The Whatcom Excavator
  • Home
    • About Us
    • Who's Planning Our Lives?
    • Diminishing Property Rights
    • NGO's & Public-Private Partners
    • Agenda 21
    • Buzzwords
    • Deep Thought
    • Best Available Science
    • Best Available Humor >
      • Humor Archive
  • The DREDGE
    • Gotta See This
    • How To Dredge
  • Bulldozed
    • Eco-Activism and County Policy
    • CELDF - "Democracy"
    • ALERT: Community Energy Challenge
  • Pig Trough
    • ReSources
    • Sustainable Connections
    • BALLE
    • ICLEI
    • Whatcom County Community Network
    • Big Wheels Award
  • Contact Us

Tales of Tyranny - Another Episode

12/13/2013

0 Comments

 
Bureaucratic pressure has become pretty serious here, where crimes against the bureaucracy can cost a fortune, and even land you in jail.  What kinds of crimes? Environmental crimes, like not filing a Farm Plan or not obtaining a Ground Disturbance Permit before digging a hole on your property.  But most victims are too afraid to fight back. Decent people are bullied into submission.  And a growing number of fines and extortion demands loom as mitigation banks and the "resources marketplace" are being set-up all around us, as a huge new financial industry.  WE think this county's becoming a green jail...  But we're not alone.

Some people think WE overuse the word "tyranny".  From Google:
tyr·an·ny
ˈtirənē/    noun
  1. cruel and oppressive government or rule. 
    "people who survive war and escape tyranny"
    synonyms: despotism, absolute power,  autocracy,  dictatorship,  totalitarianism, Fascism; 

It seems pretty cut-and-dried to us. Tyranny is just bureaucrats abusing power, taking peoples' liberty and jerking them around; like this:

Picture
Tales of Tyranny: Criminalizing Poverty in the San Juans - The Errol Speed Story
by Glen Morgan
December 11, 2013

Picture
From the front gate of Errol and Kathleen Speed’s 20-acre Orcas Island farm, they can glimpse a small stand of evergreen trees, an open meadow and their own, fenced organic garden. 

What they can’t see is why the local governing authority, San Juan County inWashington State, has chosen to treat them like criminals for committing what appear to be minor building code infractions.

Like many rural Washington residents, the Speeds live “off the grid” in a small trailer on the property they share with their horse, goats, and  chickens. They are neither wealthy, nor are they hardened criminals.

Consequently, they never expected to be subjected to a search warrant, charged with a criminal offense, tried before a jury of their peers, and sentenced to actual jail time for minor code violations involving their own property. 

The driving force behind Errol and Kathleen Speed’s nightmare is the bureaucrats’ relentless effort to criminalize minor infractions and victimless crimes. The Speed family’s experience is just the latest example, but it demonstrates the pointlessness of this over-criminalization effort by Big Government.


Picture
According to San Juan County law enforcement officials, the couple’s great crime was to erect a small building on their property, believing that structures less than 1,000 square feet were exempt from permit and building code requirements.  They also committed the great crime of having a bed, blankets, a couch, and a kitchen in this building.

They also used a composting toilet.

For their trouble, the Speeds endured a police raid of their property (using a criminal search warrant), a jury court trial, thousands of dollars in fines, and a 180-day jail sentence for Errol Speed. Not coincidentally, the county has spent tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money prosecuting the case.

“We built an accessory agricultural building with the understanding that we could build a building under 1,000 square feet with no fees, no permits and no plans,” Kathleen Speed said. “Normally in code violations, you work with the Planning Department and negotiate after the fact, and maybe there are additional fees. But in our case, we’ve been criminalized and treated as if we robbed a bank.”

“The justification for using a criminal search warrant was (that) we denied them (government officials) access,” Errol Speed said. “They never asked for access.”

While the couple doesn’t deny being in violation of at least some part of the code, the reality is that most people run afoul of some ordinance or minor law every day. Disputing these details hardly justifies the effort San Juan County has made to prosecute the Speeds.

In the area of home ownership and private property, few properties are immune to potential violations. In modern times, most people have become numb to the ever-expanding ordinances and the new thousands of pages of rules and regulations that apply to every property owner in the local jurisdiction. 

In most cases, there is little concern over these ordinances because it would take a police state to actually enforce them, and most people feel they could appeal to common sense or pay a small fine to resolve the problem.


Picture
Picture
From left - Prosecutor Randy Gaylord, San Juan County Sheriff Rob Nou, Judge Stewart Andrew
Picture
The complicity of at least three elected officials is needed to formally charge Errol Speed for committing a crime. These include San Juan County Sheriff Rob Nou (elected in 2010), San Juan County Prosecutor Randall Gaylord, and San Juan County District Court Judge Stewart Andrew. Without the formal sign-off and approval by all three of these elected officials, the Speed family could not be criminally prosecuted. If even one of these elected officials believed that prosecuting the Speed family was not a priority, they could have stopped this criminal trial from even starting.  San Juan County does have real crime problems. At least four people have died of heroin overdoses in just the past 12 months, but apparently prosecuting the Speed family is more important to these elected officials. 

Andrew was originally a California attorney who relocated to San Juan County and has been a judge since 1998. Gaylord has been in office for 20 years, and he is best remembered for his successful effort to ban personal watercraft in San Juan County in 1996 and for his failed effort to suppress free speech in 2005 when he filed suit against local radio talk show hosts for opposing a gas tax increase. 

In 2010, the Heritage Foundation published a booklet titled, “One Nation Under Arrest,” (co-authored by the Freedom Foundation’s Trent England), detailing many cases around the country of an explosion of laws—federal, state and local—which have created thousands of new “crimes” that can justify criminal search warrants, jury trials and jail time.

No victims or common sense are necessary in this process. Errol Speed discovered what it’s like to personally experience a “Crime Against Bureaucracy” in San Juan County. 

Unfortunately, he isn't likely to be the last.

Picture
0 Comments

In the Why Bother Department - Puppet Council Keels

12/10/2013

4 Comments

 
Whatcom County Council proved how irrelevant it has become institutionally tonight.  Our legislature is toast. It's become a puppet show. The balance of power has tipped.

In a hotly contested 4-3 vote, they decided to turn-down a motion proffered by council member Barbara Brenner that one of our elected representatives should participate with other interests on the Planning Unit in local watershed planning.  What she suggested was that council, which serves as our countywide Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors, should take a government seat on this state-recognized local effort which has serious work on its plate. The Flood Control Zone District gets millions in taxpayer money annually that drains into the county "natural resources" budget, and it's a government agency in its own right. (WRIA Watchers long since discovered that most of this water related money drains into the county executive's staff salaries and to consultants, with only a pittance directed to actual flood control anything.)

Back to the story. When Brenner's idea was defeated (voted down by wafflers Carl Weimer and Ken Mann, plus the notoriously feckless Sam Crawford and lame duck Kathy Kershner), council then voted to ask permission – permission! – of the "IG's" to participate. What or who are the IG's?  They're the Joint Board, made up of the Mayor of Bellingham, the manager of Whatcom County PUD #1, the two tribes (Lummi and Nooksack shake-down artists) and Whatcom County’s head boy, executive Jack Louws. Council has been told they would have to ask their permission, and maybe get to sit with the JB's "staff" people.

This is a far cry from what state law says about local watershed planning. It's supposed “to provide local citizens with the maximum possible input concerning their goals and objectives for water resource management and development," "ensuring that the state's water resources are used wisely, by protecting existing water rights, by protecting instream flows for fish, and by providing for the economic well-being of the state's citizenry and communities."

Council as the Board of Supervisors has been picking up the tab for the lion's share of expenditures for years. Council used to say it wanted an open, inclusive process that favored no special interest or to favor some individuals over others.

Fast forward (through incremental usurpations of authority) to now: Council has become so weak it was told to come on bended knee, that they have to ask to be involved in business central to life as we know it, and they accepted the slap-down.  Louws said they might be allowed to participate if it suits the Joint Board's goals, whatever those are.

We – the people – can’t rely on this county council. They've been sidelined, with no role in water planning. Most of this council doesn't have the horse sense to understand their most important duty of all, which is to guarantee due process, defensible work, and fair handedness.

They’ve abandoned the public to the whims of the five hungry wolves, who've been draining millions in tax money from county citizens every year and achieved zilch, zero, nada, bupkis in the way of a real water plan.

You might think that the lousy treatment given Kathy Kershner by the left after her reconveyance vote (strategically intended to secure her re-election?), should have been an object lesson in playing hardball on the council. She should get behind the idea that the council is supposed to represent the people's interest against the increasingly insular and bureaucratic executive branches and lawsuit-happy enviro-trolls.

Stop and consider what this latest council put-down means to citizens. Our legislators were told point-blank that they have to go to Kelli and Jack and Jilk and the tribes when for ten years or more that group has refused to let their deals be known or for their "staff's" work to be reality checked.  The last thing they want is checks and balances.

Do we have a completed watershed plan, solid information in hand that everyone can rely on? Is there any empirical evidence of how much water there is, where it is, or how it should be put to best use? More important, should the public have any confidence that our water resources will be fairly allocated when all the power's in the hands of this unrestrained little oligarchy?  Heck no.  The JB or IG's (the wolves) control the testing, the numbers, the works.  No peeking behind the curtain!

Open, fair-handed, and realistic watershed planning has been thwarted once again, and Louws made it clear tonight that the "IG's" as they call themselves have no intention of giving up their greedy monopoly.  Clearly, the public has not a snowball's chance of being heard.

Power is a very dangerous commodity in the hands of an unaccountable few.  Council made it clear tonight they have neither the appetite nor the savvy to confront the status quo.  King Jack let them know who rules this county.  The citizens are S.O.L.

WE have quoted Thomas Sowell more than once, and its time to reflect on this priceless quote again:

“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or dangerous way of making decisions than putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”
Picture
4 Comments

Water, water every where - Nor any drop to drink

12/6/2013

1 Comment

 
Picture
WE suppose you know that northwest Washington is a rain forest. What you may not know is that some people are trying to gin up the idea that water is scarce around here; that we're on the brink of a water shortage (or something), and (wait for it) that water needs to be rationed by a cadre of self-appointed busybodies and shake-down artists. Radical curtailment of both access to water and land use are being actively discussed right here in Whatcom County.  Is there a target on private landowner's backs?  Yes, indeed there is.

WE suppose further that you know water isn't consumed; it's recycled. Every drop of water that has ever been drunk, polluted, used to generate electricity, irrigate crops, or anything else - is still present on planet Earth. We're drinking the same water that was swallowed and subsequently peed out by Jesus Christ, Sir Isaac Newton, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin and millions of others.  Mother Nature is the greatest recycler of all.

Well (no pun intended), WE were alerted to this story (it's about Skagit County, but don't think Whatcom County is very far behind; it isn't):


Got WATER ? Maybe Not

Private water well owners' rights were just usurped by a WA Supreme Court case decision. For now, the Department of Ecology says they will not shut down anyone’s private well. What about in the future? If the State controls private water rights they control much, much more.

This petition may make it around to various lists, but sign it once and pass it on through email, Facebook, Twitter, etc.  A maximum number of signatures is needed to impress upon our state senators and representatives that corrective legislation is needed.  Our neighbors in rural Skagit County and throughout the state have a right to the water on their land. 

Please sign the petition in support of basic legal access to water for rural citizens in the Skagit Watershed. We support a balanced approach, but it must include water for tax-paying citizens!

Please send this to everyone (including organization membership lists) you know that are supportive of water for rural farmers and landowners across the state. While our problem here presents a unique set of past circumstances, it is a statewide issue. Let our legislators know we need a legislative solution now.
1 Comment

Letter to Editors - Some Cold Hard Truth About Our Local Glaciers

11/24/2013

18 Comments

 
Picture^ Click ^

WE Editors, science-types, are constantly amazed at the sheer volume of panicky and convoluted narrative about climate and water that passes for "news" in the local press. WE are not alone. For the cold, hard truth about our local climate and glaciers, read on.

Letter to Editors@WhatcomExcavator.org
November 24, 2013

     On Wednesday, Nov. 20, Michelle Koppes gave a talk to the Bellingham City Club, which was featured in the Bellingham Herald (“Bellingham audience told glaciers, oysters show climate change impacts”) and on the city’s TV program. Koppes claimed that

(1)    The climate is warming and “it’s not just happening here, it’s happening all over the world.”   Human emissions of CO2 are causing global warming and warming is “expected to get worse as average temperatures keep trend up in the decades ahead. And the uptrend is expected to accelerate in the 21st century.”
(2)    “here and almost everywhere else in the  world, the mountain snow accumulations that feed the glaciers are dwindling.”
(3)    “The amount of water stored in mountain snow is down 45 to 60 percent since 1950.”
(4)    “shrinkage of Cascade glaciers seems to be accelerating”….”glaciers on Mt. Baker…..have lost 20 percent of their volume since 1990.“

     Are these assertions by Koppes valid and supported by credible data? What supporting evidence did she present as proof of her contentions? Let’s look at each of her claims.

     (1)  What evidence did Koppes cite that the climate is warming here and all over the world?  The answer is simple—none at all.  She simply states that the climate is warming, despite indisputable data to the contrary.  But there is abundant data concerning this issue. As shown by temperature measurements from both land stations and satellites, NO global warming has occurred for the past 17 years! Figure 1 shows that global cooling has actually occurred during the last decade.
Picture
Figure 1. Global temperature for the past decade has cooled, not warmed.

Even the chairman of the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has publicly admitted that there has been no global warming for the past 17 years. So why did Koppes tell the City Club that the global climate and the climate here is warming at an accelerating rate? Can she really be unaware of the uncontested fact that data shows no global warming in the past 17 years when virtually all other scientists know about it.?

That’s the global situation—what about the U.S.? NOAA data shows that from 1998 to 2013, 46 of the 48 mainland states cooled at an average rate -14.7°F per century and winter temperatures have cooled at rates of 1-8.7°F per decade (Fig. 2), i.e, the climate isn’t warming, it’s cooling!
Picture
Figure 2. Winter temperatures in the north central have cooled by more than 8°F per decade and the rest of the US has cooled at rates of 1.3 to 5.8 °F.
     What about local temperature trends? NOAA data show that Washington winters have cooled at a rate of -13°F per century, spring temperatures have cooled at a rate of -7.8°F per century, and summers have cooled at a rate of 0.5°F per century.

What about local temperatures here? Figure 3 shows that average annual temperatures for the western Cascades over the past 15 years have cooled by more than a degree and a half!
Picture
Figure 3. Average annual temperatures for the western Cascades for the past 15 years show cooling of more than a degree and a half.
So where did Koppes get the idea that the climate is warming at an accelerating rate?  Apparently she is still quoting obsolete IPCC computer model temperatures that have been proven to be wrong (too warm) by a full degree F and are totally worthless.  Even the IPCC admits that their computer modeled temperatures were badly wrong. The bottom line here is that the ‘accelerated warming’ cited by Koppes is NOT happening and she ignores the actual measured temperature record that is accepted by even the IPCC!
Picture
Figure 4. Reality check—theoretical (computer modeled) temperature relative to actual, measured temperature (from UAH and RSS satellites). Computer models of the temperature in 2012 were wrong by one full degree (F), (which is as much as the total amount of warming during the past century), showing that the IPCC computer model temperatures are a hopeless failure.


     (2)  Koppes claims that “here and almost everywhere else in the world, the mountain snow accumulations that feed the glaciers are dwindling.” Data is available (Fig. 5) and it shows that five of the six snowiest years in the Northern Hemisphere have occurred since 2003 (NOAA).
Picture
Figure 5. Snow extent in the Northern Hemisphere.
     (3)  Koppes claims that “The amount of water stored in mountain snow is down 45 to 60 percent since 1950.” The snowpack in Washington goes up and down from year to year, but the snow-water equivalent in Washington in the past 25 years has been growing, not declining as claimed by Koppes (Fig. 6). How she could claim a 45 to 60 percent decrease in snow-water equivalent is amazing.
Picture
Figure 6. Mean snow water equivalent in the Cascades since 1975.
     (4)  “...shrinkage of Cascade glaciers seems to be accelerating”… Glaciers advance and retreat as climate warms and cools.  Koppes seems to be unaware of many published papers showing that Mt. Baker glaciers advanced almost to their Little Ice Age (1300 to 1915 AD) positions during the 1880 to 1915 cold period, then retreated strongly upvalley during the 1915 to 1945 warm period (WITHOUT ANY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN CO2!). This is important because it shows that Mt. Baker glaciers retreated upvalley well before CO2 began to increase significantly from 1945 on, i.e., CO2 cannot be the cause of this glacier retreat.  The climate turned cooler again from 1945 to 1977 and the glaciers readvanced about twice as far downvalley as they had retreated during the 1915 to 1945 recession, all during the time of maximum CO2 emissions (after 1945)!  This is even more important, because it shows that for ~30 years (~1945-1977) during the sharpest increase in human CO2 emissions, glaciers on Mt. Baker advanced strongly, just the opposite of what they should have done if CO2 causes warming. In 1978, the climate warmed again and the glaciers have again retreated upvalley. Thus, Koppe’s contentions that Cascade glaciers are retreating at an accelerating rate totally ignores the strong glacier advance from 1945 to 1980 when CO2 was soaring. 

     Koppes claims that "glaciers on Mt. Baker…..have lost 20 percent of their volume since 1990."  This one is mind-boggling!  Fig. 7 shows the amount of retreat of the Coleman glacier terminus from 1993 to 2011 and the total length of the glacier. Keeping in mind that glaciers thicken rapidly upvalley from their terminus, the total amount of ice loss since 1990 can’t be more than a few percent. Other glaciers show the same relationship. How any competent glaciologist could come to such a conclusion is hard to imagine.
Picture
Figure 7. Diminished length of the Coleman glacier from 1993 to 2011(red enclosed area). Looking at Figure 7, it is hard to imagine how any competent glaciologists could conclude that.
CONCLUSIONS

Considering all of these easily confirmed facts that Koppes omitted, her conclusions are badly flawed (some are outright falsehoods) and her contentions are not scientifically defensible.


                                                           Dr. Don Easterbrook, PhD
18 Comments

What's Up With Renata's New Collaborative Economy?

9/17/2013

24 Comments

 
When WE think of a collaborative economy, it's usually something like this:
For some, it seems, WE'd be wrong. According to self-styled financial advisor and Port of Bellingham District 1 commissioner candidate Renata Kowalczyk, economics means something completely different from the tried and true principles that Nobel laureate Milton Friedman presents in the video.

While Renata's campaign website (cached) and press statements relay a reassuring tone to assure the public that she's grounded in the traditions and common sense of a free market and downright jazzed about the ability of the Port to invigorate the local economy, her rhetoric and slogans fail to reveal the full ideology that predominates her “Collaborative Economy Catalyst” website and her “5 Keys” promotional brief.

Picture
It appears that away from the campaign trail Renata (the only name shown on campaign signs) predicts that the economy will never return to "normal" (after what WE assume means the Crash of 2008). But she says there’s a "new normal" being created, The Collaborative Economy that she's a “catalyst” for. What would the "new normal" be, when it’s at home?  And who says that this “new normal” is desirable? Is the idea to get elected, then personally nudge the body of her "collaborative" economic theories and other transitions into public policy?  What are the "brand new rules" she has in mind?  She's fuzzy about 'em.

It's significant that beyond her campaign site, Renata writes about wanting “a new life in which connection and collaboration matter more than anything else."  That begs the question:  Which connections and what kinds of collaboration does Renata have in mind for the Port?  A little searching revealed that she's tied-in tight with BALLE and Sustainable Connections, and a private investment group known as WIN (Whatcom Investment Network). The first two are highly ideological and the third seems more than a little secretive about its operations.


[WE want to make a critical point up front: Free market economics is not some artificial or sophomoric construct dreamed up in dorms, or by a bunch of hippies in a (pot) smoke filled room somewhere. Healthy, vibrant commerce rests on natural law (specifically, human nature in this case) that plays out every day, regardless of anybody’s personal agenda, would-be financiers who might try to monopolize it, or regime mandates. Past, present or future, when powers govern against nature, they're bound to fail. From even before the First Thanksgiving, human history is littered with failed regimes that refused to acknowledge that simple truth.]

So... Renata waxes big on communal ("community") resource-sharing strategies, like “in kind” exchanges of goods and services, suggesting that collaborative transactions are somehow better and more satisfying than trading in cash. Sure, sometimes swapping goods and services makes sense (and it generally isn't taxable*). But often times you, or the person you want to do business with, won’t have anything that you want to exchange tit-for-tat. That's why trading with currency has long been considered a major advance beyond tribal economics. Cash (currency) is a token for trading-at-will that liberates one to obtain the goods or services that you do want. And with cash, you have a method of counting and saving, for measuring success, and keeping things straight. Without a means of measurement there can be no real accountability. A cash economy offers flexibility and vast opportunities; reverting to more primitive standards is regressive.

After eschewing cash, Renata then goes completely off the rails and celebrates a flaky transaction using Life Dollars. Micro-brew currency might be fine for a commune or a small subculture, but it seems odd that a serious contender for public office would be quite so uncritical about it.

Why are WE telling you this? We're concerned that Renata will bring some risky, untested and bizarre ideas to the Port, most particularly the collectivist agenda driven by her affiliations with Business Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE) and Sustainable Connections. These groups have been holding and promoting workshops led by Renata for quite some time; one was held just last week.  What services Whatcom Investing  Network  (WIN) provides as a "local lending network" we don't know, but Renata describes it glowingly in cash terms:

    "I participated in the creation of a local lending network that grows our local economy by making sure small businesses have access to capital they need, right in our community.  In its first year, we loaned out over a half million dollars."

[Documents forwarded to the Vator reveal that WIN’s investment operations have been under review by the State of Washington’s Department of Financial Institutions for about a year.  Check out WIN’s long trail of evasive tap-dancing here, and here, and here.] 

BALLE?  Like Sustainable Connections, BALLE blatantly pushes a globalist-collectivist agenda, with tentacles that reach well beyond local, despite the “localist” community-building image they promote. Their objective is to change the world, evidently without bothering with the consent of the people. How presumptuous is that? (Very.)  All this would be academic if its collaborators weren't itching to get mitts on a hefty lever of power, to shift things into some other gear.

The Port of Bellingham has a budget of $40-50 million annually (in greenbacks), and it’s not a social club or an agent for social change. It’s a public service agency that’s supposed to perform practical functions and provide uniform service. Git ‘er done, not change the world.

So WE think it's important for everyone to know what principles motivate the candidates running for this public office, and we think Renata's beliefs about society and the “new normal” are being soft-pedaled. WE have to ask:
  • Renata claims that she’s bringing ivy-league credentials in economics and a rich history of Wall Street experience to her candidacy. But then she says she’s rejected all that, to achieve a "new American dream". Which Renata would we get if she were elected, and which principles would she employ in office?
  • Does she feel that the people should control and define their government, or the opposite? She’s a relative newcomer (so new some would even say a carpetbagger). She wants this important seat for what reason?
  • Renata speaks of alternative currency and relying on "connections".  Would that limit the opportunities of the people that she and her affiliates don't connect with? Would the unconnected find themselves on a less than level playing field, unwelcome? Will collectivist (oops - collaborative) political litmus tests be added to Port policies?
  • Renata seems to prefer a cashless economy for many things. Would her brand of “collaborative" economics overlap into the use of public resources? Without dollars and cents accountability and auditability, all sorts of mischief can go undetected. That's the opposite of the kind of transparency in government that informed citizens want and demand. How will Renata's tenure be audited? Will she faithfully follow standard accounting rules, or side-step them as WIN seems to?
  • Are the “connections” of which Renata speaks tantamount to crony socialism, crony capitalism, or just plain favoritism? Without accountability, how would we be able to evaluate that? 

Are WE deliberately spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) here? You bet we are, and rightly so! And it will remain so, until the candidate answers such questions to everyone's satisfaction. 
Picture
Catalyst for what, exactly?
Even without FUD, there's good reason to feel that Renata's connections (sustainable or otherwise) are patently unpalatable to free market realists, countywide. (We're guessing the Tea Party was suckered.)

___________________
*an interesting dichotomy for those statist, illiberal control freak 'progressives', who never saw an expanding government bureaucracy they didn't like. Who will pay for it, if all the collectivists in their little communes are trading goods and services in kind, under the table and below the government radar? Oh yeah, the One Percenters, that's who.
24 Comments

Connecting Some Dots

9/6/2013

5 Comments

 
Picture
On August 29, the Bellingham Herald published this article about the possible untimely release of a criminally insane mental patient into unsupervised leave in open society. Fortunately, Sheriff Bill Elfo and his counterparts in other counties managed to stall the release for the time being.

The article states, "[Per Olaf] Johansson, 35, is notorious in Whatcom County. He was arrested in December 2010 and charged with second-degree murder and second-degree assault. According to charging papers, he stabbed his father at least 30 times in a deluded rage, and stabbed his mother and 13-year-old niece. The two women survived; Johansson’s father didn’t."

There are dreamers who say that criminals should be rehabilitated. Maybe they should be -- if they can be. There are dreamers who say that other cultures put the victim and the perpetrator together face-to-face in the town square (instead of a jail or prison) to make them resolve their differences, making both whole again. Uh huh. Force them to shake hands and make up. If only it were that easy. 


Picture
Anyway, WE told you that so WE could show you this: The dreamers in Olympia evidently think  "low barrier" housing for sex offenders, felons, fugitives, and drug users would be a good idea. The Freedom Foundation published another expose' of foolhardiness and wishful thinking at the citizens' expense. The article contains a litany of neglected priorities and unwise trade-offs. 

Not only does this housing project open the door for dangerous occupants, the article states, "the Olympia City Council and Thurston County Commissioner Valenzuela want to take the approach of no questions asked, no ID needed, no idea who is staying at the “low-barrier” homeless project in Olympia. Their preference means there’s $400,000 less to use for families and children who are homeless."

WE think it would be wise for elected officials and bureaucrats to consider these two articles in context of one another before going off half-cocked on risky Utopian 'progressive' policies. 

5 Comments

The Science is Never Settled!

7/14/2013

2 Comments

 
PictureTorquemada
The faithful followers of the Church of Global Human Caused Climate Chaos (CGHCCC) keep repeating the mantra, "the science is settled!" Of course they need to keep their dogma nailed down, and people who question it (deniers and heretics) must be isolated, persecuted and ridiculed. True science - the pursuit of knowledge and objective truth - is based on the opposite of dogma. It only works when healthy skepticism rules the day. This is anathematic to someone who prefers to promote an agenda. 

Watermelons (green on the outside and red on the inside) had glommed onto the climate chaos hypothesis as a tool to hammer home their collectivist, illiberal agenda on an unsuspecting public, and now they're mad because it seems to be unraveling. People are not buying it. CGHCCC high priest Al Gore continues to glurge, and Pope Obama has declared a war on skeptics.


PictureCurrents around the Scotia Sea
It is therefore with great satisfaction that WE present to you yet another triumph of truth and objectivity, and further evidence that no science is ever settled, as long as skeptical observation and new ideas are admitted freely into the record. 

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change, Watts Up With That (WUWT) has published an article, New ideas on Antarctic ice sheet formation subtitled, "scientists cast doubt on theory of what triggered Antarctic glaciation". 


A team of U.S. and U.K. scientists has found geologic evidence that casts doubt on one of the conventional explanations for how Antarctica’s ice sheet began forming. Ian Dalziel, research professor at The University of Texas at Austin’s Institute for Geophysics and professor in the Jackson School of Geosciences, and his colleagues report the findings today in an online edition of the journal Geology.
WE find this relevant of course, because the CGHCCC dogma relies on theories about ice sheet formation (and recession) to prop up their increasingly shaky hypothesis about HCCC. The article continues,

The Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC), an ocean current flowing clockwise around the entire continent, insulates Antarctica from warmer ocean water to the north, helping maintain the ice sheet. For several decades, scientists have surmised that the onset of a complete ACC played a critical role in the initial glaciation of the continent about 34 million years ago.

Now, rock samples from the central Scotia Sea near Antarctica reveal the remnants of a now-submerged volcanic arc that formed sometime before 28 million years ago and might have blocked the formation of the ACC until less than 12 million years ago. Hence, the onset of the ACC may not be related to the initial glaciation of Antarctica, but rather to the subsequent well-documented descent of the planet into a much colder “icehouse” glacial state.
WE won't quote the entire article here, but you can continue reading if you dare. The NSA inquisitors might track it though (that's a joke, Riley).
2 Comments

On Independence Day, Liberty, and Kings

7/2/2013

3 Comments

 
Picture
Two hundred thirty-seven years ago, as Abraham Lincoln described it so brilliantly, “our forefathers brought forth to this continent a new nation conceived in Liberty.”

As Independence Day nears, it’s a good time to reflect on that ideal - on liberty and the meaning of representative government, particularly as it operates here.

Numerous local campaigns are underway, and politicians of all stripes will vie for votes promising to “protect” every aspect of modern life for us - health, safety, and welfare.  Some campaign promises will likely include pledges to protect the world from us. Will protection include safekeeping citizens liberty? Likely few candidates will willingly address the growing reach and imbalance of the local administrative state, and how that impacts freedom. Even the best-intentioned may find themselves veering away from the topic, worried that standing up for freedom will be interpreted as radical.

Our forefathers suffered prolonged distress and oppression at the hands of a king at a time when power was centralized, and top-down hierarchy was the norm of social order. The will of “the people” was an irritant, and loyal subjects had no choice but endure the indignities of subservience. The power of the state was absolute, and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were vulnerable to the whims of local magistrates and bureaucracies. Freedom was limited to permissions. [Does this ring any bells?] And measures to maintain the king’s central order carried the weight of the crown, without regard to rights or the burdens carried by the “governed.”

The nation’s founders, early classical liberals, dared to rebel when talk of liberty sent upstarts to the gallows. The colonials fought, somehow prevailed, and the rest as they say “is history.” Every 4th of July flags wave, and we celebrate living in the land of the free.

How much of the founding Liberty that Lincoln spoke of is still relevant? Has the protection of our freedoms become passe' now, if that duty is considered at all?  Perhaps some rights should be forfeited to achieve bureaucratically controlled designs to achieve community “visions” of progress.  And perhaps we should accept that our private property is a "natural resource" that the state and county should manage.  NOT.  Much of this new local "governance" smacks of dominion, not far from the ham-fisted control that infuriated colonials.

While politicians walk in local parades this week surrounded by flags, touting American beliefs, conviction to freedom may not stir in their hearts. The idea that “government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth” may seem laughable and hackneyed. "Get with the program, times have changed. Polls confirm what the people want, which is holistic and sustainable community management."

We have a county executive who promised he wouldn't “be ideological,” but goes whole hog for this stuff. Following suit, candidates left and right scramble to avoid the issue of rights as they fit into the big picture. Have the foundations of representative democracy become vestigial, given the local political climate?  WE feel that top-down bullying and magisterial orders feel like a yoke. Mountains of bureaucratic dictums and regulation should not incapacitate the flexibility and wisdom of the people to manage their lives, businesses, homes, and farms.  The "the private sector" must not be considered the government's oyster.

WE are not in bad company. Here’s a quote written by the Supreme Court that’s only a few days old:

         “The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government.”

Those words were published in Washington DC on June 26th in regard to state initiatives. It’s something of a national shame that the statement was written in a Supreme Court dissent (Case 12-144).

Four justices that some would expect not to agree did agree about “these truths.”  (Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Sotomayor)  So, the principles of liberty still rattle in a few highly placed heads, just as these important concepts remain central to our state and federal constitutions. But how functionally important are liberty concepts here, in this county?

Too often in the hallowed halls of the Whatcom County courthouse it's said that “people need to give up some rights” for the greater good. Really? Should that ever be necessary, much less permissible? And we hear that "anything not permitted isn't permitted."  Government is taking our rights, and selling them back to us as permits! How does that "square" with the Supreme Court statement above?

This area's bureaucrats assume a prostrate position when interpreting federal and state dictums, particularly any dictum that comes with grant funds tied to its tail.

Instead of the state having to prove that some problem or nuisance has occurred, citizens are asked to “prove” that future activity will do no harm. Precautionary principle trumps constitutional principle. Our local guilty until proven innocent regulations and restrictions about "community resource protection" turn justice itself on its head.


Picture
Speaking of heads, Jack Louws has made a habit of saying he’s "the head of Whatcom County."  WE see a bit of a crown on the guy...  Has “a man who would be king” moved into the corner office of the county courthouse? For years he's been sitting on boards, voting to wheel-and-deal public funds, and building up a retinue of courtiers.

He and his county department heads don't seem overly fond of Council scrutiny.  Recent moves were made to expand administrative latitude to simplify (avoid) council's informed review and consent of spending decisions, "for efficiency."  Uh-huh.


PictureWho's the boss?
And talk in the county is that he brought the “Lynden Mafia” along. Well-heeled consigliares and lieutenants whisper in his ear, with raging appetites to split economic and resource pies.  Not all policy decisions affecting our lives and business are made in council chambers, not by a long shot.

WE dislike the notion that kingly power, or godfathers, should dominate representative government. Legitimate power "rests in the people." Here's to honest self-governance, open and accountable.

This nation once confronted a king, declaring
  • He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. (See Executive appointments and advisory committees, plus other favored "partners" and special "teams".)

  • He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. (Remember this, with it's educational goal being "give in".)

  • He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; … in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. (Promoting that Whatcom County should go along with outside control and interests, like the WIT - and this outside "integration" isn't going away.)

You may recognize these brief excerpts from the Declaration of Independence. But aren't we getting that sort of treatment today?

WE thought this was supposed to be a free country. We feel the people deserve better than to be "managed." We're citizens, not subjects.


3 Comments

PLF Wins Case Against Offsite Mitigation Extortion!

7/2/2013

1 Comment

 
PictureVictory!
    In January WE shared news that the Supreme Court accepted a case fought by Pacific Legal Foundation related to wetlands mitigation for land disturbance, "Koontz v. St. Johns River Management District."

We are happy to report that they won, and that nexus and proportionality really do matter.  There's a great video about the case here at YouTube, and additional information at the PLF site.

The opinion states:  "Our decisions in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U. S. 825 (1987) , and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374 (1994) , provide important protection against the misuse of the power of land-use regulation. In those cases, we held that a unit of government may not condition the approval of a land-use permit on the owner’s relinquishment of a portion of his property unless there is a “nexus” and “rough proportionality” between the government’s demand and the effects of the proposed land use. In this case, the St. Johns River Water Management District (District) believes that it circumvented Nollan and Dolan because of the way in which it structured its handling of a permit application submitted by Coy Koontz, Sr., whose estate is represented in this Court by Coy Koontz, Jr. 1 The District did not approve his application on the condition that he surrender an interest in his land. Instead, the District, after suggesting that he could obtain approval by signing over such an interest, denied his application because he refused to yield. The Florida Supreme Court blessed this maneuver and thus effectively interred those important decisions. Because we conclude that Nollan and Dolan cannot be evaded in this way, the Florida Supreme Court’s decision must be reversed."   [Complete case information is available at the bottom of this post]


Here's more from Justia.com:

In 1972 Koontz bought 14.9 undeveloped acres. Florida subsequently enacted the 1972 Water Resources Act, requiring a permit with conditions to ensure that construction will not be harm water resources and the 1984 Henderson Wetlands Protection Act, making it illegal to “dredge or fill in, on, or over surface waters” without a wetlands permit. The District with jurisdiction over the Koontz land requires that applicants wishing to build on wetlands offset environmental damage by creating, enhancing, or preserving wetlands elsewhere. Koontz decided to develop 3.7-acres. In 1994 he proposed to raise a section of his land to make it suitable for building and installing a stormwater pond. To mitigate environmental effects, Koontz offered to foreclose development of 11 acres by deeding to the District a conservation easement. The District rejected Koontz’s proposal and indicated that it would approve construction only if he reduced the size of his development and deeded a conservation easement on the larger remaining property or hired contractors to improve District wetlands miles away. Koontz sued under a state law that provides damages for agency action that constitutes a taking without just compensation. The trial court found the District’s actions unlawful under the requirements of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, that the government may not condition permit approval on the owner’s relinquishment of a portion of his property unless there is a nexus and rough proportionality between the demand and the effects of the proposed use. The court of appeal affirmed, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed.  (more)
Complete Supreme Court docket, Case 11-1447  here

Cornell University Law School (page)
  • Syllabus [HTML] [PDF]
  • Opinion, Alito [HTML] [PDF]
  • Dissent, Kagan [HTML] [PDF]
1 Comment

Nimbys, Bananas, and Greens (chin deep)

6/19/2013

22 Comments

 
PictureAngry sign, recently seen.
     Futurewise has been power-tripping the light fantastic, over the moon, since it won its rural element "water" case against Whatcom County at the Growth Management Hearings Board  (GMHB) on June 7.  Maybe you've seen or heard the hyperbole that's been flooding the press and radio airwaves about it.


Depite all the early whoop, on Tuesday night former county planning director and current Bellingham city county planning employee David Stalheim spat flames and venom at council in person, threatening to "play hardball" ("...it's going to be long and it's going to be expensive,"  and, "You dig holes, and you dig 'em deeper").  Dog-gonnit, this county had better knuckle under and restrict growth more that it does already, or else.  Bullies do things like that.

By all accounts, the evidence given to the Growth Management Hearings Board in the latest water diatribe was cherry picked to make it appear that the county has done "absolutely nothing" in the last ten years to protect water, allowed pollution, and failed-failed-failed to protect fish (check out the decision's voluminous footnotes).  And it seems that the all-appointee GMHB ate-up the mountain of vague reports and odd accounts of "science" presented by Futurewise's attorney and WWU prof, prior planning commissioner Jean Melious.  Check out the Stalheim-Melious blog "Get Whatcom Planning."  It's regularly loaded with bitter complaints, dramatic interpretations of law, and rather pathetic and phobic-sounding posts about germs and "poop" in an unfair world.

Melious pleaded to the GMHB that dire neglect and "lack of water" have created a crisis that requires strict "measures" despite the reality that this is, and will very likely remain, a rain capital on the Pacific Ocean.  (Uh, step outside but better take your umbrella.)

With this "ruling" - Melious and Stalheim and their very tight band of city supporters fiercely intend to have their way in many respects:  reductions of land use to 20% or lower, even stricter restrictions of "impervious surfaces," more plantings, etc. and so forth.  There was even talk between Melious and the board about a "moratorium" on permits if need be, which is something citizens cringe to hear.  The Lake Whatcom moratorium has lived on and on - well over 10 years.

Denying folks the use of water and land - the property they've dreamed to use, paid taxes on, and will continue to pay taxes on - was discussed glibly as a practical necessity for what? To retain "rural character."  Would all these regulatory impositions and losses be compensated?  Forget that.  Color that precious rural character increasingly desperate and frustrated as the rural community itself is run not by residents but by regulation.

Mind you, Futurewise isn't the only party looking to win big in this legal battle that has waged on for years. The grossly ballooned conservation industry and tribes stand to do very well cashing in on restrictions and resources they've cobbled-up to the tune of "How dry I am".  It's sad to think that few everyday folk can afford the outrageous cost of environmental "restoration" that never quite meets elusive and ever changing goals.  Elaborate retrofitting for stormwater and other "solutions" can run into the tens of thousands, and some have little practical value most particularly in sparsely settled rural areas.   (Remember, all this is supposedly saving rural areas - the "rural element" of the comprehensive plan.)

Other "solutions" waiting in the wings are crippling  (like buying credits from the newly-created Lummi Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank, at $200,000 per credit or share), or from the Washington Water Bank which has been sniffing the environs.  Some very cozy crony relationships have developed, including well paid-partnerships that - let's face it - have become routine patronage.  Planning-buddy outfits like Farm Friends and ReSources are constantly on the dole -  along with sole source relationship vendors like Dumas, Blake, and Peterson.  Facilitators can work deals from agencies simultaneously for "outreach" while fishing and nudging grants along that rely on this crisis scenario.   (Facilitators coordinated the recent "certainty" symposium at considerable cost).

The deepest price of all this is paid by the public in personal disappointment if permits are denied to those who can't afford expensive testing and other requirements. The ability to put a thrifty trailer or modest home on a rural lot is slipping out of reach.  It skews rural life, which used to be practical.  It may be no big deal for the rich.  But even those who can afford kneel-and-deal permits may be forced to encumber their deeds forever to trusts or to forfeit extra buffers and open space, just to build or to get water.  It's unsettling to think that rural property owners should be commandeered to agree to unspecified future demands to merely use their land, or to access water in this wet place.  But that's what "measures" mean to Futurewise and friends.  The planning bureaucrats have paved an impervious trail that led to this point.  How did Stalheim put it when he challenged council?  Something like, "We've built a case".  Yes, he did - they did.

Finding a place for a home has become very tough for the young, the struggling, for retirees, and others who can barely get by in this county. Those with only lint in their pockets have avoided the high-tax, high-rent cities to live in rural areas.  That demographic - that reality - is well known.  Now, thanks to the strong-arm tactics of Futurewise and the growing mitigation industry, rural living will become even more unaffordable for the neediest.

Given this ugly trend, WE thought we'd share this excerpt from a Tom DeWeese, American Policy Center piece.  It's depressing; sorry about that.  But it hits close to home, here on the heels of yet another Futurewise-GMHB decision:

Excerpt from
NIMBYS, BANANAS AND GREENS
By Tom DeWeese

"The real political parties in America are the NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) and the BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). These two political forces are driving the future of the nation by dictating the policy agendas of the Republicans and Democrats. Soon, the national bird will no longer be the noble eagle, but the ostrich.

Americans are becoming adolescent children who want towns to remain small, yet they themselves have children who must have schools, jobs and homes of their own. They want to build their homes in rural areas with beautiful vistas, yet complain when someone else wants to do the same thing. They argue that a neighbor’s new home has blocked their “view shed,” never considering that their home used to be someone else’s view shed or open space. Americans support programs to lock away land to keep wilderness pristine, free of human development, power lines and cell towers. Yet they want to use their cell phones and computers wherever they go. They want three car garages to house the family van, the daughter’s little bug and the husband’s sports car; but don’t blight the landscape with filling stations, refineries or power plants.

There’s no place in our pretty, clean, politically-correct, well-ordered world for industry to make the things we need, yet when all of our toys don’t work, Americans are outraged and they want heads to roll. Fix it!

Yes, what silly children Americans have become. But, one can hardly blame the results of three decades of implementing the radical agendas of special interests like the Sierra Club and The Nature Conservancy. These rich and powerful groups have spent billions of dollars to push their agenda of no growth (called Sustainable Development) through Congress and into our local communities. And they use the news media and corporate commercials to constantly barrage us with the “Go Green” message to indoctrinate the rest of us to feel guilty about our very existence. We’re sorry we need to use energy. We’re sorry that we have to grow food to eat. We’re sorry that we keep inventing creature comforts for ourselves.

The answer from a sorry society, while not giving up our toys, is to just ban the building of the things that make them work. It all sounds so noble."...

"...Our elected representatives play silly games. The Greens relentlessly push their anti-civilization agenda. And the indignant NIMBY’s and BANANA’s continue to sleep, satisfied that their world is well controlled. These are the cadre of self-serving brats who now are selling out America to their whims.

22 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>
    WE Dredge!
    Picture
    Posting Rules:
    This forum is moderated.  Please make an effort to substantiate claims that support opinion.  Gratuitous profanity and ad-hominem attacks will not be accepted.  You can create a "nickname" if you'd like, and you don't have to reveal your e-mail address.   Feel free to share information and your honest thoughts.

    Categories

    All
    Agenda 21
    Best Available Science
    Big Government
    Eco Activism
    Ethics
    Freedom
    Planning
    Property Rights
    Science
    Small Business
    Social Engineering
    Taxes
    Welcome

    Archives

    January 2022
    September 2020
    August 2020
    April 2020
    November 2019
    August 2019
    September 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    September 2017
    July 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011


    Automatic Updates

    Do you want to be notified when new content is added to this newsfeed? Most browsers allow you to subscribe to our Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feed. Click on the RSS link below, and follow the instructions.

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.