This Tuesday morning's Herald has its front page headline story by Sam Taylor on the power shift of the County Council with the sub-head, "Conservative majority with Kershner win". This story, even though it is wrong, should have been in Sunday's Herald - two days ago. However, since the Herald prepares its Saturday, Sunday and Monday local articles on Thursday and Friday, it had to wait till Tuesday. We are poorly served by this.
There is no conservative majority. There is a conservative shift. On Saturday I posted such here.
In light of the Herald's misreading of the election results, I'm posting it again. Me thinks Sam is looking for an exciting story and is less concerned with accuracy. Sam informs us in the 4th paragraph that Carl Weimer is the only incumbent to have retained his seat. Duh - Carl was the only incumbent running. Unless you count Laurie, and we knew a week ago on election night she had lost.
Here is the core of what I posted Saturday, restated in light of the final results.
With Kathy Kershner prevailing over Dan McShane, this makes Barbara Brenner the swing vote on the council.
We will have Sam Crawford joined by Bill Knutzen and Kathy Kershner for a reduction of both environmental codes and planning for the future. They will be in favor of allowing the developers to define our county’s future. The BIAW, gravel interests, developers and realtors will be in control.
On the other side, will be Carl Weimer, Ken Mann and Bob Kelly working for sane and sensible planning. This will leave Barbara Brenner as the swing vote - a position she has enjoyed in years past.
This morning, I would add that perhaps this also dooms the excessive environmental expense by killing the land reconveyance at the south end of Lake Whatcom. It was the pet project of Dan McShane with blind support from Laurie. This is the sort of over-the-top and expensive enviro project we need Barbara to help stop. The new council will probably vote against this in January. The current council should respect this shift in support by the voters and not vote $300,000 to start the process. It will be a waste of taxpayer dollars. Lake Whatcom will be just fine without this pseudo park.
This sort of excessive environmental project is exactly why Dan and Laurie lost the election. It happened in 1993, two years after the sweep of the council by environmentalists in 1991. They got in office and acted with arrogance and excessive zeal. You would think they would learn.
Comments (0)
David Camp //Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 2:52 pm
The online Herald changed the headline to “County Council sees Conservative Shift…”
But they didn’t correct the body of the article, which is internally contradictory:
“The Whatcom County Council appears to have switched to a conservative majority”.............and then states “Crawford, Kershner and Knutzen are the more conservative votes, with Weimer, Kelly and Mann in the progressive voting bloc.
Brenner is a likely swing vote..”
Is our Sam Taylor learning?
Tip Johnson //Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 3:09 pm
I first met Barbara Brenner standing on the steps of the state capital with one of her kids, a sign over her shoulder, insisting on action against polluting garbage incinerators.
I doubt she will much hamper the environmental efforts of the new County Council.
I’m not sure I agree with the “arrogance and excessive zeal” analysis. Will Democrats be accused of the same if the health care bill stimulates a conservative backlash? Politics is usually such a sausage factory that when you get a majority, it’s natural to want to push something through.
The reconveyance is not such a bad deal. It makes sense as long as the landscape plan is not lost in the process. However, lake protection would be better served by focusing acquisition on existing, serviced lots of record and relying on rezones to regulate large parcels.
Tom Pratum //Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 5:44 pm
I don’t think the reconveyance is necessarily in doubt. If the council votes today to spend the $291,000 to pay the DNR for the preliminary work, the council - even with its more conservative bent - might find it difficult to just “throw that money away.” Really, the county should have tucked this one away months ago - they signed the MOA over a year ago, and I don’t at all buy the explanation given in Jared Paben’s story in the Herald today. If the reconveyance happens, it will make a great park, but it will cost a lot of money and, as Tip points out, there are higher priorities if watershed protection is the goal.
I have sadly found that some McShane supporters are now “striking out” at those of us who have been opposed to this in the past. If this election shows anything, I think it is that folks in Whatcom County really don’t care much one way or the other about this issue. If they did, then Laurie and Dan would have been shoe-ins since both emphasized this in their campaigns.
Thanks John for your analysis - I agree with a number of other commenters that having Barbara Brenner as a swing vote is not such a bad thing.
David Onkels //Wed, Nov 11, 2009, 12:18 am
Why don’t you abandon the term, “gravel interests”, or “gravel miners”, since they mnake you appear to be an urban elitest?
Tom Pratum,
I think that reconveyence, since it will result in many more vehicle trips, will adversely affect the water quality in the lake.
Bill Geyer //Wed, Nov 11, 2009, 3:31 am
Yes, the County Council has taken a conservative shift after years of being dominated by a liberal/progressive majority that rarely gave audience for diverse opinions. This year’s election results show the voters clearly understood the situation as they split into two distinct geographic camps: Bellingham and Lummit Island vs the rest of the County and all small cities.
The unofficial) precinct voter abstracts document the split. Of the 120 County precincts, the 4 conservatives nearly swept all the unicorporated County and all small city precincts while the 4 liberal candidates nearly swept all of Bellingham and Lummi Island. This general trend was evident in past elections. But this year’s results show a much higher correlation of 4 conservatives winning the same batch of precincts and, likewise, 4 liberals winning their same batch of precincts.
Instead of guessing power shifts based on “gravel interests, developers and realtors”, we should listen to the voters’ majority and acknowledge where they live. Clearly the rural and small city electorate voted for change to bring another voice to the table. The question will be how fairly this voice is treated in upcomimg Council deliberations. And, how civil they are to each other as they battle for that 4th vote.
Hey, Bill, good to hear from you! So when did you start mining gravel? (Just kidding!)
I agree that the urban/rural split is an important feature of local politics. I also acknowledge that it’s because of real differences in priorities between City and County folks. Those differences are exactly what a representative Council should be addressing. It should be good to have representatives reflecting those differences and, as you said, important that proceedings remain civil and strive for rational decisions. Bingo! That’s democracy - or as close as we’ll get anytime soon.
I’m also completely unconcerned. When the Keystone/Clue coalition swept into office (I’m certain you’ll remember that), liberals raised a hew and cry. But I had many opportunities to work with Sutter and Goldsmith. They did their homework, listened to citizens and made reasonable decisions - not always the ones I would have made, but we all have to face the fact that if there weren’t at least two valid sides to every issue, there wouldn’t be an issue!
Similarly, I don’t think anyone can say Crawford doesn’t listen and try to work through the process, with the Council as a whole.
A lot of local politics is based on land use, but a lot of it is not - like public transit, public safety, libraries, general administration, etc. Even the majority of land use decisions does not require much ideological parsing. It involves compliance with state law and protecting the interests of taxpayers and residents.
Yep, the sky is definitely not falling and we all ought to give them a chance to get up to speed so we can see what they can do. There’s always another election around the bend.
County Council power structure
Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 1:38 pm // John Servais
This Tuesday morning's Herald has its front page headline story by Sam Taylor on the power shift of the County Council with the sub-head, "Conservative majority with Kershner win". This story, even though it is wrong, should have been in Sunday's Herald - two days ago. However, since the Herald prepares its Saturday, Sunday and Monday local articles on Thursday and Friday, it had to wait till Tuesday. We are poorly served by this.There is no conservative majority. There is a conservative shift. On Saturday I posted such here.
In light of the Herald's misreading of the election results, I'm posting it again. Me thinks Sam is looking for an exciting story and is less concerned with accuracy. Sam informs us in the 4th paragraph that Carl Weimer is the only incumbent to have retained his seat. Duh - Carl was the only incumbent running. Unless you count Laurie, and we knew a week ago on election night she had lost.
Here is the core of what I posted Saturday, restated in light of the final results.
With Kathy Kershner prevailing over Dan McShane, this makes Barbara Brenner the swing vote on the council.
We will have Sam Crawford joined by Bill Knutzen and Kathy Kershner for a reduction of both environmental codes and planning for the future. They will be in favor of allowing the developers to define our county’s future. The BIAW, gravel interests, developers and realtors will be in control.
On the other side, will be Carl Weimer, Ken Mann and Bob Kelly working for sane and sensible planning. This will leave Barbara Brenner as the swing vote - a position she has enjoyed in years past.
This morning, I would add that perhaps this also dooms the excessive environmental expense by killing the land reconveyance at the south end of Lake Whatcom. It was the pet project of Dan McShane with blind support from Laurie. This is the sort of over-the-top and expensive enviro project we need Barbara to help stop. The new council will probably vote against this in January. The current council should respect this shift in support by the voters and not vote $300,000 to start the process. It will be a waste of taxpayer dollars. Lake Whatcom will be just fine without this pseudo park.
This sort of excessive environmental project is exactly why Dan and Laurie lost the election. It happened in 1993, two years after the sweep of the council by environmentalists in 1991. They got in office and acted with arrogance and excessive zeal. You would think they would learn.
David Camp // Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 2:52 pm
The online Herald changed the headline to “County Council sees Conservative Shift…”
But they didn’t correct the body of the article, which is internally contradictory:
“The Whatcom County Council appears to have switched to a conservative majority”.............and then states “Crawford, Kershner and Knutzen are the more conservative votes, with Weimer, Kelly and Mann in the progressive voting bloc.
Brenner is a likely swing vote..”
Is our Sam Taylor learning?
Tip Johnson // Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 3:09 pm
I first met Barbara Brenner standing on the steps of the state capital with one of her kids, a sign over her shoulder, insisting on action against polluting garbage incinerators.
I doubt she will much hamper the environmental efforts of the new County Council.
I’m not sure I agree with the “arrogance and excessive zeal” analysis. Will Democrats be accused of the same if the health care bill stimulates a conservative backlash? Politics is usually such a sausage factory that when you get a majority, it’s natural to want to push something through.
The reconveyance is not such a bad deal. It makes sense as long as the landscape plan is not lost in the process. However, lake protection would be better served by focusing acquisition on existing, serviced lots of record and relying on rezones to regulate large parcels.
Tom Pratum // Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 5:44 pm
I don’t think the reconveyance is necessarily in doubt. If the council votes today to spend the $291,000 to pay the DNR for the preliminary work, the council - even with its more conservative bent - might find it difficult to just “throw that money away.” Really, the county should have tucked this one away months ago - they signed the MOA over a year ago, and I don’t at all buy the explanation given in Jared Paben’s story in the Herald today. If the reconveyance happens, it will make a great park, but it will cost a lot of money and, as Tip points out, there are higher priorities if watershed protection is the goal.
I have sadly found that some McShane supporters are now “striking out” at those of us who have been opposed to this in the past. If this election shows anything, I think it is that folks in Whatcom County really don’t care much one way or the other about this issue. If they did, then Laurie and Dan would have been shoe-ins since both emphasized this in their campaigns.
Thanks John for your analysis - I agree with a number of other commenters that having Barbara Brenner as a swing vote is not such a bad thing.
David Onkels // Wed, Nov 11, 2009, 12:18 am
Why don’t you abandon the term, “gravel interests”, or “gravel miners”, since they mnake you appear to be an urban elitest?
Tom Pratum,
I think that reconveyence, since it will result in many more vehicle trips, will adversely affect the water quality in the lake.
Bill Geyer // Wed, Nov 11, 2009, 3:31 am
Yes, the County Council has taken a conservative shift after years of being dominated by a liberal/progressive majority that rarely gave audience for diverse opinions. This year’s election results show the voters clearly understood the situation as they split into two distinct geographic camps: Bellingham and Lummit Island vs the rest of the County and all small cities.
The unofficial) precinct voter abstracts document the split. Of the 120 County precincts, the 4 conservatives nearly swept all the unicorporated County and all small city precincts while the 4 liberal candidates nearly swept all of Bellingham and Lummi Island. This general trend was evident in past elections. But this year’s results show a much higher correlation of 4 conservatives winning the same batch of precincts and, likewise, 4 liberals winning their same batch of precincts.
Instead of guessing power shifts based on “gravel interests, developers and realtors”, we should listen to the voters’ majority and acknowledge where they live. Clearly the rural and small city electorate voted for change to bring another voice to the table. The question will be how fairly this voice is treated in upcomimg Council deliberations. And, how civil they are to each other as they battle for that 4th vote.
http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/auditor/election_division/voting_history/abstracts
/2009/unofficial_2009_general_countywide_contests_abstract_11-10-09.pdf
Tip Johnson // Wed, Nov 11, 2009, 3:33 pm
Hey, Bill, good to hear from you! So when did you start mining gravel? (Just kidding!)
I agree that the urban/rural split is an important feature of local politics. I also acknowledge that it’s because of real differences in priorities between City and County folks. Those differences are exactly what a representative Council should be addressing. It should be good to have representatives reflecting those differences and, as you said, important that proceedings remain civil and strive for rational decisions. Bingo! That’s democracy - or as close as we’ll get anytime soon.
I’m also completely unconcerned. When the Keystone/Clue coalition swept into office (I’m certain you’ll remember that), liberals raised a hew and cry. But I had many opportunities to work with Sutter and Goldsmith. They did their homework, listened to citizens and made reasonable decisions - not always the ones I would have made, but we all have to face the fact that if there weren’t at least two valid sides to every issue, there wouldn’t be an issue!
Similarly, I don’t think anyone can say Crawford doesn’t listen and try to work through the process, with the Council as a whole.
A lot of local politics is based on land use, but a lot of it is not - like public transit, public safety, libraries, general administration, etc. Even the majority of land use decisions does not require much ideological parsing. It involves compliance with state law and protecting the interests of taxpayers and residents.
Yep, the sky is definitely not falling and we all ought to give them a chance to get up to speed so we can see what they can do. There’s always another election around the bend.