Dear Watchers

Dear Watchers:

The August issue of the Watch contained a piece I wrote addressing an article by Dave Paulsen. The Watch also provided Mr. Paulsen the opportunity to “defend” his approach.

The defense was interesting in that it, for the most part, supported, certainly inadvertently, my conclusions, especially in terms of the need on the part of the environmental community to avoid unsupported visceral reactions in assessing environmental challenges like those involving growth.

To begin, Mr. Paulsen cites a number of studies on the costs of growth as supportive of his approach. Readers should check them out. They will notice the studies deal, in part or in whole, with the costs of sprawling, low density development, not the costs of more dense development inside of and adjacent to cities. Even the Farmland Trust studies Mr. Paulsen used concede that cities make a profit on development inside and near their boundaries.

A particularly interesting mention by Mr. Paulsen is of the Real Estate Research Corporation’s “Cost of Sprawl” study published in 1974. For some reason Mr. Paulsen chose not to cite that study’s 2000 update (the update along with an overview “The Costs of Sprawl Revisited,” is available on the internet).

A most interesting comment in the 2000 update supports exactly the points made in my original piece.

The authors of the new study laud the old work in what are, to me, disturbing terms. Pointing out that, “”From the time of its publication until today, it has been regarded by the social science community as one of the most significant critiques of sprawl and among the most influential studies ever taken,” the authors of the new study exult in the sweeping impacts on public policy the 1974 study had.

But then the authors continue, conceding that, “Although ‘The Costs of Sprawl’ was influential, it was also flawed.... yet, even though these shortcomings were uncovered, the direction of the findings so paralleled past and current intuitive feelings that the study continues to be used 25 years later as one of the most cogent arguments against sprawled development patterns.”

In other words, the study said what people wanted it to say so even though it was known to be inaccurate it was used as a credible source for years simply because it made people feel good about what they thought.

Regarding Bjorn Lomborg; as Mr. Paulsen accurately points out, Lomborg’s critics, among them a Danish scientific agency, charged Lomborg in 2002 with “scientific dishonesty.” Mr. Paulsen does not mention that in 2003 the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, the oversight ministry for matters of science in Denmark, repudiated the charge in very blunt terms as being motivated by “emotional” standards and being “completely void of argumentation.”

Last, I believe alternative energies ought to be used to replace fossil fuels where possible. Mr. Paulsen seems to say that’s a pipe dream. Interestingly, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, biomass provides 56 percent of the energy used in the U.S. by the pulp and paper industry and 75 percent of all the electricity and heat used by the solid and engineered wood industries.

That represents both a demonstration of viability and a huge reduction in greenhouse gas releases due to fossil fuel avoidance. Growth or no growth, I think we, as a nation, should be shifting to less environmentally impacting energies than we use today.

Repeating my original comment, I urge Whatcom Watchers, in discussions like that Mr. Paulsen and I have been having, to stay involved but learn all you can about both sides of an issue before you leap to unwarranted conclusions that may do more environmental harm than good.

Dear Watchers:

Like most readers of the Whatcom Watch, I was appalled at the idea of building a concrete corridor through rural Whatcom County. I was amazed when I discovered this was being promoted by one of our representatives, Doug Ericksen from the 42nd district. I had voted for Ericksen last time, thinking someone with a degree in environmental policy should be a knowledgeable voice. I won’t make that mistake again.

Anyone who is representing the county that I know and love would be horrified by such a proposal, not fund a $500,000 study to determine its feasibility.

Luckily, we have an excellent alternative in Robin Bailey, a woman with varied life experiences, who was born and raised in Washington, and is concerned enough to run for office for the first time. Like most of us, she is shocked at the very idea of a superhighway through the rural foothills.

Unlike most of us, she is willing to back up her concerns and work in Olympia to shape the future.

We need a representative who can work with others on the issues that matter in Whatcom County, putting aside party politics in favor of crafting solutions. Again, Doug Ericksen has a reputation for just the opposite. He certainly didn’t talk to people who live in the proposed path of a concrete corridor before forging ahead with a half-million dollar study.

Rumor has it that Doug is now backpedaling and assuring voters such a fiasco won’t happen. I’m afraid we can’t trust that assurance. If we want to make sure the Cascade Foothills Corridor does not become a reality, we need to remove the guy who proposed the project and elect Robin Bailey, State Representative in the 42nd district.

Dear Watchers:

The purpose of this letter is to request that voters approve Whatcom County Proposition No. 1, which will provide funding for the construction and operation of both an interim jail annex/work-center and a new jail. Much attention has focused on the problem of dangerous criminals not being booked or being released early because of a lack of space and staffing at the jail.

Two recent studies confirm that the structure of the current jail is in very poor condition and has an anticipated life span of less than ten years. Literally millions of dollars have been expended to hold it together. At the same time, the county is also being exposed to liability for its premature release of dangerous offenders and the absence of minimum safeguards in the jail.

Aside from concerns over the safety of persons and property, those voters interested in prudent management of risk and assets should support the one-tenth of 1 percent sales tax (10 cents on $100 purchase) that will fund an interim and permanent solution to this problem. Over the past decade my predecessors and I have sought relief to this escalating problem through the county budgetary process without success. The Legislature has provided this local option as a way for counties to solve jail problems.

I ask voters to support Whatcom County Proposition Number 1.

Dear Watchers:

As an almost 82-year-old Bellingham native who has witnessed numerous changes in the Whatcom scene over the years, not all of them beneficial (in my opinion), I considered it possible that I might be able to contribute to the Charter Review Commission in my retirement from the practice of medicine. After studying the requirements of the Public Disclosure Commission report, it appears that the PDC does not want participation by people of means. Most of their report is general enough, even though private, to not be offensive, but I am unable to rationalize how publicly listing precisely how many shares of Microsoft, Intel or any other equity stock a commisssioner holds will expose a conflict of interest decision by a member of the Charter Review Commission. I have withdrawn my candidacy.

One of my considerations would have been to change the sheriff position from an elected to an appointed one such as was done in King County many years ago. This position has become technically demanding in recent years. When Senator Dale Brandland retired, his replacement Bill Elfo was selected by the County Council. This was an excellent choice, accomplished with minimal disruption to the department in contrast to the political contest commotion that I have witnessed as medical examiner over 40 years.

Hopefully the commission to be elected will consider this change.

Dear Watchers:

I am doing research for a comparison of the Silver Beach Ordinance with the Lake Whatcom watershed development standards in Title 20 of the Whatcom County Code. Considering my findings, I thought this would make an interesting and informative article for Whatcom Watch.

As you may know, the trend report recently published by the Institute of Watershed Studies demonstrates a clear downward trend in water quality in Lake Whatcom. Because it is the only feasible source of drinking water for all of Bellingham and half of Whatcom County, stopping that downward trend is critical for long-term community health.

It is widely accepted that lowering the impacts of development is critical to slowing the downward trend of water quality. Over the past four years, both the city of Bellingham and Whatcom County have adopted new, but different, development standards for the watershed and there has been discussion of those differences.

Regarding the pervious and impervious surfaces allowed for each lot or parcel, the county allows 2,500 square feet or 10 to 20 percent of the gross lot area (depending on zoning designation) to be impervious surface, whichever is greater; while the city allows for 2,000 square feet or 15 percent of the gross lot area to be impervious surface, whichever is greater.

The county will allow for more impervious surface if two lots are combined, which then allows for 4,000 square feet of impervious surface. The county will also allow more impervious area if there is a one- to-one ratio swap of pervious and impervious areas.

The city of Bellingham, however, takes a completely different approach. They allow for an impervious surface area credit system, which will allow a maximum addition of 1,000 square feet of impervious surface. A person can obtain this extra allowance by either transferring credit from an existing undeveloped lot within the Silver Beach Neighborhood, by the retention or establishment of native vegetation, or by restoring vegetation of a degraded area off site. Credit can also be gained by the removal of an impervious area off-site and restoration of a pervious groundcover.

The city of Bellingham is much more stringent than Whatcom County in dealing with seasonal restrictions on clearing. The city won’t allow earthwork that will result in an exposed soil that exceeds 500 square feet from October 1st through April 30th within the Silver Beach neighborhood. The county reviews plans if greater than 500 square feet of soil will be disrupted. Clearing will be approved based on a point system allowance that uses soil type and other site characteristics to determine whether erosion will be prevented from leaving the construction site.

Stormwater generates concern due to the pollution that can be contributed to drinking water sources if not managed properly. The Silver Beach Ordinance has no specific, separate rules from the city of Bellingham regarding stormwater quality; it just mentions that people are required to provide best management practice (BMP) for stormwater quality treatment when building on an individual residential lot.

The county, however, designates Lake Whatcom as a “Stormwater Special District,” which establishes more stringent regulations than for other parts of the county. Under this designation, permanent on-site stormwater quantity and quality facilities are required on all lots less than five acres for new construction or remodels that increase impervious surfaces by more than 500 square feet.

Whatcom County has rules in place for the Lake Whatcom watershed, whereas the Silver Beach Ordinance has no mention of such rules. For example, tree canopy area retention, phased clearing and soil stabilization are all part of the Whatcom County Code, but there are no similar provisions in place in the Silver Beach Ordinance.

Concerning tree canopy area retention, Title 20 establishes how many trees can be cut down when building and what trees need to remain or be replanted. Title 20 also states that all disturbed areas shall be provided with soil stabilization within two days of the time of disturbance to prevent erosion. Under the phased clearing section, Title 20 states that construction and clearing activities will be phased in order to limit the amount of exposed soil that occurs on slopes, or are in proximity to shorelines and wetlands.

To conclude the comparison, the city of Bellingham and Whatcom County have different penalties for violating any of the laws regarding Silver Beach and the Lake Whatcom watershed. The Silver Beach Ordinance states that violation of any provision will result in a misdemeanor charge and may be fined not more than $1,500 for each offense. Any violation in an area designated by Whatcom County as a Water Resource Special Management Area will result in a 150 percent violation fine, which, though it may seem stringent, is really only a slap on the wrist for most developers. This fine is $375 unless it regards clearing, in which case it can be no less than $750 and no more than $1,500.

Considering the differences I have noted between the Silver Beach Ordinance and the Title 20 Lake Whatcom watershed provisions, one can see there are many differences and each code is more stringent than the other in certain areas. Considering that both of these codes have influence upon the watershed, I believe the city and county should work to make the codes more uniform to apply the highest standards to the area our drinking water comes from.