From Stark
The citizen initiative to outlaw coal transport through Bellingham pits one level of government against another, and therefore uses the wrong tactics to protect environment and quality of life, Bellingham City Council member Michael Lilliquist writes.
Lilliquist and other council members have gotten a lot of feedback from constituents who are upset about the council’s June 18 vote to authorize a lawsuit asking Whatcom County Superior Court Judge Steve Mura to keep the initiative off the November ballot.
Lilliquist has shared a copy of an email message he has sent to some constituents to explain his own decision to join the rest of the council in authorizing the lawsuit.
Here is a key excerpt:
“Every city is not and cannot be sovereign and independent. To believe otherwise would be to undermine the very idea of the rule of common law, common justice, and common purpose. It would undermine the ‘we’ in We the People. It would become each community for themselves; our way or the highway. Local rejection of federal authority has a long, sordid past, known sometimes as ‘nullification’ and put into service by racist southerners attempting to oppress and discriminate under the cloak of local democracy. Hyper-local democracy is a dangerous and potentially corrupting tool; you don’t want to use a tool that you would not allow others to use. The enlightened arc of history has been to expand our boundaries of shared community and values, not narrow it down city by city. The rule of law should not be thrown out so quickly. The ends do not justify the means.”
Lilliquist also notes that he and other council members are considering putting non-binding advisory votes on the ballot to give voters a chance to express themselves on coal trains and the larger issue of Gateway Pacific Terminal.
He also notes that he is a graduate of the “Democracy School” sponsored by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, which ought to insulate him against the charge that he isn’t enlightened enough to understand the initiative’s lofty principles. CELDF is the organization that helped inspire the local initiative effort.
Here is the full text of Lilliquist’s statement:
“Thanks for your thoughtful letter and the good questions you raise in it. It’s difficult for me to know where to start in replying to your email and the many similar email letters the City Council has received taking issue with our decision to seek judicial review of the legality and validity of Prop. 2, known as the Community Bill of Rights. It’s not as simple as you may have been led to believe. Given the flaws in the initiative, I unhappily felt we had no better choice. Although the decision to seek review was unanimous, the words and ideas that follow are my own, and may or may not be shared by other Council members.
The GPT coal train/shipping terminal is certainly one of the most important and emotional issues for Bellingham now and for the foreseeable future. Monday night’s City Council meeting, in particular, was emotionally difficult for me: to have the Council criticized by upset citizens for doing nothing, for standing in the way of voters, for denying democracy, for betraying the people who elected me, for serving harmful corporate interests, etc. This is especially upsetting for me, having spent much of the weekend working on ways to hold the GPT project accountable and to provide the voters of Bellingham with a valid means to cast their vote. Please keep in mind that elected or not, I am an ordinary person such as yourself, no better and hopefully no worse. I am doing my best to protect my community and my daughter’s future.
Let me begin by saying I share many people’s great concern over the likely impacts of the proposed GPT project — from the increased rail traffic, noise, pollution, impact on property values, our city’s quality of life and attractiveness to businesses and visitors, the risks of increased ship traffic through the San Juan straights, and the mining and burning of coal itself. The list of possible or likely negative impacts locally, statewide, and globally is pages long and we do not need to go over them here. The economic benefits have been advertised, while the economic costs are only becoming known.
I steadfastly believe that as an elected representative, I need to work night and day to protect the health and welfare of Bellingham (and where you live in Whatcom County), not just today but long into the future. I feel this is my responsibility even when I have no direct “vote” in the matter, such as the Whatcom County Council members have. Quite simply, it’s not our (Bellingham City Council’s) decision to make. Without authority over the decision, we are forced to work by more difficult and circuitous means, to influence others and to improve the process.
My personal position is that unless and until it can be shown convincingly that the consequences of the proposed coal shipping terminal and associated rail and marine traffic are not a threat to the health, safety, prosperity, and future of Bellingham and other communities, it should not be approved. Let the facts and the truth guide us, and let’s work to ensure that the truth is well known to the public as well as to decision makers in county, state, and federal government.
You may recall that I personally took the initiative early last year to write the City Council’s letter to the county SEPA official and the Corps’ NEPA official, outlining the City’s serious concerns and calling for a broad and thorough environmental review. What you may not know is that earlier this year, I helped secure a promise from the Mayor that staff time and resources would be available to respond to and watch over the EIS process, and I continue that insistence. I have been steadfastly insisting that the City of Bellingham be prepared to offer a thorough set of comments on the EIS scoping process, to require a full accounting of the impacts that must be prevented. Yesterday, I convinced the other members of City Council to send an important letter to Whatcom County’s SEPA official, requesting a definitive answer about off-site rail improvements that directly points to the estimated $100 million cost of an unwanted rail siding in Bellingham. I have also been in regular contact with leaders in the Whatcom Docs organization and CommunityWise Bellingham, and I applaud and welcome their important contributions to understanding the issue.
Let me also say that, as a graduate of CELDF’s “democracy school,” (link added by Stark) I understand the legal, constitutional, and moral critique of corporate and property-based rights as opposed to human and natural-systems rights. Let me also add that as a co-sponsor of the City Council’s recent resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to undo the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, I have shown that I understand the fundamental threat to our democracy when for-profit, fictional persons can and often do wield more influence on our elections and lawmaking that natural human beings.
I say all of this in the hope that you will understand that my objections to Proposition 2 are not motivated by any favoritism of the GPT project, nor any sympathy for coal production and burning, nor by a lack of concern with outside corporate interests undermining our local democracy.
I know many of the leaders in Prop 2 effort personally, and I expressed my concerns about Prop 2 to several of them directly weeks and months ago. This should not be the least bit of a surprise to them. Indeed, I suspect that a legal showdown is exactly what some people were seeking. The problem is, as I see it, Prop 2 creates the wrong conflict between the wrong parties. Creating new categories of rights-bearing entities simply engages in an escalating arms race; it does not undo the problem of corporation’s excessive legal privileges. It puts the City government in harm’s way, and will do little of practical effect to stop the coal train and shipping terminal. I say this for two general reasons. First, the initiative is doomed to being overturned in court; and second, the initiative distracts and weakens the ability of the City of Bellingham to deal effectively with this issue. And finally, it is a tactical and political blunder, by forcing a sympathetic City Council to raise procedural and legal roadblocks, rather than strengthening the Council’s hand to act on your behalf.
In short, in my view, Proposition 2 is legally, practically, tactically, politically, and philosophically flawed. I wish it were otherwise. The time and place for the people of Bellingham and Whatcom County to be heard shall come, but this is not the way. You may not agree, [name removed], but please understand why I believe so.
In our American democratic system, we declare that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Collectively and through the Constitution we define both the authorities and the limits of government power, in order to create the rule of law and to protect individual rights. The Constitution also reserves certain powers to the federal government, while passing over most all other government powers to the individual states. My point here is that the people’s sovereignty is embodied collectively, not separately, by the federal and state and local governments.
Every city is not and cannot be sovereign and independent. To believe otherwise would be to undermine the very idea of the rule of common law, common justice, and common purpose. It would undermine the “we” in We the People. It would become each community for themselves; our way or the highway. Local rejection of federal authority has a long, sordid past, known sometimes as “nullification” and put into service by racist southerners attempting to oppress and discriminate under the cloak of local democracy. Hyper-local democracy is a dangerous and potentially corrupting tool; you don’t want to use a tool that you would not allow others to use. The enlightened arc of history has been to expand our boundaries of shared community and values, not narrow it down city by city. The rule of law should not be thrown out so quickly. The ends do not justify the means.
More importantly in my mind, Prop 2 is practically designed to create a constitutional showdown between local and federal government — but that’s not what most people are concerned about. The common target of concern is the influence of corporations in our political and legal and regulatory systems. CELDF has done a credible job in outlining how the regulatory system is often a rigged game in which the direct voices of the people or their elected representatives are stymied and thwarted by established legal privileges granted by the courts and federal laws. American legal history shows us that corporations may have been granted too many human rights, not that humans have been granted too few. Well, if this the problem, then we need a healthy showdown between the rights of citizens to protect themselves and the rights of businesses to conduct harmful operations under legal shield of permits. This is a national problem, one that calls for a national solution (e.g., pass an constitutional amendment that declares the Bill of Rights protect natural persons only). Prop 2 misses the mark. It’s the wrong fight. It attacks federalism not just corporatism.
Many people, perhaps including yourself, are understandably frustrated — unable to talk to the decision makers on the Whatcom County Council, and also unable to vote on the issue. There is a feeling that, in all justice we ought to be able to vote to do whatever we feel is right and necessary to protect our interests, our health, our future. I hear you and I get it, but that’s not how the rule of law works, because different issues are dealt with at different levels of government. Under our system, the democratically-elected federal government has sole jurisdiction over some matters, while the democratically-elected state government has authority over others. The state, in turn, delegates certain responsibilities in part or wholly to democratically-elected local governments. In principle, the people are always in charge and sovereign, but we the people govern through different jurisdictions.
The central problem with Prop 2 is that is pits one democratically-elected government against another democratically-elected government; it pits the people’s representatives against the people’s representatives. It creates a constitutional show-down not over the issue of corporate influence or property-based rights, but rather a show-down between federal and local government. This is the wrong constitutional show-down, because a victory will bolster the dangerous states-rights agenda while not directly affecting corporation’s legal status.
The restoration of democracy in America needs to come about not through a weakening of our Constitution, but through a re-assertion of citizen control over federal government. If you want to take back control of our (your!) democracy, begin by understanding which jurisdiction controls what. Then work to change those rules that don’t work, but please do so at the proper level (local, state, national) and by effective means (electoral victories, etc.) that cannot be overturned in court. If passed, this proposition would no doubt be overturned, and where would that get us?
So much for the politics and philosophy, now on to the nitty-gritty of why I voted to seek legal review of Prop 2. (By the way, the City Council does not have the power vote to keep Prop 2 off the ballot, as some have feared; that was never a possibility.)
The city attorney’s office has identified no less than seven fundamental flaws with the initiative — simple, basic flaws that were known in advance and easily identified, but ignored by supporters. From top to bottom, the proposition is invalid, improper and unconstitutional. It clearly violates the City charter, state law and the state constitution, as well as federal law and the U.S. Constitution. Part of the law for initiatives is that they must contain only one question or issue, so that voters can declare their preferences clearly. Prop 2 contains at least two, probably more proposals. As written, people who may want to vote against the coal train but not in support of the Community Bill of Rights cannot do so. They have to support or reject both. Courts routinely throw out such dual-issue initiatives.
Contrary to what many people think, citizen initiatives cannot be used to let the people vote on anything just because it is important. The power of the citizen initiative is best understood as direct legislation. Rather than working through our elected legislators, we the people can petition to enact legislation (laws) directly by popular vote. The key point is that citizens have no more power through direct legislation than the elected legislators wield on your behalf. If the City Council has no authority or jurisdiction, then neither do the people when they act through municipal initiative. (The same is true for state initiatives: the people can vote to directly pass state laws but only state laws.)
In other words, the people cannot pass state or federal laws through a municipal (city) ordinance, any more than the City Council can pass state or federal laws. The City is not taking away a legal right, because that legal right does not exist. (I am referring to legal rights, not moral rights.)
The City Council also has no administrative or executive authority: under the city’s founding charter, that’s the mayor’s job. Therefore, citizen initiative cannot enact administrative or executive actions (as clearly stated in our charter). Moreover, when the City is carrying out the orders of a higher authority (e.g., federal law) it is acting in an administrative capacity. We are not passing a local law, but only carrying out a law passed by another level of government. Prop 2 includes administrative acts. Since Prop 2 proposes to do that which the City Council cannot do, even if it wanted to, Prop 2 is likely beyond the permissible scope of initiatives and therefore invalid.
Finally, there is the federal question. The U.S. Constitution clearly states that interstate commerce is the sole jurisdiction of federal government, and Congress has passed numerous laws that clearly exempt interstate rail traffic from local control. Moreover, and regrettably, rail companies were given an exalted and nearly untouchable status in federal law going back to the gilded age of the 19th century; they are in an especially privileged position legally. By claiming to overturn or pre-empt these constitutionally-based federal laws, Prop 2 runs smack into a legal freight train (pun intended). I am not a legal expert, but I am mortally certain that Prop 2 would be overturned on this ground alone if challenged in court. Prop 2 supporters have pointed to examples of other cities that have declared against harmful corporate practices, but none of these cases dealt directly with the Commerce Clause or the considerable position of rail.
Now, you may not care whether it is “legal” or not, but as your elected official I have to care very much about exposing the City to costly and losing lawsuits. Moreover, under federal code, the city could actually end up paying the other side’s lawyer bill if (when) we lose! Facing the loss of tax-payer dollars to pay the legal bill for both sides, I felt compelled to act. In addition, our legal system requires that court challenges must be made in a timely fashion; as a matter of fairness, one may not be allowed to wait until after the fact. Sometimes failure to act means that you also lose your place in court. These details may not interest you personally, but it may help you to understand the complex motives behind our actions.
Other people have criticized the City Council for being too concerned about avoiding law suits. I assure you this is not the case. As some of you know, the City Council dealt with three major land use/zoning decisions last Monday night, and in all three cases we were threatened with legal action if we did not act in the way that some parties wanted us to act. We will act anyway, I believe, because we feel confident in our positions and justifications. Sadly, the City is sued or threatened with lawsuits all the time. We pick our fights, and defend the public interest. The mere threat of a law suit was not the main issue with Prop 2. It was the un-win-ability of the lawsuit that was persuasive.
There is a common theme to many of the complaints we have received: “don’t take away our right to vote, our right to be heard and to decide.” But there are other means to be heard and to vote, including through an initiative that was written differently. Just as the City Council can pass non-binding statement of belief and intent known as a resolution, so too can a citizen initiative pose a question to the people — a direct resolution if you will. The outcome of the election does not enact a law (which is why it could not be overturned by outside interests), but it does make a practical, political, and moral commitment that the City would then work to uphold.
On Monday, I formally notified the other members of the City Council that I wanted to work on developing alternative ballot proposals to be put before the people, to address the coal train issues and the Community Bill of Rights in a way that would not be legally challengeable. Several council members quickly said that they would help me to develop those ideas. If the court decides that Prop 2 is invalid, the Council may be able to place alternatives on the ballot if we act quickly. Nothing has been decided or proposed yet, but the Council could choose to place two advisory votes on the ballot, one issue dealing with the coal train issue and the other dealing with a Community Bill of rights. As advisory votes rather than laws, these cannot be challenged or overturned. On the down side, of course, because they are not laws, they do not actually change the system or enact new legal tools.
At the same time, I will continue to work with the city administration to participate in a robust environmental review by the county, to identify all impacts and to hold the GPT applicants accountable. The permit review process will take months if not years. Please be assured that I will give the matter the attention and time that it deserves.”
(end Lilliquist statement)
“I had hoped that someone would have some explanation of how asserting local control over the nationwide rail network made any sense, practically or in principle” I’m an avid supporter of Prop 2. I think you make an excellent point and am not sure I can answer it. Because it is so hypothetical. But I gleam your biggest concern is that a town could possibly ban a harmless product from coming through their town. Yes, I guess it is possible for someone to go against their best interest like that. This type of mistrust/ fear may be part of why the RR has had superhuman powers all this time. So how do you combat that?? It seems to me that there are already things that are illegal for the RR to transport. With the situation being that we have shut down the last coal fired power plant in WA it doesn’t seem like such a huge leap to make the transportation of coal is as illegal as… idk… cocaine. That may seem a bit extreme to some. But really, if we have determined this toxin to be dangerous to all exposed… maybe not so extreme. But Prop 2 is not about being able to ban any willy nilly thing you can dream up. It is about giving the local level of gov’t more power to protect its citizens and property from unwanted harm. Which Michael clearly points out that at this time they have zip, zero power to do. (Also, at KCB, I find it incredulous that you would accuse CFB supporters as being divisive because they asked Council to rescind the lawsuit. There are many paths to stop this coal fiasco. I support them all. I can both support Michael’s own efforts and admonish him for impeding mine.) Though I understand the mistrust of what other communities would ban coming through I feel that where we are now is unacceptable. That if some of the power was shifted to the local level there would be more accountability. Because there sure isn’t any with the Federal Corporatist. The reality of now scares me more than the hypothetical, I guess.
Taking on local input into federal regulation of rail transport of given commodities is a whole separate issue not even addressed by the initiative, but a GREAT issue to take on at the national level. Some day. For today, let’s focus on what we CAN do locally to stop coal exports from our shores, which is comment on the EIS.
The problem with the focus on coal transport is that it’s not “that” toxic. Relatively speaking. Even after derailments, nothing catastrophic happens. This was the wrong issue to put at the center of the initiative. The coal terminal is catastrophic, but the initiative doesn’t address the issues of huge environmental impact.
The coal terminal is not in Bellingham or that would have been great. Terry, what I don’t understand is why you think working on Prop 2 is at odds with the commenting/scoping angle. I don’t know anyone involved with CFB who isn’t working that angle as well. We are hardly telling people not to participate in that. Very much to the contrary. All we are trying to do is add something to the game in case that doesn’t work out for us. I sure hope it does. But if it doesn’t (and history is not in our favor)… what then?
Bottom line: to stop the trains, we must stop the terminal, and to do that, we have to load the record for the EIS’s for GPT and BNSF during scoping. There are HUGE problems with the rail permit applications: they don’t talk at all about expansions and upgrades needed back to the Powder River Basin. Dozens, if not hundreds, of communities will have 40-80 trains per day. Double- and triple-tracking requirements for the 6 proposed terminals will devastate small towns and farms adjacent to rail lines. The cumulative rail impacts of the 6 terminals on ALL communities from the coast to the PRB are the issue. Ballast water exhange is an issue. Single-hulled panamax and cape-size ships full of bunker fuel is an issue. Those ships bumping through the most treacherous waters with oil tankers is an issue. Ocean acidification is an issiue, as is what happens to other speciies when the Cherry Point herring are gone. Pollution from the 80-acre coal pile sitting, unlined, over water tables and draining into our coastal waters. Six-story high piles of coal blowing dust on wetlands and coastal waters is an issue.
Comment on these things. Please. They can’t be mitigated. We don’t get a “yes/no” vote. But we do get to have a voice. Speak in a way that could actually matter. Please.
Any time we think about or engage with how the structures of our society should be set up we are brought unavoidably into reliance on our best forecasts as to how a number of hypotheticals, or uncertain future events, will play out.
It isn’t any more hypothetical to say that local control of the rails both won’t and shouldn’t work than it is to say that local control of the rails would bring about a beneficial increase in accountability. One way or the other, a person takes a look at the circumstances, and makes a judgment about how things would unfold if a particular change was made or not made.
And no, it’s absolutely not extreme to work wholeheartedly against coal. That task is absolutely vital, the more people who have your avid engagement the better, and I think it’s a position that is actually able to become quite mainstream, and quite powerful, especially in this community. This is part of why I have an interest in making the argument that the specific project of asserting local control of the rails is an especially non-functional servant of the crucial task of growing an effective anti-coal or pro-local movement, take your pick.
If the community’s momentum and attention stays overly linked with the specific idea that one locality can or should control what can pass through the rail lines that cross its borders, that will amount to an unnecessary reduction in the effectiveness of your anti-coal pro-community efforts, and those of many others.
Flexibility is needed, not away from avid devotion to reigning in coal and empowering this community, but in favor of a re-evaluation of what will actually work to advance those goals. Which approaches have the greatest potential to actually effect positive change in the months and years to come?
The reality of now should scare us all, no doubt, but that’s all the more reason to put forth solutions that have both strongly principled legs to stand on and some practical room to run.
(And the idea that it wouldn’t work to have a transcontinental set of rail lines with many thousands of different rules about what can or can’t cross each community’s portion isn’t unduly speculative. You’d have some regions banning or taxing the products of their economic competitors, you’d have some religiously fundamentalist town making decisions that same sex or abortion-supporting or interracial couples can’t Go Amtrak through that town, or over that town’s share of the interstate highway system for that matter, and you’d have numerous towns leveraging their veto power (within the worldview that each town has veto power over what can or can’t cross its rails) to simply exact fees from every shipper that passes through town. Defending and engaging with a local government’s right to self determination re: what happens within its boundaries (in terms of land use for example) can very usefully advance accountability and self-determination. Proposing that any single local government should have effective veto control over what all the other people on that rail line or highway should or shouldn’t be able to ship cross country is actually a really predictably non-functional idea. That’s leaving the legal precedents out of the picture entirely, and just engaging with what it would mean if that idea could be put into effect.)
I hear you, anonymous. But I’m not hearing a better plan. Not to dismiss a thorough EIS. I’m fully engaged in that process. But like I said, the historical record is not on our side. So if that fails… what? What would your initiative do? Or do you have another plan?
You say you’re “fully engaged in that process.” How? What are you doing to go out and raise awareness in communities along rail lines about health, economic, social, transportation, and enviornmental impacts of the 6 proposed coal terminals? Please be specific.
The fact that there is an initiative process does not mean that it can be used to stop this activity. If you want to pass a law that will stop this activity, change the zoning of undeveloped properties at Cherry Point. Period.
I’d suggest the following conclusions on that question, justsayin:
One, I’d say it’s worth questioning what percentage of the community can be predicted to be likely to engage just as conscientiously and wholeheartedly in other anti-coal efforts if they perceive themselves as invested in working to advance and defend Prop 2 from its enemies on the city council and in the courts. It may be that for you, your engagement with Prop 2 is no distraction from your engagement with the scoping process. But I believe there are many people in the community that will pick an approach, and feel, with some justification, like they’ve done their part in following through in support of it. And how many of us are thinking about something like nuclear non-proliferation or the like while we’re so focussed on coal? There’s a limited amount of focus available to any person or community, and I think Prop 2 and other approaches are engaged in a civil but also actual competition for attention and devotion. Prop 2 offers enticing features like a simple and emphatic ‘Vote no to coal’ ‘Our right to decide’ clarity, and doesn’t require a person to untangle or engage with the much less familiar process of weighing in on a scoping and land use decision. But if Prop 2 can’t work, that accessibility is, in function though not in intention, kind of a trap.
Two, I’d say that if you are perceiving history as not being necessarily on our side re: the EIS winning the day, then that emphasizes the need for the community to either a. put together a history-bucking groundswell of support to get this EIS to carry this day, or, b. choose or develop an alternative approach that can actually work as a backup plan.
I don’t think the arguments that a local government shouldn’t control its piece of the national rail network are answerable, and while I focus on engaging with that aspect of the situation, I think it’s just as clear that even given passage of the proposition, it would not stand legal challenge. Those are both reasons not to count on it as a backup plan.
Unless someone comes forward with a backup plan to the scoping and permitting process that is a functional backup plan, because it is actually reasonably likely to be effective, then it would actually be much more protective of the community to say ‘hey, we must make this scoping and permitting process count if we want to stop this terminal’ than it would be to say, ‘well, we’ll try hard to make the EIS count, but if it doesn’t work we have the backup plan of Prop 2 to accomplish our goals.’
My point is that Prop 2 shouldn’t on its merits be allowed to function, because the principle of local control of the rails wouldn’t function with a nationwide rail network, and that, yes, it’s also true that the courts wouldn’t allow Prop 2 to function.
If a person’s home were on fire, and they were rightly disturbed at the limited ability of fire extinguishers to put out certain fires, that wholly understandable concern wouldn’t support their positing the existence of and advocating the use of their backup plan of a five-wheeled wall-riding fire-putting-out bicycle. Such a thing won’t come into existence, and if it did, it wouldn’t stay in existence long enough or work well enough to put out the fire. Better to focus on the most through possible use of the fire extinguisher than to try to build that particular other device.
In terms of getting the massive and wholly justified groundswell of Bellingham anti-coal sentiment recorded, it sounds to me like the Bellingham council is working towards an alternative proposition to record that heartening state of affairs. That’s not a defanged Prop 2, it’s a chance to serve Prop 2′s up to this point much appreciated mobilization and political purposes, separated from its, I would argue, dramatically non-functional stated intention of re-ordering a single city’s right to say what can or can’t cross its small portion of the national rail network.
If you wanted to offer an arguably binding initiative, as opposed to only focusing on the scoping and regulatory angles that Terry Wechsler has laid out above, I’d imagine it would have to be passed at the Whatcom County level, and it would stand on the much firmer footing of the population of a county’s right to refuse to allow a massively harmful land use within that county’s own borders. I don’t presume to know that that’s a viable backup plan, if it is, that’s great… but until there’s solid reason to believe that it is, the most community protective thing to do might be to focus on the EIS/Scoping side of things, because I think it’s really clear that Prop 2 isn’t a functional backup plan. I’d kind of been assuming that its advocates were seeing it is an attention mobilizing device, not as something that could actually protect us from the terminal if the scoping process doesn’t. It definitely can’t in actual practice do that. It’s not really a backup plan.
And that conclusion is I think very well warranted. Just as we’d expect people who might initially favor the terminal/expanded burning of coal globally to come around if confronted with reasonable enough arguments against that course of action, I’d expect Prop 2 supporters (who should keep every ounce of their anti-coal pro-local fervor by the way) to come around to the idea that Prop 2 isn’t written to function… and that it’s ok to let it go at some point and focus on the methods that can work if we, as a community, manage to bring enough focus onto them, and foster enough engagement with them.
Terry – There is a lot that can be done to modify the the proposal and make it much less onerous, but at the same time, much more expensive for the developers and might even require the developers to down size the proposed terminal. Reducing the amount of coal and using techniques that would reduce the pollution from the coal dust would also reduce the number of trains – but you don’t seem to be interested in any type of compromise.
By the way, did you read about the Arizona initiative to which is being proposed to allow voters to overrule federal law? It’s an entirely different situation, but I think it’s interesting.
It still makes the most sense to apply the same BAP, BAT standards to the coal, that the state applies to the oil. It might reduce profits for Goldman Sachs and SSA, but that’s their problem. Why are you so oppositional every time BAP, BAT are mentioned?
I have a question that maybe some of you might know the answer to.
Most of you probably are aware this:
New low-sulfur fuel standards for marine ocean carriers go into effect Aug. 1, and the near-term result is likely to be a 20 percent to 25 percent hike in fuel costs for a special blended diesel carriers will have to use.
The switch in fuels is required to meet a 1 percent sulfur limit set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, several shipping companies have said.
EPA drops the other shoe in 2015, when the sulfur standard is lowered to 0.1 percent.
Read more: http://www.alaskajournal.com/Alaska-Journal-of-Commerce/June-Issue-2-2012/New-fuel-rules-could-bump-freight-rates-by-8/#ixzz1zvEJWNFy
This new regulation is expected to add at least 8% to the cost of all freight, both import and export, which will be passed along to the consumers. This is probably one of the dumbest moves that the country could make at this point in the economic recession. On top of that, the government is forcing the Navy to convert all its ships to 100% bio-fuel, at a very high cost, more tax dollars down the tube. …and CA is enacting new stricter, more expensive fuel blends for cars and trucks.
How will this fuel requirement effect the shipping of coal? Do you think that China is going to be willing to add 8% to the cost of shipping sub-bituminous coal to China?
The Bellingham City Council probably made their decision because they were overcome by the smell of money.
In the old Bellingham days when Georgia Pacific polluted the air with foul smells and stunk up the entire town and someone objected the reply was “‘Oh, do not be bothered by that, it is only the smell of money.”
I think everyone involved with action surrounding SSA and the trains should be required to watch ‘The Age of Stupid’.
If you’re coming to the table fight, you should come armed.
One problem is that many Democrats do not want to do what is necessary to save our county, the state of Washington and the world from the hazards of the GPT.
Obama, Patty Murray and Rick Larsen needs to be dumped. The Dems that I talk to do not want to do this. They will forgive Obama anything including the drone murders of innocent children and his continuation of a war against a fictitious enemy, fracking, support of the Keystone Xl pipeline and crimes against humanity as exposed by Bradley Manning.
As to Rick, he supports the GPT and even refused to accept the petition of over 4,000 signers who are opposed to the coal dump. Additionally, he has contributions from companies that make drones.
As to Murray, key in pork barrel politics, Murray and SSA Marine and Murray’s SB942.
Their answer is that with enough input from the people the party will change.
This is complete craziness.
JG, I’ve never been opposition to BAP and BAT. Above, I asked to meet and talk about it because I don’t understand completely where the standards come from, how we would argue they should be applied, etc. Mostly, I keep an arm’s length because I sometimes conclude from your posts that you would be okay with a “mitigated” coal terminal, and you’re correct that my goal is no coal.
Owl, I don’t know any member of the council well, but what I know of those I’ve met has led me to believe nothing other than that they are civic minded and care very much about this place. I’ve certainly never heard anything that would lead me to believe any council member has bad motives. We may disagree with each other, but this community is filled with people of good intentions, and we should save our wrath for the outsiders who would exploit us for profit.
To Terry:
Rebecca this is not Sunnybrook farm.
Re John Galt on low sulfur fuel. If the back of envelope calculations I have seen are anywhere close to correct that increase represents much less than 2% of the total cost of selling and delivering coal to Asia. It would be a larger, but not significant % of possible profits depending on what coal might bring in Asia in the future if there is market demand.
The Coal-Free Bellingham Initiative gave 10,000 signatories a chance to weigh in on coal trains passing through Bellingham. That is a significant sample and should put the so-called “decision-makers” (needless middle-men) on their mettle. It is always a good thing for citizens to practice direct democracy. Nothing better. Thanks to all who worked so hard to provide us this opportunity (among others) to have our voices heard.
Many roads lead to Rome. Take one – or take them all.
As a supporter of GPT I hope Prop 2 makes it to the ballot because I agree with Michael Lilliquist; “Proposition 2 is legally, practically, tactically, politically, and philosophically flawed” and “the initiative is doomed to being overturned in court; and second, the initiative distracts and weakens the ability of the City of Bellingham to deal effectively with this issue. And finally, it is a tactical and political blunder…..” whereas those opposing GPT can spend their resources and credibility supporting such a loser!
The Machiavellian in me makes me wonder if SSA isn’t really behind Prop 2!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
For those interested, Coal-Free Bellingham’s (CFG) response to Bellingham City Councilmember Michael Lilliquist’s email to CFG Office Manager Michelle Magee is available @:
http://coal-free-bellingham.org/response-to-michael-lilliquists-letter/