|
Has vote-by-mail changed your campaign plan, and if so, how: Yes. The extreme shortness makes a conventional grass roots approach infeasible. For the primary, we are networking person-to-person for the individual voters needed to win. Key issues in your election: Your top priorities, if elected: Short Answer: The Port's mission needs to be refocused, adopting policies and supporting programs that serve local business, citizens and the environment. A commons should be assembled on the waterfront and county-wide. The Port needs to assist with infrastructure for food production, energy conservation, and integrated transportation (Please also see policy issues, below). Long Answer: The Port should have a higher profile as a government of means in Whatcom County. Few citizens understand what the Port is, what it does or what it can do. We should consider changing the name to the Port of Whatcom County to reflect its association with the property it taxes. As a taxing agency, the Port should work harder to benefit the citizens it taxes. We can start by refocusing the Port's mission, adopting policies and supporting programs that serve local business, citizens and the environment. Port projects are often large, high-end projects that don't serve the needs of local citizens and often don't work out. It is better to work from the ground up, with a stronger focus on small business start-ups and expansions. Start by building the affluence that creates demand for higher-end services. That puts the horse ahead of the cart. As Whatcom County grapples with the problems of growth and development, the Port could play a much larger role in assembling a public commons on the waterfront, and countywide. As we come to grips with a new level of oil pricing and its effect on our economy, the Port could redouble its efforts to restore fisheries habitat and assist local agriculture. A food production infrastructure that works for Whatcom County could help offset oil-induced price escalation and help provide local jobs. We will need to achieve a much higher level of energy self-sufficiency through housing design and energy conservation. In the next few years, we will be making a number of decisions affecting the next generation and which will determine the legacy we leave to our children. I want those decisions to be arrived at most thoughfully, and in the public's best interests. How much of the New Whatcom project should be publicly owned and why? Short Answer: The Port has stated their intent to sell over eighty percent of the property for development. I believe that about eighty percent should be held in trust as a commons for Bellingham and Whatcom County. A generous public waterfront will help restore the vitality of downtown. Long Answer: The Port has stated their intent to sell over eighty percent of the property for development to recoup costs of environmental remediation. The remaining twenty or so percent include the roads, the three most toxic spots on the property and the maintenance intensive wharf. I think the Port has it backwards. I believe that about eighty percent should be held in trust as a commons for Bellingham and Whatcom County. I favor mixed use, believing it makes a more interesting and secure environment. However, this is a unique gateway between downtown Bellingham and the San Juan Islands. We should be encouraging the University, the long-rumored aquarium and compatible water dependent uses on the site. High-end condominiums are a shortsighted plan that is not in the public's best interests. There are better places to build housing and better ways to offset the rapidly increasing costs of clean-up. Are there policies of the current board that you would seek to change? If yes, which; and what would you change them to?: Short Answer: There are many policies worthy of reexamination at the Port. I find basic deficiencies with policy in several areas: Representation, Public Participation, Public Benefit, and Economic Development. I am especially concerned with the Port's emerging interest in land speculation. I believe we need to refocus the Port's mission toward better serving the local community. Long Answer: Policy #1 - Economic Development I believe in working from the ground up, creating local opportunities for local people, using local ideas and talents to build the affluence that can support other services. This is not meant as an exclusive policy, just a priority. For instance, it may have seemed a bold move to site an upscale hotel on the waterfront at a time when we were principally viewed as an industrial mill town. But how has the ten or so million dollars of public money that went into that complex served most local citizens? I suggest there may be better targets for the Port's economic development efforts. For instance, the Port might attempt to broker the talents of experienced local entreprenuers, many of whom may have recently arrived and may be very interested in community involvement. Programs integrating resources at the University, the Technical College, the Community College and the Northwest Indian College could help motivated people achieve their dreams, build their inventions and market their products. Even if some fail, the effort is good for the local economy. If one out of ten flourishes, it is great for the economy - and even better for the individuals who persevere on their way to success. Policy #2 - Resale of Public Land I am uncomfortable with the Port's emerging policy of acquiring land for resale to the private sector. If the best use of the G-P site is for housing, then private companies that specialize in brownfield remediation might have been more appropriate buyers. This could set a dangerous precedent for the use of Whatcom County's property tax dollars. The Port should focus on buying lands for which there is a clear long-term public purpose and should avoid ventures into land speculation. Leave that to the marketplace, where risk is already a factor. Policy #3 - Protecting the Public's Interests I went on record very early as believing the Port was the appropriate agency for acquisition of the G-P property. However, I am very dissatisfied with some of the terms under which the Port entered into contract with G-P. It underscores some major policy deficiencies worthy of reconsideration. There are five principle terms of the agreement that are clearly not in the public's interest: 1) G-P landfilled hundreds of millions of tons of solid waste in unlined, unregulated dumps all over Whatcom County. G-P has also refused to fully account for thousands of tons of mercury used in their industrial process. Even though the Port happily taxes properties countywide to fund their operation, they not only refused to ask for full disclosure, they also agreed not to look for any further environmental impairments. 2) Besides not looking, even though the dumping could present serious adverse health risks to taxpaying citizens of Whatcom County, the Port also agreed to defend G-P from third party claims. 3) The Port agreed to accept the lowest cost remedial alternative, or pay for any higher level of clean-up. 4) The Port agreed that not one cent of the agreed settlement would be used for restoration of the many square miles of habitat damaged by G-P's operation. 5) The agreement puts the public in the frontline for costs that could escalate to more than ten times the Port's initial estimate. Those responsible for damages should be responsible for reparations. Government should hold them to account, and the interests of all citizens should be adequately addressed in settlements. Policy #4 - Public Participation Another policy area that deserves attention is the Port's commitment to public participation. A recent example perfectly illustrates the problem. Between the conclusion of the Waterfront Futures Group and before the onset of the Port's anticipated Fairhaven Master plan update, the Port entered into a lease with the United States Coast Guard. The Feds want to park two ninety foot vessels in Bellingham, as a matter of National Defense, or something. Regulations promulgated since the USS Cole disaster, at 33 CFR 165, require exclusionary and precautionary zones around military vessels within which boaters, according to the Coast Guard, "...may be deemed to constitute a security threat, and will face a rapid response. At a minimum, vessel owners that enter exclusionary zones can expect to be boarded by authorities and directed to leave the restricted area. Vessel owner operators found in violation of Naval Vessel Protection Zones could face criminal and civil penalties of up to six years in prison and a $250,000 fine and/or a civil penalty of up to $27,500." (see
http://www.uscg.mil/d13/units/msopuget/msopss.html for the Puget
Sound Coast Guard's policy, or The Fairhaven boat launch exists within the 100 yard exclusionary zone. It is unclear how the public's use of this waterfront can be sustained with the vessels moored under this new code, despite the assurances of Port and Coast Guard officials. Meanwhile, Fairhaven merchants and property owners have long wished for the simplest all-weather San Juan Island community landing. The fact is that Bellingham's Squalicum Harbor is a hazardous approach for small boats in rough weather. Fairhaven is a fair haven in the prevailing wind. Fairhaven has a tradition as a public anchorage and has spared many a small boater from Bellingham Bay's notoriously wicked fetch. Will the Federal Code of Regulations put an end to recreational small boat traffic in Fairhaven? Will the Port's decision forever foreclose Fairhaven's future as a viable San Juan Island community landing? These are questions that should have been subject to community consultation. The public has too much at stake. These are public lands. And there are some easy alternatives. The boats could berth at the very secure International Shipping Terminal, no longer visited by ships. They could use one, or two, of the empty warehouses that stevadores no longer furnish. They could share the otherwise unused dock with a very compatible Foss Tug. Everyone could be pointed head-on into response. The militarization of Fairhaven ought to be a matter of public discussion. This leads to a final policy issue: Whether the Port takes representative government seriously. Policy #5 - Representation The Fairhaven fiasco is but one illustration. The organization needs to revisit it's mission statement and evaluate how well it is being met through their strategic actions. They need to learn how to consult the community. The commissioners are out of touch and most folks can't say what the Port is doing for them. That's not good government. Recently, when another candidate for this position attended a Commission meeting to ask some questions, one commissioner asserted that he was welcome to make any comment, but was not to ask questions and should not expect answers. No other commissioner corrected that misapprehension or stood up for the citizen they supposedly represent. That's bad government. I will seek to expand the Port Commission. State law already authorizes expansion of the Commission to five commissioners. I will explore whether the Commission can be further expanded to seven, in order to achieve a more regional form of government. I have already stated that it is time for the Port to consider itself the Port of Whatcom County. As such, it is worth considering how to increase representation from all parts of the county. At a minimum, we should expand to five commissioners. However, it is worth considering how to include the cities that provide much of the assessed valuation for the Port's tax revenues. Under a regional government format, a commissioner might be derived from Blaine/Birch Bay , Ferndale, Lynden/Everson/Sumas, Bellingham, and one each from each county legislative district, forming a commission of seven. This would ensure a much greater public prominence for the Port and their activities. It would set the stage for the Port's involvement in more regional affairs. What is your vision for Bellingham Bay and the waterfront in 50 years? Short Answer: A working waterfront is a gateway to the San Juans. A public waterfront, featuring University and aquarium facilities, is key to our vibrant city center. The Bay is recovering through remediation and restoration efforts and supports a recovering marine community, including a robust local fishery. Sailboats ply the bay's waters as people walk its shoreline, enjoying our incredible northwest environment. Long Answer: I have an abiding interest in maintaining a working waterfront. But we have to be reasonable in what we expect. Recreational small boat traffic, exploration scale cruise services and more general commerce with the islands will feature significantly in the redevelopment of our waterfront. Much of the heavy industry relied upon in the past is gone forever - or at least for our foreseeable future. However, facilities like Bellingham Marine and Colony Wharf are successful industries that should fit nicely into tomorrows working waterfront. Generally, the waterfront should be much more public. The central waterfront should be a key node in a network of greenways and parks that serve as a commons for Whatcom County. To effectively manage growth and to integrate housing and transportation, we will need to reestablish a vital urban center around which effective planning can occur. A public waterfront will uniquely distinguish downtown from other commercial centers, helping it regain its former commercial dominance. I see a continous public way from Fairhaven into downtown along the waterfront. I see morning and afternoon trips to Larrabee State Park by specialized units on the rail. Similar coaches connect Fairhaven to downtown and the airport. There is a foot ferry to Lummi Island. A comprehensive, membership-based, community-owned small boat facility has fleets of kayaks, rowboats and sailboats and teaches technique, safety and lore. Bicycles and e-bikes take advantage of trails while small, overhead pods silently whisk people across the city. The University and an aquarium dominate a publicly owned central waterfront, and a refurbished old town acts as a gateway into the central business district. The residential development of downtown embraces the expansion of non-academic services for the University. Public parking serves both, allowing campus to expand academic services onto existing parking lots. Shuttles and coop car fleets bridge the gaps, making mobility efficient and convenient - even for that demographic bulge of us that will soon be too old to drive. The air and water are clean. Gray whales graze and live. What is your vision for Bellingham International Airport in 10 years and what step would you take to realize this vision? Short Answer: The growth and militarization of the airport should be a matter for serious community consultation. The current location, on the flank of two growing cities, could present untenable safety and environmental problems. Bellingham International Airport is fine for light recreational craft and super quiet jets, but frequent military flights and heavy planes may not be appropriate. An airport for commercial jet service should be sited in a widely coordinated regional context. Long Answer: I have the gravest doubts whether the current location of the Bellingham International Airport is adequate. The map of existing urban and urban growth areas (UGAs) in Whatcom County shows the airport occupying the flank of two growing cities - Bellingham and Ferndale. One UGA extends entirely between the two cities, conjuring the future eventuality of Bellingdale or Ferningham. The Port's recent airport master plan anticipates millions in public investment. Millions are already being spent narrowing the extra-wide taxi ways the public already spent millions building. Is a growing airport on the flank of two growing cities is a realistic scenario? Many similar circumstances have led to intractable problems and expensive land-use conflicts. There are serious safety and environmental concerns to consider. The existing airport is fine for recreational light craft and medium scale "quiet" jets, but large-scale, commercial traffic could present untenable problems. The county land-use map also shows significant growth nodes in Birch Bay, Lynden and Kendall. Sudden valley is already a problematic traffic generator. Without looking too far forward, it is reasonable to foresee the need to provide a transit circuit from Bellingham, paralleling I-5 to Birch Bay, crossing the north county to Lynden, then Kendall and down the valley to the south end of Lake Whatcom, hence along the lake back to Bellingham. Spurs from that circuit would advance to other points, like our borders. An airport should be located strategically within that system, where it will have the least social impact, where accident zones can occur over unpopulated areas and so it is acessible by transit such that automobile traffic is not only unnecessary, but less convenient. It's a question of where public investment will have the most benefit and create the fewest problems. This should be a matter for county-wide community consultation, and integration with other regional and federal programs. Already, Abbotsford is moving toward a regional, commercial facility. Very likely, we will not require our own. Meanwhile, the airport is home to other problems representative of changes needed at the Port. The Airport café, a homey and affordable locally owned small business was forced out of the airport because it didn’t meet the upscale image sought by Port officials. Since then, thousands and thousands, maybe millions, have been shovelled into restaurant after restaurant - and it is still impossible to get a real meal or have a business meeting at the airport. Similar problems have occurred with fuel vendors and other lease spaces. Finally, despite huge marketing efforts to attract commercial service, we have only weekend service to gambling hot-spots, not very useful to the business traveler. If the Port is to continue making huge airport investments, it would be wise to revisit the concept and explore whether a better location, properly integrated with regional needs, might return better dividends. Much of the policy direction I propose would dovetail with this effort - better representation, better public process and a ground-up economic development policy. What is your personal vision for life in Whatcom County in the next five years and in the next 50 years? What would you do as an elected official to ensure your vision is fulfilled? Short Answer: Whatcom County has jumped ahead of the growth curve with long-range planning that will prevent the incremental deterioration of stable neighborhoods and our natural environment. Efforts in innovative housing and transportation, energy conservation and agricultural infrastructure have kept it possible to live affordably, eat well and enjoy life. These same efforts have helped create fulfilling jobs in a vibrant local economy. Life is good and getting better. Long Answer: These are turbulent times. Rising energy and housing costs will pose a number of local challenges in the coming years. We will have the opportunity to reexamine how we build and maintain community, how we provide mobility, how we create jobs and add value to the economy. Energy conservation and production, food production, housing and transportation are all areas in which innovation and creativity will be wanted. The U.S. already lags behind the industrial world in a global agenda exploring better patterns of human settlement. Whatcom County needs to get busy and get ahead of the curve. Nobody wants to head where our current policies lead. I am willing to try to lead somewhere better. These are all areas in which results-oriented programs could yield results in the next five years. We don't have to invent the wheel. Much of the research has been done and many localities are already moving forward with these priorities. In the longer term, I hope to see a Whatcom County in which my children can afford to live, work and play. I want to see them looking forward to opportunities that fulfill their interests and needs. I want them to inherit a county that retains its charm and natural wonder, that values clean air and water, where fields still grow crops and fish climb local streams. I want an economy in which people can pursue a productive life without threatening the county's natural assets. In the present, we all have our ways to live here. In the short-term, we need to explore ways of living better. For the long-term, we should look forward to realizing the best available lives, with thoughtful consideration and proactive effort. Home
| Positions | How to
Help | Fundraising | Signage
|