I just received this e-mail from Lummi Island resident Michelle Luke, who said she’s off to spend time at the island’s ferry informational meeting that Whatcom County Public Works is putting on ( I.E. ~ part of that outreach some people say the county never does).
Said Luke of her loss to Weimer:
This campaign has been a wonderful remarkable experience. Meeting Whatcom County citizens in their homes, businesses, and neighborhoods and hearing first hand “their” issues and ideas were the most interesting aspects of this contest. The most exciting experience was that so many people got involved for the first time in their local government and through these election results, saw that involvement translate to a more balanced representation of our County Council.I want to thank my husband and family my wonderful campaign crew and everyone who supported this amazing effort. I wish all the best to Councilman Weimer in his second term.Luke
Michelle Luke
November 9th, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Candidate Luke is a class act, and Whatcom County would benefit from her continued involvement in public issues.
I note that Carl Weimer, clearly the most powerful and visible candidate in the whole slate, defeated her by only a point and a half. With Weimer’s status as a highly-publicized pipeline hero and community activist, with his community-wide name recognition, one would think that he’d have crushed a newbie by thirty points.
It is my hope that Mr. Weimer might take a look at the election results, and then at his policy positions, and re-examine his previous course, with the mood of the electorate in mind. It’s possible, isn’t it, that he’s on the wrong side of the land-use policy debate?
I’m not holding my breath, because I think that he is an ideologue, but there is a rising tide of discontent in the rural areas of the county.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Re: Luke. Yes, Michelle has potential and it would be nice to see her remain active.
Re: that rising tide of discontent — it better be catching a ship to Olympia, if you want to see changes in the Growth Management Act!
I don’t know why anyone would want to be a local legislator in this county. The money isn’t good and people in brightly colored shirts yell at you at meetings. Then, to add insult to injury, you get blamed for starting a world-wide recession in a mailer!
It will be interesting to see if the yellow shirts are still supporting Kershner and Knutzen two years from now.
Sadly, the Republican party has a history of turning on it’s elected officials.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:04 AM
Who else have they turned on, Elisabeth? Ward Nelson and Sam Crawford are both active in the party. Do they not still back Rep. Doug Ericksen and Sen. Dale Brandland?
November 10th, 2009 at 5:55 AM
What “land use policy debate”? A bunch of self interested folks screaming they want theirs (regardless the consequences of the same as general policy) is not a debate, it’s more like a street fight.
Don’t ever underestimate the power of money in campaigns. And don’t forget that most people would rather vote against somebody than for someone.
Weimer hardly campaigned. He was fortunate that Luke was a weak candidate and his own record clear enough to retain his support with progressives. The weakening of their support for McShane and Caskey-Schreiber, along with those candidates’ negatives, was enough to create what will be a very dysfunctional council.
Weimer was the one they wanted to knock off, and they failed because there was little ambiguity about what he stands for. Try as they would, he (like Mann) couldn’t be tied to the “gang of four” thing.
While others kept their fingers in the air, and tried to split the baby with developers and make deals with the county administration for their own benefit and the benefit of their allies, Weimer was often the only one focusing the light on what was going on.
Though progressives may have failed to contribute as needed in this election, the majority of county residents overwhelmingly supports policies that protect the county’s rural character, preserve its agricultural and forest lands and the related industries, and protect its water resources.
When the policies sought by self interested land owners are seen for what they are; and how they conflict with both state laws and the vision of the majority, the “debate” will be over, and the folks they’ve elected this go round will be down the road.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:05 PM
I have trouble believing that there will be any three/three splits on policy from this new group.
Most of what the council does that’s contentious is mandated in some way by state law and includes ongoing programs not likely to be curbed.
What we will see is an attempt to block and forestall and argue any issue simply for the sake of making an appropriate noise for their masters.
Just as the Republicans, the Tea Partiers and the New Conservatives do right now on the national stage.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:00 PM
As for the GMA, don’t expect Linville, Ericksen, or Brandland to try and re-tool it in a way that would make a new win-win situation for Whatcom’s battling factions. Our legistlators have proven to stick to the status quo, or at least be totally ineffective if they did want to improve it.
The legislative challengers will have to offer that option for the 2010 race.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Mr. Kirsch,
You wrote, “What “land use policy debate”? A bunch of self interested folks screaming they want theirs (regardless the consequences of the same as general policy) is not a debate, it’s more like a street fight”
I’d suggest that it’s generally self-defeating to impute low motives to persons with whom you disagree about political issues. You know that the issues are more complex than your post would have us believe, and that pure self-interest is not what motivates those who disagree with your position.
Or maybe you were out of town.
You wrote, “Weimer hardly campaigned…”
You can do better than that.
Continuing, “Though progressives may have failed to contribute as needed in this election, the majority of county residents overwhelmingly supports policies that protect the county’s rural character, preserve its agricultural and forest lands and the related industries, and protect its water resources.”
You, sir, are out of touch.
The devil is in the details, and while you think that the current council has been acting to “protect the county’s rural character…”, I think that you have an elitest, urban view of what that character means.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:44 AM
Dave, regarding your comment about “elitist, urban views” of character … I’m curious what your definition is.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:57 PM
Sam,
I’m going to go beyond a definition.
I think that Kirsch and others, none of whom, I think, are rural residents, are reflexively in favor of the preservation of “open space” and of whatever government action can lead to and enhance that goal. They are delighted when the GMHB finds in favor of “urban imperialist” intervenors, holding that Whatcom County has not been sufficiently diligent in preserving rural lifestyles.
The problem is that, with successive density reductions and reductions of LAMIRDS, the state and the county erode the value of rural lands and crush the value of the investments in those properties. The rural landowners are then characterized by these elitests as “speculators” who had no right to any expectation of an increase in the value of their holdings, or in the prosperity of their businesses. The truth is that, by ruining the long-term investments of county residents, they encourage speculators to come in the the outside to buy up properties on the cheap from distressed sellers, secure in the knowlege that political winds can change. These speculators, I can assure you, do not have the interests of county residents in mind when they make their investment decisions.
Thus, the actions of elitest have exactly the opposite effect to that which they desired. The unintended consequences are greater than the result of their good intentions. With reduced density in hand, the elitests sit on their hands while the county and the state impose draconian new restrictions on rural land use, with the imposition of “farm plans” and new, overly restrictive (in my opinion, which is what this post is about) inspection and performance regulations on on-site sewage disposal systems, and restrictions on property use because of over-ambitious enforcement of storm water regulations. The poor sap who is trying to make a living as a farmer is screwed. With the value of his land demolished, he can’t go to the bank to finance equipment, especially in the current climate for commercial credit.
So they don’t really want to “preserve the rural lifestyle”, do they? They’re happy to crush the farmers with a blizzard of regulations.
At the same time, these people who argue in favor of the preservation of open space and control of “sprawl” argue against every attempt at infill in Bellingham or any other city in the county.
What they really want is no growth at all, and this is revealed in their opposition to infill projects in Bellingham, many of which have some “critical areas” problems. I have news for these guys: The reason the properties weren’t developed in the first place is because they have “critical areas”, which used to be called cliffs and swamps.
The elitests impose their view of the world, and of a wonderful, bucolic, open, rural landscape at no cost to themselves, because they accomplish it with political machinations. A prominent local blogger referred, in one of his lengthy columns, to “precious open space”. I offer the opinion that talk is cheap, and that he should bolster his opinion with his wallet, and purchase some of the now-worthless “open space” that he thinks is so precious.
The Growth Management Act’s preamble contains fourteen goals, including “Transportation, Housing, Economic Development, Property Rights, Permits, Natural Resource Industries, Citizen Participation, and others, but I think that the goals that I’ve listed have been ignored.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:49 PM
…none of whom, I think, is a rural resident…
(Dave’s embarrased for making that error in grammar.)
November 11th, 2009 at 9:57 PM
I’m also wondering how I managed to misspell “elitist” so many times. Oh, well.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:43 AM
Because you are not an elitist.