Election - Confusing or ??
Permalink +Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 3:21 pm // John Servais
Election night and the crowded courthouse lobby, with candidates and their backers cheering and waiting for the election results. Sigh, that era is gone. The scene on Tuesday, November 3, 2009 at 8:15 pm. Those watching TV or websites knew the results about 5 minutes before those of us standing next to the Auditor's door. - Click photo for larger view.I think that as in years past, the voters of our county applied their common sense to the meager information they had on each candidate. The Herald did not cover the campaigns nor the issues raised by some candidates. Instead it posed its own questions to candidates and ran mini profiles. Thus voters were left to cobble together their own impressions of the candidates from forums, ads and the few times they could meet candidates. Yes, this lack of coverage allowed money to play a larger role.
Bill Knutzen promises to bring a sharp mind, strong roots in the north county and a property rights perspective to the council. He will aid Sam Crawford in trying to throw a wrench into the gears of excessive environmental programs and meddling non-sensical rural laws. But I think the voters saw the other three conservative council candidates as weak on issues, weak in analytical powers and controlled by behind-the-scenes handlers. When a candidate has to read most of their statements and answers, you have to wonder about voting for them even if you agree with them.
Carl Weimer is an outstanding representative for all the people of our county. I think that is why a majority of voters chose him - including those who were also voting for Knutzen. Ken Mann has involved himself in issues, in the planning process and also ran a campaign of issues. He was not afraid to get out there. People liked that. Again, the reality is that many who voted for Knutzen also voted for Mann.
Personally, I am delighted with Mike McAuley on the Port. I've been involved with Port issues over several decades and had a bit to do with a shakeup in commissioners and staff back in the early 1990s. With just one actual representative of the people there, all can be changed. No majority needed. One member can raise issues and ask questions and make public his concerns. We need two big changes there that Mike can facilitate: to focus on economic development, and to consider all viable options before making decisions. Mike can give voice to these concerns and then we citizens can add our input.
A good election. Confusing, but good. The conservatives failed in their huge moneyed attempt to take over the County Council. And we finally broke into the Port Commission with a representative of the people.
Related Links:
-> Election results - should show the latest as they get posted
Comments (20)
To add a comment, click here to login or register.
Tom Pratum // Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 4:46 pm
I have a theory: Ken Mann and Bill Knutzen are both non-incumbents. Neither has much of a record to look at (although Mann has more of one) so their negatives are relatively low. I think Laurie C-S had the highest negatives; she had 8 years of record to look at, and certainly made some enemies. Carl has somewhat less time on the council and fewer negatives - maybe also more positives.
It was nice to see folks pick and choose and not vote for the candidates in “blocks”.
I wish John Blethen would have done better...;.
It was nice to see folks pick and choose and not vote for the candidates in “blocks”.
I wish John Blethen would have done better...;.
David Camp // Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 6:34 pm
I agree that Whatcom County voters are generally less likely to vote a party slate - look at who got the most votes in the Republican presidential primary in 2004 - Ron Paul. (Frankly, as a relative newcomer (5 years and counting), I have a hard time telling the local rednecks from the local hippies - not that you can tell either group anything). It’s good to see that people saw through the Palinesque put-up-by-big-money candidates.
Paul de Armond // Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 9:12 pm
A few points worth noting:
The public had little to inform them but style and conduct by both the candidates and their campaigns.
The myth of late returns being more conservative still lives. I heard it several times on election night and also read it in the BH. It’s no longer true. Back when only absentees and the elderly voted by mail, the absentee vote was older and reflected a particular point of view. Now everybody is an absentee voter and there isn’t much of anything to distinguish late votes from early ones.
The photo of the Rotunda shows how absentee it really was. I miss seeing everybody all in one place.
Any other voting myths worth examining?
All the women candidates lost. I dunno what that means, if anything, but it happened.
Since we have a considerable time before the final results are in, let the tea-leaf reading begin. Later, we can get down to precinct analysis and look over the PDC reports. What would be nice would be some honest polling and focus groups. Perhaps WWU’s softer sciences could step up?
John Servais correctly predicted every contested race for the Port, County Council and Bellingham Council. It’s not final, but if the numbers stay the same, that’s what he did. I did the worst of our little group of crystal gazers. When the final results are in, I hope that John will a) buy us drinks and b) tell us how he did it.
The public had little to inform them but style and conduct by both the candidates and their campaigns.
The myth of late returns being more conservative still lives. I heard it several times on election night and also read it in the BH. It’s no longer true. Back when only absentees and the elderly voted by mail, the absentee vote was older and reflected a particular point of view. Now everybody is an absentee voter and there isn’t much of anything to distinguish late votes from early ones.
The photo of the Rotunda shows how absentee it really was. I miss seeing everybody all in one place.
Any other voting myths worth examining?
All the women candidates lost. I dunno what that means, if anything, but it happened.
Since we have a considerable time before the final results are in, let the tea-leaf reading begin. Later, we can get down to precinct analysis and look over the PDC reports. What would be nice would be some honest polling and focus groups. Perhaps WWU’s softer sciences could step up?
John Servais correctly predicted every contested race for the Port, County Council and Bellingham Council. It’s not final, but if the numbers stay the same, that’s what he did. I did the worst of our little group of crystal gazers. When the final results are in, I hope that John will a) buy us drinks and b) tell us how he did it.
Riley Sweeney // Fri, Nov 06, 2009, 9:42 am
I, too, was quite perplexed by the outcome this election cycle. I knew that Weimer and Fleetwood were safe. Weimer is clearly a great public servant, and the barriers to a write-in candidate are just too high. I was surprised by the other county races and my race, the 6th ward.
I think Paul hit upon that when he said all the women candidates lost.
One of the more basic mental frames for politics is that Republicans are the strict father mentality (do good we reward you, do bad we punish you), while Democrats are the nuturing mother mentality (help your sister with the dishes, she is having a hard time and it will make everyone’s life easier).
During hard times, people lean towards the strict father, while in times of plenty, people are more charitable and nurturing.
I think with the budget crunch and economic woe, Whatcom residents went with men. I’m not saying it is the only reason, or that it was even conscious on their part, but I feel that it played a part.
One of the reasons I got on board with the Chambers campaign (and worked for Sen. Cantwell in the past), is the sheer number of barriers to women becoming involved in politics. This is one, sadly. Both Chambers, and the slate of council candidates fell victim to it.
I think Paul hit upon that when he said all the women candidates lost.
One of the more basic mental frames for politics is that Republicans are the strict father mentality (do good we reward you, do bad we punish you), while Democrats are the nuturing mother mentality (help your sister with the dishes, she is having a hard time and it will make everyone’s life easier).
During hard times, people lean towards the strict father, while in times of plenty, people are more charitable and nurturing.
I think with the budget crunch and economic woe, Whatcom residents went with men. I’m not saying it is the only reason, or that it was even conscious on their part, but I feel that it played a part.
One of the reasons I got on board with the Chambers campaign (and worked for Sen. Cantwell in the past), is the sheer number of barriers to women becoming involved in politics. This is one, sadly. Both Chambers, and the slate of council candidates fell victim to it.
David Camp // Fri, Nov 06, 2009, 7:42 pm
With today;s update, Kirshner is ahead of McShane by 200+ votes. So maybe the late ballots are conservative. Or demented.
David MacLeod // Fri, Nov 06, 2009, 8:34 pm
I’m doubtful that very many voters voted for the male candidates based on their gender. The fact that conservative districts and conservative parties are fielding female candidates is to me a good sign that the great majority have moved beyond voting against women candidates because of their gender.
It’s also inaccurate to say that all the women candidates lost. In fact, if you look at all of the Whatcom County races, there were more women that won than women that lost.
Of the women that ran for office, most of them beat male candidates (and in the more conservative parts of Whatcom County no less): Kaye Koenig, Lucille Claybo, Lee Anne Riddle, Linda Bylsma, Rena Guerin, Jennifer Lautenbach, Bonnie Onyon, and now we can possibly add Kathy Kershner to this list as well (as of this writing leading Dan McShane with 50.22% of votes counted).
Other women that won local races, running unopposed: Debra Lev, Barbara Wayland, Betty Robertson, Katy Monfort, Julie Hughes, Madeleine Anderson, Connie Robinson, and Karolyn Crabtree.
I only count 6 women losing in Whatcom County races: Rebecca Boonstra, Orphalee Smith, Catherine Chambers, Laurie Caskey-Schrieber, Michelle Luke, and Mary Beth Teigrob. Granted, these were mostly in the higher profile races.
It’s also inaccurate to say that all the women candidates lost. In fact, if you look at all of the Whatcom County races, there were more women that won than women that lost.
Of the women that ran for office, most of them beat male candidates (and in the more conservative parts of Whatcom County no less): Kaye Koenig, Lucille Claybo, Lee Anne Riddle, Linda Bylsma, Rena Guerin, Jennifer Lautenbach, Bonnie Onyon, and now we can possibly add Kathy Kershner to this list as well (as of this writing leading Dan McShane with 50.22% of votes counted).
Other women that won local races, running unopposed: Debra Lev, Barbara Wayland, Betty Robertson, Katy Monfort, Julie Hughes, Madeleine Anderson, Connie Robinson, and Karolyn Crabtree.
I only count 6 women losing in Whatcom County races: Rebecca Boonstra, Orphalee Smith, Catherine Chambers, Laurie Caskey-Schrieber, Michelle Luke, and Mary Beth Teigrob. Granted, these were mostly in the higher profile races.
Paul de Armond // Sat, Nov 07, 2009, 1:27 am
Beware of the mono-causal explanation. There are always a lot of factors in play. The ballot falloff shows that there are slightly different groups of electorates for each race, so it’s unlikely that any particular voting bloc is equally influential in each race.
It’s still a long way out until the final results. County Council Dist 1 could very well go into a recount—or even a coin toss.
Ryan Ferris has done a lot of the heavy lifting on stats analysis at + Link
One thing to remember is that all the votes were cast by 8pm, the shifting results are essentially an illusion produced by the counting process. It’s fun to watch the numbers move as the totals get closer, but what you are seeing is the counting process slowing revealing the results. The real numbers are the same at the end of the counting and at the start of the count, if you get my drift. In the words of the Firesign Theater, “The sun is going down.” “No, the horizon is going up.”
To accurately determine which voting blocs exist and how they interact requires both polling and statistical analysis of the election results. Without the polling, the contours of the voting blocs are only fuzzily inferred. It can be done by cross-tabluating several years of elections with the individual voting records. But that doesn’t tell you how individuals voted or which races, only if they cast a ballot that year or not.
Precinct analysis adds some detail, but it is a very computationally intensive process. I used to do it years ago and it took weeks to get even a fuzzy grasp of what went on. It does give a sense of where the voting populations are for each year’s election. Theoretically possible to cross-tabulate precincts with individual voting history, but I don’t know anybody who has done it.
The tea leaf reading continues...;
It’s still a long way out until the final results. County Council Dist 1 could very well go into a recount—or even a coin toss.
Ryan Ferris has done a lot of the heavy lifting on stats analysis at + Link
One thing to remember is that all the votes were cast by 8pm, the shifting results are essentially an illusion produced by the counting process. It’s fun to watch the numbers move as the totals get closer, but what you are seeing is the counting process slowing revealing the results. The real numbers are the same at the end of the counting and at the start of the count, if you get my drift. In the words of the Firesign Theater, “The sun is going down.” “No, the horizon is going up.”
To accurately determine which voting blocs exist and how they interact requires both polling and statistical analysis of the election results. Without the polling, the contours of the voting blocs are only fuzzily inferred. It can be done by cross-tabluating several years of elections with the individual voting records. But that doesn’t tell you how individuals voted or which races, only if they cast a ballot that year or not.
Precinct analysis adds some detail, but it is a very computationally intensive process. I used to do it years ago and it took weeks to get even a fuzzy grasp of what went on. It does give a sense of where the voting populations are for each year’s election. Theoretically possible to cross-tabulate precincts with individual voting history, but I don’t know anybody who has done it.
The tea leaf reading continues...;
John Servais // Sat, Nov 07, 2009, 12:39 pm
If Kathy Kershner prevails over Dan McShane then this makes Barbara Brenner the swing vote on the council.
We will have Sam Crawford joined by Bill and Kathy for 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 as the swing vote - a position that she has enjoyed in years past.
Farming interests? Farming will not be protected by the Crawford faction. The individual farmers who want to cash out on their property to developers will benefit. Speculation will be the game of the next two years. The rural folks have been played like a fiddle by the development interests.
My prediction now? Well, Pete Griffin picks which boxes of ballots to process during the days after an election. I’ve no idea how he chooses. The order he chooses them dictates the up and down of the daily tallies. I do see it as unlikely for McShane to close the 223 vote margin with only about 4,000 left to count. Kershner gained the lead with a one day count of about 11,000 ballots.
We will have Sam Crawford joined by Bill and Kathy for 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 as the swing vote - a position that she has enjoyed in years past.
Farming interests? Farming will not be protected by the Crawford faction. The individual farmers who want to cash out on their property to developers will benefit. Speculation will be the game of the next two years. The rural folks have been played like a fiddle by the development interests.
My prediction now? Well, Pete Griffin picks which boxes of ballots to process during the days after an election. I’ve no idea how he chooses. The order he chooses them dictates the up and down of the daily tallies. I do see it as unlikely for McShane to close the 223 vote margin with only about 4,000 left to count. Kershner gained the lead with a one day count of about 11,000 ballots.
Paul de Armond // Sun, Nov 08, 2009, 12:44 am
The new totals are looking like finals, but might as well wait for the official last count. I didn’t know how many ballots were counted in the last round, but John’s math looks right. If 11,000 ballots can move the margin by about 200 voter in one direction, it’s unlikely that the 4,000 or so remaining ballots will move it more the other direction.
The apparent difference in early and late votes could be due to the large sums spent on late mailings. In races like these with a vacuum of content, voters often wait until the last minute to make their choice. I take this as a sign that they want to be as informed as possible and take their electoral duties as citizens very seriously.
Sad to say, it’s looking more and more like the future of local political campaigns may end up as a contest of advertising strategies and budgets. It would be interesting to collect the stats on money in local elections over the last decade or two. It would need to be scaled by the increase in population: $/registered voter or some such measure.
Here’s another factor to consider while you are trying to figure out this year’s elections. It’s long been known that there is a significant group of voters who vote based on who they think is going to win. These voters typically wait until the last minute to make their decision. In some races, this can be several per cent of the votes casts. Strange but true. In a close race, sometimes being thought a winner will make you a winner. This phenomenon explains why there is often so much anguish in big campaigns over the perception of momentum.
As the curtain slowly parts on what looks like a Kershner victory, Brett Bonner is now the only one in our crystal-ball gazing group to correctly call all the races. I tip my hat to a perceptive prognosticator.
Here’s the tally so far:
Brett predicted all eight races correctly.
John got seven right.
One person got six.
Two people called five.
Four (including yours truly) picked four winners.
So for me, at least, the bright side of Cathy Kershner winning is I’m no longer alone in the cellar. Misery loves company.
Keep sending your collected campaign literature to John. It’s interesting stuff when it’s all laid out together. I’ve already seen a couple of pieces that were new to me and I’ve been told of a couple that I haven’t seen a sample of yet. Once we think we got a nearly complete sample, there will be some sort of roundup.
The apparent difference in early and late votes could be due to the large sums spent on late mailings. In races like these with a vacuum of content, voters often wait until the last minute to make their choice. I take this as a sign that they want to be as informed as possible and take their electoral duties as citizens very seriously.
Sad to say, it’s looking more and more like the future of local political campaigns may end up as a contest of advertising strategies and budgets. It would be interesting to collect the stats on money in local elections over the last decade or two. It would need to be scaled by the increase in population: $/registered voter or some such measure.
Here’s another factor to consider while you are trying to figure out this year’s elections. It’s long been known that there is a significant group of voters who vote based on who they think is going to win. These voters typically wait until the last minute to make their decision. In some races, this can be several per cent of the votes casts. Strange but true. In a close race, sometimes being thought a winner will make you a winner. This phenomenon explains why there is often so much anguish in big campaigns over the perception of momentum.
As the curtain slowly parts on what looks like a Kershner victory, Brett Bonner is now the only one in our crystal-ball gazing group to correctly call all the races. I tip my hat to a perceptive prognosticator.
Here’s the tally so far:
Brett predicted all eight races correctly.
John got seven right.
One person got six.
Two people called five.
Four (including yours truly) picked four winners.
So for me, at least, the bright side of Cathy Kershner winning is I’m no longer alone in the cellar. Misery loves company.
Keep sending your collected campaign literature to John. It’s interesting stuff when it’s all laid out together. I’ve already seen a couple of pieces that were new to me and I’ve been told of a couple that I haven’t seen a sample of yet. Once we think we got a nearly complete sample, there will be some sort of roundup.
Tom Pratum // Sun, Nov 08, 2009, 2:53 pm
There are a lot of good observations here I think. I agree with John that that Barbara Brenner will be the swing vote on the council if these results hold up. I don’t agree with her on everything, but I think she usually votes in an environmentally sensitive manner. She is more fiscally conservative, which will change a few things, and often favors allowing individual property owners “flexibility” in determining how best to protect the environment - which I don’t think works very often, but that is just my opinion.
David Onkels // Sun, Nov 08, 2009, 9:41 pm
I haven’t been around for a while.
I see a lot of navel-gazing here that ignores the broad forces that drove the election results. I am not a party, by the way, to the nitty gritty of local politics.
I see a rural population that consists of people who live in small towns, of farmers, rural landowners and residents, and business owners in unincorporated areas of the county. The county government has systematically crushed their farm businesses, squeezing them between the hard spot of zoning and the rock of the rigid enforcement of environmental rules. Landowners in the LAMIRD areas are seeing their land, previously zoned for commercial use, rezoned R-10.
The speculators, drawn to a trainwreck, are lurking, waiting to snatch up commercial properties on the cheap, anticipating a change in the political winds.
I see an urban population, aided by forces from the outside, using the GMA to radically alter the lifestyles of rural landowners, with, in my opinion, scant justification, other than the pleasure that they will derive from a drive into a bucolic, although economically depressed, countryside.
“Oh! look at the rusty tractor!”
I see a county government rolling over for will of the GMHB, which I think is focused on too few of the goals of the Growth Management Act.
Durn! I wonder why rural residents and landowners are not happy!
I think that Whatcom County should defend the rural landowers, many of whom have seen the value of their land plummet so that their estate is destroyed and their means of making a living is snatched from their grasp.
As a result of these forces and in response to them, people interested in property rights recruited a slate of candidates for the Whatcom County Council. All of these candidates were, of course, less experienced than the incumbents against whom they ran.
In the forums, the difference was painful to watch, as the aspirants struggled with the details of issues with which incumbents were thoroughly familiar.
The election contained some lessons, didn’t it? The statist, restrictive, actions of the administration were not very popular, were they?
The lesson here is not contained in the fact that Kathy Kershner beat Dan McShane, nor that Bill Knutzen beat Caskey-Schreiber, but in the fact that Michelle Luke is losing only narrowly to Carl Weimer.
Good Lord!
Mr. “Everything that is wonderful and good about civic activism in Bellingham and probably everywhere in the universe, whose only interest is in the good of you and me and everyone who cares about the quality of life in Whatcom County, who saved us from the pipeline interests, and who would certainly be the most fabulous ever County Executive in the history of the world” is in some peril from a newbie with a hitch in her public speech?
You gotta be kidding.
Maybe you missed something.
John Servais wrote,
“Farming interests?...Speculation will the name of the game of the next two years. (by the way John, I don’t seem to be able to cut and paste, and that’s a pain the ass.) The rural folks have been played like a fiddle by the development interests.”
I don’t know whether you’ve noticed, but the developers are all tits-up. They don’t influence anything.
Anyway,
I’m sure that Barbara’s dance card is full. Good enough.
I see a lot of navel-gazing here that ignores the broad forces that drove the election results. I am not a party, by the way, to the nitty gritty of local politics.
I see a rural population that consists of people who live in small towns, of farmers, rural landowners and residents, and business owners in unincorporated areas of the county. The county government has systematically crushed their farm businesses, squeezing them between the hard spot of zoning and the rock of the rigid enforcement of environmental rules. Landowners in the LAMIRD areas are seeing their land, previously zoned for commercial use, rezoned R-10.
The speculators, drawn to a trainwreck, are lurking, waiting to snatch up commercial properties on the cheap, anticipating a change in the political winds.
I see an urban population, aided by forces from the outside, using the GMA to radically alter the lifestyles of rural landowners, with, in my opinion, scant justification, other than the pleasure that they will derive from a drive into a bucolic, although economically depressed, countryside.
“Oh! look at the rusty tractor!”
I see a county government rolling over for will of the GMHB, which I think is focused on too few of the goals of the Growth Management Act.
Durn! I wonder why rural residents and landowners are not happy!
I think that Whatcom County should defend the rural landowers, many of whom have seen the value of their land plummet so that their estate is destroyed and their means of making a living is snatched from their grasp.
As a result of these forces and in response to them, people interested in property rights recruited a slate of candidates for the Whatcom County Council. All of these candidates were, of course, less experienced than the incumbents against whom they ran.
In the forums, the difference was painful to watch, as the aspirants struggled with the details of issues with which incumbents were thoroughly familiar.
The election contained some lessons, didn’t it? The statist, restrictive, actions of the administration were not very popular, were they?
The lesson here is not contained in the fact that Kathy Kershner beat Dan McShane, nor that Bill Knutzen beat Caskey-Schreiber, but in the fact that Michelle Luke is losing only narrowly to Carl Weimer.
Good Lord!
Mr. “Everything that is wonderful and good about civic activism in Bellingham and probably everywhere in the universe, whose only interest is in the good of you and me and everyone who cares about the quality of life in Whatcom County, who saved us from the pipeline interests, and who would certainly be the most fabulous ever County Executive in the history of the world” is in some peril from a newbie with a hitch in her public speech?
You gotta be kidding.
Maybe you missed something.
John Servais wrote,
“Farming interests?...Speculation will the name of the game of the next two years. (by the way John, I don’t seem to be able to cut and paste, and that’s a pain the ass.) The rural folks have been played like a fiddle by the development interests.”
I don’t know whether you’ve noticed, but the developers are all tits-up. They don’t influence anything.
Anyway,
I’m sure that Barbara’s dance card is full. Good enough.
David Onkels // Sun, Nov 08, 2009, 10:11 pm
And if you think that the “gravel miners” are the driving force here, you might, for your own benefit, re-examine your analysis of how the world works.
Larry Horowitz // Sun, Nov 08, 2009, 11:30 pm
David,
You had me until you wrote, ?people interested in property rights recruited a slate of candidates for the Whatcom County Council.?
As you suggest, perhaps we need to examine ?how the world works.? In other words, let?s follow the money.
A more accurate picture, I believe, is that ?people who profit from population growth? recruited a slate of candidates rather than simply ?people interested in property rights.? Most ?urban dwellers? I know are every bit as concerned about their properties losing value as their rural friends and actively support and defend the rights of property owners.
In this election, those who profit from population growth used the most potent political weapon ? fear ? to energize and amass a powerful voting block, one strong enough - as you observed - to give even Mr. Weimer a run for his money.
The majority of the ?urban population? has absolutely no desire to use the GMA to radically alter the lifestyles of rural landowners. Where do you get this stuff? Urban residents simply want to protect and preserve their own quality of life from the threat of over-growth and over-development? a threat advanced by the same group who recruited Bill, Kathy, Mary Beth and Michelle to run for Council. Ironic isn?t it?
I suspect that most people who live within city boundaries and those who live in the unincorporated county are primarily interested in the same thing, preserving what we already have. The biggest threat is a rate of population growth that imposes significant adverse impacts on urban and rural residents alike. The only ones who win are those who directly profit from a high rate of population growth.
Urban and rural residents would be wise to work together to deal with this threat rather than allow ourselves to be divided and conquered by those who would impair the quality of life we have all been fortunate enough to inherit.
I believe this analysis of ?how the world works? is much more accurate than the picture you have portrayed.
You had me until you wrote, ?people interested in property rights recruited a slate of candidates for the Whatcom County Council.?
As you suggest, perhaps we need to examine ?how the world works.? In other words, let?s follow the money.
A more accurate picture, I believe, is that ?people who profit from population growth? recruited a slate of candidates rather than simply ?people interested in property rights.? Most ?urban dwellers? I know are every bit as concerned about their properties losing value as their rural friends and actively support and defend the rights of property owners.
In this election, those who profit from population growth used the most potent political weapon ? fear ? to energize and amass a powerful voting block, one strong enough - as you observed - to give even Mr. Weimer a run for his money.
The majority of the ?urban population? has absolutely no desire to use the GMA to radically alter the lifestyles of rural landowners. Where do you get this stuff? Urban residents simply want to protect and preserve their own quality of life from the threat of over-growth and over-development? a threat advanced by the same group who recruited Bill, Kathy, Mary Beth and Michelle to run for Council. Ironic isn?t it?
I suspect that most people who live within city boundaries and those who live in the unincorporated county are primarily interested in the same thing, preserving what we already have. The biggest threat is a rate of population growth that imposes significant adverse impacts on urban and rural residents alike. The only ones who win are those who directly profit from a high rate of population growth.
Urban and rural residents would be wise to work together to deal with this threat rather than allow ourselves to be divided and conquered by those who would impair the quality of life we have all been fortunate enough to inherit.
I believe this analysis of ?how the world works? is much more accurate than the picture you have portrayed.
Larry Horowitz // Sun, Nov 08, 2009, 11:43 pm
I almost forgot. I agree with Mr. Servais and Mr. Pratum. Barbara Brenner holds the key, and in my opinion, that?s a very good thing.
It has been my experience that Barbara Brenner is the embodiment of integrity. She is diligent, thorough and curious to a fault. She never cheats the taxpayer by ?calling it in? and always does her homework. She hasn?t always agreed with me, nor I will her; but she has always listened with genuine interest and attention and was never offended when the conversation took on the quality of an argument.
Barbara has earned the opportunity to play a decisive role, and I have faith she will faithfully honor our trust in her.
My best wishes to you, Barbara, for an enjoyable and satisfying couple of years.
It has been my experience that Barbara Brenner is the embodiment of integrity. She is diligent, thorough and curious to a fault. She never cheats the taxpayer by ?calling it in? and always does her homework. She hasn?t always agreed with me, nor I will her; but she has always listened with genuine interest and attention and was never offended when the conversation took on the quality of an argument.
Barbara has earned the opportunity to play a decisive role, and I have faith she will faithfully honor our trust in her.
My best wishes to you, Barbara, for an enjoyable and satisfying couple of years.
David Onkels // Mon, Nov 09, 2009, 8:46 pm
Larry,
It’s almost as though you didn’t read my post. I’ll respond tomorrow, but you think that growth is bad, and I, and most in the county, think that growth is life itself.
You think that “urban residents want to ...preserve and protect...;”. I think they want to have “open space” for their own enjoyment at no cost to them, while imposing the huge costs of their vision on the poor saps who happen to own the land that is affected.
The central phrase in my post is, “...at no cost...;”, and I continue to think that advocates for the preservation of “open space” do not want to bear the true cost of their position, and do not want to see the continuance of the “rural lifestyle”, which might (gasp) include farming.
You’d rather see weeds and rusty tractors, when you take a drive into the sticks to see the “open space.”
It’s almost as though you didn’t read my post. I’ll respond tomorrow, but you think that growth is bad, and I, and most in the county, think that growth is life itself.
You think that “urban residents want to ...preserve and protect...;”. I think they want to have “open space” for their own enjoyment at no cost to them, while imposing the huge costs of their vision on the poor saps who happen to own the land that is affected.
The central phrase in my post is, “...at no cost...;”, and I continue to think that advocates for the preservation of “open space” do not want to bear the true cost of their position, and do not want to see the continuance of the “rural lifestyle”, which might (gasp) include farming.
You’d rather see weeds and rusty tractors, when you take a drive into the sticks to see the “open space.”
Larry Horowitz // Mon, Nov 09, 2009, 9:04 pm
David,
I would really appreciate it if you wouldn?t put words in my mouth.
I did not say ?growth is bad.? I said that over-growth and over-development fueled by an unsustainable and manipulated RATE of growth threatens the quality of life we have been fortunate to inherit.
Regarding the cost of acquiring open space, urban residents have purchased land to preserve for open space at market rates through the Greenways Levy for years. Property owners have not been forced to sell. On the other hand, property owners who have overpaid will not achieve the profit they had hoped for, regardless of whether they sell to the city or to another buyer. Where do you get the idea that urban residents are trying to acquire open space at no cost? And the concept that landowners are poor saps?
Landowners should be paid fair value for their land; but not more than fair value.
Who are these urban residents who ?do not want to see the continuance of the ?rural lifestyle? which might include farming?? You?re not describing anyone I know.
I have no desire to ?see weeds and rusty tractors,? and I don?t even want to ?drive into the sticks to see open space.? The city Comp Plan envisions open space within the city, not ?the sticks.? Rural residents should be empowered to make their own decisions; I have no interest or desire to tell them what to do.
Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth?
I would really appreciate it if you wouldn?t put words in my mouth.
I did not say ?growth is bad.? I said that over-growth and over-development fueled by an unsustainable and manipulated RATE of growth threatens the quality of life we have been fortunate to inherit.
Regarding the cost of acquiring open space, urban residents have purchased land to preserve for open space at market rates through the Greenways Levy for years. Property owners have not been forced to sell. On the other hand, property owners who have overpaid will not achieve the profit they had hoped for, regardless of whether they sell to the city or to another buyer. Where do you get the idea that urban residents are trying to acquire open space at no cost? And the concept that landowners are poor saps?
Landowners should be paid fair value for their land; but not more than fair value.
Who are these urban residents who ?do not want to see the continuance of the ?rural lifestyle? which might include farming?? You?re not describing anyone I know.
I have no desire to ?see weeds and rusty tractors,? and I don?t even want to ?drive into the sticks to see open space.? The city Comp Plan envisions open space within the city, not ?the sticks.? Rural residents should be empowered to make their own decisions; I have no interest or desire to tell them what to do.
Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth?
Ryan M. Ferris // Mon, Nov 09, 2009, 9:41 pm
10 years from a devastating, game-changing and controversial presidential election we have still not answered the most important political question at all in this county or in the country:
“How are the votes counted?”
The second most important question gets lots of discussion, but in the end, unsatisfactory answers:
“When do citizens care to vote?”
Ideally, the answers to these questions should be: A fully committed and informed citizenry exercises there right and civic duty to vote the full ballot for every election. The vote itself is secure, audited or at least sampled enough to discourage the appearance of fraud.
I remain very skeptical that any of that happened this election.
“How are the votes counted?”
The second most important question gets lots of discussion, but in the end, unsatisfactory answers:
“When do citizens care to vote?”
Ideally, the answers to these questions should be: A fully committed and informed citizenry exercises there right and civic duty to vote the full ballot for every election. The vote itself is secure, audited or at least sampled enough to discourage the appearance of fraud.
I remain very skeptical that any of that happened this election.
David Onkels // Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 9:57 pm
Larry,
I think that you make a mistake when you impute low motives to those with whomn you disagree politically.
John! Is there some reason I can’t cut and paste for the purposes of reply? This sucks!
Rant over. You wrote, “...people who profit from population growth...;”
Do you really think that the election turned on issues as shallow as those that you’ve presented? You’re living in some sort of echo chamber.
You wrote, “...used “the most potent political weapon-fear-...”
I guess that you don’t live in the county, haven’t tried to operate a farm there recently, and probalby haven’t talked to many rural residents of Whatcom County.
You wrote, “Urban residents merely want to preserve and protect their own quality of life from the threat of over-growth and over-development...;”
Nobody in this contest controls markets, and I continue to maintain that you’d like to alter rural lifestyles and reduce rural growth to suit your urban tastes, using zoning, the GMA, and water regulations to achieve your goals at no cost to yourself and no cost to those “urban residents”.
I haven’t put any words in your mouth, but I have quoted you. If you take exception with anything I’ve written, please feel free to post a response.
I think that you make a mistake when you impute low motives to those with whomn you disagree politically.
John! Is there some reason I can’t cut and paste for the purposes of reply? This sucks!
Rant over. You wrote, “...people who profit from population growth...;”
Do you really think that the election turned on issues as shallow as those that you’ve presented? You’re living in some sort of echo chamber.
You wrote, “...used “the most potent political weapon-fear-...”
I guess that you don’t live in the county, haven’t tried to operate a farm there recently, and probalby haven’t talked to many rural residents of Whatcom County.
You wrote, “Urban residents merely want to preserve and protect their own quality of life from the threat of over-growth and over-development...;”
Nobody in this contest controls markets, and I continue to maintain that you’d like to alter rural lifestyles and reduce rural growth to suit your urban tastes, using zoning, the GMA, and water regulations to achieve your goals at no cost to yourself and no cost to those “urban residents”.
I haven’t put any words in your mouth, but I have quoted you. If you take exception with anything I’ve written, please feel free to post a response.
Larry Horowitz // Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 10:20 pm
Yes, David, I do take exception with virtually all you have written; however, I have no desire to post a substantive response. I?d rather live in my echo chamber and impute low motives to those I disagree with politically.
Sadly, I enjoy discussing these issues? with most people. Not you, however.
Your anger bleeds into everything you write, so I?d just as soon walk away and let you have the last word.
Sadly, I enjoy discussing these issues? with most people. Not you, however.
Your anger bleeds into everything you write, so I?d just as soon walk away and let you have the last word.
Paul de Armond // Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 10:23 am
I, for one, salute our new conservative county council masters. Heh.
I’m puzzled by the repeated assertions that the propertarians were big players this time around. It may be true that it’s more or less the same crowd now as before that serves as the audience and cheering squad for paleopolitical activism, but the ghost of Alvin Starkenburg seems to be haunting the dreams of those seeing gravel miners under every bed.
The debate over urban and suburban development in rural areas might be best handled as lead articles in their own right. Lay out yer positive assertions of the case.
This debate is going to be around for a while, unless Whatcom County secedes from the United States. Bumper sticker: US out of Whatcom County.
(* fondly remembers John Belushi jumping up in the cafeteria in “Animal House” and yelling “food fight!” *)
I’m puzzled by the repeated assertions that the propertarians were big players this time around. It may be true that it’s more or less the same crowd now as before that serves as the audience and cheering squad for paleopolitical activism, but the ghost of Alvin Starkenburg seems to be haunting the dreams of those seeing gravel miners under every bed.
The debate over urban and suburban development in rural areas might be best handled as lead articles in their own right. Lay out yer positive assertions of the case.
This debate is going to be around for a while, unless Whatcom County secedes from the United States. Bumper sticker: US out of Whatcom County.
(* fondly remembers John Belushi jumping up in the cafeteria in “Animal House” and yelling “food fight!” *)
The Big Business of Breast Cancer
Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 8:14 am // Guest writer
There’s no profit in searching for causes, and we know there's no real cure. But there's big money in the detection and treatment of breast cancer.
2 comments; last on Feb 11, 2012
An inexpensive way to save children’s lives
Tue, Feb 07, 2012, 1:41 pm // John Servais
Bellingham is slowly installing flashing yellow lights for school zones. This is far better than trapping drivers with speed zone cameras. But, no city revenue.
2 comments; last on Feb 09, 2012
UPDATE: City of Bham Moonlighting Issue - More Documents
Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 10:58 pm // Riley Sweeney
Riley updates us on the latest facts coming to light about City of Bellingham employee moonlighting2 comments; last on Feb 01, 2012
Compliance, Noncompliance and Invalidity in Whatcom County
Sun, Jan 29, 2012, 10:16 pm // Wendy Harris
The County's rural planning actions have not just failed to comply with the GMA...they have contradicted the goals of the GMA.3 comments; last on Feb 05, 2012
A Worm’s Eye View of our local WorkSource Center
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 9:42 am // Riley Sweeney
Riley visits the local WorkSource center and interviews the regional director
0 comments
Watch out for basement flooding
Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 9:03 pm // Paul de Armond
Stormwater surge may back up sewers
5 comments; last on Jan 21, 2012
The Political Junkie interviews Kathy Kershner
Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 4:29 pm // Riley Sweeney
Riley discusses the Jail, Jack Louws, and an impartial council with our new Council Chair
1 comments; last on Jan 20, 2012
SOPA - A Step in Destroying Democracy
Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 12:17 am // John Servais
NWCitizen.com went black for Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012, as a protest against proposed legislation, SOPA and PIPA. Here is what was posted.1 comments; last on Jan 19, 2012
Why SOPA is so terrible
Tue, Jan 17, 2012, 6:28 pm // John Servais
On Wednesday, thousands of websites will go dark to show opposition to SOPA. I will be posting a single article explaining who SOPA is so bad.0 comments
Planning Commissioner Mocks Environmental Concern For Coal Terminal
Sat, Jan 14, 2012, 11:06 pm // Wendy Harris
Planning Commissioner Onkels should recuse himself from review of environmental impacts at GPT.3 comments; last on Feb 08, 2012
Jack Petree, Olympia, the Whatcom Council and Obama’s Inner Circle
Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 8:04 am // Riley Sweeney
Latest from the Political Junkie on a variety of subjects
7 comments; last on Jan 15, 2012
Commmunity Governance at its Best
Mon, Jan 09, 2012, 8:27 pm // Tip Johnson
We have a new mayor!
4 comments; last on Jan 10, 2012
Property Rights Protected Under Lake Whatcom Stormwater Proposal
Sun, Jan 08, 2012, 11:02 pm // Wendy Harris
The County's proposed stormwater regulations for Lake Whatcom will increase development without improving water quality2 comments; last on Jan 20, 2012
Riley Rouses Row Over Domestic Violence
Sun, Jan 08, 2012, 1:21 am // John Servais
Issue is County Council member Kathy Kershner and how our social service programs are funded.3 comments; last on Jan 08, 2012
Some thoughts on the Occupy Bellingham issue
Sun, Jan 01, 2012, 12:05 am // John Servais
A third note on Jan 1 about the Herald photos with links. And previous thoughts on the trivia around the militarized evictions.9 comments; last on Jan 10, 2012
Kelli Linville has taken oath as mayor
Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 2:07 pm // John Servais
Kelli assumes office of mayor at midnight Dec 316 comments; last on Jan 02, 2012
Bellingham Herald removes comments
Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 11:59 am // Wendy Harris
Decide for yourself if this blog comment, posted under my own name, should have been flagged and removed from the Bellingham Herald Online Edition.1 comments; last on Dec 30, 2011
Herald Permits Censorship of Pro-Occupy Bellingham Comments
Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 11:14 am // Wendy Harris
Anyone can "flag" a blog posting, resulting in immediate removal of your comment, regardless of merit. This is occuring for comments supporting OB.1 comments; last on Dec 30, 2011
City Exceeds Scope of Occupy Bellingham Eviction
Wed, Dec 28, 2011, 8:26 pm // Wendy Harris
The City infringed on the public’s right to peaceful assembly in a public park by enforcing an inappropriate public safety law2 comments; last on Dec 30, 2011
Dan Pike Issues Order to Evict Occupy Bellingham
Tue, Dec 27, 2011, 11:55 am // Riley Sweeney
Riley questions Pike's timing, and Occupy's choice of tactics2 comments; last on Dec 28, 2011
Updates from The Political Junkie
Tue, Dec 20, 2011, 2:19 pm // Riley Sweeney
Where Riley provides more info on the City of Bellingham employees moonlighting issue and Crawford's ethical troubles
0 comments
Dock Increases Risk of Invasive Species on Lake Whatcom
Sun, Dec 18, 2011, 8:43 pm // Wendy Harris
Relocation of a dock to Bloedel Donovan Park underscores failure to protect Lake Whatcom from invasive species0 comments
Sam Crawford Faces Ethical Concerns . . . AGAIN
Thu, Dec 15, 2011, 12:44 pm // Riley Sweeney
Local blogger Shane Roth files ethical complaint over Crawford's sweetheart deals
3 comments; last on Dec 16, 2011
Planning Commission Fails to Remove Cherry Point From Birch Bay Mitigation Plan
Wed, Dec 14, 2011, 7:05 am // Wendy Harris
Claiming it is unfair to treat large property owners different than small property owners, the Commission refuses to remove industrial areas from buffer mitigation proposal.0 comments
Rick Perry, Can We Talk?
Tue, Dec 13, 2011, 9:58 am // Riley Sweeney
Riley has a conversation with Rick Perry
2 comments; last on Dec 16, 2011
For Gift Ideas, Think Beyond Parker Brothers
Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 9:32 am // Riley Sweeney
Riley discusses his love of board games and some good gift ideas
2 comments; last on Dec 11, 2011
The Political Junkie needs your input
Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 12:47 pm // Riley Sweeney
Please take my reader's survey, I'm planning 2012
0 comments
Loophole Benefits SSA and Undermines Birch Bay Mitigation Proposal
Wed, Dec 07, 2011, 7:00 am // Wendy Harris
Tell the Planning Commission to eliminate this loophole2 comments; last on Dec 14, 2011
Washington United for Marriage: It’s Time!
Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 11:12 am // Riley Sweeney
Riley attends a public meeting on equality
0 comments
The Cole Train: Loads of BS
Sun, Dec 04, 2011, 4:53 pm // Tip Johnson
Wherein the sooty prospect of economic necessity rears its ugly head
2 comments; last on Dec 04, 2011
Update on Cherry Point Buffer Mitigation Proposal
Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 1:08 pm // Wendy Harris
Planning Staff's recommended revision will not prevent SSA from reducing wetland buffers.0 comments
UPDATE: City’s response focused on favoritism, not lost revenue
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 5:51 pm // Riley Sweeney
More on the city employee moonlighting issue0 comments
TPJ Exclusive: Little Documented Oversight for City Employee Moonlighting
Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 4:29 pm // Riley Sweeney
The Political Junkie breaks a story of employee moonlighting within city of Bellingham
7 comments; last on Nov 30, 2011
Deer me!
Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 3:30 pm // Tip Johnson
O.K. Who's in charge of all these ungulates?14 comments; last on Dec 01, 2011
County Proposal Includes New Cherry Point Buffer Mitigation Requirements
Tue, Nov 22, 2011, 9:29 pm // Wendy Harris
The County's new mitigation proposal is unlikely to be adequate for Cherry Point's industrial impacts to habitat buffers3 comments; last on Nov 24, 2011
CameraGate: Red-light safety or city revenue?
Mon, Nov 21, 2011, 1:00 am // Guest writer
With budget woes, Bellingham passes on safety in favor of cash. Starting in 2008, Bellingham officials were coached by ATS on how to get Red Light cameras through…
26 comments; last on Nov 29, 2011
Cameras, not coal, decided the election
Sat, Nov 19, 2011, 8:24 pm // Paul de Armond
Looking at the numbers for the Bellingham elections
11 comments; last on Nov 22, 2011
Election Analysis: What does it take to win a county seat?
Fri, Nov 18, 2011, 12:28 pm // Riley Sweeney
Riley examines Maginnis/Crawford and Kremen/Larson
0 comments
Election Analysis: Dropoff, Lynden Suburbs and the “Buys Bounce”
Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 5:20 pm // Riley Sweeney
Riley looks at Lynden and coins some new phrases.
0 comments
Political Junkie Election Analysis: Louws/Ericksen
Wed, Nov 16, 2011, 12:31 pm // Riley Sweeney
Riley takes a look at Louws/Ericksen in the search for moderate Republicans
1 comments; last on Nov 17, 2011
Kelli Linville is elected Mayor of Bellingham
Tue, Nov 15, 2011, 5:21 pm // John Servais
Results are posted as of 5:21 pm. Use links at top of right side column.2 comments; last on Nov 15, 2011
New links
Colbert Super PacCurrent Interest
Bham Camera ScamColbert Super Pac
Local Blogs & News
Bellingham HeraldBham Politics & Economics
Bhm Herald Politics Blog
Bob Sanders
Cascadia Weekly
Citizen Ted
Ferndale Record
Foothills Gazette
Get Whatcom Planning
HamsterTalk
KGMI
Latte Republic
Lynden Tribune
MikeatthePort
Northern Light
Northwest Review
Sweeney Politics
Twilight Zoning
Wally Wonders
Western Front - WWU
Whatcom Watch
Local causes
Bham Camera ScamBham CofC political blog
Chuckanut Mountains
Citizens of Bellingham
City Club of Bham
Community Wise Bellingham
Conservation NW
Cordata & Meridian
Futurewise - Whatcom
Jail - local mega plans
Lake Whatcom
N. Cascades Audubon
N. Sound Conservancy
Neighborhood Schools Coalition
No Leaky Buckets
NW Holocaust Center
RE Sources
Transition Whatcom
WA Conservation Voters
Publisher recommended
Americans Elect 2012Bham Politics & Economics
Community Wise Bellingham
Guardian Unlimited
Paul Krugman - economics
Redistricting WA state
Sweeney Politics
Watts Up With That? - climate
WikiLeaks.ch
NwCitizen 1995 to 2008
Early Northwest CitizenWeather & Climate
Cliff Mass Weather BlogClimate Audit
NW Radar
Two day forecast
Watts Up With That? - climate
Cascadia
Crosscut SeattleJoel Connelly
Orcinus
Portland Indy Media
Seattle Indy Media
Washington Votes
Leisure
Adventures NWEdge of Sports
Entertainment NNW
Famous Internet Skiers
Sailing Anarchy
Worth checking out
Al-Jazeera onlineAlaska Dispatch
AlterNet.org
Americans Elect 2012
Antiwar.com
Arab News
Asia Times
Atlantic, The
Buzz Flash
Common Dreams
counterpunch
Daily Beast, The
Daily Kos
Daily Mirror
Drudge Report
FiveThirtyEight
Foreign Policy in Focus
Guardian Unlimited
Gulf News
Haaretz
Huffington Post
Innocence Project, The
Intrnational Herald Tribune
James Fallows
Jerusalem Post
Juan Cole
Le Diplo
Media Matters
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
Politico
Progressive Review
Project Vote Smart
Reuters
Sea Shepherd
Slate
Talking Points Memo
The Onion
Tom Paine.com
truthout
War and Piece
WikiLeaks.ch
ynetnews.com
Governments
Auditor election pageBellingham
Bham - PFD
Candidate Filings
Election Results
Redistricting WA state
Skagit County
The White House
WA State Access
WA State Elections
WA State Legislature
Whatcom Auditor
Whatcom County
Other - for whatever
Ban Red Light CamsBushFlash.com
Chickehhawks
Coal quandary
Doonesbury
George Bush
Info Clearing House
Mainstreampolitics
Michael Moore
Nat Geo on Coal Trains
Reality News
The Crisis Papers
Third World Traveler
Unity08
Washington Outsiders
Less active
Bellingham RegisterCarl Weimer
Eye on Whatcom
John Watts
Post-Oklahoman Confessions
The American Telegraph
Quiet, offline or dead
David HackworthGitmo prisoner 345
Mega Awesome
Not in my county
Parkenfarker
Pro-Whatcom