Right! We should avoid dirty politics at all costs - at least until those typically outlandish October glossy mailers are sent.

Instead, we could focus on the toxic politics of our Port Commission’s Billion Dollar Boondoggle for Bellingham.

Slinging some mud for Port Reform could save million$!

Mud Slinging?  You’ve got to be kidding.

The PDC Complaint against Caskey-Schreiber was filed by Gary Lysne.  Lysne ran for County Council At-Large in 2005 and lost.
He is obviously still sore about that. So much for the “civil process” from Citizen Lysne.

Lysne’s motivation was purely political and anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty and a confident nature would freely admit that. And probably add, “So What”?

Remember the “Better Community Solutions” group from the last election cycle?  The one that tried to smear Seth Fleetwood and Barbara Ryan by making deliberately false accusations in a Bellingham Herald insert?

Gary was the darling of BCS.  As was Mike Kent.  Where were these defenders of fair and accurate public reporting then?

Too bad the Bellingham Herald is a shadow of what it was 4 years ago.  Too bad the Whatcom Independent isn’t around.  Without the watchful eye of the Fourth Estate, the public information business in Whatcom County is like the Wild West.  Anything goes.  Including frivolous PDC filings from disgruntled former candidates for County Council.  Folks that are not above using the PDC to throw sand into the campaign gears of any candidate that is viewed as pro-environment, particularly with respect to Lake Whatcom.

Gary and his Agate Bay neighbors like living on the lake.  They like their seaplanes, their 2 strokes, their nitrogen fertilizer and their comfortable sense of entitlement.  They don’t like candidates like Caskey-Schreiber that threaten that comfort zone.

Vancouver, BC and Portland, Oregon draw their municipal water from mountain reservoirs.  Both absolutely prohibit any development whatsoever in their watersheds. Including logging.

Vancouver and Portland have some of the best drinking water in the U.S.  Bellingham doesn’t.  There is a connection between development and water quality that is lost on the property rights philistines that are presently trying to flex their moribund political muscle with one last effort to oust Laurie Caskey-Schreiber from County Council.  It will take more than a frivolous PDC complaint to do that.

Mudslinging?  You haven’t seen anything yet.

Gosh John (Lesow), from they way you talk about C-S you would think she is superwoman who is going to save Lake Whatcom from the evil-doers, and magically transform it into something like the uninhabited Bull Run watershed of Portland.

She has been in there for 8 years, so what has she done? Certainly nothing with regard to seaplanes, two-stokes, pesticides, etc. All land-use code changes that have come down have been very mild-mannered (I could say watered down); and let’s not forget that they are virtually unenforced so they are merely “feel good” talking points when campaign season arises. I don’t see her threatening anyone’s comfort zone in the Lake Whatcom watershed.

I live just about 1 mile from blowhard Lysne, and I would personally be happy if we were all thrown out of here. We need some non-spineless folks on the council to do that, and C-S certainly doesn’t fit the bill there.

My personal opinion is that this is a race with two not-so-great candidates (maybe one horrible candidate and one who doesn’t deserve re-election), neither of whom I have any intention of voting for. If there is mud-slinging to be done, I say, in the words of the Chairman on Iron Chef: “Let the Battle Begin!”

Mr. Lesow - allow me to respond.  Yes, Laurie is starting the mud slinging.  It does not matter what the motivation of Lysne was - nor what his feelings may be about Laurie - nor what office he might still be “sore” about losing. So what.  Really.  He filed a civil complaint in the proper manner. 

I don’t care if Gary was the darling of the BCS and whether he and Kent socialize. And regards the Whatcom Independent being watchful, I know just a little about how that was done - since I was the publisher.  This website now is a part of the 4th estate. My my, but you do work over the subject too much. 

Laurie is not a threat to any seaplane owner on Lake Whatcom.  Really.  And you are confusing your preference for Laurie with the right of someone to file a PDC complaint. 

Laurie played dirty politics by suggesting that Gary Lysne’s complaint was dirty or muddy.  She is the one going over the line.  Lysne may oppose her and work for Knutzen’s election, but he has acted according to honorable rules of the game.

Gary Lysne? Give me a break!

This guy shows up with his lawyers and lawsuits every time someone wants to control growth. And his aim is good: he wouldn’t waste his bucks on C-S if she weren’t getting in the way of his and his buddies’ plans—big time.

Lysne was there way back when Seth was elected but not yet sworn in on county council. The chamber was filled with boater/developer folks and Lysne was prominent among them. Needless to say, he’s a skilled vet for the side of the exploiters.

Lysne was there when more than 5,500 Bellingham water drinkers wanted his and others’ motor boats out of their reservoir. He actually took the signature petitions out of the auditor’s office (Thank you, Shirley)to a place where he could make copies—he made at least two complete sets.

After that, he went to the police and argued fraud, and the police graciously pursued a fraud investigation against petitioners for nearly two years.

He was there with his lawyers when those petitioners sued to get their measure on the ballot. His lawyers argued with the City that it was okay for Joan Hoisington to change the rules after the signatures were gathered.

He is is ever-present in the cause to develop and pollute; his lawyer-dispensing machine is always loaded for his next shot. Not only was his PDC complaint not a neutral and casual interest in the day-to-day workings of government regulations, it was the best he could do to stop Laurie C-S;Remember, this guy uses the law like a sword. To deny his latest act of umbrage is ludicrous. And to say that Caskey-Schreiber went over the line in pointing it out is definitely biased: she has watched Gary Lysne for a long time and she knows his methadology a lot better than most casual observers. Making people aware of the motives and actions of someone who supports your opponent is as fair as anything Lysne has ever done.

I, for one, will vote to re-elect (yes, re-elect) C-S to county council. As for not voting for either candidate, I take it someone would rather have the horrible than the undeserving. No vote is still a vote by default. Oh, well…

Glad to see the political memory of some citizens extends beyond the day before yesterday.

Facts do help provide some historical context to Laurie’s comments, which few would brand mudslinging in the first place.

  John, I respect your point of view, and the others that post on this blog.  However, it would be interesting to put this admittedly minor allegation of mudslinging before an impartial tribunal of journalists and get their take.  Particularly after an examination of partisan tactics in past County elections.

The larger question raised is:  Who is funding the lawyers in these matters?  How much is Gary Lysne out-of-pocket in his legal challenges?

Bob Wiesen and Jack Petree are plaintiffs in various Growth Management actions against the County.  How much of their personal funds have been expended in these court challenges? Fair question, since the County is obligated to defend these actions and the taxpayers foot the bill.

I suggest that the aforementioned haven’t put a penny towards these legal challenges—that they have been financed willingly and completely by pro-development lawyers and their clients.

Investigative journalists would be well advised to follow the money. Do the hard investigative work and leave the easy, bumpersticker-friendly mudslinging charges to the partisans.

Well, did you want to pay for an investigative journalist on this, John?  Or what investigative journalist were you speaking to?

The point missed by Sharon and John Lesow is all that they say about past and present actions by Lysne and others may be true.  The problem is that other actions are not relevant to this action of filing a complaint with the PDC.  Now, if Lysne continues to file complaint after complaint against C-S then it becomes a different matter.  And that is what the McShane folks did against Pike two years ago. These same folks are Laurie’s close advisors.  Suddenly filing a complaint is dirty politics.  Well, it wasn’t dirty when they were filing them.

The issue is not their past actions.  The issue is this statement by Laurie after a single and relevant complaint was decided upon by the PDC.  I am hardly a fan of Lysne, Wiesen, Petree or any of the other extreme right activists in this county.  NwCitizen - and its sub site Public Good - have outed many of their shenanigans since 1995.  But this is not one of them.  This complaint was not dirty politics.  Laurie’s statement was dirty politics.

I don’t know, John. I don’t disagree with your analysis, but I take issue with the premise upon which it is conducted. This seems kind of trivial to me. Sure, maybe by some interpretation Laurie started slinging the mud first as the opening salvo of a vicious and disingenuous campaign strategy. And maybe the PDC got it horribly wrong. Or perhaps Lysne (and therefore, presumably, the Conservative camp) dragged the race into the gutter with an pretty frivolous complaint…

...Either way, I simply don’t care that much. I’m not about to vote for someone based on whether or not they were the last one to begin slinging mud in the election season. Or, at least, not primarily based on that.

No matter how I feel about their otherwise disagreeable campaign tactics, I prefer to vote for the candidate who to me shows the most potential for responsible and effective leadership, and who can advance values similar to my own. I can stomach some divisive language if it means they’re going to do the right thing in government. And so far, I think Laurie mostly has.

I fear too often voters - and opinion writers - get wrapped up in the gamesmanship of political races and end up relying too much on the strategy of politics to inform their vote. We can see this all the time on national news: rarely do commentators focus on the actual meat of the policy at issue, often they prefer the approach that regards how popular the policy is. They then proceed to spend hours of airtime speculating about strategies that might be effective at getting people to support or oppose whatever’s on the table, but spend relatively little time talking about whether or not whatever’s on the table is even a good idea.

In the end, all we get is an electorate distracted from the issues, unsure of their values, misinformed of the facts, and overly bitter about the wounds of personalized campaign warfare. The crafty, often best-moneyed and most media-savvy candidate emerges the winner; informed and effective democracy, the loser.

If you don’t like Laurie or her policies, that’s fine with me. But let’s keep this campaign focused on her ideas and record about farmland preservation, watershed protection, and economic development, in contrast with those of her opponent. I think it’s best we give the horserace-bantering about PDC filings and whether or not she’s technically being “re-elected” an well-overdue rest.

Matt - I agree.  I would hope Laurie would keep her speaking focused on her issues - and not accuse others of frivolous things that have little to do with her issues. 

My concern is some campaign managers and advisors structure dirty campaigns in order to win.  If Laurie and her people are going to go this way then I will be calling them out.  Dirty politics does win elections.  Laurie’s people have a track record on this.  Nipping it early is one tactic for keeping it down.  I would hope Laurie would focus on the issues.

Hey Matt,

It’s great to hear from you.  Thanks for your insightful comments.  I absolutely agree.

Let’s focus on the issues, not the sideshow.  Nothing turns off voters more than “politics” as usual.

Best,
Larry

On August 28, Laurie Caskey Schreiber posted a commentary on LAMIRDS on her Facebook page.

It is worth reading if you are interested in the history, and procedural posture, of the LAMIRD issue, which has been a lightening rod for the Big Yellow Signs folks recently.

The fact that Laurie came forward at this particular time and expressed her views is illuminating on a variety of levels.  It speaks volumes about her credibility as a serious Councilmember and candidate for re-election.

The outcome of the LAMIRD decision by Council will undoubtedly be one of the most important issues in the November election. It deserves discussion on this blog in future articles, now that the mud has hardened and is slowly sliding off the wall, onto the floor and turning to dust…..

Regarding the posting on C-S’s facebook page regarding the LAMIRD issue; I am assuming it is the same that Sam Taylor posted on his Herald Blog a few days ago. If so, it makes the absurd claim that LAMIRD’s are the result of lots created from gift exemptions. Anyone who is familiar with the gift exemption issue knows this is not the case.

Gift exemptions (or, exempt land divisions) were very bad things indeed, they allowed lots to be created without the going through the normal subdivision process. However, the lots thus created had to meet minimum zoning requirements and, in fact, could be no less than 5 acres in size. I am very familiar with this because a gift exemption across from our house created a lot that was later subdivided (much to my dismay). A lot of bad lots were created from gift exemptions, but they did not create all of the lots out on Chuckanut Drive, around Lake Whatcom, in the Kendall area, or in other non-urban areas where we currently have non-rural densities.

LAMIRD’s have been created over time, I believe, due to inappropriate zoning, and/or lots created before zoning existed (basically before 1970). I agree this is an issue we should have a thorough discussion of. I agree with WC Planning’s proposed rural element update, and have written a letter in support.

Seeing this explanation (from C-S) just makes me all the more disappointed in her; she has been in there for 8 years. She voted to rescind gift exemptions, but she doesn’t understand what effect they had, and further doesn’t appear to understand the LAMIRD issue. This is but one example of where her knowledge of issues is minimal at best. To me, this speaks volumes about her credibility as a serious Councilmember and candidate for re-election. I certainly am unable to vote for her - or her opponent who would likely vote to put exempt land divisions back in the code.

Wow. 12 posts on this subject.  That’s a lot of “traffic”; blog-wise.

Differences of opinion make for good horse races.