Time and again, I see Kelli’s supposed anti-coal port position defended with this one quote: “I am opposed to a single-purpose coal pier that exports our non-renewable natural resources and will not be sustainable because of cost and environmental pollution.”  It is unconvincing though.  She clearly states opposition only to a “single-purpose coal pier.”  SSA has indicated it might also ship grain.  So, from her quote, since it would have a dual-purpose, I can only assume she would therefore support the project.  I don’t think I’m just playing semantics.  I think she is.  If that’s not the case, and since this is hardly the first time my point has been made (by others), why has she not offered up a more definitive statement?

In the Whatcom Watch article you cite, Kelli lists what the mayor can do regarding this issue.  Pike proposes to do no less, and in fact has done more than what she considers possible in the form getting the mayors of other cities along the effected route to ally in their efforts to persuade the state to take a harder look at this nonsense.  That is a critical step toward winning Bellingham some consideration in the EIS, without which we are sunk.

I’ll take the candidate who is actually figuring out how to do more to protect this town.  Yeah, there’s lots of other issues, like downtown vitality, the waterfront redevelopment and jobs, but all of those will only get harder to improve when long, frequent, slow trains sever the city and burden us all with the high costs of traffic disruption and lowered property values.

If Pike is willing to run such a deceptive campaign, why should anyone believe he won’t end up supporting the coal terminal after the election?  During his last campaign, he ardently supported a peer review of the so-called G-P “clean up” and guaranteed a comprehensive evaluation of the treatment potential of the ASB lagoon.  No sooner than he was elected, he threw his hands up and declared it was out of his control because of an interlocal agreement with the Port.

Now, even though every premise of market analysis behind the waterfront master plan has proven to be obsolete, the City and Port continue to push forward on a plan that would privatize the shoreline for upscale condos, overpower downtown business with six Bellis Fairs, forever foreclose on our ability to recruit and support family wage jobs and saddle the rate base with the cost of replacing treatment capacity the plan will destroy.  This plan is about enriching the Port at the community’s expense.

Coal terminals and trains are even further outside Pike’s control.  And they are even more about enriching someone at the community’s expense.  Why should anyone believe he wont swing the other way after the election is over?

Dan,

I agree that once “long, slow trains sever the city and burden us all with the high costs of traffic disruption and lowered property values,” it will be more difficult to address other key issues like downtown vitality, waterfront redevelopment, and jobs.

But won’t the “high costs of traffic disruption and lowered property values” result even if the trains were carrying lollypops and dandelions?

In other words, isn’t there a limit on how much train traffic Bellingham - and its residents - can accommodate?  Addressing coal trains does not adequately address the problem you’ve identified.

How will the candidates address that problem?

Larry, I agree that the train-related impacts are not unique to coal, but that’s the project on the table.  I share most opponents issues with coal consumption: climate change, and the implications for the US when we become just a point on the supply chain for competing nations to build their economies and absorb more of our jobs.  I have wondered whether the jobs created in China, with our coal, will out number the few created here.  Give us a hundred, we’ll ship you a thousand? 

That said, you are right.  Any commodity shipped at the proposed volumes will still have these impacts on economy and property, and I would oppose such a proposal just the same.  I think this project is much more about privatizing profits and socializing costs; whatever the commodity.  In regard to this article, it’s about which candidate is seeking the best outcome for our town under the current proposal, which is coal.  I would have to wonder what other commodity might be shipped out profitably at this scale.

Besides, everyone knows that the bottom has fallen out of the lollipop market and dandelion production remains hopelessly domestic.

Yes, Dan, the project on the table is a coal port, and the large volume of trains will be carrying coal.  But, if the key underlying issues include traffic disruption, reduced property values, and other adverse impacts, we’d be wise to include those issues up front.  If the overseas demand for lollipops, dandelions, or other products becomes great enough, we’ll need to fight the battle on those fronts.  Failing to raise those objections now may cost us in the future.

I agree with Dan Remsen.  It is about “privatizing profits and socializing costs; whatever the commodity”. 

Dan Pike’s first example was the City’s waterfront: Allowing the Port to game the SEPA review to exclude any consideration of alternatives to their proposed marina and caving to the Port’s demand that the waterfront be sold into private development.  The public will pay for the “clean up” and the developers will pick the plums.  What ever happened to the idea of the commons?  That’s our waterfront and our water treatment facility.  We should be recruiting good jobs with the promise of water supply and treatment capacity.  Instead we want a marina for 40 to 60 foot yachts?  That’s crazy! We are WAY to far from Wall Street.  Who’s going to buy those yachts?  Bellinghamsters?

Is Pike’s opposition to the coal trains solely to prop up the Port’s bid to sell the waterfront to their friends?  What’s his cut?

“Is Pike’s opposition to the coal trains solely to prop up the Port’s bid to sell the waterfront to their friends?  What’s his cut?”

Oh that is good, Tip!  But you still haven’t told us the answer to the really big question. “Is he still beating his wife?”

It’s subdued silly season again, and we have an actual close mayoral race.

I find it interesting that the Democratic party establishment, state and national, is backing this coal terminal. Why? IMHO because it is promoted by two key sponsors of the Democrat party machine, Goldman Sachs and Warren Buffett, and strongly supported by local and national unions.

Which is why Ms. Linville is in a difficult position: she is running for office in a city that overwhelmingly opposes the coal terminal, but she can’t offend her larger Democrat Party constituency. SO she waffles. Not as dishonestly as Gov. Gregoire, nor as extremely as Mr. Pike’s electioneering portrayal, but certainly in contrast to Mr. Pike’s unequivocal opposition.

As a practical matter, the Mayor of Bellingham has influence on this matter, but as yet no formal role in the permitting process. So perhaps this issue is analogous to two bald men fighting over a comb. But the proposed coal port is a big issue for little Bellingham. Powerful globalizing forces have already put their fat thumbs on the scale, and they would prefer we remain locally unorganized and irrelevent. Is there another issue which reveals so clearly the perils of State monopoly capitalism, serving the profits of very narrow moneyed interests against the interests of people and the planet?