Dear Watchers

Dear Watchers:

The emotionally charged, factually and scientifically bankrupt Boats Off campaign is more a study of the fascist proclivities of some of our so-called environmentalists rather than a realistic and meaningful attempt to protect Lake Whatcom. I speak as someone who personally spent over $15,000 in contributions and for legal fees joining Sherilyn Wells in her fight over growth, the comprehensive plan and (with my neighbors) curtailing the last mining operation on the lake. The kind of money, energy and political capital about to be wasted on this initiative would have gone a long way towards keeping Ms. Wells out of debt and away from begging for legal handouts. I’m still puzzled by why so many sat the real legal battles out.

Any real lake protection requires the goodwill and cooperation of lake homeowners. Who are these come lately activists who want to drive a stake in the heart of such cooperation by robbing some of the county’s most highly taxed homeowners of the recreational component of their property value—in which they have invested heavily?

If we’re talking purists, the Boats Off campaign kickoff at Bloedel caused more petrochemical runoff damage than is caused by boats for six months of the year (Oct.-Mar.) during which time the research boat is the only boat occasionally plying the waters. Even during summer months, on peak weekend days you will be hard pressed to count more than a few dozen boats cruising the more than 10 square miles of historically navigable waters; weekdays far fewer. At the same time, several thousand cars travel the hundreds of miles of oil-leaching-asphalt around the lake every day of the year, and Bellingham continues to build houses. This is what threatens our lake, as is heavily documented by Dr. Robin Mathews’ research.

The good intentions of those involved in this campaign aside, naiveté and over-exuberance does not explain away the distortions and appeal to emotions that are usually the hallmark of those on the right. This campaign needs to be stopped dead.

Dear Watchers:

Having lived here since the second grade and being a 1974 Huxley grad, it seems like if it wasn’t for bad planning, we’d have no planning at all. Not that, beyond fooling the public, there’s much of a functional difference.

What I learned in college was that the first step in the “Planning Process” is survey and analysis (i.e. accurate information). So when I read that author Eban Fodor (Whatcom Watch, “Pro-Whatcom: New Group Organizes in Town,” February 2004, page 8) found “an astonishing lack of good information” about the true impacts of growth, I wasn’t surprised.

Trying to unravel the complex technical, legal, historical and philosophical factors that are associated with bad planning could take an entire [Whatcom Watch] issue to adequately address. Never mind a quagmire of questions nobody wants to ask, (i.e., What happened to innovative national energy policy? Where’s my bioregional environmental information network that didn’t need to be planned? Or, why bother?) because obviously there are no good answers.