Having realized the perception he's an unquestioning environmentalist played a big part in his losing the last mayoral election, Dan McShane kicked off his campaign for "leadership" of Whatcom County with some pretty interesting contortions to make voters believe he is really a conservative at heart.
There certainly are a few things that real conservatives might appreciate about Dan. He's always been a good family man. He and his wife have raised two great kids. And as a small businessman, Dan has faced the struggle of making revenues cover expenses, and met a few payrolls.
These are real accomplishments too many in government, and seekers of political office, don't understand. These life experiences can't be realized vicariously.
But the times do not favor the old Dan McShane. Even in the city, where environmentalism runs most rampant, and even before the full impact of a failing economy hit, Dan was rejected by a substantial majority of voters. In a county race, half the voters won't be too happy to see a city liberal. Hence a new image.
In announcing, Dan felt compelled to tell us, "my views on county finances were likely the most conservative on the council."
I'm sure Ward Nelson and Sam Crawford, who manned the Finance Committee with him, might have some colorful reactions to that.
But it's not clear how long his real constituency will tolerate the re-mastering of his image; or if moderates and conservatives, who didn't buy when he ran for mayor, will see it differently this time 'round.
More critical, how will Dan square his new conservative image with the far more liberal tastes of his inner circle, who put parks and aesthetics ahead of jobs and economics?
Dan goes on in his announcement to say, "With the County finances a lot tighter, I sense the community as well as the council will be much more willing to make the serious adjustments needed."
Then, in almost the same breath, Dan assures his real constituency he, "... decided to run because of the proposed Lake Whatcom Forest Reserve Park. This issue really requires having someone in a leadership position that understands the DNR and Forest Board Lands and timber management to make sure it is properly implemented."
So which is it? Is the community he comes from now willing to "make the serious adjustments needed," for instance tabling the whole park idea, to save the County some million dollars a year? Or do parks still trump jobs?
"Refreshed" as he is, does he now understand timber management enough to appreciate the threat this park he helped cook up represents to forest jobs? Hardly.
Writing just a few days earlier in the Bellingham Herald he showed he still believes in stopping all timber harvests on the county's forest board lands everywhere in the lake Whatcom watershed; probably still based on the rhetoric of his supporters who pushed the park originally.
If they could actually demonstrate a connection between forestry and water quality in Lake Whatcom that would be one thing. But all they've got is ideology and ideologues.
And as they destroy commercial forestry as a use for those forest lands, there will be no stopping their developer friends from rezoning in the forest. Which is consistent with his vote in favor of rezoning Galbraith Mtn.
How can Dan, in the next breath, claim he decided to run, "because it is clear the County needs to take a more aggressive position on economic development..." if he can not see the connection between his knee jerk opposition to forestry, and its impact on timber based industries that rely on there being sufficient commercial forest?
What's it to be? Does "economic development" to Dan mean returning to the failed engine of construction and development that's left us in the present predicament?
Dan expects us to believe, once back in office, he can and will, "get the whole agriculture issue out of being stalled." Sounds good. And he shares with us, "how little progress has been made on that issue."
Hardly a year off the Council, is he expressing disappointment in his lack of accomplishment in the eight years he was in office? And how would he preserve water for continued agriculture in the county without bringing himself, and the other council members, to address unremitting growth outside the cities.
Turning to his apologist tract in the May 15 , Herald again, where he asks the reader to consider a number of tough choices for protecting the watershed and the lake, conspicuously absent is a discussion of anything substantial the county could actually do, other than preventing new lots in those areas of the watershed they unfortunately designated for urban growth.
There are some suggestions of what Bellingham could do in the area of land acquisitions; but no suggestion how the county might use zoning to make the cost of that acquisition affordable to the city. Instead, the question is how much city residents should be charged to protect their water supply since the county won't.
What Dan doesn't talk about is simply barring more development in the watershed. The County Council would be completely within their discretion to direct the administration to change policy and quit accepting wells that intercept groundwater tributary to the lake as evidence of an adequate water supply for construction or subdivision.
The lake is, by law, closed to new withdrawals. How can you drill a well next to it and claim you aren't taking its water? Do you think Dan has the guts to back such strong action?
If he does, he's got to get over defending the lackluster performance of the county council and administration to date.
Hell, maybe Dan is a conservative. He doesn't want to talk about the really tough steps needed to stop sprawl in the watershed. He's supported residential development on Galbraith. Up-zone, subdivide and build! That's pretty much the local "conservative" line.
Trouble is that would make him one of those phony conservatives who keep trying to profit from influence over government policy. Is that why he runs?
Although Dan would suggest Sam Taylor believe he'd made an effort, "... to talk good people into running for local offices..." I bet listing those he encouraged to run for the District 1 County Council seat wouldn't require a pencil.
His strategy these past months to scare away challengers was very smart. His chance of election, running unopposed, are somewhat improved.
But he needn't move so far to the right to get support. Should he really prove to have moderated, and rethought his past positions, even his old face would be welcome as we struggle ahead.
It will be interesting, as he unwinds himself, to see who the "refreshed" Dan McShane really is.
