (up to July 25, 2008), there have been 4 DNR forest practice applications covering 293 acres in the Landscape Planning Area as a whole - not all of these have been entirely contained within the watershed boundaries. Over that same time period, there have been 40 approved harvest related forest practice applications that were at least partially in the Lake Whatcom watershed [See Note 1 below]. These 40 applications cover a total of 1330 acres, therefore the four DNR applications make up less than 25% of the total. Note that the forest practice rules imposed by the Landscape Plan on DNR timber harvests are much more stringent than the rules to which private foresters must adhere. Even if the landscape plan were removed, the State timber harvests are conducted in a more environmentally sensitive manner than those on private land due to the DNR’s Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) requirements.

In order to see what effect the proposed reconveyance would have on the current level of DNR forest practices, we need only take a simple ratio of the proposed reconveyance acres to the total currently available for forest practices, and weight that relative to the proportion of the area that is in protected status under the Landscape Plan due to the presence of steep slopes, riparian areas, wind buffers, etc. When such an analysis is done [See Note 2 below] it is found that the current proposal is likely to result in a decrease of 44 acres of forest practices per year if no forest practices are conducted on the land after reconveyance. Of those 44 acres, 39 are within the Lake Whatcom watershed.

What have been the trends of forest practice activity over the past few decades and how do they relate to current water quality issues? To get an idea of how the current level of forest practice activity compares with that of past decades, I have looked for a previous analysis of this activity. In May 1990, the following figure was presented to the Lake Whatcom Forestry Forum. According to the figure, these data come from Whatcom County Planning.


It is apparent from this figure that the average number of acres of forest practices in the watershed was around 1,000 over the period 1987 - 1990. The current level - including those DNR forest practices referenced above - is approximately 400 acres per year. This decrease in forest practice activity has resulted in no concomitant increase in water quality - in fact, water quality has decreased substantially in the last two decades. This calls any strong linkage between forest practices and current Lake Whatcom water quality issues into question.

If no forest practices occur on the reconveyed land, the result of this proposal would be elimination of a portion of the DNR forest practices, conducted to the highest standards in the watershed, and accounting for approximately 10% of total watershed forest practices. Is it likely that reducing the current harvest level in the watershed in this way will result in any apparent water quality benefit?

As a final note: it is disingenuous to link the landslides that happened on private forest land in Lewis County with what may happen on DNR forest land in the Lake Whatcom watershed. Private forest practices are regulated by the same agency as State harvests, but they follow much different rules. To visibly see an example, take a look at the North side of Stewart Mountain where a sharp line of demarcation can be seen between the “scraped earth” forest practices of first Crown and now Sierra Pacific and those of the DNR in their recent North Olson cut. The best thing we can do to prevent more Lewis County like events is to make sure current Lands Commissioner Doug Sutherland is removed from office in November.

Financial consequences:

Loss of revenue: Any analysis of revenue loss depends on at least the following 4 factors:

* Acreage of forest practices approved.
* Price of timber when those forest practices are executed.
* Junior taxing districts serviced by the area of the forest practice (location dependent).
* Property tax levy rate of those junior taxing districts at the time the timber is cut.

Due to the uncertainty of the factors involved, it is not easy to say what the loss of revenue will be. However, we can look at a recent DNR timber sale in the watershed to get an idea of some real numbers. The “Look North” timber sale has occurred in the furthest North part of the DNR holdings on Lookout Mountain. Access to this timber sale is via a road across from Sudden Valley gate 13. In this timber sale, 47.3 acres of Whatcom County Forest Board timber were sold [See Note 3 below] for $829,598 (February 2008). This timber has been partially, but not entirely cut as of this writing. If we assume that the DNR Forest Development Account receives 25% of the proceeds, this leaves approximately $622,000 [See Note 4 below] to be distributed by the Whatcom County Treasurer to the junior taxing districts serving the location of this sale. This distribution follows that for property taxes, with the exception of fact that there is no deduction for fire protection. Based on the location of the sale [See Note 5 below] the following distribution is obtained: Bellingham School District: $222,000, County General Fund: $74,000, County Road Fund: $97,000, Port: $22,000, Library: $24,000, State General Fund and other recipients: $183,000. Thus, the sale of an amount of timber similar to, but somewhat larger than that we would expect to be harvested on the reconveyed land under current management, results in substantial funding for a number of taxing districts - over $170,000 directly to Whatcom County. Even if some of these districts forgo payment in the event the land is reconveyed, the impact to their budgets is a real cost that must be accounted for.

Park development and M & O costs: Development is estimated to be in the $millions. While grants may provide part of the funding, matching will be required in order for the grant applications to be competitive. Grant funding is unlikely to provide for all development costs - especially in the current era of very tight state and federal budgets. For M&O costs, we only have estimates provided by Whatcom County Parks of on the order of $150,000 per year.

Use of the Conservation Futures Fund: According to RCW 84.34.240, “Amounts placed in this fund may be used for the purpose of acquiring rights and interests in real property pursuant to the terms of RCW 84.34.210 and 84.34.220, and for the maintenance and operation of any property acquired with these funds.” While RCW 84.34.210 envisions using the funds for fee simple acquistion, and RCW 84.34.220 concerns using the funds to acquire development rights, RCW 84.34.240 restricts the amount of these funds that can be used for maintenance and operations to ”fifteen percent of the total amount collected from the tax levied under RCW 84.34.230 in the preceding calendar year.”

Reconveyance is not a fee simple acquisition - clearly, the Conservation Futures fund cannot be used for M & O of the reconveyed land. Can the Conservation Futures fund be used for any purpose with regard to reconveyance - including transaction costs, which are currently budgeted (2007 - 2008) from the Parks general fund budget?

The Conservation Futures fund is the only fund Whatcom County currently uses for land acquisition, and it must be available to fund acquisition of watershed, agricultural and other lands in the county.

Lack of an independent financial analysis: If we had an independent financial analysis, such as was done in regard to the merging of the City of Bellingham and the Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District, then many of these questions would be settled. However, Whatcom County has made no attempt to have such an analysis conducted.

It is very significant that a number of county departments have recently been asked for substantial budget cuts in the 2009 - 2010 budget cycle. For example, Parks has been asked for a $575,000 budget reduction. Planning and Development - responsible for enforcing watershed development regulations - has been asked for a whopping $1.5 million cut. The county will lose revenue as a result of this proposal, and it will incur additional costs - how will these revenue losses and costs be borne?

Land use impacts: The designation of the reconveyed land as park, and the increased recreational use of the watershed that will result, will have both direct and indirect impacts. Among these:

Park development impacts: Without a conservation easement, there is nothing to stop a future incarnation of county government from building watershed damaging parks facilities. These might include, but would not be limited to: asphalt parking lots, large scale boat moorages and launching facilities, community centers, and shooting ranges. Similarly, operational decisions - such as the allowance for camping, fires and off-road vehicles - need to be protected against.

Transportation and access: The proposed park area will be serviced primarily by Lakeway Drive, and Lake Louise Road on the Lookout Mountain side, and by North Shore Road on the Stewart Mountain side. Lakeway and Lake Louise are already severely impacted corridors. There is bus service along Lake Louise road that will allow folks to use non-automotive access. Additionally, there is the potential for access from Samish Way. The Stewart Mountain side is an entirely different story. Here, park users will access the park by driving all the way to the end of North Shore Road; there are no reasonable possibilities for other access. There is no bus service - all trips will be by car (or possibly boat), and this area will be impacted.

Enforcement: As a frequent visitor to both of the areas proposed for reconveyance, I can say there are already enforcement issues with regard to off-road vehicles, illegal trail building, and fires. Responsibility for policing these areas will rest with county government after reconveyance, and this is another cost to be accounted for.

Liability issues: Not only will Whatcom County assume liability for current uses of the reconveyed land after this proposal is executed, but they will assume liability for past uses. When there were previous slides in the watershed in 1983, residents sued the then owners of the land and were paid substantial sums - not because those owners were responsible, but because they owned land where previous forest practices issues were unresolved. This liability concern is one of the reasons reconveyance was not requested on this land after the land trade in 1993 that brought a large part of the current DNR holdings into the watershed.

Effect on adjacent land uses: If this land becomes a park, it will, at some point, be rezoned appropriately. Land that is no longer forest resource land used for commercial forestry will eventually lose that designation. If this were to occur today, this land would be rezoned - after reconveyance - Recreation and Open Space (ROS), as are all large Whatcom County Parks with the exception of the Canyon Lake Community Forest (which has been inaccessible for the past 2 years). What will this designation do to motivate adjoining land owners to request de-designation of their forest land? Could this reconveyance request be reconfigured to make such requests less-likely? By reconfiguring the request, could we reduce the possibility of development of adjoining rural lands?

Miscellaneous issues:

Appropriateness of the proposed land exchange as a park: While not everyone would agree with me, I personally think the Lookout Mountain park area makes sense. Transportation to the site is already impacted by Sudden Valley, it has bus service, it has logical connections to other park areas (e.g. Stimpson, Olsen, and Squires Lake). The park area would have many users who reside in Sudden Valley and would not travel through the watershed. There would be adjacent land use issues with regard to Trillium’s Galbraith Mountain area - this land should be targeted for acquisition with Conservation Futures funds.

The Stewart Mountain area makes no sense as a park. The only reasonable access is via North Shore Road, and there is no bus service - park visitors will drive over 10 miles through the watershed on their way to the park, as they now do for the North Lake Whatcom Trail. Additionally, there is a large utility corridor down the middle (the BPA right-of-way). If the reconveyance were reconfigured toward the Olson Creek area, some of these issues would be reduced, and the utility corridor would be avoided. Additionally, the Olson Creek area already has a substantial trail system, and more of that land is available for timber harvest, so the impact on forest practices would be greater if this area were reconveyed after appropriate intergrant transfers.

Timeliness: There is no reason reconveyance has to be executed now. The current configuration of DNR land in the watershed has been in place since 1993 - reconveyance could have occurred at any time in the past 15 years, and will continue to be available into the future. The land configuration of the current proposal comes from the DNR and reflects their desires with regard to intergrant transfers [See Note 6 below] rather than those of this community. The current DNR administration is the most environmentally unfriendly we have had in decades. This November, there is a good chance we can replace Doug Sutherland with Peter Goldmark. With such a change at the top, it is likely that we would see reduced timber harvest in the watershed under the current landscape plan, or, if the pursuit of reconveyance is still desired, it could be reconfigured to better serve the needs of this community.

Suggestions to help alleviate concerns:

* Conservation easement to prevent future governmental entities from making bad land use and operational decisions - for example, not only should damaging parks facilities be prohibited, but potentially damaging parks activities, such as off-roading, camping and building fires, should also not be allowed. The concept of a conservation easement that meets some of these requirements has been recommended by the “committee”.

* Financial analysis of the proposal by an independent, outside entity (such as FCS Group).

* Dedicated revenue stream (e.g. small property tax levy) to pay all costs of proposal (as determined above) - including losses to junior taxing districts. Only with a dedicated revenue stream can we be sure these costs are not borne by reductions in other programs.

* Scale proposal back to the Lookout Mountain area only. The Stewart Mountain area makes little sense as a park, and in the future, with a more environmentally friendly DNR administration, this may be reconfigured to make more sense. Scaling the proposal back will also reduce costs, greatly reduce transportation impacts, and will remove the objections from the Mt Baker School District. There is no rational reason the current DNR administration would object to the scaled down intergrant transfer required in this situation.
-----------------------
Notes:

1. Taken from the DNR Forest Practices Application Review System (FPARS), 2004 - 2008.

2. A simple calculation is done as follows: average DNR harvest per year in Landscape Planning Area = 293/3 = 97.6. Average harvest in reconveyed area assuming equal likelihood of harvest = 97.6*8400/15700 = 52 acres. Taking into account that more protected area under the Landscape Plan lies on Forest Board Land (60% opposed to 53% of Landscape Area as a whole (DEIS 2003; estimate based on Fig 5 on pg 122 and the consideration of Forest Board and Common School Trusts, which account for 84% of the land area)), and assuming intergrant transfer does not change this = 52*0.4/0.47 = 44 acres. The portion of this that is within the watershed = 44*7400/8400 = 39 acres.

3. Note that there is some incorrect information in your council packet regarding this, and the other timber sale that is in the area proposed for reconveyance (White Chantrelle). Both of these have been approved, and sold to Sierra Pacific.

4. This is close to the figure - $658,000 - given to Mike McFarlane by the DNR on March 20, 2008 as an estimate of the average yearly revenue obtained by county taxing districts from Forest Board Land in the Landscape Planning Area (3/17/2008 memo). It differs greatly from the figure of $185,000 given in your council packet.

5. The land covered by this sale is in tax code 1006, which determines this distribution.

6. The Board of Natural Resources was briefed on this exchange initially at their November 2007 meeting. A reading of that discussion is instructive. Among the revealing statements: a question from Jon Kaino, wondering “....if we would get the non 01 trust lands out on the perimeter where we can actually harvest them?” (this was answered affirmative by DNR Land Steward Bruce Mackey - note that “non 01” refers to other than Forest Board lands).
--------------------------

Giddy Gato: The Passing of a Dear Little Being

There are some things that are very hard to write about, and this is one.
But here goes.
In the wee hours of this morning our lovable, and beloved, Giddy Gato died.
That's it.
Sure, it happens all the time, but this is the first time it has happened to us.
And, while it's tough to take, it is reality in a relatively small dose.
Read the rest only if you want to test your emotions.
------------------------

My wife and I had returned home from visiting relatives on the east coast in mid-June, when it became apparent that something was wrong with our pet cat, Giddy, who normally looked, and acted, just like a mini-panther.
He was lethargic, had visibly lost weight, and wasn't responding to the usual irresistible enticements for food and fun.
We waited about a week, hoping his condition would improve, but when it didn't, took him to the vet for an examination.

The physical, blood and urine results were not overly good, but not especially bad either, so a different diet was tried, along with prescriptions for an antibiotic -Baytril 20- and another drug -Prednisolone- a steroid, plus the promise of closer observation in the future.
The combination of somewhat fuzzy results and the new recommended treatment made us hopeful, but then the X-Ray results did indicate some potential abnormalities that were troubling.
To gain more certainty, we scheduled an Ultra-Sound exam with a small animal specialist to further check out Giddy's X-ray, plus take biopsy samples as appropriate for tests.
Those biopsy results were not so good, but still we were in denial that the disease that Giddy had was so dire, that his chances of recovery were extremely low.

Armed with the rest results, new diet and prescriptions, we paid more attention to Giddy than even he could fully appreciate.
That seemed to work, at least initially, but then the downward trend resumed.
After almost two days of not eating or drinking and barely even moving, I took Giddy back to the vet again, this time for intravenous re-hydration, understanding full well that visiting the vet was definitely not his favorite activity, and that this was an act of semi-desperation.

This time, the vet was more blunt and definite in the diagnosis, and we finally got the full message. Giddy was dying, and it was only a matter of days or weeks. Further efforts at keeping him alive might result in maybe another 90 days, during which he would be lucky to actually enjoy 10% of that time.

While these implications had been right there in front of us all the while, we had chosen to hear only those parts of it we wanted to hear - that maybe, with treatment, he would improve. That, optimistically, might have meant extending his life up to about a year.
Now, we finally got the entire, unmistakable, truth and it hit us hard. We cried. Both of us in our own ways. And there will be other times that will happen too -like during the wonderful concert during which Beethoven's 6th Symphony was played.
Looking back, we have probably been lucky to have received the tough news by progressively larger doses, but the final reality is still the same.

Amazingly, Giddy did respond well to his new diet and medication level, and rallied strongly. He gained back some lost weight and generally acted closer to normal, but without his old strength and vitality. Looking back, we were probably the ones who mainly benefitted from this interlude, because we were able to enjoy his presence for another three weeks before he began his final decline, culminating with his peaceful death. It was us who had most needed that time, to get used to and accept the fact he would not -physically- be with us much longer. Giddy must have sensed that his time was approaching, and like most animals, was better prepared for it than humans. But, he was able enjoy a good part of his 'overtime' period. and this he readily demonstrated to us, in ways that only a cat can.

It has always been thus. Everyone will physically die, animals included. It is just the uncertainties of how, when and where that are missing. Each of those uncertainties has now been answered for Giddy.
But one -certain- thing will always remain in our hearts; our wonderful memories of the loving little creature that invited himself into our lives almost 11 years ago. Little Giddy Gato, who adopted us, enriched us, entertained us, brought us much gladness, was such a joy to the entire neighborhood. Isn't it amazing what emotions such a little being can inspire?

So, the cumulative joy that Giddy has brought us will eventually trump our sadness over his death, many, many, many times over! And, I imagine -as only humans can- that Giddy's eternal spirit would want it that way.
-----------------------

This morning, we took Giddy's remains to be cremated.
Later, we'll find a suitable urn in which to keep his ashes.
And, we'll keep the refrigerator door magnet in place that says;
'A House Is Not A Home Without A Cat'
This cat has become our teacher!


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

On Student Housing

Note: I just received this link from a reader at Harvard: http://collegiateway.org
Might be interesting reading since this topic has apparently become a hot topic nationally
---------------------------------------

The continuing debate about adequate and/or affordable housing, landlord responsibility and how to deal with impacts on neighborhoods, like parking shortage, litter & noise nuisances, suggests all of these are, often, pretty well interrelated.
One factor, that of student housing, crops up frequently as a problem that needs addressing.

So, with that in mind, here is an example of how another University -Vanderbilt- is facing that issue:

From the Vanderbilt website;

All undergraduate students not living with relatives in Davidson County are required to live on campus all four years to the extent that on-campus student housing facilities can accommodate them. In practice, though, approximately 83% of undergraduates—freshmen, sophomores, nearly all juniors and most seniors—currently live on campus. The remaining undergraduates join graduate and professional students in living off-campus. Student life at Vanderbilt is consequently heavily intertwined with campus life.

However, the on-campus residential system is currently undergoing a radical change. The new system, announced by the administration in 2002, would change the current structure of quadrangle-based residence halls to a new system of residential colleges, to be called "College Halls". Similar to the residential structures at Caltech, Harvard, Rice, and Yale, the new College Halls system would create residence halls where students and faculty would live together in a self-contained environment, complete with study rooms, cafeterias, laundry facilities, and stores. This project is now underway and is scheduled to be completed within the next 20 years.

The first step in the College Halls system will be The Commons, a collection of ten residential halls on the Peabody campus that will house all first-year students beginning in the fall of 2008. While the university currently houses freshmen in three separate and distinct residential areas, it is hoped that The Commons will give first-year students a unified (and unifying) living-learning experience. Five existing dormitories on Peabody have been renovated, and the university is in the process of building five new ones. Two of the new residence halls have received LEED silver certification, making Vanderbilt the only university in the state to be recognized by the U.S. Green Building Council. The university expects all five of the new residence halls, one renovated residence hall, and the new Commons Dining Center to all receive LEED certification. The total cost of The Commons construction project is expected to be over $150 million.

With the addition of these new residence halls, the university will be able to house all undergraduate students on campus. Since university policy requires undergraduates to live on campus when possible, Vanderbilt's Office of Housing and Residential Education will no longer grant students permission to live off campus, beginning with the class graduating in 2009. Many current students who came to Vanderbilt with the understanding that seniors were generally allowed to live off campus are now disappointed that they must live on campus all four years. However, university administrators believe the undergraduate community receives the greatest benefit from living in on-campus residence halls, citing increased interaction with faculty, better academic performance, and stronger interpersonal relationships.
----------------------

Is that what we want?

While I haven't researched this much, Vanderbilt's plan probably resembles that of very few schools of higher education, that are either heavily endowed, elite universities, or much smaller schools that are set up for that style of learning. Therefore this idea probably represents one extreme on a spectrum of possibilities.

My own alma mater, the University of Virgina, only required 'on-grounds' housing for first-year students, although other dormitories were also provided for more senior students who preferred living in them.
That seems to be similar to the policy of WWU, though I'm not sure of that.

The point is, a requirement for any University to house all of its students is a major policy decision. And, it is a very costly proposition that is also contentious and likely to take years and substantial acreage to implement. So, that idea doesn't seem to be a viable answer in itself, but may be -directionally- a partial answer.

Then there is the question of who are the 'students' in question? Are they full-time, or part-time learners with jobs & families? Are they commuters? Are they exchange students or graduate students? Are they student instructors? Are they professors or university staff? Do they attend WCC or BTC instead of WWU? There is a need to quantify which groups of people we are talking about, as well as what future growth will likely contribute.

The clear alternate to University supplied student housing is the availability of rental properties, in and around the City. That is where most 'students' seem to live, and where most of the complaints come from. More importantly, whose responsibility is it to insure these complaints are addressed and don't get out of hand? Think that's a shared responsibility between WWU, the City, landlords and the neighbors affected? I do. And that is where this debate is rightfully centered. It is unrealistic in the extreme to expect desert island tranquillity in a vibrant urban area, which is what this City most essentially is. Citizens must learn to deal with that reality the best they can, without adding to it themselves. There are some very legitimate concerns which must be addressed in a timely and effective manner. But there are also some folks with 'victim' mentalities who choose to hyperventilate in their attempts to completely externalize this problem, too! Of perhaps even greater concern is the assumption that most complaints involve students at all!

There are some things the City can do better, like not allowing more 'four-plexes', like those in Happy Valley, among other things.
There are things that WWU can do better too, like maybe having students agree to certain standards of behavior, as is done at some other Universities.
There are things that landlords and property managers can do better, like better lease agreements and providing convenient avenues to redress reports of problems.
And, there are things that neighbors and individuals can do better, like getting to know those who habitually underperform in being good neighbors.

Only after all of these entities have given this issue their best 'college try' and conclude that more is clearly needed, should we consider more draconian steps, like licensing landlords to pay for enforcement of nuisance laws.
I think the Herald Editorial personnel have it right on this issue.
As Pogo said 'we have found the enemy, and it is us'.

Dilemma or Fallacy?

“Once we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well.” - Peter Ustinov

------------------------
Articles posted on another popular Blogsite have referred to a 'thousand acre dilemma' that the City of Bellingham now faces in updating it's Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan.
The author of these articles suggests this 'dilemma' resulted from lack of proper & timely attention to detail by both elected officials and responsible City staff. While there is an undeniable element of truth in that charge, it was -and is- easily correctable, as is happening now.

Like the author, my 'druthers' are to have everything crystal clear, up-to-date and comprehensive; but you know its a rare government that ever actually fully achieves that noble goal!
As a former President once said;

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

More troubling is that this author also seems to imply that other, more sinister, motives may have been at work in creating the 'dilemma', like intentionally overstating the City's need for additional Urban Growth Area, and by setting artificially high Parks levels of service that are unaffordable and therefore unsustainable.
Maybe there are other accusations buried in his arguments too, but those are the main ones he complains about.

I beg to strongly differ with that author on these unfounded -and untrue- allegations!
But, rather than further honor the author's creative prose by countering it point by point, instead I question his flawed thinking process in the construction of 'arguments' that deliberately lead to his predetermined 'conclusions'.
Anytime one starts with the desired answer, then works backward by only searching for the suppositions and questions needed to support that answer, they are engaging in a self-serving, circular reasoning process.

That practice can lead to so 'dumbing down' a subject to the point that any attempt at honest debate is impossible.
So-called `tunnel' history, is the kind that can lead an investigator to know more and more about less and less, as one person has put it. That may be good training specialists and accountants, but impractical and unrealistic to expect from those charged with responsibility for deciding broader public policy, but who must certainly be willing to understand, weigh and make decisions using not only facts, but every perspective.

While I also question the author's motivation(s) for taking the trouble to construct such a flawed writing, those concerns are for others to conclude for themselves.

------------------------------
From Wikipedia:

A 'dilemma' (Greek origin, meaning "double proposition") is a problem offering at least two solutions or possibilities, of which none are practically acceptable; one in this position has been traditionally described as being impaled on the horns of a dilemma, neither horn being comfortable.

The dilemma is sometimes used as a rhetorical device, in the form "you must accept either A, or B"; here A and B would be propositions each leading to some further conclusion.
Applied in this way, it may be a fallacy, a false dichotomy.

In formal logic, the definition of a dilemma differs markedly from everyday usage.
Two options are still present, but choosing between them is immaterial because they both imply the same conclusion.

..... translated informally as "one (or both) if A or B is known to be true, but they both imply C, so regardless of the truth values of A and B we can conclude C."

Horned dilemmas can present more than two choices.
The number of choices of Horned dilemmas can be used in their alternative names, such as two-pronged (two-horned) or dilemma proper , or three-pronged (three-horned) or trilemma, and so on.

Responses to a Dilemma

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig outlines possible responses to a dilemma.
The classical responses are to either choose one of the two horns and refute the other or alternatively to refute both horns by showing that there are additional choices.
Pirsig then mentions three illogical or rhetorical responses;

• One can "throw sand in the bull's eyes" by, for example, questioning the competence of the questioner.

• One can "sing the bull to sleep" by, for example, stating that the answer to the question is beyond one's own humble powers and asking the questioner for help.

• Finally one can "refuse to enter the arena" by, for example, stating that the question is unanswerable.

In this case, I tend to agree more with all the approach(s) suggested Robert Pirsig, because this 'dilemma' seems mainly to reside between the ears of the writer!

I am very confident that any discrepancy -real or perceived- will be appropriately addressed and corrected during the current 6-year review & update of the Parks, Recreation & Open Space [PRO] Plan.

It is important for those interested in this subject to know 3 things;

• The PRO Plan was separately adopted -unanimously- by the City Council over 2 years ago. It was then included -as a separate Element- for the first time, in the City's Comprehensive Plan in late 2006 to meet a State deadline.

• The PRO Plan must -by Growth Management Act [GMA] law- be internally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as a whole, as must all of the seven Elements officially adopted.

• The PRO Plan is mainly a policy document that recommends guidelines that are subject to modification and change periodically. This public process is now underway and will conclude by year's end.

Rather than a 'dilemma', I see this more as a 'tempest in a teapot'.
But, that's just my opinion.
-----------------------

'Politics is a profession; a serious, complicated and, in its true sense, a noble one.' - Dwight D. Eisenhower

'Politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is considered necessary.' - Robert Lewis Srevenson

On Gaps & Gundecking

Words of wisdom from an ancient Greek Philosopher, Aristotle.
Think about them before reading further.

'A likely impossibility is always preferable to an unconvincing possibility'.

'The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold'.

'Bring your desires down to your present means. Increase them only when your increased means permit'.
------------------------------

First a couple of definitions:

According to the online free dictionary, definition #5, a GAP means

a. A conspicuous difference or imbalance; a disparity: a gap between revenue and spending; the widening gap between rich and poor.

b. A problematic situation resulting from such a disparity: the budget gap; the technology gap.

Googling 'Gundecking', produces this definition;

In the modern Navy, falsifying reports, records and the like is often referred to as "gundecking." The origin of the term is somewhat obscure, but at the risk of "gundecking," here are two plausible explanations for its modern usage.

• The deck below the upper deck on a British sailing ship-of-war was called the gun deck although it carried no guns. This false deck may have been constructed to deceive enemies as to the amount of armament carried, thus the "gundeck" was a falsification.

• A more plausible explanation may stem from shortcuts taken by early Midshipmen when doing their navigation lessons. Each Mid was supposed to take sun lines at noon and star sights at night and then go below to the gun deck, work out their calculations and show them to the navigator. Certain of these young men, however, had a special formula for getting the correct answers. They would note the noon or last position on the quarter-deck traverse board and determine the approximate current position by dead reckoning plotting. Armed with this information, they proceeded to the gun deck to "gundeck" their navigation homework by simply working backwards from the dead reckoning position.
-----------------------------

Now, with all that preparation, does anyone remember Pete Kremen's 'State of the County' speech, way back in early June of 2008?
Listening to that sounded like everything was hunky-dory, peachy keen and superfine', didn't it to you?

What happened?

About 5 weeks later, Pete surprised the County Council and began what he called a 'hiring freeze', basing that decision on an impending financial crunch for the County.
Since then. the rhetoric has grown even more dire, with predictions of upwards of a $5 million shortage in the budget now being prepared.

At first, I thought this was just Pete's way of informing the County Council that there was no money available for the many important water projects they had deemed important to again prioritize and move forward.
Then, his cautionary pronouncements seemed to also be oriented to damning the proposed Mental Health Tax measure with faint praise.
But, surprisingly, that 0.1% sales tax increase did pass -and stay passed when Pete decided not to veto it!
Think maybe he saw that as a way to gain more revenues AND somewhat reduce the General Fund pressures by doing nothing himself?
That's what seasoned Kremen watchers may rightly conclude, which just adds to his mystique as 'Teflon Pete'.

In the face of these suddenly adverse developments, we are now faced with an expensive and -at best problematic- proposal by Pete to reconvey 8400 acres of DNR forest lands in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Where does this fit in the budget?

The County Council will have to rationalize for itself where this particular scheme fits into the greater scheme of things during their budget deliberations.
But here's a hint, converting revenue-producing forest administered by a State agency into a revenue-losing park administered by the County at additional cost would seem to be a no-brainer decision to most of us.

That is particularly true when the minor detail of protecting the Lake Whatcom Watershed could be compromised in the process.
But, that is at risk, if for other reason than no details regarding either what is intended or how these will be funded have been seriously discussed.
Even the 'Citizens' Committee, hand-picked by Pete to publicly vet this idea, was not given sufficient details or alternatives to evaluate the idea with any degree of objective confidence.
That is more than sad; it is borderline criminal!

But, Pete knows that folks really love their PARKS around here, never mind they will require more TAXES!
I believe that is the game; get people -particularly those not living in Bellingham- wanting something, so that later it's harder for them to say no to more taxes to pay for it.

Hopefully, enough members of the County Council will see through Pete's scheme to make sure it doesn't sail through without serious questioning.
And, right after the several important questions about 'what is proposed'? are answered, the enabling question of 'where will the money come from'? must also be answered. Likely, there would be no threat of veto if four of them wanted to raise THAT tax!

It's very interesting that the Council is being presented with an expensive proposal that many would term a 'frill', at the very time they are being told there is no money - even for essentials!
How'd you like to sit in on those work sessions?
Why don't you?

For those interested, the CITY Council has scheduled a brief work session to discuss the Reconveyance to Park proposal with a small panel representing diverse views.
This is planned to happen next Monday, August 4 about 1 PM in the City Hall Council chambers.
Be there if you can.
-----------------------------

One last definition:

'Bamboozle' means:
'In today's Navy, when you intentionally deceive someone, usually as a joke, you are said to have bamboozled them. The word was used in the days of sail also, but the intent was not hilarity. Bamboozle meant to deceive a passing vessel as to your ship's origin or nationality by flying an ensign other than your own -- a common practice of pirates.'

Is this proposal an old deception, or just a modern joke?
You get to decide!
---------------

'Humor is the only test of gravity, and gravity of humor; for a subject which will not bear raillery is suspicious, and a jest which will not bear serious examination is false wit.' - Aristotle

Adapting Woodstock Farm: Home of Inspiration Point

A few years ago, the City was offered the rare and fortuitous opportunity to acquire -at well below market cost- a scenic tract adjacent to Chuckanut Bay and our southern City Limits. I'm pleased to say we were able to make that purchase with the help of the owners and grants from outside sources.
I thought then as I do now, that Woodstock Farm was a gem that future residents and visitors would enjoy immensely, and particularly for its scenic tranquillity and connection to nature. While our initial challenge was funding the purchase, now maintaining the property and determining how best to use it have become the main focus.

Recently, I was delighted to have been invited to participate in a brainstorming session along with about 50 or so others who represented diverse backgrounds and perspectives. I believe such an approach is a productive one that is likely to result in a plan that will respect the inherent qualities of this unusual site and be careful about how it is developed and used.

The product of this 'charrette' is now in the process of being summarized and depicted in sketches and conceptual drawings, which can then be used to guide further planning. I suspect future plans may be folded into some sort of a 'Master Plan' that may be adopted and developed in phases, each with an associated cost and incremental designed use.
But, the initial phase is what can reasonably be done now that also respects existing access and usage limitations on what is appropriate and affordable.

My former City Council colleague, Dr Grant Deger, who also attended the brainstorming session, made a comment that seemed to resonate with everyone present. When asked what had convinced him that Woodstock Farm ought to be acquired, he said simply, 'the tranquillity'.

What an unusually succinct and accurate statement! Just think about what practical limits that might entail. When is tranquillity impaired? To me it means 'less is more' when trying to decide what level of development is desired. Peaceful uses are to be preferred. Maybe not too many motorized vehicles. Quiet Interpretive trails that carefully preserve sensitive plant and biota habitat. Places like Inspiration Point, where one can actually become inspired! Day use only. Quiet meeting places for Council retreats, small corporate or non-profits meetings, studies of history & local culture and lore.
That's the kind of place this has been, is now, and probably ought to remain.
Even trail connections, as important as they are, need to be done very carefully to preserve what is becoming the rarest of things -tranquillity!

I hope something close to these concepts is the course of action that finally gets adopted for Woodstock Farm, because that is what will stand the best chance of preserving its essential nature.
But only time will tell.
-----------------------------

For those who are up to a few more words on this subject, the following references to the Proposed Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan dated May 12, 2008, also apply:

From Chapter 6 -Recommendations:
Paragraph 6.4 - Special Use Sites, under Specific Recommendations:

• Develop master plan for Woodstock Farm to include parking and access plan, maintenance plan, hand-carry boat landing site [no launching] and other improvements as feasible.

• Provide additional environmental education opportunities including a bird guide, native plant guide, interpretive signage, natural history, and/or other educational and stewardship related activities or programs to promote the value of the natural environment throughout the park system, distributed primarily in select open space areas or in conjunction with specific unique habitat features.

Other general language about proper use of sensitive areas can be seen under Paragraph 6.5 - Open Space and Paragraph 6.6 - Trails that also serve as guidelines for Woodstock Farm.

Appendix A 'Park Classifications' further amplifies these guidelines;

Under 'Special Use Sites':

General Description: .....Unique Sites - generally a single use, but smaller than a regional park and not necessarily of a significance that might draw from a larger regional base.

Acquisition Guidelines: As specialized, single use facilities, special use parks should be selected based on the function that they are intended to serve. They should be situated such that sufficient infrastructure could be developed or already exists to support the intended use, including major arterials, buses and other mass transit capabilities as necessary. They should also have access to multi-modal connections.

Development Guidelines: Special use parks should be developed to maximize their intended uses. They generally do NOT include the same activities as those found in other park types. Activities provided will depend solely on the type of intended uses for the park and the influence of the community or region as expressed through a public process......

In a real sense, we are lucky that Woodstock Farm pretty clearly qualifies as a special use park, because it may inherently require a lower level of funding to develop and operate than a more heavily and actively used Community, Regional or Neighborhood Park might.
We are doubly fortunate that what Woodstock Farm offers is -in a word- tranquillity!
-----------------

In the Valley of Elah

At a friend's suggestion, we watched a Netflix DVD movie titled 'In the Valley of Elah', starring Tommy Lee Jones, who received an Oscar nomination for his role.
This was an excellent film about a very serious subject; the terrible impacts that are happening to our brave combat soldiers who have seen action in Iraq.

An exemplary soldier from a military family goes missing after returning from Iraq and his concerned parents get help from a police detective to investigate.
This is probably not something that young and impressionable Mary Poppins & Walt Disney fans might enjoy, but it is a powerful story -based on actual events- that needed to be told.

Many people may think they know about the horrors of war from their own service, stories from others, or just watching TV, video games & movies about it.
But, maybe not about the unnecessary horrors of an ill-conceived war, like Iraq, where our troops have been deliberately put in harms way from unseen enemies who operate on their own turf and use tactics that the Geneva convention never addressed.
Those conditions have such lethal and lasting effects on human beings, that we cannot even conceive of this 'war's' eventual costs!

Whether they believe that anything comes after life or not, the architects of this contrived conflict -I won't honor it by giving the title of war- may have created such a bad karma for themselves that they may burn in the hottest of hells for eternity!

A real war, resisting ruthless aggression by power hungry psychopaths -like Hitler- is rightly justified. But, even that is still a terrible thing that is to be avoided if possible by diplomacy, worldwide peace-keeping alliances and any other means available, providing of course one believes war is an outdated way of resolving anything, and an absolute last resort to be used only if all else fails.

Why do we elect, tolerate and not even question leaders who routinely act against this principle and against the lessons we ought to have learned long ago?
When will we learn that democracy is not a spectator sport for lazy people who prefer being pampered consumers instead of alert and hard working citizens?
I think that starts here at home, in our towns and districts that are the true wellsprings of freedom.
But these wellsprings also need to be nurtured, replenished and renewed by us to be sustained, so that what we get is bubble-up democracy and not some corrupted idea of trickle-down anything!

What we see with the Iraq situation is something that could have been avoided had we paid better attention!
We certainly could have paid better attention to the people we elected, and that starts at home.
So, go ahead and make my day and connect the dots.
You get what you pay for, so be careful how you spend your money, time and vote!

What Makes a Headline?

'If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him.' - Cardinal Richelieu [1585 - 1642]

'The power of the press belongs to those who own them' - A J Liebling

'The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.' - Winston Churchill
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that the 'presumptive' Presidential opponents have finally been determined, we've entered the phase where the real fun begins.
That is when each candidate tries to define himself in terms that will attract votes, period.
That's because without a majority of votes that translate into 270 Electoral Votes, no one can be elected.
If one is not elected, all the rhetoric, energy, expense and the promise of betterment will be for naught.
Only if a candidate is elected can he/she put into practice those campaign promises he/she values most.
So, a certain amount of gamesmanship, seemingly contradictory statements, flip-flopping and posturing is inherent in this process.

But, most keen observers can detect - through the fog of politics - those core values that best represent a candidate.
Whether these thoughtful and keen observers constitute a sufficient number to elect is another story, as history has proven so recently.
So effective have been the PR and marketing campaigns that candidates for National and State offices have waged, that they have been able to effectively mask essential weaknesses for some and greatly exaggerate them for others.
That's a danger I hope can be largely avoided in this Presidential race, and maybe the sheer length of the campaign will help that.
Campaigns should be about facts and honesty, not myths and lies, despite any Supreme Court ruling that disallows that distinction!
---------------

In this vein, the current, manufactured 'mini-flap' over the Press giving preferential treatment to Barack Obama is very amusing!

Why not apply a free 'Market' theory to that?

There is a dire lack of new forward-thinking ideas, candor, energy and hope in this country today, largely as a result of almost 8 absolutely debilitating years under President George W Bush, likely our worst in history.

Conversely, there is a huge oversupply of incompetence and gross deficiency, including lack of trust & confidence, absence of funding for essentials, declining world standing, no energy policy, broken healthcare system, deficient education programs, wrong-headed approaches to peace & security, tremendous waste & favoritism in support of a contrived 'war' in Iraq, and the like. This list is LONG!
Again, these are largely the result of our 2-term embarrassment under an abysmally poor leader, who was 'elected' using campaign tactics evocative of a world-class villain.

So, where do you imagine the 'Market' wants to go, under the laws of supply & demand?

For every whine from right wingers, there is an easy answer in simple economic terms; unmet needs attract new investment, and surplus extravagances do not.
The investors are -or ought to be- the voting public, which rightfully feels cheated, demeaned, and ready for change!
How do people who like to call themselves 'conservative' fail to understand even these basic economy-based principles?
[I had a financial advisor try to blame the threat of political change as an excuse for touting the status quo. Guess how long it took me to fire him!]
-----------------

A recent 'headline' from a so-called 'fair & balanced' talking head pronounces:

" Coverage of Obama trip almost embarrassing"

Why would the Press -especially the non-FOX variety- possibly want to cover Obama more than McCain?
I think he is more interesting for starters, partly because he is talking about real issues with good ideas.
Also, the Country -indeed the World- is very tired of our current Administration and its arrogant, unimaginative and ineffective antics.

Another headline from CNN reads:

"Young Republicans worry about McCain's appeal"
I think they mean his 'lack of appeal' don't you?
Most -non-Republican- young people have responded very enthusiastically to Obama!
And, why shouldn't they? He is addressing real problems that will impact them, but also inspiring them to get involved with insuring their own future destiny, and the heritage for which new generations will have to assume the responsibility.

Other folks are finally beginning to more seriously question FOX 'News', like the rapper Nas, who appeared the other night on 'The Colbert Report' - after being rebuffed at Fox. Nas had collected over 620,000 signatures on a petition that demanded 'FAUX' News cease and desist in its systematically racist remarks.

Nas' new song, Sly Fox, tooks direct aim at Fox;
"Watch what you watchin', Fox keeps feeding us toxins ... I pledge allegiance to the fair and balanced truth, not the biased truth, not the liar's truth," the song says.

"Fox poisons the country with racist propaganda and tries to call it news."
Good for you, Nas!

You know what? It's about time other people started calling out these jokers -Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, et al- on their tactics!
But, what do you expect from an organization owned and controlled by Rupert Murdock, and operated for the benefit of those he helps keep in power?

But why pick on Fox? Because that network suffers from the most egregious biases, that's why. Despite mouthing the words, 'Fair & Balanced', they are practicing just the opposite! Nothing a little quality control couldn't handle, but first you have to define what 'Quality' is to be controlled!

Of course, the other networks aren't perfect either, but most of them do try, especially PBS.
Ever wonder why Government support for PBS and NPR is shrinking?
Maybe its because they are more immune to crass advertising pressures and dare to present hard issues with facts and reasoned commentary.
Maybe its because PBS & NPR are more serious about respecting the value of honesty?
I think there are few values as lasting as basic integrity, and that applies regardless of political persuasion.

Then, there's that unfunny clown, Rush Limbaugh, who's been getting rich for years by spouting nothing but hateful propaganda over a plethora of private stations that are licensed by the FCC to use our public airways.
See anything wrong with that?
Would you call that privatizing the profits and socializing the costs?
But, we do have our rights according to several Amendments, don't we?
So, Mr Limbaugh may not be breaking any laws, except those that the Good Book warns about, pertaining to basic honesty, respecting others and unbounded greed.

Maybe its time we learned to follow the money?
That way, we might simply charge the campaigns of so-called 'conservatives' for the political value of this consistently biased, partisan reporting -on the public airways?
Bald-faced propaganda. I think it's called.
Of course, equal treatment would be expected across the entire political spectrum, too.
At least, the 'visible' spectrum.

Let's start creating our own headlines, by demanding more openness, honesty and accountability from our elected representatives!
Now, that would be a campaign reform I'd contribute to & vote for!
Out.
--------------------------------------

Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.
-William E. Gladstone

Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose.
- George Will

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. - Winston Churchill

Reassessing this Blog

Lately, I've been reassessing the manner in which this blog might be continued.
And, comments from others have played a big part in that process.
More folks than I thought might have cared would like me to resume this blog on a more regular basis.
An even greater number have encouraged me to limit the length of future blogs.
And, some no doubt have wished this blog would just disappear!
Others -the huge majority- are probably blissfully unaware of it and/or could care less.

In the end, the determination of whether to blog or not is mine alone to make.
Already most of my files on the ongoing issues have been disgorged to the Internet, but whether or not these serve any useful purpose is unknown, especially since the indexing and search features are pretty basic.
And, now that I am no longer involved in the mandatory learning regimen that the Council packets provided, I'm definitely not as up to date on current matters.

With the additional free time I now have, I could always choose to use more of it for blogging, but I really don't want to.
However, I do remain interested in timely subjects and like the idea of communicating thoughts and opinions from time to time.

Also, the world of communications has changed, whether people acknowledge it or not.
With greater access to information, the exercise of figuring out what is of most interest in a timely manner is essential to keep from being overwhelmed with the sheer volume of stuff out there.
Then, there's the problem of quality control.
Who is telling you the facts, and who is coloring their version what color?

There has also been a contraction in local coverage, with the demise of the WIndy, cut-backs at the Herald, etc.
This has only been partly offset by better City Council coverage on BTV10, and the City website, plus several new blogs, including the new NW Citizen format and Herald's ongoing experiments.

Anyway, a different approach is needed for me to remain interested in maintaining this blog.
So, here's what I'm thinking;

I'll try to post something every week, maybe 1 to 3 times, depending upon travel.
I'll limit the length of each blog to a more readable size.
I'll mix up the topics better to reflect local, regional, national and international topics.
Plus, I'll throw in a few observations that happen almost daily from my own experience and perspective.

We'll see if this works.
I hope any readers left out there will like these changes.
If not, other changes can always happen.

Word Games: Taxes versus Fees

-----------------------------------------
'The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a big matter- it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.'
-Mark Twain
------------------------------------------

The recent consideration of a Stormwater Management District for Birch Bay by the Whatcom County Council has renewed the local 'debate' about the difference between 'taxes' and 'fees'.
I believe the Council is now being given accurate advice about this distinction, as well as its appropriate applicability to the measure being considered.
That is so largely because a previous iteration of the County Council was bullied into revising its use of the former Flood Taxes for County-wide water planning by a lawsuit filed by those against such planning efforts.
But, in retrospect, that lawsuit was probably as justified as it was instructive in helping the County determine the proper use of such funds, as well as learn about some other funding mechanisms available for its future needs.
One of those 'future' needs has become a current one - the very Stormwater Management District now being proposed for Birch Bay.
And, of course its appropriate to revisit what has been learned, even if some here remain in denial that any difference exists between taxes and fees.

A Google search of 'taxes versus fees' resulted in a total of 8,820,000 different results in only 0.15 seconds!
Since that number is far more than I needed to get a fair idea of the arguments, I decided to look at only the first ten references on page one.

Here's a brief synopsis of some Fees vs. Taxes findings, bearing in mind there are differences in State Laws.
---------------------------------------------

First, from the website of organization below:

The Orange County Taxpayers Association (OCTax) likes fees better than taxes. We prefer that the users of a service, rather than the general public, pay for the service.

• Fees are paid only by users of a service. Examples are toll roads, permits, licenses, public parking, small claims court, entertainment. Motor vehicle fuel “taxes” which are spent on roads are actually fees; motor vehicle fuel taxes that are diverted to general governmental services are true taxes.

• Taxes are paid by the general public for general governmental services, provided for the general public’s benefit, and for which it is infeasible for the users of the services to pay. Examples are jails, police and fire protection, municipal and superior courts, voter registration and elections.

Here is a summary of the differences between a tax and a fee in 5 different ways.

1. Tax: Pays for any government service. Nexus between payer and service not required. 

Fee: Pays for a specific service,to regulate payer. Nexus required.


2. Tax: General public gets the primary benefit. 

Fee: Payer gets the primary benefit.


3.  Tax: Payment is mandatory.

Fee: Payment is contingent on use of  service, or choice to engage in regulated activity.


4.  Tax: May be levied in any amount.

Fee: Covers only cost of the service:  construction, maintenance,  regulation, permitting, inspecting.


5.  Tax: Levied equally on all similar payers. 
  
Fee: Levied in proportion to impact or  extent of activity.
---------------------------

Next, from this website:http://everything2.com/e2node/Tax%2520vs.%2520Fee

Tax vs. Fee

You may opt not to require a fee. You must pay a tax.

tax: A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.

fee: A fixed sum charged, as by an institution or by law, for a privilege.

Within the state of Utah, it is illegal for municipal governments to levy taxes without the approval of the state legislature, or a ballot initiative.

Thus, every city in Utah has a proliferation of "fees" to meet budgetary needs. Within the development process, this includes fees for plat approval for subdivisions. Legal trials have been brought on the basis that such fees are taxes and thus illegal. However, their constitutionality has been upheld because the choice to subdivide is "voluntary" exercise of a privelege, and as such subject to fees.

The same thing applies to cell phone bills. Because cell phone companies cannot tax their users, they instead institute "variable fees", which are in effect taxes that have been enabled by your voluntary agreement to be party to the cell-phone contract.
--------------------------

From yet a third website:http://www.jointventure.org/PDF/taxworkbook.pdf

These folks don't care what name is used, they just want to know why its needed and whether the measure is effective and fair. [A pdf report]
-----------------------------

From a fourth source in Topeka, KANSAS, the THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL:

Semantics: Tax vs. fee

The state's most aggressive anti-tax organization Thursday defined a provision in a Republican-backed coal bill as nothing less than the three-letter word dreaded by politicians anxious to win re- election.
"It appears it would be appropriately framed as a tax," said Alan Cobb, Kansas director of the conservative group Americans for Prosperity.
He referred to a bill passed Thursday night by the House 78-46 that served as companion to a measure allowing expansion of the coal- fired electric plant in southwest Kansas. This side bill requires all Kansas utilities to pay the state 2 cents a month for each commercial or residential electric meter. Legislators suspect the additional cost would be passed to customers, but lawmakers disagreed on what to call the new assessment.

Republicans in favor of the proposed $3.6 billion coal-fired plant at Holcomb prefer the terms surcharge or fee, while Democrats opposed to the utility development like the word tax.
In this instance, however, Democrats had an unusual partner.
"If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck," Cobb said.

NOTE: This tells me that this word game can be played by either side, depending upon whether they FAVOR a measure!
What does that do to objectivity?
------------------------------

Next, from the same arch-conservative group that advocated for the Kansas measure abstracted above!
Rain taxes? Really?

Website of "americansforprosperity.org"

Governments often turn to “fees” in order to avoid the stigma of tax hikes or to circumvent restraints on their ability to raise taxes, but the savvy taxpayer can easily distinguish between a legitimate “fee” for a defined quid pro quo and a “tax.”

If citizens can opt to not pay the fee, and forgo the service provided for that fee as a result, it would appear to be a genuine fee. A fee is charged for a privilege that you can start or stop at will, whereas a tax is a contribution for the support of a government required from those who live within the jurisdiction of that government.

The latest outbreak of these pests to spread across the country are stormwater run-off fees, or as I like to call them, rain taxes. The eruption of these new taxes stems from stormwater management programs required by the EPA as a result of the Clean Water Act. These ridiculous newly-enforced regulations require small and large municipalities to process “non-point source pollution,” or in other words the water that spills off of your car, house, lawn, parking lot, property, etc. when it rains. Communities of 50,000 or more must create programs to address stormwater, but rain taxes will soon even be falling in less-populated towns.
------------------------------

Finally, from this lengthy, boring, but factual take at: www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/storm/chap4.asp

FUNDING AND GAINING SUPPORT FOR STORMWATER PROGRAMS

The best-designed stormwater pollution management plan will flounder without sufficient community support and funding. Community support is often necessary for official government support, although in many of the cases studies the government took the lead and the broader support followed. A major aim of many public education programs (and a critical task for local community and environmental organizations) is to build this political support. An equal emphasis is needed to establish a stable source of funding to keep a program moving forward, once implemented. While the two often go hand-in-hand -- adequate funding almost always requires political support and, conversely, a healthy community consensus on the need for runoff pollution control will generally lead to sufficient funds -- the traditional funding mechanisms available to local governments demand continuous political support, which can be difficult at times. Nonetheless, there are several approaches a municipality can take to establish a dedicated funding source. This chapter describes one of these approaches -- stormwater utilities -- and discusses the authority of local governments to implement them.

Traditional government funding sources may prove problematic for stormwater pollution program. Grants for water pollution from the federal government are far smaller than in earlier years. Low interest loans from the federal/state revolving loan fund many not be attractive, especially for the non-capital elements of a stormwater pollution program. Allocations from local taxes may be an unreliable means of generating revenue: though essential for ecological and public health reasons, community leaders are hard-pressed to divert adequate funds from general municipal budgets for stormwater pollution control, because the money comes from the same pool as more politically popular uses.

In light of these difficulties of traditional grant, loan, and tax funding, many local governments have successfully turned to alternative funding strategies. Local governments have funded stormwater pollution measures through charging inspection and permit fees, collecting dedicated contributions from land developers, taxing new development at an increased rate, forming regional stormwater management districts, and creating stormwater utilities. NRDC's research collecting these case studies, as well as work with specific municipalities on water pollution issues, suggests that one of the most effective and equitable funding mechanisms, and yet one of the least well-known, is the use of stormwater pollution utilities that operate stormwater measures entirely through self-funding entities.

The Utility Structure

Stormwater utilities are a well-established, efficient, and feasible financing option that provides a dedicated revenue source for stormwater management.

1 A stormwater utility operates similarly to water, sewer, or fire districts, which are funded through service fees and administered separately from the general tax fund, ensuring stable and adequate funding for these public services.

An EPA study identified three major advantages of stormwater utilities over funds generated through property tax revenues:
(1) increased stability and predictability,
(2) greater equity, and
(3) the opportunity for incorporating incentives for implementation of on-site stormwater management.

2 As of 1996 almost 300 stormwater utilities were in operation in at least 20 states. (By contrast, there are thousands of water, sewer, and irrigation districts in the country that work under a similar framework.) Experts now estimate that there are more than 500 stormwater utilities in communities through the country. These stormwater utilities serve cities with populations ranging from under 5,000 to over 3.5 million.

3 NRDC's survey found stormwater pollution utilities in localities of all sizes and types; however, utilities appear more prevalent in growing communities in metropolitan or suburban areas, where changes to the landscape and hydrology are occurring.
Stormwater pollution utilities differ from most other utilities such as power or drinking water utilities because consumers often do not see an immediate benefit from paying their fee. Since most consumers want, for example, electricity, they are willing to pay in advance to receive it on demand. On the other hand, stormwater ratepayers are being asked to pay to prevent something they don't want, water pollution. If residents have never thought about stormwater, they probably will not recognize or appreciate the benefits of preventing stormwater pollution, and therefore will not want it in the same way as a power utility. This will likely affect their willingness to pay. Moreover, there is less an individual can do to change the magnitude of the fee. Improving the public's knowledge and understanding of the benefits of stormwater pollution prevention can go a long way to increasing their acceptance of a stormwater utility. Nonetheless, these problems are even greater with respect to taxes, and can be minimized (and explained) by linking the fee to a property's contribution to stormwater pollution and by quantifying to the extent possible the benefit that the ratepayer derives from the improved stormwater management.

Creating a Stormwater Pollution Utility

Generally a municipality enacts two ordinances to create a stormwater utility, one to establish the various components of the utility and the other to determine the rate structure. Forming the utility through two separate ordinances allows the flexibility to alter the rate structure at a later date without having to revise the ordinance governing the basic structure of the utility. The components of a stormwater utility will often include administrative, planning, and programmatic elements:

1. An administrative structure to collect fees and implement stormwater pollution prevention measures.
2. Development of a stormwater pollution prevention plan and related ordinances.
3. Erosion and sediment control requirements and related inspections or enforcement programs.
4. Detection of illicit connections to storm sewers.
5. Water quality monitoring and/or treatment.
6. Maintenance of stormwater drainage systems.
7. Public education.
8. Flood protection.

The first ordinance may also include a statement of the goals of the utility, discussing the benefits of stormwater pollution prevention. The second ordinance tries to structure the service charges to create a logical and equitable relationship between the amount, and perhaps quantity, of stormwater leaving a property, the benefits received by the stormwater system, and the amount assessed.
------------------------------------

From the above excerpts, the semantic 'debate' picture is somewhat clarified.
There are essential, objective differences between Taxes and Fees, although both do cost the public something.

While it is always useful to have debate about fees and taxes, these discussions are dumbed down by the silly rhetoric that seeks to appeal to emotions, and only follows the wishes of whatever party is for or against the main issue at hand!

Our government, at all levels, is there because we need it, established it and have voter control over it. So, let's not pretend its there because of any other reasons. If our elected officials do things that are contrary to good sense, then our remedy is to vote for others who will carry out this task better.
But, to simply seek to paralyze government from taking those actions that are prudent and necessary, serves no one's interest well.
The ones who will most benefit or suffer from poor government decisions- including non-decisions- , are those who are too young to vote, or have not yet been born!
Please, let's keep that in mind.
====================================================

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

Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose. - George Will

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

"Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome." – Samuel Johnson

"Those who would give up quality of their environment to purchase a little temporary 'good business climate' deserve, and will get, neither."
- Benjamin Franklin

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

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

Funnies?

Someone sent me these funnies recently:

-----------------------
The Original Computer:

Memory was something you lost with age

An application was for employment

A program was a TV show

A cursor is one who used profanity

A keyboard was a piano

A web was a spider's home

A virus was the flu

A CD was a bank account

A hard drive was a long trip on the road

A mouse pad was where a mouse lived

And if you had a 3 inch floppy ...

...you just hoped nobody found out!

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

Once upon a time there were three sisters, ages 92, 94 and 96, and they all lived together.

One night the 96-year-old ran a bath. She put one foot in and paused. "Was I getting in the tub or out?" she yelled.

The 94-year-old hollered back, "I don't know. I'll come and see." She started up the stairs and stopped. She shouted, "Was I going up or coming down?"

The 92-year-old sitting at the kitchen table having tea, listening to her sisters, shook her head and said, "I sure hope I never get that forgetful," and knocked on wood for good measure.

Then she yelled, "I'll come up and help both of you as soon as I see who's at the door."

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

5 RIDDLES

[ANSWERS ARE AT THE BOTTOM]



1. A murderer is condemned to death. He has to choose between three rooms.
The first is full of raging fires,
the second is full of assassins with loaded guns,
and the third is full of lions that haven't eaten in 3 years.
Which room is safest for him?



2. A woman shoots her husband.
Then she holds him under water for over 5 minutes.
Finally, she hangs him.
But 5 minutes later they both go out and enjoy a wonderful dinner together.
How can this be?



3. What is black when you buy it,
red when you use it,
and gray when you throw it away ?



4. Can you name three consecutive days without using the words
Wednesday, Friday, or Sunday?



5. This is an unusual paragraph.
I'm curious as to just how quickly you can find out what is so unusual about it.
It looks so ordinary and plain that you would think nothing was wrong with it.
In fact, nothing is wrong with it!
It is highly unusual though.
Study it and think about it, but you still may not find anything odd.
But if you work at it a bit, you might find out.
Try to do so without any coaching!



ANSWERS TO THE FIVE RIDDLES ARE BELOW:






1 The third room. Lions that haven't eaten in three years are dead.
That one was easy, right?

2. The woman was a photographer. She shot a picture of her husband, developed it, and hung it up to dry (shot; held under water; and hung).

3. Charcoal, as it is used in barbecuing.

4. Sure you can name three consecutive days;
yesterday, today, and tomorrow!

5. The letter e, which is the most common letter used in the English language, does not appear even once in the paragraph.

how did you do?


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