Wise Owl Knows What to Do

Permalink +

Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 6:25 pm  //  Guest writer

Guest writer Bill Geyer used a literary tool to explain TDRs.  Update:  The opponents website is now posted.  It is worth checking.  

“Think, think, think.  What to do, Christopher Robin,” pondered Winnie the Pooh.  “The  82 acre woods are vast, much to be protected, much to be valued, yet so much debt -- $3,200,000 – oh, bother.  That’s more than all the honey pots we can gather.  EeeOr says it’s a crisis.  He says we must pick new commissioners of the woods, tax the villagers, and then give the villagers’ money to the City.  If we do this for ten years, he says we can stay in the woods.  I’ve been thinking, Christopher, isn’t there a better way?  Wise Owl says we shouldn’t take the villagers hard earned pay.  He says we don’t need new commissioners.” 

“Did I hear my name?” asked Wise Owl as he flew in.   

“How nice to see you, Wise Owl,” said Christopher Robin.  “Tell us how to save the woods AND make this better.”   

“It’s quite simple,” Wise Owl replied. “We sell the rights to build homes in the 82 acre woods to other areas where there are no woods.  You see, no one is talking outside the woods, Christopher Robin.”

“Do you mean,” Christopher Robin said as he scratched his head, “that we wouldn’t have any houses in the woods, wouldn’t cut the trees or make it into a tidy little village, but it would stay for all the creatures forever and not cost the villagers a cent?”

“Who, I mean yes,” said Wise Owl.

“But how does it work?” asked Christopher Robin.

‘Well,” said Wise Owl, “you must think smart.  You must first understand the woods are more than just land, streams, ponds and critters.  And they must be protected.  But the woods have something almost as valuable as all these things, much more valuable than all the honey pots, and enough to pay the City’s entire loan.”

“More than all the honey pots?” exclaimed Pooh Bear.

“You mean it would pay off the three million dollar loan?” asked Christopher Robin.

“Yes.  If we think smart and are patient,” said Wise Owl.

“What does patience have to do with it?” asked Christopher Robin.

“Everything, my boy, everything.  Let’s say we gather the finest thinkers in the village and plan with patience and intelligence – we will open the door for better answers. The loan isn’t due for five years – which gives plenty of time to sell the TDRs.”

“No more loan, no houses where animals should live, no money taken from the villagers - why Wise Owl, you have something here!” exclaimed Christopher Robin. 

“And keep the honey pots?” asked Pooh.

“We can keep the honey pots,” said Wise Owl.

Christopher Robin wanted to know more.  “Please tell me Wise Owl, exactly how would we do this?”

Wise Owl swiveled his head and stretched his wings to reveal a document.  It was a short page which described the woods, listed the Council’s names, and included another item called “development rights.”

“Here is the valuable item,” Wise Owl declared.  “The 82 acre woods have development rights to supply 714 single family or 1190 multi-family dwellings.  The rights to build these dwellings can be sold as a transfer of development rights (TDR’s) to a village location.  The price for each TDR is around $2,500 each, so selling them now would generate about one and a half million dollars.  But with patience over the next four years the rights could be sold in a better market, and might be worth from three to five thousand dollars each, or even more.” 

Christopher Robin quickly calculated the total and excitedly exclaimed “Pooh, that’s three and a half to five million dollars --enough to pay off the whole loan, and maybe more!” 

“Oh wouldn’t that be a wonderful Christmas present?” Pooh Bear said as he reached for his hanky.

“Now finally the question arises.  Who?” said Wise Owl. “Who can put this together?”

Christopher Robin thought long and hard.  “I really know the villagers want to help, and some of them know how to do this, don’t they?  We can ask them.”

“Yes, we can ask them.  But first the villagers must say no,” said Wise Owl.

“What do you mean?” asked Christopher Robin.

Wise Owl explained, “The villagers will vote whether or not to create a new park district and elect commissioners.  Funny even if the villagers do that, they have no say in setting the tax rate or where the money is spent.  Only the commissioners can do that.  So it’s very important, Christopher Robin, that the villagers say no.  They must Vote NO on Proposition 1 and mail their ballots by February 12, 2013 to the County Auditor.  Once a majority votes NO, we then can ask the City Council to sell the TDR’s.”

“And we can have a picnic in the woods?” Pooh asked expectantly.

“Most certainly,” said Christopher Robins, “we can have many picnics in the woods.”

“I like picnics, too,” cried EeeOr who was grazing nearby.      

Think, think, think. Smart thinking can pay off the loan.  A new parks district is not needed. 
VOTE NO on Proposition 1.  Then let’s propose a smarter solution. 

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

Bill Geyer, a 28-year South Hill resident, is a certified professional planner.  He serves as the Chairman of Protect Bellingham Parks, the committee advocating realistic financial solutions to pay off the City’s $3,200,000 loan to the Greenways Endowment Fund.

Dan Pike  //  Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 6:45 pm

With all due respect to the author, Winnie-the-Pooh would understand that the honeypot you have is the one that matters.  Tricksters are always at the ready to try and get you to give up your honey—er, solution, and promise a better, grander one, if only you give up the one you have before you.  The funny thing is, when I identify the voices advocating that we ‘save’ the forest another way, many are the same voices that advocated to let the forest be developed at multiple points in the past, including at the time the City entered into its purchase agreement in 2011. 

Don’t fall for the bait-and-switch, no matter how cute the story: the proposed park district is a reasonable, effective, and fair solution to the problem.  Don’t allow folks who were against saving the park at all hijack the process now and undue all that the community has accomplished.


John Servais  //  Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 6:56 pm

Well, Dan, do you care to say that I am a past voice for development?  No, I didn’t think so.  And yet, I am very much against this issue.  It is amazing to me to watch my so called liberal friends take such a low road of personal attacks in their effort to pass this ballot measure.  Indeed, it is rather astounding for me to read you saying such things about another.


Dan Pike  //  Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 7:18 pm

John, I would note that you are a complicated man, as are about 50% of us; the others are complicated women.  Bill Geyer, the author of the piece, has certainly been a voice for development of the parcel in the past, which was my point.  I’m sorry if you were offended by my language against Bill; I thought it was pretty bland—certainly more so than some inaccurate characterizations you’ve made against me in the past.

I doubt I’ve seriously wounded Bill; I’ve always appreciated his attitude in the public arena, even though I’ve more often than not disagreed with his perspectives—although I’ve also advocated for considering his perspectives inside City Hall, once upon a time.

In this instance, I am reminded of the saying, “Don’t lose the good in pursuit of the perfect.” I’m also aware that there are those among us who would use the desire for a perfect solution to keep the good from getting accomplished.  When the Council nearly unanimously stated they would not even consider including this in a future greenways levy, that shuts off one of the avenues opponents advocate.  When TDRs have been a consistent bust, both here and elsewhere, suggesting that in this instance we’ll suddenly find a magical solution to making them work, well, I guess I’d rather go with what I know does work—a limited term pay back through a park district taxing mechanism.

And I’m still confused what I said that you found so offensive.  I’ve read many, many articles on your site that seemed to be intentionally aimed at insult, but left without editorial comment.  I count many of the opponents to this proposal amongst my friends, and we have good discussions about why our perspectives are right or the others’ are wrong. The value of your blog is that it seems to be a place for such discussions to take place more broadly.  However, if you find my comentary insulting, I guess I can stop commenting.


John Servais  //  Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 7:48 pm

Dan, I was very critical of you while you ran for a second term as mayor.  And it ceased the day the election was over.  I was a very strong supporter of you for your first term, as you well know.  Your actions in that first term turned me to look for a new mayor. 

I called you out because of your having held high office - and should have a better take on issues.

You refer to Bill as a “trickster” and suggest he is practicing “bait and switch”.  Your patronizing me, saying I’m complicated.  We have an issue before us and I have provided a forum for debate on the issues.  It has been sad to watch the stream of personal attacks coming from the proponents.  Bill Geyer is not running for office.  He has provided perspective on an issue.  It would be nice for you and others to provide such instead of doing personality analysis.


Bill Geyer  //  Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 10:32 pm

Dan, thanks for commenting, but your dialogue invokes identity politics to minimize the proposed solution.  Using “tricksters” and diminishing the value of an opinion simply because someone advocated developing some of the site is a weak counterpoint.  Focusing on the financial reality is more informative for the voters.  Let’s review. 

City residents own the 82-acre Woods.  They paid for it with Greenways III funds.  The Council members have a fiduciary responsibility to responsibly manage the site.  When purchased in September 2011, you and the Council borrowed $3.2MM from the Greenways Endowment Fund to be repaid by December 2017.  The site is the collateral.  The site is currently zoned RM Planned which determines the number of dwelling units that could be built on the site.  The number of units drives an appraised value called the residual land value.  The more units that can be physically built on the site, the higher the value.  Reducing the number of units that can be built on the site reduces the value. 

The Council’s challenge (and their legal responsibility) is to determine the number of units that can be built (or not) on the site.  They are legally empowered to make this decision as the elected officials on behalf of the citizens.  The article above shows that if the Council decides no units should be built on the site, Council can still sell the units as TDR’s to another location.  This mechanism is successful across the country.  The market place determines the TDR value when there is a smooth TDR system.  With some code corrections by the Council, Bellingham could have a smooth TDR system. 

This is not “bait and switch”.  This is critical thinking about the City’s asset and the financial impact on taxpayers.  It is not politically motivated, but is based on sound, proven financial tools used by professionals in the field each day.  It is not identity politics, but is sound land management that the City should have performed prior to completing the purchase in August 2011.  Bellingham has four years to use this tool to repay the loan and save south Bellingham property owners from additional taxes.  That’s a lot cleaner and more efficient than creating a new unit of government, a metropolitan parks district.


Donald Duck  //  Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 11:17 pm

blah blah blah, tired of the talking heads and tired of the shell games. debt is debt, we can have it half paid before the experts are even done with their smoke and mirrors. or, they will do some stupendously stupid large ugly subdivision there, period. vote YES.


Wendy Harris  //  Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 1:45 am

Remember the TDR program for Lake Whatcom?  Me neither.  That is because the TDR program has not worked in Bellingham, or frankly, in most other places that have tried. 

Where is the proposed receiving site for the Chuckanut Ridge? After all, that is the hardest part of making a TDR program work. A working market requires that receiving areas face a demand for denser development than is currently allowed. And that demand exists in places like Silver Beach, which is the opposite direction of where we need to head. And a TDR program is complicated, particularly in a City where there is great resistance to infill and even infill proponents admit that the infill toolkit does not work and needs to be amended.

TDR programs are normally used when a municipality lacks the financial resources to purchase the property that it wishes to protect. But here, the park district proposal provides the source of funding.

Sorry Pooh Bear, but your ill-considered TDR proposal needs to retire to the woods.


Nicholas Zaferatos  //  Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 1:43 pm

I liked Bill’s story… the story suggests a very reasonable path forward.

It’s time to rethink our “free gifting” of increased property values every time the city rezones property. Wise Owl suggests looking at the TDR mechanism as a solution. Do they work? Of course they do. Throughout the nation they have served as a primary financing tool for thousands of acres of public lands acquisitions since the 1970s. Because they haven’t work in Whatcom County is not due to the tool, but rather, to the tool’s user.  Unwilling to demonstrate sound land use management practices in general, is it surprising the county’s TDR effort has failed as well?

Bill’s tale reintroduces the tool of TDRs as a solution for repaying the loan balance. We create increased property values every time we wave the rezoning wand. We did so for the 100 acre woods back in the 1970s when those marginal lands were first inappropriately rezoned for higher density development. Thus, creating higher value. Higher value that the city taxpayers paid last year. We continue to create higher property values throughout the city in areas deemed “appropriate” for higher urban densities (especially in “urban villages”). Property owners in those locations get a windfall. The philosophy behind TDRs is that when we grant increased development rights, or windfalls, we ought to recoup “something”.  That “something” could help pay for other public benefit - in this case – the 100 acre woods.

What’s needed is a city-wide system of property value exchange. TDRs can work and create a far more equitable financing solution for the community. Far more equitable than asking a portion of the citizenry to tax themselves for a property purchase that has already been inflated due to our own past zoning actions. The costly part in setting up a TDR program is, in fact, already in place – we already own the development rights that can be placed on the exchange market.

I really wish folks would stop bashing others’ opinions just because they engage, professionally, in the business of development. The author of the article has extensive knowledge about the mechanisms of public finance and public lands management, which he freely offers. Don’t trash his ideas just because he also participates as community builder. Instead, we should applaud the author, as a developer, for endorsing the idea of the community gaining an equitable return from future upzoning windfalls.


Tip Johnson  //  Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 2:26 pm

Thank you Nick, for your on-target comments.  And thanks for calling out the bad speech I am ashamed to witness from many of my friends.  Much of it is more painful than reading Herald blog comments, because on the Herald at least I don’t know the people making the idiotic or unfriendly remarks.  I am amazed at how intolerant district supporters are of any criticism or opposition.  Geez, folks, that’s politics.  We’re supposed to argue about these things, and if you think there is no legitimate opposing view on the issue, then you haven’t yet understood the issue.  Finally, I’ll just add that the tenor of many such remarks is the best argument against the district I have yet seen. With advertising like that, you don’t really need opponents.


Wendy Harris  //  Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 4:41 pm

John, Nick and Tip: I see nothing unusual about the tone of the comments for this issue, at least as reflected on NW Citizen.  The folks who support the park levy have been open and transparent about their agenda.  The opponents have been disingenuous and are being called out on this, as I agree they should. (I do support John’s efforts to reflect both positions on NW Citizen.)

The solutions suggested by opponents are intended to do one thing… allow more development (and if not on Chuckanut, then somewhere else.) They pretend this is about financial concerns, or park district transparency issues, or whatever hot button they can push… but it all comes down to a pro-development agenda. Everything else is an attempt to draw attention away from the pivotal issue: permanent protection of a natural resource of regional significance.

Come on, does anybody really think that a TDR program will work? TDR programs are complex, expensive and time consuming.  They require development of attractive receiving sites and sophisticated zoning laws.  It would take at least several years before the City would have something viable, if this is even possible. I want the City’s resources spent on important things like Lake Whatcom and the waterfront, not wasted on programs for which an identified funding source already exists.

The City does plenty for developers. It is time to do something for the people, the land and the wildlife. 


Steve Wilson  //  Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 5:34 pm

  O Wise Owl, I’m all for pursuing the TDR concept AFTER the Parks District is established.  I’m sure the citizens and commissioners would be happy to receive your dedicated service to reduce the levy burden, shorten the time frame of the levy and put this to bed once and for all.
  Unfortunately I’m not willing to take the chance of putting all my eggs in your infinitely wise basket in lieu of a Parks District.  I’m afraid you would get distracted in your busy life and forget to tend to those precious eggs.


Dan Pike  //  Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 6:10 pm

Steve’s got it right.  The problem with TDR’s in this community is that they compete with the County’s willingness to allow thousands of lots which were created unethically, at a minimum, in the 1990s to continue to compete in the market.  Because our County has thumbed its nose at the Growth Management Act for over two decades with no repercussions to the electeds who perpetuated the law-breaking, or to the developers, landowners, and other interests that twisted the electeds arms for special consideration at the expense of public good, there is little to no demand for TDRs in this community. 

In addition, there is a significant element of NIMBYism present within Bellingham that makes landing TDRs in any marketable area more challenging.  See, plenty of blame to go around for TDR failure; it’s a nonpartisan issue. 

So Steve is correct:  TDRs would be a welcome addition to solving the funding issue, but given that there have been efforts to craft a workable TDR policy in this community for over a decade, at least, with no real success suggests that relying on them as a primary means to solve a 3 million dollar problem in less than five years is unrealistic.  On the other hand, if your goal is to get folks to give up a real solution for a smoke-and-mirrors one that promises a better solution than the one in hand, yet never quite materializes so that what’s left are options like selling some significant parts of the property, well—let’s just say I guess I’m more cynical than some posting here are.


Donald Duck  //  Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 6:25 pm

Nick, this isn’t a classroom; Tip, the heated banter here is no different than other issues. Wendy thanks, thats the first time I ever agreed with you. In the real world, no way either TDR’s or another Greenways levy or some private capital campaign will ever fly; its either vote YES or the city will sell and develop. a. big. ole. ugly. subdivision.


Gerry Wilbour  //  Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 8:24 pm

Both before and after the City bought the property, advocates for it’s preservation spent considerable time looking into many ways to raise the money to pay off the loan.  All possible ideas were investigated, no stone was left unturned.  We didn’t begin this process intending to promote a Park District and allot of effort went into finding other solutions.  We were open and actively invited the input of anyone who would participate.  We met with neighborhood groups, city officials, the Mayor and Council. The CCFD idea didn’t float to the top of the list until it was clear that it was the only option that worked, even though we knew it would be a lengthy and difficult process.  I can say with confidence, we did our due diligence.  It maybe possible that some relatively small amounts of money can be raised by other means.  If this were to occur, the levy amount charged by the CCFD would be lowered and/or shortened.  That would be a good thing.

The City should make it’s zoning and density decisions based on the needs of areas and neighborhoods with significant public input.  If higher density is warranted in an area, it should be granted through zoning, not sold for a City profit.  Exploiting this option to raise money could lead to some very sketchy, perhaps illegal and controversial decisions. Sorry, making a public profit or covering a budgetary shortfall by selling density transfers of City owned property when it’s in a financial bind strikes me as horrible public policy.  Zoning and density should be a regulatory function, and not be distorted by a profit incentive.

I am confident, the CCFD will win and we will soon be able to celebrate and move onto a much needed community based stewardship of the property.

 


John Watts  //  Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 9:12 pm

For the record, TDRs can work, despite what the County does or doesn’t do. The City can make a TDR system work, but not automatically because it is a market-based system. Rezoning existing neighborhoods has been difficult politically, but string up the UGA for TDR-oriented zoning could work, providing the City gets serious about annexing small chunks at a time.
There is plenty of information available on this concept on the Internet, and I have published several blogs under that label on HamsterTalk.

The so-called ‘Chuckanut Ridge’ issue is a different story; it has been a problem in people’s minds for years since its mysterious up-zone during the time of Mt St Helen’s eruption in about 1981/82. Records on this specific transaction seem to be missing.
Local resistance to the enormous development proposal of several years ago was justified because the development scheme was unrealistic, largely based upon its underlying assumption of value. The reaction was swift from mostly Southside opponents, who ramped up rhetoric to levels that were also unrealistic. The ensuing kerfluffle not only stalled the project but created a rift in the community that persists to this day, as the current ‘issue’ demonstrates.

Suffice to say that the so-called ‘Responsible Development’ advocates did manage to create enough controversy to nearly prevent the Greenways III levy from ever being voted upon. Yes, the proponents of saving ALL the 100-acres Wood were willing to hijack a popular City-wide GW3 vote to get their way! Thankfully, that did not happen, but here we are again, faced with an intractable bloc of emotionally willful people who will do most anything to achieve their avowed wish, regardless of costs to the community as a whole. Sad, but true.

Many HamsterTalk blogs were dedicated to this one issue under the Greenways label.
Fortunately, GW3 passed, which allowed a later Council -with the encouragement of our [deservedly] 1-term Mayor Pike- to spend $3.2 million MORE than what was intended for any CR acquisitions. That brings us to the current situation.

While I don’t live in one of the Southside neighborhoods that will be voting on the Metro Parks District issue, I would not vote for it if I did. The reasons closely parallel the arguments raised by John Servais, and by Tim Johnson of Cascadia Weekly.
It is legal option, but it does set a silly precedent for an entire City that has repeatedly evidenced its strong support for the great Greenways program that benefits us all.

The Greenways system that has been in place prior to 2006 worked just fine, despite any perceived imperfections; the GAC did its work well and duly advised the City Council of its recommendations. Because of the nature of property and funding availability, every wish-list item could not be acted upon to everyone’s satisfaction; and this proved inconvenient for certain CR advocates, including 4 members of the Council who illegally made a ‘promise’ to purchase ALL of Chuckanut Ridge, not just part of it.

Council members Barbara Ryan, Terry Bornemann, Gene Knutson and Joan Beardsley made a pact among themselves supporting that ‘promise’. Councilmember Beardsley has since passed away and Ryan has retired from office, but Knutson and Bornemann remain from the original group of conspirators. Their most likely current allies might be Councilmembers Lilliquist and Fleetwood. Remember, all it takes is 4 Council votes to act on property acquisitions, despite what Greenways recommends. Lilliquist has already tried to derail the Mayor Linville’s idea of putting about 25 acres of CR up for sale to pay down the $3.2 million ‘loan’.

But, selling about 25 acres is the ideal solution, despite what opponents may claim.
Think about it; not all of CR is wetlands and ‘pristine’ woods likely to be inhabited by Pooh Bear! There are already existing homes adjacent to CR, including the residences of some of the most ardent -and NIMBY- supporters of the special Parks District Plan.

BTW, former Mayor Pike’s rationale on the above is misguided, at best. A better definition is ‘seriously flawed’.
My 2cents.


Shane Roth  //  Tue, Feb 05, 2013, 12:25 am

I take principled exception to spelling Eeyore’s name wrong.


Mike Rostron  //  Tue, Feb 05, 2013, 10:16 pm

I do not live on the south side and so cannot vote, but I will still use the park occasionally, and I am happy to see folks have come up with a solution to funding it that does not require selling any of the land for development.  Moreover, every wooded acre saved from development in Bellingham is a kind of victory.  Ours is the most rural of mid-sized cities - let’s keep it that way!  It is something to be proud of.  More parks - less development is a praiseworthy goal.  We should strive to get a reputation as the least friendly city in Washington to developers.  It will not be the developers who pay the costs of the increased infrastructure, traffic, and necessary improvements to city services capacity that rapid population growth continues to make necessary.

Bake sales and benefit concerts have more chance of raising the 3 million than TDAs do! 

Wendy is right - the city already does plenty to help developers, and the citizens are always left to pay for the messes they leave behind.  What Bellingham needs is not more development - green or otherwise, but a rest from the rapid growth of the last decade - some time to put her house in order, and to face up to the reality that many residents, perhaps even a majority,  would prefer we started having a real dialog about ways to slow growth, not encourage it.

 


Who Will Be Appointed to Lehman’s City Council Seat?

Tue, Sep 09, 2014, 8:21 am  //  Riley Sweeney

Riley and John share the short list of who might replace Cathy Lehman on the Bellingham city council on January 5.

8 comments; last on Sep 10, 2014

An Imminent Threat:  The State Plans for CBR Disaster While Counties Punt

Mon, Aug 25, 2014, 11:48 am  //  Terry Wechsler

While the state spends hundreds of thousands of dollars defining risks of crude by rail, Skagit County finds no significant adverse impacts of a crude-by-rail proposal.

1 comments; last on Aug 28, 2014

Johns Repair

Specializing in German vehicles...

You can’t fight city hall: city hall doesn’t fight fair

Fri, Aug 22, 2014, 2:06 pm  //  Guest writer

Patrick McKee of the Sunnyland Neighborhood guest-writes about the August 11 City Council slap-dash zoning changes.

2 comments; last on Aug 23, 2014

Good Friends and Neighbors:  What $54 Million Doesn’t Buy, Part 2

Wed, Aug 20, 2014, 4:54 pm  //  Terry Wechsler

Not content with causing massive inconvenience, BNSF is now literally dumping on county residents.

10 comments; last on Aug 26, 2014

Devil In the Details

Sat, Aug 16, 2014, 3:48 pm  //  Guest writer

Judith Green of the Sunnyland Neighborhood guest writes this brief summary of what went wrong with the planning last week.

1 comments; last on Aug 22, 2014

Good Friends and Neighbors:  What $54 Million Doesn’t Buy

Fri, Aug 15, 2014, 7:12 am  //  Terry Wechsler

A massive upgrade of the Cascade [rail] Corridor has left residents stranded and the sheriff asking Washington, DC, to intervene.

7 comments; last on Sep 02, 2014

Reliable Prosperity

Thu, Aug 14, 2014, 3:13 pm  //  Guest writer

Sandy Robson guest writes of the need for real prosperity at Cherry Point, not a destructive short term coal port that destroys the fishing grounds.

4 comments; last on Aug 18, 2014

Fleetwood versus Ericksen: What Happened in Round One?

Tue, Aug 12, 2014, 10:52 am  //  Riley Sweeney

Some Context for the Primary Results

0 comments

The Rule of Law - Bellingham Style

Mon, Aug 11, 2014, 11:31 pm  //  John Servais

Bellingham City Council abruptly changes zoning codes to force Planning Department plan on Sunnyland residents.

7 comments; last on Aug 14, 2014

Final Updated Election Results

Fri, Aug 08, 2014, 10:10 am  //  John Servais

Updated Wed evening. The Tuesday evening 8:20 pm Auditor report on the election is in.

5 comments; last on Aug 08, 2014

Councilmember Murphy’s Proposed Rental Ordinance Is Deeply Flawed

Fri, Aug 01, 2014, 8:00 am  //  Dick Conoboy

Councilmember Murphy's proposal is based on a complaint-based rental ordinance from Tacoma, demonstrated to do little for the health and safety of tenants.

9 comments; last on Aug 04, 2014

Trial by Fire:  A Rising Tide of Civil Disobedience

Fri, Aug 01, 2014, 4:47 am  //  Terry Wechsler

Carefully planned actions are rolling across the state to make the point that it's not OK to expose us to risks associated with CBR.

7 comments; last on Aug 04, 2014

Northwest Citizen Releases Polling of Whatcom Voters

Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 11:40 am  //  Riley Sweeney

Northwest Citizen has conducted a phone poll of likely voters, with some surprising results!

9 comments; last on Jul 29, 2014

Plan Commission & Samish Neighbors Bypassed on Rezone Docketing

Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 7:52 am  //  Dick Conoboy

In contravention of the Bellingham Municipal Code, the City Council will consider on 4 August a last minute docketing request that ignores the Planning Commission and Samish Neighborhood.

1 comments; last on Jul 30, 2014

Sunnyland Planning Process Explained - Partially

Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 10:47 pm  //  Guest writer

Guest writer Mike Rostron explains how Bellingham city planners played loose and illegal with planning processes.

0 comments

City Council Approves Resident’s Sunnyland Plan

Tue, Jul 22, 2014, 7:22 pm  //  John Servais

Sunnlyland residents win one - after a seven year effort. Planning Department failed them and all of us.

2 comments; last on Jul 23, 2014

What Landlords Need to Know about Rental Registration

Mon, Jul 21, 2014, 5:30 am  //  Guest writer

Landlords are so caught up opposing a licensing and inspection ordinance, they cannot see the upside for them in ridding the city of bad rentals.

19 comments; last on Aug 01, 2014

Sunnyland Deja Vu

Fri, Jul 18, 2014, 1:24 pm  //  Guest writer

Judith Green explains how the Bellingham Planning Department is trying to cram their plan onto a neighborhood.

5 comments; last on Jul 21, 2014

Trial by Fire:  Call to Action to Comment on the BP Pier Expansion

Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 2:26 pm  //  Terry Wechsler

Years after BP completed its north dock, the Army Corps of Engineers released a draft EIS and it's really really stupid.

0 comments

Intrado Not to Intrude in Bellingham

Tue, Jul 08, 2014, 8:20 am  //  Dick Conoboy

The city council "persuades" the city administration to withdraw a request for an intrusive police threat warning system

2 comments; last on Jul 08, 2014

Power to the Permit! (or Closely Hold This!)

Mon, Jul 07, 2014, 6:54 am  //  Terry Wechsler

It is time we stop allowing corporations to externalize the costs associated with their risky business practices, and demand more from our regulators who hold the keys to…

3 comments; last on Jul 13, 2014

Manifest Clandestine-y

Mon, Jul 07, 2014, 5:04 am  //  Guest writer

Guest writer Sandy Robson breaks the story of officials from Washington treated to a coal-promoting junket to Wyoming.

2 comments; last on Jul 13, 2014

A Question of Freedom

Fri, Jul 04, 2014, 5:00 am  //  Guest writer

Ferndale's most famous landmark is frequently commented on and is often in the news. Here is their side of the story.

4 comments; last on Jul 07, 2014

Trial by Fire: Lessons Not Learned One Year after Lac-Megantic

Wed, Jul 02, 2014, 5:14 pm  //  Terry Wechsler

On the anniversary of the Lac-Megantic disaster, communities throughout North America rally in solidarity to remember and protest wholly inadequate government response to crude-by-rail's risks.

4 comments; last on Jul 12, 2014

Sins of Omission

Fri, Jun 27, 2014, 9:01 pm  //  Guest writer

In the Weekly, Tim Johnson left out three words in quoting Craig Cole - and his story misleads readers. Guest article by Sandy Robson.

11 comments; last on Jul 01, 2014

DOJ Grant Brings Confusion and Anger to City Council Meeting

Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 10:24 am  //  Dick Conoboy

The Bellingham Police Department wants to purchase "threat assessment" software with federal monies. Citizen comments were vehement and negative. City Council confused.

5 comments; last on Jul 03, 2014

Widespread Slaughter Won’t Work

Tue, Jun 17, 2014, 10:18 pm  //  Tip Johnson

Wherein the failings of a bad policy framework are revealed

1 comments; last on Jun 19, 2014

Fireworks Ban in Bellingham in Effect as of 18 June

Tue, Jun 17, 2014, 7:53 am  //  Dick Conoboy

The possession and use of consumer fireworks are no longer permitted within the city limits.

1 comments; last on Jun 19, 2014

Herald and Weekly Withhold the News

Wed, Jun 11, 2014, 11:39 am  //  John Servais

Wyoming Senators and coal honchos were in Whatcom County June 10 - to hold a news conference with select reporters.

7 comments; last on Jun 20, 2014

Dawn Sturwold Retiring End of Month

Tue, Jun 10, 2014, 11:20 am  //  John Servais

Bellingham Hearing Examiner, Dawn Sturwold, retires in three weeks. Successor selection is hidden from all of us.

3 comments; last on Jun 11, 2014

Stay the Frack Out of Our Forearc Redux

Fri, Jun 06, 2014, 2:07 pm  //  Terry Wechsler

Part 2: Following Ken Oplinger to California, and Home Again

4 comments; last on Jun 19, 2014

The Road to Perdition

Sun, Jun 01, 2014, 12:39 am  //  Guest writer

A Venn diagram where coal, the Endangered Species Act, Republicans, and Wyoming’s Board of Education collide.

2 comments; last on Jun 02, 2014

Feint, Calumny, Solidarity

Wed, May 28, 2014, 3:15 pm  //  Guest writer

A perspective by guest writer Ellen Murphy reflects on the Whatcom Watch and the threatened law suit by Craig Cole.

22 comments; last on Jun 01, 2014

Extracting Profit and Destroying Experience: The Waterfront Plan

Tue, May 27, 2014, 1:23 am  //  Wendy Harris

Why was so little consideration given to the concept of developing the waterfront for eco-tourism?

5 comments; last on Jun 11, 2014

How Park Improvements Generate Heat

Mon, May 26, 2014, 7:51 pm  //  Wendy Harris

City park improvements have implications on the local and global scale.

2 comments; last on May 29, 2014

Montana & Wyoming to WA: Permit Coal Export Terminals… Or Else

Thu, May 22, 2014, 12:10 am  //  Guest writer

Wyoming is ready to try and legally force us to limit our environmental scoping for the Cherry Point coal terminal

4 comments; last on Jun 17, 2014

The Trojan Slaughterhouse and the Scrivener’s Errors

Sun, May 18, 2014, 11:57 pm  //  Wendy Harris

Reckless rezones and far-fetched explanations result in more slaughterhouses and meat packing plants

3 comments; last on May 20, 2014

Who Filed for Charter Review Commission?

Sat, May 17, 2014, 2:34 pm  //  Riley Sweeney

Riley takes a closer look at the Charter Review Commission candidates

2 comments; last on May 21, 2014

Bellingham’s 2013 Water Quality Report: The Facts But Not the Truth

Tue, May 13, 2014, 5:04 pm  //  Wendy Harris

Bellingham's annual water quality report indicates that city hall's propoganda machine is going strong

1 comments; last on May 14, 2014

Stay the Frack Out of Our Forearc

Sun, May 11, 2014, 2:20 pm  //  Terry Wechsler

Part 1: Introduction to the Bellingham Basin’s Potential for Fracking, Earthquakes, and Earthquakes Due to Fracking

3 comments; last on May 14, 2014

Riley scoops Herald - again

Fri, May 09, 2014, 10:02 am  //  John Servais

The Political Junkie for Whatcom County - that would be Riley Sweeney - has Overstreet not running for reelection in the 42nd.

1 comments; last on May 13, 2014

An Imminent Threat

Fri, May 09, 2014, 6:10 am  //  Terry Wechsler

Why Washington must step in and assume lead agency status in Skagit County for the Shell crude by rail proposal.

6 comments; last on Jun 21, 2014

The Whatcom Republicans’ Huge PCO Advantage

Tue, May 06, 2014, 5:52 pm  //  Riley Sweeney

The value of a Precinct Committee Officer . . .

1 comments; last on May 07, 2014

‘Legislative Sausage” or “Slaughter this Ordinance”

Mon, May 05, 2014, 3:34 pm  //  Tip Johnson

Wherein the gyrations of the bid for widespread county slaughter are exposed.

2 comments; last on May 07, 2014

Move To Amend - Persons vs Corporations

Thu, May 01, 2014, 10:21 pm  //  Guest writer

Move to Amend is a national movement to amend the U.S. Constitution and define persons as people and speech as not money.

7 comments; last on Jun 02, 2014

SweenyPolitics:  Fleetwood files against Ericksen

Wed, Apr 30, 2014, 8:20 am  //  John Servais

Riley posted this morning that Seth Fleetwood has decided to challenge Doug Ericksen for state senate in the 42nd District.

1 comments; last on Apr 30, 2014

Planning or Development Commission?

Mon, Apr 28, 2014, 6:28 am  //  Dick Conoboy

Every Bellingham Planning Commission member has ties to development or development-related businesses.

4 comments; last on Apr 30, 2014

“Friends and Neighbors”?

Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 1:59 pm  //  Terry Wechsler

A closer look at Whatcom County's industrial "stewards of the environment."

4 comments; last on Aug 28, 2014

Action Alert for Tonight: Waterfront Wildlife and Habitat Threatened

Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 11:43 am  //  Wendy Harris

The public needs to support city council and request that a waterfront habitat assessment include terrestrial species and habitat connectivity.

0 comments

Water, Water Everywhere, but ...

Sat, Apr 19, 2014, 2:57 pm  //  Terry Wechsler

or How Not to Plan for Future Generations' Water Needs

12 comments; last on Jun 30, 2014

Charter Review and District Only Voting

Thu, Apr 17, 2014, 10:40 am  //  Riley Sweeney

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

0 comments

Roosevelt Neighborhood Pleads for Left Turns

Wed, Apr 09, 2014, 9:07 am  //  Riley Sweeney

City pushes for Alabama Street improvements, residents speak out

3 comments; last on Apr 14, 2014

Assault

Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 4:29 pm  //  Guest writer

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

2 comments; last on Apr 07, 2014

Killer Industrial Jobs or Long-term Job Killers?

Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 12:52 pm  //  Terry Wechsler

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

5 comments; last on Jun 25, 2014

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

Wed, Apr 02, 2014, 6:00 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, 1:27 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, 2:23 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, 1:32 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, 10:32 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

Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 12:52 am  //  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

 

Election Info

Candidate Filings

Primary election results

Whatcom Auditor

Coal, Oil & Trains

Community Wise Bellingham

Powder River Basin R. C.

Local Blogs & News

Bellingham Herald

Bham Herald Politics Blog
Bham Politics & Economics
Cascadia Weekly
Ferndale Record
Friends of Whatcom
Get Whatcom Planning
KGMI
Latte Republic
League of Women Voters
Lynden Tribune
MikeatthePort
Northern Light

Twilight Zoning
Western Front - WWU
Whatcom Watch

Local Causes

Chuckanut Community Forest

City Club of Bellingham
Conservation NW
Futurewise - Whatcom
Lake Whatcom
Lummi Island Quarry
N. Cascades Audubon
NW Holocaust Center
RE Sources
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 Auditor
Whatcom County

Weather & Climate

Cliff Mass Weather Blog

Climate Audit
Nat Hurricane Center
NW Radar
Two day forecast
Watts Up With That? - climate

Leisure

Adventures NW

Edge of Sports
Entertainment NNW
Famous Internet Skiers
Recreation Northwest
Sailing Anarchy

Good Web Sites

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
Stand for the Troops
Ta-Nehisi Coates
Talking Points Memo
TED
The Crisis Papers
The Intercept
the Oatmeal
Tom Paine.com
truthout
Vox
War and Piece
Washington Votes
WikiLeaks.ch
ynetnews.com

NwCitizen 1995 - 2007

Early Northwest Citizen

Quiet, Offline or Dead

Bellingham Police Activity

Bellingham Register
Bob Sanders
Carl Weimer
Chuckanut Mountains
Citizen Ted
Citizens of Bellingham
Cordata & Meridian
David Hackworth
Facebook Port Reform
HamsterTalk
Jack Petree
N. Sound Conservancy
No Leaky Buckets
Northwest Review
Orcinus
Post-Oklahoman Confessions
Protect Bellingham Parks
The American Telegraph
Wally Wonders