The first time I saw the book 'Computers for Dummies' I was somewhat put off by the title. Sure, I needed the advice it likely contained, but it felt a little odd being called a 'dummy' -by author? publisher?- if I bought it to read!
The latest issue of Cascadia Weekly uses the 'Dummy' gimmick to introduce only those candidates for local offices who have Primary races.
That includes for Bellingham, the Mayor, At-Large Council and Ward 4 Council seats; for Whatcom County, the District 1 Council seat; for Ferndale, the Mayor's race.
A 'ranking of candidates' is cleverly done as a continuation of the 'sub-genius' theme. Each candidate is tagged with a short label with a twist, designed to -not so subtlely- show the editor's preference.
But wait, there's more to this ranking system, that seems to be more of an insight into the editor's preferences than the candidates fitness for office!
But, hey, that's OK. It's an opinion piece -like this blog- except, the Weekly has a much bigger following and more bucks behind it.
Using the clever rating device of 'meters' for 'moxie' and 'chutzpah', the Weekly has designed something only it understands and placed it on the page where 'dummies' can be attracted to read it. Too clever by half!
Not content with just a marked deck, the Weekly then stacks this deck with an unexplained -but very obvious-rating system comprised of arrows - either up or down, and differing in length - that tell the 'dummy' voters which way to vote!
I got a real chuckle out of this, although some of my favorite candidates were thoroughly skewered by it.
The candidate rankings showed pronounced bias in two main areas; specifically the Bham Mayor's race, and generally, an anti-incumbent stance. Actually, the 'anti-incumbent' part was stretched to mean any one who had ever served the City, either in some elected capacity - or appointed one. Huh? What is that about? Isn't some prior experience desirable? Guess not, because those folks aren't as fun to watch as 'newbies'. Fresh meat is craved!
The point of this piece is not to tout the Weekly's cleverness, or complain about the candidate ranking system, but to reflect on what the former Weekly -the every other one- felt about actually picking favorites in local elections.
My recollection is that the former Weekly -same editor- thought that the practice of local media picking favorites was a poor one, and did not directly engage in that activity. Apparently, that philosophy has changed.
Perhaps this change was occasioned by the change in ownership? I don't know. More likely is the editor's penchant for taking sides on controversial topics with moxie and chutzpah, and thereby generating more buzz in our City of Subdued Excitement?
Maybe that is it! Pick a topic that is likely to generate all sorts of controversy, and light the fuse to see what happens!
Heck, other corporate media do that, why not? If that is part of the Weekly's MO, that's not all bad either, because such topics NEED to be discussed.
My main concern is whether a discussion is being deliberately lead in a direction that does not strike a reasonable balance between fact & opinion, pro & con, benefits vs costs, legality & illegality, needs vs wishes, and hidden agendas vs public ones.
But fairly evaluating those things is so boring, isn't it? Hard work can be that way, but that is ultimately what serves the public best, once a community's needs and priorities have been established. Changes are always in order, some more beneficial than others, because that is what keeps our democracy alive.
My caution is simple; don't overly abuse what is in our long term best interests with unworthy substitutes, like empty rhetoric, data-free analyses and a steady diet of complaining!
A J Liebling is credited with saying 'the power of the press belongs to those who own one'!
As a respected local source of fun, information and opinion, the Weekly provides a service and a voice that help citizens feel more a part of what's going on.
So, please don't over abuse your power of persuasion, but do keep on entertaining us!
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Pooh Bear's Easter Party
One sunny day in the 100-acre wood, Pooh Bear decided he wanted to have a party and invite all his friends. Because Easter time was approaching, Pooh thought an Easter egg hunt would be fun too. So, he decided to invite his guests to each bring a little basket in which to put the eggs they found. Pooh decided he would dye the eggs and hide them, but not to hide them so well that his friends could not find them.
Pooh decided he would buy enough eggs for everyone to have at least one, and maybe two or three - but not six- if they were good at finding eggs in the woods. Pooh dyed the eggs all different colors, some red, some blue, some yellow and some green. He even mixed the colors so he could make orange eggs and purple eggs and all sorts of other combinations of colors. He did this because Pooh knew that all his friends liked all the colors and he wanted to make them all as happy as possible.
The more Pooh thought about his party, the happier Pooh got, until he felt his cheeks hurt because he was smiling so much! You see, Pooh really liked parties himself, and he especially liked parties where all his friends could come and have a good time together!
On the day of his party, Pooh carefully took each of his pretty, bright colored eggs and hid them one by one. Some eggs he hid in a clump of grass, some behind a bush, some in the short trees where leafy branches were easy to reach, and a few behind some rocks. He even saved a few eggs for some of his friends who he knew were not very good at finding things like eggs. Pooh thought he could secretly put these extra eggs in their baskets when they were not looking. That way, everyone could have an egg or two or three, and not just those who were very good at finding eggs.
When he was finished hiding the Easter eggs, Pooh waited for his friends to arrive. And, they came one by one, and sometimes two by two, and once three came at one time. Everyone had brought their baskets, and they were all very happy that Pooh had invited them to his party. Pooh was happy too. He couldn't wait to serve them some apple punch and nuts with honey and a bowl of bright red and purple berries he had found in the 100 acre wood. The berries reminded Pooh of some of the eggs he had dyed and hidden for his friends to find.
After all the delicious refreshments had been eaten up, Pooh's friends were so happy they couldn't wait any longer to find the Easter eggs that Pooh had hidden. So, off they went with their baskets, with Pooh following them so he could watch the fun, and maybe even help some of his smaller friends to find their eggs. 'Hurray', 'Yippee', 'Oh boy, I found one' were the things Pooh heard his friends exclaim. Pretty soon, most of the hidden eggs had been found, so Pooh decided to give some clues to his friends where the rest of the eggs might be found. At last, all of Pooh's eggs had been found, and each of his friends had found at least three eggs, enough to fill their baskets. Pooh was so happy that he was almost beside himself. And his friends were all happy too! All but Piglet.
Piglet had wandered off and not found any of Pooh's eggs, and he was crying.
Pooh asked Piglet what had happened and why he had not found any of the hidden eggs. Through his tears, Piglet explained that he had found what he thought was an egg, but it was too big and heavy for him to pick up and put in his basket. And besides, Piglet's basket wasn't big enough to put the egg in. So, Piglet was very unhappy and sad. Pooh became sad too, and so did all of his friends.
All at once, Pooh had an idea of how he could make Piglet feel happy, even though he had not found a proper egg. Pooh said to his friends, does anyone have an egg to share with Piglet? And do you know what happened then? Every one of Pooh's friends decided to give Piglet one of his eggs! All different colors, too! There were red ones, blue ones and all the many colors. In fact, there were too many eggs to put into Piglet's basket! Piglet did not know what to do. Should he continue to cry because he hadn't found an egg that would fit into his basket? Or, should he be happy because all Pooh's friends had given him an egg. You see, he couldn't fit all these eggs into his basket either.
Pooh could see that Piglet could not decide whether to laugh or cry, and he still wanted to help Piglet. So, Pooh said, so that all his friends could hear, 'Why don't we count all the eggs and divide them up so that everybody has an equal number? Pooh's friends all thought that was a very good idea, and one that would also make Piglet decide to be happy instead of sad. So they did what Pooh thought would help, and everyone got the same number of eggs, and they were all happy again, especially Piglet. Piglet hugged Pooh and told him what a great party it had been. And, that was what happened one sunny day in 100-acre wood.
Pooh decided he would buy enough eggs for everyone to have at least one, and maybe two or three - but not six- if they were good at finding eggs in the woods. Pooh dyed the eggs all different colors, some red, some blue, some yellow and some green. He even mixed the colors so he could make orange eggs and purple eggs and all sorts of other combinations of colors. He did this because Pooh knew that all his friends liked all the colors and he wanted to make them all as happy as possible.
The more Pooh thought about his party, the happier Pooh got, until he felt his cheeks hurt because he was smiling so much! You see, Pooh really liked parties himself, and he especially liked parties where all his friends could come and have a good time together!
On the day of his party, Pooh carefully took each of his pretty, bright colored eggs and hid them one by one. Some eggs he hid in a clump of grass, some behind a bush, some in the short trees where leafy branches were easy to reach, and a few behind some rocks. He even saved a few eggs for some of his friends who he knew were not very good at finding things like eggs. Pooh thought he could secretly put these extra eggs in their baskets when they were not looking. That way, everyone could have an egg or two or three, and not just those who were very good at finding eggs.
When he was finished hiding the Easter eggs, Pooh waited for his friends to arrive. And, they came one by one, and sometimes two by two, and once three came at one time. Everyone had brought their baskets, and they were all very happy that Pooh had invited them to his party. Pooh was happy too. He couldn't wait to serve them some apple punch and nuts with honey and a bowl of bright red and purple berries he had found in the 100 acre wood. The berries reminded Pooh of some of the eggs he had dyed and hidden for his friends to find.
After all the delicious refreshments had been eaten up, Pooh's friends were so happy they couldn't wait any longer to find the Easter eggs that Pooh had hidden. So, off they went with their baskets, with Pooh following them so he could watch the fun, and maybe even help some of his smaller friends to find their eggs. 'Hurray', 'Yippee', 'Oh boy, I found one' were the things Pooh heard his friends exclaim. Pretty soon, most of the hidden eggs had been found, so Pooh decided to give some clues to his friends where the rest of the eggs might be found. At last, all of Pooh's eggs had been found, and each of his friends had found at least three eggs, enough to fill their baskets. Pooh was so happy that he was almost beside himself. And his friends were all happy too! All but Piglet.
Piglet had wandered off and not found any of Pooh's eggs, and he was crying.
Pooh asked Piglet what had happened and why he had not found any of the hidden eggs. Through his tears, Piglet explained that he had found what he thought was an egg, but it was too big and heavy for him to pick up and put in his basket. And besides, Piglet's basket wasn't big enough to put the egg in. So, Piglet was very unhappy and sad. Pooh became sad too, and so did all of his friends.
All at once, Pooh had an idea of how he could make Piglet feel happy, even though he had not found a proper egg. Pooh said to his friends, does anyone have an egg to share with Piglet? And do you know what happened then? Every one of Pooh's friends decided to give Piglet one of his eggs! All different colors, too! There were red ones, blue ones and all the many colors. In fact, there were too many eggs to put into Piglet's basket! Piglet did not know what to do. Should he continue to cry because he hadn't found an egg that would fit into his basket? Or, should he be happy because all Pooh's friends had given him an egg. You see, he couldn't fit all these eggs into his basket either.
Pooh could see that Piglet could not decide whether to laugh or cry, and he still wanted to help Piglet. So, Pooh said, so that all his friends could hear, 'Why don't we count all the eggs and divide them up so that everybody has an equal number? Pooh's friends all thought that was a very good idea, and one that would also make Piglet decide to be happy instead of sad. So they did what Pooh thought would help, and everyone got the same number of eggs, and they were all happy again, especially Piglet. Piglet hugged Pooh and told him what a great party it had been. And, that was what happened one sunny day in 100-acre wood.
Friday, August 3, 2007
On Integrity and Competence
I believe John Servais' blog today on NW Citizen got it right that the most important qualifications for elected officials and candidates for these offices are integrity and competence. It isn't always possible to expect more than these, but it's certainly not in the public interest to accept less!
The question is, 'how to determine whether people have sufficient integrity and competence for public service'? What is the test? How do we know candidates will have this integrity and competence, until they are actually tested in office? Are integrity and competence enough? Does some part of what 'competence' means related to actual experience and effectiveness on the job? If so, why isn't incumbency valued more? Are our expectations of elected officials reasonably aligned with reality?
These are really good questions for voters to consider, but they won't mean as much if voter's don't vote! My blog for July 29, titled Candidate Questionnaire & Decision Making attempts to find the right questions to ask that will help us know something more about candidates than just their campaign rhetoric on current issues, which, of course, is needed to get them elected.
Once people are elected, their actual performance toward the goals they promised can become a measure of their success. But, before they are in office, some 'leap of faith' is required to become elected. It has been said that 'politics is the art of the possible', and that is inherently true.
While someone has to serve in office, that person must also work with their peers, other elected officers, counterparts in other jurisdictions and the public. Of these groups, only the public can really hold any elected official truly responsible for their performance. This can be done through political pressure for positive change, or by threat of not being re-elected, as electeds quickly find out once they are in office! Sometimes, the pressure is strong to do things that will not be legal or sustainable enough for everyone over time. Sometimes, electeds find it expedient to pander to special interests to remain popular and stay in office. Where does integrity and competence fit into these situations?
Years ago, when I was first appointed to City Council, a former Council member sent me this quote, which I took as good advice: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion." -Sir Edmund Burke
The best test for which candidates would make the best elected officials probably combines the following ingredients among others: Do enough people know them to adequately judge their character, especially integrity and competence? Will they be good listeners? Will they have the courage to take action that might not be popular? Have they demonstrated knowledge of and commitment to those values that the community supports? Do they have hidden agendas? Will they be respectful and civil, regardless of temptations to the contrary? Will they fairly weigh and balance all arguments before settling on a preferred position?
Can they consistently separate fact from fiction, and fairly represent the long term public interest over divisive issues?
Aristotle considered Politics as a 'practical science', meaning rigid criteria weren't possible as with, say, mathematics for example. Democracy itself is not amenable to any one cookbook recipe, but dynamic and adaptable in nature, as it has to be. But politics without principle is a loser for everyone! It is always up to the citizens to figure out and then demand whatever principles we expect in our elected officials!
---------------------------------------------
One last thought on the subject of integrity and competence.
During the 2000 Presidential Primary, I strongly supported Bill Bradley for his integrity and competence. He didn't succeed in becoming President, or even as the Democrats candidate, but he did succeed in maintaining his integrity and competence!
Bradley has now written a new book, titled 'The New American Story'. which I have read with great interest. It is an ambitious, right-minded book which addresses many of the problems our nation, and we as the people, continue to have that are not being even adequately discussed by our elected officials in that other Washington, much less resolved.
Bradley's topics include America's role in the World; the Economy; Oil & the Environment; Pensions; Health Care; Education, all huge and daunting challenges! And, he does it from the perspective that each 'problem' is also an 'opportunity', then offers some very clear suggestions as to what actions can be taken to achieve the progress that would benefit all citizens. But, Bradley doesn't stop there, he estimates the costs for his recommendations and identifies funding sources for them, too.
The big 'surprise' is that all these things could all be accomplished by -ready for this?- reordering our priorities and redirecting existing funding! Of course, these aren't simple, small things, they are hard things that will require effort and political courage that only the American people can provide. There's that concept again, we can't expect our leaders to just 'handle it', can we?.
But, Bradley also does not play the partisan 'blame game' either. Oh no, there is enough blame to go around and then some! His chapters on 'Why the Republicans Can't' and 'Why he Democrats Won't' make it clear that there are some conundrums we've gotten ourselves into that have become entrenched obstacles to any real progress happening any time soon.
In his concluding chapters, Bradley explains why this 'New Story' is really 'good politics', and what citizens can do to help these problems become opportunities that we can get behind and make happen. I was inspired by this book, and I think others will be too!
The question is, 'how to determine whether people have sufficient integrity and competence for public service'? What is the test? How do we know candidates will have this integrity and competence, until they are actually tested in office? Are integrity and competence enough? Does some part of what 'competence' means related to actual experience and effectiveness on the job? If so, why isn't incumbency valued more? Are our expectations of elected officials reasonably aligned with reality?
These are really good questions for voters to consider, but they won't mean as much if voter's don't vote! My blog for July 29, titled Candidate Questionnaire & Decision Making attempts to find the right questions to ask that will help us know something more about candidates than just their campaign rhetoric on current issues, which, of course, is needed to get them elected.
Once people are elected, their actual performance toward the goals they promised can become a measure of their success. But, before they are in office, some 'leap of faith' is required to become elected. It has been said that 'politics is the art of the possible', and that is inherently true.
While someone has to serve in office, that person must also work with their peers, other elected officers, counterparts in other jurisdictions and the public. Of these groups, only the public can really hold any elected official truly responsible for their performance. This can be done through political pressure for positive change, or by threat of not being re-elected, as electeds quickly find out once they are in office! Sometimes, the pressure is strong to do things that will not be legal or sustainable enough for everyone over time. Sometimes, electeds find it expedient to pander to special interests to remain popular and stay in office. Where does integrity and competence fit into these situations?
Years ago, when I was first appointed to City Council, a former Council member sent me this quote, which I took as good advice: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion." -Sir Edmund Burke
The best test for which candidates would make the best elected officials probably combines the following ingredients among others: Do enough people know them to adequately judge their character, especially integrity and competence? Will they be good listeners? Will they have the courage to take action that might not be popular? Have they demonstrated knowledge of and commitment to those values that the community supports? Do they have hidden agendas? Will they be respectful and civil, regardless of temptations to the contrary? Will they fairly weigh and balance all arguments before settling on a preferred position?
Can they consistently separate fact from fiction, and fairly represent the long term public interest over divisive issues?
Aristotle considered Politics as a 'practical science', meaning rigid criteria weren't possible as with, say, mathematics for example. Democracy itself is not amenable to any one cookbook recipe, but dynamic and adaptable in nature, as it has to be. But politics without principle is a loser for everyone! It is always up to the citizens to figure out and then demand whatever principles we expect in our elected officials!
---------------------------------------------
One last thought on the subject of integrity and competence.
During the 2000 Presidential Primary, I strongly supported Bill Bradley for his integrity and competence. He didn't succeed in becoming President, or even as the Democrats candidate, but he did succeed in maintaining his integrity and competence!
Bradley has now written a new book, titled 'The New American Story'. which I have read with great interest. It is an ambitious, right-minded book which addresses many of the problems our nation, and we as the people, continue to have that are not being even adequately discussed by our elected officials in that other Washington, much less resolved.
Bradley's topics include America's role in the World; the Economy; Oil & the Environment; Pensions; Health Care; Education, all huge and daunting challenges! And, he does it from the perspective that each 'problem' is also an 'opportunity', then offers some very clear suggestions as to what actions can be taken to achieve the progress that would benefit all citizens. But, Bradley doesn't stop there, he estimates the costs for his recommendations and identifies funding sources for them, too.
The big 'surprise' is that all these things could all be accomplished by -ready for this?- reordering our priorities and redirecting existing funding! Of course, these aren't simple, small things, they are hard things that will require effort and political courage that only the American people can provide. There's that concept again, we can't expect our leaders to just 'handle it', can we?.
But, Bradley also does not play the partisan 'blame game' either. Oh no, there is enough blame to go around and then some! His chapters on 'Why the Republicans Can't' and 'Why he Democrats Won't' make it clear that there are some conundrums we've gotten ourselves into that have become entrenched obstacles to any real progress happening any time soon.
In his concluding chapters, Bradley explains why this 'New Story' is really 'good politics', and what citizens can do to help these problems become opportunities that we can get behind and make happen. I was inspired by this book, and I think others will be too!
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Solar Power Case Study: An Old Idea With New Economics
During these wonderful sunny days in August, as I see my electric bills decline, I'm reminded of an article Whatcom Watch published for me last year. It is posted below for those who might want to consider using solar power themselves to save energy use and help protect the environment.
In late 2005, I attended a conference and exhibition at the Bellingham Ferry Terminal sponsored by Sustainable Connections and the Building Industry Association. One of the sessions focused on Solar Energy systems for homeowners as a means of saving on electric power costs and protecting the environment. A presentation by a local expert on renewable energy, Dana Brandt, particularly attracted my attention. Later, I contacted him for advice on the feasibility of installing a small Photovoltaic [PV] Solar Power generating system at my home.
Dana surveyed my home for potential sites that capture sunlight most of the day, and confirmed that my garage roof was a really good choice. The garage faces south and has a flat roof that gently slopes to the north, giving it a relatively unimpeded solar exposure during most of the day. This site also has the advantage of not significantly impacting views from any direction - an important consideration in maintaining good relationships with neighbors. Dana used a special instrument that allowed him to determine the maximum percentage of potentially available direct sunlight that could access a properly placed and angled array of solar panels, during all seasons of the year.
Costs & Feasibility
Based on this survey and the schematic he developed, Dana estimated the costs associated with a roof-mounted PV system with 1.52 kW generating capacity, assuming that all the generated DC power would be converted to AC power and fed back into the PSE grid through my electric meter. The system included 8 Sanyo PV Panels -each 3-feet by 4-feet, 4-inches- mounted side by side on adjustable aluminum frames, an assembly designed to withstand 200 mph winds. The total solar array surface area is 104 square feet and its length is 24 feet. The system uses a power inverter to convert DC power from the PV array to AC power, and a separate output meter to track both the total energy generated and instantaneous readouts. The entire system is hard-wired through my household electrical circuit breaker panel into my electric meter, a special type provided free by PSE [Puget Sound Energy] that is designed to track their net-metering system.
Based on my specific system design, Dana's proposal [December 2005] for the total installed cost of my PV system was $13,685 excluding any incentives. Using conservative estimating techniques to calculate payback, these were the results:
Taking into account the added resale value of my home, the PV system will payback in about 16 years. If I choose to ignore the increased value of the home as part of the payback, the payback becomes 25 years. The estimated life of the PV system itself is 30 years. Substantial increases in the cost of power will shorten this payback period.
The payback calculations included these incentives, tax credits and energy saving calculations that helped me to justify making this investment:
One-Time Incentives
Federal Income Tax Credit for Renewable Energy: $2,000
PSE Rebate [based on 1.52kW installed capacity]: $874
Washington State Sales Taxes are also waived as an additional incentive
Ongoing incentives:
PSE Net Metering [increases in proportion to rates]: $0.067807 per kWh
Washington State Production Incentive [9 years total]: $0.150 per kWh
Green Tags Certification Credits: $0.050 per kWh
For my historic rate of electrical usage, the PV system is expected to generate about 22% of my annual consumption, or about 1642 kWh per year. At peak production about 33% of my average needs will be produced. When I am not consuming power at the usual rate, my PV generated power sold to PSE may exceed the amount I buy from them.
Projected Annual Savings from Ongoing Incentives
PSE Net Metering: 1642 kWh/year X $0.007807/kWh = $111.34 per year
Washington State Incentive: 1642 kWh/year X $0.15/kWh = $246.30 per year
Green Tags Credits: 1642 kWh/year X $0.05/kWh = $82 per year
Total Estimated Savings from Ongoing Incentives [at current rates] = $439.64 per year
Because PSE charges more for power usage above 600 kWh per month, I will also almost always avoid having to pay for this more expensive power [$0.08484 per kWh]. This amounts to "peak shaving", which in this case saves me from having to use power that is 25% more expensive.
Most single-family homes use electric power at levels averaging between 15 kWh/day and 50 kWh/day, depending upon the number of people, appliances, lights and the intensity of use. My electric power use has averaged just over 20 kWh/day during the past 2 years [7347 kWh/year].
Installation and Commissioning
Based on the estimated economics, I decided to go ahead with the project and wrote Dana a check to procure the equipment and materials. These were delivered directly to my home and stored in the garage until the weather improved enough to begin installation. This relatively simple installation required 3 days, with most of the work done by Dana, with help from an experienced and licensed electrician he hired for one day. After completion, the PV system was tested, turned on and began to immediately generate power. Inspections by the City and PSE proved routine, and I first entered the power generation business during a sunny break!
Each step of this installation was recorded by digital camera, and the supporting paperwork and documentation was handled quickly. I was pleased to pay Dana the balance due and ask for his assistance in writing up the project for publication. Four PSE personnel came for a final inspection and short tour of the system with Dana. Look for this PV installation to be a stop on the 2006 Sustainable Connections tour.
Pollution Avoidance: A Hidden Benefit
Another great benefit from using PV solar power is avoiding greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants from conventional power plants that burn fossil fuels. Dana estimates that a 1.52 KW PV system like mine typically saves the following pollution from occurring:
Carbon Dioxide [CO2]: 465.90 lbs/year or 13,977.0 lbs over 30 years
Nitrogen Oxides [NOX]: 0.90 lbs/yr or 27.03 lbs/30 yrs
Sulfur Dioxide [SO2]: 2.56 lb/yr or 76.75 lbs/30 yrs
Mercury [Hg]: 3.96 mg/yr or 118.8 mg/30 yrs
The actual pollution avoidance benefits we realize here in the Northwest are higher than these standard estimates because 80% of our energy normally comes from hydropower, which doesn't require burning fossil fuels. Therefore, only about 20% of these amounts derive from local power generation. But, because Bonneville Power doesn't scale back its hydropower generating ability, this avoids having to import energy produced from fossil fuels elsewhere, which means the actual pollution avoidance we experience in Washington is about 3.75 times the above the standard calculations above.
Conclusion: The New Energy Economics
The pollution avoidance realities outlined above have always been in existence, but were obscured by the benefits of low energy costs and an almost tacit acceptance of incremental environmental degradation. How easy it has been to ignore these impacts; almost like a frog in a pot of water, slowly being brought to a boil. Now that energy costs are rising rapidly, global warming is visibly happening and the economic gap between personal/family incomes and necessities is growing, we are suddenly able to see more clearly the impacts of continuing a 'business as usual' attitude toward how we live and use energy.
These national and global trends have directly led to some new economic realities that are now beginning to make sustainable practices more feasible and attractive. When an investment in a small PV energy system begins to pencil out, people will begin to notice, and some will be inclined to make similar investments. For example, the trend toward energy efficient appliances and vehicles is becoming more and more of a 'no-brainer'. Even with slightly higher first costs, these high efficiency machines and systems easily pay for themselves very quickly in reduced energy costs. More important, they continue to pay large dividends in avoided energy and pollution costs. Hopefully, these new economics will translate into more sustainable lifestyles as the preferred choice of many, not just a few.
Coupled with the new economics, more new high-tech and high efficiency devices are being developed to help curtail energy waste, but these are not -in themselves- the answer. There are no good substitutes for personal awareness, accepting responsibility and taking action. Consumption has its own limits, and its expensive consequences.
As Dana Brandt suggests, a great new 'take-away' message to offer is: "All you who care for the environment, and/or wish to be less dependent on foreign oil - the time has come that you can afford to do something about it. The confluence of an array of incentives and high energy prices makes solar power -and other highly energy efficient systems- accessible to nearly all of us"
Footnote: Two neighbors noticed the PV System installation and inquired what was happening. Both have subsequently asked Dana for proposals! Are there any others out there?
In late 2005, I attended a conference and exhibition at the Bellingham Ferry Terminal sponsored by Sustainable Connections and the Building Industry Association. One of the sessions focused on Solar Energy systems for homeowners as a means of saving on electric power costs and protecting the environment. A presentation by a local expert on renewable energy, Dana Brandt, particularly attracted my attention. Later, I contacted him for advice on the feasibility of installing a small Photovoltaic [PV] Solar Power generating system at my home.
Dana surveyed my home for potential sites that capture sunlight most of the day, and confirmed that my garage roof was a really good choice. The garage faces south and has a flat roof that gently slopes to the north, giving it a relatively unimpeded solar exposure during most of the day. This site also has the advantage of not significantly impacting views from any direction - an important consideration in maintaining good relationships with neighbors. Dana used a special instrument that allowed him to determine the maximum percentage of potentially available direct sunlight that could access a properly placed and angled array of solar panels, during all seasons of the year.
Costs & Feasibility
Based on this survey and the schematic he developed, Dana estimated the costs associated with a roof-mounted PV system with 1.52 kW generating capacity, assuming that all the generated DC power would be converted to AC power and fed back into the PSE grid through my electric meter. The system included 8 Sanyo PV Panels -each 3-feet by 4-feet, 4-inches- mounted side by side on adjustable aluminum frames, an assembly designed to withstand 200 mph winds. The total solar array surface area is 104 square feet and its length is 24 feet. The system uses a power inverter to convert DC power from the PV array to AC power, and a separate output meter to track both the total energy generated and instantaneous readouts. The entire system is hard-wired through my household electrical circuit breaker panel into my electric meter, a special type provided free by PSE [Puget Sound Energy] that is designed to track their net-metering system.
Based on my specific system design, Dana's proposal [December 2005] for the total installed cost of my PV system was $13,685 excluding any incentives. Using conservative estimating techniques to calculate payback, these were the results:
Taking into account the added resale value of my home, the PV system will payback in about 16 years. If I choose to ignore the increased value of the home as part of the payback, the payback becomes 25 years. The estimated life of the PV system itself is 30 years. Substantial increases in the cost of power will shorten this payback period.
The payback calculations included these incentives, tax credits and energy saving calculations that helped me to justify making this investment:
One-Time Incentives
Federal Income Tax Credit for Renewable Energy: $2,000
PSE Rebate [based on 1.52kW installed capacity]: $874
Washington State Sales Taxes are also waived as an additional incentive
Ongoing incentives:
PSE Net Metering [increases in proportion to rates]: $0.067807 per kWh
Washington State Production Incentive [9 years total]: $0.150 per kWh
Green Tags Certification Credits: $0.050 per kWh
For my historic rate of electrical usage, the PV system is expected to generate about 22% of my annual consumption, or about 1642 kWh per year. At peak production about 33% of my average needs will be produced. When I am not consuming power at the usual rate, my PV generated power sold to PSE may exceed the amount I buy from them.
Projected Annual Savings from Ongoing Incentives
PSE Net Metering: 1642 kWh/year X $0.007807/kWh = $111.34 per year
Washington State Incentive: 1642 kWh/year X $0.15/kWh = $246.30 per year
Green Tags Credits: 1642 kWh/year X $0.05/kWh = $82 per year
Total Estimated Savings from Ongoing Incentives [at current rates] = $439.64 per year
Because PSE charges more for power usage above 600 kWh per month, I will also almost always avoid having to pay for this more expensive power [$0.08484 per kWh]. This amounts to "peak shaving", which in this case saves me from having to use power that is 25% more expensive.
Most single-family homes use electric power at levels averaging between 15 kWh/day and 50 kWh/day, depending upon the number of people, appliances, lights and the intensity of use. My electric power use has averaged just over 20 kWh/day during the past 2 years [7347 kWh/year].
Installation and Commissioning
Based on the estimated economics, I decided to go ahead with the project and wrote Dana a check to procure the equipment and materials. These were delivered directly to my home and stored in the garage until the weather improved enough to begin installation. This relatively simple installation required 3 days, with most of the work done by Dana, with help from an experienced and licensed electrician he hired for one day. After completion, the PV system was tested, turned on and began to immediately generate power. Inspections by the City and PSE proved routine, and I first entered the power generation business during a sunny break!
Each step of this installation was recorded by digital camera, and the supporting paperwork and documentation was handled quickly. I was pleased to pay Dana the balance due and ask for his assistance in writing up the project for publication. Four PSE personnel came for a final inspection and short tour of the system with Dana. Look for this PV installation to be a stop on the 2006 Sustainable Connections tour.
Pollution Avoidance: A Hidden Benefit
Another great benefit from using PV solar power is avoiding greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants from conventional power plants that burn fossil fuels. Dana estimates that a 1.52 KW PV system like mine typically saves the following pollution from occurring:
Carbon Dioxide [CO2]: 465.90 lbs/year or 13,977.0 lbs over 30 years
Nitrogen Oxides [NOX]: 0.90 lbs/yr or 27.03 lbs/30 yrs
Sulfur Dioxide [SO2]: 2.56 lb/yr or 76.75 lbs/30 yrs
Mercury [Hg]: 3.96 mg/yr or 118.8 mg/30 yrs
The actual pollution avoidance benefits we realize here in the Northwest are higher than these standard estimates because 80% of our energy normally comes from hydropower, which doesn't require burning fossil fuels. Therefore, only about 20% of these amounts derive from local power generation. But, because Bonneville Power doesn't scale back its hydropower generating ability, this avoids having to import energy produced from fossil fuels elsewhere, which means the actual pollution avoidance we experience in Washington is about 3.75 times the above the standard calculations above.
Conclusion: The New Energy Economics
The pollution avoidance realities outlined above have always been in existence, but were obscured by the benefits of low energy costs and an almost tacit acceptance of incremental environmental degradation. How easy it has been to ignore these impacts; almost like a frog in a pot of water, slowly being brought to a boil. Now that energy costs are rising rapidly, global warming is visibly happening and the economic gap between personal/family incomes and necessities is growing, we are suddenly able to see more clearly the impacts of continuing a 'business as usual' attitude toward how we live and use energy.
These national and global trends have directly led to some new economic realities that are now beginning to make sustainable practices more feasible and attractive. When an investment in a small PV energy system begins to pencil out, people will begin to notice, and some will be inclined to make similar investments. For example, the trend toward energy efficient appliances and vehicles is becoming more and more of a 'no-brainer'. Even with slightly higher first costs, these high efficiency machines and systems easily pay for themselves very quickly in reduced energy costs. More important, they continue to pay large dividends in avoided energy and pollution costs. Hopefully, these new economics will translate into more sustainable lifestyles as the preferred choice of many, not just a few.
Coupled with the new economics, more new high-tech and high efficiency devices are being developed to help curtail energy waste, but these are not -in themselves- the answer. There are no good substitutes for personal awareness, accepting responsibility and taking action. Consumption has its own limits, and its expensive consequences.
As Dana Brandt suggests, a great new 'take-away' message to offer is: "All you who care for the environment, and/or wish to be less dependent on foreign oil - the time has come that you can afford to do something about it. The confluence of an array of incentives and high energy prices makes solar power -and other highly energy efficient systems- accessible to nearly all of us"
Footnote: Two neighbors noticed the PV System installation and inquired what was happening. Both have subsequently asked Dana for proposals! Are there any others out there?
Waterfront Redevelopment: Mayoral Candidate Forum Responses
Here is additional information from my notes that I was unable to post earlier.
All Mayoral Candidates were asked to answer this question:
‘State briefly, your strongest argument on Waterfront Redevelopment for:
(a) Why it should proceed? [PRO] (b) Why it should not proceed? [CON]
Dan McShane:
Pro: Enormous opportunity, with public expectations for access to the water.
Con: Need to be careful and go slow in agreeing to a Master Plan that carries major funding challenges. City has abrogated its zoning responsibility. Is the Port’s plan worth the investment?
Doug Karlberg:
Pro: Should do it, because it is essential for our future -50 years or more..
Con: What is cleanup level? Port’s vision is being promoted like a machine. May disagree. Wants to keep a working waterfront. Too big. Fears local government will dismiss the public’s wishes, like Seattle did. Disliked legal challenge to public initiative.
Public input needs to be respected.
Seth Fleetwood:
Pro: Agrees this a rare opportunity. The Waterfront Futures Group report inspired him. Supports DOE’s Preferred Alternative for cleanup to fully meet State Model Toxics Control Act [MTCA] requirements, to exceed that level would have un-needed cost impacts that would outweigh any additional benefits
Con: Is it feasible? How will funding happen? Many details remain to be worked out. Inter-local Agreement binds Port and City, but need equitable partnership. Next Mayor and City Council will have to address these important decisions.
Don Keenan:
Pro: Getting good information, community effort and best minds will build consensus to achieve this enormous opportunity, with 100-year horizon. Chance to make waterfront Bellingham’s front door. WWU and NOAA as tenants very beneficial and exciting. Potential as business incubator is possible with mixed-use zoning. Connects to downtown, parks and other people places.
Con: Need to overcome the fear that has been generated. Big space to cleanup and redevelop!
Dan Pike:
Pro: Waterfront redevelopment needs to go forward.
Con: Failure of leaders and local government to sell it better. Need to know level of adequate cleanup and how to retain a presence as a working waterfront. A large park is essential to economic development, but doesn’t have to be just on that site. What other tenants besides WWU and NOAA?
Gil Bernal:
Pro: Should do it. Great opportunity! Those who benefit should pay for it. Cleanup to DOE standards is OK. New jobs. What concessions are possible, particularly for public access? In Hawaii, all beaches are public.
Con: None. No downside.
Bob Ryan:
Pro: Waterfront redevelopment is the best opportunity since Bellingham was founded!
Con: Some hurdles remain: Public process in progress. City is responsible for infrastructure. Port responsible for cleanup and redevelopment. Financing options need to be known. Master Plan will define zoning. Economic benefits for City and Port. If Port wants more than City can provide, then development must pay its fair share. Olympia is an example of doing this sort of thing right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Comment: Remembering the Dundee Donut Shop
Years ago as a boy, I saw a catchy sign on the wall of a popular donut shop. It had a motto underneath, an illustration of two cartoon figures, each holding a large donut. One was smiling at a donut so fat that the hole was a mere dimple. The other bore a sour frown while contemplating a donut that looked more like a racing bike tire - all hole and very little donut. The accompanying motto said something like 'as through life you grow old, keep your eye on the donut and not the hole'.
I still remember the moral demonstrated so simply by that donut sign. One's viewpoint is strongly influenced by one's point of view. If one gets up every morning on the wrong side of the bed and decides to be grumpy and negative, that can become habit forming. We all have the power to decide which side of the bed we choose to get up from each morning. Folks who haven't learned this basic lesson are missing out on the real joys of life, and deserve to be the object of our sympathy.
This last question about Waterfront Redevelopment essentially asks the same question: is this a problem or an opportunity? I see it as such an opportunity that it would irresponsible NOT to pursue it vigorously, but also with care. So, that’s a reaction that begins with the opportunity side of the equation, but also does not forget much work needs to be done before committing to anything that unduly burdens anyone. In life, answers are rarely simple black or white, but many shades of the entire spectrum that lie in between. Please, let’s keep this in mind as the public process continues!
Note: I have decided to limit this blog to summarizing what my take was from the Mayoral candidate’s public statements and responses at this forum. Readers get to decide for themselves who got closer to the 'right' answers. One of these candidates will become our next Mayor, so it’s important to elect the one with an approach likely to build on achieving some version of the Vision the City has adopted from the Waterfront Futures Group recommendations.
But, that’s just my opinion!
No similar summary is planned for the other Primary races.
All Mayoral Candidates were asked to answer this question:
‘State briefly, your strongest argument on Waterfront Redevelopment for:
(a) Why it should proceed? [PRO] (b) Why it should not proceed? [CON]
Dan McShane:
Pro: Enormous opportunity, with public expectations for access to the water.
Con: Need to be careful and go slow in agreeing to a Master Plan that carries major funding challenges. City has abrogated its zoning responsibility. Is the Port’s plan worth the investment?
Doug Karlberg:
Pro: Should do it, because it is essential for our future -50 years or more..
Con: What is cleanup level? Port’s vision is being promoted like a machine. May disagree. Wants to keep a working waterfront. Too big. Fears local government will dismiss the public’s wishes, like Seattle did. Disliked legal challenge to public initiative.
Public input needs to be respected.
Seth Fleetwood:
Pro: Agrees this a rare opportunity. The Waterfront Futures Group report inspired him. Supports DOE’s Preferred Alternative for cleanup to fully meet State Model Toxics Control Act [MTCA] requirements, to exceed that level would have un-needed cost impacts that would outweigh any additional benefits
Con: Is it feasible? How will funding happen? Many details remain to be worked out. Inter-local Agreement binds Port and City, but need equitable partnership. Next Mayor and City Council will have to address these important decisions.
Don Keenan:
Pro: Getting good information, community effort and best minds will build consensus to achieve this enormous opportunity, with 100-year horizon. Chance to make waterfront Bellingham’s front door. WWU and NOAA as tenants very beneficial and exciting. Potential as business incubator is possible with mixed-use zoning. Connects to downtown, parks and other people places.
Con: Need to overcome the fear that has been generated. Big space to cleanup and redevelop!
Dan Pike:
Pro: Waterfront redevelopment needs to go forward.
Con: Failure of leaders and local government to sell it better. Need to know level of adequate cleanup and how to retain a presence as a working waterfront. A large park is essential to economic development, but doesn’t have to be just on that site. What other tenants besides WWU and NOAA?
Gil Bernal:
Pro: Should do it. Great opportunity! Those who benefit should pay for it. Cleanup to DOE standards is OK. New jobs. What concessions are possible, particularly for public access? In Hawaii, all beaches are public.
Con: None. No downside.
Bob Ryan:
Pro: Waterfront redevelopment is the best opportunity since Bellingham was founded!
Con: Some hurdles remain: Public process in progress. City is responsible for infrastructure. Port responsible for cleanup and redevelopment. Financing options need to be known. Master Plan will define zoning. Economic benefits for City and Port. If Port wants more than City can provide, then development must pay its fair share. Olympia is an example of doing this sort of thing right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Comment: Remembering the Dundee Donut Shop
Years ago as a boy, I saw a catchy sign on the wall of a popular donut shop. It had a motto underneath, an illustration of two cartoon figures, each holding a large donut. One was smiling at a donut so fat that the hole was a mere dimple. The other bore a sour frown while contemplating a donut that looked more like a racing bike tire - all hole and very little donut. The accompanying motto said something like 'as through life you grow old, keep your eye on the donut and not the hole'.
I still remember the moral demonstrated so simply by that donut sign. One's viewpoint is strongly influenced by one's point of view. If one gets up every morning on the wrong side of the bed and decides to be grumpy and negative, that can become habit forming. We all have the power to decide which side of the bed we choose to get up from each morning. Folks who haven't learned this basic lesson are missing out on the real joys of life, and deserve to be the object of our sympathy.
This last question about Waterfront Redevelopment essentially asks the same question: is this a problem or an opportunity? I see it as such an opportunity that it would irresponsible NOT to pursue it vigorously, but also with care. So, that’s a reaction that begins with the opportunity side of the equation, but also does not forget much work needs to be done before committing to anything that unduly burdens anyone. In life, answers are rarely simple black or white, but many shades of the entire spectrum that lie in between. Please, let’s keep this in mind as the public process continues!
Note: I have decided to limit this blog to summarizing what my take was from the Mayoral candidate’s public statements and responses at this forum. Readers get to decide for themselves who got closer to the 'right' answers. One of these candidates will become our next Mayor, so it’s important to elect the one with an approach likely to build on achieving some version of the Vision the City has adopted from the Waterfront Futures Group recommendations.
But, that’s just my opinion!
No similar summary is planned for the other Primary races.
Last Night's Forum:Mayoral Candidates Opening Statements
Last night’s Candidate Forum at the County Council Chambers was a good one as Forums go. The format was appropriate, and offered candidates some choice in whether to speak only to their platforms or allow some audience questions. It also offered candidates some opportunity to both question their opponents and answer their opponent’s questions. I thought the format worked pretty well, because some unpredictability was introduced and it was hard for candidates to just gloss over some topics or simply run out the clock without addressing most issues in some limited way.
Our community owes its thanks for the League of Women Voters, KGMI Radio 790 and the Whatcom Independent for organizing and sponsoring this forum! It is in everyone’s best interest to be as informed as possible on issues, the candidates themselves, and where they stand on the issues.
Wow! I took a lot of notes but now need to figure out how to summarize 3 hours into the salient points I took away from this exercise. First, I’ll state up front that I do favor some candidates over others, but this synopsis will be as objective as possible in capturing my candid reactions while they are fresh in my mind.
So here goes my take on the Mayoral Candidates and their opening statements only: [Comments on responses to questions and closing statements may come later, time permitting]
Questions were asked in the same order from audience right to left. In future, it might be fairer to vary the order so that the same candidates did not always get the benefit of hearing everyone else’s statements.
Dan McShane: Took almost entire opening statement talking, about his accomplishments on the County Council and disparaging the City on subjects mostly centered on growth policy and Lake Whatcom. To hear Dan tell it, the City has done nothing right, and is mainly responsible for promoting sprawl and letting Lake Whatcom deteriorate. He also did have some proposals concerning establishing ‘new departments’ for neighborhoods and for Lake Whatcom, and changing some undefined City-wide ‘priorities, staff and budgets’. Very vague about details and how he was going to win Council support. One got the impression that Dan gets a lot of credit, but no blame. But, he was smooth and polished.
Doug Karlberg: Also spoke the entire time, with one notable positive about the City being about kids. He is against gentrification, because it reduces affordability. Wants to avoid what Sausalito, CA turned into, and prefers Skagit County as a model because it encourages economic development and discourages expensive condos. Feels trust in government is broken and wants greater citizen involvement, better goals & objectives. Came off mostly negative.
Seth Fleetwood: Seth performed the best I’ve ever seen him, but also spoke the entire time without reading notes. He came off as confident in his understandings, clear and succinct about identifying some main problems, and natural and engaged in his delivery. His theme was to protect what we have, citing growth as the number one problem facing the City now, among many other issues. Being a native son seemed to give him a slightly different history and perspective. Cited some positive actions, like the Growth Forum, he has initiated to help address growth and Lake Whatcom and allow our community to grow well. Some growth will need to happen but we get to decide how it happens. Believes in sustainability, preserving strong neighborhoods, and a positive community vision supported by leadership to make it happen. Came off as positive, collaborative and reasonable.
Don Keenan: Don read a thoughtful and fairly comprehensive prepared statement that seemed very natural, yet filled with some pretty focused information. His delivery seemed calm, sincere and measured to fit in as much as he could. His theme was to address needs first, then wants, while maintaining popular services like the Library, Greenways, and continuing downtown revitalization. He knows a lot about these things from his 7 years as Deputy Administrator. Lake Whatcom was a special focus with funding, collaboration, incentives, preservation, further density reduction, changing habits and enforcement as main elements. Open government, making planning & permitting more efficient, neighborhoods, compact urban growth and economic development were all important themes in his message. He believes that Waterfront Redevelopment is a great opportunity that must be pursued with careful attention to fiscal feasibility. It was a positive, ambitious message delivered with enthusiasm.
Dan Pike: Dan was the only candidate to allow time to answer questions from the audience, but only after he had made an opening statement. First, he slightly attacked Keenan’s comment about the current low employment situation still being insufficient to provide affordable homes for residents. Then he cited Lake Whatcom, Waterfront Redevelopment, Neighborhoods and Downtown revitalization as keys issues. He then took two questions, both from current County Planning Commissioners:
1) Dave Pros [Lake Samish] asked if the TDR program was viable, and whether urban villages could happen and accommodate infill. Pike answered that both concepts were flawed; that both needed receiving areas to make them work. Concepts are OK, but first City needs to fix its Zoning Codes to get predictability for City, citizens and developers. Design-based zoning was suggested.
2) 2) John Lesow [Point Roberts] asked how the City should go about alleviating its transportation Level of Service problem. Pike answered transportation is about a system, not just cars. Time then ran out.
Gil Bernal: Gil got a laugh when he asked if the audience needed a stretch. He cited FDR as saying be sincere, be short, and be seated. He cited family facts, military experience, his experience as firefighter, EMT and police officer. He stands for many good ideas and is now having a learning experience. Cautioned against spending what we don’t have, citing growing up in a mining town with cyclical economy. Believes clean water is imperative. Wants more excitement about these elections and a big turnout. Feels the waterfront redevelopment is an amazing opportunity, but cautious about cost impacts to City. Supports ‘less management’. Likes getting out to citizens, with slogan ‘what can I do for you?’ Buoyant personality, with little expectation for election, but enjoying it anyway!
Bob Ryan: Bob seemed at ease, succinct as usual, knowledgeable and comfortable with the issues, as he should be with his almost 12 years of service on the City Council, and in other local and regional capacities. His opening remark said much in few words; ‘We must have been doing something right with all the top 10 lists we’re on, but there’s always room for improvement’. Or something like that. He said our biggest issue is growth – in all its facets. Cited the need for greater density in the City and UGA and its relationship to property values. Now, the economic incentives are to promote sprawl, not prevent it, partly because there are enough 5-acre lots vested in the unincorporated County to take all the projected growth for the next 20 years! Cited the need for better mechanisms to achieve the results we claim to want. GMA is good, but making it work is not a short and easy job, but a long and hard one. Four main points: 1) The location of population centers needs long-range planning; does our vision fit this? 2) Millions have been spent on protecting Lake Whatcom, but it’s not working yet. TDRs, acquisition OK, but stormwater is biggest problem and needs addressing. 3) Neighborhood character needs to be sustained and plans updated. 4) Emergency management needs an integrated, countywide system that also enables cities to do what they need to do. Ryan has taken incident management training and is certified in EM in Washington State. He was the only candidate to emphasize the importance of Emergency Management in today’s reality.
Our community owes its thanks for the League of Women Voters, KGMI Radio 790 and the Whatcom Independent for organizing and sponsoring this forum! It is in everyone’s best interest to be as informed as possible on issues, the candidates themselves, and where they stand on the issues.
Wow! I took a lot of notes but now need to figure out how to summarize 3 hours into the salient points I took away from this exercise. First, I’ll state up front that I do favor some candidates over others, but this synopsis will be as objective as possible in capturing my candid reactions while they are fresh in my mind.
So here goes my take on the Mayoral Candidates and their opening statements only: [Comments on responses to questions and closing statements may come later, time permitting]
Questions were asked in the same order from audience right to left. In future, it might be fairer to vary the order so that the same candidates did not always get the benefit of hearing everyone else’s statements.
Dan McShane: Took almost entire opening statement talking, about his accomplishments on the County Council and disparaging the City on subjects mostly centered on growth policy and Lake Whatcom. To hear Dan tell it, the City has done nothing right, and is mainly responsible for promoting sprawl and letting Lake Whatcom deteriorate. He also did have some proposals concerning establishing ‘new departments’ for neighborhoods and for Lake Whatcom, and changing some undefined City-wide ‘priorities, staff and budgets’. Very vague about details and how he was going to win Council support. One got the impression that Dan gets a lot of credit, but no blame. But, he was smooth and polished.
Doug Karlberg: Also spoke the entire time, with one notable positive about the City being about kids. He is against gentrification, because it reduces affordability. Wants to avoid what Sausalito, CA turned into, and prefers Skagit County as a model because it encourages economic development and discourages expensive condos. Feels trust in government is broken and wants greater citizen involvement, better goals & objectives. Came off mostly negative.
Seth Fleetwood: Seth performed the best I’ve ever seen him, but also spoke the entire time without reading notes. He came off as confident in his understandings, clear and succinct about identifying some main problems, and natural and engaged in his delivery. His theme was to protect what we have, citing growth as the number one problem facing the City now, among many other issues. Being a native son seemed to give him a slightly different history and perspective. Cited some positive actions, like the Growth Forum, he has initiated to help address growth and Lake Whatcom and allow our community to grow well. Some growth will need to happen but we get to decide how it happens. Believes in sustainability, preserving strong neighborhoods, and a positive community vision supported by leadership to make it happen. Came off as positive, collaborative and reasonable.
Don Keenan: Don read a thoughtful and fairly comprehensive prepared statement that seemed very natural, yet filled with some pretty focused information. His delivery seemed calm, sincere and measured to fit in as much as he could. His theme was to address needs first, then wants, while maintaining popular services like the Library, Greenways, and continuing downtown revitalization. He knows a lot about these things from his 7 years as Deputy Administrator. Lake Whatcom was a special focus with funding, collaboration, incentives, preservation, further density reduction, changing habits and enforcement as main elements. Open government, making planning & permitting more efficient, neighborhoods, compact urban growth and economic development were all important themes in his message. He believes that Waterfront Redevelopment is a great opportunity that must be pursued with careful attention to fiscal feasibility. It was a positive, ambitious message delivered with enthusiasm.
Dan Pike: Dan was the only candidate to allow time to answer questions from the audience, but only after he had made an opening statement. First, he slightly attacked Keenan’s comment about the current low employment situation still being insufficient to provide affordable homes for residents. Then he cited Lake Whatcom, Waterfront Redevelopment, Neighborhoods and Downtown revitalization as keys issues. He then took two questions, both from current County Planning Commissioners:
1) Dave Pros [Lake Samish] asked if the TDR program was viable, and whether urban villages could happen and accommodate infill. Pike answered that both concepts were flawed; that both needed receiving areas to make them work. Concepts are OK, but first City needs to fix its Zoning Codes to get predictability for City, citizens and developers. Design-based zoning was suggested.
2) 2) John Lesow [Point Roberts] asked how the City should go about alleviating its transportation Level of Service problem. Pike answered transportation is about a system, not just cars. Time then ran out.
Gil Bernal: Gil got a laugh when he asked if the audience needed a stretch. He cited FDR as saying be sincere, be short, and be seated. He cited family facts, military experience, his experience as firefighter, EMT and police officer. He stands for many good ideas and is now having a learning experience. Cautioned against spending what we don’t have, citing growing up in a mining town with cyclical economy. Believes clean water is imperative. Wants more excitement about these elections and a big turnout. Feels the waterfront redevelopment is an amazing opportunity, but cautious about cost impacts to City. Supports ‘less management’. Likes getting out to citizens, with slogan ‘what can I do for you?’ Buoyant personality, with little expectation for election, but enjoying it anyway!
Bob Ryan: Bob seemed at ease, succinct as usual, knowledgeable and comfortable with the issues, as he should be with his almost 12 years of service on the City Council, and in other local and regional capacities. His opening remark said much in few words; ‘We must have been doing something right with all the top 10 lists we’re on, but there’s always room for improvement’. Or something like that. He said our biggest issue is growth – in all its facets. Cited the need for greater density in the City and UGA and its relationship to property values. Now, the economic incentives are to promote sprawl, not prevent it, partly because there are enough 5-acre lots vested in the unincorporated County to take all the projected growth for the next 20 years! Cited the need for better mechanisms to achieve the results we claim to want. GMA is good, but making it work is not a short and easy job, but a long and hard one. Four main points: 1) The location of population centers needs long-range planning; does our vision fit this? 2) Millions have been spent on protecting Lake Whatcom, but it’s not working yet. TDRs, acquisition OK, but stormwater is biggest problem and needs addressing. 3) Neighborhood character needs to be sustained and plans updated. 4) Emergency management needs an integrated, countywide system that also enables cities to do what they need to do. Ryan has taken incident management training and is certified in EM in Washington State. He was the only candidate to emphasize the importance of Emergency Management in today’s reality.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Is Charter Review Important?
Below is an article I had published in the Cascadia Weekly not long ago. Since then, I'm pleased to report that the City Council has agreed to have City staff prepare three items for Council review and approval, as follows:
1. A Resolution stating that Council policy will be to require holding a public hearing on the subject of Charter Review, at least once every five years, although it could happen more freqeuntly. Council must still approve this Resolution, in some version.
2. Language appropriate for a ballot measure that would consider changing Charter language to gender neutral. Council must approve this in some version before it is submitted to the ballot this year.
3. Information to be brought forward for Council consideration concerning a proposed Code of Ethics covering elected City Council members and possibly other elected officials. This will become a topic of deliberation and determination of what further action might be taken.
All three items respond positively to different aspects of Charter issues, but none will occur without further Council or public deliberations and appropriate voting. Each of these proposed changes represent small, but significant departures from past practice, that should be seen as the cautious first steps that could enable future Charter reviews and revisions to occur more regularly and easily. Stay tuned!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Our City Charter was first adopted over 35 years ago in 1972, and has remained relatively unchanged since then. I think our Charter ought to contain a provision for periodic review by the City Council and the public. Some changes have been made to the Charter, by City Council action and public ballot.
Curiously, there has been resistance to even doing the basic research needed for Council to debate this issue. Until Joan Beardsley came to office in 2006, the Council did not have four members who agreed to have staff research how Charter Revisions could be made! Now, that research has been done and, in early June, a Council work session will determine whether additional action will be considered in time for this year’s ballot.
Charter Changes
From time to time Charter changes have been made, motivated by changes in State law, and clarification necessity. Several public initiatives and referenda have interpreted the Charter inaccurately, which has caused unnecessary confusion and contention. Our Charter is not always very clear in its brevity, and does sometimes require legal opinions for clarification. To achieve more Charter clarity, some sort of regular review is necessary.
Minor Charter changes have been enacted by Council action. Others have been placed on the ballot for the voters to decide, like the appointment of Finance Director. Several other Washington cities have undertaken Charter reviews and changes by various methods. Everett, Tacoma and Vancouver offer good examples of what Bellingham might consider doing in reviewing its Charter. All three cities approved a provision that their Charters must be reviewed every 5 or 10 years.
Methods of Charter Review & Costs
A range of review options exists, from doing nothing to a process that requires electing a Charter Review Committee and submitting their recommendations to a public vote, like Whatcom County did recently. Estimated costs for this latter option range between $20,000 and $220,000, depending upon scope of effort, and excluding any fiscal impacts of changes that might be adopted.
Intermediate options, such as Council review and approval based upon necessity or cosmetics; Council submission of ballot measures; Council review and submission of ballot measures from recommendations of an appointed advisory committee; Public initiative, and others are all possible. Depending upon the Council’s perception of need, each option has both a price tag and an associated staff and public input requirements.
Resistance to Charter Review Proposals
Aside from simple inertia; denials - like the sometimes heard remark to the effect ‘if it’s not broken, don’t fix it’; concerns over costs [including staff time]; potential for political discord; and blind fear of change, there are no reasons for not reviewing our Charter periodically! Are these concerns sufficient to prevent us from beginning a simple and prudent review process? Charters – including our own Constitution - are intended to be living documents that establish the framework for the policies of government, not static monuments to the status quo of long ago. Does simple reference to ‘applicable law’ mean anything that can be understood by the average citizen?
Some people are afraid of what might change, and prefer the status quo because it is the system they are used to. Others fear ‘hidden’ agendas, like changing the form of local government to a Strong Council/City Manager, for example. No system is a universal panacea; about 70% of cities use a form of Strong Mayor system, with the remaining 30% of cities using Strong Council forms of government. Both systems work, but contain different allocations of power. In every case, it is the people -elected representatives and citizens- that make any system work.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Rather than a costly, full scale Charter Review like Whatcom County’s process, I believe there are better options for Bellingham. First, simply decide to have the idea of periodic Charter Review on the November ballot. Such a ballot measure proposed by Council would specify only the frequency for Charter Reviews, leaving the method to be determined by future Councils according to adaptive management principles. The public needs a voice in deciding whether to have regular Charter reviews, and what future changes ought to be made. Let them have it!
1. A Resolution stating that Council policy will be to require holding a public hearing on the subject of Charter Review, at least once every five years, although it could happen more freqeuntly. Council must still approve this Resolution, in some version.
2. Language appropriate for a ballot measure that would consider changing Charter language to gender neutral. Council must approve this in some version before it is submitted to the ballot this year.
3. Information to be brought forward for Council consideration concerning a proposed Code of Ethics covering elected City Council members and possibly other elected officials. This will become a topic of deliberation and determination of what further action might be taken.
All three items respond positively to different aspects of Charter issues, but none will occur without further Council or public deliberations and appropriate voting. Each of these proposed changes represent small, but significant departures from past practice, that should be seen as the cautious first steps that could enable future Charter reviews and revisions to occur more regularly and easily. Stay tuned!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Our City Charter was first adopted over 35 years ago in 1972, and has remained relatively unchanged since then. I think our Charter ought to contain a provision for periodic review by the City Council and the public. Some changes have been made to the Charter, by City Council action and public ballot.
Curiously, there has been resistance to even doing the basic research needed for Council to debate this issue. Until Joan Beardsley came to office in 2006, the Council did not have four members who agreed to have staff research how Charter Revisions could be made! Now, that research has been done and, in early June, a Council work session will determine whether additional action will be considered in time for this year’s ballot.
Charter Changes
From time to time Charter changes have been made, motivated by changes in State law, and clarification necessity. Several public initiatives and referenda have interpreted the Charter inaccurately, which has caused unnecessary confusion and contention. Our Charter is not always very clear in its brevity, and does sometimes require legal opinions for clarification. To achieve more Charter clarity, some sort of regular review is necessary.
Minor Charter changes have been enacted by Council action. Others have been placed on the ballot for the voters to decide, like the appointment of Finance Director. Several other Washington cities have undertaken Charter reviews and changes by various methods. Everett, Tacoma and Vancouver offer good examples of what Bellingham might consider doing in reviewing its Charter. All three cities approved a provision that their Charters must be reviewed every 5 or 10 years.
Methods of Charter Review & Costs
A range of review options exists, from doing nothing to a process that requires electing a Charter Review Committee and submitting their recommendations to a public vote, like Whatcom County did recently. Estimated costs for this latter option range between $20,000 and $220,000, depending upon scope of effort, and excluding any fiscal impacts of changes that might be adopted.
Intermediate options, such as Council review and approval based upon necessity or cosmetics; Council submission of ballot measures; Council review and submission of ballot measures from recommendations of an appointed advisory committee; Public initiative, and others are all possible. Depending upon the Council’s perception of need, each option has both a price tag and an associated staff and public input requirements.
Resistance to Charter Review Proposals
Aside from simple inertia; denials - like the sometimes heard remark to the effect ‘if it’s not broken, don’t fix it’; concerns over costs [including staff time]; potential for political discord; and blind fear of change, there are no reasons for not reviewing our Charter periodically! Are these concerns sufficient to prevent us from beginning a simple and prudent review process? Charters – including our own Constitution - are intended to be living documents that establish the framework for the policies of government, not static monuments to the status quo of long ago. Does simple reference to ‘applicable law’ mean anything that can be understood by the average citizen?
Some people are afraid of what might change, and prefer the status quo because it is the system they are used to. Others fear ‘hidden’ agendas, like changing the form of local government to a Strong Council/City Manager, for example. No system is a universal panacea; about 70% of cities use a form of Strong Mayor system, with the remaining 30% of cities using Strong Council forms of government. Both systems work, but contain different allocations of power. In every case, it is the people -elected representatives and citizens- that make any system work.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Rather than a costly, full scale Charter Review like Whatcom County’s process, I believe there are better options for Bellingham. First, simply decide to have the idea of periodic Charter Review on the November ballot. Such a ballot measure proposed by Council would specify only the frequency for Charter Reviews, leaving the method to be determined by future Councils according to adaptive management principles. The public needs a voice in deciding whether to have regular Charter reviews, and what future changes ought to be made. Let them have it!
Monday, July 30, 2007
BTV10: Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants
Good morning Hamsters,
Here's an earlier version of a piece I had published in the Cascadia Weekly, the subject of which remains in progress.
Those who agree could help by letting the City know your wishes!
Credit for the title goes to former Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis.
-----------------------------
Improving public communications by televising Council meetings on BTV10 has been surprisingly successful. How many people do you hear talking about something they saw on the City’s educational and governmental cable channel lately, since the audio-visual capabilities of Council Chambers were upgraded, the quality of the broadcasts improved and the number of viewers increased?
As successful as BTV10 has become in making our local government more transparent and inclusive, it can become even better - providing some minor additional funding is dedicated from cable franchise fees to pay for it.
I believe we need to televise the Council afternoon Work Sessions, because these are often earlier, more candid exchanges that inform the action the Council takes at it’s evening regular meetings. For one example, PowerPoint presentations made in the afternoon don’t always get repeated at night, despite their importance. Citizens have a right to that kind of information, at their convenience!
To make additional funding available to televising all Council meetings will require four Council votes to slightly increase the cable franchise fee. Currently, the City is using only 4.25% of the 5% that is available to it. The first 3% goes to the General Fund, and all funding over that is dedicated to BTV10 use. By contrast, the County uses its entire 4%, all of which goes into its General Fund.
Each additional 1/4% is currently equivalent to about $35,000 in revenues per year, so something in excess of $100,000 per year is now not being used, which means this funding source is permanently forfeited.
Determining how much additional funding is needed to cover the expense of televising and airing all Council work sessions is needed to define how much additional revenue is needed. Each 1/4% increase would cost cable TV subscribers about 20 cents each month or $2.40 per year. But, Council needs to decide to direct staff to determine the information needed before considering any increase.
Some other options exist to provide coverage of the afternoon work sessions.
One is to film them and produce reference DVDs for viewing by anyone unable to attend the meetings, or wanting to review it again. Already, the City has this capability, since all recorded images are captured digitally. The City would likely need some extra manpower to extend production editing to cover all the extra afternoon meetings not now being filmed.
Also, Streaming Video files could be made available via Internet on the City’s web site. But, without the afternoon sessions being actually filmed, none of these options is possible.
Some have suggested that Council meetings could be broadcast live and this too is possible. Another option might be to show heavily attended meetings in progress on monitors located outside Council Chambers. Seattle does this now, and it is useful with those meetings or events that attract extraordinary interest. Space in the Council Chambers is limited, and other venues are not equipped for the same quality of filming.
One of the Council goals, when it decided to upgrade its audio-video capability in 2004, was to make these Chambers a preferred venue for important public meetings. In the same way that installing artificial turf at Civic Stadium increased that facilities usage by as much as six times, the enhanced audio-visual capability in Council Chambers is now having a similar effect. Still, a significant increase in the number -and type- of televised public meetings there is still possible.
Despite the steady stream of complaints from local corporate media about costs to taxpayers and allegations of city ‘spin’ on issues, these televised meeting broadcasts do capture important presentations, announcements, discussion of issues and Council voting in unadulterated form, for use at viewers’ convenience. That feature alone, is a huge improvement over any coverage that corporate media could possibly provide, in terms of accuracy, completeness or candor. It remains a mystery why some local media continue to disparage BTV10, because they –and the public- are such obvious major beneficiaries of it!
Maybe the media is as uncomfortable with such unforgiving public scrutiny as some decision-makers appear to be? Information is power, so why not provide it to people, unadulterated, and un-spun by anyone or any organization?
WYSIWYG means 'what you see is what you get'. Seems like a good goal to me, but that's just my opinion!
Here's an earlier version of a piece I had published in the Cascadia Weekly, the subject of which remains in progress.
Those who agree could help by letting the City know your wishes!
Credit for the title goes to former Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis.
-----------------------------
Improving public communications by televising Council meetings on BTV10 has been surprisingly successful. How many people do you hear talking about something they saw on the City’s educational and governmental cable channel lately, since the audio-visual capabilities of Council Chambers were upgraded, the quality of the broadcasts improved and the number of viewers increased?
As successful as BTV10 has become in making our local government more transparent and inclusive, it can become even better - providing some minor additional funding is dedicated from cable franchise fees to pay for it.
I believe we need to televise the Council afternoon Work Sessions, because these are often earlier, more candid exchanges that inform the action the Council takes at it’s evening regular meetings. For one example, PowerPoint presentations made in the afternoon don’t always get repeated at night, despite their importance. Citizens have a right to that kind of information, at their convenience!
To make additional funding available to televising all Council meetings will require four Council votes to slightly increase the cable franchise fee. Currently, the City is using only 4.25% of the 5% that is available to it. The first 3% goes to the General Fund, and all funding over that is dedicated to BTV10 use. By contrast, the County uses its entire 4%, all of which goes into its General Fund.
Each additional 1/4% is currently equivalent to about $35,000 in revenues per year, so something in excess of $100,000 per year is now not being used, which means this funding source is permanently forfeited.
Determining how much additional funding is needed to cover the expense of televising and airing all Council work sessions is needed to define how much additional revenue is needed. Each 1/4% increase would cost cable TV subscribers about 20 cents each month or $2.40 per year. But, Council needs to decide to direct staff to determine the information needed before considering any increase.
Some other options exist to provide coverage of the afternoon work sessions.
One is to film them and produce reference DVDs for viewing by anyone unable to attend the meetings, or wanting to review it again. Already, the City has this capability, since all recorded images are captured digitally. The City would likely need some extra manpower to extend production editing to cover all the extra afternoon meetings not now being filmed.
Also, Streaming Video files could be made available via Internet on the City’s web site. But, without the afternoon sessions being actually filmed, none of these options is possible.
Some have suggested that Council meetings could be broadcast live and this too is possible. Another option might be to show heavily attended meetings in progress on monitors located outside Council Chambers. Seattle does this now, and it is useful with those meetings or events that attract extraordinary interest. Space in the Council Chambers is limited, and other venues are not equipped for the same quality of filming.
One of the Council goals, when it decided to upgrade its audio-video capability in 2004, was to make these Chambers a preferred venue for important public meetings. In the same way that installing artificial turf at Civic Stadium increased that facilities usage by as much as six times, the enhanced audio-visual capability in Council Chambers is now having a similar effect. Still, a significant increase in the number -and type- of televised public meetings there is still possible.
Despite the steady stream of complaints from local corporate media about costs to taxpayers and allegations of city ‘spin’ on issues, these televised meeting broadcasts do capture important presentations, announcements, discussion of issues and Council voting in unadulterated form, for use at viewers’ convenience. That feature alone, is a huge improvement over any coverage that corporate media could possibly provide, in terms of accuracy, completeness or candor. It remains a mystery why some local media continue to disparage BTV10, because they –and the public- are such obvious major beneficiaries of it!
Maybe the media is as uncomfortable with such unforgiving public scrutiny as some decision-makers appear to be? Information is power, so why not provide it to people, unadulterated, and un-spun by anyone or any organization?
WYSIWYG means 'what you see is what you get'. Seems like a good goal to me, but that's just my opinion!
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Annexation: Asset or Liability?
Yesterday, I attended a Futurewise event along with some like-minded folks who are very interested in managing our growth better here in Whatcom County. These are people dedicated to 'walking their talk', and I am gratified they are! Since Bellingham represents about 40% of Whatcom County, the City represents a big dog in that hunt. As the biggest population center in these parts, and therefore the strongest potential ally of the County, it is in both the City's and County's interest to work together closely on reasonably resolving how future growth will be managed.
Growth and its management has been a dominant issue during my nearly 9-year tenure on the City Council, so I have learned much about it. But, Lord knows, I don't claim to have all the answers. What I do have is a good grasp of the principles that can lead us in the right direction, and some of the obstacles that work against them.
One topic I have researched and written about is annexation, that oddly obscure, but potentially valuable tool in the GMA toolkit. The article below was published in The Whatcom Watch early last year, which I believe explains the role annexation can play in sorting out what course of action the City and County ought to take. It's lengthy, but the 'Sidebar' is excerpted -at the end of my writing- straight from the Annexation Handbook, published by the Municipal Research Service Center [MRSC] one of our State's most valuable resources in understanding our relatively complex system. These comprise a very good summary of the Pro & Con arguments regarding annexation.
-----------------------------------------
Annexation is a concept that provides two important functions; it determines which jurisdictional rules and regulations will govern development, and it determines how revenues from development will be split. If annexation decisions are prudently and consistently made over time, growth can be concentrated in appropriate urban areas as the Growth Management Act [GMA] requires, minimizing costly sprawl.
Periodically, the County and City agree on those areas, contiguous to city limits that are best suited for future urban levels of growth. These areas are deemed “Urban Growth Areas” [UGA] and remain in the County until annexation to the City occurs. Now, during our periodic Comprehensive Plan update, it has been determined that the city has insufficient build-able land for its fair share of future growth, which means additional UGA land must be identified.
It has also been determined that existing UGA land has not been used as efficiently – as densely - as it should have been. Part of the reason is directly attributable to the city’s continuing practice of discouraging or not requiring residential annexations, particularly at the time when water and sewer services are extended - the time of its greatest leverage! Unnecessary sprawl, loss of revenue to the city, poor traffic circulation and lack of amenities like parks and trails in developing neighborhoods are all part of the cumulative results of this habitual short term thinking.
Every city or town in Whatcom County besides Bellingham annexes residential areas as a condition of extending utilities. The same is true for cities and towns in the entire state of Washington! What ‘secret’ does Bellingham know, that other municipalities in the State of Washington do not seem to know?
Pro and Con Arguments
Annexation always has its advantages and drawbacks, and these are supposed to be weighed in a thorough cost/benefit analysis whenever an opportunity presents itself.
During 2004, the City of Bellingham sponsored and facilitated a study by an intern, which examined the various factors that contribute to whether annexations can be fiscally justified. The results of this study verified what we already knew; that industrial and commercial annexations usually have a demonstrable fiscal payout for the city, while residential-only annexations do not. Another finding was that early annexations result in less cost to the city and more certainty for the city, developers and future inhabitants and business owners that the area will be used efficiently with urban service levels provided.
What has consistently not been factored into this analysis is the future potential livability of the UGA developing area. If quality of life [QOL] is important to folks, shouldn’t this also be considered, along with the more easily quantifiable economics? After all, shouldn’t people who will work and/or live in a newly developing area have a voice in city issues that will impact them? In the spirit of ‘full cost accounting” maybe we need to factor in future QOL. There is a responsibility under the GMA for cities to adequately plan for accommodating future growth and provide urban levels of service. Nowhere is there a requirement that this exercise must be economically attractive to cities, particularly for residential areas. By carefully combining mixed uses and timing annexations, financial drains on cities can be minimized or eliminated. This requires cities to exercise consistent good judgment in realizing their adopted plans and goals.
Common Pro and Con Arguments about annexation have been summarized by the Municipal Research Service Center and posted on its website. This information is shown in the sidebar for reference. [http://www.mrsc.org/Publications/textah.aspx]
The City’s Annexation Practice
The City of Bellingham’s practice has been to treat annexations as a mixed blessing; choosing those judged to have a projected financial payout as desirable and those without to be avoided. This ‘cherry-picking” approach has resulted in the build-out of commercial and industrial areas first, with residential areas often relegated to pockets of urban density located on County land. The city has allowed this level of development to occur by extending its water and sewer lines outside city limits.
Extending limited water and sewer services outside the city limits means new water and sewer facilities will have to be built sooner, financed by city residents. A significant aspect of the economic equation is that the Public Works Department has come to rely on the additional revenues generated by charging 150% of city costs to water and sewer customers living outside the city limits. This seems a shortsighted and extremely regressive policy, falling heavily on those essential services needed by people, many of whom live in multi-family housing.
The cumulative result of these practices is that about 12,000 residents [17% of Bellingham’s population] now live in the UGA, more than enough to form another Ward if the entire area were annexed. At current ratios of people per household this is equivalent to almost 5400 homes or apartments, all dependent upon city services at some level without paying taxes to the City. In terms of property taxes alone, about $2.5 million per year is not being collected by the City. Could this be part of the reason the County has not raised its property taxes in 10 years?
About two years ago, the City Council changed its former policy of not requiring annexation upon extending water and sewer services, but the effects of this change have not yet been evidenced in results. Extensions for residential development are still being granted without requiring annexations under a few “loopholes” in the adopted policy. In one recent case, a developer was willing to annex a contiguous area where 68 new homes were to be built, but was allowed water and sewer extensions without annexing. This decision alone was estimated to cost the City about $2 million in lost sales taxes.
On the positive side, some developers do seem to have gotten the message and are now actively advocating annexation concurrent with extension of utilities - in return for including new areas into the UGA. Perhaps this change in perspective will result in a more rational approach toward annexation over time, as new neighborhoods are developed with more careful planning and amenities that are conducive to our valued quality of life. Another kicker is that the City’s overall tax level is actually lower than taxes in the UGA, outside City limit! Go figure.
Future Direction
It seems logical that the City of Bellingham will soon meaningfully change its policy regarding annexation in the future, but there are still those who will oppose this change for questionable reasons. By not requiring the use of urban planning standards in the UGA, the City has effectively doomed those areas to a life without affordable urban amenities. The annexation laws in Washington are relatively weak and largely depend upon both property owners and the community instinctively doing the right thing, consistently and in a timely fashion. To best knowledge, every other community in the state already does this in some version. Why Bellingham - considered a leader in many areas - has lagged so far behind in the area of annexation policy and planning is largely inexplicable. Perhaps it is because the realities of explosive growth have only recently been in evidence here.
By actually seeing the failures resulting from its past annexation policy, Bellingham may benefit in ways that other communities might not. The need for regional planning is now more critical than ever before if we are to sustain our desirable QOL, and there are clear signs that this is under threat. Developing neighborhoods need to have a voice in determining what their “character” will be, and this can best be done by giving residents of our UGA true citizen status; allowing them to vote in City elections and bond issues, run for office, and have a stronger voice in deciding how Bellingham will develop in the future. One would expect most UGA residents want to make decisions on issues like fluoride, a new Library, Greenways levies and their elected representatives. Hopefully, our current citizenry will see the merit in such an approach and help our elected officials get on with the business of including UGA residents as legitimate, full membership in the Bellingham community.
=============================================================
Sidebar:
[Quoted from the Municipal Research Service Center website @http://www.mrsc.org/Publications/textah.aspx]
Annexation: The Pro and Con Arguments
There are certain basic arguments, pro and con, that invariably surface during the course of an annexation attempt. Some of these may be based on fact, such as, "the annexing city, by extending its services to the new area, can avoid duplication of facilities." Some concerns may be more difficult to demonstrate, such as, "urban areas must develop as a unit because their social and economic parts are interrelated." Others may be related to partisan interests, such as, "Special Districts and their attendant influence must be retained." Still other arguments may reflect fear of change: "the community to be annexed may lose its individuality and identity." As noted above, however, many of these arguments will no longer be applicable in GMA counties after the establishment of urban growth areas.
The following list of arguments should assist in anticipating issues that may arise during annexation proceedings. City officials may want to carefully consider what facts exist to prove or disprove each argument, what special interests underlie some arguments, and what misconceptions may require correction.
A. Arguments Favoring Annexation
1. After annexation, the new territory will obtain its necessary services from city departments that are professionally staffed and experienced. Duplication of services can be avoided. Considerable economies can result from the coordination of services over a larger area.
2. When the interrelationship between the city and the fringe area is close, there is need for unified planning and zoning. By means of annexation, a city's zoning ordinances can be extended to adjacent areas in a logical manner, thus helping to assure orderly growth. Coordinated action is much easier to achieve if the fringe community becomes part of the city.
3. Annexation gives suburban residents a voice in the government of the larger community in which they live. County dwellers can be substantially affected by actions of the central city, but they have no participation in its affairs.
4. Business, professional, and community leaders who live in the fringe area can have a more direct role in community affairs by being elected or appointed to public office in the city.
5. Annexation eliminates the need to form a new city government with its attendant "start-up costs," or to continue reliance on costly special districts.
6. Annexation leads to a unified community and can prevent the fragmentation of local governmental authority among a large number of special districts. Fragmentation may cause "conflicts of authority and the absence of cooperation, political irresponsibility, a long ballot, duplication of services, inadequate service levels, lack of effective area-wide planning and programming, financial inequities and other problems."
7. Political boundaries will, after annexation, more nearly reflect the true and existing sociological, economic, cultural, and physical boundaries of the city. The fringe and the city are inextricably bound together.
8. Annexation increases a city's size and population, and in some instances raises its level of political influence, its prestige, and its ability to attract desirable commercial development. It may also increase its ability to attract grant assistance.
9. Annexation can protect, or enhance, a city's tax base. The increased valuation of the city will result in a greater bonding capacity.
10. Annexation may force new industry to develop in the city, and thus create additional jobs, revenues, and commercial opportunities.
11. Unified political representation, sound economic development, enhancement of property values, and high service levels at minimum costs can best come from total comprehensive planning that avoids duplication and conflict of authority.
12. City and county boundaries can be squared off and made orderly and logical, eliminating a hodgepodge and resulting confusion as to whether a particular parcel should look to a city or to the county to obtain services. Fire and police departments, in particular, can determine whether calls are within their respective jurisdictions.
13. Annexation may bring about lower utility rates, since city utility surcharges to unincorporated territory would be lifted. Annexation also often results in lower fire insurance premiums. As more improvements and urban utilities are made available, real estate values and marketability may improve.
14. Additional services may become available, such as sewer, water, ambulance, transit, and drainage control.
B. Arguments Opposing Annexation
1. Annexation may be considered unnecessary if the community's needs, or resources, are limited. It may be unwise if the community is not physically, economically, or socially related to the annexing city.
2. Residents outside the city may argue that they chose to build and live there in order to avoid taxes for services they do not want. Industry and commercial businesses may state that they located outside the city to avoid certain business and property taxes.
3. Residents may wish to retain the community's "rural" character and, for this reason, may oppose annexation as a step toward greater urbanization. There may, for example, be a strong opposition to municipal animal controls-both leash laws and restrictions on large animals.
4. The city's ordinances, regulations, and license requirements may not be appropriate for a particular fringe community.
5. Residents may desire a higher degree of community identity than they believe they will enjoy as part of a large city. They may want to retain special districts and their attendant influence. A larger municipal government may be less accessible to the people.
6. There may be distrust of the government and politics of the city to which annexation is proposed.
7. The city may not be able to finance the additional services expected by residents of the area proposed for annexation, and territory that is annexed to a city may be a financial drain upon it for many years. Services may not be available for extension without adversely affecting in-city service levels or without utility rate increases. Existing police or fire forces may be overextended, reducing the level of protection to the entire community.
8. There may be fear that annexation may lead to a geometric progression of municipal problems. It cannot be presumed that it will be more economical for a city to provide services to a larger area. Extending the service area may cost much more for each unit than the existing per unit cost.
9. Since most annexations are very small, annexation does not satisfactorily address community and regional concerns.
10. Interest in annexation may be limited to a select group of citizens and not shared at the grass roots level.
=============================================================
Growth and its management has been a dominant issue during my nearly 9-year tenure on the City Council, so I have learned much about it. But, Lord knows, I don't claim to have all the answers. What I do have is a good grasp of the principles that can lead us in the right direction, and some of the obstacles that work against them.
One topic I have researched and written about is annexation, that oddly obscure, but potentially valuable tool in the GMA toolkit. The article below was published in The Whatcom Watch early last year, which I believe explains the role annexation can play in sorting out what course of action the City and County ought to take. It's lengthy, but the 'Sidebar' is excerpted -at the end of my writing- straight from the Annexation Handbook, published by the Municipal Research Service Center [MRSC] one of our State's most valuable resources in understanding our relatively complex system. These comprise a very good summary of the Pro & Con arguments regarding annexation.
-----------------------------------------
Annexation is a concept that provides two important functions; it determines which jurisdictional rules and regulations will govern development, and it determines how revenues from development will be split. If annexation decisions are prudently and consistently made over time, growth can be concentrated in appropriate urban areas as the Growth Management Act [GMA] requires, minimizing costly sprawl.
Periodically, the County and City agree on those areas, contiguous to city limits that are best suited for future urban levels of growth. These areas are deemed “Urban Growth Areas” [UGA] and remain in the County until annexation to the City occurs. Now, during our periodic Comprehensive Plan update, it has been determined that the city has insufficient build-able land for its fair share of future growth, which means additional UGA land must be identified.
It has also been determined that existing UGA land has not been used as efficiently – as densely - as it should have been. Part of the reason is directly attributable to the city’s continuing practice of discouraging or not requiring residential annexations, particularly at the time when water and sewer services are extended - the time of its greatest leverage! Unnecessary sprawl, loss of revenue to the city, poor traffic circulation and lack of amenities like parks and trails in developing neighborhoods are all part of the cumulative results of this habitual short term thinking.
Every city or town in Whatcom County besides Bellingham annexes residential areas as a condition of extending utilities. The same is true for cities and towns in the entire state of Washington! What ‘secret’ does Bellingham know, that other municipalities in the State of Washington do not seem to know?
Pro and Con Arguments
Annexation always has its advantages and drawbacks, and these are supposed to be weighed in a thorough cost/benefit analysis whenever an opportunity presents itself.
During 2004, the City of Bellingham sponsored and facilitated a study by an intern, which examined the various factors that contribute to whether annexations can be fiscally justified. The results of this study verified what we already knew; that industrial and commercial annexations usually have a demonstrable fiscal payout for the city, while residential-only annexations do not. Another finding was that early annexations result in less cost to the city and more certainty for the city, developers and future inhabitants and business owners that the area will be used efficiently with urban service levels provided.
What has consistently not been factored into this analysis is the future potential livability of the UGA developing area. If quality of life [QOL] is important to folks, shouldn’t this also be considered, along with the more easily quantifiable economics? After all, shouldn’t people who will work and/or live in a newly developing area have a voice in city issues that will impact them? In the spirit of ‘full cost accounting” maybe we need to factor in future QOL. There is a responsibility under the GMA for cities to adequately plan for accommodating future growth and provide urban levels of service. Nowhere is there a requirement that this exercise must be economically attractive to cities, particularly for residential areas. By carefully combining mixed uses and timing annexations, financial drains on cities can be minimized or eliminated. This requires cities to exercise consistent good judgment in realizing their adopted plans and goals.
Common Pro and Con Arguments about annexation have been summarized by the Municipal Research Service Center and posted on its website. This information is shown in the sidebar for reference. [http://www.mrsc.org/Publications/textah.aspx]
The City’s Annexation Practice
The City of Bellingham’s practice has been to treat annexations as a mixed blessing; choosing those judged to have a projected financial payout as desirable and those without to be avoided. This ‘cherry-picking” approach has resulted in the build-out of commercial and industrial areas first, with residential areas often relegated to pockets of urban density located on County land. The city has allowed this level of development to occur by extending its water and sewer lines outside city limits.
Extending limited water and sewer services outside the city limits means new water and sewer facilities will have to be built sooner, financed by city residents. A significant aspect of the economic equation is that the Public Works Department has come to rely on the additional revenues generated by charging 150% of city costs to water and sewer customers living outside the city limits. This seems a shortsighted and extremely regressive policy, falling heavily on those essential services needed by people, many of whom live in multi-family housing.
The cumulative result of these practices is that about 12,000 residents [17% of Bellingham’s population] now live in the UGA, more than enough to form another Ward if the entire area were annexed. At current ratios of people per household this is equivalent to almost 5400 homes or apartments, all dependent upon city services at some level without paying taxes to the City. In terms of property taxes alone, about $2.5 million per year is not being collected by the City. Could this be part of the reason the County has not raised its property taxes in 10 years?
About two years ago, the City Council changed its former policy of not requiring annexation upon extending water and sewer services, but the effects of this change have not yet been evidenced in results. Extensions for residential development are still being granted without requiring annexations under a few “loopholes” in the adopted policy. In one recent case, a developer was willing to annex a contiguous area where 68 new homes were to be built, but was allowed water and sewer extensions without annexing. This decision alone was estimated to cost the City about $2 million in lost sales taxes.
On the positive side, some developers do seem to have gotten the message and are now actively advocating annexation concurrent with extension of utilities - in return for including new areas into the UGA. Perhaps this change in perspective will result in a more rational approach toward annexation over time, as new neighborhoods are developed with more careful planning and amenities that are conducive to our valued quality of life. Another kicker is that the City’s overall tax level is actually lower than taxes in the UGA, outside City limit! Go figure.
Future Direction
It seems logical that the City of Bellingham will soon meaningfully change its policy regarding annexation in the future, but there are still those who will oppose this change for questionable reasons. By not requiring the use of urban planning standards in the UGA, the City has effectively doomed those areas to a life without affordable urban amenities. The annexation laws in Washington are relatively weak and largely depend upon both property owners and the community instinctively doing the right thing, consistently and in a timely fashion. To best knowledge, every other community in the state already does this in some version. Why Bellingham - considered a leader in many areas - has lagged so far behind in the area of annexation policy and planning is largely inexplicable. Perhaps it is because the realities of explosive growth have only recently been in evidence here.
By actually seeing the failures resulting from its past annexation policy, Bellingham may benefit in ways that other communities might not. The need for regional planning is now more critical than ever before if we are to sustain our desirable QOL, and there are clear signs that this is under threat. Developing neighborhoods need to have a voice in determining what their “character” will be, and this can best be done by giving residents of our UGA true citizen status; allowing them to vote in City elections and bond issues, run for office, and have a stronger voice in deciding how Bellingham will develop in the future. One would expect most UGA residents want to make decisions on issues like fluoride, a new Library, Greenways levies and their elected representatives. Hopefully, our current citizenry will see the merit in such an approach and help our elected officials get on with the business of including UGA residents as legitimate, full membership in the Bellingham community.
=============================================================
Sidebar:
[Quoted from the Municipal Research Service Center website @http://www.mrsc.org/Publications/textah.aspx]
Annexation: The Pro and Con Arguments
There are certain basic arguments, pro and con, that invariably surface during the course of an annexation attempt. Some of these may be based on fact, such as, "the annexing city, by extending its services to the new area, can avoid duplication of facilities." Some concerns may be more difficult to demonstrate, such as, "urban areas must develop as a unit because their social and economic parts are interrelated." Others may be related to partisan interests, such as, "Special Districts and their attendant influence must be retained." Still other arguments may reflect fear of change: "the community to be annexed may lose its individuality and identity." As noted above, however, many of these arguments will no longer be applicable in GMA counties after the establishment of urban growth areas.
The following list of arguments should assist in anticipating issues that may arise during annexation proceedings. City officials may want to carefully consider what facts exist to prove or disprove each argument, what special interests underlie some arguments, and what misconceptions may require correction.
A. Arguments Favoring Annexation
1. After annexation, the new territory will obtain its necessary services from city departments that are professionally staffed and experienced. Duplication of services can be avoided. Considerable economies can result from the coordination of services over a larger area.
2. When the interrelationship between the city and the fringe area is close, there is need for unified planning and zoning. By means of annexation, a city's zoning ordinances can be extended to adjacent areas in a logical manner, thus helping to assure orderly growth. Coordinated action is much easier to achieve if the fringe community becomes part of the city.
3. Annexation gives suburban residents a voice in the government of the larger community in which they live. County dwellers can be substantially affected by actions of the central city, but they have no participation in its affairs.
4. Business, professional, and community leaders who live in the fringe area can have a more direct role in community affairs by being elected or appointed to public office in the city.
5. Annexation eliminates the need to form a new city government with its attendant "start-up costs," or to continue reliance on costly special districts.
6. Annexation leads to a unified community and can prevent the fragmentation of local governmental authority among a large number of special districts. Fragmentation may cause "conflicts of authority and the absence of cooperation, political irresponsibility, a long ballot, duplication of services, inadequate service levels, lack of effective area-wide planning and programming, financial inequities and other problems."
7. Political boundaries will, after annexation, more nearly reflect the true and existing sociological, economic, cultural, and physical boundaries of the city. The fringe and the city are inextricably bound together.
8. Annexation increases a city's size and population, and in some instances raises its level of political influence, its prestige, and its ability to attract desirable commercial development. It may also increase its ability to attract grant assistance.
9. Annexation can protect, or enhance, a city's tax base. The increased valuation of the city will result in a greater bonding capacity.
10. Annexation may force new industry to develop in the city, and thus create additional jobs, revenues, and commercial opportunities.
11. Unified political representation, sound economic development, enhancement of property values, and high service levels at minimum costs can best come from total comprehensive planning that avoids duplication and conflict of authority.
12. City and county boundaries can be squared off and made orderly and logical, eliminating a hodgepodge and resulting confusion as to whether a particular parcel should look to a city or to the county to obtain services. Fire and police departments, in particular, can determine whether calls are within their respective jurisdictions.
13. Annexation may bring about lower utility rates, since city utility surcharges to unincorporated territory would be lifted. Annexation also often results in lower fire insurance premiums. As more improvements and urban utilities are made available, real estate values and marketability may improve.
14. Additional services may become available, such as sewer, water, ambulance, transit, and drainage control.
B. Arguments Opposing Annexation
1. Annexation may be considered unnecessary if the community's needs, or resources, are limited. It may be unwise if the community is not physically, economically, or socially related to the annexing city.
2. Residents outside the city may argue that they chose to build and live there in order to avoid taxes for services they do not want. Industry and commercial businesses may state that they located outside the city to avoid certain business and property taxes.
3. Residents may wish to retain the community's "rural" character and, for this reason, may oppose annexation as a step toward greater urbanization. There may, for example, be a strong opposition to municipal animal controls-both leash laws and restrictions on large animals.
4. The city's ordinances, regulations, and license requirements may not be appropriate for a particular fringe community.
5. Residents may desire a higher degree of community identity than they believe they will enjoy as part of a large city. They may want to retain special districts and their attendant influence. A larger municipal government may be less accessible to the people.
6. There may be distrust of the government and politics of the city to which annexation is proposed.
7. The city may not be able to finance the additional services expected by residents of the area proposed for annexation, and territory that is annexed to a city may be a financial drain upon it for many years. Services may not be available for extension without adversely affecting in-city service levels or without utility rate increases. Existing police or fire forces may be overextended, reducing the level of protection to the entire community.
8. There may be fear that annexation may lead to a geometric progression of municipal problems. It cannot be presumed that it will be more economical for a city to provide services to a larger area. Extending the service area may cost much more for each unit than the existing per unit cost.
9. Since most annexations are very small, annexation does not satisfactorily address community and regional concerns.
10. Interest in annexation may be limited to a select group of citizens and not shared at the grass roots level.
=============================================================
Candidate Questionnaire & Decision Making
Appointments are unusual, but desirable. I know because over 8 eight years ago I was initially appointed to the City Council. Unusual because those appointed are chosen quickly by their peers, mostly based upon their written qualifications, their reputation and service in the Community. Desirable because appointments happen without the up-front burden of a political campaign, which means easier campaigning for re-election, because incumbents usually do enjoy a powerful advantage.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could more easily compare a candidate’s basic qualifications with other candidates before every political campaign or appointment? That is the purpose of the Candidate Questionnaire outlined below.
While specific 'Issues' may come and go, there are some underlying ‘Basics’ that every elected official has, should have, or needs to learn, which support each decision made by our local government. Knowing as much as possible about each candidate's 'Basics', before they are elected or appointed, seems a very useful exercise that might benefit voters. Perhaps some version of these ideas could be adopted for use in both future appointments and election forums.
At the end, I've also added some guidelines I try to use in making Council decisions. Every elected official will find that reason, fairness and consistency is expected of them, regardless of political or idealogical stripe. Often, the temptation will be strong to do what seems popular and pander to to the issue or audience 'du jour'. But, in the end, that strategy is a poor one, because of the high potential for consequences -either intended or not- that cannot be sustained.
Public officials are elected to serve primarily for the benefit of the community as a whole, and it is those benefits that last and define Bellingham.
============================================================
General questions to help evaluate candidates for elected or appointed office.
• Have you read and understand the implications of the oath of office each Council member must take? Do you understand each Council member is also considered an officer of the Bellingham Municipal Corporation?
• Are you familiar with the Public Disclosure Commission [PDC] and its requirements of all candidates and elected officials?
• What is your understanding of the term 'non-partisan'? Are you aware that the City Charter specifies that all Council members be non-partisan?
• Are you aware that Council members are expected to devote an average of 20 hours per week on signed time-sheets in connection with their duties of office? Are you committed to devoting at least this amount of time if you are selected to serve?
• Are you aware of the Council Committees and other assignments that this office brings with it, in addition to special work sessions, presentations and the like? Can you fulfill these requirements?
• What preparation for this office have you done, or are you prepared to do, in order to 'get up to speed' on both Council procedures and current issues? Any relevant experience in public office? Any voluntary local civic involvement?
• Have you read, reviewed or otherwise become aware of the function of the following documents: Comprehensive Plan; Consolidated Plan; 23 Neighborhood Plans; Budget; Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [CAFR]; Council Goals & Objectives; City Charter; Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan; Waterfront Redevelopment - Vision & Framework Plan, and Strategic Guidelines & Design Concepts?
• Are you willing to commit to intensive training to learn the basics of serving in public office? ['Welcome to City Hall' Maual; Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Annual & Legislative conferences; meet key City staff; understand legal constraints]
• Have you actively participated in or supported any major issues or campaigns of Community-wide significance? What is your history of activity with Neighborhood Associations? Any written opinions on local issues?
• What is your understanding of the Open Public Meetings Act, and what was intended by this State 'Sunshine' Law? How would this influence your personal decision-making?
• Are you familiar with the purpose and proper use of Executive Sessions and the reasons for strict confidentiality of the information discussed in them?
• Are you familiar with the Parliamentary Rules and procedures adopted by the Council to control its meetings and deliberations?
• Is it your plan to carefully weigh all decisions, make them independently and explain your reasons for support or non-support of any measure? Are you accustomed to operating under pressure and in a fishbowl?
• What are the criteria which you would personally use to consistently arrive at fair, legal and fiscally sustainable decisions for the benefit of the entire community? Would you consistently respect all citizens and viewpoints?
• Are you comfortable with approving controversial legislation with a 4-3 margin? Would you expect this to occur often? What areas would deserve more consensus building? How does an elected Council Member's duties compare to those of a juror?
• Do you have any affiliations with organizations, investments or persons which might become, or be considered, as conflicts of interest?
• Do you have any existing relationships with Council members that either you - or the public - might find problematic if you are selected? Could appearance of fairness become an issue, if you are seen as being unduly influenced by another member?
• What are your personal goals and aspirations for attaining this office? Only until elections produce an elected member? Run for office until the next election. Longer-term after that? Would you run only if appointed? Would you run if not appointed?
• Do you know what remuneration and benefits are due to each Council member?
• Please briefly summarize your personal code of ethics and conduct.
• Any personal references that you wish to cite?
• What relevant experience do you have regarding budgeting in general? Are you familiar with Government budgeting and financial processes? Are there differences that you can explain?
* In your opinion, what is the single most important issue facing the City?
In your estimation. is this being adequately addressed?
* What do you want to see the City accomplish that isn't now being
adequately addressed or is not currently considered a high priority?
DECISION MAKING
There is no set protocol or rulebook with rigid criteria to guide Members in making Council decisions, nor can there be one that would cover all situations possible, or necessarily bind future Councils. Even if such criteria existed, they would be difficult to impossible to enforce. In the interest of making consistently wise decisions, here are some of the general principles I have decided to follow, regardless of the issue:
o whether decisions are legal
o whether they are fair and consistent with established City policy and past precedents
o whether they reasonably comport with the information gathering and/or decision process that developed them
o whether the decision is really my [Council's] responsibility
o whether arguments to overturn or change are factual or political
o whether new precedents will be set that will be difficult to sustain
o whether our professional staff supports specific options, and why
o whether the greatest possible community wide benefit is assured
o whether I have done sufficient homework to understand the rationale and
reasonable options
o whether my decision honors the recommendations of the volunteer boards
and commissions responsible for reviews and recommendations
o whether any adverse unintended consequences may result
o whether decisions are made in sunshine, with reasonable public
involvement
o whether public funds are wisely used and benefits outweigh the costs
o whether conflict of interest or appearance of fairness violations may
result, or perceptions of same
Note that none of these 'filters' allows much room for subjective whim or opinion, autocratic authority, or populism. None of those are things are sustainable, because voters and taxpayers rightfully expect consistently better justifications.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could more easily compare a candidate’s basic qualifications with other candidates before every political campaign or appointment? That is the purpose of the Candidate Questionnaire outlined below.
While specific 'Issues' may come and go, there are some underlying ‘Basics’ that every elected official has, should have, or needs to learn, which support each decision made by our local government. Knowing as much as possible about each candidate's 'Basics', before they are elected or appointed, seems a very useful exercise that might benefit voters. Perhaps some version of these ideas could be adopted for use in both future appointments and election forums.
At the end, I've also added some guidelines I try to use in making Council decisions. Every elected official will find that reason, fairness and consistency is expected of them, regardless of political or idealogical stripe. Often, the temptation will be strong to do what seems popular and pander to to the issue or audience 'du jour'. But, in the end, that strategy is a poor one, because of the high potential for consequences -either intended or not- that cannot be sustained.
Public officials are elected to serve primarily for the benefit of the community as a whole, and it is those benefits that last and define Bellingham.
============================================================
General questions to help evaluate candidates for elected or appointed office.
• Have you read and understand the implications of the oath of office each Council member must take? Do you understand each Council member is also considered an officer of the Bellingham Municipal Corporation?
• Are you familiar with the Public Disclosure Commission [PDC] and its requirements of all candidates and elected officials?
• What is your understanding of the term 'non-partisan'? Are you aware that the City Charter specifies that all Council members be non-partisan?
• Are you aware that Council members are expected to devote an average of 20 hours per week on signed time-sheets in connection with their duties of office? Are you committed to devoting at least this amount of time if you are selected to serve?
• Are you aware of the Council Committees and other assignments that this office brings with it, in addition to special work sessions, presentations and the like? Can you fulfill these requirements?
• What preparation for this office have you done, or are you prepared to do, in order to 'get up to speed' on both Council procedures and current issues? Any relevant experience in public office? Any voluntary local civic involvement?
• Have you read, reviewed or otherwise become aware of the function of the following documents: Comprehensive Plan; Consolidated Plan; 23 Neighborhood Plans; Budget; Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [CAFR]; Council Goals & Objectives; City Charter; Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan; Waterfront Redevelopment - Vision & Framework Plan, and Strategic Guidelines & Design Concepts?
• Are you willing to commit to intensive training to learn the basics of serving in public office? ['Welcome to City Hall' Maual; Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Annual & Legislative conferences; meet key City staff; understand legal constraints]
• Have you actively participated in or supported any major issues or campaigns of Community-wide significance? What is your history of activity with Neighborhood Associations? Any written opinions on local issues?
• What is your understanding of the Open Public Meetings Act, and what was intended by this State 'Sunshine' Law? How would this influence your personal decision-making?
• Are you familiar with the purpose and proper use of Executive Sessions and the reasons for strict confidentiality of the information discussed in them?
• Are you familiar with the Parliamentary Rules and procedures adopted by the Council to control its meetings and deliberations?
• Is it your plan to carefully weigh all decisions, make them independently and explain your reasons for support or non-support of any measure? Are you accustomed to operating under pressure and in a fishbowl?
• What are the criteria which you would personally use to consistently arrive at fair, legal and fiscally sustainable decisions for the benefit of the entire community? Would you consistently respect all citizens and viewpoints?
• Are you comfortable with approving controversial legislation with a 4-3 margin? Would you expect this to occur often? What areas would deserve more consensus building? How does an elected Council Member's duties compare to those of a juror?
• Do you have any affiliations with organizations, investments or persons which might become, or be considered, as conflicts of interest?
• Do you have any existing relationships with Council members that either you - or the public - might find problematic if you are selected? Could appearance of fairness become an issue, if you are seen as being unduly influenced by another member?
• What are your personal goals and aspirations for attaining this office? Only until elections produce an elected member? Run for office until the next election. Longer-term after that? Would you run only if appointed? Would you run if not appointed?
• Do you know what remuneration and benefits are due to each Council member?
• Please briefly summarize your personal code of ethics and conduct.
• Any personal references that you wish to cite?
• What relevant experience do you have regarding budgeting in general? Are you familiar with Government budgeting and financial processes? Are there differences that you can explain?
* In your opinion, what is the single most important issue facing the City?
In your estimation. is this being adequately addressed?
* What do you want to see the City accomplish that isn't now being
adequately addressed or is not currently considered a high priority?
DECISION MAKING
There is no set protocol or rulebook with rigid criteria to guide Members in making Council decisions, nor can there be one that would cover all situations possible, or necessarily bind future Councils. Even if such criteria existed, they would be difficult to impossible to enforce. In the interest of making consistently wise decisions, here are some of the general principles I have decided to follow, regardless of the issue:
o whether decisions are legal
o whether they are fair and consistent with established City policy and past precedents
o whether they reasonably comport with the information gathering and/or decision process that developed them
o whether the decision is really my [Council's] responsibility
o whether arguments to overturn or change are factual or political
o whether new precedents will be set that will be difficult to sustain
o whether our professional staff supports specific options, and why
o whether the greatest possible community wide benefit is assured
o whether I have done sufficient homework to understand the rationale and
reasonable options
o whether my decision honors the recommendations of the volunteer boards
and commissions responsible for reviews and recommendations
o whether any adverse unintended consequences may result
o whether decisions are made in sunshine, with reasonable public
involvement
o whether public funds are wisely used and benefits outweigh the costs
o whether conflict of interest or appearance of fairness violations may
result, or perceptions of same
Note that none of these 'filters' allows much room for subjective whim or opinion, autocratic authority, or populism. None of those are things are sustainable, because voters and taxpayers rightfully expect consistently better justifications.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Straight Talk About Lake Whatcom
Folks might be interested in my 'Political Commentary' published in the July 2007 Issue of NW Business Monthly:
Straight Talk About Lake Whatcom
Gerald Baron's 'Political Commentary' in the June issue invited a response. I'll try to state the case for preserving our Water Supply Reservoir clearly and in plain language, so folks can understand this controversial issue a little better.
Ben Franklin expressed the 'Precautionary Principle' in simple terms -'a stitch in time saves nine'. Essentially, that is the approach both the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County adopted as their official policy regarding Lake Whatcom and its surrounding watershed.
All best thinking is welcome in determining how to implement this policy, but the main goal should be clear and not under debate - the long-term preservation of our Municipal Water Supply. To make any headway on this challenge means we -individually and collectively- need to change some habits we've developed over the past several decades. Talking about this is good, but actions are better. That's why both City and County have agreed on a program containing multiple actions that start us in the right direction. Unfortunately, the actions taken so far have not been sufficient to even slow down the rate of documented water quality degradation in the lake, much less stop it or reverse it. This warrants serious concern - and additional action, including doing no more harm!
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
- Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
In many respects the lake situation mirrors our human experience. For example, if we are diagnosed with a serious ailment or disease, most of us listen to our Doctor's expert advice and try hard to follow it. Sometimes, a second opinion is sought, but eventually we get the message and actively strive to extend our normal lives as pain-free as possible. If one medicine or therapy doesn't work, we try others, with surgery used only as a last resort. Rarely, do we humans consciously give up on our own health! Most of us don't depend on the advice of quacks or rely on placebos, although sometimes, alternative techniques do work pretty well. The point is we really try hard to stay alive and healthy, don't we? That just seems to be part of our nature!
Why not extend the same kinds of health awareness -and positive actions- to taking care of our exceptionally pure - and essential - water supply? Do you know that nearly 97% of the world's water is salty or otherwise undrinkable; that another 2% is locked in ice caps and glaciers; that only 1% can be used for all agricultural, residential, manufacturing, community and personal needs?
"Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over." - Mark Twain
Worldwide scarcity of potable water is already a problem, which is projected to get progressively worse as population grows and polluting practices continue. Future water wars may occur to rival or surpass wars over other scarce resources, like energy from petroleum. Knowing the scarcity of clean water sources will get worse over time, why don't we value water more than we do? Three reasons come to mind - the oldest ones in recorded history: ignorance; greed and attachment to old habits; anger or fear over the need to change old habits.
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.”
- Albert Einstein
So, why exactly should we even try to keep Lake Whatcom as clean as possible? Not necessarily pristine, mind you, because we're already past that point, and without time travel we don't get to go back in history again. I'm talking about holding the line on the water quality we have right now, then seeing if we can improve on that slightly. There are two very good reasons to set that as a serious goal - our health and our pocket books.
First, we know our health can be harmed by contact with dirty water, whether from raw sewage spills, excessive algae growth, or poisonous runoff. Swimmers, boaters and fishermen don't consider dirty water much fun either.
"We never know the worth of water 'til the well runs dry." - Benjamin Franklin
Also, we know costs are always increased by having to treat dirtier water for drinking and bathing purposes, although this is possible to do. The US Navy makes its shipboard potable water from seawater by desalination and various advanced filtration methods. Our Astronauts use super high tech systems to recycle their own body fluids! Care to guess how much these types of water treatment systems would cost the citizens of Bellingham and Whatcom County? The answer is millions of dollars to buy and install the equipment and more millions to operate and maintain it annually. It might even become cheaper for us just to buy bottled water to drink, which of course, comes from somewhere else, but the people living 'somewhere else' also need to keep their water clean, too!
“You can pay me now, or you can pay me later.” - Midas Muffler Ad
Buying water to drink is one thing, but buying enough to also cook with, bathe in, wash clothes, fill hot tubs and pools, wash cars and water lawns, tends to get a little expensive, don't you think? Yet, water degradation is slowly happening in our lake, right now, as you are reading this! Every new home that is built and occupied by new people, every lot that is cleared and graded, every vehicle that leaves its poisonous residue, and every clear-cut that is done carelessly, all add incrementally to our lake becoming dirtier. If that continues, at some premature time, these cumulative impacts will face our children, their children and all future generations. These people will not be happy with our legacy to them - a problem beyond fixing without rationing, big bucks and Space Age high tech equipment. Let’s don't let that happen! .
"If we are to solve the problems that plague us, our thinking must evolve beyond the level we were using when we created those problems in the first place."
- Albert Einstein
Straight Talk About Lake Whatcom
Gerald Baron's 'Political Commentary' in the June issue invited a response. I'll try to state the case for preserving our Water Supply Reservoir clearly and in plain language, so folks can understand this controversial issue a little better.
Ben Franklin expressed the 'Precautionary Principle' in simple terms -'a stitch in time saves nine'. Essentially, that is the approach both the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County adopted as their official policy regarding Lake Whatcom and its surrounding watershed.
All best thinking is welcome in determining how to implement this policy, but the main goal should be clear and not under debate - the long-term preservation of our Municipal Water Supply. To make any headway on this challenge means we -individually and collectively- need to change some habits we've developed over the past several decades. Talking about this is good, but actions are better. That's why both City and County have agreed on a program containing multiple actions that start us in the right direction. Unfortunately, the actions taken so far have not been sufficient to even slow down the rate of documented water quality degradation in the lake, much less stop it or reverse it. This warrants serious concern - and additional action, including doing no more harm!
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
- Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
In many respects the lake situation mirrors our human experience. For example, if we are diagnosed with a serious ailment or disease, most of us listen to our Doctor's expert advice and try hard to follow it. Sometimes, a second opinion is sought, but eventually we get the message and actively strive to extend our normal lives as pain-free as possible. If one medicine or therapy doesn't work, we try others, with surgery used only as a last resort. Rarely, do we humans consciously give up on our own health! Most of us don't depend on the advice of quacks or rely on placebos, although sometimes, alternative techniques do work pretty well. The point is we really try hard to stay alive and healthy, don't we? That just seems to be part of our nature!
Why not extend the same kinds of health awareness -and positive actions- to taking care of our exceptionally pure - and essential - water supply? Do you know that nearly 97% of the world's water is salty or otherwise undrinkable; that another 2% is locked in ice caps and glaciers; that only 1% can be used for all agricultural, residential, manufacturing, community and personal needs?
"Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over." - Mark Twain
Worldwide scarcity of potable water is already a problem, which is projected to get progressively worse as population grows and polluting practices continue. Future water wars may occur to rival or surpass wars over other scarce resources, like energy from petroleum. Knowing the scarcity of clean water sources will get worse over time, why don't we value water more than we do? Three reasons come to mind - the oldest ones in recorded history: ignorance; greed and attachment to old habits; anger or fear over the need to change old habits.
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.”
- Albert Einstein
So, why exactly should we even try to keep Lake Whatcom as clean as possible? Not necessarily pristine, mind you, because we're already past that point, and without time travel we don't get to go back in history again. I'm talking about holding the line on the water quality we have right now, then seeing if we can improve on that slightly. There are two very good reasons to set that as a serious goal - our health and our pocket books.
First, we know our health can be harmed by contact with dirty water, whether from raw sewage spills, excessive algae growth, or poisonous runoff. Swimmers, boaters and fishermen don't consider dirty water much fun either.
"We never know the worth of water 'til the well runs dry." - Benjamin Franklin
Also, we know costs are always increased by having to treat dirtier water for drinking and bathing purposes, although this is possible to do. The US Navy makes its shipboard potable water from seawater by desalination and various advanced filtration methods. Our Astronauts use super high tech systems to recycle their own body fluids! Care to guess how much these types of water treatment systems would cost the citizens of Bellingham and Whatcom County? The answer is millions of dollars to buy and install the equipment and more millions to operate and maintain it annually. It might even become cheaper for us just to buy bottled water to drink, which of course, comes from somewhere else, but the people living 'somewhere else' also need to keep their water clean, too!
“You can pay me now, or you can pay me later.” - Midas Muffler Ad
Buying water to drink is one thing, but buying enough to also cook with, bathe in, wash clothes, fill hot tubs and pools, wash cars and water lawns, tends to get a little expensive, don't you think? Yet, water degradation is slowly happening in our lake, right now, as you are reading this! Every new home that is built and occupied by new people, every lot that is cleared and graded, every vehicle that leaves its poisonous residue, and every clear-cut that is done carelessly, all add incrementally to our lake becoming dirtier. If that continues, at some premature time, these cumulative impacts will face our children, their children and all future generations. These people will not be happy with our legacy to them - a problem beyond fixing without rationing, big bucks and Space Age high tech equipment. Let’s don't let that happen! .
"If we are to solve the problems that plague us, our thinking must evolve beyond the level we were using when we created those problems in the first place."
- Albert Einstein
Mea Culpa and Apologies
George Burns once said ‘The secret of a good sermon is to have a good beginning and a good ending; and to have the two as close together as possible’. That is also good advice for an apology.
So, ‘mea culpa’ to anyone who felt harmed by my –undelivered- promise of a blog on the subject of a certain established rumor. It was an unwise thing for me to have even mentioned that particular subject as I did. It was also unnecessary, because anyone could Google it to find, among other search results, a WIndy article in the March 30 2007 issue.
Because apologies really are better –and briefer- than explanations or excuses, I offer these to all who felt poorly served by what I wrote at the end of my second blog posting. The actual size of that readership is unknown and but really makes no difference, because if only one person was harmed, that’s one too many.
I have exchanged communications with two persons who called me to say my blog statement did not make them happy. That's more than enough for me, and I sincerely hope my apology was enough for both of them.
One was my friend, Don Keenan, who e-mailed me the following: [used with his permission]
-------------------------------
To: jwatts@nas.com,
editor@nwcitizen.us
Subject: Positive Campaigning
From: Don Keenan
Date: Fri, 27 July 2007 12:42:15 -0700
Dear John,
Someone just pointed out to me John Servais’ comments today on NwCitizen.US regarding a blog you recently started. I just tried and your blog appears unavailable for me to read at this time on the Internet, but John Servais’ comments indicate his belief that you were acting on behalf of my campaign, which is clearly not the case. What you do or say is certainly a matter of your own choice, but I’d like to reaffirm for the record my opposition to negative campaigning as stated on July 4th.
Here’s an excerpt from the e-mail I sent July 4th to you and over 100 others who are supporting my candidacy for whom I had e-mail addresses:
“Unfortunately we have seen the beginning of negative campaigning. Don’t be troubled. It’s likely to continue, but I hope you will join in my commitment to a positive campaign. I’ve worked on many campaigns and I’ve never seen personal attacks win. Voters want candidates to stick to issues and that’s what I plan to do. Believe me, it takes discipline not to respond, but in the end nobody benefits from participating in negative exchanges. I have a long record of public service and a positive vision for the future of Bellingham. I am proud of that service and desire to continue to be of service to the people of our community.”
I know anyone who serves in a high profile leadership position winds up being a ready target for criticism, but Bellingham has too much at stake to have this or any other campaign sidetracked by negativity.
Today’s Bellingham Herald has a positive letter to the editor from City Council member Gene Knutson supporting my candidacy for mayor. You also wrote a positive letter about me a couple of months ago. I appreciate support from city council members and others in the community who know my work as Deputy Administrator and I continue to ask that the focus remains positive throughout the campaign.
Sincerely,
Don
------------------------
My next blog will be on an entirely different subject, to be determined. Until then, I’ve got other things to do.
Note: The ‘promised’ controversial blog was not posted, and it won’t be.
So, ‘mea culpa’ to anyone who felt harmed by my –undelivered- promise of a blog on the subject of a certain established rumor. It was an unwise thing for me to have even mentioned that particular subject as I did. It was also unnecessary, because anyone could Google it to find, among other search results, a WIndy article in the March 30 2007 issue.
Because apologies really are better –and briefer- than explanations or excuses, I offer these to all who felt poorly served by what I wrote at the end of my second blog posting. The actual size of that readership is unknown and but really makes no difference, because if only one person was harmed, that’s one too many.
I have exchanged communications with two persons who called me to say my blog statement did not make them happy. That's more than enough for me, and I sincerely hope my apology was enough for both of them.
One was my friend, Don Keenan, who e-mailed me the following: [used with his permission]
-------------------------------
To: jwatts@nas.com,
editor@nwcitizen.us
Subject: Positive Campaigning
From: Don Keenan
Date: Fri, 27 July 2007 12:42:15 -0700
Dear John,
Someone just pointed out to me John Servais’ comments today on NwCitizen.US regarding a blog you recently started. I just tried and your blog appears unavailable for me to read at this time on the Internet, but John Servais’ comments indicate his belief that you were acting on behalf of my campaign, which is clearly not the case. What you do or say is certainly a matter of your own choice, but I’d like to reaffirm for the record my opposition to negative campaigning as stated on July 4th.
Here’s an excerpt from the e-mail I sent July 4th to you and over 100 others who are supporting my candidacy for whom I had e-mail addresses:
“Unfortunately we have seen the beginning of negative campaigning. Don’t be troubled. It’s likely to continue, but I hope you will join in my commitment to a positive campaign. I’ve worked on many campaigns and I’ve never seen personal attacks win. Voters want candidates to stick to issues and that’s what I plan to do. Believe me, it takes discipline not to respond, but in the end nobody benefits from participating in negative exchanges. I have a long record of public service and a positive vision for the future of Bellingham. I am proud of that service and desire to continue to be of service to the people of our community.”
I know anyone who serves in a high profile leadership position winds up being a ready target for criticism, but Bellingham has too much at stake to have this or any other campaign sidetracked by negativity.
Today’s Bellingham Herald has a positive letter to the editor from City Council member Gene Knutson supporting my candidacy for mayor. You also wrote a positive letter about me a couple of months ago. I appreciate support from city council members and others in the community who know my work as Deputy Administrator and I continue to ask that the focus remains positive throughout the campaign.
Sincerely,
Don
------------------------
My next blog will be on an entirely different subject, to be determined. Until then, I’ve got other things to do.
Note: The ‘promised’ controversial blog was not posted, and it won’t be.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
2nd Posting - The UGA Land Supply Debate
I WAS wrong, and in my first posting too! That could be embarrassing, but somehow, I'm not.
The County Council actually wimped on a planned Resolution to 'negotiate' with the City on additional UGA lands. Instead, they equivocated and agreed on another 'public hearing' event on August 7. That should be interesting, a room full of angry people and 'special interests' demanding that the Council accept the responsibility to do something creative to help the City -supposedly their biggest constituent and ally- actually achieve the goals the two parties ostensibly wanted to achieve, in good faith! By the way, that is the same night that Bellingham neighborhoods host National Night Out Against Crime' events, present company included. Good way of involving the public?
Will this additional 'public hearing' achieve its stated purpse, or will it merely serve as cover to a County Council that has essentially abrogated its elected responsibility to its very vocal -appointed- advisory Planning Commission? It has been said that to claim a virtue, one only has to assume it. Has that happened? Is it a virtue? One wonders. Is David Hunter now the acting County Council Chair? He sounded like it, and it may be a post he might enjoy, but he was not elected to it! Will the County Council simply accept the edict of its appointed -not annointed- Planning Commission? Or, will the Council do its duty and have the fortitude to independently analyze the situation, even without any PC recommendations? That is the question. I am informed that after 47 -count them- public meetings the County Planning Commission did not even agree on recommendations to the County Council! If that is true, is it acceptable? What is wrong with this picture?
On to other stuff. The Bill MIze Forum is tonight, but I won't attend this one. Instead, I did consider the 7 questions posed and answered them to my own satisfaction. Anyone interested can contact me for the answers.
Tomorrow, I take up another concern; that of whether there is anything to the buzz that there may exist, a conspiracy between The Cascadia Weekly, Conservation Northwest and the McShane Campaign, all sponsored by Trillium. Speculation? Maybe. Proof? Remains to be seen. Questions to be posed and answered? Certainly! Let the process begin!
I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.
-Rudyard Kipling
The County Council actually wimped on a planned Resolution to 'negotiate' with the City on additional UGA lands. Instead, they equivocated and agreed on another 'public hearing' event on August 7. That should be interesting, a room full of angry people and 'special interests' demanding that the Council accept the responsibility to do something creative to help the City -supposedly their biggest constituent and ally- actually achieve the goals the two parties ostensibly wanted to achieve, in good faith! By the way, that is the same night that Bellingham neighborhoods host National Night Out Against Crime' events, present company included. Good way of involving the public?
Will this additional 'public hearing' achieve its stated purpse, or will it merely serve as cover to a County Council that has essentially abrogated its elected responsibility to its very vocal -appointed- advisory Planning Commission? It has been said that to claim a virtue, one only has to assume it. Has that happened? Is it a virtue? One wonders. Is David Hunter now the acting County Council Chair? He sounded like it, and it may be a post he might enjoy, but he was not elected to it! Will the County Council simply accept the edict of its appointed -not annointed- Planning Commission? Or, will the Council do its duty and have the fortitude to independently analyze the situation, even without any PC recommendations? That is the question. I am informed that after 47 -count them- public meetings the County Planning Commission did not even agree on recommendations to the County Council! If that is true, is it acceptable? What is wrong with this picture?
On to other stuff. The Bill MIze Forum is tonight, but I won't attend this one. Instead, I did consider the 7 questions posed and answered them to my own satisfaction. Anyone interested can contact me for the answers.
Tomorrow, I take up another concern; that of whether there is anything to the buzz that there may exist, a conspiracy between The Cascadia Weekly, Conservation Northwest and the McShane Campaign, all sponsored by Trillium. Speculation? Maybe. Proof? Remains to be seen. Questions to be posed and answered? Certainly! Let the process begin!
I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.
-Rudyard Kipling
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
My First Blog Posting: GMA & Comprehensive Plan Update
"Responsibility does not only lie with the leaders of our countries or with those who have been appointed or elected to do a particular job. It lies with each of us individually. What is important is that we each make a sincere effort to take seriously our responsibility for each other and for the natural environment."
~ From His Holiness, the Dalai Lama
I have always taken inspiration from this quote from a man whose religion is lovingkindness.
So, now with the start-up of my first blog, it seems appropriate to set the tone for this space.
In anticipation of retirement from elected public office, I am beginning a new career - that of a concerned citizen with knowledge to be shared as widely and respectfully as I can reasonably do it. Never again will I be able to sit back and just let local politics just happen in our town! That would be irresponsible, particularly in the midst of a chaotic election in which truth has already suffered enough neglect! How I wish that more folks would learn from Mark Twain, 'to always tell the truth, that way you can remember what you said'!
With the complex and controversial issues facing Bellingham and Whatcom County, there will be no shortage of subject matter! After nearly nine years as a member of the Bellingham City Council, I do have much to share, including insights into current happenings and some older issues that are now seeing their next iteration.
I want to be fair and accurate to the best of my knowledge, but some things I have to say may not be comfortable to read or hear for some people. Controversy does come with the territory with local government, and our system does depend upon an informed electorate.
The opinions I will offer will be informed ones, based on facts and my personal observations and logical deductions. They will not please everyone! If a reader believes I am mistaken, that's OK. But it's my Blog!
I hope people find the regular postings here of sufficient interest for further discussion in our community. All content is my sole responsibility, and the views expressed my own. Enough preliminaries.
Now, where to begin?
How about Growth Management?
Specifically, will the County approve a reasonable new City UGA land supply to facilitate compact urban growth, or will they opt for business as usual? Based on the current buzz, I'm betting the County Council will follow a predetermined path to a foregone conclusion and severely cut back on the City's proposal, instead, imposing a 'punishment' on the City for its 'sins of the past'. Some members will likely pander, posture and equivocate, but in the end they will simply ignore the years of careful, 'bottom's up' analysis the City made and make that effort a colossal waste of time.
I hope I'm wrong on this, but we will know in the morning.
If the answer is as anticipated, the City can do any or all of the following:
1. re-examine its good faith commitment to the County of trying to accept over 50% of the Countywide growth until 2022.
2. complain and maybe appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board.
3. sit back and count its blessings that the County did something the City wouldn't do for itself.
The combination of 1 & 3 sounds like the easiest course to follow, doesn't it?
Would the County feel good about pulling rank on the City? Probably, because it wouldn't have to change a thing, except throw GMA intent out the window and continue to collect the revenues. Why should the County worry, it wouldn't need to share its revenues with the City, deal with City codes and standards as much, hire enough competent and experienced planners to do the job necessary for a true 'collaboration' [there's that word again] with the City. After all, the County ALREADY HAS enough vested 5-acre lots to accommodate ALL the projected countywide growth until 2022, without a single new home being built in any city! How'd you like them apples? Also, some County Council members -one even lives in town- actually delight in 'sticking it to the City'.
Does it sound like the pot might be calling the kettle black? You bet it does! Added bonus, the County can brag about not having to raise property taxes for the 12th -or 13th. I forget- straight year, because enough sprawl will occur to fill the County coffers, and maybe even provide a surplus! Follow the money, then use it for good purposes.
More later, after the County Council actions are known.
~ From His Holiness, the Dalai Lama
I have always taken inspiration from this quote from a man whose religion is lovingkindness.
So, now with the start-up of my first blog, it seems appropriate to set the tone for this space.
In anticipation of retirement from elected public office, I am beginning a new career - that of a concerned citizen with knowledge to be shared as widely and respectfully as I can reasonably do it. Never again will I be able to sit back and just let local politics just happen in our town! That would be irresponsible, particularly in the midst of a chaotic election in which truth has already suffered enough neglect! How I wish that more folks would learn from Mark Twain, 'to always tell the truth, that way you can remember what you said'!
With the complex and controversial issues facing Bellingham and Whatcom County, there will be no shortage of subject matter! After nearly nine years as a member of the Bellingham City Council, I do have much to share, including insights into current happenings and some older issues that are now seeing their next iteration.
I want to be fair and accurate to the best of my knowledge, but some things I have to say may not be comfortable to read or hear for some people. Controversy does come with the territory with local government, and our system does depend upon an informed electorate.
The opinions I will offer will be informed ones, based on facts and my personal observations and logical deductions. They will not please everyone! If a reader believes I am mistaken, that's OK. But it's my Blog!
I hope people find the regular postings here of sufficient interest for further discussion in our community. All content is my sole responsibility, and the views expressed my own. Enough preliminaries.
Now, where to begin?
How about Growth Management?
Specifically, will the County approve a reasonable new City UGA land supply to facilitate compact urban growth, or will they opt for business as usual? Based on the current buzz, I'm betting the County Council will follow a predetermined path to a foregone conclusion and severely cut back on the City's proposal, instead, imposing a 'punishment' on the City for its 'sins of the past'. Some members will likely pander, posture and equivocate, but in the end they will simply ignore the years of careful, 'bottom's up' analysis the City made and make that effort a colossal waste of time.
I hope I'm wrong on this, but we will know in the morning.
If the answer is as anticipated, the City can do any or all of the following:
1. re-examine its good faith commitment to the County of trying to accept over 50% of the Countywide growth until 2022.
2. complain and maybe appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board.
3. sit back and count its blessings that the County did something the City wouldn't do for itself.
The combination of 1 & 3 sounds like the easiest course to follow, doesn't it?
Would the County feel good about pulling rank on the City? Probably, because it wouldn't have to change a thing, except throw GMA intent out the window and continue to collect the revenues. Why should the County worry, it wouldn't need to share its revenues with the City, deal with City codes and standards as much, hire enough competent and experienced planners to do the job necessary for a true 'collaboration' [there's that word again] with the City. After all, the County ALREADY HAS enough vested 5-acre lots to accommodate ALL the projected countywide growth until 2022, without a single new home being built in any city! How'd you like them apples? Also, some County Council members -one even lives in town- actually delight in 'sticking it to the City'.
Does it sound like the pot might be calling the kettle black? You bet it does! Added bonus, the County can brag about not having to raise property taxes for the 12th -or 13th. I forget- straight year, because enough sprawl will occur to fill the County coffers, and maybe even provide a surplus! Follow the money, then use it for good purposes.
More later, after the County Council actions are known.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
