Ken Oplinger the Chair of the Bellingham Chamber of Commerce has ratcheted up the rhetoric on the matter of the GMHB.
From his program...
He goes on to say...
The segment of his January 2, 2011 Whatcom Watch program on the GMHB ruling appears here.
Find the entire podcast on KGMI.
From his program...
...some people are saying this is sort of the end of the war.
I think that this is just another battle in the war. It appears to me that you are going to see a lot more litigation coming forward, especially given the makeup of this County Council.
They are not going to stand by idly and allow this GMHB to try and dictate from Seattle and Olympia what sort of growth rules we ought to have in Whatcom County.
That doesn't mean that we're not going to follow the law...
but I think there is a real difference of opinion on what the law is telling the County what it has to do and what it doesn't have to do.
He goes on to say...
...this is potentially going to be a real battleground in 2011...
The segment of his January 2, 2011 Whatcom Watch program on the GMHB ruling appears here.
Find the entire podcast on KGMI.
The State Legislature established criteria for establishing boundaries and development within LAMIRD in 1997. It is now 2011 and the County has yet to establish those boundaries. The Hearings Board ruled that the County must establish the boundaries per the 1997 GMA amendment in 2004. That ruling was challenged all the way to the Washington State Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled the County must establish the boundaries.
ReplyDeleteThe original appellant to the Hearings Board, the Hearings Board, and the Supreme Court has not told the County how exactly to establish the boundaries and zoning. They simply have said that the county needs to do it. The County has not done it. The County Planning Department completed their work in 2009. The Planning Commission completed their review in late 2009. The issue has been sitting in the County Council for over a year.
The Council needs to act within the constraints of the 1997 amendment with consideration of perceived and defensible consideration of what is local rural character around each LAMIRD with some discretion to local views. The lack of action on this has allowed continued land use and development contrary to the GMA. The Hearings Board had extended additional time to the County to get the work done. But the Board has been convinced that the lack of or extreme slow progress was undermining the intent of the State Law to such an extent that a ruling of invalidity was required.
It appears our local leaders are still stuck in the early 1990s in opposition "at war with")the Growth management Act. But I will give Ken the benefit of the doubt and assume he knows little about the Hearings Boards rulings. The Boards charge is to determine if the GMA is being followed when a challenge is presented. In this case the Board's ruling that the County must update the LAMIRD boundaries per the GMA was upheld. Why has the County not yet done its work?
Why the bunker mentality? Who does it help?
ReplyDeleteIf Whatcom County fights this Order to the death, property in the affected area will be under a shadow for many months, even years.
If Whatcom County rolls up its sleeves and says "Let's finish the rural element that we've been working on for almost two years already," rural property owners could be out from under that cloud in a few months.
When my son was young and we wouldn't let him do something, he'd get very angry at us. He'd be so angry that he'd say "If you don't let me do what I want, I'm going to hit my head against a wall really hard." And he would hit his head against the wall, and it would hurt. Him, not us.
That seems to be Whatcom County's plan.
Excellent summary Dan. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteWhat I don’t get is why the Chair of the Bellingham Chamber of Commerce is sticking his nose in what is essentially a land use issue. Is land use the only “commerce” left in Whatcom County? Surely Mr. Oplinger can find a better use of his time.
On the other hand, if he has free time, Mr. Oplinger should consider reading Herman Daly’s “For the common good: redirecting the economy toward community, environment, and a sustainable future.” Perhaps then Mr. Oplinger will understand the need for internalizing the externalities, of which land development has many.
Ignorance CAN be bliss (at least for those who are ignorant); for the rest of us, it’s anything but.
Mr. Oplinger should also read the Bellingham Herald editorial from last Sunday and take a tip on how to help our local economy.
ReplyDeleteIt's always struck me as completely baffling that groups who are supposed to help economic development just pile on to a race to the bottom. Mr. Oplinger is one guy who's never created a job and never helped improve our local economy.
"The bunker mentality" is the local conservatives' equivalent to tax cuts and supply side economics.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing relevant or current or sensible about it--no solutions offered--but it does get blood running from the nose and foam issuing from the mouth of property owners who are voters, it gets them SCREAMING, and that wins elections. That's what it's all about.
Ken's whispering "fire," and is hoping his theater's crowded.
My prediction is you will see no formal action on the LAMIRD issue throughout 2011. Instead, local conservatives will whack that hornet's nest hard throughout the election season and make big gains in a number of seats (or hold them).
ReplyDeleteBellingham has proven it can't get its head around anything happening five miles west of the Potomac, not even what is happening right next door, so I reckon its a winning strategy for the Right.