Dan Pike: An Unabashed Endorsement for Mayor

Tonight, Dan Pike's campaign kick-off event at the Bellwether was a rousing success! This man is pitching a big tent, under which diverse interests are all welcome - every one of them.
One thing that voters seem to have already made clear is that they want a different approach is dealing with many of our local big issues, including having more responsive local government.

That means incumbents are at something of a disadvantage for a change, at least as compared to elections past.
There is a clear call for new blood, new ideas and new courage in our elected officials that seems to reinforce itself each week.

Don't worry about and don't fight it, because that's Democracy at work, folks!
That is the sound of people making their wishes known in the most tangible way possible - thru the ballot box.
And, I hope they do turn out to vote in huge numbers!

One can almost hear Oliver Cromwell's present day counterparts saying " You have sat too long for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!
Over-dramatic perhaps, but maybe something to that effect.

Anyway, I was inspired by Pike's party, and personally plan to redouble my efforts this campaign season.
One way I'm doing it is to write letters to the editor.
Here's my recent submittal to the Herald:
-------------
"I like Pike"

This campaign year, I got to know Dan Pike, which explains my enthusiastic support for him as Mayor.

Describing Pike comes down to 3 things; training, temperament & truthfulness.
He is first a man of principle, who has prepared himself by education and work experience to deal positively with issues vital to the public.

With a degree in Planning from WWU and a Masters in Public Administration from Harvard, Dan demonstrated early in life his intention to dedicate and prepare himself for public service.

And, Pike's work experience has been true to this goal. He has been markedly successful in managing major transportation projects in the I-5 Corridor, at a time of severe funding restrictions.
Now, as Transportation Planner with the Skagit County Council of Governments, he is responsible for regional planning, and has again achieved notable success getting projects approved, funded and completed.

Dan came to Bellingham as a student in 1982, developed a love for this place, and is now a family man, who has achieved his goal of finding meaningful employment near enough Bellingham to live in the Lettered Streets Neighborhood.

Dan Pike is a refreshing new face in Bellingham, who deserves to become our next Mayor!

===========================================
On a related note, I believe the 2008 Elections will reflect, on a national level, what we are experiencing here.
With that in mind, I'm reprinting an e-mail I received today from Project Vote Smart, an organization I support whole heartedly.

Maybe some local folks would like to work with me to help bring their PURPLE BUS to bellingham next year?

Read on to see what this is about.
Or visit the website at www.votesmart.org
---------
Project Vote Smart National Tour

Dear Member,

After 16 years of work on the part of over 6,000 people, Project Vote Smart is about to announce the nation's first Voter's Self-Defense System and we are looking for organizations, schools and foundations across the country to help us make the announcement.
We've created an hour-long multimedia presentation entitled "Depending on the Wisdom of Strangers" that will make your audience want to stand up and cheer.
Announcement presentations are being scheduled in cities across the nation and we are currently looking for invitations for the upcoming 2008 election year.

The presentation demonstrates why we need and how to use the Voter's Self-Defense System that enables every citizen to instantly check the credibility of the often-misleading claims of candidates as they seek your vote.

Project president, Richard Kimball, and several of our board members will make the presentations and in certain cases, if appropriate we will bring our Purple Bus.
A 45 ft. long bus with a movie theater and computer terminals to show how we did it and why the Omaha World-Herald says, " It couldn't be more nonpartisan."

The organization started by Presidents Carter and Ford and 40 other prominent national leaders and funded by the Ford and Carnegie Foundations has worked to construct an enormous system by which any American can instantly access accurate factual data on over 40,000 political candidates. Early reviews have said:

"So good that even the Federal Government recommends it!" -New York Times

"Heaven for Political Junkies!"- USA Today

"Project Vote Smart jammed a wrench into the spin machine." - Atlanta Journal-Constitution

"So good we are recommending it to all of our affiliates."- CNN

"A rebirth of Democracy."- Bill Moyers

"It would make the Founders weep with joy." -U.S. News and World Report

We are looking for large-scale regularly scheduled events with an attendance in upwards of 100, events like a lecture series, conferences and organization/foundation annual meetings.

That said, virtually all requests will be accommodated through our 6 traveling board members, 150 Project Vote Smart Ambassadors and the 30,000 miles our Purple (purple because we are not red or blue, but all in this together) Bus Tour is scheduled to travel.
Please call or email James Ewert and/or Victoria Horrock, our National Tour Coordinators at 406-859-8683 or james@votesmart.org - victoria@votesmart.org

Best wishes,

Richard Kimball

Project President
--------------
Paraphrasing a letter George Washington wrote to the Marquis de Lafayette at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention:
"The production has been many years in the making.
It is now a child of fortune, to be fostered by some and buffeted by others.
What will be the general opinion on, or reception of it is entirely up to the people."

And so it is with most things in a Democracy!
Let's work to have big turn-outs, both in 2007 and 2008, shall we?

Kathryn's SWAN SONG: A Tribute

Nikosi’s Motto: "Do all you can with what you have in the time you have in the place you are." [Nikosi Johnson, age 12, fighter for mothers and children affected by AIDS in his native South Africa and throughout the world]

I promised Kathryn Hanowell that I would not print her 'SWAN SONG', dated SEPT 12, 2007, so I won't.
At least not entirely.

As Bellingham's first Neighborhoods Coordinator, Kathryn has truly found her niche, and it shows!
In the short time she has been involved in her capstone role before retirement she has set a standard of sensitivity, creditability and civility that will be hard to sustain.
But, we must!

At the time Kathryn assumed -and began to define- this role, the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Committee [MNAC] seemed to be teetering on the verge of ineffectiveness, if for no other reason than the Neighborhood Representatives simply felt that way.
Many wondered whether it was worth their time to even attend the meetings, much less believe they could make a difference.
It was a defining moment when the Administration recognized the significance of the pervasive atmosphere of discontent and took action to address it.

Kathryn's assignment to the care and feeding of our neighborhoods, whether planned or not, was brilliant!
But even her gentle and even-handed presence did not calm these waters immediately.
That took time.
Kathryn was patient, listened a lot and acknowledged people's concerns and frustrations.
She also thought a great deal about the concerns expressed and took great care in detailing these before presenting possible solutions.

I really don't mean to embarrass Kathryn with these comments, but I have been watching how she has handled a few crises, and believe she deserves a lot of credit for bringing them to much better conclusions -or at least pointed them in better directions- than many thought was possible.
That takes more than talent.
It takes a personality that is inherently helpful in nature, and a maturity that understands the dynamics at work in building frustrations.

These troubling things took time to develop, and they will take time to figure out how to resolve.
Even with that understanding, Kathryn knows that the only real answer is a continued dialogue that is respectfully conducted.
A sustained, continuous process of improvement based upon understanding the root causes of frustrations and not just their symptoms.
As an astute analyst of these things, Kathryn has been absolutely tireless in her dedication and we owe her our thanks, as a community, for helping us begin to heal the often self-inflicted wounds we have suffered.

OK enough of the serious praise, even though much more is deserved.
-------------------------
Here’s a few of Kathryn’s tongue-in-cheek future 'headlines' -borrowed from her SWAN SONG, that she conjured might eventually appear in the Bellingham Herald: [Note, true to form, there is something for EVERY Neighborhood!]

• Alabama Hill neighborhood records lowest traffic speeds

• Apartment renters say BIRCHWOOD best for kids

• Columbia annual meeting draws thousands to Squalicum Park

• CBD Residents and Bar owners cut deal on closing hours

• Cornwall Park neighborhood applauds Freeway underpass to hospital

• New Edgemoor multi family housing preserves views

• City reports Fairhaven fully developed; residents enjoy relaxed pace

• Guy leads tour of third north end park; library branch expected

• Record salmon run in Padden and Connelly Creeks; Happy Valley Association credited

• City reports no impact on growth from Lettered Streets downzone

• Meridian Neighborhood Association celebrates 10th year

• Mount Baker North and Mount Baker South hold confab on traffic

• Sidewalks on all Puget streets; neighborhood activists credited

• Neighbors’ community building work pushes Roosevelt economic development

• Cyclists crash at San Juan ribbon cutting; Samish leaders call for traffic calming on new bike lanes

• Matsumoto publishes: Right Sizing Urban Villages: the Sehome Experience

• Lake Whatcom phosphorus declines; Silver Beach neighborhood credited

• Whatcom Land Trust names South neighborhood association “Steward of the Year” for Chuckanut Reserve trails work

• Council passes South Hill view ordinance as proposed by neighborhood

• Sunnyland neighbors refurbish Memorial Park tables and restrooms

• Whatcom Falls neighborhood demographics unchanged for fifth year

• Starbucks attempts hostile takeover of Nelson Market; neighbors call for city-wide boycott

• WTA prepares for auto-free WWU

And, last but not least:

•Neighborhood Services Coordinator retires; Mayoral candidates promise more funding for neighborhood services

Thank you, Kathryn!

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

The title - coined by Jesse Jackson - seems a good lead-in to this short blog

I took a little breather and spent a delightful day attending a 'Sourdough Speaker Series' event at the North Cascades Environmental Learning Center. It's been two and a half years since this well-designed and sustainably constructed, LEED-compliant mini-campus has been open, and it is truly a great place to visit and recharge one's batteries.

The Center is located off Highway 20, several miles past Newhalen, across Diablo Dam and is carefully sited on gentle wooded slopes.
Operated by North Cascades Institute, it was built as part of the mitigation for increasing hydroelectric capacity for Seattle City Light.
It's mission is focused primarily on children, but former children -adults- are also welcome, with on-site and off-site educational program offered nearly year-round. [December & January are mainly for staff training]

About 35 people came to this event, which featured 'two veteran writers who know virtually everything about the political and environmental history of the Northwest; the good, bad and ugly', as the brochure proclaimed.
From their remarks and their answers to questions, this was true.
It was, as promised, 'an intimate evening of storytelling about the past, present and future of conservation and restoration in the North Cascades and beyond'.

The speakers were Timothy Egan, New York Times reporter and author of award-winning books, The Worst Hard Time [dustbowl story] and The Good Rain [Pacific Northwest classic], and Joel Connelly, Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist reporting on local andregional people, politics and public affairs.

Both these guys are famous for a reason - they are good at what they do!
It's not so much the topics they talk about as the effective manner they tell us.
There is a skill in reporting and writing they both have, that I envy!
Maybe spending a little more time around folks like these, and more time out in nature, will help me learn to do this better?
I hope so! Wish me luck.
-------------------------------
'I am always ready to learn although I do not always like being taught' - Winston Churchill

More Reconveyance Feedback: No Secrets or Surprises

No surprises or secrets were in evidence today during my cordial and informative meeting with Lisa McShane at Conservation Northwest offices. Just history, information and explanations to informal questions made up the agenda. After the small flap caused by my first blog on this subject, I really appreciate the care taken to provide me with information that does answer some of my questions. Others present at this meeting may have their own impressions, but here is my take.

The written information supplied was factual, pertinent and interesting, since it summarized 8 years of work by Lisa and others. That is a considerable investment of time in any subject, and may prove to be very helpful in bringing public attention to an interesting, and potentially very effective, way to preserve a large part of the forested trust lands over which the Dept of Natural Resources has management responsibility. It will take me some time to read and digest all this new information, but maybe a brief report is in order now.

The path to accomplish this reconveyance feat is surprisingly simple, but the devil has been known to inhabit the details. Of course there are some potential drawbacks and uncertainties to navigate, which is normal. It certainly is not a 'done deal', or anything close to that in my estimation, but the path and the step-wise milestones on it are pretty clearly in focus.

That point is interesting if for no other reason than to draw a general parallel to other potentially beneficial undertakings that require vision, meticulous planning, finding the right combination of uses and resources, and developing the all-essential public trust and confidence needed to move ambitious projects forward. What 'other beneficial undertakings' you might ask? Oh, things like the Public Facilities District, the Civic Field Improvements, the Waterfront Redevelopment, and of course the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program, of which the reconveyance idea could play a key part.

Preservation of the watershed lands surrounding Lake Whatcom is already an established goal, but it has been frustrating trying to achieve it in a manner that produces measureable results like slowing, stopping and reversing the adverse trends being seen in Lake water quality. The extent that logging -timber harvesting for the polite- has caused or may cause water quality degradation- we don't know, but logging is a risk and therefore a concern.

The Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan, briefly described in an earlier blog, attempted to curtail logging impacts by restricting it, both in its timing and the methods used. The 'Preferred Alternative' that was eventually adopted did actually succeed, but not very dramatically. Had the most restrictive Alternative been adopted -essentially no logging- the DNR would have had needed full compensation for its projected revenues that are dedicated by law to supporting schools and other trusts. This amount is currently estimated at $1.57 million - per year! That's a big sum of money to be raised and paid to the DNR each year, with only a fraction of it coming back to Whatcom County. But, that remains one method that is available to us.

The Reconveyance method may be simpler, cost less, and support a use that is far more protective than many others - careful, essentially passive, outdoor recreation. In fact, that use is the ONLY one allowed -by law- if a reconveyance plan is pursued. Copies of the various RCWs were made available that seem to make this point clear, and the research into this idea was done by a competent legal firm, knowledgeable on this specific topic.

It seems all the 15,700 acres of DNR managed forest lands in the Lake Whatcom Watershed are already owned by Whatcom County. That means much of the proceeds from DNR 'harvests' go to pay for various trusts right here, but not all the proceeds.
Long story short, the County would not have to pay anything to reconvey the land, because it already owns it.
But, the County would have to find ways of compensating itself for the lost revenues that DNR would have paid it from the proceeds of timber harvests. This effectively saves the County paying DNR's management fee -about 22% of the proceeds- plus maybe some other charges. But, those details are still a little fuzzy because the acreage for possible reconveyance needs to be determined with better accuracy.

Still with me? OK, so if the County requests DNR to initiate reconveyance of certain forest lands, it must specify the acreage and general location of trust lands it wants, then pay DNR its survey, legal and other fees to do it. Then it depends on DNR's intergrant attaining approval to proceed further. The DNR would likely consolidate the lands in question to form a larger mass, rather than scattered parcels or checkerboards. These would conform to certain land characteristics, have reasonable proximity to existing access points and hopefully function as a buffer to sensitive areas like streams and wetlands. Somewhere, concurrent in this process, the County must develop a Parks Plan to be reviewed and approved by the State Inter-Agency Committee [IAC]. After all this happens, the County gets to administer its new Parks Reconveyance per its Plan and at its cost. Pretty complicated to be so simple, huh?

But, there are still many questions to ask and get answered before such a reconveyance actually can happen.
Citizens will need to know the character of the Park, what uses it will support, how it will be administered, developed where necessary, maintained, paid for and enforced. Those are all normal things to expect of such an undertaking, but they still must be accomplished.

I think such a plan could work, especially if the Park conceived were to have the essential characteristics and functions of permanent natural vegetation.
After all, Mother Nature's remedy for run-off filtration is a whole lot better and cheaper than anything else!
And, we already know how to do that. Look at the Stimpson Family Nature Reserve and its contiguous preserved areas as an example.

Now that I know more about reconveyance, it seems like a good idea that deserves a try. Why not take the next step and see what is possible? If that doesn't succeed we haven't lost a lot in my view. As long as the recreation uses that may result from a reconveyance are not as impactful as logging, we are that much ahead of the game. And, if the Park idea should fail after it is established, the forest lands just revert back to DNR.

Also, I found out all the players are public entities; DNR, Whatcom County, Inter-Agency Committee [the state committee that evaluates and prioritizes Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program projects]. That's it. No private interests, unless the DNR finds one to swap it's forest lands with -even steven- before a reconveyance can be done!

More later.
----------------
At least this little episode has served some good purpose. Information that was not secret was made available. And, perhaps, some surprises were avoided. Secrets and surprises are not the same thing, but they are closely related, don't you think? There is certainly no obligation or compelling reason here to share -or not to share- any secrets or avoid -or not avoid- any surprises. But why not share and/or avoid? Isn't that just good practice in general?

Information enlightens people by eliminating ignorance. Ignorance about good possibilities is the bane of mankind in my view. Why not share it? I am told the very best software has been achieved by just putting open architecture stuff out there so people can see it and voluntarily improve on it. Public process can serve that same purpose too, but only if we let it!
------------------
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."

-Thomas Jefferson, Author of the declaration of Independence and 3rd President of the United States.

Growth Management: Meaningfully Involving Neighborhoods -Part 1

Last evening I attended a meeting of the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission, MNAC, for short.
It was remarkable that 20 of our 23 neighborhoods were represented!
Each was given an opportunity to comment.
This meeting was an overwhelmingly positive one, despite the expression by some members of their neighborhood's complaints and criticisms.

There has to be a place where complaints are heard, and heard by more than one neighborhood, because no single neighborhood necessarily has exclusive rights to any single problem. But also, because there is strength in numbers! What affects one neighborhood may one day affect all neighborhoods, so it is good that all neighborhoods can share these problems as well as ideas for how to avoid or mitigate them in the future.

Such a process has multiple benefits, and in many social environments -including governments- it is considered as simply 'working smart'.
Why repeat the same learning curve every time a similar problem occurs?
There is a major benefit to identifying shared solutions that frame issues, honestly and in an informed fashion, which can help the process of resolution greatly, regardless of venue.
Not necessarily solve every conceivable problem, mind you, but share commonalities that can also be used to set policy guidelines for the future.
------------------

One of the serious concerns expressed at the MNAC meeting came from the Whatcom Falls Neighborhood Representative, who was understandably frustrated that the decision described below did not go the way he, and some other neighbors, wanted.

That brings me to the WIndy article and particularly, the Inside the Indy piece which appeared in today's edition.
I understand the concerns and the opinions expressed, but disagree with the conclusions.
These writings focused on the City Council's 4-3 decision last Monday to allow a 'rezone' that some maintained was a precedent that did not follow the Comprehensve Plan.
That view is inaccurate in my opinion.
But, taking the specific to the general case, the WIndy also opined that this might be a 'harbinger, [that] proposals that tout densification and reduction of sprawl will trump any concerns over neighborhood character.'
I strongly disagree, and here's why:

First, the rezone in question is a 'contract rezone', a rare occurrence that may happen once or twice a year.
What distinguishes this type of rezone from the others is that it is considered a 'quasi-judicial' matter rather than a legislative matter.
For the uninitiated, this means a technical loophole that allows alternate proposals, but only if the applicant can demonstrate public benefit by each of 7 specific criteria.
Such decisions are mandated to be made by the City Council after review by the Planning Commission and professional staff.

The Planning Commission was unable to muster 4 votes for any specific set of recommendations, so essentially that body served mainly as a conduit for information and public comment to the Council, which then had the duty to decide the issue, based on the closed record to that point.
This is one of those times that the Council has to act essentially as a jury, and decide the case on the facts already in evidence.
That is inherently an uncomfortable and controversial decision for anyone to have to make, but it is the Council's duty to do it and no one else's.

As Harry Truman said 'the buck stops here'. He also said 'if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen'.

Now, let me say that the 7 criteria to be used as tests are good ones, but not entirely objective. Otherwise, the 'jury' would not be needed!
But, they are not simple criteria; they are subject to interpretation by each Council member.
My own view is that Council members represent the entire community, not individual Wards, Neighborhoods or special interests.
With that in mind, we are charged with the responsibility of applying all of the Comprehensive Plan goals to an issue, and not just those that support a particular point of view.
Folks, that ain't easy!
The Comp Plan means many different things to many different people, but all have to be kept in some sort of balance for it to work for everyone, plus honor the codes and laws that apply [whether folks are aware of them or not].

With all the above in mind, predictably, the Council decision reflected diverse views, with the resulting decision favoring accepting the contract rezone proposed.
That should be OK, because our rules require nothing more than a simple majority.
Unfortunately, this system does seem to produce 'winners and losers'.

Without trying to justify my vote, here's what I saw clearly as the advantages of the decision that was made:

1. A previous application that was vested [means old rules apply] proposed 26 new homes on 10,000 sf lots, although an adjacent area had already been rezoned for the same smaller building footprints requested in the contract rezone, setting a precedent that was difficult to dismiss in these deliberations.
Under that proposal, each lot was required to have a minimum 30' frontage on the to-be-constructed Whitworth Blvd.
[The underlying zoning actually suggests that up to 52-54 lots were potentially allowable]
The contract rezone requested 41 new homes [added to 3 existing] on smaller building footprints and using shared driveways for access, which removes impervious surface area.
Basically this amounts to a clustering concept that is generally not a bad way of efficiently using the land available without unduly impacting the environment, especially in an urban area.

2. The previous application would have provided 50' buffers for Cemetery Creek, a tributary of Whatcom Creek.
The contract rezone provides for 200' buffers, plus over 4 acres of Open Space preserved as wetlands and uncut trees, plus a treed buffer.

3. The previous application did not specifically provide for traffic mitigation on substandard Xenia Street, or to roadways to the North that connect with Old Lakeway Drive, a problematic cut-thru connecting Lakeway and Yew Street.
The contract rezone did specifically provide for traffic calming measures on Xenia Street.

Bottom Line: 15 additional homes; better protection for Cemetery Creek, including trail corridor to help connecting Lakeway with Samish Crest trails to Padden Creek; 4+ acres of added open space; treed buffers; traffic mitigation for Xenia Street and connections to the North.

Now, I ask you, which is the better deal for the City of Bellingham?

I would personally hate to be on any 'winning side' that actually resulted in a markedly inferior development! That would be a case of winning a battle, but losing the war. That kind of thinking has already characterized too much of our history.
-----------------------------
That's enough for one blog I've been told, so maybe there will be more later on this subject.

One last thought:

Our single main challenge is to manage growth and change well, so as to sustain our quality of life.
That is a citywide mission of which Neighborhoods are a very important part!

Reconveyance Feedback

For the second time since beginning this blog, something I have said has elicited a remarkable response.
I am hopeful this will lead to something beneficial to our community, and its efforts to permanently protect Lake Whatcom.

While I don't have sufficient new information now to report on any new facts or insights, this will likely be forthcoming in the next few days.

One thing I want to make crystal clear is that my postings on this subject are not to create sensationalism, but to inform and question. Pertinent questions do need be asked to inform good decisions, and it has been my habit to engage in that practice. Questions have been asked and I trust the answers will be forthcoming, which I will report later.

Likely, my next post will be on a different subject.

Lake Whatcom: An October Surprise?

Lake Whatcom: An October Surprise?

A number of people, including me, have heard Pete Kremen drop a few hints about his idea of a 'reconveyance' of forest properties to ostensibly protect Lake Whatcom. Not many details, mind you, just enough to titillate.
What is Pete really up to? I mean really?
Sounds like a grand scheme that might make him -and maybe others- seem a hero, doesn't it?
Think we might be hearing more about this anytime soon, say maybe next month?
Think certain candidates might benefit from such an October surprise?
Hmmm.

Details are sketchy, but here are some details on the background involving the Department of Natural Resources [DNR], plus a few questions that may help outline the rationale, and maybe even the form such a reconveyance 'surprise' might take.
--------------
DNR owns almost 15,000 acres of forest lands in the Lake Whatcom Watershed, about 47% of the total.
That's a big chunk which is already publicly owned by a State Agency.
But, DNR needs to 'harvest' its lands regularly to return monies to schools and other entities through trusts, by law.
But, harvesting timber in this watershed has become particularly problematic and difficult for DNR with the increased public concerns over protecting our water supply, which happens to be Lake Whatcom.

Not too long ago, our State Legislature accomplished a rare feat, that of agreeing -unanimously- on a measure.
It simply required DNR to establish more stringent Forest Practices for any harvesting done in the Lake Whatcom Watershed.
That bill, sponsored by our Senator Harriet Spanel, gained the support of every member of our legislature at the time, and launched what turned out to be a 3-plus years of deliberation by a stakeholders committee to produce what was termed the Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan.

During this entire time the DNR, under the direction of Commissioner of Public Lands, Doug Sutherland, continuously stalled and tried to frustrate this legislatively directed process.
As this discussion proceeded, it was apparent that DNR didn't want to make any substantial changes, which the agency saw would make its job of returning funds to schools even more difficult than it had become.
The process finally concluded with 4 or 5 'alternate scenarios', from which one was to be selected.

That's when things began to get interesting!
It seems that private forestry owners had been left out of the Landscape Committee deliberations and were frustrated, mad and fearful about what results might be adopted.
They didn't want more stringent rules for DNR because if that happened, they might be next in line for stronger rules.
DNR fueled these fears by its own suspiscion that if a precedent were set for Lake Whatcom, that might spread state-wide, causing them more headaches in meeting their commitment to return funds to public trusts.
Unspoken, was the reality that many private 'foresters' did not plan on remaining true to that label.
They used that cover as a tax advantage until they could get County rezones for development.
Hey, why not convert land valued at a few thousand dollars per acre to lots valued at hundreds of thousands?
After all, the County has been doing that, in concert with Water Districts, for years!

Anyway, the private forestry owners got their turn to review and comment on the Landscape Plan at the end, because Pete Kremen thought they ought to.
The vehicle for this to occur was the Forestry Forum, chaired by County Council member Ward Nelson, who also happens to live in the watershed.
I also served on this committee at the time -along with several others, including Lois Garlick- as the City Council representative.

Long story short, Ward had a technique he had learned about as an Army officer, of using a series of 'pair-wise' comparisons to gain input, from different people with different perspectives, on how to decide which of several choices was better.
I encouraged him to use it and offered to help.

One afternoon, using a computer & projector in the Library Lecture Room, we held a Forestry Forum meeting in which each member was asked to rate the same series of choices that were shown on a big wall screen.
You know, would you prefer this, versus that.
After about 3 hours of discussion, voting and recording the results in special computer software, Ward pushed a button and the results were quickly calculated and flashed on the screen.
They had chosen an Alternate even more stringent than the one put forward by the Landscape Commtitee as 'preferred'!

It felt like all the air went out of the room!
After the results had sunk in and the Forestry Forum folks realized what they had done, their reaction was swift and angry.
Oh no, that's not what we want!
We want the least restrictive one; the one DNR had started with!
None of the more restrictive alternates were acceptable.
End of meeting.

It could have been a prime example of people saying something that seemed politically correct, but really wanting something very different.
A Psychology researcher would have had a field day!

This was a clear case of the group's majority deciding to follow a 'predetermined path to a foregone conclusion', despite what turned out to be a charade of systematically choosing between seemingly simple options.
But, the latter results stood as the strong preference for the majority of the group, so that was that.
And, the Forestry Forum's recommendation was only supposed to be 'advisory' anyway, but was it?
Later, when Pete later asked me, in Ward's absence, to simply summarize these results, I really couldn't do it with a simple yes or no, could I?
-------
Ultimately, DNR did accept the 'Preferred Alternate' as proposed from the Landscape Committee, but it also pulled rank on the County by naming only it's staunch forestry supporters to the oversight committee, instead of the people who were recommended.
That may be how it stands to this day. An exercise in near futility, with a State agency thumbing its nose at the State Legislature and the folks who worked so hard to put into effect more stringent timber harvesting rules in our water supply watershed.
Sad, but true.

It seemed to me at the time, as it still does now, that if DNR was mostly concerned with loss of expected revenues, that could be resolved fairly simply.
Here's how: DNR retains ownership of its lands, estimates its average annual revenues, and proposes that the County and/or City come up with that funding instead of relying on DNR harvests.
That would definitely cut down on the periodic mass-wasting impacts, including slides and muddy run-off, plus grow more mature trees.

I think the number was about $250,000 per year that DNR was counting on.
Paying DNR that amount annually might be doable immediately, at least until another funding method is identified.
Maybe, the City could agree to provide some of these funds from its watershed acquisition surcharge, providing the County did the same from Conservation Futures funds or other source.

Of course later, selective harvesting by DNR might be carefully undertaken to provide some portion of its necessary revenues. But, this would need to be done by some version of the more restrictive rules advocated by the Landscape Committee.
This type of watershed usage -selective harvesting of mature timber- is exactly what was recommended by Dr Richard Horner, a renowned expert in watershed protection!
See how simple this exercise can be?

The above concept is pretty simple, but Pete does seem to have a grander scheme in mind.
If the plan is to shift ownership to the County, what does that help?
Ahhh, that's the stuff heroes are born to do!
------
Who else owns forest lands in -or near- the watershed?
Well, Trillium does for one, about 2400 acres on Galbraith Mountain that were proposed for rezone, maybe more somewhere else?
Then, there were those folks who made up the Forestry Forum.
Maybe a few relatively 'new' owners of watershed property, too.
How about that Iverson guy who snapped up the 125 acres under the power line the City wanted to acquire?
Isn't that the key link that allows access for a water line to Squalicum Mountain, where all that controversial development is going on?
Hmm.
Wonder if any of these forest lands are part of a reconveyance scheme?
If they are, what property -or persuasive power- does the County have that could possibly interest them in a trade?

Is the County's plan to make a large part of the watershed a recreation area?
Lisa McShane's posts through a Lake Whatcom listserv certainly says that is the plan!
Does she know something the rest of us don't know?
Hasn't the County Parks Director been given the assignment of putting together some schemes and proposals?
What form would such recreation uses take?
Active or passive uses?
Motorized vehicles -either watercraft or land-based?
What about access roads?
What about trails?
How will any recreation scheme be administered?
Who will enforce the rules?
At whose cost?
By what funding mechanism?
See how complicated this scheme can become?
Maybe expensive, too!
-------
Which lands outside the watershed are under consideration for either reconveyance or rezoning as compensation?
What would be their intended use?
Are future zoning changes being considered?
Is there a plan to keep forestry as the primary use of these lands?
Can we trust the County to keep forest lands dedicated to forestry?
Is Doug Sutherland really a long time buddy of David Syre?
--------
I'm sure these questions will be answered in due time, but shouldn't they be answered in advance, rather than after the fact?
Will we be asked to reconsider rezoning forest lands for development to pay for protecting our watershed?
Who's likely to get rich over this?
Just a few questions for Pete and the other would-be instant heroes to answer - preferably before October.
Surprise!

Mayoral Elections: I Like Pike!

Tonight, I'm taking a little breather - but not a big one!

On August 23, I indicated that Dan Pike is my choice for our next Mayor.
This posting will confirm that decision, plus give more information, and why I have come to this important decision.

Mayor is our most important job, which means we citizens need to make the best decision possible during the upcoming General Election.

The Mayor manages the entire City Government on a day to day basis -a big job! In addition to managing is the job of leadership, which in many respects is much more difficult.
As Warren Bennis states: "Management is doing things right. Leadership is doing the right thing."
Since 'doing the right thing can mean different things to different people', the Mayor needs the skills to help find effective ways of accomplishing this, and with consistency.

All Department Heads, including Public Works Director, Planning & Community Development Director, Parks & Recreation Director, Police Chief, Fire Chief, Museum Director, Human Resources Director, Information Technology Services Director, Judicial & Support Services Director, are considered 'at will' employees of the Mayor.
This means the Mayor can hire and fire who he/she pleases at any time.
That's what our City Charter says, and until and unless we decide to change it, that is the way these important positions are filled.
In addition, the Mayor gets to appoint the Finance Director, City Attorney and Hearing Examiner, but only with City Council approval. The Library Director is also appointed by the Mayor, but with Library Board approval.
That is a lot of authority vested in one person!

The Mayor also needs to have a good working relationship with the City Council, each member of which is an individually elected public official, also answerable to the public.
Without good rapport with Council, a Mayor will have trouble doing his/her job, because Council has the responsibility for approving the budget and for enacting legislation.
A minimum of four Council votes are necessary for these things to happen.
Five votes from Council are sufficient to force the Mayor to take official action, whether the Mayor agrees with it or not.

With over 850 employees, an overall budget of over $200 million, including a General Fund budget of about $70 million, this person needs to have significant training and management skills!
Of course, these funds are public funds which must be managed according to special rules in the public's best interests.

An ideal mayor also needs to interface effectively with other officials and jurisdictions at all levels to enable making the best decisions and achieving the best results.
Since the mayor represents all citizens, he/she needs to be accessible to all citizens, groups and interests on a continuing basis.
But most of all, the mayor needs to earn the community's trust in order to be effective.
That takes a good communicator, with sensitivity AND a thick skin. A big order for anyone!

I strongly think Dan Pike comes closest to providing these types of leadership and mangement skills.
-------------------------------
Next, because, this election is primarily by mail-in ballot, the timing of campaigns and the return of ballots has changed from has been customary in the past.
Here is information from the Whatcom County Auditor's Official website:
http://www.whatcomcounty.us/auditor/election_division/

For the General Election:

Ballots Mailed to voters .....Wednesday, October 17th [ONLY 5 WEEKS FROM NOW]

Election Day ......Tuesday, November 6th

Election certification .....Tuesday, November 27th
[Our next elected Mayor will take office on this date, not January 1, 2008]
------------------------------
Today, I submitted a letter of endorsement for Dan Pike and it is now posted on his website:
http://pikeformayor.com

Clicking on 'Supporters' gets to the endorsements:

Here are statements by people who endorse Dan Pike for election as the Mayor of Bellingham. Some of them gathered recently to show their combined support for Dan Pike.

From John Watts (& Joan Casey):
---------------------------------------------
I have not known Dan Pike very long, but have made it a point to meet him on several occasions and exchange ideas about issues that our City government faces, which matter greatly to all of us.
Through that process I have come to know Dan Pike pretty well, I think.
That is why I am enthusiastically supporting him now.

Describing Dan comes down to 3 things; training, temperament & truthfulness.
He is first a man of principle, who has prepared himself by formal education and work experience to deal with issues vital to the public good.
With a degree in Planning from WWU's Huxley College, and a Masters in Public Administration from the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, Dan has demonstrated early in life his intention to dedicate himself to public service.
Those are rare, but desirable qualifications in my book.

Since then, his work experience has been valuable both to himself, and to the citizens of Washington.
Dan was markedly successful in managing major [$500 million] transportation projects -in close proximity to the I-5 Corridor- at a time of severe funding restrictions.
Now, Dan holds the position of Transportation Planner with the Skagit County Council of Governments [SCOG], where he is responsible for regional planning, and again has achieved notable success in getting projects approved and completed.
Attesting to this is the enthusiastic endorsement given to Dan by State Senator Mary Margaret Haugen, who is known for her ability to get necessary transportation work done in this state.

Dan came to Bellingham as a student in 1982, developed a love for this place, and is now a family man, who has achieved his goal of finding professional employment near enough Bellingham to live in the Lettered Streets Neighborhood.

Both Joan & I find Dan to be a refreshing new face in our local political arena.
He is someone we can work with, and feel we are heard.
He is someone who is driven by the notion of engaging citizens and making them feel a part of the public process.
His agenda focuses on the right priorities and issues in a positive manner.
He has managed to convey enough of these qualities to people in a short period of time, to emerge from Dark Horse status in the mayor's race to a legitimate front-runner!
In this town, that takes some doing!

But, now the reality is that Dan Pike needs our help to get elected.
He has good support, but not name recognition or the considerable funding enjoyed by his opponent.
We want to help Dan Pike get the support he needs, and soon!
==============================
A Pike for Mayor Campaign Kick-off event will happen on Tuesday, September 18, from 5 to 7 PM at the Bellwether Hotel. All are welcome!
==============================
Additionally, Joan & I will host a Meet Dan Pike event at our house on Thursday, September 27 at 5:30 to 7:30 PM.
Please come, meet Dan, enjoy refreshments, and offer to help the Pike for Mayor Campaign!

Waterfront Redevelopment: Mother Goose & the Doctors of Spin Revisited -PART 1

I had fun writing the Guest Editorial below -Circa June 2001.
It captured what I was trying to say without naming names.
It targeted those it needed to and left everyone else alone.
The 'buzz' it created was limited to a few observers, who maybe didn't get it all completely themselves either.
Oh, but some did get it!
Those were the ones who felt burned by the piece.
To their questions about who was implicated, the answer was simply 'if you think the shoe fits, by all means try it on'!

Now, it may be time for another iteration of this theme, this time to focus especially on our Waterfront Redevelopment.
That will be the subject of PART 2, to come later.
This time, I will try not be so obtuse that many people won't get it!

Growth Management, Lake Whatcom, Neighborhoods and Leadership also require more scrutiny during this Election Year, but these topics will require more time to develop for publication.
---------------------
Mother Goose & the Doctors of Spin

Some of my fondest memories from childhood were the stories my mother read to me:

• Bible stories with their parables

• Classical books with their allegories, and

• Fairy tales with their morals.

While the details of these stories fade with time, their essential messages linger, because the stories are about life and its inevitable struggles, and contain valuable lessons about how we can live our life in ways that help us overcome its inherent difficulties.

How those days of yesteryear shined!
It seemed a much kinder, gentler time then.
Lately, the healthy stories, which usually promoted a moral principle, are being replaced with some meaner types of tales, with no purpose except to promote a particular point of view.
Modern lingo, almost politely, calls these tales by various names, like "negative campaigning", "spin-doctoring", and "misinformation".
Names I call them, in plain English, are propaganda, innuendo and lies.

Make no mistake about it, these modern "tales" are intentionally designed to fuzz the facts just enough to influence public perception in one direction or another, depending on the mission "du jour" and the scruples of the perpetrators.

Like the football adage "the best defense is a good offense", these new tales simply attack others rather than propose something positive themselves.

A cheap and sometimes effective tactic, this type of tale can be easily recognized and debunked, provided of course, the intended target audience bothers to ask a few good questions, or simply knows better.

Here are a few corrections to recent misinformation reported as fact in this Guest Column space, along with some possible fairy tale connections:

Chicken Little reported "excessive" taxes have been levied, but neglected to mention:

• Bellingham recently received a Friend of the Taxpayer Award from a recognized conservative watchdog, for its fiscal restraint in raising property taxes.

• Moody’s Rating Service recently granted the City an increase in its municipal bond rating, from A1 to Aa3, due to its outstanding record of sound fiscal management.

• The 7.6% property tax, reportedly passed, in response to the cloud of I-695 in 1999, was actually reduced to an amount sufficient to offset inflation.

And from the Wizard of Oz:

• Straw man (no brain) feels the Lake Whatcom Watershed Land Acquisition Ordinance was unnecessary, despite clear trends of degradation and a new DOE 303 (d) listing!

• Tin man (no heart) complained that the Civic Field Complex citizen’s initiative was too expensive, despite the heavy use of these facilities and major maintenance needs!

• Lion (no courage) failed to see the necessity of enacting the Surface & Storm Water Utility fees, needed to comply with Federal & State mandates!

Cinderella’s slipper of truth will never fit her ugly stepsister "Spin-derella", but that doesn’t prevent "Spin-derella" from trying to prevent public information from being disseminated via the city newsletter, in an accurate and timely manner.

The puppet Pinocchio, (whose nose grew every time he told a fib) might have said the City of Bellingham is unfriendly to business, but he failed to mention:

• The U.S. Conference of Mayors recently gave Bellingham national recognition for its support of the Small Business Service Center.

• Bellingham has been named recently as one of the most desirable places to establish a business, due to its talented labor pool and quality of life.

• The City is actively helping G-P with getting NAFTA benefits, training programs and new job placements for its laid-off workers. The city is also assisting G-P with the permitting of new gas turbine generators to enable them to become power independent.

Oh yes, don’t forget the Dog in the Manger; he actually begrudges the kids their new skateboard park!

I suspect that those who have trouble distinguishing gossip from gospel might not know what this column is really about.
Those folks could be part of the problem.
But, to citizens who do understand this message, I hope you will keep the faith and send your own message to those who are trying to substitute something less worthy, for the honesty, civility and good things to which most citizens aspire.
Just tell them you’ve "had enough" of their brand of negativism.
Bellingham is a wonderful place to live. Let’s keep it that way!
======================================

Waterfront Redevelopment: Navigating Charbydis & Scylla

'..leadership is all about making things (good and bad) happen that might not otherwise happen and preventing things from happening that ordinarily would happen.' -Thomas E. Cronin

http://www.whitman.edu/president/cronin/articles/leadership.cfm
--------------------
According to Wikipedia, 'the phrase between Scylla and Charybdis has come to mean being in a state where one is between two dangers and moving away from one will cause you to be in danger from the other'.

The two sides of the Strait of Messina, off the toe of Italy, are literally within an arrow's range of each other, so close that sailors attempting to avoid Charybdis will pass too close to Scylla and vice versa.
Between Scylla and Charybdis is the origin of the phrase "between the rock and the whirlpool" (the rock upon which Scylla dwelt and the whirlpool of Charybdis) and may be the genesis of the phrase "between a rock and a hard place".

Most knowledgeable mariners avoided this dangerous passage, and those who did not often suffered casualties, shipwreck and, fear made real by the experience.
It is said that Thetis guided the Argonauts through this strait without loss of life.
Odysseus made it too, but lost 6 men in the process.
Others were less fortunate.

Like navigating Charbydis & Scylla, the Waterfront Redevelopment faces twin dangers; defining & completing an ambitious, but very desirable project, and garnering the very public confidence & trust necessary to support the effort.

Like the ancient Greeks, people can view Waterfront Redevelopment as a Goddess, a Sea Nymph or as a Monster.
Goddess means an outstanding opportunity that should be pursued vigorously, but with caution.
Sea Nymph means a siren song that lures the unwary and uncautious into unexpected situtions that can be dangerous.
Monster? Well, each of us has our own idea of what that can mean, but none of these connotes good things!

If one recognizes and accepts the twin dangers of Waterfront Redevelopment, then 50% of our problem can be considered as essentially solved.
But, both dangers need to be addressed as simultaneously as possible.
To accomplish this, readers may wish to review my posting on August 30, 2007, entitled 'Lake Whatcom: Goal Statements & Methodology Aren't Enough!'
The methodology described by Hans & Anne-Marie Bleiker absolutely screams to be used on Waterfront Redevelopment!

I know, first-hand, how difficult it is to set up and have an effective public process on an issue as important as this one.
But, it is not only necessary, but critical!
I know there has been very substantial 'public process' already done, and that is also being done now. All of that counts.
But, as the parameters of the project, and its costs are becoming better known, now is the time to think about the Citizen Participation that counts the most; the effort that will result in the best possible result for the Waterfront Redevelopment - its demonstrated overall acceptance by our community!

My posting 2 days ago, on September 6, entitled ;Waterfront Redevelopment: BEYOND LEED to a Triple Bottom Line' discussed Joe Van Bellegham's concept of the 'triple bottom line', that means satisfying needs for Economics, Ecology and Social Equity, the 3 'E's".
Or, put another way, it stands for PEOPLE, PLANET & PROSPERITY.

I think Joe could play an important part in helping us define 'the project' in terms that inspire the strong public support and trust needed to proceed systematically with confidence toward our goals as a community.
Who could possibly be against any of those things, PEOPLE, PLANET & PROSPERITY?

Many years ago, Sun Tzu in his writing 'The Art of War', said 'the aim is invincibility, victory without battle; unassailable strength through understanding the physics, politics and psychology of conflict.'
Sun Tzu was as right then as he is now!

The last thing we need is trying to navigate between Charbydis & Scylla before the ship is even built!
----------------------
"A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for." - – Grace Murray Hopper

"To Err is Human, to Forgive, Canine"

Just so folks know that I’m a dog-lover too, here are a few funnies and a bittersweet true story as lead-in to the tough love printed later:
----------------------
"I think we are drawn to dogs because they are the uninhibited creatures we might be if we weren't certain we knew better." - George Bird Evans, "Troubles with Bird Dogs"

"The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney

"Do not make the mistake of treating your dogs like humans or they will treat you like dogs." - Martha Scott

"I love a dog. He does nothing for political reasons." - Will Rogers

"Politics are not my concern... they impressed me as a dog's life without a dog's decencies." - Rudyard Kipling

"In a dog-eat-dog world, it is the dogmatic domain of dog lovers to offer dogdom a dog's chance to rise above the dog days for a doggone good time." - AKC Gazette August 1991

"I wonder if other dogs think poodles are members of a weird religious cult." - Rita Rudner

"The disposition of noble dogs is to be gentle with people they know and the opposite with those they don't know...How, then, can the dog be anything other than a lover of learning since it defines what's its own and what's alien." - Plato

"There are times when even the best manager is like the little boy with the big dog." waiting to see where the dog wants to go so he can take him there. - Lee Iacocca, US auto business executive

"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around." - cowboy wisdom

"The nose of the Bulldog has been slanted backwards so that he can breathe without letting go." - Winston Churchill

"If you can't decide between a Shepherd, a Setter or a Poodle, get them all ... adopt a mutt!" - ASPCA

"A bone to the dog is not charity. Charity is the bone shared with the dog, when you are just as hungry as the dog." - Jack London

"Children and dogs are as necessary to the welfare of the country as Wall Street and the railroads." - Harry S Truman

"The world was conquered through the understanding of dogs; the world exists through the understanding of dogs." - Nietzche

"All knowledge, the totality of all questions and all answers is contained in the dog." - Kafka

"To err is human, to forgive, canine." - Unknown

"When a man's best friend is his dog, that dog has a problem." - Edward Abbey

"Know yourself. Don't accept your dog's admiration as conclusive evidence that you are wonderful." - Ann Landers

"Every boy should have two things: a dog, and a mother willing to let him have one" - Anonymous

Oh, that dog! Ever hear of a German shepherd that bites its nails? Barks with a lisp? You say, "Attack!" And he has one. All he does is piddle. He's nothing but a fur-covered kidney that barks. --Phillis Diller

"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'... till you can find a rock." - Unknown
---------------------------------------
MacWattie of Westfield, "Mac", was a Sheltie companion & friend of my son Tom for 17 years, who died in his arms. A purebred pup, Mac was much too friendly and oversized to ever ‘show’. But who wanted him to? We got rid of his Pedigree name the same day we learned he had one, and replaced it with Mac.

Oh, there were other names we called him too, made up on the spur of the moment, and he answered to all of them -as long as the voice was ours – or the kids. Wheeling and turning among the young children who endlessly tried to catch him, squealing and laughing and tiring themselves out for a sound sleep later.

Anticipating unerringly the exact time to meet young Tom, trudging his way home from school in the snow, bundled up so well that his arms stood out to his sides, like a little penguin. Running lickety split, tail flailing and with a purpose that was single minded. Barking as he approached Tom, then jumping and circling and savoring the returned attention as if it was the best thing that could possibly be happening!

Mackelby Mack, dogulus, McWatulus, DOG!, dogwilly, an endless supply of other assorted funny and weird names. Mac answered to them all, and wondered why we couldn't think of more ways to enjoy his company! Oh how he loved being ‘ruffed and tuffed’, while rolling on the ground or floor!

And what a comfort it was to have him sleep close to Tom at night, a sight that warmed the heart to its core! Of course, Tom had his own strange litany of names that his silly Dad kept thinking up.
He mainly ignored them, but Mac didn't! He sensed that fun was being had and willingly shared that too.

Bear, shrimp, frog, runt, T Tom Turkey, Thhomas, Tommy two-feet, Tuffus, it's a wonder that kid wasn't messed up by all that stuff.
But Mac made it all alright. Everything was OK as long as Mac agreed, which he almost always did.

In retrospect, Mac was part of the glue that kept our little family together as long as we were. And now, over 15 years since he died in Tom's arms, Mac's memory lives as strongly for me as ever. Because that dear dog exemplified what can only be called unqualified love, and more than that, the joy of just being alive, among family, kids and friends.

Heck, he even enjoyed the company of other dogs, as long as they weren't overly fearful or aggressive. Mac was the very essence dogginess, the part that endears that animal species like no other. The part that makes people think of dogs as 'man's best friend'. We loved him; he loved us and we still love his memory. That's the highest praise in my book!

Years after divorce and relocation had separated our little family, I paid a short visit to where Mac then lived, where without any special attention being drawn to me, Mac sensed my presence, then turned and looked at me as if to say where have you been? But that look was fleeting and at some level Mac knew that things had irretrievably changed; that I was no longer a part of that little family, except of course for the memory of things past. Without encouraging him more to come for one last pet, I slowly drove away and watched in the rear view mirror as he looked my way again, then resumed his doggy business of the moment.

The twang at my heart told me what I already knew, that Mac would remain as much a part of me in memory as he was in real life. That realization was merciful, because when Mac died several years later, I had already prepared myself for his physical loss. I love him still, as I know he does me.

Somewhere in the great beyond we will be reunited, but maybe we don't have to wait for that either? Mac is still with us!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, for the ‘tough love’ part, written over a year ago, responding, silently until now, to the “Grateful Dogs’ organization of local dog lovers:

1. How many neighbors would put up with other people's dogs running around, unrestricted in their yards, sidewalks and children's play areas? Not too many in my experience.

Parks are everyone's neighborhoods, and tax dollars pay for them to be just that. The same respect for others needs to occur in parks and on trails as in residential neighborhoods. End of argument and story.

2. Grateful Dogs is an organization of dog owners, not dogs. Every member is, undoubtedly, a responsible citizen who also loves his/her pet and wants it to have fun. When the pet has fun, so do the owners, at least most of the time! Parents feel the same about their kids - and elders.

Do we want to deny people fun so dogs can have unlimited freedom?
I don't think so, unless dog owners own enough property to make this seem possible. Lets keep the perspective that parks and trails are primarily for people, including those who happen to have dogs –and keep them under control.

3. Enforcement or the lack of it is sometimes cited as the city's responsibility, which is true enough. But most people understand that the great majority of compliance with rules and regulations is voluntary, and it has to be that way in our free society.

Egregious or repeated violations are the ones that get enforced, but only after they are documented and reported. Even then, convictions or meaningful fines are rare. Enforcement officers have enough on their hands without having to play pet-sitter for owners who don’t control their pets!

So, let's don't pretend things are any different for dogs or their owners. A few bad actors can make a whole group look bad, despite all their good efforts. The point is, we need the responsible dog owners to voluntarily do the right thing, and in so doing, positively influence others to do the same.

4. Dog off-leash areas cost money to provide and maintain. They also tend to 'sterilize' these areas for any other use. Even in the existing dog off-leash areas there have been repeated abuses reported, because some dogs just don't know how to act when they're running free around other dogs or people. So, just having more off-leash areas for dogs doesn't seem to be a viable answer.

The few areas that have been designated off-leash for certain times of the day, while owners are present do seem to function pretty well, especially when the goal is to eliminate poop anyway [goose or other wise]. Did you know each ‘poop’ is estimated to contain up to 3 Billion fecal coliform cells? That’s not where kids ought to be playing either.

Some of these areas are also in environmentally sensitive areas, which becomes problematic for other reasons, like at Post Point Lagoon, a pocket estuary, where salmon have traditionally bred and herons are now being protected.

5. Blaming the Parks Department or the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board for not acceding to every dog owner demand is inaccurate and misguided. These people have a duty to represent everyone's interests fairly and with balance. That sometimes means that people don't get everything they would like to have, because of limited space and/or resources or simply because of incompatibility between certain uses and good parks use policy. It is juvenile to pretend these people, all of whom are also residents and park users -and many of them dog owners-, are somehow treating Grateful Dogs owners unfairly.

Also, we all need to remember these arguments are not original! This is not the first time, nor the last time these issues have come up for discussion.

Historically, there have been all kinds of user conflicts with public facilities, which have to be mitigated to most -not necessarily all- people's satisfaction.
That's just how democracies work. Changes can occur, but only after due consideration, and the decisions made need to be respected in order for the system to work for everyone.

6. Public Relations strategies that focus on single issues are common and often effective, providing their message resonates with common sense. The Grateful Dogs campaign seems exceptionally strident and demanding for an issue that is not considered critical by most people.

The personal attacks on individuals have sometimes even been mean spirited and not based upon facts, but self-serving opinions. In short, the PR campaign may have been more of a detriment than a help to its goals.

Grateful Dogs needs to rethink its strategy to emphasize what the organization does to benefit the community and help enforce the rules we have, not just the selfish aims of some who fail to consider the true difficulties inherent in having dogs roaming our parks and trails at will without being under control.

Grateful Dogs can do better than using these tactics, so why not start doing it? The public –and maybe even the dogs- will thank you.

Finally, if there were ever a citywide vote on the issue of allowing uncontrolled dogs’ I believe it would certainly fail by a large margin, reflecting the true underlying sentiment of the community. It is important to consider the needs –and wants- of dogs and their owners, but we do have a few other issues on which we need to spend our priorities!

Waterfront Redevelopment: BEYOND LEED to a Triple Bottom Line

On 8/27/07 I posted an article entitled Waterfront Redevelopment: Clean & Green or In-Between? This posting builds upon that with more information.

Today, I attended the Sustainable Communities & Land Use Conference held at the Ferry Terminal and among several excellent sessions, heard one of the most sincere and inspiring presentations in recent memory.

The Keynote address by Jason McLennan, CEO of the Cascadia Chapter of the US Green Building Council put the issue of sustainable planning, building and living habits squarely into focus with examples that vividly illustrated where our failure to get smarter will lead. New Orleans, Houston and Kansas City all provide insights into where we are heading if we fail to get smarter about growth.

But, these three examples merely served to load the bases for the next batter, who hit an absolute homerun!

Joe Van Bellegham [almost sounds like Bellingham!], the Developer of Dockside Green in Victoria, BC actually received spontaneous standing ovations from the audience -of probably over 200- for his presentation on Urban/Brownfield Development Focus - best practices.

Dockside Green is a 15 acre urban, waterfront, mixed use, Brownfield redevelopment, which has captured the admiration of essentially everyone paying attention. The 'green' buildings themselves are fascinating enough, the inspiration behind this project, its guiding philosophy and where that has led are the real story! If there was ever a developer capable of not only walking his talk, but living his dream, it would have to be this guy, Joe. And now that he has actually accomplished a very successful project that previously had to be thought of as unaffordable, impossible and impractical, Joe is on a mission to give away his 'trade secrets' to enable similar successes elswhere.

One point that resonated deeply was Van Bellegham's concept of the 'triple bottom line', that comes as close to defining 'full cost accounting' as anything I've heard. Are you ready for this? The 'triple bottom line' means satisfying needs for Economics, Ecology and Social Equity, the 3 'E's"!
As comedian Craig Ferguson might say, REMIND YOU OF ANYTHING?
A three-legged stool, maybe?
Put another way, it stands for PEOPLE, PLANET & PROSPERITY.
Who could possibly be against any of those things?

Joe went way beyond his alloted time, but no one cared. In fact, I think most folks would have stayed as long as his voice held out, so interesting was his approach, enthusiasm and heart-felt motivation. What he had to say was that good, and I'll be really disappointed if his talk and slides weren't captured on video for others to experience.

Joe then answered questions with the same enthusiasm, born of both of his obvious success and his commitment to this cause.
At the end, Michelle Long asked Joe if he would consider helping our community realize its Waterfront Redevelopment.

He didn't hestitate in responding that he didn't need another such project, that he probably had about 3 or 4 left in his future, but would be very selective about which assignments he might take on. He said much would depend upon the community and its commitment to such an undertaking. Then, he candidly said what we all wanted to hear; that if asked, he would probably take on the assignment of 'helping' us with our Waterfront Redevelopment!

I don't know about others, but I was ready to sign him up on the spot, knowing full well that we need to think carefully about what role he might play in defining what it is that we - as a community, committed to sustainability - can get behind and make happen.

Let's get those discussion started! This guy is a winner and has the right ideas about how to go about winning the public trust it will take to make our Waterfront Redevelopment a winner, too!

For those interested, here is a website at which Joe's Dockside Green Projects is described:
www.docksidegreen.com

====================================
From: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=148
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
About LEED® for Neighborhood Development
June 2007

What is LEED for Neighborhood Development?

LEED for Neighborhood Development is a rating system that integrates the principles of smart growth, new urbanism, and green building into the first national standard for neighborhood design. It is being developed by USGBC in partnership with the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
---------------
What is the significance of LEED for Neighborhood Development certification?

Using the framework of other LEED rating systems, LEED for Neighborhood Development recognizes development projects that successfully protect and enhance the overall health, natural environment, and quality of life of our communities. The rating system encourages smart growth and new urbanist best practices, promoting the design of neighborhoods that reduce vehicle miles traveled and communities where jobs and services are accessible by foot or public transit. It promotes more efficient energy and water use—especially important in urban areas where infrastructure is often overtaxed.
---------------
What is the status of LEED for Neighborhood Development?

The LEED for Neighborhood Development pilot program has just begun. A call for pilot projects took place between February and April 2007. More than 370 projects submitted an expression of interest to participate. Due to overwhelming interest in the pilot program, additional resources were made available that enabled us to accommodate any of these projects that choose to register for the pilot program. After registration, these projects will submit documentation based on the rating system to be verified by a third-party reviewer in order to become LEED Certified pilot projects. The information learned during the pilot program will be used to make further revisions to the rating system and the resulting draft will be posted for public comment before it is submitted for final approvals and balloting.
---------------
What can projects do to get certified if they missed the deadline for participation in the pilot program?

Although the period for applying to be in the pilot program has passed, projects will be able to participate in the full program, which should launch in early 2009. For most projects, certification under the full program should offer similar value to pilot certification, since LEED for Neighborhood Development enables projects to certify at both very early and very late stages of development. For now, projects can look to the pilot rating system and other information that is posted at www.usgbc.org/leed/nd for general guidance as to what LEED for Neighborhood Development is about, although the rating system will change somewhat as a result of the pilot program.

Program staff and the LEED for Neighborhood Development Core Committee are developing ways for projects that are interested in pursuing LEED for Neighborhood Development to remain engaged during the pilot phase, even if they missed the pilot application deadline. Please join the LEED for Neighborhood Development Corresponding Committee if you would like to hear about these opportunities once they become available. This listserv will also be notified when the full program is open for registration. Directions on how to join the corresponding committee are below.
---------------
How do the other LEED rating systems interact with LEED for Neighborhood Development?

Points are available within the LEED for Neighborhood Development rating system for including LEED Certified buildings and for integrating green building practices within the buildings on the project site. These credits relate to energy efficiency, reduced water use, building reuse, recycled materials, and heat island reduction.
---------------
How will LEED for Neighborhood Development be different from the Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects?

The Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects is based on the LEED for New Construction rating system for buildings and therefore does not incorporate smart growth or new urbanism to the extent that LEED for Neighborhood Development does. The LEED for Neighborhood Development rating system focuses on residential, commercial, and mixed use projects developed by a single entity but often sold or leased to multiple consumers whereas the application guide targets institutional and office park campuses, usually owned and operated by a single entity.
---------------
What are the LEED for Neighborhood Development Core and Corresponding Committees?

The core committee does the day-to-day work of developing the rating system, while a larger corresponding committee is also established for every LEED product so that interested stakeholders can participate in its development. The corresponding committee listserv enables a wider group of experts and interested parties to stay updated and receive notification of opportunities to provide feedback. Corresponding committee members receive minutes from core committee meetings and other announcements.
---------------
I would like to be involved with LEED for Neighborhood Development. How can I join the corresponding committee?

The corresponding committee is open to USGBC members and nonmembers but there are different ways to join:

• USGBC members can visit www.usgbc.org, log into Your Account, and subscribe to the committee listserv.
• Others can send an e-mail to nd@committees.usgbc.org requesting to be added to the corresponding committee.
---------------
What is the timeline for developing LEED for Neighborhood Development?

2007: LEED for Neighborhood Development pilot program launches
2008: Public comment periods begin for post-pilot version of LEED for Neighborhood Development
2009: LEED for Neighborhood Development (full program) ballot and launch
---------------
How do I find out more?

For more information, visit www.usgbc.org/leed/nd or e-mail leedinfo@usgbc.org.
========================
Here's a LEED for Neighborhood Development Pilot Project Checklist

Smart Location & Linkage

Prereq 1 Smart Location
Prereq 2 Proximity to Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
Prereq 3 Imperiled Species and Ecological Communities
Prereq 4 Wetland and Water Body Conservation
Prereq 5 Farmland Conservation
Prereq 6 Floodplain Avoidance
Credit 1 Brownfield Redevelopment
Credit 2 High Priority Brownfields Redevelopment
Credit 3 Preferred Location
Credit 4 Reduced Automobile Dependence
Credit 5 Bicycle Network
Credit 6 Housing and Jobs Proximity
Credit 7 School Proximity
Credit 8 Steep Slope Protection
Credit 9 Site Design for Habitat or Wetlands Conservation
Credit 10 Restoration of Habitat or Wetlands
Credit 11 Conservation Management of Habitat or Wetlands

Neighborhood Pattern & Design

Prereq 1 Open Community
Prereq 2 Compact Development
Credit 1 Compact Development
Credit 2 Diversity of Uses
Credit 3 Diversity of Housing Types
Credit 4 Affordable Rental Housing
Credit 5 Affordable For-Sale Housing
Credit 6 Reduced Parking Footprint
Credit 7 Walkable Streets
Credit 8 Street Network
Credit 9 Transit Facilities
Credit 10 Transportation Demand Management
Credit 11 Access to Surrounding Vicinity
Credit 12 Access to Public Spaces
Credit 13 Access to Active Public Spaces
Credit 14 Universal Accessibility
Credit 15 Community Outreach and Involvement
Credit 16 Local Food Production

Green Construction & Technology

Prereq 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
Credit 1 LEED Certified Green Buildings
Credit 2 Energy Efficiency in Buildings
Credit 3 Reduced Water Use
Credit 4 Building Reuse and Adaptive Reuse
Credit 5 Reuse of Historic Buildings
Credit 6 Minimize Site Disturbance through Site Design
Credit 7 Minimize Site Disturbance during Construction
Credit 8 Contaminant Reduction in Brownfields Remediation
Credit 9 Stormwater Management
Credit 10 Heat Island Reduction
Credit 11 Solar Orientation
Credit 12 On-Site Energy Generation
Credit 13 On-Site Renewable Energy Sources
Credit 14 District Heating & Cooling
Credit 15 Infrastructure Energy Efficiency
Credit 16 Wastewater Management
Credit 17 Recycled Content for Infrastructure
Credit 18 Construction Waste Management
Credit 19 Comprehensive Waste Management
Credit 20 Light Pollution Reduction

Innovation & Design Process

Credit 1.1 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title
Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title
Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title
Credit 1.4 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title
Credit 1.5 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title
Credit 2 LEED® Accredited Professional

Project Totals (pre-certification estimates)
Certified: 40-49 points, Silver: 50-59 points, Gold: 60-79 points, Platinum: 80-106 points

People for Lake Whatcom Questionnaire: REDUX for the General Elections

To help voters decide where candidates stand on various ideas to help Protect Lake Whatcom - our drinking water source - the citizen sponsored organization 'People for Lake Whatcom' [http://www.pflw.org] developed a well-conceived, questionnaire [June 12, 2007] which asked these 10 excellent questions: [shown below, after the candidate response summaries]

The responses received from Primary Election Candidates ranged from 'All Yes's' for most to 'No Response' for some. In between there were some interesting differences between individuals and questions.

Now, with The Primary Election results known, we can focus on the General Election, with a shorter list of finalists.

Here's a synopsis of Candidates positions taken directly from the Whatcom Watch, August 2007 Issue, plus a few comments and direct questions for those Candidates, who could not see the wisdom of answering 'YES' to all 10 questions.

Feel free to scroll down to read the questions as needed.
=================
Whatcom County Executive:

Lois Garlick - answered all 10 questions with YES

Pete Kremen - answered 8 questions with YES, but ABSTAINED on Number 3 & Number 6.

I wonder why?
[Number 3] Pete publicly advocated a Phosphorus Reduction Program 2 years ago, but that was back when he had professional staff to work on it, and maybe before he knew how difficult that might be. I hope his answer has nothing to do with the watershed property he owns!

[Number 6] Why wouldn't Pete support a ban on extending water & sewer into and OUTSIDE of UGAs WITHIN the Lake Whatcom Watershed? Again, I hope his answer has nothing to do with the watershed property he owns!
-----------------------
County Council - District 1:

Bob Kelly - answered all 10 questions with YES

Chris Hatch - REFUSED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS! Not a good sign!
-----------------------
County Council - District 2:

Ken Mann - answered all 10 questions with YES

Sam Crawford - answered 8 questions with NO, and 2 questions with YES [Number 2 & Number 3]

At least Sam was honest by voting NO instead of ABSTAINING like Pete did.
[Number 2] Sam was honest by agreeing that actions taken to date to protect our drinking water have been inadequate, because they certainly haven't been!
[Number 3] What is puzzling is that Sam disagreed with Pete on this one by voting YES!
Maybe Sam hasn't figured out that Phosphorus Reduction is so difficult that most of the other questions he voted NO on will likely also be necessary?
-----------------------
County Council - District 3:

Barbara Brenner [Unopposed] - answered 5 questions with YES, 2 questions with NO [Number 6 & Number 7], 2 questions with ABSTAIN [Number 4 & Number 5], and 1 question with Y/N [Number 9].

Barbara was all over the map on this, but no surprise there.
Her NO apparently agreed with Pete's 'abstention' on Number 6, with agreeing that a ban on water & sewer OUTSIDE the UGAs in the Watershed were not necessary.
But, she carried this thinking even further by voting NO on Number 7 [which would tell Water Districts 7 & 10 to NOT extend services to 'new developments'] You figure that out!

Her Y/N vote on Number 9 says she must feel strongly both ways?

Her 2 ABSTAIN votes on Number 4 & Number 5 seem quasi-mysterious ways of 'taking the 5th amendment' on simple questions about raising fees from property owners to protect the Lake, and considering additional downzoning in this Watershed. If not the property owners, who? Why not downzone? Too much trouble?
-----------------------
Bellingham Mayor -

Dan Pike - answered all 10 questions with YES

Dan McShane - answered 9 questions with YES, and 1 question with Y/N [Number 9]

Does this mean he feels strongly both ways, like Barbara Brenner?
-----------------------
Bellingham City Council - At Large:

Michael Lilliquist - answered all 10 questions with YES

Louise Bjornson - answered all 10 questions with YES
-----------------------
Bellingham City Council - Ward 1:

Jack Weiss [Unopposed] - answered all 10 questions with YES
-----------------------
Bellingham City Council - Ward 3:

Barry Buchanan - answered all 10 questions with YES

Larry Farr - answered 7 questions with YES, 3 questions with ABSTAIN [Number 6, Number 7 & Number 9]

Larry seems to somewhat agree with Barbara Brenner and Sam Crawford on Number 6 & Number 7, about extending water & sewer OUTSIDE UGAs in the Watershed, and allowing Water Districts 7 & 10 to service 'new development'.

Does his Abstention on Number 9 mean he might feel strongly both ways, or just doesn't know?
-----------------------
Bellingham City Council - Ward 4:

Stan Snapp - answered all 10 questions with YES

Damon Gray - REFUSED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS! Not a good sign!

-----------------------
Bellingham City Council - Ward 5:

Terry Bornemann - answered 9 questions with YES, and 1 question with ABSTAIN [Number 10]

Does Terry have another #1 priority for Federal Earmark Funds? If so, what is it?

Bill Geyer - answered 2 questions with YES [Number 2 & Number 3], and 8 questions with ABSTAIN

Since Bill's answers are identical with Sam Crawford's answers, I'll just repeat what I said about Sam, by substituting Bill:

At least Bill was honest by voting NO instead of ABSTAINING like Pete did.
[Number 2] Bill was honest by agreeing that actions taken to date to protect our drinking water have been inadequate, because they certainly haven't been!
[Number 3] What is puzzling is that Bill disagreed with Pete on this one by voting YES!
Maybe Bill hasn't figured out that Phosphorus Reduction is so difficult that most of the other questions he voted NO on will likely also be necessary?
-----------------------

So there you have it, folks; the Candidates have made their positions clear on Lake Whatcom protection, and on which of the 10 good ideas presented they either favor, oppose, or simply duck with an 'ABSTAIN'.
Maybe reviewing these positions again will help inform voters on what these candidates really think about preserving our Drinking Water Reservoir, and which are just mouthing the words because they are expected to!
=====================================================
LAKE WHATCOM QUESTIONNAIRE:

Please respond to the following ten statements about the Lake Whatcom Reservoir and its surrounding watershed. Indicate your agreement or disagreement with the item by circling “YES” or “NO” at the end of the statement. It is important that you answer all ten.

1. I support the WWU Institute for Watershed Studies' almost thirty years of research on Lake Whatcom and believe they have been and still are the most credible and professional scientific source of information on the lake's water quality.

YES NO

2. I believe the actions taken by our elected officials to protect Lake Whatcom and our drinking water source have been inadequate, as evidenced by the continued development allowed to occur in the watershed and resulting accelerated decline in the lake's water quality.

YES NO

3. I pledge to take substantive actions to reverse the decline in the lake's water quality that includes committing the necessary resources to reduce net phosphorus loadings to the lake by 2009.

YES N O

4. I believe and will work to implement a drinking water protection fee paid by property owners of new homes being built in the watershed to use specifically for offsetting the harmful effects of that development on the lake's water quality.

YES NO

5. I believe additional downzoning in the Lake Whatcom watershed is necessary to protect the lake.

YES NO


6. I support and will sponsor a ban on extending any future water and sewer services into and outside of the urban growth areas within the Lake Whatcom Reservoir watershed.

YES NO

7. I believe the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District (formerly Water District #10) and Water District #7 should not extend services to new developments and only provide service to existing homes.

YES NO

8. I support the use of some flood tax revenue and utility funds to assist willing homeowners in the Lake Whatcom watershed who want to implement on-site stormwater runoff infiltration projects (e.g., rain gardens, rain barrels, replanting lawns with native plants, etc.) on their own property (existing homes only).

YES NO

9. I believe that land-based recreation in the Lake Whatcom watershed should be low-impact passive in nature and prohibit motorized recreational vehicles and watercraft.

YES NO

10. Because purchasing the remaining developable properties in the watershed provides the most cost effective protection to our community’s drinking water source, I believe and will support having Lake Whatcom as the #1 priority for Federal Appropriation (Earmark) Funds to purchase the remaining undeveloped properties in the watershed and thereby provide the most cost effective protection for our community's drinking water source.

YES NO
--------------------------

Big Box Theory: Attacking Mall-Wart

I've cooled off a little since losing this battle, but not enough to forget the lasting after effects that will likely come to haunt us in the years to come.

This was a missed opportunity, pure and simple. And, collateral damage was done to 'Big Box' stores that happened NOT to be named Wal-Mart, like Costco, a thriving business headquartered in Washington, with a proud record of living wages and benefits, that also demonstrates efficiency in its business practices.

Since the Big Box debacle, I came across a book, titled 'The Wal-Mart Effect', written by Charles Fishman, a former business reporter for the Washington Post. Fishman had been curious about Wal-Mart and decided to investigate, but was stone-walled by that company's habitual secrecy about its operations.
That just intrigued him more, so he spent the next 2+ years interviewing Wal-Mart suppliers, competitors, former employees and members of communities who had experienced impacts from Wal-Mart coming to town.
The results were fascinating! Some were as you might expect, others cutting edge know-how, particularly in inventory control and supply chain logistics.

All these results were motivated -spawned and continuously reinforced- by Sam Walton's no-nonsense drive to succeed in a very competitive environment. Nothing wrong with that! Good old American values, born of necessity and free markets.

But relentless emphasis on a bare-bones operations, coupled with phenomenal growth of the company changes things, as has happened with Wal-Mart.
The company is now so huge that when it sneezes, the economy catches a cold!
There is now a Wal-Mart for every 74,000 US citizens, which means room for further rapid expansion is already severely cramped. They are literally bigger than the next 10 corporations combined!

Anyway, Fishman's book is about the most complete and authoritative that I have yet to come across.
It's conclusion is that Wal-Mart has a huge effect, whether for good or bad, but that this same effect can be used to help communities better deal with Wal-Mart to get changes considered beneficial to them.
Some communities and other organizations are already doing this.

Just a few examples:

NRDC persuaded Wal-Mart to switch to selling energy efficient light bulbs, and already this has become accepted practice, which has also saved Wal-Mart 30% on its electric bills.

Wal-Mart was persuaded to use bio-diesel fuel for its enormous fleet of trucks, saving 20% in those costs.

Other communities have been able to change Wal-Mart's design standards and marketing practices.

Here, in the Pacific Northwest, we might insist that Wal-Mart stop selling Chilean farmed salmon, and substitute wild salmon instead. That might also get some other stores to do the same thing.

We might insist that Wal-Mart carry a substantial proportion of its farm products from local sources.

The point is, if Wal-Mart wants to expand, we can have the leverage to negotiate some changes in return.
If we don't use that leverage, we lose it. And, if we use it and win, that sets a new precedent for other areas to also follow as they will.

That is also Fishman's point. The Wal-Mart Effect cuts both ways. And, we can use the Wal-Mart Effect to our advantage, but only if get them to the table!

Big Box sprawl is a problem, but it is already with us. Running Wal-Mart off to the Lummi Reservation will likely have some very serious repercussions, that will be felt in the years to come. Maybe, even after those who were responsible are safely out of office. That's the way history happens.

Watch out for what you ask for, because you might get it!

======================================
Whatcom Independent Guest Editorial - Circa February 2007:

Every City Council member supports the goals embodied in our Comprehensive Plan.
Each especially supports the twin concepts of a strong local economy - fueled by good jobs, and compact well-planned growth that alleviates congestion.

Five current Council members believe that the presence and proliferation of Big Box stores constitutes such a serious problem that they consider it their duty to ‘resolve it’ by force, with a Council directed mandate, even though no economic impact analysis has been done, or required. I do not agree with this irresponsible approach, and neither do many others, especially taxpayers!

First, we need to define the ‘problem’ that needs alleviating then try to resolve it in a reasonable way that incorporates the input of citizens, businesses and others impacted. If local government really cares about what people want and need, it will not ignore them! Why not involve other regional jurisdictions whose help and cooperation will be needed for a broader and more effective action plan that will inure to the entire community's overall benefit?

Better solutions to complex problems are always reached by full and fair discussion involving many stakeholders, not just a few. The Big Box ‘debate’, while useful, has turned out to be a sham that drastically over-simplifies both the ‘problem’ and the ‘solution’. It was a Ready, Fire, Aim approach, except the conclusion was decided before the ‘debate’ began.

The ‘Big-Box issue’ was really a 'spontaneous arising' that exactly coincided with WAL-MART's plans to add a 40,000 SF grocery addition to its existing 151,000 SF store, both located in an area specifically zoned for that purpose. This exact area was annexed by the City because developed Commercial zones return revenues that more than 'pay their way', just as residential developments do not.

The Big-Box measure was initiated and pushed through the City Council by organized labor as a means to continue –locally- its much broader attack on WAL-MART. Of course, the idea had to also be cloaked in a few Comp Plan arguments to give it better sales appeal to the public, as well as cover for its supporters. No one complained about any of WAL-MART’s Big-Box rivals, like Fred Meyers, Costco, Target, Home Depot, K-Mart, Sears, Lowe’s, Albertson’s, or others that are also directly affected by this ban.

Positive impacts are claimed, like ‘support of local business' and 'alleviating unsightly sprawl and congestion'. These problems already exist and won’t likely be much helped by the ban. But, looking at the assumed positives is only half the issue.
What about the adverse impacts on economic development that will happen as a result of Bellingham's action?

Traffic problems exist because the area has already been zoned and developed for concentrated commercial business. These problems will continue wherever WAL-MART and any other big-boxes are, or where they decide to locate.

Citizens, particularly those with limited financial means, prefer shopping at WAL-MART and other big-box discount stores. Are their voices being heard?

Significant fiscal impacts on the City budget are very likely, rising over time. An estimated $3.5 million per year in sales & B&O taxes is currently being paid to the City from big-boxes of over 90,000 SF alone, about 14% of the total. This is equivalent to over 20% in City property taxes. For all stores of over 60,000 SF, the amount rises to $4.3 million.

Some type of financial analysis is absolutely necessary in order to even imagine the potential impacts of the Big-Box ban. I am astounded and appalled at the dismissive attitude that Council has shown regarding our community's overall best financial interest! Which future Council -or Mayor- will want to face this kind of deficit scenario?

Bellis Fair Mall illustrates the economic benefit of clustering stores together, so a single trip serves multiple purposes. Yet, this Big-Box ban also impacts the Mall. Bellis Fair has legitimate concerns about even expanding its existing stores. This mall has been a growing regional center for 20 years, helping to draw other Big-Box stores as well. Customers come from miles around. Big-Boxes already exist, and clustering them makes more sense than sprawling them!

If the Council is trying to address the cumulative actions of the past, isn't a regional approach necessary? We don't have to look far for examples of competing jurisdictions, like the scenario involving Mt Vernon and Burlington in Skagit County.

Where is the balance in this discussion? What is the urgency? Is the ban a silver bullet?

Why disregard the Planning Commission recommendations to study this issue further, without extending the moratorium?

Why exclude the business community and trained economists in the discussion?

Council seems to have acted as the sole 'decider' on this issue, using WMD [Words Meant to Deceive] to justify –or cloak- its action. We need more election year sunshine on this matter!