Comments on: Weimer vs. Luke, on the issues

By: citizen

citizen — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:23:25 +0000

Hey, another citizen!
Sorry to say,
but Pt. Roberts might as well be Sri Lanka for all the attention you get from local politicians.

By: Citizen 2

Citizen 2 — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:51:44 +0000

Which candidate will work to get Point Roberts a ferry so we don’t have to go through a foreign country to get our groceries?

By: Suzie Q

Suzie Q — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:11:43 +0000

Actually Ted, those contributions are transparent. You know about them right? What is opaque about that?

I disagreed with the Terraquarium project but so what. It was all done in the open and vetoed in the open. All in the open. Lots of public discussion. We all know about it and have opinions about it, right? Resolutions from the City, the Port, articles in the papers, editorial in the Herald. Etc. Etc. Etc.

You seriously think Carl somehow secretly brought it forward to the Port (because they are SUCH good friends with the former executive director of ReSources….) Goodness. As a conpiracy theory, that one’s a non-starter.

By: Sam Taylor

Sam Taylor — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:10:28 +0000

Ted I’m so glad you’re back. Thanks for participating.

By: Ted Wood

Ted Wood — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:04:54 +0000

Let’s see: Could that $500 each to Weimer and Mann from the Lummi Tribe have anything to do with past and future negotiations and “contracts”. That’s what is referred to as “transparency in their two campaigns???
Then there’s the TerrAquarium Project??? It “isn’t as bad as some people think” Weimer suggests. No, the project might not be BUT the manner that Weimer employed to dupe the public and keep all negotiations in the deep shadows of the Port and Co. Council were less than honorable, closer to deceitful. The Economic Development Investment funds (Taxpayer refunds) are not for grants/loans to private enterprise projects. In addition Weimer convinced the EDI board that , although NO GRANT funds were available, they could approve a move of LOAN funds to replace the deficit GRANT funds to the tune of the $600,000 requested by the Port for the Northwest Discovery Project to use to “study” and determine the viability of the TerrAquarium Project. This whole charade is complemented with a $250 campaign contribution from Bob Goodwin, director of NDP (TerrAquarium) and $10,000 from Lummi Island resident, Nancy Packard Burnett, a co-founder of The Monterey Bay Aquarium???? I much prefer someone that’s honest and above board in their dealings, especially their taxpaying constituents. I’ll support Ms. Luke any day!!!!

By: Suzie Q

Suzie Q — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:00:52 +0000

Luke is right. I’d like to put a hog rendering plant on my city lot. Because the city is anti-business, they won’t let me. I’m sending them a bill.

Oh wait. That would be crazy.

When she says the county (meaning the taxpayers) should be supporting businesses, what exactly does that mean? We set aside land, we build roads, we provide water lines and power, we educate their workers. What more?

By: citizen

citizen — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:41:16 +0000

I have to agree with Candidate Luke.
The ‘community’ that was shortsighted enough to restrict my property to a 25 feet maximum building elevation
owes me the value of the 12 more feet I couldn’t construct.
And that zoning the ‘community’ has arbitrarily placed on my property that won’t allow my mobile home,
my RV park, and my chicken coop adds up to another pile of hot cash owed me by the taxpayers.
While we’re at it,
the setbacks,
utility easements and county road right-of-way also unfairly damage the value of my property.
I smell a big payday!

By: elisabeth

elisabeth — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:14:37 +0000

The county needs to look at the economic impacts of its proposed update. Rather than looking simply at lines on a map, leaders need to look at the function of those rural areas. Harmed landowners should be compensated.

“If the whole community wants that to change, then the whole community should have to pay,” she said.

Hm. The Conservative County Council of the 1990’s adopted landuse decisions that placed
Whatcom County out of compliance with the Growth Management Act.

And Michelle says, the whole community should have to pay for the “harm” that bringing the county back into compliance with the GMA may cause.

Let me play devil’s advocate: Let’s sue the county council members who voted to support current land use policy decisions that resulted in the county being out of compliance with state law.

Those council members can pay for the anger, the fear, the purported economic harm that affected landowners may suffer, the loss of state funds and the angst of the current council as it attempts to bring Whatcom County back into compliance with state law.

We need council members who have the ability to draft landuse policy that complies with state law. What we don’t need is a slate of council members who intend to use a council seat as a bully pulpit to challenge existing state law.

We elect state legislators to amend, draft and adopt state laws.