Oh no!  Whatcom population sees slow growth

Permalink +

Tue, Jul 10, 2012, 8:45 am  //  Larry Horowitz

Would someone please help me make sense of Ken Oplinger’s recent comment regarding Whatcom County’s population growth for the past year?

On June 25, the state’s Office of Financial Management (OFM) released its annual population data as of April 1.  While the state saw population growth of 0.74% (49,870 people), Whatcom County’s population grew by 0.69% (1,400 people).   According to OFM, "The pattern of modest growth the state has been experiencing the last few years continues in 2012."

The 1,400-person increase in Whatcom County includes a natural increase (births minus deaths) of 1,061 and net migration (people arriving minus people leaving) of 339.

On its website, local radio station KGMI posted a brief article yesterday (Whatcom Population Sees Slow Growth) reporting that Oplinger, who serves as president of the local chamber of commerce, claims “one reason for the slow population growth is because cities like Bellingham aren't doing enough to encourage job growth.” 

In a 12-second audio blurb on KGMI's site, Oplinger actually says:

"The openness of government entities to give permits and get people building commercial entities that create jobs here is lacking.  And... [if] you're not building businesses that are creating jobs, then you're not adding people to the community."

What exactly is Oplinger trying to say?

That not adding more people to the community is a major problem we need to address?

That we must create jobs so we can add more people to the community?

How is that not wagging the dog?

Please, would someone help me make sense of this…

Related Links:

-> KGMI article "Whatcom Population Sees Slow Growth"
-> OFM June 25 press release "Washington population continues slow growth in 2012"
-> Additional OFM info

Douglas Smith  //  Tue, Jul 10, 2012, 3:59 pm

It fits with a strategy to try and gin up support for the Gateway Pacific coal export terminal.  It doesn’t really matter that it sounds nonsensical if it’ll help raise the ire of the “Growth at any cost” crowd.


Larry Horowitz  //  Tue, Jul 10, 2012, 7:07 pm

Douglas, thanks for bringing the coal train perspective to the issue of population growth.  What I’m really trying to understand is this:

The “growth at any cost” (GAAC) crowd has been saying for years that we cannot build a wall around I-5 and keep people from moving to Whatcom County and its cities.  They claim the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires us to accommodate every person who wants to move here, regardless of the area’s carrying capacity or the extent of the adverse impacts.

Now that very few people are actually moving here, the GAACers, represented by GAACer-in-chief Oplinger, claim that we must do everything in our power to “add people to the community,” even if these imaginary “people” have no burning desire to move here.

Isn’t that going a bit too far? 

Have we already forgotten about the problems associated with too much population growth?  You know, the ones identified in the first section of the GMA:  the threats posed to “the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state.”  (RCW 36.70A.010 - Legislative findings)

Why do Oplinger et al have such a false sense of urgency to expand the local population by adding people to the community?  For what purpose?  What are the advantages of higher rates of population growth?  What are the disadvantages?  Are Oplinger and the GAACers blind to those?

I thought the purpose for creating jobs was to provide greater opportunities to those who already live here.  If I’m deciphering Oplinger correctly, we need to create jobs so we can add people to the community.  What?!

If everyone reading this agrees with GAACers like Oplinger, fine; there’s no need to discuss it further. 

On the other hand, if you’re reading this and don’t agree with Oplinger’s vision for Whatcom County and its cities, your silence ensures Oplinger’s vision will prevail. 

Are you willing to pay the price for your silence?


Tip Johnson  //  Tue, Jul 10, 2012, 9:54 pm

What Oplinger means is that we really need to mow down more woods and pave more pastures for more box stores that hire minimum wage workers, go broke in a few years and sit idle for years more at too-high prices because they are assets in a pension account that no one wants to say is broke. Oplinger would rather see a new one built than an empty one reused.  Why? Because it’s not those jobs he’s after.

It’s conversion that juices up Oplinger’s economy.  The juice is especially good because the public subsidizes services, roads and utilities to support these dinosaurs, and maintain them in perpetuity.  It’s the same for housing.  There’s not as much juice in infill. You’ve got to build roads, lay pipe, scrape ground, pour concrete.  That’s how you get what Oplinger means by jobs.

And it’s no joke.  It works great, up to a point.  But if we view our local and national economy in global terms, it’s hard to see how that business-as-usual will ever again afford such excess.  And maybe it shouldn’t. If the current collapse tells us anything, it’s that a system designed to constantly rip off everyone all at once only makes a very few very rich.  Oplinger’s ideas may need to evolve if he intends to continue fulfilling his function in the future.

For instance, if Oplinger is serious about jobs, why does he support a new marina that will cost the public $400 million, probably never fill up with new yachts, but which will certainly destroy our ability to recruit good-paying jobs with the surplus water supply and treatment capacity left behind by Georgia-Pacific?

That infrastructure is already in place, paid-for and publicly owned.  Oplinger wants to squander it for some condominiums and a marina.  What does foreclosing our capacity to support decent jobs cost the community?

I think Oplinger is maybe the last who deserves to complain about jobs.  He has a very good one trying to wreck it all for others.


Larry Horowitz  //  Wed, Jul 11, 2012, 9:24 am

OK, Tip, I get that.  And when our population was growing fast enough to justify all that mowing down and paving over, then Oplinger didn’t need to comment on the growth of population itself.

Now that population growth has slowed to a trickle and no longer justifies upzoning densities, expanding UGAs, and mowin’ & pavin’, why doesn’t Oplinger remain quiet… or simply shut up?  Why speak out and remove all doubt?

What kind of plan is based on creating jobs so we can expand the local population?  Is that what job creation is all about?  Does getting larger eliminate all of our problems and create none of its own?

When, as a community, are we going to address the real question of population growth?

Is population growth good for Whatcom County and its cities RIGHT NOW? 

Let’s keep it simple: 

Is population growth desired by the majority in Bellingham? 

Does it make sense to tax existing Bellingham residents to subsidize population growth we don’t want?


Matt Petryni  //  Wed, Jul 11, 2012, 11:08 am

These kind of comments are absurd, to say the least. I remember back in 2005 at the height of the housing bubble, our city and county public officials were under tremendous pressure from Oplinger, the BIA and their allies to plan for, accomodate and by doing so encourage growth that simply was never going to happen. The goal at the time, though it is doubtful they remember it, was to inflate growth projections to allow and provide for more development than population growth would ever accomodate.

Most of the rest of us were aware we were in a massively inflated housing market, and that it would soon collapse:

John McLaughlin, 221 Highland Drive submitted written comments expanding on the following points:
-Objectionable parts of comp plan are those intended to accommodate large projected population growth.
-The growth projects are flawed; based on an invalid model. Model analysis committed several serious statistical errors and made two incorrect assumptions.
-Analyzed population models with and without growth feedback, and found that a model with decreasing rates of growth (Logistic Growth Model) best describes our own population data.
-Projections from the Logistic Growth Model are much smaller than projections from the invalid model used for Whatcom County and Bellingham. The adopted growth projection is erroneously high.
-Correcting errors in the growth projection would resolve much of the acrimony over the Comprehensive Plan and polices therein. Many controversial growth accommodation policies would not be needed because much smaller population increases would have to be accommodated.

(Both from July 18 and August 1, 2005 City Council Public Hearing Minutes)

In April, John Hymas expressed a similar concern for the speed of growth that was being encouraged by the bubble:
John Hymas, 1316 23rd Street ... Bellingham and Whatcom County are different. We are the only city and county in the state that didn’t choose the high population prediction forecasts. The permits that are being issued now make that figure look like an underestimation. He suggested dividing 20 years into 31,601 and allow that many building permits per year. .... If the City is going to ignore the Neighborhood Plan updates, he suggested a moratorium on large developments until they are updated.

(From the April 21, 2005 Planning Commission Hearing Minutes)

It was not too difficult in 2005 to see that 2006-2012 would bring “modest population growth,” as the OFM reported. The only way you’d see this as a problem is if you were under the impression that the housing bubble of 2004-2006 represented real demand and not rampant overspeculation.

Oplinger, consistently under that impression, is now finding himself changing the subject as the growth expectations the Chamber and the BIA promoted have failed come to fruition. The logic here is not that they had their expectations far too high, deluded by what was clearly an out-of-control housing market, but that something must be wrong with the County’s progress so that we have not yet realized this population growth that, still to this day, was never actually going to happen.

I can’t help but think, with coal companies going bankrupt and coal demand continuing to fall, that Oplinger isn’t making a similar mistake as he did before: failing to understand market demands at the long-term timeframe and investing at immense public and private cost in what is likely to be a temporary, short-lived, and highly speculative illusion of demand. Coal is not a future for Whatcom County, it’s likely not even part of our energy portfolio in 20 years: + Link But the fact this “demand” is likely another illusion brought on by excessive speculation didn’t give Oplinger pause before, I don’t see why it would give him pause now.


Larry Horowitz  //  Wed, Jul 11, 2012, 12:41 pm

Thanks, Matt.  It’s great to have you and your refreshing perspective back in Bellingham!

I agree with Dr. McLaughlin’s assessment that the Logistical Growth Model better estimates future population levels than an exponential growth model without a feedback loop.  That being said, many experts believe that both population forecasts and actual population growth can be – and are – regularly manipulated.  The old “build it and they will come” syndrome.  In its Dec 2006 ‘Foothills Subarea Population Forecast’ for Whatcom County, ECONorthwest wrote:

“One final comment on forecasts: population forecasts are often viewed as ‘self-fulfilling prophecies.’ In many respects they are intended to be;  local governments create land use, transportation, and infrastructure plans to accommodate the growth forecast. Those planning documents represent a series of policy decisions. Thus, how much population a local government (particularly cities) chooses to accommodate is also a policy decision.  In short, the forecast and the plans based on the forecast represent the city’s future vision.”

Which brings us back to our vision for Whatcom County and its cities:

Isn’t our sprawl crisis a result of population growth?  Is that part of our vision?

Are there any neighborhoods in Bellingham just dying to increase neighborhood density?

Is the build-up-or-out paradigm simply a false dilemma created by those who profit from population growth?  Are “up” and “out” really our only options?  Seriously?

Or have we just been suckered by bad propaganda?

Do we even have a say?  When it comes to population projections, are we “Victims of the past or Masters of our own destiny”? 

+ Link


Tip Johnson  //  Wed, Jul 11, 2012, 10:35 pm

OK, Larry.  I didn’t have time to make it short, but you asked quite a few questions.  They seemed so darned rhetorical that, at the risk of overstaying my welcome, I have ventured to answer each in the order they appeared!  As a result, this may not flow as well as an essay, but it does hit them all and I think it touches on some salient points.  They all deserve more thorough consideration, debate and answering, but I thought I’d just fire a volley as long as Oplinger is still in the gallery.

Few of us that “live” here have forgotten the problems associated with growth.  But different sorts live here.  Some are making a place, putting down roots.  Some are passing through, unconcerned.  Others are trying to make a buck.  It takes all kinds.  But here’s where so-called neighborhood-based city planning (still the stated legal basis of our plan) needs a very careful look.  Take parts of the plan that benefit rooted neighbors and compare it to the parts that benefit those who would cut and run.  Sorry, it’s no contest.  People buying property they like are at a disadvantage next to those who buy to turn a profit.

The Oplingers of our world have no intrinsic false sense of urgency to expand the local population.  They feel charged with creating one.  The Oplingers are “boosters” in fine frontier fashion.  They are paid to gloss over the failures and exaggerate the potential of our fine cities.  They fashion an image of a lovely lass on the bay, the sore on her mouth covered with makeup, legs spread suggestively, an inviting smile on her face.  The Oplingers don’t care about adding anyone to the community.  At the end, they don’t even care about the chainsaws and bulldozers.  It’s all about the public subsidy and entitlements.  It is spinning flax (tax) into gold. Simply look to what their masters do.  They do.  There is no advantage to greater population, except insofar as eventually the masters’ property triples in value.  Even the masters dislike newcomers, but will tolerate their financial contribution. The disadvantages are immense, but less disturbing that botching their investments.

Our economy is not meant to better the common lot.  Far from it. It is designed to exploit inefficiency.  Think of it mainly as enabling slicks to take advantage of hicks, the strong to dominate the poor.  I earlier evidenced that Oplinger doesn’t care about jobs, that his strident waterfront development positions favor foreclosing our capacity to support decent jobs by discarding water supply and treatment capacity.  Similarly, he doesn’t care if they come.  He just wants it to be built.  That’s because his masters will have already sold it by then.  The booster’s hype is the juice that sucker’s salivate.  Some say P.T. Barnum expressed it with, “There’s a sucker born every minute….and two to take him.”  The only reason to encourage newcomers is for the fresh supply of marks.

Very few agree with growth advocates like Oplinger.  But meaningful discussion is hampered by the fact that those with the most to gain are the most persistent and influential contributors to the codes as they are adopted.  There is an art to wearing down those who have to work and take care of families until only a few special interests are left to see the matter through.  Choosing times, changing schedules, confusing issues in regulatory tedium and baffling the masses with slick color graphics.  That’s the pallet, that’s the art.  So I always try to add my two cents and encourage others to, also.  It’s the best two cents anyone can spend.

The Oplingers of this world never shut up.  They are driven to spin tales, paint fabric, blow smoke and hold mirrors.  There is no doubt in their mind that someone will swallow their tripe - even if they have to advertise remotely in Babylon. It’s a time honored strategy.

The Oplingers don’t want to create jobs to expand the economy.  They want to convert land and upzone it as far as possible: rural to urban, single family to multiple dwelling, residential to commercial, best yet, agricultural to industrial - smelters and refineries!  That’s why Oplinger doesn’t support jobs where it makes the most sense - downtown.  The best upzone from shuttered industrial is high-rise condominium and specialty/boutique retail in his world.  Who cares that the infrastructure for jobs is already in place?  Getting larger doesn’t solve any problems.  But the problems it creates can be exploited.  A little upzone here and there and soon nearby residents feel the pressure.  Some want to move.  Smart investors buy them up and move in transient tenants, conditional or transitional uses. More want to move.  Properties are allowed to deteriorated.  Values decline.  Residents flee, Investors buy.  Then land use consultants come to city hall and say, “Heck, it’s already flopping, let’s finish it off.”  Another upzone in the making.  The perfect antecedent to another transition.

The real questions of population growth will never be answered under our current economic paradigm.  They won’t even be asked.  Other’s have planned communities for adequate transportation, agricultural land, housing and services.  We won’t because wasting the old and imposing the new is too intrinsic to our spinning of new gold.  This strategy is not unique to our country, but our intense lack of concern for history and the integrity of our communities underscores it’s peculiar dominance over our thinking and behavior.  Compare for sample the Mondragon’s principle that education is central and capital is subservient to the common good.  They are perhaps the most successful economy of the last four or five decades.  Most have never heard of them.  Meanwhile the Port wants to tear down the Granary Building.  They demolished the oldest building on Harris Avenue on a weekend, without a permit, after they learned an application had been made to register it historically.

Population growth can be good for some places.  There are economies of scale to most categories of service provision.  Water systems, sanitary systems, garbage collection and disposal, fire and police protection are all subject to this rule.  Having a rate base adequate to support decent services is important.  The trick is knowing when to stop and allowing for that eventuality. There’s another advantage to adding population.  Many come, not for the phantom jobs the Oplingers tout, but for the area’s beauty and relative calm or cleanliness.  People who appreciate the environment and moved here because they like the character of the place are the best defense against the chaotic forces of constant transition. 

Population growth is obviously desired by some.  According to Larry’s figures, roughly two thirds of the newcomers are locally produced!

The question of what taxes are reasonable is far more complex than whether or not growth is desired.  We set standards for many things.  We don’t have to.  I’ve been to Lagos, Nigeria, and can attest that much of what we take for granted are completely arbitrary artifacts of convenience, desire and wealth.  None of them are needed.  Life goes on.  However, the question of whether taxes are well spent could be a science and an art.  But we would need to establish principles and set priorities.  We will probably never be able do that rationally because those discussions would endanger the confusion in which our resources are steered toward the same beneficiaries time and again.

Sprawl is not necessarily a result of population growth.  It is a function of transitional land use policies.  For instance, Bellingham grew from a city geographically smaller than San Francisco to one much larger, while our population stayed the same and SF’s grew.  We transitioned from a city where many lived downtown or very nearby, where trolleys connected neighborhoods with downtown and Bellingham with other cities, to an automobile-centric, subdivision-based, mortgage-guaranteed hodgepodge of resident enclaves connected by commercial strips. Sprawl simply requires a willingness to mow down anything, and to set in motion transitions wherein some win while others lose.

I expect that there are many who would tolerate a little more density.  But there is the question of how.  I have long argued for Accessory Dwelling Unit provisions that would allow property owners to install small cottages as and where appropriate.  I see it as a way to help families take care of their own, property owners get help with their mortgage, young folks find affordable digs so they can go to school or save for a downpayment, a way to add diversity to our housing stock, to see that rentals are better supervised and to add the “eyes-on-the-street” security that neighborhood watch programs desperately hope to cultivate.  What if we could add thirty percent more housing units without adding another stick of pipe or foot of road to the public’s general obligation?  Instead, we get hokum toolkits and urban village policies seemingly designed to purposely set neighborhoods in transition, destabilizing and creating inefficiencies ready to exploit.

Obviously, the “Up versus Out” dichotomy is as false as the “Higher or Lower” standard of living ruse.  It is designed to avoid discussing better ways of living, to constrain decisions to quantitative rather than qualitative outcomes.  Note the obsession with population projections in planning.  We ought to be equally obsessed with improving our quality of life - a concept that gets plenty of lip service but utterly no enabling legislation.  ADUs are only one such example.  We are truly victims of bad propaganda, and pay the price for it as a ratebase that is milked like a herd of cows.

We do have a say.  We just don’t say it.  We don’t stick to it, do our research, meet our neighbors or decide what we want.  We don’t pony up like the bad boys.  For instance, after forcing through traffic revisions (that would reportedly never work) on Ellis and Donovan,  I worked with neighbors there and in the York neighborhood to see what other measures might be desirable.  In some places, especially where alleys exist, up to thirty percent of road surfaces can be permanently closed to traffic, soil and sod laid, and the neighborhood thus substantially transformed into a park.  Legal mechanisms already exist whereby property owners can petition for the improvements and the City is required to issue bonds and levy assessments as long as majorities are met and the improvements add sufficient value to the properties - a no-brainer.  But folks are reluctant to carry petitions, to talk or maybe argue with their neighbors, or take on the risk of a new assessment or ultimately, change anything.

And that is why the sharks always have the advantage. They like change as long as it’s theirs.


Wendy Harris  //  Wed, Jul 11, 2012, 10:50 pm

There has been way, way, too much emphasis on population figures in the first place.  It was become the ultimate tool of political manipulation.  If we focused on better policy and better regulation… you know, actually planned better, we would not need to focus so obsessively on population numbers. Oplinger is treating population figures, which should be used as tool to guide policy and regulations, as a goal.  That is why his statement is so disorienting and confusing.  We do the same thing with infill.. take what should be a tool to guide sound planning, and turn it into a goal.

If we were actually enforcing mitigation, i.e, denying development when impacts could reasonably be avoided, and making developers pay the full cost of environmental impacts, there would be less development and the development that did occur, by necessity, would likely be more thoughtful and well-planned. So I would argue that our sprawl crisis is as much a result of bad planning and inadequate mitigation as it as a problem of population growth.

 


Tip Johnson  //  Wed, Jul 11, 2012, 11:02 pm

Exactly.  What she said!


Larry Horowitz  //  Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 8:43 am

Tip and Wendy, thank you for your contributions to this dialogue.

Wendy, I agree there is way too much emphasis on population figures.  Unfortunately, growth advocates are taught to use the population forecast as a tool of political manipulation.  As proof, I offer land use attorney Sandy Mackie’s three-part series on the Washington Realtors website entitled ‘Land Use & You’.  In part 1, Mackie writes:

“One of the first decisions to affect YOU [realtors and property owners] is the local population allocation… You must make sure your county accepts a growth scenario that accurately reflects local conditions.  ‘No growth’ advocates are pushing for no growth or low growth scenarios… Some communities are refusing to accept a fair share of population growth… Population allocation is the lynchpin on which all other GMA planning is based.”

As we have seen, Mackie’s disciples are out in force, focusing obsessively on population numbers to push for round-after-round of unnecessary upzoning, UGA-expansion, and over-development.  Oplinger, as a Mackie disciple whether he knows it or not, is simply pounding the population drum.  The result is that the population figures are used as a goal rather than a tool, just like infill, as you have pointed out.  The final outcome is an avoidable sprawl crisis, a crisis we will continue to face as long as these tools are presented and treated as goals.

_____________

Tip, you nailed it with your unique and picturesque style.  You have certainly not overstayed your welcome.  I especially appreciate how you distinguish between:

- Residents who are ‘making a place and putting down roots’;
- Transients who are ‘passing through, unconcerned’; and
- Flippers who are ‘trying to make a buck’.

As well, I’m intrigued by your description of how upzones create problems that are exploited by those ‘trying to make a buck’, eventually forcing a critical mass to move out until what’s left is badly deteriorated and ripe for yet another upzone.

Your comments beg the following questions:

1) Why have we allowed our so-called neighborhood planning to favor real-estate flippers, transients, and people who have yet to move here over residents who are making a place and putting down roots?  What can we do about that?

2) If “very few agree with growth advocates like Oplinger,” then why does it appear they have the attention of policy- and decision-makers?  Why haven’t the Oplingers of Whatcom County been discredited?  Or have they been discredited?

3) Can’t we elect people who can plainly see the process is gamed by those who have the most to gain financially?  In Bellingham, aren’t Michael Lilliquist, Seth Fleetwood, Terry Bornemann, Gene Knutson, Jack Weiss, Stan Snapp, and Cathy Lehman savvy enough to see through this con game?

4) If we have a say, why don’t we say it?  What can be done to enable us to “stick to it, do our research, meet our neighbors, decide what we want, and pony up like the bad boys?”  Better yet, why don’t our elected representatives work with us to improve our quality of life rather than diminish it?


Mike Rostron  //  Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 8:28 am

It is hard to be sanguine about our prospects vis-a- vis the developers.  In some ways it always seems a choice between rampant growth or moldering decay.  Steady state or slow intelligent growth don’t seem to be options.  This harkens back to that division which has been described by various thinkers between those who “put down roots” - the salt of the Earth, versus that restless breed that was instrumental in colonizing the Western Hemisphere and especially the Western half of our country.  You could argue (very simplistically of course) that both types of humanity have helped humans adapt to and dominate the world.  Things would be a lot less interesting and colorful without the gypsies and nomads, though they cause problems for the settled folks wherever they wander.

These “developers” however, happen to be an especially wealthy and powerful type of gypsy and their mythology and gods are the devouring destructive sort.  Many of the slightly less wealthy have bought into this world view and suck from the teats of mammon, and their “trickle down” smells distinctly of piss.

The intrigues and shenanigans with regard to the rezone of the DOT site, with the attendant straw man arguments and back-patting good-old-boy-back-room wheeling and dealing between the developer, city planning department, and a totally clueless or even hostile (to the neighborhoods) planning commission is the Sunnyland and Cornwall Park version of the same old crap.

I want to say here categorically, that when it comes to at least single family zoned areas developers per se are bad for the neighborhood at least 90 per cent of the time.  Individual lot by lot development by property owners, one by one, regardless of stylistic idiosyncrasies, weird architectural conceptions and so forth, almost always lead to a more interesting, diverse, verdant and livable neighborhood.

It should be harder for a developer to purchase and develop land in the city limits than for a camel to get through the proverbial eye of a camel!  Send the developers to Afghanistan.  They can buy land cheap there!  Run ‘em out of town on a rail.  Let’s have a tar and feathering party!

As for the Georgia Pacific site - a nice park it would make - end of story.

Another important point: Until Bellingham resolves the Whatcom Lake drinking water source problems, we have no business encouraging any kind of growth here.


Mike Rostron  //  Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 9:52 am

The larger discussion never seems to occur: Do we want Bellingham to grow to the size of Seattle or Vancouver B.C.  there are advantages to large cities.  We like visiting those places, and once we get off the freeways and arterials there are exciting neighborhoods and lots to see and do.

We would argue there that medium sized cities - say 30,000 to 100,000 or so can also be interesting and in some ways more pleasant places to live.  More to offer than say a city the size of Anacortes or Lynden, yet perhaps less fast paced and stressful then the larger metropolitan areas.

People will always move around, either for environmental (dust bowl migrations of the 30s), economic, or other reasons; and yes, sometimes they are drawn by the fantastical descriptions of developers.  The last couple of centuries have seen most people move from farms and small towns to metropolitan areas, and the last thirty or so have see major exoduses from the interior of the country to the coastal areas.

Yet there are things we can do to actually slow growth.  Here are a few suggestions:

*Stop growth and expansion of the airport.

*Don’t allow any more existing farm land or forest to be developed for housing.

*Encourage would-be developers to renovate existing historical buildings.  A developer would be denied the right to build anything new until he/she had “proved” themselves by restoring a historical building to certain standards.

*Stop development of the GP site except as a park.

*Stop encouraging your friends and family to move here! (That goes for me too!)

*Start actively deglamorizing Bellingham and Whatcom County. Point out some of the following facts:
Unpleasant weather much of the time for seven months out of a year.
Giant hobo spiders abound.
City infested with hobos, bums, vagrants, gangbangers, and ne’er-do-wells.
Highest gas prices in the US. (No kidding I paid less in Hawaii on a recent vacation - only Alaska higher.)
Be creative!  Oregon was pretty successful some years back with a “visit but don’t stay” campaign.

 


John Lesow  //  Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 11:56 am

Great article, Larry and commentators.  Timely, too.  The tip of the hat to Dr. John McLaughlin and his Logistical vs. Exponential discussion is long overdue, but it takes time to validate the points he made to the County Planning Commission and County Council back in 2005-2006 with empirical evidence.  Now you have it.

Dr. McLaughlin’s logistical method resonated with this Planning Commissioner because it was, and is, similar to the method used in my yearly sales forecasts.  If you have a very successful year in heavy equipment sales it is unlikely that the following year will garner an even higher volume in sales of a particular product.

Why?  Because the average service life of a specific piece of capital equipment exceeds one year by a substantial margin. In the absence of artificial market stimulus, you cannot expect a customer to replace his equipment every year, so you plan accordingly.  Homes are no different. 

Real estate has peaks and valleys.  The 3% annual growth rate in the County in 2005-2006 was an aberration.  As was the 20% annual increase in property values.  Development interests pitched the high growth fastball like the game would go on forever.  And many in government bought the idea.  Politicians like to sound positive when times are good.

But anyone with access to the census figures in the County Comprehensive Plan (which go back to 1900) could appreciate that the actual historical growth rate in the County was about 1.8%, not 3%.  In some years, (2002) it was less than 1%.  A decade later, history repeats itself.

Each year, the County Council is presented with 3 population forecasts from the Office of Financial Management. High, Medium and Low.  A courageous and thoughtful Council would reason, correctly, that a Low Growth Projection would be in the best interests of a rural county whose main economic driver was Agriculture.

Testimony presented at last night’s Planning Commission meeting confirmed that Ag is our top industry, with $326 million per year in farm gate revenue.  Add a multiplier of 3 to 5 for Ag related business and you have a billion dollar per year industry that is driven by Agriculture.  These are not my figures, they came directly from representatives of the County Agricultural community. 

Population growth and subdivision of land for housing do not compliment agricultural production.

They can impede production.  They can complicate matters.  And these are the problems we are dealing with right now, as far as land use is concerned.

Basing County land use planning on a Low Population Growth projection should not be a difficult political sell.  But our County Council has consistently chosen the Mushy Middle, preferring to “hit the numbers” than set a course for conservation of the land resources that are the main source of our wealth.


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

Village Books

In historic Fairhaven. Take Exit 250 from I-5.

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

Ken Bell and Renata for Port

Sun, Oct 20, 2013, 7:07 pm  //  John Servais

Ken Bell has my vote over Mike McAuley for port commissioner. And Renata Kowalczyk has it over Dan Robbins.

8 comments; last on Oct 30, 2013

Anatomy of a Development Proposal - Part VIII The 12 October Riot and University Ridge

Tue, Oct 15, 2013, 3:16 pm  //  Dick Conoboy

The development of University Ridge will replicate the student ghetto that fueled the riot on 12 October.

6 comments; last on Oct 25, 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