From Stark
At today’s City Club meeting, one questioner asked mayoral candidate Kelli Linville about the 2010 campaign contributions she got from coal terminal developers and from SSA Marine spokesman Craig Cole during her unsuccessful run for reelection to the state legislature.
“I was running for the legislature,” Linville replied. “I was not running for mayor.”
Linville said she has received no such contributions in her campaign for the mayor’s race.
Linville’s 2010 campaign contributions have been much debated on Facebook for the past week. Linville’s partisans have attempted to rebut pointed questions from Mayor Dan Pike’s supporters about her 2010 campaign war chest.
It’s perfectly legitimate to follow the money in politics, and if you do it the results are seldom gratifying. But it’s worth pointing out that people who are involved in crafting legislation at the state or federal level get contributions from all sorts of special interest groups with an ongoing interest in legislation. (And no, I’m not arguing that we should just accept this because it’s just the way things are. I personally don’t accept it.)
Out of curiosity, I decided to take a peek at the 2010 campaign contributions to State Rep. Hans Dunshee, D-44th. The Sierra Club describes him as “the Great Green Giant of the Washington Legislature.”
His campaign contribution list for 2010 includes contributions from Puget Sound Energy, tribal casinos, hospitals, optometrists, Walgreens, Waste Management Inc. — as well as $500 from Pacific International Terminals, the SSA Marine subsidiary in charge of the Gateway Pacific Terminal project, and $150 from Craig Cole.
I’m pretty sure what people who oppose the coal port at Cherry Point want to hear from Kelli Linville is that if she wins she would fight the coal port as vigorously as Dan Pike has. I think we are looking for an unequivocal warrior who will fight like hell to make sure this thing doesn’t get built. Likewise, we would like so see many more of our elected leaders step into this role. I think that until Kelli Linville not only makes it clear that she will do that and outlines exactly what she will do to at least follow in Dan’s shoes and take a leadership role on the issue, she will continue to be portrayed as the lesser choice by people for whom this is a primary issue. The fact that she worked in Olympia to help shut down our last coal plant is a good start – but that fight is over. The current fight is the one that matters now.
Lisa, I have heard Pike many times say that he supports a bulk export pier at Cherry Point that does not include coal. As you know, he even submitted a resolution to the City Council to support such a project before it was clear to everyone that this project was really just about coal. If your intention was really to ask a question, then I fully accept your apology. In the future I would recommend going directly to the source to ask the question. I’ve found Dan Pike to be quite accessible and open when I have had a question or concern – one of the many reasons I am supporting his reelection bid.
Lisa McShane, I don’t understand your line in paragraph 3 “No-one but SSA suggests they will ship coal and wheat” Isn’t that exactly the point?
Gateway Pacific Terminal will be a coal terminal. On Peabody Energy’s website the February 28, 2011 press release whose first line states “ST. LOUIS, Feb. 28, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — Peabody Energy (NYSE: BTU) today announced an agreement with SSA Marine to initially export up to 24 million metric tons of coal per year through the planned Gateway Pacific Terminal in Whatcom County in northwest Washington.”
Do you imagine that if SSA Marine finances the building of a pier and massive storage facility that they will suddenly explain to Peabody Energy and their own investors that they have unilaterally decided to void/default on their contract and not ship coal? Or that there is enough non-coal mixed use export material to justify the investment?
I completely concur with Stephen Trinkaus’ last entry.
Pike did not oppose the terminal until June. Up till then he was in favor with significant mitigation for the impacts; however, no mention of CO2 on his list of things that are important to mitigate.
Mayor Dan Pike’s presentation broke no new ground: He reiterated his earlier statements that he wants to see consideration of alternative Cherry Point rail routes, besides the main line that goes through Bellingham. Specifically, that means the South Fork line that runs along Highway 9 to Sumas.
Pike seems to be focused on mitigation of rail impacts, rather than on blocking the SSA proposal. -John Stark, May 4 2011 ttp://blogs.bellinghamherald.com/politics/page/6/?s=coal
Dan Pike, February 18, 2011
With regard to the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry point, the city is still in an information gathering mode, and — as you will hear tonight — there is a range of opinion about the proposal and the facts. I am a supporter of bringing these types of jobs and opportunities to Bellingham, given appropriate conditions and mitigations of the downside impacts.
What is important to me as Mayor is to make sure that accurate facts are on the table, to carefully analyze the impacts of those facts on our community, to insure that impacts which cannot be avoided are mitigated, and finally to demand the costs of mitigation come from those who profit directly, not our local citizens.
This is moving fast but already four things stand out as important:
1. that increased rail traffic is mitigated by modern crossing equipment with a Federal Quiet Zone from Chuckanut Bay to the Cement Plant.
2. that access points to the waterfront should not be reduced nor should they be cut off for unreasonable amounts of time.
3. that the shoring of the banks below Eldridge neighborhood to prevent slides should be evaluated in light of the increased frequency and weight of trains.
4. If coal is to be transported it should be in Gondola cars, not hoppers, and it should be covered.
Concerns about environmental justice, noise, and traffic impacts are legitimate and must be addressed. We have a long way to go and we have to be sure that whatever is done it is “done right”. I hope you will all stay involved over the next couple of years.”
So your problem with Dan Pike and the coal port is not his leadership on the issue but the fact that he didn’t take his stand early enough for you?
It appears to be an orchestrated election campaign. Dan Pike favored the coal terminal in February and continued to do so all the way till June without ever mentioning a concern about CO2 and then immediately claiming to be the first and only elected to be opposed and attacking opponents for caring about process and not taking a “bold” stand. You have been very much a part of that.
Mr. Pike never raised the CO2 issue in February and he and others then began advocating having the trains take a different route further adding to the CO2 emissions with very questionable social justice to the small communities that would have been impacted.
Kelli Linville legislative efforts to reduce CO2 emissions in Washington State because it is an inconvient truth and you have been very unfair to her on this issue.
In this on going debate I’s have only one thing to say:
“If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman.”
Margaret Thatcher
Even if I’s might not like the results completely!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
I know that many people, especially Linville supporters, have interpreted his decision to take this stance and this role as being politically calculated. There may be some truth in that, but I know Dan Pike well enough to know that his feelings and motivations are sincere.
I worked intensely on the anti-tar sands resolutions. Our group met with Pike and other City Council members, and ultimately the City Council voted unanimously with mayoral support on both resolutions we put forth. Dan Pike and the other council members understood quite well the issue of CO2 and fossil fuels then. And they took a bold stance.
Bellingham was the first municipality in North America (and probably well beyond) to rattle the cage on this issue. This was long before the Keystone XL pipeline brought the tar sands issue into a national focus. In spite of the fact that the local press pretty much ignored the aftermath, Bellingham’s move was one of the top stories in almost every single Canadian news outlet. The premier even called Mayor Pike to express his outrage. Many of our council members received some pretty strong criticism from people here and abroad. As an environmental activist, I had never been so proud of our town and our elected leaders. Dan Pike was quite clear even then about his feelings about coal, oil, and fossil fuels in general.
To say that Pike’s stance on coal is primarily opportunistic could only come from someone who does not know him or has not worked with him on the coal or tar sands issues. Mr McShane (I call you that only so as not to confuse you with the “other” Dan) I wish you would get to know Mr. Pike and set aside your differences and wounds from the last mayoral battle. I think you would see eye to eye with him on a lot more than you realize. From the outside it looks like you still have an ax to grind, and I think that because of that you miss some of the truth. I do not think that you will find Pike to be a saint – he is far from it. I have my own qualms with some of his decisions. But overall I’ve found that he is very effective as a leader, and even when I have disagreed with him he has (when asked) taken the time to explain his stance in a way that shows that he has thought things through. It is really difficult to get at that truth when every weakness is exploited, mischacterized, exaggerated, or taken out of context. I think that it should be enough that the Herald, the Weekly, WCV, the Sierra Club and so many other smart organizations have endorsed him to realize that he is not the caricature that the Linville campaign would have us believe. And vice-versa.
In the third paragraph below I was referring to the Premier of Alberta, Canada.
Yeah he’s been against jobs for a long time!
And the Canadians are laughing all the way to the bank (& Bellis Fair), don’t ya know!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
We don’t have tar sands in Bellingham. Why why why is this mayoral campaign so concentrated on general statements of support for things that are not governance of Bellingham?
Dan and Kelli could support or oppose the war in Afghanistan, and be on CNN talking about it, and meanwhile the city of Bellingham could be going broke, or prospering, have potholes or well maintained streets.
There is so much actual Bellingham City policy to be discussed, and so little is being talked about. We should have a separate election of someone to be the External Issues Spokesperson for Bellingham. A separate job from overseeing the city’s departments, works, staff, streets, infrastructure, and bylaws.
Bham reminds me of another place for sure, and it ain’t Kansas Toto:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ8zxOZPzHU&feature=related
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
Richard, The citizens get to decide what issues are important to them and at what level of government they want to address them. If it’s potholes, it’s potholes. If it’s CO2 emissions, it’s CO2 emissions. If it’s the economy, it’s the economy. If it’s red light cameras, it’s red light cameras. Etc. I think that over half the time and energy going into the coal terminal debate is coming from people arguing that other people shouldn’t make it an issue. It’s a democracy. It isn’t always easy, it isn’t always nice, and it doesn’t always make sense, but it does give the people a voice and a say in how they are governed.
I’d take Bellingham and its resolutions any day over a city that doesn’t engage in global issues.
And I don’t see any lack of energy going into overseeing “the city’s departments, works, staff, streets, infrastructure, and bylaws.” We have a very engaged citizenry here, and (in spite of the campaign rhetoric and Tea Party hysterics) one of the most responsive and accessible local governments around – that’s one of the many reasons I (and so many others) chose to live here rather than someplace else. And one of the reasons we keep rating so high on all those indexes.
Rock on Bellingham!
RM, maybe it’s our heritage as a coal mining area. Or the fact that at one time Bellingham’s infirmaries were full of black lung patients. or maybe it is just the ghosts of all the Chinese miners still buried in shafts under downtown, some of the county and out in the south watershed….those that weren’t run out of town by the KKK or the Birchers who held large sway and who’s descendants still silently make this area a bastion of one bland color….
The simple problem is Dan P could have taken the stance he did on the coal trains and the terminal and you could have sttod with him and that would be fine. But you and his campaign have chosen to distort kelli’s position. It is wrong what you are doing and you should expect push back. Kelli Linville has been very good on CO2 and coal and they have note been empty gestures of meaningless easy to do resolutions.
Dan – that is not true at all. Show me one place where I have distorted Kelli’s position on coal. I have not. Others have, but not me. I have clearly stated that my desire for her to outline exactly what she would do as mayor to fight the coal terminal. I have asked that she fight like hell to stop it if she is elected mayor. I have never stated that she is pro-coal or in favor of a coal port. What IS wrong is when you put words in my mouth or lump me with people who have distorted the truth.
It is also insulting to me, the activists I worked with, Forest Ethics, Mayor Pike and the entire City Council when you call the anti-tar sands resolutions “empty gestures” and “meaningless easy to do resolutions.” You obviously were either not following this or don’t understand the politics behind it. I would recommend talking to Todd Paglia or Aaron Sanger at Forest Ethics if you truly do want to educate yourself on why the Bellingham resolution was so important in the fight against the tar sands. If you want to understand how this was not easy to pull off, I can tell you that it wasn’t. It took an immense amount of work organizing people, educating the public, the city council and the mayor, finding a sponsor, and moving this thing forward. Really Dan, you of all people should understand how difficult passing something like this is, especially in getting a 7-0 vote on it.
I think at the least you should apologize for saying that what I am doing is “wrong.” That is very some pretty strong language and insulting, not to mention based on an accusation that is just plain false. Not to mention the fact that you have insulted the hard work that so many of us did, against great odds, to get the resolution passed. So now that you no longer hold office do you think it’s OK to insult citizens who participate in the democratic process in defense of the environment? Until now this was a friendly disagreement, but now you’ve crossed the line.
Mr. Trinkaus,
You wrote, “It is also insulting to me, the activists I worked with, Forest Ethics, Mayor Pike and the entire City Council when you call the anti-tar sands resolutions “empty gestures” and “meaningless easy to do resolutions.” You obviously were either not following this or don’t understand the politics behind it.”
Take care in picking your friends, sir.
“Can I explain myself to those who see mining oil sands as a moral offense? I plead humanism. Modern capitalism and the technology it engenders has lifted a significant proportion of humanity out of our natural state of abject poverty for the first time in history. Even now, depending on the cycles of nature to renew supplies of fuel (in the form of wood and manure) means poverty, disease, and early death for millions….
In contrast with the magnificent roiling mine, the SAGD facility was clean and orderly, almost shockingly so—not even stray bits of paper or oil smudges anywhere. Asked about the lack of visible oil, a clearly proud ConocoPhillips employee responded that seeing oil would mean that something is wrong; it’s supposed to stay in the tanks and the pipelines.
…anti–oil sands activists who eagerly highlight photos of vast oil sands mining pits like the one I found so striking don’t tend to show photos of SAGD facilities. The tidy, compact facilities are unlikely to provoke the horror—or the exultation—inspired by the open mine pits.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/19/the-miracle-of-oil-from-sand
A good read for those whose minds are not closed to reason!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
Well, that leaves me out, I guess.