The Whatcom County Council last night voted 5-2 (Brenner and Knudsen opposed) to send a formal letter to proceed with the reconveyance of property from land trusts to Whatcom County, to build an 8,700 acre park. WE have already reported on the facts of the matter. Conservation Northwest's (CNW) exhortation to stampede the masses was effective; they managed to motivate about a 75% pro crowd at the council's open session (there was no public hearing). If anyone thinks the Tea Party is a threat to local politics, this turnout will quell that concern. As one commenter noted, A bit of perspective came from actually attending the council meeting, in which several council members acknowledged that this wasn't about water purification or recreation. Which left no reason to do it at all, except because they could. I think somebody needs to follow the money. I'll bet it would lead us on a very interesting trail.
Either that, or a hidden agenda. Or both. Liberty, freedom and good government took it in the shorts tonight.
Here are some delicious quotes from the council meeting: · Knudsen: “Let’s put it on the ballot for the general election for a vote of the people” · Knudsen: “It won’t cost us anything to put it on the ballot and I’ll work with the attorneys on the language” · Mann: “I hate Citizen’s initiatives” · Knudsen: “You’ve been sold a bill of goods” · Knudsen: “Why do we have to decide tonight?” · Brenner: “We just got this packet shoved into tonight’s agenda with very little notice” · Brenner: “The DNR works with us on the public use of this land and have the best land management practices for the watershed land” · Weimer, Mann, Knutzen, Brenner, Crawford, Kershner : “It’s not really about water preservation” · Kremen: “I’ve probably lost the respect of some good friends, but this was a hard decision” · Kremen: “It’s only going to cost us a drop in the bucket” · Kershner: “Where can you buy land for $34.00?” · Kremen: “It really only cost us $33.51” · Weimer : “Some votes are really important and someday my grandchildren (if my girls ever get going on this) will be proud of my vote” · Crawford: “Will the Whatcom Land Trust be willing to compensate the other junior school districts?” · Rand Jack : “In too many words to write, but could’ve easily been condensed to “NO”. · Crawford: “I guess the squeaky wheel gets greased” · Crawford & Kershner: “We need to set-up a Forestry Commission Board to preserve logging in Whatcom County” I guess We the People need to start squealing like hammered cats. To be fair, Ken Mann qualified his remarks later, saying that he sees his job as being a representative of the people, and he doesn't like citizen's initiatives. WE don't like unbridled democracy either, and neither did the founders. The CNW dog-and-pony brigade claimed that they represent 74% of the citizens of Whatcom County, but when Bill Knudsen suggested that the issue be put to a vote of the people, their expressions, their body language, and their "down twinkles' betrayed serious doubt in their claim of majority support. They were horrified. If Ken Mann truly is going to represent the citizens of Whatcom County, he might need to verify CNW's claims. To appease the forestry industry, under attack here and in many other scientifically dubious environmental initiatives, Crawford and Kershner proposed a Forestry Commission Board. Really? How does a Forestry Commission Board replace free markets and property rights? Self-determination is scary to illiberal control freaks, because there's a risk that things won't turn out the way they want them to. But the same thing applies in reverse with oppressive government control: Things only turn out the way the rulers want them to. We the People get hosed. Liberty equals diversity, in the real sense of the word. From Wikipedia: "Bread and Circuses" (or bread and games) (from Latin: panem et circenses) is a metaphor for a superficial means of appeasement. It was the basic Roman formula for the well-being of the population, and hence a political strategy unto itself. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the creation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion, distraction, and/or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace. The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the common man (l'homme moyen sensuel).
In modern usage, the phrase is taken to describe a populace that no longer values civic virtues and the public life. To many across the political spectrum, left and right, it connotes a supposed triviality and frivolity that characterized the Roman Republic prior to its decline into the autocratic monarchy characteristic of the later Roman Empire's transformation about 44 B.C."
The reconveyance had nothing to do with need, fact, or practicality. It was all about appeasement, power, and greed.
Here's the new cartoon that's the talk of the town: Puppet masters pulling the strings at Whatcom County Planning and Development, jacking Jack around. Click on this:
The county is years behind schedule with the desperately needed jail project, and the budget for truly important public work doesn't look so good. But we desperately NEED another 8,700 acres of parks in this county that's already 65% national park and forest, with an enviable abundance of public parks and trails? Nuts!  The Energizer Bunny "Fairhaven mafia" will stop at absolutely nothing - back room arm twisting, anonymous cash "donations," and now a bums rush at county council (without a public hearing) - to have 8,700 acres added to the 7,300 acres already in county parks' inventory. WE're talking about the DNR "reconveyance." If this goes through there will be more than 16,000 acres of parks in Whatcom County. For what? One lame (or loony) excuse has been trotted out after another. Our community and conscientious elected officials have resisted this bad idea for years, not out of malice but for very sound reasons. Yet promoters keep beating on the same old drum. Conservation Northwest, that refers to this as a necessary "preserve," is running a astroturf letter-writing campaign to council at this moment. Will there be push-back? WE think there needs to be. Common sense has got to prevail. A host of unproven and tortuously conflicted claims purport that the conversion of state managed forest into this huge park will somehow decrease human impacts, resulting in the long term improvement of Lake Whatcom's water quality. Huh? That's far from proven. As for the need to more than double the county's park acreage, even this Futurewise webpage cites, “About 65 percent of Whatcom County is national park and national forest." Parks just ran over the Acme community pushing the 603 acre South Fork Regional Park forward two weeks ago (with its $1.6+ million pricetag). That heavily opposed trainwreck pegged Parks acreage up to 7,300. The expense of this albatross, demanded primarily by Bellinghamsters ( not county-folks), will hang around everybody's neck forever. Last month's $500,000 skid-grease to quiet the Mt. Baker School District didn't settle the general public's valid concerns about lost revenue. What about the long term loss of timber as a public resource? What about all the logging jobs that will be lost? If you haven't followed this, know that arguments "for" have been so weak that even the DNR (this was always hustled primarily by park and trust promoters) distanced itself carefully from this project last fall. The overall "public benefit" has never penciled out. Out of the blue, Councilman Carl Weimer initiated County Council agenda bill AB2012-066B just two days ago. It was quietly slipped onto next Tuesday's agenda - no public hearing desired - bundled up and ready to go. Talk around the campfire is that council members Sam Crawford and Pete Kremen are ga-ga for it whatever the cost, no matter how lame the case is for public need. Of course the empire-building county Parks Department writes nothing but sunshine, along with it's partner-in-chief, the lucrative Land Trust that's on a constant campaign to build inventory. If you attend the committee and council discussion next Tuesday, brace for the predicable schpiel that seems to precede most decision making these days. You'll hear: "This project has been in progress for years," "The paperwork is already done," "This is critical for health and welfare," and "It's not a matter of if, only a matter of when," followed by "Just sign here." It's a nasty modus operandi. If any or all of this concerns you - as WE think it should - you have GOT to write to council and let them know your objections. "Just say no" would do, this will only take a moment. You may email Councilmembers as a group at council@co.whatcom.wa.us
And if at all possible, WE suggest you go to the council meeting at the courthouse next Tuesday too - 7 pm. If you want to speak, Open Session is your only opportunity. The public needs to take a stand, as the brave folks down on the Olympic Penninsula just did.
Wild Olympics is what they call the proposal to designate more land around the Olympic National Park as "wild and scenic." After a while it becomes obvious that the environmental collectivists are simply trying to put as much land as possible out of reach of private ownership and private use -- including land that is currently privately owned and privately used. ( Read all about it...) This is a duplicate of what is going on in Whatcom County, as WE have reported previously, about the backroom deals being made to advance the dubious Lake Whatcom Watershed 'Reconveyance', the American Alps Legacy Project, Chuckanut Rock, Lummi Rocks and Lummi Carter Point, and the San Juan Natural Conservation Area. This government land grab is unprecedented. How much is enough? When many environmental collectivists believe that humans are the planet's biggest problem, nothing is ever enough. Property owners, property rights advocates and liberty seekers have not been as active as the collectivists, who have discovered that the environment is a great tool to stampede otherwise skeptical citizens and their representatives in government, into forfeiting our freedom. Enough is enough -- and then some. It is time to push back.
You don't want to miss this! The WWU College Republicans and Western Libertarians are going to have a debate plus Q&A about the "coal terminal" and the proposed "Bellingham Community Bill of Rights" intiative:
May 17th, 2012 6:30 PM at Western Washington University
Parks Hall (PH) 146 - Open to the General Public
Check out and print their flyer here. They boldly ask, "How much do your rights matter to you?" Without speaking for them, WE think the political spectrum looks like this:
Here we go again - yet another Earth Day, laced with its annual platitudes about the need to save spaceship earth from its greatest problem, people. The Washington Times published an insightful editiorial a few years ago about ED's dark political agenda that's worth reading. Today, Climategate expose author Brian Sussman posted an excellent blog piece (below) that explains how eliminating humans has become Earth Day's real message. But first, let's give credit to the man who kicked-off green activism - to Vladimir Lenin on his birthday, which by some odd chance coincides with Earth Day. Sussman's new book " Eco-Tyranny: How the Left's Green Agenda Will Dismantle America" explains the history of the green revolution in stunning detail.  Vladimir Lenin, born April 22, 1870 |  Earth Day flag, by John McConnell. Lenin and Marx - fathers of the green revolution. |  Karl Marx | Earth Day's message: Eliminate humans
by Brian Sussman, April 22, 2012
Yesterday I took a video crew to the Earth Day Festival in Santa Cruz, California. I chose this location because this city is known for being a model of greenness, and even maintains Department of Climate Change, complete with a director making $250,000 per year.
The question I posed in my man-on-the street-interviews was, “What is the greatest threat confronting mankind?”
In almost every interview, I was told the greatest threat was the human species.
Most troubling was an interview with a 12-year old girl who said she had been taught in school that global warming was real, that there were too many people on the planet, and that she occasionally thinks it might be best to end her own life to do her part to save the planet.
Her mom stood next to her, proudly looking on.
This is an example of what I write about in chapter six of Eco-Tyranny, entitled “Green Gospel.” What this girl has been aught is nothing less than green-child abuse.
I’ll be posting the video later this week—you won’t want to miss it.
The truth is, Earth Day has never been a celebration of the earth, instead, it’s always been an assault on mankind.
On this date in 1970, a trio of radical dreamers established the first Earth Day, an annual event designed to assault capitalism, free-markets and mankind.
The initial concept was conceived by Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WS). Nelson was Congress’ leading environmentalist activist, a sort of pre-incarnate Senator Barbara Boxer in drag. He was also the mastermind behind those ridiculous teach-ins which were vogue in the Sixties and early Seventies. During the teach-ins, mutinous school instructors would scrap the day’s assigned curriculum, pressure their students to sit cross-legged on the floor, and “rap” about how America was an imperialist nation, and converse about why communism really wasn’t such a bad form of government—it just needed to be implemented properly. (read more)
After reading this, reflect on Whatcom Farm Friends' Earth Day message that was published in The Bellingham Herald on April 17th. It talks about food, farming and community like a siren song - whatever advances "sustainability." The northwest's powerful Bullitt Foundation that funds Futurewise and other NGO's in our region ("Cascadia") describes the hierarchy in no uncertain terms, straight out of the Lenin-Marx green revolution playbook: "Any theory of sustainable development must be grounded in an understanding that the human economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the natural environment."
Sussman's not alone in exposing the green revolution's real intent. Awareness of and alarm about the dark underside of trendy environmentalism is growing worldwide. Click on the eco-activism category in the right column of this webpage to find other Excavator articles. And by all means, consider reading these books:  Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda will Dismantle America - also available in Kindle and e-book formats. |  Watermelons: How the Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future, by James Delingpole. |
Our own WWU professor emeritus, Dr. Don Easterbrook spoke for about an hour and a half at a recent Northwest Business Club luncheon. He is a frequent contributor to the Watts Up With That website ( see his articles and comments). The Northwest Business Club has posted Dr. Easterbrook's presentation on their website. Dr. Easterbrook is one of many courageous scientists who refuse to yield to the political pressure to embrace the hypothesis formerly known as "Anthropogenic Global Warming" (anthropogenic means "human related" a.k.a., "man caused"). Since the globe has evidently ceased its warming trend, the climate alarmists renamed it "Anthropogenic Climate Change" and recently, they have apparently settled on "Anthropogenic Climate Disruption". Since the climate is always changing, and severe weather from time to time is a given, these latest scenarios are guaranteed to occur regardless of what humans do, thereby removing any responsibility for accountability or falsifiability. How convenient! Falsifiability is required by the scientific method, and it refers to the ability to run experiments that would confirm or disprove (falsify) a hypothesis. AGW was non-falsifiable because there was no practical experiment that anyone could run that would prove or disprove that global warming -- when it happens -- is caused by humans. The climate alarmists frequently use computer models to "prove" that their assertions are true, and then extrapolate wildly to invariably catastrophic conclusions. However, computer models are not experiments at all, but buggy self-fulfilling prophecies with circular dependencies. When real scientists attempt to reveal the truth (just like Galileo and Copernicus in the olden days), they are shunned, de-funded, un-published, and called "outliers". Thank you Dr. Easterbrook, for your courage to speak out. Dr. Easterbrook offers real scientific data at his website - you can find it here.
Talk around town is that serious questions have been raised about an absolutely immense wind turbine project that's been proposed for installation at the top of Galbraith Mountain. This mega-machine so far exceeds the County's recently enacted standards it requires a conditional use permit. WE checked out the turbine specs, and learned that - yes indeed ( see the particulars) - this has a 100 meter rotor diameter, that's 328 feet. With all the outcry from our local eco-elite alarmists about retaining the county's scenic beauty, habitat, and rural character, in uber-green style most want to turn a totally blind eye away from this project's impacts, which would be many. This machine will make an incredible amount of noise (the specs say 106 decibels) when it runs - well beyond safe limits. And there's no question that this will slaughter birds like crazy for years if it's built. At three times the height of Bellingham Towers it will need to have have aircraft warning lights. So much for the Galbraith Mountain skyline, aesthetics, etc. The foundation and earthwork will be significant, at a location right between the Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish watersheds. These turbines are notorious for leaking oil, among other environmental impacts. So much for watershed protection. At a minimum, a very big buffer (perhaps 1000 feet) should be required around the thing. Imagine how far a broken blade would fly (they weigh tons), and there's that pesky noise issue.  Two griffon vultures killed by turbines in Navarre, Spain. One of them has been sliced in half by the blade. |  Kenersys K100 2.5MW Wind Turbine |
To top it off, this wind turbine will require a tremendous amount of cash subsidy. WE reported last fall how much power bills are already grossly inflated to stuff the pockets of windpower outfits. This "industry" has been a gold-rush, unrestrained by reality. Turbines don't turn all the time, and cost-benefit runs to the "highly inefficient end of the scale" almost everywhere. WE have never been "NIMBY" types, but this looks like a one-way cash cow of the worst kind. WE suggest you read this position paper written by a local citizen. And here's a link to a petition you can print and circulate among others if you'd like to get involved. Opposing a bad idea takes a lot of courage in these parts.
According to The Bellingham Herald, An anonymous donor and a local nonprofit will pay the Mount Baker School District $500,000 if Whatcom County takes control of 8,700 acres in the Lake Whatcom watershed, a move that would reduce revenue to the district. (Continue reading...)The City of Bellingham has been pushing for this plan for a couple of years. This will effectively shut down all development and logging, and turn this enormous parcel of Department of Natural Resources land into a county park. The major questions have always been: 1. Do we actually need that much more park, along with the cost to maintain it? The land is providing revenue at the moment. 2. Is this really supposed to “fix” Lake Whatcom (dubious science from the get-go)? 3. Is there an anti-logging element? If so, that strains the County Charter. 4. How does a one-time donation to the school district (even half a million dollars), cover the long term loss of logging revenue to the district? 5. Why has the Land Trust been so involved (negotiating with the school district for the County?), and will this private organization stand to gain assets if this goes through? They do have a record of “sharing” easements and property with Parks. WE hope there are still opportunities for these questions to be raised in public hearings. Will there even BE public hearings? A lot of bills arrive at Council without them lately, have you noticed?
 Contributed by GEMINI 1
Is the proposed Padden Trails development just another City of Bellingham issue involving an “evil developer’s” request for a rezone, or is it a symptom of something larger? Hardly a day passes without reminders of the anti-growth attitudes which continue to influence local policy-making, depressing wages and economic opportunity here in the Fourth Corner. This pervasive syndrome’s latest manifestation surfaced as Bellingham City Council held a March 26 work session to consider the proposed Padden Trails project. Bellingham’s Planning Commission and planning staff recommended Council’s approval of the proposal which would provide for projected population growth and permit increased density within Bellingham City Limits as required by the state’s Growth Management Act. If you think the planning-obsessed, command-and-control socialists who comprise the City Council would favor such a proposal, you would be seriously mistaken. These same hypocrites and their leftist friends support Futurewise’s lawsuits against Whatcom County in protest of too much ill-defined “rural sprawl” consuming agricultural land and open space. They continuously complain about degradation of Lake Whatcom’s drinking water and have favored measures such as banning boats from the lake. When tangible Council action could be taken to address such concerns by providing for greater housing diversity and affordability within Bellingham , these “leaders” are nowhere to be found, and the anti-growth syndrome is once again on full display.
Infill Meets Bellingham's Goal of No Development Sprawl
a "Whatcom View" by Linda Twitchell
Bellingham Herald, March 31, 2012
There's a proposal before Bellingham City Council that you should know about if you're concerned about sprawl or you're concerned about how you, your family and friends can find housing in Bellingham.
The question has arisen: Is City Council serious about encouraging "infill" to keep growth inside the city? The council has adamantly opposed sprawl, saying it favors high-density infill. The city even adopted an "infill toolkit" three years ago to allow higher-density housing mixes, but it has never been used in a major project.
Bellingham now has a proposal for using the "toolkit." Developers of a 113-acre property west of Lake Padden and north of Interstate 5 want a change from low-density, single-family to low-density, multi-family zoning, allowing a mix of housing types and protecting critical areas. Density would go from 246 housing units (two per acre) to 492 (four per acre). Dwelling sizes would vary, and prices would range accordingly. Trails and open space are planned. The developer would build all needed infrastructure, including a $900,000 traffic light off-site, to help out the neighborhood.
Bellingham's Planning Commission and planning staff have recommended approval, saying the project conforms to the comprehensive plan and city goals, and doesn't present environmental problems. City Council members, however, made it clear at a work session March 26 that none of them supports the project as proposed. They suggest building at the original lower density - despite the fact that planning staff say that's not economically feasible. Infrastructure costs remain the same, regardless of how many homes are built. At the original density only 152 traditional, single-family houses could be built - selling for $700,000 or more. With 492 units built in clustered "infill toolkit" housing forms - small single-family homes, garden courtyards, townhouses, etc. - the average price would be $285,000 or less.
One councilman suggested the higher density isn't compatible with "existing neighborhood character." Zoning in most of the neighborhood is two- to four-units per acre, city planners report; one area is multi-family. Additionally, this project is on relatively isolated land, not visible from surrounding areas. Traffic would exit at the neighborhood's edge. If we can't have infill here, at densities that justify the cost of development, then where?
Let's be realistic - no neighborhood wants higher density. But if we're going to avoid sprawl outside town, we have to make room for people in town. The Growth Management Act requires cities to predict population growth, then accommodate it; "no growth" is not a legal option.
Bellingham is running out of "easy" places to build. Other than Cordata, at the north edge of town, buildable tracts in Bellingham tend to be steep and wooded.
Expense is an issue. Bellingham's building permits and fees are among the highest in the state. And as regulations make it harder and more expensive to build in town, people are finding homes elsewhere. Last year, only 20 percent of the new residential building permits issued in Whatcom County were in Bellingham, which issued fewer permits than Ferndale, Lynden, or unincorporated Whatcom County. Building in Bellingham during the past five years has dropped for single-family homes (194 units in 2007 to 71 units last year) and multifamily units (291 units to 104). The Realtors Association confirms this trend.
City Council repeatedly promotes high-density, multi-level "urban villages" to meet Bellingham's housing needs. But not everyone wants to live in a highrise. And not everyone wants downtown Bellingham built to the density of Bellevue, which is what the council has planned for.
Which do you prefer, sprawl or infill? Now is the time to speak up. Please give this serious consideration, and let the City Council know your preference. The public record is open until April 16 on this proposal, known as Padden Trails. Information is posted on the city's website.
The Building Industry Association of Whatcom County is a nonprofit with 350 members - homebuilders and related businesses (engineers to telecommunications firms). The association has no financial interest in this project and does not back it specifically. But we are interested in finding workable solutions for our community to make this a place where we all can afford to live. We think it's time to get serious about infill, or to stop complaining about sprawl.
Linda Twitchell is the government affairs director for the Building Industry Association of Whatcom County.
|
RSS Feed