The county council must think so. They happily pass out development rights like Rockefeller handing out dimes; but hide under the dais if anyone even says, "downzone."
Trouble is, they're not dimes, it's actually tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars. It will cost us millions. And it's just the same old game you saw, different in scale but not in kind, when cowardly politicians bailed out a small but influential minority on Wall Street and stuck it to the rest of us.
And while the price of this kind of planning will be paid in different ways by different folks, most of us will pay more in taxes, all of us will share the loss of those things that make this the place we live.
And pay we will. Most of these development rights will probably never turn into buildings or new residences. That's because the market will not, for a long long time, need new homes. But before we get there, we will be forced to comply with state law. And when that happens, all we will hear from the electeds who put property rights ahead of taxpayers interests is why we have to buy back these development rights.
Let me translate that for you. You will pay taxes to the people who got these development rights.
So, why are none of the council members (save Weimer) willing to stop the give-aways, particularly around the reservoir in the Lake Whatcom watershed where we're already hard up against laws that restrict growth? Why are they cooking the books to get around their mandate to preserve rural character and keep increasing the number of development rights taxpayers will someday have to swallow?
The newbies, of course, ran on some fantasy rural voters' property rights were under attack. (and of course the equally erroneous corollary, they should have the discretion to damage critical areas and pollute the public's lakes, streams and groundwater.)
The electorate took the bait, apparently unable to foresee the switch in store from paying taxes for government services to paying taxes to the folks financing these simple messengers.
Even Ken Mann, who fashions himself a protector of the environment, is compelled to coin rights for property owners rather than accept the implications of growth law, and let the chips fall where they will.
Perhaps fearing unpopularity with a few outspoken landowners, he prefers an unspoken, but erroneous, view of the legal doctrine on takings to rationalize the give away. It's like he's bought the "land grab" rhetoric himself.
Barbara Brenner continues to do what feels good even if, in the long run, it will hurt the average county taxpayer. She ignores the land speculators who will benefit from this eventual transfer of wealth, preferring to focus only on people she can give a hand. She seems unable to see the future costs to the rest of us.
And of course there's the gang of four: Knutzen, Kershner, Nelson and Crawford. Who we should thank for that majority is the subject of an article itself. Suffice to say the big players who will benefit most from the give away are pretty smug. Their $60,000 investment in the last election will pay off in spades. The gift Bob Kelly gave them was just a bonus.
Mann seems unhappy to be in the company of these folks, but he's the one who dedicated himself to giving their pals development rights in the watershed. Mann says, "the blunt instrument of a downzone is not one I am ready to take at this time. If the TDR program fails then we have other tools that can dedicate funds solely to purchasing development rights in the watershed…"
Translation: if the trasnfer of development rights program continues to be a failure because we won't force the people who drive development to play, then we will purchase development rights. The "other tools" here are the taxpayers. He might have said we have "other fools that can dedicate funds solely to purchasing development rights."
So, how might downzoning become a tool if the taxpayers are going to get stuck paying for these alleged rights first? If not now, when?
Now, having stood for property rights over the public interest in the watershed, poor Ken is swallowing hard as the gang of four re-write the rural element of the Comprehensive plan to vest even more rights, countywide, for the benefit of their patrons. Even Futurewise is afraid to challenge the "no regulation without compensation" gang.
The gang of four aren't conservative. Real conservatives, first and foremost, are about conserving our common wealth and maintaining traditional economic activities like forestry and farming. They're going to protect the historical character of our community; not cave in to a few people who can make a fast buck subdividing.
Real conservatives are offended by people buying influence, and manipulating policy to enrich themselves at the expense of taxpayers. Real conservatives understand what it means to make sacrifices, do the tough stuff, and be responsible to the future.
It seems, everywhere we look these days, someone wants to profit at the expense of the public. You don't have to look as far as Wall Street and Washington to find special interests with their hand in the public purse. And few we elect locally can articulate this reality to voters. Perhaps they're afraid to, given the effectiveness of special interests in subverting the discussion with slogans and scare tactics.
No, the gang of four are scoff-laws who delay and dissemble to allow special interests time to vest more and more alleged rights to a bailout from Whatcom county taxpayers.
The bottom line? Fiscal responsibility in Whatcom county requires ending the plans of landowners and developers to get around laws, intimidate public employees and elected representatives to profit in the short run while leaving us to pay for decades to come.
