Nice Quilt Available

Nice, if I do say so myself since I was one of the Point Robert Quilt Group members who made it for PREP to raffle.  But I just wanted to remind folks that PREP is selling raffle tickets NOW so that they can have the drawing before Christmas and the winner can make of it a gift to him/herself or to someone else.

PREP is selling only 100 tickets at $10 each.  You can get your ticket(s) at Sterling Bank or from Henry and Esther Rosenthal (945-1711) or Virginia Lester (945-2827).  Somebody will win it: why not you?

It's 62"x78", so plenty big to keep you warm in winter and to look at and keep you cool in summer.

New Follies

I missed last week's Fire District meeting at which this year's commissioners became next year's commissioners since the election changed nothing.  Friends who did attend tell me that the big news was the the State Auditor (who a year ago announced an audit of our Fire District had lost track of all the electronic files they had received from our Fire District, and would it now send them paper copies.  It's hard to maintain confidence in government in the face of such news.

In addition, the new budget was presented.  But I'll have to wait until it's posted on the website and I have time to study it before I'll have anything to say about it.

The Towers Group Looks for Lawyers

The Oppose the Radio Towers group sent out an announcement today on Point Interface that it was looking for donations to hire a lawyer to represent the group before the Hearing Examiner in Whatcom County when the Conditional Use Permit is finally discussed.

The announcement briefly described what the group believes will be the problems associated with the towers.  One of the things they mention (and that is usually mentioned prominently) is 'blanketing interference.'  It's surely a troubling phrase, insofar as it seems to imply that the radio towers will blanket the surrounding area with interference.  And, given that radio towers are all over the place, it seemed that if all those places were being blanketed with interference, we would all have had some experience with it.  And yet, the people I talk to for the most part have no such experience.

So I Googled 'blanketing interference' to see what it means.  Mostly the definition is more technical than I can make sense of, but it does not appear to mean that the area around the towers will be blanketed (ie, smothered) with interference.  One site defines it thus: "Blanketing interference refers to the phenomena of receiving radio signals on devices not designed to do so."  This site goes on to discuss how such interference can be eliminated/corrected/remedied.

A look further about the law of such intereference problems explains that the FCC requires a new station or a station that moves to a new locale to take on the costs of remedying all interference problems reported during the first year of its operation.  (There are some exceptions, but they are described in the following excerpt from the applicable law.)

The law:

FCC Cases on Blanketing Interference – The Responsibility of Broadcasters to their Neighbors

By David Oxenford on February 23, 2008Posted in General FCC, Tower Issues

In two recent cases, the FCC discussed the issue of "blanketing interference," the interference that can be caused by a broadcaster to electronic devices that are located in homes and businesses near to the station’s transmitter site.  In the first case, the FCC rejected a license renewal challenge finding that there was no specific showing of interference to protected RF devices.  The FCC appends to this decision a guide to the types of interference which a broadcaster must resolve.  In the secondcase, the Commission also denied a complaint filed against the renewal application of a radio station based on the interference that it allegedly caused in nearby homes.  Here, the Commission published a set of Guidelines as an appendix to the decision – guidelines which help clarify the proceduresthat a broadcaster should go through to assess its responsibility to remedy interference complaints.  Together, the attachments to these two cases should give stations guidance on what they should do if they get complaints of blanketing interference.

Essentially, broadcasters are required to resolve all complaints of blanketing interference which occur within a station’s "blanketing contour" (1V/m for AM stations, 115 dBu or 562 mV/m contour for FM stations) during the first year of a station’s operation from a particular transmitter site to "RF devices."  These include radios, TVs, and VCRs with tuners in them.  Licensees are not required to resolve complaints to mobile receivers.  Telephones, phonographs, tape recorders or devices using high gain antennas also are not covered.  After the first year, stations, while not fully financially liable, do have the responsibility to provide information and assistance about how to resolve the interference to the person who is suffering that interference.  The Appendix to the second case states that licensees will have to respond to all complaints filed with the FCC and provide details of what they have done to address interference complaints.  So broadcasters should be aware of their responsibilities, and take appropriate actions based on the guidelines set out by the FCC.

Here is the link to that site.

None of this means that siting the radio towers inside Point Roberts is a particularly  good idea.  But at least it clarifies for me some of the issues that I didn't understand, largely because of the language in which it is being discussed.

Saturday Election Update

Jeff Wilmot continues to be 14 votes ahead of Craig Carter for Fire District Commissioner.  According to the Secretary of State's office (Washington State), "Mandatory recounts are required if the difference between the two candidates concerned is less than ½ of one percent and less than 2000 votes. "

Since there are only a total of 386 votes cast so far, and since it is a difference of 52% to 48%, there would not be a required mandatory recount.  A candidate can request a recount, but he/she has to pay a fixed cost per vote in order to have it conducted.  

Election News Revisited

The most recent Whatcom County Auditor figures show Jeff Wilmott ahead of Craig Carter by 195 to 183.  Could certainly change again, but the next ballot count will be posted late tomorrow afternoon.  (Today, it was posted at 5:30 pm, I thin.)

Seabright Farms Hearing: Review by Ed

Ed Park of Getthewholepicture's Bellingham Bureau filed this special news report on November 7, 2013.  He reports on the public hearing concerning development plans for Seabright Farms.

                                  Council Chambers, Whatcom County Courthouse, November 6, 2013

The public was heard, formally, under oath, Wednesday, in Bellingham, regarding the proposed development of Seabright Farms at Lily Point.  To what effect?  I would guess the answer is "precious little."

Most of the public testimony (mine included) was about what we, the public, want -- wetlands, trails, eagles, trees, setbacks.  For example: "We love the APA maple canopy, and want it protected."  For the most part, Michael Bobbink, the hearing examiner listened patiently to the testimony, but he occasionally interrupted to explain how things really work.

How things work is like this: State and County codes place numerous requirements and prohibitions on the developer.  If plans for the proposed development follow all of the dos and don'ts, the hearing examiner will (must) approve the plans.  If a staff report or public testimony convinces the examiner that the plans are out of compliance with one or more of the requirements, the examiner will order changes to bring them into compliance.

However, testimony like the following has no force: "The plans show drainfields just south of APA Road.  To construct the drainfields, all the trees in those areas must be cut down.  When the trees are cut down, the canopy trees immediately adjacent to APA will be exposed to strong southerly winds and will likely blow down in a big storm.  We want the canopy trees protected."

That testimony just begs the question "Is there anything in the code to prohibit the developer from cutting down those trees?  If so, cite the code section and convince me that the plans are out of compliance.  Otherwise, I have no choice but to approve the developers' plans."

Fortunately, in this instance, the developer shares our love of the canopy and is actively investigating ways to relocate the drainfields away from APA.  But it appears that it's all up to him to do what he chooses to do; the public has no standing to request things that are not already required by code.

If the hearing examiner's ruling ends up being reviewed by the Whatcom County Council, public opinion may carry more weight in that more-political forum.

There may be a lesson here for opponents of the proposed radio towers on MacKenzie Road.  Most of the arguments against the towers seem to be of the form "We think they will be harmful, and we don't want them built."  My experience in Bellingham yesterday makes me think such arguments are unlikely to carry much weight.

The final ruling from the Hearing Examiner on Seabright will be issued next Friday.

Community Center Levy Passes

And it passed handily with an overwhelming majority.  Good work, voters!

At the Fire District, Stan Riffle appears to have defeated Rob Dean, but Jeff Wilmot is within 4 votes of Craig Carter.  Next County Auditor count is 3:30 pm tomorrow.  Usually, it takes a week or two before they issue a final tally.

Correction: I must have misread the number 40 for the number 49, because wilmot is behind by 13 votes not 4 votes.  Very sorry about that.  I'll update after 4:00 pm.  

Update, 11/7, 5:20:  The new count still has Carter ahead, but now by 14 votes, 151-165.

Seabright Farms Hearing Examiner Hears and Examines Tomorrow/November 6

It's going to be down in Bellingham and there will certainly be a contingent of local people (mostly from the Conservation Society, I'd guess) who will be hoping that the outcome leans toward the conservation side rather than the development side.

I was surprised to hear that the project is proposing a full 62-lot project, because it appeared that providing septic systems for that many houses would be problematic.  But perhaps they have a solution that the Hearing Examiner (HE) will be able to live with.

Most people here, I think, are primarily concerned about the preservation of the tree canopy.  There is talk of a conservation easement on the APA side of the property that would preserve the maples, but perhaps not the smaller trees and brush behind them.  Although there is also talk of the developers being willing to plant new conifers in the space where the smaller trees will be removed.

Nevertheless, there is a big area at the northeast corner of the property, alongside APA, where the developer's maps show drainfields for septic.  It appears from the map that all that area will be cleared to within 20 feet of the road.  That would destroy most or all of the canopy along almost half of the development's frontage on APA.

We've marked the developer's map to show the drainfields in blue, backyard areas subject to clearing by the new property owners in green, and in red, a 125- foot conservation easement that could prevent tree and habitat destruction within its boundaries.

It's never been clear to me how much local desires are to be taken into account when dealing with private property.  This is a country that gives great reverence to doing what you want on private property as long as you meet whatever regulation exists and those on the property consent.  (Well, not so big on private property when it's peoples' bodies, maybe.)  So, sometime after tomorrow we'll see where we are.  But I do hope that the houses that may be built there will be safely out of view of those who drive by under the canopy and that the overarching, continuous maple canopy will be preserved for all of us, including people who move into the development.  They would surely not want to see its loss, any more than those of already living here want to see it.

Bring Back the 60's: Demonstration in P.R.!

Here is the word from the group that is organizing against the radio towers planned for Point Roberts:

"December 1st, 2013, at 12:00, high noon.  This means we are assembled along the streets at 12:00 pm so when the TV camera come we are ready for them.  This entire event should take about an hour.  Your job is to make the crowd look monstrous."

This demonstration is to be held on the shoulder of Tyee, beginning at McKenzie (first street to the west, south of the border).  Maybe wear tie-dye?  I guess bring signs.

REMEMBER TO VOTE

You need to do it right away if you haven't already.  Just a kindly reminder from your kindly blogger.

And please vote for the park and rec district bond levy so that the community center can get fixed for us and for the next generation...