HamsterTalk's 2nd Birthday

----------------------------
What may be done at any time will be done at no time. - Scottish Proverb

Dost thou love life? Then waste not time; for time is the stuff that life is made of. - BENJAMIN FRANKLIN:
----------------------------

Time flies.
Today's posting -number 315- marks the end of this blog's second year in existence.
Little did I know enough topics would create the interest I needed to persist this long.
But, it has been fun - most of the time, anyway.
So, I'll plan to continue it for a while longer.

Because most of my subject matter applies to City issues, I believe its important to maintain some level of commentary.
And, anything approaching in-depth coverage elsewhere has either declined, or has been lacking for a long time.

I am glad that BTV10 is now covering many more City meetings and events than it ever has before, including substantial live coverage that allows folks to watch the action either in real time, or with delays -including streaming video on the City's website- for convenience.

Without overestimating it, I think having that capability is important for this community, whether it is used extensively or not.
[There remains evidence that facts are still substantially ignored!]

It would be nice if more Whatcom County and Port of Bellingham meetings were also televised.
The expense of taping these events is pretty minimal, and BTV10 will publicly air them on a known schedule.
I know some folks still aren't comfortable with making public meetings more public, but that's an excuse, not a reason.

It was a little strange that this idea hasn't come up in the County and Port candidate forums and debates, but maybe its not really as popular an idea as I may think.
At some point it would be interesting to know about how many people regularly use these audio and video records of official meetings.
Of course, this probably varies widely by issue.
----------------------------

Time is a companion that goes with us on a journey. It reminds us to cherish each moment, because it will never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we have lived. - CAPTAIN JEAN-LUC PICARD [Star Trek]
----------------------------

Water Meters: It's About Time

----------------------------
Children of a culture born in a water-rich environment, 
we have never really learned how important water is 
to us.  We understand it, but we do not respect it. 
- William Ashworth, Nor Any Drop to Drink, 1982

"We forget that the water cycle and the life cycle are one."
 - Jacques Cousteau -
----------------------------
Today's Herald carried this article, which signals the City has finally bought into the idea that it needs water meters.
This decision has been a long time coming, and it will take time to accomplish, but it is the right thing to do.

Inherently, meters allow users to regulate their own water use and not have to subsidize those who use more than necessary.
That is fairer than the system we have allowed to happen, plus it puts conservation opportunities in clearer monetary perspective.

Bellingham and Everett were the only cities in the State of Washington which remained in denial that water meters were needed.
Because of that stance, both cities are now well behind in providing meters to users, particularly those long-time users living in established neighborhoods.
Unfortunately, some of those more modest residences could have benefitted greatly from voluntary water conservation over the years.
New construction has been more fortunate because meter boxes have been required for some, meaning retrofitting meters is relatively simple.
And, new technology allows reading of meters to be be nearly automatic.

Yet, there remain some negative attitudes about meters.
Some perceive an advantage to not having meters, because others would subsidize their over use of water.
Others see meters as an unnecessary expense.
A few see the conversion as yet another 'guvmint' intrusion on private citizens.
While there is some truth in all of these positions, the overall best interests of Bellingham citizens are served by installing water meters.

One point needs to be emphasized; our water system is wholly financed by rates, system development charges [impact fees] and fees from water users.
That now also includes the costs of meters to be installed.
As a so-called 'Enterprise Fund' our Water System Utility is designed to be self-sustaining, just like the Sewer and Stormwater Funds.
Periodic adjustments to rates are needed depending upon the need for system-wide improvements, like storage tanks, mains and distribution piping, water treatment expansion, meters and the like.

With 20-20 hindsight, the City might have avoided the need for this expensive upgrade, but we are where we are and must deal with it the best we can.
Everyone will agree that the idea of fairness in cost and individual decisions regarding water use & conservation are desirable.
And, undue financial burdens on individuals are being avoided, with metering being phased in over time.

Thankfully, this is the direction Bellingham is now headed, toward fairness, conservation and sustainability.
--------------------------------------

When the well is dry, we know the worth of water.
 - Benjamin Franklin

In the Western United States, 
water flows uphill to money.
 - Glen Sanders
--------------------------------------

Lake Whatcom: Is TMDL a Waste of Time?

---------------------------
I'm not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it.
- Niccolo Machiavelli
---------------------------
Some years ago the City engaged Drs. Hans & Ann-Marie Bleiker to conduct training sessions on how to achieve 'Systematic Development of Informed Consent' on major projects important to our community.
The method was time-intensive, but often much more effective than the usual fumbling efforts.
But, predictably, use of the Bleiker method was largely ignored, with few exceptions.

Too bad, but that's often the way that thoughtful and well-intended ideas go.
Witness, for example, protecting our drinking water source, cleaning up and re-building our waterfront, completing the County-wide Water Resource Inventory work [WRIA-1], and agreeing on a plan to efficiently expand and modernize the Bellingham Public Library.

The method's purpose is NOT necessarily to build consensus, but to build consent to understanding and accepting good solutions.
And, there is a big difference between the concepts of citizen participation and stakeholder involvement.

The 'Bleiker LIfe-Preserver' summarizes the four essential steps in the method:

(1) There is a serious problem, or opportunity – one that has to be addressed.

(2) Yours is the right entity to be addressing this problem; in fact it would be irresponsible of you, given the mission you have, if you did not address it.

(3) The way you are approaching the problem, the way you are addressing it is reasonable, sensible and responsible.

(4) You do listen. You do care. If you are proposing something that’s going to cause pain, it is not because you don’t care.
------------------------------

On page 27 [Worksheet 4-1] of this website is a simple generic checklist for evaluating the complexity of any TMDL process [Total Maximum Daily Load]:

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/wq-iw3-50-4.pdf

It might be interesting to check this out just for comparison to what has happened to our previous Lake Whatcom protection efforts.
One question that must be answered truthfully and convincingly is whether this work really is a 'top priority'.
If it is, then a time frame, budget and staff must be assigned at levels that are reasonable to achieve the goals identified.

There are always many priorities, and often they cannot be all be accomplished at once.
Have you noticed?

If Lake Whatcom is to be one of our top priorities, it needs to be treated as one!
Talk is cheap.
---------------------------

It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both. - Niccolo Machiavelli
---------------------------

Port: Populist Instrument or Bete Noir?

-----------------------
'Bete Noir: (from the French, meaning "dark beast") is used to refer to an object or abstract idea that is particularly disliked or avoided'
-----------------------

A current Crosscut article on the Port of Everett inspired this blog, because of some local similarities and ironies.

This brief excerpt demonstrates the point:

Emotions circle back to the story's bete noire, the Everett Port Commission. Port districts were conceived as populist instruments to break up concentrated capital. Give the waterfront to the people not the fat cats, the argument went. Legislators passed the Port District Act in 1911 and Everett organized its port in 1918. Over the decades, however, most port districts have embraced a credo that holds sacred economic and real estate development. Historic preservation is not a statutory priority.

"Ports have a very slim mission," Commissioner Connie Niva said. "It's not quality of life but to serve as an economic engine." The Collins Building, she noted, "sits on the site where we're building a boat yard," and is not connected to Everett Maritime, the North Marina development company that filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy on May 20. Niva emphasized the port's record of environmental stewardship. "We're the cleanest and the greenest," she said.

Does it sound like Commissioner Niva might also have difficulty in understanding the concept of TBL? [Triple Bottom Line]
If so, she's certainly not by herself!
----------
When you think about it, its not easy to accommodate a significant broadening of scope in any undertaking with a succinct mission statement and a limited budget.
Of course, it is not impossible but usually does require time - plus a change in attitude from those in charge.
That is the core problem with the Port of Bellingham.

And POB's situation may be considerably different from Everett's in several ways, including the sheer size & scope of the Waterfront Redevelopment anticipated, the relatively lesser size/budget of POB, and its partnership with the City of Bellingham -which has its own limits on funding, plus a much broader mission which does specifically and inherently include quality of life and environmental issues.
It would be simpler if the City were not so 'encumbered', but it is, as it should be.
And, because of its partnership with the City, the Port of Bellingham is also likewise 'encumbered'.

The understanding of that reality is important for whoever will assume new leadership roles at the Port.
On that score, new candidates have a clear advantage, particularly those who have also been active in our community for years.
-------
By that criteria, John Blethen, the District 1 candidate, is clearly the best choice.
Blethen has been an amazing asset to our community for decades, as an enthusiastic volunteer and successful businessman.
His volunteerism reflects his caring for Bellingham and has gone well beyond that expected of any citizen, or two, or three.
It also reflects how in tune he is with the values of the people who have lived here, live here now, and will live here tomorrow.
That is exactly the kind of energy and long-term caring that the Port Commission needs so badly.

Mike McAuley, the District 2 candidate, has similar promise, although his tenure and volunteerism can't match Blethen's [no one does], he has a similar vision and commitment to do the right thing by this community.
McAuley's energy, progressive ideas and integrity make him well qualified to help turn the Port's attitude and management style into a better fit for what Bellingham needs in the long term.
-------

Both Scott Walker, District 1, and Doug Smith, District 2, have done some good work at the Port, in fact both shared responsibility for initiating the Waterfront Redevelopment Project that has become the centerpiece of effort and attention here.
But, this is a long-term effort, a relay and not a sprint, which requires teamwork over many years.

After 18 and 16 years, respectively, these incumbents have already run their legs of the race, and it is time for them to pass the baton to fresher teammates.
They have elected not to do this willingly, but to leave that decision to will of the voters, which is OK, but also reinforces the impression that they are stuck on old ideas and the advantage of incumbency.

But, I hope citizens will understand that this election is really about the citizens themselves, and their offspring and the very future of Bellingham as a place that not only provides economic development (jobs) but also the other two legs of that 3-legged stool that defines TBL [Triple Bottom Line]; quality of life and environment.

Those last two legs are important enough to be clearly stated, not just implied.
Especially in a true partnership with a vital City whose sole motivation in partnering was to maintain -and enhance- that vitality!
That is, if we are to consider our Port as more of a populist instrument than a bete noir....
-----------------------------------

More on Healthcare: Knowledge as Truth

-----------------------
All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions.
- Adlai E. Stevenson

A little knowledge that acts is worth infinitely more than much knowledge that is idle. - KAHLIL GIBRAN
-----------------------

The healthcare debate continues as it should until the best possible combination of attributes have been incorporated into a bill that can be approved by both legislative bodies, and is worthy of signing by the President.

But, now that so much information, some of it conflicting and some of it misinformation, is out there wouldn't it be nice to able to easily verify its accuracy?

Here's an authoritative website that seems pretty unbiased regarding the current healthcare rhetoric which I found useful.

There are also two new NYT editorials on healthcare, by David Brooks and Paul Krugman, which most folks will find interesting.

Have you noticed how the ad campaigns -pro and con- have picked up in intensity?
Maybe the 'factcheck.org' website can help sort out who's spinning what, and at least zero in on the range of reasonable estimates that are used.
--------------------------------

The concept of what constitutes knowledge, and its proper application to real situations has been a constant theme of this blog, because it has been main interest of mine all of my life.

With that in mind, this Wikipedia website goes into some detail in describing knowledge.

This phrase has been closest to mine: 'The definition of knowledge is a matter of on-going debate among philosophers in the field of epistemology. The classical definition, described but not ultimately endorsed by Plato[1], has it that in order for there to be knowledge at least three criteria must be fulfilled; that in order to count as knowledge, a statement must be justified, true, and believed.'

Of course, there are other definitions, qualifications and interpretations of what knowledge means, especially those which prefer to emphasize beliefs, as opposed to provable facts.
That debate will never end, nor should it, but true knowledge ought to be communicable, capable of appealing to reason and provable to others.

As one of our Founding Fathers put it:

"A popular Government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives." - James Madison

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

Society, community, family are all conserving institutions. They try to maintain stability, and to prevent, or at least to slow down, change. But the organization of the post-capitalist society of organizations is a destabilizer. Because its function is to put knowledge to work -- on tools, processes, and products; on work; on knowledge itself -- it must be organized for constant change. - PETER F. DRUCKER

If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. - MARK TWAIN
---------------------------------

Blue Dogs & 'No Hogs'

--------------------------------
Were I a member of the US Congress, I 'd probably be known as something of a 'Blue Dog' Democrat, but loosely so because of my independent streak that resists being controlled by anything other than my own analysis and carefully weighted conclusions.
But, that would not affect my determination to achieve progress on issues of major importance, like meaningful national healthcare reform.

It is sad that so many of the current minority party allow themselves to be controlled by narrow partisan edicts that are more designed for political games than for necessary action on national policy that matters.
And, its hard to understand the value system that allows that habit to persist.
Maybe these folks are so secure in their heavily gerrymandered districts that they have little worry about re-election.
Or, maybe they see their jobs more narrowly than is in the nation's best interests?
I don't know, but I do care.

And, I'm concerned with any mentality that rationalizes it is not part of a problem, and therefore doesn't need to be a part of the solution.
But, I guess these folks have always been around; you know them best as 'crown sympathizers', draft-dodgers, tax evaders, non-voters, and all manner of other self-satisfied lazy louts with attitudes.

Maybe that dynamic -in reverse- is what causes many other elected officials to waffle, wait and sometimes become co-opted into positions they may or may not wish to support.
There are times when all these dynamics come into play with a vengeance, like now -on healthcare reform, but that itself can be healthy, because better ideas are generated, compromises conceived, and a sense of urgency generated.

Some have expressed concern with deadlines, and hate being 'rushed'. [as in Limbaugh?]
But, without deadlines, is it reasonable to expect any predictability or progress?
How about things like our reaction 9/11?
Or approving annual budgets?
Or making Supreme Court appointments?

Sometimes what people call being 'rushed', simply means they don't want to do it.
Have you noticed?

The broad outlines of what seems desirable for healthcare reform have been pretty clearly known and stated for months.
Some are harder to articulate, determine sustainable financing or make compatible with other programs, but that is the main exercise that is underway -at least among those with legitimate interest in change.
Those who are proud to be 'No Hogs', prefer to block any meaningful change or progress, and leave that burden to 'others', as has been done for 61 years.

So, the 'Blue Dogs' must act as the sounding board for what reform will likely occur, and I'm good with that, because I do believe meaningful compromise is achievable.
But, the Blue Dogs need to not take such a hard line that the impression is left that failure is imminent.
The 'sausage-making' of legislation is always ugly and subject to compromise, meaning no one gets everything they want.

A few ideas that deserve serious consideration are these -maybe more:

• establishment of an independent body of healthcare professionals with the power to review any national program annually and recommend adjustments.

• achieving equity between States in Medicare reimbursement rates.

• continuously examining equitable and sustainable funding methods for national healthcare, so that the goal of NOT creating more federal deficits over time is achieved.

There is even something for the 'No Hogs' to think about:

If there is such a need for change in the existing system that an amazing array of stakeholders agree, and that enormous cost savings -maybe 2/3 of the estimated additional cost- how can this be so simply dismissed?

Think about it.
Continuing the 'status quo' just insures that substantial healthcare costs will be continued to be just wasted!
One would think it's more normal for so-called 'conservatives' to want to cut excesses and use funds more efficiently.
What has happened to that?
And, what has happened to intellectual honesty?

I do believe the Blue Dogs will find a way to responsibly compromise and find ways to pay for the anticipated additional costs of healthcare reform and make the measure 'deficit neutral', which I believe is possible.
Maybe that will take a leap of faith in the form of a commitment for periodic supplemental funding votes.
Some of those options may entail eventual elimination of healthcare cost exemptions from income tax.
Other ideas are also possible, but will require time to identify, quantify and implement.

The so-called 'August deadline' may or may not be met, without extending the legislative calendar.
All that means anyway, is that bills can be reasonably prepared for debate and passage later this Fall.
For an issue so important, it would seem some unusual measures are justified.

President Obama's Press Conference last night pretty much outlined the parameters that would be acceptable for him to sign any bill resulting from Congressional action.
And, his decision to let Congress discuss the various options before imposing any preferred bill of his own is the right way to go.
But, now time is passing quickly and the deadlines required must be respected and if possible, enforced.

If Congress misses its August break, tough luck!
If no unanimous result is possible, then a more narrow and more partisan passage is OK.
Additional delay is not justified, nor is it helpful to the hoped for eventual result.
If members of Congress are uncomfortable with making such a difficult decision, too bad!
They need to get off the fence, or out of the kitchen.

Now is the time for Healthcare reform to happen.
It is too important an issue to 'kick down the road' again, as it largely has been since Harry Truman advocated it in 1948.
We can do better than that, and this is the time!
---------------------

My neighbor and I are both retired and over 70.
Both of us did not look forward to joining Medicare.
Both of us has been very wrong in our unfounded fears!
Medicare has been the easiest and most efficient healthcare program either of us has ever had.

The only reasons I decided to buy expensive secondary healthcare insurance were (a) fear of Medicare Parts A & B, and (b) fear of Medicare Part (d) -'the donut hole'.
I no longer have any doubts about Medicare Parts A & B.
I do have concerns about Medicare Part D, because the prescription coverage is full of holes and unknown costs.
Perhaps these will be addressed in a new Medicare plan, and if they are, my wife and I will be able to save about $7800 per year in SECONDARY INSURANCE costs.
[not Supplemental Insurance of the sort promoted by so-called Medicare Part C Plans]
Think that's not a substantial savings?

But, I'm not just thinking of me, I'm thinking of the millions of Americans who will benefit from a the availability of a national healthcare plan option.
There is nothing wrong with the way the US Government administers Medicare, and much that is right, including efficiency and low costs.
It may be the best deal around for those of us who are retired or 65.
And, remember, its only been around since 1965, when another Democratic American President with courage, foresight and political clout dared to buck entrenched special interests and get it implemented.

Now, 44 years later, maybe its time for President #44 to expand it into a true national program!
--------------------------

A few related links:

NYT:Timothy Egan

NYT:David Brooks & Gail Collins

NYT:Health Care Sausagee

NYT:Editorial

NYT:History of Health Care Reform
----------------------------

Ever wonder how many Republicans have the names Sally, Straw or Rush?

The term 'Aunt Sally' is in limited use as a political idiom, indicating a false adversary or Straw Man, set up for the sole purpose of attracting negative attention and wasting an opponent's energy.

Under Promising & Over Delivering

-----------------------------------------
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
-- ABRAHAM LINCOLN
-----------------------------------------

Management gurus advise against the the habit of 'over-promising and under-delivering'.
But, actually following this wise counsel seems extraordinarily difficult, doesn't it?
Just the opposite would be preferable, plus the surprises would tend to be more positive!

Because people routinely promise things they have no intention -or possibility- of achieving, there are always folks who want to believe that their wishful hopes will be realized, even if there does happen to be a measure of empty rhetoric involved.

Imagine any public official or candidate for public office who isn't tempted to promise or promote things he/she knows are desired by the voting public.
That is certainly an integral part of getting elected and reelected, because it does reflect the priorities and the 'will' of the community, at least at that moment.

But, what about those who prefer to influence public opinion who are not publicly elected or appointed?
Aren't most of us in that category one way or the other?
By seeking to influence public opinion, we are all well within our rights and responsibilities; in fact we'd be abrogating our role as citizens if we did not exercise that role.

What troubles me the most is when certain individuals or groups abuse public sensibilities by repeatedly offering outlandish, deceptive or unsustainable ideas or proposals.
More specifically, the proliferation of so-called public 'initiatives' sponsored by people like Tim Eyman have long ago crossed the line of reasonableness.

Yet, the abuse continues, while our State Legislature seems continuously at a loss about how to deal with this process, caught as it is between making potentially useful measures available for periodic public voting and effectively dealing with clever 'issues' that are created mainly for their mischief making value.

An interesting article in Crosscut written by Floyd Mackay sheds light on the the latest Eyman initiative, I-1033, and parallel initiatives over time in Washington, Oregon and California.

I don't have an answer to how public initiatives can be better handled, but several ideas have been discussed that have potential for improvement.
In the meantime, the best course to follow seems pretty simple, if a way to insure it can be found -and that is a big 'if';
be scrupulously truthful and balanced manner in presenting proposals for public approval.

Another way would be to reverse the norm, and practice this blog's title.
-----------------------------------

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. --attributed to ABRAHAM LINCOLN
-----------------------------------

“The Ship the Nazis Had to Get”

----------------------------------
Some time ago I did a little research on my father's WW II military service.
It turns out he was a '90-day wonder' who volunteered for the Naval Reserve on November 1, 1942 and was eventually assigned to the Merchant Marine vessel SS Seatrain Texas, which was designed to carry tanks and locomotives to North Africa and Europe for the Allies.

Although my father was not yet aboard the Seatrain Texas at the time of its most famous voyage, some may find that story fascinating, so it is linked below.

This link captures the story of the 'Daring Voyage of SS Seatrain Texas, Code Name: Treasure Ship.'



----------------------------------
Seatrain was not a pretty ship, but it was very functional and blessed with good fortune.
And, as it turned out, its delivery of the first US Sherman tanks to fight 'the Desert Fox', Rommel at the 2nd Battle of El Alamein, was the deciding factor in turning 'Operation Torch' into an Allied victory in North Africa that prevented the Axis from capturing Egypt, the Suez Canal and the Mideast oil fields..

Gloom, Despair & Agony on Me...

-----------------------------
Ever had a day that seemed darker and drearier than usual?
Not necessarily totally black, mind you, but maybe the color of slate or wet granite gray.
And, I'm not talking about the weather either.

I'm talking about those -fortunately few- times that mental and emotional attitudes dip to an undesirable level.
That usually doesn't last long for me, but even short episodes aren't fun.

Here's some of the things that conspired to bother me this time:

• incessant media coverage of the mostly trivial events that qualify as repetitive 'worthy news'
• too much avoidance of not-fun things I need to do.
• boredom due to too few 'fun' things done lately.
• cumulative physical fatigue that really doesn't hurt, but does limit previously normal activity.
• impatience with elected representatives and their tiresome posturing, delaying tactics, and constant electioneering.
• probably a few others that aren't worth the effort to remember.

That's about it.
Fortunately, all of these things are fading quickly into their proper perspective, even as we speak.
That's a mercy!
-----------------------------

One of the value judgements that I habitually favor -whether I actually do it or not - is that work always comes first.
[How's that for a potential, permanent downer?]
In other words, 'no fun until the work is done'.
And, of course the 'work' is never done, so there's just no time for fun!
I can tell you there are people pretty close to me who are very tired of hearing that kind of stuff, even in jest!
-----------------------------

The title is taken from a silly song from the old TV show 'Hee-Haw';

Gloom, despair and agony on me.
Deep, dark depression, excessive misery.
If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all.
Gloom, despair and agony on me.
-----------------------------

Healthcare: Simple or Complicated?

----------------------------
The concept of universal health is amazingly simple.
So, why is it that our national discussion is getting so complicated?
Do you think money -big money- has anything to do with it?
It seems there are powerful interests who really don't want to see the status quo changed at all, unless it benefits them.

But, self-serving resistance to change isn't exactly new, is it?
The real question is 'who is to be served'?
And, health care-wise, the priority needs to be all Americans.
Period. End of story.

It is a national embarrassment and tragedy that the USA hasn't got an effective health care program.
In my mind, only three things are absolutely critical;

• everyone is covered
• a public health plan option is required
• a reasonable method of determining 'levels of service' and financing is needed

None of these are simple, but since when are complications not expected?
And, many folks think some other things are also critically important, too.

Cutting through all the excuses for non-action, delay and watering down, a recent letter to the editor got it right:
It addressed our elected members of Congress, cited the fact that they all had excellent US government health plans, and requested the same for all citizens.
If that's too rich, then let's have a talk.
That seems pretty simple approach too, doesn't it?

Soon, all the proposals, concerns and discussion will begin to get more serious.
That usually happens once Congress agrees to something that may be voted upon.
That is also the time when all the arrayed opposition comes together with a concerted attack designed to instill doubt, plead too expensive, engender fear, and spread deliberate misinformation.

Can't wait for that spectacle, can you?
One can only hope that our elected officials have the courage to do what they have needed to do for so long.
--------------------------------

Here are two links to recent articles on this subject:

A Bill Moyers interview about 'the Select Few'.

A NY Times collection of three pro & con arguments.
--------------------------------

A final thought:
I have been blessed with two things for most of my life; good health and good jobs that provided me and my family with excellent health care coverage.
There are many people who have not been nearly so fortunate.

When I last retired and became reliant on Medicare as my my primary health care provider, it was with a combination of uniformed doubt and trepidation.
The doubt was based upon my own ignorance.
The fear was based upon what I thought was to be the frustration of dealing with a large government bureaucracy with complicated rules, procedures and complicated paperwork.
You know, like the IRS.

I was wrong.
Medicare has proven to be the least complicated health care system I have dealt with!
And, that is despite the fact that my health care needs have been greater during the past year than at any time of my life.
So, I have become a believer in Medicare and in the government's ability to manage such a program with efficiency, simplicity and fairness.
I'm sure there will be other things for me to learn, but so far, the use of my expensive secondary health insurance has been negligible.
So, don't worry you private health insurance providers; I'll still pay your premiums, but won't likely submit nearly as many claims.
That alone ought to help keep the existing private health care system profitable!

And, I know there are many others who feel the same way I used to about Medicare, as well as about the government's ability to sustainably finance such a system for everyone.
I believe those fears are legitimate, but will also prove false -providing our elected representatives decide to stand up to the pressures of the lobbyists for the status quo.

There are few things more important than our health, and no method is more effective than preventative care, which any universal health care program should emphasize and reward.
I am confident that America will 'do the right thing' as Winston Churchill once said - after it has tried every other course of action!
I hope I'm wrong about that last part.

But, the concept is simple and we deserve it, both as a nation and as individuals.
--------------------------------

On Neighborhoods

--------------------------------
A recent article in Crosscut seems to pretty accurately capture much of our local discussions on neighborhoods and preserving their viability as places where people want to live.

Because Seattle is often cited as an example of livable neighborhoods, these observations will likely resonate with those wishing to emulate practices which encourage and improve neighborhood quality.

One argument seems to stand out; older neighborhoods, especially those established in the 1950's or before, often are cited as the best examples.
That fits with the idea of 'neighborhood character' which is an often heard phrase that can mean different things to different folks.

Newer and developing neighborhoods don't appear to attract as much positive interest, although I do think it is critically important to continue encouraging those practices which lead towards neighborhood cohesion, desirability and the things that combine to produce the kind of neighborhood character that attracts and holds residents.

Not lost in the opinions expressed is the idea that 'walkability' can just be created by installing sidewalks, trails and bike lanes.
There also need to be local destinations and businesses where people want to go -or need to visit- often.

You know, those 'urban center' type places that get talked about in planning exercises.
Much easier to keep what already exists than to create new ones that people are willing to accept it seems.

Unless, of course, we can encourage enough mixed use development of the sort that make auto travel less necessary.

Anyway, see what you think.
--------------------------------

Climate: Global Warming, Local Anomaly or Normal?

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

Now in my fourth year as owner of a photovoltaic array, I've noticed this year is the brightest to date.
And, not by just a little bit.

As of June 30, 2009 had generated 56% of my annual estimate, versus the second highest year [2006] mid-year total of 51.3%.
Since a bright, sunny day equates to about 0.5% of my annual estimate, that means 2009 is now over 9 bright sunny days ahead of 2006.

Both 2007 and 2008 were less bright, and equated to about 9 sunny days behind 2006, and 18 sunny days behind this year.

A comparison of year-end totals might be more telling, but it's too early to know what 2009 will produce.
But, looking at 2006 versus 2007 and 2008 is also instructive.
The year 2006 was about 14% ahead of both years.

What does all this mean?
Probably not much, except that it may be just as likely for 2009 to represent evidence of global warming, as for the years 2007 and 2008 to represent global cooling.

Better yet, normal variations between years are just that - normal.
But, that's just an educated guess, knowing how fickle the weather patterns can be around these parts.
-----------------------------------

I am glad that more PV solar arrays are being put into service every year.

Not long ago, I received an e-mail from friends in our old San Francisco neighborhood which advised that an organization known as OBOG [One Block Off the Grid] was soliciting interest in having PV arrays installed in the Bay area.
It seems if an aggregate of 100 mega-watts can be committed to, then special pricing and permitting can be obtained, thus saving substantial investment costs.
That is a creative solution which I hope succeeds.

More locally, this announcement appeared of a plan to construct a major PV power generation facility near Cle Elum in Kittitas County.
Now, that would be a breakthrough of major proportions!
------------------------------------

Budget Reporting: Whatcom County's Home Charter Mystique

----------------------------------
'Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.' - Louis D. Brandeis
---------------------------------

An earlier blog addressed this subject's issue.
Now, still lacking some basic answers, I hope questioning County Council candidates may help reveal what the County's budget reporting requirements are, what they ought to be according to the County Charter, and what the County Council intends to do about correcting any deficiencies.

Will it require a Charter amendment, or a simple Resolution to the Executive that requests more frequent budgetary progress reports?

As a City Council Member, I wanted to stay timely informed about City financial matters -good, bad or indifferent.
And, it's hard to imagine County Council members not feeling the same way!

Maybe there are ready answers to my question just waiting to be harvested.
But, maybe there aren't, which may make asking the question somewhat unwelcome?
This question needs to be asked, answered and fixed as appropriate.
------------------------------------

On related matters, other questions ought to be asked of the candidates themselves, and not only about specific issues.
An earlier blog covered this aspect as well, plus the important general qualifications of competence and integrity.

Unlike 'issues of the moment', the basic decision-making process of candidates -plus the ever essential integrity and competence- are the criteria that voters can rely upon regardless of issue.

Hopefully, the forums, debates, campaign literature and answers to questions like these will help voters make the selections most likely to benefit Whatcom County and other jurisdictions.
------------------------------------

One final thought.
David Brooks, the Conservative pundit, wrote this opinion column for the NYTimes.
It seems a very timely and appropriate subject, regardless of jurisdiction.

Read it and develop your own reaction.
Frankly, I enjoyed it.
------------------------------------
"Writers are at their best as terrorists- Sometimes social terrorists, sometimes political, sometimes terrorists of the heart. If a writer is good, he will be all three at once. His weapons are words well used to disturb and to clarify thought, emotion and action." - John Ralston Saul
------------------------------------

Politics: Paleontology & Palintology

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

Pop, Fizzle, SSSSss.
Those sounds might remind one of inferior fireworks being launched on an exceedingly damp 4th of July.

Fitting isn't it, that Sarah! -the elected one- elected to announce her non-election close to independence day, isn't it?

Can't take the heat any more, and doesn't want to attract more unfavorable attention.
Who can blame her?

It's just no fun.
So, she quit her day job over 1.5 years early.
Leaving those who elected her governor wondering why they had done so.
But, maybe not, because Alaska prides itself on being such a different place.

One difference is the relative size of its government.
Ever heard this one; 'never have so few been governed by so many'?

For a resource-rich state with a population of less than 700,000, an inordinate reliance on federal subsidies, plus an annual state rebate of over $3200 to every citizen on oil & gas production, that big government label sticks like a spoonful of peanut butter to the roof of the mouth.
(Did you know that the U.S. Senate approved the purchase of Alaska from the Russian Empire on March 30, 1867, for $7.2 million at two cents per acre?)

Alas, there won't be any Sarah! to kick around any more.
What a shame!
Or is it?
Maybe not.
But, only because the political games she agreed to play were taken so seriously -both ways.

The science of Paleontology studies extinct beasts from fossil evidence collected from thousands of years ago.
if Palintology were to become a formal study subject, its extinct beasts -mostly thin-skinned political animals- might have lived for thousands of minutes, maybe even hours, or days.
And, its possible a few may have been around for several months or years, despite a propensity to bug out early when the going gets tougher, or less fun.

It probably doesn't help a political animal's longevity to rely so completely on 'gut feelings' and instincts that no effort is made to actually learn something from history.
For any species to be so unbalanced does not bode well for its survival.

But, we need to wish Sarah! well, whatever path she now chooses.
Rest assured she will continue in the public eye, even if not in an official public capacity.
Her attraction to the spotlight won't allow otherwise.
But, this time it will be more on her own terms -at least that's what she must hope.

Between the likely -paid- speaking engagements, the inevitable book contracts, the appearances on selected media channels, and generally her ability to attract attention , she'll still be able to make a pretty fair living I suppose.

But, somehow things are not likely to ever be the same for this Sarah! person.
Quitting a high profile elected job is frowned upon by those who have worked up such a passion for her that they will inevitably feel let down or betrayed.

Survival of the fittest is probably the operative phrase, and everyone knows its easier to be a critic or booster than it is to actually serve in office and be seen as a leader.
So, the critics always survive longer because they take less risks, and rely on poor memories to connect them to past stupidities.
God help those Sarah! type people who are attracted to fame like moths to a flame!

But, hey, crashing and burning is an American tradition, isn't it?
And, what better time than the 4th of July to do that?
--------------------------------------

My blog of August 30, 2008 predicted that Sarah! would be mainly a distraction.
Little did I know how true that eventually would become!

I'm proud to say that two very talented women, both graduates of my alma mater, were instrumental in helping us understand who Sarah! was - and who she wasn't.
Thank you, Katie Couric and Tina Fey!
--------------------------------------

Politics is not a game. It is an earnest business. - Winston Churchill
--------------------------------------

Triple Bottom Line: What Does TBL Mean?

---------------------------
"An invasion of armies can be resisted...But not an idea whose time has come..." - Victor Hugo
---------------------------

In Real Estate, the concept of a 'Triple net lease' is fairly common:

'A triple net lease (Net-Net-Net or NNN) is a lease agreement on a property where the tenant or lessee agrees to pay all real estate taxes, building insurance, and maintenance (the three 'Nets') on the property in addition to any normal fees that are expected under the agreement (rent, etc.).
In such a lease, the tenant or lessee is responsible for all costs associated with repairs or replacement of the structural building elements of the property.'

Why not extend this concept more widely?
For example, to our Waterfront?
----------------------------

Likewise, in economics, an externality or spillover of an economic transaction is an impact on a party that is not directly involved in the transaction.
In such a case, prices do not reflect the full costs or benefits in production or consumption of a product or service.

Why not also use this concept in trying to help estimate a full cost accounting approach to Waterfront Redevelopment?
Think that might mean a different mind-set for the Port of Bellingham?
----------------------------

This is where the TBL concept can be helpful, not just a idle talk and shallow promises, but as a purposeful strategy.
Here, I've paraphrased several points from Wikipedia:

The so-called triple bottom line ("TBL" or "3BL") refers to "people, planet, profit" and captures an expanded set of criteria for measuring success; not just counting economics, but also impacts on ecological and social values.

With the ratification of the United Nations and ICLEI* TBL standard for urban and community accounting in early 2007, this became the dominant approach to public sector full cost accounting.
In the private sector, a commitment to corporate social responsibility and ecological issues implies a commitment to some form of TBL reporting.

[• ICLEI was founded in 1990 as the 'International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives']

The concept of TBL demands that a company's responsibility be to stakeholders rather than shareholders, where "stakeholders" refers to anyone who is influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the actions of the firm.
According to the stakeholder theory, the business entity should be used as a vehicle for coordinating stakeholder interests, instead of just maximizing shareholder (owner) profit.

"People, planet and profit" succinctly describes the triple bottom lines and the goal of sustainability.

"People" (human capital) pertains to fair and beneficial business practices toward labour and the community and region in which a corporation conducts its business.

A triple bottom line enterprise seeks to benefit many constituencies, not exploit or endanger any group of them, but trying to actually quantify this different bottom line is relatively new, problematic and often subjective.

"Planet" (natural capital) refers to sustainable environmental practices.
A TBL endeavor reduces its ecological footprint by, among other things, carefully managing its consumption of energy and non-renewables and reducing manufacturing waste as well as rendering waste less toxic before disposing of it in a safe and legal manner. Literally, this implies a responsible "cradle to grave" approach.

"Profit" is the bottom line shared by all commerce within a sustainability framework, and the economic benefit enjoyed by the host society.

Not to be confused with the limited internal profit made by a company or organization, it is the lasting economic impact the organization has on its economic environment.
A true TBL approach can't be interpreted as traditional corporate accounting tempered with social and environmental impact reports
--------------.

The following business-based arguments support the concept of TBL:

• Reaching untapped market potential: TBL companies can find financially profitable niches which were missed when money alone was the driving factor. Examples include:

• Adding ecotourism or geotourism to an already rich tourism market such as the Dominican Republic

• Developing profitable methods to assist existing NGOs with their missions such as fundraising, reaching clients, or creating networking opportunities with multiple NGOs

• Providing products or services which benefit underserved populations and/or the environment which are also financially profitable.

• Adapting to new business sectors: Since many business opportunities are developing in the realm of social entrepreneurialism, businesses hoping to reach this expanding market must design themselves to be financially profitable, socially beneficial and ecologically sustainable or fail to compete with those companies who do design themselves as such.

• Fiscal policy of governments usually claims to be concerned with identifying social and natural deficits on a less formal basis. However, in a democracy at least, such choices may be guided more by ideology than by economics.

With the emergence of an externally consistent green economics and agreement on definitions of potentially contentious terms such as full-cost accounting, natural capital and social capital, the prospect of formal metrics for ecological and social loss or risk has grown less remote through the 1990s.

While many people agree with the importance of good social conditions and preservation of the environment, there are also many who disagree with the triple bottom line as the way to enhance these conditions.
Imagine that!

Some main arguments against TBL are:

• Division of labour is characteristic of rich societies and a major contributor to their wealth, leading to the view that organisations contribute most to the welfare of society in all respects when they focus on what they do best. .

• Effectiveness: It is observed that concern for social and environmental matters is rare in poor societies (a hungry person would rather eat the whale than photograph it).
Thus by unencumbered attention to business alone, Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand' will ensure that business contributes most effectively to the improvement of all areas of society, social and environmental as well as economic.

• Nationalism: Some countries adopt a nationalistic approach with the view that they must look after their own citizens first. This view is not confined to one sector of society, having support from elements of business, labour unions, and politicians.

• Libertarian: As it is possible for a socially responsible person to sincerely believe that the triple bottom line is harmful to society, the libertarian view is that it would be arrogant to force them to support a mechanism for the improvement of society that may, or may not, be the best available.

• Inertia: The difficulty of achieving global agreement on simultaneous policy may render such measures at best advisory - and thus not enforceable.

• Application: According to Fred Robin's The Challenge of TBL: A Responsibility to Whom? one of the major weaknesses of the TBL framework is its ability to be applied in a monetary-based economic system. Because there is no single way in monetary terms to measure the benefits to the society and environment as there is with profit, it does not allow for businesses to sum across all three bottom lines.

Legislation permitting corporations to adopt a triple bottom line is reportedly under consideration in some jurisdictions, including Minnesota and Oregon.
Some businesses have voluntarily adopted a triple bottom line as part of their articles of incorporation or bylaws, and some have advocated for state laws creating a "Sustainable Corporation" that would grant triple bottom line businesses benefits such as tax breaks.
-------------------------

A few years ago, a group of about 75 community leaders assembled for the purpose of hearing about the new proposed LEED Standards for Neighborhoods from its author, a Seattle architect.
The presentation was very well received, building as it did on the more limited LEED standards for single buildings, and extending the sustainability concept to entire areas.

After the presentation, each table of attendees was given the assignment of rating Bellingham's Waterfront Redevelopment Project's potential for achieving the proposed new LEED* standard.

[The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), provides a suite of standards for environmentally sustainable construction.]

The results were nothing short of astonishing!
Every table saw that the Waterfront Redevelopment had the clear potential for meeting the highest LEED Standard - Platinum!

I don't know what happened to that finding, because it is hard to find it among the things the Port has said and done since then.
Briefly, the idea did reappear when the developer of Victoria, BC's 'Dockside Green' Project came to Bellingham to explain how that undertaking had been conceived.
Fortunately, it's first phases have now achieved the highest LEED standards yet seen anywhere - 63 out of a possible 70 points!
Again, nothing but dead silence from our Port about even trying to put similar goals into practice.

Except, I do recall some claims about the Waterfront becoming a model 'green' redevelopment that would attract national and international attention, become a learning center and generate new businesses.
Such hopeful talk now seems only a fading echo, with the stance our Port has taken with advancing its 'partnership' with the City.

Hey, I know doing a big TBL project ain't easy, especially one that will require major clean-up costs, and still be over 10 times the acreage and 2 to 4 times the developed square footage of Dockside Green [a mere 15 acres].
And, I know the current economic hard times don't help either.
But, externalizing excessive costs to the City, seeking exemptions from developers for impact fees, and trying to cut corners in applying the Waterfront Futures Group Recommendations are NOT the solution!

The Port needs to change its thinking on how to go about achieving its Waterfront Redevelopment using true TBL concepts.
Thank goodness we have an opportunity to elect 2 of 3 new Port Commissioners this year!
Hopefully, a new Commission majority can then search for and find a new Executive Director with the experience and vision to get the Waterfront job done in a true TBL fashion.

I'm voting for John Blethen and Mike McAuley to replace Scott Walker and Doug Smith as Port Commissioners.
I hope you will do likewise.
----------------------------

" While an upgrade that cuts energy use in half can save one dollar per square foot in annual energy costs, it can generate more than ten dollars per square foot in new profits every year if it boosts productivity even five per cent!" - Joseph Romm

" One reason we are in so much trouble is that our modern culture is paradoxically behind the times, still assessing the world the way it did in the nineteenth or even eighteenth centuries: as a place of inexhaustible resources, where man is at the pinnacle of creation, separate from and more important than anything around him." - David Suzuki
---------------------------

• The LEED rating system currently has 6 categories:

1 - Energy & the Atmosphere - 17 points maximum

2- Water Efficiency - 5 points maximum

3- Materials & Resources - 13 points maximum

4- Indoor Air Quality [most complex] - 15 points maximum

5- Sustainable Sites [adjacencies] - 14 points maximum

6. Innovation [ideas outside the box] - 5 points maximum
-----------------------------

Healthcare & Walmart

-----------------------------
This topic ought to be a hot one, irrespective of anyone's view.
Would you believe Walmart's new stance on this issue?
Think they might see some major advantages that favor them which had not been apparent up to now?
I'd bet on that, because that's what free enterprise is all about.

But, the real question is, can companies like Walmart help make the changes that most of us seem to believe are necessary?
You can think of Walmart what you will, but they can -and do- have a major effect on buying habits when they go after something!
--------------------

First, here's what outgoing Walmart CEO Lee Scott had to say about its plan to establish up to 400 health clinics during the next 2-3 years. [Click here]

And, second, here's someone's opinion on 20 ways these new Walmart clinics might impact the existing healthcare system: [Click here]

Next, here's a short summary of Walmart's reversal on supporting a national healthcare system: [Click here]

And, finally, here's a link to yet another opinion that we ought to let Walmart actually run our healthcare system -on the theory they would do a better job than either the government or the existing providers: [Click here]
-----------------------

Just when we think that we've figured out where folks stand on an issue, things do seem to change, don't they?
This will be an interesting subject to follow the next several months, and beyond.
Let's see what actually occurs, as something certainly will.

Whatever happens, we will not be likely to have the same healthcare system -or lack of it- that we have now.
Neither will we get the system that many strongly favor.
Likely, we'll get some collection of compromises that can gather sufficient support to pass Congress.

I hope the compromise ultimately adopted includes universal basic coverage for everyone, and a public system that people can choose if they want it.
There may be some other features that are desirable too, but those two are essential.
Also, there needs to be a system of periodic review, where changes can be made as the need arises.

It is well past the time that a country, like ours, ought to have a decent healthcare system.
Access to reasonable healthcare is something most people think of as a basic right.
Maybe we should consider adding that to the Bill of Rights?
---------------------------

Toolkit Complaint

-----------------------
This time, I'm really mad!
Not just average mad, but livid, outraged and angry.

The whole idea of the City Council giving lip service to the idea of adopting a TOOLKIT is ludicrous.
Why are they wasting time on something like this?
It's unnecessary, unworkable and maybe even un-American!
And to debate this worthless concept in public just demeans people who can't be at the meeting, or don't want to go.
Putting it on public TV is the icing on the cake, and that really frosts me, too.

First, why is any toolkit necessary?
In the old days, folks used to find a cave, or live in a place where the climate was good and food plentiful.
I resent having to pay for something that isn't needed, won't work and is too complicated.
That seems so artificial and wasteful.

Besides, to be affordable, most toolkits are probably made in another country, using inferior materials and workmanship, and having unintelligible instructions!
I resent that, plus having to understand every tool and how it is used.

Take a hammer for example. Why not use a rock?
Rocks are cheap, abundant and usually hard enough -even if they aren't exactly the right shape and size.
Besides, having access to a hammer tends to make folks think that every thing starts to look like a nail!
Why have people running around with tools designed to hit things?

Then, there's screwdrivers; whoever invented them?
And why did someone even carve the first screw? Didn't they have to use another tool to do that?
There are so many kinds and sizes of screwdrivers, too. Excessive!
Plus some idiot decided that screws need to turn to the right to work, most of the time.
Why right and not left? Some right-wing wing-nut probably thought that up to lord it over the rest of us.

Pliers are too dangerous for public use.
Why one could really pinch oneself, if they aren't careful.
And who wants to go around being careful all the time?
Its just another form of government meddling, and loss of individual rights!

There's a few other tools I've heard about, too, but resent having to learn how to use them.
I tell you, this country is going to the dogs, and fast!
Let people invent their own darn tools, I say.
Real folks just don't need 'em, and never did.

This city's already got too much stuff that it can't take care of.
I say stop this toolkit foolishness and save the money.
Heck, it didn't even seem like most Council members understood what a toolkit was for, either.
Who elected them to adopt a bunch of toolkits anyway?

Do they think they are rulers or something?
Are they on the level?
I don't trust 'em, and anyway its unfair to let them have tools when the rest of us have to make do with our hands and feet.
But, these elected officials will find out that we the people do have the ultimate power.

What I'm talking about is the right to run our mouths.
Anytime we want to, but especially after the fact, and fact-free.
And, we are free to do that whether somebody thinks we know what we're talking about or not!
You don't believe that? Just wait and see!

Hey, this is Amurica!

----------------------------
'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 (384 BC - 322 BC)
----------------------------

Cheap Versus Free

---------------------------------------
An article in the current issue of New Yorker magazine by the insightful author Malcolm Gladwell discusses eloquently the difference between something that is cheap and something that is free.

Here's a hint; the difference is huge!
---------------------------------------
Gladwell first points up the problem with the rapid demise of traditional newspapers, which too long relied upon a business model that no longer applies.
As a result, people now rely upon free information from the Internet instead of buying newspapers that are quickly dated by fast-happening events.
News now costs little to nothing, but lost in this decline is the ability to even create in-depth news reports!
That sounds like a mixed bag to me.

Another example is the fast diminishing cost of producing transistors for use in electronic equipment of all types.
This trend does reduce the costs of electronics, but also the profitability of the very companies responsible for their R&D and production.
Another mixed bag.

But, the parallel I want to make is about taxes and the public services they provide for.
Everyone is as concerned with value received for taxes as they are with their own incomes, because the two are directly related.
And, there is no certain litmus test for determining who 'owns' this issue.
It isn't only rhetoric for political parties to bicker about.
It is a real social and economic issue that impacts everyone.

That brings me to the subject of the 'TEA Parties'.
Born of frustration and desperation for political traction, the deservedly diminished Republicans have seized upon taxes, yet again, to attract public attention and more importantly, public passion.
Even with the terrible economic climate -largely caused by irresponsible R spending on Iraq, the Wall Street bail-out, etc. - and the serious City budget crisis, they are willing to go there again!
Why, it's a wonder the words don't wither in their throats!

Do you think the R-TEAs see this as their best chance to whack the local 'guvmint' again while its already down, thereby paring services and programs they have resisted all along?
Things like Parks, Museum, Library are sitting ducks right now, not to speak of slimming down those over-staffed and over-paid Fire & Police Departments.
Brilliant!
While being out of power, the Rs will be claiming a major victory by slashing the City's budget AND its services.
How about that for a strategy?

But, wait.
Remember the difference between cheap and free?
When things are free, people flock to get their share, plus maybe a little more.
Just being cheap won't work when something can be had for free.

Breaking news:
Nothing is free!
Especially those things that are valued cannot be provided with zero revenues.
Like water, we will know its cost when the well is dry.

So, let's don't go there.
Don't even think about it!
Keep the things that are necessary and carefully pare down those that are only 'desirable' for quality of life.
These times will pass and better times will come again.

Listening to the siren call of the TEA Party crowd is a loser for this town and most people already know that.
If we opt for 'free' and do not expect to pay for things that we need or want, we will lose them.
It is just that simple.
Read the New Yorker article, then draw your own conclusions on this.

Last time I checked, the average home-ownwer's annual General Fund costs for City services was about $500, excluding the Greenways Levy which was voluntarily passed by the voting publc.
That seems pretty reasonable to me.
At least that's my opinion.
---------------------------------------

A Tale of Two Cities: Role Models for Bellingham?

-----------------------------
A recent article in Crosscut was fascinating as it juxtaposed the positive and negative characteristics of two northwest cities, Seattle and Vancouver, BC.

What was really interesting was that expert representatives of each city had to advocate for the OTHER city!

That's an idea which requires serious role-playing and an honest effort to see, understand and support arguments and positions they would normally argue against.

Similar to a debating team format, where pro and con sides are selected in advance and the quality of arguments is monitored and rated by an audience and a jury, the method attempts to separate preconceived positions from rational concepts that can be widely understood and accepted.

Socrates would have loved this format, and probably would have been keen to argue both sides of the question himself.
It was that capacity for didactic argument and reasoning that made Socrates so unpopular in some influential circles, that were not at all comfortable with hearing opposing positions from the same person!

Yet that technique seems a very valuable one since it does identify legitimate pros and cons for reasonable consideration.
----------------
Here is a short list of good things about each city, remembering that the discussion is mainly about the built environments.

Vancouver, BC is great because it has:

Stanley Park

Real townhouses

No auto court six-packs

31 miles of mass transit

Consistent, visionary planning

More downtown residents

Skinny Towers that don't block views

More public waterfront access

Walkable neighborhoods

Bikeable streets

No downtown freeways

More cosmopolitan feel

More multi-cultural feel

More "granny flats"

Better new neighborhoods

Bike-borrowing program

More integrated design

More design focus on livability

Families downtown

Seattle is great because it has:

Unique neighborhood character

Downtown ferries

Pike Place Market

Hilly terrain

Local civic patrons

More money

Free downtown buses

Parking strip gardens

Olmsted legacy

Better residential architecture

More architectural risk-taking

Better downtown office towers

A less homogenized feel

More cultural institutions and events

University campuses integrated into the city

Streetcars

Major medical and research complexes

Westlake Plaza (Vancouver had no equivalent)

Seattle Center

As for the cons, both criticized their hometowns for significant failures.

Steinbrueck said of Seattle: "We've given up on families in the urban core."

Price said Vancouver's dirty secret was: "We've reached a very high level of mediocrity."

After the Q&A, the audience was asked to decide who won the debate. It was Gordon Price by a hair, which balanced things out nicely: Steinbrueck was voted the winner in Vancouver. Which produced the kind of result soccer cities can be happy with: a tie.
------------

This topic -now being addressed locally by a housing 'toolkit' -is already of interest locally, as it has rightfully has been for a quite a while.

Examples include our Comprehensive Plan, including the 23 Neighborhood Plan updates [now 24], every annexation discussion, every development proposal of any size, design standards & guidelines, waterfront & other redevelopment schemes, etc.
And this good, certainly better than the public ignoring discussions that could impact the city and its neighborhoods in ways that may not be desirable.

But, there is also the feeling among some that even discussing such a topic is tantamount to opening Pandora's box.
They seem to feel that avoidance is better, that delay is preferable, that blind fear is justified, and that the 'City' cannot be trusted.
That stance is just so much BS!

Some opponents are avowed single issue advocates, some recall experiences in other places that purportedly caused huge problems, some are so focused on ADUs [accessory dwelling units] that they can't get past that block.

And, some advocates have the simple misfortune to be classified as 'developers'.

Both advocates and opponents are correct in that some risks will be taken, even if they turn out to be imaginary.

The bottom line is that if the City really wants to do infill better, it needs better tools to do it.
If this is only about mixed use and multi-family housing areas it falls far short; single-family homes must be part of the mix because there do exist lots that are suitable for modest additional housing.

The Real question is, as it has been, how far do we want to go in telling someone else what they can do with their property?
There are practical limits on what makes sense here, folks.

Besides, we have a professional Hearing Examiner to provide consistent review and compliance with City ordinances and design criteria.
Then, there is the neighborhood review process which gets the true input from those likely to be most affected.

Regarding the perceived 'complexity' of the proposed 'Toolkit', when has that claim NOT been made?
There has to be some thoughtful guidelines to be fair and consistent.

Besides, use of the Toolkit is voluntary, not mandatory!
The Toolkit is available for those who wish to use it, period.

So, what is the problem -really?

It is certainly NOT the loss of our single-family neighborhoods!
Did you know that the proposed Toolkit was essentially 'borrowed' from Seattle, a city renowned for the excellence of its neighborhoods.

Let's get serious about this issue and get on with the business of creating more design options, green practices, affordability and land use efficiency.
At some point, citizens will need to connect the dots that this exercise has not happened out of thin air.

This project has been the result of many public planning sessions, careful thought and hundreds of hours of professional staff time.
To dismiss it with knee-jerk reactions is simply not responsible or appropriate, and demeans the effort expended as well as the reasonable intent behind it.

To mouth the words 'I'm all for infill', and then badmouth reasonable attempts to actually implement it, seems disingenuous at best.
Every Toolkit, ordinance or guideline developed will never please everyone, although each will undoubtedly obtain as much public process and consensus as is possible.

I do hope the City will approve this Toolkit in some form after its planned due process, because it does represent a step forward for the City.
Otherwise, we are spinning our wheels and wasting everyone's time.

If, for some reason, the final version of the Toolkit proves unworkable or otherwise undesirable, it can always be modified or rescinded.
Let's don't forget that.
-----------------------------------------

On Kings & Things

---------------------------------
The recent sudden death of Michael Jackson, the 'King of Pop', has caused a sensation and a self-perpetuating media frenzy.
It also points up something about us as a society; that we desperately want -crave- heroes that we can idolize.

That seems true whether they are real heroes, entertainers, sports stars, egregious villains, the super wealthy or political figures are chosen.
Human nature is a strange beast that manifests itself in patterns through history.
And, sometimes, history itself seems to magnify and distort popular opinion.

Those two words, 'popular opinion' are key.
Popular means accepted by many or most people.
Opinion means perception, whether fact-based or not.

Interesting, that after centuries of learning and advances in science that we are still ruled by our senses, emotions and perceptions, isn't it?
Sir Francis Bacon, Sir Isaac Newton, John Locke can also be thought of as popular figures in history, but they do not begin to rise to the level of Muhammad Ali, Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson in the hearts and minds of most members of the American public.

Hard to say why that is so, but I expect it has to do with emotions being accessed before thoughts.
Like the heart always seems to trump the head in matters of love or other strong emotions.
----------

Over 200 years ago, I expect things were similar in the midst of George Washington's immense popularity following the War of Independence.
Back then, folks were keen to make GW 'King for Life', not just President.
But, wise old George had other ideas.
He wanted to return to private life, not that he regretted spending about 50 years in the service of his country.

No, Washington was essentially a modest man, with strong ethics, work habits and a quiet sense of duty.
He is my preferred type of hero, and history only seems to enhance his image.

Even that other George -King George of England- thought our George Washington to be 'the greatest man in history' because he willingly gave up power!
Different strokes for different folks I guess.
Once a King, always a King - they like all that monarchy stuff that we fought to escape.

But, now we seem to crave 'kings' of a different sort; ones that can entertain us in ways that we enjoy -often without thinking required, just plain feeling without any lasting obligation aside from the costs which we willingly pay.
And, the new 'kings' seem to crave the spotlight, and the fame and the fortune it brings, until it's not much fun for them anymore.

They often become captives of their own success, seek privacy, develop coping mechanisms, and suffer in their own unique ways that are hard for their fans to understand.
I suspect that some would like to return to private life, like George Washington did.
But, maybe without the satisfaction of real sacrifice and public service?
I don't know.

At some point, I have to think that some kinds of success are inherently more rewarding than others.
But, that is not to say some modern 'kings' have not contributed mightily to humanitarian causes, and have developed strong values and goals in their lives, and set good examples.
It just seems sad that so many of today's 'kings' seem so shallow, trapped in materialism, hounded by the media, and doomed to a life that becomes less and less rewarding and satisfying to them.

Part of human nature, I guess.
I suspect that particular exploration and mastery is our real challenge and frontier.
Nobody knows...
----------------------

"If we keep going the way we are going, we are going to end up where we are headed." - Groucho Marx
-----------------------