Public Pocketbook & Mystery Milk

To celebrate 20 years of publishing Whatcom Watch, we will be publishing excerpts from 20 years ago. David M. Laws has been generous enough to volunteer to review the Whatcom Watch from 20 years ago to find suitable material to reprint. The below excerpts are from the June 1994 issue of Whatcom Watch.

The Public Pocketbook Has Two Champions

by Sherilyn Wells

Urban sprawl drains more public money from services than it generates public income in taxes. Studies in different areas of the U.S. have shown that sprawl required from $1.11 to $1.36 in services for every dollar it provided in taxes. One purpose of Growth Management is minimize this kind of stress on the public pocketbook by directing development.

Under Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA), cities and counties must adopt interim “urban growth area” (UGA) boundaries. The purpose is to define the areas which should logically have urban densities and urban services within the next 20 years. If the planning is done properly, this protects the public pocketbook by preventing taxpayer-subsidized urban sprawl. It also protects the rural areas from inappropriate rezones, etc. which unexpectedly disrupt the character of the area and threaten valuable resource lands.

On May 24, 1994, the County Council was to discuss and adopt an ordinance identifying interim urban growth areas (UGA’s). At 6:45 p.m., only 15 minutes before the County Council convened, Councilman Alvin Starkenburg made available to his fellow Council members a rewritten version of the ordinance. The rewrite was apparently done by Starkenburg’s daughter, attorney Lesa Starkenburg.

The original version had been the product of public hearings before both the county planning commission and the County Council and of coordinated work between city and county staff. Growth Management requires coordination and consistency. By contrast, the Starkenburg rewrite evidenced no such coordination, adding many areas specifically rejected earlier by the cities that would be responsible for supplying the services. Not coincidentally, these areas are proposed by certain developers, such as Chuckanut and Cordata North.

[…]

Had it not been for the hard work and quick response of Councilmen Ken Henderson and Larry Harris, it appeared very likely that the new Council might have accepted the Starkenburg’s rewrite and fattened the boundaries even more liberally. […] I observed that certain developers (or their representatives) in the audience that evening had copies of the amended/Starkenburg version, unlike the concerned citizens who have worked on these issues. [...] It will be your taxes which must cover the costs of sprawl if the financial ambitions of a few individuals are allowed to outweigh the public interest. It’s not too late to let your voice be heard, so get involved! Good planning makes “cents!”

Mystery Milk or Miracle Product?

Different Views on Bovine Growth Hormone

by Kelly O’Neill

There is more to milk than meets the eye and in taking a closer look, many people are concerned with what they don’t see. A main focus of that concern is Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH), a natural protein found in cows, which is being genetically engineered and promoted by the agri-chemical company Monsanto as an efficient way to increase milk production.

[…]

In 1991 Monsanto predicted BGH’s potential market at $1 billion a year. […] With issues of health uncertain, other matters bring into question the necessity of synthetic BGH.

Ken Bigelow of Edaleen Dairy and Bob Bray Jr. and Sr., co-owners of the Vitamilk distributorship, all agree there is a milk surplus. “There is a flood on the market,” says Bigelow, “it drives the price way down.”

The possibility of a conflict of interest is another troubling factor. Three FDA officials who helped develop the agency’s opinion that BGH should be approved , were former employees of Monsanto. The General Accounting Office has been asked to conduct an inquiry.