Category:

Weekly Standard, "But What Is The Reality of It?"

12/29/2013

Just as WE hear that quite a few Whatcom County citizens of all political stripes have lost their healthcare plans here, the Weekly Standard posted a short piece about a New York Times feature, that in the Big Apple elite Obamacare supporters are feeling "mugged by reality" as they lose their own health plans and access to doctors:

‘But What Is the Reality of It?’
William Kristol, Editor
December 30 - January 6, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 16

If you have a taste for Schadenfreude (and who doesn’t, especially in this holiday season?), you’ll enjoy Anemona Hartocollis’s article in the New York Times of December 14. Here’s the opening paragraph:

Many in New York’s professional and cultural elite have long supported President Obama’s health care plan. But now, to their surprise, thousands of writers, opera singers, music teachers, photographers, doctors, lawyers and others are learning that their health insurance plans are being canceled and they may have to pay more to get comparable coverage, if they can find it.

The article goes on to detail the Obamacare-induced travails of members of New York’s “creative classes” (a phrase the Times fails to put in quotation marks) and concludes:

“We are the Obama people,” said Camille Sweeney, a New York writer and member of the Authors Guild. Her insurance is being canceled, and she is dismayed that neither her pediatrician nor her general practitioner appears to be on the exchange plans. What to do has become a hot topic on Facebook and at dinner parties frequented by her fellow writers and artists.

“I’m for it,” she said. “But what is the reality of it?”

Ms. Sweeney’s statement-and-question says it all. It’s the voice of liberalism in the age of Obama. She’s for Obamacare, but didn’t know what it was. Now, Ms. Sweeney realizes (sort of) that she’s been mugged by reality. But she’s not quite ready to come to grips with reality. She’s not quite ready to press charges against Obama, or against liberalism.

But at least she’s asking a reality-based question.

In 2014, it’s the job of conservatism, and of the Republican party, to answer Ms. Sweeney’s question. It’s the job of conservatives and Republicans to explain the reality of Obamacare—that it’s bad for health care, bad for jobs, and bad for freedom. It’s the job of conservatives and Republicans to offer escapes from Obamacare, to the extent possible (see the piece by Jeffrey H. Anderson and Spencer Cowan in this issue). It’s the job of conservatives and Republicans to set forth workable alternatives to Obamacare for the future, as Paul Ryan and others intend to do early in the new year.

And it’s the job of conservatives and Republicans to press charges. It’s their job to make the case against Obamacare on the broadest possible terms, as an example—as the example—of unintended-consequences-producing, rule-of-law-undermining, freedom-denying, big-government, liberal social-engineering. Obamacare embodies liberalism’s fatal conceit. It’s the job of conservatives and Republicans to make it liberalism’s fatal overreach.

So, to answer Ms. Sweeney’s question: The reality of it is that Obamacare is a disaster. And it’s a disaster because, as Margaret Thatcher put it, “The facts of life are conservative.”

If conservatives and Republicans can explain the facts of life in a language intelligible to contemporary Americans, the year 2014 could be an inflection point in the saga of modern American liberalism, modern American conservatism, and modern American politics. It could be a moment of genuine hope and positive change. Perhaps, to adapt a rhetorical flourish, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when the rise of the nanny state began to slow and our nation began to heal. It could be the moment when we regain our footing and find our way back to the always difficult but ultimately rewarding path of individual liberty, honorable self-government, and national greatness.

Not to be cold hearted, but this was a surprise, how?

3 Comments

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

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:

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

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.

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.

From left - Prosecutor Randy Gaylord, San Juan County Sheriff Rob Nou, Judge Stewart Andrew

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.

0 Comments

Voter Alienation, Anyone?

11/2/2013

9 Comments

WE see that the Whatcom Tea Party took exception to the mean spirited Democrat party mailers that have been going out to voters in the past few days. You may be one of the unlucky recipients of one or more of these spit bombs.

The mild mannered law-abiding "We The People" crowd responded politely to the gross misrepresentations by posting a piece entitled What's Wrong With This Picture? where they wrote,

The Whatcom Tea Party objects to being used to smear honorable candidates. The candidates being smeared here have not been running as Tea Party candidates. We wish the Democrats would have left us out of this. We are a non-partisan organization. Non-partisan does not mean unprincipled, but we deliberately do not endorse or disparage any candidates.

Here's the distorted picture of the Tea Party fabricated by the Whatcom Democrats:

The article patiently explained how government can and should work for us, and that they object when it works against us. WE tend to agree.

But wait! There's more! In a second article, What's Wrong With This Other Picture?, they repeated the same preamble, but over a blood red slaughterhouse picture. Here they caught on that perhaps these mailers meant (in a vicious way) to intimidate voters; that the Democrats may want to so disgust the "undecideds" about local politics and the process that they won't vote at all. This material is so ugly it just may alienate some from wanting to exercise their rights.

Here's the factually-absurd slaughterhouse mailing, for the morbidly curious:

On the Whatcom Tea Party facebook page, they suggested that if you find candidates' campaigns disgusting, send back a strong message by way of your ballot.

WE love it! That's exactly what elections are for. The public has got to reject this bloodstained bomb-throwing tactic. It's too low for a civil society to accept.

Rewarding partisan ugliness with with positions of power would be oh so wrong. Is that the Whatcom County you want to live in?

9 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.

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.

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

WE are not alone - U2's Bono rocks!

8/18/2013

2 Comments

Breitbart.com posted this some months ago, but by all accounts Bono's still walking this talk:

BONO SEES THE LIGHT - APPLAUDS CAPITALISM

Capitalism is no longer a four-letter word for U2 frontman Bono.The Irish rocker told a tech conference in Dublin last week he has a new appreciation for open markets thanks to his charitable work co-founding the One campaign, a movement to end disease and hunger in Africa.

[Bono] said it had been “a humbling thing for me” to realize the importance of capitalism and entrepreneurialism in philanthropy, particularly as someone who “got into this as a righteous anger activist with all the cliches.”

“Job creators and innovators are just the key, and aid is just a bridge,” he told an audience of 200 leading technology entrepreneurs and investors at the F.ounders tech conference in Dublin. “We see it as startup money, investment in new countries. A humbling thing was to learn the role of commerce.”

Bono also shared why he leans on enlightened minds from both the Left and the Right for his charitable missions.

“People go, ‘Huh? Why?’” said Bono. “Our single idea is that normally these issues we fret about, which are seen as left-wing subject matter, we figure, ‘Why divide our audience in half?’ So we work with left and right.”

* * *

Why bring it up? There are a number of new "get a grip!" efforts underway in Whatcom County, including the sparkling new whatcomworks.com website that's chock full of practical information. "Conservatism" or "preservatism" is pretty rad nowadays, compared to chicken-little sustainability mentality. Maybe there's hope after all that citizens will wake-up to the sheer creepiness of the "descent" movement which continues to lurk darkly under the cover of the word conservation.

2 Comments

We Can Never Grow Up -- in a Nanny State

6/23/2013

1 Comment

WE found a new series on YouTube: Nanny of the Month. This episode is about a government ban on bikini baristas. Keeping with our local-content policy, this is a tale about something that happened here in Washington State, in Shelton. And it might fit right here in Banningham, WA. This has become such a Banana Republic.

Are bikini baristas sexist? Maybe a bit. But so then, are beaches, Sports Illustrated, Victoria's Secret, fashion models, Hollywood... Why, Mommy? Why not let the free market sift the chaff from wheat? We're all consenting adults living in a free country -- or we would be if only the busybody nannies would let us grow up and make our own decisions, and take responsibility for our own lives. And maybe have a little fun once in a while.

1 Comment

Whatcom County Politics Gets National Coverage

6/13/2013

2 Comments

So the "coal port" story hit the national news on MSNBC tv, May 31st. The video's been 'talk of the town in some circles. Check it out for yourself: (sorry, there's always an ad)

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Once you've had a chuckle or two at the bungled mispronunciation of the word "Whatcom," you may agree that this nationally broadcast featurette put a very interesting spin on the tough up-down permitting decision that lies ahead for County Council.

WE were irritated that these reporters implied, throughout, that this decision is mighty big for a parochial, podunk local legislature (a county council). The tone was very "Oh my" and "Tsk-tsk."

So, MSNBC - "What about local decision-making seems so odd?" WE realize some elitists don't grasp the concept of representative government, but this was a mighty crass put-down.

In response, WE'd ask, "Who do they think would make a better job of it? People who don't live here?" (It sure sounded like this pair felt that outsiders would know best.)

Then, the newsies shifted gears to say that that big money is headed here ("coal money" and millions, no less) - supposedly to fill local election coffers and (we presume) sway judgment.

Now, that was downright insulting. Whatcom County is too small for dirty 19th century Tammany Hall tactics. Nobody would get away with it, even if they wanted to (WE hope).

Watching this led us to wonder, "Who would drum up such a sleazy story?" It's hard to believe that GPT supporters would put that spin on it, though opponents might benefit from such insinuations.

Another thing about this story seemed creepy. After the talking heads more or less suggested that our council is small potatoes and vulnerable to bribes, they went on to chatter that Governor Inslee has taken a position. One of the last lines was, "Even though we know what his view is, he can't step in." WE generally focus on local, and don't follow the man. So we dredged a bit and discovered that Inslee and his followers have created a substantial "greenest governor" legend for the guy. Is it possible that his legend involves thinly veiled wink-and-a-nod prejudice for certain endeavors, before the facts are in? WE hope that ain't so.

Read this story about the recent joint Washington/Oregon letter that was transmitted from Olympia to the White House (see the actual letter).

If it's true that the governor’s taken this thinly-veiled anti terminal position, what expectation of impartiality and honest handling could proponents expect at the hands of his state agencies?

There's a long way to go on the GPT issue. WE expect the process to move forward in a way that's objective, fair, and impartial. But with press like this flame-bait - plus Inslee's political nudging in D.C. - can it be?

For the record, WE do trust this council to do the right thing - meaning, to be scrupulously thorough and fair. 'Hope they don't blow principle for politics.

2 Comments

Death and Taxes, Not so funny

6/5/2013

2 Comments

WE don't know if the Herald will share this message, so here you go. (Do check out that list if you can. Look at the major hits on services to the elderly, medical services, architecture and engineering, computer businesses, publishing, finance, accounting ... leaving few unscathed all the way down to teensie businesses. All this to feed rivers of grant money, hand over fist, into preferred programs.)

From State Rep. Jason Overstreet
42nd District, June 5, 2013

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

Today is the 24th day of the 30-day special session. Budget negotiators have been meeting behind closed doors, but the only floor action to take place, in fact the only time the full House of Representatives has been in Olympia since the governor called the special session, was last Thursday.

The only bill we took action on was House Bill 2064, a bill that would provide another tax revenue stream. The bill would reinstate the estate tax, or death tax, on married couples’ assets. The reason this issue has come up is in response to another Washington State Supreme Court ruling. The bill passed 51-40, essentially along party lines with all Republicans and one Democrat voting against it.

The measure contains a retroactivity clause requiring 65 families, who have deceased family members, to pay about $138 million in taxes to the state Department of Revenue.

I strongly believe the bill is unconstitutional based on Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 23 of the Washington State Constitution, both of which prohibit ex post facto lawmaking. This piece of legislation reinstates the death tax and reaches beyond the grave to penalize the deceased person’s family, and adds insult to injury by engaging in the unconstitutional practice of retroactivity.

You may remember during the regular legislative session I introduced House Bill 1099, which would repeal this tax. That is the best solution for this issue. A farmer may be property rich, but cash poor – this tax hits these folks hard. It’s not a tax on the rich, it is a tax on deceased person’s family and remaining estate. Repealing the estate tax could also result in more family businesses growing in size, more jobs, and more tax revenues, instead of pushing businesses to close to comply with the estate tax law.

I also find it ironic that we were called back for one vote and two hours of deliberation in caucus and floor time at taxpayer expense, and the only bill we pass is one that taxes people so the state can have more of their money instead of allowing them to pass it along to their families.

The Seattle Times editorial has it right. Read Don’t just ‘fix’ the state estate tax, repeal it.

The Senate has a different version of the bill – Senate Bill 5939 – which contains the same retroactivity clause, but would make long-term reductions in the estate tax. The Washington State Wire article, Death and Taxes Create First Drama of Special Session – Senate Goes Eyeball-to-Eyeball With House Over Estate Tax, provides an overview of the issue.

Taxing Main Street businesses

Are you on the list? Click the photo to find out.

This tax increase hits more than just the doctors, lawyers and accountants the majority party in the House would like you to believe. The list is very extensive and targets child day care services, employment services, grantmaking and giving services, home health care services, nursing care facilities, performing arts companies, radio and television broadcasting, real estate activities, trade schools and countless self-employed people.

Skagit River Bridge

I also wanted to give you the latest update on the Skagit River Bridge collapse given the importance of this major transportation artery in our region. Currently, the timeline to have a temporary bridge in place is slated for mid-June and a permanent span in place by mid-September. Below are some links with information that are being updated as things progress.

I-5 at Skagit River Bridge – this link is from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) webpage. You should find updated information on the detour, traffic times, and the investigation.
Traffic camera at I-5 at Skagit River Bridge – this will allow you to view the Skagit River Bridge site.

I hope you find this update informative. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Jason Overstreet

2 Comments

Water Planning Hijacked, Needs Council Attention

3/16/2013

3 Comments

Yesterday, the county water district caucus of the WRIA 1 Planning Unit transmitted a letter to Whatcom County Council. That may sound boring, but WE think it's important and something everybody should see. Why?

The letter describes in clear terms how water laws affect everybody. It explains what's supposed to happen. Then it lays out how agencies and planners have basically run away with the process since 2009. A lot of people have been dumped - citizens with wells, private water associations, the county's public water districts, and even small cities in large part - even though the Watershed Planning Act (RCW 90.82.10) says:

The legislature finds that the local development of watershed plans for managing water resources and for protecting existing water rights is vital to both state and local interests. The local development of these plans serves vital local interests by placing it in the hands of people: Who have the greatest knowledge of both the resources and the aspirations of those who live and work in the watershed; and who have the greatest stake in the proper, long-term management of the resources.

In spite of this very clear law, state and regional agencies and the county's departments have jumped the tracks. Not only has resource planning become remote, but both public and private water rights have been fought over behind closed doors without transparency, or open public meetings (check out the state law).

Next week, council will have the opportunity to do the right thing to start fixing the situation. It's pretty clear that only council is motivated to step-in.

This is a critical issue that affects everyone. Read this situation letter and attend the meetings listed below if you can. Get involved however you can, or brush-up on the words and music to "How Dry I Am."

MEETING ALERTS

A Whatcom County Council Surface Water Work Session is scheduled for next Tuesday, March 19 at 10:30 a.m. in Courthouse Room #513, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham. Be there! It's a biggie.

(A Puget Sound Partnership/WRIA 1 "WIT" meeting is also scheduled for Tuesday, from 2:30-4:30 p.m. at the 1000 N Forest Street, Bellingham. You may have missed this post.)

A special meeting of the WRIA 1 “Joint Consolidated Board” is scheduled for next Thursday March 21 at 1:30 p.m. also in Courthouse Room #513, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham.

3 Comments

Flexible DNR Forest Recreation Plan Possible, But Welcome?

3/1/2013

7 Comments

On Tuesday morning, February 26th, two top recreation officials from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) made a pitch to Whatcom County Council to offer a recreational program in working forests if the county would like to see that happen.

And what the DNR described was a surprisingly fresh approach that seemed considerably more flexible than the current "park preserve" proposal that could cost local taxpayers almost $6 million or more in coming years if 8,844 acres of DNR forest around Lake Whatcom are taken out of production and "reconveyed" to the county by the state for a "park."

DNR's recreation methodology is interesting; it's forest-based to begin with. The approach has evolved over time and it's proven. DNR recreation has been demonstrably successful in other areas. The officials explained that they could move quickly to make Whatcom County a high-priority recreation area. The presenters described how productive forests could expand the recreation economy while still meeting DNR's production goals. Of course, this would not only keep local coffers full but help the county meet its GMA mandate to conserve productive forestry just as the GMA seeks to conserve productive agriculture.

DNR's planning process relies on local input and transparency. A planning schedule was shown that illustrated how the process works; typically it takes only about two years to complete. The approach is to identify popular local activities and match them to a forest's attributes and landscape plan, habitat conservation plan, and harvest schedule. In this way, the best spots for hiking, camping, and fishing are identified along with prime places for specialized uses. DNR would accommodate active mountain biking, horseback riding, hunting and even off-road vehicles (ORV's) in separate zones because the agency understands the pitfalls that "multiuse" trails present. While the agency would continue to manage operations and risks, recreation would be closely coordinated with local governments.

Photo courtesy of Dave Onkels

While this overall concept seemed positive and win-win to much of the audience, the displeasure and nervousness of local "reconveyance" proponents was palpable. The hardcore partners (the Parks Department, Whatcom Land Trust, and Conservation Northwest) have worked hard to spin the "DNR as antagonist" narrative. But that spin wobbled significantly Tuesday.

Expect an uptick in drama over the next few weeks; watch for more head over heels reports like this article in the Bellingham Herald that portrayed a DNR-rec plan as something that would set things back for years. Would it? Park Director McFarlane has always flat-out refused to produce a tangible plan until deeds to all this property were firmly in the county's grip. What's to "set-back"?

Right off the bat, a DNR-recreation plan would save significant time plus a small fortune in legal expenses because no deeds would need to be changed, no tower leases transferred, and no forester hired. No roads would have to be removed, and a tremendous amount of staff expense would "go poof." In almost every respect, a DNR-recreation alternative would probably move faster and achieve a wider range of recreational opportunities than "park" plans. But the Parks Department would need firm leadership (if not a swift kick) to make a sea-change. There's the rub.

There's good cause to believe that common sense has been damned for the worst reasons - principally, politics. It's an election year, and "the reconveyance" is perceived (wrongly, WE think) as some kind of prize that will look good listed on shiny campaign mailers. Rumor has it that at least one wannabe candidate thinks this is the key to the kingdom. Think again. When water quality improvements don't materialize (they won't) and park bills start racking up, you'll find yourself (or selves) in a very bad position with a practical and political albatross around your neck - some legacy. This council and the Executive could be downright heroic and leave nobody behind. But with Titanic institutional momentum chugging along, voting "no" would take courage. People do recognize and vote for courageous statesmen.

To keep this debate as broad as possible, to balance the ridiculous "save the lake" slant that this story is getting virtually everywhere else (the "epic opportunity to lose" line is entirely untrue, and council knows it) - consider this latest appeal from these two sincere forestry leaders:

Dear Friends of Working Forests, February 28, 2013

We have possibly a last opportunity to convince the County Council that the Reconveyance of 8,844 acres, of trust lands managed under the Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan, to Whatcom County for a low impact park is not in the best interest of our fellow citizens. The council will hold a second Public Hearing starting at 6:00 pm on Tuesday March 12 in the council chambers. At the last hearing we had a great turn out and the Council did delay their decision. Once again we need you and anyone else that feels this proposal is not considering the best interest of the taxpayers, to show up at the hearing and consider speaking to the council. The following talking points are here to give you ideas for a short letter to the council and possible testimony. The proponents of this “taking” have been actively sending form letters and will be at the hearing in force. Please write a letter and attend the public hearing to give the council you thoughts. Feel free to send this on to your friends.

SOME RECONVEYENCE TALKING POINTS

1.      The magnitude of this park is more than what is acceptable by the Growth Management Act    The Growth Management Act specifically protects Commercial Forest land. The withdrawal of this land is in direct conflict with GMA. Whatcom County and the City of Bellingham continue to participate in the conversions of forestlands to preservation status.

2.      Leaving the proposed reconveyed lands under DNR management is a zero loss to all parties. Under county management it is a net loss economically and continues the trend of a dwindling forestland base that threatens, the already raw material stressed, timber industry infrastructure.    For the last 35 years the timber industry has lost over 60% of its timber base. Less than 25% of Whatcom County forests are available as “working forests”. Logs are imported from Canada and must be trucked longer distances to supply mills in Washington. Taking more timber out of the forest base will impact an important industry and associated businesses.

3.      The Landscape Management Plan gave local control to Whatcom County. Proponents say that reconveying this land to the county will give local control. The Legislation that formed the Landscape Management Plan on DNR managed Trust lands in the watershed was asked for and developed by local activists, then approved by the City of Bellingham, Whatcom County, and Water District #10. The ink hardly dried on this plan, when the same activist groups began the next step for reconveyance. This type of planed incromentalism must stop here. What lands will be next? Will a Whatcom Land Trust conservation easement take control of this land as they have with other forestlands?

4.      Specific agreements must be made before reconveyance is passed; this process has been void of facts and not fully vetted.   Now proponents are talking about a forest management plan that will harvest as much timber as called for in the Landscape Management Plan. This is a smoke screen, if a written agreement spelling out exactly how the lands will be used is not done before reconveyance is passed, it will never happen. No firm park plan or plan to maintain this area has been given. The parks department can’t even keep the one latrine at the Ken Hertz trailhead maintained, how do we expect them to keep a bigger facility operating on only $150,000.00 a year?

5.      Dept. of Ecology representatives have stated that reconveyance would not result in any measurable improvement to water quality. The phosphorous pollution in Lake Whatcom is in basins 1 and 2, that are heavily urbanized and mostly under the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County’s jurisdiction. Basin 3 receives mostly forest runoff and is still clean. Why are we demonizing forest practices that are a preferred land use and cause little impact on the Lake? The limited timber harvesting (revenue creation) allowed under the Landscape Plan does not need to be eliminated to maintain clean water.

6.      A full economic analysis of the reconveyance must be made before a vote.   Especially during these economic hard times, how can the County Council approve this proposal and not know the full economic impacts? Far too many times we move ahead on projects not understanding the unintended consequences of our actions. The county needs to do an independent economic analysis.

7.      Currently there is a large amount of low impact recreational use in the proposed reconveyance area. The Department of Natural Resources allows hiking, biking and horseback riding on the lands they manage. What will change under reconveyance? Do we want low impact recreation or a park to draw more users to the watershed?   An inventory of existing recreation use has not been done, so we do not have a baseline for future proposals. From this baseline future rational decisions are made, without a baseline it is just speculation. If the 8,844 acres is left in the hands of DNR timber management, existing recreation could be enhanced as directed by the Landscape management Plan (Objective 19). A recent meeting with DNR officials revealed their willingness to consider a recreation plan for Whatcom County. Instead of reconveying this property and having all the cost being the county taxpayer’s responsibility, a shared effort with the state will have many more benefits for everyone.

8.      The urban society must learn how to live with the rural society and realize the benefits that come from understanding and cooperation.    In other words, stop being so selfish and self absorbed. Start to understand your rural neighbors. We love the Earth as much as you and we want a wonderful future for our children also. We have committed our lives to the land; don’t you think we care for it as much as you do? Maybe because we are so close to the land we may know more of how to take care of it and use it wisely, not selfishly.

9.      We can have recreation and forest management at the same time, while providing revenue to the county and not the cost to maintain these 8,844 acres. Why do we need to reconvey for a single use Park?   These trust lands can produce an estimated $ 500,000 annually revenue for the county beneficiaries, plus a 5 fold benefit to the local economy.   Cooperation between Whatcom County and DNR can create a “working forest” for all.

Dick Whitmore and Tom Westergreen

7 Comments

<<Previous

Weekly Standard, "But What Is The Reality of It?"

Tales of Tyranny - Another Episode

Voter Alienation, Anyone?

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

WE are not alone - U2's Bono rocks!

We Can Never Grow Up -- in a Nanny State

Whatcom County Politics Gets National Coverage

Death and Taxes, Not so funny

Water Planning Hijacked, Needs Council Attention

Flexible DNR Forest Recreation Plan Possible, But Welcome?

Categories

Archives