I am iterating, and expanding upon, the support of the Reconveyance that I presented to you on the September 11, 2012 Council Meeting.
Bear in mind that the opponents of the Reconveyance are not looking for a compromise or middle ground. Go ahead and reduce the size of this thing if it makes you feel better, but don't expect that this will mollify those who stand in zealous opposition to the Reconveyance.
They see the Reconveyance as a big steaming turd that they are being asked to swallow, and offering them a slightly smaller turd isn't going to make it any more palatable. The opponents of the Reconveyance will be satisfied with nothing less than no Reconveyance at all.
This new found enthusiasm and respect for the Department of Ecology and Steve Hood was remarkable. Forgive me if I remain skeptical of the sincerity of the professed respect and regard for Mr Hood, since the very people who quoted and lionized him last night have had not one kind thing to say about his work or the Department of Ecology in the last... um... ever.
It seems unlikely to me that the folks who invoked the name of Steve Hood at last night's Council meeting are familiar with his recommendations in his TMDL Water Quality Study. And based on my read of the statements made last night, I suspect that the love affair which the opponents of the Reconveyance are in with Steve Hood's statements will be a fleeting romance at best.
It also seems unlikely to me that all the Members of Council are familiar with Steve Hoods recommendations about Lake Whatcom.
I would caution members of Council who are using Mr Hood's statements now to bolster their reasons for opposing the Reconveyance to bear in mind that folks like me will be remembering the high regard you are professing towards his statements later. Mr Hood's statements were being used dangerously out of context. Mr Hood is not, to the best of my knowledge, a person who stands in opposition to the Reconveyance.
If you like what Mr Hood has to say about the Reconveyance, then you will just eat up with a spoon what he has to say about development in the watershed. Right? I hope so. The difference between a majority of you on Council and me appears to be that I know what Mr Hood has to say about the Lake Whatcom watershed overall, not just about the Reconveyance.
Before I move on to other points, I remind the Council that Steve Hood... lives here. If you want his opinion of the Reconveyance, you could ask him... in fact, don't worry... if you don't get around to asking him about the Reconveyance, I will ask him for you.
I am confident there will come a day when you will be confronted with statements and recommendations from Mr Hood and Ecology that you don't find convenient, and we will see what you really think of him then.
On the matter of the I-Like-Parks-Butt-Faces... the people who stood up and said "I like parks, but.." and then explained why they like parks in theory but don't want this park or that park...
You have greenlighted a lot of development for this county, and the expanded population that will come with that anticipated development is going to place more pressure on the parks we have now.
The citizens who insist we have enough parks, or even too many parks, sound like people that don't use the parks much.
I use the parks regularly, and I assure you that those parks are being fully exploited by the population we have now.
If we can afford all this development, we can afford to support that development with infrastructure like parks.
On the matter of your preparedness to vote on the Reconveyance, I must say that as a Council you have no reason to stand as flat-footed as I saw you stand last night.
The opponents of the Reconveyance having these 11th hour revelations is understandable. You having these same revelations is not.
Unlike the private citizens who actually have other things to do, you are paid to know this stuff. Even those of you with the least amount of experience in public service have had no less than two and a half years to get up to speed on the most basic facts surrounding this matter. You have no excuse for proving so woefully uninformed so late in the game.
The notion that a group of opponents can throw a volley of concerns that are as self-contradictory as the plot of Oliver Stone's JFK at you and actually succeed in undermining your own confidence in your command of the facts says a great deal about how closely you have been following the Reconveyance during your time in office, and none of what it says reflects well on you as citizen-legislators.
Not a one of you has any business not knowing any of the details about the Reconveyance.
I don't expect you to have obsessive Rain-Man-like encyclopedic knowledge of this, or any, matter that comes before you but I do expect you to be reasonably knowledgeable about an issue you have been dealing with for more than five bloody years.
You need to hold yourselves to higher standards.
And for all the comments made about "Pete Kremen's Homework" I will point out that Pete Kremen has proved that he has actually done his homework.
To those of you on Council who profess to feel uninformed about the Reconveyance at this late date, I ask: whose dog ate your homework?
The majority of you seem to have an understanding of the Reconveyance which is closer to squat than to jack.
Any Member of Council who has more doubts than facts about the Reconveyance suggests that the Lake Whatcom Watershed is just not a priority for that Member of Council. If you don't know about the details of the Reconveyance, then what else don't you know about the watershed?
Lets take the issue that came up repeatedly about sending the matter to the Planning Commission...
For Members of Council to sit in front of every one and their uncle and ask "Why wasn't this sent to the Planning Commission?" is cheeky.
The reason this matter wasn't sent to the Planning Commission is because you didn't send it to the Planning Commission. Who did you think was going to send it to the Planning Commission? The Skagit County Council?
If you really had concerns about the matter not being sent to the Planning Commission, why didn't any of you skeptics of the Reconveyance breathe a word about sending the matter to the Planning Commission before now? Because you didn't know? Why didn't you know? You had at least two and a half years to stumble onto this concern and say something about it, and only now does it dawn on you that maybe someone wanted this sent to the Planning Commission?
You have a lot of nerve, I will give you that. But what do you think this says about your focus on the Reconveyance?
One thing that jumped out at me about the Reconveyance is the fact that is it being handled in the form of a resolution and not in the form of an ordinance. I don't pretend to understand why this is being done, but I do realize that it is being done that way for a reason. The Planning Commission has no history of taking up resolutions before Council addresses them. It is my understanding that the Planning Commssion takes up matters that are in the form of ordinances.
Everything about the Reconveyance is unusual, so claims that it should be treated like any other land use issue ignores the basic facts about the nature of the Reconveyance.
And if I thought that the majority of you were paying the slightest attention to the details of the Reconveyance, I would be surprised that you didn't notice that. But the majority of you have proven to my satisfaction that you aren't paying attention to much of anything regarding the Reconveyance, or Lake Whatcom for that matter, so almost nothing you do could surprise or disappoint me now.
So, vote on the Reconveyance.
Support it or don't.
But the next time I see you I expect you to demonstrate enough understanding of the facts to be able to simulate a group of people who have been paying attention in class for the past two and a half years.
I don't expect you to do things that I agree with. But as a dissenting citizen, I expect you to do things with which I disagree in a manner that suggests you are making an informed decision and not look like you are just pulling things out of your ass at the last minute.
Get to work. I recommend you start cramming now. You have four weeks to make up for the two and a half years you were apparently smoking cigarettes behind the gym.
Irefully,
Shane Roth
Bellingham, Washington
P.S. To those Members of Council who have been paying attention and do have command of the facts, I am excusing you from this criticism. But that appears to be a minority of you, so don't get cocky, alright?
Good! Thanks Shane!
ReplyDelete