From Stark
At their 3 p.m. Tuesday, June 19 meeting, Port of Bellingham commissioners will consider two ballot measures for the November election that would give Whatcom County voters a chance to decide whether to add two persons to the existing three-person port commission — and how those two new commissioners would be chosen.
At their June 5 session, commissioners had been poised to approve a single ballot measure that would have asked voters to approve the addition of two new commissioners that would be elected at large, meaning that anyone who lives anywhere in the countywide port district would be eligible to run for the new seats.
But Whatcom County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Royce Buckingham told commissioners there was a chance that a court could rule such a ballot measure invalid, on grounds that it contained two distinct issues in one ballot measure: whether to expand the port commission, and how those two new commissioners should be elected.
At the same meeting, Blaine City Council member Ken Oplinger told commissioners that people who live outside Bellingham had misgivings about adding two at-large members to the port commission. Oplinger — who is also president of the Bellingham/Whatcom Chamber of Commerce and Industry — said Ferndale Mayor Gary Jensen and Sumas Mayor Bob Bromley had asked him to convey those concerns to commissioners. Oplinger said officials from the smaller cities would prefer not to see a port commission with five Bellingham residents.
The June 19 port commission agenda contains two proposed measures for submission to voters. The first would expand the commission to five members. The second states that if the commission is expanded, the two new members should be chosen at large.
In a Friday, June 15 interview, Port Commissioner Michael McAuley said he expects to recommend that his fellow commissioners put the first measure on the ballot, but not the second.
McAuley said that approach will make the whole election process less confusing, while also making it likely that at least one port commissioner would be from outside Bellingham and more in touch with concerns of voters in rural areas and smaller cities.
If voters simply approve commission expansion without specifying how the expanded commission would be structured, state law stipulates that the new commission would have five commissioners residing in five distinct districts. A primary election round, if necessary, would include only the voters in the district, but the two port commission candidates emerging from a district-only primary would then face all county voters in the general election.
That’s how the Whatcom County Council works now, but the seven-member council has just three districts. Two council members residing in each of the three districts are elected to four-year terms, while the seventh member serves at large.
As of now, all three port commission districts are elected in districts identical to the three county council districts, running in a district-only primary race when necessary and running countywide in the general election.
But that approach won’t work for a five-member panel, so all-new port district boundaries would have to be drawn for a five-member port commission.
McAuley said he’s confident that this could be done quickly enough to allow candidates for the two new port commission positions before voters in 2013, meaning they would take office in 2014.
Mr. Oplinger is also co-founder of NW Jobs Alliance, the GPT booster. For what that’s worth.
I wish those commissioners would get on board about Cornwall beach access.
They have a ‘Danger, No Trespassing’ sign on a locked gate at the beach which is open half the time.
So is it dangerous there, or not?
What’s the danger, and why isn’t it posted.
Meh, I walk there anyway.
That said, I do like that Mike McCauley fella.
Camille; Yes, it is dangerous. Beyond the gate are two toxic remediation sites, R.G. Haley and Cornwall Landfill. They have not been cleaned-up yet, although the City and Port’s idea of clean-up involves dumping tons of dioxin-contaminated dredge on top of the area and covering the mounds with white plastic sheets. I hope that the Commission amendment process will be an opportunity to promote greater environmental protection of the waterfront.
Thanks, Wendy.
It doesn’t make much sense to me since Cornwall Beach (proper) is open and adjacent to the same toxins of which you write and is open to the public.
And why on earth would the gate be left open at times, and closed at others?
Who’s opening the gate and leaving it ajar??
I noticed a sign there also about future business/buildings which I failed to take note of; I will do so this weekend and post what the sign said.
(Btw, I’m was a chow-chow owner and I love the breed;mine was red too.)
That’s silly, Of course they’re cleaned up.
Who in their right mind would cover toxic waste with acres of white plastic if the dirt underneath wasn’t safe?
But anyway, I wholly support the drive to add more butts to the sitting commissioners since more always equates to better.
Look at the US Congress with 535 of them sitters,
they have an astronomical approval rate well into one digit!
I didn’t know what was under the white plastic.
That is disgusting and outrageous.
There oughta be a law…
Rubie: who is their right mind, indeed! This is being done as part of an “interim cleanup” to alledgedly reduce stormwater run-off, until a final clean-up plan, which will likely involve caping the dioxin that was dumped on site. But I am assure you that the contaminated dredge is there because it exceeded the dioxin levels acceptible for open water disposal in Bellingham Bay. Upland disposal is expensive, so the Port got a cheap garbage site, and the City saved money because it did not have to buy clean soil to regrade the site for redevelopment. The dixon that will remain on that site exceeds the state standards for human exposure to carcinogenic toxins a hundred fold, although DOE and Port will assert that this is safe. Take a walk along the South Bay trail, or go the north end of Blvd. Park and you can see the dioxin mounds.
The Port, COB and DOE did not make this information readily available to the public, but it is there is you look hard enough. I also posted a number of times on NW Citizen about a year ago, so you can review that as well.
I guess the City and Port believe that no one will mind that their new shoreline park, commercial and retail shopping and condos will be cited on a dioxin site. A 8 million dollar overwater walkway will connect Blvd. Park and Cornwall Landfill, so everyone who uses the walkway to travel downtown will be following a toxic trail.
Camille, there is a law… the Washington Model Toxic Control Act. These actions were determined to be in compliance with the law by a DOE Toxic Waste employee, who works closely with the City and Port. Comments made by informed citizens, such as Sierra Club, People for Puget Sound and Resources, and Lummi Nation, were ignored.
The Lummi Nation, who hold treaty rights to 50% of the fish in Bellingham Bay, are co-managers of the bay and shorelines, but were not included in the negotiations. They have yet to reach settlement with the City on the Cornwall overwater walkway project. Pick up this month’s Whatcom Watch for a discussion of this issue.
I was kidding.
Dioxin is high on my list of things to avoid even when they hide it under a tarp.
The idea that leachate is stopped by plastic totally ignores condensation under the wrap and surface water below the uh.. surface which also takes dissolved chemicals away from the site.
The word interim cannot be used effectively in cases of pregnancy or poisoning or skydiving mishaps.
@TerryWechsler: I’m also the coach for the Blaine U9 girls soccer team, a member of the Jewish Community Center in White Rock, and Sounders fan.
For what that’s worth…
Sure I may be the Wicked Witch,
but look at all the job opportunities I’ve given to flying monkeys.