My story on the race between Ken Mann and Mary Beth Teigrob:
Whatcom County Planning Commissioner Ken Mann wants a job on the County Council because he loves the community and wants to work on land use policies, job creation and efficiency in government.Mann
Small business owner Mary Beth Teigrob wants the county to stop harming rural property owners, build better relationships between the county and businesses and says she wants to preserve the community for her kids and grandchildren.Teigrob
The two are vying for the District 2 council seat being vacated by Councilwoman Laurie Caskey-Schreiber, who has decided to seek the At-Large seat instead.
They spoke to The Bellingham Herald about a variety of topics, from agricultural protection to economic development and Lake Whatcom watershed protection.
What is the county’s role in economic development?
Teigrob: The county sets the rules under which businesses operate. They need to be consistent, because businesses plan for the long-term. “If you’re constantly changing the rules under which they operate you make it inhospitable and they leave,” she said. Asked what regulations she believes are inconsistent, Teigrob said that the current rezoning of certain rural county lands is a big issue, because some will be downzoned and it could be difficult to get loans based on the decreased value of the non-conforming property. Teigrob also said that the permit center needs to be more consistent, and she’s heard a lot of complaints about the process. “It can be slow, not consistent and it creates a ‘pile-on’ effect,” she said. “It just needs to be laid out, make it clear (what the permit requirements will be and don’t change them).”
Mann: Economic development is more the role of the Port of Bellingham, in theory that’s their mission. But the county should support the Port’s efforts to bring in new businesses and help provide opportunity for job creation. The county needs to make sure its policies create those opportunities.
Mann said he’s like to see incubator spaces in the county where a property owned by the county can be used for fledgling businesses, perhaps at lowered rent rates for a certain period of time to help get them off the ground. Selecting businesses for such incubators would have to be fair and ensure that any proposed company isn’t one that would compete with an existing small local business, so as not to subsidize one over the other. Partnering with the Port for such an incubator space could be beneficial as they likely already have good facilities available for such a project. The county also needs to ensure it’s being consistent in the permit process. “You get conflicting rules and guidance from the county,” he said. “Business owners and farmers are happy to follow the rules. They just want to know what the rules are.”
As a County Council member, what would you propose to help protect the Lake Whatcom watershed and its drinking water quality?
Mann: The lake is definitely threatened, studies show improvements are needed. “That is a resource that is irreplaceable at any cost,” he said. The trading of 8,000 acres of forest lands between the state Department of Natural Resources and the county for park land is a step in the right direction to help ensure less development and logging disturbs soils in the watershed, he said. “There is no silver bullet,” to fixing or protecting the lake, he said.
Mann advocates for the continued implementation of low-impact development ordinances, impervious surface ordinances and would like the county to create an effective transfer of development rights program that could be used by watershed property owners to give up development rights in the watershed for the ability to develop a property elsewhere. Mann believes a storm water fee in the watershed, while perhaps not popular to say, could be an effective way to help pay for projects needed to protect the lake. “People building and polluting in the watershed should carry the burden of protecting it,” he said.
Mann supported the council approving a 3 cents per $1,000 of assessed value increase in property taxes for the county’s flood fund to help pay for $183 million in water-related projects, including some for watershed protection.
Teigrob: One thing to consider, she said, is that there are pockets of soil in the watershed that have naturally-occurring, high levels of phosphorous. She believes more stormwater retention ponds should be built in those areas to protect the lake. Perhaps more stormwater vaults as well, she said. In terms of paying for projects to protect the lake, there is public works funding that should be used, she said. “It’s a matter of we need to prioritize our spending,” she said. “Public safety first, but up high is Lake Whatcom.”
She doesn’t support the trade of 8,000 acres from the state to the county for a park, she said. It would remove income generation from timber harvests and it would cost money to manage the lands, she said. “For me, more parks are not a priority in this economic climate.”
Teigrob doesn’t know if she supports a stormwater fee to help pay for such projects, saying she wants to hear directly from the community of those people who would be affected.
Teigrob said she believes there wasn’t enough transparency in the decision to raise the flood tax levy. “There isn’t enough communication,” she said. “People feel like if they’re not there every meeting they won’t know everything that’s going on.” Teigrob said she believes that the public no longer feels like they can trust their government.
How can the county work to protect agricultural lands for farming?
Teigrob:The county needs to start working with farmers, because they’re already “hanging by a thread,” she said.
“Not all soils are created equally,” and some areas need to be assessed to determine if they’re even viable for agricultural use, she said. Teigrob is concerned that the state’s Critical Areas Ordinance requirements creating buffers between agricultural land and streams, creeks and rivers are too big and it’s affected the ability of farmers to get loans due to a lack of useable acreage. “They need to be able to use their land,” she said. She also believes there should be less of a “blanket approach” to who must follow the strict requirements, as not all farmers may threaten bodies of water in the same way.
Teigrob said she is disappointed in the process to update the rural zoning of the county to become compliant with state law, because she believes the government should have done more first to study the fiscal impacts the changes would have on business and property owners. “They’re hurting people where we’ve done business historically,” she said. She also thinks county officials erred when they chose to not propose any residential types of local areas of more intensive rural development, where pockets of urban growth would be allowed under the update zoning regulations. Instead, the focused only on commercial areas of more intensive development, she said.
Mann: He supports the recent resolution calling for the preservation of 100,000 acres of agricultural land in active use and production. In discussing sprawl and land use issues, the debate isn’t just about protecting farmland, he said. “It’s about making sure we use our resources wisely, ag land, forests, water.” Infrastructure for low-density developments in rural areas doesn’t pay for itself and isn’t economical. But also in reviewing agricultural lands, the first step should be reviewing whether the soils have been identified as “ag-quality, prime soils,” he said.
In working on the Planning Commission about working on updating the zoning of the rural portion of the county to come in compliance with state law, Mann said that he believes county staff have done a good job in incorporating the concerns of the public. He wouldn’t have been fair to not take into account that some areas of the county that potentially could be downzoned are already paved over. “There is more common ground,” Mann said, though he has been unsuccessful in convincing his fellow commission members to change the proposed downzoning of some areas from one house per 10 acres instead to one house per five acres. Mann argues that the downzones are already going to hurt property owners who have historically been in the areas and anything more than one house per five acres would be over doing it.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:33 PM
I hear one consistent thread wafting through the Luke-Teigrob-Kershner replies.
That’s the rezoning of county properties to bring our neighborhood into compliance with state law and how that ties in to the ‘helplessness’ the voter certainly feels in the face of their bully government.
I wonder if that single issue has legs enough to carry any of them into office?
October 15th, 2009 at 3:45 PM
It’s a complicated theory so it rests on some spindly legs. Time will tell.
The other question is this: will Luke-Tiegrob-Kershner-Knutzon swear to uphold the law then immediately vote to violate state law? Or will they have to do exactly what this council has to do.
I guess that’s what I’d want to ask them if there was ever a chance: will you violate state law? Will we all be penalized with sanctions from the state?
October 15th, 2009 at 9:49 PM
I certainly don’t agree with Teigrob, but if Mann thinks “The trading of 8,000 acres of forest lands between the state Department of Natural Resources and the county for park land is a step in the right direction to help ensure less development and logging disturbs soils in the watershed,”, he shows a serious lack of knowledge himself. Commercial forest land cannot be developed, and the land to be traded (7400 not 8000 acres) is the least likely to have forest practices performed. Tiegrob is right about one thing, it will cost a lot of money to do this.
Another continuing comment - why do we have to hide behind names like “citizen” and “Suzie Q’ - why not tell us who you really are.
October 16th, 2009 at 12:49 AM
Tom - people here have the right to anonymity and I respect that some people must be anonymous due to their various positions in life. Suzie Q, out of the two you named, has never insulted anyone or called names or been rude. That person has merely expressed their opinion and forwarded the civic dialogue we have here.
Though I’m named, and you’re named, not everyone can be. Including people who support your positions. America has a very, very long tradition of anonymous commentary that is now historicaly considered to be some of the most important words in our nation’s time. Though I’m not trying to say the dialogue here is so inspiring, I do believe that the tradition in these past centuries lends credence to the value of anonymity when making political statements. Sometimes, people are hurt in negative ways if they reveal publicly their true identities.
If those commenters are respectful and prever to remain private, I respect that decision as long as we can have a conversation here. While Citizen in the past has been snarky toward people, that person has never directly name-called and Suzie Q has been nothing but the epitome of an exemplary commentary.
I’ll defend any person on my blog who seeks to forward discussion, whether they use their real name or not. It’s fine if you do, and you have more credence here than the anonymous, Tom, but it’s not the end all be all, and this nation was founded on anonymous commentary. Sometimes, it wasn’t pretty. And I think we do much better than our predecessors.
October 16th, 2009 at 2:56 AM
Our founding fathers, in efforts to drum up support for the constitutional convention and the ideas addressed there, published a whole series of articles in newspapers under greek aliases. So I guess my question is, if I might paraphrase Glenn Beck, why do you hate America so much?
October 16th, 2009 at 7:32 AM
Riley? Who’s hating America? I’m not making the connection.
The Federalist Papers immediately came to mind for me when Sam mentioned the long tradition of anonymity. These were essays, a series of 85 of them, published in a number of New York newspapers in the late 1700s, explaining and arguing for the new form of government as outlined in the Constitution. All of the essays were attributed to “Publius” but are widely believed to have been written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay.
October 16th, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Who am I?
I’m a citizen.
October 16th, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Even our esteemed host writes with a bite I guess you could call snarky,
whatever that means - maybe a cross between sarcasm and incredulity?
I think political discourse sometimes calls for a little more than an ‘excuse me but I believe you’re in error’.
Also,
I’ve never snarked any poster that didn’t employ that style themselves.
Mr. Tom has complained at least thrice about the pseudonym issue,
I wonder if it would be snarky to wonder about his understanding of the last two explanations given?
October 16th, 2009 at 9:57 AM
DJ - indeed, Publius is the most common reference to anonymity in American political discourse.
Benjamin Franklin as a teenager wrote under the pseudonym “Silence Dogood” to get work published. He wrote under several others.
But those pseudonyms were also used some times to attack opponents, not necessarily in the nicest way. Some of the harshest political rhetoric, actually, came during the found years of the nation both by named and unnamed political figures. I believe the election of 1800 was perhaps one of the harshest between Jefferson and Adams, where even their wives traded barbs against the candidates.
October 16th, 2009 at 10:12 AM
It wouldn’t matter what you write or how,
somebody somewhere will take offense.
And the memory of arguments long since dead would color your every reading from then on.
If you think a poster is off-kilter you’ll find the evidence in every word so you may as well write in a way that suits your own feelings.
I believe that whining about a pseudonym is simply cover for a weak viewpoint.
October 16th, 2009 at 10:44 AM
My point was that Aliases were good enough for James Madison, one of our founding fathers, but not good enough for Tom. Therefore, using Glenn Beck logic, if he hates using aliases, he must hate our founding fathers for doing so, and therefore, hate america.
Jokes suck when you have to explain them.
October 16th, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Question of the day: Why is it OK for the Washington Conservation Voters to donate to candidates but not OK for people who support the Building Industry Association of Whatcom County to give contributions?
October 16th, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Because people trust the motives of the Washington Conservation Voters. People want to see the natural beauty of their area preserved. They do NOT want to see it turned into another cookie cutter development. That’s the difference. Its about the motives of the industry. Yes, the Lummi tribe provides a great deal of funding for the Whatcom Democrats, yes, several conservative County Council candidates took several thousand dollars from the Gravel industry. Who do you trust to preserve your ag land? The people who want to literally sow the earth with salt and rip its value out, or a tribe of people that have lived here since before the invention of the harmonica?
October 16th, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Sam, I’m not sure anyone is saying it is. Conservatives frequently bash out-of-area contributions from Futurewise and liberals bash the BIA. Futurewise and BIA tend to get into controversial issues, as opposed to the less controversial Washington Conservation Voters or Chamber of Commerce.
October 16th, 2009 at 4:32 PM
I do not trust Ken Mann to maintain working farmlands. Working is the key word. Farming is a business. So is Ferndale Ready Mix. They have more in common than may meet the eye. Like wanting to avoid becoming a greenbelt that provides them no income and their county no tax-base.
I know, how about a federal bailout? The Livable Communities Act (introduced to US Senate by Chris Dodd) would solve all these problems! Not. But it would be right up Ken’s alley. Isn’t he in bed with Futurewise already? Its time for “county-wise” folks to step up and make these calls for themselves.
October 16th, 2009 at 4:52 PM
I’ve got a couple of questions:
Why is it bad if a candidate accepts contributions from local developers, but not bad if a candidate IS a local developer?
If not all developers are bad then why are they commonly referenced in a negative context from the left?
October 16th, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Bellinghammer, which candidate is a local developer?