And so it goes with our freshmen (and women) on the county council who are unable to transcend the cliches currently popularized by so called conservatives: 'property rights, first and foremost' and 'taxes are a four letter word.'
The inherent contradiction that emerges when you put this complex philosophy into practice seems beyond our county council (save one) and something more than most the public understands. So lets unpack the paradox and see if they can get it.
A naive belief in unfettered discretion by property owners to make use of their property seems appealing until your neighbor gets the idea of collecting junk cars or rendering dead livestock in their backyard. It doesn't take much to appreciate that the need to protect another's property (and rights) is equally important.
None would take seriously a demand from a property owner that they be reimbursed for not being able to put a junk yard in your neighborhood; or for that matter, being stopped from dumping industrial waste in a lake or stream.
But last night six jokers on the county council refused to say no to developers hoping to clear the forests around Lake Whatcom, build as many new homes as they can squeeze in, and let the people of Bellingham deal with the consequences, irrespective of the city's right to clean water from the lake.
And what is their reasoning? They just, "hate down-zoning property without compensation."
It is always interesting to watch as people display their most heartfelt sympathies. It is instructive to learn, when push comes to shove, what their priorities are. This policy entails more than just choosing between the public interest, in this case Bellingham's right to clean water, and private interests' freedom to damage the lake.
For these so called conservatives it's about who will profit from policies, the public or the private interests; and who will pay.
The choice made by the council clearly will transfer benefits to a few at the expense of many. The future taxes, costs of water treatment and sickness will fall on the many, the developers will take their profits and move on to do it again, somewhere else where they can get pliable officials to see things their way.
In all candor, what do these folks think they are conserving? They are not defending the average citizen from an overreaching government trying to steal our "rights." They are not trying to protect us from future costs and the inevitable need to raise taxes and fees to cover them.
They are conserving the status quo in which the fortunate can become more fortunate before the less fortunate realize why they are unfortunate.
So what's the proverbial bottom line? In this instance, as in most, failure to adequately control growth will mean new and growing burdens for the bulk of us. It is not about "down-zoning" it's about protecting the public from the powerful.
But these jokers want you to cheer up. They won't regulate development where it damages the rights of others. You won't have to reimburse the victims. And if anyone tries to stop you, we'll make sure they have to pay you not to be victimized.
Get used to it. Good fortune for a few, tough luck for the rest.
If that program doesn't make you happy, why are you smiling?
