As I browsed the comments attached to this story on the Herald website, I discovered a theme:
...If the county chooses to pay this ransom (& I hope they don't), then I agree make darn sure the tribe pays for ANY & ALL benefits they get from the county, before maintaining a single road etc. Works both ways ....
...dont sign once again we the taxpayer is being held hostage by our neighbors the Lummis...maybe next time we dont need to have totem poles around all our cities....stop the ferry...
...
The letter by the Lummis very clearly indicates their intent to hold island residents 'hostage.' The same can be done with the casino...
...
WHy don't we put those Homeland Security paramilitaries to use on the peoples' business (for a change from their harassing the people they're supposed to be protecting) and station them on the ferry dock to protect it from Lummi extortion?...
...[Note: These comments are not presented as a reflection of the entire body of comments made on the Herald website about this article. They are presented to illustrate a theme I detected within the comment thread. Many of the commenters were not culturally tone-deaf douchebags.]
Extortion anyone??...
Ransom...
Hostage...
Extortion...
Hmm.
Whatcom County is leasing land from the Lummi Nation.
The lease is about to expire.
If the County doesn't sign a new lease with the Lummi Nation, they aren't going to let us use the land for free.
And that is extortion?
Asking an aggressive price for the lease is a ransom?
Quick, someone call a wha-a-a-a-a-a-a-ambulance.
I'm going to have to assume that the folks who wrote those comments have never set foot on the lot of a car dealership.
Folks, the days of making lop-sided deals with First Nation people is over. And good riddance to it.
The Lummi Nation knows the value of the land they are leasing to the County and they want a lease agreement that is more in keeping with that value. They are under no obligation to accept the conditions of the current lease if they don't want to. And if they believe they can get a better deal, they can certainly open negotiations with an aggressive bid.
It can't be business when an Anglo does it and extortion when a Lummi does it. The only color that is supposed to be relevant in capitalism is the color of money.
I've heard the occassional so-called "native" Whatcom County resident take great pride in being part of a family that has lived here for over 50, 75, and even 100 years in some cases.
Well, the Lummi take great pride in being a part of a family that has lived here for something on the order of 40,000 years. They were here first, Gangstas.
We can't keep holding a grudge just because some of the Lummi's great-great-grandparents refused to die of smallpox.
(Oh, you heard me just fine.)
The property rights advocates are oddly silent on this matter.
That's interesting. The folks who have so evangelically spread the word about how important property rights for so long seem to have gotten through to the Lummi Nation...
"The Lummi Nation would like to protect our property rights and our Treaty fishing rights in a manner than ensures the safety of Reservation residents and the continued safety of the island residents who will face a very difficult commute if an agreement between the Lummi Nation and Whatcom County cannot be achieved," according to the letter, signed by business council Chairman Henry Cagey.Don't everyone trample each other leaping to the defense of the Lummi Nation's property rights now...
From the Herald.
One more thing...
Here is another recent story from the Herald on the Lummi Island Ferry.
The Lummi Island ferry, the Whatcom Chief, will likely to return to service at 7 a.m. Saturday, Aug. 7.
So... the actual ferry, the vessel itself, is called the "Chief"?
Are you bangin' me?
Were the names "Tomahawk", and "Peace Pipe", and "Squaw", and "Heap Big Paleface Canoe" already taken for other ferry vessels?
Jesus Tap-dancing Christ.
I think I see why there is so much friction when the County deals with the Lummi Nation.
It is entirely possible that we bear some of the blame here.
Well written.
ReplyDeleteApparently, the only group of people that is entitled to property rights in America are angry Tea Party folks who believe in the Constitution. (Like the Puritans, they are the chosen few).
ReplyDeleteEveryone else should go back to their country of origin, since we are all pinko liberal socialists who don't belong here!
P.S. a review of WSDOT lease transactions reveals that the state of Washington leases property from other land owners as well. Is that also extortion? Or, does a disclaimer apply, because the owner is non-native?
While the comments above may not represent the entire community, they do represent a group of people that are having a difficult time evolving beyond the cretin stage of evolution.
Good post!
Well, it seems less of a property rights issue (although there's clearly that) than one of rights-of-way.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is the county has been very mindful, along with the tribe, of the need to do environmental remediation of the ferry landing site; but the original petition in the 1920s signed by the Lummi very clearly states that GP is not an area of significant fisheries interest.
It surprises me somewhat that the Lummi ferry is not more tightly integrated into the state's marine highway system, as are other ferries, providing a stronger state interest in the outcome.
All WC is really asking for is the continuation, at reasonable cost, of the use of a highway system that has been in place for more than a century. I don't think the request is unreasonable or racist in nature. The right of access continunance probably does fall under some provision of commerce, such that the tribes cannot unduly burden the access of Islanders to their homes and property.
Probably the ultimate answer here is to reclassify major roads into and out of the Res as part of the U.S. highway system. Then it is rightly a matter of sovereign versus sovereign interests.
I think that because it's a ferry - it's easy to forget that the use of the ferry landing is conditioned upon the contractual agreement provided by a lease that contains a specific period of use. In other words, I don't think it "qualifies" as a "right of way" issue.
ReplyDeleteHere's the common definition of a lease:
1.
a. A contract granting use or occupation of property during a specified period in exchange for a specified rent.
b. The term or duration of such a contract.
2. Property used or occupied under the terms of such a contract.
v.tr. leased, leas·ing, leas·es
1. To grant use or occupation of under the terms of a contract.
2. To get or hold by such a contract.
The U.S. Government does not own the ferry landing. The Lummi Nation does.
Some of the residents who own property in the San Juan Island have public ferry service, some do not. Lummi Island residents have enjoyed many years of inexpensive transportation, thanks to the tax payers of Whatcom County.
The old lease is expired. It is up to the county to negotiate the terms of the next lease with the Lummi Nation.
Senator Maria Cantwell has graciously included $16 million in the Appropriations bill to provide funding to help provide affordable ferry service for local residents.
But it is important to remember that neither the state or the federal government owes the residents of Lummi Island a guaranteed right of passage.
Where is the $4 million for a marina going to come from? I think it's time for Whatcom County and the residents of Lummi Island to start looking at grants and low interest loans to help fund the project.
It may come as a bit of a shock to some people, but the ferry dock is "income producing" property for the people of the Lummi Nation. Hence, it is not part of the federal public highway system.
Calling the Lummi Names or calling the contract negotiations "extortion" does not enhance community relations.
The residents of Lummi Island have an obligation to familiarize themselves with the terms of the lease at the time of purchase.
If Whatcom County can't afford to continue subsidizing the Lummi Island ferry, it will be up to the residents to find a private, alternative ferry system to get back and forth to the mainland.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteE writes:
ReplyDelete[quote]it is important to remember that neither the state or the federal government owes the residents of Lummi Island a guaranteed right of passage.[/quote]
I don't think this is entirely correct in construction or meaning. The slippery word that allows Elisabeth slippery latitude is "owes."
I think it is well established in common law that people DO have rights of passage, the right to use public waterways for ingress and egress.
"Owes" implies entitlements future-directed; but the more salient consideration is whether access long established can be summarily denied--whether such denial is physical (such as by fence or destruction of a dock) or economic (priced beyond reason), people who've held ancient access cannot be deprived of that access without redress.
Look, I support the Lummis and honor them as a people. They've proven themselves tenacious bargainers.
But good neighbors allow others to cross their fields to get to their homes. Doesn't have to be free. I've never held that the Lummis have to give anything away. But it has to be REASONABLE, within the price reasonable people, working within a budget, might pay. Otherwise, they have ceased to function as good neighbors.
Anonymous wrote...
ReplyDelete"This is all about the Tribe reneging on the lease, which will come back to bite them.
When you sign something, you should be reasonably expected to honor the agreement that you signed."
So...
The Lummi Nation are... um...
Indian givers?
Really?
Oh, this is becoming clearer and clearer.
Hey, anonymous. Get your facts straight before you start calling people names. The lease for the ferry landing with the Lummi Nation was for 25 years, not 50. It began on February 14, 1988.There is a provision to re-new the lease for another 25 years, if the parties can negotiate a new lease at fair market value.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/publicworks/pdf/LummiIslandLease2009.pdf
If the parties can't agree on fair market value, then it goes to Arbitration. If Whatcom County sits on this - the time alloted for re-negotiating the lease expires and the residents of Lummi Island will be looking for a new ferry landing.
In closing, commenters are guests on this blog. Behave yourselves, or I will delete your comments.
The least productive thing Lummi Island residents can do is behave like spoiled children.
Again, the lease specifically states the property reverts back to the Lummi Nation once the lease expires. (The property is held in Trust for the Lummi People).