Sunday, September 5, 2010
"Just the facts, Ma'am."
You have a lot of nerve, Mr. Kirsch, to ask me to defend myself and other members of our community against the rubbish you print on your blog about elected officials and private citizens who "live" in this community.
You see, it's not my job to defend myself or other community leaders from your ilk. I'm not the one making allegations that certain people are corrupt or unelectable -- nor did I attempt to slander or smear members of the Whatcom County Democratic party by claiming that they are just a group of unprincipled "insiders." Those allegations are printed on your blog, not mine. You made them. You defend them.
Both Kelli Linville and Pete Kremen's public service record is long and distinguished. Neither Linville or Kremen need me to defend their reputations from your poison pen.
Nor do Dan or Lisa McShane. Allow me to play devil's advocate. If Mr. Kirsch doesn't think the McShanes are a "political threat" in future elections, why does he remain obsessed with them? Does he really subscribe to conspiracy theories?
Now, we all know that no one can stop Mr. Kirsch from launching personal attacks against community leaders or private citizens on his blog. But, we do have the ability to demand that he provides proof of his flimsy allegations and accusations of corruption. If he can't provide evidence of wrong doing - then he will be discredited and shunned by thinking members of the community.
Remember Greg, "all we want are the facts, sir."
Evidence - not trash talk or rumors. We've heard enough "trash talk" out of you to last ten campaigns!
I have intentionally not linked to Mr. Kirsch's blog. I refuse to give him additional publicity for b.s. allegations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What fishmonger Kirsch fails to mention, in his latest, almost manic, denunciation of anyone who was offended by his asinine photoslop of Kelli Linville and Pete Kremen on the verge of screwing, like myself,-- is that he belittled his own arguments with that most juvenile of bush league stunts, and degraded his 'informed commentary' to the level one might find on any puerile schlog on the shallower rungs of the internet.
ReplyDeleteThis leads me to believe the man has not only an unhealthy obsession, but a pretty nifty ability to shape shift and disguise himself as a part of the male anatomy. Only that part is too noble to be associated with him.
You can ply your analysis and 'political punditry' all you want Greg, there may or may not be some substance to it; but you lose your audience (or gain a certain 'level of life' of it) when you give wider latitude to your prurient proclivities than to your rapier political analysis.
I have often disagreed with the McShanes and I am neither their personal friend nor Elisabeth's.
I'm your worst nightmare, an average citizen/voter, not beholding to, or a card carrying member of, any political persuasion other than left leaning; who just looks at a situation, and makes a judgment call.
In this case it was not hard at all to decide who was showing their vapidity and dearth of maturity.
I only know Elisabeth from her tireless activism. Attack her for that if you wish, but not for being able to sniff a diaper among the tulips. We can all smell the load in your Depends.
But as you continue down the road of defending the indefensible, you simply become just another small wit to be ignored. And anyone who looks to your counsel in the future is stained by the association.
Ms. Salander, we'd love to see you in another sequel.
ReplyDeleteThe Girl Who Put a Knot in A Stunted Rope.
Like Shaun, I consider myself an average citizen willing to look beyond the personalities and consider the facts.
ReplyDeleteIt’s a shame that the focus of Mr. Kirsch’s writings strays too often to the personalities and not often enough on the issues themselves. In truth, the issues Mr. Kirsch raises are very important to us all.
Though Elisabeth chose not to link to the Sep 5 NorwestReview article, “And Representing the Late Republic,” I’ll do so here:
http://norwestreviewlocal.blogspot.com/2010/09/and-representing-late-republic.html
In his article, Mr. Kirsch reminds us of the Dept of Ecology’s (DOE) alleged failure to enforce the Water Resources Act as well as the Supreme Court’s findings in Hubbard v. Dept of Ecology. Additionally, Mr. Kirsch accuses local democrats - including Pete Kremen, Kelli Linville and others - of enabling development in the Lake Whatcom watershed that would have been restricted and/or prevented if state laws had been enforced.
I am less interested in the personalities involved than I am in the issues. Is Mr. Kirsch correct? Has the DOE and others failed to uphold a law designed to protect local water resources? Have local democrats signed on with the Building Industry Association (BIA) to circumvent the law?
Mr. Kirsch seems to believe that County Commissioners Carl Weimer and Ken Mann are not part of the problem. I wonder what Carl and Ken believe. Perhaps they’d be willing to publicly support Mr. Kirsch’s claims if they find them valid.
I wish I knew the answer; but I’m inclined to believe there is truth to Mr. Kirsch’s claims about the issues themselves – even if they are somewhat clouded by the all the personal remarks.
Does anyone have information that could either support or refute Mr. Kirsch’s claims? Isn’t that the question we should be addressing? Who cares about the personalities when it’s clear that our quality of life is being diminished as we debate who did what to whom?
Lake Whatcom?
ReplyDeleteDidn't Asmundson and Linville get caught using the City lobbyist to push State legislation to make it EASY to sell the city's water rights to French Conglomerates
Not that this was Dem policy but NOT one other Dem stepped forward to nuke Assmundson and Linville for promoting this policy. Silence can mean consent or perhap they got kickbacks promised too.
Can you imagine the cash if they had succeeded in selling Lake Whatcom's water share to a private foreign corporation! Lets see 100 million gallons per day x .... wow.
Linville backed off as soon as she as "caught". Still, not one Demo publically chastised them for the blatant rip off attempt.
So watermain, what the hell are you talking about, for those of us who can't read through your spin? I couldn't find any of these outlandish accusations by just googling. so what corporation, when, and again what are you talking about? Care to enlighten or just care to snipe away with your 'inside' information?
ReplyDeleteWater what?
ReplyDeleteHave you been living under a rock?
There is a massive push in the United States to "privatize" municipal water service. These are huge, multinational corporations.
http://projects.publicintegrity.org/water/
Can we focus?
ReplyDeleteSince you allege that you think there is a grain of truth in Mr. Kirsch's claims - I think that you should be the person who conducts the research.
Start with a telephone call to Richard Grout, at the Department of Ecology Office in Fairhaven.
But before you make that call to Dick Grout, I suggest that you spend several hours reviewing Washington case law, the Growth Management Act and relevant WACs that regulate decisions made by the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Washington State Department of Health.
In regards to your questions about the Democratic party and Kirsh's claims that it is has an "illicit" or corrupt relationship with the local BIAWC. Do the world a favor and follow up with a second call to the chair of the Whatcom Democrats.
While your at it, please do your best to ignore the fact that the local Tea Party, the Republican party, and CAPR all hold meetings at the local BIAWC office!
Check out the BIAWC board. Do you see prominent Democrats (individuals who are actively involved in the Democratic party) serving on the board? (You know, someone like the Chair or the Vice Chair or members of the Executive Board or standing committees)? If so, does that constitute an "Illicit" or compromised position for the party?
Do you see prominent Republicans serving on the BIAWC board? (Individuals who are actively involved with the Republican party)? Does that mean we should assume that there is an "illicit" relationship between the Republican party and the BIAWC?
Want to know more about local Democrats? Take the time to attend some of the local Democrat events and get to know the people who volunteer on behalf of the party. You might be surprised to learn that they are a very nice group of people! (P.S. so are most of the Republicans).
Want me to take you seriously?
Stop subscribing to Greg Kirsh's conspiracy theories and printing gossip on my blogs!
Oh, looking for experts on water law and it's application in WA state?
Richard Stephens (a republican)
Rick Smith (Clean Water Act and expert in Water law - a think he's a Democrat).
Otherwise, stop pestering me with ridiculous questions that are designed to mislead people into thinking there is a grain of truth in your or Greg Kirsch's unsubstantiated allegations.
Kirsch manipulates people with the written word. How does he do it? By printing personal attacks against community leaders who otherwise refuse to have anything to do with him. Notice the only elected officials he supports are the elected officials who "listen" to him.
Kirsch has yet to provide a single piece of evidence to support his claims that the party or particular individuals are corrupt. And for that matter, you haven't provided any evidence either!
So, roll up your sleeves and get to it!
Since Kirsh and his ilk will never produce any credible evidence - perhaps he could file a lawsuit to punish Whatcom Democrats for not obeying state water law.
ReplyDeleteNotice he never discusses the Republicans as he lobs his bombs at local democrats.
Wait, wouldn't Kirsch have to live in Whatcom County or Washington State to have standing in a law suit?
Final question - why does someone who no longer lives in Whatcom County (Kirsch lives in California) have so much influence with local elected officials?
I am hesitant to get anywhere near the steaming pile that Kirsch has created with his photoshop pictures and blogs. I have no knowledge and no real interest in all the various political shenanigans that are referred to about all this, or whether any of the conspiracy theories are true. I also don't know anything about this cast of characters true involvement in the exempt well debate or the associated Municipal Water Law fiasco.
ReplyDeleteI have looked hard at how exempt wells have been handled in Whatcom County and I think Kirsch has it about right regarding the legality of new exempt wells around the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, and the Department of Ecology's lack of spine dealing with it. That doesn't mean he has any of the rest of it right, and I for one will be voting for Linville in November regardless.
Similar exempt well issues are coming to a boiling point around the state, and the Center for Environmental Law and Policy (CELP) is the group I think has tried hardest to make sense of all this. You can read about wells and groundwater at: http://www.celp.org/water/celpissues/Wells_%26_Groundwater.html
And more specifically about the Municipal Water Law at: http://www.celp.org/water/celpissues/Municipal_Water_Law.html
Elisabeth, did you really mean to blast me for the outlandish claims that Kirsch and water main are making about Linville?
ReplyDeleteCan you cite, or link to any local stories that a French conglomerate is trying to buy Lake Whatcom?
But thanks for the "under the rock" comment, that's really helpful for someone who supports your view of Kirsch but is trying to understand the ins and out. But again thanks for the slight. No I'm not living under a rock, I'm also not living totally immersed in this.
And I guess I have to look elsewhere for enlightenment.
Some people are new to Lake Whatcom issues.
ReplyDeleteA little background. City of Bellingham Lobbyist Dick Little helped lobby for the bill 1357 in 2005, Kelli Linville was one of the main sponsors. Mark Asmundson was Dick's boss. Asmundson declined to inform the City Council of his lobbying priorities. I.e. making it easy to sell Lake Whatcom water rights, for example.
The Herald forgot to cover this news.
Look it up.
"Saturday, February 19, 2005
Why are Sen. Adam Kline and Rep. Kelli Linville backing Big Water?
While in Olympia for environmental lobby day Thursday I found out about Senate Bill 5285 and House Bill 1357. These bills would make it
easier to privatize municipal water provision in Washington state. I
have since found out that Sen. Adam Kline and Rep. Kelli Linville
among other democrats are supporting these bills which are updates of 1986 legislation. I am currently attempting to find out their reasons for supporting these bills.
Among other things these bills delete the existing requirement obligating service providers to demonstrate that a local governments annual costs will be lower under its proposal than they would be if
the local government itself financed, constructed, owned, operated,
and maintained facilities and instead requires that municipalities merely find privatization in the "public interest."
There is no reason not to require service providers to demonstrate
the financial benefits of privatization. Replacing this standard with
a finding of "public interest" could never be in the public interest.
Publically operated water systems are managed to deliver, clean, safe, and affordable water. Privately operated systems are managed to
get as much money as possible from rate payers.
Water privatization will likely lead to substantially incressed
rates, and degraded water quality throughout Washington state.
According to Public Citizen, the Veolia corporation, the world's largest water services corporation, which is lobbying for this
legislation, has "a global track record of corruption, broken promises, environmental degradation, price gouging, obsfuscation,
misdirection and secrecy."
// posted by Nate Johnson @ 4:08 PM 0 comments
Thanks for the background Mr. Johnson. I was traveling out of the country quite a big in 2005 and 2006 and must have missed that.
ReplyDeleteI understand your reasoning, is there any reasonable analysis that explains Mr. Asmundson's and Ms. Linville's position why they thought that was a good idea for this county?
There are always pros and cons on both sides of an issue and I'm curious if you can fairly share the position that opposed yours. Thank you for responding.
Water what,
ReplyDeleteI can't begin to cite the articles about French multinational companies that are lobbying all 50 states to enable legislation that would allow them to take over municipal water systems.
Forgive me if my response seems harsh - but I have a friend who lives in Arizona who is faced with a 400% increase in water rates - because his system has been purchased by a foreign corporation.
This is not "new" news to me. So I assume that other people are also aware of the dangers involved.
P.S. I already provided a link in my previous post. If you want more information, check out what's happening in Arizona and California, where legislation has been enacted to allow private corporations to take over public water system service.
It's not a pretty story.
What many of the "independent" minds on this blog CANNOT do, is offer up constructive criticism of a Democrat.
ReplyDeleteThe writer previous to Liz asked if Linville and Asmundson fostered or promoted this change in ownership of public water resources.
Liz blames the French in response. Liz, the French are not passing laws which allow for corporations to take over our water systems, corrupt politicians are.
News flash, some of these politicians are Democrats.
Some of them are local.
Where is your outrage?
Why is a simple direct question so difficult to answer, if the answer tends to criticise a single political party.
And these people fancy themselves "independent" thinkers.
The exempt well issue is very complex and the legal record of court rulings requires a sharp legal mind as well as a sharp understanding of hydrology. If Bellingham believes that the use of exempt wells in the Lake Whatcom watershed poses a threat to its water right and that the exempt well law supports stopping the use of exempt wells enirely, the city should pursue that case in court. I will say howvere, I am skeptical of the strength of the legal theory and suspect that is why we have not seen it moved forward.
ReplyDeleteThe other part of this discussion revolves around Kelli Linnville's legislative record. I would hope that voters would not base their choice on one or two positions and would also consider the consequences of the alternative. I will be voting for Ms Linnville in 2010 based on the past few yeras of her work. I think she has done an excellent job. This is a bit of a turn around for ne as I endorsed one of her opponents a few years ago based on a broad number of issues not limited to water. While I have not agreed with all of Ms Linvills's positions on water matters, I will say she had the courage to add some strength and clarity to the exempt well legislation that has made a lot of developers very unhappy.
Thanks for your perspective Dan. In the little bit of reading I could find, the exempt well issue has to do with wells serving several houses or a subdivision. Is that correct? I'm assuming my little single family home well is not what we're talking about? Or is it also?
ReplyDeleteMy well is going to need a new pump one of these days, but I don't think I will need to drill a new well. I'm assuming I will be able to do that work without coming up against new rules?
Again, thanks for your perspective, Dan.
Anonymous, You're correct that there's blame aplenty to spread around wrt Lake Whatcom.
ReplyDeleteAmong the Ds and their supporters, I'd say the failure occurs most acutely in what I would term their pursuit of "The Third Way"--that is to say, rather than craft arguments for regulating or deregulating development and water use in the watershed, the idea is that the development community can be brought in as partners to forge some economically sound compromise. Hence Linville extending the definition of who is a purveyor of water rights is not to "slop the hogs" but to empower better decisions by making them stakeholders at the table.
It sounds great as a talking point, but "The Third Way" just doesn't work out--locally or nationally. Bringing in the "stakeholders" to help write the rules invariably means they write themselves out of the rules. The profit margins within a regulatory framework are just never enough to satisfy the greedheads, so said greedheads are always working to undermine the outcome. And, as Linville has experienced, they're always nearby to shove a shiv into your ribcage.
You see Ken Mann pursuing this "Third Way" with his TDR work. He believes if you create an economic win-win among stakeholders, the results will be durable. The pattern and folly continues.
Water What - in all likelihood your well is an exempt well and is subject to the limitations that go with exempt wells. The concept is that a single use exempt well is of little consequence. That consequence can certainly be debated and is debated. I doubt that any significant restrictions will be applied to your well in the future beyond those already in place. You should proably reseach just what those limitations are.
ReplyDeleteAnon 36 - I would point out that it was predominantly Democrats in local government that reduced development in the Lake Whatcom watershed after years of little to no action by Republicans. While I agree that Ken Mann's argument for working out a TDR program before downzoning a small area of the lake watershed may have limited success, I think it is fair to point out that he is working on a council dominated by Republicans that have very little interest in reducing development potential in the rural areas. At the very least he managed to get the council to vote for the continuation of the subdivision moratorium that has been now in place since 2005. I would further suggest that a TDR program would have a much greater chance of success versus a speculative legal theory concerning shutting down development on 5 acre lots by forcing Ecology to deny the use of exempt wells.
It now costs almost $25,000 in "fees" to build a house in the City of Bellingham. The only houses that have to pay these fees are the "new" houses. The older houses are exempt from ever paying these impact fees.
ReplyDeleteThe end result is that folks move to the County to find affordable housing.
Maybe if we would just make housing affordable, that would encourage people to live in towns.
It would seem that proper incentives, would go a long ways towards getting people to do rationale things, than simply making things illegal.
The paperwork burden on small businesses today, is unbelievable, but all politicians say they love the small businessAll to often paperwork is propogated by someone in government who wants to tell you how to live, or needs a job shuffling paper.
How about a break on the paperwork?
It seems that there are always some folks who are so sure of the "proper" way for society to be organized, that they have to pass laws to get people to see the wisdom of their enlightened thinking.
Too bad it is some of the same people who would pass laws to limit development, that also pass laws which mandate impact fees for all new housing, exempting the older housing from having to pay their fair share of schools or parks, thereby driving folks into the County.
Really if you think about it, developers want to develop. Do they care whether it is in the City or the County. Lots of City's have developers that specialize in City projects.
Could it be that developers are being driven from the City? I am sure if you asked them they would tell you.
Just think of what would happen if government would allow anyone to bid on public construction, rather than just unionized businesses. More people would be employed.
Oh, but that would not be the enlightened path.
We need a cultural center. Who determines what culture is?
Why the elite.
Forget the fence, give Arizona back to Mexico...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/08/31/20100831arizona-democratic-party-voter-fraud.html
Alright, maybe not the whole state. Let's keep part of it, like where Elisabeth's friend lives. (But I hope that's not Arpaio's county. It definitely needs to go and him with it.)
ReplyDeleteBut seriously, how cynical can you be to pull the kind of stunt the Arizona Republican Party is pulling.
I'll admit to a lot of depression as fellow
Democrats and Independents seem willing to sit on their hands and let this election take us back to the bad old days of Republican rule.
Or some are buying into the Tea Party and their divisive phobias based on propaganda and lies.
They all have offered this administration nothing but the back of their hand.
Some of my friends who should know better are saying what's the use, they're all the same.
Old money controls this country and old money is only concerned about itself and whoever can help it fleece the rest of us-- and that is why they fear and hate the Obama administration.
That should tell us something.
Now we can analyze to death the ways in which the Democrats are also part of the game and influenced by money. It is patently absurd to think that we will get anything better from the Republicans. They are the old money.
http://www.theledger.com/article/20100907/NEWS/100909830/1410?Title=Arizona-Republican-Recruiting-Green-Party-Candidates-to-Divide-Democrats
Sorry for the off topic posts, I thought I had gone to the Brewer/Arizona site.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, Doubtless it is true that COB could go much further in reducing the bureaucracy and overhead (and costs) in their permitting processes. Even very green, progressive and forgiving homebuilders have complained of COB's permitting horrors.
ReplyDeleteBut COB is at least going some portion of the way to not subsidizing the costs of development and tossing those back on the general public.
You mention the cheaper development cost in the county-- that is because NO mechanism exists there to capture ancillary development costs and keep those impacts away from general taxpayers. The whole "drive till you qualify" paradigm is a cynical expoitation of this reality. See Car Weimer's blog for an excellent analysis of the uninteded costs and consequences of the county's failure in this regard.
The sad fact is that land supply and available housing stock are NOT among the most volatile costs in home construction and making both more abundant does not really do much to make houses more "affordable." For evidence, see the many huge empty housing tracts across the Southwest--even despite this abundance and availability, they're not selling for peanuts.
Most of us grew up in homes, many built during the "GI Bill" era, that seem quite small by today's standards. Yet, they were adequate for our parents and grandparents. Then, somewhere along the way, a hyper-consumption mania aset in and everyone had to have a McMansion with a four-car garage on .24 acres. That's all local developers seemingly knew how to build, and that's all the market would bear. It was NOT sustainable, even assuming the small GI Bill homes WERE sustainable.
My biggest gripe with the local development community is that even after you buy into their "land supply" arguments and agree to allow them to build, they're still crapping out the same McMansions on oversized lots. If there is a crisis in housing and land supply, why worsen it by building this crap?
Impact Fees are just another word for taxes. It used to be that parks and schools were paid out of our taxes, but now new housing pays an additional tax, that previous home owners did not have to pay.
ReplyDeleteIt is counter-intuitive to have a goal of housing closer to the services and then raise taxes on the very same homes that you want built close in.
While impact for the cost of land may be small, the cost of impact fees is becoming large enough to change behavior.
Having to pay $25,000 just for a permit to build a house, and then have to put up with the bureaucracy, would be more than enough to chase me into the county.
I doubt that most people even know that you have to pay the City $25,000 for a piece of paper to build a house.
$25,000 financed over a the life a 30 year loan, is a lot of money. A hidden housing tax.
It looks like approximately 20% of the houses now pay for all the schools and parks.
My guess is that if Bellingham would reduce impact fees to zero for a couple of years, we would have a building boom in the City, save farmland, reduce sprawl, and as long as the theory holds true, the savings in infrastructure costs would more than make up for the lost Impact Taxes.
Notice the difference between promoting growth with a carrot, and using a stick.
Hey all,
ReplyDeleteWow. I leave you alone for a few hours and you manage to post a number of thought provoking comments!
(Thanks for allowing my friend to remain in the United States). Owning property in Mexico can be tricky for Americans. They have to secure something called "federal" title in order to protect their financial interests.
Anon, (re: impact fees) Do you have a proposal for reducing impact fees? If so, what would it be?
Who, in your opinion, should be paying the cost for infrastructure to support new development?
And, finally, just to reassure everyone that I truly am a geek, Why?
Taxes or fees have impact on human behavior. When you change them often the proponents of the changes do not correctly anticipate the outcome of human behavior.
ReplyDeleteRaising impact and other fees for building a home, drive people to other areas. This seems simple to understand, but gets lost in the chatter.
If we want people to live in cities, which lower the cost of infrastructure, then lower the fees to build there.
As to who should pay for infrastructure? I have tow answers.
First everyone should pay for infrastructure, not just the newly built houses. Proponents of Impact Fees forget to mention that these fees only apply to new comers, and older houses get a free ride. This in effect raises the impact Fees much higher than they would be if the costs were fairly shared by all users, rather than just the new comers.
Secondly, getting folks to move into communities with denser housing lowers the overall costs of all infrastructure.
One would have to do the math, but it is possible that the infrastructure savings by encouraging higher densities, would all but overcome the revenue lost by reducing impact fees.
Some still fail to consider that people have choices when it comes to where to live or buy their goods. If you double the cost of Impact Fees, one does not get double the revenues, on the contrary folks often just avoid them all together and move to the County.
These are tough times and lowering the cost of living is becoming a driving force, because it is not simply a matter of where you "want' to live, but all too often a matter of where you can "afford" to live.
Whatcom County has been driving folks of modest means out of town for some time, and sprawl is a result of this. Impact Fees are just another cost.
Japan faced a housing bubble, and it took 16 years for prices to recover. Bear in mind that all of the tricks that Obama is using today to restart the economy was attempted in Japan, and none of it worked.
In contrast Germany is enjoying 9% growth, and their key to a quick recovery was to lower the cost of government, which has done wonders for getting industry to invest, which is causing a lot of hiring and low unemployment.
Just the opposite of Obama administration, and it is working wonders as private money is flowing into new plants. Great Britain is following suit, cutting government spending by 9%.
Higher taxes and fees quite often backfires because we fail to understand how people with choices will react to economic changes.
Lowering Impact Fees substantially, so that it is more affordable to live in the city, will draw the folks back in droves, because it is cheaper.
Raising it will drive them away. It is simple.
More and more we are reading articles pointing out the most affordable places to live, and taxes and cost of living are taken into account.
We are losing this battle.
We may indeed be waiting for 16 years for this real estate to recover.
Taxes and fees matter, and once an area gets the "high cost" reputation, it is hard to shake.
Maybe it is time we re-evaluated the need for every last public art project. Maybe we can do with a little less.
Most countries have figured out how to do with a little less. Nothing sends a message of being serious about lowering taxes long term than a government that sets the standards for being both wise and frugal.
When was the last time you heard the word frugal used alongside our local government.
To me the word "green" means only building a side-walk on one side of the street, and if you want to use the side-walk, you will have to cross the street.
Not to big of sacrifice, really. I would be willing to forgoe side-walks on both sides of the street in many residential areas, to reduce Impact Fees or taxes in general.
Grass makes better environment than concrete.
Oh they (Arizonan refugees) won't be allowed to own property, they'll have to sneak into New Mexico or California or Oklahoma to find work.
ReplyDeleteThey'll then be knocking out white Arizonan anchor babies like ice cubes.
I finally read the Kirsh lies and think its worth pointing out that they are in fact, lies.
ReplyDeleteThere was no deal between the McShanes and Bill Geyer over an endorsement. That was a rumor Dan Pike was spreading (yes, in print, in the weekly) that was false. I was on the WCV board and we endorsed Terry Bornemann with no pressure to endorse anyone else.
Dan McShane, Sharon Roy, Laurie Caskey-Schreiber, Seth Fleetwood (all Democrats) were strong on Lake Whatcom. They passed a number of important pieces of legislation (all written by Dan McShane.) They did things like removing thousands of development rights from Lake Whatcom and putting in place a subdivision moratorium.
Dan and Lisa McShane were instrumental in the Lake Whatcom landscape plan thats worked out really well for our county and for water quality.
Kirsh likes to smear people and is obsessed with the McShane's. If they were the kind of people he says they are, they would have sued him for libel. But they both continue to volunteer on boards, run their businesses and try to ignore the gossip coming from the mayor and from his friend Greg Kirsh.
Im sorry I even have to mention all this. Its a shame that this continues.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking the time to set the record straight. I agree, it's a shame that this nonsense continues.