NorwestReview

Silence the Majority

2011-08-15T18:07:00.000-07:00

As time runs out to put the proposed Coal Terminal and its associated rail impacts on the ballot for a vote by Bellingham citizens, it appears, once again, Kelli Linville wants to silence the public, and just work something out with her friends.

Already throwing her prodigious political weight around, she has pressed her followers on the city council to keep a vote off the November ballot.

As she seems ready to successfully run out the clock, there appears little chance that her supporters will let this issue see the light of day.

Hoooooray for democracy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(to be continued)

Not Exactly Kelli Green !

2011-02-13T06:14:00.000-08:00

The desperation of a few to get even with Dan Pike is creating some sort of psycho ward for strange bedfellows.

The strangest of the bunch would be defenders of the environment, protectors of Lake Whatcom, and guardians of our resource lands who are trying to create some fictitious draft for Kelli Linville. What a hoot!

Still others, not Pike haters per se, would have her instead run for county executive in the hope, at long last, of ending the droning of His Mellifluousness.

Talk about "pick your poison." What is more laughable than replacing would be developer, Kremen, with Building Industry Association darling, Linville?

Even worse would be throwing out the mayor who stood up to the UGA scamers intent on Bellingham sprawling into the rural county; the one who leads an effort, more promising than just continuing to sleep with the enemy, aimed at stopping the wholesale rezoning, subdivision and build-out of the land around the city's water supply.

Well, certainly, first find someone at least passingly committed to controlling growth and protecting the environment; not another step and fetch it for the BIA.

Has it occurred to voters, especially those who understand the city's need to control development around the lake, when Linville represented so many local water drinkers, she didn't lift a finger to end the over appropriation of water in its watershed.

When Bellingham proposed to do just that, she stopped the effort with empty promises of action of her own.

Had she encouraged Ecology to enforce instream flows, she'd have, at the same time, stopped the ill managed development that has damaged the lake for decades now, while she and Kremen ducked the issue and happily collected contributions from the growth lobby.

Of course, what sense in expecting help from her. She was busy undermining the courts and helping the BIA loophole laws to get around their decisions and continue a vesting blitzkrieg statewide. The Municipal Water Law was only her most egregious effort on the BIA's behalf.

Let's not let a lack of water, the rights of existing water users, or the importance of current uses get in the way. We got land to subdivide, and lots to flip!

Why, you ask, would Linville carry their water? Just review her campaign contributions for the last few elections. She played a prominent role in the "roadkill caucus", the blueish dems in Olympia with a slightly different definition of "going green."

That propelled her up the committee ladder. The BIA doesn't just make contributions, they collect lots of favors when leadership jobs are decided.

You might also ask what is Linville's motivation for returning to public service. It could be a lot like Kremen's, a nice big pension to vest.

You can't, after seeing the fat on that hog up close and in person, not think about getting yourself a meal-ticket on the gravy train.

But Pete's already made his deal, gone full bore Republican, and has the developers behind him. Kelli's not going to shoulder him out of the way at that trough.

But those folks would be happy to get rid of the mayor now. Only reason they supported him last time was he weren't named McShane. Gotta make you chuckle though. They actually had a better deal with the other Dan!

One of the funnier things I've heard lately, was a remark attributed to Kelli grousing about voters and her recent fall from favor. She complained, after compromising her principles all these years, conservatives still picked a Republican over her.

Guess you could call that, the Blue-dog Blues!

But then, I thought principles were what you stood for even when it meant the goin' would be rough. If you don't stand up for 'em, maybe they're not really your principles.

So, there's the queen bee of local dems, and patron saint of the David Syre Memorial Wilderness, still lookin' to sting Pike.

Then you've got the bald Russian, still trying to foist off his development on the city and hoping to knock off the mayor and get into the UGA.

They're joined by the Fairhaven "progressives" who feel snubbed or disenchanted because the mayor hasn't sufficiently embraced them or adequately pursued their favorite causes.

And of course, there's the good ol' boys from the BIA.

Have I left anyone out? That's the Draft Linville for Mayor movement in a nutshell. As schizophrenic union as might be imagined.

I'm sure the BIA wants to push hard and save the 100 Acre Woods, start enviornmental remediation and keep more yachts off the waterfront. And certainly, they'll be opposed to sprawl, expanding UGAs, and impairing resource lands. Above all, they surely want to save the city's water supply from development!

Hell, the draft Linville crowd doesn't even really care if it's Linville. It's really anybody but Pike for them, and they're thinking Buchanan's just an also-ran. So, bye bye Barry. We ain't gonna let principles get in the way of beatin' the mayor.

Terrified at the prospects, you have the conservation voters desperately hoping to head-off the race. After the last elections, the election of the worst county council in memory, and faced with the return of Crawford and Kremen to continue their damage, the prospect of the developers taking over city hall is too much.

And I'll bet Pike's wondering, whatever possessed him to take a stand and piss these people off! Well sorry, Danny Boy, the goin's gonna be gettin rough.

A Seemingly Unseemly Side of Sam

2011-02-08T10:19:00.000-08:00

Sam Crawford's oft repeated pledge, to protect property owners from the egregious regulations of government, and his undying defense of property rights even where they offend the public interest, seem to have, if embarrassingly, put our fearless council leader front and center again.

And again, his Little Shop of Favors, Emerald Lake Consulting, appears to be where the rubber meets the road, in this instance, as usual, it's the vehicle for the constituent to pay Sam for his representation.

According to reports, a company inappropriately known as Standard Properties (inappropriate as it clearly appears they're really sub-standard properties) was just fined some $21,000 for myriad zoning infractions for property they owned and rented along the Guide Meridian. Still more fines and violations are expected as other locations belonging to the company, owned by one Murray D. Wood, are investigated.

County officers received a complaint about the property at the end of November and began their investigation shortly thereafter, finding a business operating out of a cargo container, and people living in illegal apartments that lacked windows and sufficient doors to allow them to escape a fire. These just some amongst a long list of other violations.

One might say Wood was something of a "slumlord."

Being so discovered apparently prompted Wood to seek legal help; and, it seems that took him to Sam Crawford and Belcher-Swanson. (not necessarily in that order)

Nonetheless, and notwithstanding such savvy advisors, the fines did roll.

How many readers think it was our council chairman, Crawford, who advised the Health Department of the sewage that was surfacing there?

You have to wonder how Mr. Wood discovered Sam's quiet little consultancy? Was it Sam's confederate, Jack Swanson, as Wood's attorney, who advised of Crawford's usefulness? Curious. Did Sam introduce Wood to Jack, or did Jack introduce Wood to Sam?

I don't think Wood introduced Sam to Jack. They know each other pretty well!

According to Crawford, he hasn't interceded directly with Planning & Development Services on Wood's behalf. That's reassuring. Seems Sam has become sensitive to these conflicts of interest and may stop abusing the planning department staff for free help, and consideration for his clients.

It's been months now since Crawford offered to disclose the financial dealings of Emerald Lake Consultants. Months with nary a whisper of information. But, we see, it's still business as usual for Sam and his pals.

Rest assured fellow citizens, surely our ever attentive county prosecutor must be more than a little uncomfortable with such a system and its potential for abuse. He must be quietly investigating these matters and will certainly be subpoenaing Emerald Lake Consultants' bank records to assure us no graft's being practiced here. Sure he is!

But local conservatives must be very proud of their man Sam, who clearly seems the unwavering defender of property rights and property owners ... no matter how unseemly.

Red Light, Green Light, Mean Light Tween Lights

2011-02-06T10:38:00.000-08:00

The city's plan to introduce surveillance cameras in Bellingham intersections has met with strong, bipartisan opposition.

And so it should. It is a sorry reminder of the changing times, where the public is looked upon as a mere revenue source and special interests use government to extract undeserved profits from the governed.

The cynical part is the cover story, this is about safety, when ample alternatives avail themselves for that purpose, but none, perhaps, with the added revenue kicker for the city and its partners.

Intersections would be safer, and fewer side impact collisions would be likely, if the city merely further delayed the interval between red lights and green lights. Rather than one light turning green at the end of the yellow, wait longer, even after the light is red one direction, before turning it green for traffic coming from the other.

But, I know, few tickets would be issued in that scenario. The fact is this is really all about revenue, the city's and their partners.

And what wonderful partners they have chosen. American Traffic Solutions is an Arizona based corporation touting themselves as providers of traffic safety equipment. Perhaps attracted by that concern for the public, in 2008, Goldman Sachs invested heavily in the company and helped take it national; certainly in an honest effort to bring innovative safety measures to every American. That's the philosophy at Goldman Sachs.

Citizens of Bellingham, and passers through, foolish enough to frequent a downtown already plagued by the parking gestapo, will surely be pleased to contribute to the financially beleaguered masters of the universe while simultaneously paying into the police guild who will, ostensibly, have one of their own watching the cameras over coffee and donuts, and deciding if you should make a contribution to their retirement fund.

How any politician with a lick of sense would want to take ownership of such a scheme defies explanation. Perhaps it's just their being possessed by such nonsense that makes it easy for the pitchmen for the Goldman Sachs' franchise to get at the public.

But the push-back from all shades on the political spectrum, from liberals to libertarians and from Republicans and Democrats alike, has come quickly. An initiative to remove the devices is well on its way to certification. And a bipartisan bill has been filed in the legislature to keep the scam from spreading across the state.

But Bellingham's mayor, with plenty of support from the city council, pushes on. They can't seem to get the smell of money out of their noses.

For a guy I once thought had pretty good political instincts, Pike has really lost it on this one; and in an election year nonetheless. How he thinks he will win friends snatching their wallets is beyond me.

Characterizing every distracted mother misjudging intersection timing as scofflaws and public enemies is not the road to reelection.

If the mayor and the council come to their senses they'll run away from this Orwellian nightmare post-haste; at least not implement the program until some formal public support was shown for the same.

If Pike can convince the voters that this is the only way to ensure their safety, and their safety is more important than protecting them from such intrusion by Big Brother; god bless 'em!

Perhaps Franklin said it best, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Bellingham's Waterlooloo

2011-01-30T08:07:00.000-08:00

Let them drink Coke!

It seems city politics has gotten in the way of protecting Lake Whatcom, Bellingham's water supply.

The mayor's political opponents, old and new, have, since his election, discounted and criticized most every effort he's made to curb development in the reservoir's watershed, in the hope, apparently, that denying him success, by frustrating and trivializing his efforts, just might help deny him reelection.

One of the generals in this little war apparently turns out to be City Council chairman Stan Snapp.

Recently, when the mayor announced Bellingham finally petitioned Ecology to close the lands around the lake to new water withdrawals, as a consequence forestalling any further build out there, Snapp's public reaction was strange.

With feint praise he applauded the mayor for taking this step, but went on, ingenuously, lamenting the confrontation with the county, and criticizing the lack of transparent public process.

The fact seems to be the council chairman, a devoted supporter of the loser in the last mayoral election and de facto campaign consultant to the mayor's current opponent, just can't stand Pike getting even a little credit for trying to protect the lake.

Given this great concern for "public" process, then explain the secret council session where Snapp recently led the opposition to Bellingham appealing the Whatcom County Hearing Examiner decision to allow new roads in the watershed on Squalicum Mountain.

Vineyard Development wants to put a road up from Academy to the site of their project. Keep in mind, in the fall of 2005, county executive Kremen cleverly got the Whatcom county council to approve an agreement that allows Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District to run water and other utilities along any roads within its boundaries; and even beyond its boundaries if the roads originate within the district boundaries or abut such a road.

Hello, so it seems the water district would be pre-approved to run water lines up to Vineyard Development, and maybe even beyond to Kremen's property if someone would just put in a road for him.

And of course we already know, in Kremen County, water lines capable of delivering service to development at the same scale we find in the city are "rural levels of service."

Screw the GMA! We got land to develop.

Bellingham opposed creation of the road. The city was faced with the usual preliminary skirmishes county ordinances put in the way of bringing their land use decisions to court; the county Hearing Examiner (sort of a running joke in legal circles) and the further delay of an appeal of his rubber stamping developers' plans to that esteemed body of legal experts, the Whatcom County Council.

It goes without further discussion, you must go through these delaying steps to get to a court where real laws are applied by real judges. And Bellingham, as would be expected, was rebuffed by the Hearing Examiner.

But now it seems Bellingham will simply give up, back down, and watch the road go forward, the water lines go in, and allow the water district to continue its expansion along Northshore Drive and up Squalicum Mtn. The city's right to appeal will quietly be allowed to lapse.

So, if, as it should be, the city's petition to Ecology prompts the state to follow the law, or if subsequently the courts reverse Ecology, should they decline to follow the law on their own, Vineyard development will have the water to build. A ban on new wells will not stop LWW&SD without a huge legal battle; the kind of battle the city council seems unwilling to fight.

Hey boys. Can't you find enough in Pike's record to defeat him without sacrificing Lake Whatcom?

So who are the other heroes on the city council too cheap to fight on? The vote's a secret. That's understandable. What a loo-loo.

Extra credit reading:
http://www.nwcitizen.com/entry/the-significance-of-insignificance
http://www.nwcitizen.com/entry/2008/06

No New Taxes ??

2010-11-23T06:00:00.000-08:00

When Mr. Barnum pointed out, “there's a sucker born every minute … and two to take 'em!” could he possibly have foreseen the future relationship between taxpayers and the folks who govern them?

The tax paying public sure is doing their part. And here in Whatcom county, Pete Kremen and Sam Crawford make something of a gruesome twosome.

Particularly entertaining is the legerdemain our pals employ as they trot out the latest budget fiction with its oft lauded tax neutrality.

Having been exposed in their earlier attempt to punish Bellingham while keeping a lid on taxes in the development zone, the latest ploy appears to be a particularly cynical game of rob Peter to pay Paul. Peter being the funds set aside specifically to protect agricultural lands and fund remedial water projects. Paul, of course, being the insatiable beast they created with decades of poor planning and sprawling growth that now sucks unrelenting at county revenues.

I say “cynical” because when the public voted to create a conservation futures fund they weren't told it would also be a slush fund to save developers from paying the costs their projects caused the county. “Cynical” because just last year the county council's neo-cons nearly busted their soap boxes in their fervor to decry tax increases not approved by voters. What a difference a year makes!

And “cynical” because in opposition to the program to raise taxes to fund water remediation and flood control efforts (opposed by Kremen), Crawford called the taxes unfair to county residents. He, and his, swore they would repeal the tax and the program; apparently in the belief that the Lake would cure itself, and we'd seen the end of floods.

Now there is no discussion of repealing the tax. Now it's just gut the program and use the tax revenue to pave for their constituents. No, not you voters; the people who get them elected and reelected.

When you go to the grocery store, and you pick up a box of cereal, shake it and notice that it's no longer full, does it bother you that the price for 13 ounces is the same as 16 ounces used to be? Would you say the price of cereal has gone up, or there's no increase in cost?

Same game with taxes and the budget: fewer services same taxes. So who's hiding the little pea?

When will they get honest about the structural problem in the county budget and take responsibility for putting us in this pickle? Is it lost on the public that their taxes don't buy them services but are just a transfer to the people who finance elections around here?

Pretty soon you'll be wonderin' if the box is half empty, or half full.

Wake up suckers!

The Campaign Against Jean Melious

2010-10-18T08:39:00.000-07:00

The campaign to prevent Jean Melious's election to the county council is a curious one. But it's right out of the current right-wing TEA Party play book.

Sound bites, talking points and repeat the stuff until enough fools believe it. Keep 'em angry. Keep 'em afraid. Keep 'em looking the other way.

In public venues, her opponent prattles on about much he doesn't understand. And he can, with a straight face, tell workers Melious wants to shut down their plants. He can tell rural voters she's after their property. That he doesn't know anything and his allegations are untrue doesn't matter. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

A lack luster, run of the mill alternative for sure, he employs surrogates from the ridiculous right to condemn Melious with feint praise and continue a coded attack on her qualifications.

Characteristic of the cynical effort by the right to tap a too common weakness in the electorate, hard earned achievement is twisted into a liability.

Melious, who as a country girl managed to win admission and graduate from a prestigious university (without being a legacy student or child of some Wall Street aristocrat), is characterized as being a member of some evil elite.

In addition to all the responsibilities of a parent, Melious, a highly qualified lawyer with all the associated earning power, gives her time to teach at our local university. This makes her an enemy of real people?

If there is one area in which the Whatcom county council has long demonstrated ignorance: zoning, growth management, and the requirements of planning; Melious is an expert. This, of course, is the last thing the landed gentry wants to see added to the public process.

They are completely satisfied with the lame representation provided by their boy McEachran's staff. They have ample access, thank you, through their own attorneys, who are all on Sam Crawford's speed dial.

Why would they want a legal expert who might challenge their self serving interpretation (abuse) of the law?

So, the story becomes: she's biased towards planning and the environment. Ignore her record as a moderate planning commissioner, they don't want an independent, moderate vote when they come for a handout, they need a rubber stamp.

But hey, wouldn't it be great to have someone on the council who knew enough to keep us from making these stupid policies we pay so much to defend, unsuccessfully?

A favorite smear on Melious has been to suggest she came up with the idea of impact fees on development, and that's what makes housing so expensive.

This is all part of a self serving effort by some builders and land speculators to avoid paying their own way, and pass the expense off on the public. Like the developers would ever charge less than the market will bear. Right!

Of course, her opponent is convinced planning and regulation of such self interests is the reason for the economic morass we find ourselves in; sure!

Her opponent has fumbled this one for a long time. There's his stupid theory how the government caused the financial meltdown; with the help of those despicable minorities.

And then there's his fantasies about county government delaying permitting and, forbid, following state and federal laws. And the illusions of his supporters that he's an "economist" and a "business man." Just the right prescription for what ails us. He'll bring jobs back to Whatcom county.

Please, spare me! If he could, why hasn't he? Has he been holding out on us? As a business man, he couldn't even get to second base. And he owned the baseball team! Briefly.

The problem for Melious, her expertise won't allow her to make such silly statements. Meanwhile her opponent can blather on, mislead, and when he can't deliver, blame government. How convenient!

Oh yeah, there's the other usual fare: she wasn't born here; she lives in Bellingham. Need a reason to dislike this woman? We got something for you. How about this, she's smarter, more successful, and has worked harder than you. She didn't earn it, she's an elitist. You gotta hate her!

If you've read this far, you probably wouldn't be opposed to seeing Melious on the county council. Candidly, if she isn't elected, the consequences are truly dire. You need to cast your vote, for sure. But you also need to take the time, and go to the trouble, to make sure others do the same.

It matters!

TEA is for Tony ?

2010-10-10T10:00:00.000-07:00

The country's been witness to quite a display of new-politic this season. Most entertaining has been the spectacle of the Repugnantones, attempting to embrace the enthusiasm of a group of newcomers, frankly, not quite ready for prime time.

The Dumocrats have been spared a similar agony, largely because their franchise has wasted any opportunity to continue sloganeering for "change you can believe in."

Evidently more interested in keeping favor with corporate contributors, they pissed away an opportunity to reach a super-majority when they ignored the hope of 70% of the electorate to establish a public alternative to the health care monopoly.

Not content to just disappoint the electorate once, the Ds then flubbed financial reform. But hey, they're leading in campaign contributions!

Not to be outdone in political incompetence, dusting off their tuxes to celebrate retaking congress, the Rs, Bush-whacked in the last election, have been tripped up by wackos right out of an open call from Comedy Central casting.

So far, all the infant TEA Party has demonstrated is an infantile inability to vet candidates. In a galaxy of dim lights, they've offered the likes of Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell.

Angle is famous for her remark, "...you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment (the right to bear arms) remedies." And added, "my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”

And of course we all know about Christine (I'm not a witch anymore) O'Donnell. "Well, I don’t think that the Obama administration knows what’s Jesus's, what belongs to Jesus, and what belongs to them. That’s my big gripe. Apparently, he doesn’t know. But then, that’s because he’s not a Christian. He’s Muslim,”

“It’s a proven fact he’s Muslim. He wasn’t born in this country. He was born in Kenya. There are people who know it, people who know where the birth certificate is. It’s locked up and our government can’t get a hold of it. He’s a illegitimate president, in my estimation.”

Well there's two for TEA, and TEA for two, really well grounded and ready to lead. But there's more. Rand Paul, Carl Paladino, the list goes on.

Locally, they would have us install a similarly qualified, untested new-comer, Tony Larson, on the county council. Larson's basically a cheerleader for the development community ready to keep sticking taxpayers with the costs of growth created by his backers.

The funny thing is, once Larson beat the Republican candidate, Theresa Sygitowicz, in the primary, he has tried to distance himself from his TEA Party supporters; even declining their invitation to participate in the TEA Party forum related to his race.

Like the other TEA Party candidates though, Larson spins out some doozies when he gets loose of his handlers. He stepped in it recently with a wild claim that the county was holding up a project at the BP refinery; only to have BP dismiss his claim out of hand.

But my favorite "Larsony" was his explanation of the financial crisis and housing bubble being the work of government, abetted by minorities. Those poor bankers, scammed by a bunch of clever black and Hispanic families out to get loans they couldn't afford.

No, at this point, the TEA Party has provided comics an embarrassment of riches. But fortunately, there is the secret ballot. No one will know you were stupid enough to vote for one of these goofballs.

To steal a line from P.J. O'Rourke, commenting on the Rs step-children from the right, "we hate government, just look at the candidates we've chosen."

In the bigger picture however, the TEA Party will mature. They will produce candidates who can stand up better to scrutiny and leave the air clear for a debate of their ideas. On another level, this is perhaps the welcome beginning of the disintegration of a two party system that has been thoroughly corrupted.

At no time since the turn of the 20th century has there been such an opening for populism; a reaction to rule by elites. Identifying the elites is a trick the TEA Party's yet to learn.

Jefferson's Republicans were populists opposed to the policies of elites in post-revolution America. His vice-president actually shot and killed Alexander Hamilton, former Secretary of the Treasury and a representative of Rothschild's Bank of England in the US.

How do you like them apples, Sharon? Now that's what I call financial reform.

The Economics of Environmental Destruction; False Choices

2010-10-07T08:00:00.000-07:00

Tony Larson says he feels like an environmentalist because he enjoys hiking and the natural world.

"But (he says) we've been given this choice: either we preserve and protect the environment or we have a strong economy."

Larson's proposal? We must, "support and encourage people that create jobs as opposed to stifling and choking off people who want to do good things.”

I suppose, if you buy the false choice that is the premise of his polemic, you are stuck accepting Larson's conclusion: sacrificing the environment is a good thing.

Now, when it comes to managing resources, I'm something of a conservative. No, not one of those corporate spinmasters selling the idea that green is the new gold. More of the old school, the don't eat your seed corn variety.

Larson and his ilk are what I call expedient conservatives. Worry about today, and tomorrow will take care of itself. They seem particularly fond of the business model that internalizes profit while externalizing costs; that is increasing their wealth at the publics expense.

All the trappings of practicality and realism aside, these folks need demagogues like Larson to convince the public to take the bitter pill that is their prescription for what ails us. In fact, the result will be another bout of the disease that still infects us. But then demagogues were created to preach unbelievable doctrines to those so slow they will believe it.

And in the present economic environment, with the consequences of unregulated enterprise dragging us into depression, the villains of the piece need plenty of fools repeating the mantra, regulation is the problem

The people who need a free hand to reach into the public purse are quite willing to make the necessary contributions to buy government.

People who would have us believe that creating jobs entails foregoing protecting the environment are not "people who want to do good things." Larson's backers want us to accept, what's good for them financially, justifies the permissiveness they seek.

Larson can be ridiculous in the excesses he uses to mislead the public and pose command of the issues. Recently he made a big deal, yelling and pounding the table, about how BP couldn't get a diesel-hydrogen unit going.

"Why isn't that permit issued?" he demanded. He bragged, "I'll pass a resolution that says that the County and the Clean Air Agency have to get together and get this passed."

Great theater. But after his posturing was over, BP's corporate representative had to explain to Tony that the company had no problems with either the County or the Clean Air Agency. The only holdup was BP itself.

But let's not let the facts get in the way.

As Larson is flushed out, and forced onto the public stage, his limited understanding of county issues becomes apparent. And as he delivers one after another contrived speech, the real purpose of his candidacy becomes apparent: maintain a majority on the council to help Sam Crawford.

They intend to minimize protection of critical areas, forgo preservation of resource lands, and gut regulation of the building industry.

They intend to keep Whatcom county out of compliance with state and federal laws intended to bring reasonable order and conserve our critical resources for the long run.

They will eat our seed corn.

Larson proposes a false choice: the economy or the environment. His program is based on a phony paradigm.

In this election the choice is between expediency and experience.

Tony Jefferson for Parliament!

2010-09-17T20:30:00.000-07:00

Jefferson wrote, truth is great and will prevail if left to herself. She is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless, by human interposition, she be disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate.

Tea Party Tony, of course, chooses not to follow in the footsteps of the founders. He prefers to avoid all debate. Mr. Jefferson also observed, "When a man has cast a longing eye on office, a rottenness begins in his conduct." Tony's counting on the torries to put him in.

I suppose, if the founders had been like Tony Larson, the delegates to Philadelphia would not have constituted a very large group! They could have foregone the Declaration and relied on yard signs in empty lots to drive out the British. Hancock would have signed with invisible ink!

What would our history be if the founders were cut from Tony Larson cloth? If they possessed his political courage?

Patrick Henry might instead be remembered for, "Give me Liberty...but if that's too much to ask, how about a comfortable position from which to milk the public?"

Paul Revere's horse would have been riderless, and American patriots would have realized the horse's ass was hiding at home.

Nathan Hale's last words before being hanged by the British would have been, "I only regret that I didn't keep my mouth shut."

John Paul Jones would be famous for, "I haven't any intention to fight."

Paine would have written, ""These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, wisely shrink from the challenge."

And school children everywhere would have learned, "Flee before you see the whites of their eyes!"

We would all be the children of a very different political tradition. But hell, we'd have a queen!

Will the Real Tony Larson Stand Up

2010-09-06T17:10:00.000-07:00

With all the recent consternation, with so many concerned that candidates or elected officials might fall under my evil sway, or worse yet, have once sought advice; let the warning go forth: Tony Larson is taking advice from Kirsch!

Not long ago, given the inanities Larson published, I recommended he, "not say any more, and disappear until after the election. Let your friends buy the election like they did last time."

Apparently he has chosen to take my advice.

After much adieu, after planning the Great Teabate at BIAW headquarters, Tea Party darling, Larson will jilt his fans. He has wisely decided, given his lack of a coherent program or any real knowledge of Whatcom county issues, to avoid debating his better informed opponent.

Hats off to Tony! Faced with the challenge of appearing in front of such a friendly crowd, he has strategically chosen to say nothing, rather than open his mouth and remove all doubt regards his shortcomings.

Similarly he has declined to face his opponent or the public at the City Club. What are the chances he will appear anywhere? Good guess.

Prompted obviously by my recommendation, the people running Larson have realized that the last thing they want is for this empty suit to be let loose in public, particularly where his qualifications would be contrasted with Jean Melious's.

Who needs a candidate anyway if you've got enough money, plywood and paint to create the illusion your boy's the man for the job. They can advertise their candidate without advertising his ignorance!

So there you go, all you disgruntled Democrats. Cat's out of the bag now. Kirsch is advising the Tony Larson campaign!

And Representing the Late Republic

2010-09-05T10:58:00.000-07:00

With some time finally, I could review the latest uproar created by my criticism of local Democrats and their royal family.

It appears that our local blog mistress, Elisabeth, wants to characterize the whole thing a smear. "an intentional, premeditated effort to undermine an individual or group's reputation, credibility, and character."

Nonetheless, at least Webster defines a "smear" as an "unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization."

But my dear friend, Ms. Britt, at first overlooks what would seem that necessary condition for a "smear." Where's the pejorative in a "smear" that is substantially true?

While Ms. Britt's army of anonymousistas obviously understand and believe more than they know, this deeply held faith appears to be blinding in its power. To wit, this whopper: "Kirsch wouldn't attack Dan or Lisa McShane, if he didn't fear their political influence or their ability to win a campaign."

In several instances now I have tried to make the case that the inability of local Democrats to elect candidates is in large part a function of their being taken over by insiders who have cultivated a tragic loyalty.

Subsequent to the insiders putting themselves before principles, what have they won? Their financial ties to Trillium, the Bay Foundation and other efforts undermined them and is central to the apathy crippling the liberal/progressive base in Whatcom county.

In hopes of winning the last mayoral race, the McShanes had such camp followers as Britt, Mitch Friedman and Seth Cool endorse BIAW operative, Bill Geyer against longtime Democrat and undeniable liberal Terry Borneman.

At the height of the falderal, Lisa McShane tried to secure the endorsement of the Whatcom Conservation Voters for Geyer, which drove a wedge into the local environmental community and was significant in creating the division the Dems now face.

Though the effort to reach out to the Building Industry and get their man onto the city council might have been half-hearted, more intended to elect Dan McShane than Mr. Geyer, the oft heralded McShane Machine elected neither. Nor did they help Ken Mann over the top against Sam Crawford. They did however give us Bob Kelly, who repaid the favor by resigning and giving the county regressives a sure majority recently.

And in the most recent county races, longtime friend, Laurie Caskey-Schreiber and Dan McShane himself were turned out and turned away respectively.   Meanwhile Carl Weimer won reelection without hardly campaigning. And Mann endeavored to distinguish himself from the gang, which strategy was the difference this time round.

So, I am left to offer, it's their ability to negatively influence a campaign and lose elections that causes me to fear for the Democrats.   I do believe if Democrats would adopt a democratic program, and forgo special interest politics and all the associated tri-angulation, they're our best hope, in the long run, to restore the republic.

My dear friend, Elisabeth, continues to opine, "Some one like Kirsch makes an unsubstantiated allegation. It's picked up in the blogs and mainstream media and the unsubstantiated rumor spreads like wildfire." Interesting. Who is smearing who here?

What is it Ms. Britt? Making an allegation or rumormongering? In football they'd call that an illegal substitution.  A rumor is some kind of a statement for which no support is offered. To demean an argument you disagree with by calling it a rumor seems, actually, more like a smear.

What is the "allegation" in these recent articles? My thesis is local Democrats are apathetic and are not turning out to vote for candidates as expected. My explanation of this lack of enthusiasm is a lack of respect for politicians supported by party insiders. My example, Kelli Linville, was chosen because of her dramatic defeat in the recent primary.

I suggested (alleged) Linville used the political power she gained by forwarding the agenda of the BIAW, along with the Speaker, Mr. Chopp, to advance her career in the legislature and then used her enhanced power in a way that benefited her financially. I offered a concrete example. You might disagree with my conclusion, but can't say no substantiation was offered.

I described a series of events in which Linville, who would have us support her for her environmental work, instead did the work of the Building Industry lobby to circumvent laws that protected the environment; in particular laws concerning the rights to water that were preventing developers from taking water from current uses and depleting that resource while vesting sprawling developments statewide.

I attempt to support my views (allegations) with some history and facts.  Are they to be simply dismissed as "unsubstantiated rumors."

I have personally watched this bunch of envirocrats trade away protection of Bellingham's water supply for political support from financially influential lobbies. It goes on statewide, and our representatives offer no more opposition elsewhere than they do here.

Since the passage of the Water Resources Act [RCW 90.54] in 1971, and the adoption of WAC 173-501-070, Lake Whatcom and Whatcom Creek, as well as surface and groundwater tributary to them, have been closed to new appropriation. Ecology has failed for more than 30 years to enforce the law based on the excuse that groundwater tributary to closed waters are not closed to new appropriation. This reasoning in direct conflict with the ruling of the court in Hubbard v. Dept of Ecology.

Failure to enforce the law has allowed three decades of development to go on in the watershed and cause the damage to the lake. Not only has Ecology ignored the law, so have our elected officials. Neither Kremen or Linville has demanded Ecology stop the abuses. They both curry the favor of development and building interests instead.

Linville even tried to help re-write the laws so developers could continue to abuse water rights.

Don't take my word for it. Go study the history of the Municipal Water Law. Now the situation is so bad it's more than just an environmental disaster, it will be an economic disaster for Bellingham and Whatcom county taxpayers.

Mr. McShane, as usual, wants to change the subject, and misrepresent my position. He writes that I want Linville to "pull money out of the state budget to fix Lake Whatcom." I have never suggested anything of the sort. I want Linville to quit opposing those who are trying to protect water resources statewide.

McShane says I want Ecology to deny exempt well use in the watershed based on Bellingham's water right. Another mistaken representation. I expect Ecology to stop allowing exempt wells in the watershed (and increased withdrawals from existing wells) because state law requires it; and that law has been upheld by the Washington State Supreme Court. And yes, I am appalled that Linville was willing to help in the effort to circumvent the rulings of the court.

McShane writes, "I do know that Mr. Kirsch is very rabid about protecting Lake Whatcom, I find it depressing that even he has fallen into the trap Bellingham has fallen into for decades and apparently remains in – wanting someone else to protect and fix our lake."

Wrong again. I am concerned with protecting our state's resources, and the public, from lobbies that would abuse them; particularly our water resources and the rivers, creeks and streams that once supported a valuable industry.

And I haven't even gotten to the question, who should fix the lake. I'm still on, why don't we stop wrecking it.

Why do politicians like McShane want to dismiss the whole thing as mere "interpretation" of the law. Given the opportunity, why do elected officials like McShane, or Linville, or Kremen look for reasons to do nothing?

It's not just who wins and who loses elections. It's what these politicians do to win and avoid losing that's killing us.   I implore the Democrats to look at the people they've elected and ask why they are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Apathy? The reason people don't vote is they've resigned themselves to a situation where there's no one to vote for; just a bunch of Republocrats and Demicans.

But of course these are nothing more than unsubstantiated ramblings and rumors. Pay no attention. Nothing to consider here. Listen to puerile remarks from a bunch of anonymous bloggers instead; the best and the brightest of the late republic. Hey, I'm just the messenger. So shoot me!

Party of the Living Dead

2010-08-29T09:47:00.000-07:00

Apparently, my recent article on the malaise that strangles the local Dems was enough to raise the political dead.

Local blogmeister, Sam Taylor chose to link to it, and that brought out the anonymosity of perennial partisans, and bellowing from the usual political hacks.

Noteworthy amongst the critics of my criticism were Dan McShane, and his sweet wife, who seems intent on forcing the poor man into political battle until all life is sucked from him for failure.

Lenny Bruce had it right. "Liberals can understand anyone, except someone who doesn't understand them."

Let's try and understand them.

Ever prudish, most were satisfied to merely express sanctimonious outrage at a satirical graphic portraying the county's two highest Democrats in a bed of money; confusing sex with cash. But hey, it worked. Never have so many looked at this site.

For his part, Dan (also fondly known as "Mr. Science") otherwise limited his complaining to what he characterized a vicious text, "filled with errors and innuendo as well as a nasty attack on the spouse of an elected official - an individual who has given a great deal of his time to the community."

Dan's sensitivity on the subject of spousal favor seeking is understandable. The second placing candidate in the '07 mayoral race, and runner up in the contest for county council last year, apparently still is waiting for the call from Olympia and his own appointment from the governor's office in return for Susie Q's campaign work for Gregoire.

Notwithstanding the lack of specificity regards actual errors, McShane (and other Democrat hangers on) contented themselves to lament an alleged attack on Linvilles's husband. The article criticized the representative for using her position for personal gain; not her spouse as McShane and others erroneously claimed.

The push back by local Dems, who felt obligated to kiss up to the chair of Ways and Means, really underscores the theme of that horrible article: Democrats at all levels are unable to be self critical, don't expect their elected fellows be democrats, and no matter how they betray the published agenda of the gang, must not be outed, and must be re-elected.

Democrats are satisfied to have the appearance of a program, which is maintained by having Democrats in office regardless how un-democratic their actual program.

Where to begin? Has Obama, the constitutional legal scholar, repealed the Bush policies on domestic surveillance? No. As a matter of fact, the Obama regime has gone one more and granted themselves even more egregious powers, including murdering US citizens fingered to die without due process or appeal. These are real "death panels." Where is the right wing outrage?

Had "W" created such a system the Democrats would rightly be on their chairs screaming. How much have we heard about it? Nada.

The ruling class uses Obama like a great Valium cloud to calm the opposition and steadily increase their control in the class war that is America.

Locally, ask yourself why, after almost three years, the City of Bellingham still can not stand up and do something to stop the degradation of Lake Whatcom. We've got a Democrat in Olympia, who's constituency all drink from the lake, serving as the powerful Ways and Means chair.

We've got some sort of Democrat as county executive. But with his pals on the right running a most undemocratic slate in last falls county elections, Pete Kremen (D?) wouldn't endorse any of his fellow party members. But did endorse the opponent of the only Dem with the guts to criticize him.

Did the Democrats say booo? Hell no.

It has been more than two years since Bellingham's mayor boldly told the executive and the Department of Ecology, Bellingham would formally demand DOE enforce the law, protect its water right, and close the Lake Whatcom watershed to further appropriation of water; thereby bringing a halt to the building and subdividing that is ruining the water supply. Why nothing?

The simple answer is Linville is more concerned about the interests of the Building Industry in the state, and Kremen's campaigns have been generously funded by local developers and advocates of growth at any cost to the taxpayers.

This leaves the mayor waiting for political permission while the Democrats wait to elect his replacement.

With DOE literally inviting someone, anyone, to petition or sue them for failing to follow the law, who is protecting the builders and developers and standing in the way?

Could it be the two most powerful Democrats in Whatcom county?

Why does Susie Q, who would have you believe she's the Joan de Arc of lake protection, spew bile and support expansion of the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District?

Because without expansion of the water district there can not be more development in the watershed. If the basin were closed to new water withdrawals, the water district would have no water to provide to developers.

Why did the McShanes throw in with the developers years ago? Because that's where the money is in county politics, and that makes them the power brokers. Susie Q and Mr. Science had a plan for themselves, and they needed to tap into the same power that Kremen and Linville so wisely and artfully developed.

But something went terribly wrong on the way to the winner's circle. Some interloper, named Pike, appeared out of nowhere and stole the show. Even after all the "tri-angulation" with the BIAW, Bill Geyer and others, the Realtors, and most of the building industry, couldn't forget McShane's old rhetoric, even though Susie Q promised he had changed.

The Realtors put their money on Pike, who won by default.

Most of the local Dem clique were aghast. Almost immediately they started the search for their 2011 candidate. The best they could do was Barry Buchanan. Meanwhile the opposition watched.

What they saw was not what they wanted to see. The new mayor was an impediment to expansion of the land supply, UGAs. Then he attempted to thwart LWW&SD expanding water and sewer services to them and theirs on the north shore of Lake Whatcom.

The Realtors weren't getting their money's worth. While Buchanan quietly offers them his help, they seem to have another strategy: they're testing their own boy out in a race this fall, Tony Larson.

Should he make it, he'll be in position to move into the office on Lottie Street. Will Pete endorse the Realtor/BIAW boy's opponent this fall? Hell no! Will he endorse Pike's opponent? Hell yes! Kremen's already on board for Buchanan and Larson.

So where, you might ask, are the democrats amongst the Democrats? Depressed and disillusioned, they are at home trying to figure out what happened, what went wrong.

Unfortunately, as the two parties shrink from relevance, they retain undue influence because the independent, by definition, don't market candidates or have a machine like the Republicans and Democrats have built over the years.

Paradoxically, it's just that machine, and the compromising for control of it or favors from it, that makes the parties increasingly distrusted by voters. The Democrats react bitterly when it is suggested their electeds are excessively concerned with providing for themselves. The sting of the reproach is the truth of it.

Will things change? How will they change? When will they change? I don't know.

With unemployment growing, it seems curious that so many lusting after our best paid elected offices are un or under employed. I wonder when some Microsoft millionaire will decide to buy the mayor or executive spot. 2011 is gonna be one hell of an interesting political season.

In the meantime it's the political zombies, who can't be kept in their graves, standing between us and democracy in the republic, and here at home.

Crawford, Corruption & Larsony

2010-08-26T11:19:00.000-07:00

It's no secret anymore, Sam Crawford is the man behind Tony Larson.

Apparently, Larson hopes to quickly get hitched with Whatcom county's premier "land use consultant" (no, not Jack, it's a fact!, Petree) so some of the gravy, grease, graft, or whatever euphemism this current crowd of crooks has adopted, will trickle down to his feeble publishing business, sort of like the fees roll into Sam's little shop of favors.

If Larson's elected, expect a rise in advertising revenues at his Northwest Business Monthly. Coming soon, a glossy new real estate section!

Think I'm joking? One developer makes a measly $800 contribution to the Larson campaign and, kabing!, NW-BM has a glowing story on how he's saving Whatcom county, starting with Blaine, by bending over one small town at a time.

Larson laments, "imposing costly regulations on businesses and productive individuals.  Instead, officials should re-examine their priorities and be prepared to make some tough choices."

To wit, Blaine was conned into dropping their impact fees ordinarily required of developers to defray at least part of the costs to the public. In this case though, it's simple, out of the public purse into Larson's supporter's wallet.

Can hardly wait to hear what he's got to offer his other contributors and advertisers if he makes it onto the county council.

Am I the only one who remembers when the Alaska Packers Association operated the largest cannery in the world across the bay at Point Roberst, with a shipyard, additional canning facilites and warehousing at Semiahmo, where Syre and Imus will now bring us this "new economy"?

It may only be petty Larsony to scapegoat struggling families, like Tony does, turned out of their homes by predatory lenders, banksters who sold them on mortgages that couldn't survive a housing bubble; but for Tony, the victims are responsible for bringing down the financial system and propelling us into a depression.

That's just the kind a guy he is. Who needs to kiss babies when there are big, fat, rich asses available?

But it's gotta be grand Larsony, or some kind of fraud, to put a sign in your yard that says We the People and then go to work for the landed gentry we the people are taxed like serfs to enrich; all to keep their real estate schemes going a little longer.

Who do you think's payin' for those big signs all over the county? (hell if I know, I can't find an expenditure reporting them at the PDC) But you can be sure of one thing: somewhere, back there behind the scenes, it's the BIAW crowd puttin' up the plywood for Larson.

If you were active politically around the state, you'd have learned that Kremen County is famous for its foolishness in growth management; pretty much the laughing stock of Washington.

Not only was Kremen considered the village idiot when he was in Olympia, our anointing him to lead the county, and our inability to unseat him all these years, has left us indelibly marked as the kind of community characterized in such epics as the Dukes of Hazard.

And now, here comes Tony Larson hoping to join such powerhouses as Billy Knutzen and Kathy Kershner in Crawford's club. All bought and paid for by the least civicly responsible lobby in the state, the BIAW and their hangers on. I can guarantee you Kremen won't endorse Larson's opponent.

Well, it's a marriage made in heaven; and portends to be a very interesting menage a trois going forward.

For a group that's primary purpose is misdirecting public attention, Tony's the perfect candidate. Plenty of experience selling the sizzle without a stake in the action, his business basically manufactures hot air. So who better to partner up with than the crew that's been puffin' at the publics posterior for decades now.

Larson writes, "The political class has dug an enormous economic hole for us." (I'm not kiddin!) It wasn't the fraudsters of finance and their bang up job with the housing bubble economists recognize.

Given Larson's absolution of the bailout beneficiaries on Wall Street, it's hard to figure who's dumb and dumber, him or the Tea Party folks who can't figure out it's his crap that stinks.

But they say he's their boy. I hear they're even puttin' on a "teabate" for him to star in. And (I ain't makin' this up) it's gonna be at the Building Industry headquarters. (I swear! It's true! That's right, the same place Sam has his barbecues!)

Oh, it's just so precious; the way they keep it all in the family.

Next I expect Nick Kaiser and his right handpuppet, Brent Bonner (Whatcom dis-Information Center) to ratchet up the rhetoric to make us believe the county council can turn around the jobs market; and without mentioning their boy Tony by name, infer the hypster's campaign propaganda is just the ticket out of this morass.

The only industry Whatcom county government has ever been able to help is the local land use bar. And that's why Larson will be their boy. Along with Crawford, Kershner and Knutzen, Larson represents the winning vote for a whole grab bag of policies that will ultimately keep them and their clients face down in the trough for decades to come.

And when Larson talks about "imposing costly regulations" on "productive individuals" he means enforcing land use regulations on the developers that fund him, because that's about the only regulation county government has much of a hand in.

And when he says, "if we’re going to create jobs, it’s going to require our government officials backing up their rhetoric with action," he actually means, with inaction in regulating building and development.

Trouble is, as job creators go, it's a fraud. Who's gonna buy these houses everyone's ostensibly going to build? Helloooooo! The bubble's burst and the housing market's cratering.

Larson's rhetoric is completely hollow. There are no jobs to be created by increasing the land supply for residential development and relaxing environmental regulations already proven inadequate to protect Lake Whatcom; it's just a big favor to the money behind his campaign, and his campaign next year.  Folks still in denial.

The more you look at Tony Larson, the less you see. My advice to the candidate is don't say any more, and disappear until after the election. Let your friends buy the election like they did last time.

Not Such Strange Bedfellows

2010-08-22T03:29:00.000-07:00

Kelli Linville's fall from grace has gotten a lot of digital ink this past week.

Her own explanation for her loss in the recent primary, to an unknown young man from Lynden, was that her usual supporters didn't take the time to vote.

This apathy seems to have carried over from last November's county elections; where old Democrat insiders similarly failed to generate sufficient enthusiasm to motivate their base.

Could it be, after the national disillusionment, with the hollowness of the slogans echoing emptily in our ears, the Dem base has come to realize it just doesn't matter.

While Republicans make no bones about it, they're there to serve the ruling class; have voters come to understand the only difference with Democrats is they pretend they don't.

During the so called reforms of healthcare and banking, the outcome of which was little more than surrender to the medical, drug and insurance industries and hypothecation of the Treasury to the Fed and banks too big for bankruptcy; the Democrats made a spectacle of themselves, debating reform during the day while collecting campaign contributions from the interested lobbies at night.

Does anyone besides me wonder why the Democrats, with a majority in both houses, not only couldn't reform the parasitic beasts dragging down the republic, but made no effort at campaign finance reform, and sat on their hands when the Supremes opened the floodgates of corporate influence in our elections.

Since the end of Camelot, and particularly with Clinton, Obama, and the rest of the Democratic Leadership Council types, campaigning has devolved into campaign financing. And the pitch men for the Dems opener is now, "and what can your country do for you, sir?"

Closer to home, according to recent reports, Linville's opponent, Vincent Buys, raised and spent less than $15,000 to win the primary, while the incumbent chair of Ways & Means was rolling in the dough, some $90,000. With special interests, and their PACs, all over the state currying favor with our representative in Olympia, her disclosure report reads like a political who's who. Buys should have been buried.

But it seems local voters are weary of the Whatcom Democrats. And why not? The party has become more of a clique. It seems unwilling to demand its elected members embrace standards the public is coming to expect, and likewise unable to understand the growing frustration with public servants who first serve themselves.

Frankly, the Dems seem satisfied just to keep their pals in office regardless what they do after they're in. And too many don't seem to understand, in this brave new world, that public employees are not above the law of supply and demand.

The upshot for voters: it matters little who is elected. The publics business is an afterthought, a distant concern after re-election, cost of living adjustments, and pleasing your financiers.

Linville, like Pete Kremen (another pseudo democrat) has been caught up in her own career, and personal financial reward. Linville, since her first election back in 1996, has used committee assignments and leadership positions to first assure her repeated re-election and then to feather her nest much as Kremen has done. These two have more in common than a couple of DUIs.

Her next move will surely be into some state or county position allowing her to parlay her years in low paying elected office into a generous pension based on her final years of public service. Maybe Pete will move on and make room for her in bed.

She was successful, from her position in the legislature, to assure the governor appointed her husband to a well paid board position. (And dutifully, he too contributed to her campaign!) The final step will be finding a similar role for herself in order to vest a big fat pension. After her scare in the primary last week, I'll bet she's wishin' she'd cut a deal for that golden parachute last term!

This would only be mildly egregious in itself had she climbed the ladder on merit, not by doing favors for special interests who could not only fund her re-elections, but push her ahead in the pecking order in Olympia.

It is particularly strange how she came to be a darling of the Building Industry of Washington. But darling she is.

When the state courts repeatedly ruled against the developers and protected water rights that prevented them from appropriating water needed for salmon and other existing uses, like agriculture, Linville literally carried the water for the BIAW, sponsored and got their so called Municipal Water Law passed, redefining developers to be municipalities, affording them the same right to water enjoyed by cities and towns and facilitating sprawl statewide.

Fortunately, the law was found unconstitutional; but the development industry presses on with appeals.

The power of special interest money is not just the amount they contribute to an incumbent, but the money they don't contribute to an opponent. And even more, their not recruiting a strong candidate to replace an incumbent. Just like in business, monopolizing the field entails eliminating strong competition. And the absence of better regulation assures monopoly opportunities and eliminates the need to compete with a better product, or policies, for the public.

So it's not really so surprising that voters, understanding that Democrats like Linville or Kremen will not make any difference in the political outcome, don't vote. Will Buys be any better? No, probably not. He'll be an impotent representative much like Ericksen and Brandland have been.

As much as Linville has done for herself, and as little good as she has done for the public, Buys is unlikely to do much harm. Maybe he dreams of becoming the engineer on the gravy train like Linville; time will tell. But its's not likely he'll ever be more than along for the ride.

Maybe the local Democrats will learn a lesson if Linville loses the general election. Maybe you should sit on your vote, or take a free shot, send a message, and vote for Buys.

It's a lesson Democrats everywhere need.

Sure Makes You Wonderland

2010-07-18T10:55:00.000-07:00

As if Whatcom County wasn't already headed down a rabbit hole fast enough, here comes another mad-hatter thinks he's gonna turn county council meetings into a Tea Party.

Their local darling, Tony Larson, is here to tell ya they've come to take back government. So sorry Tony, the inmates are already running the asylum.

Local promoter Larson was recruited at the last minute by Sam Crawford when Sam's pals at the Building Industry Association, faced with backing Theresa Sygitowicz, realized the faster she'd run, the behinder she'd get. So it was off with her head!

It makes you wonder, what part of the Tea Party platform Larson intends to stand on. Will he campaign to end giveaways to a Whatcom county plutocracy that assumes a hereditary right to direct and profit from unregulated growth?

Or will he just be all-in on de-regulating the masters of our little universe, the folks who'll finance him, and help them vest more rights taxpayers will have to repurchase? Maybe there's a spot for him in Crawford's "consulting" business.

Do you really think he's come to throw the special interests out of the temple, and tell 'em to get their hand out of the public purse?

If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't!" (Tweedledee)

Jeeeeez, they're his backers! Maybe he means "we've come to take government backwards." No, the Tony Larson version of Tea Party wisdom is the same o' same o' locally; and nothing more than an unthinking repetition of the most ludicrous neo-liberal propaganda generally.

For instance, according to Tony, "Wall Street didn’t cause the financial collapse we experienced — government did."

Simple huh? You don't have to understand credit default swaps, securitization, regulatory capture; figure out who was doin' who between AIG, Goldman-Sachs, Lehman Brothers, the Fed and the Treasury; it's simple, any fool who looks at the thing could tell you, "guvmit done it!" Yep, any fool.

"Well, I never heard it before, but it sounds uncommon nonsense." (Mock Turtle)

The real culprits were, according to Larson, the "minorities" who obviously control government, out swat the bankers, and, demanding an end to redlining and such, made the banks loan 'em the money.

You get the picture: scads of black and brown folks in bandannas holding pistols to the heads of loan officers all over the country sayin', "Let me sign it sucker, I wanna go through foreclosure like the white folk."

But according to data compiled for The New York Times by the real estate analytics firm CoreLogic, the biggest defaulters on mortgages are the rich, with about 14% of mortgages in excess of one million dollars in default. Whereas more modest housing's default rate is about 8%.

But don't confuse him with the facts. Tony'd rather take his tea with folks who believe the housing bubble and ensuing financial collapse was Barney Frank's fault; do-gooder policies he somehow imposed on a Republican Congress.

Tony Larson's message: why be outraged by the bailout of Wall Street tycoons. It weren't their fault. Taxpayers owed it to 'em cuz government's to blame. But that's not such a stretch, 'bout what you'd expect from a guy who blamed Bellingham for not bailing out his business.

Seems Tony Larson can talk the talk, but when government money's in reach, he walks the walk right over with his hand out; as was the case when some millions became available to upgrade Bellingham off Lakeway.

Remember when the whole house of cards was coming down for those free market masters of the universe, and the rest of the Park Avenue parasites? Somebody pointed out, "there are no libertarians in a financial crisis."

Big part of the Tea Party philosophy is laissez faire, just get government out of our lives.

But when "we the people" shunned a measure that would have benefited Tony's ball team using Joe Martin field, (though at the time we supported bond measures for other purposes, fire stations and schools) Larson sued to get local government to bailout his failing business.

Nonetheless, Larson tells the flock, "When we expect and ask our government to solve our problems, we are in trouble. So, be careful what you wish for."

`I quite agree with you,' said the Duchess; `and the moral of that is--"Be what you would seem to be"--or if you'd like it put more simply--"Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."'

Tony explains, "Most don’t understand we are not a democracy. We are a Republic and are supposed to be directed by our Constitution, which limits the role of government and protects individuals against intrusive government power."

(Just an aside: the Constitution is also the basis for laws protecting individuals from "intrusive" individuals too. Yeah, really!)

And he's about half right on the democracy vs. republic thing. Ours is a representative government elected democratically rather than being based on heredity or wealth.   Though it seems, these days, when it comes to political discussion, money does most the talkin' and most the money's inherited.

Hopefully he's conservative enough to understand that the powers not granted the federal government at the founding remained with the states, save for the natural rights we were said to be endowed with, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And as you would expect, our state too is governed by a constitution in which counties were created, all of which democratically elect representatives to send to the state capitol to pass our laws, and then follow 'em. And Whatcom county, as allowed by state law, adopted a charter by which its democratically elected representatives would govern.

The charter includes the requirement, upon entering office, to take an oath to support the Constitutions of the United States, the State of Washington and its laws as well as the ordinances of Whatcom County.

"What is the use of repeating all that stuff, if you don't explain it as you go on? It's by far the most confusing thing I ever heard!" (Mock Turtle)

Well, because when Tony talks about protecting individuals from "intrusive government power" that's code.

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

Larson recently wrote, "Many people who own their property cannot do with it what they want without paying fees and gaining approval from government" obviously implying this is wrong, intrusive and an abuse of government power. Not something Tony Larson would support.

How can he square that with the oath he would take to uphold the laws of the state, including the Growth Management Act and the rulings by courts and quasi judicial bodies that interpret and enforce it? Or is he telling us he'll be another scoff-law like Crawford and company.

Boy, it does sound better, if you want to sucker voters, to shout 'guvmit's grabbin' yer property rights', than tellin' them they gotta build you a road or pave your parking lot.

Or how about government disapprovin' your wrecking the neighborhood or polluting drinking water? What the hell's with that?

Well, like most demagogues, Tony and his pals like to keep 'em dumb and angry. That way they'll happily screw themselves. In this case, the boys with lots of land to develop would rather have the taxpayers pay for the improvements that make 'em rich. Sure beats havin' to pay for 'em yourself.

And of course they don't want other folks, who want to keep things pretty much the way they are, gettin' in the way of their vesting lots of "rights" we will have to buy back to protect the county.

The real rub for the folks Tony's cozied up to came back in 1926 (the heyday of socialism!) when the U.S. Supreme Court told the landed gentry that zoning based on comprehensive planning was a proper exercise of a state’s power to regulate the use of private property in order to protect the health and safety, and general welfare of the community.

Just this June, the US Supreme Court, as conservative as we've seen in a long while, again observed that the State's laws of property and nuisance, which place restrictions on land ownership, "inhere in the title itself."

And Justice Scalia, of all people, wrote for the majority, "The takings clause (of the fifth amendment) only protects property rights as they are established under state law, not as they might have been established or ought to have been established."

So, when the property rightswingers claim the county can pass no regulation or ordinance without compensation to those unduly burdened, keep in mind what "unduly" means; that title came with an important proviso, handle with care.  It makes all the puffing and swaggering about "land grabs" seem quite the pose. But to what end?

"Tut, tut, child! Everything's got a moral, if only you can find it." (the Duchess)

It seems Larson is signaling his Tea Party philosophy is more like Dick Armey, Tom DeLay and that crowd's. There are a lot of folks in politics who want to be at the table when the cake is cut. Funny how self promoters gravitate to the game. I suspect Larson will happily lead the less informed down the garden path to get his feet under the table.

I expect he believes, if he even thinks about it, as the cost of government keeps rising, the quality of life keeps slipping, the rich get richer and the rest of us keep trying to get by, the Tea Party will lap up the rhetoric and keep missing the reality: that the continued sprawl and vesting of building rights will lead to ever increasing needs for government services, infrastructure and rehabilitation of the environment.

And that means more, not less, taxes on you and me; not the latecomers or the folks who profit from development.

These costs, like restoring Lake Whatcom, "we the people" will pay, while the landowners who wrecked the lake will expect us to pay them to stop.  At the same time the beneficiaries of this public largess will blame it all on guvmit'.

Pretty much the same Tony Larson take as on the financial bailout: "Wall Street didn’t cause the financial collapse we experienced — government did."

"And the moral of that is -- The more there is of mine, the less there is of yours." (the Duchess)

These kind a guys sure do make you wonder. It would indeed be a wonderland if we could find a little less facile representative, one a little more frank about the economy and government spending. Maybe someone who's willing to shift the burden of taxation off regular, working folks and onto the buggers making the big bucks on development.

And you do remember Alice? "It would be so nice if something made sense for a change."

Thanks to Lewis Carroll for wisdom and inspiration (editor)

Gettin' Ready for a Court Date

2010-07-14T11:42:00.000-07:00

Barbara Brenner's not as dumb as some think. In fact, she showed herself to be considerably smarter than council chairman Sam Crawford last night.

The "spitfire" from once rural north Bellingham, faced down by an overwhelming number opposed to another give-away of their taxes, knew she wouldn't win any popularity contests voting with the developers last night.

Perhaps it was a keener nose for the barnyard aroma of Crawford's program that made Barbara realize this ordinance was no truffle, and a yes vote would not suit what she likes us to believe are populist lips.

But unlike Crawford, Napoleonic and unable to appreciate the purpose of a little foreplay before screwing the public, maybe Brenner was listening. And my guess is Barbara, suddenly made aware of the scrutiny to come, looked at this cobbled together ordinance, riddled with redactions and covered with the fingerprints of developers, and appreciated, if this pig was going to fly, the ordinance couldn't be passed with all these warts and blemishes.

So before the new majority turned their ample rears to the pitchforks, Barbara quickly called a time out to huddle outside of public view with the lawyers. And, probably having her worst fears confirmed, came back and moved to hold the ordinance until some cosmetic work could be done in anticipation of the expected challenge in court.

Time to drop back and put a little lipstick on this pig. But just what kind of pig are we dealing with here?

The public hearing filled the council chambers. Almost sixty took their three minute opportunity to speak.

There were about a dozen who supported Crawford's attack on past planning decisions; two electeds from small towns, four paid lobbyists for developers, and five or six, property owners surprisingly interested in becoming recipients of the give-away, struggling to find some, any, general principle to further their particular interest.

The overwhelming majority who came were there to oppose Crawford, and the new council out to undo development regulation and redo the Comprehensive Plan and various ordinances related to planning under the Growth Management Act.

The opposition was largely rural county residents with strong support from Bellingham, including its mayor.

While many spoke to their distaste for urban sprawl, and most articulated objection to being taxed to subsidize a few who would benefit from this largess, two or three raised the subject that is really central to what is afoot here: corruption.

As such, this ordinance adds relatively little land to the small towns in question. And in many cases, the land added is either internal or contiguous to the related urban area. Further, it's true that the increased tax burden these additions entail is relatively small by comparison to others that are in the wings.

And believe me, there are many more in the wings. So many that Crawford and company need to change the code so they can bring them, one by one, any time they want, changing zoning and/or the Comprehensive Plan virtually at will, piecemealing the opposition and circumventing truly "comprehensive" planning.

Crawford intends to bring client projects forward at his discretion, and will have a whole new service he can collect for: if you can afford it, you need no longer suffer through the cumbersome process of amending zoning. If you've got the right lawyers, the whole thing can be handled, for a fee, over at his firm, Emerald Lake Consulting.

If you don't think so, then you didn't really watch what just happened. This little ordinance they're going to pass in two weeks is the first of many nicely tailored treats for those with a special interest in favors from the well connected.

No, the words and advice which were to the real issue concerned the corruption of public process and the abandonment of the rule of law.

Some time back, erstwhile County Planning Director, David Stalheim pushed back against Crawford, the development attorneys, and told the executive, Pete Kremen,

"Staff, as well as property owners, need the certainty of law so that regulations are not implemented in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. The suggestion that we have flexibility infers that we pick and choose which development regulations to enforce. This might mean that the department treats applicants differently, and decisions are made outside of public view or identified standards."

For taking such stands, Crawford and company forced Stalheim to resign. Obviously integrity is not much esteemed amongst these folks. The whole process that created the ordinance so many oppose was made entirely "outside public view."

With the new majority, indeed, the animals are in charge. And Crawford and company will do quite well for themselves on Manor Farm where, "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Hail Napoleon! Hail to the pigs!

Tuesday's Free Lunch

2010-07-11T11:37:00.000-07:00

"Land Grab Country" is a clever slogan to mislead voters with; simultaneously frightening those with little to fear, and distracting them while the real folks to fear "grab" their taxes.

And their boy, Sam Crawford, is the face of the threat.

Tuesday, he will deliver the goods to his pals who pay him behind the scenes as their "consultant."

Crawford and company are out to vest more rights for you to buy back in the future. Pay attention, fellow taxpayers. Once again the usual suspects are posing as populists to get theirs at your expense.

If county residents don't start thinking, they will wake up wondering why the sheriff doesn't show up when they call; asking where the firefighters are while the barn burns; and wishing someone, anyone, would protect the place we love while all the time we pay a landed gentry not to further subdivide the county's farms and forests because this council gave them the "rights" to do so.

Just as Tea Party troops nationally have been tricked into believing "regulation" and "government" are our biggest problems, local voters, frustrated by the growing pressures that followed the financial collapse, are being convinced zoning regulation is the problem.

But in fact, it's fat cats and special interests who have taken over government and are (and plan to continue) milking us like their own little herd.

And with the local building industry folks, chamber of commerce crew, and the rest of the country club set controlling county government, while they butter their bread they want you to believe regulating them costs jobs. They want you to think regulating them is not only economically unwise, but unconstitutional and downright un-American.

They may not like it, but again just this year, writing for what is unquestionably the most conservative Supreme Court majority we've known, Justice Scalia explained that property rights are not anything more than the rights granted by the States. They are not some divine legacy.

Scalia wrote for the majority,

“The takings clause only protects property rights as they are established under state law, not as they might have been established or ought to have been established.”

And following Lucas v. S.Carolina Coastal Council, Scalia continued,

"a regulation that deprives a property owner of [even] all economically beneficial use of this property is not a taking if the restriction inheres in the title itself, in the restrictions that background principles of the State's law of property and nuisance already place upon land ownership." [emphasis added]

In the state of Washington, the restrictions that inhere in title to its lands include the protections created by the Growth Management Act.

Notwithstanding the decades long battle by property rights true-believers opposed to this legislation passed in the early '90s, and their use of political connections with the county administration to vest alleged rights to subdivide and build; because the county has refused to follow the law, Whatcom county is routinely defeated in this effort to avoid the law.

All this will place future county governments in the unattractive situation of having to unwind the wrong doing in the face of angry citizens unwilling to give up windfalls created by extra-legal means like the effort you will witness Tuesday.

You see, the problem with government is it's been taken away from the people by the very forces that government was meant to regulate to protect the people. And those forces have one thing in mind, profit themselves while leaving us with the costs and/or getting government to tax its citizens and pay them.

To that end they want to make believe their title to some land puts them above the law, or that the law abridges some right or freedom they allege is being violated.

Again, in our state, the whole sorry thing started years ago with passage of the Growth Management Act, intended to safeguard farmland, forests, critical areas and other resources necessary to conserve and protect the traditional industries that rely on them; industries that had long supported real jobs.

In Whatcom County the law was met with disdain by politically influential landowners grown accustomed to converting these resource lands, at great profit, into sprawling residential developments uncharacteristic of the rural county; often replacing pastures and cropland with golf courses surrounded by what have come to be called "McMansions" given their similarity to the ubiquitous structures elsewhere polluting the landscape wherever we go.

The landed gentry immediately got control of the zoning process locally. The upshot? Instead of protecting lands as the Act intended, the landed gentry managed to gerrymander the zoning map and set themselves up for the future. And they elected themselves a county council that became notorious in the state as reactionaries.

Basically to get around the law, these folks created excessively large areas for more intense development in forests and farmland, including a nice little piece for our current county executive.

They designated other resource lands, near the county's cities, for urban growth to the great satisfaction of landowners, many of whom had acquired the land speculating on future growth, that was now to be protected under the new state law.

Relevant to the giveaway planned for Tuesday, the state board created to interpret and rule on matters related to growth found the areas the development community created around smaller cities to be excessively large and would lead to sprawl inconsistent with preserving the rural character as the Act mandated.

As a consequence, the county's planning department was sent back to the drawing board to re-size these urban growth areas. After months and months of work, the areas were better planned and the county council, after much debate, approved that plan.

Of course the landed gentry challenged the zoning decision, and of course they again lost in court.

But the building industry, and landowners left out, didn't give up and invested heavily in electing new council members who would see things their way. Succeeding at that, their new council appointed planning commissioners that could be counted on to rubber stamp policies and proposals put forward by the land speculation community. And they lobbied Kremen successfully to drive out the planning director and give them free reign over the department.

Now, this group and their representatives on the council, plan to undue the work ordered by the state and enlarge the zones once again without any effort to rationalize their scheme to the Act or allow meaningful public process.

Next, the developers' council will be re-writing the Comprehensive Plan in an attempt to redefine rural character so they can retain the zoning densities in rural areas the state has already objected to and ruled against.

Besides making us something of a laughing stock around the state, this persistent, feigned ignorance of the law costs us hours and hours of human resource time to undo and redo staff work. Which work has little or no chance of meeting approval beyond the representatives of the local development fraternity.

But the real losers in this will be Whatcom county taxpayers. The developers haven't really got any immediate plans to build anything. But they are in a hurry to vest the rights to do so. For you see, the free lunch these fat cats are after is getting in line for the hand out of development rights taxpayers will be forced to redeem for years to come.

The time has come to understand the difference between a public relations campaign and a public outcry. The main course at Tuesday's free lunch will be your taxes re-directed to the propagandists.

Buddy, Can You Spare a Development Right?

2010-06-27T12:15:00.000-07:00

Is everyone in Whatcom county speculating on building lots? Do taxpayers want to pay every Tom, Dick and Mary to protect the county's forests, farmland and water resources?

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.

Same Old Newspeak

2010-06-23T21:03:00.000-07:00

In 1984, Doublethink was the ability to know what should be said while carefully circumventing the truth with cleverly constructed lies.

Yesterday, Sam Crawford led a discussion of zoning changes in rural areas in anticipation of completing work to, after almost two decades, bring Whatcom County into compliance with the Growth Management Act as ordered by a state judicial board after much of its rural zoning was deemed urban sprawl.

Listening to this discussion was strange and a little shocking. You'd think one would be a bit more circumspect when basically undertaking to re-gerrymander the zoning map to avoid compliance with the law.

But in fact, Crawford and his clients, and their attorneys, had given the left-overs at the Planning Department orders (and a rationale) for rural zoning that would not sacrifice the old carve outs for friends and clients.

Sitting there, as slide after slide illustrated rural areas around the county, I couldn't help but wonder how many of Crawford's clients had interests, ownership or options, in land in one or another of these areas.

And it was particularly amusing when old Sam indulged in some very transparent theatrics, pounding the dais and pronouncing, "I wasn't elected to downzone my constituents, I'm here to protect their property rights." Right on Sam! High fives all 'round.

Were there qualms about supporting state laws or ignoring oaths to do the same? No, for Crawford and company, the whole exercise was a search for any loophole, or any, even the thinnest, excuse to ignore the broad purpose of the laws to regulate growth; find cover of any color-able exception, and search for the least obnoxious, though uncompelling, interpretation of rulings in other counties.

Time and space do not allow a complete account of this absurd side-show. My favorite moment, though, was when Sam, Barbara Brenner and Bill Knutzen seized on an idea to get around the law's requirement that zoning preserve rural character.

After honestly designating resource lands, GMA only mandated two things. First, protect those designated resource lands, and second, preserve the rural character of our state's rural counties.

In Whatcom county in the early '90s, however, this process entailed creating commissions of landowners, insiders, and others keen on profiting from prospective regulations, most of whom were entirely self-interested. The result was huge amounts of resource lands zoned rural, and even more blatantly abusing the intent of the Act, some resource lands were even designated for more intense suburban development where no rationale in the law existed.

The upshot, large amounts of forest and agricultural lands were zoned rural for special interests. And to further add injury to this insult to intelligence, most of these newly ruralized areas were allowed to develop at the highest possible density under the law. Five acre tracts, and even less, as far as the eye could see was their idea of rural character.

This instead of a rural element as described in the Act: where the natural environment dominates over the built, and there are a variety of lot sizes, 10, 20 and 80 acres.

So, now the council is trying to redo, but not undo, zoning the Hearings Board has rejected. They announced they will accomplish this légère de la main in large part by tailoring the meaning of "rural character" to suit their desire to maximize developable lots thus minimizing the impact of the Act.

Each of the areas earlier mis-zoned will be redefined to have their own, unique rural character. Like beauty and the eye of the beholder, the idea here is that rural character will mean different things in different places.

Sort of like "moral virtue" meaning something different depending where you are or who you're with. In Lynden it might mean a chaste and charitable woman in the church choir. But if you happened to be in a local bar or brothel, moral virtuousness might be the bar fly or care-giver free of venereal disease.

Or, you could say, like pornography, Sam, Bill and Barbara know sprawl when they see it, and this is art. The law should be flexible.

The council will apply this new and unique concept (we'll call it "rural relativity") to the problem and, wallah, black is white, old is new, sprawl is rural character, and the Hearing Board's ruling is oldthink.

Another skill of doublethinkers is the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously. I of course have always enjoyed property rightswingers complaint that Futurewise, or other opponents, suits challenging county excesses are an abuse of taxpayers, but when their own lawyers sue us, they are silent.

Obviously this hypocrisy is the result of goodthink, ideological exceptionalism in the name of orthodoxy.

But even more remarkable doublethink is the blind faith (maybe better described as "blinded" faith) or groupthink, which holds they can create ever increasing demands for costly government services by planning more sprawling, scattered, far flung development, and simultaneously claim we should cut taxes and defund government, all the while decrying planning as an evil enterprise, a socialist plot, meant to enslave us.

You could call this doublespeak, but listening to Sam Crawford, all I hear is the same old double talk half-baked demagogues customarily leave us with; like a horse ahead on the trail.

But it's nice that the newly ordained high-priests and priestesses of gobbledygook are making headway on one critical problem in the community, employment. Too bad, though, when they submit the same old zoning densities in their brand new wrapper, the only jobs will go to lawyers.

Who's Foolin' Who

2010-06-22T10:15:00.000-07:00

You can fool all of the people some of the time. And you can fool some of the people all of the time. But you can fool yourself any old time.

Mastering the political craft entails learning when you can fool a few, or fool them all, and keep from making a fool of yourself. In big time politics, the partisan stuff, this is why they hire professionals.

Locally, county-city races can be a lot more fun to watch. That is until guys come round spiking campaign contributions, organizing special interest lobbies, and so scripting candidates the only fun left is to watch them try and read their lines or respond to a question with a completely inappropriate talking point.

Notwithstanding the illusions of our founders, particularly their faith in the citizenry to check the greed of special interests and corporate beasts, in fact, in an increasingly complex world, not only are the issues beyond simple analysis, we've got professionals intentionally distracting and misleading voters.

Orwell understood that language can corrupt thought and warned, "political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible." Sadly, we lap it up.

The fact is the real issues are, in general, either too complicated for the public to decide, or they're too lazy or busy to try, which leaves the field wide open for those who have a particular interest in getting the taxpayer to pull their wagon or government to groom their ox.

And it works. Thirty years into what historians surely will, henceforth, call the Un-Enlightenment, as we return to feudalism in a class war to undo more than two centuries of political progress, fools are mesmerized by political oratory that inspires them to accept their own impoverishment by increasingly powerful elites who master us financially and will place the average person, and whole nations, in debt peonage.

As those with the most take everything from those with the least, the rest are silent and scurry to protect what little they have; hoping it will stop with those who have less than themselves.

Here at home, it is not hard to understand, then, why so few politicians speak for the public, and so many listen to special interests. The public seems to divide into two groups. Those who can be manipulated by fear and selfishness, and those who assume elected representatives will look out for them. So I guess, in either case, maybe we're all fools.

In the last few weeks, it's just a coincidence, several county council-members, and planning commissioners as well, have remarked they only see private interests, or more precisely, their lawyers, arguing for policies. That is: all they see are the well represented enjoying the indefensible being defended by the well paid.

One self described progressive even challenged me recently, "If the public's so interested in protecting Lake Whatcom, how come they're not at these meetings telling us that." So if you think the elected get it, think again.

It is hard to keep the general welfare in mind when all you hear is the constant pleas of the self interested representing themselves to be the public.

Add to that, the equating of money with speech, the substitution of advertising for political debate, and it's not so hard to understand the shift in focus from the general welfare to the bazaar we now call the political process; where almost anything will be traded for a few pieces of silver.

Well, if the public hasn't the time or attention to better understand issues, and appreciating that well spun rhetoric can create the impression that one's particular interests are the public's; it really is the duty of elected officials to resist mistaking the pleas of special interests for a public outcry.

When the attorneys, paid lobbyists and consultants materialize to argue their patrons' point of view is the public interest, elected officials should be judiciously skeptical and place a substantial burden on these scissor-bills to prove the public in general has something to gain; or at least nothing to lose.

While they are rewarded substantially to achieve some particular goal, these professionals may fool some all of the time, and even fool all once and awhile, but don't fool yourself, remember, they can't fool us all, at least not all of the time.

So when you hear the call to "take back our government," ask yourself, who took it away from us? When some orator asks you to believe, "government is the problem," remember Poor Richard's wisdom, "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do."

So let us not fool ourselves. And let's not be fooled again.

The Two Commandments

2010-06-15T18:37:00.000-07:00

And who are they that will deliver the children of mammon the promised land?

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.

Who'll Stop the Machine?

2010-06-13T10:00:00.000-07:00

Last Tuesday, the county council had a chance to show some courage and take a small step to protect Lake Whatcom by ending further subdivision of its watershed.

With state and federal agencies waiting for a plan, watching for any sign of a serious effort to reverse the deterioration of the lake that serves as the water supply for tens of thousands, the county showed they remain a bunch of cowards more afraid of offending "property rights" zealots than failing to protect Bellingham's reservoir.

So now the battle lines are drawn. Whatcom county emasculates growth regulation, disregards state law, and ignores state agencies demanding action to rehabilitate Lake Whatcom. Alone at the ramparts, is the city of Bellingham.

With Sam Crawford initiating a blitzkrieg on the watershed before his reign of terror comes to an end, an army of lawyers, representing land speculators around the lake and elsewhere, attack the county planning department to weaken enforcement of regulations on residential development.

Simultaneously Crawford mounts a campaign to cut the funding for water projects that could contribute to protecting the reservoir.

In a rear guard action, predictably, Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District's plan is in place to assist development all along the north shore by increasing withdrawals from two wells and expanding the delivery system, allegedly put in place just to serve the Lake Whatcom Residential Treatment Center.

And the coupe de grace; the council, with the exception of Carl Weimer, voted against prohibiting further sub-division of the watershed and left the moratorium on the same to expire at the end of August.

If things go as I expect, LWW&SD will claim to have water for any of the new lots, clusters and subdivisions that can't rely on unpermitted wells, though their own sources are closed to new withdrawals. And the county will allow developers to vest alleged "rights" after the moratorium expires.

Opposing them we have little more than a scrappy mayor and a dedicated council, all quite aware of what's at stake.

They have few allies on the county side, and the council members not for out and out development in the watershed are either confused by flaks or push naive proposals to compensate speculators for rights they don't even possess.

While councilwoman Brenner makes sounds like she would put the lake ahead of private interests, given the opportunity, she could not bring herself to vote to protect the watershed because she isn't sure of it's boundaries. Apparently she's only for protecting the lake if its watershed boundaries fall in the right place.

And Ken Mann, when push came to shove, voted with Crawford, ostensibly planning to lead an effort to create development rights for landowners who, in fact, lack a source of water to develop. Given that similar programs to protect farm lands largely rely on taxing the public, this approach promises to be little more than a transfer from the many to enrich a few.

And Bellingham has no allies in the administration or county attorney's office. The county executive and legal officer refuse to respect state laws and rules that would prevent more development in the lake's surrounding watershed. They turn a blind eye to allow the landed gentry to build and subdivide where they know water is unavailable.

At this point the city stands pretty much alone in the effort to address the demands of the state to protect the lake. It was unfortunate that county residents dedicated to the stewardship of our resources relaxed prematurely, and allowed the county council to be captured by a group in the service of special interests.

Now Crawford's council takes its direction from attorneys representing property owners anxious to cash in while they can; land speculators hoping to expand urban growth areas, maximize areas allowing denser development outside urban centers, and in particular, developers interested in vesting rights around Lake Whatcom and escaping regulations intended to stop and reverse degradation of the water supply.

So egregious and mistaken is the thinking of these newly elected council-members, they actually believe the taxpayers should pay people who are prevented from damaging the water supply; compensate them for infringement of some inalienable property right to pollute and build even where water is unavailable for new development.

The rush is on to create new rights for a clever few that the rest of us will be required to purchase simply to have safe water to drink. Ultimately, we will have to choose between more lakeside McMansions and the water supply. If they can't build, at least they'll be able to pass off their losses on us.

It is indeed time for conscientious citizens to get involved and add their voices to the mayor's and the city council-members who fight this travesty. Above all else, it's time to fix county government and stop the machine.

Why Are You Smiling?

2010-06-09T12:10:00.000-07:00

It's hard to know where to begin. Take a modest turn on Upton Sinclair, and say it is difficult to get a man to understand something when they prefer not to think about it; or maybe Tom Paine's, a long habit of not thinking something's wrong creates the illusion that it is right.

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?

The Divine Right of Property

2010-06-06T12:38:00.000-07:00

County Council woman, Kathy Kershner, not long after a discussion of pirating taxes earmarked by voters for the protection of farmland to feed the growth beast, recently announced, at the conclusion of a fruitless effort to permanently end further subdivision of the watershed surrounding Lake Whatcom, that she didn't support reducing any landowner's property value without compensation.

Huh!

Every time these folks increase the land supply for residential development they effectively reduce the future value of every current homeowner's holding in the county. Their help inflating the local real estate bubble, and abetting the overbuilding in rural areas, has certainly created an oversupply situation that exacerbates the decline in home values.

And every time they stretch an urban growth area into resource lands strategically purchased in anticipation of the same, they enrich someone with little or no thought of even requiring the beneficiaries of all this largess not burden the public for turning their empty land into fields of gold.

While the idea of taxing these windfalls to reduce the tax burden on an apparently inconsequential public seems anathema to the representatives of the landed gentry, certainly they can't, with a straight face, be suggesting we create still more.

No, Kathy's a graduate of that divinity school that believes property rights are god given, and that we, the un-landed gentry, must never interfere in the holy process of converting the common wealth to their personal satisfaction.

And somehow, if occasionally we should, certainly the sons of god, our founders, must have provided for such untoward outcomes in that great secular bible; it must be a "taking" and the public must atone for the sin. Unfortunately, the faithful are presently in the majority.

Kathy has an interesting way of laying it out there -- not always the way she thinks it will be received. We had the famous faux pas, the distinction without a difference between protecting the lake and protecting our drinking water supply. To those who call it their reservoir, Kershner complained, "this phrase serves as a fear tactic and stops a truthful discussion about what we really need to do to protect our Lake's health."

So, not even facing up to the dilemma of dealing with residential development that should never have occurred, but rather just contemplating the prospect of preventing more of the same; charged by the State of Washington with fixing the problem, Kershner and that crowd's first concern seems to be how to compensate the landed gentry for the anticipated profits that would have resulted from their god given right to destroy the watershed.

The real rub for these true believers, what seems entertainingly ironic to the ungrounded observer listening to their prayers for due process, is the fact that way back in 1926, the U.S. Supreme Court held that zoning based on comprehensive planning was a proper exercise of a state’s power to regulate the use of private property to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community.

The court found that the public good is more important than the private property rights of individuals who own property. The power is referred to in law as the “police power" that is, the power of states to exercise reasonable control over people and property within their jurisdiction in the interest of the community’s security, health, safety, morals, and welfare.

What must really gall the right-wingers who usually stand tall on their soap boxes to sputter and orate on "states rights" is that this police power is accepted as one of the powers reserved to the states under the U.S. Constitution, and cities and counties are creatures of the states.

What seems to eternally frustrate the landed gentry with their blind faith in the sanctity of property rights, even as they would manipulate the county government, is counties are not only creatures of the state, but they must follow state law. And recent history is the story of their public embarrassment in the state's courts as they are unwound from their twisted interpretation of the laws.

No, what the landed gentry are attempting to do here is create new property rights for which the public will subsequently be forced to compensate them. Put plainly, Kershner, Crawford, Nelson, and probably Knutzen, would like to see subdivision of the watershed proceed. Then, when the county and city have to solve the problem of residential development around the lake, the lucky beneficiaries of this largess will have something to sell.

If these landowners are not allowed to increase the number of residences possible for them to build, they can only sell the development rights they have at present. What policy would be in the best interest of the public seems obvious.

Kathy does like to go on though about "takings." If she were to learn a bit more, she would drop that argument. It is long established that only regulations that so restrict the use of property as to leave really no use to its owner amount to a taking for which payment of just compensation is required. To be able to build one house, as opposed to ten, hardly leaves one with no use.

And under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, which allows the exercise of eminent domain for a public purpose, even those who might not care if they disaffect the public drinking water supply can be prevented from the same.

I'm sorry, but how much sympathy must we marshall for "investors" unable to foresee the impact of their dreams of development on the public water supply? Can we ignore the moral hazard of compensating speculators, active or passive, who failed to exercise due diligence and bet wrong on the state exercising its police power to protect the public interest?

Or have they simply shown blind faith in their ability to buy local elections and perpetuate business as usual ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

For example, Nick Kaiser, a local conservative politico who manages Muslim investments particularly fond of real estate, who also is Brett Bonner's financial patron, contributed $20,000 to Kershner's campaign; approximately half her contributions.

So egregious was the appearance of this unseemly effort to buy Kershner a seat on the council that the state legislature found it necessary to place limits on campaign contributions. "I think they should name the bill after me," Kershner quipped.

Add her contributions from others in the development community and you have a council member almost as captured as Sam Crawford, a paid lobbyist for the building industry. Few are as candid as Barbara Brenner, perhaps the most independent member of the council, who has admitted, "that's the one area of the county that I've supported downzoning."

Crawford doesn't want to extend the prohibition on new subdivisions or construction in the watershed around the reservoir. Crawford belittles the threat, telling us many of the potential homes will never be built because of the high cost of the roads needed.

But I'll bet that won't stop anyone from demanding top dollar for any development rights he succeeds in creating. Another case where, to err is human; but to benefit from one's error is, indeed, divine.

Not unlike our national scandal, where the fat cats of finance captured their would be regulators, and raided the public treasury; here we go again, back to the old days and the old ways, with the landed gentry locally setting things up for another score.

So how will we save Lake Whatcom without breaking the taxpayers and water users? Who will say no, no more, to the landed gentry? Who will stop this death by a thousand cuts: road cuts and cutting the forest canopy around the reservoir? To those on the county council, we ask, what's the plan?

How we will compensate the few who feel a divine right to profit is not even an interesting question. They can seek their reward in heaven.

Our Rising Son

2010-05-31T10:00:00.000-07:00

Probably owe Sam Crawford an apology.

Must have ruined his lunch last Thursday. But I had no idea he'd be dining there with his associates from CAITAC; least of all that the hostess would seat us right next to their big round table by the window.

While the serendipity caused me to chuckle, the Japanese were probably having a more karmic moment. Who knows what Ted Mischaikov, Crawford and the land abuse attorneys were contemplating. Seemed to be their salads, as silence fell over the congregation.

But it did eliminate my concern to look further to confirm the rumor Crawford was working for CAITAC. Before we arrived, he was apparently enjoying a collegial luncheon with the rest: lawyers, property managers and other members of the Larrabee Springs lobby.

While you might jump to the conclusion Sam was there for a handout, actually, it's the hosts who are looking for a free lunch. A few gratuities here and there are little more than chump change. Crawford's like a maitre-d' they think can get them a good table at the Whatcom county buffet.

A number of people told me Sam had gone over, and CAITAC now pays him more than we do. I don't buy it; me thinks (sic) it's been that way for some time.  It appears the gang is in the regroup mode following Crawford's failure to undo last years rejection of Larrabee Springs' scheme (notwithstanding the blind support of the council newbies, and Mark Nelson's brother.)

I do remember, some years back, one of CAITAC's minions, one of the many who turned the owners of the North Bellingham Golf Course into the biggest milking operation in Whatcom county, apparently offered Barbara Brenner a position as "land use consultant" to their far eastern client.

The potential conflict of interest was too obvious for the spitfire from North Bellingham. But Crawford has a special little program for just this kind of land abuse work. He even has a special little place to send your honorarium and remain anonymous.  I imagine, if he got the same offer, Sam'd be jumping up and down like the guy in the movie screaming, "show me the money."

Do you still wonder if ol' Sam (or more likely his Emerald Lake Consulting) has a bank account he's not disclosing to the public? Makes you wonder how much CAITAC might have put in it over the years, who contributed on their behalf, what he's been promised, and who else endows the Samuel Crawford Appreciation Memorial.(SCAM)

It would certainly be surprising to find that Sam, unlike the other samurai with their feet under that table, served uncompensated. Though possible, it would surely not be in keeping with Japanese business customs. For what an insult, and affront to harmony, to fail to provide graciously for $am-san.

No, what was striking, after these many years: the development business in Whatcom county still requires sitting down at the Roundtable. Of course they now refer to themselves as "the affected community" seemingly unperturbed by the double entendre.

Harking back to the era of Ayers Consulting, where Crawford learned his trade, you could almost hear it echo from a council gone, "your business hasn't graced our door lately."

It appears the road to riches remains paved by ordinary folks' taxes that provide the infrastructure to turn these fields of straw into gold. And, as ever, there's some ready to throw in for a few pieces of silver. Ever ready to spare their pals in the growth industry paying their own way. Never ready to accept the mandate of the law, and the desire of the public to protect our farmland and forests from encroaching "civilization."

It seems, the more things change, the more they remain the same. Which brings me to wonder: are Crawford's newly elected helpers so naive, so callous, or such true believers, that they can't see these petty connections?

Are we to take up again the futile effort to frustrate state law and watch county governement devolve into the pointless battles of the Dawson and Starkenburg era? Will this be a re-run of the Keystone Co-ops; and their well paid lawyers glorying in the ignorance of their deluded clients?

So ask yourself, does Crawford believe what's good for CAITAC is good for Whatcom county, or is what's good for CAITAC just good for Crawford?  Is Sam in pursuit of the money, or does the money just seem to pursue him?

In any case, it was at least symbolic, when the locals hurried off to their appointed tasks, the gentlemen from the east remained. They sat for some time, signing checks. So who are the chumps?

Sayonara !

So Many Questions; So Few Answers

2010-05-23T12:00:00.000-07:00

Whatcom county's ethics code prohibits its elected officials from engaging in certain activities.

You might think this would prevent special interests from installing a lobbyist on the county council.

Unfortunately, you'd be so very wrong.

While the ethics code prohibits a county official from using their position to secure privileges or exemptions for themselves or others, on at least a dozen occasions, according to recent public disclosures, Sam Crawford apparently has tried.

It's his business, you know!

The ethics code prohibits county officials receiving compensation in any matter connected with their service. Nonetheless Sam Crawford somehow makes a living doing just that.

The ethics code prohibits any county official from engaging in business or a profession that might have them disclose information acquired through their privileged position.

Yet Sam Crawford's provides just this sort of information to his clients, notwithstanding the code's clear requirement to avoid circumstances where that could even possibly happen.

So you might ask yourself, how does he sit in council chambers, executive sessions, even at public council meetings, tapping out messages on his cell phone and receiving instructions from his clients and their attorneys?

It might make you wonder to see him stroll out into the public during and after council meetings and even sit with attorneys and parties suing the county.

As council members and planning personnel have exclaimed to me, "I swear he's got Jack Swanson on speed dial!" Makes you wonder if Belcher-Swanson has Crawford on retainer. (myself, I always suspected he was carrying water for Langabeer & Tull)

Would such things be those "separate financial relationships" the ethics code refers to?

Would it matter if the compensation came from attorneys rather than the people who benefited from zoning changes, expanded UGA boundaries, larger LAMIRDs, shoreline exemptions, boundary line adjustments, variances and assistance in avoiding compliance orders.

I guess since attorneys benefit whatever the outcome, a lawyer would probably argue, if they made payments to, say, a consulting firm, it wouldn't need to be disclosed? That would be a really separate financial relationship!

Hey, people pay lobbyists all the time to lobby the state or congress. Would we object to congressmen or state legislators being lobbyists?

But according to the ethics code, in matters that even indirectly affect the county, elected officials may not participate in reaching decisions in which they have or may receive compensation from anyone who will benefit from the outcome of the matter, even if the compensation is as little as a $100, without fully disclosing the same.

Now would a payment from a lawfirm that went into an undisclosed bank account of a consulting firm owned by an elected official, with just one "consultant" (who just happened to be the elected official), need to be disclosed?

If an elected official wouldn't disclose payments into that bank account, would it be consistent with the county ethic code's requirement to"fully disclose" their affairs? (Now don't waste any time asking the county prosecutor, ethics isn't his department)

This is an interesting question, you see, because Sam Crawford does his lobbying and consulting under the fictitious name, Emerald Lake Consulting. It's Sam's alter ego.

And if folks send money to Emerald Lake Consulting, Sam probably thinks he doesn't even have to mention it, and can get round that "fully disclosing" requirement.

And if no one person (or firm) gives him more than $10,000 per year, he doesn't have to report it to the state either.

And since the bank account isn't in his name, he doesn't have to report how much is in it, no matter what. (hey, politicians pay attorneys big money to come up with these loopholes)

Now when this all started, Sam must have been a little flustered, because at first he said he understood that, "your underlying concerns are reasonable as a voting citizen" regarding his, "nearly eight years of land-use application involvement."

Sam said, "I am and will remain very receptive and openly discuss any aspect of my business in a general nature that does not compromise my client's appropriate entitlement to privacy"

But then the attorneys must have gotten him by the scruff of the neck and taken him to the woodshed, because, when asked to come out from behind the technicalities and share how much money he has received as a consultant since gaining office, Sam had nothing to say. And it has been "Silent Sam" ever since.

Even when it was proposed he keep his clients completely secret, and just disclose the payments he has received, his response has been continued silence.

It seems a little in-genuine to hide behind his clients' privacy, and then, in response to a public disclosure request, supply a list of cases he has lobbied for the last 18 months; like no one could associate their numbers with his clients' names.

It's time Crawford developed at least a rudimentary respect for the ethics code and explained his relationships or recused himself from deliberations where he has a prima facie conflict. He needs to be challenged on the record.

If he wants to be a lobbyist for these folks, go sit out in front and enjoy your three minutes to speak.

Sam Crawford has put himself in a position unlike any other member of the council. He has chosen a profession that places him in a situation that, if it isn't categorically prohibited by the ethics code, demands extraordinary transparency. But he resists requests to disclose any details of his financial dealings.

Given his chosen career, it is almost impossible for him to participate in decisions affecting land use planning, and inappropriate to lobby Planning & Development Services.

For as much as he would like to hide the connection, all his lobbying for developers and special interests from his seat on the council, and his intercession for favors and exemptions at the planning department, drives business to Emerald Lake Consulting.

And even though he doesn't disclose how much he pays himself out of Emerald Lake Consulting, it is a significant part of his income.

Perhaps in Sam's mind, what's good for Emerald Lake Consulting's good for Whatcom county. But I don't think the ethics code was written with that outlook however.

It is the right of the voters of Whatcom county to elect whomever they wish. But no one should expect that right to exempt their favored representative from the ethical requirements of office.

The governing principle of the ethics code is to charge all elected officials of Whatcom County with a duty to hold themselves fully accountable to the highest ethical, professional and legal standards, at all times, while holding office and conducting the public’s business.

So Tuesday, when Sam continues lobbying to extend the growth boundaries out to Smith Road for the folks at CAITAC, and he pushes some convoluted argument that wherever water lines now run, we should allow developers to sprawl out to their hearts' content, let's see if anyone on the council asks him if has gotten a hundred bucks (or might in the future) from someone who will benefit from these outcomes ... maybe their lawyers ... or maybe from Emerald Lake Consulting.

And if any have the courage, isn't it about time to investigate council-member Crawford to determine if he's engaged in activities prohibited by the ethics code?

In particular, if he has participated in quasi-judicial proceedings without disclosing the substance of ex-parte communications with outside attorneys; pursued exemptions from compliance orders and shoreline regulations for clients; sought or received compensation in matters related to his official position; and if he is engaged in a business that might, or has had him disclose information gained in his privileged capacity.

Unlikely the new majority would take umbrage at one of their own shilling for the developers and making a buck in the two oldest professions around.

Sam Crawford should realize, given his profession, the burden's on him to put these questions to rest.

Until we start getting some answers, on matters of growth management and planning, it would be best he remain, Silent Sam.

What Goes Around, Comes Around

2010-05-05T09:06:00.000-07:00

Sam Crawford was a little confused by the concept, "rent seeker" in the recent article here, For What It's Worth.

A lot of people are confused by the label. It's such econ jargon. Maybe Sam would understand better if we called 'em "privilege seekers" or "favor seekers."

He seemed confused because he sent me the message, "your depiction of greedy corporate taskmasters manipulatively tugging on the strings of elected-official-puppets is a grim one no doubt.

I have never seen our local government or local elected officials operate that way. It sounds like something out of an Orwellian stage play."

Sam's reply made me realize "rent seeker" confused him because, for years and years, he's been at the heart of that group locally who lobby and manipulate policy to gain favors and privileges, to get rich at the publics expense.

The group referred to themselves, somewhat proudly, as "The Roundtable" like they were some bunch of knights. They have been with us for decades, quietly, behind the scenes, planning Whatcom county for us long before the Growth Management Act.

In fact, the Act was something of an inconvenience for them, as it suddenly opened the process to public involvement and played havoc with many of the investments they had scheduled to pay off for themselves, and elected officials, as time went by.

The model was simple, and conveniently the real estate bubble made it seem foolproof. These knights went on a crusade to buy up farmland and forest near Bellingham, convince the city to grow that direction, and, wallah, you got rich. The taxpayers could provide the roads, sewers, waterlines, sidewalks, street lamps, you name it, later.

If you had your feet under the table, you were privy to the plan, who would see the plan through, and could place your bets on the winning numbers (and of course invest a little in making sure the right people made the decisions) while those not in the club were left in the dark.

The Roundtable included most of the land speculator/developers, cronies in construction and supply, the usual suspects in land abuse law, political operatives from the Wise Use cult and the local Keystone Co-opts, some prominent realtors, and a number of past and present elected and appointed officials with a hand in local politics.

Of course, way back when, young Sam was just a lowly lumber salesman; yet to matriculate into the consultancy business under the tutelage of Bruce Ayers, or be anointed by the Roundtable to become a county councilman himself.

In those days, Sam was blissfully enamored with secession, and maybe joining a militia to protect us from a Canadian invasion, or the socialist utopia being planned in the north Cascades under the guise of a park; visions of sugar plums didn't dance in his head.

And so, you could often find these characters gathered at Goldies Cafe, the real Whatcom county planning department, brainstorming for the common good.

If you were privileged to sit at the Roundtable (or worked with someone who did) and needed a little help with city or county government, there were always the "consultants" to help, fraternity brothers so to speak, you could pay to intercede without actually having to make your "contribution" public record.

Well, believe it or not, according to Crawford's message to me, he now feels, "Unethical behavior is intolerable," and claims, "I'm with you in spirit in pointing out that we must all be diligent to prevent corruption."

Crawford went on to write, "I still hear your lingering concern, not so much about whether that sort of thing IS happening, but whether that sort of thing COULD happen. And I think that is a very legitimate question to ask."

And finally he repeated, "I am and will remain very receptive and openly discuss any aspect of my business in a general nature that does not compromise my client's appropriate entitlement to privacy."

So I wrote back suggesting a format for the discussion and a way to protect the privacy of any of his clients who didn't want the public to know they were paying Sam. And I waited.

And I waited, and I am still waiting, but no reply. So I guess I am on my own in trying to tell how the Roundtable has been operating, how they have benefited from their close relationship to the representatives they elect, and their plan for our future.

I am willing to give Sam the benefit of the doubt, and even discount the worst suspicions one could form, given the opportunity for mischief he has created. But think about it.

If you were a politician who wanted to take a little on the side for favors, and were faced with the Public Disclosure Law, what's a guy to do?

Well, a big loophole in the law allows you to keep secret a bank account if it's not in your name; say in the name of a fictional entity you own like an LLC. And you needn't report any payments made to your LLC if nobody gives you more than $10,000 in a twelve month period.

Is there room for a little hanky-panky here?

So, why would you use a LLC or a corporation if you're just running a chickey-pokey little land consulting business? Seems like a lot of extra effort, and an invitation for suspicion, for little or no reason. Making so much money you've got a tax reason? Exposed to a lot of risk; more than insurance can cover? Like to do the extra tax return every year?

Maybe the anonymity is worth it. Maybe it's a law of the Roundtable.

But just consider how easy it would be for someone less scrupulous than Sam, say someone who wanted to get ahead and wasn't so concerned about his community or as interested in the law and ethics.

You hookup with a bunch of people willing to pay for favors that will gain them government cooperation, privileges, like little zoning changes, exemptions, lot line adjustments, vesting densities that circumvent state law, or get the county to designate your land for urban growth and make it eligible for services from the city at its taxpayers expense.

Use you imagination. It's a possibility, OK? Whose to say where your official duties end and your special favors begin. Hey, whose to know or even ask?

You manage your billings for these services so nobody has to find out so-and-so paid you nine grand last year; maybe so-and-so's brother-in-law paid you nine grand too. Hey, maybe there were 10, 20, 30 so-and-sos.

A guy could do real well. $150-250 grand a year going into the old LLC and nobody'd be the wiser.

Now, a lot of folks say I'm pickin' on Sam. I don't have any evidence. They say he's as honest as the day is long; stands tall! May be. Probably. But why can't we find out?

Do we have to find his DNA on some county employees dress. Do we have to wait for his bank account to be subpoenaed, if he's such a tall stander?

Frankly, given Sam's peculiar circumstances, running his land use consulting business out of the county council chambers, seems he should feel a duty, not stick us with it while he hides behind technicalities.

So when we gonna have this "open discussion" of his business arrangements? It's great to be "with you in spirit." How about joining us in reality, Sam, and actually take steps that could "prevent corruption."

Sam seems to be able to get the votes to pass all kinds of things these days. How about a simple ordinance requiring disclosure of all payments made to officials or fictional entities they control?

Or are you just playing us, Sam.

I hear, when you're sittin' at the Roundtable, what goes around, do come around.

May B. Fine: Kremen to Olympia

2010-04-26T13:58:00.000-07:00

Visiting the cheery little burg of Bellingham just recently, yours truly was invited to a friendly little toga party by local democrats. The buzz of all buzzes was the unintended announcement of their esteemed leader and county executive.

Certainly dressed for the part, he honored the gathered with joyous news; he would return to Olympia and once again represent the commoners in those marble halls of power.

In his magnanimity, he shared he had not yet determined which political division, the 40th or 42nd, would receive the gift of his representation. Questioned by another pol, who reminded him he did not live in the 42nd, with a wave he reminded the ignoramus, "Did you see the retirement package I finagled? I can afford to move wherever I would, fool!"

Apparently his earlier plan to retire and cash in as a developer of the lands once in his guardianship has fizzled.

Speculation immediately broke out as to what this master strategist might be considering. In his early career, his executiveness had served in the lowly House of Representatives, where he routinely won high honors amongst the scribes of the times for being the least informed amongst representatives.

Another at the party immediately considered the hemlock punch, anticipating the great one would seek the 42nd seat he sought in the lower house, open as a result of the a great republican senator's retirement and after a not so great republican who'd sat in the lowly house announced his intention of rising to greatness.

But all the truly brave-hearts took no time in determining that anything less than a lofty place in the senate would be below the station of this great orator. And there was little chance his mellifluousness could win away the seat of Kevin of the Islands.

No, only one good fight presented itself, and Ericsen of Ferndale would certainly have little chance against Kremen of Wherever.

And no one doubted the courage and audacity of the perpetual campaigner, Peter the Great, to unhorse Doug the Interloper. All agreed, what a glorious triumph it promised to be.

Of course the jesters rolled and tumbled with delight, juggling the various benefits of the great one leaving for a place amongst the gods in Olympia.

This is really a strange place, the county of Whatcom. Not a place to consider incautiously amongst bedfellows.

On the Road; May B. Fine is Assoc. Editor, The New Standard

For What It's Worth

2010-04-25T07:30:00.000-07:00

Last week my disatisfaction with our little world in Whatcom county sort of overflowed.

Maybe it was too much coverage of the thieves and scoundrels in Washington and New York who blithely raped the economy, and now gloat, having one political party prostrate in obedience, and the other on one knee deferentially assuring these thugs they wish not to offend.

Can't put my finger on just what was the tipping point, but there it was. Like the character in the movie, I realized, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

So, out came an article on Sam Crawford, something of a poster boy for the problems in Whatcom county.

The parallel, with Crawford popping up everywhere with his prejudices and conflicts, flipped me. I'm sorry, this guy's not ready for prime time.

I guess it's the realization that things are the same everywhere. Influence peddlers, cozy little crony capitalists, self-promoting politicians turning tricks, and a public too distracted by the pressures of mere survival to understand; we've got it all, like everywhere else.

An anthem from the sixties began, "There's somethin' happenin' here, what it is ain't exactly clear." And I confess, when I see folks' growing anger with the system, I'm reminded of those days. "... a thousand people in the street, singin songs and a carryin signs, mostly say hooray for our side..."

Locally, the popular beef is all about "property rights" and "taxes." Taxes, because we don't think we're getting our money's worth; and property rights because we seem to believe turning farms and forests into tract housing and McMansions will create jobs, affordable housing, and just make it a better world.

So maybe we should try and make the somethin' that's happenin' here -- perfectly clear; because there are some interesting connections between taxes, property rights, and political corruption.

To start, it's important to understand what, in classical economics, is meant by "rent seeker." It most commonly describes someone who receives economic rent by manipulating the political system.

"Economic rent" is an unearned gain, as opposed to profits earned from work and production of real goods or services.

Most rent seeking focuses on gaining special privileges from government decisions and regulation. Rent seeking commonly is accomplished by influencing government policy in a way that creates wealth for the rent seeker at the expense of the public and taxpayers.

Another type of rent seeker is the corrupt bureaucrat or politician who solicits payments for abusing their discretionary power on behalf of clients who will pay them.

Special interests seeking lax enforcement of the law, for instance vesting a right to develop more houses on their property, is a perfect example of rent seeking in practice.

Most economists recognize the value of land is largely attributable to the provision of government services and infrastructure (road building, water, public schools, fire protection, police and medical services etc.) rather than any contribution by the landowner.

This is why land speculators so aggressively lobby for their property to be up-zoned and included in jurisdictions that provide these services and infrastructure. We see 'em all the time trying to reshape urban growth areas to include their land. Even the county executive tried it.

The moral hazard in tolerating rent seeking is great. If "buying" a county council, or influencing those responsible for enforcement of regulations, is cheaper than bearing the real costs of adding land to urban areas, developers will tend to choose the cheaper option, leaving the public and the taxpayers to bear the future costs.

Some economists argue that government should reform the tax systems, and first recover the windfall rents they create for private interests, rather than levying taxes on those who actually work and produce something.

These unearned profits could be an important source of public revenue. But the rent seekers use some of their unearned profit to keep from being taxed (bribes and campaign contributions) and transfer the tax burden to the public, who they convince should oppose all and any taxes.

So does this remind you of the situation right here at home?

Maybe next time you go to a tea party, and you're all worked up about your taxes; and you're convinced that the guvmit is trying to grab yer land because some clever scissorbill's explained how you too could get rich like them if you could just stick it to the taxpayer. Just remember, that's you taxpayer.

The time has come to look at the situation for what it is. They're gettin' rich, we're payin' taxes. Our government is turning their straw into gold with zoning regulations and vesting policies. It's time we saw their land for what it's worth, not what we make it, and at least get some of that gold to pay for our help.

As I recall, that old song wound up, "everybody look what's goin down."

Sam Crawford: In His Own Defense

2010-04-23T07:43:00.000-07:00

Last night Whatcom County council member Crawford responded to last Sunday's article here, which questioned the appropriateness of his conduct on the county council given his occupation and relationships with developers and land speculators through his consulting business, Emerald Lake Consulting.

He acknowledges, "your underlying concerns are reasonable as a voting citizen." regarding his, "nearly eight years of land-use application involvement."

He points out the Public Disclosure Law does not require him to disclose the names or amount of payments he receives through his business if they are less than $10,000 during the reporting year.

He assures us this has never occurred and would infer that in all cases he has employed an "overabundance of caution ... to avoid any and all appearance of fairness or conflict of interest."

Mr. Crawford concludes by saying, " I am and will remain very receptive and openly discuss any aspect of my business in a general nature that does not compromise my client's appropriate entitlement to privacy. I am always glad to provide references for serious land-use inquiries."

In response to that offer, it would be a good start if the council member would exceed the letter of the law and share with us how much he has received in his consultant capacity since gaining office. It is hard to imagine that all his clients demand privacy.

But the gravamen of the earlier article might be simply stated: why would one on the council pursue a career so open to conflicts of interest, or why would one with a career so potentially in conflict with the duties of a council member seek to be on the council?

Below is the full text of his response, which he offered be published here. (editor)

Mr. Greg Kirsch,

Regarding your website posting:

Someone directed me to your website, and your discussion about potential conflicts-of-interest that may come about for a council member (specifically me) who also works as a land-use consultant. You bring up excellent questions, and even though they characterize the situation quite suspiciously in tone, your underlying concerns are reasonable as a voting citizen.

As you can imagine, I am extremely careful about conducting my client relationships and transactions in a manner that is above-board and not conflicting with my role as an elected official. I also observed in past years former council member McShane appropriately expressing a similar transparency in his business relationships, and I respect his diligence regarding potential conflicts or the appearance thereof.

But regardless of my good intentions and integrity, which will be vouched for by anyone I ever worked with in the business arena and the political arena, could there be some unintentional advantage for a client of mine who has pursued a land-use permit with Whatcom County government? (To be clear, the financial outcome is the same for me in every application process because I have never 'partnered' on any project, and I bill clients hourly with detailed invoices.) This is a matter to which I am extremely alert and diligent, and I have never received the slightest hint or implied response from any city or county planning or public works staff interaction to the contrary. The thought has crossed by mind that my elected status may actually subject an application I have submitted on behalf of a landowner to a review that is even more extensive than would normally be the case. But after nearly eight years of land-use application involvement, I will again state there has never appeared to be any special consideration - lesser or greater - that is either short of or beyond a standard review, and client applications for various proposals I've worked on have ended up with both acceptance and rejection by various county or city staff.

Regarding public disclosure: the state law requires I disclose (on an annual basis to the Public Disclosure Commission) the name of any client (regardless of the nature of my business) that has provided $10,000 or more in revenue to my business. This has never occurred, either within a single year, or in the aggregate for a single client over all the years of my experience. The most extensive applications I have worked on have involved considerably smaller fees in total than that amount. I assist people with applications and then give them feedback to clarify the municipality's regulatory response, as well as speculate on the next steps to take in what is very often a somewhat complex process. I am not an attorney, a habitat biologist, a real-estate professional, an engineer, nor a surveyor, but I coordinate communication between clients (who have no experience in these areas) and the qualified professionals needed to meet the respective municipalities requirements.

Regarding recusing myself as a council member from a council action, I have seen potential conflicts with my business and client relationships extremely rarely, but there have been several times. A number of years ago when I worked at Ayers Consulting, there was a request to the council by an Ayers client to receive a one-year long-subdivision approval extension allowed by law (Mr. Ayers presented the request, not me). Not only did I not participate in any discussion or vote on that matter, I actually left the council dais when it was brought before the council. Also a year or two ago there was a road improvement to be voted on that was about a quarter mile from a Bellingham short plat - inside but near the city limits - I had worked on previously. Although unnecessary, I recused myself from participating in that discussion or vote, simply because I speculated that someone might think I was voting on a benefit to the existing or future nearby residents of infill lots in the city I had assisted in creating. I use that overabundance of caution as an example of my extreme effort to avoid any and all appearance of fairness or conflict of interest issues.

I am and will remain very receptive and openly discuss any aspect of my business in a general nature that does not compromise my client's appropriate entitlement to privacy. I am always glad to provide references for serious land-use inquiries.

As you can see, I am forwarding this communication to the County Executive, Deputy Administrator, Planning Director, and council attorney, in case there are any additional clarifications deemed appropriate. Please feel free to post this response on your website.

Sincerely,
Sam Crawford

Just Business, Sam ?

2010-04-18T13:10:00.000-07:00

Since January, with the election of a so called "conservative" county council, and the clever appointment of another favorite son of the development lobby, there seems to be a new found interest in ethics.

New found; well it wasn't so significant a topic before. The previous council majority was largely lambasted for putting the public interest before the interests of land speculators, and the general welfare ahead of the desires of particular individuals.

But now that we've seen just how overreaching is the greed of the self interested, and how unembarrassed these self-described "conservatives" are to take money from special interests and, without pause or hesitation, do their bidding, I have a question.

Have you ever heard of Emerald Lake Consulting?

Emerald Lake Consulting is a land-use consulting business, that Sam Crawford operates from his home near Toad Lake, just outside Bellingham. As such it caters to the needs of the real estate and development industry.

Crawford started the business in 2007. Before that, in addition to his duties as a county council member, he was the business manager of Bruce Ayer's little enterprise, Ayer's Consulting LLC, where he learned the curious trade in information and access.

For those who've forgotten, Ayers enjoyed a controversial career on the Bellingham city council before being replaced by Barbara Ryan. The firm specialized in consulting on development projects and permitting.

Crawford appears to have learned the craft well enough to carry on alone; well, sort of alone.

Now maybe you are asking yourself, how can someone advertising for clients who need permits, or zoning changes, or other special considerations to get their development projects approved, sit on the council and vote on budgets, zoning questions or ordinances without appearing unfair to his clients' opponents? And that is a good question. So good, it literally answers itself.

And questionable as it was that he and Ayers, county and city councilmen respectively, would have such a business; isn't it even stranger that Crawford would continue the ruse on his own, still remaining on the county council?

Our laws would seem to discourage such an undertaking, where they require no official engage in business or professional activity that might tempt them to disclose confidential information acquired in their official position.

The code is pretty emphatic. No elected official shall disclose any confidential information acquired during their term of office, or use such knowledge to advance theirs or any other's financial interest.

Wasn't there a request recently for Crawford to disclose his e-mail and text correspondence? Has he responded? Or is he fighting that?

One friend recently remarked, he'd been to Planning & Development Services (you gotta love that name) three times, and twice he ran into Crawford at the counter. But certainly, the chairman of the county council inquiring on your behalf is no special advantage in getting your interests served.

Perhaps Crawford just doesn't understand the county code where it prohibits county officials using their position to secure special privileges or exemptions. Or that restriction on council members interfering in the executive branch. (Though I doubt Pete would complain. They're both just serving the public as best they can!)

I am surprised Crawford has seldom, if ever, recused himself from a vote; even though the county code requires a council member with a private interest in any law or policy proposed or pending not vote in the matter. I can not imagine that being paid by the beneficiaries of the outcome is somehow exempted. But then, the law is weak. It relies on the integrity of the individual.

And where the county code generally prohibits any official receiving compensation in connection with a matter related to the official’s service, I just assume Crawford believes when he's out at the planning department, helping his clients, it's an unofficial visit. But it could be he feels enforcement of the protections in place are unrelated to his service with the county.

But even more, I am wondering why it isn't possible to find a detailed report of the payments Crawford receives through this front company. I certainly respect his interest in not embarrassing his clients, who are just trying to get a little edge.

I wonder, because the Revised Code of Washington seems pretty clear in stating no payment shall be made to, or accepted by, any person required to report under public disclosure law directly or indirectly, in a fictitious name, anonymously, or by one person through an agent, relative, or other person to conceal the identity of the source of the payment.

So how do people make payments to Emerald Lake Consulting, and how does Crawford take money out of his firm, without disclosing the same?

It seems that the laws intend that Crawford should be a lot more up front on this stuff. I wonder why his rock-ribbed Republican friends haven't complained? Well, maybe respect for the law isn't one of those "conservative" principles any more.

g.h.kirsch: Let's Shoot the Messenger

2010-04-10T05:12:00.000-07:00

The word's come down from on high: Planning Director David Stalheim can't seem to get the message right. And so, you can expect Pete will have to send him packin' like poor old Hal Hart.

You gotta feel sorry for David. He's really stuck between the proverbial rock and the hard place.

On one hand, he tells Pete's pals what they want to hear and looks like a fool to his peers in the planning profession. Or, he feigns ignorance and gets blamed when the county gets called for gaming the system.

Remember the little business where Pete had Planning draw that big ole LAMIRD on Squalicum Mountain to include his property and finesse zoning? That went over real good!

I still remember Pete squealin' when it was caught; how it cost him a million bucks. Then he bragged how he'd get reelected and make up for it. I didn't realize it then, he must have already figured out the tricky little move that got him that big raise.

To his credit, Stalheim has pulled the Planning Department back together after the last shooting. They are actually getting things done. But he's been unable to tell the guys who count what they want to hear. So, Pete and Dewey are spreading the word, season's open for planning directors.

Now I confess, after the Hart massacre, I heaped a lot of derision on Stalheim. But heck, it was pretty obvious Pete and his pals went shoppin for someone who'd get the message right.

Trouble is, that's what they got! It's just hard to find anyone who can read who's gonna tell 'em what they want to hear.

The really rich part, is watchin' all these local land abuse attorneys takin' money from these fools who believe, just cuz they can buy the county council, and buy the county executive, they're supposed to have it their way.

These scissorbills got a pretty good thing goin'; keep tellin' these fools to sue and send the checks. Seems there's a sucker born every minute, and a whole bar ready to take 'em.

So now these guys have told their boy Pete, in no uncertain words, to get the message to Stalheim.

But ya know what kinda takes the humor out of the whole thing? How much it's costin us to defend ourselves from these greedy bastards.

It's a real double bind. We eat the legal expense, and time for county employees to respond to all these lawsuits they cook up; or we end up eatin' all the costs of providin' the infrastructure and services their little projects entail.

It's almost more than a simple fella can comprehend.

Well I guess the best we can do is minimize our losses, and just say thanks to Pete's pals the only way we can. I say it's open season on county executives.

Let's shoot the messenger.

g.h.kirsch: Who Are The Clowns ?

2010-04-04T17:07:00.000-07:00

Obama's bozos, Geithner and Summers, were bringin' it as only they can last week.

The brain trust was front and center with their usual prescription for recovery and restoration of economic security: turn over the treasury to the lords of Wall Street, put it on the taxpayers' credit card, and lie, lie, lie, (with statistics of course.)

Speaking Thursday, Geithner insisted "if the bank rescue of 2008-09 had been handled in any other way – for example, being tougher on bankers – the costs to the real economy would have been substantially higher." (Hey, this guy knows where he'll be working next!)

MIT Professor and former chief economist for the IMF, Simon Johnson, found it impossible to believe that the government could not have been tougher on banks and bankers in spring 2009.

Johnson wrote, "The idea that every failed top banker needed to keep his job – and that every director of a failed bank needed to stay in place – is simply preposterous."

"All those people should have had their contracts broken and their bonuses clawed back to the full extent possible. Losing personal money is the only thing that modern American financial executives ultimately understand."

Mr. Johnson recalled Larry Summers, in a lecture to the American Economic Association in 2000, saying, “It is certain that a healthy financial system cannot be built on the expectation of bailouts.”

Nonetheless, Geithner is quietly pushing Bailout, The Sequel; trading these banks' worthless paper (even second mortgages on properties underwater on their firsts) for government guaranteed (that would be us taxpayers) instruments.

And what of the prospects for meaningful reform of the banking system that brought us to our knees, and wreaked havoc on the lives of countless Americans?

Like the prospects of a bill that would have addressed the real issues in health-care, the administration, and the Democrats, will turn a mountain into a mole hill. Do you really think Chris Dodd is going to jeopardize a seat on Goldman-Sach's board?

The problem is, these same bankers were critical and influential contributors to Obama's campaign. Money gets honey! So when you hear their boy Timmy tell us, "The president’s not gonna sign a bill that doesn’t have strong enough teeth." understand, it's a lullaby. Go to sleep, go to sleep, your interests we'll keep.

Again, Simon Johnson offers a more objective view, "Geithner is completely wrong if he thinks it has teeth. There is simply nothing there that will rein in our largest financial institutions – and you can see this in the financial markets. The biggest and most dangerous elements of Wall Street have taken over Washington." (No job for you with Jamie Dimon, Mr. Simon!)

But for me, the capper is this clown Summers. After decades of prostituting himself where he might, and enjoying a position to easily see the steady, downward drift of our economic health, he's still willing to just keep bullshitting us. But not just run of the mill bullshit; really great bullshit!

On Sunday Larry provided a real lesson in what is wrong with these people. They are not interested in dealing with the problems, it is all about obscuring them to perpetuate their temporary grasp on power and the privileges with which these fat cats are blessed .

Asked why, with alleged growth in jobs recently, there is no related decline in unemployment, he actually gave up the statistical fraud being run on the electorate.

He actually allowed that those whose unemployment had run out, the under-employed, and others who have given up trying to find work, are not counted in the almost 10% "official" unemployment rate.

This is in keeping with economist Paul Craig Roberts' recent appraisal that, if we applied the same measure used in 1981, actual unemployment would be above 20%; approaching levels seen during the Great Depression.

No, Summers explained, if people who are not working begin to look for work, we can not expect unemployment numbers to fall any time soon.

Yes, that's right. If these people would just not look for work, we will eventually reach 0% unemployment without having to create any jobs.

You gotta love statistics. Problem, what problem? Here, let me show you why you haven't got a problem.

So, who are the clowns? Well, these two aren't missing any meals. Their bank accounts continue to swell. Their friends are doing fine, no matter how much they lose. And their friends will take care of them when the time comes.

No, we are the clowns. We might as well paint on a smile and go out on the street with a tin cup.

We have come to a point where there is just one political party, the Plutocrats. Sure they have two denominations, sort of like the Episcopalians and Presbyterians.

Big deal, they worship the same god.

Don't Put No Lipstick On This Piggy

2010-04-02T19:37:00.000-07:00

After last weeks revelations from West Hollywood, that treasured Republicans, known as Young Eagles, have an unhealthy interest in certain women's issues, RNC chairman Michael Steele has gone to great lengths to present a more staid image than these affluent young donors.

Steele was seen Friday returning numerous items, bras, teddies, and an extraordinary variety of boyshorts, to Victoria's Secret. He was later seen at J.C. Penney purchasing a six pack of granny panties, and a Republican plain cloth coat.

Stung by criticism of his lavish style, private jets and Hawaiian rendezvous, climbing on a Greyhound in downtown Washington, Steele announced that the Republican Central Committee would hold their quarterly meeting at the Capital Heights Motel 6.

Observers find Steele's transformation a little strange and hard to believe. Confronted, Steele's response was, "Strange, you want strange? I do strange."

Interviewed on The Glenn Beck Show, Tea Party darling and former Miss Wasilla, Sarah Palin was critical of Steele's hair. But Palin allowed she, "kinda liked the changey thing."

"If he really wants to sell this, he's gotta get a better hairdresser. I recommend the guy Grampa John hired for me. And hey, I know some great places to shop. Ya know, clothes don't just make the man!"

Beck disagreed. He recommended Steele switch to Butchwax.

Listeners tuning in to Rush Limbaugh's daily radio program were treated to an unusual moment when the host, missing the On Air signal, commented he thought Steele was "hot, but would probably bring over a grand in rubber."

Former Young Eagles director, Allison Meyers, fired by the RNC, had some advice for party chairman Steele. "If he's going to go for it, he's got to get down. You aren't going to raise classical money without a little more skin and a lot more action."

But the biggest surprise to come out of Republican headquarters this week was the announcement that celebrity transvestite RuPaul will be Steele's new assistant and replace Meyers with the Young Eagles.

Questioned by reporters, the new aide encouraged his boss. "Look at me--a big old black man under all of this makeup, and if I can look beautiful, so can you."

Challenged that Steele's new image would not be accepted by mainstream Republicans, the flamboyant aide opined, "We all came into this world naked. The rest is all drag."

"All sins are forgiven once you start making a lot of money."

A message that will have the ring of truth for many Republicans.

May B. Fine; Assoc. Editor, The New Standard

"Would You Like Some More Tea?"

2010-03-29T16:05:00.000-07:00

To which Alice replied, "I've had nothing yet, so I can't take more."

An obviously proud member of the local Tea Party recently wrote, offended at my characterization of the group as "a pageant of village idiots."

The writer, anonymous of course, accused me of "making an uninformed slur."

Now I take umbrage at such a suggestion, for I am very careful to make only informed slurs.

But I was truly taken by the writer's assertion, while clearly possessed of great faith, that, henceforth, they would only cast their precious vote for candidates who "will uphold the US constitution."

I am reminded of the late great political movement that marginalized the Republican Party, the religious right, with political illusions of biblical proportion. Which illusions spawned the neo-cons and their foreign policy rooted in Revelations and some obscure prophecy of the Rapture.

Well, I suppose substituting the Constitution for the bible is a step in the right direction. But in response to my critics recommendation I "check my facts", I can only suggest that they and their fellow travelers check reality.

The first step in such a reality check might be to consider history. While the Tea Partiers may think the constitution is a simple read, and that Dick Armey and Sarah Palin are some sort of oracles, whose reading of the constitutional tea leaves is sacrosanct, in fact, the document was only produced after years of wrangling.

In the end the outlook was adopted by people on all sides that this was to be a living document, to be amended, and to be interpreted by a court of men above politics. Crafting the document was so arduous that it took several years more to agree on the Bill of Rights, the meaning of which still largely eludes us.

So whence comes this simplistic notion that we return to a better time, and re-commit ourselves to the beliefs of the founders. Which founders would that be? Hamilton? Jefferson and Madison? John Adams? Franklin? These fellows were hardly in agreement. Like today, opinion was all over the board.

They were however united in the realization that this new nation required a national government. And they were similarly realistic that government needed to collect taxes in some form to preserve the union and pay its debts.

Given their recent experience fighting the British, the Continental Congress was fresh in their minds; as was the memory of Washington's Continental Army.

And the most fractious dispute in Philadelphia was the issue of a central bank. No, it was not about taxation, or even taxation without representation. It was about who would print the money! Private interests or the national government.

And in this, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin prevailed over Hamilton and his Whigs. The creation and management of the currency would be reserved to Congress. At the heart of the struggle, starting with the drafting of the constitution and continuing now for some two centuries, has been a philosophical disagreement on the supremacy of government over private interests in the economy of the country.

Unfortuneately, we currently have lost control of this most vital tool to private interests who enjoy largely unregulated sway over the economic lives of Americans.

So this is why I find the call by these ingenues to check the power of our national government to so beg the historical question. There never was much of a consensus, isn't now, and will never be.

The best that can be said of the Tea Party is their many voices, and conflicting positions, has produced an incoherent dissonance.

Like so many blind men and the elephant, they fumble around in the dark unaware of their lack of agreement. And their cohesion around some notion of constitutionalism is a fantasy.

How can these tea partiers miss the Alice in Wonderland illogic of their opposition to attempts, any, even trivial, to reform a health care system that is bleeding them like medieval medical charlatans?

And what a deal it is for the beneficiaries of the status quo! The way they play our two noble political parties off against each other is splendidly Machiavellian. Heads I win; tails you lose.

If the Democrats feeble effort stands, the insurers rake it in from 35 million more victims and reach into tax payers pockets to subsidize those too poor to bleed in their own right. If the Republicans, and their foot soldiers in the Tea Party prevail, it’s business as usual; no change.

I can’t wait to see them in the streets defending the fat cats from reform of the financial system. Wall Street will be laughing up their sleeves, grinning like so many Cheshire cats.

And as for the illusion they will cast a vote for the defenders of the constitution; the fact is their choice will be between two evils the monied interests present them. Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum.

The unfortunate fact is the Tea Party movement, or whatever it is, is really a distraction from real reform of our political institutions, frustrates the opportunity to seize our economy back from the corporatocrcy, and delays a return of governance to the people.

We can only hope that some day enough of them will wander out of the fog and realize that these are very old issues, fights that have been fought by great people in the past, and that real reform requires more reason and less faith.

In the end, regards the Tea Party as a political movement, I will agree with Alice (you remember Alice?), "If it had grown up, it would have made a dreadfully ugly child; but it makes rather a handsome pig, I think."

Kremen Delivers State of Denial Address

2009-05-31T18:36:00.000-07:00

In the panoply of life's great disappointments Pete Kremen's state of the county reading last Tuesday ranked no higher than his other disappointing attempts to address the county's future.

He's no more clue this year than last, when he told us how rosy things were, only to announce a deficit of some five million dollars a few days later. But that's what keeps getting him re-elected. Telling folks what they want to believe.

Is everyone living in a state of denial? No some, of course, are living in a state of ignorance. Without which, Kremen's repeated re-election could not happen. It's hard to decide who is dumb and dumber; Dewey for writing such an inane fluff piece, or Pete for reading it.

Their message: the problems are national, we're not as bad off as others and, hey, we got two really neat new parks. And not to worry. The Kremen administration was preparing for present events, even if they didn't tell us last year.

According to Pete, through vision and foresight, they failed to find anyone to replace employees who retired, or just got sick of it and quit. Now isn't it fortunate attrition and resignations were, coincidentally, in just those areas the county had no personnel needs. Are we to believe we lost the worst, and the best have stayed?

And amazingly, somehow, the folks left still got the work done. Oh, it was nothing short of heroic, says Kremen, slathering on the BS for the union reps. No, Pete is really the master manager. Maybe it's not denial. Maybe it's delusion.

We may not have been able to restore long range planning to a credible level. The planning department might not be able to provide the County Council or Planning Commission with thoughtful or coherent advise on ordinances any more. But we do have plenty of clerks at the counter if anybody ever wants to apply for a building permit again. And don't forget those two neat new parks.

Ah, how deftly the invisible hand of attrition steers the ship of state. Pete convinced me. Attrition and serendipity work so well, why do we even need an executive and his overpaid crew?

The solution: 40 hours less this year and next and don't replace anyone who quits or retires.

But we certainly can't have any layoffs. We'll just wait for the deadwood to drift away. It would certainly be unfair to lay off unneeded employees in order to hire the ones we need. We're going to have “furloughs” not “layoffs.”

I missed the part about Kremen resetting his salary to its former level; giving up some of the 20+ percent raise. But he does set some kind of an example, he's on furlough most all the time. Or maybe he's out admiring those great parks.

But I didn't miss the big crowd pleaser, meant to make us feel good even though one in five can't find enough work. Boy oh boy, did we ever get some swell parks this past year. Hey all you green goof balls. Ain't that great! Ignore the sprawl. Ignore the fouled lake. Ignore the subdivisions choking the ag lands. You want economic development? Check out those parks!

And closing on that feel good blather, our own Great Leader tells us to forget about unemployment; not to worry about inflated prices for groceries and about everything else next year; taxes that won't go down anything like the equity in our homes, and a budget that will only be balanced by making services even poorer than they are now. Get out there and enjoy them parks!

Don't worry you fat cats. Pete won't let you down. You can rely on county policy continuing to be crafted to make you wealthier as long as you can keep him in office. Because one thing Pete and his legal boys know how to do is read those regulations (or not read em or change em if necessary) to keep your cash flowin'. And sellin' the envirophiles on more swell parks.

He may not be able to deliver much of a speech, but he can deliver for you. And there won't be any of that attrition in the institutionalized campaign. Old Joe Bates'll keep trying to spread the bull over the real problems.

Is anyone wondering what will happen to services or taxes as the deflated housing market turns even more gruesome and property values a couple years from now are half what they were in 2006? Well the demand for services will just keep costing more. Almost six million for one stop light at Pole and Hannegan. Some three million for a quarter mile of road on Yew Street. It ain't gonna stop.

No, what's been missing for years is a leader who faces up to problems and addresses the real issues. Not one on a constant campaign. What a bunch of hokum, always patting yourself on the back for not raising tax rates.

The fact is, county government became addicted to growth. Growth provided ever increasing revenues and allowed a lazy administration to slide on management for years. Population swelled and developers sprawled out where farmers and foresters once worked. Government swelled because no one had the guts to demand it be efficient.

Kremen et al simply didn't understand how time slipped past them and never got around to crafting a smaller and more efficient government that we'd be able to afford when the bubble inevitably burst.

Instead they got hooked on new revenues they should have earmarked for future needs growth demands.

Now they want to slide out of office and leave the mess. Come on. We need to tackle this mess now, and with more than platitudes, and the hope that the right people will leave or retire. It's time to run things. Not run away.

You had to love Pete's rhetorical wind up though. Turning the metaphor and going back to the feel good message, those swell new parks, he told us, like the wonderful paths the county bets will keep us off the road to ruin, the trail ahead “may be a steep one, but what wonderful new vistas lie ahead.”

Probably true if you're the guy that just creamed off the retirement package he did.

I expect he finished with the shining city on the hill stuff, but I can't say because I had to rush outside and puke.

Happy trails to you … until we meet again …

Dan's Fight to Be Seen a Conservative

2009-05-22T09:00:00.000-07:00

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.

Who's Stealing Our Water?

2009-05-21T07:55:00.000-07:00

As can often be the case, a law once reasonable and practical may become impractical, contradictory and absurd. So it is with alleged “exempt wells” law in Washington state.

While we have come to think that our rains and annual snow packs have blessed us with an abundance of water for all and every need, the fact is that as in all of the other western states, water is dear. Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and, of course, California are all facing water crises that stem from decades of growth and its associated demand for water.

In every instance, the thirst of growing population has come up against the needs of agriculture and the very survival of other species and their habitat. Like everything else in our world, water is a finite resource.

Over the past two centuries water law has evolved as conflicting demands have required. For some hundred years the law has been clear: the water belongs to the public; the rights of latecomers, if any, are junior to earlier users’ rights, and where no water is available, where it is already put to good use, no right to it can be acquired.

Growth management legislation, passed in the early 1990s, established a clear link between the development of land and water availability. Under these laws, an applicant for a building permit, or an individual seeking approval of a plan to subdivide, is required to prove there is an adequate water supply. It is in this context that so-called exempt wells are interesting.

In 1945, the legislature enacted the Ground Water Code that established the same process for perfecting a right to use groundwater that had earlier been established for vesting a right to use surface waters. Above all else, withdrawal of groundwater was not to affect surface water rights.
Exempt Well Is Misnomer

At the time, most population growth was in cities, and residences outside of urban areas (aside from farms and ranches) were few. To prevent the new law from being unnecessarily burdensome on folks living in the country, who irrigate small gardens, water stock, and generally live a rural lifestyle, some uses of groundwater were allowed without first applying for a permit. Hence the misnomer “exempt well.” The exemption from applying for a permit was never intended to exempt anyone from the other requirements of the law.

Fast forward 50 years and you have a powerful lobby for residential development exploiting this exemption to claim an enormous and erroneous loophole that allows sprawling subdivisions to expand ever outward from our urban centers into rural lands. In 50 years, the number of these exempt wells in Washington had grown to 404,000 by 1995. By 2003, the state estimated there were over 750,000, with thousands more being added each year.

Here in Whatcom County we call these suburban enclaves, outside of areas designated for urban growth, “clusters” and they often rely on unpermitted wells that could never be granted a right to water. These wells take water needed by farmers who have used it for some time and are waiting for their rights to be recognized.

These unpermitted wells eventually preempt existing users, forcing them to give up or compromise their rights, as we are witnessing in the Bertrand Creek basin. More clusters are being proposed that will impair Ten Mile Creek and other surface waters closed to further withdrawals.

As the proliferation of these wells continued, their impacts on farming, the environment, critical areas and instream flows became more obvious and better understood. The Minimum Water Flows and Levels Act of 1967 was the first attempt to protect fish and other instream values by allowing the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) to establish minimum instream flows.

In different parts of the state, disputes arose between existing water users and latecomers who were taking water without a right, or even a nominal demonstration that water was available. Developers succeeded in exploiting the situation in large part because the burden of proving that senior rights were being impaired fell upon the victims. Throughout western Washington, significant among those victims have been the anadromous species presently threatened with extinction in spite of the 1967 act.

So, in 1971, as part of the Water Resources Act, establishment of base flows in rivers and streams was mandated by RCW 90.54.020(3)(a), which required that the natural environment be protected and base flows in our rivers and streams be sufficient to preserve fish, wildlife, scenic, aesthetic and other environmental values.

RCW 90.54.040 authorized a comprehensive state water resources program for making future water allocation decisions. Pursuant to this authorization, Ecology adopted rules establishing the Water Resources Inventory Areas and minimum flows. In Whatcom County, this process was largely allowed to die from lack of funding when it became clear that, because its waters were already over allocated, future development would be severely restricted.
Significant Litigation

Evolving legislation intended to protect senior rights and the environment soon led to significant litigation. It is critical to understand two cases: Hubbard v. Department of Ecology and Postema et al v. The Pollution Control Hearing Board.

In 1992 the Hubbard brothers applied to withdraw water from the Wagonroad Coulée aquifer to irrigate their orchards. The aquifer drains into the Okanogan aquifer, which in turn feeds the Okanogan River. They were allowed to proceed on a temporary basis while Ecology investigated the availability of water for appropriation.

RCW 90.03.290 requires Ecology to reject an application if there is no unappropriated water available, or if withdrawal will conflict with existing rights or be detrimental to the public welfare (Jensen v. Department of Ecology).

Two aspects of water rights seniority are important to this case. First, the rights of surface water appropriators are superior to those subsequently acquired in underground water that is a tributary source of the surface water, or that may otherwise affect the flow of the surface water (Rettkowski v. Department of Ecology). Second, under state law, minimum flows are treated as appropriations with priority dates effective as of their establishment.

In general, water can move from the ground to surface waters, as well as from surface water to groundwater. How it moves depends on several factors, including gravity, saturation of the ground materials, the hydraulic gradient, the level of the groundwater and the type of material through which it moves.

Pumping well water can affect groundwater movement by lowering pressure and wellheads, by reducing groundwater storage and by changing rates of groundwater recharge and discharge. The interrelationship is known as “hydraulic continuity” and can be quite complex. Its effects are sometimes difficult to measure and may occur great distances from the point of withdrawal. Pumping may not have a discernible effect on surface water until considerable time has passed.

In Hubbard v. Ecology the evidence showed, and the courts ruled, that the coulée aquifer was tributary to the Okanogan aquifer and therefore affected the river’s flow. Accordingly, the Hubbards’ rights to groundwater from the aquifer were junior to the minimum instream flow established in 1976 for the river.

Additionally, since any allowed use of surface waters must be conditioned to protect the minimum levels established for each river basin, if there is hydraulic continuity between surface water and the proposed underground water source, the groundwater use must be subject to the same conditions.

Hence the Hubbards’ permit required they not use water whenever the Okanogan River was below minimum instream flow. The Hubbards’ appeals to the Pollution Control Hearings Board, the Superior Court and the State Court of Appeals were unsuccessful, and the principal of hydraulic continuity became an important consideration in water allocations.

In 1995, John Postema was one among many applicants in King and Snohomish Counties denied by Ecology a right to groundwater in hydraulic continuity with surface waters closed to further appropriations, primarily to preserve instream flows and protect salmon.

Among other arguments, Postema contended that some minimal impairment of senior rights and instream flows was expected by the Legislature, and to be tolerated, because, by statute, exempt wells were allowed and necessarily would have an effect on instream flows.

In October of 2000, the Washington State Supreme Court rejected this argument stating that legislative exemptions from the permitting system do not determine what “impairment” means, implicitly asserting that the limited exemption from permitting did not trump the whole body of water law, which includes the requirement that water be available for additional appropriation in order to gain a right to its use.
Withdrawal Can’t Impair Closed Waters

The court held that where there is hydraulic continuity, and withdrawal of groundwater would impair associated surface water rights, including minimum flows, permission to withdraw water must be denied.

More importantly, the court also concluded that where Ecology determines that surface water is not available for additional appropriation, a right to groundwater in hydraulic continuity with a closed stream or lake must be denied if its withdrawal would have any, even minimal, effect on the surface water.

Interestingly, a half dozen attorneys for various concerned Indian tribes were respondents in this case because of its significance for treaty fishing rights and the reserved water rights of the respective tribes.

Several of these same lawyers were also then engaged in protracted negotiations with the State of Washington that began when Judge Boldt decided, in U.S. v. Washington (1974), that the tribal right to fish includes a right to have sufficient water for fish, a right “from time immemorial” pre-dating all other water rights.

In the second half of that case, U.S. v. Washington (1980), commonly known as Boldt II, Judge Orick agreed with the tribes’ position that their treaty right to fish gave them a right to expect the state to impair neither salmon nor their habitat. Washington appealed this ruling and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals supported Orick’s decision; later the court vacated their ruling on the state’s motion for reconsideration on the very legal ground that there had not been a factual dispute in the case before Judge Orick.

After years of unsuccessful negotiations with the state, the tribes returned to court, alleging that thousands of road culverts throughout Washington impaired salmon habitat — a genuine factual dispute. This sub-proceeding of the Boldt case went on for additional years itself with the state resisting tribal authority to regulate and their contention that their right to take fish placed an affirmative duty on Washington to preserve fish habitat.
2007 Culvert Case

In early 2007 matters came to a head, and Judge Martinez ruled for the tribes and said that the state must remove or repair road culverts impeding fish migration and propagation.

While not the imposition of a broad affirmative duty to take all possible steps to protect fish runs sought by the tribes, the ruling established that where a specific activity damages fish habitat, the state, or any local government, may be restrained from continuing to harm that habitat. And more importantly, where past actions have impaired fish habitat, they will be required to take the remedial action required to restore it.

Some understand that the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be required to replace the culverts and redress these past actions is but the first installment in restoring salmon runs and their habitat. Road culverts are hardly the only activity that local governments have allowed to impair that natural habitat.

Little is more threatening to fish habitat than the changes wrought in our rivers and streams from overdevelopment in their watersheds, and overallocation of the waters that once recharged them. While Whatcom County has demonstrated a will to fail to protect or even inventory our water resources, further dithering will someday bring an order similar to the Martinez ruling.

For many years the tribes have protested new withdrawals of groundwater, arguing that insufficient stream flows evidenced an impairment of fish habitat. With Martinez’s ruling, and a sufficient basis in fact, they can now ask the federal court to order a reasonable reduction in those withdrawals. They can ask that there be no new withdrawals until it is demonstrated that there is surplus water available, after the needs of fish have been satisfied.

The Growth Management Act linked county development responsibilities and the duty to protect groundwater with water availability issues. RCW 19.27.097 requires proof of an adequate water supply prior to issuance of a building permit. Evidence must be in a form sufficient to prove there is an adequate supply for the foreseeable future.
Directive to Counties

In determining what constitutes proof, Attorney General’s Opinion, No.17 from 1992 is directive to counties. It determined that, at a minimum, the criteria adopted by the local health department must recognize the implications of the water rights statutes. And consequently, any applicant for a building permit who claims that the building’s water will come from a well must prove that water is available for appropriation and that they could gain a right to take said water, whether or not they need a permit before withdrawing it.

Clearly, where water is not available for appropriation because instream flows are unmet and new surface withdrawal is precluded, it is impossible to grant a right to take water and, ipso facto, it is impossible to prove a right to take water could be granted. For Whatcom County to continue to accept unpermitted wells as evidence of an adequate water supply is more than an abuse of discretion.

There are always two approaches to the law. One can embrace its intent and endeavor to follow it even though it presents difficulty and restricts our immediate interests; or one can look for a loophole, circumvent it, or hope not to get caught and forced to compensate those damaged by our extra legal actions.

Whatcom County must end the reckless permitting of building and development that exacerbates the overallocation of water. The unexamined acceptance of so-called exempt wells must stop. It is time to realize that the water is needed to preserve farming. It’s time for our county administration to protect existing water users from future curtailments similar to what is happening in the north county now.

The reality is that all water rights are junior to the need for fish to have stream flows sufficient to survive and flourish. It’s time to do the right thing. Above all else, it’s time to stop the damage. It is irresponsible to ignore the future costs of the damage being done. These fish are part of our common wealth. This is a direct threat to the public welfare.

It’s time for Whatcom County to require builders and developers to prove that water will be available on an ongoing basis before approving their plans and granting them permits, instead of looking the other way as they steal the water.

Face It

2009-05-20T10:26:00.000-07:00

In the early days of the nation, back in 1789 at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, a woman approached Ben Franklin and asked, "So what will we have Doctor Frankiln, a monarchy or a republic?"

To which Franklin insightfully replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."

The question remains today. Are we up to governing ourselves?

We needn't look at the terrible shape our national government has taken to be seized by despair.

Unheralded, now for several days, finally Dan McShane predictably announced he intends to sit on the county council again. Missing was the hoped for cry of "Draft!"

Apparently our local paper doesn't consider the information newsworthy. And they are probably right.

Not too long ago the Herald's editorial board made a cogent plea for "new blood" in local government. But instead we will apparently be presented a bunch of old faces in some game of musical chairs.

We'll have Laurie Caskey-Schreiber (already 8yrs in office) seeking Seth Fleetwoods position. While Seth attempts to move into Louise (finally retiring after decades) Bjornson's city slot. And of course Dan (already 8yrs in office) back from the grave, attempting the Lazarus thing to restart his campaign for full time government employment.

What's wrong with this picture? It appears that in all the county races there's a likelihood that every candidate could run unopposed. Well you won't get "new blood" out of that turnip cart!

If we are to "keep it" and fulfill the democratic aspirations that came out of the Age of Reason, we need to do better than this.

Why are there no electable alternatives to these old faces? Has the system become so corrupted and taken under the control of a few partisans that their grip on local government can't be broken?

Surely there is nothing so outstanding about the performance of these incumbents to give them a lock on an election.

Aside from the fact they have given the community their time and service, few if any of our problems have been solved. And they have put forward few if any proposals that might.

So who will accept the call of duty and put a new face on county government?

Doug vs. Doug

2009-05-04T22:41:00.000-07:00

Clearly, Doug Karlberg's announcement, he'd be a candidate for Doug Smith's position at the Port of Bellingham, was the highlight of the week for local political junkies.

Indeed both the Herald's and NW Citizen's comments ran overwhelmingly in support of the self styled, online iconoclast's decision.

In his favor is a public tired and suspicious of all things POB. And particularly in the case of those races, the realization that incumbency has been both carried to the extreme and reduced to absurdity.

What accomplishments can the present Port Commissioners claim after all these years in office?

Smith, who was first elected fifteen years ago, has idly watched the bureaucracy swell and management entrench and multiply, the end of which is the need to continually tax the community to subsidize operations that just can't make ends meet.

During his three terms, POB has achieved a degree of arrogance which renders it nigh on impossible for the public, or their other elected representatives, to participate in what is really the public's business.

Perhaps the biggest blunder they've made was the deal with Georgia-Pacific to assume its toxic site on the waterfront. By so doing, POB allowed G-P to walk away from their mess and the liability they'd created. Instead of the public being able to insist G-P exhaustively clean up the site, their port stepped in and became a proponent of an “economically reasonable” effort.

The community has, as a result, been left to struggle with the enormous problem of re-developing the waterfront, a process POB was not qualified to pursue, which has bogged down in a horribly divisive public debate characterized by finger pointing and name calling.

Periodically POB throws a public tantrum, sometimes threatening the city, sometimes making fools of themselves in letters to other elected officials.

And of course the POB plan includes the thoroughly wacko idea to waste the water treatment lagoon by turning it into a mega-yacht basin. If you were to do a cost benefit analysis of the scheme you'd understand why they have to keep taxing county residents.

Oh, the list could go on and on. So why in the world would anyone want to send Smith back for four more years of the same, when you could shake things up with a guy like Karlberg?

Well, I've gotten answers to that question from a number of voters and political observers. Most who thought about it just don't take Karlberg seriously. They don't disagree with his stated platform, but doubt he's the political skills to bring it off.

Others find him to be a gadfly; another guy with a computer and too much time on his hands, wandering online from place to place commenting on all matter of issues susceptible to a quasi populist, mildly reactionary, conservative outlook.

Generally, Karlberg is considered part of the entertainment. Few don't look forward to the opportunity to watch him make these prigs at POB squirm for a few months. But it remains to be seen if, in the end, voters will take him seriously.

If his campaign runs the same course his mayoral attempt took, there's little chance he'll succeed unless, during the race, Smith dies laughing.

It will soon be seen if Karlberg is ready to settle down to the hard work of a campaign: appearing in public, pushing doorbells, raising money and really taking it to Smith.

Or will he take off to Alaska again and just throw bombs from the blogoshpere?

Whatever course he takes, good luck to him. It will be fun.

She Said He Said

2009-04-13T22:43:00.000-07:00

Mark Russell used to joke, “If you call your opponent a politician, it's grounds for libel.”

But I must admit I was amazed as the minions of the McShane machine mobilized to march against Northwest Citizen, rout out Servais and silence the speaking of anything less than flattering to the master and mistress.

All this blather about libel and slander; don't they understand libel is a representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression.

It was however an absolute howl to read the innumerable anonymous statements by whomever, if even there be reason to count them. Recognizable of course were the usual suspects. Why are the worst hypocrites the most self-righteous?

Of course Elizabeth Britt, who fashions herself the Ms Manners of political correctness, got up on her soap box to lament the ugliness of attacks on present and former community leaders, particularly Kremen, McEachran, and the McShanes. Hell she even resurrected her old wise guy friends, or whatever they called themselves. Britt piously tells us, "... launching personal attacks against others just to cause them harm is very ugly behavior."

All this from one who not only delivers the cheap shot for her pals, but provides the cover of anonymity to her allies who wish to start really vile rumors about their political enemies. How many months did her diatribe last after McShane lost the mayoral race? Has it even ended?

What could be more hilarious than Lisa McShane playing the victim of “political libel” after a career of successfully putting her horse first across the line with a last minute sneak attack on the competition.

Goose or gander, get used to it. You're going to get roasted sooner or later. Hey, till now, Lisa's been about the most effective operator in these parts. Maybe it's not so easy to work the magic when you're being watched more closely.

Sorry if it upsets the Dems. They need to realize there's nothing particularly noble about such strategies. But the righteousness of these people is just overwhelming. Attack! Slander! Libel! Where do they get off?

Not only did they try to start the rumor that Dan Pike was beating his wife, at the close of the campaign they were spreading some other story about Pike “stalking” one of their female comrades.

Britt even let one of her pals post some tripe suggesting Pike engaged in perverted acts in front of their friend's house.

And then she's got the gall to worry that Dan and Lisa's kids might read that someone finds their parents' motives self serving.

I'm sorry, but this is a political machine. Next they want to return their pal Laurie to the council. And isn't it just a hoot that Dan McShane now admits he's in fact considering a run himself? How coy. That ought to dampen anyone else's interest and set the stage for the draft.

Lisa ran Carl Weimer's campaign; though it's not clear she runs him now. She of course got Bob Kelly on without his even having to break a sweat. And Ken Mann? He started off working for the machine. Has he become his own man?

There apparently are a lot of people ready to let the McShanes be the gatekeepers to political office. And quite a little crowd hoping to share in the spoils.

Is it really any better than the Realtors and Building Industry folks holding the reigns on a Sam Crawford? Have they made it impossible for independent people to make it on their own?

But watching the McShanes recoil from criticism, and their astonishingly well orchestrated counter attack, I'm reminded of the old English proverb, “Character is easier kept than recovered.”

“Ill deeds are doubled with an evil word. The sting of a reproach is the truth of it.” William Shakespeare

Draft Dan ???

2009-04-04T22:46:00.000-07:00

Remember when Tricky Dick told reporters in California, “You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore.”

Remember when Dan McShane told us, after a brutally negative campaign for Mayor of Bellingham, he was not interested in pursuing other public office in the future?

Notwithstanding those protestations, the McShane Machine is again on the prowl for a toehold to higher (as in income) office.

Their goal? To replace Pete Kremen in the now quite lucrative position of County Exec. The position they presently desire, Whatcom County Councilman.

Following the famous “Cookie Caper” that had Kremen and what turns out to be his legal counsel, Davey “homo populi” McEachran bilking taxpayers for a few cool million in their retirement heist, the attractiveness of becoming the next County Exec took on new meaning for the McShanes, unexpectedly defeated in their reach for the brass ring at City Hall.

Curiously, a number of concerned citizens, troubled by the prospect of the County Council again being overrun by propertyrightswingers, have approached the local dems, and the usual campaign financiers, only to be rebuffed with the kind advice, “don't worry about the election, if nobody really good comes forward Dan McShane will run.”

The McShanes aren't really looking for another underpaid tour on the County Council. They never were. The position is a necessary stepping stone to the next higher (as in paying) office opening. The next opening at the top being County Executive with its approximately $150,000 per year pay off.

And that's only the sticker price for taxpayers! Look what Pete's made of the office, and what it's cost us. And he ain't half as smart as Lisa. Hey, they should guarantee a kick back to the tax payers for our support !!

Not that far ahead is a race, not unlike the recent stampede for the Mayor's office, to unfold in Whatcom County for the office of executive. Kremen realizes his abysmal expectations for re-election, as a result of the egregious salary he's placed on the office.

Send his checks to Mexico where he can retire in ignominy, he'll be in good company. (Doesn't Dewey have an adjoining condominium?) Ah, that non-public service bestowed such rewards.

Hasn't the time finally arrived where all county taxpayers see through the scams and larceny that sap them while the needed services they'd willingly support go unfunded. Isn't it time to open a race for County Executive in which our needs are finally addressed in true candor?

If that's what the McShane program intends to promote, god bless.

In the meantime, why discourage otherwise willing individuals who might serve well in the County legislative body?

The time is past for Democrat and Republican party operatives to choose our county candidates. There is a reason these are non partisan positions. The time has come for the machinations of these political organizations to see the light of day.

If the McShanes don't want to endure a primary challenge, maybe they just shouldn't run.

Blind, Deaf & Dumb

2009-03-08T22:48:00.000-07:00

Kremen County has re-issued and revised its earlier Determination of Non-significance for the road to Vineyard Development. And as predicted (surprise, surprise) again determined it's insignificant and no Environmental Impact Statement need be done.

I would propose that nothing less than an exhaustive examination of the impact of additional watershed development on Bellingham's water supply is imperative, given the impact of past development, given the Department of Ecology's recent study and findings, and given the several plans of numerous developers to proceed with still more construction on the north shore of Lake Whatcom and on Squalicum Mountain.

Further, not to call for a comprehensive appraisal of the future impact of growth there is dereliction of duty and, given Kremen's financial interest in seeing development of roads and other infrastructure on Squalicum Mountain, a blatant conflict of interest and crass disregard for the public interest, its health and welfare.

The Washington State Administrative Code provides ample discretion for the county to look beyond the limited proposal of a road and a few houses and consider long term effects that are likely to arise as a result of proceeding with this proposed road.

Those effects can include indirect impacts, such as additional growth stimulated by the project, and even the prospect that precedent will be established if this project is allowed.

Is it so hard to see that the current road will lead to other roads; that 28 new residences will lead to hundreds, even thousands more? Is it Kremen's position these subsequent projects and requests would be equally insignificant? If so, the man is patently irresponsible and a failure as a leader in the community.

Why are these people afraid to openly, publicly, comprehensively and honestly address the future their piecemeal development of the watershed entails? The process to do so would be an appropriately framed Environmental Impact Statement.

But besides the discretion the county has to look hard into the future before proceeding with this insignificant little road, they could honestly address the fact that at least in the watershed, outside any area designated for urban growth, there is no water available for new construction.

Why in the world do you need a road to lots that can't be built on unless it's your intent to avoid looking at this issue as well?

Both Lake Whatcom and Whatcom Creek are closed to additional withdrawals of water. State law and court rulings have affirmed that groundwater in hydraulic continuity with surface waters are subject to the same regulations. What do they think “watershed” means?

It is illegal to draw water from the lake or the creek as a source of water for new construction. What, other than an abuse of discretion, would allow the county to accept a proposal whose source of water is a well they know draws from an aquifer that recharges the lake and the creek?

What will it take to get Brother Kremen and the rest to look at the impact their continued development will have on the watershed above Lake Whatcom? What will it take to get Ecology to listen to proposals to enforce laws that would protect the lake? Why doesn't Bellingham speak up and demand the county and state respect laws that could save the lake?

So you tell me, if all these officials are so passionately concerned about Lake Whatcom, why don't they do something?

Just an Insignificant Little Road

2009-02-02T22:53:00.000-08:00

While it went almost unheralded Friday, Kremen & Co temporarily backed away from their earlier position that driving a road into the forest on Squalicum Mountain, to serve new development in the Lake Whatcom watershed, had no environmental significance.

Faced with overwhelming and unanimous opposition from the City of Bellingham, Whatcom County withdrew their earlier Determination of Non Significance, or DNS, and announced they would reconsider the matter and make a new determination in a few weeks. This is significant.

The State Environmental Protection Act requires a qualified official to review proposals submitted for prospective development and determine if an environmental impact statement should be done.

It remains to be seen if Kremen will allow his planning director, David Stalheim, the county's SEPA officer, to require a full environmental impact statement. More likely, Stalheim will be directed to add more fine print and paper over or ignore the inevitable impacts that will ensue.

The planning director was selected for his malleability. Stalheim serves at the pleasure of Pete Kremen. Unlike the former planning director, Hal Hart, he's not about to risk ostracism, or possibly firing, for calling a foul on his boss. He's no dummy and, with any luck, might survive Kremen. Under the right person he could do some good. He certainly understands the rules well enough to get around them.

What made the earlier DNS so preposterous was the county's adopted view that only the construction of the road need be considered. They chose to ignore the planned residences, and other development that would inevitably follow. Roads and utilities are the cutting edge of sprawl. Build them and it will come.

By way of background; some years back, growth management was enacted and counties were mandated to designate areas for future urban growth. The new law required resource lands and critical areas be protected and preserved. Rural areas were to remain to buffer forest and agricultural lands from substantial residential development.

But the landed gentry of Whatcom county had their own plans and had already laid their money down. Their plan was to turn Squalicum Mountain into thousands of new residences and estates overlooking the lake or with views of the city, the San Juan Islands and the Gulf of Georgia.

Years ago Hart, told me the folks speculating on Squalicum Mountain read like a who's who list of the county elites. And in the grand tradition of Whatcom county government, these folks were wise enough to understand the strategic importance of getting the county executive involved in the play. Early on he got his own little piece of the action. I wonder why. It would be interesting to understand how.

More recently, Vineyard Development proposed to cluster scores of new residences on several hundred acres of the mountain. And it nearly escaped the entire planning process. Laurie Caskey-Schreiber found the whole idea just so wonderful she was ready to give it the green light ostensibly upon her first hearing their plans. And she still just can't bring herself to support making the emergency moratorium on these development schemes in our rural forests permanent.

Well, a couple of the names associated with Vineyard Development, and this insignificant little road, are Secrest and Iverson. I won't attempt to explain all the title transfers it took to consolidate this land; nor hope to make understandable all the quit claim deeds between David Syre and his cousin, Gordon Iverson.

If you don't recognize the name Secrest, his is also associated with the toxic site threatening Squalicum Creek downstream.

And as I recall, Gordy Iverson's daddy gave us Sudden Valley; that jewel in the watershed polluting the other side of the lake.

With the county's help, projects like Vineyard and North Shore Estates continue to crawl up Academy Road. If Kremen keeps allowing new roads and utilities to creep into the forest, soon enough, caching, his little investment will pay off in seven digits.

But as he told us when he snuck that enormous pay raise, got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and wanted to give some back, he's not in it for the money.

What makes the county's promotion of development in the reservoir's watershed more unseemly is the way they ignore laws and interpret county codes to suit their ends. This effort is of course directed by Pete's partner in the cookie caper, that other favorite son of Whatcom Republicans, Dave McEachran. Like some demented lawyer from another planet, there seems to be little in the Growth Management Act he can't re-interpret in order to continue unmanaged growth, and keep faith with their real constituents.

There was of course the whole little scam with the original zoning on the mountain that created a gagillion five acre lots for one fat cat, and a limited area that would allow more intense development (a so called LAMIRD) just unlimited enough to include Kremen's property. This scheme was shown for what it was in court. The ruling was not insignificant.

I won't even go into the charades the county's employed to allow the extension of urban water lines, and even sewers, onto the mountain for developers like Vineyard, North Shore and, what shall we call it, how about Pete's Place.

And don't get me started on the amount of groundwater they allow to be misappropriated, in the watershed and throughout the county, water that is needed for agriculture and fish habitat, that produces sprawl instead.

A critical question all development proponents must answer in the SEPA review of their proposal's environmental significance, or insignificance, is whether the project they are currently requesting permission for isn't really just part of a larger project which should actually be the subject under review. Wouldn't you hope the county planning director could recognize a fabrication?

The law is circumvented by developers answering the question dishonestly, and the SEPA reviewer then ignoring the misrepresentation. Thus development is allowed to proceed piecemeal without being subject to comprehensive review. In the end, unfortunately for the environment, the whole is usually significantly worse than the sum of the parts.

I believe it was Syre's company that once formed scores of limited liability companies in order to exploit a similar loophole and avoid an otherwise critical review of their plans to break up and subdivide hundreds of acres of farmland on Whidby Island.

Wouldn't it be something if our local SEPA official, Mr. Stalheim, embraced the law rather than turning his back and letting developers get around it? This would not be an insignificant change. But don't hold your breath.

Don't you think the ultimate buildout of Squalicum Mountain, and its impact on Lake Whatcom, might be an important enough matter to warrant doing the work an environmental impact statement entails? Shouldn't we really understand what will happen if we keep going in this direction before we continue?

Now you know and I know, nobody in their right mind is going to build a road, develop lots and build new residences in the current economy. So what's afoot?

Well, Secrest, Iverson and whoever else has a piece of the action here will be in a good position to sell their development rights, and surely know Bellingham's interest in protecting the city's water supply. In fact, negotiations began months ago.

In the fine tradition of Chuckanut Ridge and other schemes, what better way to begin than by trying to vest as many development rights as possible before environmental restrictions are put in place? Caching!

My real hero is Stan Snapp who rightly observed, "The person who needs to justify why he’s allowed the County Planning Department under his direction to issue a determination of non-significance is County Executive Pete Kremen.”

City and county residents alike are fortunate to have seven steadfast city councilors willing to back their mayor and attorneys and lead the way on protecting the Lake Whatcom watershed.

Hopefully courage will become contagious and the county council, not just Carl Weimer, will find their voice.

When you consider who's promoting this insignificant little road, and what they've done for us in the past, you have to reflect on that often re-characterized expression about history, understanding and repetition.

It's not insignificant.

May B. Fine: Happy Days Are Here Again!

2009-01-30T15:00:00.000-08:00

Parts of the economy are staging a turnaround. While housing and employment numbers tank, the good news is a leading indicator of future economic well being has turned positive.

Away from my usual post at the nation's capitol, I'm here today at the English Motoring Ltd. dealership on Long Island. The good news is deposits on Bentley's 2010 Continental series are breaking all records.

In particular, orders for the convertible model are out pacing the coupe two to one; which sales associates at English Motoring attribute to their clients' appreciation of global warming, in spite of record low temperatures and ongoing episodes of snow and freezing rains. A brighter day is just around the corner.

The upturn in car sales here seems to be driven by the government's efforts and future plans to stimulate the economy. In particular, the Wall Street bailout and more than $18 billion in resulting bonuses to executives and associates at otherwise bankrupt investment banks and brokerage firms really has provided the silver lining needed to restore confidence. The system is still working.

"Continuation of the Bush era tax cuts, and the prospect of new breaks and subsidies for the fortunate at the top of the pyramid, have not just put a twinkle in the eye again, but thankfully some sparkle on the ears and fingers," according to Jon Fraberg at Goldstein's Jewelers.

At Barrons, the upscale martini bar about a block from English Motoring, I stopped one of the regulars, Clifton Chase Morgan-Stanley Jr. on his way to the restroom and asked what he saw for the future. "There's nothing wrong with the financial system that Treasury can't fix if they just remember who sent them there. Trickle down economics is the mainstay of our economy. Excuse me. I've got to do my part."

Back at the dealership, Shirley Gottrachs told this reporter that if it hadn't been for the bailout, not only would they have been unable to afford to replace their two year old Bentley Cornice, they were facing laying off a maid and the butler at their Hampton's weekend retreat. “We were ready to make the sacrifice. But with the reduction in servants, we truly were beginning to appreciate just how dire our nation's predicament was becoming.”

Another customer, Bradley Gottmien III and his wife Buffie just purchased identical Austin Mini-Coopers for their twin sixteen year olds. “We wanted to instill a sense of environmental responsibility in the twins, and introduce them to this era of making do with less. No Jaguars for our boys.”

So in spite of disconcerting reports of economic difficulties for some, parts of the economy are getting back on track. While the poor may be getting poorer, the good news is the rich are again getting richer.

May B. Fine; Assoc. Editor, The New Standard

May B. Fine:A War for Jobs

2009-01-27T15:12:00.000-08:00

The stock market rallied today after the President, in the role of Commander in Chief, announced the military services will be hiring six hundred thousand to one million in his ongoing effort to stimulate the economy and put America's unemployed back to work. He has named his new program, “The War on Unemployment.”

In order to maintain the necessary level of occupying forces in Iraq, and fulfill his campaign pledge to bring the war to Afghanistan, he said the additional forces are critical. “We intend to be prepared, unlike my predecessor, to see that we have the soldiers to keep the peace after the mission's accomplished in Afghanistan.”

The prospect of four more years of Bush foreign policy caused stocks to surge.

The President again likened himself to Franklin Roosevelt, noting the latter's strategic effort to engage the US in World War II, and the fact that it took that war to bring the country out of the Great Depression. “I am prepared to go any distance, create any enemy and spend any amount to restore this nation to the position it was in at the end of the twentieth century.”

The market rally was led by Lockheed, McDonnell-Douglas, Grumman and Boeing. In small cap stocks, the relatively unknown American Casket Co. shot up almost 400%. Analysts attribute the sharp rise to the adopted slogan for the “War on Unemployment,” reprised from the popular song of the 1960s, “Be the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box.”

Challenged by unruly reporters that his economic stimulus program, stalled in Congress, was too little too late and benefited too few, the Commander in Chief shot back, “You want World War III. I'll give you World War III.”

May B. Fine. Assoc. Editor The New Standard
C. Nowell Eavel and Annie Price contributed to this story.