Is Bellingham Home Fund Deeply Flawed

Permalink +

Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 8:45 am  //  Guest writer

Guest writer Jack Petree presents why the Bellingham Proposition 1 - the Home Fund - is flawed and should be voted down.  Jack is a long time local political activist and often writes on housing and development issues.  

---------------

The Low-income Housing Levy is an ill-conceived tax increase with the undesirable consequence of bringing more harm to the poor than any other part of our population.

Those who want you to vote to increase your taxes to allegedly “help” the poor are basing their plea on appeals to your emotions.  Paraphrased, they claim, “You are heartless and cruel if you don’t vote for this tax increase.”  Buzzwords are liberally used.  If you don’t vote for this tax you are rejecting “seniors,” “veterans,” “the homeless,” and, worse, “children,” especially “homeless children.”

But if you really want to help the poorest among us, you will vote “No” on Proposition #1.  The proposition will increase the tax load on nearly 1/3 of Bellingham’s homeowners who are also low income, as well as on the 13,000 low income householders who rent and will see the tax applied to their apartments. 

In short, you are being asked to increase the financial burden on about 16,000 low income households in order to provide home fix ups, rental assistance and a few homes for less than 1,300 households.  That means about 12 low income people will have to pay more in taxes for every single low income person helped. 

The unintended harm to the poor was brought about because the so-called “Low Income Housing Levy” was rushed to the ballot prematurely.  As a result:

• The study meant to tell us whether the money is actually needed and where it should actually be spent will not be sent to the council until after you have already voted on Proposition #1.  The proposition was put on the ballot before accurate data was available.

• Proponents provide you with all sorts of pretty charts and promises about where the money will be spent but there is no plan for spending the money. 

According to the city’s ballot language, “Funding priorities would be set forth in an Administrative and Financing Plan adopted by the City Council following recommendations by a citizen advisory committee to the Mayor and Council;” 

• You will not find out how the money will actually be spent until after you have voted.

• Proponents indicate all the money will be spent on affordable housing.  The council was more honest in pointing out $1,260,000 will be spent on administration. That is money to be spent on administering programs already existing and already being administered with existing funds.

• Does a family of four making $54,000 per year really need housing assistance?  That is the HUD baseline for determining eligibility for subsidized housing in Bellingham.

• Perhaps most offensive, inappropriately shifting some tax money away from residents designated as “very low income” and “extremely low income” to citizens with somewhat higher incomes has already been openly discussed before council (the discussion is on video).  The council has been assured there are “strategic ways” to shift federal funds to, in effect, shift spending away from the very poorest among us and allow that money to be spent on less poor citizens.

If you are not yet convinced Proposition #1 is an ill-conceived tax increase, ask yourself these questions:

• Our plan for serving the poor in recent years has included city recommendations that builders be offered opportunities to build more homes per acre in return for commitments to build affordable housing.  In recent years, hundreds of “free” (homes built at developer expense without the need for a tax increase) affordable homes have been offered, only to be rejected by the city.  Why?

• Draft proposals for spending the new tax money target areas where the city’s own studies demonstrate housing cannot be built affordably.  That means we are really planning to spend the money to further city planning policy at the expense of the poor.  Why?

You cannot make housing more affordable by making it more expensive.  Homelessness is emotional for all.  However, appeals to emotion cannot help when government has already begun to “strategize” inappropriate funding shifts away from the most needy.  $21 million in new taxes will inequitably raise rents on low income wage earners and stifle job growth.  Those most in need must be helped, but we need an effective spending plan before we write a blank check.

-----------------

Publisher note:  I would like to post a guest article from an advocate for the Home Fund, but they must address the issues raised by Jack.  

Larry Horowitz  //  Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 5:48 pm

Jack Petree’s article is disingenuous.  Jack acts as if he cares about the level of property taxes paid by “the poorest among us.”  In reality, the property taxes paid by the poorest among us (and everyone else) are already inflated because every Bellingham property owner is already paying higher taxes to subsidize developers and homebuilders.
 
How is that so?  Because impact fees that are authorized under RCW 82.02.050 and intended to require “new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve new growth and development” are TOO LOW. 

For example, the Bellingham Park Impact Fee (PIF) collects only 35% of the cost associated with growth; taxpayers, including the poorest among us, pay the bulk of the remaining 65%.  School impact fees and transportation impact fees are designed to collect around half of the total cost, leaving existing property owners paying the balance.

In addition, under RCW 82.02.0690, the state legislature only allows counties, cities and towns to collect impact fees for “public streets and roads, publicly owned parks, open space and recreation facilities, school facilities, and fire protection facilities.”  Municipalities cannot collect impact fees for libraries, police protection facilities, jails, prisons, government buildings, museums, or any other public facility.  In other words, the development community receives a 100% subsidiary for each of these capital expenditures. 

And that’s just Bellingham.  Whatcom County, being out of compliance with the GMA, cannot collect any impact fees, so county taxpayers, including the poorest Bellingham homeowners – who also pay county taxes, subsidize 100% of all growth in the county.

If Jack Petree (and his ilk) were so concerned about the finances of the poorest among us, he would be fighting like hell to increase impact fees so that property taxes would not be inflated to subsidize those who profit from growth.

Does all this mean I support the Low-income Housing Levy?  If the decision were up to me, before I would support this levy, I would raise impact fees to the point where they accomplished the intent of the state legislature.  That is, I would first make sure that new growth and development paid the full proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve new growth and development. It has been estimated that Bellingham taxpayers are currently subsidizing each single family house by as much as $19,000 and each multi-family unit by as much as $11,000, an average of $15,000.  And that only considers the subsidies for roads, parks, schools and fire protection equipment.  Considering the future costs associated with a new jail and other facilities for which impact fees cannot be collected, the subsidy is much, much larger.

The most recent Bellingham comprehensive plan projected population growth of more 31,601 over the 20-year planning period.  Growth has slowed substantially since then.  The next 20-year projection may come in at less than half that; let’s say 15,000, or 750 people per year.  Assuming 2 people per home, that would require 375 units per year.  At an average subsidy of $15,000 per unit, taxpayers are paying $5.6 MILLION more in taxes than they would be if growth paid its own way. 

I repeat, if impact fees covered the true costs of expanding the transportation, park, school, and fire protection systems, as needed to accommodate growth, then Bellingham property taxes could be reduced by $5.6 MILLION per year.  And that’s based on less than 50% of the growth projected in 2006.  If the growth projection remains the same, the tax subsidy could be almost $12 MILLION per year.

What if we actually raised impact fees and used a portion of the tax savings to help those in our community who have lived here for awhile but have not been able to afford decent housing? 

Would I support that?  Yes, I would.

Would you?


Larry Horowitz  //  Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 6:10 pm

The reference in paragraph four of my previous comment should read RCW 82.02.090(7) rather than 82.02.0690.


John Servais  //  Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 8:59 pm

Well, as I asked Jack to allow me to post his article, then I must be of Jack’s “ilk” also.  Really?  Jack presents some arguments and I see no reason to personally insult him.

To the question of whether or not you, Larry, support the election issue levy, you are unable to answer your own question.  Any of us can construct a fantasy world and say then we would support something.  But the question is - given the reality of the world - do you support the levy?  Do you?  You asked the question, so we do deserve an answer.  And please justify the answer in one comprehensible paragraph.


Larry Horowitz  //  Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 9:10 pm

John, in my opinion, Jack Petree is a promoter of growth at any cost who opposes impact fees that would require those who profit from growth to pay the costs of growth.  His ‘ilk’ are others who also promote growth at any cost and oppose adequate impact fees.  If that defines you, so be it.

Based on your comment about me responding “in one comprehensible paragraph,” I gather you do not comprehend my earlier comment.  If so, why don’t you simply ask me to clarify?

To answer your question in a single paragraph: No, I do not support the Low-income housing levy at this time.  It is premature.  By first raising impact fees, the city will have sufficient funds to accomplish all of the objectives of the levy.  If, after raising impact fees, additional funds are needed, then I would likely support a tax-paid housing subsidy.  Currently, because impact fees are too low, we are providing a housing subsidy indiscriminately.  Those who purchase million dollar homes receive the same subsidy as those who purchase $100,000 homes.  That is simply wrong.  Why are we subsidizing the construction, sale and purchase of million dollar homes?  Can you answer that?


John Servais  //  Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 9:30 pm

So, Larry, you are also against the levy.  You have your reasons and Jack has his.  There was no use in asking you to “clarify” as you never stated whether you were for or against the levy. 

You know, you said Jack did not care about the poor and that he was with others of that ilk.  The “ilk’ you wrote of in that sentence was not about impact fees.  A simple parsing of the sentence shows that.  Jack can be anything in your opinion, but the subject here is the Home Fund levy.  My concern - and comment - were about your insult of Jack.  The issues of impact fees, taxes, growth, etc are all legitimate topics. 


Larry Horowitz  //  Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 9:46 pm

John, I disagree with your parsing of my statement.  I wrote:

“If Jack Petree (and his ilk) were so concerned about the finances of the poorest among us, he would be fighting like hell to increase impact fees so that property taxes would not be inflated to subsidize those who profit from growth.”

To say it would be a gigantic leap to interpret my comment as stating that Petree does not care about the poor would be an understatement.  Petree emphasizes the impact of the proposed levy on the property taxes paid by the poorest among us.  If he really is so concerned about the property taxes paid by the poor, then he would do everything he could to make sure the poor were not paying property taxes to subsidize those who profit from growth.  Why hasn’t Petree expressed his concern about property taxes paid by the poor before?  Why has Petree shown no concern about the tax subsidy the poor pay to subsidize the construction of million dollar homes?

I don’t believe it’s because Jack doesn’t care about the poor.  In fact, I’m sure he does.  Instead, I believe he cares more about making sure his developer clients continue to receive their growth subsidy and keep impact fees artificially low.  That being said, he has every opportunity to prove me wrong by supporting higher impact fees that would reduce the taxes paid by the poor.


jack petree  //  Sat, Sep 29, 2012, 6:05 am

I won’t point out Larry’s many errors except to say I do not believe I have ever opposed impact fees though, I have opposed fee levels that can be demonstrated to be excessive.

But the column is about the Prop. 1 levy and I have a couple of interesting personal things to say that may illuminate the discussion.

I am a senior (67) and a Veteran (Viet Nam) and I live in an old (75 years plus) house my wife and I purchased when she was preggers with our first child.  I am well below median income but, probably, just a bit above the formally designated low income level.  We’ve got 30 year old carpet on the floor because it costs too much to put down new…  kinda average.

It takes an entire social security check plus a part of another to pay the property taxes on our home each year. 

Property taxes have risen to be so high, in fact, that my ten year total for property taxes exceeds what we paid for the home.

Maybe I’m being a little selfish but, as a senior and a veteran, both groups the proponents of the tax say they want to help, I ask that you please stop trying to help me… I can’t afford your help anymore and that goes to the point of the column.  The tax and fee increases we are seeing now have a serious, and negative, impact on those of us in the below median wage segment of society.

It ta


Larry Horowitz  //  Sat, Sep 29, 2012, 8:01 am

Yes, the column is about the Prop 1 levy, a tax designed to subsidize low income housing.  We can continue to wallow in that vacuum, or we can focus our energies on the problem holistically.

The fact is: those who profit from growth are already being subsidized.  Instead of our tax dollars being used to effectively subsidize low income housing, they are used to subsidize every unit of new construction indiscriminately, including the most expensive million dollar houses and condos.  Rather than subsidizing EVERY unit - by collecting impact fees that recover less than 50% of the true costs - why not collect impact fees that cover the full proportionate share of these costs and laser-focus a portion of the additional revenue to really help those who need it?  Those who have lived in our community for a long time but, for one reason or another, cannot afford decent housing.

Collecting impact fees that cover the true costs of growth for roads, parks, schools and fire protection facilities would reduce Jack Petree’s tax burden – and yours – and provide the revenue needed to accomplish the goals of the Prop 1 levy without the burden of approving a new levy.

(And, Jack, while I feel for your situation, the fact that my property taxes are almost $3800 a year more than yours, the pain over here is really intense.)


Tip Johnson  //  Sun, Sep 30, 2012, 11:58 am

Though I usually disagree with Jack, in this case I agree with his conclusion, if not his entire argument. 

First off - mostly disagreeing with Jack doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate him.  I do.  I appreciate Jack because he isn’t afraid to put his opinions down in writing, and put his name to them.  That’s what we are all about here at NWCitizen.  The fact that Jack sometimes gets paid for his work doesn’t particularly bother me either.  That’s just the difference between Jack’s folks and mine. The folks supporting issues I champion won’t squeeze off a nickel for a cause unless it is going to improve their backyard. I have forty years of public interest advocacy and nothing to show for it except for several impressive community achievements and the impossibility of getting offered a decent job in my own town.  At least Jack can get work. He’s obviously smarter than I am.

Beware of institutionalizing anything.  Institutions always serve themselves before their ostensible purpose.  Conjoining institutionalized aims and taxes usually results in the ratebase getting milked like a bunch of cows.  As for the poor, there are ways to really help them without stuffing a bunch of bureaucratic shirts. 

Some may recall my initiative for a winter shelter when the old Sears building was lying vacant.  I had to threaten to open the front door of City Hall on cold nights to make it happen, but happen it did.  And it was a disaster.  I won’t go into details, but some kinds of shelter can be a problem.

From that experience, I realized that for the most abjectly poor - typically homeless men with substance abuse or mental health problems - more good could be done for much less by loading 2x4s, plastic sheet and tin stoves into a pickup truck and dumping them at the curb in a few key locations.  Of course, society should do much more and would thereby save many other costs, but we aren’t and won’t so….

Mom’s with kids are a separate issue. For these folk, the best we can now offer are Walmart parking lots and live-in automobiles.  We ought to be ashamed of that.  However, most of these families will not be helped by the types of programs contemplated under the levy.  They lack sufficient income to qualify for equity incubator programs, must often wait for Section 8 housing and often can’t conform with rules and regulations of agencies like the Housing Authority.  Working single moms ought to be the prime focus of any community homelessness initiative, but I doubt the levy will produce much service provision addressing this need.

Finally, there are the wholesome young families, with or without children, who have one or two jobs and are trying to get a start in the housing market.  Or the elders with or without pets who have some guaranteed, if minimal income.  The Housing Authority can handle a lot of these.  Also, there are programs that subsidize home buying and then sharecrop any appreciation.  It works, but is arguably a better deal for the shirts than the clients.

So what can we do that will really help the poor?  It’s based upon supply and demand.  Jack’s right, build enough units and prices will go down.  But following the industry’s market perception, most “affordable units” built aren’t really affordable enough to help the poor.  Builders fear that truly affordable units won’t sell profitably to qualified buyers and that government programs are onerous or will be unreliable.  Neighbors rightly fear that toolkit density giveaways will only line developers pockets at the neighborhood’s expense.

Whole cultures live comfortably in yurts, but yurts do not comply with building codes.  The truth is that we have zoned and regulated affordable housing out of existence. Efforts are underway to extend that even further, by enforcing who can live with whom, in what kind of family, or by imposing measures designed eliminate the most affordable housing stock available through inspection and remediation. I’m not arguing against safe standards, but state law already affords opportunity for tenants and landlords to address those issues.

The single most important thing we could do to improve our stock of affordable housing is to approve liberalized accessory dwelling unit provisions.  This is the best way to meet infill targets, add diversity to the housing stock, help homeowners meet their mortgage obligations, give tenants affordable housing and a chance to save toward a downpayment, keep rental housing well supervised, and add eyes-on-the-street security for everyone.

Give property owners the green light for cottages and cabins that the toolkit gives developers.  This could really help our less fortunate neighbors and costs government and taxpayers nothing. Yet we oppose, ignore, or table it time and again.  If we are serious about sheltering the poor, we don’t need to soak the ratebase.  Just make it legal for homeowners to help.


Dick Conoboy  //  Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 5:04 pm

For John and Larry - The word “ilk” is not necessarily pejorative and has a long history:  “When one uses ilk, as in the phrase men of his ilk, one is using a word with an ancient pedigree even though the sense of ilk, “kind or sort,” is actually quite recent, having been first recorded at the end of the 18th century. This sense grew out of an older use of ilk in the phrase of that ilk, meaning “of the same place, territorial designation, or name.” This phrase was used chiefly in names of landed families, Guthrie of that ilk meaning “Guthrie of Guthrie.” “Same” is the fundamental meaning of the word. The ancestors of ilk, Old English ilca and Middle English ilke, were common words, usually appearing with such words as the or that, but the word hardly survived the Middle Ages in those uses.”  See + Link Any pejorative inference may be due to the pronunciation of the word - not far from “ick”.  The user of ilk need not necessarily imply a derogatory meaning.


Dick Conoboy  //  Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 5:12 pm

For Jack,

I would like to get some source information regarding the figures quoted in your piece” The proposition will increase the tax load on nearly 1/3 of Bellingham’s homeowners who are also low income, as well as on the 13,000 low income householders who rent and will see the tax applied to their apartments.”  What defines “low income” for the purposes stated here?  What is the source of the 13,000 number as applied to renters?  We have over 10,000 student renters whom I would not classify necessarily as being high income residents. So is the 13,000 in addition to the student population?  That would surely change the givens.


Dick Conoboy  //  Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 5:40 pm

For Tip:

You say: “Efforts are underway to extend that even further, by enforcing who can live with whom, in what kind of family, or by imposing measures designed eliminate the most affordable housing stock available through inspection and remediation.”  Just what efforts are you speaking of?  The council has not looked at the issue of the number of people in a rental for years.  Work on ensuring the health and safety of renters regardless of their relationships is long overdue.  Moreover, overcrowding by illegally modifying rental structures has nothing to do with affordable housing.  It is just plain dangerous for a variety of reasons.  As for ADUs, we have been down this path before. If the city were serious about offering this as a workable alternative for increasing affordable housing, it would give guarantees to the citizenry that these places would be habitable and conform to codes.  Instead, the current laws on ADUs are ignored as you are well aware, enforcement being a four letter word in these here parts.  The point was brought home a few years ago by a city staffer who indicated that there were only 71 registered ADUs in all of Bellingham.  This caused a spontaneous burst of laughter among all those in the council chambers that evening.  Need I say more?

Furthermore, Washington state laws on standards for rentals are quite useless as they depend on action by individuals and not the state.  This gives the landlords distinct advantages over tenants whose recourse is most often a legal one that requires attorneys, courts and attendant costs.  Let’s not kid ourselves that such passive statutes are helpful in any meaningful fashion.  One glimmer of possibility is the recent enactment of a state statute that actually speaks to rental inspections but the action is left to the individual cities and there the new law sits while the citizens wait for the next fire (remember the last four in town since 2011?) or some similar disaster to endanger our tenants.


jack petree  //  Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 6:33 pm

Dick,

Go to cob.org and then to neighborhood planning then to consolidated plan then to draft for new plan… I know it is a draft and that is one of the problems because the proposition was put on the ballot before the document (new consolidated plan) meant to show need is even done… it will not be done until after the ballot.  Neither will the plan to show how the money will really be spent.

Anyway, go to chapter 2, table 15, page 46 and add up the figures…

Good question… 32% in my mind is “nearly 1/3” and, you can add the renters for yourself…

Thanks for asking,

Jack


Tip Johnson  //  Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 7:41 pm

@DC - I was referring in part to your efforts, but not singling you out.  Many of the sentiments your blog addresses have been recurrent themes in city planning - and not just here - over the more than three decades of my involvement in local government.

We will probably just have to disagree on the utility of the Landlord/Tenants Act. During junior high and high school, I worked for a landlord with usually around twenty rental houses in a university district.  Later I worked for a real estate investor with both residential and commercial rental properties.  I learned that being a landlord isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, that good tenants are hard to find, and that a percentage of tenants will use the law to take advantage of you.  One of the last things I would choose to do is manage rental properties.


Michael Lilliquist  //  Tue, Oct 09, 2012, 10:58 pm

Jack,

Contrary to your assertion, the draft Admin & Financing Plan is available now, a month before the voters will decide. And, no surprise, it is pretty much what has always been intended and spoken of.  Your attempt to raise suspicion and mistrust was uncalled for. You also tried to introduce unjustified doubt in several other ways, none of them particularly helpful. Indeed, doubt seems to be your primary tool for persuasion.

Now, I have some concerns and reservations with the draft A & F plan, and it can be modified and hopefully improved based on input. So let’s get involved in a constructive discussion.


jack petree  //  Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 1:57 pm

Michael,

My deadline on the Herald piece was Sept 20.  The DRAFT A&E plan was first seen in a public venue Monday, Oct, 8 when presented to the City Council as a discussion item only.  There has been no public comment nor Council action on that plan.  Ballots go out in one week (ok,one week and one day)  CDAB, a committee no more than a couple of dozen people in the entire have ever even heard of, will get its first shot at the plan tonight after a public hearing on the Consolidated Plan.  Aside from its introduction as a discussion item Monday, the public has yet to see the A & F Plan.

Now, how can a plan be called “available now” when it was just presented to Council 4 days ago and has not undergone either public comment nor Council process?

So far as that goes, the Consolidated Plan is also not completed.  There is a public hearing only a few people have heard about in front of CDAB tonight and then, at some time in the future, David will finish the plan, presumably based on input tonight, and bring it forward to the Council for possible public hearings and Council Action.

 


Hue Beattie  //  Sat, Oct 13, 2012, 4:58 pm

jack is off on his knowledge of CDAB.It has been around for many years and was designed to divy up Federal block grant funds.Many have served on it over the years and I resent your comment.


Rob Stratton  //  Sun, Dec 02, 2012, 8:34 am

We do not need “impact” fees, as a young person growing in Bellingham I had a lot more “services” before impact fees.

Impact fees directly hurt lower middle class and poor people this is basic economics. You make building a house cost more and the price to buy or rent it costs more, that simple.

Why all this demonizing of profit? Profit is what motivates people to provide services at an affordable rate which then raises everyone’s standard of living. I don’t hear anybody using the term “wageateer” as a perjoritive. Many of our politicians make more money off of our taxes than most self owned business struggling to make a living. No body condmening rich sport stars or hollywood actors for their enormous wages.


Water, Water Everywhere, but ...

Sat, Apr 19, 2014, 1:57 pm  //  Terry Wechsler

or How Not to Plan for Future Generations' Water Needs

2 comments; last on Apr 19, 2014

Charter Review and District Only Voting

Thu, Apr 17, 2014, 9:40 am  //  Riley Sweeney

A simple explanation of the Charter Review and analysis of District only voting

0 comments

Johns Repair

Specializing in German vehicles...

Roosevelt Neighborhood Pleads for Left Turns

Wed, Apr 09, 2014, 8:07 am  //  Riley Sweeney

City pushes for Alabama Street improvements, residents speak out

3 comments; last on Apr 14, 2014

Assault

Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 3:29 pm  //  Guest writer

By Christopher Grannis: Wherein despite every effort and expense, citizens cannot make the City follow the law or work for neighborhoods

2 comments; last on Apr 07, 2014

Killer Industrial Jobs or Long-term Job Killers?

Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 11:52 am  //  Terry Wechsler

Why commenting on the EIS in Comp Plan revisions for Cherry Point means demanding an EIS in the first place.

4 comments; last on Apr 13, 2014

Anatomy of a Development Part XII - Citizens Win Against University Ridge

Wed, Apr 02, 2014, 5:00 am  //  Dick Conoboy

Ambling University Development Group pulls out. University Ridge will not be built.

12 comments; last on Apr 06, 2014

Tell County To Expand Scope of EIS Review for Plants and Animals

Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 12:27 pm  //  Wendy Harris

Please help us protect county wildlife by ensuring that the scope of the EIS review is adequate. A sample scoping letter is included.

0 comments

Public May Comment On EIS Scoping For County Comp. Plan Until April 7th

Mon, Mar 31, 2014, 1:23 am  //  Wendy Harris

The public has a week to comment on the scope of issues reviewed under the EIS.

0 comments

My State of the Lake Report for 2014

Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 12:32 am  //  Wendy Harris

On March 26, 2014 the city and county provided their update and assessment on the status of Lake Whatcom. This is mine.

2 comments; last on Apr 01, 2014

County Considers Purchasing Toxic Property

Wed, Mar 19, 2014, 9:32 am  //  Riley Sweeney

Riley digs into the county's plan to buy the county morgue

3 comments; last on Mar 24, 2014

Propaganda Replaces Public Information:  An Analysis of the Lake Whatcom TDML Process

Sun, Mar 16, 2014, 11:52 pm  //  Wendy Harris

The public is not provided with a proposed plan or adequate information prior to the annual "state of the lake" meeting

4 comments; last on Mar 18, 2014

Mobile Slaughter

Sat, Mar 15, 2014, 12:11 pm  //  Tip Johnson

Wherein there's a crackdown on growing plants, and plans to let slaughter run free

2 comments; last on Mar 16, 2014

Fukushima Radiation Found In Canada

Fri, Mar 14, 2014, 9:47 am  //  John Servais

Fukushima radiation has been found 20 miles from Whatcom County farmland along the Fraser River in British Columbia.

1 comments; last on Mar 17, 2014

Is ALEC Jr. Coming to Whatcom County or Bellingham Soon?

Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 7:28 am  //  Dick Conoboy

The infamous American Legislative Exchange Council plans to send its spawn to cities and counties throughout the U.S.

1 comments; last on Mar 24, 2014

Rep. Vincent Buys Appears to Break State Fundraising Laws

Tue, Mar 11, 2014, 10:24 am  //  Riley Sweeney

Riley catches State Rep. Vincent Buys for soliciting funds during session

0 comments

County Hires GPT Permit Lead as Senior Planner

Mon, Mar 10, 2014, 9:51 am  //  Riley Sweeney

Riley digs into an unusual hiring decision at the County Planning Dept

1 comments; last on Mar 10, 2014

Whatcom Watch Editor Resigns

Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 2:22 pm  //  John Servais

The editor of the Whatcom Watch, Richard Jehn, has resigned effective today. Chalk up a victory for Craig Cole and Pacific International Terminals.

8 comments; last on Mar 05, 2014

Relevant Documents to Libel Threat

Tue, Feb 25, 2014, 8:29 pm  //  John Servais

The full text of Craig Cole's threatening letter of libel against the Whatcom Watch. And the emptiness of the threat.

16 comments; last on Mar 20, 2014

Action Alert for Tonight: Waterfront Wildlife and Habitat Not Being Protected as Promised

Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 3:33 pm  //  Wendy Harris

We were led to believe the city would review waterfront wildlife and habitat connectivity. It turns out that the city intends to focus only on nearshore fish.

0 comments

Wendy Harris on Citizen Journalism

Sat, Feb 22, 2014, 12:16 am  //  Wendy Harris

Accepting the Paul deArmond award of citizen journalism on Feb 7, Wendh Harris gave this speech. We think it deserves its own post.

0 comments

Craig Cole Threatens Libel Suit

Wed, Feb 19, 2014, 4:48 pm  //  John Servais

Craig Cole, the local contact for the proposed Cherry Point coal port has threatened the Whatcom Watch with a libel lawsuit.

6 comments; last on Mar 20, 2014

Do Changing Liquor and Marijuana Laws Affect DUIs

Mon, Feb 17, 2014, 7:26 am  //  Riley Sweeney

Riley digs through court data and discovers the real impact of privatization and legalization

0 comments

Bellingham Seeks “Flexibility” To Sell Wholesale Rural Sewer Services

Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 9:35 pm  //  Wendy Harris

The mayor wants to amend a city law to increase flexibility for a GMA provision that should be used rarely, if ever at all.

3 comments; last on Feb 11, 2014

The Hidden Costs of Costco

Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 2:36 pm  //  Wendy Harris

Costco imposes indirect costs on our community that are as real and tangible as road construction expenses.

1 comments; last on Feb 13, 2014

Reid Boiler Works Burns Down

Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 9:13 am  //  John Servais

The old empty Reid Boiler Works industrial building in Fairhaven burned to the ground Saturday night.

0 comments

Panem et Circenses - Why I Did Not Watch “The Super Bowl”

Mon, Feb 03, 2014, 5:30 am  //  Dick Conoboy

Professional and even college sports have morphed into a circus of corporate greed and the fleecing of the public.

3 comments; last on Mar 01, 2014

Have You Exceeded Your Right To Information?

Sat, Feb 01, 2014, 12:35 am  //  Wendy Harris

Filing a public record request could land a citizen in jail under a proposal reflected in a Herald opinion article.

2 comments; last on Feb 03, 2014

Wendy Harris Receives deArmond Award for Citizen Journalism

Wed, Jan 29, 2014, 6:18 am  //  Guest writer

Tim Johnson writes about the first recipient of the Paul deArmond Citizen Journalism award, Whatcom County writer Wendy Harris.

3 comments; last on Feb 08, 2014

Anatomy of a Development Part XI - The Doldrums at University Ridge

Mon, Jan 20, 2014, 5:14 am  //  Dick Conoboy

The developers of University Ridge have been silent since shortly after the hearing examiner's decision on 23 October last year. Will they walk?

0 comments

The Marijuana Bowl

Sun, Jan 19, 2014, 8:39 pm  //  John Servais

Super Bowl ... Weed Bowl ... This bud's for you ... Bong Bowl ... Marijuana Bowl ... whatever. It is on!

1 comments; last on Jan 20, 2014

Port’s Alternative Marina Analysis a Scam

Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 2:19 pm  //  Guest writer

Do we actually need to say that we, as citizens, want accurate information from government officials?

1 comments; last on Jan 14, 2014

City too Poor for Power Pennies or Discrimination?

Fri, Dec 27, 2013, 4:00 am  //  Guest writer

Guest writer Barbara Perry writes about Bellingham Parks refusal to allow motorized wheel chairs to recharge at public electrical outlets.

6 comments; last on Jan 03, 2014

Port Memo Addresses Marina Fraud Allegations

Fri, Dec 20, 2013, 3:56 pm  //  Wendy Harris

A Port of Bellingham internal memo tries, but fails, to justify changes in cost estimates for alternative marina sites.

5 comments; last on Dec 22, 2013

Lummi Influence Over the Waterfront Planning Process Continues to Grow

Tue, Dec 17, 2013, 12:21 am  //  Wendy Harris

Army Corps advised DOE that it will not issue a waterfront permit without Lummi approval

2 comments; last on Jan 13, 2014

Gary Jensen Not Running for State Senate

Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 12:30 pm  //  John Servais

Ferndale Mayor Gary Jensen has decided not to file for the 42nd state Senate seat currently held by Doug Ericksen.

5 comments; last on Dec 24, 2013

Larrabee School; Its Future

Mon, Dec 09, 2013, 12:24 pm  //  Guest writer

Barbara Perry writes about the closed nature of the Bellingham School Board on the future of the Larrabee School.

1 comments; last on Dec 15, 2013

Steal this Waterfront: Costs without Benefit

Sat, Dec 07, 2013, 8:23 pm  //  Tip Johnson

Wherein the direct, indirect, hidden and lost opportunity costs make this a waterfront boondoggle of billions

3 comments; last on Dec 11, 2013

On Monday, City Council Votes “third and final” Approval of Waterfront Plan

Sat, Dec 07, 2013, 12:33 pm  //  Wendy Harris

Local activist calls on Bellingham City Council to table the unpopular waterfront plans and engage in meaningful public process

2 comments; last on Dec 08, 2013

Lecture on County Water Issues Draws Crowd

Fri, Dec 06, 2013, 11:03 pm  //  Wendy Harris

The county will be required to consider water quality and water quantity when planning rural growth.

3 comments; last on Dec 10, 2013

Video Exposes City Council Dysfunction on Waterfront Plan

Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 11:58 am  //  John Servais

The Political Junkie has posted a 3 minute video showing Bellingham City Council members explaining their idiocy for all of us to watch.

2 comments; last on Dec 06, 2013

The Bellingham “Riot” - Let’s Expand the Conversation

Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 5:00 am  //  Dick Conoboy

The post "riot" conversation is terribly lacking in several areas. We must expand the discussion or risk learning little from the experience.

3 comments; last on Dec 15, 2013

Cascadia Weekly Blasts Waterfront Plan

Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 10:53 am  //  John Servais

Bellingham City Council and Port of Bellingham finalize the waterfront plan. In his weekly Gristle, Tim Johnson blasts the corrupt public process.

4 comments; last on Dec 05, 2013

Waterfront Development Bonus Yet Another Bad Idea

Sat, Nov 30, 2013, 8:11 pm  //  Wendy Harris

The waterfront plan allows a development bonus for payments made to the Lake Whatcom land acquisition fund

1 comments; last on Dec 01, 2013

City and Port Ready To Act on Waterfront Plan

Fri, Nov 29, 2013, 9:43 pm  //  Wendy Harris

A number of important issues need to be resolved before waterfront planning is complete, but the city council and port commission are ready to act.

2 comments; last on Nov 30, 2013

Port Unable To Protect Public Safety

Fri, Nov 22, 2013, 9:01 pm  //  Wendy Harris

If the port can not construct the airport safely, should it be entrusted with dangerous waterfront cleanup work?

0 comments

Walmart and McDonald’s - Partners in Institutionalized Cluelessness

Wed, Nov 20, 2013, 5:03 am  //  Dick Conoboy

The advice coming from Walmart and McDonald's to its low paid employees becomes more and more bizarre and inane.

0 comments

Anatomy of a Development - Part X Appeals of the Hearing Examiner’s Decision

Tue, Nov 19, 2013, 5:35 am  //  Dick Conoboy

Ambling's motion to the hearing examiner for reconsideration was definitively rejected. The developer has not met the deadline for an appeal to the Superior Court

0 comments

Smoking Gun: Fraud and Deception

Mon, Nov 18, 2013, 2:18 pm  //  Guest writer

In which we find the hidden core of the waterfront plan is rotten through and through

7 comments; last on Nov 21, 2013

County Releases EIS, Prepares to Purchase Jail Site

Mon, Nov 18, 2013, 10:59 am  //  Riley Sweeney

The county takes two big steps forward on the new jail, while still missing the point

0 comments

Noballmacare and Setting the False Standard

Thu, Nov 14, 2013, 1:39 am  //  Tip Johnson

Dear Mr. President, There's a sucker born every minute, and two to take him.

7 comments; last on Nov 21, 2013

City Council Misled On Waterfront Planning

Wed, Nov 13, 2013, 3:16 pm  //  Wendy Harris

The city adminstration has been providing misleading/ incorrect information to the city council to avoid waterfront plan revisions.

1 comments; last on Nov 18, 2013

Election Analysis: What Happened with the Port Races?

Tue, Nov 12, 2013, 10:21 am  //  Riley Sweeney

Riley crunches the numbers on Renata and McAuley's races to find answers

2 comments; last on Nov 13, 2013

Puget Neighborhood Likely New Home for 1,300 Students

Tue, Nov 12, 2013, 5:16 am  //  Dick Conoboy

Puget Neighborhood will likely have in the immediate future 1,300 new rental units that will be marketed primarily to the student population.

0 comments

Gloomy Fate For Waterfront Wildlife

Sat, Nov 09, 2013, 9:47 pm  //  Wendy Harris

The COB administration continues in its refusal to analyze waterfront wildlife issues, even though this is a prerequisite step in protecting wildlife from the impacts of development

3 comments; last on Nov 10, 2013

Election Results - November 2013

Tue, Nov 05, 2013, 8:21 pm  //  John Servais

With lots of outside county money flowing in to our local races, this election is weird. But real - and we county residents have spoken.

11 comments; last on Nov 09, 2013

Health Insurance Scams - Washington Not Spared

Mon, Nov 04, 2013, 9:55 am  //  Dick Conoboy

The call of the dollar speaks more loudly to health insurance companies than does the voice and well-being of the consumer, even here in Washington.

8 comments; last on Nov 06, 2013

Anatomy of a Development - Part IX BMC Rule of Three Thwarts Plans

Thu, Oct 31, 2013, 10:19 am  //  Dick Conoboy

Four bedroom dorm rooms have been nixed by the hearing examiner. University Ridge may be in trouble as a cash cow for Ambling Development of Georgia

3 comments; last on Nov 04, 2013

The Slaughterhouse Referendum - Citizens Opposing Widespread Slaughter (COWS)

Mon, Oct 28, 2013, 10:19 pm  //  Tip Johnson

Wherein we discover why we exert our rights - and grab some more petitions before it's too late

3 comments; last on Nov 06, 2013

Dick’s Picks for City Council - Burr and Petree

Mon, Oct 28, 2013, 12:00 am  //  Dick Conoboy

Independent voters are for independent thinkers on the city council. Vote for Burr and Petree.

0 comments

Boulevard Park Reopens

Sat, Oct 26, 2013, 7:36 pm  //  John Servais

Beach reconstruction is done at Boulevard Park on the Bellingham waterfront. Paths along shore are again open - and it looks good.

6 comments; last on Nov 01, 2013

 

New Links

Julia Ioffe/New Republic
the Oatmeal

Current Interest

Community Wise Bellingham
counterpunch
Friends of Whatcom
Guardian Unlimited
Lummi Island Quarry
Reconveyance Challenge
Whatcom Elections

Publisher Recommended

counterpunch
GlobalPost
Guardian Unlimited
League of Women Voters
Paul Krugman - economics
Sweeney Politics

Local Blogs & News

Bellingham Herald
Bham Herald Politics Blog
Bham Politics & Economics
Bob Sanders
Cascadia Weekly
Citizen Ted
Ferndale Record
Friends of Whatcom
Get Whatcom Planning
HamsterTalk
Jack Petree
KGMI
Latte Republic
League of Women Voters
Lynden Tribune
MikeatthePort
Northern Light
Sweeney Politics
Twilight Zoning
Wally Wonders
Western Front - WWU
Whatcom Watch

Local Causes

Bellingham Police Activity
Chuckanut Community Forest
Chuckanut Mountains
Citizens of Bellingham
City Club of Bellingham
Community Wise Bellingham
Conservation NW
Cordata & Meridian
Facebook Port Reform
Futurewise - Whatcom
Lake Whatcom
Lummi Island Quarry
N. Cascades Audubon
NW Holocaust Center
RE Sources
Reconveyance Challenge
Reduce Jet Noise
Salish Sea Org.
Save the Granary Building
Transition Whatcom
WA Conservation Voters

Governments

Bellingham
Port of Bellingham
Skagit County
US - The White House
WA State Access
WA State Elections
WA State Legislature
Whatcom Auditor
Whatcom County
Whatcom Elections

Weather & Climate

Cliff Mass Weather Blog
Climate Audit
NW Radar
Two day forecast
Watts Up With That? - climate

Leisure

Adventures NW
Edge of Sports
Entertainment NNW
Famous Internet Skiers
Sailing Anarchy

Good Links

Al-Jazeera online
Alaska Dispatch
AlterNet.org
Antiwar.com
Arab News
Asia Times
Atlantic, The
Common Dreams
counterpunch
Crosscut Seattle
Daily Kos
Daily Mirror
Doonesbury
Drudge Report
FiveThirtyEight
Foreign Policy in Focus
GlobalPost
Guardian Unlimited
Gulf News
Haaretz
Huffington Post
Innocence Project, The
Intrnational Herald Tribune
James Fallows
Jerusalem Post
Joel Connelly
Juan Cole
Julia Ioffe/New Republic
Le Diplo
Media Matters
Michael Moore
Middle East Times
MoveOn.org
Nation, The
New American Century
News Trust
NMFA
numbers
Online Journal
Palestine Daily
Palestine News
Paul Krugman - economics
Personal bio info
Portland Indy Media
Progressive Review
Project Vote Smart
Reuters
Sea Shepherd
Slate
Talking Points Memo
the Oatmeal
Tom Paine.com
truthout
War and Piece
Washington Votes
WikiLeaks.ch
ynetnews.com

NwCitizen 1995 - 2007

Early Northwest Citizen

Internet At Its Best

TED

Quiet, Offline or Dead

Bellingham Register
Carl Weimer
David Hackworth
N. Sound Conservancy
No Leaky Buckets
Northwest Review
Orcinus
Post-Oklahoman Confessions
Protect Bellingham Parks
The American Telegraph
The Crisis Papers