None other, of course, than the high priest of the almighty dollar himself, and his acolytes on the county council too dishonest or deluded to acknowledge the illusion at the heart of the creed.
Their two commandments seem to be thou shalt not tax and thou shalt not regulate. To understand the delusional nature of such a simplistic ideology, one has to consider the faith in the context of overall un-enlightenment, particularly the current disillusionment.
Following the financial disaster and the spectacle of the affluent most responsible for the situation being bailed-out, the rest of the citizenry was left to their own devices, forced to watch the resurrected bankers foreclose on their neighbors and wonder when the wolf would reach their door.
As the economy contracted business credit evaporated and bankers redirected their attention to safe and simple government borrowing as joblessness swelled to depression era levels.
For all of us emotionally invested in the great American illusion, rugged individualism, it was like being outed. No fooling ourselves anymore. We are anything but independent. We will hang together or hang separately.
Unfortunately, many lacking the capacity to deal with this reality, deep in denial, could only react in anger. Thus an exploitable political mood and a political movement to exploit this anger inducing disillusionment.
And those with the most to lose, if we hang together, have certainly proven adept at convincing many to believe again in an illusion, another fantasy, that we can and should return to some mythic era where, like lone rangers, we roamed free on the lost frontier.
Really, same as it ever was, again, it's those who would in fact be taxed or regulated who have convinced the people who'd benefit or be protected from the unregulated greed of a few that we will all be ensnared in any safety net.
And unsurprising, it's the least productive members of our political-economic system, the parasites of finance, insurance and real estate that live off labor and industry, the so called masters of the universe, who cry the loudest.
Locally, the usual suspects obscure the relationship between spending driven by the uncompensated costs of poorly regulated growth, the realistic expectations of the public for government services, and the shortfall in revenues and fees to provide the same. All this cloaked in cynical rhetoric, in affect suggesting we don't really need what we want, or want what we need.
Think about it. Don't be distracted by in-genuine slogans about "affordable housing" and protecting your "property rights." They're not worried about you, they're worried about themselves.
"Whatever the market will bear" is the rule to remember.
Impact fees cut into developers profits. Property taxes cut into what mortgage lenders can get out of you in interest payments. What you can afford is a function of your income. If they want to make homes more affordable, raise incomes.
No, they prefer to cut fees and cut taxes because it keeps their incomes up. If that means fewer firemen or policemen; fewer parks or fewer buses; so what. They can always hire private security, enjoy resorts wherever they choose and, hell, they wouldn't be caught dead on the bus anyway.
The bottom line for the bankers and developers is maximize their profit potential by passing off as much of the cost associated with their projects on the public while minimizing the likelihood of government getting between them and our money.
If you require realistic impact fees or require the purchase of development rights for upzones or subdivision you don't make houses more expensive, you make land less valuable. If you raise property taxes you ultimately lower the price of homes because mortgage lenders have to figure the tax burden into what you can afford, and sellers can't charge more than the market will bear.
But in the present political climate, in the midst of the great disillusionment, the rent seekers of finance and real estate are having a hey day with the poor fools who they've once again convinced that government is the problem. Chances of this council taxing the landed gentry are slim to none. And that is what impact fees, TDR programs and the like really mean: taxes and regulations.
No, the public will keep paying the price for growth and protecting the environment from the landed gentry. People who won't face up to this, and instead hide behind proposed schemes with a long history of failure, don't get it. Tax us or tax them. When you pass the buck, don't think we won't get it. We've been greenwashed before.
Believe me, Crawford, Nelson, Kremen and their cronies get it. I actually think the newbies are sufficiently clueless, like most of the public, they probably haven't connected the dots. It won't be till the bills come rolling in, and the revenues continue to fall short, that they might start to get it. Growth is taxing.
But it's sneaky. It's indirect and down the road. And often it's paid, not by straightforward levy on the public, but by similarly obscure and indirect costs that fall regressively on the politically weakest. Bus riders, school children, water drinkers; in the reduction or abandonment of services and safeties that make us a community.
So what if the libraries close? The country club's still open!
This county council won't tax or regulate the politically powerful who threaten Lake Whatcom. And forget the self serving recollections of past councilmembers. They had the chance to downzone in the watershed. They had the votes to protect the reservoir. They lacked the courage because they were afraid the powerful would run them out of office. Well, they got run out anyway.
The only way to protect our community, the lake, farmlands, forests and our water resources is to make it unambiguously clear: if you're not for it, you won't be elected or reelected.
Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us again, shame on us.
