----------------
Here's a piece that is almost guaranteed to resonate with what many people are thinking, but also fall far short of motivating them to action.
But that's just my opinion.
----------------
I'll start by reproducing this from a recent NYTimes:
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Small-Town Big Spending
By TOM BROKAW
Published: April 19, 2009
DURING these uncertain times we’ve yet to hear a phrase with the resonance of Franklin Roosevelt’s “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” but there are a couple of minor-chord expressions that should have staying power.
One is the observation of Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, that “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Another comes from my boss, Jeff Immelt, the chief executive of General Electric, who has warned, “This is not a cycle; it’s a reset.”
Taken together, these remarks challenge us to go beyond trying to quickly fix the immediate problems of toxic mortgages, risky banks, a struggling American car industry and escalating health care costs.
If the American people are tuned into the need to change the irresponsible, inefficient practices and systems that created those problems, why not enlist them to take the next step and radically change the antiquated public structures that exist beyond the Beltway?
Here are a few examples.
It’s estimated that New York State has about 10,500 local government entities, from townships to counties to special districts. A year ago a bipartisan state commission said that New Yorkers could save more than a billion dollars a year by consolidating and sharing local government responsibilities like public security, health, roads and education.
One commission member, a county executive, said, “Our system of local government has barely evolved over the past one hundred years and we are still governed by these same archaic institutions formed before the invention of the light bulb, telephone, automobile and computer.”
In accepting the commission’s recommendations, Gov. David Paterson promised to work diligently to put the changes into effect.
When his budget was presented this spring it included several of the proposed changes, but it immediately met stiff resistance even from members of his own party who were determined to protect their parochial interests.
It appears that few of the original recommendations will survive.
----------
In my native Great Plains, North and South Dakota have a combined population of just under 1.5 million people, and in each state the rural areas are being depopulated at a rapid rate.
Yet between them the two Dakotas support 17 colleges and universities.
They are a carry-over from the early 20th century when travel was more difficult and farm families wanted their children close by during harvest season.
I know this is heresy, but couldn’t the two states get a bigger bang for their higher education buck if they consolidated their smaller institutions into, say, the Dakota Territory College System, with satellite campuses but a common administration and shared standards?
Iowa, next door, is having its own struggles with maintaining population, especially among the young.
As the Hawkeye State’s taxpayers grow older and less financially productive, the cost of government services becomes more expensive.
Yet Iowa proudly maintains its grid of 99 counties, each with its own distinctive courthouse, many on the National Register of Historic Places — and some as little as 40 miles away from one another.
Each one houses a full complement of clerks, auditors, sheriff’s deputies, jailers and commissioners.
Is there any reason beyond local pride to maintain such duplication given the economic and population pressures of our time?
This is not a problem unique to the states I have cited.
Every state and every region in the country is stuck with some form of anachronistic and expensive local government structure that dates to horse-drawn wagons, family farms and small-town convenience.
If this is a reset, it’s time to reorganize our state and local government structures for today’s realities rather than cling to the sensibilities of the 20th century.
If we demand this from General Motors, we should ask no less of ourselves.
[Tom Brokaw, a special correspondent for NBC News, is the author, most recently, of “Boom! Talking About the ’60s.”]
===================
Bringing this discussion closer to home, there are major opportunities for reforming our State Government right here in Washington.
An excellent book, 'A Majority of One: Legislative Life' published by Civitas Press and authored by former State Senator George W. Scott, who has also served as State Historian, illustrates the scope and magnitude of some of our problems - which were created at the time Washington first became a state.
Here are a few bipartisan excerpts taken from the Internet advertising of this very readable book:
Tells everything you wanted to know about legislating -- but would have to get elected to find out!
Here is the excitement, confusion and glory of democracy for political aficionados, candidates, lobbyists, public officials, students and those who need to know how laws are made.
A Majority of One shows how the turmoil of Watergate and Vietnam, abortion, the environment and judicial activism "transformed three part governance by legislatures, governors and courts into five part ones -- and made staff and lobbyists now as powerful as legislators."
Politicians are activists not authors. Only three serious books have been written by legislators about their craft in the last 40 years. Senator Scott (Ph.D., history, University of Washington), also brings his professional lives as a manager in the private and non-profit sectors, in higher and education as State Archivist to explain the legislative environment.
Readers Praise A Majority of One:
“Anyone who cares about representative government must read this book. George Scott captures the essence of legislative action with the knowledge only an insider can bring. He does it with perception, wit and humor.
Daniel J. Evans (R)
Former State House Majority Leader,
Governor, and U.S. Senator
“Senator George Scott has provided us with a warm, insightful appreciation of the legislative process that few outsiders can offer. This is a must read for students of state government.”
Phil Talmadge (D)
Former Washington State Senator
and State Supreme Court Justice
“By far the best description of a state legislature’s real operation in print -- from a legislator who knew what was happening -- and why.”
Slade Gorton (R)
Former Majority Leader Washington State House of Representatives, Washington State
Attorney General, and U.S. Senator
“A primer on how the legislature works. All who care about popular democracy should read this.”
James Dolliver
Former Chief Justice,
Washington State Supreme Court
“Here is a unique legislative atlas by an insider. High idealism, deep frustration, inspiration, humor, and hundreds of public, corporate and personal interests all boil under a legislative dome. Who can fail to be intrigued?”
Lois North (R)
Former State Representative, Senator,
and Chair of the King County Council
“Rarely, and I am tempted to say never, do we find an insider’s political savvy combined with the scholarly analysis that George Scott devotes to A Majority of One. Scott is unmatched in his command of the voluminous archival source materials involved here and his use of first-hand experience in weaving them into an absorbing account. This book is a practical guide for understanding the grassroots politics and placing these practices in the bigger picture of local, state, and national affairs. A Majority of One is a must read for both the concerned citizen and the political pro.”
David H. Stratton
Professor Emeritus of History
Washington State University
“Legislative leaders are activists. George Scott is also a trained historian. Majority is a unique, inclusive insider’s first-hand look at legislating, documented in depth. It is the place to start for students of the process, campaigners, legislators and those who care about politics.”
Jeannette Hayner (R)
Former Member of the House. Minority, and Majority Leader, Washington State Senate
“Here we have Machiavelli, modernized and localized. Substitute Medici Florence with Olympia in the 1960, 70s, and 80s, a period of political renaissance of a sort in this state. In place of “The Prince,” Scott centers on principal players in state government during this expansive and turbulent time. George brings Niccolo’s same absorbed analysis to the interaction of these politicians and political institutions for an understanding of how things worked in recent history and still work now.”
Alan Thompson (D)
Publisher, former Majority Leader
State House of Representatives,
State Senator,
and Chief Clerk of the House
----------------
Changes to organization structures are daunting to say the very least, but sometimes necessary if the desire to make things work better are desired.
The way things are right now in the State of Washington are similar to what the Dakotas, Iowa and New York are experiencing.
Except, Washington may be worse!
As a brief example, let me cite a comment made decades ago by former House Leader, Jim Farley, which referred to the lower 48 as 47 states and the 'Republic of Washington'.
His reason for making this observation -way back in 1947- is the same as it would be today; Washington is over burdened with a ridiculous patchwork of publicly authorized agencies, special purpose districts, which fracture the functions of government unnecessarily.
Additionally, these various public entities require more elections, officials, public meetings and limited authority than is reasonably practical.
Instead of achieving their original goal of clearly defining roles and responsibilities and limiting over concentration of power, these profligate agencies have achieved the opposite, with disfunction, non-cooperation and public disinterest more in evidence.
It is not often that founders can anticipate with accuracy, the twists, turns, needs and complications of the future, which is why revisions are sometimes required.
It is past time for such reforms in the State of Washington!
But, where will this effort begin?
I suggest the best chance of starting such a movement might be by local initiative.
And what better time than when we are experiencing dire economic conditions?
Anyone see an opportunity here that they are willing to commit time and energy on?
---------------
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Pirate Economics & Social Contracts
----------------
Today's New York Times carried a fascinating article that I have reproduced below:
April 20, 2009
Pirate Economics 101: A Q&A With Invisible Hook Author Peter Leeson
By RYAN HAGEN
The crew of the Maersk Alabama, having survived an attack by pirates in Somalia last week, has returned home for a much-deserved rest. But with tensions ratcheting up between the U.S. and the rag-tag confederation of Somali pirates, it’s worth looking to the past for clues on how to tame the outlaw seas.
Peter Leeson, an economist at George Mason University (and an occasional Freakonomics guest blogger), offers a brisk and fascinating look at old-school piracy in his new book The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates. Leeson agreed to sit down and answer some important piratical questions for us:
Q The Invisible Hook is more than just a clever title. How is it different from Adam Smith’s invisible hand?
A In Adam Smith, the idea is that each individual pursuing his own self-interest is led, as if by an invisible hand, to promote the interest of society. The idea of the invisible hook is that pirates, though they’re criminals, are still driven by their self-interest. So they were driven to build systems of government and social structures that allowed them to better pursue their criminal ends. They’re connected, but the big difference is that, for Adam Smith, self-interest results in cooperation that generates wealth and makes other people better off. For pirates, self-interest results in cooperation that destroys wealth by allowing pirates to plunder more effectively.
Q In the book, you write that pirates had set up their own early versions of constitutional democracy, complete with separation of powers, decades before the American Revolution. Was that only possible because they were outlaws, operating entirely outside the control of any government?
A That’s right. The pirates of the 18th century set up quite a thoroughgoing system of democracy. The reason that the criminality is driving these structures is because they can’t rely on the state to provide those structures for them. So pirates, more than anyone else, needed to figure out some system of law and order to make it possible for them to remain together long enough to be successful at stealing.
Q So did these participatory, democratic systems give merchant sailors an incentive to join pirate crews, because it meant they were freer among pirates than on their own ships?
A The sailors had more freedom and better pay as pirates than as merchantmen. But perhaps the most important thing was freedom from the arbitrariness of captains and the malicious abuses of power that merchant captains were known to inflict on their crews. In a pirate democracy, a crew could, and routinely did, depose their captain if he was abusing his power or was incompetent.
Q You write that pirates weren’t necessarily the bloodthirsty fiends we imagine them to have been. How does the invisible hook explain their behavior?
A The basic idea is, once we recognize pirates as economic actors, businessmen really, it becomes clear as to why they wouldn’t want to brutalize everyone they overtook. In order to encourage merchantmen to surrender, they needed to communicate the idea that, if you surrender to us, you’ll be treated well. That’s the incentive pirates give for sailors to surrender peacefully. If they wantonly abused their prisoners, as they’re often portrayed as having done, that would have actually undermined the incentive of merchant crews to surrender, which would have caused pirates to incur greater costs. They would have had to battle it out more often, because the merchants would have expected to be tortured indiscriminately if they were captured.
So instead, what we often see in the historical record is pirates displaying quite remarkable feats of generosity. The other side of that, of course, is that if you resisted, they had to unleash, you know, a hellish fury on you. That’s where most of the stories of pirate atrocities come from. That’s not to say that no pirate ever indulged his sadistic impulses. But I speculate that the pirate population had no higher proportion of sadists than legitimate society did. And those sadists among the pirates tended to reserve their sadistic actions for times when it would profit them.
Q So they never made anyone walk the plank?
A There was no walking the plank. There’s no historical foundation for that in 17th- or 18th-century piracy.
Q You write about piracy as a brand. It’s quite a successful one, having lasted for hundreds of years after the pirates themselves were exterminated. What was the key to that success?
A There was a very particular type of reputation that pirates wanted to cultivate. It was a very delicate line to walk. They didn’t want to have a reputation for wanton brutality or complete madness. They wanted to be perceived as hair-trigger men, men on the edge, who if you pushed, if you resisted, they would snap and do something horrible to you. That way, the captives they took had an incentive to be very careful to comply with all of the pirates’ demands. At the same time, they wanted a reputation as being very brutal, as meting out these brutal, horrible tortures to captives who didn’t comply with their demands. Stories about those horrible tortures were relayed not only by word of mouth, but by early 18th-century newspapers. When a former prisoner was released, he would oftentimes go to the media and provide an account of his capture. So when colonials read these accounts in the media, that helped institutionalize the idea of pirates as these men on the edge. That worked marvelously for pirates. It was a form of advertising performed by legitimate members of society that again helped pirates reduce their costs.
Q What kinds of lessons can we draw from The Invisible Hook in dealing with modern pirates?
A We have to recognize that pirates are rational economic actors and that piracy is an occupational choice. If we think of them as irrational, or as pursuing other ends, we’re liable to come up with solutions to the pirate problem that are ineffective. Since we know that pirates respond to costs and benefits, we should think of solutions that alter those costs and benefits to shape the incentives for pirates and to deter them from going into a life of piracy.
---------------
An earlier piece, also by Peter Leeson, was published on September 5, 2008, under the title of 'Three Great Social Contractarians: Hobbes, Locke, and … Blackbeard?'
He makes some points about social contracts and their role in effective governance, which I found very interesting, as well as largely impractical.
What do you think?
------------------
Peter Leeson, the BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism at George Mason University and author of the forthcoming book “The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates,” blogged here earlier this week about U.F.O.’s and dominoes.
We’ve all heard the idea of the social contract before.
This is the notion of government as the product of a grand, unanimous agreement between society’s members that brings political authority into existence.
In school, we read the great social contract theorists: Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
And then we’re told that none of it’s really true.
No society literally created its government through a genuine social contract, conventional wisdom goes.
That would require every member of society to voluntarily agree to such a contract’s terms and to express consent explicitly through their signatures.
Even America’s founding, which involved a written “agreement” of sorts, fails this test.
Only a few members of American society actually signed the Constitution, and some disagreed with it but were stuck with its terms nonetheless.
The social contract might be an important analytical device for evaluating government’s legitimacy.
But, taken literally anyway, it’s a myth.
The social contract may be mythical when it comes to societies of honest individuals.
But recent research suggests it’s very real when it comes to some societies of rogues.
Eighteenth-century pirate society had a genuine social contract at its foundation, a unanimous social agreement that created the pirates’ constitutional democracy.
Pirates’ floating societies were forged without government to create government and used actual written contracts — “pirate codes” — to do so.
Pirates weren’t the only rogue societies to forge their “governments” via literal social contracts.
David Skarbek shows that a contemporary California-based prison gang, La Nuestra Familia, has similar social contract foundations, and a recent discovery suggests the Mafia may have a social contract at its base as well.
Could murderers and thieves be more familiar with Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau than honest citizens?
Probably not.
But criminal societies emerge with very different purposes than regular ones; these differences may account for why Blackbeard’s “government” was a more faithful representation of a true social contract than the U.S. government is.
Rogue societies’ criminality puts social harmony at a premium.
Since any disgruntled member of a criminal society could turn on his comrades and inform authorities of their skullduggery, leading to their capture and punishment, it’s critical to make sure everyone is happy.
This means ensuring everyone is pleased to live under society’s rules and is satisfied with the people who administer those rules.
A social contract, which secures citizens’ unanimous agreement to political rules at the outset and enshrines this agreement in writing, helps to secure such harmony.
In contrast, societies formed without criminal intent don’t confront this problem.
In “regular” societies, a disgruntled citizen can’t bring down the rest of us by tattling to outside authorities.
Here, then, securing every citizen’s agreement to political authority through universal social agreement is less critical.
Of course, there are other important factors that influence criminal vs. “regular” societies’ reliance on genuine social contracts. But the difference between their criminality appears to be an important one.
And, as my forthcoming book The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates discusses, criminality, perhaps unexpectedly, seems to favor governments based on true social agreement.
What can criminal consent teach us about American government?
A few things, actually.
First, society works best where the need for policemen is least.
Precisely because in self-regulating societies individuals regulate themselves, these societies can afford more freedom and the benefits that come with it.
But self regulation is only possible where most citizens agree with the rules that govern them.
The key, then, is to increase the extent of social agreement underlying the rules that govern society.
There are two ways to do this.
The first way is to try and build greater agreement over the existing range of issues we decide socially (i.e., in the public sphere).
That seems unlikely, though, if for no other reason than Americans are as diverse in their beliefs and preferences as they come.
The second way is to be more modest about the range of issues we seek social consensus on in the first place.
Most of us agree that murder, for instance, should be prohibited.
Making this decision through the political process is unlikely to undermine social agreement.
But there’s much greater variation in Americans’ thinking about, say, what schools should teach fifth graders about sex, whether trans-fats pose an unreasonable risk to one’s health, and whether Andres Serrano produces provocative art or sacrilegious smut.
By depoliticizing decisions — making more of them private choices instead of public ones — we can strengthen the consensual basis of American government, and hopefully enhance social agreement over the rules we have.
-----------------
Today's New York Times carried a fascinating article that I have reproduced below:
April 20, 2009
Pirate Economics 101: A Q&A With Invisible Hook Author Peter Leeson
By RYAN HAGEN
The crew of the Maersk Alabama, having survived an attack by pirates in Somalia last week, has returned home for a much-deserved rest. But with tensions ratcheting up between the U.S. and the rag-tag confederation of Somali pirates, it’s worth looking to the past for clues on how to tame the outlaw seas.
Peter Leeson, an economist at George Mason University (and an occasional Freakonomics guest blogger), offers a brisk and fascinating look at old-school piracy in his new book The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates. Leeson agreed to sit down and answer some important piratical questions for us:
Q The Invisible Hook is more than just a clever title. How is it different from Adam Smith’s invisible hand?
A In Adam Smith, the idea is that each individual pursuing his own self-interest is led, as if by an invisible hand, to promote the interest of society. The idea of the invisible hook is that pirates, though they’re criminals, are still driven by their self-interest. So they were driven to build systems of government and social structures that allowed them to better pursue their criminal ends. They’re connected, but the big difference is that, for Adam Smith, self-interest results in cooperation that generates wealth and makes other people better off. For pirates, self-interest results in cooperation that destroys wealth by allowing pirates to plunder more effectively.
Q In the book, you write that pirates had set up their own early versions of constitutional democracy, complete with separation of powers, decades before the American Revolution. Was that only possible because they were outlaws, operating entirely outside the control of any government?
A That’s right. The pirates of the 18th century set up quite a thoroughgoing system of democracy. The reason that the criminality is driving these structures is because they can’t rely on the state to provide those structures for them. So pirates, more than anyone else, needed to figure out some system of law and order to make it possible for them to remain together long enough to be successful at stealing.
Q So did these participatory, democratic systems give merchant sailors an incentive to join pirate crews, because it meant they were freer among pirates than on their own ships?
A The sailors had more freedom and better pay as pirates than as merchantmen. But perhaps the most important thing was freedom from the arbitrariness of captains and the malicious abuses of power that merchant captains were known to inflict on their crews. In a pirate democracy, a crew could, and routinely did, depose their captain if he was abusing his power or was incompetent.
Q You write that pirates weren’t necessarily the bloodthirsty fiends we imagine them to have been. How does the invisible hook explain their behavior?
A The basic idea is, once we recognize pirates as economic actors, businessmen really, it becomes clear as to why they wouldn’t want to brutalize everyone they overtook. In order to encourage merchantmen to surrender, they needed to communicate the idea that, if you surrender to us, you’ll be treated well. That’s the incentive pirates give for sailors to surrender peacefully. If they wantonly abused their prisoners, as they’re often portrayed as having done, that would have actually undermined the incentive of merchant crews to surrender, which would have caused pirates to incur greater costs. They would have had to battle it out more often, because the merchants would have expected to be tortured indiscriminately if they were captured.
So instead, what we often see in the historical record is pirates displaying quite remarkable feats of generosity. The other side of that, of course, is that if you resisted, they had to unleash, you know, a hellish fury on you. That’s where most of the stories of pirate atrocities come from. That’s not to say that no pirate ever indulged his sadistic impulses. But I speculate that the pirate population had no higher proportion of sadists than legitimate society did. And those sadists among the pirates tended to reserve their sadistic actions for times when it would profit them.
Q So they never made anyone walk the plank?
A There was no walking the plank. There’s no historical foundation for that in 17th- or 18th-century piracy.
Q You write about piracy as a brand. It’s quite a successful one, having lasted for hundreds of years after the pirates themselves were exterminated. What was the key to that success?
A There was a very particular type of reputation that pirates wanted to cultivate. It was a very delicate line to walk. They didn’t want to have a reputation for wanton brutality or complete madness. They wanted to be perceived as hair-trigger men, men on the edge, who if you pushed, if you resisted, they would snap and do something horrible to you. That way, the captives they took had an incentive to be very careful to comply with all of the pirates’ demands. At the same time, they wanted a reputation as being very brutal, as meting out these brutal, horrible tortures to captives who didn’t comply with their demands. Stories about those horrible tortures were relayed not only by word of mouth, but by early 18th-century newspapers. When a former prisoner was released, he would oftentimes go to the media and provide an account of his capture. So when colonials read these accounts in the media, that helped institutionalize the idea of pirates as these men on the edge. That worked marvelously for pirates. It was a form of advertising performed by legitimate members of society that again helped pirates reduce their costs.
Q What kinds of lessons can we draw from The Invisible Hook in dealing with modern pirates?
A We have to recognize that pirates are rational economic actors and that piracy is an occupational choice. If we think of them as irrational, or as pursuing other ends, we’re liable to come up with solutions to the pirate problem that are ineffective. Since we know that pirates respond to costs and benefits, we should think of solutions that alter those costs and benefits to shape the incentives for pirates and to deter them from going into a life of piracy.
---------------
An earlier piece, also by Peter Leeson, was published on September 5, 2008, under the title of 'Three Great Social Contractarians: Hobbes, Locke, and … Blackbeard?'
He makes some points about social contracts and their role in effective governance, which I found very interesting, as well as largely impractical.
What do you think?
------------------
Peter Leeson, the BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism at George Mason University and author of the forthcoming book “The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates,” blogged here earlier this week about U.F.O.’s and dominoes.
We’ve all heard the idea of the social contract before.
This is the notion of government as the product of a grand, unanimous agreement between society’s members that brings political authority into existence.
In school, we read the great social contract theorists: Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
And then we’re told that none of it’s really true.
No society literally created its government through a genuine social contract, conventional wisdom goes.
That would require every member of society to voluntarily agree to such a contract’s terms and to express consent explicitly through their signatures.
Even America’s founding, which involved a written “agreement” of sorts, fails this test.
Only a few members of American society actually signed the Constitution, and some disagreed with it but were stuck with its terms nonetheless.
The social contract might be an important analytical device for evaluating government’s legitimacy.
But, taken literally anyway, it’s a myth.
The social contract may be mythical when it comes to societies of honest individuals.
But recent research suggests it’s very real when it comes to some societies of rogues.
Eighteenth-century pirate society had a genuine social contract at its foundation, a unanimous social agreement that created the pirates’ constitutional democracy.
Pirates’ floating societies were forged without government to create government and used actual written contracts — “pirate codes” — to do so.
Pirates weren’t the only rogue societies to forge their “governments” via literal social contracts.
David Skarbek shows that a contemporary California-based prison gang, La Nuestra Familia, has similar social contract foundations, and a recent discovery suggests the Mafia may have a social contract at its base as well.
Could murderers and thieves be more familiar with Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau than honest citizens?
Probably not.
But criminal societies emerge with very different purposes than regular ones; these differences may account for why Blackbeard’s “government” was a more faithful representation of a true social contract than the U.S. government is.
Rogue societies’ criminality puts social harmony at a premium.
Since any disgruntled member of a criminal society could turn on his comrades and inform authorities of their skullduggery, leading to their capture and punishment, it’s critical to make sure everyone is happy.
This means ensuring everyone is pleased to live under society’s rules and is satisfied with the people who administer those rules.
A social contract, which secures citizens’ unanimous agreement to political rules at the outset and enshrines this agreement in writing, helps to secure such harmony.
In contrast, societies formed without criminal intent don’t confront this problem.
In “regular” societies, a disgruntled citizen can’t bring down the rest of us by tattling to outside authorities.
Here, then, securing every citizen’s agreement to political authority through universal social agreement is less critical.
Of course, there are other important factors that influence criminal vs. “regular” societies’ reliance on genuine social contracts. But the difference between their criminality appears to be an important one.
And, as my forthcoming book The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates discusses, criminality, perhaps unexpectedly, seems to favor governments based on true social agreement.
What can criminal consent teach us about American government?
A few things, actually.
First, society works best where the need for policemen is least.
Precisely because in self-regulating societies individuals regulate themselves, these societies can afford more freedom and the benefits that come with it.
But self regulation is only possible where most citizens agree with the rules that govern them.
The key, then, is to increase the extent of social agreement underlying the rules that govern society.
There are two ways to do this.
The first way is to try and build greater agreement over the existing range of issues we decide socially (i.e., in the public sphere).
That seems unlikely, though, if for no other reason than Americans are as diverse in their beliefs and preferences as they come.
The second way is to be more modest about the range of issues we seek social consensus on in the first place.
Most of us agree that murder, for instance, should be prohibited.
Making this decision through the political process is unlikely to undermine social agreement.
But there’s much greater variation in Americans’ thinking about, say, what schools should teach fifth graders about sex, whether trans-fats pose an unreasonable risk to one’s health, and whether Andres Serrano produces provocative art or sacrilegious smut.
By depoliticizing decisions — making more of them private choices instead of public ones — we can strengthen the consensual basis of American government, and hopefully enhance social agreement over the rules we have.
-----------------
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Polarization: What Does It Mean & Who Decides?
-----------------
WARNING: Not for those with limited attention spans.
-----------------
From Wikipedia:
In politics, polarization is the process by which the public opinion divides and goes to the extremes. It can also refer to when the extreme factions of a political party gain dominance in a party. In either case moderate voices often lose power and influence as a consequence.
Definitions of polarization
The term "polarization" comes from political science. There, it is a measure of the electorate's response to a political figure or position;[1] it is not an assessment of, or a value judgment upon, a political figure. It does not mean that a political figure is necessarily unelectable.[2] Political figures can receive a polarized response from the public through actions of their own,[3] through historical trends or accidents,[3] or due to external forces such as media bias.[4]
Political scientists principally measure polarization in two ways.[5] One is "plain" or generic polarization, often referred to as popular polarization,[1] which happens when opinions diverge towards poles of distribution or intensity.[1] Political scientists several kinds of metrics to measure popular polarization, such as the American National Election Studies' "feeling thermometer" polls, which measure the degree of opinion about a political figure.[6][7]
The other form that political scientists examine is partisan polarization, which happens when support for a political figure or position differentiates itself along political party lines.[3]
Popular media definitions and uses of "polarization" tend to be looser.
------------------------------------
I found this piece an interesting explanation of what one interpreter found from a recent survey:
April 6, 2009
'POLARIZING'.... The Pew Research Center released a poll a few days ago showing -- surprise, surprise -- Democrats like President Obama a whole lot more than Republicans do.
In fact, according to the Pew report, Obama "has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades."
There's a 61-point partisan gap -- 88% of Democrats approve of the president's on-the-job performance, while 27% of Republicans say the same.
This has led more than a few conservatives to argue today that this gap is, of course, the president's fault.
Peter Wehner argued, for example, "It became apparent quite early that bipartisanship was a fictional commitment for Barack Obama; shutting Republicans out of negotiations and promoting what ranks among the most left-wing domestic agendas in our lifetime was all the evidence some of us needed.
Apparently most of the rest of the nation understands that as well."
First, I hardly think it's accurate to say that "most" see the president is overly partisan.
In reality, most of the nation approves of Obama's job performance, and remain unconcerned about partisanship.
The 61-point partisan gap in the Pew survey, while obviously large, is partly the result of Democratic satisfaction.
As Andrew Sullivan noted, "The percentage of Republicans approving of Obama at this point is almost identical to that approving of Clinton in 1993."
Obama is, therefore, more "polarizing" because he enjoys more support from Democrats now than Clinton did 16 years ago.
Indeed, Michael Dimock, Pew's associate director, told Greg Sargent that conservatives are misreading the results of the survey when they blame Obama for the broader dynamic, calling their conclusion "unfair."
Dimock says the divide is driven by long term trends and by the uncommonly enthusiastic reaction to Obama by members of his own party -- by what he calls "the way Democrats are reacting to Obama."
Interestingly, Dimock also said this phenomenon is partly caused by the recent tendency of Republicans to be less charitable towards new Presidents than Dems have been.
In contrast to the 27% of GOPers approving of Obama now, more than a third of Dems (36%) approved of George W. Bush at a comparable time in 2001.
Before that, only 26% of Republicans approved of Bill Clinton at the same time in his presidency, while 41% of Dems approved of both George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan at comparable times.
"Polarizing" is an overly used buzzword, anyway.
For most of his second term, George W. Bush wasn't polarizing; he was just spectacularly unpopular among almost every group and constituency.
Dems, Republicans, and independents couldn't wait for Bush to go.
But at least he wasn't polarizing!
Obama, in contrast, enjoys fairly broad support, including more than one in four Republicans.
Conservatives want to say that makes the president "polarizing"?
Whatever makes them feel better.
---------------------------------
For 'balance' as FOX News likes to claim, here's another view of the same poll results by a former Presidential speechwriter:
[I'll let you decide which political party the writer belongs to]
The Most Polarizing President
By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Who has been the most polarizing new president of recent times?
Richard Nixon? Ronald Reagan? George W. Bush?
No, that honor belongs to Barack Obama.
According to the Pew Research Center, the gap between Republican and Democratic approval ratings for Bush a few months into his first term was about 51 percentage points.
For Obama, this partisan gap stands at 61 points.
Obama has been a unifier, of sorts.
He has united Democrats and united Republicans -- against each other.
The Pew report notes that this is the extension of a long-term trend.
Decades ago, a majority of Democrats approved of Richard Nixon's job performance early in his first term.
A majority of Republicans did the same for Jimmy Carter.
But that has not been true for any president since.
Ron Brownstein, the author of "The Second Civil War," cites a variety of structural reasons for intensified division.
There has been a "sorting out" of the political parties, making each more ideologically uniform.
Long, nasty presidential campaigns stoke our differences.
Media outlets have become more partisan.
Ideological interest groups have proliferated.
Congressional leaders have changed the rules, making it easier to impose party discipline.
But Obama was supposed to be the antidote to the poison of partisanship.
During the presidential campaign, chief strategist David Axelrod told Brownstein, "If there's an enhanced Democratic majority, I think that he's going . . . to urge a special sense of responsibility to try and forge coalitions around these answers, not because we won't be able to force our will in many cases, but because, ultimately, effective governance requires it in the long term."
That makes last week's votes on the budget resolutions a landmark of ineffective governance.
Not a single Republican in the House or Senate supported the bill, largely because the Democratic majo0rity forced its will. Republicans were flattened, not consulted.
Democratic leaders talk of enacting controversial elements of the budget through the "reconciliation" process -- which would require 51 Senate votes, not the normal 60, for passage.
Only in Washington would the word "reconciliation" refer to a form of partisan warfare.
Without Republican input or influence, the budget is a tax-and-spend caricature.
Obama has complained of inheriting a $1.3 trillion debt.
According to economist Michael Boskin, Obama's proposals would add $6.5 trillion in debt over the next decade -- about $163,000 for every American taxpaying family.
I am not generally a deficit hawk.
A government can run a responsible deficit in a growing economy -- and may have to run one to counteract an economic downturn.
But Obama's proposed level of debt is irresponsible.
It makes broad tax increases nearly inevitable.
It expands our dependence on China, America's loan officer.
And it creates pressure for the government to purchase or monetize debt, leading to inflation.
No Republican, even of the moderate variety, could accept a budget that spends America into unsustainable debt by completely avoiding the setting of realistic priorities.
And none in Congress did.
There is an argument in favor of political polarization.
Franklin Roosevelt and Reagan, in their time, were polarizing presidents precisely because they were ambitious presidents. They believed that some national goals were worth the sacrifice of amity.
A decisive leader is sometimes a divisive leader.
But Obama's polarizing approach challenges and changes the core of his political identity.
His moderate manner and message appealed to a country weary of division and ambition -- a nation now asked to endure another round of both.
But Obama's domestic agenda is also resoundingly typical -- as though he were some conventionally liberal backbench senator suddenly thrust into immense influence.
Which, of course, he is.
It would have been relatively easy for President Obama to divide the Republican coalition, peeling off less-partisan Republicans with genuine outreach.
Many Republicans were prepared to accept short-term deficits to stimulate the economy in exchange for long-term fiscal responsibility.
Obama could have focused more narrowly on resolving the financial crisis -- the key to all economic recovery -- and delayed his ambitions on other issues to a more realistic time.
In the process, he might have gotten some Republicans to share his political risks instead of nursing grievances on the sidelines.
Polarization in American politics has its own disturbing momentum, aided by some strident Republican voices.
But that does not require a president to make it worse.
And it is a sad, unnecessary shame that Barack Obama, the candidate of unity, has so quickly become another source of division.
-----------------
You tell me, who's sticking to the poll findings and who's making up stuff as they go?
If you haven't guessed similarly, Mr Gerson appears to be still employed by the R's to spin events to their political advantage.
And, boy, do they need that!
But, is this the way to convince thinking people?
And, if thinking people aren't seen as important to R's, who do they represent?
Any political party who falls from power so far and fast, must have done some egregious, self-inflicted damage to itself.
In light of the R's own behavior during the past 8 years, Gerson's appeal for more 'inclusiveness' from the D's seems exceptionally ridiculous.
Maybe the R's just seriously miscalculated Obama's 'toughness' and resolve, which they have repeatedly claimed.
Surprise!
Gerson is just the latest to do the extreme mental gymnastics required to make every R position seem reasonable.
Why, it's a wonder he doesn't spend every day with a chiropractor - or understudying a contortionist!
The Republicans are merely trying to cover their collective butts, while practicing those tried and true 3 'D's' used by extreme fringe groups the world over;
Deny, Decry, Delay.
That's what true losers do when they don't get their way.
Wouldn't it be more effective to just participate by actually making a few constructive suggestions as thoughtful individuals, rather than slavishly following the ritual of group think, dictated by party hacks?
And what about this party-oriented block voting thing?
Think about it.
It has been the R's own arrogance has brought them down, combined with the overwhelming need for reform and change that Obama so charismatically recognized and communicated.
R's & D's are not polar opposites, and it is silly to pretend so.
But, there are always more than one way to view an issue, which is healthy.
The trick is to be honest in the process, otherwise all bets are off.
And, it doesn't matter which party is in power.
Tell me again, what is Obama's approval rating after -what- almost 3 whole months in office?
Let's keep that little indisputable fact in perspective, shall we?
---------------
WARNING: Not for those with limited attention spans.
-----------------
From Wikipedia:
In politics, polarization is the process by which the public opinion divides and goes to the extremes. It can also refer to when the extreme factions of a political party gain dominance in a party. In either case moderate voices often lose power and influence as a consequence.
Definitions of polarization
The term "polarization" comes from political science. There, it is a measure of the electorate's response to a political figure or position;[1] it is not an assessment of, or a value judgment upon, a political figure. It does not mean that a political figure is necessarily unelectable.[2] Political figures can receive a polarized response from the public through actions of their own,[3] through historical trends or accidents,[3] or due to external forces such as media bias.[4]
Political scientists principally measure polarization in two ways.[5] One is "plain" or generic polarization, often referred to as popular polarization,[1] which happens when opinions diverge towards poles of distribution or intensity.[1] Political scientists several kinds of metrics to measure popular polarization, such as the American National Election Studies' "feeling thermometer" polls, which measure the degree of opinion about a political figure.[6][7]
The other form that political scientists examine is partisan polarization, which happens when support for a political figure or position differentiates itself along political party lines.[3]
Popular media definitions and uses of "polarization" tend to be looser.
------------------------------------
I found this piece an interesting explanation of what one interpreter found from a recent survey:
April 6, 2009
'POLARIZING'.... The Pew Research Center released a poll a few days ago showing -- surprise, surprise -- Democrats like President Obama a whole lot more than Republicans do.
In fact, according to the Pew report, Obama "has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades."
There's a 61-point partisan gap -- 88% of Democrats approve of the president's on-the-job performance, while 27% of Republicans say the same.
This has led more than a few conservatives to argue today that this gap is, of course, the president's fault.
Peter Wehner argued, for example, "It became apparent quite early that bipartisanship was a fictional commitment for Barack Obama; shutting Republicans out of negotiations and promoting what ranks among the most left-wing domestic agendas in our lifetime was all the evidence some of us needed.
Apparently most of the rest of the nation understands that as well."
First, I hardly think it's accurate to say that "most" see the president is overly partisan.
In reality, most of the nation approves of Obama's job performance, and remain unconcerned about partisanship.
The 61-point partisan gap in the Pew survey, while obviously large, is partly the result of Democratic satisfaction.
As Andrew Sullivan noted, "The percentage of Republicans approving of Obama at this point is almost identical to that approving of Clinton in 1993."
Obama is, therefore, more "polarizing" because he enjoys more support from Democrats now than Clinton did 16 years ago.
Indeed, Michael Dimock, Pew's associate director, told Greg Sargent that conservatives are misreading the results of the survey when they blame Obama for the broader dynamic, calling their conclusion "unfair."
Dimock says the divide is driven by long term trends and by the uncommonly enthusiastic reaction to Obama by members of his own party -- by what he calls "the way Democrats are reacting to Obama."
Interestingly, Dimock also said this phenomenon is partly caused by the recent tendency of Republicans to be less charitable towards new Presidents than Dems have been.
In contrast to the 27% of GOPers approving of Obama now, more than a third of Dems (36%) approved of George W. Bush at a comparable time in 2001.
Before that, only 26% of Republicans approved of Bill Clinton at the same time in his presidency, while 41% of Dems approved of both George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan at comparable times.
"Polarizing" is an overly used buzzword, anyway.
For most of his second term, George W. Bush wasn't polarizing; he was just spectacularly unpopular among almost every group and constituency.
Dems, Republicans, and independents couldn't wait for Bush to go.
But at least he wasn't polarizing!
Obama, in contrast, enjoys fairly broad support, including more than one in four Republicans.
Conservatives want to say that makes the president "polarizing"?
Whatever makes them feel better.
---------------------------------
For 'balance' as FOX News likes to claim, here's another view of the same poll results by a former Presidential speechwriter:
[I'll let you decide which political party the writer belongs to]
The Most Polarizing President
By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Who has been the most polarizing new president of recent times?
Richard Nixon? Ronald Reagan? George W. Bush?
No, that honor belongs to Barack Obama.
According to the Pew Research Center, the gap between Republican and Democratic approval ratings for Bush a few months into his first term was about 51 percentage points.
For Obama, this partisan gap stands at 61 points.
Obama has been a unifier, of sorts.
He has united Democrats and united Republicans -- against each other.
The Pew report notes that this is the extension of a long-term trend.
Decades ago, a majority of Democrats approved of Richard Nixon's job performance early in his first term.
A majority of Republicans did the same for Jimmy Carter.
But that has not been true for any president since.
Ron Brownstein, the author of "The Second Civil War," cites a variety of structural reasons for intensified division.
There has been a "sorting out" of the political parties, making each more ideologically uniform.
Long, nasty presidential campaigns stoke our differences.
Media outlets have become more partisan.
Ideological interest groups have proliferated.
Congressional leaders have changed the rules, making it easier to impose party discipline.
But Obama was supposed to be the antidote to the poison of partisanship.
During the presidential campaign, chief strategist David Axelrod told Brownstein, "If there's an enhanced Democratic majority, I think that he's going . . . to urge a special sense of responsibility to try and forge coalitions around these answers, not because we won't be able to force our will in many cases, but because, ultimately, effective governance requires it in the long term."
That makes last week's votes on the budget resolutions a landmark of ineffective governance.
Not a single Republican in the House or Senate supported the bill, largely because the Democratic majo0rity forced its will. Republicans were flattened, not consulted.
Democratic leaders talk of enacting controversial elements of the budget through the "reconciliation" process -- which would require 51 Senate votes, not the normal 60, for passage.
Only in Washington would the word "reconciliation" refer to a form of partisan warfare.
Without Republican input or influence, the budget is a tax-and-spend caricature.
Obama has complained of inheriting a $1.3 trillion debt.
According to economist Michael Boskin, Obama's proposals would add $6.5 trillion in debt over the next decade -- about $163,000 for every American taxpaying family.
I am not generally a deficit hawk.
A government can run a responsible deficit in a growing economy -- and may have to run one to counteract an economic downturn.
But Obama's proposed level of debt is irresponsible.
It makes broad tax increases nearly inevitable.
It expands our dependence on China, America's loan officer.
And it creates pressure for the government to purchase or monetize debt, leading to inflation.
No Republican, even of the moderate variety, could accept a budget that spends America into unsustainable debt by completely avoiding the setting of realistic priorities.
And none in Congress did.
There is an argument in favor of political polarization.
Franklin Roosevelt and Reagan, in their time, were polarizing presidents precisely because they were ambitious presidents. They believed that some national goals were worth the sacrifice of amity.
A decisive leader is sometimes a divisive leader.
But Obama's polarizing approach challenges and changes the core of his political identity.
His moderate manner and message appealed to a country weary of division and ambition -- a nation now asked to endure another round of both.
But Obama's domestic agenda is also resoundingly typical -- as though he were some conventionally liberal backbench senator suddenly thrust into immense influence.
Which, of course, he is.
It would have been relatively easy for President Obama to divide the Republican coalition, peeling off less-partisan Republicans with genuine outreach.
Many Republicans were prepared to accept short-term deficits to stimulate the economy in exchange for long-term fiscal responsibility.
Obama could have focused more narrowly on resolving the financial crisis -- the key to all economic recovery -- and delayed his ambitions on other issues to a more realistic time.
In the process, he might have gotten some Republicans to share his political risks instead of nursing grievances on the sidelines.
Polarization in American politics has its own disturbing momentum, aided by some strident Republican voices.
But that does not require a president to make it worse.
And it is a sad, unnecessary shame that Barack Obama, the candidate of unity, has so quickly become another source of division.
-----------------
You tell me, who's sticking to the poll findings and who's making up stuff as they go?
If you haven't guessed similarly, Mr Gerson appears to be still employed by the R's to spin events to their political advantage.
And, boy, do they need that!
But, is this the way to convince thinking people?
And, if thinking people aren't seen as important to R's, who do they represent?
Any political party who falls from power so far and fast, must have done some egregious, self-inflicted damage to itself.
In light of the R's own behavior during the past 8 years, Gerson's appeal for more 'inclusiveness' from the D's seems exceptionally ridiculous.
Maybe the R's just seriously miscalculated Obama's 'toughness' and resolve, which they have repeatedly claimed.
Surprise!
Gerson is just the latest to do the extreme mental gymnastics required to make every R position seem reasonable.
Why, it's a wonder he doesn't spend every day with a chiropractor - or understudying a contortionist!
The Republicans are merely trying to cover their collective butts, while practicing those tried and true 3 'D's' used by extreme fringe groups the world over;
Deny, Decry, Delay.
That's what true losers do when they don't get their way.
Wouldn't it be more effective to just participate by actually making a few constructive suggestions as thoughtful individuals, rather than slavishly following the ritual of group think, dictated by party hacks?
And what about this party-oriented block voting thing?
Think about it.
It has been the R's own arrogance has brought them down, combined with the overwhelming need for reform and change that Obama so charismatically recognized and communicated.
R's & D's are not polar opposites, and it is silly to pretend so.
But, there are always more than one way to view an issue, which is healthy.
The trick is to be honest in the process, otherwise all bets are off.
And, it doesn't matter which party is in power.
Tell me again, what is Obama's approval rating after -what- almost 3 whole months in office?
Let's keep that little indisputable fact in perspective, shall we?
---------------
Friday, April 17, 2009
Census 2010: Honest Count Or Partisan Issue?
---------------
Ten years ago I participated in Census 2000 as a member of Whatcom County's 'Complete Count' Committee.
That was a very enlightening experience, which got rewarded by substantially exceeding the estimated count of 66%, instead reaching about 71% of the people living here.
That may not sound like much, but translated into the allocation of Federal funds -and reapportionment of US House of Representatives seats - it does mean a lot, likely millions of dollars for just Whatcom County.
Of course, the likelihood of gaining another House seat is pretty remote, unless we happen to become one of the fastest growth areas in the US -something most folks would not prefer.
On the subject of House seat reapportionment, some might like a little history on how that came about.
For over a hundred years, the US Constitution required adding another House seat every time the Census showed a gain of a certain number of people -initially 10,000.
At some point that system would clearly become unworkable -imagine a population of 350 million requiring about 35,000 House members.
So, something had to change, and it did around 1920, when that year's Census first indicated that more people lived in urban areas than in rural areas.
This was cause for serious consternation among some, who thought it just wouldn't do to have city folk having the advantage in decisions affecting the country as a whole. [Isn't there still some of that thinking around?]
Anyway, the decision was made to freeze the number of House members at the then current level of 435, and readjust their apportionment periodically, based upon Census results.
And, that's how it stands today.
This process continues to allow adjustments based upon relative population counts, but at a much slower rate.
Of course, the Senate membership is not based upon population, but fixed at a constant 2 Senators per State; one of those pesky compromises that were required for the USA to even come into being!
Long story short, this will provide some background for our upcoming Census 2010 and its importance.
I don't know what plans are in the works to ensure the next Census is a really good one, but surely there will be such an effort.
-----------------
With the above in mind, I'm reprinting below, an Op-Ed by Timothy Egan that recently appeared in the NY Times:
April 15, 2009, 10:00 PM
Family Secrets
The new Secretary of Commerce, Gary Locke of Seattle, is a former Eagle Scout, prosecutor, and popular two-term governor whose idea of a good time is to crawl under the kitchen sink with plumber’s tape and a gob of grease. Just one week into the new job, he flew home to mow his lawn.
After reading the background file that the F.B.I. put together on Locke, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison characterized the latest member of President Obama’s cabinet with one word — “boring.”
But Gary Locke does have a family secret that is anything but eye-glazing.
Yes, he is widely known as the nation’s first Chinese-American governor, with a stirring family saga, as President Obama said in introducing Locke.
“Sometimes the American story can be told in the span of a single mile,” Obama said, referring to the distance between the place where Gary’s immigrant grandfather worked as a house servant nearly a hundred years ago and the Capitol where Locke was sworn in as Washington state governor in 1997.
Yet there would be no Lockes in America, no great story of the kid raised in public housing who went on to Yale and high office, no presidential kudos, if that same grandfather had not lied to get into the country.
“Some members of my family are still very nervous about acknowledging what happened back then,” Locke told me nine years ago, when I spent time with him for a profile.
And when I asked him last week about that same family secret, he repeated the story, with some hesitation.
“I’m not really sure, but I think my grandfather claimed he was born here but the birth records were destroyed,” Locke said.
For more than half a century, in an act of overt institutional racism, the Chinese were barred from legally entering the United States, with only a few exceptions. The Chinese Exclusion Act lasted until 1943. Those who managed to get in were often called “paper sons,” using elaborate ruses about lost documentation to enter the country.
Locke’s grandfather — today — would likely be hiding in the shadows, fearing federal officials and the lash of those who don’t like the changing character of America.
All of which gives Locke an unusual perspective for his new job. As Commerce Secretary, he will oversee one of the oldest undertakings of the federal government: the decennial census, which takes place a year from now. As defined by the Constitution, the census is supposed to be a count of all residents of the United States — “actual enumeration,” not just citizens.
In attempting to translate that task for purposes of electoral representation, the first census counted black slaves as three-fifths of a human being. That 1790 head count put the population of the young republic at 3.9 million.
Locke was born in the United States, so you wing nuts can rest easy. His father served in the American Army, a staff sergeant who landed at Normandy Beach and fought the Nazis in Europe.
The Locke family narrative is the American story, even with that twist about how they first came to these shores. The fact that they felt some shame over this episode is not usual; they skirted the law, egregious as it was, to get in.
Some Americans don’t see the common heritage: the hushed story of entry paired with the later success borne of hard work. When Locke gave the Democratic response to the 2003 State of the Union address, he was besieged by hate e-mails and death threats, many telling him to go back to China. The reaction stunned him: Here was a deep hatred he had never been exposed to.
Few of us can trace our ancestry to the Mayflower. But it’s worth noting that, from a Native American perspective, those Massachusetts Bay pilgrims were illegals.
As Locke oversees the census, he says he will put extra effort in making sure everyone gets counted. Some Republicans fear he will use statistical sampling — an educated guess, based on partial numbers. But the Supreme Court has ruled against this, and Locke vows the census will steer clear of such projections.
“What we want is an accurate count of America,” he said. “A true portrait.”
At stake is more than $300 billion in state and federal funds, congressional seat allocations, and the balance of the Electoral College. Those slaves of 1790, though counted as less than human, gave southern states additional power in congress and the general election.
Today, the illegal immigrants — mostly Latino, but many Asians as well — will tip the balance another way. They include those who may one day have grandchildren in the president’s cabinet, a cycle as old as the republic.
-------------------------
Earlier, the following piece appeared on the Internet which adds more interesting information:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama has chosen Robert Groves to lead the U.S. Census Bureau, naming a leading expert on survey methodology to direct the politically contentious 2010 U.S. headcount.
The White House announced the nomination of Groves, director of the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan, in a statement on Thursday. He would have to be confirmed by the Senate.
Groves is a former Census Bureau associate director who has studied statistically adjusting survey results to compensate for nonresponse, a politically charged issue in census debates.
Obama angered Republicans in February with a decision to bring the U.S. Census Bureau, which is part of the Commerce Department, under closer White House jurisdiction.
Lawmakers accused Obama of making a partisan political decision ahead of the 2010 census, which will form the basis for redrawing electoral district boundaries.
The White House insisted the Census Bureau would remain a part of the Commerce Department but said there were historic precedents for the head of the census to work closely with the president and the White House, a model it intended to follow.
The decision to bring the census under closer White House supervision followed Democratic criticism of Obama's nomination of a Republican senator, Judd Gregg, as secretary of commerce.
Gregg withdrew from consideration during the controversy over the Census, citing that and other differences with the president as the reason. The withdrawal was viewed as a blow to Obama's promise of bipartisanship in his Cabinet.
The selection of Groves to lead the Census Bureau was praised by a consortium of professional groups that include the American Statistical Association, the American Sociological Association and the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics.
"Dr. Groves is a highly respected leader in the social science and statistical community who has distinguished himself in academia and in public service," the Consortium of Social Science Associations said in a statement.
"Dr. Groves has demonstrated the scientific capacity and leadership to run the 2010 Census and the other programs at the Census Bureau."
The group said the issue of statistical adjustment was "spurious" because Commerce Secretary Gary Locke had assured Congress the 2010 count would not be adjusted and the Supreme Court had weighed in against it for reapportionment cases.
-----------------
Does it seem to you that the Census ought to be a bitter partisan issue?
It seems to me the Constitution was pretty clear in its intent, but maybe that's just me.
Don't be surprised at all manner of hyperbole, ridiculous claims and legal maneuvers to benefit some desperate right-wing folks who see their chances at rigging future elections being diminished -by all things, an honest Census count!
--------------
Ten years ago I participated in Census 2000 as a member of Whatcom County's 'Complete Count' Committee.
That was a very enlightening experience, which got rewarded by substantially exceeding the estimated count of 66%, instead reaching about 71% of the people living here.
That may not sound like much, but translated into the allocation of Federal funds -and reapportionment of US House of Representatives seats - it does mean a lot, likely millions of dollars for just Whatcom County.
Of course, the likelihood of gaining another House seat is pretty remote, unless we happen to become one of the fastest growth areas in the US -something most folks would not prefer.
On the subject of House seat reapportionment, some might like a little history on how that came about.
For over a hundred years, the US Constitution required adding another House seat every time the Census showed a gain of a certain number of people -initially 10,000.
At some point that system would clearly become unworkable -imagine a population of 350 million requiring about 35,000 House members.
So, something had to change, and it did around 1920, when that year's Census first indicated that more people lived in urban areas than in rural areas.
This was cause for serious consternation among some, who thought it just wouldn't do to have city folk having the advantage in decisions affecting the country as a whole. [Isn't there still some of that thinking around?]
Anyway, the decision was made to freeze the number of House members at the then current level of 435, and readjust their apportionment periodically, based upon Census results.
And, that's how it stands today.
This process continues to allow adjustments based upon relative population counts, but at a much slower rate.
Of course, the Senate membership is not based upon population, but fixed at a constant 2 Senators per State; one of those pesky compromises that were required for the USA to even come into being!
Long story short, this will provide some background for our upcoming Census 2010 and its importance.
I don't know what plans are in the works to ensure the next Census is a really good one, but surely there will be such an effort.
-----------------
With the above in mind, I'm reprinting below, an Op-Ed by Timothy Egan that recently appeared in the NY Times:
April 15, 2009, 10:00 PM
Family Secrets
The new Secretary of Commerce, Gary Locke of Seattle, is a former Eagle Scout, prosecutor, and popular two-term governor whose idea of a good time is to crawl under the kitchen sink with plumber’s tape and a gob of grease. Just one week into the new job, he flew home to mow his lawn.
After reading the background file that the F.B.I. put together on Locke, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison characterized the latest member of President Obama’s cabinet with one word — “boring.”
But Gary Locke does have a family secret that is anything but eye-glazing.
Yes, he is widely known as the nation’s first Chinese-American governor, with a stirring family saga, as President Obama said in introducing Locke.
“Sometimes the American story can be told in the span of a single mile,” Obama said, referring to the distance between the place where Gary’s immigrant grandfather worked as a house servant nearly a hundred years ago and the Capitol where Locke was sworn in as Washington state governor in 1997.
Yet there would be no Lockes in America, no great story of the kid raised in public housing who went on to Yale and high office, no presidential kudos, if that same grandfather had not lied to get into the country.
“Some members of my family are still very nervous about acknowledging what happened back then,” Locke told me nine years ago, when I spent time with him for a profile.
And when I asked him last week about that same family secret, he repeated the story, with some hesitation.
“I’m not really sure, but I think my grandfather claimed he was born here but the birth records were destroyed,” Locke said.
For more than half a century, in an act of overt institutional racism, the Chinese were barred from legally entering the United States, with only a few exceptions. The Chinese Exclusion Act lasted until 1943. Those who managed to get in were often called “paper sons,” using elaborate ruses about lost documentation to enter the country.
Locke’s grandfather — today — would likely be hiding in the shadows, fearing federal officials and the lash of those who don’t like the changing character of America.
All of which gives Locke an unusual perspective for his new job. As Commerce Secretary, he will oversee one of the oldest undertakings of the federal government: the decennial census, which takes place a year from now. As defined by the Constitution, the census is supposed to be a count of all residents of the United States — “actual enumeration,” not just citizens.
In attempting to translate that task for purposes of electoral representation, the first census counted black slaves as three-fifths of a human being. That 1790 head count put the population of the young republic at 3.9 million.
Locke was born in the United States, so you wing nuts can rest easy. His father served in the American Army, a staff sergeant who landed at Normandy Beach and fought the Nazis in Europe.
The Locke family narrative is the American story, even with that twist about how they first came to these shores. The fact that they felt some shame over this episode is not usual; they skirted the law, egregious as it was, to get in.
Some Americans don’t see the common heritage: the hushed story of entry paired with the later success borne of hard work. When Locke gave the Democratic response to the 2003 State of the Union address, he was besieged by hate e-mails and death threats, many telling him to go back to China. The reaction stunned him: Here was a deep hatred he had never been exposed to.
Few of us can trace our ancestry to the Mayflower. But it’s worth noting that, from a Native American perspective, those Massachusetts Bay pilgrims were illegals.
As Locke oversees the census, he says he will put extra effort in making sure everyone gets counted. Some Republicans fear he will use statistical sampling — an educated guess, based on partial numbers. But the Supreme Court has ruled against this, and Locke vows the census will steer clear of such projections.
“What we want is an accurate count of America,” he said. “A true portrait.”
At stake is more than $300 billion in state and federal funds, congressional seat allocations, and the balance of the Electoral College. Those slaves of 1790, though counted as less than human, gave southern states additional power in congress and the general election.
Today, the illegal immigrants — mostly Latino, but many Asians as well — will tip the balance another way. They include those who may one day have grandchildren in the president’s cabinet, a cycle as old as the republic.
-------------------------
Earlier, the following piece appeared on the Internet which adds more interesting information:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama has chosen Robert Groves to lead the U.S. Census Bureau, naming a leading expert on survey methodology to direct the politically contentious 2010 U.S. headcount.
The White House announced the nomination of Groves, director of the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan, in a statement on Thursday. He would have to be confirmed by the Senate.
Groves is a former Census Bureau associate director who has studied statistically adjusting survey results to compensate for nonresponse, a politically charged issue in census debates.
Obama angered Republicans in February with a decision to bring the U.S. Census Bureau, which is part of the Commerce Department, under closer White House jurisdiction.
Lawmakers accused Obama of making a partisan political decision ahead of the 2010 census, which will form the basis for redrawing electoral district boundaries.
The White House insisted the Census Bureau would remain a part of the Commerce Department but said there were historic precedents for the head of the census to work closely with the president and the White House, a model it intended to follow.
The decision to bring the census under closer White House supervision followed Democratic criticism of Obama's nomination of a Republican senator, Judd Gregg, as secretary of commerce.
Gregg withdrew from consideration during the controversy over the Census, citing that and other differences with the president as the reason. The withdrawal was viewed as a blow to Obama's promise of bipartisanship in his Cabinet.
The selection of Groves to lead the Census Bureau was praised by a consortium of professional groups that include the American Statistical Association, the American Sociological Association and the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics.
"Dr. Groves is a highly respected leader in the social science and statistical community who has distinguished himself in academia and in public service," the Consortium of Social Science Associations said in a statement.
"Dr. Groves has demonstrated the scientific capacity and leadership to run the 2010 Census and the other programs at the Census Bureau."
The group said the issue of statistical adjustment was "spurious" because Commerce Secretary Gary Locke had assured Congress the 2010 count would not be adjusted and the Supreme Court had weighed in against it for reapportionment cases.
-----------------
Does it seem to you that the Census ought to be a bitter partisan issue?
It seems to me the Constitution was pretty clear in its intent, but maybe that's just me.
Don't be surprised at all manner of hyperbole, ridiculous claims and legal maneuvers to benefit some desperate right-wing folks who see their chances at rigging future elections being diminished -by all things, an honest Census count!
--------------
Thursday, April 16, 2009
On Piracy
From the days of Marco Polo, and maybe before, history has been replete with records of piracy, which seems to ebb and flow with time, but almost always focus on vulnerable and relatively narrow or near-shore shipping lanes that lend themselves to sneak attack.
Piracy itself isn't necessarily considered terrorism, but you can see how terrorists might employ the concept to their own ends.
Actually, piracy is considered as a multiple crime, and more of a crime against humanity, by which interpretation a criminal trial could be held in any country that was victimized. But, first you have to catch the pirates and have some convincing evidence to verify the wrongs committed. That, is easier said than done!
It's odd that we sometimes glorify things like piracy, war and crime, and are so entertained by them. How many movies, TV shows or sensational magazines and books do you imagine are watched or read every year?
Ever watch an Errol Flynn movie, or Pirates of the Caribbean, or visited Disney World?
How many sports teams are called Pirates, Buccaneers and Raiders?
And, how many kids dress up as pirates at Halloween?
These subjects do make for exciting entertainment, but only because they usually aren't really happening to the viewer!
Include yourself in such activities and suddenly it ain't fun at all.
That is a place we are approaching now with the escalation of piracy that is impacting real life Americans and people like us, with names, families and healthy lives. Those situations aren't anywhere close to the video games we love to play, while pretending to be so brave. Most of us will never be anything like Indiana Jones or other imaginary heroes, even if we are thrust into situations that could use a real hero.
The frustrating thing about piracy, and some other things, too, is that they are really old news being recycled again, despite the fact that valuable lessons must have already been learned.
What are the root causes of this type of behavior?
Poverty? Lawlessness? Greed?
If one agrees with this list, then the antidotes seem pretty obvious, don't they?
But, they are not simple. They ultimately require that most people share the same values and are willing to insure others do the same.
I read an interesting report recently that analyzed the reasons that sway people to do the right thing -let's use protection of the environment for example:
Some are motivated by just wanting to do the 'right thing'; others are influenced by fear of reprisal and being punished for doing something that harms others; but, most seem to regulate their behaviors by observing what their neighbors and contemporaries do and emulating that!
Is that so surprising?
So, the secret is having family and neighbors who habitually 'do the right thing'.
Of course knowing the right thing does require a little effort, too.
Mainly, that effort seems to entail keen observation of what works -and doesn't- over time, and passing that learning on to others.
And, because intellectual honesty is pretty essential to any such endeavor, if one isn't into the truth they are more likely to fail.
------------
Back to piracy.
It ought to be severely frowned upon, internationally.
But, we've got work to do to achieve that, again.
A few ideas:
• civilized nations need to band together for their common defense. The US isn't -and can't be- the world's policeman!
• when pirates are confronted, they need to understand they can't bargain their way out of committing an international crime.
• centuries old wisdom of gathering ships into convoys for mutual protection needs to be re-instituted
• armed guards need to be readily available when necessary
• severe punishment of captured pirates needs to be a surety that is well advertised
• governments that sanction piracy need to be dealt with by the international community
• 'failed states', like Somalia where no effective government exists, cannot become safe havens for pirates
• shipping companies must be part of the long term solution, and not just pay ransoms that are passed along to their ultimate customers
• use of force may be justified at times, as long as the safety of innocent civilians is protected. of course, pirates are also civilians
Who will pull these ideas together, sell them to the international community and come up with an implementation plan?
Now, you may begin to have an idea of how big a deal this little problem may actually be.
In reality, piracy is just one small thread of the fabric of desirable international behavior, but it is an important thread that could unravel if we aren't careful.
One final thought:
Does it strike anyone as ironic that the Destroyer BAINBRIDGE was called upon to rescue the captain of the Maersk Alabama?
Maybe it ought to.
HINT: This Destroyer is the 5th to use that name, in honor of William Bainbridge, a hero of the War of 1812, who had been previously captured and held hostage by Barbary Pirates in 1800.
Check out this article I've reprinted:
------------------
Lessons From the Barbary Pirate Wars
Paul Farley/U.S. Navy — Reuters
The destroyer Bainbridge, now on rescue duty off Somalia.
Sound familiar?
Well, it’s not last week’s drama on the high seas we’re talking about, when Somali pirates attacked an American freighter in the Indian Ocean and took its captain hostage, then made off with him in a lifeboat.
We’re talking about the Barbary Wars, about 200 years ago, when pirates from the Barbary Coast (today’s Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya) hijacked European ships with impunity and ransomed back the crews.
“When I first read about the Somali pirates, I almost did a double take and turned to my wife at the breakfast table and said, ‘This is déjà vu,’ ” recalled Frank Lambert, a professor at Purdue who is an expert on the Barbary pirates.
Dr. Lambert explained how those brigands, like today’s Somalis, usually kept their hostages alive.
It wasn’t out of any enlightened sense of humanity. I
t was simply good business.
They only hanged captives from giant hooks or carved them into little pieces if they resisted.
The Barbary pirates used small wooden boats, often powered by slaves chained to the oars, to attack larger European ships.
They were crude but effective, like today’s Somali swashbucklers, who in November commandeered a 1,000-foot-long Saudi oil tanker from a dinghy in the Gulf of Aden, a vital shipping lane at the mouth of the Red Sea.
But the Barbary pirates’ bravado became their demise — something the Somalis might keep in mind.
The pirates’ way of doing business was described this way at the time: “When they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth, which usually struck such terror in the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.”
The quote is from Thomas Jefferson, then America’s ambassador to France, after he and John Adams, the envoy in London, got the description from Tripoli’s envoy to Britain in 1786.
And that underscores a key point. The Barbary pirates actually had an ambassador — who met with Jefferson and Adams, no less.
The pirates worked for a government.
The Barbary rulers commissioned them to rob and pillage and kidnap, and the rulers got a cut.
It was all official.
And open.
It was truly state-sponsored terrorism.
And the Western nations’ response was to pay “tribute,” a fancy word for blackmail.
If a country paid tribute, the 18th-century pirates would leave its ships alone.
Today, shipping companies fork over as much as $100 million in ransoms to the Somali pirates, a strategy that saves their cargoes but also attracts more underemployed Somali fishermen into the hijacking business.
The United States tried to play nice with the Barbary pirates and even inked a few treaties.
That language, too, has a striking ring.
The Barbary States were Muslim, as is Somalia.
And America stressed that this was not about God.
“The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” a 1796 treaty reads.
“It has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,” which is how Muslims was spelled back then.
Eventually, though, Americans felt humiliated paying off a bunch of knife-sucking thugs in blousy pants.
That’s what led to the Barbary Wars, first in 1801 when Jefferson became president, and again in 1815, when James Madison sent the United States Navy to shell the Barbary Coast.
The battles became the stuff of legend — “the shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Hymn — and were critical in developing the nation’s young Navy.
They also figured early in the naval career of one William Bainbridge, an officer who was sent to pay tribute to the dey of Algiers in 1800, was later captured during the war along with his ship, and went on to become a hero of the War of 1812.
Last week, in an irony probably lost on the Somalis, it was a destroyer named after him that the United States Navy sent rushing to help the skipper in the lifeboat.
The Barbary pirates were finally brought to their knees by their encounters with the Americans, and by the French invasion of Algiers in 1830.
Will this happen in Somalia?
Last week — even before a French effort to rescue a family in a separate hijacking ended with the death of one hostage — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged the world to “end the scourge of piracy.”
But Somali piracy is not an isolated problem.
It’s the latest symptom of what afflicts an utterly failed state — a free-for-all on land that has consumed the country since the central government imploded in 1991.
As any warlord there can tell you, the violence is almost always about cash.
“We just want the money” is their mantra.
If that sounds like the 1800s, it also invites talk of solving the problem the same way: pound the bravado out of the pirates by taking the battle to them where it hurts most — on shore.
But any effort to wipe out Somali pirate dens like Xarardheere or Eyl immediately conjures up the ghost of “Black Hawk Down,” the episode in 1993 when clan militiamen in flip-flops killed 18 American soldiers.
Until America can get over that, and until the world can put Somalia together as a nation, another solution suggests itself: just steer clear — way clear, like 500 miles plus — of Somalia’s seas.
Piracy itself isn't necessarily considered terrorism, but you can see how terrorists might employ the concept to their own ends.
Actually, piracy is considered as a multiple crime, and more of a crime against humanity, by which interpretation a criminal trial could be held in any country that was victimized. But, first you have to catch the pirates and have some convincing evidence to verify the wrongs committed. That, is easier said than done!
It's odd that we sometimes glorify things like piracy, war and crime, and are so entertained by them. How many movies, TV shows or sensational magazines and books do you imagine are watched or read every year?
Ever watch an Errol Flynn movie, or Pirates of the Caribbean, or visited Disney World?
How many sports teams are called Pirates, Buccaneers and Raiders?
And, how many kids dress up as pirates at Halloween?
These subjects do make for exciting entertainment, but only because they usually aren't really happening to the viewer!
Include yourself in such activities and suddenly it ain't fun at all.
That is a place we are approaching now with the escalation of piracy that is impacting real life Americans and people like us, with names, families and healthy lives. Those situations aren't anywhere close to the video games we love to play, while pretending to be so brave. Most of us will never be anything like Indiana Jones or other imaginary heroes, even if we are thrust into situations that could use a real hero.
The frustrating thing about piracy, and some other things, too, is that they are really old news being recycled again, despite the fact that valuable lessons must have already been learned.
What are the root causes of this type of behavior?
Poverty? Lawlessness? Greed?
If one agrees with this list, then the antidotes seem pretty obvious, don't they?
But, they are not simple. They ultimately require that most people share the same values and are willing to insure others do the same.
I read an interesting report recently that analyzed the reasons that sway people to do the right thing -let's use protection of the environment for example:
Some are motivated by just wanting to do the 'right thing'; others are influenced by fear of reprisal and being punished for doing something that harms others; but, most seem to regulate their behaviors by observing what their neighbors and contemporaries do and emulating that!
Is that so surprising?
So, the secret is having family and neighbors who habitually 'do the right thing'.
Of course knowing the right thing does require a little effort, too.
Mainly, that effort seems to entail keen observation of what works -and doesn't- over time, and passing that learning on to others.
And, because intellectual honesty is pretty essential to any such endeavor, if one isn't into the truth they are more likely to fail.
------------
Back to piracy.
It ought to be severely frowned upon, internationally.
But, we've got work to do to achieve that, again.
A few ideas:
• civilized nations need to band together for their common defense. The US isn't -and can't be- the world's policeman!
• when pirates are confronted, they need to understand they can't bargain their way out of committing an international crime.
• centuries old wisdom of gathering ships into convoys for mutual protection needs to be re-instituted
• armed guards need to be readily available when necessary
• severe punishment of captured pirates needs to be a surety that is well advertised
• governments that sanction piracy need to be dealt with by the international community
• 'failed states', like Somalia where no effective government exists, cannot become safe havens for pirates
• shipping companies must be part of the long term solution, and not just pay ransoms that are passed along to their ultimate customers
• use of force may be justified at times, as long as the safety of innocent civilians is protected. of course, pirates are also civilians
Who will pull these ideas together, sell them to the international community and come up with an implementation plan?
Now, you may begin to have an idea of how big a deal this little problem may actually be.
In reality, piracy is just one small thread of the fabric of desirable international behavior, but it is an important thread that could unravel if we aren't careful.
One final thought:
Does it strike anyone as ironic that the Destroyer BAINBRIDGE was called upon to rescue the captain of the Maersk Alabama?
Maybe it ought to.
HINT: This Destroyer is the 5th to use that name, in honor of William Bainbridge, a hero of the War of 1812, who had been previously captured and held hostage by Barbary Pirates in 1800.
Check out this article I've reprinted:
------------------
Lessons From the Barbary Pirate Wars
Paul Farley/U.S. Navy — Reuters
The destroyer Bainbridge, now on rescue duty off Somalia.
Sound familiar?
Well, it’s not last week’s drama on the high seas we’re talking about, when Somali pirates attacked an American freighter in the Indian Ocean and took its captain hostage, then made off with him in a lifeboat.
We’re talking about the Barbary Wars, about 200 years ago, when pirates from the Barbary Coast (today’s Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya) hijacked European ships with impunity and ransomed back the crews.
“When I first read about the Somali pirates, I almost did a double take and turned to my wife at the breakfast table and said, ‘This is déjà vu,’ ” recalled Frank Lambert, a professor at Purdue who is an expert on the Barbary pirates.
Dr. Lambert explained how those brigands, like today’s Somalis, usually kept their hostages alive.
It wasn’t out of any enlightened sense of humanity. I
t was simply good business.
They only hanged captives from giant hooks or carved them into little pieces if they resisted.
The Barbary pirates used small wooden boats, often powered by slaves chained to the oars, to attack larger European ships.
They were crude but effective, like today’s Somali swashbucklers, who in November commandeered a 1,000-foot-long Saudi oil tanker from a dinghy in the Gulf of Aden, a vital shipping lane at the mouth of the Red Sea.
But the Barbary pirates’ bravado became their demise — something the Somalis might keep in mind.
The pirates’ way of doing business was described this way at the time: “When they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth, which usually struck such terror in the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.”
The quote is from Thomas Jefferson, then America’s ambassador to France, after he and John Adams, the envoy in London, got the description from Tripoli’s envoy to Britain in 1786.
And that underscores a key point. The Barbary pirates actually had an ambassador — who met with Jefferson and Adams, no less.
The pirates worked for a government.
The Barbary rulers commissioned them to rob and pillage and kidnap, and the rulers got a cut.
It was all official.
And open.
It was truly state-sponsored terrorism.
And the Western nations’ response was to pay “tribute,” a fancy word for blackmail.
If a country paid tribute, the 18th-century pirates would leave its ships alone.
Today, shipping companies fork over as much as $100 million in ransoms to the Somali pirates, a strategy that saves their cargoes but also attracts more underemployed Somali fishermen into the hijacking business.
The United States tried to play nice with the Barbary pirates and even inked a few treaties.
That language, too, has a striking ring.
The Barbary States were Muslim, as is Somalia.
And America stressed that this was not about God.
“The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” a 1796 treaty reads.
“It has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,” which is how Muslims was spelled back then.
Eventually, though, Americans felt humiliated paying off a bunch of knife-sucking thugs in blousy pants.
That’s what led to the Barbary Wars, first in 1801 when Jefferson became president, and again in 1815, when James Madison sent the United States Navy to shell the Barbary Coast.
The battles became the stuff of legend — “the shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Hymn — and were critical in developing the nation’s young Navy.
They also figured early in the naval career of one William Bainbridge, an officer who was sent to pay tribute to the dey of Algiers in 1800, was later captured during the war along with his ship, and went on to become a hero of the War of 1812.
Last week, in an irony probably lost on the Somalis, it was a destroyer named after him that the United States Navy sent rushing to help the skipper in the lifeboat.
The Barbary pirates were finally brought to their knees by their encounters with the Americans, and by the French invasion of Algiers in 1830.
Will this happen in Somalia?
Last week — even before a French effort to rescue a family in a separate hijacking ended with the death of one hostage — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged the world to “end the scourge of piracy.”
But Somali piracy is not an isolated problem.
It’s the latest symptom of what afflicts an utterly failed state — a free-for-all on land that has consumed the country since the central government imploded in 1991.
As any warlord there can tell you, the violence is almost always about cash.
“We just want the money” is their mantra.
If that sounds like the 1800s, it also invites talk of solving the problem the same way: pound the bravado out of the pirates by taking the battle to them where it hurts most — on shore.
But any effort to wipe out Somali pirate dens like Xarardheere or Eyl immediately conjures up the ghost of “Black Hawk Down,” the episode in 1993 when clan militiamen in flip-flops killed 18 American soldiers.
Until America can get over that, and until the world can put Somalia together as a nation, another solution suggests itself: just steer clear — way clear, like 500 miles plus — of Somalia’s seas.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Local Politics: One Tough Profession!
The Marine Corps used to have the motto 'A Few Good Men', that was pretty effective in both attracting recruits and inspiring 'esprit de corps'.
I wish there were more good men -and women- these days who would contribute more positively to our society and especially our civil debates.
It seems we have a gross surplus of those who are very diligent in examining with great detail [and sometimes imagination] what's wrong with our way of life, and then writing or otherwise verbalizing about it via Internet and other media or forums.
Don't you get tired of a steady diet of that?
I know I do.
What can be done to improve or change this habit, if anything?
Maybe this is what people prefer, but I don't think so.
All of us have lives that contain challenges, disappointments and failures, because that is just part of the human experience.
But, it's just PART of it, certainly not the whole thing!
How many would rather listen to or read something that is actually uplifting or encouraging.when they get home in the evening, rather than a steady diet of negativity?
I know I would, and suspect there are many, many others who feel the same way.
Lord knows, I've written my share of critical pieces over time, but that isn't my main or only reason for creating blogs.
There are so many issues, viewpoints and possibilities that an almost endless stream of writings is possible.
But, who would have the time or inclination to read them, much less write them?
The point is, we pick and choose our topics and the time and place of their publication based on whatever criteria seems important at the moment.
That's why I wonder if some folks haven't unconsciously developed a penchant for abject negativity, whether by nature or design.
I say that because lately I've noticed a preponderance of really negative, even mean spirited, writings [and comments] appearing on Internet websites.
This is not a shocking revelation, or even a surprising one, but it can get pretty deadening and discouraging I suppose if one were to take all the negative opinion too seriously for too long.
Most people probably won't let that happen to them; they just find something else to occupy their time and attention -at least for a while until tempted again to peek at local mudslinging, conjecture, advocacy for lost causes, or just political BS.
It's hard to put my finger on exactly which article(s) may have finally triggered me to write this piece, but likely its a feeling that's been building over time.
Some recent postings on NW Citizen, regarding Dan & Lisa McShane's political ambitions and prowess, did seem a bit over the edge to me.
Now, don't get me wrong; I'm not close friends with the McShanes, although I do happen to share many -probably most- of their core values, including preservation of the environment, our quality of life, and healthy and honest political campaigning in the greater public's interest, and the like.
All those things seem pretty important to me, and I suspect the McShanes and I agree on most of them, even though I did choose to strongly support other candidates in the last Mayoral race.
The two things that bug me the most about the NWC pieces were these:
• They seemed more like personal attacks -'hit' pieces - based past feelings and history than rational arguments rooted in current facts or issues that are in evidence.
• They followed a standard 'victim's' formula of just criticizing the 'status quo', rather than offering reasonable alternatives or volunteering anything that could be useful.
But, maybe that's just my opinion, but I don't think so.
Everyone has their favorite issues, personalities and peeves, but one observation I have made is that many of those with the most negatives to say about these things won't lift a finger to actually get involved themselves.
Anybody else notice that?
How convenient it must be to always be in the position to criticize others, without otherwise burdening themselves with the hard work of running for office -or actually serving- themselves!
Armchair quarterbacks?
They are a dime a dozen, maybe even cheaper around here!
Having aired this view, I do feel a little better, but realize expressing it may likely just extend these unproductive exchanges.
But, maybe not.
Who cares?
That is the way it is in this country, and thank goodness for that!
If this were Somalia, or some other lawless wasteland, we would not have the time, inclination or opportunity for such public expressions of opinion.
But, even America may have its limits for such negativity, as we are beginning to see reflected in the mass media and militant partisanship and factionalism on any number of fringe issues.
Some people just want their way without compromise of any sort.
Others just want 'others' to take care of the hard work of governing, without their support -with the exception of being able to complain anytime and for any reason.
Does that sound reasonable?
It ain't reasonable, but it is the American way!
I'm glad there are people like the McShanes who are willing to get involved in local politics in tangible ways.
Every community must have such people in order for our system to work as it was intended.
Show me a community without political activists, willing candidates for office, and supportive working groups, and I will show you a community that is truly missing out on the 'juice' of democracy.
True Democracy was never intended to be a spectator sport!
Let's get off our butts and elevate the discussion about how we can achieve a process of continuous improvement in our local politics.
That will take much more than carping, complaining and standing in the shadows.
If not the McShanes, who?
Think about it.
I wish there were more good men -and women- these days who would contribute more positively to our society and especially our civil debates.
It seems we have a gross surplus of those who are very diligent in examining with great detail [and sometimes imagination] what's wrong with our way of life, and then writing or otherwise verbalizing about it via Internet and other media or forums.
Don't you get tired of a steady diet of that?
I know I do.
What can be done to improve or change this habit, if anything?
Maybe this is what people prefer, but I don't think so.
All of us have lives that contain challenges, disappointments and failures, because that is just part of the human experience.
But, it's just PART of it, certainly not the whole thing!
How many would rather listen to or read something that is actually uplifting or encouraging.when they get home in the evening, rather than a steady diet of negativity?
I know I would, and suspect there are many, many others who feel the same way.
Lord knows, I've written my share of critical pieces over time, but that isn't my main or only reason for creating blogs.
There are so many issues, viewpoints and possibilities that an almost endless stream of writings is possible.
But, who would have the time or inclination to read them, much less write them?
The point is, we pick and choose our topics and the time and place of their publication based on whatever criteria seems important at the moment.
That's why I wonder if some folks haven't unconsciously developed a penchant for abject negativity, whether by nature or design.
I say that because lately I've noticed a preponderance of really negative, even mean spirited, writings [and comments] appearing on Internet websites.
This is not a shocking revelation, or even a surprising one, but it can get pretty deadening and discouraging I suppose if one were to take all the negative opinion too seriously for too long.
Most people probably won't let that happen to them; they just find something else to occupy their time and attention -at least for a while until tempted again to peek at local mudslinging, conjecture, advocacy for lost causes, or just political BS.
It's hard to put my finger on exactly which article(s) may have finally triggered me to write this piece, but likely its a feeling that's been building over time.
Some recent postings on NW Citizen, regarding Dan & Lisa McShane's political ambitions and prowess, did seem a bit over the edge to me.
Now, don't get me wrong; I'm not close friends with the McShanes, although I do happen to share many -probably most- of their core values, including preservation of the environment, our quality of life, and healthy and honest political campaigning in the greater public's interest, and the like.
All those things seem pretty important to me, and I suspect the McShanes and I agree on most of them, even though I did choose to strongly support other candidates in the last Mayoral race.
The two things that bug me the most about the NWC pieces were these:
• They seemed more like personal attacks -'hit' pieces - based past feelings and history than rational arguments rooted in current facts or issues that are in evidence.
• They followed a standard 'victim's' formula of just criticizing the 'status quo', rather than offering reasonable alternatives or volunteering anything that could be useful.
But, maybe that's just my opinion, but I don't think so.
Everyone has their favorite issues, personalities and peeves, but one observation I have made is that many of those with the most negatives to say about these things won't lift a finger to actually get involved themselves.
Anybody else notice that?
How convenient it must be to always be in the position to criticize others, without otherwise burdening themselves with the hard work of running for office -or actually serving- themselves!
Armchair quarterbacks?
They are a dime a dozen, maybe even cheaper around here!
Having aired this view, I do feel a little better, but realize expressing it may likely just extend these unproductive exchanges.
But, maybe not.
Who cares?
That is the way it is in this country, and thank goodness for that!
If this were Somalia, or some other lawless wasteland, we would not have the time, inclination or opportunity for such public expressions of opinion.
But, even America may have its limits for such negativity, as we are beginning to see reflected in the mass media and militant partisanship and factionalism on any number of fringe issues.
Some people just want their way without compromise of any sort.
Others just want 'others' to take care of the hard work of governing, without their support -with the exception of being able to complain anytime and for any reason.
Does that sound reasonable?
It ain't reasonable, but it is the American way!
I'm glad there are people like the McShanes who are willing to get involved in local politics in tangible ways.
Every community must have such people in order for our system to work as it was intended.
Show me a community without political activists, willing candidates for office, and supportive working groups, and I will show you a community that is truly missing out on the 'juice' of democracy.
True Democracy was never intended to be a spectator sport!
Let's get off our butts and elevate the discussion about how we can achieve a process of continuous improvement in our local politics.
That will take much more than carping, complaining and standing in the shadows.
If not the McShanes, who?
Think about it.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Whatcom County Planning: An Oxymoron
----------------
Today's headline announces: 'Bellingham moves ahead with King Mountain annexation despite county concerns.'
You know what?
The County needs to pay attention to its own business and stop trying to tell other jurisdictions what to do!
That is a very poor substitute for real planning, for which the County lacks both the talent AND the top-down commitment.
Yes, this is the same Whatcom County that has meddled for years in delaying the last Comp Plan update from being timely completed, yet STILL does not have its own information developed and adopted.
What is wrong with that picture?
The County's time has run out -on more than one occasion- for getting its own work done, yet it just applies for another extension instead of getting this work done.
The latest 5-month extension granted by the Growth Management Board has a 'firm' deadline of December 1, 2009.
Let's hope that deadline is firm, and that the GMB means what it says about withdrawing an array of state funds from counties that don't meet their legal commitments.
That seems to be the only language Whatcom County understands.
------------------
How many remember being treated to the spectacle of a County Planning Commission with an attitude, debating and delaying reaching any timely recommendation for the County Council, except their own opinion that the City of Bellingham already had enough land to accommodate its growth in the next 20 years?
Where is the data to back that up?
Historical records certainly do not show that, so where do these appointed -or anointed-amateurs get their information -from populist sentiment or just their own biases?
It's too bad the County Council was deprived of timely, well-considered and balanced information from the Planning Commission, because that is one thing that is needed to make an informed decision, and not just parrot demagoguery.
But, the County Council did eventually make a decision to grant the City some additional UGA land around King Mtn.
Guess which parcel?
The exact same one that is now being questioned!
What is going on with that?
Sorry, County, you don't get to backtrack on this matter.
Once an area is approved and accepted as being part of the UGA, the only way to undo those decisions is for BOTH parties to agree.
If the City does not agree to rescind this UGA, it is entitled to consider annexation proposals from property owners there.
That is what has happened, and what the City Council is inclined to accept -by a unanimous vote, yesterday.
---------------------
The one concept which the County seems to have the most trouble understanding is this: that the surest way the City has of ensuring the type of development and density that is built is by way of annexation, with urban village style developments being integral parts of annexation proposals.
Otherwise, all bets are off, and we may wait a long type to see wishful thinking -no matter how good- actually implemented.
That is what has been happening in the UGA up until now, with results that please neither jurisdiction.
Einstein defined insanity as continuing to do the same thing, while expecting different results.
But, it shouldn't take an Einstein to figure this out!
No, it is really very simple.
As long as the UGA is NOT annexed it remains County land, and subject to County rules and revenue collections.
That is the very method by which the County has over-collected revenues in the UGAs for years, then sticking the City with dealing with sub-standard or discontinuous development to fix at its expense when annexation eventually occurs.
That simply won't work any more, particularly if urban densities are desired.
The reason is that the City's policy has changed regarding extending water & sewer services outside City Limits, without annexation.
Did the County miss that little change?
I don't think so!
They just don't like it.
You see, that little change isn't so little, really.
That change means the annexed UGA becomes City land, not the County's jurisdiction.
It means City rules & regulations apply and the City collects revenues in order to provide urban levels of service.
I'll say it again; the County doesn't like this change in City policy.
Why?
Two things; loss of revenue and loss of control.
Get used to it County, because that's the way things will be done from now on [and the way we should have been doing things before].
The sooner the County understands that their whim is not the City's command the better.
Citizens need to know that this 'dispute' isn't about legalities, but about the County finally Having to face up to the reality of what real growth management means, at least in part.
It also means the County will need to constantly relinquish lands to Bellingham ad the other cities of Whatcom County to accommodate their urban levels of growth.
Inherently, this also means a diminishing revenue base.
And, it may finally serve to get attention from the County administration that it needs to raise its own taxes periodically, instead of stealing revenues from UGAs -and unincorporated areas- from building without annexation.
All one has to do is examine the County's record of growth management, or more accurately, non-management, to understand where sprawl has occurred most frequently.
If you guessed the 'unincorporated areas', you'd be correct!
BTW, that means all those areas that are characterized by farms, forests and open space, NOT cities.
Whatcom County needs to mind its own business better, and stop calling other jurisdictions to blame for every ill it can imagine.
What was the saying about the pot calling the kettle black?
------------------
Today's headline announces: 'Bellingham moves ahead with King Mountain annexation despite county concerns.'
You know what?
The County needs to pay attention to its own business and stop trying to tell other jurisdictions what to do!
That is a very poor substitute for real planning, for which the County lacks both the talent AND the top-down commitment.
Yes, this is the same Whatcom County that has meddled for years in delaying the last Comp Plan update from being timely completed, yet STILL does not have its own information developed and adopted.
What is wrong with that picture?
The County's time has run out -on more than one occasion- for getting its own work done, yet it just applies for another extension instead of getting this work done.
The latest 5-month extension granted by the Growth Management Board has a 'firm' deadline of December 1, 2009.
Let's hope that deadline is firm, and that the GMB means what it says about withdrawing an array of state funds from counties that don't meet their legal commitments.
That seems to be the only language Whatcom County understands.
------------------
How many remember being treated to the spectacle of a County Planning Commission with an attitude, debating and delaying reaching any timely recommendation for the County Council, except their own opinion that the City of Bellingham already had enough land to accommodate its growth in the next 20 years?
Where is the data to back that up?
Historical records certainly do not show that, so where do these appointed -or anointed-amateurs get their information -from populist sentiment or just their own biases?
It's too bad the County Council was deprived of timely, well-considered and balanced information from the Planning Commission, because that is one thing that is needed to make an informed decision, and not just parrot demagoguery.
But, the County Council did eventually make a decision to grant the City some additional UGA land around King Mtn.
Guess which parcel?
The exact same one that is now being questioned!
What is going on with that?
Sorry, County, you don't get to backtrack on this matter.
Once an area is approved and accepted as being part of the UGA, the only way to undo those decisions is for BOTH parties to agree.
If the City does not agree to rescind this UGA, it is entitled to consider annexation proposals from property owners there.
That is what has happened, and what the City Council is inclined to accept -by a unanimous vote, yesterday.
---------------------
The one concept which the County seems to have the most trouble understanding is this: that the surest way the City has of ensuring the type of development and density that is built is by way of annexation, with urban village style developments being integral parts of annexation proposals.
Otherwise, all bets are off, and we may wait a long type to see wishful thinking -no matter how good- actually implemented.
That is what has been happening in the UGA up until now, with results that please neither jurisdiction.
Einstein defined insanity as continuing to do the same thing, while expecting different results.
But, it shouldn't take an Einstein to figure this out!
No, it is really very simple.
As long as the UGA is NOT annexed it remains County land, and subject to County rules and revenue collections.
That is the very method by which the County has over-collected revenues in the UGAs for years, then sticking the City with dealing with sub-standard or discontinuous development to fix at its expense when annexation eventually occurs.
That simply won't work any more, particularly if urban densities are desired.
The reason is that the City's policy has changed regarding extending water & sewer services outside City Limits, without annexation.
Did the County miss that little change?
I don't think so!
They just don't like it.
You see, that little change isn't so little, really.
That change means the annexed UGA becomes City land, not the County's jurisdiction.
It means City rules & regulations apply and the City collects revenues in order to provide urban levels of service.
I'll say it again; the County doesn't like this change in City policy.
Why?
Two things; loss of revenue and loss of control.
Get used to it County, because that's the way things will be done from now on [and the way we should have been doing things before].
The sooner the County understands that their whim is not the City's command the better.
Citizens need to know that this 'dispute' isn't about legalities, but about the County finally Having to face up to the reality of what real growth management means, at least in part.
It also means the County will need to constantly relinquish lands to Bellingham ad the other cities of Whatcom County to accommodate their urban levels of growth.
Inherently, this also means a diminishing revenue base.
And, it may finally serve to get attention from the County administration that it needs to raise its own taxes periodically, instead of stealing revenues from UGAs -and unincorporated areas- from building without annexation.
All one has to do is examine the County's record of growth management, or more accurately, non-management, to understand where sprawl has occurred most frequently.
If you guessed the 'unincorporated areas', you'd be correct!
BTW, that means all those areas that are characterized by farms, forests and open space, NOT cities.
Whatcom County needs to mind its own business better, and stop calling other jurisdictions to blame for every ill it can imagine.
What was the saying about the pot calling the kettle black?
------------------
Sunday, April 12, 2009
T-Party or P-Party?
Reports of a planned 'TEA Party' on tax day -April 15- sound more like a political rally and fund raiser to me.
And, why not?
It's a political year, locally, and it follows a big political year in which Democrats swept the Presidency and both houses of congress, plus a few State governorships to boot.
When would be a better time to try and raise attention for contrarian views?
And, if a little money can be raised in the process, isn't that good for the economy?
But, the question has been raised, is this newsworthy?
Of course it is, at least the reporting of it.
Whether people will pay much attention to what's written and spoken is something else again.
Especially, considering the cast of local characters, who have so consistently failed in their attempts to win elections based upon clear patterns of misinformation foisted upon the public.
Let's consider why these folks think now is a time to complain about excessive taxes.
Of course, it is Federal income tax time, although Washington has no such counterpart -even though that idea would be much fairer than what we have now.
Locally, the County hasn't raised property taxes in -what- 14 years? That's despite a severe reduction in revenues due to sprawl construction being off its peak.
Of course, the County did raise additional flood taxes in order to actually accomplish some critical projects that had been 'approved' years ago, but languished because of inadequate funding.
I'm sure no responsible citizen would complain about something as essential as water quality -would they?
And, because the City decided NOT to raise its property taxes by the maximum allowed -1%- this year, surely that can't be the motivation for a T-Party -could it?
Also, with the severe budget problem brought about by the recession, the City has whacked its staff and services, so that can't be the reason for a T-Party either, could it?
One tip-off about a possible T-Party motivation was a fuzzy and unconvincing 'public initiative' idea floated by a former -unsuccessful- Mayoral candidate and radio personality.
That notion complained about local legislatures tendency to 'bank' annual 1% property tax increases until future needs occur.
Actually, that practice is one of the best ideas that local government has to protect itself from exactly the kind of economic situation we find ourselves in today.
So, what's the beef? Really!
I think I know what the 'beef' is, especially when the City's former Finance Director, Lynn Carpenter, is involved.
Her tactic is simply to mischaracterize things periodically when it suits her purposes.
Or, to simply create situations and their 'explanations' where none really exist, especially when complexity mitigates against clear and easy public understanding.
Fortunately, Ms Carpenter no longer serves in a publicly elected capacity, and no longer lives in the City.
But, in fairness, Carpenter does deserve credit for helping recruit her successor, Therese Holm, who served in real distinction for 8 years through 2007, setting the standard for excellence which the public should demand every year!
So, thanks for that, anyway, Lynn.
The point is, there is no rationale for holding this TEA-Party, or any of the 1800 or so planned nationwide, than to attract attention to register contrary opinion to the results of the last elections.
Of course, raising a few bucks by selling a few catchy phrases printed on partisan merchandise has to be part of the plan, as well as introducing a few 'trial balloon' candidates.
You see, the party who has fallen so badly out of power needs to try and reclaim its image, not to speak of its lost power.
That's the real nature of T-Parties, or as they ought to be called 'P-Parties'.
They are manufactured opportunities, pure and simple, and sometimes they do enjoy modest, if temporary success.
We'll see what our local April 15TEA-Party brings in terms of results or coverage.
One forecast is for rain, but that's not unusual around here, is it?
-----------------------
And, why not?
It's a political year, locally, and it follows a big political year in which Democrats swept the Presidency and both houses of congress, plus a few State governorships to boot.
When would be a better time to try and raise attention for contrarian views?
And, if a little money can be raised in the process, isn't that good for the economy?
But, the question has been raised, is this newsworthy?
Of course it is, at least the reporting of it.
Whether people will pay much attention to what's written and spoken is something else again.
Especially, considering the cast of local characters, who have so consistently failed in their attempts to win elections based upon clear patterns of misinformation foisted upon the public.
Let's consider why these folks think now is a time to complain about excessive taxes.
Of course, it is Federal income tax time, although Washington has no such counterpart -even though that idea would be much fairer than what we have now.
Locally, the County hasn't raised property taxes in -what- 14 years? That's despite a severe reduction in revenues due to sprawl construction being off its peak.
Of course, the County did raise additional flood taxes in order to actually accomplish some critical projects that had been 'approved' years ago, but languished because of inadequate funding.
I'm sure no responsible citizen would complain about something as essential as water quality -would they?
And, because the City decided NOT to raise its property taxes by the maximum allowed -1%- this year, surely that can't be the motivation for a T-Party -could it?
Also, with the severe budget problem brought about by the recession, the City has whacked its staff and services, so that can't be the reason for a T-Party either, could it?
One tip-off about a possible T-Party motivation was a fuzzy and unconvincing 'public initiative' idea floated by a former -unsuccessful- Mayoral candidate and radio personality.
That notion complained about local legislatures tendency to 'bank' annual 1% property tax increases until future needs occur.
Actually, that practice is one of the best ideas that local government has to protect itself from exactly the kind of economic situation we find ourselves in today.
So, what's the beef? Really!
I think I know what the 'beef' is, especially when the City's former Finance Director, Lynn Carpenter, is involved.
Her tactic is simply to mischaracterize things periodically when it suits her purposes.
Or, to simply create situations and their 'explanations' where none really exist, especially when complexity mitigates against clear and easy public understanding.
Fortunately, Ms Carpenter no longer serves in a publicly elected capacity, and no longer lives in the City.
But, in fairness, Carpenter does deserve credit for helping recruit her successor, Therese Holm, who served in real distinction for 8 years through 2007, setting the standard for excellence which the public should demand every year!
So, thanks for that, anyway, Lynn.
The point is, there is no rationale for holding this TEA-Party, or any of the 1800 or so planned nationwide, than to attract attention to register contrary opinion to the results of the last elections.
Of course, raising a few bucks by selling a few catchy phrases printed on partisan merchandise has to be part of the plan, as well as introducing a few 'trial balloon' candidates.
You see, the party who has fallen so badly out of power needs to try and reclaim its image, not to speak of its lost power.
That's the real nature of T-Parties, or as they ought to be called 'P-Parties'.
They are manufactured opportunities, pure and simple, and sometimes they do enjoy modest, if temporary success.
We'll see what our local April 15TEA-Party brings in terms of results or coverage.
One forecast is for rain, but that's not unusual around here, is it?
-----------------------
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer: Want Fries With That?
A few days before April Fool's Day the Herald ran an announcement about a decision made by the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District [formerly Water District 10/WD10] that it had decided to purchase the former site of BURGER ME! on Lakeway Drive to use as its administrative office.
Since the District's earlier idea of building a new $5 million admin palace had fallen far afoul of its customers, this new $1.4 million idea was expected to be viewed as preferable; whether it is remains to be seen.
But, with the District's history of denial about any accelerated degradation happening in our Reservoir, it's consistent undermining of effective mitigation by local jurisdictions, its refusal to bear any of these costs or pass them on to its customers, and its reluctance to meaningfully change any of its outdated procedures for accepting new customers, or for maintaining its facilities,
WD10 remains a distant, poor cousin in the family of citizens who are very concerned about the future health of Lake Whatcom, and the enormous costs of impacts that are not avoided.
As a junior special purpose district, WD10 seems only focused on its longstanding mission of business as usual, even though changes to Lake run-off patterns and quantities are certainly NOT USUAL.
That is a problem with such 'special purpose districts'; they think they are so special that they need not be guided by common sense and cooperation with other jurisdictions.
Just elect a few hacks as Commissioners, hire a manager that will do only as told, and stay on the good side of development interests and bargain-hunting customers. A pretty simple formula designed to deliver a simple result- even though circumstances often produce distinctively UN-simple conditions.
I do remember -vividly- the unholy war that WD10 waged when the Lake Whatcom Land Preservation surcharge was enacted by the City Council back in the year 2000! Why, one would think the world as we know it was coming to an end!
Now, a $5 per month water surcharge is a fairly steep charge, and one that can rightfully be termed as 'regressive' I suppose if one is more into philosophy.
But if collecting these funds and using them to good effect SAVES big money in future years, then what's the beef [more on this later]?
WD10's beef was they resented being 'taxed' by another jurisdiction, even the City - their main provider of water & sewer!
They also resented having their rates raised 50% more than the City, in direct proportion to their actual -contractual- costs.
When those new rates were made to stand, WD10 took the action to minimize the amount of drinking water purchased from the City and use their own production instead -a reasonable thing to do, and also one that did not use up the City's capacity prematurely.
It seems that many years ago, the City and WD10 signed Inter-local Agreements that specified the quantities of water and sewer the City would provide.
That was seen as a responsible thing to do, and one that makes sense both economically and in the interest of public health.
After all, it makes little sense to build separate facilities where single, larger ones are already in place.
And, in the case of sewage treatment, only the City has a discharge permit; WD10 being limited to septic systems which leak and fail with maddening frequency -right into our drinking water supply.
Is that smart?
When these Inter-local were conceived and first signed they were assumed to be in perpetuity, with use on demand.
In hindsight, this wasn't entirely a good idea, because it did not anticipate the type of changing conditions that have occurred, nor the escalating costs or need for smarter development practices.
But, these Inter-locals did give WD10 what it simply needed to do as a special purpose district; simply provide water and sewer to every customer who asked for it.
I haven't researched the Water District's customer statistics, but over the years they have likely attracted several thousand customers -all situated outside City limits.
The most recent estimates I've seen indicate that about 2500 new potential customers may eventually ask WD10 for water and sewer services, which they are seemingly bound to grant.
Hey, nothing wrong with new customers is there?
Isn't that how we pay for facilities and staff while keeping rates low?
After all, we've already got locks on a certain amount of City water and sewer services.
Now, back to 'what's the beef':
Does it strike anyone as ironic that WD10- with maybe a maximum of 2500 new potential customers- would pick a vacant former fast food joint as its admin headquarters?
One conjures MacDonald's signs that brag about 'over 99 Billion sold'.
Or, Burger King's 'have it your way'
Or, Wendy's 'Waaay better than fast food'.
Or, BURGER ME!'s infamous triple cheeseburger on a Krispy Kreme doughnut!
Think instant heart attack!
Wonder what kind of catchy hats or uniforms the WD10 admin people will wear?
More importantly, is this the way a responsible Water District spends its money?
On a drive-in site on a busy thoroughfare?
And, what message might they display on the big BURGER ME! sign that now advertises 'flavor of the week frozen custard?
Will WD10 try to hurry folks to buy their water and sewer services while they last?
What else are they selling?
Fries?
-------------
Since the District's earlier idea of building a new $5 million admin palace had fallen far afoul of its customers, this new $1.4 million idea was expected to be viewed as preferable; whether it is remains to be seen.
But, with the District's history of denial about any accelerated degradation happening in our Reservoir, it's consistent undermining of effective mitigation by local jurisdictions, its refusal to bear any of these costs or pass them on to its customers, and its reluctance to meaningfully change any of its outdated procedures for accepting new customers, or for maintaining its facilities,
WD10 remains a distant, poor cousin in the family of citizens who are very concerned about the future health of Lake Whatcom, and the enormous costs of impacts that are not avoided.
As a junior special purpose district, WD10 seems only focused on its longstanding mission of business as usual, even though changes to Lake run-off patterns and quantities are certainly NOT USUAL.
That is a problem with such 'special purpose districts'; they think they are so special that they need not be guided by common sense and cooperation with other jurisdictions.
Just elect a few hacks as Commissioners, hire a manager that will do only as told, and stay on the good side of development interests and bargain-hunting customers. A pretty simple formula designed to deliver a simple result- even though circumstances often produce distinctively UN-simple conditions.
I do remember -vividly- the unholy war that WD10 waged when the Lake Whatcom Land Preservation surcharge was enacted by the City Council back in the year 2000! Why, one would think the world as we know it was coming to an end!
Now, a $5 per month water surcharge is a fairly steep charge, and one that can rightfully be termed as 'regressive' I suppose if one is more into philosophy.
But if collecting these funds and using them to good effect SAVES big money in future years, then what's the beef [more on this later]?
WD10's beef was they resented being 'taxed' by another jurisdiction, even the City - their main provider of water & sewer!
They also resented having their rates raised 50% more than the City, in direct proportion to their actual -contractual- costs.
When those new rates were made to stand, WD10 took the action to minimize the amount of drinking water purchased from the City and use their own production instead -a reasonable thing to do, and also one that did not use up the City's capacity prematurely.
It seems that many years ago, the City and WD10 signed Inter-local Agreements that specified the quantities of water and sewer the City would provide.
That was seen as a responsible thing to do, and one that makes sense both economically and in the interest of public health.
After all, it makes little sense to build separate facilities where single, larger ones are already in place.
And, in the case of sewage treatment, only the City has a discharge permit; WD10 being limited to septic systems which leak and fail with maddening frequency -right into our drinking water supply.
Is that smart?
When these Inter-local were conceived and first signed they were assumed to be in perpetuity, with use on demand.
In hindsight, this wasn't entirely a good idea, because it did not anticipate the type of changing conditions that have occurred, nor the escalating costs or need for smarter development practices.
But, these Inter-locals did give WD10 what it simply needed to do as a special purpose district; simply provide water and sewer to every customer who asked for it.
I haven't researched the Water District's customer statistics, but over the years they have likely attracted several thousand customers -all situated outside City limits.
The most recent estimates I've seen indicate that about 2500 new potential customers may eventually ask WD10 for water and sewer services, which they are seemingly bound to grant.
Hey, nothing wrong with new customers is there?
Isn't that how we pay for facilities and staff while keeping rates low?
After all, we've already got locks on a certain amount of City water and sewer services.
Now, back to 'what's the beef':
Does it strike anyone as ironic that WD10- with maybe a maximum of 2500 new potential customers- would pick a vacant former fast food joint as its admin headquarters?
One conjures MacDonald's signs that brag about 'over 99 Billion sold'.
Or, Burger King's 'have it your way'
Or, Wendy's 'Waaay better than fast food'.
Or, BURGER ME!'s infamous triple cheeseburger on a Krispy Kreme doughnut!
Think instant heart attack!
Wonder what kind of catchy hats or uniforms the WD10 admin people will wear?
More importantly, is this the way a responsible Water District spends its money?
On a drive-in site on a busy thoroughfare?
And, what message might they display on the big BURGER ME! sign that now advertises 'flavor of the week frozen custard?
Will WD10 try to hurry folks to buy their water and sewer services while they last?
What else are they selling?
Fries?
-------------
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Picking The Top Teams
With the hundreds of teams, dozens of conferences and the multiplicity of opinions, it is nothing short of amazing how much agreement has been garnered on which teams are considered the favorites, and make up the so-called 'sweet sixteen' in the NCAA MEN'S BASKETBALL TOURNAMENT now in full swing.
While the winners and losers of individual games are difficult to pick with any consistency, the degree of agreement on which teams comprise this surviving field of 16 is quite remarkable.
Consider this;
After two elimination rounds of games, during which the field has been reduced from 64, all the teams remaining were initially seeded among the top four of their respective brackets, except for 2 teams.
That means the 'experts' were right in their selections 87.5% of the time!
The two exceptions were Purdue [a 5 seed which beat Washington, a 4 seed] and Arizona [a 12 seed which beat Cleveland State, a 13 seed, which had beaten another 4 seed, Wake Forest]
To be able to sort through all these teams and seed them that accurately is nothing short of amazing!
Of course, any further predictions are problematic at best, but remember last year? All four number 1 seeds made it to the Final Four! That could easily happen again this year, but who knows?
Today begins the next contests, as per below:
Midwest
1 U Louisville
12 ARIZONA
3 Kansas U
2 Michigan State U
West
1 CONNECTICUT
5 PURDUE
3 MISSOURI
2 MEMPHIS
East
1 PITTSBURGH
4 XAVIER
3 VILLANOVA
2 DUKE
South
1 U NORTH CAROLINA
4 GONZAGA
3 SYRACUSE
2 OKLAHOMA
Care to make any predictions?
---------
While the winners and losers of individual games are difficult to pick with any consistency, the degree of agreement on which teams comprise this surviving field of 16 is quite remarkable.
Consider this;
After two elimination rounds of games, during which the field has been reduced from 64, all the teams remaining were initially seeded among the top four of their respective brackets, except for 2 teams.
That means the 'experts' were right in their selections 87.5% of the time!
The two exceptions were Purdue [a 5 seed which beat Washington, a 4 seed] and Arizona [a 12 seed which beat Cleveland State, a 13 seed, which had beaten another 4 seed, Wake Forest]
To be able to sort through all these teams and seed them that accurately is nothing short of amazing!
Of course, any further predictions are problematic at best, but remember last year? All four number 1 seeds made it to the Final Four! That could easily happen again this year, but who knows?
Today begins the next contests, as per below:
Midwest
1 U Louisville
12 ARIZONA
3 Kansas U
2 Michigan State U
West
1 CONNECTICUT
5 PURDUE
3 MISSOURI
2 MEMPHIS
East
1 PITTSBURGH
4 XAVIER
3 VILLANOVA
2 DUKE
South
1 U NORTH CAROLINA
4 GONZAGA
3 SYRACUSE
2 OKLAHOMA
Care to make any predictions?
---------
Thursday, March 19, 2009
March Madness & Gladness
------------
It's that time of year again, when college basketball rules the airways.
I always look forward to this time, and this year's tourneys have already had their share of surprises.
Even with several obviously superior teams there has been a raft of upsets, which seems to mean some basic underlying parity.
Soon, we'll find out who survives the NCAA and NIT tournaments, and who gets the bragging rights for this year.
I've got my favorites, and it should be no surprise that the ACC is the apple of eye.
But, even if my teams don't win, there will be some good games, and that's the main point.
---------
But, March always has other significances, too.
It is the time that Spring begins its renewal process, bringing seasonal changes that are so important to this planet.
In like a Lion, out like a Lamb, as the saying goes -which isn't always true.
'Wild as a March Hare' is a term that fits most kids that aspire to being sports heroes, too.
They have a ton of desire and energy, but haven't quite mastered the control and discipline needed to become truly skilled and adept and valuable at sports.
----------
Beware the 'Ides of March'
Julius Caesar's bloody assassination on March 15, 44 B.C., forever marked March 15, or the Ides of March, as a day of infamy. It has fascinated scholars and writers ever since.
For ancient Romans living before that event, however, an ides was merely one of several common calendar terms used to mark monthly lunar events. The ides simply marked the appearance of the full moon.
-----------
My personal favorite date in March is the 17th - Saint Patrick's Day!
Aside from the wearin' of the green and good natured gaiety, it's just a fun time that millions of people like to share.
While my enjoyment of a wee drop of Guinness may be curtailed for a while, my memories do last -without filling.
At some level, I suspect the time around St Paddy's day also resonates for a deeper and more personal reason for me, and my son.
That is because we were both likely conceived about that time in our respective years of birth.
Not a bad way to associate this time of year with our very essence, is it?
-------------
It's that time of year again, when college basketball rules the airways.
I always look forward to this time, and this year's tourneys have already had their share of surprises.
Even with several obviously superior teams there has been a raft of upsets, which seems to mean some basic underlying parity.
Soon, we'll find out who survives the NCAA and NIT tournaments, and who gets the bragging rights for this year.
I've got my favorites, and it should be no surprise that the ACC is the apple of eye.
But, even if my teams don't win, there will be some good games, and that's the main point.
---------
But, March always has other significances, too.
It is the time that Spring begins its renewal process, bringing seasonal changes that are so important to this planet.
In like a Lion, out like a Lamb, as the saying goes -which isn't always true.
'Wild as a March Hare' is a term that fits most kids that aspire to being sports heroes, too.
They have a ton of desire and energy, but haven't quite mastered the control and discipline needed to become truly skilled and adept and valuable at sports.
----------
Beware the 'Ides of March'
Julius Caesar's bloody assassination on March 15, 44 B.C., forever marked March 15, or the Ides of March, as a day of infamy. It has fascinated scholars and writers ever since.
For ancient Romans living before that event, however, an ides was merely one of several common calendar terms used to mark monthly lunar events. The ides simply marked the appearance of the full moon.
-----------
My personal favorite date in March is the 17th - Saint Patrick's Day!
Aside from the wearin' of the green and good natured gaiety, it's just a fun time that millions of people like to share.
While my enjoyment of a wee drop of Guinness may be curtailed for a while, my memories do last -without filling.
At some level, I suspect the time around St Paddy's day also resonates for a deeper and more personal reason for me, and my son.
That is because we were both likely conceived about that time in our respective years of birth.
Not a bad way to associate this time of year with our very essence, is it?
-------------
Monday, March 9, 2009
Lake Whatcom: Reservoir or High Rent District?
-------------------
Remember when John McCain couldn't recall how many homes he -and/or his wife- owned?
Well, there are others like him who'd like to have home #3 -or higher- right here in Whatcom County.
Thanks to the County's incredible incompetence, these wealthy, seasonal imports will have an easier time finding the right spot to impress their friends.
Folks, a nightmare scenario is happening -at a quickening pace- before our eyes, assisted by the County's re-issuance of its so-called Environmental Impact Statement, which says it is of no consequence if a private road is gouged from the end of Academy upward, to serve 26 more mega homes, each surrounded by its own 20-acre forested woodpile.
At least, that is what we think we now know, thanks to Mr Kirsch's post at NW Citizen, and I doubt he has this wrong.
If this act of gross negligence and stupidity is allowed to stand, our Executive's powerful developer friends will benefit mightily from the precedent being set.
It's OK with the County if one buys forestry land, subdivides it, gouges roads, obtains water and sewer from a friendly water district -or worse, wells and septics, then pays the County enough baksheesh to be technically legal.
Is that really OK?
I don't think so!
And, many others don't think so either.
It's time we as citizens take some strong action on this matter, as well as the future planned degradations the County's power brokers may have in mind!
I think it's time to call in Legal Man, plus the Dept of Ecology and anyone else who can help reverse this terrible decision!
And, I will volunteer to help pay these costs, because folks fighting this kind of crap will require some bucks.
I'm reminded of Judas Iscariot, who received -what? 30 pieces of silver for betraying Christ.
Can you imagine a more crass act, committed at a time of such budget problems that the County would allow this to happen?
Can you visualize the Lake Whatcom watershed a few years hence, when almost all of Squalicum and Stewart Mountains -maybe even Galbrath- will be covered by mega homes, daisy-chained together by new, gouged new roads, traveled by SUVs, off-road vehicles and fun seekers trying out the County's new 8400-acre 'Park', which it can't pay for any other way?
And, there will probably be a few more planes, maybe helicopters, landing in the water or near it, too.
Hey, this is our drinking water supply!
Think these things will do anything to help us protect our municipal water supply?
If you do, there is a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
You know, no one begrudges folks making a legitimate buck or two, but this scheme really begs the question in my book.
It pits the most basic needs of people directly against the excessive greed of a few, in a way that is truly disgusting.
But, that's the way things are in a democracy, isn't it?
Unless there are clear rules and regulations -that are enforced -you can end up, well, with a Wall Street crash for gosh sakes!
Is that what's happening here?
If it is, let's fix it -and fast!
I invite the Dept of Ecology to fully review the County's EIS and the methodology utilized in rubber-stamping it.
If the bureaucrat responsible is correct in his assessment, I'll stand corrected.
But something really stinks about this!
And, the DOE does have a big dog in this fight, who's initials are TMDL!
I would like to see this potentially precedent-setting decision stopped in its tracks, using all means available.
Maybe actions are already being considered that I don't know about, in which case I applaud those initiatives.
Just let me know to whom I should write my check.
There aren't going to be many more chances as good as this one to take a firm stand on Lake Whatcom.
Fiddle around the edges all you want, but this one is a big one!
---------------------
Remember when John McCain couldn't recall how many homes he -and/or his wife- owned?
Well, there are others like him who'd like to have home #3 -or higher- right here in Whatcom County.
Thanks to the County's incredible incompetence, these wealthy, seasonal imports will have an easier time finding the right spot to impress their friends.
Folks, a nightmare scenario is happening -at a quickening pace- before our eyes, assisted by the County's re-issuance of its so-called Environmental Impact Statement, which says it is of no consequence if a private road is gouged from the end of Academy upward, to serve 26 more mega homes, each surrounded by its own 20-acre forested woodpile.
At least, that is what we think we now know, thanks to Mr Kirsch's post at NW Citizen, and I doubt he has this wrong.
If this act of gross negligence and stupidity is allowed to stand, our Executive's powerful developer friends will benefit mightily from the precedent being set.
It's OK with the County if one buys forestry land, subdivides it, gouges roads, obtains water and sewer from a friendly water district -or worse, wells and septics, then pays the County enough baksheesh to be technically legal.
Is that really OK?
I don't think so!
And, many others don't think so either.
It's time we as citizens take some strong action on this matter, as well as the future planned degradations the County's power brokers may have in mind!
I think it's time to call in Legal Man, plus the Dept of Ecology and anyone else who can help reverse this terrible decision!
And, I will volunteer to help pay these costs, because folks fighting this kind of crap will require some bucks.
I'm reminded of Judas Iscariot, who received -what? 30 pieces of silver for betraying Christ.
Can you imagine a more crass act, committed at a time of such budget problems that the County would allow this to happen?
Can you visualize the Lake Whatcom watershed a few years hence, when almost all of Squalicum and Stewart Mountains -maybe even Galbrath- will be covered by mega homes, daisy-chained together by new, gouged new roads, traveled by SUVs, off-road vehicles and fun seekers trying out the County's new 8400-acre 'Park', which it can't pay for any other way?
And, there will probably be a few more planes, maybe helicopters, landing in the water or near it, too.
Hey, this is our drinking water supply!
Think these things will do anything to help us protect our municipal water supply?
If you do, there is a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
You know, no one begrudges folks making a legitimate buck or two, but this scheme really begs the question in my book.
It pits the most basic needs of people directly against the excessive greed of a few, in a way that is truly disgusting.
But, that's the way things are in a democracy, isn't it?
Unless there are clear rules and regulations -that are enforced -you can end up, well, with a Wall Street crash for gosh sakes!
Is that what's happening here?
If it is, let's fix it -and fast!
I invite the Dept of Ecology to fully review the County's EIS and the methodology utilized in rubber-stamping it.
If the bureaucrat responsible is correct in his assessment, I'll stand corrected.
But something really stinks about this!
And, the DOE does have a big dog in this fight, who's initials are TMDL!
I would like to see this potentially precedent-setting decision stopped in its tracks, using all means available.
Maybe actions are already being considered that I don't know about, in which case I applaud those initiatives.
Just let me know to whom I should write my check.
There aren't going to be many more chances as good as this one to take a firm stand on Lake Whatcom.
Fiddle around the edges all you want, but this one is a big one!
---------------------
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Parks: Their Care & Feeding
------------------
Another worrisome article appeared in the papers recently, this one concerning our State parks and their viability.
Here's a partial quote:
I know our fiscal crisis is dire in the State of Washington, but wonder what long term effects will occur as a result of this proposed action.
Will the State permanently lose these parks, which were acquired and developed for the benefit of citizens?
I do understand pretty clearly the hierarchy of services priorities that responsible governments must sustain.
At the top of the list are matters of public safety, health and welfare.
Then, come the rest, including amenities such as parks.
----------------
Similar realities exist for other government entities, like Counties, Cities and other municipalities.
Which brings me to a point that ought to be of interest to folks here in Whatcom County.
Recently, the County decided to cease operating the historic Roeder Home , due to 'lack of funding'.
That decision has caused consternation among many who value maintaining worthwhile public amenities.
But, the lack of funds is something that everyone understands.
To date, the County seems to have done nothing to raise additional funds, as has been their habit for at least a dozen years -about the length of time our current Executive has exerted his particular brand of non-leadership.
Of greater concern is the fact that the County has requested the State Dept of Natural Resources [DNR] reconvey 8400 acres of timberlands in the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Watershed for the purpose of -get this- creating a County park!
As desirable as some may think this idea may be, consider this:
Under DNR, these lands were subject to more stringent management, and also produced some revenues to benefit various schools and other public trusts.
Under Whatcom County's management, this 'Park' would -like the Roeder Home- have no stable funding source!
This could be remedied, at least in part, if the County decided to create a Park District, or some other management entity that could also provide necessary funding.
Good luck on that happening!
Sorry to be so skeptical of what is undoubtedly a popular idea, but realities do tend to conflict with such things at times!
To date, I have heard no definitive, or convincing arguments that give me confidence in the County's ability to manage and maintain such a Park, even one that offers minimum activities and impacts.
Where is the plan?
If the State of Washington finds it necessary to rid itself of one-third of its Parks, how is it that little Whatcom County can decide to create such a huge Park around our municipal water supply, with no visible means of support?
That simply boggles my mind!
Maybe others can figure this one out.
Populism is good, but at some point it needs to pencil out, without the use of fast-talk and crayon art!
-----------------
Another worrisome article appeared in the papers recently, this one concerning our State parks and their viability.
Here's a partial quote:
People who went to a Parks and Recreation Commission meeting to protest plans to close 13 state parks heard the state may have to close or transfer as many as 40 parks.
State Parks Director Rex Derr told Thursday's meeting in Tumwater that agency has been asked to prepare for a 23 percent cut. The Olympian reports the news stunned people waiting to comment.
Washington has 121 state parks.
The state Parks Commission will make a final decision on closures after the Legislature passes the budget for the 2009-2011 period.
I know our fiscal crisis is dire in the State of Washington, but wonder what long term effects will occur as a result of this proposed action.
Will the State permanently lose these parks, which were acquired and developed for the benefit of citizens?
I do understand pretty clearly the hierarchy of services priorities that responsible governments must sustain.
At the top of the list are matters of public safety, health and welfare.
Then, come the rest, including amenities such as parks.
----------------
Similar realities exist for other government entities, like Counties, Cities and other municipalities.
Which brings me to a point that ought to be of interest to folks here in Whatcom County.
Recently, the County decided to cease operating the historic Roeder Home , due to 'lack of funding'.
That decision has caused consternation among many who value maintaining worthwhile public amenities.
But, the lack of funds is something that everyone understands.
To date, the County seems to have done nothing to raise additional funds, as has been their habit for at least a dozen years -about the length of time our current Executive has exerted his particular brand of non-leadership.
Of greater concern is the fact that the County has requested the State Dept of Natural Resources [DNR] reconvey 8400 acres of timberlands in the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Watershed for the purpose of -get this- creating a County park!
As desirable as some may think this idea may be, consider this:
Under DNR, these lands were subject to more stringent management, and also produced some revenues to benefit various schools and other public trusts.
Under Whatcom County's management, this 'Park' would -like the Roeder Home- have no stable funding source!
This could be remedied, at least in part, if the County decided to create a Park District, or some other management entity that could also provide necessary funding.
Good luck on that happening!
Sorry to be so skeptical of what is undoubtedly a popular idea, but realities do tend to conflict with such things at times!
To date, I have heard no definitive, or convincing arguments that give me confidence in the County's ability to manage and maintain such a Park, even one that offers minimum activities and impacts.
Where is the plan?
If the State of Washington finds it necessary to rid itself of one-third of its Parks, how is it that little Whatcom County can decide to create such a huge Park around our municipal water supply, with no visible means of support?
That simply boggles my mind!
Maybe others can figure this one out.
Populism is good, but at some point it needs to pencil out, without the use of fast-talk and crayon art!
-----------------
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Thinking Globally, Acting Locally: Part III
---------------
Previously, Parts I & II of this discussion have addressed the role of the City in helping create and sustain its own economic fortunes, and the mixed economics associated with development in the UGA areas.
This Part III deals with a real life scenario of a potentially large in-fill development that is being strongly resisted by nearby residents.
Harry Truman once said he preferred one-armed economists because they weren't so inclined to say 'on the one hand this, but on the other hand that'.
And so it is with other people who develop strong preferences without necessarily considering all the pros and cons of an issue.
Such seems to be the case with a group of citizens who want the area known as 'Chuckanut Ridge' acquired and retained at significant public expense as yet another south-side park.
A few years ago, the group which calls itself 'Responsible Development' hired a consultant to 'prove' their case, that the CR development would cost the City about $12 million if it were allowed to proceed.
This, the consultant dutifully tried to do, but unfortunately he did not use all of the facts that should have been used regarding the City's impact fee structure.
I know this was the case because I supplied this information to the consultant well before his report was prepared -at least so I thought!
The reason a 'cost' of $12 million was important to the RD folks was that they thought an outright buy-out of the property in question might cost less than that amount, thereby resulting in a 'bargain' for the City.
The problem was that the property was valued at a significantly higher sum, and there was no funding source available from the City at the time.
Also, there was the little matter of there being no willing seller!
But these points are incidental to what follows.
-------------
As we know, this CR debate continues even as the issuance of developer's Draft Environmental Impact Statement nears.
And, as we also know the RD opponents are certainly not above waging their own version of economic warfare to achieve their goals.
But, that's OK because it's not only a part of citizen's rights, but legal.
My main problem with that tactic is that it simply ignores the other side of the economic balance sheet.
So, that is the focus of this piece; the economics that benefit the City.
I don't pretend to be an expert at accounting or to have any inside information that is not available to those with a passing interest, so please forgive any sins of omission or commission I may have made, because these are certainly not intended.
CNN Anchor Campbell Brown has the right idea with the concept of 'no bias, no bull'.
I'll try to follow those principles.
-------------------------------
First, the cost of the 85 acres in question has been variably report at upwards of $16 million.
The property was originally about 100 acres, zoned for 1478 dwelling units, back in the early 1980's, a time apparently typified by dim record keeping.
A few years ago, about 15 of the original 100 acres was transferred as wetland buffers, now maintained by the City.
After an unsuccessful attempt or two at development by the former owner, the property was sold to the current owners, a local developer and a local bank.
Also, at some point, a voluntary down-zone was effected which reduced the number of theoretical dwelling units by half, to 739 total.
Whether or not the intent is to build that many homes isn't known, but for the sake of argument, let's say 739 is the number.
If one divides 739 by 85, the resulting density is about 8.7 homes per acre, a very respectable urban density, especially for Bellingham, especaally at a time when land supply is scarce and costs relatively high.
At such a density it makes little sense to expect that each home will occupy the exact square footage of ground, particularly buildable ground, because probably half of the property consists of wetlands and disconnected parcels that effectively render them unbuildable.
This means the likelihood of multi-story housing is pretty high, much higher than some might prefer.
That is regrettable, but it is quite legal and likely to become a reality.
Such is the way our society is intended to work, with the greater community interest usually prevailing.
If anywhere near 739 homes are ever built, this would most certainly happen over several years time, say maybe 10.
And if these homes were in fact constructed -at say, a cost of $200 k each- that would amount to a total local investment approaching $150 million, a not insignificant sum!
Just think about the ramifications of that kind of investment circulating in our local economy in terms of wages as well as goods and services from local businesses.
It's not the same as a big, faceless multi-national corporation coming to town, but it's close, and in some respects it may be better.
After all, the developer is a long time resident of Bellingham with a good reputation, who hires locally and buys locally.
Think those concepts don't fit in with sustainability?
And, the bank is also an established local business which provides local employment as well as financial services to many in our town and area.
Hey, isn't retaining and growing local businesses part of our stated goals as a community?
Tell me again, how much does this actually 'cost' the City?
I think that amount is far less than the $12 million 'guesstimated' by RD's consultant.
And, if it does turn out to 'cost' the City that much, the City will likely receive -over time- much more than that.
So, let's talk about about what revenues accrue to the City, shall we?
Think about that for a minute.
Surely, no serious person believes there aren't some tangible advantages to the City for such an in-fill to occur!
And, if not here at CR, where would these homes be located?
The County has not shown any interest in granting the City additional Urban Growth Area, have they?
[Ironically, a new UGA with a 'clean zoning slate' might be the best opportunity for the City to actually get the density it wants and needs to meet its GMA goals.]
-----------------
Here are some concepts for readers to consider:
1. Sales taxes -now in decline along with the economy- @8% times $200k per home times 73.9 homes per year equals about $1.2 million per year - for 10 years.
Hey, that's about $12 million in total over 10 years, isn't it?
[Note: these revenues are shared]
2. B&O taxes - these are not paid unless business is conducted.
Wonks can figure this positive impact out if they care, but it will be a significant positive number - probably in the hundreds of thousands.
3. All infrastructure and internal improvements to the development are 100% paid by the developer.
This includes streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, lights and the like, all required to meet City standards.
4. Part of the external improvements needed to support transportation needs, like arterial widening, turning improvements, signals, crossings and the like would be paid by the developer, as part of Transportation Impact Fees [TIF].
Typically, just over half these City costs are covered by TIFs. I
Of course, improvements to State highways and bridges are the responsibility of the State of Washington.
5. A portion of the costs for owning and maintaining the City's Parks & Trails system is recovered via Parks Impact Fees [PIF]
Typically, this is apportioned on the basis of dwelling units, which for a single family house would amount to over $4000.
739 homes times $4000 equals almost $3 million, potentially.
6. A portion of the costs for maintaing the Bellingham School District's capital facilities is recovered via School Impact Fees [SIF]
Typically, a single family house would pay just over $1000, totaling about $750 k to the BSD.
7. ALL of the costs for extending the City's water & sewer systems is recovered through System Development Charges and Connection fees, at developer's cost -which of course is passed along to the eventual homeowner.
This amounts to 100% of these costs, a fact that RDs consultant conveniently missed.
This is a very big number, which also benefits every existing homeowner because it spreads the burden of ownership over a broader base, without substantially increasing operating costs.
8. Surface & stormwater facilities are 100% paid by the developer, using City standards,and as approved by the City.
This is typically not an inconsequential cost, although it varies widely by site.
It also may be easier to design for a larger site like CR.
9. And, lest we forget, there is the matter of Property Taxes, which are now being paid by the owners at a rate commensurate with undeveloped property.
As development occurs and value is added, these taxes also rises in proportion to value.
If we assume the average value of each newly built home is about $300 k, then approximately $2000 property taxes each would due the City each year, after it was sold.
Thus, at full build out, about 739 homes times $2000 equals almost $1.5 million per year -every year- would accrue to the City.
This is certainly not an inconsequential amount!
[Note: these revenues are shared; over half goes to schools and higher education, 25% to the City, 14% to the County, 6% to the Port]
10. As homes are sold and resold Real Estate Excise Taxes [REET] are generated which accrue to the City to be used for capital projects as approved by the City Council. Two one-quarter percent taxes apply and are collected which typically total well over $1 million citywide each year.
11. Finally, the City will likely receive over 40 acres of the CR site as the result of wetlands determinations, there by adding -at no capital cost- important buffers to the development, as well as more open space.
No one should question the intrinsic value of such a dedication to the City, and to the environment.
12. A placeholder:
Those interested and/or so inclined can advise me what they think I've left out, or what ought to be estimated differently. I will review these comments and will make adjustments, where appropriate.
------------------
Even if only half the potential 739 dwelling units on this property ever get built, that would amount to a very significant new source of revenue for the City.
And, to the extent my guesstimated figures are off, I'm sure that they are directionally correct.
This is despite my drafting of this piece comes entirely from memory that only some direct experience in such matters can produce.
So, I invite readers to comment if they will, but more importantly, to examine the ASSET side of the ledger and not just the negatives that have been so loudly trumpeted.
Who knows, when exposed to both sides of this debate, maybe some folks may be persuaded this development isn't such a bad idea after all.
Time will tell what happens at CR, just as time will have to tell what it's added value will have on City revenues.
But, to deny a potentially very large additional revenue stream to the City, is to deny reality itself!
There comes a time that we need to actually walk our talk about effective growth management.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt....
--------------------
Previously, Parts I & II of this discussion have addressed the role of the City in helping create and sustain its own economic fortunes, and the mixed economics associated with development in the UGA areas.
This Part III deals with a real life scenario of a potentially large in-fill development that is being strongly resisted by nearby residents.
Harry Truman once said he preferred one-armed economists because they weren't so inclined to say 'on the one hand this, but on the other hand that'.
And so it is with other people who develop strong preferences without necessarily considering all the pros and cons of an issue.
Such seems to be the case with a group of citizens who want the area known as 'Chuckanut Ridge' acquired and retained at significant public expense as yet another south-side park.
A few years ago, the group which calls itself 'Responsible Development' hired a consultant to 'prove' their case, that the CR development would cost the City about $12 million if it were allowed to proceed.
This, the consultant dutifully tried to do, but unfortunately he did not use all of the facts that should have been used regarding the City's impact fee structure.
I know this was the case because I supplied this information to the consultant well before his report was prepared -at least so I thought!
The reason a 'cost' of $12 million was important to the RD folks was that they thought an outright buy-out of the property in question might cost less than that amount, thereby resulting in a 'bargain' for the City.
The problem was that the property was valued at a significantly higher sum, and there was no funding source available from the City at the time.
Also, there was the little matter of there being no willing seller!
But these points are incidental to what follows.
-------------
As we know, this CR debate continues even as the issuance of developer's Draft Environmental Impact Statement nears.
And, as we also know the RD opponents are certainly not above waging their own version of economic warfare to achieve their goals.
But, that's OK because it's not only a part of citizen's rights, but legal.
My main problem with that tactic is that it simply ignores the other side of the economic balance sheet.
So, that is the focus of this piece; the economics that benefit the City.
I don't pretend to be an expert at accounting or to have any inside information that is not available to those with a passing interest, so please forgive any sins of omission or commission I may have made, because these are certainly not intended.
CNN Anchor Campbell Brown has the right idea with the concept of 'no bias, no bull'.
I'll try to follow those principles.
-------------------------------
First, the cost of the 85 acres in question has been variably report at upwards of $16 million.
The property was originally about 100 acres, zoned for 1478 dwelling units, back in the early 1980's, a time apparently typified by dim record keeping.
A few years ago, about 15 of the original 100 acres was transferred as wetland buffers, now maintained by the City.
After an unsuccessful attempt or two at development by the former owner, the property was sold to the current owners, a local developer and a local bank.
Also, at some point, a voluntary down-zone was effected which reduced the number of theoretical dwelling units by half, to 739 total.
Whether or not the intent is to build that many homes isn't known, but for the sake of argument, let's say 739 is the number.
If one divides 739 by 85, the resulting density is about 8.7 homes per acre, a very respectable urban density, especially for Bellingham, especaally at a time when land supply is scarce and costs relatively high.
At such a density it makes little sense to expect that each home will occupy the exact square footage of ground, particularly buildable ground, because probably half of the property consists of wetlands and disconnected parcels that effectively render them unbuildable.
This means the likelihood of multi-story housing is pretty high, much higher than some might prefer.
That is regrettable, but it is quite legal and likely to become a reality.
Such is the way our society is intended to work, with the greater community interest usually prevailing.
If anywhere near 739 homes are ever built, this would most certainly happen over several years time, say maybe 10.
And if these homes were in fact constructed -at say, a cost of $200 k each- that would amount to a total local investment approaching $150 million, a not insignificant sum!
Just think about the ramifications of that kind of investment circulating in our local economy in terms of wages as well as goods and services from local businesses.
It's not the same as a big, faceless multi-national corporation coming to town, but it's close, and in some respects it may be better.
After all, the developer is a long time resident of Bellingham with a good reputation, who hires locally and buys locally.
Think those concepts don't fit in with sustainability?
And, the bank is also an established local business which provides local employment as well as financial services to many in our town and area.
Hey, isn't retaining and growing local businesses part of our stated goals as a community?
Tell me again, how much does this actually 'cost' the City?
I think that amount is far less than the $12 million 'guesstimated' by RD's consultant.
And, if it does turn out to 'cost' the City that much, the City will likely receive -over time- much more than that.
So, let's talk about about what revenues accrue to the City, shall we?
Think about that for a minute.
Surely, no serious person believes there aren't some tangible advantages to the City for such an in-fill to occur!
And, if not here at CR, where would these homes be located?
The County has not shown any interest in granting the City additional Urban Growth Area, have they?
[Ironically, a new UGA with a 'clean zoning slate' might be the best opportunity for the City to actually get the density it wants and needs to meet its GMA goals.]
-----------------
Here are some concepts for readers to consider:
1. Sales taxes -now in decline along with the economy- @8% times $200k per home times 73.9 homes per year equals about $1.2 million per year - for 10 years.
Hey, that's about $12 million in total over 10 years, isn't it?
[Note: these revenues are shared]
2. B&O taxes - these are not paid unless business is conducted.
Wonks can figure this positive impact out if they care, but it will be a significant positive number - probably in the hundreds of thousands.
3. All infrastructure and internal improvements to the development are 100% paid by the developer.
This includes streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, lights and the like, all required to meet City standards.
4. Part of the external improvements needed to support transportation needs, like arterial widening, turning improvements, signals, crossings and the like would be paid by the developer, as part of Transportation Impact Fees [TIF].
Typically, just over half these City costs are covered by TIFs. I
Of course, improvements to State highways and bridges are the responsibility of the State of Washington.
5. A portion of the costs for owning and maintaining the City's Parks & Trails system is recovered via Parks Impact Fees [PIF]
Typically, this is apportioned on the basis of dwelling units, which for a single family house would amount to over $4000.
739 homes times $4000 equals almost $3 million, potentially.
6. A portion of the costs for maintaing the Bellingham School District's capital facilities is recovered via School Impact Fees [SIF]
Typically, a single family house would pay just over $1000, totaling about $750 k to the BSD.
7. ALL of the costs for extending the City's water & sewer systems is recovered through System Development Charges and Connection fees, at developer's cost -which of course is passed along to the eventual homeowner.
This amounts to 100% of these costs, a fact that RDs consultant conveniently missed.
This is a very big number, which also benefits every existing homeowner because it spreads the burden of ownership over a broader base, without substantially increasing operating costs.
8. Surface & stormwater facilities are 100% paid by the developer, using City standards,and as approved by the City.
This is typically not an inconsequential cost, although it varies widely by site.
It also may be easier to design for a larger site like CR.
9. And, lest we forget, there is the matter of Property Taxes, which are now being paid by the owners at a rate commensurate with undeveloped property.
As development occurs and value is added, these taxes also rises in proportion to value.
If we assume the average value of each newly built home is about $300 k, then approximately $2000 property taxes each would due the City each year, after it was sold.
Thus, at full build out, about 739 homes times $2000 equals almost $1.5 million per year -every year- would accrue to the City.
This is certainly not an inconsequential amount!
[Note: these revenues are shared; over half goes to schools and higher education, 25% to the City, 14% to the County, 6% to the Port]
10. As homes are sold and resold Real Estate Excise Taxes [REET] are generated which accrue to the City to be used for capital projects as approved by the City Council. Two one-quarter percent taxes apply and are collected which typically total well over $1 million citywide each year.
11. Finally, the City will likely receive over 40 acres of the CR site as the result of wetlands determinations, there by adding -at no capital cost- important buffers to the development, as well as more open space.
No one should question the intrinsic value of such a dedication to the City, and to the environment.
12. A placeholder:
Those interested and/or so inclined can advise me what they think I've left out, or what ought to be estimated differently. I will review these comments and will make adjustments, where appropriate.
------------------
Even if only half the potential 739 dwelling units on this property ever get built, that would amount to a very significant new source of revenue for the City.
And, to the extent my guesstimated figures are off, I'm sure that they are directionally correct.
This is despite my drafting of this piece comes entirely from memory that only some direct experience in such matters can produce.
So, I invite readers to comment if they will, but more importantly, to examine the ASSET side of the ledger and not just the negatives that have been so loudly trumpeted.
Who knows, when exposed to both sides of this debate, maybe some folks may be persuaded this development isn't such a bad idea after all.
Time will tell what happens at CR, just as time will have to tell what it's added value will have on City revenues.
But, to deny a potentially very large additional revenue stream to the City, is to deny reality itself!
There comes a time that we need to actually walk our talk about effective growth management.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt....
--------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
