Anyone who has read my series of "Nerditorials" can attest to the fact that I'm not inclined to let something as trivial as a lack of facts or understanding of a topic get in the way of offering my opinion on something. I have piped up on the issue of the Lummi Island Ferry Lease before. (Read it here, if you like.)
But sometimes, I stumble onto some hidden reserve of wisdom and take my bad nerdy self and sit on the sidelines when I sense that there is more to an issue than meets the eye.
While my sympathies in the Lummi Island Ferry Lease issue remained clearly with the Lummi Nation, I felt it prudent to observe the public narrative for a while. Like may things of an intensely local flavor, this one seemed like it required more observation before I made more commentary.
Those of you who are relatively new Whatcom County residents may wish to take heed of a piece of advice. It takes a long time to figure out the intricacies of Whatcom County politics. It doesn't get much more local than Whatcom County politics.
The issue of the ferry land lease should come to some sort of conclusion before October 15th, so I'm going to end my circumspection about now.
The response on the part of Anglos to this issue is still pretty shocking to me.
The Lummi Nation has again threatened a blockade of Lummi Island in a bid to force Whatcom County into onerous tribute for the passage of the Lummi Island ferry. It has historically been considered an Act of War for a sovereign authority to impose such strategies.
Tip Johnson, Northwest Citizen
An act of war? Yeah, because when a native tribe declares war on the U.S., that always ends well for them.
But that's not the most tone-deaf thing Tip Johnson has blogged about this issue.
A football field is defined by its goalposts. They are not supposed to move. In the contest between the Lummi Nation and Whatcom County, the goalposts have been up for a long, long time. But one of them keeps moving.
Tip Johnson, Northwest Citizen
Oh, goody, a sports metaphor.
Oh no... a sports metaphor about moving the goalposts. Accusing native americans of doing it... to us.
Um...
Where do I begin...?
I'm going to accept the notion, for the sake of this argument, that this moving of goalposts is an accurate metaphor for how the Lummi Nation is handling this negotiation.
I wonder where they learned how to do that?
I wonder who taught them?
Oh, wait...
That would be us.
The United States history of diplomacy with native tribes has been... uh... just Google it. And then shut the hell up.
The Lummi Nation would have been so lucky to have had the goalposts moved on them the way that Tip Johnson believes that they are currently moving them on us now.
And when the Lummi Nation starts mailing the Whatcom County Council envelopes filled with weapons grade anthrax or SMALLPOX... I'll entertain an argument of a declaration of war.
But driving a hard bargain on a lease agreement? Bravo to the Sierra.
The thing that is arguably the most perplexing aspect of this entire saga is the County's actions, or lack thereof.
My rudimentary understanding of this issue goes about this far:
- The County and the Lummi Nation need to renegotiate a lease for the Gooseberry Point ferry.
- The Lummi Nation wants the County to pay certain amount of money.
- The County wants to pay the Lummi Nation less than that.
- For the longest time, neither side appears to have budged.
- However, the County hasn't made even an effort, until the eleventh hour, to make a counter offer.
The County standing pat is just plain silly. They need a new lease. Their constituents on Lummi Island need a new lease. And they don't have a more feasible or cheaper alternative if this deal doesn't come through.
So, why did they wait this long to even bother to make a counter offer?
We can't afford a higher lease? If the Lummi Nation doesn't accept the lease offer, what then? They have to let the County use the land for free? How is the County's cashflow problem a problem for the Lummi Nation? I'm pretty sure that the Lummi Nation's economic woes have not historically been a factor in how we have dealt with them in the past. Now it's our turn. Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you.
(By the way, I'm still waiting for the Zealous Defenders of Property Rights to come to the defense of the Lummi Nation's property rights.)
I was raised in South Dakota. That's where Dances With Wolves was filmed. And where the Wounded Knee Massacre took place in 1890. And the Wounded Knee Incident in 1973. Google those, if you dare.
When I hear complaining about how unfair a native american tribe is being to the United States, I wince.
Recommended Links
At the top of the list is The Lummi Island Ferry Forum.
The recent articles on Northwest Citizen were of particular interest.
A petition regarding the ferry.
The economic impact of the ferry lease.
The social impact of the ferry lease.
Criticism of the Lummi Nation's negotiation tactics.
A curious argument that the Lummi Nations actions qualify as an act of war.
A description of the plight of the Lummi Island residents.
One story from the Bellingham Herald should be plenty. This one includes links to relevant correspondence between the Lummi Nation and the County.
So are you saying the county should leave the current ferry location?
ReplyDeleteThe money's not there The last time the county raised fares the revenue went down, which indicates the lummi islanders do not have more money to spend on the ferry.
The county doesn't have the money... the road fund has been depleted, and is unsustainably headed into the red with just ongoing maintenance of existing infrastructure.
Since the county has not just walked away I suspect they are getting signals the lummis are still willing to negotiate toward a more realistic price. Do you think so? Is there anything in this for the lummis?
Since the county, and the islanders, DON'T have the money for the current lummi offer, what are you suggesting is the solution?
The previous ferry was named "Chief Kwina", which is a term of respect, but does give us a sneak preview of your editorial direction.
ReplyDeleteYou left a few facts out of your analysis, which are material to the controversy.
One; the agreement between the Lummi's and the County is a 50 year agreement, which is being broken unilaterally by the Lummi's after the County's 25 years of lease payments and the gift of a large block of land.
You forget to mention this fact.
As to extortion, the original agreement was signed by both the Lummi's and the County and it specifies that the land's value be appraised. And the fair market appraisal was $65,000 a year. The County generously offered $200,000 a year and the Lummi's offered $310,000 a years plus inflation increases, plus $4,000,000 in cash.
Remember the $65,000 appraisal was commissioned by the Lummi's. This hardly constitutes the stealing of their land.
A deal is a deal.
The County needs bite the bullet and raise taxes.
ReplyDeleteI telegraph my editorial direction just fine.
ReplyDeleteRaise taxes and sent it to the Lummi's because they broke their signed agreement?
ReplyDeleteGood luck selling that one to the voters!!
A deal is a deal.
The major change in the relationship between the county and the tribe over the past 25 years has been the increased economic vitality of the tribe, which has caused them to realize they're not beholden to the peanuts the county has been offering in its lease agreements over the years. They can hold out for a better deal; or they can live without the ferry system.
ReplyDeleteThis has made the tribe fiercer, more tenacious bargainers. But it hasn't made them necessarily BETTER bargainers, and I think that's the point, ApexNerd.
The whole of the Lummis marina project would be improved in partnership with the county--not only because the county would become a partner in maintaining the facility, but the increase in thru-traffic would improve the economics overall in terms of visitors to the facility, users of the facility and ancillaries like amenities. Without that traffic, the whole project becomes a bit of an out-of-the-way backwater.
Therefore, an equitable partnership with the county is WORTH something to the tribe. I haven't heard them acknowledge that or even mention that, which tends to cause me to think they're not considering that. Which is unwise.
It's not realistic or productive to grouse about why the Lummis won't continue a contract that was put in place when they were economically disadvantaged and relatively powerless. It does no good.
From the county revenue side, probably some kind of 60/40 arrangement, where use fees increase for everyone but the Lummi Isl. crowd subsidizes their ferry system through a taxing district and progressive property tax levy (their property values and saleability are improved through the service), and maybe they get a price break on frequency of use in the exchange. That seems equitable.
I'm not the one who claimed that the lease is ending. And the Lummi Nation can't break the lease alone. The County appears to have taken an official position that the lease needs to be renegotiated. And a lease is a lease. Maybe the problem is with whoever conceded the necessity of renegotiating this lease with the Lummi Nation in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThis contract is being renegotiated, by both parties, not just the Lummi Nation.
On the matter of taxes, you pay the taxes for the entire transportation system... not just the portion that you use. Whatcom County gets the benefit of using the land for staging ferry transportation. That's the deal.
If the price of transportation goes up, then the levies that fund that transportation may have to go up as well.
My original idea was to make a counter offer that is more than what the County is bidding but less than the Lummi Nation bid is... that is negotiation.
ApexNerd-- Some people are more impacted by changes in the ferry system than others. Some benefit more than others. That's why you'd leverage some of the costs against a taxing benefit district and some of the cost against the general public who use (and benefit from) the system less. That's equitable for, say, Sumas that never uses a ferry.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned before, the point about who broke what lease is moot. It is a discussion that leads nowhere. Somebody wants to say the Lummis broke the lease? OK, fine. County's also to blame? Or is solely to blame? Great, fine. OK, sure. Now what? Back to Go, I guess.
The point is both parties are treating the lease AS THOUGH it is broken, so from that standpoint it is a level bargaining table.
Given the tribe's status as a Sovereign entity by federal treaty, that makes them the 800 pound wrestler against a skinny, bankrupt county. Now, you can generalize that as The Price White Men Must Pay For Mistreatment Of First Peoples, but again that seems to be a discussion that leads nowhere except back to the bargaining table.
I must disagree with Anon36 on a fundamental point.
ReplyDeleteI don't live on Lummi Island, but I have used the Lummi Island ferry on occasion, and I have just as much right to use that ferry as any other paying passenger. This right is also extended to persons who don't even live in Whatcom County. A person from British Columbia seems able to use the ferry (so long as the person doesn't pay with "loonies")
I respectfully disagree with the notion that it is equitable for those on Lummi Island to pay more of the "base cost" of the ferry than persons in parts of the County that are less likely to use the ferry. Also, those persons who do use the ferry frequently get to pay extra each time they use the ferry. That is equity.
Everyone has to pay for the WTA, even if they don't use the bus. The ferry is mass transit on water, and we all have to pay for it, even those of us that don't use it much.
And, the notion of "white guilt" is really about cautioning folks from accusing the Lummis of nonsense like declaring war and being an 800 pound gorilla.
Have you been to the Lummi Nation?
If they are enjoying a period of economic prosperity, then they must be hiding it behind their 14 percent unemployment rate.
There are almost 200,000 residents in Whatcom County, and the County's annual budget is on the order of $180 million dollars per year.
There are roughly 5,000 Lummi natives living on tribal land. What am I supposed to believe their annual budget could possibly be?
The Lummi Nation's income from salmon fishing is estimated at about $3 million per year, which is even less impressive when you consider it is down from $13 million per year in the mid-1980s.
I see no reason to pay an unnecessary premium for the lease. I'm advocating responding to an aggressive high bid with a sensible and timely counter offer.
We haven't even done that. And that is all us.
I've been to Lummi Nation and know its people.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is **comparative** vitality, as in compared to 25 years ago, where there are now several more operating revenue streams for the tribe than in yore. It's true LIBC has not made a distribution of wealth to individual tribal members as has, say, the Tulalips, but they're holding a lot of it in group trust and spending a lot of it in environmental remediation. Take a trip someday out to the Red River delta... impressive, the best salmon habitat restoration work in the county.
But I am going to stand by my original point that lots of ammo at the ready alone does not a good neighbor make, nor can one man alone carve a good canoe.
Maybe between the two LIBC and the Port can bait-&-switch and make the county pay-pay-pay. Doesn't necessarily improve the **Big Picture** for any of these entities. Doesn't necessarily create the economic opportunity that two of the three entities are chartered to improve.
The lease is a tough nut. The cost proposed by The Lummi Nation simply can not be paid by the county without a very significant decline in ferry service on top of the decline in ferry service that likely would have happened even without the cost of the lease increasing.
ReplyDeleteAnd there is deep history here. A history that some Whatcom County residences may not fully appreciate or find inconvenient, but is very much a part of Lummi and very much a part of Lummi politics.
I am inclined to remain on the sidelines on this issue. I suspect that there is a great deal more that could and should be negotiated than simply the lease and that may in fact be the real problem and the real missed opportunity. How this got to the point it did with no viable options worked out is of much more interest to me than endless debate about what is fair from the sidelines.