Bellingham small business owner Kathy Kershner solidified her lead over former Whatcom County Councilman Dan McShane for the county’s District 1 seat Monday, Nov. 9.
Kershner defeated McShane by a very slim margin — just 312 votes — winning with 50.29 percent of the vote to McShane’s 49.71 percent. The margin is outside the requirements for an automatic recount.
Kershner will be one of three new council members on the council along with small business owners Bill Knutzen and Ken Mann, and it means the council will likely have more conservative tendencies on various issues, most especially land-use planning.
Kershner, a U.S. Navy veteran and Whatcom County Republican Party precinct committee officer was happy with the win, and thanked McShane for being a “gracious opponent,” who called her Monday to offer her congratulations and help on any issues he has expertise in.
“Now that the real work begins,” she said. “I want to focus on inviting the public back into the processes of our governing here in Whatcom County.”
McShane
“I’m fine,” McShane said of his thoughts on the race. “There’s a big project that I’ve been really wanting to do that involves writing a book. I started working on it this weekend sort of with (a potential loss) in mind.”
McShane has been active civicly the last two years he wasn’t a public official, still lobbying for protections in the Lake Padden watershed as well as promoting a potential land swap with the state Department of Natural Resources.
“I can be selective about what I might be interested in. Mostly I’ve just tried to not so much lobby as get facts in the hands of either the county or city,” he said.
More to come …
November 9th, 2009 at 7:28 PM
The better suited, more knowledgeable, experienced and dedicated candidate definitely lost in this race. I guess it goes to show that you can buy an election after all. Now watch the puppet masters pull their strings. Whatcom County was definitely the looser in this outcome.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:31 PM
Sam, I thought that the trade with the DNR was for forested land, not a swamp!
November 9th, 2009 at 7:34 PM
My editor just asked about that, too, Odyssey. *blush.* Fixing it now.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:50 PM
It will be fun to watch the newbies take on Pete over the DNR swap!
Maybe they can partner up with Tom Pratum!
Roaring Lion is right. The less qualified person won. Not sure what that means for the county at this point.
Kathy ran a campaign based on pink hearts, not issues. None of us know what she actually stands for, but a spring post on a conservative blog tells me it’s not about caring for the welfare of others! (We are fed up with paying your bills, education, mortgages…yada, yada, yada…
I would also like to compliment Dan McShane for being a gracious opponent. It’s more than we can say for Kathy! (After all, a retired Naval Officer should know that manners do count).
November 9th, 2009 at 8:02 PM
When the county council voted years ago to put funds for reconveyance in the budget, Tom wrote posts on the Audubon website supporting clearcuts in the watershed and opposing protection. Then a year or so later ranted and railed about how reconveyance was being secretly discussed !?! As if anyting is secret on the council.
Now he’s working secretly behind the scenes with Barbara Brenner to kill the plan to put 1/4 of the watershed into a protected old growth reserve. How did he hijacck the local audubon group? What is he telling them to get them to support logging the best wildlife habitat around?
November 9th, 2009 at 8:07 PM
I’m pretty certain that Carl Weimer is not happy…
Congratulations to Kathy Kershner!
I’m disappointed to see no pause in the cascade of negative comments from lefties, especially those speaking of bad manners.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:27 PM
In response to ‘Roaring Lion’ and ‘Elisabeth’,
Maybe what we need is someone with not as much experience in politics. We need someone who hasn’t been bought by groups like Futurewise, who will actually listen to the true people of this county. The true people of this county are the people who have lived here for generations who are seeing their rights taken away by outsiders who moved here only recently. These outsiders have taken it upon themselves to take away the property rights of our true county citizens by going above and beyond what the state mandates in the Growth Management Act. Can you imagine buying a piece of property for $250,000 and then it gets downzoned and now is only worth $100,000 or less and the people who mandated this change aren’t even considering compensating you for that loss? They say they are doing this to protect farm land but you can’t protect farm land by decreasing its value. A farmer has to have equity in his land to be able to get financing to keep his farm going. If he/she can’t get a loan to buy new equipement or fix old equipment how is he/she going to keep the farm going. These are just a few examples of why we need change on the County Council and I’m not alone in my views as the voters have spoken. Good-bye Caskey-Schreiber and McShane, hello Knutsen and Kershner.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Why are people attacking me here? Especially folks who remain un-named? Sam? What are the rules anyway?
I am in no way secretly working on anything. I have done absolutely nothing with regard to reconveyance for months - actually it has been over a year. Everything I have done has been in public. Come on folks, if you want to talk to me, please let’s talk. If you don’t, then please stop denigrating me in public for no reason.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Tom,
I think that reconveyance results in increased pollution in the watershed, but I’ve never commented on it, and I’ve never mentioned you, but I do really disagree with your position on that issue.
Relax.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Methinks its be good!!
Two strong women on the county council, too bad its couldn’t be so for our poor dear city too!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 9th, 2009 at 9:55 PM
Tom,
I’m hardly anonymous — and your position regarding the reconveyance is well known.
I’ve read the studies and reports and I disagree strongly with you on this issue.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Tom, I don’t see any attack on here. I see people that disagree with your position and work against the reconveyence voicing that opposition. I didn’t see anything personal about it, nor did I see any name calling.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:30 PM
Stoneman,
We have not interacted before. So, hello, how are you? Now, let’s get down to business.
1. The County Council has not made any decisions regarding downzones, UGAs or LAMRIDs. In fact, they don’t even have a proposal in front of them. I’m afraid you’ve been stampeded into a frenzy by a group of folks who hope to profit from your fear. In fact, the sitting council supported the small city mayors request for larger UGAs. They even defended those cities in front of the GMHB. The small city mayors turned on the council, the council didn’t turn on them.
2. Citizens Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) is a “statewide organization” from King County that has local members. Could you please explain to me how Futurewise, (which is also a “statewide organization” that has local members is any different)? (Members of both groups own land in the county).
3. Are you suggesting that Kershner and Knutzen can avoid implementing state growth management law? If so, how will they manage this feat? If they can’t avoid implementing state law, will you be mad at them too?
5. My family are some of the very first settlers in Whatcom County. (My children are sixth generation) does that fact somehow make my opinion more legitimate than my neighbor’s who only moved here ten years ago? If so, where can I find that written in statute or code? (We jointly owned over 600 acres of farmland).
6. Takings laws are very specific. Check out Attorney General Rob McKenna’s opinions on his website before you make assumptions about the criteria that constitutes a taking or “land grab.” False accusations stink.
7. Informed Republicans also voted for Growth Management laws. They did so even when they had a majority in Olympia. Does that make them bad too? Or, is it only Futurewise folks (who are not legislators) that must bear the cross for land use law?
I’m looking forward to your response!
November 9th, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Elisabeth a question for you: Are you in favor of David Hunter’s R10 proposal in the rural areas outside LAMIRDs or the downzone to R5?
November 9th, 2009 at 10:37 PM
Davesix,
Your calling the former acting chair of the Republican Party a “lefty.”
And, I am a lefty. Left-handed that is! Well, kinda sorta. I can also use my right hand to write, eat, etc.
The Bellingham Tea Party is not made up of Republicans. It’s a Libertarian stronghold. As far as I can tell, you are also a Libertarian. At least, it certainly appears so from your postings!
By the way, how does it feel to have a stranger define your political identity for you?
November 9th, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Congratulations, Ms. Kershner. In God we trusted and He came through. We needed 2 out of the 4 races and …..
Thanks to all that worked so hard for all the conservative candidates. You showed change has come.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Hi Sam.
Quick answer: I support Ken Mann’s position on R-10 zoning. He voted against it. And so would I.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Elisabeth,
I don’t mean to be rude but did you read and comprehend my posting? I didn’t say that the new Council members should avoid implementing the Growth Management laws at all. I said the current planners were going above and beyond what the GMA called for in terms of downzoning. The GMA only requires R5 and not R10 like the Planning Commission is pushing for. I also know that the current council has not made any decisions about this yet but I have no doubt in my mind that they will just follow what the Planning Commission puts in front of them. Its unfortunate that a majority of the Council right now cannot think for themselves and are too concerned with the agenda of groups like Futurewise and not with what is really best for THIS county. We have some of the best farmland in America and its sad that we are losing the ability to farm it due to the ‘progressive’ policies that have been enacted and are trying to be enacted. As far as ‘taking’ laws go I have a problem with taking someone’s livelihood. If we must follow the GMA then atleast compensate the land owners for their loss of land value.
I also have a problem with your assumption that I have been ’stampeded’ into my point of view. The only stampeding that is being done is to the land owners by the Planning Commission. I used to be in favor of ‘protecting’ farmland by controlling growth and downzoning but the day I sat in the living room of an 89 year old farmer who could no longer farm his measly 12 acres (compared to the 600 acres your family once owned) and listened to what all these ‘progressive’ policies have done to the farmability of his land I immediately changed my mind. Not only can he no longer farm his land but the value of his land has plummeted due to the same ‘progressive’ policies. Have you ever seen an 89 year old cry because he/she lost everything they had? Instead of being able to sell his farm for more than his mortgage balance (he had to take a loan to fix his farm equipment and other farm expenses, which he wouldn’t be able to do now because of the lost value in the land) and retire somewhat comfortably, he now has to sell just to break even and try to live off of social security and help from family members. And this is before the downzone. If he doesn’t sell quickly he will not be able to even break even when he sells his farm because the only value left in his land is that fact that he has 2 densities (he is in the R5 zone). Once he is downzoned to R10 he will only have 1. Some of the other ‘progressive’ policies I have been talking about is the updated Critical Areas Ordinance and the Septic Inspection rules. I hope to never have to sit in another old farmers’ living room and go through that again. Atleast now with the election of K & K the farmer has a chance to atleast break even.
Don’t even get me started about LAMIRD’s. Also, it’s not LAMRID’s. It stands for Local Area of More Intensive Rural Development.
Stoneman06
November 10th, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Stone - you say you have ‘no doubt’ the council would just accept what the Planning Commission advocated for, but the majority of the council is not in favor of R10, so why do you say that?
November 10th, 2009 at 12:13 AM
Sam,
Were they against it before the election results or after? That was a joke but I have a feeling they are just saying they are against it right now to keep a riot from happening. There are a lot of very, very, very unhappy farmers out there right now (I am not one of them but know a lot of them). The true colors of the council will show when it comes time to vote on the ‘land-grab’.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:37 AM
May I throw in this?
It’s not about R5 or R10. The preservation of rural character, mandated by GMA, entails preserving a “variety” of lot sizes (20, 60, 80), not simply declaring a minimum. There are many other features of a rural landscape to be protected.
Go get ‘em Elisabeth! You bleeding heart liberal lefty!
November 10th, 2009 at 10:23 AM
IMHO Madam B on our county council is not on any one side but the side she thinks right for that particular vote. I find her even when I disagree with her (Madam B, I’s still think you were wrong on the district voting!) a breath of fresh air, because she truly tries to do what she thinks right!
This county council gives everyone a seat at the table, diversity is good, different opinions is democracy, everyone may not like everything because it is not exactly what they want but the beauty of democracy is the fact that it is imperfect as are people who those that govern answer to. But what democracy requires more than anything to be at its best, is different opinions and not one party rule!
I think Madam B will insure that.
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 10th, 2009 at 10:35 AM
They were against it before, Stone, and those I’ve spoken with so far are still against it. Ken Mann intends to try to have it changed and he told me yesterday he believes he’ll have no problem doing that.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:07 PM
What “progressive” policies, precisely, kept your farmer friend from making a living by farming, Stonemason? Did macroeconomics have no effect whatsoever?
If his land is agricultural land, any downzone won’t affect him. One of the great misconceptions foisted on the County by the property rights folks was that the 10-acre zoning would apply to the entire County. It (or whatever the Council ultimately passes — the Council has no obligation, and no apparent predilection, to follow any Planning Commission recommendations) would apply to some areas designated as “rural.” NOT to agricultural lands, or resource lands, or land included within LAMIRDs.
That’s why I keep wondering about the “unhappy farmers.” If they want to keep farming, they would support the R10 zoning because it would result in less infringement on their farm operations. Perhaps they are unhappy because they would have to keep farming rather than developing subdivisions out in the country, but in that case they should be called “unhappy developers.”
November 10th, 2009 at 6:48 PM
King John the so-called ‘Progressive’;
I don’t know where to start so I will just begin by saying why in the world would farmers want their land to decrease in value? No one in their right mind would want any densities taken away. And how would downzoning to R10 result in less infringement on their farm operations? It is their land that would be affected. It would be up to them if they wanted to subdivide or not. Have you even talked to any of the farmers?
As far as the ‘misconceptions’ foisted on the County by the property rights folks, they are not misconceptions at all. In fact, no one is saying that the entire county is going to be downzoned as a result of this current planning session. What they are saying is that this is just the start of the downzoning of the entire county. But thanks to the voters of this county this will probably not happen after all. I hope this election is a wake up call to you and all the so-called ‘progressives’.
As far as my farmer friend, your statement about if his land is ag land, any downzone won’t affect him is just not true. Unfortunately for him his land is ag land but not zoned ag (there is also land in the county that is not ag land but is zoned ag) and he is in an area scheduled to be downzoned. However, he is very relieved at the results of this election and probably doesn’t have to worry about being downzoned any longer. The ‘progressive’ policies I was referring to that have kept my friend from farming is the Critical Areas Ordinance that you ‘lefties’ use as your bible. His farm is cut in half by a couple of ponds and a drainage ditch. For 60 years his cows and other animals had to cross the ditch and walk by the ponds to get from the barn to the pasture. All was fine until a neighbor complained to the County that they saw a cow in one of the ponds during the hot August weather. The farmer was told he had to keep all of his animals 50 feet away from the ditch and ponds because they are classified wetlands. This normally wouldn’t be a problem because if you have 12 acres what difference does 50 feet make. Well in this case it makes all the difference becasue the 50 foot buffers from the ponds and ditch extend off his property making it impossible for the animals to stay on his property and reach the pasture (its a pretty odd shaped piece of land). And here is the kicker…the ponds and ditch were dug in the 1960s by the Army Corps of Engineers to provide a place for his animals to drink from and stay cool in the hot summer weather. Back then they went around doing stuff like that for the local farmers in an effort to help them out. What a difference 50 years makes as now ‘wetlands’ are more important than the livelihood of the farmers. I have many more examples of stuff like this happening to small farmers if you would like to hear them. His inability to farm his land has nothing to do with macroeconomics as he made a living doing it for almost 60 years and was still making enough to live on up to the day he had to get rid of his animals.
You have also been misinformed about no downzoning going on inside LAMIRDs but I will leave that for another post as my stomach is telling me it is time for dinner.
King Stoneman
November 10th, 2009 at 7:21 PM
Thanks, Greg!
You know I will!
November 10th, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Stoneman,
Thank you for clarifying your position. And, yes, I comprehend it, as it was written.
Now that we know you have a bit more on the ball than the average stoneman, let’s get a couple of things cleared up.
The County Planning Commission is an advisory Commission. They make recommendations to the council, but they do not craft or adopt public policy. Only our elected County Council members have the authority to enact legislation.
So, are you attempting to tell me that other farmers, from other generations, have not lost property values, due to zoning decisions?
I’m trying not to laugh out loud here…
By the way, the state has had the authority to regulate “wetlands” etc. since the 1950’s. Where were you, under a rock?
November 10th, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Stoneman06,
Thanks for your post. Regarding your friend’s wetlands that were created by the Army Corps, it’s possible they are not regulated by the Whatcom County CAO. According to the Section 16.16.800, “Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches,…, farm ponds.”
Look under the definition for “Wetlands” at:
http://srch.mrsc.org:8080/code/template.htm;jsessionid=3E7209FB104151AA76C1E4A53279E76E?view=main
Hope this helps your friend!
November 10th, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Elisabeth,
I am fully aware what the planning commission is and fully aware of what it does. I re-read my response to you and no where does it say that I think the planning commission crafts or adopts public policy. My point was is that the 4 mindless members of our council who call themselves ‘progressives’ will just enact what the planning commission puts in front of them. They are not paid to think, they are paid to do what groups like Futurewise want them to do. I also never said that other farmers from other generations have not lost property values due to zoning decisions (you know what happens when you assume?). Just because it was done to people in the past, doesn’t make it right to do it to people now. What I’m saying is enough is enough and the voters seem to agree with me on this one. So I believe it’s me who should be laughing out loud…..
As far as regulating ‘wetlands’ goes, I know for a fact that it wasn’t until the early to mid 70’s that the County started administering the first version of their Critical Areas Ordinance. The state may have started in the 50’s but as usual the county was probably slow to follow suit. I have no problem with protecting our true ‘wetlands’ such as lakes, rivers, and streams but when the livelihood of a farmer is taken away over goverment dug ponds and ditches I have a real problem. What I’m trying to say is that today’s version of the Critical Areas Ordinance goes way too far and it is just another example of the ‘progressive’ policies enacted by people who want to make it as difficult and expensive as possible for people to do anything with their property in an effort to shut down all development.
Stoneman
PS- I wasn’t under a rock in the 50s, I wasn’t even born yet….and can you define an ‘average stoneman’?
November 11th, 2009 at 12:47 AM
Stoneman - could you give us an example of a piece of legislation that wasn’t just standard text cleanup/procedure, something that would perhaps change the policies of how the county plans/grows in the future in a stark way, that the County Council literally just adopted based on Planning Commission recommendations without changing any of it?
Comments like this catch me off guard a bit, because I sit through myriad council meetings and when it comes to those issues that aren’t the standard (the council, after all, agrees unanimously on perhaps 90 percent or more of what they vote on) fodder, those that change the way the county does business, or how it spends money, etc., and I don’t think the council has ever not had debate on those big issues, and I don’t think I can recall a time where they didn’t tweak something that’s been in front of them.
But I’d love your insight on it. If you can provide examples I think it’d be a great way to further the discussion, and we can also look at what those issues were that they didn’t change at all and try to figure out why, etc. Of course I’m not saying they haven’t — I just can’t think of anything in the three+ years I’ve covered the council where that’s been the case.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:49 AM
Have I talked to farmers? Well, the two farmers on the Planning Commission supported ten-acre zoning. They both want to keep farming. When rural and agricultural land are divided into residential subidivisions, there are more houses adjacent to the working farms. More people to complain about noise and smells, more people complaining about spraying. Ask farmers how they like farming in the middle of subdivisions.
The Critical Areas Ordinance is a requirement of state law. If the County doesn’t enforce it, the state will. Drayton Harbor, among other water bodies, shows the effects of impairment. There is an effort to restore Puget Sound to some level of health, and it would be surprising if the new Council could eliminate requirements to reduce the manure load. We’re pretty isolated up here, but we’re still part of the state. And the world.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Stoneguy -
The county council isn’t really paid much at all and not paid to do what Futurewise wants. That’s a silly boogeyman the Property Rights folks pulled out of a hat along with the ‘endless downzone’ threat.
If your farmer friend is a farmer, then their land probably isn’t in one of these small LAMIRD areas. Regardless of zoning, I bet your friend’s land has increased in value a lot over these many years. Do you have one single example of land losing $100,000 in true value?
The water protections in the CAO - it is no longer legal to get poop in our water bodies. Families should be able to play in the beach without worrying about kids getting sick. Regardless of who’s on the county council it’s not right and it’s not legal to get poop in the water. If the county stops enforcing then others will. Remember when EPA used to fly over our dairy farms because Ecology wouldn’t enforce the law?
Back to zoning: we won’t have farming without farmland. Like any business in America, farming needs to be flexible regarding crops and marketing but any successful farmer knows that the soils and land come first. In order to have that business flexibility they may need to expand or contract their land base, selling from or to other farmers. For that to happen, the land needs to be affordable with NO development rights/threats. We can’t allow our capital (the land) to be eroded because of a few unsuccessful farmers, an anecdotal story and a group from King County (CAPR) telling us what to do.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:58 AM
The poop in the water business I’s leave to SQ but the why reason behind the discontent some of the rural members of our county felt towards some of our urban members, there I’s shall go!
And I’s won’t even mention anything about those who are like imperialists to me, so what was this election about, to me Thomas Jefferson put it best;
“Most bad government has grown out of too much government.”
It don’t matter if it is mandated by the county, the state, the feds or whoever, there are a bunch of people who are beginning to get sick and tired of government telling us everything we can think or do or have and this bunch will be more incline to vote for people who they think will listen to them as individuals then politician’s whose ears are more prone to only hear the voice of the “collective”!
“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” I could do TJ all day on this!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 11th, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Roaring Lion, King John, Elisabeth, Suzie Q, and all other so-called ‘progressives’,
This will be my last post as it pains me to converse with people who have not, will not, and/or just don’t want to see the light. I can only beat my head against a wall so many times. What this election came down to was the fact that the true citizens of Whatcom County were fed up with how our current council was intruding on just about every aspect of their lives. They wanted a council who will listen to their concerns and at least take them into consideration when making policies or enacting laws. To me and the true citizens of Whatcom County this election was truely progressive. AFY’s quote of Thomas Jefferson sums it all up: “Most bad government has grown out of too much government.”
Stoneman
November 11th, 2009 at 2:32 PM
“We need someone who hasn’t been bought by groups like Futurewise, …”
If $20,000 dollar donations doesn’t make a candidate REALLY grateful and mindful of the donor’s comments when they stand before council, I don’t know what does. How ’bout a combined $15,000 from Realtors and more 10s of thousands from the building industry members? Do you really think that kind of money, which includes the single biggest donation ever given to any candidate in the history of Whatcom County was because they were just charming people? Ya really think they’re gonna get a spit in the eye for all those nice presents?
As for “politicians whose ears are more prone to only hear the voice of the “collective,” you can’t possibly mean that collective who wants protection for their drinking water and health of their aquifers, rivers and lakes, could you? Did you know you can’t restore health farm land after it’s been developed? Do you understand about local production of food? Do you like to eat produce from other countries? And open space? Don’t even bother answering that one: if you don’t get it about open space, there’s no discussion that could sensitize you to the idea.
You’re really talking about the right to develop any time and anywhere you want. It’s like my kids saying, “But mom! All the other kids are doing it!”
Oh, and TJ didn’t face a booming population, shrinking farmlands and water scarcity. And he was aware of more than the government. I wouldn’t try to hold you to stuff you knew when you were 10 and I’d bet that Jefferson, too, might have a few thoughts about quality of life. But we can’t really know about that, can we?
November 11th, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Oh, I forgot:
Dan McShane did, indeed, work with persistance and watchfulness for the health of Lake Whatcom Reservoir and the watershed. Although I’m sure he likes Lake Padden, too.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Hey SC contary to the popular progressive belief, those of us who love liberty can also love the land.
You know where I have found the biggest lovers of trees, not with the tree huggers but with the loggers & tree planters cause those trees feeds their children!
You know who I found to love the land the most that some people farm for a living, the people who live on that land, who make their living from that land, not the planners who spend most of their time looking at that land thru a window pane!
I could keep on with the hunter, the fisherman, etc, but methinks you get me drift!
For those of you who are the cogs in a machine that may be on its last leg, I’s feel yous pain!
The sun is out and 18 is a calling but a little TJ, cause, I have absolutely no doubt that he would stand on the side of liberty today as he once did before!
“A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 11th, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Oh, Stoneman. “The true citizens of Whatcom County . . .” That’s just creepy. Everybody else is — dogmeat? Un-American? Because they disagree with you. Wow.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:07 AM
Ms Kershner received over $19,000, about half of her total fund from a single donor.
Does that sound like one of the true people of this county to anyone here?
Has anyone reading this thread ever written a check for $19,000. Ever? Show of hands? Whoa… don’t everyone raise your hands at once now…
I didn’t see Futurewise or any other “wise” contribute anywhere nearly $20,000 to the entire race, let alone one candidate.
When push really comes to shove, and Ms Kershner has to make decisions, will she ignore the wishes of those who made sure she had two dollars for every dollar her opponent had?
If she goes against the wishes of the very few who contributed money and instead goes with the wishes of the very many who voted for her (and the very many who didn’t), will those well coined “true people” accept the wisdom of her judgment gracefully, or will they remind her of the day she faces re-election?
One of the so-called True People of Whatcom County gave a large sum of money to a trained military officer. I suppose it is a bit of a stretch to imagine that check might have also been accompanied by marching orders. Well, my imagination can stretch at least that far.
I do hope that “Joe Six Figures” was thinking about the greater good for all of us when he cut that check. And I do hope that he will take it in stride if she should ever give higher priority to the interests of the other True People of Whatcom County. You know, the ones who can’t cut her a $19,000 check.
Like you and me, Stoneman.
We’re not so different, you and I…
November 12th, 2009 at 1:30 AM
AFY must be getting close to the toilet paper part in the leap year book.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:38 AM
Hey, Sheepdog, contrary to popular conservative belief, those of us who love the land also have enough love in our hearts for liberty too.
Oh, and one other thing…
Methinks you needs to keeps your coat of fur shiny and well groomed, Sheepdog.
These sheeps you elected are already tended by a shepard… and that shepard ain’t you.
Methinks there is a sheepdog that will soon find hisself out in the cold with the rest of us…
Methinks further that a certain Sheepdog has over-guestimated how many friends he really will haves on the next County Council.
Grow your coat thick, Puppy. And keeps it dry. You might soon needs it to keeps you warm, methink.
Woof.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:12 AM
The logger loves the trees so much that he’s willing to build roads and create clearcuts that allow runoff to destroy the property of other tree lovers downhill,
muddy the streams of fish lovers,
contaminate the aquifers of farmers and water drinkers
and give headaches to all those other land lovers not so inclined to see resources as a private bank account for their kids.
Planners are a bit more far-sighted than the ranting AFY!!! and that’s why they’re entrusted to make decisions for the good of the entire community.
Freedom in action,
just as you always plead.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Well my friends, y’all been pretty busy while I’s be gone! BTW for all y’all caught inside yesterday, that sunshine was really really very very nice! For me friends concerned for me welfare, me coat be almost as thick as me skin!
The big question is, in me humble opinion, to all y’all so intent on telling other people what they can do with their life and liberty and property, what gives you that right?
Is it because you think yourself being smarter or more educated, is it because you think that “the other side” is evil?
Since I’s be from the unwash masses of the right, I needs to keep everything as simple as I can, so lets kinda go to just the most basic of the questions, I got it, it is the poop in the water question!
How many people in the county do you think wants poop in their water, everyone raise their hands that do please, oh methinks I saw a lot less hands (like 0) in this county then those who have written checks for 20k, BTW my hand was up on the 20k question!
What gets me most bout y’all progresives is you are all so ready to punish everyone for the misdeeds of a few (sometimes an imagine few at that).
So if you progressive think there are people in the county who want poop in their water please join with me, we can go door to door until we flush every one of them out!
Since TJ was so popular yesterday, how bout some Ben Franklin to start this day!
All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 12th, 2009 at 9:56 AM
AFY, a simple question if you will: what do your new peeps plan to do on the county council? I was listening, but didn’t hear.
New developments on the flood plain (hope they’re self insured!)?
A strip mall along the Guide to the border?
Do we urban imperialists get to pay for even more deputies for everyone else?
Can we stop all that annoying work to keep livestock out of streams?
Can apexnerd, citizen and I pool our meager liberal monies and invest in a hog rendering plant next to your home (zoning is such a socialist notion)?
Do tell.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Too specific - will not compute.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Who tell, Me tell? I’s tell!!
First of all I’s can’t speak for anyone to be or not to be on the council, they will have to do as they believe best, methinks! But I’s do have faith in the character of the newly elected!
Second of all I’s be not an anarchist, I believe in the rule of law by men/women, now that being said, to understand imperialism one must truly understand what imperialsim is, forcing your will on others without fairly allowing for their participation, I’s don’t agree with that, but I’s do agrees with a government that 1st principle is the principle of protecting an individual rights and that, that government is answerable to those they govern and not as much they as to the governors!
I can’t help meself;
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. TJ!
And I’s putting me head out me window as I write because there is surely a fresh new taste of liberty in the air of Whatcom! Mmmmmmmmmmmm good!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 12th, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Do as they think best.
Don’t all people do that?
Protect individual rights.
You mean my right to be free of others using their rights to infringe on me?
How does a government by of and for the people,
fear the people?
I learned a long time ago that your zest for the nebulous was behind your homey simplism,
but somehow I still get sucked into your ridiculous circular arguments.
Love your white ebonics though!
November 12th, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Anything to please me ciz!
Ciz I’s must fess up there is a reason for whys I’s be as I be, and Mr TJ sums it up best!
Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
AFY!!thesheepdog!!
November 12th, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Actually, Suzie Q… we could get a better return on our investment by setting up a crystal meth lab next to the Sheepdog’s home.
And we wouldn’t have to bother with any of that regulatory nonsense, either. According to the laws that prevail in Whatcom County, there is no bureaucratic red tape whatsoever standing in the way of setting up a thriving crank production facility. We don’t even need a license or pass any certification.
Also, a meth lab would have a smaller impact on water quality than a hog rendering plant. In fact, Sheepdog wouldn’t even know our lab existed in his neighborhood even at full production capacity… till it caught on fire, anyway.
And the building will have to be condemned and demolished even if it doesn’t catch fire. So there’s that.
And the property values of the neighborhood will sink like a stone once the lab is discovered.
And there is some other unrelated legal mumbo jumbo, and a vague ethical and moral element that we could easily work out with denial and rationalization.
But that doesn’t sound like my problem, since I’m going to be too busy building up a legal defense fund. Because I just know that the government is likely to try to interfere with this plan by searching my property without my permission, which as we all know is absolutely forbidden under the Constitution.
You know, the Constitution that Sheepdog’s buddy TJ had a hand in writing.
I don’t know about TJ, but once the lab is doing brisk business, AFY, I’m sure we will have no shortage of Ben Franklins.
So, let’s get this party started…
But it would be most un-neighborly to not get some consensus first…
So, Sheep Doggie Dog… does the tree of liberty need to be refreshed from time to time with acetone and sudafed?
Because we are going to need a lot of that to get the meth lab started in your neighborhood.
And what give you the right to say what we can do with our life, liberty, and property?
You wouldn’t want to force your will on us now, would you, Puppy?
Woof.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:43 PM
I see a whole lot of confusion here about the violation of nuisance ordinances as an argument for restrictive planning.
The argument really doesn’t wash. The industrial zone has to stop somewhere, doesn’t it? There are going to be residential uses that are adversely affected by commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses nearby, no matter how restrictive and enlightened the planning is.
Elisabeth,
I really don’t think I called you a lefty, unless you were making ” negative comments from lefties, especially those speaking of bad manners.”
The “pig farm” argument fails.
The “meth lab” argument is elegant until it runs into federal law. Have fun in the supermax.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:53 PM
That settles it then.
The next beer summit will be held at the meth lab next door to AFY’s house.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:28 AM
I assume supermax is a prison reference…
I shall begin there. As a first time offender, I doubt that I’d be sent to a maximum security prison.
Also, the legal defense fund I mentioned would keep me out of prison by exploiting the many legal technicalities that masquerade as “rights” that are extended to the criminal element in this country. I’ve watched many many episodes of “Law and Order” and I feel this gives me a strong grasp of this country’s legal system. I’ve heard of some people paying a fortune to go to law school to learn essentially the same thing. What a bunch of suckers.
Also, a cornerstone of my legal defense will be to frame AFY for the crime. But this relies on the element of surprise so it is very important that none of you tell him about that part. (I mean, really, if you can’t keep a secret on the internet, then I ask where can you keep it? Mums’ the word now. Shhh.)
But enough about my legal acumen…
I am most troubled by the lack of support for my absolute right to do what I want on my personal property.
Did Futurewise finally it’s hooks into you, davesix?
Say it ain’t so, Dave. Say it ain’t so.
Oh… here’s an interesting bit of trivia… when you try to by large quantities of Sudafed, people just stick their noses all up in your business.
What kind of a country do we live in where a fellow can’t just fill the trunk of his car with Sudafed without being interrogated by the police?
All I have to say is, Spaceba, Comrades. Welcome to Russia. Someone pass the borscht, you beet-loving, liberty-hating commies.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Some may say a meth lab stinks more so than a pig farm, don’t you know!
There is good and evil, always has been and always will be.
What gets me most about progressives is how they take the irresponsible among us and then try to equate/mandate laws that punish the responsible. I’s know there are some that due to their total lack of morality themselves it is very hard for them to appreciate the morality of others.
To compare a decent & honest small business owner or farmer to someone that manufactures meth or someone who forces an unwanted pig farm on a community is just the example everyone needs to see to understand the mentality of those who can not understand the difference between right and wrong.
“That, on the principle of a communion of property, small societies may exist in habits of virtue, order, industry, and peace, and consequently in a state of as much happiness as Heaven has been pleased to deal out to imperfect humanity, I can readily conceive, and indeed, have seen its proofs in various small societies which have been constituted on that principle. But I do not feel authorized to conclude from these that an extended society, like that of the United States or of an individual State, could be governed happily on the same principle.” –Thomas Jefferson to Cornelius Camden Blatchly, 1822. ME 15:399
No one knew it better than TJ that man is imperfect and due to those imperfection laws must exist but he also knew that the laws of our land should not violate our rights in the name of punishing those who are evil!
So my progressive friends please dare say, do you equate someone with 10 acres who wants to build a house for their sibling on their property the same as a meth maunfacturer?
To be using such a bankrupt argument surely shows how very bankrupt your argument really truly is!
I rest me case!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 14th, 2009 at 12:40 AM
No, Sheep D, I don’t equate someone building a home on their property with someone illegally manufacturing crank, or any other controlled substance.
Suzie Q brought up the notion of setting up a hog rendering plant to make a point.
I felt that example was not absurd enough, so I substituted it with a meth lab.
The point I was making was to provoke some thought about the shoe that is on the other foot. It seemed to me Suzie Q was making a similar point, but she can speak for herself just fine.
Progressives seem to have an easier time actually imagining what it is like to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes than most other political animals.
Here is the statement that Sheep D made that inspired me:
But instead of just admitting that it is actually sometimes reasonable and necessary to place limits on what a private property owner can and can’t do on their own property, Sheep D instead presents the opinion that I lack the basic ability to tell the difference between a person building a home on a plot of land and person setting up an illegal crank lab.
A community has the right to set standards of what is acceptable and what is not, Sheep Doggie Dogg. Even in America.
No one who penned the Constitution, not even AFY’s BFF TJ McSlaveOwner (whose soaring words extolling his love of liberty and freedom extended so far and so wide that it almost covered up the fact that he never freed any of his slaves), claimed that a free citizen enjoyed unfettered or absolute rights to do anything they felt like doing on private property.
Your inability to walk a yard in anyone’s paws but your own (let along a whole mile) doesn’t seem like a flaw in another pup’s argument, Sheep D.
So, what did your soul brutha TJ have to say about the ‘peculiar institution’ of slavery? That was some private property he knew pretty intimately… if you knows what I mean.
And, methinks ya do, Sheep Doggie D.
Next time you wants to bark about liberty and bankrupt arguments, maybe you doesn’t quote someone who owneded themselves some slaves. It be tacky when you do dat.
Bad dog.
November 14th, 2009 at 6:25 PM
Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me.
AFY likes Benjamin Franklin, and so do I. BF said this about private property: “Private property therefore is a creature of society, and is subject to the calls of that society, whenever its necessities shall require it, even to its last farthing. . .”
So, we can all agree on that, right?
November 16th, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Here’s a BF quote that goes as follows which is in the same light as the one you mentioned KJ:
All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.
Benjamin Franklin, letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783
Methinks the key here is the natural right of man and that which is not the natural right of government and I fully agree with BJ in supporting society when you have the means to do so and that is something men(& women) should do but giving up one’s natural rights is not something that he was advocating just as I am against the powers of state taking those rights away from the individual.
This difference of opinion that we are having is about the rights of individuals (responsible!!) versus those of the state, and IMHO there is a huge difference between what an individual gives to society with his free will and what is forcibly taken from an individual by the state.
But there is another huge issue that has been raised here and it is the issue to associate landowners, farmers, small business people as if they are criminals, like the meth maker or unwelcomed pig farmer to a community, and my friends, there seems to be those on the side of controlling growth who do seem to attached the mindset of criminally to some landowners, small businesses, & farmers if those same people do not do the bidding that they the sprawl controllers desire. But it also must be said that there are some people who are guilty of wanting to commit the horrible crime of sprawl so the question remains; who is right?
My belief is as I have previously said whatever we do we should not be punishing the responsible for the action of the irresponsible, we should not be having blanket mandates, IMHO, we should be taking the time and effort to make sure not one, not even one person rights are being trampled in our rush to destroy the all so evil sprawl! How we do things can be just as important as what we do!
Now on Thomas Jefferson and our founding fathers in general, first not one of them were perfect, they were men (& women) caught in a time of revolution, men who had the guts to stand up against tyranny, did they make mistakes as individuals, yes, should all they have done in establishing our great nation be discounted because of some of their personal failings, well we each should answer that question for ourself, for me I say no.
IMHO TJ struggled with the question of slavery till the day he died, he did take action like when he drafted the Virginia Law of 1778 prohibiting importing slaves, he also proposed an ordiniance banning slavery in 1784, and he also advocated emancipation for all born into slavery after a certain date but I don’t believe that when he died he was satisfied with what he had accomplish to end it, however what TJ did accomplish in his life in my opinion was overall for the good of mankind and it is not my opinion to discount that for his personal failings for what ever they were.
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 19th, 2009 at 8:46 PM
AFY,
What a lovely comment!
I think that the advocates for “open space” fail to appreciate the manner in which freedoms are being trampled upon.
Thank you, sir.